GoFlow: a DIY tDCS brain-boosting kit - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/121861-goflow-a-diy-tdcs-brain-boosting-kit <comment><USER2> > It's not hard to see how tDCS could pose some ethical considerations, > though.

Only if you're primed by your culture to blanch at transhumanism.

> What if some students can afford tDCS kits, but others can't?

What if some students can afford college, computers, calculators, tutoring, study guides, etc. but others can't? This is one of the silliest purported ethical issues I've ever seen, but it consistently gets contemplating nods from those pretending to be wise, so long as we're talking about a new, scary technology, and not a mundane, accepted reality.

<comment><USER3> Some are primed to blanch at transhumanism; Some are primed to accept a class- based social hierarchy as simply mundane and not an ethical issue.

Every new privilege granted to the top socioeconomic class is an appropriate opportunity to ask the question "why solve this problem instead of improving peoples' lives by tackling inequality?" The answer can be that one is simply working on what one is good at. However that answer doesn't mean the question is silly or appropriate to sideline.

<comment><USER4> What does the fact that some people may not be able to immediately afford the latest innovations have to do with accepting a "class-based social hierarchy", or recognizing any social hierarchy at all?

Who is 'granting' any 'privileges' to anyone - where do these kinds of notions even come from?

Reducing the particulars of actual people's real lives to instances of abstract categories _is_ silly, inappropriate, and insulting; if you know someone who you think would benefit from this device, but who can't afford to buy one, then you can buy one for him yourself. If you know many such people, you can start a foundation to buy them for people, and contribute your own energies to developing even lower-cost open-spec implementations, a la Raspberry Pi.

There are plenty of actual solutions you can pursue when you address problems within the particulars of their own contexts. But those who instead prefer merely to dawdle with abstractions, propose preemptive universal-scope policies, and cast people's real circumstances into arbitrary taxonomies are _themselves_ the one promoting some kind of "class-based social hierarchy".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As an EE, I was pretty sure I could disprove this, with a quick look at conductivities of bone vs muscle. My theory being that most of the electric current would travel through the scalp, and not pass through the skull to the brain.

I found this link, however, which is pretty interesting, that shows conductivities of various tissue types, if anybody is interested. It looks like the skull is not much of an electrical barrier.

[http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/16/002/pdf/0031-9155_...](http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/16/002/pdf/0031-9155_54_16_002.pdf)

<comment><USER6> If the skull was an insulator it'd make EEG really hard. Not saying EEG is easy, but if you can record brain signals (which are very small) I'd think that dc could be having some effect.

From Wikipedia about EEG:

> _A typical adult human EEG signal is about 10µV to 100 µV in amplitude when > measured from the scalp and is about 10–20 mV when measured from subdural > electrodes._

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> A cautionary tale. I'm getting a skin graft on Monday after I gave myself 1% full thickness burns with 3 x 9v batteries. I'm a paraplegic and I fell asleep with electrodes on my back so I'd didn't feel anything but awoke to some pretty nasty burns. I completely underestimated the risk of hurting myself.

<comment><USER6> May I ask about the set-up?

Where both electrodes on your back? Did you use some conductive gel gloop? Was this a dc or an ac signal? Why 3 batteries? Where they in series or parallel?

May I also ask what your device is used for?

Apologies for the interrogation!

(Good Luck with the grafts btw.)

<comment><USER7> Gel-electrodes, 27v DC - clocked at 100ma when I tested it. 27v to get required field strength across the site of my injury, just a back of the envelope guess. Both electrodes on my back 1 above 1 below the site of my injury.

It's a long story but it seems a modest electric field can encourage axon regrowth in damaged spinal cords. Good evidence for this including a phase 1 human trial in 2005 but nothing since. Here is one of the first papers:

[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cne.902500204/abs...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cne.902500204/abstract)

My arduino controlled device:

[https://plus.google.com/u/0/105950978003980827748/posts/hQY2...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/105950978003980827748/posts/hQY2tn3n1bs)

<comment><USER8> I'm all for experimenting on yourself. Go for it.

However, I'm also a software engineer for a medical device company and I spend a great deal of time assessing and mitigating the safety of various operations. Please take care to understand the failure modes of anything you build and attach to your own body. When you get to the point of using an Arduino (or anything else that uses software), the number of failure points goes up dramatically. Try to consider how _anything_ could fail and what the consequences will be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Are the measured effects of tDCS really large enough to outweigh any effects from confirmation bias and statistical anomalies? Were the tests performed double-blind using placebo units?

<comment><USER10> At the risk of appealing to authority, I have to assume that if DARPA is using it to train snipers, they know it works whether it's due to the tDCS or mental priming as mentioned below. Obviously, from a theoretical standpoint it's important to know why it's working but from a lifehacking/making better snipers/learning Perl/selling $99 tDCS kits standpoint, it doesn't matter how it works, only that it does.

<comment><USER11> > I have to assume that if DARPA is using it to train snipers, they know it > works

This keeps getting thrown around but I'm having a hard time identifying a good source (other than a bunch of blogs repeating the same 'fact'). The best I can do is this set of slides which claim 'a 2.1x improvement' [1], but no confirmation that it's actually in use.

The brain is very poorly understood, and throwing random electrical fields across it "because I saw it on extremetech" is a terrible idea.

[1] <http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008intell/kruse.pdf>

<comment><USER12> I remember reading more detail on the snipers here:

Zap your brain into the zone: Fast track to pure focus [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328501.600-zap- your-...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328501.600-zap-your-brain- into-the-zone-fast-track-to-pure-focus.html?full=true)

Which references Experimental Brain Research, vol 213, p 9: [http://www.mendeley.com/research/transcranial-direct- current...](http://www.mendeley.com/research/transcranial-direct-current- stimulations-effect-novice-versus-experienced-learning/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This sounds suspiciously like the time machine that kip ordered off the internet in napoleon dynamite.

<comment><USER14> Or one of those ab exercisers from a TV infomercial.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Here's the schematic for current limiter and description how to pick components for it. [http://www.vidisonic.com/2008/07/10/current-limiting- circuit...](http://www.vidisonic.com/2008/07/10/current-limiting-circuit/)

<comment><USER15> I started with bottom left schematic here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_limiting>

and found resistor values by tinkering in simulator (I'm a noob) and I arrived at this:

[http://www.falstad.com/circuit/#%24+1+5.0E-6+10.200277308269...](http://www.falstad.com/circuit/#%24+1+5.0E-6+10.20027730826997+56+10.0+50%0Ag+240+416+240+448+0%0AR+240+64+240+16+0+0+40.0+9.0+0.0+0.0+0.5%0Ar+192+208+192+272+0+47000.0%0Ar+240+336+240+368+0+270.0%0Aw+240+336+240+320+0%0At+192+272+240+272+0+1+-0.049593363704599325+0.5925171322994098+290.0%0At+240+320+192+320+0+1+-0.5925171322994098+0.5300513115911913+290.0%0Aw+240+320+240+288+0%0Aw+240+368+240+384+0%0Aw+240+384+192+384+0%0Aw+192+336+192+384+0%0Aw+192+64+240+64+0%0Ar+352+64+352+128+0+1.0%0Ar+384+64+384+128+0+4000.0%0Aw+384+64+352+64+0%0Aw+240+416+240+384+0%0AS+368+192+368+128+0+1+false+0%0Aw+192+272+192+304+0%0Aw+192+208+192+64+0%0Aw+240+256+240+192+0%0Aw+240+192+368+192+0%0Aw+240+64+352+64+1%0A)

Now time to check how it works in the real world. ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is a really interesting idea -- I wonder how many people will be willing to hook their brains into a $99 device.

tDCS has also been found to be effective in treating major despression ([http://www.brainstimulation.columbia.edu/doc/journal_club/pa...](http://www.brainstimulation.columbia.edu/doc/journal_club/papers/boggio_neuropsychopharmacology_2008.pdf))

<comment><USER6> Your link does not say it's effective for treating major depression. Your link does say that it might be effective and deserves further investigation.

They had a tiny sample size of 40 people, split into 3 groups.

I agree that it'd be great if there was a lot more, and better, research into this.

To answer your question: I'd be happy to plug myself into a $99 device, so long as it was built competently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Would be interesting to try this about 5 years after the first batch of users lead the charge.

If it has any effect then the side effects would be my first major concern.

<comment><USER18> The tech is over 40 years old actually. Tons of research out there if you've got some free time.

<comment><USER19> Can you show some examples of implementation that are 40 years old?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Why isn't this a Kickstarter project yet?

Forget about sign-ups, this is well enough organized to attract pre-purchases (plus I want one sooner).

<comment><USER18> Thanks for the love. The kickstarter should be starting soon. Also a full schematic will be posted around the same time if anyone wants to order the parts themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've been fascinated by all of the articles posted on here about tDCS, so I definitely signed up. I'm willing to pay $99 for a device that's probably worth $10 in parts, so long as its easy to use, easy to assemble, and works. Besides, if it works, I wouldn't mind starting my own business selling pre- built tDCS machines.

</comment><comment><USER22> I was about to order the kit for the heck of it, until I saw the "meme picture" on their order page.

I am not going to give my money in exchange for a product I'll trust with my health to a company that thinks "U LEARNED RUBY? Y TAKE SO LONG" is proper/fitting advertisement.

</comment><comment><USER23> I think this company does it too. But they have more products. <http://www.b-alert.com/products/index.html>

<comment><USER24> that's eeg, it monitors brain waves. tdcs is supposed to stimulate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> At the risk of being downvoted, after the reading all the comments here, disappointingly, it appears P.T. Barnum's often quoted remark (yes I'm aware he may not have said it, irrelevant) about suckers and being born every minute, is especially applicable to HNers. Maybe it's some kind of "too smart for their own good" kind of phenomenon (getting into this business of current regulators and all this jibber jabber); but, perhaps that is just self- serving.

<comment><USER26> AFAIK 70-80 human studies have been done on tDCS, most of them placebo- controlled.

Here's a review on the topic from Nature: <http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110413/full/472156a.html>

<comment><USER25> So, the link you gave me is nice and it says this: "Overall, though, the optimism among tDCS's believers remains high." I'm sure it is but my point remains regardless of the votes. This research is very sparse and the benefits are not quite that clear and the possibility that these fairly unclear benefits could be the result of some kind of mental priming or other the should leave suspicion intact.

Given the kind of claims being made, don't we need more than this?

OK. Fine. Wonderous possibilities - transhumanism and all that.

This is hardly a "proven" scientific thing and the benefits are somewhat murky. What I'm seeing on HN, surprisingly, are people talking about buying some contraption that purports to make them smarter and the CONSENSUS seems to be that that is entirely reasonable. Disturbing.

More disturbing I'm seeing comments about people experimenting on themselves with crudely crafted contraptions and hurting themselves and others simply offering advice about voltage regulators and the like. This is clearly a "sucker born every minute" territory." I'm really surprised to see this on HN.

I get the impression that I could post about some kind of startup in which I am going to disrupt biotech by curing cancer with some kind of Wi-Fi therapy and probably what I would get as a response is hints on how to optimize the timing protocols, reduce latency, and so forth.

<comment><USER6> You still haven't read the studies. Your point would be much more powerful if you linked to a study and showed where they had gone wrong. (That's not hard; they typically use very small sample sizes. It's hard to randomise the groups. How was the blinding done? How are the effects measured? What are the confidence ranges on the results.)

But you should note that these are not quack journals and disreputable colleges - these are real journals and real researchers. Note that most of the reports are fair - "might be effective" and "deserves further investigation" tend not to be the language used by quacks.

Maybe I've misunderstood your point?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So, some electrodes (easily available for TENS machines, or you could go more high-tech); conductive gel; one 9v battery; one 4500 ohm resistor; (or probably two batteries and a current regulator).

Does anyone have a map of cathode / anode electrode positions?

<comment><USER24> [http://www.jove.com/video/2744/electrode-positioning-and- mon...](http://www.jove.com/video/2744/electrode-positioning-and-montage-in- transcranial-direct-current-stimulation)

also there is reddit.com/r/tdcs for more info

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> My thought process:

See that it can be an interesting concept. Look at the article "mmm why not". Click on GoFlow.com link, see the meme in the front page. It's a bad one. Close page, will never come back.

<comment><USER28> GoFlow.com is a site about sailing, this site's at <http://flowstateengaged.com/>

<comment><USER29> OP went to the correct site; you posted the URL containing the same bad meme about Ruby.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> What are the side effects of this? Has anyone here actually tried it?

</comment><comment><USER31> All given learning examples are about muscle memory. I.e. maybe it works only good for the cerebellum but not so good for learning other things.

<comment><USER32> That would not explain the claimed effect on depression

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I would definitely buy it and use it.

</comment><comment><USER34> Another ethical wrinkle:

Given that we have good evidence that this technology is safe and remarkably effective, is it ethical to NOT deploy this technology on those government executives on whose decision-making and information-processing ability American lives depend?

<comment><USER6> we don't yet have good evidence of neither safety nor efficacy.

<comment><USER2> You should do some research before claiming that there isn't evidence for something. If you look at the wikipedia article on tDCS, you'll find a number of peer-reviewed citations regarding its safety and efficacy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> On the subject of ethics, I've been looking into Modafinil (Provigil, etc) lately. If you're unfamiliar with it, it's a drug which eliminates the cognitive effects of sleepiness. Its current approved use is for treatment of narcolepsy. The effects last for around eight hours, and the drug doesn't induce jitters or negatively impact decision making. Quoting off the top of my head, a military test showed sleep-deprived helicopter pilots operating within 17% of their well-rested accuracy after 36 hours of continuous duty. It _can_ be used to stay awake for very long periods, but it's more interesting for its effects in normal waking periods. Not only does it prevent sleepiness, it increases focus and seems to have anti-depressant properties.

I'm pretty well convinced that over the next decade we'll see this and similar drugs proliferate among white collar jobs. Let's face it: our work is boring and the body is not well adapted to it. It's difficult to keep the mind engaged when the body thinks it's a good time to nap or chat with the tribe.

If you look back at photos of the space race, two things are likely to be prominent: coffee and cigarettes. The brilliant engineers who put men on the moon using slide rules also dosed themselves with stimulants in order to maintain focus. These days, cigarettes are on the wane, and something will need to replace and improve upon them.

A common criticism is, "what if everyone is on them?" Well, so what if they are? The automatic assumption is that we'll all be working 16 hour shifts, but I don't see any reason to expect that. If I can maintain focus and do a day's worth of highly productive work in four hours, why not expect the work day to drop to four or six hours (six giving a net benefit to the employer) over time?

<comment><USER8> Based on the common programmer complaint of being on call/working very long hours, I think your conclusion is rather naive.

Everyone doing it will just result in it being the expected behavior to get more work out of 8+ hours on the job.

<comment><USER35> Several issues:

1) How do we quantify the number of programmers subjected to these conditions? Squeaky wheels get noticed. Personally, I've had only a few stretches where I was expected to work more than around 40 hours per week. I've also had several stretches where I only worked less.

2) How do we compare what is still a very young field (computer programming) to other fields? How do we compare knowledge work with manufacturing? How many hours per week do you work compared to a textile manufacturing worker in the late 1800s? Did their productivity scale directly with hours? Does yours?

3) You simply don't have any reason other than pessimism to reach your conclusion.

<comment><USER19> Being the lazy type I ask that you answer those yourself and report back.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Awesome that someone is doing this however I have to say the parts involved are only worth about $10 so $99 is a bit nuts. Someone should just post the plans and the parts list with instructions and anyone can build one of these safely in a couple hours.

<comment><USER18> Absolutely. Once the device has been tested to our satisfaction, a full schematic and parts list will be published for the solder junkies out there. Free of charge.

The $99 kit is a solderless, and no tools necessary setup.

\- Matt @flowstateengage

<comment><USER37> I would assume (hope?) that you've tried it yourself? If/how did it work for you?

<comment><USER38> he's selling crap worth $10 for $99 and people are willing to buy. so I guess it worked pretty good.

<comment><USER6> He's selling stuff worth $10 for $99, that other people were selling for hundreds or even > $1000. So I guess it worked pretty well for them too.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Advanced Squid Caching for Rails Applications: Preface - <AUTHOR> http://blog.kovyrin.net/2008/10/25/advanced-squid-caching-for-rails-applications-preface/

<comment><AUTHOR> Great advice for scaling. Especially considering the size of scribd. I will definitely be interested to see the nginx module, but I wonder how this development and the recent news of Rack::Cache will affect each other.

<comment><USER2> I'd say only positively.

Regarding the article, this statement really freaked me out:

> So, we've got an idea - why can't we place such a server in front of our > application and make it cache content for all users in the world?

Seriously? They'd never even _heard_ of gateway / reverse proxy caching? They came up with it independently? I knew HTTP caching wasn't understood very well but this shows that it's so much worse than I imagined.

It's sad that such a fundamental aspect of the web's architecture is just completely off the radar for so many "web developers". That's not a knock on the Scribd folks, it's a systemic problem across our entire industry as far as I can tell.

<comment><USER3> Actually I didn't want to freak you out :-)

Of course we've heard (and even used) caching reverse proxies - I've just explained the flow of our thoughts and words in the chat room during the brainstorming. I mean one thing is when you know about something and completely different when all pieces of a puzzle get together and you see a full picture.

<comment><USER2> Ahhh, I see. Like telling a joke in the first person because it just works better.

Well, that's definitely good to know. It does read as if you were forced to discover the concept independently, though, which might be a tad confusing for those familiar with the technique. Maybe it's just me.

At any rate, I do like the clear description of the situation and discussion that led to putting a gateway cache in place. It helps make things click.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> varnish is a lot faster!

<comment><USER5> Yeah. But it looks like they have Nginx in front of Squid, so Nginx would still be a bottleneck if they used Varnish. It seems like the cache ought to be at the front of the stack.

<comment><USER3> Why would nginx be a bottleneck? and What kind of bottleneck do you mean?

<comment><USER5> When nginx proxies a request to Varnish, the response probably gets copied at least twice. If you had Varnish in front it would be zero-copy.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


India Prime Minister Proposes Helping Coal Industry Survive Amid Climate Crisis - <AUTHOR> https://earther.gizmodo.com/report-india-prime-minister-proposes-helping-the-coal-1840724529 <comment><USER2> > The Modi administration instead wants plants to install equipment that would > cut pollution.

Can someone who has more expertise in this area weigh in on how effective are these pollution reducing equipments? The author of the article just brushes out this topic with hand wavy comments.

<comment><AUTHOR> I suspect that their intention is to just put the activists etc. at rest as opposed to actually cut down pollution. They can't just say that they'll continue to use coal power plants in their current state, considering that our current emission norms are not at par with that of the world. The statement is just a consolation for the world so that the govt. does not appear too callous.

<comment><USER2> It's always been Indian government's arguments that India can't do as much as the developed countries when it comes to climate change, specially around energy needs. So this step is hardly surprising.

<comment><AUTHOR> It may not be surprising, but as an Indian who cares about pollution and climate change, it is quite disheartening.

<comment><USER2> Think of all the poor people who have to struggle without electricity to heat up/cool down, to live a life of moderate amenities. All of that requires energy. Ideally nuclear power would have been able to power, but it is unfortunate we have to go back to rely on coal.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


San Francisco: The scapegoat capital of America - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/12/san-francisco

<comment><USER2> The article touches on some valid points. I voted for the condo development, and was disappointed when it didn't pass. The lack of housing options in the city is a bad thing. We need more housing _of any type_.

Also, I can't understand why so many out-of-town tech workers keep casting aspersions on the homeless here. That's like punching a baby. No one thinks you're cool for doing it and there's immediate blowback.</comment>


Dorian S. Nakamoto "unconditionally" denies inventing Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> http://cir.ca/s/Ooz

<comment><USER2> Whether he isn't or is, it doesn't matter. Leave the poor guy alone you terrible people.</comment>


This article is guilty of spreading panic and disorder - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/china/21679481-more-general-signs-crackdown-expression-article-guilty-spreading-panic-and <comment><USER2> It's today's college environment elevated to the level of national government.</comment>


The Holy Grail of Crackpot Filtering: How the arXiv decides what's science - <AUTHOR> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-holy-grail-of-crackpot-filtering.html <comment><USER2> This is dismaying. I can sort of understand that the physicists want lots of filtering, but in the area I follow on Arxiv (machine learning), it seems to me as if there's a) little filtering and b) this works out great.

I have seen crank papers, but they are just ignored and quickly crowded out by papers people are actually interested in reading.

A while back they ran surveys on whether they should filter more. I and everyone I talked to said, don't worry about filtering, don't worry about prestige (yours or author's), just give a place to publish and good tools for searching/browsing (a la external sites like arxiv-sanity), and it's perfect.

But it didn't occur to me that attitudes might be very different in other fields.

<comment><USER3> [I am conjecturing]

1\. In a recent field like machine learning, there has not been enough time for rank amateurs to assimilate the relevant language without understanding the core material, but in physics, people have had centuries for the Newtonian model and a hundred years for quantum mechanics.

2\. Because machine learning is so recent, there is less difference between a rank amateur's quackery and the set of ideas "unexplored which might work". That is to say, there isn't a strong established model and supporting theories about how and why techniques work. The state of the art in machine learning is still so empirical that it hasn't even developed its own "phlogiston".

3\. As a new field, it is "easier to make progress" in machine learning. In part because the low hanging fruit has yet to be plucked. In part because people are less able to point to what has worked in the past. And in part because the pace of advance creates more tolerance toward mistakes...it's currently in a continuous delivery mode.

But I could easily be wrong.

<comment><USER2> Mostly reasonable, I think. But there's also something more: experiments are readily reproducible, and it's becoming a norm to include code for reproduction.

About assimilating the language, I'll add that old ML papers use a lingo which is almost incomprehensible to me, whereas with newer ones, they obviously place high value in being as clear and readable as possible, to get the most attention from practitioners as well as researchers.</comment></comment></comment>


Never Tweet - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/opinion/covington-twitter.html <comment><USER2> This content is paywalled. Anybody got a mirror?</comment>


I'm an entrepreneur turned investor. Convince me in two sentences - <AUTHOR> http://pastebin.com/jDkGiSxS

<comment><USER2> Dance, Monkeys Dance! ... No thanks.

No legitimate investor would find this exercise to be worthwhile nor would any legitimate entrepreneur find this to be worthwhile.

<comment><USER3> My response was a little more workplace-unfriendly, but I like yours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I find this believable considering where claims to come from (first time investor?). I'd probably consider trying something similar, except I'd not be willing to wade through hundreds of poorly written, partly fake/satirical pitches because I don't believe in finding rare gems among them just because the barrier to entry is so low. More complicated and time-consuming processes like YC's are not based on a whim and seem to work very well for a reason.

<comment><USER5> Indeed. I'm not going to pitch randomly to a secretive stranger in hopes of getting quick money. I want to know _who_ I'm dealing with, and _why_ I should deal with them, before I even start.

VC may not be the best route for this particular investor, anyway. If s/he wants to play around in the dirt with early stage startups, angel investing would be considerably more rewarding, I'd think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Assuming it's legit, it seems more an opportunity for angel investing than VC. Any company ready for real VC money should have better connections and personal introductions, or the poster should know about them and be going to them.

I suppose it would work for angels, but I don't see how this approach beats the rich systems that AngelList or Gust offer.

</comment><comment><USER6> This sounds a bit fake. I don't see what you have to gain by doing this anonymously. On the other hand, I don't see why someone wast their time faking something like this but then again I never got why people troll everywhere. I thought hacker news was safe from the trolls. Anyways GL.

</comment><comment><USER7> Yeah right. There's no reference as to _where_ to post the idea, so it's clear that the OP `ziko` would have to be the investor. Yet `ziko` clearly knows how to submit "Ask HN:" type posts, so the pastebin.com is merely a lazy disassociation.

</comment><comment><USER8> It's like the Twitter version of Angellist. You can do text filtering on whatever keywords you are looking for. Unlike Angellist, you don't have to wade through lots of links and documents.

</comment><comment><USER9> Is this an effort to take the pg investing trends essay to an extreme? Or an effort to quickly fill the deal pipeline for a new VC?

</comment><comment><USER10> Soon we'll have micro funding. You submit a one word proposal to investors and they can commit to invest either $10 or $0.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you track your expenses? - <AUTHOR> What's your process for tracking your expenses? Do you use an app? How sophisticated are the apps that you use? Do you know any terminal based app for expense tracking? <comment><USER2> I used to track everything in a spreadsheet manually and early last year finally found time to turn it into an app which pulls in my credit card transactions automatically. I still input lots of expenses manually since I'm living in a primarily cash-based society and it works great for my needs.

Not sure what your idea of "sophisticated" is, but it's definitely the opposite of a terminal-based app. It's built on a modern web stack and it's called Lunch Money ([https://lunchmoney.app](https://lunchmoney.app))!

<comment><USER3> Looks great! I've checked it out before. The primary limitation for me vs YNAB is iphone support.

I'm currently a YNAB user and I love it. There are a lot of YNAB users. They already understand the value of this type of tool. If you want to try and convert YNAB users you might want to consider a way for YNAB users to migrate to your tool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For personal expenses, YNAB has literally changed my life. It's also helped my wife and I's relationship with money and forced us to plan each month. When my wife was furloughed due to COVID19 a month ago, we knew we'd be ok because we have been planning our finances for 5+ years.

<comment><USER5> Also happy with YNAB. I've used it for almost a year now. To be honest, I don't really budget down to the dollar like YNAB recommends. For example, a lot of stuff still ends up in the "stuff I forgot to budget for" bucket. However, I find it useful for general expense tracking and understanding trends in my spending. I also find it useful as a way to confirm that bills were paid, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have to comb through my monthly transactions for business income and expenses. I also get a notification for every transaction with N26.

I used to have a homemade tool that graphed my net worth across several bank accounts. It proved very difficult to maintain, but it was super useful. I could easily see my savings rate, and catch unexpected dips.

</comment><comment><USER7> I have a budget on Excel (with 12-15 months planned) and download the data from my bank/credit card every month to assess how I'm doing vs the plan.

If I'm on a cash-tight period, I increase the assessment frequency accordingly. Typically, my biggest expenses are rent and groceries, so I pay closer attention to those.

</comment><comment> blaser-waffle I used You Need A Budget (YNAB) for a while, but supplemented with a google doc/spreadsheet. Eventually moved to a gDoc entirely, but I may move back to YNAB as I try to de-googlify.

I would call them reasonably sophisticated, but ultimately something I did by hand. Mint.com and some of the automated tracking solutions are attractive, but I don't like giving access to sensitive things to random companies, plus I don't need deep, regular breakdowns, just broad trends; if I miss a couple of lunches out, or forgot to add an oil change it won't impact my overall financial picture.

I don't know any terminal-based apps, though I did have a basic python script that hits the Yahoo Finance API to track my stocks. It doesn't work now because I think Yahoo shutdown the API to the public. See also: [https://pypi.org/project/yahoo-finance/](https://pypi.org/project/yahoo- finance/)

</comment><comment><USER8> An Excel file, manually updated from the bank when needed.

We are trying to avoid credit and loans which makes budgeting quite trivial, many times downloading bank transactions of the last months/years and putting them on a graph is enough

</comment><comment><USER9> I do it in an old-fashioned way - in a notebook. For example, you can find lots of different expense trackers on Amazon. I prefer paper planners instead of digital ones in general.

</comment><comment><USER10> I manually track expenses in a spreadsheet. I'm using tillerhq.com to pull transactions to the spreadsheet automatically.

</comment><comment><USER11> I use Spendee. It has a nice interface and doesn't get in the way.

</comment><comment><USER12> ledger-mode in Emacs.

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://www.ledger-cli.org/3.0/doc/ledger- mode.html#Introduc...](https://www.ledger-cli.org/3.0/doc/ledger- mode.html#Introduction-to-Ledger_002dmode)

This?

I prefer vim, will try this out though.</comment></comment>


Why All Programmers Should Get a Master's Degree - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/414542/why-programmers-should-get-a-masters-degree/ <comment><USER2> I find it nuts that a CEO, and somebody who had to write and defend a dissertation, would attach their name this hack job of an article. The entire argument exists in a couple sentences, with no proof or citations:

"While talented grads with a bachelor's degree may have the knowledge necessary to fill an entry-level position, they often lack the in-depth knowledge and design experience necessary to take on challenging assignments that would lead to rapid advancement. By definition, the course work for a bachelor's degree comprises a wide array of general studies combined with a limited set of major-specific classes. This provides the grad with important preparation for wide-ranging career choices but limited expertise in a specific field.

In contrast, a master's level graduate program in computer science offers students the opportunity to tackle advanced topics, such as distributed computing and operating systems, and to obtain the design skills required to architect and implement complex systems and applications."

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm not studying my Masters in Europe, and here the the norm is to enter a Masters Program directly after finishing your bachelors. I have already worked for a few years in America and while I'm still in my 20's, I am one of the oldest students in the class.

The biggest reason I could not enter into a graduate program straight out of university was the college debt I had already taken on for my bachelors. I worked for a couple years making student loan payments and then as I always planned, I began researching Masters Programs. After seeing the price tag, it was very hard to walk away from a comfortable salary.

To avoid this, perhaps it is best to go straight from Undergrad to grad before you start enjoying the the young professional lifestyle and work on paying off a larger debt upon graduation.</comment>


Show HN: Made a video for my startup, with zero budget in 3 hours - <AUTHOR> http://beta.plan.nr/

<comment><USER2> I have to agree with jsavimbi. Great job on gettng something out quickly, but I couldn't tell what the app does after starting to watch the video. The only thing I have to add is how small the video was, I couldn't tell what was supposed to be on the screen at all; clarity beats being clever i.e. make the video front and centre rather than embedded in the monitor if it means the screen is too small to read.

By the way, what did you use to throw the video together?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks - size is definitely an issue. I used jing and exported / converted the swf into a demo copy of final cut. Then I edited the scenes together and looped a free guitar sample.

Appreciate the feedback

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The video is a bit small, and the music is really annoying, but fair play to you sir..

something like that life on facebook video (<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCUCZCBso_w>) would probably be quite a good way to present the life story use case for the product... what does it actually do?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hey - not at all thats really useful feedback!

I know it needs a lot of work, and I struggled to find a track. It needs a story element. At the moment I just wanted something to show the process of making a plan.

The link you provided is really useful - I'll start working on the next iteration.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Needed to make a video as quickly as possible to get our new homepage up. Would love to hear any feedback, and any tips on the next iteration which needs a bit more of a story! (than an edited screencast)

</comment><comment><USER4> The good the bad and the ugly:

The Good: you made a video for your app. That's a lot more than most people do and you know you have to iterate. At least you're being realistic.

The bad: you made it as quickly as possible. Honestly, I could barely watch. The music was too loud and distracting from the content. There appeared to be no structure to the video. What does this app do? Why am I using it? Show me a use case, not a fast-moving screen capture of someone using an app without an explanation of what they're trying to accomplish and how they're doing it via your app. Present problem, solution, success. Reward the viewer with an "aha" moment.

The ugly: that music was awful and intrusive. Watch the brand recognition video going around ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N4t3-__3MA0)) and you'll notice two things: the very clear, pausing voice of the child with a mellow, low-volume soundtrack running in the background. It humanizes the pitch, almost making the viewer imagine themselves in the room while the child is talking. it's human, it's real. Yours sounded like an air show video from the History Channel with a bunch of high-power guitar riffs running in the background.

Hope I'm not being too negative.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey - not at all thats really useful feedback! I know it needs a lot of work, and I struggled to find a track. It needs a story element. At the moment I just wanted something to show the process of making a plan. The link you provided is really useful - I'll start working on the next iteration.

<comment><USER4> You're welcome. I know it's hard to do so I appreciate you sharing it. Let me know when you have another iteration ready.</comment></comment></comment>


Freeablo – An open-source Diablo engine - <AUTHOR> https://freeablo.org/ <comment><USER2> For people hoping to just download and play be aware, it doesn't include art files. Need to get those from original Diablo.

> freeablo is a modern cross platform reimplementation of the game engine used > in Diablo 1. As it is just an engine, you will need the original data files > to play the game.

> #Installation > Copy DIABDAT.MPQ and Diablo.exe from your diablo install > into the folder with the freeablo executable. (NOTE: only version 1.09 of > diablo is currently supported, so please patch to that version)

</comment><comment><USER3> For anyone interested in contributing to open-source game engines, there is a nicely curated list (by language and game genre) at [http://osgameclones.com/](http://osgameclones.com/).

<comment><USER4> I've been thinking of making such a list (with all these filters!), but thankfully someone beat me to it. One thing I'd like to see though would be the extension to include open source game projects that aren't clones or remakes.

<comment><USER5> There's a lot of open source game projects that are not clones, but also a lot of them are just unfinished, unmaintained, buggy or just crap as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nice. Now we just need the game distributed DRM-free on GOG for the art assets.

[https://www.gog.com/wishlist/games/diablo_i_diablo_ii_and_di...](https://www.gog.com/wishlist/games/diablo_i_diablo_ii_and_diablo_iii_expension_packs_and_soundtrack_and_maybe_some_wallpapersart)

</comment><comment><USER7> The beauty of a project like this, is that you get plenty of experience and fun building an engine, without being up the creek on art assets, game design, etc.

Some of my favourite personal projects are where I wholesale rip off assets from other games, used as placeholders for assets that will never arrive. My creative space is then the underlying engineering and game systems.

</comment><comment><USER8> Too awesome! Someone should run this through emscripten and have Diablo in the browser.

<comment><USER9> That would require distributing the art assets without a license.

<comment><USER10> Or reading a 500 MiB file via file APIs.

<comment><USER11> [https://github.com/doggan/diablogl](https://github.com/doggan/diablogl)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The most recent release (0.3) is from 2015-08, but apparently there's been good progress recently.

</comment><comment><USER13> Good. I found the only way to play Diablo on a modern system is WinXP in virtualbox and with certain compatibility setting enabled. Was painful to get working.

</comment><comment><USER14> Is there controller support? I know the UI is not made for that but I always wanted to try it.

<comment><USER15> There was a PSX version of Diablo. I'm sure a ROM is floating around somewhere. It was pretty terrible though :)

<comment><USER11> The Japanese Playstation 1 release of Diablo 1 did include debug symbols though!

[https://github.com/sanctuary/notes/issues/1](https://github.com/sanctuary/notes/issues/1)

<comment><USER15> Thank you for this, I'll enjoy reading through this and some of the linked material. Diablo 1 is the game that got me into gaming and it holds a special place in my heart.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If only I could find the old Diablo CD-ROM that I had owned. Not sure where I put it, but if I find it I will give this a try.

</comment><comment><USER17> How it's compared to Flare? ([http://flarerpg.org/](http://flarerpg.org/))

</comment><comment><USER18> Wow, nice, but gosh- _freeablo_?

</comment><comment><USER19> Any bets how long it'll take for a cease-and-desist letter from Blizzard for this one?

<comment><USER20> It's just an engine - you have to get the content from Blizzard. OpenMW is doing the same with Bethesda.

<comment><USER21> You don't have to get consent from anyone without reusing, redistributing, or modifying their copyrighted materials.

A cleanroom reverse engineering is perfectly legal, without any "permission", in most countries.

<comment><USER22> Yes, but distributing the copyrighted art with your clean-room reverse- engineered engine is not legal. Hence, no art is available for this engine, and you have to procure your own copy of the art, presumably from the CD you purchased, in order to use the engine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Wouldn't libre-ablo be a better name?

<comment><USER24> Depends on if you want to pronounce it or not.</comment></comment>


The Effects of Computer Use on Eye Health and Vision (1997) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.aoa.org/Documents/optometrists/effects-of-computer-use.pdf <comment><USER2> While we're here, lets do a quick eye-related work checklist:

1\. Monitor should be arms length away. 2\. Brightness should conform to the light in the room. 3\. Try to get a good bit of ambient light from the side (via a lamp or window). 4\. Keep eyes at a 10-15° downward angle on the monitor. 5\. Take a break every hour and let your eyes rest for a second. 6\. If you have glasses, wear them.

Those six principles will go a long way toward keeping your eyes happy!

<comment><USER3> > 6\. If you have glasses, wear them.

Is that for people who need glasses but don't wear them, or wear corrective lenses (of some sort) all the time but really should use glasses because there somehow better?

Seriously, I want to know, being the latter part.

<comment><USER4> I think it's the former. Not wearing corrective lenses (glasses or contacts) when needed causes additional eye strain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This document was published in 1997. I know it's anecdotal, but I've always felt that staring at a cathode ray tube was decidedly more fatiguing than staring at a flat panel. Is it just me or is there some sense to this?

<comment><USER6> As far as I know there are 4 causes of eye fatigue from CRTs: 1) constantly looking at the same distance. This is the same with LCD and xLED displays, or even paper books; 2) refresh rate 3) intensity of the light emitted (on its own and compared to surrounding environment) 4) particles fired at your face by the magnetic field generated by the CRT

As far as I know, cause 4) has the most impact, dust particles were literally fired at your eyes, and for this reason 20 years ago it was relatively easy to see people with grounded filters mounted to their CRTs (you used to attach the ground wire to the ground contact of the RS232 or parallel port of the PC)

<comment><USER7> > _4) particles fired at your face by the magnetic field generated by the CRT_

> _As far as I know, cause 4) has the most impact, dust particles were > literally fired at your eyes, and for this reason 20 years ago it was > relatively easy to see people with grounded filters mounted to their CRTs > (you used to attach the ground wire to the ground contact of the RS232 or > parallel port of the PC)_

I've always wondered whether this actually worked, since I had the impression that the grounding was BS and all those filters did was reduce glare.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In 1997 the majority of monitors were CRTs, so lines were naturally fuzzy and I think this is a large part of what causes eyestrain --- the inability to focus clearly. I remember upgrading to an LCD and the sharpness was amazing. I think widespread subpixel antialiasing later made things worse; when I first tried it, the text looked "too smooth" and I got dizzy, watery eyes because it felt like I constantly couldn't focus. Now I make it a habit of always turning it off, and I suspect the studies that say it increases reading speed are because for most people it subtly makes them want to _not_ stop and focus --- it's subconsciously unpleasant to.

<comment><AUTHOR> Are there differences in subpixel antialiasing between Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, Android?

<comment><USER9> See this article on font rasterization [1] for a primer. The software used makes a big difference.

[1] [http://www.antigrain.com/research/font_rasterization/index.h...](http://www.antigrain.com/research/font_rasterization/index.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I remember when i first started using the computer late into the night, around 3 am. that sure caused some problems, including floaters and astigmatism.

one factor people miss is that, it's not just the amount you spend staring at screen that causes eyestrain and headache, but also how focused you are, we squint a lot when we focus and that appearantly is an issue, looking at a screen for 3 hours without having to think hard versus 1 hour of hard squint, the 1 hour is more damaging. for me at least...

<comment><USER11> I think the floaters are a function of both getting old, and brighter "white" displays.

I started noticing them about 10 years ago when I got my first iMac. Prior to that I'd mostly used smaller CRT displays, suddenly my field of view was taken up by this big white screen and what were those dark shadows floating around my view...

A few years on and I still see them, especially when using a 21+ inch screen on white web pages. Just part of get old...

<comment><USER12> From what I understand accumulation of 'floaters' is common for most (all?) people as they age, though some people surely have more problem with them than others. I have never heard that looking at computer displays causes any particular effect on the rate at which they develop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Have any of you people who work as software developers (or similar professionals who spend most of their days looking at a screen) gotten Lasik eye surgery? Have you noticed any regression in vision after the treatment as a result of your screen usage?

<comment><AUTHOR> _disclaimer: not medical advice, please consult opthalmologist_

If you are nearsighted and wear your full _distance_ prescription for extended _near_ (computer/reading) work, there is some chance that your eye will adapt to the most dominant distance, eventually requiring a stronger prescription for distance/driving. Rinse/repeat = ever worsening glasses for some people.

To avoid this problem, ask your optometerist for a separate (weaker) prescription for computer glasses. You can get a ballpark idea from [http://computerglassesrx.com](http://computerglassesrx.com). Glasses are cheap these days, e.g. online from Zenni for less than $50.

Lasik carves a lens onto your eyes. If that lens strength is your _distance_ prescription, the same issue exists as with glasses. To reduce close-up strain on your eyes, you can use plus lenses for close-up work, which reduces the lasik/contacts "minus" prescription for near distances. Look at the calculator above for an estimate, but consult an eye doctor, as there are variables like age/presbyopia/convergence.

Previous HN thread on Lasik: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9941566](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9941566)

Non-mainstream discussion of plus lens therapy: [http://forum.gettingstronger.org/index.php?topic=1115.0](http://forum.gettingstronger.org/index.php?topic=1115.0)

<comment><USER14> Since getting some computer glasses my eyes have gone from deteriorating every year to getting slightly better. Might be a coincidence but I suspect not. Next time I'm in Asia I'm going to get an even weaker pair and see if my eyes can keep improving.

<comment><AUTHOR> Cliff Hayes successfully went down that unsanctioned road, he published some videos [1] and a PDF [2]. We need more scientific studies [3] to figure out why undercorrection works for some people.

When it works, the key seems to be relaxing the eyes and surrounding muscles while viewing objects at a distance which causes _just enough blur_. Within a minute or two, the brain's visual cortex figures out a "software compensation" for the signal coming from the eye, which lets the eye stay relaxed instead of straining to focus. More info on Vision Therapy is available from behavioral opthalmologists, but it takes time, motivation and may not be covered by insurance.

[1] [https://youtube.com/user/cliffgnu](https://youtube.com/user/cliffgnu)

[2] [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5REdzibAJQ4VFJuWnZCU3dLcHc...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5REdzibAJQ4VFJuWnZCU3dLcHc/view)

[3] [https://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess- disseminate/1721.1/105363](https://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess- disseminate/1721.1/105363)

<comment><USER15> This is purely anecdotal. I have a bad astigmatism. I tend to not wear glasses until I have to. In the garden I don't bother. And oddly, when I do use my glasses everything becomes too much. In my mind scenery becomes unpleasantly cluttered/dirty. It's quite horrible. I prefer the soft focus - but can't read the laptop, watch TV without.

<comment><AUTHOR> If your astigmatism (cylinder) and/or spherical diopter numbers are very high, your glasses may have significant distortion when looking through any point other than the optical center of the lens, e.g. for peripheral vision. Have you compared contacts with glasses? They provide a much wider field of view.

If you like soft focus, you can try on different drugstore reading glasses (e.g. +0.50) over your normal glasses, to find a reduced strength which lets you see at the desired distance without super-duper-sharp edges. Then ask your optometrist to provide you with a reduced prescription for non-driving or near work tasks. Otherwise, they will prescribe driving-strength glasses to avoid legal liability.

<comment><USER15> Interesting, my prescription was out of range for contact lenses when last explored. It might be worth me getting something as best as they can get if the contact effect is beneficial.

<comment><AUTHOR> If your prescription is out of range for contacts, it means it is very weak, so there shouldn't be much distortion in glasses, hence you won't see much difference with contacts.

Easiest would be to find a friendly optometrist who will put your astigmatism prescription into a trial frame, then let you self-adjust the cylinder and axis values until you find your desired blend of clarity and softness _at your target distance_. They can also advise on the safety of using that prescription vs using no glasses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> As I understand it, and I think this study concurs, permanent eye damage isn't caused by computer use.

Rather it's a combination of genetic susceptibility to being near/far sighted and straining your eyes during the susceptibility "period".

That is if you aren't genetically inclined to eye problems, no reading or computer use is going to make your require glasses. If you are genetically inclined and do near work (reading books, computers,phones etc...) then your number will rise during childhood and early adulthood. The number usually stabilizes between 20 and 30 years.

If you are genetically inclined but don't do near work, you will not need glasses.

Staring at a computer for long hours without blinking will give you headaches though, and maybe blurry vision, but that'll pass in a day or two.

</comment><comment><USER17> I've had a lot of issues with dry eye, largely related to my computer usage. (Although it's sort of a combination of 3 factors: I work on the computer, I'm a T1 Diabetic, and I live in a dry climate. All contributors to dry eye.) At times it was bad enough that I could barely read what was on the screen, or I would leave the building and have to sit in my car for 5 or 10 minutes before driving home because the sunlight was causing enough pain to keep my eyes closed. It was impacting my life significantly.

Here's everything that I tried, along with a comment about how well it worked:

\- Switched from monthly contact lenses to dailies (Helped moderately, but at that point my eyes were getting worse fast enough for me to not notice a real difference

\- Switched from contact lenses to glasses (Helped with comfort once I got used to glasses again, but not with dryness)

\- Various OTC eye drops (Retaine MGD is still the best for my eyes, but overuse seems to make it worse)

\- Eye doctor prescribed a 2 week steroid eye drop regimen. (So no difference)

\- 10 minute warm compress on the eyes twice a day (This helped a lot when done consistently, but my eyes were still really bad throughout the day)

\- Omega 3 supplements (Seemed to help a bit when I was consistent with the dosage)

\- Various eye exercises (helps a lot, but I HAD to be consistent for multiple days before seeing results)

\- Restasis (no benefit after 3 months)

\- Xiidra - okay, so this has given me the MOST relief out of anything, even consistent eye exercises. My eyes actually feel normal again, and I saw results after just a couple weeks. Using a new medication kind of makes me nervous, and it's incredibly expensive (even with insurance), but I got to the point where I was willing to take the risk because I was getting desperate. Having severe dry eyes can negatively effect every waking moment.

I'm hoping that after a few more months on Xiidra my gland inflammation and tear composition will be in a good enough place that I'll be able to stop using the medication (which I'll be following up with my eye doctor about soon).

If you're just getting started with a career on the computer START TAKING CARE OF YOUR EYES NOW. Take frequent breaks and perform frequent eye exercises. Hopefully that will help prevent you from getting to the place I did, where it takes a significant amount of work and money to get back to having healthy vision.

<comment><USER18> Have you been diagnosed with meibomian gland dysfunction? Did you, by any chance, ever take a drug called Accutane (Claravis/Amnesteem/isotretinoin)?

<comment><USER17> Nope, never took Accutane. I got a full examination from a specialist (including a LipiView analysis) and the conclusion was that I don't have MGD. My glands look mostly fine, and my issues stem primarily from inflammation as a result of the factors I mentioned (working on the computer, dry climate, diabetes).

<comment><AUTHOR> Consumer Reports (Jan 2018) did not have a high opinion of dry eye medications, [https://www.consumerreports.org/vision-eye-care/dry-eye- symp...](https://www.consumerreports.org/vision-eye-care/dry-eye-symptoms-how- to-handle/)

 _" However, both drugs are expensive and can cause side effects that can worsen eye irritation and discomfort—Restasis in up to 17 percent of people and Xiidra in up to 25 percent of people. "Judging from the clinical trials data, the benefits of those two drugs are not that much more than the risk of adverse effects," says Marvin M. Lipman, M.D., Consumer Reports' chief medical adviser. "Their use should be relegated to a last-ditch measure, when all else has failed." _

Yawning can stimulate tear production: [https://iristech.co/yawning/](https://iristech.co/yawning/)

<comment><USER17> Believe me, I'm more than aware of the negative side effects and potential dangers (especially with Xiidra, which is a new medication without long term studies). Xiidra is costing me about $200 a month, after insurance. But in my case it _was_ literally the last ditch measure, because I had tried everything my ophthalmologist suggested as well as every "home remedy" out there. (When you have severe dry eyes stuff like yawning is not going to help.)

For me, Xiidra has been the only thing that's given me relief. The side effects have been fairly minimal (stinging for a minute or two, somewhat blurry vision for up to 20 minutes) and my life is mostly back to normal now. But the cost and lack of long term studies of the medication prevent me from recommending it unless you and your ophthalmologist have determined that there are no better options.

<comment><USER19> Question: Can you still emit tears?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Manual blinking can improve dry eyes caused by extended computer use: [https://iristech.co/blink-detection/](https://iristech.co/blink-detection/)

 _" As we stare at the computer screen or while reading, our blinkrate decreases. We actually blink 66% less while working on the computer. This can make your eyes burn, dry out, turn red or feel itchy ... research demonstrates that we do enter some sort of altered mental state when we blink — we're not just doing it to lubricate our eyes. A blink could provide a momentary island of introspective calm in the ocean of visual stimuli that defines our lives."_

</comment><comment><USER20> If you haven't heard of the 20-20-20 rule, it is a simple rule-of-thumb to remember to look 20 feet away for at least 20 seconds every 20 minutes.

Using a standup workstation during part of the day may also help you because the "activation energy" required to move around and leave your workstation is minimal compared to sitting in a chair.

You can also get a weaker prescription if you have eyeglasses (not sure about contacts) that will help if you stare at a screen all day.

<comment><USER21> 20 is arbitrary, but it integrates finely with the Pomodoro Technique: [https://cirillocompany.de/pages/pomodoro- technique](https://cirillocompany.de/pages/pomodoro-technique)

<comment><AUTHOR> Any recommendations on physical (non-app) pomodoro timers?

<comment><USER20> Just searching around. This may be a little too large but I like the combination of visual and adjustable auditory indicators.

[https://www.timetimer.com/collections/timers/products/time-t...](https://www.timetimer.com/collections/timers/products/time- timer-20min)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the pointer, that is a good combo.

UX of this multi-timer looks promising for tracking different classes of activity, but I haven't tried it yet: [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004S56RJG/](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004S56RJG/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> One set of of anecdata from the suny end of the spectrum: I have been staring at computer screens since 1982. For the first several years those screens were mainly crappy small televisions attached to Orics and C64s. I was lucky to have really good eyesight in '82, and I am lucky to have it still, although these days, nearing sixty, I do need glasses for reading screens and paper. I _can_ still manage without, but that ends in headache within just a few minutes.

I buy those cheap standard supermarket glasses, currently at strength +2. They get me nicely through 8 to 10 hours af screen in a day. Whenever I go off the deep end, and spend more hours than that for several days running, I do tend to get reddish, itchy eyes.

As others in the thread have reported, the arrival of flat screens was a blessing. CRTs would generally tire me out quite a bit sooner. But I don't seem to have suffered long term adverse effect from them.

<comment><USER23> I'm the same. Also been staring at computer screens since 1982, with no obvious problems. Getting old is annoying though: my arms are now not quite long enough to focus perfectly on my phone screen without my reading glasses, but a +1 pair of supermarket glasses is enough to fix that. Distance vision is still fine.

The great thing about LCDs is that even in my 50s I can place them far enough away to use without even needing reading glasses. CRTs were so bulky, it was really hard to do that (but back then, I didn't need to).

Anyway, just another datapoint that intensive screen use for 3.5 decades doesn't have to cause issues.

<comment><USER22> > _a +1 pair of supermarket glasses_

+1? Those were the days!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I've been staring at screens since I was 10 and always had perfect[0] eyesight.

 _Had_ is the keyword here, because two years ago I began spending around half of my time in a place 1500km away from my home, to and from which I drove, because I needed to both have a flexible schedule and bring with me items that I couldn't or didn't want to bring aboard a plane(like my guitar). Also I despise flying.

After a year of those 17-20h drives back and forth I started experiencing symptoms of dry eye syndrome which eventually developed into styes, and later a total of three chalazions.

Recently I had a checkup done and while my left eye is still good(insignificant defect), the one that had chalazions is currently -0.5D with 0.25 astigmatism.

My point being: It took only two years of extremely long driving vs 17 years of staring at screens to cause eye problems in my case.

[0] When I was 17 I could easily read time from a 30cm high LED display from 120m.

EDIT: emphasis.

<comment><AUTHOR> Did eye doctors have a theory for the connection between dry eye and driving? How many breaks did you take during the 20h drive?

<comment><USER24> My doctor said those chalazions are "no accident", but I'm not sure what she meant by that.

I think it usually amounted to around five 15min breaks - mostly to buy vignettes for each respective country I was driving through and to fill up.

After around 18,5h of driving I had to take naps in order to avoid falling asleep at the wheel.

Needles to say I don't do those marathons anymore - it's obviously dangerous and bad for my health. I break up this trip into two days which makes a world of a difference.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Speaking of eye health, I wonder what effects programs like f.lux and their newer built-in alternatives have. Despite a bit of trepidation when first giving it a try, after a while it feels very natural.

Since ebook readers have become more commonplace in the last 20 years, I also have to wonder what effects that might have on us. Even on days when I avoid using my computer, I still spend a good couple of hours reading ebooks on a tablet.

There have also been tons of advancements in technology. I don't think high- DPI displays were commonly available, but the technology is increasingly commonplace, especially on mobile devices.

<comment><USER26> Note that many tablets support things equivalent to f.lux. Apple tablets do, I believe. So does Surface Pro and probably many other Windows based tablets [1].

A lot of people claim that the Kindle Paperwhite does not need it because the display is not back lit. (The lights are on the edge, and there is a transparent light guide in front of the eInk display that directs this light so that it shines on the eInk from the front and reflects off it to you).

This seems like complete bullshit to me, because I can not see any way that the intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells in your eye could possibly tell if photons come from a front lit display or a back lit display. All they should care about is the wavelength and the intensity.

That's not to say that the claims that the Paperwhite doesn't need a reduced blue light mode aren't true--I'm just saying that if they are true it isn't because it is not back lit. It would be because they are using a light source with less blue, or the eInk display absorbs blue so that it does not reflect much blue from the light source.

Speaking of reducing blue light at night...I've wondered if what is important is the absolute amount of blue light or the relative amount compared to daytime levels. The intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells signal the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) in the brain with the amount of blue light they are receiving. The SCN responds to changes in that to control circadian rhythms.

If the SCN is just watching the levels and looking for them to cross certain fixed thresholds, then at night we'd need to make sure we drop blue light below certain absolute levels.

If, on the other hand, the SCN is looking for relative changes, such as blue light dropping to below some percentage of the peak over the last 12 hours, or over some kind of average over the last several hours, then instead of working to eliminate blue light at night it should be possible to achieve the same effects by _increasing_ blue light during the day.

So instead of trying to find software to reduce the blue light on every screen in my house (an increasingly hard thing to do as more and more things have screens), I should be able to install lights that have very high blue levels and have them on during the day, to push the blue light threshold high enough that when I turn those lights off I am below it even though my TV and other screens do not have low blue light modes.

[1] Windows in general supports it, but I believe it requires some support from the GPU, so whether or not it works on a particular tablet depends on the hardware.

<comment><AUTHOR> This page links to research on blue light effects, [https://glarminy.com/2016/04/11/are-your-eyes-sensitive- to-l...](https://glarminy.com/2016/04/11/are-your-eyes-sensitive-to-light-or- blue-light/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I wonder how many of this have change with now monitors being LCD LED, CCFL or even OLED instead of the traditional CRT. Specially in the "Radiation Emitted" department.

</comment><comment><USER28> "Although some of these problems may not result in symptoms under less visually demanding conditions, the high demands of computer work cause them to become manifest. "

THIS. After about 7 years of staring at a screen all day at work, then coming home and staring at a screen all night (gaming, programing, etc), plus marijuana = dry squinty eyes-- the cumulative effect was that my eyes began to always focus slowly and unevenly, especially on things far away.

I got glasses and they helped, but it felt like more of a bandaid than a solution.

I have since reduced my close-up computer screen usage dramatically. I also do the occasional eye exercises (youtube has a lot of these and they really help).

I stopped wearing glasses and spend more time outside and away from the screen so my eyes actually have more things to do than look at bright pixels 3 feet away.

If I could give any advice to my younger self it would be to minimize long stretches of staring at the screen. Take plenty of breaks to give your eyes a break.

</comment><comment><USER29> What worries me the most is the fact that monitors and phones are outputting light directly to our eyes. Almost everyone, at least in the U.S. has both computers and phones and those devices output light directly to our eyes. Where as, even in 1997 most people weren't spending all of their time looking into light. We were looking at things with reflected light.

Somehow I think this direct light into our eyes is impacting our not only our eyes, but our brains negatively.

</comment><comment><USER30> I always adjust to the minumum brightness needed for my eyes to see can See comfortably. The monitors and phones have a very bright default value, on my LCD I practically have contrast and brightness near 0. Same with my phone. Everyone is different, but I would adjust the brightness to match the exterior lighting so they balance. Most people have the screen too high in comparison to the background lights.

</comment><comment><USER31> Been using computers for 21 years. I got some floaters when I was a teenager, but still 20/20!

<comment><USER32> "Got some"? My ophthalmologist says that everyone has them. Some of us are just 'lucky' enough to notice they exist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Personally for me, I have got more back/shoulder problems from long term computer usage than eye primarily due to bad posture. Though I do wear glasses, but my prescription hasn't changed in the last ~10 years.

</comment><comment><USER34> [https://theatrehouse.com/products/832-roscolene-rose- pink](https://theatrehouse.com/products/832-roscolene-rose-pink) makes the light less harsh

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you know the color temperature of that film, e.g. how does it compare to using flux, redshift, etc?

<comment><USER34> I'm not an optics expert. I have used Flux and haven't used Redshift.

I much prefer the Rose screen to Flux. Flux changes the colors but, sorry I lack the English to articulate this properly, the screen makes all light less "harsh". This is most visible when looking at a white background. Even with Flux on the rose tinted is much "softer" and easier to look at than the same screen without.

FWIW, a neurologist recommended the screen to counteract excessive optical stimulation from computer use.

I've stopped using Flux in favor of this screen, even at night.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I'm in my 20s and I have dry eye and it has significantly affected my life. I wish I had known about it when I was younger.

Some background: eyes are lubricated by the tear firm which consists of three layers: inner mucous layer, an aqueous solution layer, and an outer lipid layer (meibum). The mucous layer is the thinnest and keeps the tear film to your eye. The aqueous solution is released from the lacrimal gland and makes up the bulk of the tear film. Meibum is secreted from meibomian glands in the eyelids every time you blink and keeps the tear film from evaporating. With a healthy tear film you should be able to keep your eyes open for at least 30 seconds before you start feeling a burning sensation. If you don't have a stable tear film you will start to feel a burning sensation much sooner and this is what is known as "dry eye". Dry eye and can be caused by a deficiency in any of the three layers and is usually categorized into two main categories: aqueous-deficient dry eye and evaporate dry eye. Aqueous- deficiency dry eye is usually caused by systemic diseases such as autoimmune diseases (e.g. rosacea, lupus, Sjogren's syndrome) that prevent the lacrimal gland from producing tears and from the statistics that I've seen this accounts for about 20% of dry eye cases. Evaporate dry eye is caused by a deficient lipid layer which is usually caused by meibomian gland dysfunction and accounts for the majority of dry eye cases.

There's not a lot known about what causes meibomian glands to malfunction but some theories are that: inflammation causes them to get blocked, autoimmune diseases attack the tissues, hormone imbalance causes deficient secretions, harsh environments cause inflammation which causes them to get blocked, and contact lenses interferes with blinking rates and the mechanics of blinking. Once meibomian gland dysfunction starts, it often starts a vicious cycle which causes inflammation which causes more blockages which causes more inflammation. Blockage of the meibomian glands eventually (think several years) leads to meibomian gland atrophy where the glands start shriveling up and die, starting from the back. Healthy glands are normally about 10 mm long but over time they will become truncated and eventually completely atrophy (known as "gland drop out"). This process is also seen to a lesser degree in elderly people, and especially postmenopausal women.

I started wearing contact lenses when I was a young teenager, and also as a young teenager, I spend an unhealthy amount of time staring at computer screens. A few years later my contact lenses started to become uncomfortable and I switched contact lens brands and cleaning solutions and I was able to continue wearing them for another couple of years. Eventually it got to the point where I couldn't tolerate wearing them because they were just too uncomfortable. I figured this was normal because lots of people complain about their contact lens comfort, and I attributed it to living in a dry climate and spending lots of time on the computer. But then, even with wearing glasses I started noticing that my eyes were uncomfortable. I started waking up with red, gritty eyes. I went to my optometrist and told him about this and he simply gave me some eye drops and told me to put them in before bed and whenever I felt dry eyes. But over the years problem only got worse. I had to constantly blink, and my eyes were always bloodshot. This is when I started to seriously investigate dry eyes.

I went to an optometrist seeking for help who told me about some things I could try such as warm compresses (which I was already doing) and blinking exercises. I also went to an ophthalmologist who basically told me that lots of people have dry eye and bluntly told me "I deal with people who are about to lose their eyesight, and you are not going to lose your eyesight because of this" and prescribed me a short course of corticosteroid drops. I saw a couple more optometrists who were of no help, before I decided to seek a dry eye specialist in another city, who looked at my meibomian glands and confirmed what I feared the worst: my meibomian glands were in very bad health. I was only in my 20s, and my meibomian glands had already truncated to about 25% of their original length. (You can see how healthy glands are supposed to look compared to unhealthy, truncated glands: [http://www.clemsoneye.com/Portals/0/meibomian_glands.png](http://www.clemsoneye.com/Portals/0/meibomian_glands.png))

I found a supportive optometrist in my city who is sympathetic and willing to try different treatments with me. So far I have tried the following:

* Lubricating eye drops: I take preservative-free drops every day but they only offer limited short term relief. I've also tried lubricating gels but I find that they clog my glands even more and cause more discomfort. I only use them in emergencies when I'm willing to trade off short term comfort for more misery (they will unbalance up my tear film for several days).

* Warm compresses: Applies heat to your eyelids to unclog the glands. I do this once every few days but if I do it any more I will end up with more inflammation which makes my symptoms worse.

* Corticosteroids: They do seem to reduce inflammation but doctors won't prescribe these for more than a few weeks at a time because they cause high intraocular pressure.

* Tetracycline antiobiotics: Low dose tetracycline antibiotics (usually doxycycline, minocycline) are taken off-label to reduce inflammation. I've been taking these on and off for months at a time for the last 5 years. I believe it helps my comfort but my optometrist warns me to not stay on long term, but I will continue taking these for the rest of my life because at this point I don't care if long-term antiboitic use destroys my kidneys and liver.

* Restasis: An eyedrop that helps primary for aqueous-deficient dry eye. I've been on this for a while as well and I will continue to take it even thought I don't think it helps much. It's normally very expensive but luckily my insurance covers it.

* Lipiflow: A treatment where a machine places a cup on your eyeball and applies heat and massages the inside of your eyelids. I spent $1500 out of pocket on this and it was just as effective as my next item.

* Manual expressions: Using forceps my optometrist squeezes my eyelids to force meibum out of my glands to keep it from clogging and stagnating. This helps short term, but it can only be done so frequently because it can cause long-term tissue damage. I purchased my own forceps and (probably to the horror of my optometrist, I never told him) I do this myself.

* Controlling environment: Having a humidifier helps me a lot and I keep the relative humidity above 80%. Being in a dry environment such as airplanes is very uncomfortable and whacks my tear film out of balance for days.

* Moisture chambers: Essentially, these are air-tight goggles that prevent moisture from evaporating from your eyes. They do help but I hate having to wear them and I don't wear them in public, but I will probably have to eventually.

* Eye exercises: I consciously blink hard several times, every 30 minutes. It helps a bit.

Overall, my symptoms have only marginally improved. My life has become miserable because of this and my social life and professional life have suffered. I don't enjoy going out anymore because I hate being in dry environments where it causes my symptoms to get worse. Just being in a dry environment for a couple hours will disrupt my tear film for days after. It has caused me depression and I considered ending my life at one point.

There is a lot unknown about this disease. Nobody can tell me why my glands got into such bad shape, but I believe wearing contact lenses and using the computer, and having bad blinking hygiene contributed a lot to it and I see that even most optometrists have been clueless and are only now learning about dry eye because of its increasing prevalence. Because it's not understood well, there's not much support for sufferers of dry eyes. The immediate reaction of optometrists upon hearing a complaint about dry eye is "here, try this brand of sample drops that they sent to my clinic". Insurance doesn't cover treatments and I've incurred thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses, and had to take significant time off from work to seek specialists and treatments.

Looking back, here's what I wish I had done:

* Not wear contact lenses, especially when on the computer for 12+ hours a day

* Blink regularly and consciously when using a computer

* Investigated sooner about dry eye when I started experiencing symptoms (it is not normal to have dry eye)

* Spend more time outside

Perhaps how previous generations were taught about oral hygiene and the importance of brushing teeth, future generations will be taught about ocular hygiene and the importance of blinking exercises and health of eyelids.

<comment><AUTHOR> Previous thread mentioned (a) gel drops (b) googles with airtight seal to reduce evaporation (c) taping eyes shut during sleep to reduce evaporation and (d) discussion forum for dry eyes, [http://www.dryeyezone.com/talk/](http://www.dryeyezone.com/talk/)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7480946](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7480946)

Yawning might help, [https://youtube.com/watch?v=I0dQx4SNSwE](https://youtube.com/watch?v=I0dQx4SNSwE)

If the monitor is lower so that you are looking down, more of the eyes will be covered by the eyelid, reducing evaporation.</comment></comment>


Rav1e, an AV1 encoder written in Rust and assembly - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/xiph/rav1e <comment><USER2> For others like me who are curious and haven't heard of AV1, some main features:

* Open & Royalty Free (no licensing required to use)

* Backed by Mozilla, Google, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. [1]

* Approximately 50% higher compression than x264 [1] and 30% higher than H.265 (HEVC) [2]

* Supported in current versions of Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and Edge [3]

* Slower encoders than HEVC, so not typically used for live streaming [2]

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1)

[2]: [https://www.theoplayer.com/blog/av1-hevc-comparative-look- vi...](https://www.theoplayer.com/blog/av1-hevc-comparative-look-video-codecs)

[3]: [https://caniuse.com/#feat=av1](https://caniuse.com/#feat=av1)

<comment><USER3> Still no support in any mobile browser. 35% isn't a lot of coverage. And of course Safari is a holdout -- they haven't even adopted VP9 yet.

<comment><USER4> > And of course Safari is a holdout -- they haven't even adopted VP9 yet.

Given Apple is an AOM governing member it's pretty likely Apple will eventually support AV1 (and AVIF).

VP9 is simply not on their roadmap at all, it's not a "yet" thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "The fastest and safest AV1 encoder" but it's also 62.1% assembly? Is the assembly as safe as rust? I'm confused

<comment><USER6> Is Rust really safer? It's memory safe, but you can still have all the other fuck ups and vulnerabilities that other apps have.

<comment><USER7> How many times are we going to have this discussion?

> ~70% of the vulnerabilities Microsoft assigns a CVE each year continue to be > memory safety issues

[https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/16/a-proactive- appro...](https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/16/a-proactive-approach-to- more-secure-code/)

There are similar reports from other organizations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I see that Safari does not support this (yet).

Might it be possible to compile this to wasm and decode it that way on the client?

<comment><USER9> Is Safari becoming the new Internet Explorer?

<comment><USER10> Nah, pretty sure Chrome is. I'm apparently not alone[1][2][3] in believing so.

[1]: [https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/4/16805216/google-chrome- onl...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/4/16805216/google-chrome-only-sites- internet-explorer-6-web-standards)

[2]: [https://www.computerworld.com/article/3199425/top-web- browse...](https://www.computerworld.com/article/3199425/top-web- browsers-2020-chrome-snaps-up-more-share-new-edge-again-gains-ground.html)

[3]: [https://erik.itland.no/chrome-is-the-new-internet- explorer-4...](https://erik.itland.no/chrome-is-the-new-internet- explorer-4-stages)

<comment><USER11> GP is comparing it to IE6 in terms of being behind other browsers in implementing features, not in terms of publishers only checking that their pages render correctly in that browser.

<comment><USER8> IE was both the browser that were first with features and had lots of features the others didn't have, and the browser that lagged with new features.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> We really need focus on embedded GPU av1 as well. It's amazing how fast pure GPU transcoding is. H265 is supported well in modern GPU's and can transcode at dozens of times the speed. But av1 for some reason isn't getting the same treatment is seems.

<comment><USER13> GPU:s are generally terrible for video encoding. I think you're confusing the GPU with a dedicated "hardware encoder" ASIC (which may be located on the same die as other silicon components such as a CPU or a GPU).

<comment><USER14> An off-the-shelf GPU can encode / decode thousands of channels of video and audio in real-time.

There are some cloud providers that offer this as a service, allowing you to have the end-points of, e.g., video calls to use different audio and video codecs.

This is quite useful, e.g., when some people join the call only using audio via a cell phone in a different country using a different audio standard (or a land line, etc.). Or when somebody joins the video call from laptop tethering from a phone on a train. Or for switching video codecs depending on whether somebody is sharing their desktop or using a webcam to record their face.

The client can picks the codecs that are the best fit for the current situation (content, bandwidth, latency, etc.) and a could server transcodes the video from everyone else in the meeting to their clients format.

<comment><USER15> The point the parent poster was trying to make was that the GPU cores themselves are not a great match for video codec work.

However most consumer/server GPUs include hardware IP blocks specifically for doing codec work.

<comment><USER14> And that point is wrong, since there are some cloud providers using normal GPU cores for exactly this.

The codecs that NVEnc supports are just a few bunch, there is no real-time audio, no nothing.

All of this is implemented in CUDA, using normal CUDA implementations of audio and video codecs, and running on normal GPUs using normal GPU cores. In real time. Supporting thousands of audio and video channels concurrently.

Also, even for NVEnc and NVDec themselves, in some of the GPUs they do not use any specialized hardware and use normal GPU cores instead (e.g. see the older GM20x GPUs).

<comment><USER16> Are any of these transcoding libraries open source?

<comment><USER14> None of the ones I know are. They are all proprietary.

I'm not sure they are for sale either (probably for the right price), since they sell these "as a service", which pays better. I also don't think these are on sale for "small" customers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> See also

2018 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17539361](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17539361)

2019 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19746392](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19746392)

</comment><comment><USER18> How is there constantly so much compression ratio improvement in video codecs? New algorithms imrpove so much upon the old.

<comment><USER19> "Compression is understanding". As our understanding of the problem domain increases, so too will our ability to compress it. Video has three key things: the still images that approximate the input, the relationship of one image to the prior and next and a human bean who is sensitive to some kinds of distortion and not others, depending on context :) To have effective and good compression, you have to understand all three.

Note: while I work at Netflix, I do not work on anything related to video encoding, these are just my semi-informed understandings :)

<comment><USER20> I would also add computational complexity. We're increasingly willing to throw more transistors at video decoding and encoding due to their reduced cost and increased performance, so the algorithms can become more complicated, have larger perform larger searches, etc. If you think about it from a power perspective, the power cost of a bit of data transmitted to a mobile device is pretty large. I would expect to see video compression formats increase in complexity until the power cost of compressing away one more bit approaches the cost of transmitting one more bit over the network.

<comment><USER19> Well with the compression vs transmission/decompression ratio of video for stuff in the Netflix catalog, I think the inflection point is different than you suggest (not sure about YouTube.)

<comment><USER20> You're right. I was thinking about the decoding side (where total power for displaying the video should be minimized) but was unclear above.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> With AV1 encoders I have to ask myself every time whether I should read the 1 as 'i' or as 'l'. Dav1d was still easy to guess, but here I really have a hard time.

Apart from that, I am really glad to see how Rust is slowly making an appearance in such fundamental multimedia libraries.

<comment><USER22> A V ONE

AVI is already a container so it would just be confusing.

<comment><USER23> I think he means "ravie" or "ravle".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Any major projects using this yet?

<comment><AUTHOR> Vimeo: Vimeo's staff pick is encoded using rav1e, FFmpeg is having it

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://medium.com/vimeo-engineering-blog/behind-the- scenes-...](https://medium.com/vimeo-engineering-blog/behind-the-scenes-of- av1-at-vimeo-a2115973314b)

[https://vimeo.com/blog/post/av1-new-standard- codecs/](https://vimeo.com/blog/post/av1-new-standard-codecs/)

<comment><USER25> Great link (and I love Vimeo). The blog goes hyperbolic though: "In other words, if you happen to be in a part of the world where you might not have the best internet connection, AV1 will still provide you with an impeccable viewing experience."

No, AV1 is evolutionary. You'll "just" better quality for the same amount of bits (just like going from MPEG2 -> H.264 -> H.265 etc). The license of AV1 however _is_ revolutionary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The developers say it's the fastest, but does anybody have a link to benchmarks?

</comment><comment><USER27> Is it worth using as a default encoder for home movie libraries? Or would it soebd the next decade encoding everything?

</comment><comment><USER28> Anyone know how the "fastest" claim stacks up against SVT-AV1?

<comment><USER29> [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340351958_MSU_Video...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340351958_MSU_Video_Codec_Comparison_2019_part_IV_High- Quality_Encoding_aom_rav1e_SVT-AV1_SVT-HEVC_SVT- VP9_x264_x265_ENTERPRISE_VERSION) according to that (5. ENCODING SPEED section) SVT-AV1 is a bit faster, but since they are both VERY slow it doesn't really matter. That was released in March so recent updates might have changed things.

<comment><USER28> Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Is it multithreaded???

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, by default it is, You can use `--threads` to hack around,

We are using Rayon for multi threading, and also tiling to boost the output

<comment><USER30> Wonderful. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > The fastest and safest AV1 encoder.

Is it faster than dav1d?

<comment><AUTHOR> dav1d is a decoder while rav1e is an encoder

rav1e = _rav1e_ is an _AV1_ _E_ ncoder

dav1d = _dav1d_ is an _AV1_ _D_ ecoder

<comment><USER32> Coders can't come up with a good name to save their lives.

<comment><USER23> What's your proposal?

<comment><USER32> Since I am a fellow coder I cannot in good conscience suggest another terrible name.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> "The fastest and safest AV1 encoder." quick search on unsafe: [https://github.com/xiph/rav1e/search?q=unsafe&unscoped_q=uns...](https://github.com/xiph/rav1e/search?q=unsafe&unscoped_q=unsafe)

[https://github.com/xiph/rav1e/issues/2378](https://github.com/xiph/rav1e/issues/2378)

[https://github.com/xiph/rav1e/issues/2310](https://github.com/xiph/rav1e/issues/2310)

Does not seems safe at all, definitly not the "safest"encoder out there.

<comment><USER34> Aren't the only other encoders written in C?

<comment><USER29> SVT-AV1 is written in C (and lots of assembly). libaom-av1 is written in C (and lots of assembly). libgav1 (which is decoder) is written in C++ (and lots of assembly). So yes, lots of C/C++ in open source AV1 encoders/decoders.

<comment><USER34> So it sounds to me like it might be the safest encoder... except for the fact that it is 60% assembly. Maybe they can improve that.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Large inheritance windfall. What next? - <AUTHOR> Throwaway here, for obvious reasons, though I'm a regular visitor to HN.
My parents left me a bit more than expected in their will. We've discussed the matters before, but now that it's in effect, so to speak, I'm unable to ask them for their advice any longer. Thanks to my tech salary I've already paid off my student loans, and have no outstanding debt. My question lies not in what to do with the liquid assets my parents left me (we've talked about it), but with their surprise parting gift: about $1.5 million in ownership of multiple home properties.
My parents rented these houses out for a total of around $70k/yr (before taxes) as passive income in their retirement (though my father did manage the properties himself). They also left me the house they raised me in. The value for these houses has always been fairly stable, though recently they have been increasing in value at about 7-10% year.
I'm currently unmarried (my parents were old for my age), but I'm hoping to marry soon and eventually raise a child. What's the best course of action to ensure not only a comfortable future for me, but also to ensure the best possible future for my familY? I've always wanted to potentially take a break from my tech job to pursue a startup, and now I feel like I may have the means to do so without jeopardizing my family's future. Is temporarily living on the income from rent advisable to do this, or should I just sit on the houses until they accumulate some optimal value to liquidate and invest at, or should I keep my job and put the passive income from the rent into buying another property and snowballing from there (though real estate really isn't my favorite thing in the world... I'm sure I could pay someone a cut to manage the properties, though)?
Lawyers and accountants are helpful in making any of these options happen, but to do so requires I actually know what I want them to do. This is a very generous gift on my parents' part, but I'm a little overwhelmed. <comment><USER2> Are they still generating $70k/yr? How many properties are we talking?

I personally prefer investing in the stock market vs. property, because 1) property taxes, 2) tenants, 3) things break, etc etc. But others won't share that opinion. If you like property, you can also invest through REITs, which are publicly traded real estate funds that pay dividends.

One reason why I would not sell these houses is potentially taxes. Are you liable to pay capital gains tax on these? Or was the counter on those gains wiped when you inherited them? With interest rates being low, asset prices tend to increase fast(er). So if possible I might consider selling them. Depends on the property, city, location, etc.

$1.5m is still low enough that you can achieve above average returns by investing well in smaller deals and/or individual stocks, i.e. 10-30% a year. If I were you, I'd throw in the towel at your job and start learning how to invest your capital properly. And once your money is working for you, you can explore other entrepreneurial projects.

Invest in what you know, i.e. public technology companies, or buy a small tech company with some equity down + an SBA loan, etc etc. Put some of it in an S&P fund after a market decline. But take your time, don't rush it. A little capital can go a long way.

You're free, congratulations. Most people don't ever get there. Just keep reinvesting your profits, it snowballs faster than you realise if you don't blow it all on useless stuff.

<comment><AUTHOR> There are 3 properties, 4 with the addition of my parents' home (which I believe I could probably rent for more than the others, to generate at least around $100k total). They three are all rented out for (at a minimum) the rest of 2017.

I believe the tax basis on the homes has been reset with their passing, so capital gains would be set to $0 if I were to sell immediately (but as we have renters, I don't foresee that happening). These houses are also in a state that doesn't have state income tax, for what it's worth. Sales tax is relatively high though.

I'll definitely be reading more books to get a better grasp on the situation, too - thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> [https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/wiki/windfall](https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/wiki/windfall)</comment>


Space shuttles are related to Roman chariots - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/billholohansolr/status/1177631604186996737 <comment><USER2> Such TED-talk bullshit. There were multiple railway gauges. [https://www.american-rails.com/civil.html](https://www.american- rails.com/civil.html)</comment>


A flask/angularJs app to help you find project names - <AUTHOR> http://namegen.gorillacoke.com/

<comment><USER2> Works pretty well compared to some similar ones I've tried, nice one!</comment>