Have you seen this PG page? - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/gateway.html

<comment><USER2> No.

Interestingly, PG has favored polo shirts right from high school, thereby taking the decision making out of what to wear for the next 20+ years;-)

</comment><comment><USER3> I was so disenfranchised from the "ra ra, go team" crap in high school that I don't even have any yearbooks.

</comment><comment><USER4> In the chess club picture seated on the far right is Peter Monta. Smart guy, entered CMU at age 16 I believe. We had class together for two years at CMU in the Math Studies honors program.

</comment><comment><USER5> Somehow the self-aggrandizement spoof on high school yearbooks manages to be both brilliant and hilarious at the same time:

[http://www.self- aggrandizement.com/archives/111004_gotham_hi...](http://www.self- aggrandizement.com/archives/111004_gotham_high_class_of_96_part_1.html)

[http://www.self- aggrandizement.com/archives/111104_gotham_hi...](http://www.self- aggrandizement.com/archives/111104_gotham_high_class_of_96_part_2.html)

[http://www.self- aggrandizement.com/archives/111404_gotham_hi...](http://www.self- aggrandizement.com/archives/111404_gotham_high_class_of_96_part_3.html)

[http://www.self- aggrandizement.com/archives/111604_gotham_hi...](http://www.self- aggrandizement.com/archives/111604_gotham_high_class_of_96_part_4.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> What a fantastic page! I also went to Gateway High School for 6, er I mean, 3 of the best years of my life. I had no idea Paul Graham also went there. What a small world. I was several years ahead of Paul. I discovered his essays a few years ago, and here I am now.

I also had Dr. Schultz for a class called "World Cultures". We watched films like "On the Waterfront" and "High Noon" and discussed them afterward. I remember him vividly. I still have my film project (The History of Art to the tune of Magic Carpet Ride) from that class. I suppose I should have it digitized and loaded onto Youtube. One of these days.

I self published a parody of Mad Magazine about Gateway. Still have the comics about principal O'Toole, and the teachers who influenced me: Laura Barrett Mikesell, Laura Sproull, Ann Bitter, and, of course, Ann Kapisak (geometry) and John Drumm (calculus). Because of that magazine, Mrs. Mikesell strongly encouraged me toward a career in journalism. Fortunately for me, the English department at Allegheny College sucked and the math department excelled, so I've been a hacker ever since.

Funny how a few kind words from a teacher make such a difference for so many years.

Thanks for the memories, Paul. Any chance you're related to Mark Graham, who was our Student Government president? Feel free to contact me off-line edw519 at yahoo.com.

Ed Weissman, GHS '73

<comment><USER7> Wow, movies on the Wild West are definitely what kids from Western Pennsylvania need to be learning about in a "World Cultures" class. What else did you watch? Riddle me skeptical.

<comment><USER8> I went to public high school in a Western Pennsylvania suburb (two PA Turnpike stops away from Paul Graham's alma mater, which means our suburban strip wasn't quite as good) and in my best social studies class (US History) we watched an unreasonable amount of full length movies, including Band of Brothers in its entirety. We didn't do a whole lot in the class, but at least he told us that Westerners killed all of the Indians. He told us to just read Howard Zinn if we wanted to learn something.

<comment><USER7> Define 'best' in the construction 'best social studies class'? Learned the most? Most fun? Coolest teacher?

<comment><USER8> All of the above, but I only have my other high school history/geography classes for comparison.

<comment><USER7> So... sorry to be a spoilsport but if

(1) The aforementioned class was the one in which you learned the most AND (2) Your teacher told you to read Howard Zinn if you wanted to learn something IMPLYING (2') Your teacher didn't think you were learning anything

Then mustn't we conclude (3) You didn't learn learn anything in your high school social studies classes

?

<comment><USER8> Yes, that would be the logical conclusion.

<comment><USER7> Just checking ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Just makes you appreciate how simple life in high school really was.

<comment><USER10> In some ways, maybe. I look back on my old schedule, and figure I was spending 50-55 hours a week in class or school activities, an estimate with a very vague notion of transit time and not much consideration for interruptions. (eg, school gets out at 2:45, practice starts at 3:30, what can you accomplish in 45 minutes?)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> maybe it's the high school version of his essay News from the Front (it doesn't matter where you went to high school also?)? :P</comment>


"China Can Shut Down All The Telecom Gear It Sold To The US" - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/military-sources-china-could-shut-down-all-the-telecommunications-technology-it-sold-to-america-2012-6

<comment><USER2> Wow. If this is for real, this is unspeakably bad but not exactly unexpected. Time to disrupt! Vote with your $$$! Even more reason to look at the origin of everything you buy and avoid Chinese goods at all costs.

Is there really an alternative other than a boycott of Chinese goods to send a clear signal that this isn't going to fly?</comment>


Ask HN: How do you track your time? Using RescueTime or something else? - <AUTHOR> I am looking for a time tracker since I want to know to what extent I am wasting my time behind the computer. I was thinking about simply coding a simple app that checks my browser history and I slowly but surely categorize what I deem to be productive and what I deem to be unproductive, and what I deem to be a bit of both.
A friend of mine said there was an app called RescueTime, but you can't own your data. Then I noticed there was this open source tool called ActivityWatch [1]. The Github of ActivityWatch shows a couple of extra options.
So how do you track your time to know how productive you are / how much time you waste?
I remember one guy commenting on here that he uses a chess clock and clicks on one or the other to know what time he wastes and what time he is productive. I find it a very cool idea, but also a bit too involving.
[1] https://github.com/ActivityWatch/ <comment><USER2> [https://www.toptal.com/tracker](https://www.toptal.com/tracker)

IMO Best one on the market... better than harvest or rescue time, captures screen shots etc. Crazier yet... it's FREE

... I have zero affiliation too btw</comment>


This man claims he survived 13 months adrift in the Pacific - <AUTHOR> http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_25050601/this-man-claims-he-survived-13-months-adrift <comment><USER2> Previous reports all say 16 months:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7156575](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7156575)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7161194](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7161194)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7162683](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7162683)</comment>


Overview: C++ Gets an Overhaul (C++0x) - <AUTHOR> http://www.devx.com/SpecialReports/Article/38884

<comment><USER2> I am so glad I don't have to use C++ any more. I spent years in video games perfecting my programming skills in C++. What a waste of time. Now I'm in python I feel like I can program again.

Don't get my wrong. C++ obviously has it's place but I'm glad I'm in a different place right now.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree... I just wish Python's performance was closer to C++s. I use Python everyday for data analysis, etc... but I'm pretty much stuck with C++ for numerical simulations. Hopefully, the gap will become manageably small sometime soon.

<comment><USER3> the good news is that it's easy to write extension modules for python when you need performance.

<comment><USER4> The bad news is, soon enough you'll realize that your entire codebase has been switched over to the extensions and Python isn't really doing anything anymore :)

<comment><USER2> People used to say something similar in games: 'Why write in C when you know you are going to have to move to asm anyway, just write it all in asm!'.

I've never seen more then 5% of c code usefully move to asm and I've never seen more then a few % of python code usefully move to a module. I am not saying it's always of waste of time it's just I haven't seen it.

<comment><USER5> What kind of applications do you have experience developing?

<comment><USER2> Mainly in and around video games on PC/PS2/XBox/PS1. C/C++/ASM for the runtime (sometimes with python for scripting) and Python for level editing and build processes.

I'm not discounting python inadequacies esp when churning vast amounts of data. Video game levels are large and python was too slow to process collision maps, shadow maps etc but we added C modules to do the heavy work and it wasn't a lot of code to write in C (it was a pita to debug them though).

PS I don't work in video games any more so I've not experienced the delights of the PS3/XBox2 first hand. I do websites now... it's a lot easier :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Oh boy. Let the ignorant C++ bashing begin...

Before you chime in with some snarky comment about some superficial aspect of the language (like, say, the name), _please_ try to realize that C++ is still one of the most widely-used languages in the world -- for a reason. And if you find yourself about to post something of the form "why would they add [feature X]...python/ruby/haskell/blub has had that for _years_ ", please stop and take a deep breath. Realize that it takes a _long_ time to add features to a language that has to be standardized by committee and deployed to as many platforms as C++ has today.

You may like ruby/python/blub better, but that's a bit like saying "I like my swiss army knife better than my chainsaw". Your swiss army knife will do fine in a lot of different situations, but you're not going to cut down many trees with it. Nor would you try to open a package with a chainsaw.

<comment><USER7> When you say "C++ is still one of the most widely-used languages in the world", you're implicitly lumping C in with it. C/C++ is certainly one of the most widely-used languages, but there are whole huge categories of products that are almost never written in C++.

Some of us appreciate bare-metal systems programming, but loathe C++.

<comment><USER6> No I'm not. C++ is widely used _in part_ because it's backwards-compatible with C, but it's not even remotely a stretch to say that C++ is one of the most widely-used languages in the world, on its own.

<comment><USER7> It's not a stretch to say that because you aren't actually saying anything. Leaving the distribution undefined as you did, we could also claim that Haskell is one fo the most widely-used languages in the world: it's certainly used more than CASL, the scripting language I wrote at McAfee in 1998.

I'm not arguing that C++ isn't widely used. I'm taking exception to the "us and them" sentiment I picked up off your comment, that the world is divided between those who appreciate C++ and those who can't hack it outside of Python and Perl. There are plenty of systems programmers who hate C++.

<comment><USER6> Where did I say such a thing? My _whole point_ was that C++ is just another tool, like a chainsaw.

You seem to be taking this very personally.

<comment><USER7> I'm sorry, I can see why you'd think I personalized it. I stand by the point I'm making, but apologize for the tone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm not sure why I would ever dick around with C++ lambdas when I could instead just write in C and a "real" high level language, like Python, Lisp, or Ruby.

<comment><USER8> Comparing C plus Python to C++ doesn't make any sense. The comparison would be C plus Python vs C++ plus Python.

The C++ solution would most likely be shorter, more flexible, and more secure. Personally, I fail to understand why anyone would choose to write new C over C++.

<comment><USER9> (Speaking as one of those people who _did_ choose to write C over C++...)

People choose C over C++ because C is a simpler language than C++, something which this new standard does nothing to address.

<comment><USER8> I have difficulty handling the complexity of typical C code due to the lack of abstraction. C always winds up with huge functions and lots of hard to grasp state up in your face. C++ gives you way more opportunities to hide away complexity.

<comment><USER7> The solution to complexity is to _eliminate_ it, not to _hide_ it. You've nailed the big problem with C++ right there.

<comment><USER8> I really don't know what that means...

<comment><USER10> Think of it like this: Would you rather have an operating system that has a bunch of little ads in the corner by the clock that are periodically "hidden" under a chevron, or would you rather that the crap wasn't there in the first place?

<comment><USER5> Some complexity is inherent to the problem and you can't get rid of it. You can only manage it through abstractions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The new standard basically has nice improvements over the current one. I use C++ occasionally, when I need to write low-level code and when I think the STL will save me time over plain C. Unfortunately, the new standard won't be too useful for a while.

When the working group finalizes the standard, we get to wait for the compiler implementations to catch up. For the first five years, C++ programmers will enjoy buggy, incomplete, and mutually incompatible implementations of half of the features in the new standard. During the following three years, compilers will even out in quality, and many of them will finally implement most of the features in the 2003 modifications of the 1998 standard. It'll take over a decade for C++ lambdas to become semi-portable and acceptable in many environments.

I really hope that, in 2018, I'll be able to write low-level code in a new and cooler language. It'll probably be a Lisp. :)

<comment><USER12> _I really hope that, in 2018, I'll be able to write low-level code in a new and cooler language. It'll probably be a Lisp. :)_

what you really meant to say is that you hope not to write in any language in 2018

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Could they have come up with a worse name than "C++0x" ?

<comment><USER14> Can someone actually explain what it means? I'm not a professional programmer, but I haven't seen notation like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is it just me, or does it look like a couple of these features (Automatic type deduction, Lambda expressions) seem to be borrowed from c#? And similar things are in languages like Ruby and Python.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing (or the reverse), and not saying that c# invented these ideas: I'm fairly sure that the c# designers only let in features that have already been road-tested in other, more experimental languages.

Just interesting which was around the ideas are flowing.

<comment><USER16> I had heard about automatic type deduction in C++ even before it was implemented in C#. The problem is that takes several years to get a C++ standard approved, while the C# team can just dream a feature and start implementing it in the next day.

<comment><USER15> I'd disagree with "the next day" part. C#3 (with automatic type deduction and lambdas) had a beta period of about a year, to make sure that all the new features played nicely with each other.

<comment><USER6> They've been standardizing C++0x for at least three years now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> As per Bagley Shootout <http://dada.perl.it/shootout/craps.html>

C++ score = 27.63 Python score = 27.0

</comment><comment><USER18> All hail the bloat-lords.

PS. Why are the additions of nullptr, and strongly typed enums a good thing? and doesn't C++ already have a NULL from C?

<comment><USER19> C's NULL sucks, because it's not a unique value and thus can be "lost" or confused with other values.

Having a distinct null which can only be arrived at by typing the characters "null" is a good thing, imo.

<comment><USER7> Can you tell a story about how NULL bit you in the ass in real code?

<comment><USER9> I remember one early version of a C++ compiler which had NULL #defined as (( void* )0), which caused all manner of fun trying to compile some legacy C code.

This was in 1999, I think.

<comment><USER7> You mean like this?

#define NULL __DARWIN_NULL

...

#define __DARWIN_NULL ((void *)0)

<comment><USER9> Something like that. It makes the following invalid in C++ but valid in C:

      int *ptr = NULL;

<comment><USER20> Except for the fact that the real definition is actually more like:

        #ifdef __cplusplus
        #define __DARWIN_NULL __null
        #else /* ! __cplusplus */
        #define __DARWIN_NULL ((void *)0)
        #endif /* __cplusplus */

So the code you mentioned works just fine in C++.

<comment><USER9> Except that the actual compiler I was using was for the PlayStation 2, so I very much doubt it had that precise code you just outlined, and it really did have NULL defined as ((void* )0), and it really did break. I saw it happen.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Augmented Reality - Going Mainstream - <AUTHOR> http://replicatorinc.com/blog/2009/04/augmented-reality-going-mainstream/

<comment><USER2> There's also Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed 2 teaser that just came out: <http://assassinscreed.us.ubi.com/assassins-creed-2/teaser/> It contains gameplay elements in the form of a flash 3D augmented reality teaser. Pretty neat to promote a game.. and reusing 3D/textures assets from the game for online advertising.

Here's a video : [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhvZJ- nVRNA&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhvZJ- nVRNA&feature=related)

<comment><AUTHOR> That is smart. Seems like a logical progression for any video game who already have assets, animations, etc. ready to roll.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Augmented Reality has great potential and will be a very important part of making mass customization mainstream. Shopping in a world with new inventory requires some good visualization tools.</comment>


HashFast Open-Sources Bitcoin ASIC Interface Protocol - <AUTHOR> http://thegenesisblock.com/hashfash-announces-open-sourcing-bitcoin-mining-asic-interface-protocol//

<comment><USER2> It would be great if there was a single standard so unique drivers don't have to be built from scratch for every new bitcoin mining ASIC that's developed.</comment>


What You Can't Say (2004) - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html <comment><USER2> >But any idea that's considered harmless in a significant percentage of times and places, and yet is taboo in ours, is a good candidate for something we're mistaken about.

I don't know about that. Most of human history had ideas/philosophies based on scarcity and tribal thinking. I think it's reasonable to think as society can move beyond that values built in that universe fail.

<comment><USER3> What exactly causes you to believe that tribes or scarcity are anywhere _near_ going away?

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure how you define near but in the first world tremendous progress has been made toward eliminating scarcity. There's still vast differences in wealth obviously and people below the poverty line but compared to like a thousand years ago it's clear.

As to tribal differences I'm not as sure about but the global economy seems to eliminating a lot of this mindset.

Now please explain to me why everything is horrible and this is naive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Flagged for politics

<comment><USER3> Nah, a politics article would be pointing out the president-elect's meeting with tech industry leaders next week.

This is more a general reflective philosophy and culture piece.

<comment><USER4> My interpretation of dang's experiment is that we should flag those things on the border of politics-or-not for this week. For example, pg makes many direct and indirect reference to "political correctness" which might lead to unwanted discussion of a political variety.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Well, there are worse fates than becoming Noam Chomsky.</comment>


Trade Officials Sign the TPP but It's Still Up to Lawmakers to Reject It - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/trade-officials-sign-tpp-its-still-lawmakers-reject-it <comment><USER2> The EFF obviously is focused on one aspect of the deal, and I don't find their arguments about the other aspects to be convincing. For the economic benefits, they use the same form of argument that global warming skeptics and creationists do, observing that there exists people who disagree with the general consensus. The fact that they can name one researcher on both sides of the issue does not imply that we should dismiss that issue as "debatable."

The fact of the matter is that "the agreement would reduce 18,000 tariffs. Tariffs on all U.S. manufactured goods and almost all U.S. farm products would be eliminated completely, with most eliminations occurring immediately." [1] Furthermore, we can't realistically ask for the parties to go back to the negotiating table to try to improve the deal. This one was 10 years in the making, which is depressing, but does mean that it's basically this deal or nothing.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans- Pacific_Partnership#Tari...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans- Pacific_Partnership#Tariffs_.26_other_barriers)

<comment><USER3> Reducing tariffs is not in vogue anymore. Trump is getting lots of support for his proposal to reinstate many tariffs.

>Furthermore, we can't realistically ask for the parties to go back to the negotiating table to try to improve the deal. This one was 10 years in the making, which is depressing, but does mean that it's basically this deal or nothing.

But they told us that negotiating it in secrecy does not matter as there will be a window of so many months in which it will be made public before the legislators will sign it.

So then it does matter, after all.

<comment><USER4> The point is that we did not have an opportunity to influence the negotiations and therefore the text of the treaty. We instead are presented almost with a fait accompli that we must either accept or reject altogether.

<comment><USER5> Was there a good reason for the secrecy? I feel like revolting against it as a statement of dissatisfaction with the _process_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> TPP is obscured by a wall of confusion and disinformation. As a tax payer of the United States (or any other country involved), what do you think the takeaway is? As in, how should I, a concerned citizen, approach this topic at the bar or the dinner table?

<comment><USER7> It's a question about the right to self-determination, which is not technical or confusing. It expands and enshrines the right of corporate attorneys to take countries to court and modify their laws to suit corporate interests. If the people of the US want to pass a law, should the constitution and government of the US decide if it sticks? Or a group of corporate lawyers at a multinational corporation in a third party business-friendly kangaroo court? If your answer is the first one, then the TPP is morally unacceptable, full stop, no more discussion needed.

<comment><USER8> That may be your opinion, but I do think we should have a discussion around something as important and complicated as the TPP.

All I've heard so far is Jingoism, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There is only one candidate that is addressing TPP.

Stephen Miller, Donald Trump senior economic adviser discusses his policy here

[https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-news-daily- stephe...](https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-news-daily-stephen- miller-full-interview-february-5-2016)

<comment><USER10> Bernie also talks against the TPP as well... Or are you assuming Hillary will win?

<comment><USER9> He actually has detailed plan to address the issues derived from TPP.

If you are into wonk talk you will dig this. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctvZuQMmY90](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctvZuQMmY90)</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Primer – Marketing Lessons from Google - <AUTHOR> https://www.yourprimer.com/?utm_source=team&utm_medium=social&utm_content=ky&utm_campaign=2015-9-8-launch <comment><USER2> I love this format! I went through a bunch of your lessons already. I'm eager to see how this grows.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is an interesting take on material design.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is awesome!</comment>


Amazon, reeling from regulatory hurdles, pumps $404M into its India business - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/06/amazon-india-infusion/ <comment><USER2> ...and they can't find where the money went.</comment>


Pixel City - Procedurally Generated City - <AUTHOR> http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=3237

<comment><USER2> An oldie but a goodie.

I used to follow his blog, but he ended up writing a bit to prolifically for me. His RSS subscription fell to my normal behavior of cutting those that I've fallen behind on for 30-60 days (and I refuse to read out of order). Shame, it was interesting reading, I was just strapped for time for a few months.</comment>


How to Give Constructive Feedback Your People Want to Hear - <AUTHOR> http://www.talentculture.com/workplace-culture-and-innovation/how-to-give-constructive-feedback-your-people-want-to-hear/ <comment><USER2> Advertorial</comment>


Ask HN: Smartphone recommendation for developers in 2017? - <AUTHOR> Hey guys, i need a new smartphone after my iphone 6 is falling apart. Currently i'm in the mood of trying something new after sticking to apple for several years. Is there any "secure" open-source smartphone out there which is worth a try? Looking at the blackphone right now... I need email, messengers like whatsapp, spotify and a camera would also be nice.
Other stuff is not necessary.
Thanks for help... <comment><USER2> How about a Windows Phone? I know security through obscurity is generally not encouraged, but the fact is that the majority of exploits target iOS and Android, because the WP market share is so tiny that it's just not worth trying. That counts for something.

I've got a Lumia 925 running Windows Phone 8.1, and a 640 running Windows 10 Mobile. Coming from iOS it'll take some getting used to. I'll try and be as unbiased as possible here:

PROS:

\- fast, intuitive UI

\- email, whatsapp, spotify all available

\- no slowdown over time

CONS:

\- lots of big apps missing

\- No official Google apps (you can use gmail, but only through the stock email app. Youtube is basically just a shortcut to the site)

\- Sometimes - no _often_ \- you get a 3rd rate app experience, as companies put less effort into the apps for the shrinking market. for instance, slack is a packaged web app on WP, but I'm pretty sure its a native app on both iOS and Android.

\- limited hardware choice.

\- no third party keyboards (but the stock one is, IMHO, one of the best mobile keyboards I've ever used)

\- speech recognition is inferior to Android / iOS

\- tied to MS services (OneDrive, Bing etc)

I miss trying out the latest apps. When some new todo list app is announced on HN, it's never available for me. I feel left out at times.

The flipside of this is that I don't get sucked into playing Pokemon Go, or Minecraft, or browsing Pinterest. I switch to android for a few months after my last lumia broke, and I wasted so much time with my head buried in apps I would have never used on WP. I recognised this and switched back.

</comment><comment><USER3> There is no mainstream open source phone.

If a Windows phone is a viable consideration, the Lumia 950 has a pretty good camera in keeping with its Nokia heritage. Shoots RAW as DNG, full manual controls, and the LumiaSuite image editor is pretty good.

Spotify and Whatsapp both have apps in the Windows Store (don't know how good they are). Email app is reasonably good.

In terms of security, I'd bet on Microsoft or Apple or Android in focus. In terms of research and disclosure, I would bet on Microsoft over Apple. All that is premised on the idea that I am not doing something that is illegal in the place where I live and am not a person of interest to state level actors.

Personally, I prefer the Windows interface to Android and iOS and OLED screens are nice. Generally, Windows 10 Mobile has kept improving every month or so since I bought my phone.

Probably the worst element of Windows 10 Mobile is maps. The text is not readable without my reading glasses which is kind of not practical. Battery life is mediocre.

Good luck.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Wow didnt't see that coming... to recommendations for windows phones. Thanks i will have a look at it.</comment>


VMware View Open Client in Ubuntu - <AUTHOR> http://www.linoob.com/2012/03/vmware-view-open-client-in-ubuntu/

<comment><USER2> this is a straight copy-paste of [http://blog.canonical.com/2011/12/22/vmware- view-tech-previe...](http://blog.canonical.com/2011/12/22/vmware-view-tech- preview-now-available-in-the-ubuntu-software-centre/) with no attribution.</comment>


Is Spending Time on Social Media Bad for Us? - <AUTHOR> https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/12/hard-questions-is-spending-time-on-social-media-bad-for-us/ <comment><USER2> There's a picture emerging that syncs up a lot with something I've learned in my real life interactions over the last few years.

When two people are interacting on a friendship basis, they should both be talking a roughly equal amount.

For whatever reason, I noticed that I had made a lot of acquaintances where our conversations are always the person essentially just giving me a long monologue. These "friendships" really weren't friendships at all. I was spending a lot of time with these people but they weren't really contributing much to my life, nor vice versa.

I kind of figured out that I had somehow learned to be a really good listener and not a talker in social situations, and that attracts a certain type of person: people who like to talk. Those people aren't necessarily always great friends for me. They might be, but in many cases, they might just be people looking for someone to talk to.

So now I always make sure that when I'm hanging out with someone and having a conversation, I talk about as much as they talk. Even if it's about something pointless or irrelevant, I just do it. That's how I filter the people who find me interesting or have things in common with me from people who just need someone to talk to.

I suspect a lot of people have been having this same experience that I had, only online, and the solution is probably the same.

<comment><USER3> It is not that simple. I had periods when I did not really wanted to talk and strongly prefered when the other person talked more. I liked listening them during those periods.

Conversely, when I was socially isolated long term, people listening to my flood of monologue were God send.

It all depends on what whose needs are at the moment.

<comment><USER4> It's not transactional like that. You know when you are with someone for whom "listening" is just another word that means "waiting to talk again," or when you're just a receiver for whatever they want to talk about.

<comment><USER5> Ah...transactions...that get's me thinking...someone needs to create a cryto- coin for this ("listencoin"?) which you receive by listening and then can spend to get other people to listen to you...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I feel like I just read an article by a scientist working for Philip Morris.

> They found that stressed students were twice as likely to choose Facebook to > make themselves feel better as compared with students who hadn't been put > under stress.

I need a dopamine hit. Where can I get a dopamine hit? Facebooooooook!

> we recently pledged $1 million toward research to better understand the > relationship between media technologies, youth development and well-being.

$1M? Seriously? They'll spend that much on the bandwidth to Milwaukee. Today. Just salary + benefits for these two people is probably close to $1M.

> We recently released suicide prevention support on Facebook Live and > introduced artificial intelligence to detect suicidal posts

Dead users don't click.

> Facebook has always been about bringing people together

Um, no. The foundations of Facebook are "Wow, we can get rich shaming and and objectifying people? For the cost of bandwidth? I'm in!"

> We employ social psychologists, social scientists and sociologists, and we > collaborate with top scholars to better understand well-being and work to > make Facebook a place that contributes in a positive way.

And tobacco employs microbiologists, geneticists, molecular biologists, I'll bet they even employ some physicians (pulmonologists?). Oil employs organic chemists, geologists, physicists, and scads of engineers. Who you employ tells us what _kind_ of work you do, not why you do it.

Also, that video of a white guy with a beard? That's not David Ginsberg. I can't imagine why they would pick a splash image of an old white guy with a beard in front of a wall of books though... Oh, no, I can: they're psychologists. They know how to borrow symbols to manipulate your impression of the situation.

<comment><USER7> > Dead users don't click.

I wish this could be my mission statement.

<comment><USER8> In the same vein as, "Charlie don't surf" ?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Harder questions:

\- Is it bad for us that Facebook is aggressively monopolizing the social media/interaction space by: * Abusing its data collection (including through its purchase of Onavo) to eliminate/buy out competition * Storing our social data in a closed garden with no easy way to migrate it out into a different platform or even provide an API so that other social platforms can interact with Facebook

thus limiting our options for exploring different options for online social interaction?

\- Is profit taken into account in Facebook's feed algorithm, or is it just our well-being (encouraging active social interaction, as the article describes) that's being considered?

<comment><USER10> > Is profit taken into account in Facebook's feed algorithm, or is it just our > well-being (encouraging active social interaction, as the article describes) > that's being considered?

THIS. That's exactly why this "feel good" pseudoscientific bullshit Facebook spits out from time to time sounds so disingenuous: they never take their profit - which is their main motive - into account. Pathetic.

<comment> wu-ikkyu ^Exactly what I thought when I read this bit:

>We want Facebook to be a place for meaningful interactions with your friends and family — enhancing your relationships offline, not detracting from them. After all, that's what Facebook has always been about.

<comment><USER11> It's true though. I think the reason Facebook got so big is because it connects you with your meat space friends as opposed to internet strangers!

Everything I do on FB is related to my real life friendships, activities, events, etc.

<comment><USER7> I recently spent a day deleting every "friend" (600 or so) on facebook.

FB sometimes reminds me of that scene where John Coffee gets all teary eyed about how the child-rapist-murderer used the little girl's love for eachother against eachother.

the longer I stayed friends with those people, the longer I was doing them harm by providing them engaging tidbits about my life, or liking their posts. it's not just good for me not to use FB, it's bad for my friends to use it to see me.

<comment><USER12> > _it's not just good for me not to use FB, it's bad for my friends to use it > to see me._

Very well said. You just convinced me to deactivate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > "On the other hand, actively interacting with people — especially sharing > messages, posts and comments with close friends and reminiscing about past > interactions — is linked to improvements in well-being"

Seems sort of self serving that the solution is to generate more content for facebook. The next article is going to conclude disabling ad blockers and making microtransactions will finally make you happy.

<comment><USER14> Just because the presented solution serves facebook positively doesn't mean it's bad in some way. It's good to be wary of the bias, but don't dismiss the claim because of it.

<comment><USER15> Here's more from the article

> Simply broadcasting status updates wasn't enough; people had to interact > one-on-one with others in their network.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I have to say, I'm surprised by this post and appreciate it. I think the research presented explains a lot of the issues I've had with Facebook over the last few months--when I hit a point where I didn't have anything to say, but kept visiting the site's endless scroll and grew more dissatisfied with it in the process. I even resorted to using StayFocusd to restrict the time I could sink there each day.

I miss the days of the blogosphere. When I would write long, thoughtful well- researched articles instead of throwaway one-liners and photos. I find the experiment mentioned in the article enlightening, where people reviewed their own profile pages versus those of others and the difference in "self- affirmation" this caused. I recently went back and looked over my 10 years of blogging and I got a huge self-worth boost that inspired me to start writing again. Social media gets characterized as narcissistic, but it sounds like maybe we should be paying more attention to ourselves and our accomplishments for our own sense of self-worth.

<comment><USER17> > throwaway one-liners and photos

Oddly enough, this is part of why I quit Facebook and moved to Twitter based on how I personally communicate and consume others' communication.

<comment><USER18> That seems odd. It feels to me that Twitter is vastly more oriented towards one-liners. Though different people use different mediums to different ends, and I understand that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Reminds me of the tobacco companies hiring doctors to disclose the benefits of smoking.

<comment><USER20> I can understand people's criticisms that this analysis came from Facebook itself.

I'd like to point out that one of the authors (Moira Burke) was a PhD student in our department at Carnegie Mellon University (the Human Computer Interaction Institute) and she did research of the highest caliber with a high level of rigor and integrity.

She and her doctoral adviser (Robert Kraut) also published a very good peer- reviewed paper in the Communications of the ACM entitled Internet Use and Psychological Well-Being: Effects of Activity and Audience ([https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2015/12/194633-internet- use-a...](https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2015/12/194633-internet-use-and- psychological-well-being/fulltext)) which summarizes about 20 years of research in the area, and the post from Facebook echoes a lot of the same themes. The Facebook post also mentions a lot of other very well-executed and highly regarded scientific research in understanding how social media affects us.

So I'd really like to ask folks to please differentiate between the science side of the post (which I'd say is very good) from any of the associated policy or business issues (which is fair game).

<comment><USER21> Being a good scientist at one moment does not make you immune to corruption at another.

<comment><USER4> Especially when you include being a PhD not bound to the salary of an academic career.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> As the saying goes, it is hard to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it.

Currently there are pros and cons to social media use, but I doubt we're going to find them from this source.

It is not nice to call out people as shills for a particular industry, but there's also a point of truthfulness in the conversation that is lost or avoided when you do not do so.

This is a marketing peice by facebook who's only purpose is to market for their product.

Apologies for my short response, but I feel that's the closest summary of the article, when push comes to shove.

</comment><comment><USER23> The answer to me is Yes!

The current Social Media business model is to push us to extremes to lure us into staying on their site. This is great for profits, bad for society.

The irony was that Social Media was supposed to bring us together, now we could not be further apart from each other.

<comment><USER24> I think that meaningful communication brings people together, but many people default away from meaningful communication for a number of reasons.

If you are broadcasting your communication to a group rather than having a one-on-one conversation, that communication is likely to become more impersonal. Being able to efficiently communicate with the family as a group is one of the things that makes something like Facebook seem worthwhile, but if you engage less with family members one-on-one as a result then you may water down the relationships.

If the method of communication is frustrating to you in some way, you may be less likely to fully invest yourself into the communication. You're on a phonecall and you could multitask, but you're having to hold the phone. Someone posts a message of substance that you have a lot of thoughts about, but you've always been bad at typing. You're good at typing, but you've never been great at expressing yourself in writing, etc.

With Facebook not everyone has the choice or convenience of communicating in the way that is most comfortable to them or best captures their personality, yet they may use it anyway. They might use Facebook for the efficiency of the many rather than best expressing themselves.

Sometimes there are workarounds, like recording your voice, a video or taking a photo of an event that may truly capture you. There are times where these work really well and are great communication, but many people aren't professionals at this and you get these staged or dry communications that don't come across as natural. A photo of someone standing there and smiling? A video of people that all know they're being recorded?

Just like when a performance feels off in a movie, something can feel off about all communication on Facebook.

To make matters worse, Facebook is not a private place. It is not a safe place. It is not the warmth of a home or the mistrusted ethereal privacy of a phonecall. Google, Facebook and others have repeatedly been in the news and featured in private conversations between people about how safe their information is online. Many people filter themselves online when it's attached to their identity and we are talking about identified relationships rather than anonymous users here.

Cell phones are terrible communication devices that are so convenient that it's respectful of people's time to have worse communication with them by using it. Voice quality we should be ashamed of in 2017 and text messaging where characters take so long to input that messages with real substance are rare is a sad reality.

These services and devices are better in addition to personal contact rather than as a replacement, but many people are slowly tricked into feeling that going through the effort of meeting in person is now very inefficient. There's that nagging idea in the back of the mind that, well if you're going to go through that trouble you could just Skype or Facetime, but of course you don't for some reason you find hard to define.

An exception is parties or gatherings. That feels efficient, because enough people will be present that you would feel left out or it would be disrespectful not to go due to some special occasion. Unfortunately, it can be harder to have quality one-on-one time at parties. Maybe you want to say things to someone, but you don't want it to be overheard. Maybe the party is too loud, so it's not a good environment for a good conversation.

When you watch a movie with someone, you might have seen them pull out their tablet or their phone and suddenly the movie feels less meaningful. Part of the idea of watching that movie with them, was that it was an experience you were sharing. Every second was something you had in common, but now it is fractured. Part of you is glad, that if they aren't enjoying the movie then they have a quiet alternative. Another part of you is annoyed that surely they know it's rude or distracting, but they did it anyway.

Facebook seems like that, to me. A fractured experience that you accept for convenience or politeness, but also a party where one-on-one interactions just seem hindered.

Every time I see a company anywhere integrate Facebook into their product or service, I feel like it is rude. Whether it is Blizzard's Battle.net client curiously adding Facebook streaming or a simple like button on a website, these integrations aren't trying to enrich my life. It's about business and it's about efficiency. This infection is not Facebook's fault. It's not the fault of cell phones. It's a natural evolution of technology that has unfortunate consequences.

Just as corporations try to optimize for their bottom line and often lose part of their magic along the way, we will naturally optimize our own time for the most impact if provided the easy choice. Cell phones and social networks have given us tools to do just that which has had tremendous benefits, but many people forget that some magic was lost along the way too.

I'm not saying Facebook is all bad and it might be the only option for some people, so there's something to be said for that. It also helps a lot of people meet or coordinate with eachother that might not otherwise. I just don't like that it has become this social catch-all that can be also very effective at unintentionally suppressing other more valuable forms of communication.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > The good: On the other hand, actively interacting with people — especially > sharing messages, posts and comments with close friends and reminiscing > about past interactions — is linked to improvements in well-being. This > ability to connect with relatives, classmates, and colleagues is what drew > many of us to Facebook in the first place, and it's no surprise that staying > in touch with these friends and loved ones brings us joy and strengthens our > sense of community.

SERIOUSLY? Such a surprise that engagement, which incidentally is what's most valuable for Facebook's data collection and monetization efforts, is good for you! How are these people hoping to be taken seriously on a scientific level?

This is a level of corporate bullshit and denial I've hardly seen before. Wow.

<comment><USER25> Dismissing it simply because it is Facebook isn't really helpful. The article linked to several independent studies to back up their claims.

It also doesn't just say engagement is the answer, people clicking on clickbait are engaged but the article calls that out as bad engagement despite the fact that clickbait is incredibly profitable for Facebook.

The interesting part of the article is that it actually calls out some of the biggest problems with how people interact with Facebook. It shouldn't all be taken at face value but it is an interesting well documented article.

<comment><USER10> Spending precious time reading corporate propaganda disguised as objective scientific evaluation is also not helping.

The truth is that Facebook has exploited something in our human psychology that was never available before. It fucks up with our heads in a way we can't even recognize because we don't really have "bad mental state" receptors wired in.

I want to be lenient on Zuckerberg and his fellows: they created a Leviathan that started making more money they could ever imagine. Now they're captive in a system that for no reason whatsoever would let them scale back such monstrosity. It's not on them anymore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is dumb.

Facebook should grant $10M to a neutral third party - a research facility - and let them conduct an unbiased study on the effect of social media. Then report the results no matter what.

It will never happen, for two reasons.

1) Facebook should well know that social media is bad for us (how much bad, I'm not sure), and therefore would never fund anything like this.

2) Even if an anonymous Bitcoin millionaire funds the research, it's hard to find a research institute / entity / team that would gladly take some money, only to know that any chance of receiving future grants from FB/Google/Microsoft/Amazon just went to zero.

I think these two FB researchers are well intentioned. But I would never trust anything like this.

<comment><USER27> Good and evil is always relative to ones position.

This is a PR response to former FB employees posting/blogging in recent weeks that FB is bad and they wished they had not done what they did.[1] This is strictly a counter PR move FB had to make.

[1] [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chamath-palihapitiya-former- fac...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chamath-palihapitiya-former-facebook- executive-social-media-ripping-apart-society/)

<comment><USER28> A minimization of the issue through relativism, lack of objectivity (perpetrated through the omission of the most relevant details) is certainly what Facebook hopes.

> This is a PR response [...]

There comes a time when there is a need for change, words only serve as a mean to manufacture consent.

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

A fallacious consensus is not what the community needs, nor is in Facebook long term interest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Oh passively reading facebook is not good for you but posting and adding more data to your ecosystem and furthering your algorithms is? You dont say? Oh and buying things from targeted ads is good for you too? Wow i didnt even know...thank you facebook, you clearly have my back.

Seriously how gullible do they think we are?

</comment><comment><USER30> My understanding of the article:

When people use Facebook in ways that reproduce interactions through technology that existed before Facebook, the results are positive (e.g. texts between close friends, IMs, emails, etc). When people use the core features that social media introduced, the results are negative (e.g. status updates to your 1000+ "friends", "likes", etc).

Is this an accurate summary of the findings discussed in the article?

</comment><comment><USER31> This isn't a trick question. Staring at a screen consuming mindless content...whether its from entertainment companies or your friends...is bad. Bad compared to exercising, studying, taking a walk, being out with friends.

Is it worse than being stuck on the couch watching TV? I'm sure you can argue both ways, but I would say its about the same.

<comment><USER32> I feel that I take tv less personally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Oh the irony of this thread.... Here is a social media site (Hackers News) that prides itself in being different because its comments are much more informed and knowledgeable, criticizing the leading social media site (Facebook) for putting out an informed and knowledgeable self reflection on its own value with a bunch of opinionated comments without any supportive evidence.

So the better question for this crowd should be: is Hacker News any better than Facebook?

<comment><USER34> They're not even comparable beyond having a comment system. As stated by others, Hacker News doesn't have a team of psychologists working to addict you to its content so they can then gradually replace that content with ads.

Hacker News doesn't have corporate tentacles in mass marketing, VR, photo blogging, viral videos, breaking news, dining(facebook.com/orderfood), self- driving cars, etc.

Hacker News doesn't punish you for using a pseudonym.

Hacker News doesn't sort content into a "personalized" feed based on how popular it predicts the content will be.

Hacker News doesn't cheapen human interaction by reminding you to say "Happy Birthday" to people you hardly know.

Hacker News doesn't host everyone's entire life stories, and thereby doesn't take away reasons to just talk to others. In other words, it doesn't tell you more than you need to know about other people.

Not to be a sycophant, but yes, we are better than what most people think of as social media(Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) That isn't because we pride ourselves in being smarter, which I'm not claiming.

<comment><USER35> > As stated by others, Hacker News doesn't have a team of psychologists > working to addict you to its content so they can then gradually replace that > content with ads.

I dunno, this feels like more of a difference in degree than in kind. HN does have secret content-ranking algorithms (that are clearly optimised for engagement in some capacity - don't tell me it's not addictive!) and opaque moderation. Periodically, hiring "ads" for Ycombinator-funded companies appear mixed in - indeed, in a sense the entire site is an advertisement for Ycombinator.

And it _does_ punish you for using a pseudonym, after a fashion - new accounts are flagged green, and comments are ranked not just by vote but by the _user 's accumulated karma_. So there is an incentive to have just one "main account", which naturally compromises anonymity in the long run, effectively by "hosting their life stories" (you can extract a lot, I imagine, from years of HN postings). Nor can you delete content, unlike Facebook I might add, and also unlike Facebook it's publically hosted forever. In real terms, HN is more hostile to user privacy - it's just more transparent about it.

<comment><USER36> Anonymity and pseudonymity, while similar, are not the same. The mods have been clear that one goal of HN is community, which is really only possible when people have some identity, even a pseudonymous one, to maintain continuity. So, while you're right that having a single, pseudonymous account compromises anonymity, that anonymity isn't a goal.

Also, without knowing the voting on comments, how can you confirm that comment ranking is based on a member's accumulated karma? From my observations, comments are primarily ranked by their votes and when they were made. One might see that higher karma members have more comments that are higher ranked (though I'd like to have numbers to back that up), but a reasonable explanation (also unprovable without some crunching) is that (a) higher karma members contribute better comments on average, (b) are more visible and more popular, and/or (c) comment more on average. All three of these would contribute to seeing higher karma members' comments higher ranked: there are more of them so you're more likely to see them, and they'll on average get more votes due to quality and/or popularity, so they'll be higher ranked.

I'd like you to expand on what you mean by "[content-ranking algorithms] clearly optimized for engagement in some capacity." Again, what do you see that isn't explained by member votes, flags, and/or moderator action (as described in the FAQ)? "Algorithm" implies there's some automated process going on. I don't see behavior that necessitates such an algorithm.

That said, there _is_ an algorithm that affects ranking: the overheated discussion detector. That pushes _down_ ranking. One could argue that this is an example where they're penalizing engagement, rather than optimizing for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Signed out from facebook a few days ago. Did not even have a single temptation to sign back in. Amazing what simply signing out can achieve. So far, it feels like facebook was a massive waste of time.

The question isn't "if spending time is good or bad". The question is "is it needed for one or not". You know, like that choc bar one just grabs at the till right before paying for shopping or paying for the gasoline. I never had any satisfaction from it to begin with, mindless content consumption, sometimes leading to spending hours on youtube sucked in by someone posting something "interesting".

[http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/5898a9203149a12d008...](http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/5898a9203149a12d008b5671-1200/cb04noeweaem7d.jpg) Thanks, but no.

Another aspect is, the views presented by the people on my timeline most often simply aggravated me. Once I unfollowed those people, all that was left was just brands and channels serving content I can live without.

</comment><comment><USER38> Timing of this makes me wonder if someone there read that other thread with the "Facebook Free February" idea people were kicking around. No doubt there are plenty of FBers here and if that idea gained enough traction it could do some nontrivial damage to their bottom line. Granted - probably had to be in the works ahead of time.

<comment><USER39> Interesting indeed that they published this. Someone spent quite a bit of time making this; animated videos, interviews and it looks like multiple departments involved (research, marketing). Does seem like the current level anti-Facebook discussion in the press is worrying them enough to make this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> > That's why we recently pledged $1 million toward research to better > understand the relationship between media technologies, youth development > and well-being.

Funny that they do their research _after_ they launched Messenger Kids. I would expect someone with good intentions to have swapped the order on that one.

</comment><comment><USER41> "Social media: not that bad!" -Facebook

</comment><comment><USER42> Now I'll get dietary recommendations from Kraft and Coca Cola.

</comment><comment><USER43> I appreciate that they're making an effort at looking into it. However, my newsfeed will still remain blocked/removed until I have more control over what I can see. The snooze functionality is a step in the right direction.

<comment><USER19> How are you blocking the news feed?

<comment><USER44> There are browser add-ons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> This article reminds me of the scientific articles on the health benefits of smoking. Big tobacco had to pay to place the articles where they were guaranteed to get lots of eyeballs, though.

</comment><comment><USER46> This is damage control masquerading as concern over the comments Chamath Palihapitiya made about how facebook is ruining society.

Anyone who has a significant other or kids addicted to facebook knows it monopolizes attention and affects relationships negatively.

</comment><comment><USER47> >"We're working to make Facebook more about social interaction and less about spending time."

Except its not actually a "social interaction", its a "social media interaction." FB seems to willfully conflate the two.

This was an interesting study that showed that people do in fact differentiate between a "social interaction" and a "social media interaction"

[https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/21340/Ha...](https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/21340/Hall_2016_NewMedia.pdf)

<comment><USER28> The paper you're quoting seems very insightful, even if I do not consider it an authoritative source, it seemed balanced and sensible.

For "TL;DR" folks, you can scroll at page 24

> Without a more careful theoretical foundation explaining why social media > affects users, research risks comparing behaviors that are simply not > equivalent. Passively browsing information on Facebook is simply not > comparable to having a conversation, theoretically or from the perspective > of users themselves.

People in [[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14213868](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14213868)] (Pavel Durov Has Unfriended Everyone) dismissed Durov's action as a marketing move (it is, but NOT ONLY).

After reading the piece I immediately thought about his words

> Everyone a person needs has long been on messengers. It's pointless and > time-consuming to maintain increasingly obsolete friend lists on public > networks. Reading other people's news is brain clutter. To clear out room > for the new, one shouldn't fear getting rid of old baggage.

The "new FB" is as unsuitable to some kind of people as the "old one".

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Facebook is going to tell us if Facebook is bad for us?

Neat, next we should ask Comcast if Net Neutrality is good for us. Oh wait...

</comment><comment><USER49> "Is Facebook Bad?" By Facebook

</comment><comment><USER50> The concept of a news feed is the worst. I stopped using instagram when they switched their algorithim from most recent to AI-curated (or whatever it is). I unfollowed everything on Facebook so my news feed is empty. I still use FB groups, Hacker News, and Subreddits as they seem to have replaced forums for many of my interests. I still use Snapchat to communicate with close friends.

</comment><comment><USER51> Obviously someone saying "This thing I profit from you doing is not bad!" is not credible, but the fact that they even had to say this is progress. I think the takeaway here is to hold people/companies accountable and they have to start paying attention to what they're doing. Good stuff.

</comment><comment><USER52> The cognitive dissonance over at Facebook must be immense. The idea that the solution is to post more things on Facebook is absurd, considering that it's how they snare users.

I know many people who interact with other users non-stop -- they are addicted, and it's totally a waste of their time.

</comment><comment><USER53> The fundamental question regarding the article is: Can these scientists afford to be honest? Can you do research that shows spending time on FB is bad for people and be allowed to publish this information?

On a superficial level, they seem to be honest. They start with the bad news, admitting that using FB the way many (most?) do makes them feel bad. But they counteract it immediately saying if you interact with others, you'll feel more happy.

You can overlook one critical difference. What FB makes you feel and whether FB is good for you are two different issues that may or may not be related. You may feel negative emotions when going to a doctor but it's still good for you. You can engage in endless chat online, but is it good for you? It's much harder to answer.

</comment><comment><USER54> Something this decade told me. Everything has limits, even casual "tech" like social networking and internet. To each his own but remember to be curious about subtle changes.

</comment><comment><USER55> Leave it to some industry-paid "scientists" to present an industry-favoring article. So glad to know the FB-induced dopamine addiction I weaned myself off of was all my fault.

</comment><comment><USER56> Unequivocally the answer is yes

</comment><comment><USER57> I'm sure this Facebook propaganda will give us an unbiased and honest point of view on this!

> "In this post, we want to give you some insights into how the research team > at Facebook works with our product teams to incorporate well-being > principles"

This must be why they perform unconsented-to psychological studies to see if they can make hundreds of thousands of users more depressed.

</comment><comment><USER58> I wonder if as long as most of a team has distractions like facebook and Hacker News turned up full blast, having Slack distract them is probably actually a good thing, if their jobs are more useful than social media and news. Sucks for the few in the team who have their social media and news habits under control, though.

</comment><comment><USER59> Why isn't there AI/ML yet that can determine what kind of posts make me sad? I would have expected a "dislike" button by now that doesn't necessarily publish one's dislike, but instead trains the social media software what (not) to show.

<comment><USER60> Facebook has 'Hide Post: show fewer posts like this' in the menu associated with each post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Facebook is a technology built to facilitate social interaction. When problems arise, Facebook naturally finds technological solutions to solve these problems. Perhaps the underlying cause is the technology. We did manage for many many many years without it.

</comment><comment><USER62> Natural social interaction means transmitting specific information that is relevant to all parties. You have limited time to interact, therefore you condense.

Social media has no such regulation, there is no longer a filter.

We won't need facial muscles or body language anymore.

How awesome.

</comment><comment><USER63> What a huge joke.

</comment><comment><USER64> "Is Spending Time on Social Media Bad for Us?" \- YES. Dot.

</comment><comment><USER65> Is spending time on social media reading about social media being bad for you, bad for you?

</comment><comment><USER66> They're bad even for those who refuse to use them, like when the neighbor rings you at 7:30 in the morning because his "facebook stopped working" and you got to bed at 3:00 after fighting with a customer windows PC.

</comment><comment><USER67> It's unfortunate that I'm clearly biased when I read the title and source, and William Morris immediately comes to mind. I sincerely wish them well with this and I'll hold-off making rash, ill-considered and abrupt judgements.

</comment><comment><USER68> Huh, the rare case where Betteridge's Law of Headlines doesn't apply.

The focus on tiny incremental changes is not surprising from Facebook. Great, you made a tool for people to avoid their ex's, but that doesn't fix the core conceit of your service.

<comment><USER69> Pr statement vs reporting. News needs the clickbait headline. An official corporate statement can be fully aligned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> Unrelated: the font chosen for the article body is way too thin to read comfortably. I've noticed this trend over the past few years and it makes for appalling UX.

</comment><comment><USER71> No.

</comment><comment><USER72> Yes.

</comment><comment><USER73> As long as you realize: " _Social media isn 't socializing._"

\--Sebastian Junger (Anthropologist, journalist, documentary filmmaker)

Joe Rogan's podcast with him:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-ZieLlKXYs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-ZieLlKXYs)

<comment><USER74> A _deepity_ is "a proposition that seems both important and true—and profound—but that achieves this effect by being ambiguous."

[http://www.openculture.com/2013/05/philosopher_daniel_dennet...](http://www.openculture.com/2013/05/philosopher_daniel_dennett_presents_seven_tools_for_critical_thinking.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> Is Smoking Bad for Us? (marlboro.com)

</comment><comment> basic-gongfu I find it encouraging that they are getting desperate enough to produce crap like this.

Farewell Zucker, make sure you don't stumble over Myspace on your way out.

<comment><USER76> Please don't post like this to HN. You may not owe better to "Zucker" but it damages the container here, which we all need to be stronger not weaker.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html)

<comment> basic-gongfu Isn't that his name?

Who are you anyways? The saint of corporate assholes? Any time anyone says anything less than positive about anyone with a pile of money, you're always first in line to defend them and shoot down the discussion.

Good luck dealing with that karma moving forward...</comment></comment></comment>


Google should just pay students to learn at coding bootcamps - <AUTHOR> http://www.westonludeke.com/2017/10/13/google-should-just-pay-students-to-learn-at-coding-bootcamps/ <comment><USER2> Why would Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft, all of whom can command the best programming talent in the world, want to invest in a coding bootcamp? Their interests would be better served by sponsoring Masters and Doctoral candidates who've already demonstrated exceptional coding abilities during their internships and show the ability to do oh so much more if only they could afford to go to graduate school. You would then commit to your sponsor for 3-5 years afterward. THAT would be a big boon to the "Big Five" development shops. And because you're providing the best of the best with the opportunity to excel and create amazing tools and technologies, it'll help the industry as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here: That's an even better idea! Good idea!</comment></comment>


Should I use React.createClass, ES6 Classes or stateless functional components? - <AUTHOR> http://jamesknelson.com/should-i-use-react-createclass-es6-classes-or-stateless-functional-components/ <comment><USER2> React.createClass if you want mixins, automatic binding of "this.handleWhatever" methods, and Hot Module Replacement.

ES6 Classes if neither of these are a big deal to you, but you prefer classes and still want HMR.

Functional components of you want terse, testable, potentially vdom-agnostic UI components despite losing HMR capabilities (as of yet).

<comment><USER3> Is the issue with functional components that they blow away the state of any stateful components they contain with HMR?

If you install and run this Gist mini-project, you still get the HMR experience with the functional component:

[https://gist.github.com/insin/02103c862ed3622f8b8b#file- read...](https://gist.github.com/insin/02103c862ed3622f8b8b#file-readme-md)</comment></comment>