A Call for a Low-Carb Diet - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 <comment><USER3> It'd be nice to have this squared with research in vegetarianism (high-carb, low-fat) which long term studies indicate has a number of health benefits [1]

My own take, which I've mentioned before, is that the the starting point is so bad (refined carbohydrates) that you can pretty much walk in any direction and get positive results. That is, what people are eating doesn't matter nearly as much as what people aren't. Or, more specifically, any diet will make people pay attention to what they're eating, and that's the real win.

[1] [http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/3/516s.full](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/3/516s.full)

<comment><USER4> Refined carbohydrates are not a problem. Sugar, potatoes, properly prepared white flour, and white rice are excellent food choices. In fact they are superior choices to foods like whole grains and beans, which tend to have allergens and antinutrients like phytic acid and trypsin inhibitors.

Anyway, any apparent epidemiological advantages to avoiding animal products in the industrialized world come down to two things. 1) The meat is mostly garbage; you have to consider only grass fed. 2) People are eating large amounts of muscle meat to the exclusion of the organ meats and connective tissue. This results in a chronic excess of tryptophan and a major deficiency of glycine. Iron overload is also a problem with eating too much muscle meat. A diet of steaks and chicken breasts without eating the rest of the animals is totally unnatural.

Dairy doesn't have these problems of low quality meat and too much muscle meat. Vegetarian with high dairy intake is an excellent nutritional choice.

<comment><USER5> _Sugar, potatoes, properly prepared white flour, and white rice are excellent food choices._

All mentioned, except probably potatoes, have very low nutrient density (also called "empty calories"). That alone makes them horrible food choices, even not considering the effects on metabolism.

Potatoes are ok though, I was surprised to find out that they contain complete protein. There were also some studies that recorded benefits from "potato diet".

<comment><USER6> Sugar and white rice are on that list and you single out potatoes?

Nutritiondata.self.com has a "completeness score" of 57/100 for potatoes, but only 27/100 for white rice (long grain), and a 0/100 for sugar (which is nothing but empty calories). FWIW, wheat flour is listed as 33/100 so potatoes are the top of the whole list.

Edit: for comparison, Kale (raw) has a "completeness score" of 85/100 and Spinach (cooked) has a 93/100.

<comment><USER5> _Sugar and white rice are on that list and you single out potatoes?_

Yes, sorry - I singled out potatoes as a decent food, while the others are truly horrible.

<comment><USER6> Gotcha, Sorry for jumping to a conclusion then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I know this is just anecdotal coincidence (and not really that interesting to most people other than myself) but today when I weighed myself I had my ideal body weight for the first time in my life. This is after following a low carb diet for six months and losing 50 pounds... so throw another vote in the "yes, low carb seems to be effective" bucket. The findings in this article are certainly music to my ears.

(Here is the version I followed [http://fourhourworkweek.com/2007/04/06/how- to-lose-20-lbs-of...](http://fourhourworkweek.com/2007/04/06/how-to- lose-20-lbs-of-fat-in-30-days-without-doing-any-exercise/))

<comment><USER8> This is very interesting to me! I had quite an argument / discussion about this only 2 days ago with my father. He calls it the "Slow Carb" diet and tried to get me to go on it. I had a look around and found that this is the invention of just 1 man with seemingly not much backing evidence out there. My argument was how can I follow the diet of 1 man, even if it is effective (anecdotally)? I think I used an argument that if I came out with a "water and beans diet" it would probably be effective but without supporting evidence how safe would it be long term?

I still stand by this, in the sense that I would love to see if there is more "proof" out there, even anecdotal is good if in sufficient quantity.

<comment><USER7> Oh, I don't think Tim Ferris' diet is anything special, it's just one of many ketogenic/paleo diets that probably all work about the same. I just liked his version because his grocery list & preparation steps are practical for my own routine. Additionally, I have a hunch the focus on eating similar meals over and over again is a valuable psychological trick to help you keep your portions modest (because it forces your brain to focus more on the sustenance aspect of food, not the enjoyment element)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Diet" is a subject that I've studied for most of my life, and I'm no youngster.

The same arguments about dietary composition have been going on for at least 150 years. There may be many opinions but for my part, I'd rather listen to the scientific evidence.

I was medical director of an obesity treatment clinic for many years. The low carbohydrate (CHO), optimal protein intake diet was often effective for weight loss and was not associated with bad effects. We felt compelled to closely track indicators of potential adverse effects but none were apparent.

There were good effects, e.g., type 2 diabetics had reduced insulin requirements, in some it was decreased to none. Other metabolic conditions, hypertension, dyslipidemias, etc., improved as well.

The science surrounding diet, metabolic disease, obesity and related things is indeed very complex. However as I see it, research into human evolution sheds light on what the optimum diet would be.

There's evidence that human hunter-gatherers were taller, stronger, healthier than their agricultural descendants. The idea is consuming a diet closer to that of pre-agricultural humans would better meet our physiological requirements.

Pre-agriculture diet had more high-quality protein (animal sources), less fat, with an omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids ratio approximating 1:1, and low in saturated fat. Importantly, the intake of simple sugars was much lower that it is today.

On average, in the ancient human diet it's estimated that protein intake accounted for about 35% of calories, fat ~20%, and the rest ~45% from CHO. Of course, diets varied widely. These averages suggest a direction to take to improve health rather than absolute prescriptions to be followed rigidly.

So I guess everyone is partly right. Ideally, get more protein, less saturated fat, more omega-3, less omega-6 (seed oils), and moderate the CHO intake, especially sugar in all forms.

Sorry to say this, but our remote ancestors were conspicuous meat eaters, never natural vegetarians, though vegetables (leaves, stems, roots) were an important part of the human diet.

And BTW exercise was a constant component of primordial human lifestyle; we might do well to emulate that as well.

<comment><USER10> And yet some of the healthiest people on earth eat vegetable heavy diets...

The archaeological record shows that hunter-gatherers had an abysmally short lifespan, and were far from healthy... Pretty much every positive development in human health history happened after the advent of agriculture. Hunter gatherers were lucky to live past 30...

I'd guess your 'low carb' diet still had more vegetables and grains than most hunter gatherers had access to...

<comment><USER9> True enough, life span was often short until fairly recent times. In the distant past there were many factors affecting life span, e.g., diseases, accidents, predation (by large feline species in particular), childbirth to name a few.

However there is evidence of populations in pre-agricultural times which had favorable environments and consequently better health.

In fact there was just published by the Smithsonian an interesting article describing findings in the 9000 year old Kennewick Man specimen. Of particular interest was a comment about the condition of the teeth: all intact, no cavities attributed to low CHO diet. Age at time of death was estimated to be 40 years old. Not bad for 9000 years ago.

BTW I'd appreciate references you have to the differences in pre- and early post-agricultural health in human populations. Isolating dietary effects on health is difficult to be sure and a subject I'm always eager to learn more about.

As far as my diet is concerned, vegetables are emphasized, especially the green, leafy kind. (Foods that are relatively high in protein, low in CHO.) I recommend, and practice myself, reducing grains to a minimum.

As you no doubt know, protein, certain fats, a bunch of minerals and vitamins are essential to humans because we can't synthesize certain molecules--we must get them in our diet. Curiously, there is no essential carbohydrate. Our bodies can produce all the CHO it needs from non-CHO sources.

That's not to say CHO intake is not useful, and it is useful as a source of calories. In the past when calories were expensive, less costly CHO sources of calories were valuable, in essence to prevent starvation. In the current era when calories are extremely cheap, high CHO intake is positively dangerous-- it's easy to consume a surplus of calories.

Interestingly, the data shows over the last 30 years there has been very little change in dietary fat intake in the USA, but sugars have increased dramatically. The rise in obesity has been attributed to inclusion of sugars in manufactured foods. The idea of decreasing dietary CHO intake, especially sugars, is logical.

Gluten and corn intolerance is common according to reports. Wheat, corn and many other grain products are grass seeds. Grass and its seeds are frequently allergenic to humans, which supports the idea humans are not native grass eaters, hence the advice to minimize it.

<comment><USER11> No, not true - life span has always been long (ish), but life EXPECTANCY has been low due to infant mortality.

<comment><USER12> Depends what do you mean by long-ish. It's possible that life span in 10 000 B.C. was 50 and in 1500 A.C. was 70.*

*Aristocrats and other people that had high protein intake, security etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This study adds nothing new to the debate:

> "To my knowledge, this is one of the first long-term trials that's given > these diets without calorie restrictions," said Dariush Mozaffarian, the > dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts > University, who was not involved in the new study. "It shows that in a free- > living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on > calories. And that's really important because someone can change what they > eat more easily than trying to cut down on their calories."

It doesn't actually control for calories so basically the study shows us that a diet that's low in carbs can help people eat fewer calories while still feeling full. That's important, but nothing we don't already know.

The health benefits are completely confounded by the lack of caloric control and control for weight loss: losing weight simply makes people less disease prone no matter the contents of the diet.

<comment><USER14> The lack of caloric control is key to this study - any diet which restricts caloric intake, long term, will be self-defeating. Allowing people to eat as much as they want, but simply choosing from a particular food group, is one key to long term success.

Another big part of this - an apparently non-biased researcher (presumably they don't run a food supplement business) - has suggested that eating _fats_ of all things does not necessarily lead towards heart disease.

I think that's going to be a wake up call.

It also, in my mind, emphasizes that the bulk of "Nutritionists" for the last 50 years have been a bunch of cargo-cult practicing members of the mob - <USER2> it makes you wonder what other so-called-scientific disciplines are behaving in a like manner.

<comment><USER13> > The lack of caloric control is key to this study - any diet which restricts > caloric intake, long term, will be self-defeating. Allowing people to eat as > much as they want, but simply choosing from a particular food group, is one > key to long term success.

Sure, I guess to me whether or not high fat diets have higher satiety is just not interesting - it's a settled issue and it's obvious to me.

> Another big part of this - an apparently non-biased researcher (presumably > they don't run a food supplement business) - has suggested that eating fats > of all things does not necessarily lead towards heart disease.

Right, but with similar weight it suggested eating less calories helps prevent heart disease. This study doesn't answer the question of whether or not diet composition affected heart disease.

> It also, in my mind, emphasizes that the bulk of "Nutritionists" for the > last 50 years have been a bunch of cargo-cult practicing members of the mob > - and it makes you wonder what other so-called-scientific disciplines are > behaving in a like manner.

Let's not get dramatic. Don't forget that people are significantly less active than they were 50 years ago, and that just because low carb diets happen to be in fashion right now doesn't mean they are right for everyone. That being said, I agree, the diet/nutrition industry is a joke, and most people could do a lot worse than cut carbs out of their diet.

<comment><USER14> What annoys me, is how _certain_ the vast majority of nutritionists were, despite the lack of clear scientific trials, that dietary fat would lead to heart disease.

Seriously - how difficult would it have been to do a couple-hundred person trial for a year or so to get some confirmation? And yet, billions of dollars (10s of billions?) of policy and dietary guidance were based on this poorly supported theory.

<comment><USER13> Yeah but think about the data they had. They didn't have massive fast food and snack food industries that were primarily carb based, and so people who overate overate fats much more frequently than they do now.

The certainty you dislike is the same certainty I react against with the low carb movement.

We are only certain of two things:

1) Having less fat on your body is healthier (to an extent) and will help prevent things like heart disease, diabetes etc.

2) If you have too much fat lowering caloric consumption will make you burn it.

Anything else is speculation.

> Seriously - how difficult would it have been to do a couple-hundred person > trial for a year or so to get some confirmation? And yet, billions of > dollars (10s of billions?) of policy and dietary guidance were based on this > poorly supported theory.

Really difficult, actually. And doing it without pissing off a major industry is impossible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> For anyone who has access to the paper ([http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694](http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694)) and is skilled in reading medical research papers, I would love to know if they account for snacking. When I briefly tried a low-carb diet (just out of curiosity, not to lose weight as I'm already quite healthy) I found that I was unable to snack because almost all snack foods are loaded with carbs. I can only eat so much beef jerky before I get sick of it, and couldn't find any snack food that fit the diet that was also appealing.

On my normal omnivorous diet I snack when I feel hungry, usually opting for trail mix, toast (from bread I bake), or a piece of fruit (sometimes chips, but not often). Since none of my available snacks were acceptable on the diet I just opted for drinking coffee and a big glass of water when I felt a little hungry between meals. As a result, I ended up losing a few pounds over a few weeks.

I'm curious if the same thing happened with the participants on the low carb diet. Did they lose weight and become healthier because none of their snacks fit the diet, so they ended up not snacking?

<comment><USER16> Its weird that this pops up on HN because I have been trying a low carb diet for the last 2.5 weeks (with quite a bit of success). I have run into the same issue as you in regards to snacking. The best snack I found was flavored almonds. They are about 4 carbs an ounce and come in a bunch of flavors (coconut is my favorite).

I have had a huge sweet tooth my whole life but I find the thing that I crave the most is fruit (I know fruit is sweet but not like ice-cream and candy). I've always ate a ton of apples and now that I can't I am craving them like crazy. Also, no bread is really hard, especially since good whole wheat bread seems so healthy and is so satisfying, and it limits your options for most meals like pizza and sandwiches.

I hear a lot of knee-jerk reactions about the diet saying how it must be awesome to just eat steak, chicken, etc. all the time, but it gets real old real fast. Without bread/buns, bbq source, and common high carb toppings, it become really repetitive. Cheeseburgers are amazing but they are a hell of a lot less appealing with no bun, onions, tomato, or ketchup.

All this being said I do not see keto or whatever you want to call it as a long term diet/lifestyle for me. I have been convinced that I used to eat way too many carbs, but I think I just need to balance my meals more and do some portion control. Eating no more than like 20 carbs a day is really hard and for me it affects the quality of my life too much. But, I totally understand that there are people out there where this diet is basically the only thing that works for them, so I think it's awesome that more people are at least trying it.

<comment><USER17> > Cheeseburgers are amazing but they are a hell of a lot less appealing with > no bun, onions, tomato, or ketchup

This is true, but honestly the only one of those you really need to cut out is the bun. The onions and tomato add up to 2-3g of carbs, and the ketchup is another 4g, so the whole burger in a lettuce wrap would be 6-7g of carbs, not at all bad for a meal! For reference, I use myfitnesspal to keep track of my food consumption and to research carb/calorie counts.

> Eating no more than like 20 carbs a day is really hard and for me it affects > the quality of my life too much

Would 50g be more sustainable? Or 100g? From what I've seen, the 20g limit is mostly an introductory phase. 50g is still a huge reduction from what most people consume on a daily basis.

<comment><USER18> Agreed. The 20g limit is not sustainable long-term. Even 50g can be hard or impossible (from a health perspective) for some people to sustain. Diets are not really all-or-nothing -- check out marksdailyapple.com for a more flexible approach to low-ish carb eating.

Playing with carb intake can be very educational: while low-carb diets benefit a lot of people, different folks have different needs. Your athletic pursuits, sex, pregnancy status, thyroid health, etc, are all really important to consider.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> To bad it's environmentally unsustainable. There's no way our ecosystem can survive all of us eating eggs, tuna, and chicken all day. We need to consume less animal products not more. Low carb is fine for a few wealthy people who want to lose weight but it's not a responsible solution to the public health problem.

What about a low-junk food diet? No cqlorie restrictions but no refined carbs? I don't think we need ti discourage people from eating whole grains and beans.

<comment><USER20> Low carb doesn't necessarily mean more animal products. It can mean that you replace the carbs with nuts and veggies, so that you are getting more of your calories from protein and healthy fats.

<comment><USER21> 100 calories of nuts or broccoli costs a whole lot more than 100 calories of bread or rice, and this is reflective of the greater agricultural demands of pretty much everything else versus bread and rice.

<comment><USER22> Even rice is a substantial improvement in glycemic index over refined wheat and sugars. If it does turn out that empty carbs are a major public health problem, there are incremental improvements that can be made all over the world regardless of poverty.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Admittedly with little research I tried out a low-carb (more like no-carb) diet (of my own invention). I ate pretty much only meat and green leafy vegetables. I was ravenous all throughout. I remember eating large amounts of meat and still feeling like I was starving.

It was hard to concentrate on pre-exam days because I was so hungry.

<comment><USER24> Weight loss is psychological, so if you feel like shit the diet is not good at all and not working for you. If you can't keep your motivation up all the rest is completely worthless.

What I did and still successfully do is calorie restriction (that made me feel crappy for about a month or so, but now I don't feel crappy most of the time) combined with lots of experimenting around and cooking of different foods to see what makes me feel happy and full.

(Non deep-fried) potatoes, salad, white meat (turkey, chicken) and (garlic) butter do it for me personally. Meals with those ingredients will make me feel full. Sometimes I still go for pasta and pizza (my favourite foods), but my desire to feel full automatically seems to override that by now. Maybe pasta and pizza is something I will go for once a week or, but no more.

Maybe it's different for you. Just try different things. Also, it takes some time to get used to a new diet, especially if you eat less calories. It took a month or so for me. Maybe also try being active? I found that being active – going on a long walk, driving the bike – gets completely rid of my hunger for some weird reason.

In the end I'm just guessing – but dieting is all about how you feel. That's the most important thing. You have to stay motivated, otherwise it just doesn't work. So keep that in mind.

<comment><USER23> To be honest, it wasn't a weight loss thing. I was just curious. But you know, grad school doesn't really let you survive on 1.5 kg of meat a day (plus other food).

Thanks for the advice, though. I've gone and gained a lot of weight post- university and it'll help. All that activity disappeared and I kept eating the same. That's got to change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I recommend Lyle MacDonald, [http://www.bodyrecomposition.com](http://www.bodyrecomposition.com) he's quite scientific to his approach, plenty of material can be found on youtube and on those 'sites' you know of ;)

Pdf such has [http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/the-rapid-fat-loss- handbook](http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/the-rapid-fat-loss-handbook) have helped me structure great nutrition programs.

</comment><comment><USER26> > They had significantly greater reductions in body fat than the low-fat > group, and improvements in lean muscle mass

I'm a bodybuilder and spend a good deal of time reading about the subject every week. It is common knowledge among bodybuilders that an increase in muscle and loss of fat at the same time is possible only with steroids. So what does "improvements in lean muscle mass" mean here?

> what foods are best to eat for weight loss and overall health.

Bodybuilders avoid weight loss like fire, and instead only focus on fat loss. What's the sense in losing muscle? This article needs to be read very carefully.

> "It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose > weight without focusing on calories. And that's really important because > someone can change what they eat more easily than trying to cut down on > their calories."

Again "weight loss". Every piece of bodybuilding knowledge states that you cannot lose fat without a calorie deficit. Here we read that the people in the experiment did not limit their calories, but "lost weight". This couldn't have been fat. If you want to lose fat, then just eat less - it works for all bodybuilders, why would it not work for the rest of the population. I don't see how there can be some more "easy" method than just eating less.

Furthermore the article does not state how the amount of fat in the body was measured - most methods are said to be highly inaccurate. I believe this article is a misleading piece of bullshit.

<comment><USER18> Bodybuilders are people trying to perfect a good physique. Normal Americans are, generally, a little fat.

> It is common knowledge among bodybuilders that an increase in muscle and > loss of fat at the same time is possible only with steroids.

For bodybuilders. If you're a 166-pound 5'1" 45-year-old woman who can't manage a 45-lb deadlift because of a combination of inflexibility and weakness, an increase in muscle mass and loss of fat at the same time is totally possible :)

> Here we read that the people in the experiment did not limit their calories, > but "lost weight". This couldn't have been fat.

Why in the world not?

You sound like you think all people are bodybuilders, paying attention to their nutrition, hitting the gym regularly, deciding between chicken breasts and oatmeal for breakfast, focusing on fat loss instead of weight loss. Wrong audience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I lost 80 pounds doing low carb in a year and a half after 3-4 years of trying various diets after graduating high school at 320 pounds (being 6'4). Calorie counting "works" but you're constantly having to make willpower checks every day. Low fat left me ravenously hungry /all/ the time. Whenever I need to lose weight I just go on a ketogenic diet for a few months and it reliably drops the pounds very quickly, and I am also far less hungry throughout the day making it MUCH easier to stay on track.

The MOST difficult part of the diet is just how much every "healthy" food is set up for low-fat rather than low-carb - if you want to stay under 40g carbs per day about 90% of the grocery store is off limits, they fill EVERYTHING with sugar or corn, especially the "healthy low-fat" foods which usually trade fat for more carbs. I'm very glad that this study came out, hopefully we will start to see more foods with low carbs in stores and restaurants.

<comment><USER28> I'm wondering how you would fare eating whole foods without additives? The grocery store is actually pretty chock full of such foods. Stay away from boxes and trays.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I like low carb diet, but I think when people jump to primal arguments, they also forget that primal times you didn't have a constant, easy, cheap food source at your disposal 24/7.

At some point, things like fasting and reduced calorie intake combined with something low carb is probably closest to "primal" diets. Making pancakes with almond flour isn't.

If more people went without food somewhat regularly, they would probably be better off than they are eating 2000+ calories a day like people do now.

Macronutrients do matter, but volume matters as well. In my experience, higher fat diets keep you from eating as much, so you naturally get fewer calories and thus you lose weight.

If you could eat a high fat diet with 8000 calories a day, you'd still get fat, but my guess is that when people consciously eat a high fat diet, they are going to end up eating say 300-500 calories a day less over time, and that gives a significant advantage over a period of months or years.

</comment><comment><USER30> Reddit has been drowning in anecdotal evidence for years.

Low-fat, high-carb flat-out kills people.

[http://reddit.com/r/keto](http://reddit.com/r/keto)

<comment><USER31> I believe you would be downvoted less harshly if you provided a few reputable sources to back your statement.

<comment><USER30> This subject freaks people out, vegetarians especially.

A huge part of identity for some people is based on the knowledge that they're living on a healthy plant-based diet. It turns out that said diet is less healthy than subsisting on bacon grease.

This causes cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance causes knee-jerk downvotes.

Citations? How about the study spelled out in the article?

<comment><USER32> The reddit thread, you mean? Are we calling those articles now?

The vegetarian thing _does not folow_. Just because keto/atkins/paleo works, doesn't mean anything else works. Nothing is better than the low calorie diet.

<comment><USER30> No, not Reddit. The NYT article that we are commenting on.

I offer up the reddit link for anyone interested in the mechanics of HFLC.

<comment><USER33> It might be a good idea to link to the FAQ instead of the subreddit. It has an overview of the chemistry behind the diet -- for example, the use of urinalysis test strips.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/keto/wiki/faq](http://www.reddit.com/r/keto/wiki/faq)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I found that losing weight using a low-carb diet was pretty easy. After the adjustement period of about two weeks you suddenly start feeling much less hungry and the portions you eat become smaller. You are essentially losing weight without feeling hungry at all which is terrific. The only problem is that a very strict low-carb diet can be a bit monotonous with the type of foods you are "allowed" to eat and can be hard to follow if you don't have the time or patience to actually _cook_ food for yourself.

</comment><comment><USER35> After we got acquired in June I hired a nutritionist to help me get onto a low-carb diet. I'm down about 42 lbs so far and it hasn't been hard at all. The trickiest part is the questions, comments and eye-rolling when I take the bun off my burger or whatnot.

The other thing I've noticed is how different my moods are when I'm "sugar- free". Routine tasks that typically bore me to tears become much more manageable and I'm able to just sit and think for longer. YMMV

<comment><USER36> That is the main reason I restrict carbs. I have tried a variety of low carb diets, starting with Tim Ferris' slow carb, (because I was starting to get a little puffy around the middle) then an atkins style, then a strict paleo a la Robb Wolf, then, intermittent fasting with mostly only meat-and-greens.

Regardless of the specific diet, my energy levels and moods are so much more consistent with reduced carbs, I continue to restrict carbs regardless of other hypothetical benefits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Carbs = sugar. Sugar, if not burned off, gets stored as fat.

Carb intake needs to match activity level. And of course, a varied diet is key (including fats).

Eat carbs in the morning, protein later in the day, eat a varied diet with a good amount of vegetables, eat high quality fats (olive and other seed oils, nut oils, and even moderate amounts of butter), and exercise a decent amount (even just being active, not going to the gym, though that's good too), and you'll be fine.

<comment><USER37> >Carbs = sugar. Sugar, if not burned off, gets stored as fat.

Although this is true, can't you say the same for fats/proteins? 'If it's not burned off, it gets stored as fat'. Sugar that is not burned off first is used (or together) to replenish glycogen stores iirc.

>Eat carbs in the morning, protein later in the day

Some people eat carbs in the morning (cereal, bread, fruits). If you're looking to try something new you could look into Intermittent Fasting. This basically is eating only in a 4-8~ hour window every day.

Why I love this approach is because it makes my diet really flexible. I just fast until I get back home (usually around 5 pm) and make diner. This gives me a caloric buffer during daytime which helps me a lot when there is unexpected cake/muffins/lunch which I would otherwise have to decline.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Add to the fact that carbs cause a lot of what I like to call depressive- crashes, compared to caffeine-crashes for example.

Since off carbs I'm on a high and yes a I do a lot of caffeine, the latter doesn't lead to depressive moods and also no weight gain!

Carbs are still useful for high intensity athletes and before a high endurance workout (I'm talking fruits here and not the junk food).

<comment><USER7> FYI, I highly recommend becoming a connoisseur of cold brew coffee- It's pretty tasty even without cream/sugar. It was the first zero-calorie coffee drink I could find that could replace my addiction to caramel lattes...

<comment><USER38> _Noted_ Thanks for the tip ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> In addition to the heart benefits listed in the report, I've read reports which conclude that a low-carb diet is also very beneficial for regulating blood sugar levels (and reducing diabetes risk).

However, I think it might have been interesting to read more about the risks of a low-carb diet. For instance, some studies have shown that low-carb diets can reduce testosterone levels in men and I've also read that it could hurt short-term cognitive skills.

It is also unclear if the study involved (mostly) refined carbohydrates or complex carbohydrates. Obviously, the effect of complex carbohydrates is very different.

There are a number of studies regarding low-carb diets but most of them tend to focus on a subset of the results that one might see from a low-carb diet. So a smart strategy would be to read many of these reports and then decide what makes sense (though it isn't going to be easy for a layperson to read a wide range of different reports and draw the best conclusion on what is good for them)

</comment><comment><USER40> For an in-depth discussion about low-carb diets and the history of the misconception that fats consumed = body fat and cholesterol levels I recommend the book (although I haven't finished it yet): Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health

<comment><USER5> And also make sure to read some decent reviews. I also was impressed by the GCBC, but I've been reading some reviews recently and turns out there's quite a lot Taubes took out of context, misrepresented or otherwise distorted.

This one seems a good place to start:

[http://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/good-c...](http://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/good- calories-bad-calories-a-critical-review/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I've started Tim Ferriss diet on May/2013 and went strictly on it (no supplements, aka, PAGG) up to September/13 when I reached my goal (97->82kg). I did a body check-up (mostly on blood and urine tests) on November/13 and everything was fine. I never came back on milk+bread on breakfast and I got used to go low-fat 6 days a week. I'm not so strict on Tim's diet anymore but I'm still low-fat-oriented. I'm turning 40 this month. So far, this diet worked greatly for me. BTW: I got to know about Tim's book here in HN.

I must recall that the low-carb diet from Tim is focused on food with low glycemic index. The idea is to avoid the conversion of the carbs you eat into fat stored in your body.

</comment><comment><USER42> I absolutely cannot keep up with what we're supposed to eat? Some say low fat, some say high fat, some say high carb, low carb... no sugar, some sugar, some fats... It comes to a point where cutting one thing or another is surely futile. And that we just need to accept that there's no miracle other than eating a varied balanced diet, exercise and cut the fads. I know coming form a vegan that might be calling the kettle black (or whatever the phrase is) but I've given up on faddy diets, I just try to eat unprocessed shit and be done with it.

</comment><comment><USER43> First, congrats to all the commenters who have lost weight. I know it's not as simple as "make better food choices" so it's awesome to read so many people who have found success in weight loss.

I follow a diet similar to low-carb, moderate fat and protein, and I'm still concerned about not getting enough plants, and fiber. While the low-carb diet encourages consumption of veggies, I find it tough to make sure I get enough veggies (not fruit), in a day.

<comment><USER44> > I find it tough to make sure I get enough veggies (not fruit), in a day.

When most people think veggies they think "lettuce", which makes it hard to eat a lot. Try these recipes:

Broccoli (steam cooked, with olive oil and fried garlic), avocado (salad or with honey + lemon), eggplant (roasted in slices) and Chinese cabbage (it's crunchy and great to eat raw as salad).

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I don't understand why there is this constant search for a diet that isn't just calorie restriction - learning about caloric content and restricting yourself in calories is much easier than following a diet. You basically eat the same foods you enjoy, but skip the occasional item that will take you overboard.

Learning a few facts about caloric content of different types of food is much easier than changing your lifestyle.

<comment><USER46> It's worth noting that whilst low calorie diets (of any macronutrient ratio), will usually aid weight loss, they won't all improve your health in other areas.

This study also looked at other health markers (including triglycerides and cholesterol) and measured improvements.

<comment><USER47> Calorie reduction doesn't improve health? Says who?

<comment><USER46> So to clarify on what I wrote:

"they won't all improve your health in other areas"

Meaning that there are different ways in which to reduce calories. If you were to lower your calorie intake below your expenditure, but do it through a high sugar diet, that may still result in weight loss, but it wouldn't necessarily improve other health markers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I don´t have access to the paper referenced in the article, but a general rule applies: You have to be _very_ cautious with the conclusions of a interventional nutritional study. There are lots of challenges[1] in the design, execution and evaluation of such studies.

[1] [http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/13/1/111](http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/13/1/111)

</comment><comment><USER49> This is no secret. There will be endless mostly uninformed debate but the idea that less carbs - less stored fat - its not counter-intuitive.

I wouldn't doubt keeping the blood sugar levels from spiking (especially processed carbs) plays a big part. Weight watchers giving you credit for fiber always wondered about that.

</comment><comment><USER50> I just finished reading _The Big Fat Surprise_ by Nina Teicholz, an extensively-referenced account of the history of nutrition research over the past century. It was really interesting to see the weakness of the evidence against fat, and how our general fear of fat came about anyway.

</comment><comment><USER51> The Zone diet works pretty well which call for a balanced diet with smaller portions, lots of veggies, way less meat. It advocates grazing, as oppose to 3 meals a day. After all we're not farmers of days past anymore, so we should adapt to modern life eating patterns.

</comment><comment><USER52> I'm wondering how much of the difference is due to what you're drinking, rather than eating. Cmd-f in the journal article found no "drink", "juice", "soda", or "beer", so it seems likely they didn't consider it.

</comment><comment><USER28> I remain amazed at how much contradictory information we receive about diet.

My sense is the following would benefit pretty much everyone: eat in moderation, mostly unprocessed food, and be modestly active (ie, walk at least 10 miles per week).

</comment><comment><USER53> Here is the actual paper (paywalled) : [http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694](http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694)

Anyone have access that can upload it to Scribd or similar?

<comment><USER54> [https://mega.co.nz/#!G4sEBYbT!kIzq_xi4-9zlWsRElqfjzTKUV6-tCm...](https://mega.co.nz/#!G4sEBYbT!kIzq_xi4-9zlWsRElqfjzTKUV6-tCm8sgl1rKkGfv18)

<comment><USER53> Thanks!

Some noteworthy excerpts:

\- Participants assigned to the low-carbohydrate diet were instructed to maintain an intake of digestible carbohydrate (total carbohydrate minus total fiber) of less than 40 g/d.

\- The reduction in body weight was significantly greater in the low- carbohydrate group (mean difference in change at 12 months, 3.5 kg; P=0.002)

\- those on the low-carbohydrate diet had significantly greater proportional reductions in fat mass (mean difference in change at 12 months, 1.5% P=0.011)

\- those on the low-carbohydrate diet had significantly greater proportional increases in lean mass (mean difference in change at 12 months, 1.7%; P=0.003)

\- Compared with a low-fat diet, a low-carbohydrate diet resulted in greater improvements in body composition, HDL cholesterol level, ratio of total– HDL cholesterol, triglyceride level, CRP level, and estimated 10-year CHD risk

\- Dietitians were not blinded to the study hypothesis(!!). To avoid potential differences in dietary counseling due to this, we used specific and detailed scripts for all counseling sessions and trained staff to deliver the scripts without deviation.

\- The proportion of participants with detectable urinary ketone levels was significantly higher in the low-carbohydrate group than in the low-fat group at 3, 6, and 12 months (data not shown)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Carbs(aka glucose) is a poisonous substance and as soon as your body detects the glucose it releases insulin. The Insulin lowers blood glucose levels by forcing the glucose to move into your fat cells as fat(through a long chain reaction).

So carbs essentially become fat.

If you don't eat carbs your body doesn't release insulin so you can't store anything as fat. In fact once you truly go very low carb your body releases whatever hormone is the opposite of Insulin which allows fat to be released from your fat cells and used as energy.

The low carb diet makes sense to me because of the basic biology that I know. (I am not an expert and these are just my thoughts).

<comment><USER56> You're thinking of ketones, which are what trigger your body to burn fat for energy. (Another perk of ketosis is being able to go long stretches between meals without getting hungry.)

It should be noted that the first time moving to a low-carb, high fat diet, it's mildly traumatic and unpleasant. It takes 1-2 weeks of low energy and constant hunger before the body switches to ketosis mode. (This is sometimes called the "carb flu".)

<comment><USER57> never experienced it. I just ate more vegetables, nuts and fats.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I would like a book called Totally Boring Health Advice. It would only include things that have been proven over and over and have totally ceased to be controversial.

</comment><comment><USER59> Sigh. So this is another "diet" methodology focusing on fat people losing fat, but these same people are too lazy to calculate their energy requirements, energy input and energy output by counting calories and macronutrients?

I eat at 20% fat, 50% carb, 30% protein and I can gain weight, maintain or lose fat simply by adjusting my calories. It really is not rocket science. Self-discipline required, but if you lack that you have bigger problems.

TL;DR Overweight lazy people should eat less carbs and more meat if they can't be bothered to count calories

<comment><USER60> I lost 10kg last year on a low-carb diet. The diet was "eat no more than two slices of bread's worth of carbs per day", and knowing what carbs are (including rice and sugar). There's very little management or tracking required, and certainly no need for a mental 'calorie dictionary'.

Counting calories is not as trivial as you make it sound, and I don't think it's warranted that you mock people as lazy for not doing so - especially when the other half of the equation is figuring out how much energy you actually use, which varies wildly with body type and lifestyle.

<comment><USER59> My main gripe is that low-carb dieting is being sold as a "one stop shop" for dieting. You'll notice how the undertone of the article is that it's more "healthy" and "lower risk" to eat low carb. This complete myth if you count your calories. It's the programming world equivalent of someone going "A call for Functional Programming" and then telling you how shit imperative languages are. If everyone just coded in Haskell the type system would take care of 90% of the bugs.

And no it's completely trivial to track your intake. You need at most a kitchen scale and an app on your phone. It probably takes me in total 5 minutes of my day to track everything. You greatly overestimate the difficulty.

<comment><USER61> Down 15kg since April, Keto.

I highly doubt that anyone doing Keto with a good amount of success is doing so without tracking macros.

It is ironic that you'd decry ignorance and oversimplification when in point of fact you are guilty of the same in doing so.

<comment><USER59> From the article itself:

"It included a racially diverse group of 150 men and women — a rarity in clinical nutrition studies — who were assigned to follow diets for one year that limited either the amount of carbs or fat that they could eat, _but not overall calories_." emphasis mine.

This particular study is touting the virtues of not tracking calories. It's basically what the entire article is about. Eating low carb without counting calories.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> The article is speaking of low carb, high fat but people are discussing low carb diets in general here. Isn't there a big difference?

</comment><comment><USER63> Is drinking milk good or bad for someone looking to lose fat and gain more lean muscle mass?

</comment><comment><USER64> This is why I would never eat Soylent. It's mostly carbs: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_(drink)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_\(drink\))

</comment><comment><USER65> Lost and kept off 48# over 9 months on low carb paleo.

</comment><comment><USER66> When I first started programming for a living, I put on an enormous amount of weight. I ended up topping out at just above 400lbs. Then I got sick.

I couldn't eat anything with fat in it. Nothing. So I flipped to a zero fat diet that consisted of very little protein. It was almost 100% bowls of Grape Nuts and sugar with skim milk. I lost 180lbs in 18 months. I took up exercise along the way and sliced off another 20lbs.

At this point, things improved and I could eat "normally" again. I took up running and worked myself up to 7 miles a day.

Life had other plans though. Work intruded. Family requirements, etc. The running stopped. These are things anyone over 40 would understand.

As a result, I slid around on the scale for a decade or so and decided to experiment with other forms of nutrient deprivation. I tried an all protein diet (result: rapid weight loss but hungry all the time). I tried a heavy fat diet (result: rapid weight loss but sick all the time). I've also tried fasting and extreme calorie restriction (result: rapid weight loss and general rending of the fabric of reality). I was a strict vegetarian for three years (result: never felt more clear-headed in my life, but I also lost significant muscle mass even though I took pains to get the right amino acids through various sources).

So, after a decade of experimentation, I've learned quite a few things.

1\. Modern life is full of distractions, in fact it seems designed specifically to introduce new distractions as a way of propagating itself.

2\. Any restrictive diet (and you have to be religious about it) will result in temporary weight loss that may in fact be quite dramatic. But it won't last. Eventually your body will get used to the new diet or you will develop some rather unpleasant side effects.

3\. Vegetarian diets are superior in many ways, but depending on your body type, can be rather hard on the muscles (I have a large frame and look emaciated when I get to 200lb). This certainly doesn't happen to everyone, but it's what happened to me. Pity. I liked the way my brain worked on that diet.

4\. A carb-restricted diet left me hungry, as in "I need to go out and hunt something now" hungry. Even after months of focused effort.

5\. A balanced diet coupled with significant exercise is pretty much the only thing that consistently works with this body. Your mileage may vary.

6\. Modern life is full of expectations that are unnecessary and unhealthy. This couples with point #1. Distractions and expectations tend to go hand in hand. They keep you from doing what is right for your mind and body.

7\. Don't look for a fast solution. Rather focus on a resolution, a shift in perspective about what you expect from life. Then, live with awareness of this goal each and every day.

<comment><USER26> > zero fat diet

A zero fat diet is very dangerous. You need fat for organs to function properly, and vitamins to dissolve in.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat#Importance_for_living_organ...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat#Importance_for_living_organisms)

<comment><USER66> Absolutely. I certainly wouldn't recommend it.

What's interesting is that doctors I spoke with at the time could neither explain my violent reactions to fat nor the obvious results of cutting out fat entirely from my diet (maybe 3-5g total across an entire day, but usually less than 1). They also couldn't explain why I could suddenly eat fat again after about a year and a half.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> They didn't test a low fat diet in the study. 30% of calories from fat is not low fat. Also, it appears they used low saturated fat (<7%) and high PUFA. That's pretty much backwards as it's well known that PUFAs have antimetabolic effects.

All these experiments ever confirm (over and over) is that plenty of protein is helpful in the context of a reduced calorie diet, and that restricting food choices results in spontaneous calorie reduction. Protein has very high satiety and thermic effect. As for low fat or low carb it doesn't matter much. It's just that carbs and fat go great together and it's very difficult to overeat without the combination. A plain stick of butter and a large bowl of plain white rice are equally difficult to overeat on, whereas ice cream with its combined hit of sugar and fat is easy to gorge on.

</comment><comment><USER67> i've been on a ketogenic diet for about 3 months now. i've lost around 20 pounds (5'10, 220 starting -> 200 current -> 180 goal) and will probably lose another 20 before reaching my 'ideal' weight. it works. whether it works because i naturally eat less, or because there's something magical going on w/ my hormones, _it doesn 't matter_ because i can simply remove carbs and eat until i'm full every single time. eating well is a huge, huge motivating factor for me to succeed in life.

for other people it's not an issue at all. they can simply just eat 1500 calories a day with a bunch of carbs and also lose weight. I CAN'T. i need to ingest 2500-3000 calories a day or else i will just be constantly hungry and unable to function without thinking about food. i'm in my 30s now - i know this about myself. i've counted the calories for months on end, using MFP.

the hardest part is not talking about it, because if you tell people you 'eat more fat' when they ask you what your new diet is, they'll think you're being sarcastic and rude.

i've only told my closest friends, people who i respect intellectually and who can handle an actual discussion about how things like the endocrine system works and

and i've told a bunch of strangers on the internet of course.

<comment><USER68> Yup, and apparently everyone has a degree in nutrition and go on to tell you that what you're doing is wrong and what they think you should do is right.

\- fellow Keto guy

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> This article (and the Tim Ferriss article in the Top comment here) both cite Atkin's High Protein, Low Carb diet. I am not sure I can believe that though. It is well known that most of the people in the west consume way more proteins that is required by their body, even those that don't exercise.

Excessive protein ingestion causes kidney failure, hypertension and heart attacks.

Some believe (and allege) that Dr Atkins himself died of his own Atkins Diet. Here are some quotes from news articles and mybuster sites from when he was alive / had just died.

"It is known Robert Atkins did indeed weather a heart attack during his lifetime. In April 2002, the diet guru issued a statement saying he was recovering from cardiac arrest related to a heart infection he had suffered from "for a few years." He said it was "in no way related to diet."

However, revelations in February 2004 from the city medical examiner's report let slip the information that Atkins had suffered a heart attack, congestive heart failure, and hypertension, before his death. "

Sources:

1) Dr. Robert Atkins, proponent of the low-carbohydrate diet, died of a heart attack. [http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/atkins.asp](http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/atkins.asp)

2) Atkins diet author home after cardiac arrest: [http://edition.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/diet.fitness/04/25/atkins...](http://edition.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/diet.fitness/04/25/atkins.diet/)

One more note: What about Vegetarians and Lacto-vegetarians? Our diet typically tends to be little high in carbs mainly white rice. What kind of protein sources can we substitute lean meat like chicken, for? Tofu and lentils don't cut it, you have to consume vast amounts to get sufficient protein equivalent. Anyone with useful advice, experience, please share!

<comment><USER7> > It is well known that most of the people in the west consume way more > proteins that is required by their body

If prehistoric humans didn't get their calories from protein, how do you suggest they got them? Certainly not from sugars (found mainly in modern cultivated fruits) or starches (found mainly in modern cultivated grains).

I'm not saying your "too much protein" thesis is wrong (I don't have enough of an understanding of nutritional history and anthropology) but can you give some better supporting documentation?

<comment><USER47> >If prehistoric humans didn't get their calories from protein, how do you suggest they got them?

Probably mostly from plants.

[http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest- blog/2012/07/23/hu...](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest- blog/2012/07/23/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Forgive my flip dismissal, bad use of caps, and general un-hacker newslike tone just this once, but:

NO MORE FAD DIET BULLSHIT, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!!!

It's just like we have known since the Ancient Greeks and probably earlier -- eat fewer rich foods, more light foods, a big variety of foods, and get lots of moderate activity.

Want to lose weight? Eat fewer calories than you burn. Want to gain muscle mass and tone? Work out regularly. Etc.

Jesus christ, the next time I hear the words "Gluten Free" I am going to scream, jumping up and down, Remember The South Beach Diet!?? Remember the no- fat diet????!!! Don't you people ever learn!?!?!?!

Sorry. I promise to write more grown up posts in the future.

<comment><USER71> > Want to lose weight? Eat fewer calories than you burn. Want to gain muscle > mass and tone? Work out regularly. Etc.

This is why research about diet is important. Animals are complex systems, and rarely are "simple" explanations correct (or correct enough). What we know about about food and how we process it is remarkably incomplete considering how important it is to supporting life.

So with that in mind, I'm excited that the prevailing view of diet, nutrition and health in our society for the last century or so is getting challenged, just as science should be challenged and overturned ("disrupted" in SV parlance) in the face of new, better, more sound evidence.

What's coming out of this new research is that, perhaps, the mechanisms concerned with storage of energy (fat) are unconcerned with the rest of what's going on in the body. That perhaps the reservoir of energy available to your muscles and brain to burn, intentionally and with conscious control, are in competition with a sometimes overly-aggressive energy storage system.

It reminds me of how the U.S. does income tax - it comes directly out of your paycheck, before you can even think of spending it. Even if you wanted to go negative, the Govt still gets theirs.

And let's say that the regulator of storage vs. use is controlled by the kinds of food that you eat... that, stretching this metaphor, your income tax bracket was affected by where you worked, or where you got the money from.

Anyway, a more complete picture of how our bodies actually function is a _good_ thing, and the more people try these "fad diets" is actually a boon for the people studying them. ;)

(As an aside - the gluten free craze has helped a lot of people who _actually have celiac disease_ to have more options in eating things that don't taste like crap, or, you know, eat out once in a while.)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: In the beginning, should I improve growth or improve the experience? - <AUTHOR>

Hey guys. Last week I launched a side-project called makeitpersonal (http://makeitpersonal.co). My expectations were pretty low (10 people using the site was my bar for success) but it turns out that there is a a decent amount of people who want something like this.
I decided to spend a bit more time working on this and now I have a bunch of features that I'd like to implement. They can be divided into two groups:
1. Features that will attract more users. Stuff like sharing on social networks, an improved landing page and alerts for first-time visitors, etc.
2. Features that will make the system more "complete" and useful for the current users. Stuff like a WYSIWYG editor instead of Markdown, discoverability of other users, etc.
I don't know where this will lead yet, but if you were given a choice like this one, would you focus your attention on getting new users or on improving the experience of the existing ones? <comment><USER2> I'm in for more new users. Experience is important, but since it's a really new service, and you had your success, it can't be that bad.

You can focus on making the experience better after getting some more users and more feedback.

If someone is going to leave because of the experience _right now_ , well, there's always more people not using the software than people using it... Make it attractive to new people first, and then make it better for those using it.

<comment><USER3> Totally agree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You should focus on improving your testing and learning. Don't go chasing down rabbit holes. Find out what people want and build it. That will get you both grow and user experience. From your landing page, I could not figure out what your product is. Spent some seconds there trying to figure it out through the description. But did not find anything that explained what it is. Nothing. Maybe its there, but I was not able to understand your convoluted explanation. Your copy might sound reasonable to you, but it may be one of the things keeping people away. I suggest you start by explaining right at the top of the page what is it that your product does for me. Not what it does, but what it does for _me_.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the advice orangethirsty. Stuff like changing the text to something actually explanatory is what i meant by "an improved landing page". The current text was posted there on purpose but it's something we know we have to change if we want to get a lot of users.

I will be be working on testing what works and what doesn't :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> PG's _Startup = Growth_

<http://paulgraham.com/growth.html>

</comment><comment><USER6> It's better to have a few people love you than lots of people kinda like you.</comment>


Raptor Blackbird system or board this year at a mainboard cost of $875? - <AUTHOR> https://www.strawpoll.me/16840668 <comment><USER2> That's progress, I suppose. But that still feels awful steep to buy as an individual / hobbyist. And I still believe that POWER needs to reach a point where the systems are accessible to individual hobbyist / experimenters in order to really take off.

If I were _already_ convinced that I wanted to adopt POWER, then as a company, I could possibly justify buying boards at that price. But as somebody who just wants a POWER system to fuck around with and evaluate, that's a tough pill to swallow.

<comment><AUTHOR> How are they supposed to reduce the price further? They don't have the economies of scale of more widespread CPUs and designs, and I think it's unrealistic to expect a small company to issue a loss leader to jumpstart the market. For an exotic architecture I think this price is a steal.

<comment><USER2> You're right, but that doesn't really contradict anything I said. It may be a steal in absolute terms, but most hobbyists still can't afford it. How they get the price down further is a question I don't have an answer for.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong and the hobbyist / individual tinkerer market doesn't actually matter. And maybe a bunch of startups and other companies looking for a competitive edge will bet on POWER and start buying these right away. I _hope_ that happens, as that could serve to eventually get them to the "economy of scale" level where the price can come down more.</comment></comment></comment>


Activist Investors Are Finding It Easier Than Ever to Get Board Seats - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-04/from-icahn-to-peltz-activists-find-companies-are-caving-in-fast <comment><USER2> Based on my experiences (formerly did activist investing for 8+ years) there's a lot more pragmatism for all parties involved.

Activist don't just suddenly show up and get board seats. There's usually an ongoing issue/debate that management teams/boards are dealing with behind the scenes long before an activist is actively pushing for board seats.

Also keep in mind, even if an activist ("easily") gets a board seat, there's still an extraordinary amount of work to be done. It's easy being a board member when times are great, but being on the board of a company undergoing a turnaround is a completely different experience.</comment>


Import Blogger Posts to Tumblr - <AUTHOR> http://terrymhung.com/jtran/tumblr/import-blogger-to-tumblr.php

<comment><USER2> I just sent a mail to Tumblr support yesterday asking if there was a way to do this without having to export all my Blogger content and write a custom loader script against the API. Of course, they said they don't have such a tool.

I love you both. Srsly.

<comment><USER3> A couple suggestions for importing:

1) I would recommend creating a scratch account to test the import with. You can always nuke that account and retry the import process.

2) You will want to include more fields than the sample does. Definitely date. Maybe things like tags; though their tag support for reading is pretty limited at present.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good idea. It imports tags/labels. But perhaps I'll add tagging everything that was imported w/ something new.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> FWIW: I've also recently ported to Tumblr. The Python code I cooked up for the import grew into:

<http://code.google.com/p/python-tumblr/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool. Yours looks more like something with long-term developer value. Mine was just a quick tool designed to be used once by people who don't want to code.</comment></comment>


Quora copycat investor says foreign web sites are "harmful", on Quora - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/Chinese-Internet/Is-using-a-VPN-in-China-PRC-illegal/answer/Jixin-Huang

<comment><USER2> The post title is sensationalist. Jixin is being quite forward and explaining how things work in the PRC. He doesn't say anything about how foreign web sites are 'harmful'. Only that the PRC feels it has an obligation to protect the people from 'harmful information'. That information can be from inside or outside the country.

Of course sites that work within the PRC system of government censorship tend to stay unblocked. ;)

</comment><comment><USER3> Good for him, this will help him convince the authorities at

(a) He is a "nice" guy (b) As sign of their appreciation, they might block quora at least sporadically.

I don't know, but I would think that top chinese VC have a personal relationship (dinner invitations, red envelopes etc) with whoever is in charge of the great firewall.</comment>


Show HN: VoxLords – My latest WebGL Chrome Experiment - <AUTHOR> https://www.chromeexperiments.com/experiment/voxlords

<comment><USER2> There are slowly-rotating objects that it seems like I should be able to pick up or something? But I can't. I assume this is related to the fact that I have no idea how to beat the first level (I defeated all enemies and went to the princess). Not sure if this is supposed to happen, but I also can walk through the cage around her and some other objects (castle-looking thing).

<comment><AUTHOR> Shoot the cage (after all enemies are dead) to save the princess. The powerups can be shot to gain content.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> My mouse didn't seem to lock to the game window so I could only turn so far before my mouse hit the edge of the screen. Other than that it is a cool game to play around with!

<comment><AUTHOR> Did you click "Allow" when it asks to look the pointer? (seems to work in FF and Chrome)

<comment><USER3> Ah okay, I notice it now that you point it out. Was hard to notice the small popup while I was focused on looking at the game not the little window above it that popped up :/

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looks like fun. (FWIW, seems to work in Firefox on OSX.)

Unfortunately, using WASD for movement is very uncomfortable for me, because I am left-handed and use the mouse with my left hand.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I'm aware of the WASD trouble for some people and I've noted this for future development of both new games and possible updates for this game. Thanks for your input!

<comment><USER5> Could you please support ZQSD (azerty keyboards)? You just have to alias Z=W, and Q=A.

It's a very simple thing, but almost no web game does it, which makes them unplayable on many computers. I shouldn't have to switch my keyboard layout to use a website :(

<comment><USER6> Your fault for using a nonstandard layout. Next you'll complain, that it doesn't work when you disable javascript.

<comment><USER5> It's a french standard. Every french/belgian keyboard is AZERTY-based.

You don't HAVE to support it, but accessibility is nice, especially when it comes at virtually no cost except awareness (it is not supported because people don't know it exists).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Is AppJet the next big web framework? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.vezquex.com/2008/08/is-appjet-next-big-web-framework.html

<comment><USER3> We do think AppJet will be the platform/framework of the future, but in the present it's a little early to compare the AppJet Framework with PHP, RoR, Django, etc.

AppJet was designed to be easy and make it possible to write cool little web apps with a small amount of code and a small amount of knowledge. From this perspective, it becomes obvious why we chose JavaScript as the server language: it reduces the number of languages you need to learn by a factor of 2.

I think it's succeeding at what it does. There are lots of cool apps in the app directory, and most are <500 lines of code in a single file. Many of these apps are written by high school students who learned programming with AppJet. Some of my favorite include {pxl,outliner,files,wikijet,agglodex,dict,livescore}.appjet.net.

We are working on improving the AppJet Framework to be good for large apps. We're also working a lot on our _platform_. (mrtron makes a good point about platform vs. framework elsewhere in this thread). One day, we'll tell the hacker news community that we think AppJet is a suitable replacement for PHP, Django, RoR, or whatever you're building your startup on. But we're not there yet.

In the meantime, if you want to hack up a simple database-backed web app without worrying about hosting or setting up SQL or anything, AppJet is your platform. Or if you want to learn programming with a platform that will let you do a lot knowing only a little, AppJet is your platform.

<comment><USER4> _We do think AppJet will be the platform/framework of the future_

Could you elaborate on that more? Why will this platform be _the_ platform of the future?

<comment><USER3> The short answer is that we see problems with all the existing ones, and we think we can do better. The longer answer will be the subject of blog posts as we roll out milestones along the way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think it's extremely likely that JavaScript will be absolutely pervasive in applications in the coming years. I don't know whether AppJet is the One True JavaScript framework, the way Ruby on Rails has been pervasive for Ruby, but it's excellent business sense. AppJet, as long as it is a closed platform running in one place, will remain a niche player--and, based on the apps that have been built to date, it will be a "small app" niche, which probably isn't going to lead to windfall profits in the near future.

But, if they open it up, and people agree it is awesome on a scale similar to RoR and Django, it'll grow their niche into something quite huge. They'll get a few competitors out of the bargain, but having a huge industry to fight over is better than having a tiny industry all to yourself. Heroku, even though they have far less exclusivity for their platform (deploying RoR can be done at many hosting providers), seems to be growing at a much more rapid clip than AppJet...and I believe Heroku actually launched later, but my history might be off a bit.

Anyway, I wish them luck. I'd love to see server-side JavaScript becoming more pervasive. It's a quite nice language.

<comment><USER6> The two reasons javascript is not widespread on the server are:

1\. limited database access libraries, there are no standard libraries for talking to mysql/postgres/oracle/sybase/mssql

2\. lack of namespace support in the language itself, which means that you can't rely on external code to not step on your variables.

Also there's a minor usability issue with using the same code in two different environments; the server side and the client-side are not the same and confusing the two can introduce whole new classes of bugs and security holes. Not that anyone here would ever lose track of where the file they were working on was supposed be run.

<comment><USER5> Definitely agree on point 1, though I think it might work itself out in surprising ways. CouchDB speaks JSON natively, for example.

On 2, there are solutions to this problem based on closures, and basic politeness (YUI uses the YAHOO. prefix, while ExtJS uses Ext., and they can co-exist in one browser). It's not perfect. I'd like to see Perl-style package name spaces, or similar--nothing obtuse like the new PHP namespace support-- just very concise and simple but powerful. I, personally, don't think Java style encapsulation and object border defense is all that important...but maybe enterprise users will (though Perl does OK in the stodgy banking and finance world, so it shouldn't be too scary for them).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I always find the confusion between platform and framework annoying. "web platforms have to be free and open. LAMP is the reigning king. Ruby on Rails and Django are the up-and-coming challengers."

LAMP is Linux/Apache/Mysql/PHP, which is a platform. Django/RoR are frameworks for their respective languages, and still use Linux/Apache/Mysql or similar.

<comment><USER8> A platform is an "environment" you build a system on, so a framework is also a platform...

<comment><USER9> No, a platform consists of everything _below_ your application logic. Think hardware, i/o abstractions, etc.

A framework, on the other hand, assists in the development of an application, typically independent of the platform it runs on.

<comment><USER8> There are multiple possible definitions of "platform", it just happens that I use a more inclusive one while you use a more restrictive one. According to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_%28computing%29>:

      In computing, a platform describes some sort of hardware architecture or software framework (including application frameworks), that allows software to run.

edit: Isn't a good part of a framework below your application logic?

<comment><USER7> Comparing LAMP to Django/RoR is comparing apples to oranges.

It is like comparing Windows and TCP/IP.

<comment><AUTHOR> True. But there isn't one dominant PHP framework and a lot of people don't use a formal one or just kind of roll their own.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nah it won't. AppJet fails on many levels

1\. Nobody likes javascript. We use it because it's there, but nobody LIKES it

2\. A serious lack of sexy. AppJet makes an app that is targeted at hardcore nerds. And then markets it to beginners. Let me tell you somefink - <USER2> beginner programmers want to be hardcore. They don't want 'easy' stuff. You want 'quick' or you want 'cool', but not easy.

3\. No platform with eyeballs and revenue potential

4\. It's a frickin closed eco-system. Each new framework or way of doing things I learn takes a huge amount of my time and effort. The value of that time and effort to me is MASSIVE. No seriously, this is like me paying you $10.000. If you want me to buy a premium product from you that costs that much, then I want to feel pampered. I want a return on this investment. AppJet has no return! No money, no credibility, no Resume relevant qualifications.

5\. If AppJet becomes open source, then it needs to offer me a very clear advantage over my current django+python combo. And unless the owners learn how to market to the geeks, this is not going to happen.

My conclusion: Your marketing is very wrong. Either sell to nerds or sell to internet marketers. But not this middle ground with no real defined target.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm going to go ahead and say no. AppJet has been around a year and is nearly invisible. The most popular app on AppJet gets a massive 1300 weekly users and is completely worthless (<http://appjet.com/app/799084449/source>).

Server executed JavaScript may have a future in web development, but I don't see AppJet being it.

</comment><comment><USER12> how is it different from the helma? I found helma(helma.org) quite mature. Compare <http://appjet.com/learn-to-program/lessons/lor> to <http://helma.org/docs/guide/framework/>

Is there anyone who has used helma extensively can comment on this?

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't know. I'd find it annoying to build a large application in javascript, but I suppose it could be done. There are some attractive alternatives like GAE and Heroku. That said, cloud services are a hot area, and there are plenty of new tools that Appjet could leverage, like S3 and couchdb.

<comment><USER5> _I'd find it annoying to build a large application in javascript_

Why?

It's a pretty darned powerful language. ExtJS and YUI have shown that it can work for quite large projects in an OO manner, and jQuery has shown that it can be made exceedingly concise and pretty. It's missing a lot of niceties for working with the system, which is a big negative (and one of the same reasons that Lisp, Scheme, and Smalltalk haven't had as big an impact as more recent attempts at dynamic languages like Perl, Python, and Ruby have had), but I assume that as the non-browser implementations become more popular, those problems will be addressed.

I think, when all is said and done, if the committees don't manage to kill what's great about JavaScript (by, for example, bolting on more Java-style OO), it could grow to be more popular than all other dynamic languages combined. Not that I'll be switching from Perl to JavaScript for server-side work any time soon, of course.

<comment><USER14> I recall an add-on for Scheme where you could call Unix command line utilities and tie them together with pipes, and it all just looked like your run of the mill Scheme code.

Also, there was a project to enable writing Unix style command line utilities in Smalltalk. They got the image down to ridiculous small sizes, like 45k!

There's nothing about Javascript that would preclude "working with the system." Usually the biggest barrier is the culture of the development community. Really, Smalltalk never completely quit being an OS.

<comment><USER5> Agreed on all counts. Culture definitely plays a big role, perhaps the biggest role.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Not while they insert a 'Powered by AppJet' tag on every page

<comment><USER16> I don't think you have to. <http://appjet.com/docs/faq>

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> good press Aaron!</comment>


Jio Glass Demo (India Jio's mixed reality glass) - <AUTHOR> https://youtu.be/dv1Pomt9tBM <comment><USER2> The speaker says it comes with a convenient cable that attaches to your phone? I am not so sure how that's convenient when everything else is wireless.

<comment><USER3> It's convenient because you don't need the battery and other related for smart phone capabilities. This keeps the device in a nice form factor and the price down. Devices like this and the HoloLens 2 are the future, we just need a couple more generations of hardware.</comment></comment>


It's the Latency, Stupid - <AUTHOR> http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/rants/Latency.html <comment><USER2> As an Internet user in Singapore, I have a very close experience with Internet Latency. On average, even an excellent Internet connection (Fibre 100 Mbit/s) in Singapore has about 240ms latency when communicating with a US server at West, or about 320ms at East.

Skype calls with these latencies are still acceptable. However, there are many websites using SSL without a cache, and causing the overhead time to be 3 times longer (due to much more handshakes).

Unfortunately, Basecamp uses a lot of redirects (3 redirects to a Whiteboard). This means that I have to wait for 2-3 seconds for each page to start loading!

I know light speed is not something we can change, but the key is, don't use SSL unnecessarily. Even if you have to use SSL, try to implement a cache to save users' time.

I believe that many Internet users outside of US are just like me, start to hate HTTPS websites intuitively. To us, they are just much much slower.

Singapore has one of the fastest Internet connections in the world, especially among English-speaking countries (US website visitors). But latency is always a very big problem that many people are not aware of. I'm surprised that this issue was mentioned as far as 15 years ago!

Edit: spelling, expression.

<comment><USER3> Slightly off-topic, but what is a cache for SSL? That is, what exactly is being cached, and who's doing it?

I ask because I'm writing a little API (both server/client) that uses SSL, and just connecting can be brutally long - so I might be doing something wrong here.

<comment><USER2> Well, I think I may have used the inaccurate term. The cache for SSL has two parts:

# You need to reuse the session, instead of forcing the client to do the full handshake every time.

# You can consider setting a high Keep-Alive value to improve the performance by avoiding long overhead time.

<comment><USER4> In addition to reuse of SSL sessions, files downloaded over HTTPS can be cacheable as well — you just need to add:

        Cache-Control: max-age=<number of seconds>

this way you'll eliminate roundtrip needed for redownload/cache validation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Infiniband was a solution to the latency issue (looking for a problem). It was supposed to provide low-latency data transfer at infinite bandwidth.

I was part of one of the 1st generation solutions. Everybody was attempting to graft infiniband onto existing IP stacks - which totally blew the latency promise. Every day I had to fight our management about this.

The solution of the day was to provide 'virtual adapter' hardware directly mapped into the application memory space, so transfer latency skipped the kernel switch, memory copy and interrupt processing delays. Which required significant changes to the kernel. Which was easy on Windows, hard on Linux and impossible under SunOS.

<comment><USER6> Kernel changes easy on Windows and hard on Linux? Can you explain a little more? I would have guessed Windows would fall in the impossible category and Linux would be relatively easy.

<comment><USER5> There is mature installable driver support in Windows. Things like mappings of locked frames to user space that persist after a kernel call were a flag on Windows, API/kernel changes had to be written on Linux.

<comment><USER6> Interesting - thanks for the explanation. I didn't know that Windows' driver support was that strong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This issue also matters within the computer - the bandwidth between main memory and a GPU connected by PCI Express is close to the bandwidth between main memory and the CPU. (On one machine I used for experiments PCI Express was 8 GB/s while the front-side bus was 12 GB/s.)

But the difference in latency is so big that you have to use different memory transfer strategies when using the GPU for computations than when using the CPU.

</comment><comment><USER8> Interestingly, this is still relevant today when doing large data transfers between hosts with long RTTs using TCP: the typical TCP congestion control implementations (i.e. bic (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIC_TCP)>) use ACKs to update their window size (which come back one RTT later) and hence their windows grow much slower than two hosts with the same capacity but a smaller RTT.

Cubic (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUBIC_TCP>) and htcp ([http://smakd.potaroo.net/ietf/all-ids/draft-leith-tcp- htcp-0...](http://smakd.potaroo.net/ietf/all-ids/draft-leith-tcp-htcp-06.txt)) are two congestion control methods which avoid this by not increasing the congestion window size by a function of the RTT (and are recommended if doing large data transfers across high capacity links with high RTT). In linux you can typically check your TCP congestion control algorithm by: "sysctl net.ipv4.tcp_congestion_control".

<comment><USER9> Seems that the default is "cubic", so users of a modern Linux are OK.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> On a purely superficial level, I am amused to see a call for more inline compression and a call for lower latency in the same article.

<comment><USER11> To the benevolent downvoters of parent post: please explain what is your point?

Don't we agree that compression requires processing input data stream in a window, which introduces extra latency?

(of course, overall transfer time may be lowered via compression, and thus compound latency of whole application can be lowered, but that's another matter -- and sometimes is not predictable without looking at a sizable chunk of the input stream)

<comment><USER12> === please explain what is your point? ===

Quoth the article: "In fact, since most images and sounds on Web pages are compressed already, the modem's attempts to compress the data a second time is futile, and just adds more latency without giving any benefit."

The point is that the article itself addresses this point.

=== Don't we agree that compression requires processing input data stream in a window, which introduces extra latency? ===

No, we don't agree. Your point is correct for a specific use case of compression. However, the article describes using compression such as JPEG for images and MPEG for videos. Typically, images are not stored in raw form and compressed to JPEG only when requested (which would introduce latency, as you suggest). Rather, images are compressed in advanced and stored in their compressed form. This use case of compression does not introduce extra latency.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The other side effect of this is that some modern applications are significantly hindered by the speed of light. If you start to look at doing globally distributed storage, speed of light alone between two locations can be in the hundreds of milliseconds. I had not seen the 33% slowdown in fiber, which could make that worse.

I believe for voice the human ear can't detect 20ms differences, but when you talk about video I have not seen numbers. Many HD video applications require latency under 100ms for the interaction to feel natural, and we currently lack a better solution for this. Example: HD video between Shanghai and Buenos Aires would be over 150ms in delay with just the speed of light and the fiber delay.

</comment><comment><USER5> TCP latency is problematical so at Sococo we do our own protocols under UDP. Different problems, sure, but latency is not one of them. And with voice its important to keep working on the latency issue.

<comment><USER14> I don't understand why fault-tolerant realtime stuff (like voice calls or life video stream) has ever been done via TCP in the first place.

Sure, TCP-only clients such as web browsers might have contributed to the problem. But on a technical point of view, those applications are exactly the use-cases UDP has been designed for.

I guess the next step after web sockets (<http://www.w3.org/TR/websockets/>) will be a UDP-variant of web sockets, enabling web clients to do what native clients have always been able to do: basic networking stuff via TCP and UDP. Alternatively, a UDP variant of HTTP might emerge.

<comment><USER15> SIP session management messages are like HTTP over UDP.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Very relevant to mobile applications/websites with 3g connectivity. I recall seeing an interesting talk from Google about how the Google Maps team optimised the latest Maps API to send larger tiles less frequently to perform better among other enhancements.

Just found a video that talks about this here: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rcvx5QHTJ5U>

</comment><comment><USER17> This is very true, but the flipside is that the patterns of messages over the network matter, too. Improperly designed communication protocols result in _propagation delay_ , which is different from latency. Many real-world applications indirectly suffer from propagation delay, and many of the largest sites have tricks for minimizing delay, and some large companies even want older protocols abandoned due to their inefficient communication.

The reason LANs generally haven't cared about propagation delay is that they are not using networks already operating near the _ultimate bottleneck_ : the speed of light. Some college campuses I know of have less bandwidth than an iPhone. But for Internet-scale computing, propagation delay is evident.

</comment><comment><USER18> This guy wrote one of my all-time favorite papers for its elegant solution to a common problem:

<http://www.stuartcheshire.org/papers/COBSforSIGCOMM.ps>

<comment><USER19> Except that problem shouldn't exist; IMO byte stuffing is evil and all protocols should use byte counting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I tried Clear at one point, thinking I could cut the cord with Time Warner that way. Wi-Max sounds cool on paper, but the latency to the tower was around 30-50ms. This sucks. Browsing the web was not bad, but SSH was a nightmare. Moreover, the latency was inconsistent: 80ms to google.com at one time, 225ms at another. When I talked to the sales rep that sold it to me the plan, he was aware that he had a "ping" in his demo software, but had no idea what it meant. For anyone that wants to try it out: beware their cancellation fees.

<comment><USER21> 30-50ms isn't _nearly_ enough latency to make ssh suck. Even 225ms is fine for ssh. You almost certainly were suffering from high packet loss, which means you get spikes of super high "latency" in TCP (because after a couple of packet losses, it holds off retransmitting until some time much much longer than your ping time, so you experience multi-second delays when typing).

Ironically, connections that are sending bulk data (eg. downloads) don't run into this, because a lot of packets get sent at once; if one of them in the middle gets dropped, the recipient knows it right away (because the next one has the wrong sequence number) so it can immediately send an ACK that re- requests the missing one. So on a busy connection, packet loss isn't as big a problem. On an interactive connection like ssh, it's completely deadly and makes it almost unusable.

All that to say: your problem with Wimax is fixable. It's not a latency problem, but nobody has fixed it yet.

<comment><USER20> Thanks for the reply. Just one clarification: the 30-50ms ping was just to the tower, not to the remote host. It was taking the already slowish ping of 80ms and adding another 30-50ms to it. I think this makes ssh suck since I can see it: 100ms latency == 10 frames per second.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Low latency + adequate bandwidth + well-designed sites make for a pleasant web browsing experience. If any one of those aren't present, it somehow seems less professional. Plus, the time between clicking a link and the next page coming up is hugely important if the visitor is on a nice connection. I feel like a lot of sites with minimalist layouts (esp. blogs) score big in this area with lower-end computer users.</comment>


Ask HN: What are the key items to cover to land an entry level developer role? - nm-f I've recently had a string of 'positive but not quite enough' interviews which has been quite discouraging.
Bit of background about me, I finished a CS related master's degree. Have worked (just over a year) as a software engineer with very very specific languages in a legacy codebase, rendering it quite irrelevant for most jobs. The only thing I can mention about is my dissertation, some python automation/scripting I have done as part of my job.
I'm finding it difficult to learn at a reasonable pace outside of work due to lack of time outside my job. If I optimise hard every day I can put in 2 hours per day + 12 at the weekend into learning. I'm interested in entry level backend engineer/ml engineer roles. What are the key skills I need to show/develop, given I'm quite proficient in Python? <comment><AUTHOR> It's a challenging situation you're in. As a hiring manager, I often find people who've done a lot of outside learning don't stand up to interviews because they often haven't really internalized the material.

What could maybe make it easier is to actually DO something with this knowledge. That could mean building a small service (or even library) that scratches some itch you have and hosting it somewhere cheap. That will be a lot closer to the type of learning you get on the job. As a potential employers, I can load it up and click on it and actually see what you can do. This gives you something very concrete to discuss with interviewers.

Best of luck to you!

<comment> nm-f Thank you for the reply, I think this is quite achievable. Do you think a project done "just for fun" works too? I had a thought about writing something like a simple fluid simulation toy, or is it better to focus on something like a webapp that's actually useful.

<comment><AUTHOR> Both could work. Pick the one that's closest to the type of thing you'd be working on in the types of roles you'd be applying for.</comment></comment></comment>


"Chaos Engineering" – Published by O'Reilly - Bella-Xiang https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/chaos-engineering/9781492043850/ <comment><AUTHOR> Is this a april fool's or where can I buy it and give to my managers?

<comment><USER2> Chaos engineering is the practice of deliberately breaking live systems to improve their robustness. The first widely noted system is Chaos Monkey developed at Netflix. [https://github.com/Netflix/chaosmonkey](https://github.com/Netflix/chaosmonkey) Years ago, I had the same reaction to "extreme programming"

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Every external dependency you take is a chaos monkey.</comment>


Some thoughts on blockchain scalability and future research - <AUTHOR> http://roberts.pm/thoughts_on_blockchain_scalability <comment><USER2> Large blocks scale just fine. Even with today's consumer tech we can have gigabyte blocks. It takes 0.8 seconds to transfer over a 10-gigabit connection. Storage is cheap, 4TB drives are under $96. Modern CPUs are incredibly fast at cryptography. And all of it is constantly getting cheaper.

And we won't need gigabyte blocks for a few years.

Then if you look at cutting edge tech, we can already do terabyte blocks.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7jtlm6/terabyte_blocks...](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7jtlm6/terabyte_blocks_could_be_transmitted_today/)

[http://blog.vermorel.com/journal/2017/12/17/terabyte- blocks-...](http://blog.vermorel.com/journal/2017/12/17/terabyte-blocks-for- bitcoin-cash.html)</comment>


The Quiet Power of Maya Lin - <AUTHOR> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/09/29/the-quiet-power-of-maya-lin/ <comment><USER2> A nice tribute by Martin Filler. Worth reading if you have an interest in how Maya Lin's career has taken shape.

And of course, if you have not seen the Vietnam Memorial and you happen to be in D.C. - you really should make the time. Images cannot come close to the real thing. I got a very body-driven feeling of the enormity of the loss.

Or, as Filler puts it:

"In the new monograph, these and Lin's other projects are illustrated with large color photographs. ... Furthermore, the strong physical (not to say psychic) responses that this environmental artist's finest creations summon forth are beyond the mimetic capacities of even the most ingenious printed format."

</comment><comment><USER3> Hey, it is very brilliant and useful web site. Hold shaping the great function, Nice to discover your intelligent web site. Thanks for Nice and Informative Post. This article is really contains lot more information about This Topic. We have read your all the information some points are also good and some usually are awesome. Great post I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this interesting and knowledgeable article. Feel free to surf ([http://www.essayguardian.com](http://www.essayguardian.com))</comment>