Eating for Health, Not Weight - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/opinion/sunday/the-optimal-diet.html?ref=opinion&_r=0moc.semityn.www <comment><USER2> With an Ivy League PhD in physics, I'm a big fan of science.

I have not observed a scientific approach to diet effective in promoting health.

In my albeit limited observation, I observe no correlation between knowing a lot about food, digestion, etc and fitness or healthiness. In particular, American culture appears to approach diet most scientifically, yet has probably the least healthy population. Meanwhile, many illiterate cultures appear to have healthy diets (implying thousands of years of trial and error, admittedly a form of science, works).

My observations are anecdotal, not data, so feel free to dismiss them as such. I just suggest all scientific results so far, compared to what we'd need to meaningfully predict healthiness in a diet, negligibly less anecdotal.

The body is incredibly complex and diet involves multiple internal systems -- digestive, motivational, cardio-vascular, etc -- interacting with huge varieties of foods -- themselves sets of incredibly complex systems. Looking at parts of these systems doesn't seem effective in helping people get healthy, at least not at the level science is at today.

Generations from now science may be able to grasp this complexity and predict healthy diets at the individual level. For now, I appreciate people researching it, but I found all of their predictions for what makes healthy food based on so many untested assumptions and other logical jumps as to be worthless for anything but displaying the pre-conceived notions of the experimenters.

<comment><USER3> Here's some more anecdotal "diet of nations" theories:

Climates with less sunlight and more cold require humans to consume more meat to absorb its Vitamin D. Nations that aren't as far north don't have to eat as much meat, or they may be closer to a coast and consume more fish/shellfish. In addition, the warmer climate may lead to its inhabitants being outdoors more often, which may lead to more overall exercise.

A food culture based on centuries of the local inhabitants using what they have available may lead to increased health. For example, if the local food happens to store well and can be harvested en masse, and isn't threatened significantly by drought or floods, they may just naturally eat less food because it's availability is greater than those of other cultures. For example, Freekeh is a mediterranean grain staple which is harvested early in the season, which reduces the threat of rain, drought, pests and vermin, which not only increases the total average yield but reduces the need for chemicals to ensure a good harvest.

Another factor which may affect the diet is the length at which one needs to go to harvest their food. Some foods are quite labor intensive to gather or prepare and thus a lot of time and energy will be taken just to get the food ready to consume, while other foods can be picked off the ground and eaten. Some also can only be harvested at precise intervals while other are available nearly year-round. This may lend to either a "storing fat for the winter" gorging when food is available, or the opposite, eating lightly and occasionally whenever it is desired.

Finally, there are general cultural differences when it comes to how and when to consume food. In Mexico (and I would assume many parts of latin america) it is typical to have a small breakfast, a quite large late lunch and eat dinner after 9PM. In other parts of the world the custom may be to eat a pastry for breakfast, a light lunch and a healthy balanced dinner early in the evening with different beverages throughout the day to tie one over.

When it comes to America, there seems to be a culture of sport that many parts of the country are lacking. If you see some kids playing soccer, chances are they're mostly not "white americans". Baseball used to be a favorite summer pasttime, but I don't see that many kids playing stickball in the streets these days. And in winter, besides ice hockey in the north you won't see a whole lot of outdoor sport played by kids or adults in America (unless it's some sort of amateur league team sport). Many other countries play sports year-round which no doubt contributes to a healthier overall lifestyle.

Finally there's our unique food culture and history. We're not a very old nation, so there hasn't been a very long time to develop a history of eating particular food. On top of that we're a geographically large nation with lots of different food staples throughout different regions. And as modern progress has sped the production of new ways to make and consume food, our culture has embraced the cheap-and-easy mode of bulk consumption that encourages we pay an additional $0.50 for another 10 ounces of soda. It's just too damn easy to eat unhealthy crap in our country, and we're almost proud of that. Compare that to nations that have eaten the same way for centuries and don't have the same history of new food businesses pioneering ways to produce crappy food, and you can see how our way of eating is more of a popular novelty than a real food culture.

I'll leave the food influences by religion of a region to someone more familiar with that, but it's safe to say that religion has influenced diet for thousands of years.

<comment><USER4> _I'll leave the food influences by religion of a region to someone more familiar with that, but it's safe to say that religion has influenced diet for thousands of years._

I'd say the major way has been by affecting alcohol consumption. My religion bans various little things, but the _big_ change in diet in becoming religiously observant (I'm mostly not, mind you) is the sheer number of ritual meals involving rather large glasses of wine, usually red.

Given the heart-health effects of wine, it might almost cancel out how fat the Orthodox tend to get from sitting around studying religious law all the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So the major factor here is generally proposed to be dietary fiber. People on a high-fiber diet are healthy, and that's really the major separating variable between laboratory diets like the one in this article and real diets that make you fat. Going off the description of dishes in the article, I'd estimate the subjects had a daily fiber consumption of 40-60 grams, most of it soluble.

Studies that look at meat consumption generally do not control for fiber, though they usually mention the correlation in many populations between increased meat consumption and less fiber consumption. Of course there are correlations with fiber and CAD and cholesterol. But we already knew _that_.

It's a rather significant confounding factor when anyone uses an extremely high-fiber test diet to argue for the health value of various other characteristics of said diet. This author does it all over the place. Frankly, a mere 12 pound loss over five years may not really be too impressive, depending on where they're starting. I imagine Mark Sisson could post better results than that. Similarly, I imagine the guy who wrote _The China Study_ could post better results than that... most diets will!

What they've got statistically significant, but pretty much _any_ diet that cuts out processed foods alone will show statistically significant changes...

The sole really impressive thing is the prostate cancer improvements: but there are too many confounding factors to determine what, precisely, is causing the improvements. Maybe there's some anticancer compound in a vegetable emphasized in the diet. Diindolylmethane comes to mind, or beta- caryophyllene.

<comment><USER6> Is it worth taking fiber supplements? It seems tough to get enough fiber even with some fruits and vegetables every day.

<comment><USER7> Forget the supplements. Eat the real thing. There's more to a natural vegetable than a supplement. There might be undiscovered nutrients that aren't in a supplement.

For example, omega 3 fatty acids and the benefits of some antioxidants are relatively recent discoveries. SO now, we have supplements w/ those nutrients in it. But the science might still be missing an interaction between nutrients or a difference in how nutrients are absorbed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've personally lost 35 pounds in 5 months on keto, and I've had all my cholesterol levels drop, along with my blood pressure. (Which probably has more to do with my weight loss than the meat-based diet.) I literally can't lose weight while eating any amount of carbs; I ate 1250 calories a day for 2 months, lost 5 pounds, and was miserable. (Yes, 1250. I was super anal about calorie counting, and only drank water + black coffee. It sucked.)

The long and short of it is that every person has a slightly different combination of body chemistry quirks, so there's never really a one-size-fits- all method for losing weight. You've got to find something that works for you, considering both weight reduction and quality of life. If I didn't love meat so much, I'd probably be in a tough situation.

<comment><USER9> I was in a similar situation to yours, until I took MSM (review: <http://www.vitaflex.com/res_msmreva.php>). It's a little-known, little- researched substance (my link only contains refs to veterinary studies), but reportedly contained in raw meat and vegetables. Once I began taking 3-5g a day (powder form), I have been almost unable to put on bodyfat, and already lost a good deal of it. People say it changes carbohydrate metabolism, but I suspect it's also got to do with detoxification (bodyfat stores toxines - can't find studies for that) and the fact that it does away with candida.

<comment><USER10> For a counterpoint: [http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/msm.ht...](http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/msm.html)

<comment><USER11> Hm the conclusion there appears to be that claims for it aren't based on research as there is very little, which the parent acknowledges.

The weight loss claims here are of course anecdotal, but it certainly seems worth a try, given that it seems perfectly safe. Presumably the worse that can happen is you simply pass it out of your system and it does nothing.

<comment><USER10> According to the research, unused MSM is processed by the renal system. In relatively high doses, no adverse effects were _observed_ but I'd be cautious about effects which didn't get observed, especially from prolonged use for which there are inadequate studies. So the worst that can happen in passing it out of your system might be: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renal_failure>

<comment><USER11> Ah, point taken! That wouldn't be such a good outcome :-)

I slightly regret the response now actually, I was being quite majorly hand- wavey, I guess the fact that there is a great deal of uncertainty here and the promise of easy weight loss has combined to provide some bias here :-)

<comment><USER9> There is no indication (neither anecdotal nor peer-reviewed) that this poses a problem. All the quackwatch page says is "Well we found no objections, but be careful nonetheless, even though there is no indication that it it's dangerous to take MSM". That's a speculative conclusion based on assumptions, not exactly what I would expect from someone debunking quack myths based on scientific reasoning.

<comment><USER10> This part is also notable:

      In October 2000, the FDA warned [Karl Loren] that the long list
      of therapeutic claims he was making for these products made them
      drugs would be illegal to market without FDA approval. The letter
      stated that the FDA had seen no evidence that the products were
      safe and effective for their intended uses.

Absence of evidence that it's safe doesn't necessarily imply that it's unsafe. However, one should be cautious until peer-reviewed research on the long-term effects have been studied.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is just a terrible, terrible article. It's not actually saying anything.

Here is how I've looked at this and I think most people would do well to do the same.

What are your goals? Are you obese and looking to lose a massive amount of weight? Are you a bit overweight and looking to lose the last 10 lbs? Are you looking to "look better naked"? Are you looking to gain muscle? Are you looking to get better at x, y or z sport? Are you looking to just have a decent lifestyle? Are you looking to maximize your lifespan?

There are others, but you get the idea. Without knowing the goal, you can't know how to eat. There are quite different approaches to all of the above and if you just choose one approach, it probably won't be optimal for the goal you have.

I hate articles like this, they paint every approach with the same brush and you can't possibly do that. Know your freakin' goal and then optimize your eating to support that goal.

If anyone wants some suggestions on what/how to eat, just state your goal and we an riff from there. It really isn't that tough.

<comment><USER13> I guess you didn't read much of the article - the goal is stated in the title.

There's a ton of stuff out there on plant-based diets like the one described here. See the video Forks Over Knives on Netflix.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> [http://www.awlr.org/1/post/2012/09/response-to-dean- ornishs-...](http://www.awlr.org/1/post/2012/09/response-to-dean-ornishs-new- york-times-op-ed.html)

Fascinating response piece highlighting many of the issues in the linked op- ed. Definitely worth reading.

</comment><comment><USER15> Some good discussions taking place here, and I responded to some of the individual points made, but I wanted to chime in and say that the Paleo mode of thinking, which suggests that we should eat only what we "evolved" to eat, is bullshit.

There are a multitude of problems with the assumptions underlying the Paleo diet. First, the statement that the human genome evolved during the Pleistocene period rests on the gene-centered view of evolution, which is described by prominent biologists as excessively reductionist. It's akin to "Darwinian fundamentalism", and as with fundamentalism of any kind, it's dangerous thinking.

Second, the idea that 10,000 years is not enough to ensure an adequate adaptation to agrarian diets is questionable. For example, humans got a _lot_ better at tolerating lactose just a few thousand years after animal husbandry was invented. Similarly, scientists have observed increases in the number of copies of the gene for amylase, which digests starch. This appears to be related to agriculture. Both of these changes in human physiology suggest that 400-500 generations may be enough to sufficiently adapt to changes in the environment.

Third, we have evidence to suggest that the diet of Stone Age humans did in fact include refined starches and grains that are excluded from the Paleo diet. This evidence shows Paleolithic societies processing cereals for food use at least as early as 30,000 years ago, and possibly even as early as 100,000-200,000 years ago.

The bottom line is that the Paleo diet is based on a misunderstanding of biological evolution and seems to be inspired by a naive adaptationistic view of life.

</comment><comment><USER16> Sometimes it just doesn't work, no matter what. Sometimes you're just meant to be big. I am a former wrestling local city champion, currently a kickboxer, and also practicing jujitsu. I move fast and sprint like I'm 140 pounds, I can roundhouse kick someone that's 5'9 in the head, and I'm almost at a split. I can do 50 pushups, 12 pullups, once ran 8 miles, and have done high intensity cardio 5 days a week for 2 hours everyday. Yet I'm 250 pounds and a huge gut.

My diet? Eggs, veggies, rice, fruits. No sugar at all, and yet I have not been able to lose weight for the past 2 - 3 years. I have slowly watched the scale climb up no matter how many calories I cut or how many carbs I don't eat. Sometimes you just can't fight your body and you're meant to be who you are.

<comment><USER17> Without logging your caloric intake (no estimates, logging everything you eat as it actually is), it is very easy to convince yourself you arent eatng too many calories. Hoewever, for practical matters, if you do not have a significant health issue, if you eat less calories than your body burns you will lose weight. In the vast majority of cases, it really is that simple.

Find an app or website that is easy for you to use and try logging all your food (include snacks and things that you may consider to be "little"). Figure out based on your weight and activity level (be conservative) what you need to eat to lose 1-2 pounds a week and hit the goals If you do this honestly for an extended period of time, you will lose weight.

<comment><USER18> yes buy a gram scale and keep it on your kitchen counter then use <http://www.myfitnesspal.com/> or <http://www.fatsecret.com/> to measure all food

best investment i;ve made trying to put on muscle

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This:

"WHAT you eat is as important as what you exclude — your diet needs to be high in healthful carbs like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, soy products in natural, unrefined forms and some fish, like salmon. There are hundreds of thousands of health-enhancing substances in these foods. And what's good for you is good for the planet."

can't possibly be right for everyone. I've read (and read the debunking of) plenty of points of view, but I'm fairly sure a soy-based diet isn't right for me, and all of the neatly packaged dietary points of view (keto, Sisson, Mediterranean, Weston Price, veg-*) aren't universal. Nutrition still has a long way to go, and this reads like a brochure.

<comment><USER9> Yep. Grains is proven to be suboptimal, causing inflammation in the intestines and the rest of the body (<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821887/>). And soy acts like estrogen in one's body, not exactly what I would like - it might even be that this is the reason for less prostate cancers (prostate cancer patients are even given estrogen as treatment).

I do agree though that low-carb diets don't cut it health-wise, omitting fruit entirely just does not seem right, considering humans have always eaten them. Also, eating immense amounts of red meat seems to be related to all sorts of illnesses. I have adapted another view: If it's fresh and organic, it can't be wrong, and the occasional rice bowl or apple is cool. Junk food or processed food containing transfats or shredded soy should be restricted (like, one day per week).

UPDATE: Processed food is literally everywhere if you don't cook yourself - most restaurants use ready-made "components" to achieve speedier meal preparation. I think it's hard (or expensive) for people eating out to get a healthy meal, especially in the US.

<comment><USER15> >>I do agree though that low-carb diets don't cut it health-wise, omitting fruit entirely just does not seem right, considering humans have always eaten them.

This is very dangerous line of thinking that is unfortunately popularized by Paleo diet nutjobs. While it's true that our ancestors ate fruit, we don't know how much of it they ate. Furthermore, even though they ate fruits, they had very active lifestyles. They were nomads who very rarely stayed in one place for very long, and all the activity they did (carrying heavy things, walking/running everywhere, hunting, etc.) allowed them to efficiently utilize (rather than store) the sugars in fruits.

Compare that to today, where most fruit eaters are sedentary individuals who sit in front of the TV or the computer all day. For them, eating something that is high in sugar is not going to be healthy.

It's worth pointing out that the main thing that makes fruits "healthy" is anti-oxidants and fiber, both of which can also be found in veggies. Except veggies have very little if any carbs, and are therefore far superior for weight management.

<comment><USER9> Veggie != veggie, starchy vegetables like peas or potatoes (hm, are potatoes veggies at all?) are high in carbohydrates. My mention of fruit was meant as moderate use. I for one don't respond so well to fructose, and generally don't eat much fruit - say, a banana after gym. But I would not leave out fruit entirely (when not on a low carb diet).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I find it distressing that all of these very well educated, well researched, and up-to-date authorities on Diet continue to write OpEds for the NYT with basically polar-opposite positions.

Here we have Dean Ornish basically coming out with a position almost completely contrary to Gary Taubes.

Perhaps, one day, someone will do some long term randomized trials with a unbiased observer and we'll discover the truth.

<comment><USER21> I don't know about Dean Ornish, but Gary Taubes is a journalist, as far as I know, not a nutrition expert. Maybe his research on his books turned him into an expert, not sure.

I have to admit the Good Calories, Bad Calories book seemed a bit unstructured to me. In the end it was just listing a load of studies in favor of his thesis. It left me wondering if perhaps he only selected those that supported his claims.

The problem with researching diets is probably the long term aspect of it. How do you make people stick to a diet you randomly assign to them for 20 years? It also has an ethical component, because you might assign unhealthy diets.

<comment><USER15> Gary Taubes is not just a journalist. He is a _science_ journalist with a background in physics. This is an important distinction because he has the necessary training to _correctly_ interpret scientific studies. That's what his book is about: it's a huge meta-study that explores the history and the current state of nutrition science. And his ultimate finding is that mainstream nutrition science is wrong and it's carbs that should be avoided, not fats.

<comment><USER21> But ultimately why believe him instead of some other scientist? Because his book is thicker? I also noticed that he had a bit of a tummy when I saw a YouTube video of him.

I've read another thick book advocating plant based diets and metaanalyzing lots of studies, The China Study. GC,BC is a bit thicker, though.

<comment><USER15> I think I already gave you the answer: Taubes' book is a comprehensive meta- study that examines the merits and pitfalls of most prominent studies in the field of nutrition science. This allowed him to draw broader conclusions than any specific study.

Really though, you just have to read it, apply your critical thinking skills to it, and make up your own mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I really would like to eat healthy. I already exercise a lot and have a good body weight. I'm not looking to lose weight, but to optimize my quality of life (e.g. feeling good, being productive, have the energy to exercise). All the "scientific" diets seem to do that. I know bits and pieces about Paleo, read parts of Taubes' book, have vegan friends, and now this. They all claim to be scientific and healthy. I have a hard time figuring out which is true, and end up making my own rules. Does anyone have a good framework for evaluating these health recommendations?

<comment><USER23> "Does anyone have a good framework for evaluating these health recommendations?"

Its stomps all over certain religions, so we can't talk about it in public, but here on hacker news, if your ancestors evolved for millions to hundreds of thousands of years eating it, its probably an excellent biochemical match to you today, plus or minus recent dental issues WRT to cooked vs raw. If you think your ancestors were drinking beer, corn syrup sodas, pizzas and big macs a million years ago, or that the earth is only 6000 years old and humans have always eaten rice grains and beans because god told them they have to (LOL), you're going to have very serious issues with this advice.

Eat what your ancestors ate. And I'm talking pre-agricultural revolution not mom and dad. Cooking is OK because your teeth have evolved to support it. I wouldn't advise going much beyond that other than "special snacks and special events".

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Some may remember Dr Ornish for his involvement with Steve Jobs' cancer treatment:

[http://www.bulletproofexec.com/steve-jobs-dr-dean-ornish- and...](http://www.bulletproofexec.com/steve-jobs-dr-dean-ornish-and- vegetarian-cancer/)

</comment><comment><USER25> "Being overweight is not necessarily linked with disease or premature death."

This article lost me right here; I thought "fit but fat" had been debunked and that controlled studies showed that just being overweight was, by itself, a health risk. You need citations for this kind of bold claim.

</comment><comment><USER26> How true is the paleo assertion that cereal grains contain inflammatory and anti-nutrient compounds?

[http://www.direct- ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Cereal%20S...](http://www.direct- ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Cereal%20Sword.pdf)

>we have seen that patients who ate mostly plant-based meals, with dishes like black bean vegetarian chili and whole wheat penne pasta with roasted vegetables, achieved reversal of even severe coronary artery disease. They also engaged in moderate exercise and stress-management techniques

How much of that health improvement is from diet and how much is from exercise?

<comment><USER23> "How true is the paleo assertion that cereal grains contain inflammatory ... compounds?"

Ask any of the 1% or so of the population medically diagnosed with celiac disease. If wheat was "invented" today instead of being a popular historical ethnic food, there's no way the USDA / FDA would allow it to start being sold knowing it makes so many people very ill.

<comment><USER27> You could say the same of peanuts or milk products or shellfish.

Wheat isn't dangerous, it's just not very good for you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Eat food, mainly plants, not too much. Is that so hard?</comment>


A First Look At Firefox 5 - <AUTHOR> http://www.conceivablytech.com/5673/products/firefox-4-in-march-a-first-look-at-firefox-5/

<comment><USER2> "the browser interface is planned to be more responsive"

So when does Mozilla get around to ripping Firefox wide open on an operating table and not letting the surgeons leave until each tab has it's own process?

Not switching back until I see a modern process architecture. Screw one tab being able to affect the responsiveness and stability of another or even worse... The browser's chrome. _shudder_

<comment><USER3> Firefox 4 already runs plugins in separate processes. Running each tab in its own process is codenamed "electrolysis" for reasons beyond my ken: <https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis>

I'm guessing Electrolysis will get some more loving once the panic of shipping Firefox 4 has abated.

<comment><USER4> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis> is a chemical process that can be used to separate out elements -- picking that as a codename for splitting up tabs into processes seems reasonable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Firefox has done some amazing work with 4.0 and the planned 5.0 release. It seems they were caught napping by Chrome for a while but now have gotten their act together.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think chrome just got mozilla now... it's clearer and simpler than firefox.

I was a passionate user of firefox but this last chrome edition got me hooked.

Maybe a FF with a smaller top panel would get me back, but I doubt it.

<comment><USER7> A smaller top panel? Really?

I switched to Chrome because of 3 major things:

1) I can open and close it at least 3 times in the time that it takes Firefox to open. If a Firefox extension needs updates, then it's more like 12 times.

2) I had to occasionally open all of my bookmarks from a folder (15 or so). Doing this in Firefox would take something like 15 minutes, and most of the tabs would just fail. Chrome would do it nearly instantly, and act like it was no big deal.

3) The newer Firefoxes completely broke the shift-reload to clear the cache option. I still haven't found a decent way to force a complete fresh page load in Firefox 3.5+, which means it's a nearly useless for development. Chrome works great this way, and Firefox used to, but now Firefox creates a duplicate tab instead with the same shortcut? Wha? (I'm not actually sure which version of Firefox broke this)

Combine this with things like the fact that Chrome will let you have a regular session PLUS one or more Incognito sessions (extremely useful for developing websites with login or other state, or even just for keeping two different GMails open), or that the default tab behavior in Firefox has always been pretty weak, and Firefox just has a long way to go to win me back.

It makes me sad, because all things being equal, I'd rather support Mozilla than Google any day.

<comment><USER8> If these issues still happen in Firefox 4, I would be very happy to debug them if you can reproduce.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Interesting. Could really take off. Seems like something Google would do (in terms of the website specific options) for Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER10> Anyone taking bets on whether these features will have any compatibility with Microsoft's msSiteMode API in IE9?

<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg131029.aspx>

<comment><USER5> Why should Firefox have to comply with a Microsoft specific API?

<comment><USER10> I didn't say that they had to. But, having a single API is preferable to writing everything twice but in a _slightly_ different way. Although, Microsoft aren't doing themselves any favours by not even trying a standardisation path.</comment></comment></comment>


Amazon releases Cloud Music Player for web and Android  - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/b/ref=amb_link_355091782_4?ie=UTF8&node=2658409011&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=049EMNTK3XADJAYJWC7E&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1291940422&pf_rd_i=163856011

<comment><AUTHOR> Late Monday night seems odd to me. Maybe they caught wind of Apple announcing something on Tuesday morning (traditional time for Apple to drop news)?</comment>


Genetically Modified Tomatoes Counteract Heart Disease in Mice - <AUTHOR> http://scitechdaily.com/genetically-modified-tomatoes-counteract-heart-disease/

<comment><USER2> I think I will stay away from those...</comment>


Show HN: Subtrack – Track Subscriptions - <AUTHOR> https://subtrack.vercel.app/ <comment><AUTHOR> An app that helps you track and manage your subscriptions. Available for iPhone, iPad and Mac.</comment>


What Content Dominates on YouTube? - <AUTHOR> https://blog.pex.com/what-content-dominates-on-youtube-390811c0932d <comment><USER2> This is quite interesting, a tough nut to crack as YouTube is heavily censored and content is controlled , what you see is certainly not what people want or is popular.</comment>


Pandora's iPhone Mobile Ad Platform launched today: Best Buy and Becks nab first positions - <AUTHOR> http://www.mytestbox.com/news/pandora-iphone-ipod-mobile-ad-platform/

<comment><USER2> _With their respective campaigns, Best Buy and Beck's will be the first to tap the highly attractive and affluent demographics of Pandora's registered iPhone users who are predominantly male and aged 36 on average. Among all iPhone users, they skew somewhat older with a higher than average household income and wield greater purchasing influence among their family members and friends._

Does advertising work on people like this?</comment>


OVH outage could be related to Cisco security issue - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/ikkerus/status/928542202392956928 <comment><USER2> It's not though, here's a (sort of) post-mortem: [http://travaux.ovh.net/?do=details&id=28247&PHPSESSID=47a1a9...](http://travaux.ovh.net/?do=details&id=28247&PHPSESSID=47a1a9f65b67ef3047409deb87ebf9aa#comment35250)</comment>


Parents Need to Start Talking to Their Kids About Race Sooner, Study Says - <AUTHOR> https://www.thebump.com/news/parents-talk-kids-race-earlier-study <comment><USER2> The studies fail to make a connection from the experience of kids to racist behavior later in life.

I would guess the planned resolution is to subject kids to reaction tests to attest some form of bias and if some of them show signs of behavior deviation, further corrective measure should be taken. This is something the field of psychology often failed at, so the connection to racist behavior should at least be mandatory to make a guideline in good conscience.

"Colorblindness" seems to work for most non-racist people, mostly the whole world that isn't engaged in conflicts where ethnicity is the main factor. So the exact deficiency of this approach would also need to be formulated.</comment>


Customer Tracking Death Match - <AUTHOR> http://blog.profitably.com/post/1162024681/customer-tracking-death-match-part-1

<comment><AUTHOR> This post is the result of lots of conversation and brain-racking around getting metrics. I think we've gotten pretty far and wanted to share our progress (and maybe get some reality checks).</comment>


China wants to put a solar farm in space by 2025 - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/18/china-solar-farm-power-station-space-2025/ <comment><USER2> A year ago I read the book _The Case for Space Solar Power_ , which goes into the engineering in detail.

The old SPS designs from the '70s were monolithic beasts that would have been ridiculously expensive. Current designs would use a large number of identical parts, of about eight types, which would self-assemble in space. That way they can be mass produced in factories.

The basic design was PV with microwave transmission, which has already been tested over distances of ten kilometers or so. (Iirc it was between a couple Hawaiian islands.) The receiving station sends a sort of homing signal for a phased array transmitter, which makes it difficult to redirect to somewhere without the homing signal and keep a reasonably focused beam, though you could switch between multiple receiving stations (which are fairly cheap). The station would be in GEO.

The book did some detailed cost analysis and found that with pre-SpaceX launch costs, the SPS could provide power at 15 cents/kWh retail.

Elon Musk has said that at scale the BFR could ultimately get to a $50/lb launch cost, so for grins I plugged that number into the book's calculation and got 4 cents/kWh.

Since this type of solar would work through the night, with little or no need for storage, it could be pretty competitive.

book: [https://www.amazon.com/Case-Space-Solar-Power- ebook/dp/B00HN...](https://www.amazon.com/Case-Space-Solar-Power- ebook/dp/B00HNZ0Z96)

<comment><USER3> It would be competitive, if there were no nuclear power or maintenance costs or manufacturing costs. These are not counted in launch costs.

You have to launch replacement panels pretty often due to trash collisions or put them in a less than convenient orbit.

The space solar module with a good enough battery and emitter would cost about as much as half a radiotelescope... Because it is one.

And consider we have problems covering sizable area with wires and cheap panels which are easy to maintain.

<comment><USER2> The costs I quoted include everything, including manufacturing and maintenance. The book breaks down all these costs. In the 4 cents/kWh scenario, launch isn't the dominant cost anymore, and dropping that further wouldn't make much difference.

You don't put a battery on a solar power satellite. To whatever extent you need battery, you put it on the ground, but you don't need much because a satellite in geosynchronous is in full sunlight almost all the time.

<comment><USER3> You want to put it in synchronous? How do you keep it lit up all the time?

You do understand you need many more panel fields as opposed to receiving stations that way and half of them is wasted anyway?

I thought the idea is to put them in solar Lagrange or solar synchronous orbit and bend or reflect the maser to stations. 24 hour lit, though a bit trashy if Lsun is used.

The math is suspicious anyway. Wouldn't it mean that the panels would cost 25% of this on ground?

<comment><USER2> Due to axial tilt, for most of the year geosynchronous satellites are in full sunlight 24/7\. Twice a year, around each equinox, there's a period of 44 days during which the satellite goes into shadow briefly each day, for a time ranging from 2 minutes, to 72 minutes at the maximum.

[https://corpblog.viasat.com/how-satellites-are-affected- by-t...](https://corpblog.viasat.com/how-satellites-are-affected-by-the- spring-and-autumn-equinoxes/)

This compares pretty favorably to capacity factors of other power sources.

Illumination per square meter averages quite a bit higher than ground solar, and except for the brief times in shadow is 30% higher than ground solar at noon.

The book evaluated other locations including Lagrange points. Everything had pros and cons; the main disadvantage of Lagrange points was the greater distance, requiring bigger antennas. I think more delta-v in deployment was a factor too, though I forget by how much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _A doomsday weapon in space._

As the article mentions, the station will beam the collected energy down to Earth. Whether in visible light, microwave or any other spectral band, it will need two things for everyday operations:

\- ability to point the beam at an arbitrary point on Earth, to track the collector ground installation, and

\- ability to focus the beam to proper size

The second capability is crucial; if it's fixed focus - and one with sufficiently large footprint at that - and fixed orbit, it would be safe.

However having either adjustable focus, or adjustable orbit[1] makes this a proper weapon, due to the possibility of pointing multi-megawatt beam of energy at any point on the ground, with little to no countermeasures available. Whether "rogue hackers", or actual owners of the station, somebody would have the capability to destroy, without warning, large swaths of infrastructure on the ground.

I sure hope I'm very wrong about this - that somebody have figured out a way of inherently neutralizing the danger. But for now I treat the project as a doomsday weapon in space.

\--

[1] the later is a given to an extent, due to the need for orbital stationkeeping, and only possible to limit via provision of weak engines and/or limited fuel loadout

<comment><USER5> It's a pretty shitty weapon because many countries have the capability to launch a bomb to the satellites and the satellites are way more expensive than the bomb.

<comment><USER4> It takes a good while to detect preparations for an attack with this kind of weapon & take the decision ("Mr President, the station has slightly shifted around, should we nuke it now?"), and it takes long time for any physical weapon to reach it.

A decent weapon would be space-burst version of ICBM. For intercontinental ground attack, the flight time is typically 20 minutes, but the most reasonable spot for the station is a geostationary orbit - some 36'000 km above equator. With a sensible speed on the order of 8km/s, it would take our missile around 1h25m to reach geostationary orbit assuming a naive straight-up trajectory; with any realistic trajectory it would take way longer. The space weapon would be able to rain terrible destruction in the meantime with impunity.

An alternative would be using ground- or space-based lasers, which give near instantaneous hit, but you'd need to precisely hit a proper part to guarantee fast disabling of the weapon. Merely hitting a random spot on the dish would probably not destroy it outright. You still have to account for the time to make the observations & take the decision. And the current breed of [high power] lasers is single-use only due to the destructive nature of generation of the large energy needed.

<comment><USER5> That's all true, but a 2h window for destruction of single targets is not very useful against a modern military. There are enough ICBM silos that you can't destroy all of them before someone kills you DEATH STAR and then you still have to win the war that follows.

<comment><USER3> Indeed, it is not a useful weapon in an all out war. I'd expect it to be used as surgical strike capability instead. Special operations. You can blame its use on inclement weather due to amount of electric charge this will paint on anything in path and resulting lightning storm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> They intend to beam the energy to earth through a laser. I wonder if building a space-mirror and focussing a beam of sunlight would be a much easier and scalable solution.

Though I guess you would need multiple base stations to beam it somewhere where there's no clouds?

<comment><USER7> Using a wavelength transformation to send this through the non-absorption windows means more energy hits the ground and you aren't hacking terrestrial albedo in a bad way. That global warming is about absorption of sunlight, so putting a lot more sunlight on the same absorption percent means more heat retained. It doesn't do any good to cut gwp materials in the air, then increase sunlight hitting the atmosphere in a way that makes heat retention higher.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I did a quick search on the Energy Returned on Energy Invested calculations. The following site [https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/03/space-based-solar- power/](https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/03/space-based-solar-power/) gave an ERoEI of 10:1 for solar panels on earth vs ERoEI of 4.2:1 for solar panels in space. Which would indicate that we would still be better laying solar panel on the ground as long as we got the appropriate empty space.

What did I missed? Have we realized enough progress since 2012 energy-wise, that the threshold has been crossed, or does it only make sense economically due to lower launch prices.

<comment><USER5> Solar panels in space also work during the night and while it's cloudy. Did your calculation include the energy costs of storage?

<comment><USER3> You do know that one can build the panels on the other hemisphere, right? It is all a small matter of building a long enough high voltage DC line. Mostly a political problem. Or you can use microwaves on ground if it is easier to build a bunch of antennas.

Ultimately also reflect off space mirrors (meshes) for much cheaper.

The main problem is theoretically weather. Space has the other kind of weather called space junk.

<comment><USER5> HVDC lines are really neat tech and I fully support solar farms in the Sahara to supply Europe, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's cheaper to launch satellites than to build a global power grid that can provide solar power over night.

I think debris is not a terrible problem right now. We manage to have a large number of satellites in high orbits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> With regards to climate change and global warming, what about putting this in between the sun and the earth to block some of the energy reaching the planet to allow it to cool?

<comment><USER10> aka geoengineering. The latest IPCC report is quite critical of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder whether this meant to imply military capability, in the same way that the space race was basically a way to advertise ICBM capabilities.

<comment><USER12> In the sense that fancy hats imply virility.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was pushing this a decade ago.

If you have "fusion in a bottle" and don't want to share, this is a decent way to make it harder to steal/damage/use-for-terrorism.

Also, giant beam transmission facilities and giant beam weapons aren't so different from each other. There are going to be detectable critical differences, but with some modifications one can be made into the other.

Radiation damage is going to be a challenge but satellites do with solar for a long time. Onboard robots?

</comment><comment><USER13> Finally, somebody decided to make solar collectors in space. Been waiting for it since it was discussed in Isaac Arthur.

I bet spaceX might do something similar in the future. When they are not as encumbered with star link and the BFR.

<comment><USER3> 1) It is not much more efficient due to transmission losses. (Compared to high voltage DC.)

2) The costs, on top of super expensive solar panels, make this totally pointless economically. Solar panels are hard enough to maintain on Earth.

3) It's a multi gigawatt level microwave gun in space. Want to blast some lightning onto someone? Sure, now you can. Or fry it.

<comment><USER14> The costs just to put the materials up there makes me wonder the long term viability of just trying to source it from the moon. By the time you are willing to spend the billions required it cannot be much more of step and provides other uses.

still I have to agree, how do you even maintain something like this. it would probably lead to a full time presence in space unless robotics become just that good. I just don't see the ROI except may be for national pride.

<comment><USER5> I'd guess you maintain it by replacing the satellites. We're pretty good at maintaining satellites by replacement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> How do they plan to beam energy back to Earth?

<comment><USER16> Its in the article

>China's proposal, meanwhile, appears to suggest converting solar energy into electric energy in space, before beaming back to Earth using a microwave or laser and feeding into the grid via a ground receiving system.

<comment><USER3> Short version: they can fry a target in any country in about a day.

<comment><USER17> If the country is small enough they can fry that too. I can think of a likely candidate already.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If there is a beam of energy being transferred from space to the surface will it be visible?

Edit: Apparently this is a stupid question, but I still don't know the answer.

</comment><comment><USER19> How would they prevent overheating?

<comment><USER20> How do satellites prevent overheating? Radiators!

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I would use this to mine cryptocoins in space, it's way easier to send information back to earth than power</comment>


Ask HN: Recommendations for purchase and storage of Bitcoins - <AUTHOR>

Interested to know what HN recommends is the best way to<p>(i) buy bit coins<p>(ii) store bit coins <comment><USER2> Buy: Coinbase or Okcoin

Store: generate address keys on an air-gapped computer, best option is a linux live boot instance, encrypt the keys with a strong password and store on write protected media in a safe place. Make sure to have several backups of the encrypted storage file and for the love of bits do not forget the passwords. NEVER LET RAW KEYS NEAR AN INTERNET CONNECTED MACHINE, when you are ready to transfer funds out of the secure wallet(s) decrypt them on an air-gapped machine, sign your transaction, and then copy that over to a connected machine to broadcast.

</comment><comment><USER3> Bitcoin Exchange (e.g. okcoin). Offline (e.g. physical media like a few DVDs, an unplugged flash drive, and so on). I wouldn't store more than you absolutely have to online as some of these Bitcoin "banks" have a habit of running off with everyone's Bitcoins.

I wouldn't recommend Bitcoins in general as an "investment." Only if you are buying the coins to be used in the near term for a purchase. Investing in Bitcoins is a little suspect, never invest what you cannot afford to lose.

</comment><comment><USER4> I recommend storing on hardware wallets like Trezor. You can buy from Bitstamp, Kraken, Localbitcoins, Okcoin, ANX.</comment>


Ask HN: What does HN thinks about the trade war happening between China and US? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> "The only way to win, is to not play".

</comment><comment><USER3> inevitable</comment>


Properties of galaxies reproduced by a hydrodynamic simulation - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7499/full/nature13316.html

<comment><AUTHOR> The abstract is:

 _Previous simulations of the growth of cosmic structures have broadly reproduced the 'cosmic web' of galaxies that we see in the Universe, but failed to create a mixed population of elliptical and spiral galaxies, because of numerical inaccuracies and incomplete physical models. Moreover, they were unable to track the small-scale evolution of gas and stars to the present epoch within a representative portion of the Universe. Here we report a simulation that starts 12 million years after the Big Bang, and traces 13 billion years of cosmic evolution with 12 billion resolution elements in a cube of 106.5 megaparsecs a side. It yields a reasonable population of ellipticals and spirals, reproduces the observed distribution of galaxies in clusters and characteristics of hydrogen on large scales, and at the same time matches the 'metal' and hydrogen content of galaxies on small scales._

Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be a preprint available yet (Wed May 7 21:14 UTC)

<comment><AUTHOR> Preprint is now available: [http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1418](http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1418)</comment></comment>


The Biggest Flaw Of Ayn Rand - <AUTHOR> http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/the-biggest-flaw-of-ayn-rand

<comment><USER2> what possible justification could there be for this article to be posted to Hacker News?

<comment><AUTHOR> The chance that the author's idea might interest other fellow members, as it did for me.

Feel free to ignore it if it doesn't capture your interest.

<comment><USER2> done</comment></comment></comment>


H1B Impact and Trump Uncertainty Principle - <AUTHOR> http://blog.perchingtree.com/trump-uncertaintity-h1b-visa/ <comment><USER2> When the standard operating procedure for companies is to post fake job ads with the sole purpose of not hiring an American, in order to get around the law, you know it's not working as intended.

Watch lawyers (criminals) teach companies how to break the law: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU)

Any tech CEO talking about "we're lacking skilled workers" or "we need more STEM workers" is deliberately perpetuating a system that is objectively defrauding Americans out of jobs. The companies are doing it for no other reason than to reduce labor costs, and they are using shady loopholes that should be enforced, but are not.

The very first thing Trump could do is actually enforce the current laws, including increasing penalties, such as massive personal liability for management and investors of guilty companies.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> A pretty detailed write up on how H1B could be tightened. The GAO study is interesting and most of us never knew that such a study existed

<comment><AUTHOR> There is more discussion on Quora here on this.

[https://www.quora.com/How-will-the-H1-B-visa-process- change-...](https://www.quora.com/How-will-the-H1-B-visa-process-change-due- to-a-Trump-presidency)</comment></comment>


Those Holiday Pounds You Gain Don't Go Away (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://www.rand.org/blog/2016/12/those-holiday-pounds-you-gain-dont-go-away.html <comment><USER2> They can if you go on a diet</comment>


Python 2.7 Countdown - <AUTHOR> https://pythonclock.org/ <comment><USER2> Let's take all a minute to thanks the awesome cpython team. Most of the devs work on it for free. They have very little budget as opposed to corporation backed projects like go, c# or js.

Yet.

The language has helped us since 5 years before java was born. You can find it in websites like youtube and instagram, OS stacks like linux and mac, wall street and NASA analytics, popular GIS, dropbox UI, blender and maya, sublimetext...

Also thanks for having provided almost 15 years and many tools to migrate from 2 to 3. I know few languages that managed such a big update, but none that gave so much to help with the transitions.

Guys and gals, you rock.

And it needs to be said because we hear the people complaining the most loudly. Never all the people that are so grateful for it.

</comment><comment><USER3> I teach online workshops on intermediate Python to several hundred developers each month, scattered globally. Since these are engineers in the work force, I start each class with a quick poll about which version they primarily use on their jobs: 2.7, or 3.x.

18 months ago, the results were typically 20% Python 3, and 80% Python 2. Over time, the ratio shifted. In recent months, it's VERY consistently 60-70% Python 3; one class it was 80%.

As I tell those students: sooner than you think, having only Python 2 on your resume will make it look dated.

<comment><USER4> Who on Earth would write "Python2" in their resume? I have "Python".

<comment><USER3> I mean this in the kindest possible way:

You're taking what I wrote too literally, and thus missing the point. What I wrote means: if the only Python you know is 2.x, it might close off opportunities for you in the near future.

<comment><USER4> Oh ok, that makes sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I took some time try to make an old codebase to work with python2/3\. Some wat moment from the effort:

1\. `StringIO.StringIO` is a PITA. There's no equivalent in Python3 (for a good reason), and you must choose between `io.StringIO` (which only support unicode) and `io.BytesIO` (which only support bytes string). A possible solution is to use `six.StringIO` but it's simply bury the problem. It would be a good idea to think about what string you are dealing with before doing any change around StringIO.

2\. The `stat` module contains some helper functions to test st_mode. In Python2, the function will happily accept negative numbers but in Python3 an exception will throw:

      $ python2 -c 'import stat; print(stat.S_ISDIR(-1))'
      False
      $ python3 -c 'import stat; print(stat.S_ISDIR(-1))'
      Traceback (most recent call last):
        File "<string>", line 1, in <module>
      OverflowError: can't convert negative value to unsigned int

3\. You can do `def foo(a, (b, c), d)` in Python2: [https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3113/](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3113/)

4\. You can compare slice with int in Python2:

      $ python2 -c 'print(slice(1) > 1)'
      True
      $ python3 -c 'print(slice(1) > 1)'
      Traceback (most recent call last):
        File "<string>", line 1, in <module>
      TypeError: unorderable types: slice() > int()

<comment><USER6> I think those are all improvements in Python3, even if they can be a hassle to fix:

1\. Lots of legacy code incorrectly treats strings and byte arrays as the same thing. If you're dealing 100% with all ASCII all the time that might be mostly OK, but it's the wrong model for anything involving Unicode (which is pretty much everything now).

2\. Modes are defined on Linux and macOS at least as uint32_t. -1 isn't a valid value of that type.

3\. That bit me a few time. I've accepted that `def foo(a, b_and_c, d): b, c = b_and_c` is an alright substitute.

4\. I like the new version better. `'a' > 5` doesn't even make sense and the 3.x way avoids accidental nonsensical comparisons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I made a similar, albiet more vulgar website a while ago:

[http://stfupy3.org/](http://stfupy3.org/)

<comment><USER8> Unaccessible over IPv6, unfortunately.

<comment><USER7> This is hosted on GitHub pages, I don't think they have an IPv6 version. I appreciate the irony in your statement, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My experience over the past year has been that 80% of what I need for new projects is already available on 3 (with the remaining 20% being swappable for other stuff), and that asyncio is a massive (if controversial) boost in performance for some things.

I do wish that some of the gevent/Cython stuff was 100% compatible on occasion, but it's manageable.

That said, 2.7 is still the default in many environments, and we're likely to have to live with it for 12+ years.

</comment><comment><USER10> Is Python 3 an officially supported language at Google yet?

<comment><USER11> As far as i know yes? Are there any services that don't support it?

<comment><USER10> I mean internally, as one of the "approved four" (Java, C++, Python, and JavaScript, not counting Google's own languages)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _" …hereby suggesting we throw a massive party to celebrate all that Python 2 has done…"_

Perhaps it's that ominous counter, but these words really evoked Poe's "The Masque of the Red Death" for some reason.

<comment><USER13> I think of it more like a wake.

In "The Masque of the Red Death" they shut themselves away from the rest of the world. There's no correspondence from that to the end of core developer supported Python 2.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Guess the community (or a company like RedHat) will have to step in and fork 2.7. There is no way that people who haven't switched, will want to switch, unless absolutely forced to (for example: no security patches).

<comment><USER15> This old chestnut. Yeah, if there's enough people who are willing to pay for it (time or money), sure, Python 2.7 support will continue.

I just hope those same people have used the past years to do calculate the cost of moving to Python 3 vs the cost of Python 2 support. Expecting Python 2 support to be free or even easy is delusional/selfish though.

<comment><USER16> Pffft. Nice strawman. Who said it would be free or easy?

Expecting that everyone will just hop over Python 3 because one group of people doesn't want to maintain Python 2 anymore is delusional.

<comment><USER6> At some point a CFO will ask why a company is spending $X to use ancient, unhireable versions of their tools when new, free, attractive versions exist. It will be explained - not exactly in these words - that it's basically because their senior devs refuse to learn new stuff. Senior management arguments will ensue. At the end, there will be a plan to save $X with One Simple Trick.

Displaced senior devs will find themselves making nice paychecks at other shops with obsolete codebases, at least until those CFOs start to notice a funny line item in the engineering budget...

<comment><USER16> Python 3 has been out for how long?

None of this has happened yet.

What is going to make 2.7 so unmaintainable? It's there, it works and what is going to change that?

<comment><USER6> Python 2.7 is currently supported. It's not a great idea, but at least defensible, to still be developing against it today. But the moment it becomes officially obsolete and shops have to justify paying special support contracts to maintain it, I think it'll become very hard to explain why that's a good business decision.

There are valid reasons for using 2.7 today. I think it's professional negligence to not at least be planning for the inevitable upgrade to the current version. Honestly, it's almost never as hard as you'd think. The most common hurdles are str/bytes incompatibility, and 3.x only _reveals_ those problems where they already exist in 2.x (where the code is quite possibly not working as expected but silently passing wrong data without warning you).

<comment><USER16> > But the moment it becomes officially obsolete and shops have to justify > paying special support contracts to maintain it...

Who even pays for a support contract for programming language that's already done?

That's like saying JavaScript is unusable because of all of the different versions. Nobody has to pay anybody to use ES3 even though it's largely obsolete.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> MacOS still ships with Python 2 as the default python.

<comment><USER18> AFAIK, Ubuntu does as well (if you mean that you have to write 'python3' instead of 'python' to execute Python3)

<comment><USER19> ...up until 17.10.

Starting from 17.10, Python3 is the default one and the preinstalled one.

This switch kind of happened unnoticed because Ubuntu switched back to GNOME at that version, but IMHO it is an equally important switch.

With 18.04, we should see that change having much greater effect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The big problem is that migrating to Python 3 can result in silent runtime bugs.

Here's a scary case: [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22288604/lambda- function...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22288604/lambda-functions- unequal-behaviors-in-python-3-and-python-2)

</comment><comment><USER21> For those still running 2.7 because migrating is too hard, consider using my "ppython" version ([https://github.com/nascheme/ppython](https://github.com/nascheme/ppython)). It is a modified version of 3.6 with extra backwards compatibility features. After running your code through 2to3, it should mostly work with ppython. After fixing all the runtime warnings, your code should work with regular 3.6.

</comment><comment><USER22> f-strings were the killer feature for me - it's a pity Python 3.6 isn't in Debian yet.

I do hope macOS get onboard next year also...

</comment><comment><USER23> If there is Python 4, please, make it backwards compatible. Thank you.

<comment><USER24> A major version bump does tend to imply breaking changes.

<comment><USER23> Why?

<comment><USER24> What exactly does the term "major version update" mean to you if not for a break in backwards compatibility?

That's what a major version update _is_.

<comment><USER23> How many mainstream programming languages do you know having equivalent issues as Python 2.x to 3.x? Do you think it is reasonable to rewrite your code base on every programming language "major version update"? One thing is deprecation of features, because of not thinking an API properly back in the day, and another, involving an important rewrite in order to get your code base working.

My point was: I expect Python 4 avoiding the mistakes of Python 3 regarding breaking backwards compatibility. Just that.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Sony Ericsson to introduce Android 3.0 gaming platform & PSP Go-like smartphone - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/11/exclusive-sony-ericsson-to-introduce-android-3-0-gaming-platfor/

<comment><USER2> This is good news. However, in order for Android to become a more viable and successful gaming platform, google better make some DRASTIC changes to underlying Dalvik VM in Android 3.0 or provide us developers with better C++ libraries to write games.

Currently, the Garbage Collector in Dalvik is a total piece of shit. When the GC runs, your game can freeze for up to 100-200ms, totally kills the gaming experience. What most developers who code in Java does is to use object pool and manage memory manually, its a huge pain in the butt.

If you are a C++ developer using the NDK, you are in for a world of pain as well, you can't control EGL context from C++, you can't receive events, can't play/mix sound, can't access assets (easily). To do all of these, you are stuck with using a JNI layer, which just decrease performance.

On top of that, current devices with similar hardware specs (1ghz snapdragon, wvga screen) are all fill-rate limited to 30fps.

<comment><USER3> _What most developers who code in Java does is to use object pool and manage memory manually, its a huge pain in the butt._

How is this different from C++? Oh yeah, instead of objects you get "big blocks of RAM".

<comment><USER4> C++ has better tools for manual memory management (value types, smart pointers, RAII).

<comment><USER3> Working around the garbage collector and using any C++ memory management techniques are both ugly hacks. (<http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/exceptions.html#fqa-17.4>)

Fortunately, there has been plenty of research on GCs that are fast enough for games. So the solution is to use one of those for Android, now that people are actually interested in writing games.

<comment><USER4> Your link mention two C++ facilities for supporting manual memory management that have no equivalents in Java, and thus (ignoring the smug sarcasm) supports my original point.

A better GC was already mentioned by the OP as another option.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The tricky thing with Android is we have no way of knowing if Sony will be using a fairly stock Android distribution or if they'll have an exclusive Sony Android Market with games developed for the exclusive Sony Android Game SDK that allows for quick porting of PSP games. (but never exists on anything except a Sony Android handset) I guess we'll have to wait and see. Out of all the handset makers Sony has the most proprietary Android distribution. (which is why they're still stuck on 1.6)

<comment><USER6> What would be really nice is when Sony develops its own OS with XBOX- WP7-Windows or iPhone-iPad-iTV like integration.

<comment><USER6> Not sure why I'm being downvoted for voicing my opinion, I wasn't criticizing anyone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I hope D-pads become standard on smartphones. I loathe playing games using virtual joypads.

<comment><USER8> <http://sites.google.com/site/gamegripper/>

mine is still in the mail, so cant really vouch for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've had nothing but good from Sony Ericsson phones, and the PSP is a great device. If anyone can turn Android around for gaming (who are already in the phone market) it would be Sony as they're the only one with a true credibility on games and an existing history of portable gaming.

I'd also prefer to be playing PSP-quality games rather than the many atrocious pay-for-flash games you can play for free online . . . but not on an iPhone/Pad because it doesn't support flash.

Edit: I remember saying this before, why can my PSP do flash but an iPad can't . . . well I guess this is my answer, a phone in a PSP.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm a fan of Sony Ericsson. I hope they can get back to their glory days.

My old W810i was the most dependable phone ever. I dropped that thing so many times, one time out of a first floor window onto concrete. Barely a scratch. I went on a five day trip without a charger. No problem. Gave it to one of my friends and he's still using it years later.

It was there for me through thick and thin. Today's smartphones can't hold a charge past dinner time.

(Edit: Mahmud, yeah I now remember the dodgy proprietary connector. That was a terrible idea.)

<comment><USER10> I bought 3 W810is for myself and family. Ironically, I think many of the things that made this phone successful were actually manufacturing limitations of the time:

* rugged nature: Most of Sony Ericsson's newer phones have been thinner and have bigger screens. This makes it easier for them to break when dropped.

* long battery life: The W810i was not a smartphone. Its web browser sucked, and it only had EDGE. The lack of constant data transfer, combined with a small screen, undoubtedly helped battery life.

I am not saying that the W810i was not a good phone for its time, but rather that it was not made to deal with the modern mobile landscape of real-time status updates, push email, and monthly OTA firmware upgrades. SE phones are falling down now because they have unusable user interfaces, are based on obsolete software versions, or are just plain buggy. The W810i was stable, but it also never needed to be upgraded.

<comment><USER11> Agreed about battery life. If I turn off data syncing and don't use my Nexus One as a smartphone, but rather just a normal phone (eschew browsing and so forth other than a quick "where's my stop on this unfamiliar public transit?") I get more than a full day of battery life. I've never tested it past a day and a half, since that's when I invariably get wherever I was going but it doesn't drop very quickly when it has less to do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The Pandora console (<http://open-pandora.org>) looked really awesome for a while, but it was stuck in development hell for too long. Now its SoC looks rather paltry compared to newer high-end phones.

I still kinda want one just for the gaming controls. If it's possible to replace Android with a GNU/Linux distribution (like Meego), this could be a replacement with no downsides. It's too bad that Nokia is unlikely to attempt this after their N-Gage embarrassment.

</comment><comment><USER13> Oh, great. It's from Sony. You know what _that_ means.

New features in Xperia Software Update 3.41:

Due to security concerns, and to ensure access to next generation gaming content, the [Android OS] option in Xperia Software has been disabled. Users who still wish to access [Android OS] can choose to stay with software 3.40, but they will lose the capability to sign in to PSN or access games and movies designed for 3.41 or above.

</comment><comment><USER14> Sounds good as long as Sony doesn't manage to screw it up (like they do with most other things).

<comment><USER15> They can't do any worse than the N-Gage

<comment><USER14> I'm skeptical of that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Ugh, how is this going to work with AOSP, CM, and DRM?</comment>


The reasonable startup valuation formula (Avg Exit/6) - <AUTHOR> http://chrisyeh.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-reasonable-startup-valuation-formula.html

<comment><USER2> Does this still apply for an early stage startup, in particular for early employees trying to value stock options, or would you use something else?</comment>


Show HN: Keep track of earning expenses better than excel sheets - <AUTHOR>

I started to track my expenses on excel sheets earlier this year. It was interesting to see how much I spent casually on just another hangout with friends or on education.
Excel sheets are painful, at least for me.
So I built this with my friend: (it's just MVP)
http://accountant.besperk.com
Edit:
Coming up next:
> Mobile site and apps asap.
> Graphs and reports
> SSL
> Custom Alerts (when you cross a certain limit, that you define, for certain tag)
> Pre populated tags.
Tech used:
> Rails
> on Heroku
My co-founder is offline will ask him to add more details on tech used side. <comment><USER2> \-- EDIT --

[ To give these messages context. This comment could have been construed to say something else. I said 'what makes your app worthless is this' after taking about how he describes a lack of technical info and before I talk about the FAQ.

I later updated this line to make it clearer. I should have added an edit note but didn't. I apologise. I just added the edit note and this blurb at the beginning to give the rest of the conversation context.

This is why there is discussion about lack of designer's tech knowledge devaluing an application. This was down to my poor writing. Wasn't my intent. I hope everything is clearer now.

I will no longer be using the edit button on HN ]

\-- END OF EDIT --

This is worrying:

> My co-founder is offline will ask him to add more details on tech used side.

You have already got this far. Why do >> you << not know this already?

This text in your FAQ, for me, makes your application worthless. [Edited -- Original line could have been read as lack technical information devalued the application. This was not intended]

> Do you have access to my account information?

> Yes. But with 100s of people using the app, it's really not interesting to > run after your details. If your financial data can make world economy crash, > please do not use the app.

What you have said is this. "Yes we have full access to your account information." Then to follow it up you effectively say this. "We may snoop on your account so if you have sensitive info do not use this application."

Its really really bad. Data security should be the most important thing you do. Especially as your app is to do with people's finances. User data should be encrypted. I don't understand why you need to have access to individual clients data. Can you explain please.

<comment><AUTHOR> Being a designer I do not get the hang of what gem went in this app. SO yeah that's the first part.

I do not know how this makes the app worthless. _Honestly? Designer doesn't know what goes behind it so app is worthless._

Data is not encrypted because shipping a MVP was the main goal till now. But it's on the list yes.

Follow up does not say sensitive data. Follow up says if you're data is so interesting that everyone is after it pelase don't share.

Edit:

PS: Dude when you edit your original comment. do mention you edited it. In the comment itself.

<comment><USER3> welcome to HN. i personally think "worthless" might be just a bit rude but the H does stand for hacker, so naturally the audience would be interested in the technology you employ to keep their data safe.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah even after 400+ days on HN. I fail to understand why Designers are not just respectable :|

<comment><USER4> > _Designers are not just respectable_

That would be "Designers living in vaccum."

You need to decide if you are a designer or a co-founder, and if you are owning the product or merely contributing to it. Because _designers_ shouldn't be making public comments on product privacy policies.

<comment><AUTHOR> In referrence to original comment:

He mentioned I _should_ know the stack. Privacy policy was not mentioned. Nor did I say being a designer has anything to do with Privacy Policy.

I said, being a designer I do not understand what _stack_ it is and that doesn't make the app worthless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You need to add a pricing page (or put it on the homepage) so people understand what they get for free and what costs $5 a month. I didn't sign-up, but I hate when I do sign-up for something thinking it was free and then it turns out the free option doesn't do _anything_.

<comment><AUTHOR> Valid thing. Actually pricing is on home page but was testing it (A: on , B: off) guess you got the off part.

<comment><USER4> I find this really hard to believe. Factual statement, not trolling.

<comment><AUTHOR> Open Icongnito / Private Browsing window. It's likely to show you the B version. Though there are 10 combinations so might take some time.

If you want I can give you a screenshot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> <http://toshl.com/>

This is a similar product that already has native apps for many mobile platforms and it's free to use (there is a pro account with some additional features).

disclaimer: I'm friends with the folks who built this, I just wanted to post this here for comparison.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is really good. Thanks for sharing :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Probably it is just me. But let me try to get it straight. We made something like Mint, but took away the tough components to implement for eg. automation, getting data from credit card spending etc. We justified it by saying that it gives you better understanding of your spending "on the go". No idea what that really means. Mint does give you fairly up to date information of your spending, budgeting and all kinds of good stuff. So while we were at it, we thought since we are doing less work ourselves than what Mint does and making users work harder by making them enter all their information manually unlike Mint. Lets charge money for it. Does no one else see problem with this approach?

<comment><AUTHOR> I am not sure if my example will make any sense here.

While mint aims at helping you reach your saving goals and plan your budget.

Accountant helps you reflect on your spending habits.

It's like the slight difference between a To-do List and Checklist. Both are similar but not same. You can call To-do list a daily checklist but when it comes to the experience and result, they are a bit different.

I do not have more data or examples to explain it. Tried my best.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think you need to do a better job at clearly explaining why people should use your product over mint/other sites. Currently, it appears that I need to manually enter all my expenses. That is not gonna happen for most of the users. As an example, I just came back from a really hectic one week trip to seattle. I used 2 or 3 cards to pay at tens of places. Its not possible for me to now recollect what I spent during last one week. With mint, I can track all of it really easily. How can your site do a better job, and help me in this case?

Your site appearance is nice btw.

<comment><AUTHOR> Very valid pain point. Shall take it into consideration.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Very nice design overall though I'd like something even lighter.

Some minor feedback:

* Your message/notification box width is larger than your content box width and they don't align.

* Report generation is missing or I can't find it.

* Your ToS section on privacy is not clear and seems to reference to the same document for it, but I couldn't find a section for that. It's important to have it, more so when you're dealing with people's expense data.

Please tell us more about the technology you use and plan to use, hom much time you've spent building it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Adde to post.

Somehow I missed privacy policy. Shall put it up soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What does your site offer over Mint (which is free)?

<comment><AUTHOR> From FAQ: (though it's about automation, but goes same for overall vision)

      Why don't you automate it? Like Mint.com etc?
      That's not our purpose. When you consciously recall where
      you spent money and document it. It has a different effect.
      That's the aim of the app.

Expanding on it: While building Accountant, I had one thin in mind. Why look at what you did after a month? Why not look at it on-the-go? The only way I could think of was to consciously put the data.

Example: End up spending 1000 bucks on DVD rentals and then regret. Or know when you're spending the 500th buck and stop. Just a lame example but presents the use case.

<comment><USER11> Not to be harsh but the lack of automation kills it for me.

I don't _want_ to consciously recall where my money goes. I want all of the benefits of that conscious recall--e.g. staying within my budget, being able to see if my spending has changed month to month, and being able to look up where I ate 3 weeks ago--- _without_ being forced to recall day-to-day what I've been doing.

Without automatic categorization, what you have is a prettier interface than excel but functionality that no one who can sling together a few excel macros will think is impressive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Since this post sounds like pubic beta/self marketing, You should provide a couple of ready accounts for users to try this out.. i dont want to give up my email just to see the innards for your brain spill!

<comment><AUTHOR> For that reason we did not use email double opt-in.

You can use firstname.lastname@example.com or whatever.

In case you are wondering why not just a login to use? because sign-up process is important part of the whole experience. When I ask for feedback, I would like feedback about it as "whole" not just part.

Maybe I think it's an important part because I am a designer. But I am all ears if you have a stronger reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> How is this better and/or different than Mint.com?

Mint connects to your bank account and does _automatic_ categorization, and compares your spending habits to that of the state and US as a whole.

</comment><comment><USER13> Can I integrate this with my online banking service? Bank of America shows my account history in ledger format, so I have to do the work in Excel to categorize the expenditures.

</comment><comment><USER14> Just a heads up to those thinking of giving it a spin, there is no way to delete your account once its been made unless I missed something...

</comment><comment><USER15> easy to click: <http://accountant.besperk.com></comment>