Recovering Emotions After 24 Years on Antidepressants - <AUTHOR> https://www.madinamerica.com/2018/10/recovering-emotions-24-years-antidepressants/ <comment><USER2> The only thing that seems to be universally true about mental health is that we're all different, and someone else's experiences rarely apply perfectly to your own.

I put off getting on the meds for at least 15 years longer than I should have done because of stories like this. They have been life changing lot positive for me with almost no downsides.

In addition, I've read more than one story like this where the person eventually decides it's time to get back on the SSRIs after a year or two off.

Experiment, find what works for you, but these articles that are angry at big pharma and describe pills as primarily bad need to be seen very much as just localised experiences.

<comment><USER3> I am also a bit skeptical when strong anti-Pharma opinions are expressed, based on personal experience only. Meta-analyses have shown that for severe depression, antidepressants are a first line of attack, only seconded or aided by CBT, but not interchangeable in terms of efficacy. It's kind of stupid to counterargue with yet another personal story, but for me not being able to take SSRIs has proven to be a real problem. I developed a somewhat rare side- effect with both SSRIs and SNRIs, I basically covered up in unexplanable bruises and given the increased risk of internal bleeding, am cut off from this medicine class completely. The only time in my life where I was not crippled by anxiety was on these meds. I continually try relaxation, CBT, DBT and whatnot, but unfortunately I am one of those who does not respond as well to therapy as I do to medication. To be really honest, I am on the other side of the fence: I hope big pharma comes up with something else than benzos and SSRIs for anxiety, so that I can be relieved from the task of living my life spiting anxiety 70% of the day.

<comment><USER4> > I hope big pharma comes up with something else than benzos and SSRIs for > anxiety, so that I can be relieved from the task of living my life spiting > anxiety 70% of the day.

Have you tried psilocybin mushrooms or DMT? I'd been on meds for years treating depression and anxiety. A few mushroom and DMT experiences have basically cured my depression and anxiety and opened up a whole new way of looking at things.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, I have used psilocybin mushrooms, DMT, and MDMA (and marihuana as well) before I went to seek professional help (or, rather, after I was disappointed with a previous professional endeavour and discredited the psych scientific community as a whole). After that, I tried the psychiatrist route (got a prescription) and eventually tried chronic gaming and alcoholism. _None_ of that helped. Until I once more went via the professional route, and they found out I have ASD. Now I have SSRIs to cut off the sharp edges related to being oversensitive.

The great thing about the SSRI I use is verified content (I'm sensitive to drugs..), its standardised (I'm still sensitive to drugs) and it has a high half-life (again, I am very sensitive to drugs and if I forget to take a dose in the morning I will notice it in the afternoon even with a half-life of a few days). With the stuff you're suggesting though, you either don't know what you get, you don't know how strong it is, or you're otherwise experimenting.

An accurate diagnosis was all it took. Its hindsight 20/20 but I wish I never went with the routes which _didn 't_ work. I recommend to follow conventional science first, and only if that is fully exhausted follow the path of unconventional science (full with pseudoscience, charlatans, illegal drugs, and what have you -- btw I used psilocybin and DMT when they were legal in my country, and the amount of marihuana and MDMA was well within the decriminalised amount).

TL;DR my advice, follow the scientific route, get professional help, get second opinions. If its costing you your savings even though you don't get immediate effect _I have been there as well_. I know that sucks, but it'll get you further than the dark route I sketched above.

With regards to those drugs parent mentioned lets wait till there's scientific consensus on these.

<comment><USER6> It's sometimes not enough to simply use psychedelics. A lot has to do with the way you use them, with what intention, in what context, with whom, and how you follow up on and integrate your experience.

Plenty (most?) people take psychedelics without any kind of therapeutic or constructive intention -- they take them to party, to escape, as an antidote for boredom, etc. It's not surprising that such use of these powerful substances could have undesirable or even very negative effects -- though sometimes even such arguably reckless use still produces positive results.

Use of psychedelics in therapeutic and healing contexts tends to be very different. The intention tends to be very different, with a focus on healing or on a specific illness, symptom, or problem that the individual suffers from. There is often serious preparation for the journey, ranging from ways of purifying oneself (for psychedelic use in shamanic or other sacred contexts), to sessions of therapy (when this has been done in Western medical contexts).

The actual trips themselves also tend to be handled quite differently in healing/therapeutic contexts from recreational ones. In recreational contexts, people often do it at parties, with the lights on, or maybe watching movies, or maybe sometimes outside in nature. In therapeutic/healing context, the lights tend to be very low or off, sometimes blindfolds are used, and the focus internal. Music is often carefully selected to guide the journey. Sometimes people are asked to look at photos of loved one they've brought with them for this purpose. If things go wrong, trained support is available, and instructions are given on how to the experience in a constructive way, while in recreational settings the support is minimal and usually untrained, if it exists at all.

After the experience, the recreational user is usually on their own in terms of integrating and making sense of the experience, while in medical contexts there are often followup therapy sessions with trained professionals who can help in making sense of and constructively using whatever was uncovered during the trip, and perhaps the scheduling of further experiences with modified dosage, if needed.

I have no idea how your own psychedelic experiences were, but if they were more of the recreational kind, I am not very surprised that you didn't get much out of them.

<comment><USER5> The problem wasn't that I didn't get much out of them (I got a whole lot out of these experiences else I would've quit after doing it once) the problem is that it didn't gave me the ASD diagnosis or the long-term benefits of stable SSRI usage together with education and work. If I knew back then that I had ASD, I'd have benefited from that knowledge back then. In the meantime, I was stuck with the notion that I have a (different) diagnosis but I cannot work out how to apply that with my real-life. Sure, the circumstances were different as well, and it is anecdotal.

The usage of drugs (recreational or not) without them being prescribed and without a trained, licensed professional guiding you is indeed something different than recreational usage for which the drugs I mentioned (psilocybin, MDMA, marihuana, DMT) and A.muscaria are not licensed for anywhere AFAIK.

The recreational drug usage of psilocybin was, for me, almost exclusively done in a safe, private setting though without bright light and with a careful choice of music. Because otherwise it hurts. For DMT and A.muscaria, it was exclusively done in such setting as well. I can guarantee you my focus was inward however it cannot be compared to a licensed, educated babysitter who's getting paid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> YMMV, but for me, anti-depressants allow me to have emootions. When I'm off them, emotions are way too intense, so I clamp them all down until they're barely there. After two years of anti-depressants, I'm finally able to listen to music I really like, read books I find emotionally affective.

<comment><USER5> For me, Prozac (SSRI) cuts off those sharp edges. But when I started using it I could barely walk with it (e.g. taking stairs gave me intense muscle fatigue, nausea, and I was very tired in general), so strong it was (eventually this initial effect faded away). I have an ASD diagnosis.

<comment><USER7> When I started on venlafaxin, I used to fall out of chairs. I think part of what gives anti-depressants such a bad rap is they have a god-awful beginning and end.

I still go around evangelising them, because I just can't bear to imagine all the people who get put off by the (horrible) start and horror stories, and live in purgatory for years with no light at the end of the tunnel. Because, as far as I can see, side-effects usually just mean the dosage is wrong, or the drug-combo is wrong.

<comment><USER8> I'm working my way off Venlafaxine after years of use. It's been a horrible experience. Brain zaps. Hearing odd noises. Crazy emotions. Feeling sick etc. I backed up and started opening the capsules so I can count the number of beads I take each day and then try to reduce by a few beads each week. It's been really tough to get off this stuff.

<comment> throwaway-efxr Weaning off Venlaflaxine was absolute hell until I started taking Prozac as a bridge. It still wasn't great, but it was a fraction of its previous awfulness.

Took me about nine months to wean off venlaflaxine, started the Prozac bridge in the middle and grateful that I eventually used the bridge. Feeling better now.

Good luck to you.

<comment><USER9> I went through the above journey as well and for me it was not worth it. Psychotherapy combined with meditation was a far better treatment and thus why I am hostile to any suggestions of medication from my psych. I simply don't trust the drugs, at all, anymore.

<comment><USER5> Meditation/mindfulness is a proven method to alleviate the symptoms of depression and anxiety such as a lack of focus. I use it regularly, and can recommend it however psychotherapy with or without drugs would be my primary recommendation.

It is going to take effort, either way. There's no magic stick which can be waved to fix the issues at hand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Those of us in the field of psychiatric research encounter innumerable illness narratives of this sort. Everyone has their own story to tell about what went wrong and what helps.

While these anecdotes may be of value to the storyteller, they are at best worthless if you are serious about understanding your options in mental health. Evidence-based psychiatry is messy, but good people are working hard to build credible evidence, and not just for pills. "Everything is biased by pharma money" is often said by people on the sidelines. Psychiatric services researchers know better.

Interested in meditation vs medication for depression? Start with a systematic review in a reputable journal, like this: [https://goo.gl/yN1asm](https://goo.gl/yN1asm)

</comment><comment><USER11> These type of personal anecdote fuelled by a general distrust of 'big pharma' can be very misleading and discourage patients from seeking professional help.

I also want to point out that the author of that book she speaks highly of also happened to be the Presiden of the publication[1]. I think not mentioning this fact make the article even less credible.

[1] [https://www.madinamerica.com/staff- page/](https://www.madinamerica.com/staff-page/)

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm a bit worried how many people on social media and Internet in general (also here) are fighting some personal war against antidepressants. This is not helping and may cause a lot of suffering to some people.

We're in some wacky second generation New Age where everything illogical is the the obvious solution, just for the sake of breaking with the old.

There's really many people for whom literally no amount of talking, meditation or working out (Internet's favourites) will help. Yes, for them, before they can even start thinking about successful therapy (etc.), the chemical imbalance is so strong they need to bring their bodies to the baseline (or close to it).

Again, militantly opposing SSRIs creates very dangerous situation where people in need can end up getting hurt or dead.

<comment><USER13> As someone who spent a good amount of time on an SSRI, I get where they're coming from. The people who prescribed them to me seemed to think I was fine, and saw no reason I should try to get off them despite personality changes and what I would term "an inability to experience". It was as though I was only able to observe my own life from the outside.

The problem with SSRIs isn't that they can't be useful, it's that the medical industry is full of people who don't seem to know how to use them. They just wanted to throw a pill at the problem and get me out of their office as fast as they could to extract maximum profit out of my visits.

<comment><USER14> Unfortunately, unless the Dr prescribing them has taken them, it is very hard to appreciate exactly what they are doing to you. There are very subtle effects that are very important to being a happy human that these drugs remove. The data supporting their effectiveness over the absence of them is dubious as well. That isn't to say they don't work, just that over large enough cohorts, the wins and the losses seem to cancel out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> From past experience, about four months after I've tapered off anti- depressants I'll want to die. It'll take about a year to recover once I'm back on them.

But that's me. What works for me may not work for you. Unfortunately, a lot of it is trail and error, along with a lot of hard work, to figure out what is the best treatment for each individual. It sucks that this is the case.

At I wrote once upon a time[1]: "There is no silver bullet. Pragmatism trumps opinion. If, and I stress, if what you are doing is working for you, then I wish you good fortune, and would never tell you you're doing it the wrong way."

[1] [https://dhubris.livejournal.com/14447.html](https://dhubris.livejournal.com/14447.html)

</comment><comment><USER16> I appreciate this person sharing their story. If you are struggling with mental illness please be cautious before following this person's example. Her circumstances may be very different from your own. If you want to consider a simillar course please talk to your healthcare professionals and the people in your support network first.

For every story of someone successfully discontinuing psychoactive there is one that ends in disaster.

</comment><comment><USER17> American use of antidepressants comes up at dinner conversation every so often. Stats are readily available, but what's less apparent is why it's so widespread in the US. Does anyone have any ideas why this is?

<comment><USER18> I'm taking a wild guess based on your domain name that you're in the UK.

It appears to be about 11% in the US, 7% in the UK. So, 63% more in the US, but still a reasonably small fraction of the population. Or, if 11% is sizable, so is 7%.

[https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-largest- antidepres...](https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-largest- antidepressant-drug-users-2016-2)

The question is how many suffer depression without medication, and how many remain on antidepressants after recovering, as an insurance policy. Is there less suffering in Korea? Or more stigma against using antidepressant drugs?

<comment><USER19> 11% of ~325 million vs 7% of ~65 million = ~31 million more people using antidepressants in the US than the UK. Also I'd hardly say >10% is reasonably small, but that's a judgement call.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> How do you recover emotions without ever having been on antidepressants?

<comment><USER2> [https://www.thecut.com/2016/04/what-it-s-like-to-wake-up- fro...](https://www.thecut.com/2016/04/what-it-s-like-to-wake-up-from- autism.html)

<comment><USER21> Autistic people were never thought to lack emotions, in fact many complain about feeling too intense emotions. The article is garbage.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2518049/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2518049/)

[https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2010.0022...](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2010.00224/full)

<comment><USER22> Read the article, not the parent poster's mischaracterization of it. The very first paragraph explains the autism+emotion issue.

Also your own sources contradict the claim "Autistic people were never thought to lack emotions".

<comment><USER21> >Also your own sources contradict the claim "Autistic people were never thought to lack emotions".

Where?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It took me about a year to get to the point the author describes where I felt nothing and didn't care whether I lived or died. I wasn't suicidal--at last I don't think I was--but I was rapidly approaching that point. I was so desperate, I let the doctor put me on benzodiazepines for anxiety even though I knew from previous experience that I would not only become dependent but addicted. After seven years of that, I had enough and stopped seeing all doctors. I weaned myself off the benzos as no doctor I saw even knew how to do it nor did they want to. It wasn't as hard as I thought. After I was off that, the hard part started. Over the course of years I learned how to deal with life again. Eventually I took up running, my own meditation equivalent and soccer. Slowly things improved. It's not always great and many of the original problems are still there but they are mostly manageable.

I'm lucky to be alive really. I try to remember all this suffering at the hands of doctors and the pharma industry that could have been avoided. I will have trust a so called mental health professional again, especially if they are drug pushers. The conflict of interest was readily apparent throughout the whole ordeal both when taking antidepressants and benzodiazepines. It's funny how we demonize some drug dealers while having insurance coverage for others. And all this without a single shred of proof that these medicines work, that there is even such a thing as a chemical imbalance. Because there isn't. If this is what mental health doctors call facts, the entire establishment has failed and derailed into nothing more than making humongous profits from getting people addicted to the drugs they push. It's fucking disgusting.

<comment><USER24> I sympathize with you, I really do. I've had some similar experiences. But you're overstating the case. Numerous meta-analyses have found that antidepressants do work for people with severe depression, much better than placebo. Unfortunately there's many people for whom they don't work, and even when they work you may have to try many different kinds to find the right one(s). The state of depression treatment is sadly not very good right now, everyone knows this. But it's just not true that there's not "a single shred of proof that these medicines work".

Depression treatment doesn't depend on "chemical imbalance" as an explanation either. Research on _whether_ antidepressants work proceeds alongside research on _why_ they work, if they do--usually studies on the efficacy of drugs are completely independent of mechanism. They study clinical outcomes, not neurochemical or larger structural brain issues.

So even if we had no idea why antidepressants (potentially) work, we could still know that they do work based on clinical outcomes. And it's not exactly true that we have no clue at all. The past 20 or so years the monoamine hypothesis hasn't been the main avenue of research into the neurobiology of depression. These days, it's at best considered one possible factor, not the defining and only factor. There's a lot of research into the structural changes that follow depression and recovery. For instance it's now known that serotonin helps regulate the expression of BDNF, which in turn regulates the growth and repair of brain cells and synapses. So it may well be that serotonin triggers large-scale "repairs" in the brain in areas related to emotional processing, such as the amygdala. Here you can see that the focus isn't so much on individual levels of "chemicals" in the brain as on the structure of the brain and how different natural and exogenous factors affect that.

<comment><USER25> just because it works better than placebo doesn't make it the best treatment.

all over the world, terapies works better than antidepressants, with infinitely less undesirable side effects for patient and society. yet in the US it is very common to treat depression (and many other conditions) with drugs alone.

arguments against drugs is not favor of "don't do anything". that argument would be extremely dumb.

just to give some perspective on how badly interpreted the data is in your argument: brain-splitting surgery, which is still used for epilepsy, also shows a cure for several other conditions, yet nowadays you would be a criminal for even suggesting it for things it was widely used 20 years ago.

<comment><USER24> As far as I'm aware therapy and antidepressants are equally effective, in the studies that have actually compared them such as this one: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3683266/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3683266/) However that is only true in aggregate and obviously not necessarily true of any given individual.

I'm really reluctant to get into any further discussion though because it seems like you're arguing against things I never said, and bringing up irrelevant, but extremely invasive and side-effect prone procedures like hemispherectomy as if that proves that data about antidepressants is bunk, which is just a complete non sequitur. It would be like bringing up bloodletting or lobotomy as if that proves that the data about modern vaccines NOT causing autism is bunk. Just a complete logical disconnect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've been tapering off of my antidepressant for 3 weeks now after 4 years.

The sudden flood of emotions has been weird, but familiar. I can't imagine going decades without.

</comment><comment><USER27> From my experience SSRIs are like the prince searching for Cinderella with the glass slippers in reverse - trying tons of them to find the one that finally works. I have had all sorts of fun side effects until I got a combination that was stable - the first one worked fine except for causing unsolicited panic attacks, some had lesser side effects but worse depression, another left me irritable and shifting strongly on political spectrum ironically. The combination I'm on now wound up having the reverse with sexual side effects - it improved things over not taking any medication.

I find it is completely the opposite for emotions with anti-depressants. They don't suppress them but allow me to feel a wider range than just null, fear, anger, and despair. There also are some therapeutic components as well and they aren't a panacea. For one I have become more outspoken as I find repressing my emotions is a depression trigger.

</comment><comment><USER28> How did people deal with mental illness before these drugs were around?

I recall that melancholia was a real diagnosis a long time ago.

My personal view is that in some cases physical exercise can be helpful. I have family that are on Wellbutrin etc., and others that studiously avoid any drugs.

<comment><USER27> The same way they dealt with infections before antibiotics - unhealthy self- medication and at times dying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I take a very small amount of Nortriptyline for horrible IBS. It has changed my life. In addition, while the small dose does make me a little more tired, my anxiety has improved and the debilitating effects of IBS have all but vanished. These pills are like any treatment, they can open the gate to Heaven, or if poorly managed, can open the gate to Hell.

</comment><comment><USER30> > I was taking 500 mg of Nefazadone in the evening

\---

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

Nefazodone is available as 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, 200 mg, and 250 mg tablets for oral ingestion.

\---

Why would she take such a big dosage of antidepressants? Could she try to reduce the dosage?

</comment><comment><USER31> I was forced into antidepressants by my parents when I was younger, and after coming off of them, I realized I hadn't enjoyed things like music for years while I was on them. Definitely something that had a negative impact on my teen years and it took me years to recover.

But I recognize that for others it can be crucially necessary.

</comment><comment><USER32> Who is this person? I searched her name and didn't find anything that indicated that she is someone to listen to about mental health.

</comment><comment><USER33> > _The causes of my depression were environmental. I grew up in a very > dysfunctional family in Minnesota. My parents were both alcoholics and > depressed, and their dysfunction became my growth environment_

This may be the case, and there may be corroborative evidence for such a conclusion that we are not told about.

But as presented, it's just a set of circumstances, presumably correlated. If both parents suffered depression, author might reasonably be supposed to have a strong genetic predisposition.

</comment><comment><USER34> I am using Withania Somnifera to cure my depression. I've not experienced the loss of emotions using it.

</comment><comment><USER35> Thank you for sharing this.

</comment><comment><USER36> This article is absolute bullshit and quite frankly dangerous. It seems to me this woman was emotionally vulnerable and taken in by a snake oil huckster masquerading as a doctor.

> Shortly after I started seeing him, my new doctor had me read the book > Anatomy of an Epidemic by Robert Whitaker.

Robert Whitaker's theses in that book have repeatedly been scientifically disproven. It's anti-science drivel.

> The pharmaceutical industry also says that mental illness represents a > physical problem with the brain that needs to be fixed. There are no studies > that prove that this is true.

This statement is untrue. Literally three seconds of googling showed me this: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4471964/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4471964/)

Which basically says that when we deplete the body of certain neurotransmitters, people get depressed. That sounds like a pretty clear statement that there are biological processes at play in mental illness.

<comment><USER37> I think you're stepping into a fallacy here. Of course every thought process is bound to biological processes in the brain. So we can see this as some sort of biochemical mapping of our understanding and perception of the world, and our social status in it. Why should the solution to a negative outlook be to mess with the chemistry alone, through drugs?

You can just as well ask the other way around, what kind of world and experience is leading to such a detrimental biochemical mapping. The woman in the article describes this herself, she was called fat and ugly by her father throughout childhood. This has to do with social status, not brain chemistry. I find it quite frankly disturbing that the solution to such a learned insecurity should be just drugs.

<comment><USER38> > Why should the solution to a negative outlook be to mess with the chemistry > alone, through drugs?

Well perhaps because it works?

> We identified 28 552 citations and of these included 522 trials comprising > 116 477 participants. In terms of efficacy, all antidepressants were more > effective than placebo, with ORs ranging between 2·13 (95% credible interval > [CrI] 1·89–2·41) for amitriptyline and 1·37 (1·16–1·63) for reboxetine.

Source: [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(17\)32802-7/fulltext)

Of course there's issues with publication bias, but this is the best evidence we have to work with. Psychotherapy ("talking") also works, and so the teaching I've received tells me to prescribe both in tandem, although the drugs "alone" do help. I'm a student doctor.

> I find it quite frankly disturbing that the solution to such a learned > insecurity should be just drugs.

I think your implicit suggestion here is that the correct treatment is unlearning. I suggest that this is not always possible. The plausible mechanism is that damage during development might result in "built in" changes that can't be talked away.

<comment><USER39> > all antidepressants were more effective than placebo

Comparing them to placebo isn't appropriate, you need to compare them with an active placebo and only look at studies that continue longer than two years. Of which there are all of like 2 studies.

<comment><USER38> You should remember that we do research on real humans. Sometime this means we can't have the evidence we'd like to have.

Active placebos are designed to cause detriment to the patient - to cause side effects to convince them they're not on the placebo. Getting ethics approval to do randomised trials in depressed patients is hard enough without harming your control group.

<comment><USER39> > Active placebos are designed to cause detriment to the patient

Patients on active placebos have reduced depression symptoms as compared with patients on non-active placebos.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I have had an anxiety problem for a long while now and like the author have recently stopped taking medication for it. I've developed enough techniques from a combination of therapies like mindfulness and CBT and have enough support in place to check this is working that my doctor agrees with this approach. Additionally, I felt the problems caused by the side effects of my medication outweighed the benefits gained by taking it. Finally, I realized that for me exercise simply isn't optional. I have at times in my life been extremely fit and these times have always corresponded to the periods I've handled my anxiety best.

I find the article somewhat troubling in that the author seems to imply that antidepressants are a big pharma conspiracy and are difficult to stop. I personally have had side effects - insomnia, sexual dysfunction, the "fog" the author mentions, although I wouldn't describe it as zombie-like. There are other possible side effects as well, like inducing the liver to release enzymes into the blood stream that imitate fatty liver/liver failure in blood tests, significant weight gain etc. However, I have not had all of these on all tablets - on some, yes, on others, nothing at all. Regarding stopping, the worst case was venlafaxine. I've heard people describe the experience as "brain zaps". It feels a little bit like an electric shock in the brain and is fairly unpleasant (this is with tapering down properly under medical supervision). However, on no antidepressant have I ever felt the need to take the tablet, or to take more of it than the prescribed dose and I have never felt taking a lower dose while stopping to be problematic - it does not resemble fighting addiction at all (I've known people who were addicts and for some of them their addiction killed them, so I have some basis to make this comparison).

Ultimately however, taking antidepressants is a trade off between how bad the side effects are (and I stress that in some cases there were none) and the benefit from the tablet (in some cases, none as well) versus the impact the problem (depression/anxiety/...) is having on your day to day life. In my case and I suspect in the author's case as well, at the time I started taking the tablets the benefits outweighed the side effects and allowed me to be a somewhat functioning member of society. By taking antidepressants I was able access other treatments such as CBT and benefit a little from them, as well as hold down a job. Also, it has to be said that when I first started having problems with my disorder I didn't have anywhere near the same emotional maturity or understanding of myself as I do today. I feel that this understanding has a significant effect on my ability to use things like mindfulness and CBT alone, without any other help - I am benefiting far more from it now. I also wonder if the author would have been so successful with meditation if they had used this and only this technique 24 years ago.

I suspect in many cases finding what works takes time and is a process that can't really be avoided. I'm uncomfortable because the author is implying it can be and moreover that antidepressants should always be avoided. I disagree. I'm glad the author found something that helps and I'd also recommend mindfulness, but I feel that sometimes people need help and antidepressants are one option and that people shouldn't discount them based on articles like this - instead they should have a thorough conversation with a medical professional (if necessary, more than one) about their options.

</comment><comment><USER41> :( depression is not fun

</comment><comment><USER42>
        After almost 25 years of taking antidepressants,
        I had no emotion left whatsoever. I felt dead and
        wanted to be dead.

I wonder how to understand this.

If you have no emotions, can you still want something? Why would you want to die?

I tend to understand this sentence in a way that means she was suffering. But isn't suffering the same as experiencing negative emotions?

Or is this supposed to mean that she had no _good_ emotions left, only painful ones?

<comment><USER43> Think of a sine wave, with the y-axis representing the positivity/negitivity. A representation of life's ups and downs.

I think what she was saying when she said "no emotion left" is that the amplitude of that wave was nearly zero. The wave didn't go up or down much. When she said, "I want to be dead", she's saying that the the average value is down in the negatives.</comment></comment>


Hmm, not the error message you want to see. - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/ Http/1.1 Service Unavailable for http://www.amazon.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Not showing my comment on submission but amazon.com showing up as:

Http/1.1 Service Unavailable

Edit: ops see> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=210986>

</comment><comment><USER2> Yes, I definitely don't want my error messages trying to sell me a Kindle.

</comment><comment><USER3> The site sill works if you can request HTTP/1.0 as your protocol.

</comment><comment><USER4> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=210986></comment>


Ask HN: Why are ISO standards so expensive? - <AUTHOR> Or, why are they not free?<p>Many times during my professional career I've wanted to read the underlying standard for a product or a system, and I can't ever be bothered to cough up the ~100 CHF they seem to demand. As a result I've never actually read a standard. <comment><USER2> I've been part of a team developing C++ compilers and run-time libraries. We used the final draft, which (at least for C++) is freely available. I suspect anyone relying on the final text (were it to differ from the last public draft) would be disappointed to discover that pretty much no-one uses it.

It doesn't seem to me to be a terrible trade-off to say that ad-hoc use via public drafts is fine, but if you need to use the actual spec for whatever reason then you're probably being paid to abide by the spec and it makes sense to charge for it.

Where I strenuously object to non-public specifications is where they're referenced in (and required by) legislation: if ignorance of the law is no excuse, the law had better be freely available.

<comment> radford-neal _... anyone relying on the final text... would be disappointed to discover that pretty much no-one uses it._

Indeed! A "standard" that costs $100 to read is not actually a standard at all. The standard is, by definition, what the users think it is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Many other standards organizations have figured out funding models that don't shut out hobbyists, the interested public, academics, and professionals with tangential (rather than direct, funded) interest. ISO has not. They are behind the times in this regard.

<comment><USER4> Like W3C? "Standards" funded by Google's ad monopoly? How is that going for them? The demand for everything to be "free" is destroying the idea of neutral standard. Standard must be funded somehow. The ISO model has worked for decades. The W3C model, where you don't charge for either the standard or the products, has become a tire fire.

<comment><USER5> The W3C's failures pale in comparison to what I hear of the ISO MPEG process, in which companies compete to put as much of their patented technology in the codec standard as possible without any regard for coherence. ISO is worse than the W3C.

<comment><USER4> ISO at least still releases real standards with multiple implementations. Web standards by contrast have basically become a pretense, as the actual standard is defined by Google's implementation.

<comment><USER5> I mean, to some degree that's true, but that's not anything the W3C can do anything about. It's just the nature of the browser market at this time.

As an example, C++, also an ISO standard, has notoriously few full implementations, and as a result C++ is largely defined by "what GCC/Clang accept" in practice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> IEC standards are also expensive. However, there's a hack available. Denmark has incorporated many of the international IEC standards as national standards "by-value". They are also available at a much lower price than the IEC standards.

So if you buy the ~100 USD DS-60950-1, you'll find a Danish cover page followed by the otherwise 900 CHF IEC/EN-60950-1 (the International/Eurozone IT equipment electrical safety standard), which also happens to be harmonized with the ~2500 USD UL-60950-1 (The American IT equipment electrical safety standard).

<comment><USER7> ANSI used to have several interesting standards (C, C++) as PDF for 30 dollars each. Unfortunately, they upped their prices considerably.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The fee is to pay for the ISO's operating costs of maintaining and distributing the standards. They do have a section of publicly available standards, if you're interested: [https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/](https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/)

<comment><USER9> They probably have a gold web server that can only be powered by the tears of albino giraffes. For the price they charge for distributing one standard once, normal organizations can distribute files to anyone who asks essentially forever.

<comment><USER10> I suspect (although I've made no effort to verify this) that some standards organisations were set up in the days of paper copies and secretaries and typists, when they _needed_ a 10-storey office building [1]. So naturally they set up a pricing structure reflecting those expenses.

Then they kept the employee numbers and pricing structure due to institutional inertia.

[1] [https://goo.gl/maps/MK3C9AUgzV16Svem8](https://goo.gl/maps/MK3C9AUgzV16Svem8)

<comment><USER11> There's more to an organizations overhead than just the web servers. There's staff, reviewers, publishers, editors, etc. Of course, it's probably still most likely over-priced, and I have no insight into ISO's operational funding or internals.

<comment><USER12> Do ISO handle proofreading, editing and so on? My impression was that they mostly did publishing, which has become less and less of a cost center.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> TBH I think IEEE is worse than ISO. After a fairly hefty yearly membership fee, they want you to pay for individual specs that other IEEE members created???

I needed to look at a 15+ year old IEEE spec, and thought "hey I'm a member, certainly I have access to it!". Nope. They wanted like $50 from a _member_. For a 15+ year old spec.

I let my membership lapse after that. Just couldn't figure out a way that it was worth $250+ year.

</comment><comment><USER14> Can think of 2 reasons why it is not free.

a. These are meant for a business to show off its compliance. A business means it is already making money. I am sure every company would be happy to pay that 100CHF to buy it for you , just like they can afford to buy a book, if they are thinking about ISO.

b. The ISO compliance is to be asserted by a 3rd party auditor. They are a member of the ISO community and/or have a copy of the standard with them.

<comment><USER15> I am ok with a), but b): how should I comply with something I don't know. Sometimes I have to comply by law. What is this the soviet union?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've often thought that if standards organizations were truly interested in encouraging the use of their standards, they would make them freely available and recover their operation costs some other way. Even worse than the standards orgs themselves is IHS which acts as an electronic library (gatekeeper troll) for these orgs. In theory they are providing a service of managing electronic copies of expensive standards so that a big company doesn't get into licensing/copyright violations, but really all they're doing is adding overhead on top of stuff which should be free in the first place.

At one point the orgs were covering printing and shipping costs, but with electronic downloads and PDFs, it's really crazy to charge $$$ for a standard, especially when it doesn't include updates.

A couple exception to this madness: US government stuff (e.g. Mil-Std) which by law is all copyright free and downloadable, and USB.org is surprisingly and pleasantly just available for download.

<comment><USER17> All the ITU ASN.1 specs are free. Maybe other ITU specs, I haven't looked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a site just like SciHub but only for ISO (and other) standards?

<comment><USER19> It's called Library Genesis.

Ok, it's not really a SciHub for standards, but it is in the same spirit. Most people don't order standards from the ISO, they get them from their organization's (university or corporation) library. Very much the same as for papers.

What can you do if you are not affiliated with any organization that provides access? You can turn for SciHub for papers and to LibGen as your library. Needless to mention that both are infringing copyright and may or may not be legal for you to use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Its also worth noting that you can basically find all of the standards in their draft forms for free. You need to be slightly careful about the revision numbers, but often the drafts are identical to the ISO ones. You really only need to pay for the draft if you want to be certified as in compliance or are an enterprise user. In which case the fee is paltry.

<comment><USER21> Is there a way to search for these? I've tried trawling through many sites to find draft versions of ISO 32000-2:2017 but it seems to have fallen down a memory hole. Is there a naming convention around drafts or is it just luck of the draw?

Apologies is this is not a valid query.

<comment><USER20> luck unfortunately :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I know this question relates to the scandal of standards _documents_ , but unlike the IETF it's possible to write ISO standards that are essentially proprietary by including various patent encumbrances, making them prohibitively expensive to _implement_. IEEE standards are particularly terrible in this regard.

</comment><comment><USER23> Nominally to cover the costs of production. However, this is a convenient barrier to entry for Open Source and amateur developers that many companies who are standards participants don't object to.

</comment><comment><USER24> When you do buy an individual copy, it comes with your name printed in the footer of every page. I had a copy of one once (won't say which one) and I could not let my boss read it. For many topics, national standards (like NIST) are great. They are free too.

Edit: We went with individual purchases because the group license was way too expensive. Had we paid for that, then we could have shared the docs with upto X employees.

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure how they can restrict you from lending such things, unless you've signed a contract specifically saying so. Copyright cannot be used that way, at least in the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't like the high prices either and wish these were available for free. At least the demand to have them for free is not unreasonable given that a large part of the work that goes in the standards is ultimately financed by tax money.

But to answer your question: Because the primary customers are organizations who are willing to pay. Individuals that are not affiliated with one of the paying organizations are not considered, unfortunately.

From a practical point of view it is not hard to get access. My experience is: As long as I was a student or an employee of a university the library provided me access and I was allowed to copy the standards as long as I needed them for my studies. When I left university I could still get a library card for the library and I could read the standards as long as I wanted but I wasn't allowed to copy them. Also every bigger company I worked for provided access. At least that's my experience.

</comment><comment><USER25> Usual parasite approach. Accessing standards should for sure be free for everyone.

<comment><USER26> Why should it be free? What is your rationale?

<comment><USER25> Because standards are not products. They should enable things, not to be used for profit. Profiteering from that hinders progress. It should be quite self explanatory.

<comment><USER26> Many standards are simply guidelines or arbitrary rules. Someone just makes it up. For e.g. i++ has a specific meaning according to a language standard. Or the width of a door should be 36" inches. That is something someone just made up. You can make up a standard yourself. Other kinds of standards have years of work behind them, like engineering standards for bridges, or food safety standards. Someone has to pay the people to do the work. There is nothing inherently free or non-free about them.

The other important thing here is being able to read the standard gets you nowhere. You have to implement the standard, and an independent third party has to verify that you have implemented them. Someone has to pay for all this work. It would be nice if this was tax payer supported, but if the government isn't going to pay for it, maybe you would like to setup an international fund to contribute? I'm sure they would love to make them free of charge.

>They should enable things, not to be used for profit. Profiteering from that hinders progress. It should be quite self explanatory.

I want to pay the people who work on the standards. Profits help with that. Ergo, profits help progress. QED :)

BTW, ISO standards have been for-pay for years. Please explain specifically how it has hindered progress. Some data would be nice. The burden of proof is on you, given the decades of counter-factual evidence.

<comment><USER25> Someone already pays for the work of making standards. And it's not ISO.

Someone has to pay for the work for implementing them too, but not for accessing the standard itself. Lot's of things were not free, because of someone trying to sit in the middle, where they shouldn't have.

<comment><USER26> I don't think you quite understand how ISO works, so its not really productive to have this conversation. Have a nice day.

<comment><USER25> It's clearly not working right, if it's still charging for actual access.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Yeah ISO are de facto laws and the should be free

</comment><comment><USER27> Very few programmers care about standards and even downloading drafts of them - despite all these forum/mailing lists arguments "what/which code is standard"( a tiny vocal minority), their market is likely some sort of enterprise bureaucrats that must have the Official(TM) Standard(TM) printed in triplicate to bully local programmers into following it "up to legal code". If the standards were free, i guess they're going to be a bit more popular, however thats too late to change programmer culture[1] which evolved without them - so standards organizations don't have much of an incentive to make them public domain. [1] Compiler manuals are what people using as standard, and standards eventually adopt compiler features.

<comment><USER28> Programmers care a lot about standards; we just have more open standards like RFCs and W3C/WHATWG.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Because ISO likes free money. In most cases ISO doesn't pay the authors and reviewers of standards, so instead of posting the document for free, it gets to indefinitely receive 100% of the profit from the work. It's a sweet deal for ISO, and a terrible deal for the rest of the world. ISO's paywall makes it very difficult to _apply_ their standards. It's essentially an anti- standardization stance, not what you'd expect from a standards body. It's especially a problem because today's complex systems depend on millions of agreements that need to be standardized (not necessarily by ISO).

More generally: If a publisher charges money for a document, you should ask if the authors (or their employers) are getting paid a royalty on the profit. If the authors (or their employers) are getting paid a (decent) royalty, then that's a decent justification for the charge. If the authors/employers are not getting paid, then that looks suspiciously like an exploitative relationship. ISO is in the latter camp. Que bene?

I'll use ISO standards, and if my employer pays me I'll participate in an ISO process. But I strongly prefer working with standards organizations who have changed their processes to fit the 21st century. Today many people's expectation is that a standards body will make the standards freely available, since there's no excuse to do otherwise. ISO fails that test, and instead has a big paywall. The historical justification was to support a printing press, but that is completely unnecessary today (just post the PDF or HTML, that's all we need!). ISO _will_ occasionally release standards freely (e.g., the Ada language specification and the Common Criteria were ISO standards that ISO _agreed_ would be freely available even on initial ratification). But you have to work for it. Other standards-setting bodies, like the IETF, are typically wiser choices for developing standards.

I hope that someday ISO will change their policies. But as long as they're getting lots of free money, based primarily on work by people they don't pay, it's not clear why they would change.

<comment><USER26> >Today many people's expectation is that a standards body will make the standards freely available, since there's no excuse to do otherwise.

How many people have this expectation and how do you know?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I view ISO standards as a tax on companies who are willing to stand by their product and processes. Modulo obvious caveats, if they can get certification/compliance/accreditation , the end user can have a modicum of confidence when dealing with the business. It lets you buy toys for your child with a peace of mind, or get into a car with ISO certified airbags, or buy network equipment for your server build, etc etc. Its trivial to point out flaws in any system, its not easy to propose something better that you can actually implement in the real world.

</comment><comment><USER30> Sometimes you can access standards from a library. Not sure how common that is for ISO but maybe look it up.

<comment><USER31> I asked at my local university library in Germany: they can't be accessed there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> On one hand, I ran into this myself a couple of times (needed to spec some tolerances for shafts and holes; wanted to find laboratory glassware specs). Didn't end up getting them since it was a one-off query each time.

On the other, you have to admit that they do a much better job of making money for the value they provide, compared to e.g. compiler developers. (Just from a cold capitalistic viewpoint. I don't philosophically agree with not having a free way to get started with programming.)

</comment><comment><USER33> there are torrents that have all the standards...

<comment><USER31> Where?

<comment><USER33>
      magnet:?xt=urn:btih:F046266BE1BFB1528A6C766526A8B17254059429&tr=http%3A%2F%2Fbt2.t-ru.org%2Fann%3Fmagnet&dn=ISO%20standards%20%2F%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D1%8B%20%D0%98%D0%A1%D0%9E%20(%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B0)%20%5B1973-2017.%20PDF%2C%20ENG%5D

edit: nice emo downvotes. Torrents today. Torrents Tomorrow. Torrents Forever! They're the only cloud that matters.

<comment><USER15> There should be a scihub for isos

<comment><USER33> hard to search for since they're numbered, and people collect the ones that are relevant to them personally

<comment><USER34> Unfortunately, that torrent doesn't seem to include all the standards. For example, none of these seem to be included:

[http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC35/WG1/](http://www.open- std.org/JTC1/SC35/WG1/)

<comment><USER35> If you still have it, can you check for ISO-1000 being there?

<comment><USER36> This seems to be a copy (no idea how exact the copy is): [https://archive.org/details/gov.in.is.10005.1994/page/n5](https://archive.org/details/gov.in.is.10005.1994/page/n5)

<comment><USER35> That's ISO-10005, ISO-1000 is the specification of STEbus which was a CPU semi-agnostic version of STDbus (which was Z80 specific).

<comment><USER37> I first searched for it on Wikipedia here[1] and then searched for the title.

STEbus seems to be IEEE 1000 and ISO 10859, perhaps you got confused with the numbers?

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_1000](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_1000)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Because it costs money to sustain the armies of talentless paper-pushers who work for these organisations.</comment>


Programming Language vs Foreign Language - <AUTHOR> http://muchosalsa.com/blog/other-stuff/51/programming-language-vs-foreign-language/

<comment><USER2> Why is this a trade off?

OK, if you have to choose then for me it's a foreign language over a programming language. One of the most satisfying things I've done is to learn French to the point where I'm fluent. Being able to communicate with other human beings is very satisfying... and although I think RoR rules it's just not as satisfying communicating with an API.

</comment><comment><USER3> Programming languages are easy. Foreign languages are not easy.</comment>


Ask HN: How to know how good at coding you are? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a student in college, and I use to think that I was fairly good at coding. But lately, I'm not sure.<p>I was wondering if there are particularly principles of a good coder or some kind of pattern. I find myself coding well and quick when I'm interested and motivated, but other times I'm slow and just procrastinating. <comment><USER2> In doubt, assume you are bad. You will fare better with that.

I guess I have to elaborate on that a bit :)

At first, if you assume you are bad at programming, you will begin to look for reasons why you are bad. You will find them and then you can remove them, if necessary. This will make you better.

Second, assuming you are bad removes a lot of pressure. You don't need to be good, and it is not bad to do an occasional mistake, because you are bad. Surprise, Surprise, bad programmers make mistakes.

Third, this assumption creates a good attitude. You won't think that that particular habit of someone else is stupid, because it is different and you are good, so it must be bad. No. You are bad. Maybe that little attitude of the other person can make you a little bit better, or rather, less bad than you are right now. Let's examine that!

And once you are firmly confirmed about how bad you are, you are a good programmer at the same time, for the reasons above (and you will have found a paradoxon. yay).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, that was a really great response. =). Love HN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> [http://www.indiangeek.net/wp- content/uploads/Programmer%20co...](http://www.indiangeek.net/wp- content/uploads/Programmer%20competency%20matrix.htm) may help give you some idea, but (being a bit of a newbie coder myself) I don't know how actually helpful it is as a diagnostic.

Your mileage may vary.

</comment><comment><USER4> Exercises in books will often have an amount of time that the problem should take you to solve listed with the problem. Work every problem while timing yourself. See if you are below average or above average after six months and a couple of books that are interesting to you.

</comment><comment><USER5> well, it's simple. if you work on something that you enjoy, you will do well. Always set small targets. the joy of achieving those targets will motivate you to work more.

It doesn't matter how long do you work but how often do you work. So spend some time daily on that project rather than spending 10-15 hrs on Weekend and not thinking about it at all during weekdays.

hth

</comment><comment><USER6> Start contributing to an open source project.

</comment><comment><USER7> topcoder will be able to settle the debate.</comment>


What Is the Big Bang Theory? - <AUTHOR> http://phys.org/news/2015-12-big-theory.html <comment><USER2> >Working backwards from the current state of the Universe, scientists have theorized that it must have originated at a single point of infinite density and finite time that began to expand

Logically, it doesn't make sense to me how something could be described as infinite (density) and finite (time) at the same time.

Furthermore, the article states:

>However, the earliest times of the Universe – lasting from approximately 10-43 to 10-11 seconds after the Big Bang – are the subject of extensive speculation. Given that the laws of physics as we know them could not have existed at this time, it is difficult to fathom how the Universe could have been governed. What's more, experiments that can create the kinds of energies involved have not yet been conducted.

How can they even speculate that time existed at that point? If time is relative to motion, and the universe was a singularity, then time could not be said to exist because there is no relative motion if all that exists is a singularity.

<comment><USER3> These kinds of infinity concepts are throughout math and physics. For example, the Universe is "infinite" yet it is also expanding. There is very little that is logical about infinity itself and it has been the source of much philosophy throughout time. It took a couple thousand years just for mathematicians to theoretically prove that some infinities are larger than others, for instance.

<comment><USER4> > There is very little that is logical about infinity itself ...

On the contrary, infinity is a very logical notion -- much more logical than many other ideas we accept. For example, what value must "m" have for this statement to be true:

sum(n:1 to m inclusive, 2^-n) = 1 (i.e. 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ...)

What value must "m" have, for this statement to be true:

lim(n -> m), (1+1/n)^n = e (base of natural logarithms)

For both these examples, for the described outcomes, m must equal infinity.

Also, you say, "For example, the Universe is 'infinite' yet it is also expanding", but you also say, "It took a couple thousand years just for mathematicians to theoretically prove that some infinities are larger than others ..." If one infinity can be said to be larger than another, then this admits the possibility of any single infinity expanding.

Imagine a cube of space, in isolation, initially measuring one meter in any of its dimensions. If measurements reveal that this value is increasing over time, one may conclude that the cube is expanding. Now imagine that the cube is embedded in a space consisting of an infinity of such cubes in three spatial dimensions, all increasing in size in the same way. Does the fact that the cube is part of an infinity of such cubes prevent it from expanding? If this were true, it would be an easy test of the existence of an infinite spatial manifold -- but the idea of an expanding infinity is logically consistent.

<comment><USER5> I think that saying that m "equals infinity" is probably a bit of a simplification.

One can say that some values are infinite, such as omega in the ordinal numbers and the surreal numbers, but neither of those values are what is meant in the examples you gave, which are both limits.

If you plugged in omega (from the surreals) for those expressions instead of taking the limit, I think you would get a value which is off by around epsilon (i.e. 1/omega). I'm not sure of that but I think that's how it tends to work out.

In the surreals one can indeed have a continuously increasing infinite value. But I'm not sure that that is a proper way to describe the "total volume of the universe"? Maybe it is, but idk.

<comment><USER4> > I think that saying that m "equals infinity" is probably a bit of a > simplification.

Yes, it is, I agree. For the limit example, one might instead say, "As m approaches infinity, the result approaches 1." By definition, limits approach their target values, they never equal them -- otherwise we would accept division by zero and similar things.

The other reason I agree is because infinity isn't a number. I'm guilty of compressing the lexical description of a limit to a ... ahem ... finite size.

> ... what is meant in the examples you gave, which are both limits.

One of my examples was an infinite sum, not a limit per se, but the same argument can be made, i.e. that infinity is addressed without being literally achieved.

<comment><USER5> I believe that infinite sums are usually defined in terms of limits, which is why I said that both examples were limits.

> By definition, limits approach their target values, they never equal them -- > otherwise we would accept division by zero and similar things.

I think I would say that a convergent sequence (most of the time that one cares) does not ever reach the target value (though, eventually constant sequences do, but those aren't interesting), but that the limit of the convergent sequence is equal to / is the target value. As opposed to saying that "the limit approaches". The limit isn't the thing that changes with another thing, but the limit of some changing?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Maybe someone can enlighten me on this:

Is it that space and time start at the big bang, or is it that all the mass/energy was in a little point and has since expanded?

When we talk about the size of the universe, do we mean that's the limits of where stuff is, or do we mean that's the limit of where stuff can be?

<comment><USER7> Space and time started with the BB

<comment><USER8> Well... per our current theories, yes. But experimental confirmation is pretty scarce, so making dogmatic statements may not be justified.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Question re inflation and dark energy: current claims are that big-bang started with a very short period of inflation. Haven't heard/understood much on why inflations started or stopped. Now we posit dark energy, that causes accelerated expansion of the universe, with acceleration greater at greater distances and therefore earlier historical times.

So... is it possible that inflation and dark energy are related? When we see distant/ancient galaxies accelerating away from us, is there any chance we're looking at the ramping down of the original inflation of the big bang?

</comment><comment><USER10> I prefer the objectively superior moniker, "Horrendous Space Kablooie".</comment>


Show HN: Turn any YouTube playlist into a sleek radio-like page - <AUTHOR> https://playlistradio.live/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi all, this was this weekend's little project I made to take a break from some other bigger stuff.

Basically it takes a youtube playlist and wraps it around a nicer streaming page - good to leave on the monitor at parties, or to send to friends and such.

On the home page, just paste the youtube link of a video contained in the playlist. Or you can build the link yourself: [https://playlistradio.live/?&list={playlist_id}](https://playlistradio.live/?&list={playlist_id})

Some examples:

\- [https://playlistradio.live/?&list=PL8F6B0753B2CCA128](https://playlistradio.live/?&list=PL8F6B0753B2CCA128) / A classic jazz playlist, the default example on the site

\- [https://playlistradio.live/?&list=PLVHGe9JLVncHBqqcT9Xc7P9l_...](https://playlistradio.live/?&list=PLVHGe9JLVncHBqqcT9Xc7P9l_dDc1Ofid) / some good future funk

\- [https://playlistradio.live/?&list=PLD61626F6813F6C5F](https://playlistradio.live/?&list=PLD61626F6813F6C5F) / The GOAT soundtrack</comment>


Woman claims she owns the sun and sues eBay - <AUTHOR> http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/29256168/woman-who-claims-she-owns-the-sun-sues-ebay <comment><USER2> Well, everyone needs to do something in life otherwise they would be bored to death.

</comment><comment><USER3> I believe all the relevant law is to do with registration of unclaimed land surface, otherwise you could claim a meter squared of international water without fixing something there. The surface of the sun is definitely more a kind of sea.</comment>


Germany: We can no longer fully rely on U.S. White House - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-germany/germany-we-can-no-longer-fully-rely-on-u-s-white-house-idUSKBN1K60WP <comment><USER2> Well it's full of treason weasels in addition to all the lying, so Germany is just saying out loud what quite a lot of people are thinking. I certainly don't trust anything the White House says.

"Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of "high crimes & misdemeanors." It was nothing short of treasonous." Former D/CIA Brennan [https://twitter.com/JohnBrennan/status/1018885971104985093](https://twitter.com/JohnBrennan/status/1018885971104985093)

"We are in trouble." Retired 4-star General Barry McCaffrey [https://twitter.com/mccaffreyr3/status/1018903265084182528](https://twitter.com/mccaffreyr3/status/1018903265084182528)

"Today's press conference in #Helsinki was one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory." Senator John McCain [https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/status/1018919182904299520](https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/status/1018919182904299520)

Whether Trump is incompetent, or actively giving cover for Russia in plain site, doesn't matter. The shitstorm is just gonna get worse, and more noisy, until he's out of office.</comment>


What gives you the right to "fix" a bug? What about the feelings of the bug? - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/87421 <comment><USER2> I have the right to fix the bug because I can fix it. Power is the only right that counts in this world.</comment>


Windows Remote Desktop Protocol Security Bypass Vulnerability - <AUTHOR> https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/MS16-007 <comment><USER2> CVE-2016-0019 in particular is uninteresting and unlikely to be widely exploited.

Requires:

\- Windows 10 Pro or higher.

\- RDC to be enabled (not default).

\- A non-Microsoft Account to be utilised (not default).

\- That local account to have no password set.

Essentially you really need to TRY to get your machine exploitable with that one.

<comment><USER3> The first 3 bullet points seem like they would happen on corporate networks without really trying too hard.

<comment><USER4> Almost no big company is using Win10. Its way too early for its adoption. Even then, they'd have a domain policy that requires passwords and the RDP group would also be controlled by GPO. Even then, they'd be using VPN or Remote Desktop Gateway to run this, not opening thousands of ports 3389 and one-to- one natting them to desktop machines. I could see small ma&pop companies vulnerable to this, but they're probably vulnerable to a host of things. Most small shops I've worked with have no idea what RDP is anyway, and use third party remote products, if any.

Is exploit code out there? If not, then that's quite a leap yet for hackers. In a week or two every win10 machine in the world will have this patched. That's a very short window for what looks like to be an ugly, but tiny edge case.

This is further evidence that Win10 is far from fully cooked. We're not touching it until 2018 with preliminary testing starting in 2017. MS rushed this pretty badly after the poor reception to 8. Also further evidence that remote technologies like ssh, rdp, etc should always be wrapped in something else like VPN or at least strictly firewalled off to known good IPs. Surprises happen.

<comment><USER3> > Almost no big company is using Win10.

Ok. I'm glad you have a survey of every business out there.

> Is exploit code out there?

You use any non-Win10 RDP client and enter the username with the blank password.

> Also further evidence that remote technologies like ssh, rdp, etc should > always be wrapped in something else like VPN or at least strictly firewalled > off to known good IPs

RDP seems like a shitty remote access protocol wrt security, but VPN products are certainly worse than OpenSSH.

<comment><USER4> How long large enterprise takes to move to a new windows has been studied and published. The typical update is close to 4-5 years. Hell, many shops only recently moved from XP to 7. Hell, Win7 is almost seven years old!

>You use any non-Win10 RDP client and enter the username with the blank password.

What username? What code generates the correct name? That's what I was referring to. Say there is a win10 pro machine with rdp enabled for the account 'jmpendergrast' with no password and listening to 3389 with no firewall blocking it. Wonderful, how many passess until you guess that? Where is the automation code?

Note, by default windows will not let you use a password-less account for RDP:

[https://support.microsoft.com/en- us/kb/303846](https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/303846)

So that's another hurdle someone has to get through.

Also, when RDP is enabled, it default to the newer versions which don't have this bug. You need to specify legacy access as well. Another hurdle.

So let me summarize what needs to happen for this attack to work: Win10 needs RDP enabled with legacy access explicitly allowing non-NLA connections. Then Win10 needs a firewal rule for 3389 from its router or put on the internet without a NAT/Firewall. Then Win10 needs someone to make an account with a password (passwords are mandatory for rdp). Then someone needs to change the registry to allow blank passwords for a RDP user. Then that user needs to remove the password from that account. Then that user needs to be put in the RDP group.

And if a home user does this, he or she isn't using a local account they're probably using a MSN account.

This is very much an edge case here.

>RDP seems like a shitty remote access protocol wrt security, but VPN products are certainly worse than OpenSSH.

Everything sucks but FOSS right? How non-biased of you. I won't mention heartbleed and shellshock then.

<comment><USER3> > Everything sucks but FOSS right? How non-biased of you. I won't mention > heartbleed and shellshock then.

Nope, but OpenSSH (not PAM) is leaps and bounds above everything else.

Almost all of your beloved VPN software was probably susceptible to heartbleed.

But mostly I've looked at software from "security" companies, and overall it's a steaming pile of shit.

It's probably not going to get popped by non-state actors. I'd say the same things about ssh & rdp in general, but rdp has had a non-trivial amount of bugs in it.

<comment><USER4> Corporate VPNs aren't OpenSSL, they're usually IPSec implementations and not susceptible to heartbleed.

>It's probably not going to get popped by non-state actors.

Not too long ago people were making this argument but including both OpenSSL and OpenSSH. Now its just OpenSSH. Funny how that works. The reality is that layered security is a best practice and just expecting something to be perfect forever because of past performance is a very questionable premise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5>
      Windows 10 hosts running RDP services fail to prevent remote logon to accounts that have
      no passwords set.

      An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by using an older version of the RDP client
      to connect to the Windows 10 host. Once connected, the attacker could generate a list of
      user accounts on the host and attempt to log on as those users. If one of the user
      accounts has no password set, then the attacker is allowed to log on as that user,
      despite the default system setting that restricts access to accounts without passwords to
      local logon only.

Is the user enumeration a feature and not a vulnerability of its own?

<comment><USER6> Windows displays a "Welcome" screen with all user accounts listed when you connect via RDP. I don't know how to automate enumeration, though. Perhaps scraping a screenshot after connecting and then OCRing the usernames.

<comment><USER7> It might be even easier than that, since RDP remotes the screen at the GDI level, so if you're looking at the protocol, you'll see a regular pattern of DrawText calls.

<comment><USER8> Out of interest, is there something like a Wireshark dissector that'd show this level of detail?

<comment><USER7> yuhong is correct: RDP rides inside a TLS connection (if I recall, pre-Vista didn't use TLS but there was some other encryption scheme). I'm not sure how much work it would be to sniff/log session keys and display the decrypted traffic in a nice format. I've never seen a tool for it. I'd be surprised if Microsoft doesn't have at least some netmon.exe tooling for it but it may not be released.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think we'll be hearing about MS16-007 for a while into the future. Many organizations have a hard time keeping all of their machines up-to-date -- I've had a lot of experience with this while conducting penetration tests -- and vulnerabilities like this live on for a _very_ long time. MS08-067 is still super common to find in the wild.

Building complex software is hard work, so I won't judge the development team that released software this vulnerable. That said, this one seems pretty severe.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, we are talking about Win10 here, which either has forced updates or uses WSUS.

<comment><USER10> And is also likely not in the hands of an org that has problems keeping things up to date; those orgs are likely still on 7 if that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > The most severe of the vulnerabilities could allow remote code execution if > an attacker is able to log on to a target system and run a specially crafted > application.

That reads to me like "RCE if you have RCE". Which I guess is a fair description of the DLL vulnerabilities if you ignore the privilege-escalation parts.

The DirectShow and (perhaps) passwordless RDP vulnerabilities seem rather more severe to me.

How is that leader quote appropriate?

<comment><USER12> It seems like basically a local elevation of privilege. Useful to malware and/or wayward secretaries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> My entire enterprise communicates using SPICE under Gentoo Linux, so I get to watch and laugh from the sidelines.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> You can repro on modern mstsc by using enablecredsspsupport:i:0 in the .rdp file BTW.

</comment><comment><USER14> And once again I have to manually check the list of windows updates not to install so the Windows 10 upgrade malware is avoided. No matter how many times these updates are hidden they still show up again and again for install. In this instance KB2952664.

<comment><USER15> I think you're fighting a war you can't win.

<comment><USER14> Not trying to win a war as much as show that the old ms is still there.</comment></comment></comment>


Chatroulette for Google Hangouts? You bet. - <AUTHOR> http://www.plusroulette.com Looks like the chatroulette bubble is starting again with a PlusRoulette for Google Hangouts, this could get interesting! <comment><USER2> I like the serendipity of Hangout. If you do it for your friends circles, you could meet new people through your friends (because _their_ friends will see they joined a Hangout). So it's very much like in real life where you meet with a group of friends and they introduce you to some of their friends.

<comment><AUTHOR> Very true. I guess plusroulette is more spontaneous.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Since Google allows 10 people in a Google Plus Hangout, it'll be pretty neat joining a random group of 10 strangers!

<comment><USER3> That would be neat, but you'll have to be satisfied with joining a group of at most 9 strangers...

<comment><USER4> Some people are strangers to themselves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I recently had a "Google+ Chatroulette" session with a few friends through gphangouts.com. It was fun, but most of the participants weren't interested in taking part and just watched us talking. Between 70 and 80 people joined the hangout, half of those either had their camera disabled or had no camera at all. We managed to have only one conversation with a stranger that lasted over 5 minutes.

</comment><comment><USER6> Umm. "Hey, let's maximize our one-day traffic spike by polluting our pages with AdWords to the point where it's impossible to tell what is a legitimate interface element!"

First impressions are everything, and this spammed-up approach is ruining any long-term gains you really should be shooting for.</comment>


Golang Example - <AUTHOR> https://golangexample.com/ <comment><USER2> Looks like submitter only ever spams these low effort sites: All hosted by same IPs - same design, hidden registrar info. awesomeflutter.com having been resubmitted by another a/c recently.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=heshanfu](https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=heshanfu)

golangexample.com

androidexample365.com

flutterawesome.com

franktheme.com

reactnativeexample.com

flutterawesome.com

iosexample.com

pythonawesome.com

androidexample365.com

reactjsexample.com

vuejsexamples.com

</comment><comment><USER3> I needed a cli exchange rate viewer, tfs.

<comment><USER4> For what it's worth, you can simply google something like "20 EUR in USD" and that works really well.

<comment><USER5> I think he wants privacy. Google not knowing when he pays and how much in what currency would be useful

<comment><USER6> Duckduckgo supports the same thing :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is there a way to submit other examples?

<comment><USER8> Looks like they've been scraped from github.

I'm not sure I appreciate my text being copied/pasted into a random site, where the "authors" collect the advertising revenue. In the best case it spams, in the worst case it leads to outdated documents being hosted.</comment></comment>


Teaching Software Architecture with GitHub - <AUTHOR> http://avandeursen.com/2013/12/30/teaching-software-architecture-with-github/ <comment><USER2> Wow I wish my university offered courses like this. As a student what are good books for software engineering practices in the field right now? Also when you're doing sole projects are there specific procedures you should follow and how do they differ from when you're in a team?

Lastly if it isn't too much can you post links to the course website for this,the software communications and software metrics?

<comment><USER3> Personally I think this is a good starting point: [http://gorban.org/post/32873465932/software-architecture- che...](http://gorban.org/post/32873465932/software-architecture-cheat-sheet)

In terms of books, I really like "The Architecture of Open Source Applications" ([http://aosabook.org/](http://aosabook.org/)) which is also mentioned in the blog post. For the enterprise world, "Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture" ([http://martinfowler.com/books/eaa.html](http://martinfowler.com/books/eaa.html)) is a good choice.

However, before applying any technical software architecture methods, it is really important to understand what your stakeholders actually want/need. Unfortunately most of the time they don't even know it themselves. In my experience most software projects fail, not because of technical reasons but simply because the original problem hasn't been understood. This is where communication is key. I assume the reason why the authors of the blog post encouraged drawing diagrams and looking at different perspectives/views is to facilitate this communication.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I guess this is s good approach to expose students to various software architectures and what real projects end up looking like. However, I'm not sure that this teaches the students what good architecture is/does and how it evolves over time. Which is to say, I'm not sure that this explanation says that the course teaches students how to DO good software architecture.

Knowing about architecture and doing it in your own code are two different things.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm finding it very difficult getting into a large open source project. I consider myself an experienced developer, but for some reason it feel very intimidating, especially when the code base is large. I was wondering if someone could give any tips ?

<comment><USER6> I try to work on the software I actually use. I don't jump on a random horse and start riding to the West. I think the first step is look at your tools. What problem do you have with your tools. Is the library you using too restricted? Does it have a null/nonetype exception rasied and not properly handle? If you can't solve it because you have no idea where to start, well, at least file a ticket :) I have limited experience too. I think the first real contribution was Ansible, rewriting the hg module was critical for my use. So I did. When I was an intern at Mozilla I learned about CSP so later when I found a few minor issues with the CSP implementation in Firefox I started volunteering. My internship didn't involve a single line of writing Firefox code so it did take a while to navigate through a couple files for a newbie. But grep, mxr.mozilla.org all helped.

I think even just making demos and making documentation changes is equally powerful and useful contribution.

<comment><USER5> Awesome! This is actually quite helpful and it gave me a couple of ideas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It is actively harmful to teach students that software architecture is something that somehow arises from diagrams or that those kinds of silly pictures capture anything important about it. Powerful architectures come out of powerful ideas that in turn come from accumulated hard work of many people in different disciplines. One can learn much more from walking through the actual source code of some classic projects and from trying to understand the ideas that make them tick:

[https://github.com/onetrueawk/awk](https://github.com/onetrueawk/awk) \- UNIX philosophy of small tools, DSLs, CS theory: state machines / regular expressions, Thompson algorithm ...

[https://github.com/mirrors/emacs](https://github.com/mirrors/emacs) \- Both a program and a VM for a programming language, hooks, before/after/around advices, modes, asynchronous processing with callbacks, ... Worth to think of challenges of designing interactive programs for extensibility.

[https://github.com/rails/rails](https://github.com/rails/rails) \- Metaprogramming DSLs for creating powerful libraries, again a lesson in hooks (before_save etc.), advices (around_filter etc.), ...

[https://github.com/git/git](https://github.com/git/git) \- The distributed paradigm, lots of CS theory again: hashing for ensuring consistency, DAGs everywhere, ... By the way, the sentence "yet the underlying git magic sometimes resulted in frustration with the students" is hilarious in the context of a "software architecture" course.

One of computer algebra systems - the idea of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_form](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_form)

One of computer graphics engines - Linear algebra

...

There are loads of things one can learn from those projects by studying the source in some depth, but I can't think of any valuable things one could learn by just drawing pictures of the modules and connecting them with arrows. There are also several great books that explore real software design issues and not that kind of pretentious BS, they all come from acknowledged all-time master software "architects", yet all of them almost never find diagrams or "viewpoints" useful for saying the things they want to say, and they all walk you through real issues in real programs:

[http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Addison-Wesley- Professiona...](http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Addison-Wesley-Professional- Computng-Series/dp/0131429019)

[http://www.amazon.com/Paradigms-Artificial-Intelligence- Prog...](http://www.amazon.com/Paradigms-Artificial-Intelligence-Programming- Studies/dp/1558601910/)

[http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Interpretation-Computer- Prog...](http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Interpretation-Computer-Programs- Engineering/dp/0262510871)

[http://www.amazon.com/Unix-Programming-Environment- Prentice-...](http://www.amazon.com/Unix-Programming-Environment-Prentice- Hall-Software/dp/013937681X)

[http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Environment-Addison- Wesley...](http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Environment-Addison-Wesley- Professional-Computing/dp/0321637739/)

To me, the kind of approach pictured in the post, seems like copying methods from electrical or civil engineering to appear more "serious", without giving due consideration to whether they really are helpful for anything for real- world software engineering or not. The "software engineering" class which taught those kind of diagram-drawing was about the only university class I did not ever get any use from, in fact I had enough industry experience by the point I took it that it just looked silly.

<comment><USER8> The pictures are a _result_ of studying the systems in question.

For example, you have given links to a couple of github repos. Now if I'm trying to create an overview of how say emacs works, I would try to identify the main sub-parts and break the system down into more manageable chunks of study. This is all what 'viewpoints' are trying to structure. None of this is evident from just the codebase unless it has been captured in some documentation, or you take the trouble to understand it yourself.

You seem to have a very low opinion of software architects, but believe me, you wouldn't want to work on a 5-year old system where huge teams of developers have let loose and no one/team was responsible to ensure a cohesive, maintainable system.

Viewpoints are fantastic for communication purposes, and if you feel that the particular viewpoints shown don't make much of a difference, I agree :). A student project is also not the ideal environment, but it is really valuable to know how to create them, considering the information needs of the audience (biz vs tech vs in-depth tech). And that is what this course is all about.

<comment><USER7> The point is that how emacs is broken down in modules is one of the least important things about emacs. I can draw a block diagram without a "software architecture" course, thank you. In software engineering, there are of minor usefulness most of the time, if of any.

There have to be persons that guide the overall development, sure, but this does not mean that those have to be "architects" living in a castle somewhere drawing those diagrams. The best "architects" are people with long experience in the trenches that know all the ins and outs, all the relevant theory, know the domain, and supervise it down to the nitty-gritty details. Linus Torvalds is a software architect for Linux, he doesn't do much coding anymore, but he isn't busy drawing diagrams without understanding the code really well either, he just is the person with the widest understanding of the whole project:

[https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/547](https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/547)

<comment><USER8> There are a LOT of practicing architects that really fit the mould you are describing! Linus has the big picture in his head, and perhaps if he were to draw them out, does it make him an ivory tower denizen ?!

Also, ignoring how a system is modularized is typically how you get tangled codebases by introducing unexpected dependencies. Just because it is 'less interesting' doesn't make it 'unimportant'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What a great opportunity for these students. I wish my university had done something like this.</comment>


Chelsea Manning begins hunger strike: 'I need help' - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/9/12867164/chelsea-manning-hunger-strike-gender-dysphoria <comment><USER2> Speaking as someone that doesn't condone her actions, solitary is torture. What she's going through is awful. I'm not sure what her ability to access the internet is, and she must be in a terrible mental state and just grasping for some kind of help. If she's going on a hunger strike though, she needs a clear list of demands. Saying she wants her jailers to be kind to her is never going to happen. She's in a military prison and is seen (certainly by the prison staff) as a traitor to the country. Hopefully her friends on the outside can formulate a specific list of things she wants and is willing to end the hunger strike if they are provided.

<comment><USER3> The media report wasn't very clear. First Manning is in solitary because of the suicide attempt, which every prison does when an inmate tries to kill themselves. You get put in a room under 24/7 surveillance with only a blanket usually for 3 weeks evaluation and sometimes extended if you keep making suicide threats.

The prison disallows any deviation from military grooming regulations. Manning was in genpop, and repeatedly violated this regulation growing out hair/wearing makeup ect so the prison kept pulling her privileges, plus getting Manning thrown back in adseg as punishment. This is what all prisons do when you get written up for minor violations of dress code, after there's nothing left to restrict they just put you in solitary.

tl;dr Manning has won the right to transition to female while being incarcerated through a lawsuit but the military doesn't know how to accomodate this. I'm guessing Manning will get moved to one of the empty wings at Leavenworth, and effectively be in solitary confinement with an entire wing to herself. That will be the prison's concession, we have complied with the lawsuit so here's your new prison to yourself as punishment because there exists no political directives from Washington DC and the military can only follow it's own rulebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I feel for her.

What can we actually do to help, beyond upvoting and discussing it?

<comment><USER5> Same here. It's disguisting what the "Beacon of Democracy and Freedom" does to those who break the law to expose much bigger crimes.

If you're in the US you can write to your representative. Or organise a movement. But, (as an outsider) I'd suspect, that the more you do, the more you'll get your own life into trouble. But, I'll stand corrected if persuaded to the contrary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I am sympathetic to her cause and I think we can all universally support her call for human respect and dignity.

I realized a few things from this article and from her: 1) It's too easy to up-vote or give it a nod and move on 2) I'm generally ignorant about her story and the issues around it 3) She is wildly courageous

One and two go hand-in-hand and I would blame myself for being complicit in her dignity, respect or rights being violated. I started taking a look around to learn more and understand more, and it is limited. This helped a little bit ([http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-wikileaks-manning- idUS...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-wikileaks-manning- idUSKCN109044)). No surprise that most of the headlines are focused on WikiLeaks, or her transition. So, if you have more information on her current struggle, I'd be grateful if you shared it here.

Finally, I have to highlight her courage in releasing information related to WikiLeaks, transitioning while in prison, and now, continuing to fight for herself.

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't understand how our democracies have led to so much instutionalized cruelty, what's the goal? Deterrence? Does it make sense to be afraid of a single individual to the point of depriving this person of so much? It's really sad.

</comment><comment><USER8> It's hard to see - to open my eyes and see a person in this state - and let's not forget that she's hardly the only one. We only know about Ms. Manning's situation because she's famous.

Criminals should go to jail (I'm not referring to Ms. Manning's legal status, just speaking generally), sometimes wars must be fought, but while we do what is necessary we don't want to be a criminals or war-mongers ourselves, and therefore we should treat even prisoners with respect and compassion.

I was reading elsewhere that prisons are cutting food to save money; it's inhuman and criminal.

[http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/08/26/491236253/ram...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/08/26/491236253/ramen- noodles-are-now-the-prison-currency-of-choice)

</comment><comment><USER9> If the idea behind the punishment of prison is to remove someone from society, shouldn't that be enough? Why is our society accepting and in some cases even encouraging things like torture, rape, solitary confinement, etc. for prisoners? This status change to nonhuman begins upon accusation so it's not even reserved for criminals.

Basically society says it's OK to do _anything_ to the accused and especially to the convicted. In for panhandling or drinking in public? Our society agrees that it's ok for you to get raped, beaten, maybe even murdered. After all, you must have done something terrible to be in jail or prison. Even if you're innocent.</comment>


Ask HN: (Twitter Search)*3 = Google Search? - <AUTHOR>

Twitter search is now serving 1 billion searches a day: http://engineering.twitter.com/2011/04/twitter-search-is-now-3x-faster_1656.html
And according to this, Google is serving about 3 billion searches per day: http://searchengineland.com/by-the-numbers-twitter-vs-facebook-vs-google-buzz-36709
If that's true, then that's incredible. Twitter is already 1/3th the size of Google in terms of searches? Am I getting this right? <comment><AUTHOR> Clicky: [http://engineering.twitter.com/2011/04/twitter-search-is- now...](http://engineering.twitter.com/2011/04/twitter-search-is- now-3x-faster_1656.html) and [http://searchengineland.com/by-the-numbers- twitter-vs-facebo...](http://searchengineland.com/by-the-numbers-twitter-vs- facebook-vs-google-buzz-36709)

</comment><comment><USER2> I wonder how many of those are bots.

Twitter has big opportunity in search but I find the experience to be poor. Search for a topic and 2/3rds, if not more, are retweets. It's not hard to filter out "^(RT:){1}.+$" but yet Twitter hasn't done it yet.</comment>