Windows 8 proving less popular than Vista - <AUTHOR> http://www.kitguru.net/software/operating-systems/benjamin/windows-8-proving-less-popular-than-vista/ <comment><USER4> My personal favorite Windows 8 feature - plug in a mouse, but not a keyboard. Go to a text field. Windows 8 figures that if you have a mouse you "must" have a keyboard even though it can plainly see you don't. So the on-screen keyboard doesn't come up. Even if you load it in the desktop pane, it won't be available in other panes (like the Store).

The solution is to unplug the mouse, and then the keyboard shows up. The level of "broken" this represents in not thoroughly thinking through the change in their UI probably explains the level of resistance to the product. I still run it on all my machines because most of what I do I can do inside the Desktop pane (even on my Win 8 tablet). I can only imagine how painful life would be to an RT user...

<comment><USER5> RT user checking in - as long as remote desktop works i'm good (though i'm connecting to a win 8 pc).

Why did i buy a 499$ remote desktop machine? Cause i don't need to carry computing power with me, and the snap in keyboard + usb port (charge my phone/plug in a mouse) + expandable memory is exactly what i need.

<comment><USER6> You can do EXACTLY same thing with an Asus Transformer, which is cheaper, and works just as well. It even supports multitouch gestures when connected remotely to your Win8 PC.

<comment><USER7> Really, the ASUS with Android runs RDP as well as Win8? I find that hard to believe.

<comment><USER8> Why wouldn't it? About a 2 dozen RDP clients exists for both Android and iOS.

<comment><USER5> most require a desktop client to be installed on the other machine - <USER2> instances where you have only user permissions on the other machine (work) this becomes troublesome.

<comment><USER8> I'm not talking about software that needs a server (like VNC); I'm literally talking about clients that talk the Microsoft RDP protocol. There are plenty to choose from for either platforms

Also if your work using something like Citrix; clients exist for both platforms for that as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Microsoft made a mistake trying to force a made-for-touch interface on PC users, and in the end the strategy is not that different than forcing a PC interface on a touch device. It may actually be worse, because at least in that case you would be familiar with the interface, so at least it would have that advantage.

I think this video explains most of the problems with Windows 8:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTYet-qf1jo>

<comment><USER10> Microsoft likely anticipated weaker demand for Win8 which is why they are focusing their promotions on the consumer market at this point. Once they work out the issues they will repackage a new version for enterprises running Win7.

Microsoft knows that the consumer desktop market is dwindling and that competing with Apple and Samsung in the consumer mobile space isn't viable at this point. However, the enterprise desktop market isn't going anywhere at this point and leveraging their enterprise desktop dominance as a way into mobile enterprise devices is their best option. IT managers will prefer an end-to-end Win9 solution for all desktops and mobile devices over managing disparate architectures.

<comment><USER11> I know my IT guy would rather replace our BlackBerries with something designed to work well with Outlook.

Using Good on the iPhone just does not cut it.

<comment><USER12> what exactly is there not working well with Outlook in the regular Mail client on the iPhone?

<comment><USER11> For security reasons, we can not access our email without a VPN connection.

<comment><USER12> you can set traffic to go through VPN on your iPhone

<comment><USER11> I invite you to explain that to my IT office. They seldom listen to good ideas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think the problem that exist is that computers have reached the level of being good enough to not replace or upgrade. If you had a PC with a Pentium 4 and 256 or 512 MB of RAM you would be in serious pain trying to run a modern web browser or do much of anything, but a Core2Duo with 4GB of RAM is more than enough for 90% of people out there. There is no longer a compelling reason to upgrade when your computer is no longer a major pain point and is good enough, compounded with the fact that the world economy is in the trash can and people are holding on to more dollars[1].

[1][http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-01/business/35501...](http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-01/business/35501635_1_stock- market-savings-rate-interest-rates)

<comment><USER14> Windows 7, released in 2009, was a success compared to Vista, and our computers are not that much different inside from what they were then.

<comment><USER13> Windows Vista is a special case, it took a lot of flack that Windows 7 would have taken if Vista had not came before it.

Windows Vista broke compatibility(for the better of security) by making it so applications could only write to the User lever directories and would need elevated permissions to make system wide changes, Windows Vista also brought the first major x64 push from Microsoft, which left people with many peripherals that wouldn't work because there weren't 64 bit drivers available. In the time from Vista to 7 applications where updated to follow proper programming guidelines and 64 bit drivers where released, Vista in essence took the blow so Windows 7 could be a success.

In my opinion Windows Vista also has some serious performance issues, for example its caching was way too aggressive and would eat up all available RAM and leave little to none for running programs(I got out of memory errors in Photoshop while Vista had 700+MB of RAM "cached").

<comment><USER15> True, I never quite understood why people seem to hate Vista but love 7.

I have a laptop with Vista (and a recent SP) and 7 on my desktop. Besides a few UI differences I find it hard to tell them apart at all.

Most of the changes between XP and Vista that I disliked on Vista seem to have persisted unchanged in 7. I find network configuration much more confusing on Vista and 7 than on XP for example.

Perhaps earlier versions of Vista did have issues with memory management but as far as I can tell they have been improved by recent service packs.

<comment><USER16> Vista nearly ground several of our offices to a halt when we began a rollout. It was a complete disaster. Windows 7 just works. Vista didn't.

<comment><USER15> What specifically was the problems?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> MS should seriously consider releasing a patch that makes Win8 look like Win7 on desktops (shouldn't be very hard). Win8 has a fair number of improvements under the hood.

My guess is that someone in the Windows org has this working.

(I won't get into the quality of the Win8 UI, since I have not used it yet. Maybe it's the bee's knees and I'm just believing all the anti-hype).

<comment><USER18> > shouldn't be very hard

Somebody already published one in SourceForge. I realy doubt MS can't do that.

But then, MS's strategy is to risk their PC dominance to make inroads at portables. Such a patch would antagonize their (failing) marketing efforts.

<comment><USER19> <http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/>

And another, proprietary option: <http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Microsoft have two main customers: OEMs that install Windows on their laptops and desktops, and enterprise who use the easy collaboration between Office and Windows Server based products to administer their businesses.

They are actively moving against one of their main customers (OEMs) by trying to directly compete with them on hardware. This is a business 101 blunder that comes from not understand what you are selling and why you are selling it.

Microsoft is losing the second main customer through deprecation of old assets (VB6 compatibility issues, etc), and by drastically changing their product so that expensive training and orientation is needed to transition users. In addition, the new OS does not even improve workflow for the main Windows user: an office drone updating Excel worksheets and using Outlook email. Microsoft is also losing their handle on the developer mindset as larger numbers of developers transition to Web/iOS/Android platforms for bread-and-butter applications.

This is a now classic case of a business losing track of their target market, and they will suffer deeply if they don't make rapid and enormous culture and product changes within the next 2-3 years.

<comment><USER21> Seems they're making Kodak's mistake: thinking bulk-buying resellers are the customers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I like how people comment on the UI of Win 8 when they clearly have not used it.

The new Modern(ex Metro) UI is a big Start menu(now called start screen). You go to it only when you login to your machine after restart, after a login from sleep/hibernate/lock if you have left it on the desktop , it stays there. Everything else is like or better than Win 7.

Also you only go to the start screen when you need to find or start an app. Yes , for some users it would suck to see the Start Screen after booting, would be nice if there was option to select which screen to show after boot.

Also , the Start Screen is very good tool for organizing Apps. You can create columns of apps (not automatically though) by type , use case or whatever order your heart desires. And i find the start screen better replacement of the desktop for placing my icons ( i dislike cluttered desktops as i see it more often than the Start Screen)

<comment><USER23> If you close/open a lot of apps due to memory constraints then you have to leave the desktop a lot and it's jarring. The start screen makes it slower to launch apps when you have a lot of apps you frequently used due to scrolling. I just want a fast way to launch apps.

<comment><USER22> You are right, that can be painful. One solution to this might be to just pin your most frequent apps to the taskbar instead? (browsers/windows explorer/photoshop/whatever you use ) :) p.s. you can move around the pinned icons on the start screen, move the most frequent more to the left so you don't have to scroll :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The problem I have with that chart and the article - Vista was unpopular and didn't deliver on a lot of it was supposed to. So, people stayed on XP. When Win7 came out, it was a solid rev from both XP and Vista. Thus, the strong uptake in upgrading.

With Win8 - you have an install base that is already fairly content with Win7, a new interface that gets mixed reviews in the trade press -- yet people who use it find things they both like and dislike, and as others have stated computers have been "good enough" for awhile.

I'm not sure if/how Win8 will play out, but corporate upgrade cycles and OEMs will play heavily into that. That said, a number of formerly PC only corporate environments are becoming more Apple friendly, which will also have an impact.

<comment><USER25> Also Vista was long overdue by the time it came out and had quite a few features beyond XP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm having a worse experience with Windows 8, than I had with Windows 7. My printer didn't work until a few days ago, when it started printing in the middle of the night - discreet driver update? - and my installation was suddenly deactivated, so now I get the most annoying activation prompt (which fails) constantly. _Especially_ since it directs me to the tablet OS to do so.

It's also absurd, that it takes something like five seconds for a clicked link in MetroTwit to open in my desktop browser.

</comment><comment><USER27> I run window 8 and its a solid upgrade. It feels faster and has incremental updates to various parts of the OS. (Native mounting of ISOs was a nice surprise)

Only down side? The lack of start menu. But since that can be easily fixed with Start8 (Google it), then there is no reason to not upgrade.

If you run windows 7, then stop wasting time and upgrade to 8.

<comment><USER28> I have Windows 7 on my desktop (for gaming, needless to say) and it works fine - so I don't see why I should spend £25 on it (that's six pints of beer - <USER3> 12 if I want a physical disc) for a nebulous vague claim of "it feels faster" and native ISO mounting that I'll never use (native ISO _ripping_ would be mildly helpful, but it's still not that big a pain point). And no, I don't want to arse about googling for 3rd-party apps to restore functionality that worked fine in the old version.

My guess is this kind of sentiment explains the slow sales - Windows 7 is good enough for almost everyone, and Microsoft don't have a great brand in this area given Vista (and ME), and many underwhelming Office updates.

<comment><USER29> The security improvements alone are easily worth the money in my opinion.

<comment><USER6> What kind of security improvements?

<comment><USER29> This slide deck (PDF) goes into far more detail than I could: [https://media.blackhat.com/bh- us-12/Briefings/M_Miller/BH_US...](https://media.blackhat.com/bh- us-12/Briefings/M_Miller/BH_US_12_Miller_Exploit_Mitigation_Slides.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Bought a Samsung 840 Pro SSD drive just after xmas. I decided that given I was going to do a fresh install of Windows, it may as well be Windows 8. Bought upgrade for $39, downloaded iso, created a USB boot disk...

Thought I would format the drive before install, so booted up BartPE to format/partition the SSD (single primary 100%, 1024 block size), then rebooted to install Windows 8. Wouldn't activate due to it apparently not being an upgrade on an existing installation (woops!). Turns out I just needed to create a [N]:\Windows folder on one of the other disk drives before I installed. Anyways, had to reinstall it again..

At first I suffered revulsion, I mean, 17 years of muscle memory moving mouse to start button does not die easily. I was almost tempted to wipe it and re- install Windows 7.

As I have started modifying/customising the o/s, I'm beginning to like it more. I vaguely remember hating Windows 7 when I first upgraded from XP (I never bought vista)

Ctrl+Esc serves as a nice way to swap between metro/classic. It just sucks that there was less integration between Metro and desktop apps - they could have done something to make it more seamless surely?

Even though Windows 8 has only been out a couples of months, there are a fair few patches necessary

<comment><USER31> "Ctrl+Esc serves as a nice way to swap between metro/classic"

The Windows key does that as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I honestly don't understand much of the fuss regarding the removal of the start menu (replaced by the start screen). For one, I spend 99% of my time on the desktop (which is an app in the metro interface). This comes as no surprise, considering that people didn't spend much time on the start menu. Second, the start screen / metro is easier to use than the start menu. If an app isn't pinned to the dock, I press the windows key and start typing the name of the application. Then I press enter. The application starts.

The Start screen / metro stays out of the way. There are improvements that can be made, sure, but it's not horrible. As a whole, Windows 8 provides better performance. Plus the upgrade was cheap ($15 for me).

<comment><USER33> I agree, having set up my first couple of systems for stand alone users and a Server 2012 with Remote Desktop Services for a group of users.

As long as a keyboard is handy with the Windows Start key, no worries. Start Menu? Windows Start. Charms sidebar? Windows C. All Programs menu? Windows Z. Logout? Windows, click the login name, Log Out.

The zones for the mouse/touch for the Start Menu and Charms sidebar a too sensitive, so I just show folks the Start key on the keyboard.

The hardest part now is removing all of the cruft systems integrators are shoving into the Start Menu, especially if they are live-feed updated content - Just like remoting into a system that has yahoo.com or msn.com as the home page: I have to wait awhile before the UI is responsive again to a remote user. Can't have those flash-based ads slack in performance, can we?

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Yes this is obviously True at least for us. We've got one windows 8 user out of 22,000 people and its one of our QA team on a surface.

Our app is productivity based and I don't think windows 8 is attractive to this segment.

</comment><comment><USER35> Does anyone else find it problematic that the data in the graph only reflects Windows 8 usage until December 22nd? It could completely be missing out on the post Christmas activations.

<comment><USER36> Yes, it's absolutely silly. Here's a graph where X is always greater than Y, except for one data point which hasn't been fully measured.

Therefore, Y > X? What the fuck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Isn't part of the problem that the hardware market hasn't yet put out a good selection of touchscreen devices (tablets, laptops, monitors) to take advantage of Windows 8's core upgrades/features yet?

I was in Fry's Electronics last week, went to the laptop section, and couldn't find any touchscreen Windows devices in their sea of laptops they had on display. I had to ask a salesman, and he had to point out to me the one they had on display.

I imagine that once touchscreen devices and monitors become the standard, people will be more inclined to go with Windows 8, so I haven't written off its success yet.

Or, I guess the pessimistic flip-side to that is that the market has spoken, and there isn't a strong demand for such devices running Windows 8?

<comment><USER38> Why does my PC need a touch screen? I've never been using a desktop or laptop computer and thought "If only this had a touch screen, my task would be so much easier."

For that matter, same question with s/a touch screen/Windows 8/g. Seriously, I haven't seen any commercial that tells me what Windows 8 will actually do for me. Live tiles and "doodle passwords" are nifty, but I'm not going to drop several hundred dollars for these.

<comment><USER39> I've had a touch-screen laptop with Windows 8 for a couple of months now, and I wish all my PCs had touch screens. Not that I'd use it for every interaction, but sometimes it's just so much easier to swipe at the screen than to use the mouse or the keyboard.

<comment><USER40> I can't reach the monitor for my desktop computer without leaning forward. I think a desktop with touch would be an ergonomic disaster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Windows 8 is and I supposed designed for tablets but not specifically for tablets which is what I think is wrong, I'm sure everyone thinks that.

I'm curious to see how many people got tablets over the holidays and if Windows 8 use increases some.

Windows 8 is so different than the previous versions of Windows it's quite obvious people are out of their comfort zone. But I think it's good to see some attempts at change and this change is not "just because" it's a valid attempt at spurring sales because of the tablet craze.

I like Windows 8 but I am comfortable with computer and even I find it quite a leap there's no way my elderly relatives could figure it out, they have trouble even with Windows 7/Vista/XP.

<comment><USER42> _I find it quite a leap there's no way my elderly relatives could figure it out, they have trouble even with Windows 7/Vista/XP._

Metro is actually pretty simple on a touch device. I've seen iOS users figuring out the interface in no time. I think Microsoft's real problem is that for most people tablets are a different device category than laptops or desktops, so the choice for Windows is not automatic. Evenmore, most people in the market probably played with friends' or family's iPads and are more likely to choose an iPad, or perhaps an Android device if they have an Android phone.

<comment><USER41> Any relative of mine uses old hardware most of the time it's something I have given away, I doubt anyone has any hardware newer than 2008, most of it is ten years old.

Only recently my Aunt went from dial-up AOL to fiber Internet but her CRT monitor is so fuzzy I can barely read it. She uses Word Perfect and barely uses the 20GB hard drive she has.

She's the most tech knowledgeable of my relatives too she worked in a government office for decades but even Win 7 would be confusing.

But she said may soon splurge and buy a new PC but by that time it will all be Win8 so I am dreading that day, I read you can downgrade Win8 to be like Win7 I may look into that more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> A lot of organizations completed upgrading to win 7 (mostly from XP but some from Vista) two or three years ago. From a business perspective, i don't see why they would want to upgrade now given that win 7 does what they want and is pretty stable/efficient. This also applies to regular people who get their job done on win 7 and don't want to go through the hassle of upgrading. You could argue, that win 8 is not sexy enough that it would push people to upgrade, but I would say it's a timing issue combined with how win 7 is still going solid, so I won't necessary blame Windows 8 for the low numbers.

</comment><comment><USER23> Win8 main problem is there's no killer must have app(s) that decimates similar apps on other platforms. The Metro Mail app is almost a complete failure, and the store is not user friendly for discovery of apps. If they can't get their first tier apps to show what Win8 Metro can do, then what hope do third party apps have?

And it seems like Win9 is still sticking with this failed UI paradigm: [http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-9-Won-t-Bring-Back- th...](http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-9-Won-t-Bring-Back-the-Start- Button-to-Feature-an-Upgraded-Start-Screen-317072.shtml)

</comment><comment><USER25> Win8 actually does have some great functionality in WinRT and the new application security model which has been sorely needed.

The problem is that these are all tied to the Metro interface. Once Microsoft supports these in the classic desktop and stops pushing users into Metro then it'll be a decent OS again.

<comment><USER33> The latest trick is to use Task Scheduler to run Explorer.exe upon Login. This bypasses the Metro screen as the starting point, going straight to the Desktop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Oddly (to me anyway) my youngest kids _love_ Windows 8. I'm not sure if it's because they didn't have as much "invested" in the old desktop experience, they just like the dancing colors, or if there is some generational thing I don't quite grok.

</comment><comment><USER45> The January 2007 and September 2012 economic environments are vastly different.

</comment><comment><USER46> that's just because shops don't usually hire children to show buyers how it works.</comment>


Show HN: How much does a non-programmer app sucks? - <AUTHOR>

Made my first web app 100% alone. As i'm not a programmer but a CEO of a startup, I feel great. But, how much does it suck? functionality, design, everything...<p>take a look at: http://wastats.pythonanywhere.com/ <comment><USER2> You could just call yourself a programmer and be done with it. If you wrote a program, I mean, isn't that... lots of people do it without much formal training.

It looks like a good basic app. The layout/design stuff seems well-intentioned but not tuned or styled. The functionality seems to include some pretty general things, like uploading files, and displaying some database query (or whatever).

So, good work. On the other hand, I'm not sure I want to do the NSAs job for them by uploading my chats. I already pay my taxes...

</comment><comment><USER3> Well you are one now. Actually you'll do yourself a favor thinking of yourself as a programmer.

Anyways I don't use WhatsApp so cannot comment on functionality. Design wise: -confusing navigation: "Start Now" and "Chat Stats" leads to the very same page. Would be more logical to exclude it in the top bar. -bad typographical hierarchy: info that should be emphasized is actually de-emphasized. Just didn't know where to begin. And please limit text line width, that one long line is just a pain to read.

I have no clue what it's doing.

</comment><comment><USER4> What's it do? You might start with a better explanation of what it is and why anyone would want to use it for whatever it does.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks to all of you for your comments and advice. I'll try to improve the tool next weekend.

There is one main issue: the process of getting the chat history and uploading is too long. I still can't figure out how to shorten it.

Thanks again!

</comment><comment><USER5> I pressed submit without selecting a file and got:

Internal error

Ticket issued: wastats/22.214.171.124.2013-08-04.15-00-48.fd885357-c8af-45ce-8316-75bdffc004e2</comment>


Fukushima Emergency - <AUTHOR> http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fukushima.asp <comment><USER2> The map is easily debunked, but, the fact is that the reactor(s) are not contained.

In addition to the needed nuclear materials for the reactor itself, there were/are at least 89 tons of used rods, "hot" enough that they need to be constantly cooled, stored on the Reactor 3 site.

You can read about the Reactor 4/5/6 spent fuel pools here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_units_4,_5_an...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_units_4,_5_and_6#Spent_fuel_pool)

Read this January 3, 2014 Tepco press release and notice the use of the word "assume" : [http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp- com/release/2014/123333...](http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp- com/release/2014/1233338_5892.html) ... it means "we don't know".

<comment><USER3> > In addition to the needed nuclear materials for the reactor itself, there > were/are at least 89 tons of used rods, "hot" enough that they need to be > constantly cooled, stored on the Reactor 3 site.

There's no need to put "hot" in quotes, it's not a synonym for anything, it means the spent fuel is _literally hot_ as in temperature.

It is true that the _reason_ they are hot is because of ongoing heat generation from the fission fragment/decay products in the spent fuel. But that is an issue at _literally every other_ uranium-fueled PWR or BWR reactor. They _all_ need to be cooled until the decay heat finally dissipates.

Failing to cool the fuel rods would not turn them any more radioactive than they already are. Rather, the loss of physical fuel integrity once the fuel melts would release the existing radioactivity into the spent fuel pool (which essentially means the nearby air, since the fuel pool would not have water in it by definition in this scenario).

Luckily it's the easiest thing in the world to avert this; just keep water on the fuel rods, and there is no problem. You can even avoid circulating the water if you wish, the boiling water will remove heat just fine (but in this case you must still pour more water in to maintain the level).

The loss of full containment is certainly unfortunate, but it's nothing more than that. It's certainly better than having the entire reactor core assemblies dumped out straight into the ocean, but even _that_ would not be the disaster implied by many if you run the numbers.

<comment><USER2> If you read the links I posted, you would know that a safe temperature for the surrounding water is up to 65C. Why don't you read the links to answer for yourself, what happens if the water goes above that temperature?

(BTW I did use hot in quotes, to make it clear I was referring to the fact that there is still low level fission occurring.)

<comment><USER3> > Why don't you read the links to answer for yourself, what happens if the > water goes above that temperature?

Because I have already told you how water temperatures are safe from a _heat transfer_ perspective.

I should hope I don't have to remind you not to immerse yourself in water that is too hot, but the fuel itself will be fine if it can be cooled, and it can be cooled by nothing more than water immersion.

This is, after all, how the fuel rods at Unit 4 _were being cooled_ for a short time during the Fukushima meltdown.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It would be interesting to try to come up with some scenario that would maximize the damage caused by Fukushima, then model whether that would be a problem for any other county.

Explosion? Complete melt-down? Meteor strike? Super volcanic eruption?

Interestingly, worst-case might be to have the reactor limp along while continuing to cool it with water that's being pumped back into the ocean. Like they're doing now. Having it totally destroyed, or pushed under the sea, although perhaps creating an bad initial spike, probably wouldn't release as much radiation long-term.

This entire incident has become a test for how scientifically literate people are. And most folks aren't hitting on much.

<comment><USER5> > [...] Meteor strike? Super volcanic eruption?

Once your scenario reaches that kind of scale, I think the effect of Fukushima itself is going to be fairly negligible... :)

<comment><USER6> I think the tsunami alone was large enough that we should consider the Fukushima aftermath as negligible in comparison.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Back of the envelope: If there are 100,000 gallons (400 tons) of radioactive water leaking into the pacific ocean in Japan per day, to be diluted by the 187 quintillion gallons of water already there (not hyperbole, a reasonable estimate based on 70 cubic million miles of water), than the ocean is 1 1,880,000,000,000,000th of a percent more radioactive per day. Or basically zero. It would be interesting to calculate how much more radioactive the water gets from alpha particles in sunlight shining on the water than from Fukushima, but I'm not feeling up to it at the moment.

<comment><USER8> "Alpha particles in sunlight"? Come on. This kind of nonsense just gives ammunition to the crazies.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, but at least if they're spouting total nonsense it's easier to identify and ignore ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My dad keeps sending me links warning of the radiation that is hitting the west coast. I think it's a sign of how little we trust our government and media these days. Would the government tell us the truth if we were actually at risk or would they lie to avoid the mass panic that would undoubtedly ensue?

<comment><USER3> > Would the government tell us the truth if we were actually at risk or would > they lie to avoid the mass panic that would undoubtedly ensue?

Another good question is, supposing that a mass panic would be elicited if there were honestly a wave of harmful contamination approaching, which answer _should_ the government give?

One might reasonably assume that the government should give the answer which causes the least public disorder (and subsequent harm to the public).

But this doesn't mean you shouldn't trust the government _per se_ , this means you should educate yourself so that you have some basic understanding of the likelihood of things like Fukushima affecting the West Coast. It does no good to say that you can't abdicate your rationality and trust to the government exclusively, if you then simply abdicate those to whoever is screeching the loudest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Not that xkcd is an authoritative source, but this chart helps give you the right orders of magnitude:

[https://xkcd.com/radiation/](https://xkcd.com/radiation/)

The extra dose in Tokyo immediately after Fukushima was only twice a standard chest x-ray, or one NYC->LA flight.

So any excess radiation reaching the US West Coast will be diluted to negligibility.

<comment><USER11> Even that seems a bit questionable...

Living near Tokyo, after 3/11 I rather compulsively monitored the various web- available radiation counters, and many of them also stored historical data. The readings were almost universally so close to normal background radiation levels that it was questionable whether there was any difference at all. There was, as I recall, one notable spike at some point, but it was only notable because it was above background level; it was _way_ too small to have any health impact.

[Radiation levels were a little higher in places like Chiba that are closer to Fukushima, but still quite firmly in the "no possible effect" region.]

<comment><USER12> I was traveling in Tokyo on 3/11 and _still_ have to fend off questions about my health when I tell people about it.

I did cut my trip short, flew out on 3/15\. I wasn't worried about the radiation, I just didn't feel comfortable taking up resources in a country that had just suffered so much damage. In fact, I recently got back from a 3 week trip around Japan to finish my original trip.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Thank the heavens for snopes.com, a breath of fresh research in a rumor-and- conspiracy-choked web...

<comment><USER13> [http://xkcd.com/250/](http://xkcd.com/250/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> more:

== 1 ==

 _" Nuclear Fallout Map

Claim: Message details effects of nuclear fallout from

Japan across the western United States."_ FALSE

[http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fallout.asp](http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fallout.asp)

== 2 ==

 _" Claim: Giant mutant killer hornets created by exposure

to radiation from the Fukushima nuclear plant have killed

several people in Nebraska. "_ FALSE

[http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/hornets.asp](http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/hornets.asp)

</comment><comment><USER15> My favourite link for the current Fukushima 'news' is [http://deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-facts-about-ocean- radiat...](http://deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation- and-the-fukushima-disaster/)

</comment><comment><USER16> Some people have suggested (I have not personally researched it enough to take a position) that a solicitation by the Department of Health and Human Services for 14 million Potassium Iodide pills to be delivered by February 1 is proof that the government believes that radiation is reaching the West Coast at harmful levels.

[http://1.usa.gov/1eVKiQT](http://1.usa.gov/1eVKiQT)

I'm guessing it's not happening and this solicitation is unrelated, although the time from the solicitation (December 6) to the delivery date is very compressed for it to be a normal US government order. It reflects an urgent desire to stock the pills for _some_ reason.

<comment><USER8> I can sort of respect not taking a position if you haven't researched it... but on the other hand, why even _mention_ it if you haven't researched it enough to take a position? The claim smells like Grade A Bullshit, and while that's not necessarily enough to dismiss it outright, it does mean that you should check into it before spreading it around.

Some brief research indicates that there is a national stockpile of potassium iodide maintained for emergency response to domestic nuclear disasters. The tablets in this stockpile don't last forever, and have to be replenished. This is probably just a stockpile replenishment.

More info here:

[http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/emerg-preparedness/about- emerg-...](http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/emerg-preparedness/about-emerg- preparedness/potassium-iodide.html)

<comment><USER16> I mentioned it because the solicitation is a fact that may have a place in the discussion. Even if ultimately proven unrelated, I don't think it's irresponsible to bring up hard facts that can add to the discussion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Thanks for this, my 'skeptical' sister in law will believe snopes.

</comment><comment><USER18> Misreporting like this for me always drives home the idea that historical veracity is laughable. We can't even get stuff happening now right!

<comment><USER19> It goes both ways, current information is full of noise and reach for people who have neither time or knowledge to filter/integrate what come to them. History is sometimes made by dedicated people who try to deduce quite mathematically from very small pieces of different kind of information that cross check each other (when possible). In either cases, patience is needed.

<comment><USER3> Indeed, even today there are good historical books being written about events as far away as WWII. And I'm not talking about new books that restate old research, often they'll have unique insight to provide from detailed historical study on topics that had been incorrectly assumed to be fully fleshed-out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is radiation caused by Fukushima being found in fish sold in the US? Yes. Is it a cause for concern? Probably not.

Source: [http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/may/tuna-radioactive- mate...](http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/may/tuna-radioactive- materials-053012.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> Wow the article map measures contamination in "cm"? I never knew contamination is measured in centimeters, what a discovery!

</comment><comment><USER14> better maps

"A numerical simulation of global transport of atmospheric particles emitted from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant"

[http://www-aos.eps.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/nakamura_lab/PDF/Takemura...](http://www- aos.eps.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/nakamura_lab/PDF/Takemura_et_al_SOLA2011_v2.1.pdf)

and

[http://www.pnas.org/content/108/35/14422/F2.expansion.html](http://www.pnas.org/content/108/35/14422/F2.expansion.html)

[http://www.pnas.org/content/108/35/14422/F3.expansion.html](http://www.pnas.org/content/108/35/14422/F3.expansion.html)

</comment><comment><USER22> Argh, I can't believe this image continues to resurface out of context. How entirely frustrating.

</comment><comment><USER23> starfish are all dying. is there a snopes and an cute xkcd for that as well?

<comment><USER3> Well a good start would be to figure out why are they dying? Or better yet, _which_ starfish are dying? Where are they at? What is the death rate? What _other_ factors have changed in the habitat? Etc. etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm calling bullshit on this article. Despite misdeeds, wrongdoings, corruption and outright lies by TEPCO and IAEA this article poo-poos the long- term impact of this international disaster.

"No matter what happens in Fukushima, it's not going to be a problem over here." \-- Eric Norman

NO MATTER WHAT?? That's a pretty big statement. Especially since that, when radiation levels were detected to increase, the EPA just raised the minimum level of harmful radiation to a higher level. See?? Not a problem anymore.

[http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/governments- worldwide...](http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/governments-worldwide- raise-acceptable-radiation-levels-based-upon-politics-not-science.html)

"With the amount of dilution that would occur, any kind of release in Japan would be non-detectable here," said David Yogi

But it has been detected...

[http://www.nbcnews.com/science/leaky-fukushima-nuclear- plant...](http://www.nbcnews.com/science/leaky-fukushima-nuclear-plant-raises- seafood-poisoning-concerns-6C10963427)

TEPCO is likely connected to the japanese mob:

[http://rt.com/news/fukushima-workers-violations- yakuza-730/](http://rt.com/news/fukushima-workers-violations-yakuza-730/)

The IAEA is there is promote nuclear power:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISu7O47d1Ko](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISu7O47d1Ko)

US sailors claim cancer from Fukushima assistance:

[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/20/sickened-by-service- mor...](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/20/sickened-by-service-more-us- sailors-claim-cancer-from-helping-at-fukushima/)

Finally, the worst part of the cleanup is still yet to happen:

[http://fairewinds.org/media/in-the-news/mission- impossible-f...](http://fairewinds.org/media/in-the-news/mission-impossible- fukushima-scientists-brace-for-riskiest-nuclear-fuel-clean-up-yet)

The snopes article is a form of deceptive propaganda and is all-around bullshit.

<comment><USER25> Your arguments of TEPCO links to the Japanese Mob is irrelevant, as the Snopes article discusses on whether or not the radiation levels are effecting the US.

Also, the link you gave on the US raising safe level markings is not a respected news source, and the article only links to other articles from the site as "sources". If's fine to call BS on an article on HN, but make sure you give proper backing to your claims, the post you just wrote doesn't.</comment></comment>


How would you sell a comb to a bald person? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/paper-planes/how-would-you-sell-a-comb-to-a-bald-person-37b6adc5b23e#.garn7bkmu <comment><USER2> collectors item. melt it down for raw materials. add it to a stick to make it a back-scratcher.</comment>


Do Stressed-Out Japanese Stage Elaborate Disappearances? (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://time.com/4646293/japan-missing-people-johatsu-evaporated/ <comment><USER2> Very interesting article, but I'm surprised to see typos and grammatical issues from a major publisher.</comment>


Ask HN: Startup PR - How could they get so many coverages? - <AUTHOR>

Check this out: http://www.printgreener.com/news.html WSJ, CNBC, Entreprenuer, ComputerWorld, CNN, Inc, ...   How could they get so many coverages?
I've written a similar algorithm and sold it to a few companies, which you could find at http://purifyr.com/.  I've also emailed all relevant bloggers for review. But I just couldn't imagine getting so many positive coverages.
How did they make it?
Ideas? <comment><USER2> There are a few things:

\- You have to tell the press a story, and it has to be interesting. The best stories are about people, the worst about technologies. For startups the story of how you have struggled through countless insourmountable obstacles and are now making big money is perfect. It is personal, it fits the cliche, and it gives readers something to look up to. Don't focus on your technology (unless you are trying to get an article in a trademag or something similar) normal people just don't care. If you need to talk about technology try to find a story where people are using your product to gain some advantage. Involve emotions if possible, it makes the story better. How Tim re-found his long- lost kindergarten girlfriend in old age and the two of them now happily living together because of Google is a much better story than how good Google's serach algorithm is.

\- Personal connetctions and relationships. This is what PR people do. Journalists are different, have different taste, and find different things interesting. A story that may seem uninteresting to one might be picked up by another. If you don't know anyone try to read through the newssources where you'd like to be covered and see which journalist writes about stuff that is close to what you do. Then contact him. By phone. Talk to him and ask him what he thinks and whether he would like to do an interview with you. Journalists are nice people, and they make their living talking to people, so don't be afraid of it.

\- Give them an easy story. Combining one and two above to make an easy story that can more or less be copy-pasted to give a full article. Journalists are lazy. Don't forget to include photos. (Again, it's people that are interesting. If you include product shoots make sure there are some with a proud owner showing off the product)

\- Don't ever lie. Journalists have an excelent nose for liars, and when (not if) they catch you they'll never talk to you again.

<comment><USER3> "This is what PR people do. Journalists are different, have different taste, and find different things interesting."

You might experiment with PR Matchpoint to find journalists who have written on similar topics in the past. The site lets you cut and paste in either your entire press release, or else your website copy, or your keywords. It will then return a list of journalists who have written on similar themes.

These guys presented at NY Tech last week. According to them, there isn't really any other way to do what they do because all of the other databases of journalists are sorted based on beat or a few keywords, but not the actual text of what the journalists are writing. I haven't actually tried the site myself yet, but I probably will fairly shortly.

<http://www.prmatchpoint.com/>

<comment><USER4> This makes me feel better (or not): I wrote a prototype of a similar system for social media sites. The idea was to collect a database of content submitted to different sites and use Pearson's correlation coefficient to compare a submitted press release to content on these sites. My goal, help people find the right place to submit to. The technology worked but I didn't pique any interest so I let it go.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not a expert, but, I'll would suggest a few things:

printgreener.com has a lot of information describing what they do and why. They play on green card a lot which is bound to generate interest from mainstream media where as you hardly tell the user why they would want to do this.

Also a free account allows you to view one page/30 seconds and the only version that fixes this costs $299/month where as printgreener.com costs $29 which is a one off - I don't understand the massive difference in price. Who is the target market that would actually pay $299/month for this. You need to explain this better or drop the price. To me this is the type of thing that could tend towards $0 with open source and/or a firefox plugin.

Some of their coverage goes back to 2006, so they have a first mover advantage over you.

<comment><AUTHOR> printgreener.com sells software at $29 whereas purifyr.com charges for $299 for the developer API account. (Hmm, seems like I haven't made it clear enough, maybe?)

As for the "green card", yes, that's right. Their whole message seems to be geared towards this. A good execution.

"you hardly tell the user why they would want to do this." Hmmm, I think you're right. Let me think of this and give the homepage one more shot.

Thanks a lot, rythie.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Your approach, Purifyr, seems as though it should be a more consumer friendly alternative to printgreener. From a story perspective though it's not being presented as a consumer-oriented product which limits the market a prospective reporter/blogger sees when they think of writing a story. i suggest you start with this: "Free account could submit requests no shorter than 30 seconds. If you'd like to send requests more frequently, please check out our commercial offering."

if you're intent on not using a passive payment model (advertising) to subsidize consumer traffic, this page is destined to be your main conversion choke point. this page needs to sell your product. there should be a big, friendly button that lets the consumer (not developer) immediately make that purchase. alternately, show an interstitial ad and count down the 30sec before letting them see the content.

more fundamentally, you need to decide who your market is and optimize for them. are you really set on targeting webmasters and if so, how many content producers out there can afford 300/month while accepting a maximum of 10k views/day. seems like your major competition there is any freelancer who can hack out a "print view" wordpress template or even a simple print-view css file for less money. seems like a consumer model might make more sense, but then i would think about this almost more like an rss reader - if you're targeting consumers, you should consider ways to make it as easy as possible for people to maximize the content they see through your lens. the bookmarklet is a step in the right direction but isn't something most web users are used to.

once you have your market more clearly defined, alert the media that's producing content to entertain said market. they always need a story but they have discriminating tastes.

<comment><AUTHOR> hmm, you've raised a good point: "who is your target audience"?

So far, all paid customers are using the API as a web service. Two of them are quite famous iPhone applications provider paying the standard $299/mo fee, three of them are vertical semantic search engines or recommendation engines that paid much more to have the code deployed behind their firewall. Hopefully this could make it easier for you to understand why the website is designed with developers in mind.

The reason that I'm making this site more consumer oriented is that I found the current market is a bit too limited. There are many opportunities, for example integrated with Epson's Web2Print software, that I simply don't have the BD resources to attack. I was hoping that by raising more awareness of the service on the consumer side, I could get more publicity which in turn will bring more developer customers.

I guess my question is: 1) Do you think my strategy make sense or not? 2) If I were to make this a paid service targeting consumers, what might be the good pricing point? $20 per year? What might be the 'selling point' to normal users?

<comment><USER7> This all makes perfect sense, but keep in mind that you are marketing to more than just developer customers. Your website needs to cater to journalists, curious members of the public, potential business partners, maybe investors?

And then you need to pitch journalists. They aren't going to find you on their own. If you want to do it yourself, I suggest writing direct, honest emails to journalists who have covered this sort of thing in the past. Don't worry about making it sound like a press release.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Human Interest. Look at what you put out from the perspective: Would this be part of the human interest category in a newspaper? If not, then you're unlikely to get covered unless you know someone.

Furthermore, who are you? You have to be someone newspaperable, for example:

"The guy who made a robot that sang songs"

"A 16 year old boy"

"A guy who traded a paperclip up"

There are so many standard developers, you need to make a press friendly definition of yourself. Then email interns who are always looking for a story. Locate them on linkedin.

</comment><comment><USER9> Timing is another thing. When we tried to get press for a site targeted at moms, we had a lot of luck approaching news papers, tv shows and blogs around, surprise!, women's day and mother's day.

</comment><comment><USER10> I wrote to their PR person to see if they can offer us any advice -- I will post any response I get...

</comment><comment><USER11> Its not what you know, its who you know. Always.

<comment><USER12> It's _never_ who you know. It's _always_ who knows you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Public relations (p/r). A good p/r person or team can work wonders: provided that you have something useful or interesting.

</comment><comment><USER14> In my personal experience, if you want press to write about you/your startup, you'll have to give them interesting stories that their readers like to read.

They don't have too much attention span. They don't care about how hard/easy it is do, or even if it is true or not. They just care about interesting stories...

For one of my stories I told them that we did some survey and just made up the findings. They loved it and published it next day without looking at my data or even asking me methodology of survey/research

<comment><AUTHOR> For the 31 emails I sent out to the bloggers, 4 replies and only 2 really spent time looking into it. Only 1 blogged about it.

So how did you get hold of them in the first place? Why won't they simply ignore you?

<comment><USER15> Were they form emails or did you specifically target the journalists/bloggers you were talking too?

Form letters get ignored - personal emails less so.

Choose your words carefully when approaching these guys. It might take a extra time, but the end result is worth it.

Just work harder.

<comment><AUTHOR> How could you get 'personal emails' of the mainstream journalists? I seem to be outside of the 'media circle' at this moment.

Also, what would you suggest to do with the bloggers I've already contacted? Maybe I could use the "new version launched" as an opportunity to contact them again?

<comment><USER15> With bloggers, I always find it's better to try and push your content to the smaller bloggers first - everyone's always trying to get promoted on the techcrunches or the mashables.

As for emails - really, just look for journalists who've written on your subject in the past. They usually have contact details up there.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to Write the Shit Out of Something - <AUTHOR> http://www.erickarjaluoto.com/blog/how-to-write-the-shit-out-of-something/

<comment><USER2> Some good ideas here, but if I had to give advice to fledging writers I'd start with one rule: _just say what you mean._

English classes in the U.S. spend a lot of time teaching people how to write five-paragraph essays: one paragraph of introduction, three paragraphs of argument, one paragraph of conclusion. But outside the classroom the five- paragraph essay form is worse than useless: it's actively harmful.

For simple arguments, it's harmful because it forces the writer to jam words down the throat of their argument to plump it up so it fits the format. For complex arguments, it's harmful because it forces the writer to lop limbs off their argument to fit it into an arbitrary box. Most arguments are simple arguments, so the first sin is the greater one.

So much bad writing is bad because the writer couldn't just say what they mean and then stop. They stuff their argument with fluff like it's a damn pillow. An argument should be lean, cut, diamond-hard. Packing it with fluff just makes it soft and saggy. So skip all that -- just say what you mean, then _stop._

<comment> grey-area _Some good ideas here, but if I had to give advice to fledging writers I 'd start with one rule: just way[sic] what you mean._

Rule No.2 - always proofread before hitting send/post :)

[EDIT Re your main point, now that the typo is out of the way]

There are various ways of structuring an argument - as a dialogue, as thesis, antithesis then synthesis, or treating it as an oration like Cicero's with 6 parts ending in a peroration. All of them are imposing structure on thought (and thus restricting creativity), and none of them will perfectly fit any argument, but some structure is vastly preferable to no structure at all, which is a far more common problem. The problem most people have in their writing and speech is a lack of structure, and I think the school lessons you evoke are meant to counter that by imposing some (even at the risk of making essays boring and formulaic). I don't think the intention is to forevermore make everyone write in the same structure (which would be a procrustean bed as you mention), but more to show people that you can use structure, and employ it persuade and explain. Students are then expected to grow out of that structure later or explore other possible structures.

Once you understand the mechanics of argument, you can then break them with great effect, but only if you do it sparingly, and it's best to know the rules in order to know when you're breaking them.

A far more insidious problem nowadays in terms of imposed structure is the habit people have of making a list (as the OP does) as if this is a substitute for properly structuring their thoughts - to me that's a cop-out and not far above no structure at all. Usually the results are then labelled _top n x_ or _n things you didn 't know about x_ and contain more than n examples of x, without any attempt at an introduction or a conclusion.

<comment><USER3> "Just way what you mean" embodies its own spirit: get your point across, correctness be damned.

<comment><USER4> your write

[[apologies to original poster in /. years ago]]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Write as a way to kill yourself. They say kill your darlings, I say kill yourself. Be so clear it hurts. If that cuts your essay down to two sentences, wonderful. Make sentences that feel weird at first. Surprise us. So much writing is just blah blah blah. Read skilled writers. Eat them, assimilate their strength. Learn words. Write short sentences. Write long sentences. Read aloud. Don't hide, come forward. Grab my shoulders and say are you even fucking listening. Listen to yourself. Write for someone. Admit your stupidity. No, don't do that, be reckless. Punch me. Don't worry, I'll punch back. We're on this planet together. Words are missiles.

<comment><USER6> Also try pithy.

<comment><USER7> But don't avoid long sentences altogether. Mix them in for some variety.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Before you type even a word, determine what you want to say."

I disagree. Writing is part of the process of determining what you want to say. It's an imaginary conversation with your reader and with your conscience.

We all have vast quantities of ideas bouncing around in our heads, like those animated gifs of Brownian motion. Writing is a way of coralling them.

It's useful to cultivate an inner voice that asks "is that true?". Every time you write a word, get your voice to ask if that word is true. Which actually sounds very like insanity, but seems to work.

</comment><comment><USER9> "How to Write the Shit Out of Something".

Maybe write it so that people can understand what the fuck you're trying to say?

Does it help swearing in your writing - apparently so?

I have no clue what "Shit" and "Writing" have to do with each other.

Ironic that a article that in theory (I'm guessing) is about writing clearly and concisely, has a title that says NOTHING about what the article is about.

</comment><comment><USER10> I love this site's design. It's clean without being empty. The colors are simple and warm. The font is intriguing and readable.

Oh, and the article is good, too. Even if a lot of it may seem obvious, I think many people (myself included) need to be reminded that writing with brevity and emphasis is important for readability.

Anyone interested in a more in-depth consideration of improving your writing style would be well-advised to read "Line by Line: How To Edit Your Own Writing" by Claire Kehrwald Cook. It describes not only common grammatical errors and how to avoid them, but also strategies for condensing your prose (like avoiding the passive voice). It's also a good way to introduce yourself to the language of grammar (voices and tenses and participles, oh my!) If you find yourself writing things like, "Emergency lights flashing, cars pulled aside as the ambulance roared past," this book can help.

<comment><USER11> The leading/line-height could be greater imo, but definitely a good read.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> What a coincidence! Today there was a retweet in my twitter stream of a essay from American Scientist. The title is "The Science of Scientific Writing". While not everything may be appropriate to blog postings, nevertheless it contains some timeless hints. Here is the URL:

[http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.877,y.0,no.,conte...](http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.877,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER13> Excellent article. The points about cutting the fluff and provide a solution are critical, in my opinion, to a piece that's worth spending my time to read. Most opinion based articles tend to restate the obvious but never offer anything beyond that. Great, so you can write about what everyone already knows, good for you! Give me something to care about.

I'll be sharing this with my twitter followers.

<comment><USER14> _Most opinion based articles tend to restate the obvious but never offer anything beyond that._

As a web manager, this is something I struggle with at my company on a regular basis. It's great to have a stance and all, but then you're just a talking head and nothing more. There needs to be a little soul behind what you're saying.

Offer solutions, not problems.

The other thing I'd add is that fluff is something I've personally struggled with when I write something. I often go back to Edgar Allan Poe's guidelines for writing short stories:

 _In the whole composition there should be no word written, of which the tendency, direct or indirect, is not to the one pre-established design._

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Anyone have book suggestions on how to improve technical blog writing? (Something more specific than Strunk & White.)

<comment><USER16> My suggestion for all non-fiction writing is On Writing Well by William Zinsser. It's got sections on many different topics (including some technical writing), but its stylistic advice is the best.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Does anyone have a good recommendation for a writing/blog platform?

I am looking for something that is simple and non-intrusive that I can just put up random thoughts.

Medium and Svbtle seem good and clean, but I don't have an invite.

</comment><comment><USER18> _...some with hate you for it..._

I find that proofreading my writing helps to avoid such errors...

<comment><AUTHOR> Even when I proofread, I do sometimes miss certain misteaks.*

Most of my posts are written on an iPhone. As such, autocorrect sometimes "fixes" these sorts of things. Sadly, these changes often look right even when I scan over my writing with the aim of catching errors.

*Yes, I know.

<comment><USER19> Read it aloud. You'll catch typos (save homophones), awkward phrasing, sentences that are long and confusing, and more.</comment></comment></comment>


How the iPhone 4's noise cancellation technology works - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/apple/2011/05/18/the-secret-behind-the-iphone-4s-noise-cancellation-technology-revealed/

<comment><USER2> This article doesn't describe how the iPhone 4's noise cancellation technology works.

<comment><USER3> Here's a short video from Audience about how the technology works. Audience calls the technology "earSmart." The video turns to fluff about halfway through.

<http://www.audience.com/about/earSmart-introduction.php>

My big question now is: can it work with an in-ear headset and microphone? I like to leave the phone in my pocket or on my desk and use my headphones + mic while calling.</comment></comment>


The fungus that devastates the Cavendish banana has now arrived in Latin America - <AUTHOR> https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/banana-fungus-latin-america-threatening-future/ <comment><USER2> Fun banana facts:

Bananas are the most-sold item at most grocery stores and, notably, Wal-Mart.

Bananas also have the highest standard deviation in terms of predicting if a given (known) consumer will purchase bananas in a given store run. (At least as compared to other food products and consumables.) When predicting a consumer's shop, it's generally pretty easy to make a highly educated guess about their purchasing activity and, thus, to project volumes for products. But bananas defy that wisdom, except that people in aggregate buy a lot of them. Someone who buys bananas reliably every week for months will randomly stop for months, and then start again, for no perceivable rhyme or reason. Bananas aren't seasonal purchases like berries or corn or other fruits or vegetables. Bananas also tend to be a high purchase at gas stations and convenience stores.

Bananas have to be effectively "tricked" into continuing to ripen after being prematurely picked and then refrigerated for transit. So there are banana ripening centers that pump ethylene through a chilled chamber to get them to ripen.

<comment><USER3> > Bananas are the most-sold item at most grocery stores and, notably, Wal- > Mart.

In which country? The US? This can't be globally true..

<comment><USER4> I've heard this about Dutch stores as well. Supermarkets sell banana's at 0% margin or even a loss simply because it lures customers in.

<comment><USER5> They have been 49 cents per pound in the grocery store in NY, both where I grew and in WNY for as long as I can remember. They have got to be at a loss if you consider they don't adjust for inflation or gas prices, etc. Milk does this too if I'm not mistaken, a lot of grocery stores use that as a customer lure as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Bananas are the prime cautionary tale against monoculture. The number of native breeds which are now gone for the sake of promotion of one particular breed leads to less resilience against disease and pests. Just in my corner of India, there are various varieties. [1] However, in the U.S., the only variety you often get to see is the insipid Cavendish, whose only merit seems to be shelf-life.

If you travel in the tropics, do try out local varieties. It is an amazing fruit (?).

[1] [http://mywordsnthoughts.com/myworld/all-about- kerala/differe...](http://mywordsnthoughts.com/myworld/all-about- kerala/different-types-of-banana-available-in-kerala/)

<comment><USER7> I currently live in Vietnam, but was recently traveling around Laos by motorbike. The bananas there are almost inedible... they taste awful. I found it fascinating how different they were compared with Vietnamese bananas.

That said, I saw huge fields of farmed trees literally everywhere there (as well as in VN). I don't think they are in any real danger of disappearing like these articles say. It is very sensationalist news.

<comment><USER8> _That said, I saw huge fields of farmed trees literally everywhere there (as well as in VN). I don 't think they are in any real danger of disappearing like these articles say. It is very sensationalist news._

"I can't see the problem with my own eyes so I don't think there's a problem." is exactly the sort of thinking that leads to climate denial and anti-vaxx nonsense. Unless you've spent a lot of time and effort understanding the banana industry you simply aren't qualified to make that judgement.

<comment><USER7> Wow, that is a stretch to loop my thinking in with both of those movements. I am not even close to that nonsense.

Of course I'm no expert, but this whole banana disappearance story has been going on for many years, yet we still have bananas. There is not even close to a shortage of bananas. It reminds me of the Helium is running out stories.

Let me also remind you that the story is talking about a specific strain and my comment was clearly not about that strain.

I could also say... unless you've driven 8500km all over Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos and seen first hand the millions of banana trees, your thinking might be constrained to some one sitting behind a keyboard.

<comment><USER8> _There is not even close to a shortage of bananas._

IANABE (I am not a banana expert) but I know that no one suggested there is a shortage right now. What's threatened is the world's supply of Cavendish bananas which is what every Western country imports. Prior to that everyone ate Gros Michel bananas, but practically all plantations growing that particular crop were wiped out in the space of 30 years by Panama Disease. Cavendish was the response - it _was_ Panama Disease resistant, but about 15 years ago the disease started attacking Cavendish crops. The concern is that this means we're a decade or two away from losing Cavendish _and we don 't have a suitable replacement_ (because, as people have said in this thread, other bananas aren't as tasty to Western palettes).

To post "Nah, there's no problem" shows you don't quite understand that problem, and to cite that you've seen a few big banana plantations as evidence that the problem isn't a real one just compounds the issue.

If Panama Disease mutates to attack the plantations you saw they could _all_ be gone in a decade. That's how virulent the disease is. It _is_ a problem.

<comment><USER7> > we don't have a suitable replacement

That is your opinion. I've been lucky enough to taste plenty of other banana strains and there are definitely better banana's than Cavendish. The smaller ones that you generally get in this region, that are really ugly on the outside, taste so much better.

> you've seen a few big banana plantations

More than 'a few'... literally 3 whole countries worth. There is absolutely no shortage of trees and farms. Just to give you an idea of how much I've seen and I didn't even tag all of it... [https://imgur.com/a/olSoTXe](https://imgur.com/a/olSoTXe)

I'm not saying that this disease isn't a problem, but I have hard time believing it is a catastrophic problem for all bananas.

If you're going to go into big problems, I'd say that African Swine flu is a much larger issue for this region. I drove through countless 'checkpoints' all over northern VN/Laos where they sprayed down my motorbike wheels with some unknown chemicals. There are literally signs everywhere talking about the issue. Millions of swine have been slaughtered. Usually you see pigs running around freely on the roads, but once you get to a certain point in northern vn, you stop seeing them entirely.

<comment><USER8> _That is your opinion._

It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of every banana industry analyst who says losing the Cavendish would be the end of the banana export industry, which is pretty much all of them. There's a reason why we get articles catastrophising about the impact of Panama Disease posted to HN on a semi- regular basis.

<comment><USER7> > It's the opinion of every banana industry analyst who says losing the > Cavendish would be the end of the banana export industry, which is pretty > much all of them.

What a great title for a business card. Of course they have every motivation to say that the sky is falling. It attracts attention, doesn't it?

> There's a reason why we get articles catastrophising about the impact of > Panama Disease posted to HN on a semi-regular basis.

I'm sure there is a reason, but it may not be what you think it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I find it weird that people would not like other variety of bananas. Like there are generally more than one type of apples, potatoes, onions, tomotoes, and lettuce at most grocery stores.

I would like the choice.

<comment><USER10> With most of those, each type has a distinct use.

Granny Smith apples are for baking, McIntosh apples are for eating fresh, Red Delicious apples are for decoration, and the rest serve no purpose.

Russet potatoes are for baking, stew, and fries. Purple potatoes are for frying up with steak. The rest serve no purpose.

It's different with bananas. Cavendish is good. Maybe the Gros Michel is good too, but I wouldn't know. The rest are variations of sour, mushy, slimy, and too tiny. It's also a problem of telling when a banana is ripe. It is easy to memorize exactly how a single variety of banana ripens. If there are more varieties, they get mixed up and eaten at the wrong time.

<comment><USER11> I can assure you, you are very wrong about the uses of other varieties of Apples and Potatoes. You're also wrong about russet potatoes for stew -- other varieties work out a lot better when you want your potatoes to hold their shape.

(I would assume likewise with bananas as well, but I don't have the experience to know myself.)

It's OK -- maybe you don't have the most acute tastebuds or just lack a culinary interest. It's even pretty much dead wrong to think about these things in terms of uses. Food can be a delight and an art, and proscribed "use" doesn't allow for that.

Anyway: if you haven't tried it in a while, branch out. You might really enjoy and appreciate what you've been missing out on.

<comment><USER10> I do have a strong culinary interest, but I'm also choosy. I try lots of things to discover what is best, and then I use what is best.

Russet potatoes are the best for stew. The others have off flavors or don't soften as nicely.

I have tried many types of cheese. I eliminated all except mozzarella and mild cheddar.

I have tried every exotic fruit in the store except durian. I ended up liking jackfruit, dragonfruit, rambutan, lychee, longan, and loquat.

The point of trying new foods is to find the best, not to pretend that they are all equally delicious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> And has been since every 6 months since 2008. Probably even before then, but hn.alogolia.com doesn't go back further.

<comment><USER13> There's always money in the banana story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> These sentences seemed at odds with one another:

> Banana agriculture is itself partly to blame for the potential of the fungus > to spread. Commercial plantations grow almost exclusively one clonal > variety, called the Cavendish; these plants' identical genetics mean they > are also identically susceptible to disease.

and then very shortly after saying:

> ... residents of banana-producing nations rely on a multitude of local > varieties, including plantains, for their food security. Panama disease TR4 > has a notoriously broad host range, meaning it threatens nearly all of these > varieties to some degree.

<comment><USER15> I don't see these in conflict. commercially exported banana is based on clonal reproduction and is therefore _highly_ exposed to risk of a disease. All banana varieties (to some extent) have risk, the locally _consumed_ varieties are not always Cavendish, or LadyFinger but include more rich varieties which may or may not be clonally sourced, but do include seeded bananas and plantain varieties, but also have the risk: its just commercial agriculture has driven to a very very high risk of consequence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> There's a GMO variety of the Cavendish that is resistant to the Panama Disease.

[https://www.accessscience.com/content/genetic-engineering- of...](https://www.accessscience.com/content/genetic-engineering-of-bananas- to-combat-panama-disease/BR1208171)

<comment><USER17> I want to have GMO big mikes =(

<comment><USER18> I've always wanted to try a Big Mike

<comment><USER19> Atlas Obscura had an article in which they ordered a box of Big Mikes from the Miami Fruit Company. It's a little on the pricy side to ship boxes of boutique fruits across the country, but they have quite an interesting selection.

If I was in your shoes, I might wait for Big Mikes to be in season, then order the banana variety pack[1] (and ask that they include a Big Mike). You could pre-order a large box (10-14lbs) of Big Mikes[2], but that seems like a lot to buy at once.

I've never heard of these folks before today, but now I kind of want to throw a fruit tasting party.

[1]: [https://miamifruit.org/collections/fresh-and- dried/products/...](https://miamifruit.org/collections/fresh-and- dried/products/banana-variety-box) [2]: [https://miamifruit.org/collections/banana-pre- orders/product...](https://miamifruit.org/collections/banana-pre- orders/products/gros-michel-banana-box-pre-order)

<comment><USER20> I regularly order fruit from these guys and can attest that it's all very good quality. The banana sampler in particular is one of the few ways I can actually get a good variety of bananas outside of being on holiday.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > Other scientists—most notably, James Dale of the Queensland University of > Technology in Australia—are testing genetically modified disease-resistant > Cavendish bananas, but public acceptance of GMOs could prove a significant > obstacle to their widespread adoption.

This is the problem right here. The lack of science education. A banana modified in a lab and one that is bred through selective breeding are both "GMO", it's just that one is done in a targeted manner and the other relies on random luck in the mutations.

If people weren't so afraid of science this problem would already be solved.

The two main producers refuse to even consider the "GMO" bananas because they are afraid they won't sell. If they would just take up the cause, they could put enough money behind this to solve the problem in a year.

<comment><USER22> I'm pretty up to date on the science myself, and I still consider myself anti- GMO for a host of reasons, little to do with the science. My objections are more philosophical.

two primary reasons: hubris and greed.

The hubris to think we know which varietals are the best and will continue to be the best. We may go all in on one species or variant and then turns out an unknown bacteria we have previously no clue about wipes out all of them. You never know, you _need_ variety. Bacteria outnumber us all.

number two: greed. You worried about tech being consolidated into the big 5? how about this scientific research? you want our _food_ , something we _actually_ depend on, to be consolidated into 2-3 chemical companies? I don't.

Smaller reasons include: the power of being able to still survive on pure nature's means, and the freedom to do so. We don't realize it, but these things we do out here in the more advanced nations greatly impact the developing world, where a large portion of the world's population exists.

<comment><USER23> > The hubris to think we know which varietals are the best and will continue > to be the best.

If they don't grow GMO Cavendish, they will pick some other variety and grow _that_ everywhere, like they did after the Gros Michel went under. GMO doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for monoculture at all.

> the power of being able to still survive on pure nature's means

We haven't been able to do that since the dawn of agriculture. If modern agriculture disappeared tomorrow, the Cavendish plantations would not resemble Cavendish plantations very long, Panama disease or not.

The only problem I have with a "GMO Cavendish" is that it would likely be patented, which could create a company with some _extraordinarily_ powerful IP, which is very dangerous. But that's a problem with the law, not GMOs per se.

<comment><USER24> Many of us that are considered anti gmo are more anti patent for food genes rather than of anti gmo. The developing world mostly has agricultural economy now Western companies are trying to horn in that as well. A few years ago an American company tried to patent and stop Pakistan and India from selling a rice variety called Basmati by modifing it genes and trying to patent it. When its come to gmo the trust deficit in rest of the world is not just about the science but of the western companies and their patents.

<comment><USER25> Then don't call yourselves anti-GMO?

<comment><USER24> I didn't say we were anti-gmo rather we are labeled as anti-gmo despite our reservations being about the patenting systems rather than the science.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Cavendish banana are monoculture clones from the same original banana. That means that any disease that attacks one can attack all since the banana share the same dna and protective mechanism.

The solution is not to clone with the same dna. also not to use pesticides which kills bees and insects. Pesticide will not only kill bugs they will kill all insects a like.

"Cavendish bananas were named after William Cavendish, 6th Duke of Devonshire. Though they were not the first known banana specimens in Europe, in around 1834 Cavendish received a shipment of bananas (from Mauritius) courtesy of the chaplain of Alton Towers (then the seat of the Earls of Shrewsbury)." Source [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_banana](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_banana)

<comment><USER27> Or get people to eat local as much as possible. The only people at risk from being more malnourished due to a scarcity of Cavendish bananas are those whose land has been plagued by the monoculture.

And by the way [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/monkeys- bann...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/monkeys-banned-from- eating-bananas-at-devon-zoo-9058856.html) [Monkeys banned from eating bananas at Devon zoo]. I assume those were all Cavendish bananas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> So, my wife is from SEA. I never bothered to look into the name of their bananas, nor do they know it by any other name, but they are delicious. They are small, and grow more in a straight line than a bunch. While a Cavendish is mostly subtle, these taste like real fruit, more hearty and definitely sweet. So, my question is, why are we in USA stuck with these dud bananas, even in the absence of the Gros Michel?

</comment><comment><USER29> A short, recent discussion I posted on /r/AskScienceDiscussion...

"If Cavendish/dessert bananas get wiped out by some disease (e.g. Panama disease), how long would it take to cultivate a new dessert banana from wild growing options?"

[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/c75ct...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/c75ctk/if_cavendishdessert_bananas_get_wiped_out_by_some/)

P.S. For the casually curious, /r/AskScienceDiscussion is a more forgiving, less strict place to ask questions than /r//r/AskScience. It's more ask Bill Nye in a podcast than pose a perfect question to pass the scientist mod filter.

</comment><comment><USER30> > Desperate, the predecessors of Chiquita and Dole switched production [from > the Gros Michel] to a banana they knew to be resistant to Panama disease, > despite its relatively bland flavor: the now-ubiquitous Cavendish.

I want to try the Gros Michel. What I'm eating is relatively bland?

<comment><USER31> It might be urban legend, but apparently banana-flavored candy imitates the flavor of the Gros Michel, which is why it doesn't really taste like a "banana" as we know it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Since it's inevitable that the current bananas will collapse from this, maybe it'll speed acceptance of GMO products. People will ignore their unfounded fears once it starts affecting them.

<comment><USER33> People are already comfortable and used to other cultivars of other fruits. GMO isn't even necessary here, just other types of bananas.

<comment><USER32> From the article:

> Besides the Cavendish bananas that dominate modern supermarket shelves, > residents of banana-producing nations rely on a multitude of local > varieties, including plantains, for their food security. Panama disease TR4 > has a notoriously broad host range, meaning it threatens nearly all of these > varieties to some degree.

Unfortunately, pretty much all banana species are vulnerable. Even if Cavendish is the most-affected, replacing Cavendish with another cultivar isn't a complete solution. Other banana cultivars don't have the same properties, and breeding a replacement dessert banana that is resistant, and then spreading that cultivar (and hoping that it too doesn't fall prey) is not a trivial undertaking.

If a GMO solution can save the existing cultivars, which have established consumers, it's a better approach. Since all bananas are grown using monoculture grafting (because we long ago bred the seeds out), it's not as easy to produce new cultivars as with other fruits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Related to the topic, I highly recommend this short documentary about the Cavendish banana and the deadly fungus affecting it: [https://youtu.be/YkI3zkQ4WBo](https://youtu.be/YkI3zkQ4WBo)

</comment><comment><USER35> Is the worry that they will just go away overnight all at once, but it just hasn't happened yet? Because the current price of bananas sure doesn't indicate a shortage.

</comment><comment><USER36> Bananas are an important staple with many potential uses. A guy in Bali came up with a process that makes flour from green bananas. The resulting bread products are delicious. Far better than regular gluten free bread and better than regular bread for toast (amazing crispiness). Lots of cafes are using this bread to satisfy the ever growing hippie tourism trade.

</comment><comment><USER37> Coffee is also having some problems: [https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2013/0605/Coffee- bl...](https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2013/0605/Coffee-blight-in- Central-America-Changing-livelihoods-and-your-cup-of-joe)

</comment><comment><USER38> "The banana is one step closer to disappearing" \- seems to be overstating it. They mean the Cavendish Banana and therefore large scale Banana cultivation. However we could still have a variety of bananas, lower scale and have banana be more of a treat than a common food.

<comment><USER39> >> _However we could still have a variety of bananas, lower scale and have banana be more of a treat than a common food._

Those that could afford the $XX / lbs price would.

<comment><USER38> It wouldn't be the only food like this, and nutritionally I think people can survive without bananas.

I'd miss em though. Nothing like frozen banana + milk blended.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> What's most scary is this. If the food can still be produced in a climate we have injured, will it even be nutritious? The answer is unfortunately no in most cases. Over farming leads to soil being turned over too much and plants that do not produce fruits and vegetables with vitamins. Another bad finding is high atmospheric carbon levels drive rice malnutrition. If rice then what else? And now a worsening climate is leading to plant extinction also. This is double bad news.

<comment><USER41> At least the soil issues can be fixed through regenerative practices, which also help mitigate climate change to some extent. Farmers should receive funding to safely transition to better practices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Fun fact - bananas are berries.

<comment><USER43> Strange times for Berry Club. [https://www.mrlovenstein.com/comic/643](https://www.mrlovenstein.com/comic/643)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Can anyone recommend a good book to learn more about the GMO debate?

</comment><comment><USER45> would it help if banana plantations were not monocultures? would it stop the spread if other trees were in between

</comment><comment><USER45> interesting video illustrating how corporations control US military action

</comment><comment><USER46> I guess there is always banana nut bread !

</comment><comment><USER47> how will we express the scale of something now?

</comment><comment><USER48> > the _epicenter_ of the global banana export industry

Sigh.

</comment><comment><USER49> "Yes! We Have No Bananas"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes!_We_Have_No_Bananas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes!_We_Have_No_Bananas)

<comment><USER37> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana)

> This variety was once the dominant export banana to Europe and North > America, grown in Central America, but in the 1950s, Panama disease, a wilt > caused by the fungus Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense, wiped out vast tracts > of Gros Michel plantations in Central America, though it is still grown on > non-infected land throughout the region.

The song is from 1923, so likely no connection to the great banana blight, eh? Too bad, I thought so too.

<comment><USER49> I believe you're right, the song predates any widespread fungus issue with bananas. Would have been cool if the lyrics had been a satire / poke at the situation.

I did find the following note about the song:

> In 2008, The New York Times ran an op-ed, with the title "Yes, We Will have > no Bananas", regarding the outcome of fungal diseases afflicting the > Cavendish Banana

[https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/opinion/18koeppel.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/opinion/18koeppel.html)

So we weren't the first to make the pun/connection - great minds think alike? :) I deserved the downvotes though, I knew it when I posted the flippant comment.</comment></comment></comment>


Could the 80/20 principle be wrong? - <AUTHOR> http://www.danielodio.com/drodio/index/Entries/2010/4/17_Could_the_80_20_Principle_be_Wrong.html

<comment><USER2> (just posted this to the blog before reading here... I essentially agree with diziet)

Dan,

I like your conclusion, but disagree with the premise.

I contend that your understanding of the Pareto principle was initially incorrect and you are not alone as your link to David's post is evidence.

I further contend that your new approach is actually more aligned with the Pareto principle.

The Pareto principle does not say that 20% effort will give you 80% of the benefit. The principle says that 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. That is a very significant distinction.

The key is figuring out which 20% gives you the proverbial bang for your buck and doing 100% of that. That is not always easy or obvious.

If you are talking about 'time' and all the hats a founder has to wear in an early startup, the math quickly breaks if one tries to spend %20 of the time on more than 5 things. IMHO, Pareto Power Law applied to entrepreneurship is not about spending %20 time on anything, it is about getting to parity on the undifferentiated infrastructure that every company needs to run for as little time and money as possible, so you can focus on narrowing down and finding the %20 of causes that really move the needle in your space.

Then go all in...

Regards, Andrew

</comment><comment><USER3> It doesn't matter if it's 80/20, 90/10, 60/40 or whatever. The _point_ is that a task consists of a two parts:

1\. a small part of effort that produces most of the results

2\. a large part of effort that produces what is needed to make #1 sufficient

What explains number #2 is that people simplify their tasks in their heads.

If you want to do task X then theoretically you only need to do X. But, in practice, you will have to do half a dozen other possibly smaller tasks as well which you have, while leisurely focusing on X, conveniently forgotten exactly until the point you actually start doing X.

This applies to a surprisingly good number of various tasks, from programming tasks to even physical ones such as gardening.

</comment><comment><USER4> Daniel, I always thought the principle was that out of all the different various tasks you do, 80% of the benefit comes from doing 20% of the tasks -- rather than working on a task with 80% efficiency or effort. So, technically what you might be observing with improved efficiency is that the extra output comes from focusing on the most productive tasks.

Also, can you please tell me why the plain text and images aren't visible on your blog without javascript enabled?

</comment><comment><USER5> Yeah, but only 20% of the time.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

</comment><comment><USER6> I am surprised people would even take it seriously. Rational speaking, half of the law/principle out there are stated as-is without any warranties.

</comment><comment><USER7> Analogy is " Could Wisdom of crowds' be wrong?

</comment><comment><USER8> Sorta fluffy article, being that it is all conjecture and nothing mentioned is even remotely quantifiable. I'm a believer in the unquantifiable, but this was an article looking for a premise… which it didn't find.

How about this, the 20/225 rule:

"Professors Cooper and Kaplan at the Harvard Business School have shown that once the cost of supporting customers is taken into account, only about 20 percent of customers are profitable. In fact, these 20 percent of customers account for 225 percent of the profits. Of course, this means that the other 80 percent of customers lose 125 percent of the profits."

\-- Pricing with Confidence (an excellent book)

</comment><comment><USER9> I think it would be a mistake to apply the Pareto principle to time distribution as the author seems to want to do here:

"so putting 20% into any one thing and reaping 80% of the benefits is a very time-maximizing way to live."

The Pareto principle is really about the distribution of causes and effect and factors. The goal would seem to be to isolate and identify your vital factors and focus most of your energy on those to maximize your output.</comment>