Google are removing URLs entirely from search results? - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/bigseo/comments/def9gg/google_are_removing_urls_entirely_from_the_search/ <comment><USER3> This is a purely anti-user move.

No user gains anything by it, this actually helps phishing sites. Oh, and it happens to help Google's AMP effort, which can now pretend to be the original site even more effectively. Time to get everyone to use Duck Duck Go, and to get rid of those Google CAPTCHAs which are an even bigger data harvesting operation than search.

<comment><USER4> Do we have any recourse against this monopoly, other than voicing our concerns repeatedly while they ignore us?

Can we launch a class action lawsuit against Google if they harm people by limiting consumer choice, and force us to be tracked everywhere using reCAPTCHA v3 and various other methods?

Keep in mind that not sending your data to Google is not a real option, there are several government services, health care providers and utility companies using reCAPTCHA, you personal data either gets harvested by Google, or you're barred from accessing essential online services.

What can EU and US citizens do to initiate an investigation into Google's data harvesting practices?

<comment><USER5> > Do we have any recourse against this monopoly...?

Once upon a time, Congress used to write and pass laws to protect Americans from egregious abuses of power like this. Of course, that time is long gone.

<comment><USER6> > egregious abuses of power like this

Do you honestly think removing URLs from search results is an "egregious abuse of power?" This is the company that buys credit card transactions from Visa et al. and associates them with your maps and and history for the benefit of advertisers, and you're complaining about them removing a design element 95% of people probably don't care about?

<comment><USER5> I meant Google in general. It's yet another tiny step in a terrible direction. At this point I would love to legislate most of Google out of existence, personally.

<comment><USER7> I don't really buy using legislation. Alternatives exist and people don't seem to care to use them. That's the market at work.

<comment><USER4> > I don't really buy using legislation. Alternatives exist and people don't > seem to care to use them.

Google is engaged in using its market dominance in one segment to gain or maintain dominance in others, while suppressing the competition. This is illegal behavior for which Google has been fined several times over the past few years.

Just consider that in past Android versions there was a hard-coded Google search bar on the default home screen that you could not remove. Google has been forced to ask users and offer a set of alternative search engines on devices with recent Android versions. Same goes for Chrome and competing browsers [1].

Right now Google Search detects the Firefox for Android user agent and serves a second-tier search experience for Firefox users on Android. They have been doing this for the past 6 years [2].

[1] [https://mashable.com/article/google-browser-search-engine- ch...](https://mashable.com/article/google-browser-search-engine-choice-eu/)

[2] [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=975444](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=975444)

<comment><USER8> How is Google stopping users from using another search engine?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's still regular for me but if true this will probably be the last straw for me. It's already absolutely impossible to send someone a link to a pdf you've found through google, this would make it impossible to send any link. That bloody wrapper is also a fine piece of shit. Search engines should link to content, not appropriate that content, hide who supplies it or mess with the links.

<comment><USER10> Have you tried these Firefox addons:

Google search link fix [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google- search...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-search-link- fix/)

Google Search URL Fixup [https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/google-search...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/google-search-url-fixup/)

<comment><USER11> It's not worth it. Just use DuckDuckGo or Searx.

<comment><USER12> I switched to DuckDuckGo a while ago, took a little while to get used but as it's my default search engine I've got used to it. The funny thing for me is now google's search results look strange to me as I've not kept up with all their "tweaks/changes".

I think best thing is switch default search to a new engine to get used to it, takes a little adjusting but worthwhile.

<comment><USER13> It's the same for me. I tried DDG maybe a year ago..and couldn't stand it, I found it too lousy. But now I'm trying again and this time it's slowly sticking in. Idk if it for better or my tolerance against Google decreased.

<comment><USER14> It did much the same. I let my Google cookies expire on Firefox when they broke Gmail on everything but Chrome. Google search results became even crappier and I got fed up enough to permanently switch to DDG.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Whether this claim is true nor not, Google is able to pull such a move due to its monopoly. Most of us are against monopolies but don't care about Google's central position on our precious Internet. We should act up though. One day, it could be too late.

I've been using DDG for around a year now after numerous failed attempts in the past. I, too, had been frustrated with some search results, but I don't miss Google anymore at all thanks to the bangs feature.

It is not obvious but DDG has a learning curve. You should re-learn the practice of "Googling skill" that we had to have years ago. I could even guess which queries DDG would fail to bring meaningful results before hitting enter now. In these cases I add a "!s" bang for [https://startpage.com](https://startpage.com) — a privacy conscious Google proxy.

DDG bangs are especially useful on iOS, where you could type a query from any page and only have 3 options: Search in the Web/App Store/Maps. If the search engine is DDG though, you could search your query in any website you know its bang with just a single step.

<comment><USER9> Why on earth is this comment downvoted?

<comment><USER16> A fair number of HN users work for said monopoly.

<comment><USER17> Not sure if is that the case. HN sometimes likes to downvote things randomly, for no discernible reason at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think it's a little too early to come to a full conclusion here. Google is constantly testing layout changes in SERPs and it seems like OP ended up in a test. The thread is 4 weeks old and I haven't seen or read anything on these changes anywhere but on this thread.

I still think Google's general direction is clear with more webmaster incentives for structured data, amp and also Google just straight up answering questions (nutrition, sports etc.). But this example doesn't prove that Google is removing URLs from SERPs, it is one version of many that are tested constantly to improve CTR and other metrics.

<comment><USER19> It's less the specifics and more the trend. Google's direction is, as stated elsewhere, to be seen as the _source_ of information - not a route to it. As you note, they're incentivising structured content - which means they can appropriate it and present directly rather than providing a link to the originator.

No doubt some will find it helpful (as with AMP). Some will find it unacceptable appropriation. I'm most definitely in the latter camp. I don't use Google search anymore, having transitioned to DDG 2+ years ago. I rarely find situations where reverting to Google is necessary, and when I do, a `g!` in DDG is as close as I get.

I realise I may be in a minority, but as far as I'm concerned both Google and Facebook have jumped the shark. They're become corporate behemoths, a malaise that seems to come to all companies of a certain age and scale. They've lost focus on providing useful, innovative services for real people. Instead, they're all about "shareholder value". Both are ripe for disruption.

<comment><USER20> I have recently noticed that to my eyes, Google search looks like physical junkmail marketing "Magazines".

Google funnels me to products, services, and affilate marketing blogs, advertisements and their own paid ad placement. To Google, the internet is shopping, and maybe a least-common-denominator social network or two. Garbage.

Google feels like going to the Mall anymore. Super sad, but as you have noticed the silver lining is the fabulous service of duck.com.

If I were paying for google search with a credit card, I would cancel, and then call to stop payment. Too bad they never asked for my money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> First of all, I hope this is just an tiny experiment or better a hoax, and won't be widely adopted. Google deserves constant critique, but they also deserve credit as a company that often promotes the open way first (for example, schema.org as a way anyone can describe their information, which can be ready by anyone).

But if it's not an experiment, I'd start putting my energy into moving away from Google. In the AltaVista era, just before Google, there was a company called Real Names, which wanted to bypass intentional DNS and use searches as direct keywords to domains. Since many people use Google to go to everyday sites, just taking the top result each time, this is in effect what Google would be doing with this change, since one would have to actually go to the site to verify it. Which would be great for ad impressions, but terrible for the consumer experience, IMO way too random for Google to seriously consider it. The next step would be to remove URLs from browsers. But that would be quite a change in direction from good intentions.

<comment><USER22> I think it's more "test with users but keep programmers/power users happy". Old accounts (or maybe accounts they deem to be 'power users'?) still see the green http/s links, and my search for "mortgages" doesn't show the favicons like the reddit suggests.

[https://i.judge.sh/rare/Spoon/chrome_EVGYE1pF7H.png](https://i.judge.sh/rare/Spoon/chrome_EVGYE1pF7H.png)

This happened with the little icons next to the "all/news/images" tabs at the top a few months ago, I didn't see them in my G search but incognito showed them.

<comment><USER23> I tried the same search in both and got the same results (links displayed in both). Maybe you just happened to get into a different A/B bucket when you opened incognito

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> URLs are one of the basic building blocks of the WWW. Again Google is abusing it's practical monopoly as the gateway to the WWW to consolidate the lock-in. Again, as always, the tech aware crowd will make a huge noise, perhaps delay the inevitable, but sooner or later this WILL be implemented all across Google (right now seems specific to Google UK), and again, as always, the billions of ordinary Internet users are going to be slightly surprised, but shrug and get used to the change and move on. And that will help consolidate the change and the tech aware crowd will either grudgingly follow or just stay holed up elsewhere and in either case Google doesn't care.

This is just another manifestation of the corporate/state control and Balkanisation of the Internet that has slowly been taking place. The Internet will pretty soon be entirely subsumed into various the structure of various countries and corporations and there'll be no such thing as the "free web", at least for most users not willing to go through several hoops.

</comment><comment><USER25> The fact that google rewrites the displayed URLs as you click on them to intercept the traffic (and that firefox continues to allow them to do it: [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=229050](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=229050)) is bad enough.

Google's current behavior makes it so you can't copy URLs from search results so your only option is to copy the displayed URL (if it's short enough) ... so of course, they're going to remove the displayed URL.

Copying the search results URLs is something that I need to do almost every day to copy scientific paper urls to people in chat ... usually I can't click the url to get it, because clicking it just launches a PDF viewer.

This single obnoxious bit of user spying behavior that Mozilla continues to facilitate has probably already wasted a full working week of my life.

On the plus (?) side, now that google is removing the one remaining work around I'll likely get stuck using a non-google search regardless of the worse results.

<comment><USER26> Yes, and this behavior is also annoying because it prevents you from copying the real URL directly from the result page. Instead you're getting a rewrited URL that is neither readable or shareable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is so dangerous, imagine how it will be abused for phishing. Now even an expert user can't tell the difference.

</comment><comment><USER28> From the standpoint of Google this is passing the 'grandma test'. They are catering to billions of users, of whom only tiny minority care about the full URL displayed; for most it's unnecessary information. The results look cleaner this way. It also slightly compresses the results so they can probably fit one more above the fold.

The Google way is to reduce complexity for the user as much as possible. This may be in contrast to what most HN users expect from a search engine (transparency and control). Google has been ignoring this segment as most use adblocker anyway so the cost/benefit appears bad, for now.

<comment><USER23> It also shows the favicons, which help people recognize what site they're looking at if they're familiar with them much more quickly than a url can.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Time to remind everyone about searx [0]. It can use google results and you can run your own instance.

[0] [https://searx.me/](https://searx.me/)

[1] [https://github.com/asciimoo/searx](https://github.com/asciimoo/searx)

<comment><USER30> I get this error when i try to search in [https://searx.me/](https://searx.me/) :

        Error! Engines cannot retrieve results.
        google (unexpected crash: CAPTCHA required)
        Please, try again later or find another searx instance.

EDIT: [https://github.com/asciimoo/searx/issues/729](https://github.com/asciimoo/searx/issues/729)

<comment><USER29> Yep that seems to happen sometimes. Here is a list of other public instances.

[https://github.com/asciimoo/searx/wiki/Searx- instances](https://github.com/asciimoo/searx/wiki/Searx-instances)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> They also do open most links in their own google.com wrapper. Time to break them up

<comment><USER32> Which is extremely annoying when it's a pdf or other document that's set to immediately download; it's rather tricky to get the actual URL if you want to share it as it won't ever show up in the address bar.

<comment><USER33> You can usually right-click the file in the downloads panel of the browser and copy its url.

<comment><USER32> Thanks, somehow hadn't discovered that!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm not sure what Google is thinking here, this is an easy win for phishing sites - not just a lifeline but they are going to flourish. It's also a huge win for all the sites that are just mirrors of other sites, and low quality sites like Pinterest that flood google with links that only work in their app (which I thought was against Google's TOS but they have condoned Pinterest for years). the only possible upside I see is that it could deal a bow to domain name speculation - what good is a domain if nobody sees it or has to type it? It's just an dumb indirection mechanism at that point. Though if domains stop being meaningful to humans then that leads right back to phishing and scams. Going to be bad if this isn't a means to an end we're not aware of yet.

<comment><USER35> I don't think it's a secret. Google's been pretty open for a while about the fact that they want to get rid of URLs entirely on the web.[0]

De-emphasizing the URL in search is a necessary step on the path to that end. The less of a role the URL plays in ordinary people's lives, the less that people will understand it, and the more evidence Google will see that it can be de-emphasized in other places, and eventually removed or replaced entirely.

And to a certain extent, I get it. I myself would like to move away from URLs to a DAT-adjacent system. I'm not fond of DNS as it works today. I just think Google's approach to all of this is naive and user-hostile. I think their solution will be worse than the problem.

Proponents of DAT systems are advocating that URLs as we use them today aren't great for a lot of stuff, including protecting against phishing, and we should be more up-front about that and stop aiming for readability in domain names -- in short, don't promise something that we can't guarantee. On the other hand, Google is advocating that there should be centralized authorities that tell you Walmart is Walmart and everything should be highly tied to trademarks and brands. Their position is, "phishing won't be a problem because we'll just get good at blocking phishers." When you search on Google for Walmart, it'll be the first result and you'll click on it and trust Google.

It's a very centralized, brand-first, Capitalist approach to the web, where reliability is tied to being big enough that you can tell potential customers or users to just Google your name.

Sometimes Google does bad things and we theorize that maybe they're trying to change the web; but in this case we don't have to theorize. They're just openly trying to change the web. Google doesn't like URLs.

[0]: [https://www.wired.com/story/google-wants-to-kill-the- url/](https://www.wired.com/story/google-wants-to-kill-the-url/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Remember AOL, anyone? And so, we've come full circle.

<comment><USER37> In my tech circle, almost everyone has switched to another search engine (ddg mostly, startpage, bing), which is quite telling. I noticed as I spot them in a search result page while together, not because they told me. This was an eye opener.

I initially _had_ to because the search itself became unreliable for me (finding technical terms is now a frustration in quoting and checking for "missing from the page: term"), but other search engines (like ddg) are not better in this area. Issues with AMP links though made me permanently switch the default search engine entirely.

I now use google as a backup, reluctantly and in combination with others, exactly how I was using altavista and yahoo eons ago.

I would have never imagined this would happen.

But if I ask _any_ other non-tech person, google is still the only search engine they know (or even don't know) about.

<comment><USER38> I have tried to switch to DDG as my primary a few times now. It works great for basic searches, but I still go to google when I'm troubleshooting something and need answers fast. DDG just isn't there yet in terms of time-to- answer.

<comment><USER37> I'm not 100% happy with DDG either, it just needs to be less frustrating than google on the average, which lowers the bar to competition a lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> A year or two ago I noticed that Youtube links were messed up in the search result so maybe the writing has been on the wall for a real long time.

For instance, if you google [https://www.google.com/search?q=jimmy+eat+world+555](https://www.google.com/search?q=jimmy+eat+world+555) you get a thumbnail with a Youtube URL linking to the actual video but as soon as you right or left click the link it's changed to a google.com link with a lot of parameters. Makes it super frustrating if you want to share a link to the youtube video from the SERP.

<comment><USER40> I tested that and when I right clicked the link was just the raw YouTube link. Also tried in incognito and same result. Interesting.

<comment><USER39> Here's a video of what it looks like on my end [https://streamable.com/rdppj](https://streamable.com/rdppj) (ff, incognito, can't remember if I ever checked it out in Chrome). The status bar shows the updated link as I right or left click on it. I then copy paste the new URL to show it leads to the Youtube link.

Well:

<a href="[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU- TZiVVaTE"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU-TZiVVaTE") onmousedown="return rwt(this,'','','','1','AOvVaw3lnl6zJ37POHhefQnIow95','','2ahUKEwiZ0PDWzMvlAhVDaFAKHQGODhYQyCkwAHoECAkQBQ','','',event)">

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Google just last week announced a drop in profit, so expect more of these types of "optimizations" over the coming months.

Over the past 6 months they've already increased the font size of SERPs, made their ads look even more similar to organic results, and started showing multiple results from the same site in the top 5 results for highly competitive terms. All of these "optimizations" are designed to encourage more ad revenue.

Plus their Google Ads account managers have become hyper aggressive in pushing their keyword and bidding AI, which according to our tests increase costs per conversions.

<comment><USER42> But isn't Google going to realize that there isn't such a thing as infinite growth?

I get that they got used to tremendous growth in the early days. But it has to stop at some point. Same is true for the economy (we "fix" that with inflation). And they're probably going to be split up before they reach the theoritical maximum.

Couldn't they just be nice neighbors and not squeeze the last drop of milk out of us.

I'd wager that the drop in productivity caused by Google, Facebook and the advertisement-based business model that they encourage dwarfs their revenue by several orders of magnitude.

<comment><USER43> > But isn't Google going to realize that there isn't such a thing as infinite > growth?

Google (and other corps) will realize that when stock market will stop demanding infinite growh and not a cent sooner. Leaderships don't get paid in user happiness, they get rewarded by stock value. And stock market demands infinite unbounded growth for all eternity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Gooogle quarterly earnings follow each other:

\- Ads look like valid search results

\- Ads are on top, right, bottom in desktop, on maps too

\- URLs disappear

\- The address bar shortens the history, and search is the only way out

\- Less advanced search options

Rife for disruption.

</comment><comment><USER45> I've noticed that if you change your user-agent to something really old and turn off JS, you can still get more "normal" looking results, complete with the option to view the cached page right there, but I'm not sure how long that will last...

Also don't forget that not too long ago, Google decided to start hiding pieces of URLs and convincing the web standards groups to make that a standard:

[https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google- chrome-h...](https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-chrome-hides- www-and-https-in-the-address-bar-again/)

(In that article there's a very visible email address of a product manager at Google responsible for this, be sure to let her know your thoughts...)

I think that's just more proof that "web standards" aren't necessarily good for the user, especially if they're controlled by anti-user corporations. It's not unlike what's happening with open-source too: "we can do all these horrible things to oppress you, but it's open-source so you can see exactly what we do to you."

<comment><USER46> That's a little different. You often don't see the full URL on a phone because the text box isn't big enough, so it gets cut off. When the browser doesn't have space to show the whole thing, displaying the most security-relevant part (the domain name) makes more sense than blindly truncating the end off it, even though doing it the dumb way is how we're used to text fields working.

Designing for small screens is tricky. You can still get the whole URL easily.

You could send email but it's just going to come off as badly informed, unless you show that you understand what they're trying to do and still disagree.

<comment><USER45> The article talks about the desktop version specifically. A phone is a little different, I agree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> One of the issues that many don't realize is that if google removes the domain it opens it up for more phishing attempts.

If users don't see the domain then they may see a similar site and click on it. But it's not the official site.

</comment><comment><USER48> I have tweeted about this a couple of weeks ago. No answer from Google, but then again I don't have much of a following. I hope this attention turns their decision around.

I noticed this particularly badly when I tried to Google a product. I was after reviews but without the links it is impossible to tell whether a result leads to a review, a shop, a forum or whatever. It was surprising to me how much information is encoded in a URL. I analyzed it subconsciously all the time. It only became obvious once it was missing.

</comment><comment><USER49> Is this only being done for some users, or what? Do you have to have a Google account and be logged in? Not seeing this.

(I have an old Firefox and Chrome add-on, "Ad Limiter", which puts ratings on links based on finding the business behind the site and looking it up. As a side effect, if you mouse over its colored checkmarks, you get a "dog tag" with info about the site, including the domain. So that's an available workaround, if needed.)

<comment><USER50> It's been happening to me for a few months. It's what prompted me to finally move over to DDG

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> That was then: [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7503641/Sergey...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7503641/Sergey- Brin-My-upbringing-in-USSR-helped-shape-Googles-views-on-China.html)

And this is now. Do no evil my a$$ Mr. Sergey Brin. Hypocrite is your middle name. Yeah, yeah I know, it is all big bad shareholders

</comment><comment><USER52> Can I ask HN for help. Almost have my dad switched off chrome but he keeps heading back to use the built in voice search. Last I checked it wasn't built into Firefox. Is there a privacy minded voice search assistance he can use. We don't even mind paying for a program. Just insure what to use that will also be better then google in terms of privacy. Thanks

</comment><comment><USER53> It's not a haox folks. It just so happens that my Chrome user is not in the A/B test, but my firefox user is. Here are the two versions I see on two different browsers. Chrome shows URLs while firefox doesn't [https://imgur.com/a/TX49AZu](https://imgur.com/a/TX49AZu)

</comment><comment><USER54> I'm also seeing no URLs. Here is the same Google search in Firefox and Chromium as a logged in user. With firefox it shows the URLs and with Chromium it doesn't : [https://i.imgur.com/Ko8niRF.png](https://i.imgur.com/Ko8niRF.png)

</comment><comment><USER55> I just checked Google search with Chrome and Firefox in Debian, and both still show URLs for actual search results. But not for ads.

So I wonder if Google plans to drop URLs from actual search results. And if they do, whether using Startpage, or DDG with the Google option, would still show them.

<comment><USER56> The test groups are separated on account level. I get old Google whenever I log out.

<comment><USER55> Thanks.

I have no Google accounts.

That seems odd. You'd think that having an account would provide _better_ service.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Just waiting for iOS to include a 'bypass AMP' setting.

<comment><USER58> You can use 3D Touch / Haptic Touch for that in Safari.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Well, this isn't happening when I use Google, but:

1\. I use ad-blocking (e.g. uBlock Origin + EFF Privacy Badger), so all those ads go away. Maybe the actual search results are simply under a pile of commercial junk?

2\. I try to use DuckDuckGo rather than Google.

</comment><comment><USER60> Between amp results, and google masquerading as other domains, the url field was dishonest anyway. Welcome to google s walled garden. Please verify your site so we know who we are banning.

Google. It's got electrolytes (tm)

</comment><comment><USER61> Sometimes when using Google News it looks like the news site has loaded, but the browser still displays the Google URL. Does anyone know what is going on? It's obnoxious when I want to send the link to someone but I only have access to the Google URL.

Example URL: [https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEMVJWO7QqMIc4YUoEkX9LZM...](https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEMVJWO7QqMIc4YUoEkX9LZMqFwgEKg8IACoHCAowjuuKAzCWrzww9oEY?hl=en- US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen)

</comment><comment><USER62> What I find more worrying are all the anecdotes of people trying to blacklist Google and then not being able to browse the Web because of Captcha, login, and other weird tracking.

</comment><comment><USER63> I switched to Ecosia a while ago and most of my searches return relatively solid results. For the ones that don't, you can type a #g at the end of your search term to continue to use google. They claim to not maintain search history profiles, they still have URLs, and they implement more search features regularly from what Ive seen. Not as private as DDG, but its definitely a step in the right direction. Oh and they plant a tree for every 40 searches or so.

<comment><USER64> Ecosia is nice, but I find their privacy claims to be a little misleading. They forward searches to Bing alongside your IP address and are not in control of what Bing stores. DDG uses Bing as well, but does not send your IP there.

"For example, when you do a search on Ecosia we forward the following information to our partner, Bing: IP address, user agent string, search term, and some settings like your country and language setting."

Although it does claim that bing anonymizes the data after 4 days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> This is how the mobile version of Google behaves, is it not?

<comment><USER60> I see an icon and address above the title on mobile

<comment><USER66> Are you sure? Sometimes the title of a page is the url (or they use the url when the title is missing?). I see titles mostly.

<comment><USER60> This is the style of results i m seeing in mobile: [https://i.imgur.com/eDZjQlW.png](https://i.imgur.com/eDZjQlW.png)

I guess it s different for everyone

<comment><USER65> I can't remember the last time mobile searches displayed the URL, it has looked like this for me: [https://i.imgur.com/mPQk9wf.png](https://i.imgur.com/mPQk9wf.png)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> When I noticed this happen to my account, I thought 'this is it'. We survived (sort of) the adpocalypse - time for the urlpocalypse?

</comment><comment><USER68> Agreeing with this redditor—this is almost certainly an automated A/B test - [https://www.reddit.com/r/bigseo/comments/def9gg/google_are_r...](https://www.reddit.com/r/bigseo/comments/def9gg/google_are_removing_urls_entirely_from_the_search/f2z65py/)

</comment><comment><USER69> Query: Good search tools in addition to ddg.gg

I really hate no URL results. I search and obtain URLs all the time. Google is ruined for me.

<comment><USER70> Today I used a couple of times "Qwant" (no clue what it means and no clue why "lite"): [https://lite.qwant.com](https://lite.qwant.com)

They were always technical searches. In all cases the first result was perfect, but the highlighting of the searched keywords in the result never worked too well so far)

<comment><USER69> Thanks

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> At SerpApi.com, we've noticed this new format for a while. And the bad news is the trend seems to accelerate. :/

</comment><comment><USER72> Echoing everyone else: this is the shove I needed to finally swap to DDG full time.

Bonus I just discovered: by setting DDG as my search provider in Firefox, I can now go directly to wikipedia articles or google images from FF's search toolbar - just have to prepend the appropriate bang... quite handy!

</comment><comment><USER73> I am upset every time I see that interface. It makes it so much more difficult to identify fake/spam websites.

</comment><comment><USER74> Don't like it but there is an up side - the main links now seem to point directly to the destination, instead of google's tracking servers.

So you can see the real address in your browser's hint, at least until lets- be-evil point the link to their trackers.

<comment><USER75> The links have _ostensibly_ pointed to the destination for quite some time, at least for me. The current techniques they use for tracking clicks do not require otherwise. They just use pings[1] where supported, and a JS mouse-down event to switch the destination when clicking elsewhere.

[1] [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/a#...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/a#ping)

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> Another small change that diminishes the utility of the site, and makes it harder for me to sift through the junk content that increasingly makes it to the top of the pile. I think this has convinced me to start using Duck Duck Go as my search provider.

</comment><comment><USER77> Left gmail just over a year ago which was the biggest anchor holding me to Google. Appears this was what was needed to get me over to duckduckgo on search. Results have been fine for everything I've searched in the last hour.

<comment><USER78> What was your process for leaving Google? I'm on Android, have a GMail account and so on. If you want to leave where do you start?

<comment><USER42> Not the parent, and you might consider me biased/extremist, but it might give you ideas: I've been moving to a self-hosted (yunohost for now) solution on a re-purposed computer. Unfortunately, this isn't for everyone. This covers mail, cloud (with nextcloud: calendar, contacts, pictures), and many others.

On Android, I mostly use F-droid, as I find apps there are of better quality anyways. The only other apps left on my phone are for banking and transportation, plus maybe a few select services.

I will likely move over to a pinephone when they are available. I can't wait to have a serviceable phone, both hardware and software.

The self-hosted way maybe isn't for everyone, but if every person that does it offers access to family and friends, it wouldn't take that many hosts... and there are commercial/nonprofit orgs that provide some hosting options.

I do not self-host a search engine, though (searx didn't work well, and isn't really a search engine). It took me a few weeks to get used to ddg, but I find it very hard to use Google nowadays, as I got used to bangs, instant answers, the way to enter search terms, etc. I actually use my old (ca. 2010) Google- fu, which works well, but not on Google anymore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> Probably ads. On some search words the entire first page will be filled with ads.

</comment><comment><USER80> I'm very curious what (if any) user testing resulted in this change, because I really don't like the sound of it. Domain is a lot of how I try to judge the quality of a result.

</comment><comment><USER81> is there a greasemonkey/tampermonkey script to fix this?

</comment><comment><USER82> Anyone know of a good replacement for Google recaptcha?

<comment><USER83> This thread digs into the notion that you probably don't need a solution as comprehensive as reCaptcha: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20158386](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20158386)

And the article suggests some alternatives towards the end.

<comment><USER82> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment> amiga-workbench Are they going to try and pull a bait and switch on the web with AMP and hope that the normies are too dumb to notice?

</comment><comment><USER84> The title seems a bit misleading, Google do experiments like this all the time.

Of course, should this change be permanent, we would have to be worried, but stating that it is already the case is not true.

PS: here is one example: [https://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2018/03/23/google-zero- se...](https://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2018/03/23/google-zero-search- results)

<comment><USER9> Even as an experiment it is terribly misguided and that something like this would make it into the production environment _as an experiment_ is a clear sign that they are actually considering rolling something like this out to the GP.

<comment><USER84> I totally agree, I just think that "Google is currently experimenting removing URLs entirely from the search" would have been a more honest title.

<comment><USER9> It's probably that for that user that's what it looks like and then you combine that with HN's original title policy. It's not 100% perfect but it works most of the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> Phishers gonna love this. Now you see a search result and can't even know what site that actually is.

</comment><comment><USER64> I am seeing this on Google Chrome on my phone, but not on firefox on my desktop (both incognito and not)

</comment><comment><USER86> if they keep the url, users might remember it and go there directly next time, skipping Google.

</comment><comment><USER69> Well, that $17k to give up Google question just got devalued.

Nobody needs URLs removed, except Google.

</comment><comment><USER87> I've used Yahoo for search since basically forever. My understanding is its backed by Bing these days. It's really not bad. Don't understand why everyone sticks to google other than marketing and momentum.

<comment><USER88> You'll probably hand over your search data to Verizon then. Why not use e.g. DDG (or Searx as mentioned elsewhere in this thread):

> DuckDuckGo's results are a compilation of "over 400" sources, including > Yahoo! Search BOSS, Wolfram Alpha, Bing, Yandex, its own Web crawler (the > DuckDuckBot) and others.

> DuckDuckGo positions itself as a search engine that puts privacy first and > as such it does not store IP addresses, does not log user information, and > uses cookies only when required.

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

<comment><USER87> Not something I'm particularly concerned about to be honest.

My main point is that there are several completely adequate replacements for google, DuckDuckGo being one of them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> I remember reading a thread about this move a while ago

</comment><comment><USER90> It's a move that even sheeple won't like

</comment><comment><USER91> This maybe the straw that'll break the camel's back.

I'm each day more pissed off with AMP. It's taken over the web to such degree that it became essentially a first barrier to whatever content I'm accessing.

The experience is so terrible that I refuse to use it, so there goes another tap reload to access the real thing.

And sometimes the site refuses me. For whatever reason, I get stuck on a poorly implemented Google paywall even though I'm a paying customer of the site.

And now this. Wrapping the original URL on search results wasn't enough it seems.

Add that to Gmail's general suckiness and I can see them bleeding the advanced users that got them where they are pretty fast.

</comment><comment><USER92> Good thing Bing is no longer shit.

</comment><comment><USER93> reminds me of when google made their ads match the formatting of the actual search results.

fu google.

</comment><comment><USER94> Maybe an A/B test?

<comment><USER95> I don't see how this is relevant.

Even if it was an ab test, we know that Google is looking to remove url structures from search results.

<comment><USER96> It doesn't tell you that. For example, it could be an experiment to learn how much weight users put on the URL in choosing between results.

(Disclosure: I work at Google, but I don't work in Search and don't know anything specific here)

<comment><USER9> It could be. But I would put my money on this being what it actually looks like: a way to test the waters on what kind of effect dropping visible URLs in results would have.

And if you work at Google, wouldn't you want to know? Maybe ask the search team and report back what you find, I'm really curious.

<comment><USER96> While I could look things up internally, if I did I couldn't post back here about it, sorry!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER97> So, no longer a search service, but a proxy service with built in search?

<comment><USER9> On top of a CAN. "Content Appropriation Network", something a bit like a CDN only you get to lose your audience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER98> I observed this with amused, scornful yet despondent cynicism when it rolled out for me a couple of months ago. (I'm in AU.)

It doesn't work. At all. (TL;DR click the links at the bottom, or keep reading and be prepared to reattach your jaw.)

In an age of technical illiteracy from both young people and old, Google has made phishing campaigns a million times easier.

I have no contacts inside Google, but I would (still) put decent money on the chances being 1000% that a very large security stink was raised about this internally... to apparently no avail. So I'm fascinated to see where this goes, security debacle, bathwater and all.

YouTube universally shows "[https://www.youtube.com](https://www.youtube.com) › watch".

This site consists entirely of the One True Path™ "[https://news.ycombinator.com](https://news.ycombinator.com) › item".

Google Books, similarly, stocks hundreds of millions of one particular title, "[https://books.google.com](https://books.google.com) › books".

GitHub often shows up as "[https://github.com](https://github.com) › ..." or "[https://github.com](https://github.com) › projectname" (yes, I'm not kidding, the repo author is elided from the URL). Looking forward to seeing how spammers take advantage of this.

Best of all was the one time I clicked something that _downloaded a file_ (it had Content-Disposition: attachment set). Oh, because it was an .mbox file; that makes sense... except the filename and extension were completely elided from the URL, so the random download was quite the violation of the principle of least surprise.

Shortly after the file download event, I decided to get in touch with Google to politely sort of go "what gives" in case anything interesting or insightful came of the resulting conversation. The Product Forums is basically "cat /dev/pitchforks > /dev/null" so I didn't want to get stampeded to death in there, and the various feedback options on the site feel like a surreal merging of /dev/urandom and /dev/zero so I was distinctly uncertain about pursuing those options either. So I decided to try [https://issuetracker.google.com/](https://issuetracker.google.com/).

Well, I can report that this little-known corner of Google, mostly used to track Android issues, is very topically focused and simply doesn't have the forwarding infrastructure (ahem, or policy) to handle anything else. At least the human at the other end was nice about it.

I took a screenshot of the thread I created (which only I can view), and put it up at [https://imgur.com/a/K443Tkp](https://imgur.com/a/K443Tkp).

While writing this post, I also decided to properly memorialize this insanity and added screenshots of all the examples in the bugreport to the above album. (Besides the small screenshot of LWN, all were taken today.)

Since PNGs aren't very clipboard-friendly, here's a copy-paste (expires: never) of my submission: [https://pastebin.com/ksBEEG91](https://pastebin.com/ksBEEG91)

NB. Don't thrash against the New Way. It ensures your job security as a security consultant. And earmarks you as Elite, And To Be Watched Out For, or something. I don't know.

(Oh, and I took all the screenshots using super-sized Xvnc. Chrome's devtools' full-page screenshot function doesn't work at all with the issue tracker UI.)

(And I don't live anywhere near Hurstville. May GeoIP forever remain hand- wavily inaccurate!)

</comment><comment><USER99> So, $AAPL AND RE-Branded $YHOO IS USING $IBM's WATSON FOR M2M2BM2M and you're letting them drink down on your suction-economies data every minute of the day if you run any app I.WEATHER.

</comment><comment><USER100> Google run hundreds of A/B tests. The chances of this ever being rolled more widely out are slim to none.

Terribly misleading headline.

<comment><USER3> This was sent to production. Obviously someone thinks about deploying this change. This is precisely the time for pushback - before Google does this - <USER2> tell Google their A/B result is a very big fail.

Also, to get some people to try alternatives, because even if this isn't deployed, Google's anti-user direction seems clear enough.

<comment><USER100> >Obviously someone thinks about deploying this change.

They could be testing this for any number of reasons. Maybe they're trying to learn something specific rather than change how the product works long-term.

The linked post is from a month ago and there's been no evidence of this test being scaled up.

Besides, it's still a misleading title.

<comment><USER3> "They could be testing this for any number of reasons."

Are they testing how to get maximum outrage from HN!? I kid.

I think the suspicious attitude is justified given Google's recent history; and it's better to make our opinion clear before Google does something stupid.

As for "a month ago", some other people in the thread also see this, so I guess Google is still "testing" it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER101> How are computer scientists and software engineers at Google okay with this? This type of change, on top of the very sketchy AMP stuff, seriously makes me question the ethics of those who work at Google.

This seems like an obvious "no, that's a bad idea" to anyone who isn't malicious.</comment>


Fix this stupid fucking issue already - <AUTHOR> http://martijnbrekelmans.com/fix.html <comment><USER2> Isn't Dropbox or similar programs a solution for this issue? You don't have to do anything after installation, it works cross-device, and you have the history.

It doesn't have the "my phone is the server" feature, but neither does it have the never-requested "I just dropped my server in the toilet" feature.

<comment><USER3> How else are you supposed to flush the cache?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Using the phone as a permanent store is an interesting concept. I'm excited to see tools like ipfs, Camlistore and others emerging in this space, because this is a problem I have too :).

Syncthing ([https://syncthing.net/](https://syncthing.net/)) is neat, but lacks support for iOS.

</comment><comment><USER5> wait, wait.. You want to use your phone as your portable home directory?

Does anyone else see why this is a potentially horrible idea?

</comment><comment><USER6> how many shitloads in a fuckton? i forget

<comment><USER7> Let's see here.

* 1 shitload = 1.68 shitslugs

* 68.5 shitslugs = 1 fuckton

So, there are about 40.77 shitloads in a fuckton.

Just don't ask me to convert to metric shitloads, that gets hairy.

<comment><USER8> > Just don't ask me to convert to metric shitloads, that gets hairy.

You should never mix hairy and shitloads. That one fuckton of clagnuts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Sounds simple, you should do it!

:)

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't. I don't have the discipline to finish anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Er.... Gulp tasks & local hosted Git?

<comment><AUTHOR> This fixes nothing.

> I don't want to make a fucking github repo to sync everything

> The learning experience here is that people DO OR CAN NOT ALWAYS BACKUP. > Even seasoned people can be in a hurry sometimes.

With that I meant, do not always have the time. It should be fully transparent, no setup required.

<comment><USER11> He said he doesn't want a github repo. A local git repo is one "git init" away. That's easier to do than getting a remote file system mounted. Pushing and pulling from local computers is also dead simple (do people really not have ssh set up?).

<comment><USER12> It sounds easy, but try doing that across my Ubuntu laptop, Windows desktop, Android phone, and iPad. Not going to happen. I mean, do you set up a scheduled task to commit and pull every 5 mins? What happens when you get conflicts? Can you even do that on an iPad?

The closest I've gotten to this nirvana is setting up OwnCloud on my own server, as a personal Dropbox. Can access it locally, or remotely over my VPN

<comment><USER13> could git annex assistant, it does all that for you.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Today a programmer was born. And you are my mother. - <AUTHOR> Today, I join your ranks. I am starting as the lowest of the low, but no one can take that my position from me.
I got a B+ in C++ in 2003. I read Why's Poignant Comic Book in 2005. I've followed web startups for years, and even played a business role in 2 of them. But it wasn't until 4:58am today, after a long night with fellow coders who helped carry me over the hill, that I wrest to myself the glory it is to be a programmer.
Proof?
I wrote a crappy program to help my friend Greg figure which trains are coming next at one of his Metro stops. Behold the breathtaking majesty: http://blazing-galaxy-7821.herokuapp.com/ If you figure out how it works, the FBI will add you to their potential X-Men shortlist.
And I'm on Github. Yeah, that's right. The Github. I have committed something: https://github.com/israelvicars/Over-The-Hump
I don't know what you think it takes to become a programmer. I don't care either. Most of you have forgotten more code after last night's bender then I've learned ever. But there are OTHERS who like me stared at the beginner computer manuals from O'Reilly. Stared and read and then got stuck. And stayed stuck.
I've been getting stuck on my own for years. YEARS, with a capital "Y am I a failure?"
My stack of programming books didn't get me there. They are still on my bookshelf. My top-billing university engineering education couldn't cut it. It gave me context but then left me at the alter. No, my friends. It took you. And your counter-parts sitting in this office with me tonight.
The programming community lifted this stray sheep out of the vast sea of Almost.
Thank you for your insightful comments and occasional threats here on HN. Thank you for bragging about that grossly complex web app you built over the weekend while I napped and played frisbee. Thank you to my mostly younger but way smarter programming compadres at the Code til Dawn Meetup I started in January to meet programmers in my community. Thank you especially to my buddy "exid3" for walking me through the endless bumps in the road that stood between me launching this app tonight and another evening of plodding through a tutorial.
And to those who wallow still in the sea of Almost, surround yourself with members of the programmer community. Set the right goal and don't give up. It may take years for you too. But damn it feels good to be a coder. <comment><USER2> You don't know it yet, but you're a ruby programmer. I don't mean "you'll use ruby possibly", I mean that is the community that you will understand and that will understand you. Don't ask me how I can tell, reading your posting it is obvious.

I hope you continue to have as much fun and continue to get orgasmic pleasure at every tiny milestone.

UNSUBSCRIBE

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for that encouragement.

At my startup, our application is built in python and django. I originally wrote the function in python, but my buddy knew ruby/rails better and he could help me deploy it easier that way so I rewrote it in ruby.

I think ruby is fun and the community is very inviting. I'd like to keep doing python and ruby together as I learn, ruby because it's interesting and rails is really something. And python because it will make me a better contributor to my team and I know it has more recognition in academia (for my later pursuits).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> 10+ years since my first 'Hello, world!' (in VB, bleugh) and I still feel like an imposter doing this. You have a long, mind-expanding, incredibly frustrating and deeply rewarding road ahead. Good luck!

<comment><USER4> This will never stop I think. Whenever I do a project and find out that I am really good at something in comparison to others on the team I soon read an article by Yehuda Katz about how he just released a few new libraries that were merged into rails core in his spare time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> You might want to make an actual readme for GitHub instead of posting the default Rails one!

Plus your overthehump link is broken (at the top of the GitHub page).

Neat, congratulations, this looks really useful. There's probably a startup in here somewhere if you could get bus and train times for a cohesive group of country-wide city and metro areas.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Fixing that link sounds like a tangible next step for improving my "mini-app". I think I'll take it farther just because, like making it work for a couple more stops and setting up a better time input.

<comment><USER5> I really like that it's instant and super lightweight. Those are valuable traits.

You might want to consider carefully how you change the time input. What you have now is the minimum possible input to specify a 24 hour range. You might want to take input like 115, 10 20, and put effort into parsing any input, rather than fixing the input at something that involves, say entering a colon (shifted character and harder to input on a phone), which might look more professional, but is actually a giant step backwards!

<comment><USER6> You could go with a traditional time selector ([http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActionView/Helpers/DateHe...](http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActionView/Helpers/DateHelper.html#method- i-select_time)), but I like the single box for typing in the time. Might be able to parse more things with a library like Chronic (best name for a gem ever - <http://chronic.rubyforge.org/>).

Congrats buddy!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I'll look into that. Improving the output formatting is my easiest next step. Then the input, so I'll check out that library. You're a pal.

<comment><USER5> For people that are just 'starting out' and also people that just want to keep their hand in, it's really a good idea to practice writing small pieces of intricate code like tokenizers, string processing etc., rather than just selecting the closest library to hand.

Obviously, if you're writing code commercially, you may want either complete control over some code (write it), or you may want it now (use a lib), so writing all your own code may be an impossible luxury.

Here's a small example snippet I just did. I've been doing software since 1988, but often just gluing (MFC) api's together, and not doing stuff that really benefits me as much as it might. Anyways, here's a gist that implements a 'good enough to use' version of an iOS 4.0-only api as a category on NSData, allowing string searching of arbitrary data:

<https://gist.github.com/1238869>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I kinda had a feeling, that you should have written it in Ruby On Rails before opening the link, seems I'm right.

Good Luck for your coding and other endeavors.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you. There are practical reasons for me to learn python and django, but I'm finding RoR to be very accessible now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've been a programmer for about 11 years. I've been doing it professionally for about 6. The fact that you're writing code because you want to makes you a programmer, not whether you're doing it professionally or whether you're any good at it (yet).

Welcome to the ranks. I always value one more person in this field that is driven to build something of quality.

</comment><comment><USER9> Finding passion is winning.

<comment><AUTHOR> Using gerunds is winning!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Every worthwhile project you will do, you will learn something new. That's true for even those of us who have over 10 years of experience. Adapt or die - always true in the IT industry :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. While there was almost too many new things while being handheld through the process--writing my function to setting up rails and git, building a simple app around the function, committing it to git hub and deploying it to Heroku--I now have a sense for each of those steps, and I feel more confident to try each again on my own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Rad! I dig your positive energy. You will go far with that.

I agree with what you said about the community. I am constantly amazed at the amount of work and help people put out there for free.

<comment><AUTHOR> I tried to guess how much it would have cost to pay my friends at their properly hourly rate for the help they freely gave... Yeah, too rich for my blood :) But I gladly accept programming charity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> So I surmise you must be in St. Louis. Hope to see you around at one of the many various nerd meetups around town.

<comment><AUTHOR> Totally, come on out! We've been growing. There were about 15 of us last night. 6 stayed until sunrise. It's been a great investment of my time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Glad I could help you Israel! :)

</comment><comment><USER14> I like your attitude. Congrats.

</comment><comment><USER15> Welcome to the club Israel! Always nice to see it when another programmer is born!

</comment><comment><USER16> Hey, congratulations. I'm also in St. Louis so I joined your meetup group.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, Brian. It's been a great experience, and I'm glad for anyone who wants to share in that experience too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Feels good, doesn't it.

</comment><comment><USER18> I don't quite get your app but congratulations anyway

</comment><comment><USER19> Excellent! Now go forth and MUL, ADD, & JMP.

</comment><comment><USER20> wow, 10 hours later this post is on Google's index: [http://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&i...](http://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Whys+Poignant+Comic+Book)

I remember times when it took weeks before the index is refreshed.

</comment><comment><USER21> Welcome to the family!</comment>


On the Hunt for Hackers, but Not the Spotlight - <AUTHOR> http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/on-the-hunt-for-hackers-but-not-the-spotlight/

<comment><USER2> I find the most interesting thing about these articles, what they don't actually say. Most of this article was a black box that just said "we can't talk about the methods."

But the last sentence would make a much more interesting expose. Why does he "have serious personal safety issues"? What are these issues? Etc. etc. That's an article I'd like to read about.

</comment><comment><USER3> A peice in the New York Times is not by any means avoiding the spotlight. Is anyone familiar with bis work or care to comment on his "cloak and dagger" methods?

<comment><USER4> To be fair, he declined to comment. Although, the piece does feel a little like advertising.</comment></comment>


Shave with Olive Oil to Save Money and Get Smoother Skin - <AUTHOR> http://www.chrisinch.com/blog/articles/show/why-i-shave-with-olive-oil/ <comment><USER2> _Olive oil_

a) has the ability to permanently ruin clothes

b) is expensive (don't kid yourself, the very cheap stuff is not all olive oil)

c) takes more time to clean up

d) has the potential to clog drain pipes

e) isn't something normally found in the bathroom, and as such requires a container that needs to be refilled

 _Shaving cream_

a) takes time

b) is over-dispensed by most people

c) is something else to buy

d) takes time to clean up

e) has mess potential

f) costs money

I use water or shave dry, cheaper and has worked for 20 years.

<comment><USER3> I've tried dozens of shave creams and IMHO Taylor's of Old Bond Street is excellent and one of the best when used with a badger hair brush. Unlike aerosol foam shave cream, you can take all the leftover cream on left on the brush and "squeegee" it off back into the pot to reuse again. Only the shave cream that goes on your face and comes off with your razor (preferably a double edge safety razor (with Feather razors) or straight razor for the closest shave).

If you ever get razor bumps, a DE safety razor is the best way to shave. You'll rarely get them again.

Besides Taylors of Old Bond Street, Proraso is also really good stuff and on the cheap end of the options out there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "You Don't Say? – That's common knowledge.

 _1\. Shave after a hot bath or use a hot towel (to open pores, for flexible hair)_

 _2\. After shaving, clean with cold water (to close pores and reduce irritation)_

 _3\. Apply some drops of thistle oil or non water-resistant sun lotion (15)_

Thistle oil has no smell, is less acidic on the skin and has more healthy fats. You can also use it to make your shoes shine. I use virgin and cold extracted Coconot or Thiste oil as replacement for butter too. Having 1-2 Tablespoon of oil every morning is healthy and helps to burn fat. Contrary to what most believe, fat is healthy and helps men to keep their hormone levels table, for those who lift it helps to increase the testosterone levels. Alternatively use sun lotion, but be careful with sun lotion, the 15+ cremes contain Bisphenol A, Parabenes etc. some even cause allergies or increase irritation. However when you find a brand that works for you, it makes your skin appear younger due to the reduced UV penetration and the included oils. Just avoid sun lotion sprays they have worse quality.

</comment><comment><USER5> My skin has always had issues with shaving creams. The creams for sensitive skin don't case as much dryness and irritation, but shaving oils have worked the best so far. They also work better for me when I use my straight razor. If I could grow a solid patch of facial hair, I'm sure the clear oils would make shaving clean lines easier too.

</comment><comment><USER6> I shave in the shower using nothing but water.

I will report back to you if something goes wrong but so far so good. It's been five years.

</comment><comment><USER7> Great post. Bathroom hacks FTW. I hate the smell of olive oil. I personally use unscented coconut oil as a leave in conditioner. I also mix a little of it into my lotion in the winter for extra skin-softening power.

<comment><USER8> Olive oil smell always reminds me of spaghetti. Maybe just because I always use it when cooking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I tried this 5 mins ago. It is surprisingly quick, like the article said, comparing to the shaving cream method. In the comments are suggestions on how to get a better glide like using glycerin or using alternate oils. I guess in a few days I'll know if my skin will react badly to this or not.

</comment><comment><USER10> ...or hair conditioner.</comment>


Silicon Valley Lies and Those Who Tell Them - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/02/silicon-valley-lies-and-the-ones-that-tell-them/ <comment><USER2> Yes don't be a jerk. I mean why to be one? When we respect our team members they respect us too, from core of their heart. If you're a jerk, chances are your team may pretend that they respect you and your opinion and wait for them to leave your startup and see how bad mouth marketing they gonna do about you.

Great leaders are great humans. We have to be a good human before becoming a good leader.

</comment><comment><USER3> Leaders are humans, not god. They have their weaknesses. When we want to ask for something special from the great leaders, we need to tolerate their special tempers. They can change the world because they have an unique way of thinking that we cannot understand.

Of course, being a jerk does not make you a good leader.</comment>


Awesome way to read fashion blogs - <AUTHOR> http://queen.li

<comment><USER2> If only there is a way to register using an email address. This would help businesses to upload their items/offers.</comment>


Online Shoppers Are Rooting for the Little Guy - Not Amazon - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/business/some-shoppers-rebel-against-giant-web-retailers.html

<comment><USER2> Unfortunately I think this will only always be a small percentage of shoppers. The lowest overall price + convenience trumps all for most people. This is why WalMart is so big, low prices. It is a great thing to support local businesses, but I think for the majority of online shoppers unless they can beat or match the price + convenience + speed of large online retailers they are not going to be looked at as a viable alternative.</comment>


The JavaScript Year - <AUTHOR> http://kerryritter.com/the-javascript-year/ <comment><USER2> It helps if you don't buy in to a giant framework. If you do, you end up saddled with all the bad ideas that were in circulation whenever it was released, as this post points out. My team has been using roughly the same setup for over a year now - not because we hate it and are stuck with it but because we like it.

Also, most everything we write presents an external interface of either an EventEmitter or a stream, which are well-understood Node concepts. (You might argue streams could stand to be a bit better-understood... fair enough.) Then the implementation details can change and it doesn't matter because everyone knows how to listen to an EE or pipe into a stream.

Keep it simple!</comment>


Brave Browser is taking the web by storm - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/brave-browser-is-taking-the-web-by-storm-e6fb6dcadf92 <comment><USER2> I've tried it out. I would like to see better support for proxy .pac files. The chromium flags are ignored. There was a thread on github that suggested by 1.0 they may support local .pac files. That is a requirement for me.</comment>


The neglected benefits of the commute - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180806-the-neglected-benefits-of-the-commute <comment><USER2> Those are some nice benefits, but a commute is still mostly a waste.

I did the infamous SF to Mountain View commute on "The Google Bus" for two years. It's about as decent as a 1.5hr commute can be, you're on a quiet private bus with big seats and WiFi.

I spent about 80% of the time reading novels. With a few hours to myself a day I was reading a book a week no problem. In that sense it was nice.

Then I got moved to the SF office. My commute turned into a 20m bike or subway. Quality of life went through the roof. My girlfriend told me I seemed happier all day. I could still read in my saved time, but I was also free to spend that time on other things. I also get to spend a lot more time with my friends since I'm available to meet up after work on short notice.

Having this experience, I wouldn't go back to the commute even for a 20% raise. It's that bad.

<comment><USER3> I'll chime in with the opposite experience. My wife and I went from short commutes when we lived in D.C. (5 minutes for her, 15 minutes for me), to a hour-and-fifteen minute commute from Annapolis to D.C. each day. We found we were much happier with the commute. Being parents, the extra time at home was diverted to chores and child care. The commute, by contrast, gave us time to ourselves to chat.

<comment><USER4> But the commute isn't the thing that absolved you from those responsibilities. I suppose you either stopped doing them or outsourced them, which you could have also done in your commuteless life.

<comment><USER5> Work expands to fill time.

<comment><USER6> Only if you let it - with some exceptions of course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I live in London and a few years ago I used to commute from east to west (Ealing to Liverpool Street). The trip is normally 45 minutes each way on the Central Line, however I would regularly miss out on a seat and be subjected to a cattle-class sweat box that just put me in a foul mood for the rest of the day.

However, being Ealing, I also had the option of taking the District Line to rougly the same place (Tower Bridge). My journery was now 1hr 15m, however with the DL's spacious air-conditioned carriages and guaranteed seat, it was well worth it. It put me in the best state of mind and allowed me to use my laptop to work on my own projects. In 6 months of 2hrs to myself each day, I wrote medistudents.com and still was able to relax at the end of the day and not let software development impact home life. Without the commute and this opportunity to work on my own things, I would have either never found the time for a side project, or p*ssed off my girlfriend for spending all night on the laptop.

Nowadays I either work from home or commute by car. It's just not the same - either from looking at the same 4 walls every day, or regarding time spent in traffic as a complete waste. And my time on my own projects has now essentially reduced to zero.

So if you commute by a comfortable bus or train, spend your time wisely. Definitely don't waste it playing Candy Crush. Take advantage of it for working on a side project, learning something new, or just self-reflection.

<comment><USER8> I had a similar experience when working in Australia. There was a lot of space for me to pull out my laptop and do some work.

When I moved to Europe (London, then Berlin) the trains were too small and too crowded - Also they usually have seats facing other seats which is distracting. Not private enough for me to concentrate.

<comment><USER9> Curious which train service are you referring to in Australia?

<comment><USER8> Sydney.

<comment><USER9> Was this a while ago? You're unlikely to get a seat on peak services these days. Even if you do I find them too cramped for actually working.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The best commute I ever had was a 45m walk from the upper east side of Manhattan to midtown, through Central Park. I did it every day for two years in all weathers. What a wonderful way to see change each day, mark the seasons, feel connected to something approaching nature, and to gear up for and wind down from work. It isn't strictly productive but it is incredibly good for mental health.

<comment><USER11> When I lived in the city I did this same walk, and I've never been happier going into work in the morning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The commute is a driver for one thing in this scenario: discipline.

You have no choice but to commute, so you either slog through it or use the time constructively.

As a 100% remote worker, I have no commute to motivate me to fill that time. But I can get up early and go running, visit the gym, read, prepare for work, do a side project etc during the exact time slot I would have been travelling to/from an office.

I don't miss that time spent commuting at all but sometimes I miss the enforced discipline it provides. If I'm not feeling motivated then that time just gets eaten up by sleeping late etc. Having an external motivator like commuting means you can't be lazy.

<comment><USER13> Agreed. When I am optimizing to minimize time spent driving, I have to be very disciplined with when I wake up, when I leave for work, and when I leave work. It's definitely an effort, but worth it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I find it massively depends on the commute. Previously, I often had to travel to visit my SO which was an hour away by train. As I almost always had a seat I could watch Coursera videos on my phone.

However, I have a 20-30 minute bus ride to work everyday in which there are never free seats and you are often lucky if you even have room to reach into your pocket let alone watch videos on your phone.

It's hard to see any benefit to the latter commute as being rammed in like cattle doesn't aid self-reflection either.

<comment><USER15> Yeah I've done public transport, car and cycle. I far prefer the latter, which doesn't make me fat and stressed the way driving a car or squeezing into an overfilled train does. (Well except for those moments when someone is trying to kill us, but you get used to those I guess...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm doing a compulsory end of studies internship in a big IT company in France, now I live in the other side of the paris area, and I refused many internships because they didn't allow remote work.

So I started with this company and asked for remote work for 3 days a week and they accepted, but when I started they sent my supervisor to work on a different project and the new one refused any form of remote work, and it was too late to change since it's a long process between the company and the school etc...

So now I do 2x2h of commute a day, and most of it is standing in a train or a subway filled with people, I tried every form of entertainment or podcasts or videos but nothing does it, I only have 1 month left though but it was the most soul crushing experience of my life.

The irony in all of this is I'm a developper and their VPN works flawlessly and I'm the only one working on the project so there are at most one meeting a week and it's done over Skype since most employees work remotely, but not interns. I now believe that there are no actual benefits to commute (as in big city commute with subways etc...) and they're the ones losing manhours, since I could have put those 4h a day working on the project.

<comment><USER17> Sorry, they screwed you. Insist on your 3 days a week, tell your new supervisor to get their head checked. You really want to waste 4h a day? Check the "REMOTE" keyword on 1st September @ HN and work on your escape already.

<comment><USER16> I only have one month left, plus it's a huge company and they can be really rigid, so I talked to HR but she said since the interview wasn't written or recorded then they can't do anything haha, plus she said interns get to learn so much more coming to the site than they would working from home, which is total bulls*it since they give you assignement and you do them, you're basically an employee who can't work remote and gets paid a fraction of what an employee does.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> You're NEVER going to convince me that you're gaining any benefits over being five minutes from my house. Home to eat lunch, and take a nap in silence is worth more than any perk on this planet. I pity you all with hellish travel.

<comment><USER19> Five minutes is too short. Ten to fifteen is ideal. That usually means you're living and working in different neighborhoods.

<comment><USER18> Until Winter in the Northeast hits, and commute times multiply by 4x. Five is perfect yo.

<comment><USER20> I pity you all with hellish winters.

Sorry, could not resist. I envy your commute (I used to do that, now I do mountain view -> SF)

<comment><USER18> Seasons are everything, I couldn't do the 70 degrees and sunny west coast climate every day of my life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> As a child I used to commute to the school in an overcrowded public bus of late Soviet Union type. And overcrowded meant that one had to literally squeeze oneself into the bus. As it was often impossible even to look at the window as that was covered in frost the only thing that I could do was to either observe clothes of other people or listen to what people say around. One often realized that if friends or couple are loudly talking about something interesting, then the whole bus was silent trying to listen despite the noise of the engine. On many occasions the stories or talks were so fascinating or weird that it was disappointing to leave the bus.

</comment><comment><USER22> I think the ideal distance is probably like 15 to 30 minutes. Enough to make "work" and "home" different places and not feel like you never get away from work, but not enough to resent all the time you're frittering away listening to imbeciles chattering away on the train while you try to read.

<comment><USER23> When I go to the office, my commute is currently ~30 minutes. It is definitely right on the edge of being too long.

My main problem with a commute is not that it's 30 minutes, but that it's 30 minutes _by car_. I despise driving. It seems like such a complete waste of time in general. Plus, it's dangerous dealing with a bunch of idiots on their phones. /rant over

<comment><USER24> It's funny, because I specifically didn't want to live too close to the office for the exact opposite reason - I like driving, and living within walking distance would mean that I don't get to drive every day.

<comment><USER22> I enjoy driving... but driving during rush-hour?

<comment><USER25> Not everyone who lives in a city lives in one that is massively over populated relative to its transportation infrastructure.

<comment><USER22> Even if you do not live in a major city it is often miserable to, for instance, use the interstate. Previous major infrastructure attempts to eliminate congestion have happened in, for instance, Los Angeles... try going for a drive there at 5:00 in the afternoon and see how much you enjoy it.

<comment><USER25> I didn't say "major city", I said "one that is massively over populated relative to its transportation infrastructure" (which just so happens to include most cities that most people would consider major cities). Most medium cities are nowhere near that bad. The person I was replying to said "cities". Not "major cities that many people on the internet assume everyone who lives in a city lives in".

<comment><USER22> Unless you're quite familiar with New England you've never heard of the cities I've lived in. Nevertheless, driving still sucked. I really don't see that "people have heard of the city" has much to do with it.

<comment><USER25> I'm saying that big "brand name" cities that everyone has heard of are a clusterfuck with regard to traffic (and whatever public transit they have is equally bad). Many of the medium and small cities that compose a large amount of the population don't have this problem. Except for the state capitals, Worcester, New Haven and maybe a couple others you'd be hard pressed to be in traffic for more than 30min in Southern New England unless your commute involves the same routes in the same directions as the commuter traffic from those cities. For example, if you left work at 5pm in Lowell or Fall River traffic conditions on your way to wherever you're going would be fine by 5:30. In northern New England the only way to be stuck in traffic is to travel on a Friday or Sunday afternoon in the summer in which case the roads will be full of Massholes but one could make the argument that you're really just in Boston traffic in that case. Maybe if you get out of work in Marlboro and need to take the highway in the same direction as all the Boston traffic you could be in traffic for more than 30min but once again I'd argue that you're really just sitting in Boston traffic.

<comment><USER22> Yeah unfortunately some dumbass built all the roads so they go through multiple cities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I live in London and have a 1 hour commute by tube. I read even if I have to stand in a sweaty, crowded space. It helps with distracting me from the horrors of the journey.

It also means I get ~10 hours reading done a week, which has come to ~50 books/year for the last few years.

I read mostly non-fiction and usually they are textbooks on varied subjects (often not related to work). I feel this has vastly improved my understanding of the world and has meant I can talk to people about many various subjects, ones I would know almost nothing about otherwise.

<comment><USER27> > I feel this has vastly improved my understanding of the world and has meant > I can talk to people about many various subjects, ones I would know almost > nothing about otherwise.

Inspiring! I often feel uneducated so would love to get in a similar position.

OT but any books you recommend?

<comment><USER28> Haha, definitely stick to books on topics you like, feeling uneducated does not mean you are. And if you just want to feel educated, trust me, it might never come because the more you know the more you understand that you know very little. I think it is the hallmark of the educated mind to feel a bit uneducated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The article points out measurable health benefits from having to walk a little to and from bus and metro stops. They totally neglected talking about the advantages of commuting by bicycle though.

It would take a lot to make me switch to a job that I would not be able to reach in half an hour or so on a bike.

<comment><USER30> I thought this. As a cyclist, I actually find cycling to work generally very beneficial. Though, now I am a cyclist I think I'd also be reluctant to take a job which I either a) couldn't cycle to, or b) couldn't cycle to within a reasonable time (e.g. 30 minutes as you said).

My switch a few years back has been almost universally positive, though I do read less as a result.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Years ago I worked within walking distance to the office. It took only 10 minutes to walk there. I hated it. You spend all day and night in the same neighbourhood. At lunch I went to the same places I would go to at the weekends. Life just felt so repetitive, seeing the same things every day. Today I drive 15-20 minutes to the other end of the town, with just moderate traffic, and for me that's perfect. Less stressful than public transportation, and more variety than in the old office.

<comment><USER32> See, I like that sort of distance. 10 minute walk? Yes please. I'll walk up to 30 minutes to work and back and be fairly happy, though with the upper limits I'm more likely to take a bus or drive on really cold days or days with heavy rain, especially if there is also wind. With these distances, taking the bus usually means I leave at the same time anyway.

I have more free time that doesn't concentrate on work this way, which means I have more time for hobbies (I draw and paint). Plus bonus physical activity.

<comment><USER33> My favorite commute ever was when it took me 30 minutes to walk to work. Most of that mile and a half was in the Skyway, so even in winter it was pleasant.

As a result, I lost 40 pounds.

Now that I don't do that walk anymore, I've gained half of that back.

<comment><USER32> I've always rather enjoyed 20-30 minute walking commutes. So long as I dress correctly, winter is usually not a big issue.

I had some weight loss at first, but I do gain a bit when I stop doing so much walking. I know I should just get out and walk anyway, but walking is so boring when I don't have somewhere to go.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> saiya-jin I recall some article mentioning people get used to most positive or negative things in their lives, and after some time level back to their original base level of happiness.

There are 2 exceptions - positive one being a good pet with feedback (ie dog, or maybe even cat), and negative being longer commute. It just drains our positive energy, one bit at a time, continuously.

I used to commute to work 70-90 minutes each way with many types of transport (usually bus-train-tram but sometimes more), every day. I didn't come home drained from work, that I can handle easily, but commute was soul crushing, no matter what I read/did (and mostly I could have a seat).

Eventually enough was enough, I moved to the city where work is, and having 15 minute commute saves me freakin' 2+ hours of my life, every single work day. You can't put the price on that. And the move was positive change in my life for other reasons as well.

Many people around me tell me they can handle long commutes, but they don't appear to be very happy in their lives. Honestly, if you can, do a change in your life. You won't regret it.

<comment><USER34> For most of my 20s, I lived ~35 miles north of the city and drove to/from work. I self-reported/self-convinced that I enjoyed it most times and "didn't mind it" most other times. It made socializing, playing sports, and going out more difficult.

I then moved smack into the city, had a walking commute to work for many years, and absolutely loved that.

Now, my commute is 8 miles (each way) driving and while I'd prefer a walkable commute, I definitely can't imagine going back to driving 75 miles per day.

I think "can handle" is the best description I could use for a long commute. You can, but try not to...

<comment><USER35> >I think "can handle" is the best description I could use for a long commute. You can, but try not to...

I concur.

In my experience there is a phenomenon (in driving generically, not necessarily in driving for commuting), that I believe is connected to the fact that kms/miles driven "add up".

For me this happened on or around the 1,000,000 kms mark.

I know it sounds obvious/a truism but after one has driven for a (large) amount of kms in his/her life, he/she has "enough" of that.

The 10/15/20 kms/minutes remain "ok", but longer commutes start to be "annoying".

I am now living at a 8 km (please read as 8 minutes) drive away from work, and it is just fine, when I have to go to the nearby city (35-40 km away), and I have to do that 1 or 2 times per week, I try to avoid the car and take the train if I can.

Longish trips (200-300 or more) kms are still OK (because they are not common), but I wouldn't stand the daily commute for 40 kms.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If a commute takes longer than 10 minutes, it's a complete waste of time. One can try to find a "hidden pearl" there and bend arguments why it can be beneficial for improving discipline etc., nevertheless, those virtues could be achieved more efficiently without commuting while saving the most precious resource - time.

<comment><USER36> Working itself wastes time so much more than the commute, so it's better to free oneself from that altogether. Have all that time for yourself instead.

Just drop a couple of mil * to stock market and live off the dividends.

*) Not an option for most people, I know. But so is commuteless life.

<comment><USER17> I meant it the way that it's better to accept that commuting is a net negative for many reasons instead of trying to put a lipstick on a pig and spin it in a positive way. Necessary evil, most of the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> In a sprawling US city with poor mass transit, I don't see how sitting in traffic solo in my car along with thousands of others is helping anybody's health.

I'll take the time and money savings of working from home any day. By a very conservative estimate, commuting to work used up about 12 full days of my life every year.

</comment><comment><USER38> I drive about 1.5-2 hours a day and I'd like to think there are benefits for my eyes as well. My eyes get to experience all sorts of depths and colors that aren't possible while coding or playing games or TV. Kind of like a muscle, use it or lose it. I'd like to see a study done about commuters and eyesight

<comment><USER22> I mean, you could just go outside independent of your commute

<comment><USER38> I could but I probably wouldn't since most of my hobbies are digital

<comment><USER22> Yeah, I get what you're saying. I probably wouldn't read as many books if I didn't take the train to work. But does that make it worthwhile to suffer through every morning? Tough call.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> murph-almighty My commute lasts anywhere from 1.5-2hours (NJ-NY). While I respect that this article found that Taiwanese commuters who used public transport tend to be slimmer than those who use cars, I personally find that spending 3-4 hours a day commuting interferes with my ability to actually get in physical exercise that would allow me to be slimmer in the first place!

I don't dispute the accelerated learning bit- I've recently started taking out my laptop and trying to learn Go while commuting and it's been mostly productive. I had to block reddit on my phone first though...

</comment><comment><USER39> I live in CA and often comute on my motrcycle. It's a joy - carpool lanes, lane spliting, and a motorcycle I like. About 15 mins by motorcycle and could easily be 40 by car (because of carpool lanes and lane splitting, not speed)

<comment><USER40> We are the 1%... :-)

Specifically, I do this in Melbourne, Australia where it's free and legal to park a motorcycle on the pavement (aka sidewalk). A 2012 study found that we make up almost exactly 1% of all commuters: [http://atrf.info/papers/2013/2013_rose_delbosc.pdf](http://atrf.info/papers/2013/2013_rose_delbosc.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I've commuted long distances (over an hour each way) by train and car for nearly two decades. When driving I try to get through my podcast backlog mainly on technical things, but also now more general stuff. Sometimes I miss the ability to bring the laptop out and do something fun, but then I remember when I did train in, I ended up working most of the time, and it became an extra two hours of work per day. Like all things, it's down to self-discipline I suppose.

<comment><USER42> _it became an extra two hours of work per day_

I have a friend of mine who commutes an hour+ by train each day and he has basically agreed with his boss that if he works on the train he can leave earlier/show up later.

<comment><USER41> I've had similar arrangements too, it's nice when it's an available option.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> "In the UK, for instance, he calculates that a 10% increase in the use of public transport could result in 1.2 million more people reaching the recommended levels of physical activity."

I suspect that's partly because our public transport has been utterly decimated to the point that you have to walk several miles a day to get to work.

Unless you live somewhere like London, I suppose.

<comment><USER44> Hardly! if the daily level of physical activity is 30 minutes exercise per day, then this is only 7.5 minutes walking each end of the commute.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I commute around 25 minutes by bike or public transit. Biking nets me daily exercise, and on the bus I can read the news or a book.

Would I rather avoid the commute and have a job within walking distance if possible? Hell yeah! I'd much rather spend my commuting time at home doing something interesting.

</comment><comment><USER46> I have to commute, but not for long, about 20 minutes by subway and some about 20-25 minutes of walking to and from subway. There're some small buses riding back and forth from and to the subway stations as well, but I deliberately walk, because nowadays you really don't get to walk much as long as you don't do it on purpose.

And the subway ride - that's one of the sparse opportunities to read a book. Though, 20 minutes is not a very long while for reading, but still. Earlier the ride would take me 30-35 minutes – even more time for reading! That's what allows to me to read a lot. Relatively a lot, of course. If I was driving a car or walking all the way I wouldn't have read even half of that amount, that's for sure.

So, for me, I believe, commute is definitely a useful thing, I'd say.

</comment><comment><USER47> These are not benefits of the commute.

To use the examples from the article "Accelerated learning" is really not the benefit of a commute but doing "work-related prospection" (whatever that is).

</comment><comment><USER48> It's not always possible, but commuting by bicycle is great. Burning extra calories and listening to audio books (continuous learning) make the commute a productive time for me.

<comment><USER49> I also bike commute full time (even through Boston winters) and love it. I know I couldn't bike to music safely though. Are audiobooks different? Can you still hear approaching cars etc.? Or do you have an unusually safe route?

<comment><USER48> Ah! Almost my entire ~5 mile (each way) is on bike paths. But audiobooks are definitely different than music. Much easier to hear around as there's only a single person speaking instead of various continuous channels.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I had a 70 minute commute each way for a couple years but I joined a carpool, the type where you call a number posted on the freeway.

The psychological benefits of carpooling with people otherwise unrelated were, for me, surprisingly high. On the way to work we'd discuss the day ahead, on the way back recap stuff or talk about our plans for the night or weekend.

I don't want to go back to long car commutes but would happily sign up for a carpool again if needed.

<comment><USER51> What did you do if a project required you to stay late that day?

<comment><USER50> Generally that just wasn't an option. I cleared it with my manager and there were only a couple of times that I can remember where we had either a customer visit or total crunch time and I'd drive myself on days where I wasn't the DD. This was in the early 90s so remote internet login wasn't even possible and we didn't have laptops either, sounds hard to believe even to myself now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> The benefits drop precipitously after the 15 or 20min mark. A 10-20min walking or biking commute is good. 30min of driving in traffic is not.

<comment><USER53> > 30min of driving in traffic is not.

Unless you like to drive, or in my case, _love_ to drive. I.e., it's subjective.

<comment><USER54> I love driving.

I absolutely hate driving in traffic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Somehow I have the feeling that all the pros agains remote work are either only cons in disguise (you miss the water-cooler-talk -> we don't bother to set up a process) or stuff people simply don't manage to do on their own (meet people, excercise)

I know people who commute over 3h a day, that makes multiple weeks a year just being "in transit"...

</comment><comment><USER56> Honestly, if it takes a commute for you to get these benefits, you're doing life wrong...

If you're somehow in a situation where you _have to_ commute, you can certainly make the best of it. But, let's not exalt it as some sort of healthy, zen, practice.

</comment><comment><USER57> My commute often leaves me feeling exhausted & annoyed (2 hours each way, half on the train)

The main positive thing that came from this commute was reading for pleasure (somthing I was not doing beforehand)

I don't try to max productivity on the commute, and my mental health thanks me for that

<comment><USER58> That's half a work day spent in commute man ... why?

<comment><USER57> Less than half, i spend 9 to 10 hours at the office, and I'm saving towards a house (extra cash from cheaper rent)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I work from an office right around my home. I suppose I don't have to commute, but in practice I go for am ambling walk around the nearby park every morning before work. I find I work veterans this way, even if I have less time.

</comment><comment><USER60> I'm mostly remote, but when I do commute it's podcasts / work-related non- fiction on the way in, and "attitude adjustment hour" music or audiobooks (usually fiction) for pleasure, on the way home.

</comment><comment><USER61> A job I had took 7 minutes from leaving the apartment to sitting on the seat at work.

One of the benefits was being able to go home and take a nap at lunch time.

</comment><comment><USER62> I don't miss my commute by a long shot (Niagara to Toronto) all day, every day... about 2H on a good day each way during rush hours.</comment>


One line of code into music - <AUTHOR> http://createdigitalmusic.com/2011/10/one-line-of-code-into-music-now-with-visuals/#comment-1229463

<comment><USER2> Nitpicking, but the URL posted is to a comment in the blog-post. Here is the actual url

[http://createdigitalmusic.com/2011/10/one-line-of-code- into-...](http://createdigitalmusic.com/2011/10/one-line-of-code-into-music- now-with-visuals/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> More info at: [http://createdigitalmusic.com/2011/10/entire-musical- composi...](http://createdigitalmusic.com/2011/10/entire-musical-compositions- made-from-just-one-line-of-code-are-glitchy-but-musical/)

Somehow I never realized it was that easy to just pipe audio to /dev/audio (or aplay for ubuntu).</comment>


Instagram Limits Photo Integration as Facebook Challenges Twitter - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-05/facebook-s-instagram-limits-twitter-photo-integration

<comment><USER2> No surprise here, Facebook didn't buy Instagram for their crappy image filters.</comment>