How Yoga Can Wreck Your Body - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/magazine/how-yoga-can-wreck-your-body.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all <comment><USER3> It's "no-duh" that yoga can hurt you. But what makes the exercise particularly dangerous is that people go into it because it is seen as a recuperative, healing exercise. And the nature of it makes it easy to get into and possibly go too far.

Compare it to swimming, which is also seen as a recuperative exercise. But in swimming, it is very difficult to accidentally over-exert yourself...you'll get too tired. So the danger of someone who is completely out of shape going too far is minimal. However, in yoga, it is very _easy_ to go too far because just _entering_ or holding (what seemed easy to get into) the poses may overstrain a muscle or joint.

And let's not discount the mindset of many yoga practitioners, novice and expert. Swimming may be a healing sport, but it has the connotation of being a _sport_. Yoga is seen as not just a physical activity, but as a way to connect spiritually, be at inner peace, and not worry about competition (even if it implicitly happens, as demonstrated in the article). So there is additional danger is in the naive mindset of yoga practitioners...comparatively few people go into long-distance running with the belief that it won't have impact on their knees or back.

* Another way to look at it...speaking from personal experience...there is a high correlation between people who are really into yoga and people who are really into doing periodical "cleanses"...that is, diets in which they spend $200 (no exaggeration) for three days of juice-only servings. This may also be a peculiarity of living in Manhattan...yet I know of other athletes in the city who would never consider doing a juice-diet, or who believe in the "science" of cleanses.

The point is is that yoga attracts people who want a less rigorous way of being healthy, and these people may not realize that yoga can be as damaging as standard weightlifting.

<comment><USER4> As you rightly pointed out, Yoga attracts people who want a less rigorous way of being healthy.

Ironically Yoga was created as one of the most disciplined arts and was hand in glove with nerve-wrecking penance. That's what most people who want to do yoga miss nowadays, they don't really know what it was _for_ , they just get into it because it's easy, and that ends up being a big mistake because it was made to _not_ be easy.

Also funnily enough, even if people practice yoga on their own, it was developed with the inherent fail-safe of body pain in mind, so it wouldn't harm them. However nowadays you have _expert_ teachers who push you beyond your body's limits and that's truly dangerous.

So to sum up, if you want to get into Yoga, get a good book and do it on your own. OR Make sure you find a really really good teacher and do a thorough check before joining a class, and don't just enter into a Yoga program on a whim.

Those are the only two ways I see to stay safe, and still benefit from learning Yoga.

<comment><USER5> Wow.. NO NO NO, DO NOT do it on your own at first. The second tip however, find a good teacher is a MUST..

Doing yoga by yourself with no experience and just a book and no one to help you understand proper alignment in your foundation poses at first is a great way to hurt yourself at worst, or get nothing out of the effort at best.

<comment><USER4> Which is why I said get a _good_ book. As I said earlier Yoga was designed with a fail-safe (although I cannot cite references right now). Unless you just trudge through the discomfort in your body, you will not get hurt doing it on your own.

<comment><USER5> Sorry but this is false. Sensing pain can mean it's already too late and damage is already occurring.

Would you learn to fly a plane from a book? "When you are upside down in a flat spin, you may be in trouble"..

Get a good teacher who can guide you through the foundation alignments and do hands-on adjustments when you are starting out. A book can certainly help but it can't be your only guide.

<comment><USER6> Yes, I would learn to fly a plane from a book.

Pain isn't necessarily a bad thing and doesn't necessarily mean 'damage is already occurring'.

If you are remotely in touch with your own body and athletic you can teach yourself yoga from books/youtube/podcasts. The best progress I had doing yoga was when I was living in Taiwan and 90% of the class was in Mandarin (which I don't speak). It caused me to focus more and listen to my body.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "The naturalistic fallacy", sometimes with a dash of "argument from antiquity".

I think Yoga is more subject to this than some other forms of exercise, except maybe running. When you're wobbling around on top of a bicycle or have strapped yourself to a plank of wood on a mountain side, I hope something in your head tells you you're doing something unnatural. But a lot of people tend to take the line of argument that exercise is NATURAL is GOOD is SHUT UP.

Just because something is passed down through the ages or "natural" to humans doesn't make it _good_. It just makes it _old_. Something being practiced for hundreds or thousands (or in the case of running, hundreds of thousands) of years may give something a baseline plausibility that makes it worth investigating, but it itself is not scientific evidence.

Many people have run regularly over the years and most of them didn't instantly burst into flames, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be conducting long-term studies of the health benefits and risks of running at various intensities. Just because yoga is considered "ancient wisdom" doesn't mean we shouldn't test it rigorously and without preconceived notions of its efficacy or inefficacy.

Science is the only way to distinguish ancient wisdom from ancient hogwash; anecdotes and arguments only confirm pre-existing biases.

<comment><USER8> _"Many people have run regularly over the years and most of them didn't instantly burst into flames, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be conducting long-term studies of the health benefits and risks of running at various intensities."_

Who and where exactly is anyone arguing that _"we shouldn't be conducting long-term studies of the health benefits and risks of running at various intensities"_?

To your list of fallacies you should perhaps add the strawman argument.

 _"Just because yoga is considered "ancient wisdom" doesn't mean we shouldn't test it rigorously and without preconceived notions of its efficacy or inefficacy."_

Another strawman.

 _"Science is the only way to distinguish ancient wisdom from ancient hogwash; anecdotes and arguments only confirm pre-existing biases."_

Is this a "scientifically proven claim"? Or is this just an expression of a "pre-existing bias"?

<comment><USER9> Those are not strawmen, those are called examples. What he's saying is that "naturalness" or "antiquity" does not mean that something shouldn't be tested. For _example_ , running is obviously very natural and old, and that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be tested.

So:

> _Who and where exactly is anyone arguing that_ "we shouldn't be conducting > long-term studies of the health benefits and risks of running at various > intensities" _?_

just reinforces his point, because it was meant to be a statement that _everyone could easily agree with._

Pre-existing bias towards testing and researching in order to approach the truth is a virtue, and to dismiss it while simultaneously attacking by misusing the tools of reason and logic that are its fruits when it is situationally convenient to you is both silly and entirely dishonest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In the weight training community, yoga is seen as problematic because it involves a lot of spinal flexion (ie bending the spine forward). This is seen as a general no-no (which is why sit-ups are generally viewed as bad as well today).

Stuart McGill is often quoted in these matters, as he has done extensive studies on the mechanics of the spine.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-440309/Is- Pilates-...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-440309/Is-Pilates-bad- back.html)

[http://www.amazon.com/Back-Disorders-Second-Stuart- McGill/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Back-Disorders-Second-Stuart- McGill/dp/0736066926)

[http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_trai...](http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_interviews/back_to_mcgill)

[http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_trai...](http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_interviews/mister_spine)

<comment><USER11> I'm not an expert on Yoga by any means, but in all the classes I've taken (and with the exception of the "relaxation" poses), the instructors have emphasized maintaining a straight back. Spinal flexion hasn't been explicitly encouraged, unless (perhaps) it was in the context of a forward fold, where the goal is to relax the muscles of the back after some other strenuous exercise.

Also, reading through your links, the McGill fellow seems to have a fairly nuanced position on core strength. It's not as simple as _"don't bend the spine forward"_.

<comment><USER12> The "cobra pose" is done in the beginner class I go to but I skip it - my core is still not strong enough to keep my lower back from getting hurt.

Instead I do the "sphinx pose" while I keep my lower abdominals pulled in:

Cobra pose - <http://www.yogajournal.com/poses/471>

Sphinx pose - <http://www.yogajournal.com/poses/2464>

<comment><USER13> Those poses show spinal extension, not flexion. It may be the GP was using the wrong word here. I've never seen a yoga class that focused on spinal flexion, but there are a lot of poses that extend the spine, and if done wrong they can cause injury. Most yoga teachers know this, though, and encourage students not to over-extend, either by keeping abdominals active as you describe, or by focusing the extension on the mid- and upper-back rather than the lumbar.

On an only slightly related note, why doesn't gecko spell checker recognize flexion?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "How cycling can wreak your body" or "how exercise can wreak your body" may not have the same catchiness to it but it is perfectly plausible headline.

Yoga needs to be done under expert supervision just like almost any activity that puts your body thru a range of motions not encountered in daily life.

Having personally experienced both Indian and American Yoga lessons - there is a fascinating aspect that comes up. In the US almost always the discussions devolved into "I can master X pose for Y minutes without breaking a sweat" type ego stroking - exactly like "I can do 20 reps at 100 Pounds" boasting in a Gym. the whole mindset was Yoga was something that you had to master to beat in some sense.

In India (personal anecdote) the yoga teacher always emphasized "FLOW" - <USER2> smoothly can you transition between a set of fairly simple poses with maximum awareness. It almost felt like a totally different thing compared to the US style.

</comment><comment><USER15> Most of the problems described have more to do with human nature then with yoga in particular. If you are 100 pounds overweight and live a sedentary lifestyle, then one day try to run a marathon just like that, there are high chances you will get injured. This is a bit of a hyperbole, but for many people going into sports is exactly this way, after years of inactivity there is some sudden abrupt strike of enthusiasm (e. g. a new years resolution), which leads people to apply too much intensity to a body that isn't prepared for it, ultimately ending with an injury. I have seen plenty of examples of this just among friends and relatives.

I haven't been in a yoga class and I am not a practitioner, but as far as I know from secondary sources the kind of instruction one will receive in yoga is in fact much wiser in this respect then in almost any other sport. Most of books written about yoga I have seen are full of precautions about not rushing things on yourself, starting with the simplest positions, going into the positions very slowly, getting out of the position as soon as you experience the slightest discomfort, warnings about not doing the inverted positions without consulting a doctor and so on. I don't think the article does justice to this. The example with the men kneeling each day for hours is especially absurd and I fail to see what it has to do with yoga.

Of course I don't doubt some of the more unnatural positions might really be doing more harm then good to the body even for experienced practicioners, the set of yoga positions as far I understand was invented very long ago and there is no reason it shouldn't be revised using modern knowledge of anatomy etc. I just don't believe most people would experience any of the problems described in the article if they actually followed the teachings, especially beginners just looking to improve their health, who are advised to use really simple positions and are in fact unable to perform the advanced ones according to the principles outlined above.

<comment><USER16> This article focuses on injuries sustained by experienced yoga practitioners (even instructors). It's not about beginners moving too quickly.

<comment><USER17> That is EXACTLY what it's about. Just because you're a Yoga teacher doesn't mean you know what you're doing.

<comment><USER18> Moreso, just because you know what you're doing or experienced doesn't mean you should do it. Knowledge of how to stand on your head, and the wisdom of if you should stand on your head are two different things.

Many instructors probably shouldn't do things that their students are doing. Why? Because they might be teaching 3 classes that day, and the student is in there three times a week.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've been going to a yoga class once a week for the last nine months or so. I guess I'm lucky that I have a very gentle instructor who repeats something like this many times in each class: "let go of any preconceived notions and judgments of what you should be doing and pay attention to yourself". I've stopped looking around the room to see what others are doing and just try to push myself a bit more each week. Its been slow but I think its paying off.

<comment><USER19> Problem is, some limits are hard to detect until you've exceeded them; "listen to your body" really must be augmented by details and rigor around safe progressions through the practice (which, to complicate things, obviously vary by individual).

<comment><USER20> Also, there are some limits that should not be exceeded, period. Like the cases in the article where they exceeded the operating tolerances of the neck and gave themselves strokes.

Yoga certifications really ought to include a basic anatomy and physiology component.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> An author (who does yoga himself) on the Knight Science Journalism Tracker argued that this story is sensationalized and somewhat unfair: [http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/2012/01/05/ny-times-unfairly- trash...](http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/2012/01/05/ny-times-unfairly-trashes- yoga/)

<comment><USER4> Okay, so first off as a person who's had experience with an actual Himalayan Yogi, most of what Black says is true. These Yoga classes are usually a contracted form of what the Yogic monks practice and therefore if carried on unchecked can be quite dangerous.

Yoga (for a first timer) starts of primarily with simple postures and more importantly breathing, and there are absolutely NO difficult postures for at least the first six months. Then he/she learns two new postures over a period of two months and adds that to their usual routine, and this iterates.

So, in about two years the person should be in good physical shape. That is how Yoga should be done. I'd recommend an immensely useful book on Hatha Yoga, but I can't find the link. I shall add it as soon as I do.

Yoga is a quite like going to the gym, except you don't need a gym and it affects your whole body within the same time, not just whatever body parts you work out.

EDIT: Here's the link: [http://www.amazon.com/Hatha-Yoga-Manual-v- Samskrti/dp/089389...](http://www.amazon.com/Hatha-Yoga-Manual-v- Samskrti/dp/0893890820)

<comment><USER22> I spent about half of last year living at a Buddhist monastery and one of the other people staying for part of that time was a yoga instructor who talked about the same things. I've meditated for some years now and one of the main things he had me pay attention to were the smooth transitions between poses and quality of breath in particular. He seemed to agree with an observation I made about it being much like breath meditation with movement added in. Keeping a steady and concentrated mind with careful movements that flow together with the breath were important to maintain and he only gave me a handful of simple poses to work with, things like just raising and lowering legs and turning my legs to the side. No fancy poses or anything. He talked about the ignorance of many yoga instructors too and how dangerous it can be if not taken slowly and with great care.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Ok, firstly, I am Indian too. I have been doing yoga for the past two decades.

At one point I wanted to take my yoga "to the next level", whatever that meant. So I asked my teacher to teach me something more elaborate. She did (a variant of shoulder-stand), and I got a back pain that lasted for two weeks. From then on I have been sticking to my routine - two quick surya-namaskars, followed by 8 simple postures. This is all I have done for the past 2 decades. It makes me feel energetic during the day. I ask for no more.

If your job is sedentary/indoors, do a little yoga and see if it helps. Start small, and stick with what is comfortable. There is no need to compete for higher levels of achievement. If you feel good that's all that is important.

About Swami Vivekananda - I have read his complete works, it is an interesting read, very inspiring (helped me through a bout of depression in my late teens), and for history buffs, it offers some nice historical views of India, Europe and the US at the end of the 19th century. Vivekananda was a philosopher who explored the deep questions of life, and a social commentator with a keen eye for detail.

So read his works by all means, but you don't need that to benefit from some simple exercises.

</comment><comment><USER5> The article states something that a lot of us yoga practitioners already take for granted:

"Yoga is for people in good physical condition."

If you're overweight and/or in poor physical condition, yoga is not for you, at least not at first.

<comment><USER24> My mother is in great physical condition, and certainly not overweight, but she still managed to destroy her shoulder doing yoga.

So while it's true that people in poor condition shouldn't do yoga, there are still risks to people in good condition.

<comment><USER25> This is a valid criticism of every exercise: done improperly, anyone can get hurt... done properly, there is still a small chance of injury.

Exercise is important for everyone's health, but the fact remains that the human body is poorly cobbled together and still not well-understood by science. Do what you can to help yourself stay healthy, but there is never a zero risk of critical failure.

<comment><USER20> The difference is that when I go to my regular trainer, he is very specific about not letting me exceed my physical limits. He's also very conscientious about making sure I know my physical limits so I don't hurt myself when he's not around.

In a yoga class, the instructor can regularly instruct people to do things that are inherently dangerous (even if they aren't painful.)

Pushing the risk onto the students is not particularly helpful. The student has placed (or misplaced, depending) their trust in the instructor not to hurt them. It's the instructors job to make sure they don't get hurt, including not having them do inherently dangerous things.

You'd be surprised how much science understands about how the body works.

<comment><USER26> So you have a good trainer and a bad yoga teacher?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I studied in Kendriya Vidhyalaya(central school) and we used to have yoga classes weekly.

my observations,

your body needs flexibility and it needs practice to loosen your body just like warming up.

it is easier for kids to begin yoga as their bodies are already flexible.

based on your fitness, flexibility and comfort levels you can discover newer levels of asanas, just like all those poses in Kamasutra.

let us be clear, yoga is for relaxing mind and body, not acrobatic displays as it has been marketed in america

<comment><USER28> let us be clear, yoga is for relaxing mind and body, not acrobatic displays as it has been marketed in america.

Exactly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Yoga can be harmful, but not as harmful as sitting on your couch all day, but not as harmful as sitting on your couch all day and then thinking an hour of magic postures will fix it.

</comment><comment><USER30> Well, exercise injury is an entire field of study, and hence the existence of the profession of physiotherapy. Yoga is just one more way you can hurt yourself and need a physiotherapist.

There was a great comment on the NYTimes article by someone called Stevi that I would like to quote here, "Yoga doesn't wreck the body. People wreck their bodies by practicing yoga with a lack of awareness and by taking classes from instructors who don't have enough experience. Yoga is an ancient discipline--a tool for self-realization. It's unfair to hold yoga responsible for our misuse of it. Yoga involves an eight-fold path of which asana is only one tenant. If you are practicing asana without without the other aspects of yoga such as ahimsa (non-harm), santosha (contentment), aparigraha (non-greed), etc., then you are destined for problems. Find a good teacher, and yoga is the greatest gift."

</comment><comment><USER31> Yes, Yoga practiced incorrectly can screw your body. Even the breathing exercises if done incorrectly can screw your body. Tip: Do NOT practice Yoga from a book.

A close friend of mine started breathing exercises & yoga from a book. He's been doing some forms of these for many years, and this was the first time he was doing them from a book, and doing newer things.

He did or overdid something, and some balance in his body was disturbed. His weight dropped from 85kg to 54kg within a couple of months, becoming almost literally skin and bones.

He had to go for some intensive treatment to get his body back in line.

And this is a guy who I've known personally for 8 years now - not an anecdote I've heard.

So stick to the basic exercises, don't tie yourself up in knots, don't do any crazy breathing exercises, and certainly don't over do anything.

</comment><comment><USER32> Makes total sense.

The reason Yoga was invented (if I'm not mistaken) was to allow Yogis to meditate for long periods of time - often hours or days. In essence, Yoga was used to ensure that your body could stay still for long periods of time.

It feels that people here in the West use Yoga as a "workout". Which is kind of crazy since, in my opinion, you're supposed to do Yoga to be in tune with yourself, bring awareness to your body and calm your mind (with the ultimate goal of being able to meditate).

Whenever I go to a Yoga class I personally prefer to stay in the back and do the poses at my own pace, and only focus on those where I feel comfortable - if a pose is stopping me from breathing properly I know that something is wrong.

</comment><comment><USER33> I do contemporary US fitness oriented yoga quite often. It isn't my first choice for a sport, personally, but it works great as a compromise when I'm with my parents, their friends, or with girls. I'd rather do something other than my first choice if it can include more of the people I'm trying to socialize with at the time.

Anyway, for some reason, I look like I'm really struggling when I do it. My arms shake, etc.. This despite being able to run 14 miles throwing myself forward each step, do 30 pull-ups in a row, 100 sit-ups, etc.. Seeing me seemingly suffer, the yoga instructors are constantly telling me things: just do the poses that are within your practice, focus on your breathing and relaxing and not copying the poses, go into an easy child's pose or down dog pose whenever you feel things are too much, don't muscle yourself into a pose, do a few more sun salutations to warm and loosen your body before continuing, do you have any injuries I should be aware of, here is a modified pose that is easier, here is a pose to increase your upper body strength before doing inversions, etc..

Long story short, most people seem to try really hard to copy poses and force their body. That's apparently not the way to do it and teachers try hard to make that clear. I've never been injured, but I imagine it is much less likely doing it their way, which focuses on relaxation and breath.

</comment><comment><USER34> Ok, firstly. I am an Indian.

What is wrong with Yoga? Answer : Wrong question!

The right question is, What is wrong with our understand of Yoga?

As per most people and if you ask them, they would reply Yoga means twisting, bending and turning your body in crazy ways to heal/medicinal use. Nothing would be further from the truth. Unfortunately things have come down to a level where people only give ritualistic definition of Yoga! Yoga also has many branches.

To understand Yoga in its essence I would advice you to read Swami Vivekananda's complete works.

I practice Yoga. Yoga is not a 2 hour exercise session. Yoga is a way of life. I practice Yoga, Its a branch of Yoga called Karma Yoga! So what does Karma Yoga mean? Its exemplified from a verse in Gita:

 _You have power to your actions only, not its outcome. Act therefore forth right without succumbing to inaction_

This is to dedicate yourself towards a goal, consciously iterating and eliminating your faults in moments of self reflection improvising and not giving up until you reach your goal.

This is easier said than done! The key here is self reflection. I felt that David Allen's Getting things done took me to a better enabler to following Karma Yoga! I started following these techniques since last February.

I started taking one day a time, trying to most productive in a day. Eliminating distraction. And working towards a larger goal. The results have been astounding to me.

Karma Yoga! for westerners can be explain by a poem by Rudyard Kipling - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If%E2%80%94>

\---

If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too: If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, Or being lied about, don't deal in lies, Or being hated don't give way to hating, And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master; If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim, If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same: If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken, And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, And lose, and start again at your beginnings And never breathe a word about your loss: If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew To serve your turn long after they are gone, And so hold on when there is nothing in you Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch, If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you, If all men count with you, but none too much: If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds' worth of distance run, Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it, And—which is more—you'll be a Man, my son!

\---

There are also other forms of Yoga! My mother practices Pranayama. Which is basically meditation and breathing practices.

You also need a good teacher. Who knows Yoga! Else you will end up making mistakes which can be dangerous.

Yoga is a way of life. Stop thinking it in terms of gym sessions.

Ultimate aim of Yoga is to make you bring you to a state of self actualization. Like what Buddha was! And healthy body plays a important role in that. So Yoga helps you build that too. But people tend to understand Yoga only as some form of medical exercises.

<comment><USER35> It is quite unfortunate that OP is getting upvoted. He has hijacked the discussion by completely redefining yoga. Yoga might have meant all those spiritual aspects you've outlined, but as practised here in the USA and even in India, none of those aspects are even remotely brought to bear. I have been taught yoga formally in India both as a kid ( in most CBSE middle schools, you are auto-enrolled in 1 hour of yoga per week ) and as an adult. Swami Vivekananda was mentioned not even in passing.

> To understand Yoga in its essence I would advice you to read Swami > Vivekananda's complete works.

Yeah and likewise to understand Computer Scienmce in its essence I would advice you to read D.E. Knuth's complete works and not profess to know any CS until you memorize each and every algorithm in TAOCP! You see how ridiculous that sounds ? That's the whole problem. Yoga a few centuries ago might have meant what you said, but as practised today, in the here and now, simply means acrobatic gym sessions with contortions paid for by your montly paycheck. Its unfortunate, but that's what it is.

Bringing in Kipling into this discussion is hugely ironic considering how much of a royal prick he was in his attitude towards Indians ( Kipling's transparently racist portrayals of Indian characters in Kim and Gunga Din, among others )

The Times article is about genuine medical risks posed by spinal twists and headstands, which are, unfortunately becoming more and more commonplace as sedentary officegoers frequent yoga studios to add some yoga to their fitness regimen. None of those people are remotely interested in karmayoga or nyanayoga - they just want to learn the asanas.

Asanas minus Yoga is not yoga.

But that's the reality of today. Learning shirasasana without learning its spiritual yogic root is akin to calling yourself a programmer and not knowing what a red-black tree is. But guess what, most programmers today don't know what a red-black tree is. That's sad, but its also a reality and we have to deal with reality as it exists, not based on Kipling's delusional rants. There are hundreds of actual people with actual broken ribs who desperately want to learn matsyasana and don't give a flying f--- who gautama buddha or ramakrishna paramahamsa or swami vivekananda was. That's just the way it is.

<comment><USER36> >Bringing in Kipling into this discussion is hugely ironic >considering how much of a royal prick he was in his attitude towards Indians ( Kipling's transparently racist portrayals of Indian characters in Kim and Gunga Din, among others )

If you consider Rudyard Kipling's characterization as racist then perhaps you are missing a few subtleties and humanizing nature of such character portrayals. I am from India and I do not consider Kipling's characterization as racist but rather a dig at the ills of society that existed during the British rule similar to Mark Twain's characterization of Native Americans and African Americans in the pre-civil war American south.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I think this is mainly a USA thing. I've practiced Yoga for years in the Netherlands, and if anything, it is about _not_ straining yourself, or if you do stretch something, to only stretch it when you can be completely feeling and aware of the thing you're stretching. You need that awareness _first and foremost_ , and then the posture.

It's incredibly hard, nearly impossible, to feel and be aware in a body part when it's in pain from overstretching or tension. Consciousness doesn't like to go there, as long as the nerves are occupied with sending pain signals, they're not doing much feeling. If you ignore or block the pain you're not being aware, but if you do, the pain is "louder" than anything else, so you're still not getting much.

It's stupid and useless. The goal should be the awareness, so you're _much_ better off doing simple postures, or simplified versions of complex postures, or just see how far you can go while still being comfortable and _aware_.

If you practice it this way, you'll know when you're going too far, because your awareness will fade (you'll often just realize it in hindsight, though, in the moment, you're not aware that you're not aware, just like Dunning- Kruger) and if you don't, that's what the teacher is for. S/he will pay attention to the students and notice when they're more involved with doing a posture than with paying attention to what all there is to feel inside their bodies.

I just can't get my head around this, to get all the benefits of Yoga, you can just stick to the simplest postures _and do them a lot_ (unless you're injured in which case you do them even simpler, the Sawasana is just lying down flat on your back, so there's always that one). If you try postures that are too complicated or straining for your body-flexibility, you'll get nothing! Except injury! It's just stupid, these supposed "experienced" Yoga practitioners, "advancing" to more and more complicated postures, I suppose every time they feel "comfortable" in some posture they move on to something new! They're missing the whole point! Feeling comfortable? _Good._ Everything you did before was not Yoga, but warming-up and stretch exercises. It's Yoga when you can relax in a posture, without strain, without pain. And if there's some posture for which that seems impossible to you, do a different one. It's okay, they're not "better" than the ones you're comfortable in.

</comment><comment><USER38> I practiced yoga for several years on a very regular basis. Although I personally did not experience any significant injury, I can really understand how people can get caught up in pushing their body beyond its means, even through pain. Despite the fact that teachers often emphasize staying within your ability and focusing on your own practice, the ego often creeps in. Either between students or even w/i yourself, struggling to further 'perfect' a pose or match what you did last week, is too easy to fall into.

I think it is probably similar to other pursuits, whether it be running, weight lifting, or swimming. It's easy to over do it, and you have to keep your ego in check.

Yoga is an amazing practice with a lot of benefits. The take away that I get from this is to not assume that yoga is always harmless, and to check your ego at the door and really pay attention to your body. Sometimes easier said than done (especially as I currently nurse a knee injury from a long run last week, which I really knew I shouldn't have done, but badly wanted).

</comment><comment><USER39> I've done yoga with an excellent teacher for years and never had a problem. One day with a substitute was all it took to put my upper vertebrae in a bad state for two years.

There is wide variation in teacher knowledge and experience. Maybe they should be licensed, or, if you prefer the libertarian approach, caveat emptor.

BTW I am in my 50's, most of the class was 40+ yrs old

<comment><USER39> On further consideration, I think yoga is best thought of as a sport, rather than a therapy. You risk injury in all sport activities, but you decide it's worth it, not just for the physical benefits but because you enjoy the challenge, it makes you feel good about yourself. Yoga definitely gives benefits that are more than physical, and like almost any physical activity, you have to understand the risks, and especially be very aware of your level of competence to avoid pushing your risk profile dangerously high. The teacher is really a trainer, and should be competent enough not to have you do something that will hurt you. This is hard in a big class; the best teachers constantly remind you to listen to your body, and be aware of your limits.

It should definitely not be used as a replacement for physical therapy, though it can help with general problems such as joint and back stiffness and mild pain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> My takeaway from the article is that yoga, like any other physical activity, can be dangerous when one does not know how to do it properly, but more importantly, has too large an ego to know when to quit/pause.

I've been doing yoga for only a little over a month, but I go at my own pace at home. I'm not in a class where I force myself to "keep up" or whatnot.

</comment><comment><USER41> Trust yourself. In most forms of physical activity, if you are uncomfortable doing it, there is probably damage being done. But that doesn't mean damage isn't a good thing. In weight training, you purposely push yourself to the edge to break down your muscles and build them back stronger. The edge is an undecipherable gray for most novices so don't travel anywhere close without the advice of a trusted advisor. I learned that lesson the hard way when I first started lifting, "push as hard as I can to see the best results."

An experienced advisor makes all the difference in the world. Some things in life just never change: from startups to fitness, seek wisdom for great justice.

</comment><comment><USER42> Yes, you can hurt yourself doing Yoga. More so if you do it incorrectly.

See also: running, weight lifting, swimming, biking, walking.

You can also hurt yourself while doing nothing.

Should that mean you should stop doing yoga? No, you should just be careful.

</comment><comment><USER43> It's just like any other form of exercise: do what you can do, and be careful. Some types of Yoga can be quite heavy, almost like heavy weight lifting, and similar caveats apply.

</comment><comment><USER44> I don't doubt you can get hurt badly in a Yoga class and I never have.

That's why I only generally attend the less intense classes. I know I'm not lance armstrong.

My girlfriend manages a studio and has seen her share of nasty injuries from exactly what this article warns about: "Now urbanites who sit in chairs all day walk into a studio a couple of times a week and strain to twist themselves into ever-more-difficult postures despite their lack of flexibility and other physical problems..."

</comment><comment><USER45> Interesting that Yoga is marketed heavily for people who sit in front of a computer for hours a day, even though the article points out that it's more dangerous for them because they're not already exercising the way that the people for whom yoga was invented for did.

</comment><comment><USER46> I think it's worth pointing out that physical yoga, much like any sort of physical exercise, can damage the body. Yet, if you're young and in good physical condition, it can strengthen your body a lot. The article has a strong point: lots of people shouldn't be doing these intense exercises.

I took three months to train in Shaolin Kung Fu, near the Shaolin Temple in China about two years back. I trained for 7-9 hours a day, 6 days a week. I ate over 5,000 calories a day, and ended up losing 16 pounds by the end (and I was decently fit to begin with).

The stretching was intense and almost made me cry, I cut myself with swords, bruised myself with meteor hammers, and even lashed my own flesh with whips (by mistake, of course). Yet, I easily doubled my explosive strength, multiplied my endurance by fifteen times, and even managed to learn to throw a sewing needle through glass.

Everything has a downside if you do it wrong, but you're not _supposed_ to do it wrong.

</comment><comment><USER47> This applies to people who lift weights too. "I bench 7564550969 pounds. You?". Ego.

</comment><comment><USER48> "With power comes great responsibility." Yoga is powerful, use it wisely.

</comment><comment><USER49> Doesn't this apply to any form of exercise though?

</comment><comment><USER50> It's sensationalized headlines like this that ruin something that is inherently good but has been bastardized by peoples needs to be super good at everything they do!

Yoga will not wreck your body - doing it wrongly will. Just like driving drunk can get you killed - doing yoga without understanding it - and knowing what your bodys own limits are will get you killed too.

Anything powerful is always double edged. The author in fact highlights example that prove just that - people who overdo their yoga (the kid who sat in a pose praying for world peace for days) - or jump into it to quickly without any checks or training (the guy who popped his ribs) will definitely wreck themselves.

BUT - so will first time swimmers who decide to try swim across the english channel. Or amateur weightlifters who decide to benchpress twice their bodyweight on the first go. Putting out an article like this just scares people off from something that is inherently good - rather than making them more aware of the fact that its good - but ONLY if used correctly.

I started yoga in India as a kid. The ashram I went to is in Bombay and I was not allowed to start anything without a certificate from a doctor saying I was physically sound - the ashram itself also had a doctor at hand who did yet another check - specific to yoga and had me fill out a full medical history. Based on this history the doctor selected very basic exercises and marked them out in a little book that I was provided. The trainer had me do just those exercises (relaxation exercises, simple leg raises and basic stretches) for almost a month - before I could do them without any trouble - before he moved on to slightly more challenging positions, also again with the approval of the inhouse doctor. Those years of yoga helped me tremendously to overcome some health issues I had - and I am sure there are plenty more out there who's lives have been enriched by yoga.

This is how yoga should be done - and was done through the years - there were people who knew what it was about and had practiced for decades before they started teaching others.

However, as is typical to the consumerization of anything in this world - people try to industrialize things and take short cuts to make a quick buck. We have fancy sounding forms of yoga like hot yoga or power yoga that try to create the fad of the season. Folks do a few months of training in yoga and become "instructors" and charge money to train people in exercises that they really should not be training.

I'd rephrase that article - and say that yoga is great and if done correctly can actually save lives (especially in the overstressed obese and sedentary societies we live in these days). However being the powerful skill that it is - it must be handled with care by people trained and experienced.

TL;DR - Yoga is not bad, people who are doing too much too fast or "teaching" new fancy forms of yoga with no real sound backing are ruining the experience for over enthusiastic beginners who dont get that it has to be taken slow. Do yoga its good for you - but make sure someone who knows what your conditions are and what yoga is all about is teaching you!

</comment><comment><USER51> tl;dr

Do you do Yoga?

I do the asanas.

Do you attain enlightenment?

I attain injuries.

</comment><comment><USER52> I'm now eagerly awaiting NY Times' revelational "why jogging or any other physical activity can hurt you if you are not in adequate physical condition for it" article.

<comment><USER53> Exactly. Other things that can wreck your body: running, weight lifting, competitive sports, and failing to do any of these things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I've attended quite a lot of yoga classes in different parts of the country, and none of them have included any kind of inversion -- no head stands, shoulder stands, or "bridge" (aka wheel). For that matter, none have included the leg extension done by the guy in the green shirt, either.

This article is both factual and sensationalist at the same time.

<comment><USER55> I've done that leg etension pose in Bikram yoga. I liked the challenge of Bikram, but it definitely was bad for my back so I stopped going.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> This article is inflammatory and poorly written. 20 million practice in the US but a handful of anecdotes and second-hand claims of injury are mentioned? Sounds like good odd to me.

How many are injured by ego, ignorance, or bad advice in gyms, on tracks and fields, or in pools every day? Lose the ego and be selective about your coach.</comment>


The JavaScript Way book - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/bpesquet/thejsway/#readme <comment><USER2> Discussed four days ago, 500+ upvotes:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14865043](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14865043)

<comment><USER3> was just going to mention this.

Feels like PR stun or whatever.

OP, has anything changed since last posted?

<comment><USER4> That's some accusation. Maybe the poster just didn't spend as much time reading HN in the last few days.

<comment><USER5> Honestly I had the same reaction initially. But now I think this is just an echo-chamber effect. After reading the HN article, I received at least two of my regular js-related newsletters in my email inbox that mentioned this book. I suspect that's what caused it to be submitted again (and I vaguely recall it popping up in a thread somewhere).

But I do understand that it might feel like a campaign.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Note to the author: your social news app on heroku is overwhelmed by spam.

</comment><comment><USER7> The JS way is : just fuck it</comment>


Ask HN: How do you become an independent contractor? - <AUTHOR> I feel like this is something I'd like to do in the future -- and a way to increase income and be my own boss.<p>What are the pros/cons? <comment><USER2> I made the jump a few months ago. I'm contracting software design and development services (modern front end and back end, but mostly back end) and focus on startup clients. My site is linked in my profile if you're curious.

Plenty has been discussed on this before, but here are the biggest pros and cons from my experience.

Pro: Time flexibility. I wanted to be able to dedicate more time to non-dev things like reading, writing, creating, and learning things just for the hell of it.

Con: You don't get paid for time in several situations where employees do, for example, paid vacations and holidays. Another would be long lunches. As an employee, I never thought about the length of my lunchtime. As a contractor, I tend to eat as fast as possible so I can get back to business.

I think the benefits and drawbacks really vary by one's personality. I'm a very autonomous person and have always worked best when I can control my day and working hours.

Increasing income was not a direct goal for me, but it will probably happen. It's not quite that simple though — you need to make about 30% more to cover self-employment taxes and various startup costs like creating a company, legal, accounting, web services, etc.

Once you consider: (1) that you don't get paid vacation and holidays, (2) that you probably won't have 100% of your desired hours every week for 52 weeks out of the year, and (3) that you have certain time-consuming activities that aren't billable, like invoicing; it's probably more like 1.5x to net more overall at the end of the year vs being an employee. Note that this also ignores any equity you might have vested as an employee.

</comment><comment><USER3> Regardless of how good you are (or you think you are) one way or another without an actual contract, there is no paycheck.

Before you even think about being a contractor, get good (or partner with someone good) at getting contracts.

<comment><USER4> I'm getting a small job and since I can't bother with a contract right now, I'll ask for 50% before I start working..

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Get a client willing to pay you. Forget everything else. Contracts and all that you'll learn as you go along. Don't be afraid to mess up.

</comment><comment><USER6> You're asking the wrong question. The right question is how do you sell your service of building apps or thingiwhatever as a freelancer.

That's where it gets difficult, because you have services that help you sell like freelancer.com - that are easy to go through but you get market price.

Then there's selling your services at higher prices, which is finding clients and offering your services - no clear cut way to do. You'll also find its not as clear cut as being your own boss that is just illusory, it's like being in a job but getting no benefits with it and being able to be let go at any time. Also it is difficult to get clients.

<comment><USER2> IMO the marketplaces, even the high end ones, are mostly not worth your time. They also tend toward lower rates and more fickle clients. On top of paying lower rates, they also take a cut of course.

I would consider using a high-end marketplace or advice channel as supplements, but not as a main stream of work. Though it is more difficult and involved to find your own clients, it's a better approach once you've done it a few times.</comment></comment>


Opera 15 is here, but is it better than Firefox and Chrome? - <AUTHOR> http://www.fixedbyvonnie.com/opera-15-is-here/

<comment><USER2> Bring back embedding folders in folders in the bookmarks (Speed Dial) and it's a winner.</comment>


Show HN: Digital Photo Frame App – Powerful Photo Player App for iOS - <AUTHOR> https://owwly.com/product/Digital-Photo-Frame-App-20/post/Launched-new-version-with-video-support-88 <comment><USER2> So, to be clear, you didn't make this? It appears you are using Show HN to showcase others' work through your own site...</comment>


Artyping (1939) - <AUTHOR> https://archive.org/details/Artyping <comment><USER2> I thought it looked kind of cool, so I derived a lettering style from the one shown on page 17 and made a kludgy bit of Common Lisp to print strings in it[1]. I tested it a little bit, but, _caveat emptor_.

As written it only supports spaces and 26 lower case (input) letters from a-z.

[1] [https://github.com/dwringer/line- lettering](https://github.com/dwringer/line-lettering)

</comment><comment><USER3> Not only is this interesting but it is also demonstrative of how to write an instructional manual. He provides plenty of examples and advice on how to improve one's technique. The "soldiers" example on page 21 is a good example of how to explain and demonstrate a technique.

</comment><comment><USER4> The man's face on page 52 looks like a reaction image you would see on social media today.

<comment><USER5> You don't say.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> ASCII art before ASCII was a thing!</comment>


Show HN: NewsDash - <AUTHOR> http://chaoscollective.org:4005/?egypt=1

<comment><AUTHOR> Some background: NewsNow is a realtime news dashboard we made to cover large social events without filtering from large media outlets. We built it in just a couple days.

Everything is pulled from social updates, but is organized and presented similar to a newspaper with hierarchy and structure.

Also, try it on mobile/tablet -- everything should flow and look pretty :)

</comment><comment><USER2> Change that name. [http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/](http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/)

I've used the real NewsNow for ages.

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha. Wow, didn't see that. We'll get the name changed pronto.

Thanks for the heads-up :)</comment></comment>


Eggs Might Not Be That Great for You After All - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/study-links-eggs-to-higher-cholesterol-and-risk-of-heart-disease-11552662001 <comment><USER2> A better source:

[https://news.feinberg.northwestern.edu/2019/03/eating- eggs-a...](https://news.feinberg.northwestern.edu/2019/03/eating-eggs-and- cholesterol-linked-to-heart-disease-and-death-risk/)

The link to the study in the WSJ post doesn't even work.

Study: [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article- abstract/27284...](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article- abstract/2728487)

I personally don't think this may be a great study, as usually this type of studies aren't so rigorous. In the end it seems to say the same thing every cholesterol study has said in the past -- that cholesterol is "associated" with higher levels of chronic disease. But it's never identified as the _cause_ of those chronic diseases.

> _How the study was conducted

Diet data were collected using food frequency questionnaires or by taking a diet history. Each participant was asked a long list of what they'd eaten for the previous year or month. The data were collected during a single visit. The study had up to 31 years of follow up (median: 17.5 years), during which 5,400 cardiovascular events and 6,132 all-cause deaths were diagnosed.

A major limitation of the study is participants' long-term eating patterns weren't assessed.

"We have one snapshot of what their eating pattern looked like," Allen said. "But we think they represent an estimate of a person's dietary intake. Still, people may have changed their diet, and we can't account for that."_

</comment><comment><USER3> There are multiple contradictory studies from Harvard about eggs.

As a result, there are youtubers who believe that cholesterol is a benficial steroid-like substance for muscle growth (Snake Diet guy), and others who feel tha it causes heart disease and death (Vegans such as durianrider)

The interesting thing is that both men seem to be qualitatively and quantitatively healthy, both on blood tests and physical performances

<comment><USER4> I keep reading things about how whether you see statistically significant results from a study can depend on things like whether you group subpopulations together...

My conclusion is that no matter how much lip service people give to the saying "correlation is not causation", they don't live it, because the only practical thing to do is publish whenever you find a correlation, or else you will perish.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is why I buy egg whites. They come in a carton in my local market, and previously they were very hard to find. I had to ask management to keep getting them in, as they kept disappearing from the shelves

</comment><comment><USER6> Except nobody ever fucking controls for how these eggs are cooked (fried with butter or hard-boiled?!)

FUD of the worst kind.

<comment><USER7> And no mention of the other servings, typically being bacon and/or sausages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Ah, yes, all food is bad for you.</comment>


Budget Woes in San Jose - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/budget-woes-in-one-of-americas-wealthiest-cities/470877/?google_editors_picks=true&single_page=true <comment><USER2> Proposition 13 is one of the worst failures of California's experiments with direct democracy.

It was a bald-faced grab for cash; and it grossly distorted the housing market, been a huge handout to rentseekers and entrenched interests, starved public schools, hugely increased housing prices, prevented sensible house renovations (in order to preserve tax status), allowed an obstructionist ideological minority (33%) to stop any sort of sensible and economically beneficial tax reform, and above all increased inequality.

It's also a political third rail. It's time to change that. Prop 13 is bad, and those who support are making life and the market far worse for general society, for a much smaller tax break for themselves. It's greed, and it's bad.

<comment><USER3> And what about home owners that couldn't keep up with rising taxes after purchasing their home? Rising real estate prices were hurting families who saw their tax bills jump based on local housing sales, and it prevents people from being able to accurately budget long-term purchases like housing when they can't anticipate a stable tax rate

<comment><USER2> >And what about home owners that couldn't keep up with rising taxes after purchasing their home?

So much wrong here.

#1 they can sell their homes at _huge_ profits (otherwise the taxes would not be hurting them).

#2 they can support building enough housing so that prices aren't jumping so unafforably.

#3 They could have set the maximum increase at 5%, or CPI + 2%, or really anything other than 2% which is clearly a hugely bad policy.

Prop 13 is simply a way for people who got in early to prevent anybody else from enjoying California.

<comment><USER4> Most people who buy their homes for long-term buy it to settle in their neighborhoods and have kids go to the same school, not speculate on price increases and profit from them.

Leave alone the fact that when markets are over-heated, those _huge_ profits can only be locked into _huge_ base prices for any other property that's selling in this peak market. Unless the step 2 after hitting those huge profits involves packing up and moving to MidWest.

<comment><USER2> >Most people who buy their homes for long-term buy it to settle in their neighborhoods and have kids go to the same school, not speculate on price increases and profit from them.

 _IF_ this is the true purpose of Proposition 13, then it would be written far differently. (Greater than 2%, no commercial real estate included, no passing on to children). People are also allowed to sell their home for more than the assessed tax value, precisely because people speculate on price increases of their homes. If that wasn't one of the primary reasons behind Proposition 13 then people would have been OK with only being able to sell their home at the assessed value.

Really though the point of Proposition 13 was to just pay less taxes, "staying in your home" doesn't really come into play. Defending it along those lines is deceptive, and propagates a false narrative.

<comment><USER4> > People are also allowed to sell their home for more than the assessed tax > value, precisely because people speculate on price increases of their homes. > If that wasn't one of the primary reasons behind Proposition 13 then people > would have been OK with only being able to sell their home at the assessed > value.

I am not sure what you're describing is correct - each time I bought a property in California the assessed tax value next year was precisely the sale price.

Here's what California has to say on it:

[http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax- primer-1...](http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax- primer-112912.aspx)

The process that county assessors use to determine the value of real property was established by Proposition 13. Under this system, when real property is purchased, the county assessor assigns it an assessed value that is equal to its purchase price, or "acquisition value."

<comment><USER2> You misunderstand what I wrote.

Right now, Prop 13 beneficees have an assessed value of, say $300,000, on a $1,000,000 house. They can sell the house for $1,000,000.

If Prop 13 were actually about keeping people in their homes, then after taking advantage of below-market taxes for so long, they wouldn't be allowed to sell for more than a small percentage more than the tax assessed value.

But Prop 13 is not about keeping people in their homes, it's a selfish grab to not pay taxes, drive up home values, and profit on both ends.

<comment><USER4> > they wouldn't be allowed to sell for more than a small percentage more than > the tax assessed value

This just has a bad smell to it - not only you're inviting corruption and avoidance into the deal (the buyer is asked to bring the check for the assessed value and a suitcase of cash to the deal), the actual revenue collected by the state would fall, and the federal government is likely to contest this setup as it stands to lose out on capital gains.

> Right now, Prop 13 beneficees have an assessed value of, say $300,000, on a > $1,000,000 house.

Assuming a very healthy and robust real estate market that grows gangbusters 15% every single year and never falls, it would take 9 years for a $300,000 property to grow into $917,706. It would go over the $1,000,000 sticker during year 10.

Of course, this is assuming ever-lasting 15% valuation increase and no price correction whatsoever, but even in this ideal market the owner has lived there for 9+ years and does not fall qualify for your definition of "keeping people in their home"?

Even when he sells, the cash he has on hand is enough to (surprise!) buy a comparable house, so this crazy speculation scheme is only doable once in life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _(Disclaimer: I have multiple rental properties in CA)_

I've noticed Prop 13 becoming the quite the scapegoat for the woes of various California cities lately. I'm not convinced.

The state has a huge pension liability looming over it–most of which grew after Prop 13 was passed. How did they think they were going to pay for it? Example: San Jose's fire chief makes close to $400K/year in pay + benefits. Guess what? When he retires, he's gonna keep getting paid 90% of his peak salary _until he dies_.[0] Meanwhile, I'm paying $1,400/month out of pocket for my family's health insurance and have to spend time managing my own retirement plan.

No one exemplifies Parkinson's Law [1] better than the government. If you let property tax increase without limits, they will grow spending accordingly and it will hurt cities like San Jose even worse during recessions and times of declining home values.

Finally I'm not convinced Prop 13 inflates housing costs or that repealing it would lower them. If rentseekers have to pay more taxes, won't they pass that cost along in the form of higher rents?

[0] [http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2014/san- jose/curt...](http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2014/san-jose/curtis- p-jacobson/)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law)

<comment><USER6> I find it ironic you're criticizing the pay of a man who leads the people who would happily _save you from your burning properties_ if they were on fire.

<comment><USER5> How is it ironic? How many people were saved from burning buildings in your city last year?

The truth is, technology and building codes in the US–and especially California–have significantly reduced the loss of life and property due to fires. That's a great thing. Unfortunately, fire department budgets have increased at the same time. Partly due to pensions, partly due to the fact that cutting a fire budget is political suicide.

Have you noticed how 30-foot, $1 million+ fire engines show up to minor traffic accidents and first aid calls? There's a reason (they need to look busy).

Fun fact: 8% of calls to fire departments are false alarms and 64% are for non-fire medical support.

<comment><USER7> "Have you noticed how 30-foot, $1 million+ fire engines show up to minor traffic accidents and first aid calls? There's a reason (they need to look busy)."

 _(Disclaimer: I am a volunteer firefighter in California)_

They do that because they can't be caught without the engine if they get an actual fire call. They would leave directly from the accident/medical/CatInTree in the engine and go directly to the fire.

That's why you see them drive to the grocery store in the fire truck. You can't wait for them to go back to the firehouse to get the engine ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've lived in San Jose area for over 20 years now. The downtown area has made some improvements, but at an extremely slow pace. It would be nice to go to lunch/dinner and then have a place to walk around that had a few interesting shops, but there aren't really any. I find it very strange given the economic vitality of the area. I think the current mayor is on the right track. I hold out hope that in 5-10 years, it will be a completely different story downtown (hopefully sooner).

<comment><USER9> I really hate going to downtown San Jose-its my least favorite spot in the entire Bay to wait for transit. I just don't feel quite safe.

Pawn shops, check cashing shops, clubs and bars (and head shops). That's pretty much what DT SJ is.

<comment><USER10> The Santa Clara part of DTSJ has always been a wreck.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Oddly we have a situation where people who own homes can pay very low property taxes while voting to restrict new building on land they do not own within their city. Most of the bay area is low density sprawling asphalt hellscape (think Fremont, not Berkeley) where people can enjoy their grandfathered in tax rates AND oppose any and all new housing construction - the same construction that could help the city increase its tax base (not to mention allow workers to live closer to jobs and other amenities). Of course, that construction would also mean their property values weren't quite stratospheric, and regular folks could maybe, just maybe, cover rent.

Perhaps we should reconsider the idea that people can vote on what homes others (even _gasp_ developers!) are allowed to build on private land.

<comment><AUTHOR> > (think Fremont, not Berkeley)

I wouldn't let Berkeley off the hook so quickly, there is definitely resistance to dense residential development there [1]. I heard in a SPUR talk [2] that North Berkeley in particular has a strong anti-development movement, this despite Berkeley being one of the Bay area cities with the most new jobs being created.

[1] [http://www.dailycal.org/2015/08/27/protesters-rally- against-...](http://www.dailycal.org/2015/08/27/protesters-rally-against- contentious-downtown-berkeley-development/) [2] [http://spur.org](http://spur.org)

<comment><USER11> Makes sense, North Berkeley is full of fabulously wealthy people who know they will become ludicrously wealthy if they can forbid any new construction. I lived by Ashby BART and the neighborhood didn't seem as worried about these things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I live outside US. I don't get it; What stops San Jose from drawing income tax, or increase it if they already do?

Propery and business tax is almost neglible around here in northern Europe, compared to income tax and vat.

<comment><USER4> Voters would have to approve such income tax. Considering they would be the ones affected, the proposition is unlikely to pass.

I doubt it's the income situation though, from the article:

"Visit the main street of Palo Alto, where Stanford and numerous startups are located, and you'll see dozens of fancy restaurants and stores and may not be able to snag a parking spot among the luxury cars parked there. Castro Street in downtown Mountain View has a slightly more relaxed vibe, with candy stores and book shops and restaurants and bars."

Palo Alto and Mountain View don't collect any income taxes and are subject to the same Prop 13 restrictions as every other city in California.

For San Jose troubles, you'd have to look towards its pension obligations. For a while the pension system for municipal workers allowed the pension to be pro-rated to the last salary mark, not average salary over the years of service.

That does not seem so bad, but the union contracts had a fairly generous allowance for sick days. That does not sound so bad either (who wants to deal with a sick coworker?) but it also allowed unlimited accumulation of those sick days throughout the years of service. At retirement the accumulated sick hours would be paid out pro-rated at last salary mark.

You can see what incentives this provided for city workers (of a fairly large city): never take a sick day, accumulate the maximum amount of them, push for promotions as you're closer to retirement age, retire the week after you get promotion and salary bump.

Many did play the system that way [http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_21438816/bay- areas-250k-club-g...](http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_21438816/bay- areas-250k-club-government-retirees-wont-be) and considering it's a major city San Jose has a lot of former employees that it owns six-figure pensions until the rest of their lives.

<comment><USER7> Also, it's worth noting that effective tax rates in California are some of the highest in the first world.

Your effective tax rate (on income) in San Jose (if you are someone who is a net tax-payer) is 50%, give or take[1].

That's more than even the nordic darling utopia countries.

[1] 39%, plus either 11.x or 12.x or 13.x, depending on your tax bracket.

<comment><AUTHOR> While it's true Californians pay high effective tax rates, the specific rates you are referring to are the top marginal fed and california rates, not effective rates:

[http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/effectivetaxrate.asp](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/effectivetaxrate.asp)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> One question I have always wondered about Californian residential property is why more people don't move their property into a holding company like is done for commercial real estate. This way when you go to sell you should get a premium as the buyer won't have the valuation reset?</comment>


Ghost of WWII: 1940's meticulously overlaid on modern day - <AUTHOR> http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/the-ghosts-of-world-war-iis <comment><USER2> The Euro-centric view is that Europe is the battlefield of the world, and that Poland is the battlefield of Europe, and during World War II that was more true than ever before or since.

The cities of Rotterdam ('the city without a heart') and Dresden still tell a pretty grim tale today if your eyes are open to it, and Warsaw and Poznan have plenty of places where the repair still hasn't caught up with the damage. There isn't a month that somebody doesn't dig up a piece of ordnance (in some cases very large bombs) when working on their houses or doing public works.

Be grateful for the world you live in and strive to minimise war, it wasn't always this peaceful and the chance is that it will not always be.

Europe is still quite anti-war (in spite of the apparent ease with which some countries, including mine joined the Iraq adventure) there are lots of older people here that still remember what it was like. But we tend to forget and when the last of them dies and stops reminding us how bad war really is the risk is very large that past stupidities will be repeated.

<comment><USER3> What Europe can be quite proud of is how not only war was avoided during the last decades but also that war was made less likely over the decades. Suggesting that there could be war between Germany and France would be crazy today but certainly wasn't always.

That's not just some flimsy anti-war sentiment which can change as new generations take over, that actually has something to do with lasting change initiated by the war and post-war generation after the war. The EU is the most visible symbol of that change and for all the flack it gets, European integration made war less likely.

<comment><USER2> Agreed, it's less likely. But idiots like Wilders are pushing the exact same buttons that a certain Austrian guy did and there is a real risk of him or someone like him rising to power.

There are more and louder voices for the break-up of the EU in the last 3 years than I've ever heard in my lifetime.

<comment><USER4> Well, yeah, money's on the line.

<comment><USER3> Money's on the line and that's just the reason why the EU won't suddenly disappear.

One of the nice things about a common market (even if it is only partially reality) is that it leads to economic interdependence. Companies can invest wherever they want, companies can sell stuff to wherever they want, people can work wherever they want. There is money to be made and the economic shock waves of making that impossible by leaving the EU would probably be way too much for any EU economy to take.

Maybe the Euro was a bad idea and won't survive. (My prediction would be that it will.) That won't, however, be the end of European integration.

<comment><USER5> Except the casino part of the economy has vastly outsized the productive part. More money changes hands in a day in currency speculation markets alone than does in the productive economy in a year. Thus, what favors the short term gains of a few wealthy gamblers can take precedence over what benefits the people at large.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> <http://sergey-larenkov.livejournal.com/>

Original source, also lists the locations.

There are also places in a number of these cities where limited amounts of the ww2 damage are left un-repaired, as a memorial and a live version of these composites.

<comment><USER7> Thank you.

This one just... froze me. <http://pics.livejournal.com/sergey_larenkov/pic/000029eg/>

<comment><USER8> The photographer has started with the photographs of Saint- Petersburg/Leningrad, where he lives. The siege of Leningrad [1] was one of the most atrocious events of the WWII in Europe.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_Blockade>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> As remote as these images might feel, it's important to remember that some of our parents and grandparents went through this time. We always feel that the world is a peaceful place, but things got this bad in a very short space of time. Certainly in a shorter space of time than the war in Iraq has been going on. Things can fall apart very quickly, and the ones who fight for peace the most are those who can remember once proud buildings with artillery damage, and soldiers on the streets with weapons ready.

Peace is a fractious and rare state in human history, it's easy to forget that in a modern life. That's where the power of these images lie.

<comment><USER10> While I agree with you, I wanted to provide a different perspective on how "remote" these images might seem. (I might be misunderstanding meaning you're putting behind that word. If so, please forgive me!)

I'm Russian, and I grew up in different parts of USSR and later ex-USSR. All of my older relatives were, in some sense, involved in WW2. A big part of my family died during that time - some killed in fighting, some from hunger, some from random bullets, some because of repressions of that time... That war greatly affected every family I know, usually in most tragic ways. So to many people over there, such photographs are not "remote" at all - they are an integral part of their own history.

At the same time, it is saddening to see a new generation grow up oblivious to what their grandparents went through... People forget so easily!

<comment><USER9> clarification : remote as in 'a long time ago'. As you say, the new generation sees black and white images and thinks it happened a long time ago.

I was specifically speaking about families like yours, who have lived through this, my point being it might feel remote to a young person raised on a life of peace and prosperity, but for many people it is very real.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It would be really neat if this were interactive — that is, if you could paint on the modern image to reveal the 1940s image underneath.

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't know any of these locations, so I'm sure these are even more amazing for people familiar only with their current state of being. I particularly appreciated image 15 with the soldiers carrying the Soviet flag underneath the modern German flags.

<comment><USER13> The pictures of the Heldenplatz (here in Vienna) are particularly sobering, considering that its a very bright and vibrant place these days .. oh, except for the one week a year when the Austrian military put on their big displays there, of course .. that is a bit freaky.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Here is another set with a similar idea: [http://www.flickr.com/photos/edrabbit/galleries/721576231031...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/edrabbit/galleries/72157623103181304/page2/)

</comment><comment><USER15> Kind of depressing that most of the US will never have something as cool as this due to this countries lack of appreciation for dated architecture.

<comment><USER12> That, and the fact that the last war to be fought on US soil pre-dates the invention of film.

(US Civil War ended in 1865; film was invented by George Eastman in 1884)

Lamenting the lack of architectural appreciation remains worthwhile.

<comment><USER16> _Lamenting the lack of architectural appreciation remains worthwhile._

Why? Humans conform nature to our needs. If we need a better building, why shouldn't we tear down an old one? All of the previous building's history will remain documented in, say, Wikipedia.

This is probably just the worldview of an inexperienced kid though.

(This is an honest question, not a statement of opinion.)

<comment><USER9> Everything in the world has a U-shaped value curve. Most valuable when it is new, at some point it loses value, may even become worthless. Down the track, it will become priceless and irreplaceable. Note 'value' here isn't strictly monetary, it can be cultural as well.

Dropping buildings in the midst of the U never gives things the chance to recover and move past fashion. Most buildings discarded are due to the design being old and out of date. But old buildings in a city plant the cities history in time and allow it to tell a story. Remember that 'Gothic' cathedrals were so named because the term was in regular use as a description of something vulgar. The Notre Dame in Paris was at one stage due for demolition until the story of Quasimodo re-inspired the public to keep it - the restoration is still ongoing.

Buildings can be re-purposed and still keep their charm. The mistake is in discarding things just because they are old.

It's very true that not all old things are worth keeping, but the benefit of the doubt must go to the building until the current fashion has moved into the past.

Also, in the case of Berlin, a lot of damaged structures have been reinforced and kept standing as they were at the end of the war. It reminds the city of what can happen if continual efforts towards peace are not made. These scars on the landscape are a constant reminder of the cities turbulent past, and help develop a sense of the story of the city while walking around.

Buildings are the ultimate encapsulator of society - it's where we live, die, make decisions and create history. As such they have a special importance in being kept to tell that story to newcomers.

<comment><USER17> Much of the Northeast has this flavor. I dunno if you've ever been to the Boston area, but many of the buildings have this same sense of history to them. In the leather district, you've got former tanning factories which became porn studios which became software offices and yuppie lofts. In Maynard, you have old textile mills from the industrial revolution, which became DEC in the 50s and 60s, which became Monster.com in the dot-com boom of the 90s, which are now used for web2.0 startups and consultancies. In Lowell, you still see the old textile mills and canals alongside the remnants of the Wang Labs towers and newer businesses.

From what I know of NYC, it's much the same, with bohemian lofts where old tenements once stood.

That's one of the things I miss most about New England, having moved out to California. Here, everything is cookie-cutter suburbia, built in a hurry during the 70s and 80s. There's none of the charm or history of the Boston area. I can walk around downtown Lowell and say "This is a charming city, even if it's a little economically depressed." I can't really say the same about San Jose, even though it's cleaner, safer, and much more well-off.

<comment><USER2> 'Old' in Europe is more like this:

<http://pics.ww.com/v/jacques/buildings/dscf1025.jpg.html>

or this:

<http://pics.ww.com/v/jacques/buildings/dscf1021.jpg.html>

The oldest parts of this building date from the 12th century:

[http://www.engelmunduskerkvelsenzuid.nl/images/foto_kerk_2.j...](http://www.engelmunduskerkvelsenzuid.nl/images/foto_kerk_2.jpg)

I've actually had an office in the 'carpet factory' in Toronto, which was an industrial revolution age textile mill, amazing building, white pine roof beams that were easily 1 1/2' on a side in the section that we were in.

Fortunately some of those buildings remain, but an enormous number of them got torn down.

<comment><USER18> I'd have said "old" in Europe is more like this:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skara_Brae>

Skara Brae had been abandoned for 1200 years when Troy fell!

For a building that can actually be used, how about this: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Hercules> (1900 years old) or the Pantheon <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheon,_Rome> (~1900 years).

Although my favourite is Hagia Sophia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia> \- a youngster at almost 1500 years old.

<comment><USER2> Wow! That's more like 'ancient' ;)

The other buildings are in daily use though, which is why I used them instead of old Roman buildings and such.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Another interesting idea is to compare modern satelite view on google maps with aero photographs from WWII. Here is Leningrad/Saint-Petersburg, which is depicted on many Sergey Larenkov's photographs: [http://wwii.sasgis.ru/en/?lat=59.945749&lon=30.331364...](http://wwii.sasgis.ru/en/?lat=59.945749&lon=30.331364&z=12)

</comment><comment><USER19> These photos are beautiful. Thank you for sharing.

</comment><comment><USER13> This set of data is just screaming to be turned into an iPhone app .. imagine, you're somewhere in Europe. The GPS figures out where, and gives you a picture (modern-day) to wipe your fingers over .. revealing the WW2-era pic underneath.

For some European cities, this would be killer .. I know a lot of people who are interested in the history of Europe from the perspective of WW2, and this could be quite an intriguing application to develop ..

<comment><USER20> Don't think I have read about any well-funded startups in this area yet, but boy there's a business opportunity here. Aside from the major historical locations, most every state/city in the US has a "historical society" of some sort that has thousands/millions of old pictures laying around. My own (Minneapolis) had a project many years back where they went around and took a pic of every single house in the city limits. I'd like to be able to go to a cool neighborhood and point my phone to a street corner and see what was there, sort of my own interactive history lesson. Rather than each of these government agencies or museums figuring out how to do an aug reality app on their own dime, someone needs to build the template/service and offer it up.

<comment><USER13> This is really a great idea. I'd love to be involved in such a startup .. iPhone/Android/PlaszmaOS/Angstrom developer here, ready to be recruited!! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> looks good!

mozz on fedang</comment>


Nintendo announces 3DS -- the glasses-free 3D successor to the DS - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/23/nintendo-announces-3ds-the-glasses-free-3d-successor-to-the-d/

<comment><USER2> I'm hoping that the new features (GPU!) can be used in place of the existing systems rather than adding yet more cruft to the existing graphics system that has accumulated so much cruft going from GBA to DS to DSi. Probably wishful thinking, though, and I bet it'll be even more of a PITA to program.</comment>


On Languages: Perspectives on Programming Language Choice - <AUTHOR> http://marccull.com/2014/09/13/on-languages/

<comment><USER2> I commend the exercise! In terms of sampling points in programming-space, I often recommend Prolog, though I think that might not be well suited to your goals here (you're not likely to run into a managerial situation where someone is pushing it...). Two things that probably belongs on either kind of list would be Haskell and some sort of Lisp.

<comment><USER3> I think Lisp is a great language and every programmer should at least glance at it. It can really change the way your brain works (in a good way).

I would probably also add Rust to the list. Its slowly replacing Go in my mind for system level things. :/

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's a little bit pedantic, but Ruby on Rails, Node.js, and Arduino are not programming languages. Also, C/C++ is not one language but two. But I don't suppose that detracts from the value of the exercise.</comment>


Chromebooks outsold Macs for the first time in the US - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/19/11711714/chromebooks-outsold-macs-us-idc-figures <comment><USER2> I wonder how many of them are simply budget conscious consumers that would otherwise buy what we called a Netbook a few years ago.

I would imagine that the price alone would be a huge factor for many. Sales are one thing, but have people been satisfied with the product, and would the buy another one?

I do think that Apple needs to be a little concerned with the inroads that Google has been making into the K-12 market. Microsoft really ought to be worried.</comment>


Another Django vs Express HTTP benchmark - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/fadliawan/django-express-bench As I'm in the process of choosing a framework for my next project, I did a little HTTP benchmark of Django+MySQL vs Express+MongoDB. Any comments or input will be appreciated! <comment><USER2> I would have preferred to see the test with both apps running the same DB for consistency, as to output in JSON format, Django would need to convert the table results into JSON while MongoDB would have returned the results in JSON format.

At the same time, I also expected Django to handily outperform Express. This makes me happy that I started building my most recent app in Express two days ago.

<comment><AUTHOR> The reason why I paired Express with Mongo is people seems to go with that route. I also made a scenario for both apps to convert the data returned from the DB by transforming the object structure first before delivering it as JSON.

Anyway I find Django code seems to be more maintainable.</comment></comment>


Amazon's $50 Fire tablet - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/17/amazon-50-fire-tablet/ <comment><USER2> Seems like a winning strategy, the Fire tablet is really just a catalog with benefits. Seems like anyone who was a seller through Amazon wouldn't mind a small 'tax' to insure there were lots of eyeballs out there looking at their offering.

At one point Sun Micro was giving away CDROM drives because it cost them less to give you a free CDROM drive and an OS distribution on CD than it did to give to you as QIC cartridges.

Because of this synergy between Amazon tablets and their products, I am really surprised there isn't a stunningly good catalog application that comes hard bundled[1] on their tablets that any of their sellers can plug into with a drop in content module.

[1] Hard bundling being apps which cannot be removed by the user.

</comment><comment><USER3> why not something like [http://www.aliexpress.com/w/wholesale-intel- sofia.html?initi...](http://www.aliexpress.com/w/wholesale-intel- sofia.html?initiative_id=SB_20150917053530&site=glo&groupsort=1&SortType=total_tranpro_desc&shipCountry=sg&SearchText=intel+sofia) ?</comment>


Show HN: CouchCachet, a Social Media Tool for Lazy People - <AUTHOR> http://www.couchcachet.com This was created at last weekend's Foursquare hackathon. I hope you enjoy it. We had a lot of fun making it.<p>Built by Brian Fountain, Justin Isaf, Christopher Kennedy and Harlie Levine. <comment><AUTHOR> This was created at last weekend's Foursquare hackathon. I hope you enjoy it. We had a lot of fun making it.

Here's a link to a youtube video that explains what the app does for those who don't want to login: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyCnazRbqGY>

Built by Brian Fountain, Justin Isaf, Christopher Kennedy and Harlie Levine.

</comment><comment><USER2> A great cheeky project to make fun of all of the Social mumbo jumbo by StartupBus alums. =)

</comment><comment><USER3> it requires foursquare to login? it's 2013 not 2010

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, I mentioned in my initial submission that it was for this last weekend's Foursqaure hackathon but I guess it does not show the initial text if you include a link.

So, yeah... you have to have an account to use it. In another comment, I included a link to a simple video we made to explain how it works.</comment></comment>


Chinese Social Media Lessons from a Japanese Porn Star - <AUTHOR> http://techrice.com/2011/01/20/japanese-porn-star-practices-calligraphy-for-one-million-chinese-fanboys-on-sina-weibo/

<comment><USER2> She is doing everything right. Absolutely.

If you want to be closer to Chinese people it's essential that you use their "stuff". First thing I did when I lived there was signup for QQ.

For a Japanese person to be making any effort to learn anything Chinese is really huge. She might not realize it, but she is giving her country great PR. The Japanese government should sponsor her and make her into an ambassador of sorts (if not her, then put together a band of publicly acceptable "youths".)

However, it's not that hard to get 1M followers in China, specially for an entertainer. If China has anything in abundance, it's easily excitable and bored young men (it really boggles the mind when one takes the bus after school and sees millions upon millions of uniformed teens just within 30 minutes)

<comment><USER3> > _For a Japanese person to be making any effort to learn anything Chinese is > really huge._

Er, not really, Chinese is the 2nd most popular foreign language in Japan. Besides, since Japanese characters are a subset of Chinese characters and calligraphy is a subject in elementary school, it's not a big deal for a Japanese to make a half-assed job at drawing Chinese characters (i.e. just copying them down, it's not even "learning Chinese").

That said, I agree she's doing right, by paying attention to her fans and making them feel they have a connection.

<comment><USER2> Japanese people need to do a bit more to show it then. Anything to heal the wounds, really.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> How to be popular

1\. Be a hot girl.

2\. Dress in skimpy clothing

I think I'm seeing a trend here.

<comment><USER5> Well, she is making a specific effort to appeal to Chinese fans by engaging them on terms that they appreciate.

I think it's interesting considering her product is banned in the market she's devoting attention to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Trivia:

She got trolled hard on Sina Weibo, too. In the picture of the OP's article, she presents of Chinese/Kanji text calligraphy requested by her fans on Sina Weibo. But,

1\. The thrid item on the second column (from right to left) means "Japanese people", but also implies "fuck yourself"

2\. The last item on the second column (RTL) 达菲鸡[1] is Internet homonym for masturbation.

3\. The 3rd item on the 4th column (RTL) is Internet metaphor for "long enough fucking creats feelings", the original meaning is "Staying together long enough creats feelings"

4\. And the last item on the last column (RTL) is popular satire for Mao Zedong's grandson's famous terrible handwriting[2].

[1]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidu_10_Mythical_Creatures#Da_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidu_10_Mythical_Creatures#Da_Fei_Ji)

[2]: [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en_US&query=%E4%B8%80%E5...](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en_US&query=%E4%B8%80%E5%B8%88%E6%98%AF%E4%B8%AA%E5%A5%BD%E5%AD%A6%E6%A0%A1)

<comment><USER7> She's a porn star, why do you think getting her to say sexual innuendos counts as "trolling"? Isn't that part of her job description?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> That is a killer seo title. Porn and social media in the same sentence.

</comment><comment><USER9> actually this sort of "advertising" isn't rare in Japanese entertainment industry. a lot of fresh actors, idols, and singers are required by their agency to update their personal blog daily and interact with their fans.

what's interesting is seeing how effective it is when applied to a market that is not expecting such attention from those in the spotlight. for the western world, twitter is a providing similar service, but perhaps we can do better..</comment>