Facebook Will Lose 80% Of Its Users By 2017  - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/3025273/fast-feed/study-facebook-will-lose-80-of-its-users-by-2017

<comment><USER2> Um, folks, this is a non-peer reviewed paper written by some Princeton students. It's not, contrary to what at least three news organizations suggested, the considered opinion of the faculty of "Princeton's Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering."

Now, the paper's conclusions may or may not be correct; I'm expressing no opinion here. My point is really about standards of journalism -- would it really kill reporters to include the word "student" somewhere in the text of an article trumpeting a paper written by students?

Vocativ (which I generally like, BTW) did this as well with this amazingly declarative headline yesterday: "Facebook Will Lose 80% of Its User Base by 2017" No question mark! Not even attribution. I noted this on Twitter and their reporter replied by saying: "So?" [https://twitter.com/declanm/status/425699497092460545](https://twitter.com/declanm/status/425699497092460545)

For those of you who may not have been online in the early 1990s, Time magazine did this to CMU undergrad Marty Rimm's paper in its "Cyberporn" cover story. A U.S. senator subsequently waved it around on the floor of the Senate to justify an Internet censorship law: [http://w2.eff.org/Misc/Publications/Declan_McCullagh/www/rim...](http://w2.eff.org/Misc/Publications/Declan_McCullagh/www/rimm/time.html)

That was the good Sen. Chuck Grassley, in June 1995: "Mr. President, Georgetown University Law School has released a remarkable study conducted by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University. This study raises important questions about the availability and the nature of cyberporn."

The Communications Decency Act became law some six months later.

<comment><USER2> Update three hours later: An editor at Fast Company responded and said they'll add a note to the story. [https://twitter.com/JessHullinger/status/426050602984935424](https://twitter.com/JessHullinger/status/426050602984935424)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> They're using Google Trends to gauge how many people are using Facebook. Since 90% of this is people typing in "facebook" on their homepage to get to the FB login page, this might actually be a surprisingly good metric to track facebook usage.

Then again, the recent dip in searches could just mean that people are finally learning to use bookmarks, or click on Facebook directly now that most browsers show you your favorite sites when they start up.

<comment><USER4> Or more are just using mobile apps to use facebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The study was not peer reviewed, and is nothing more than an interesting experiment, not deserving of the factual assertion of the headline.

<comment><USER6> Although at least it's a testable prediction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> They vastly underestimate the number of old folks that want to keep up with their grandchildren. This is how I and my children use it now. It is the easiest platform to put on an iPad to send the old folks updates.

<comment><USER8> Is it really easier than email?

<comment><USER9> Yes. I can post a single picture of my kids and all my relatives see it at once. Sure, Instagram would be more to the point, but most of my family is on Facebook. Consider that email means I have to type up everyone's address and not forget anyone. Facebook lets me just post and people may choose to view or not view what I post.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The prediction is based on how pathogens evolve over time with no basis on how this apply to social network adoption.

A comparison with Myspace doesn't help either since Myspace decline started when FB started growing rapidly, and currently apart from G+ (which isn't growing that rapidly) there's really no competition out there.

<comment><USER11> with pathogens carriers either die or adapter either way they stop infecting after a period of time. a better analogy would be telephones or the internet itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Unsurprising if true. Out of several hundred friends, I'm down to perhaps 10 that post to Facebook on a regular basis, and they'd probably be better served by moving their activities to Twitter.

<comment><USER13> Are those 10 people really the only regular posters? Or are those 10 friends that Facebook has decided to spotlight on your news feed? I never feel like I'm getting everybody's updates because Facebook is trying to only show me "important" updates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> How do infectious diseases have anything in common with social media?

<comment><USER15> Both spread by social contact and network effects. If you don't interact with anyone that has the flu, you won't get the flu. If you don't interact with anyone that has facebook, you won't get facebook.

I have no idea if their spread followed similar models, but it wouldn't surprise me.

<comment><USER14> I can see the correlation in adoption rate, but social media users don't get purged from networks like infectious diseases do from our bodies.

The reasons people use and/or leave social networks are completely different from the reasons diseases leave the body, which is the correlation needed for this study to make sense. It just seems like linkbait to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> So going forward Facebook endless buys companies to try and prop up its user base?

I suppose that could work to some extent, since Facebook knows how to monetize.</comment>


Interesting C code - <AUTHOR> http://a1k0n.net/2011/06/26/obfuscated-c-yahoo-logo.html

<comment><USER2> _"in six lines of C"_

I'm not impressed. It could be done in 1 line of C when he left out the line- breaks.

I don't think obfuscated code is interesting. It's unreadable. And therefore it's hard to learn something from it.

But it's nice he is explaining the code. Now that is interesting!

<comment><USER3> I could have said "in 454 characters of C" but that wouldn't have been as linkbaity. Thanks for clicking!

Yes, the aim was compression (golfing), not obfuscation. Compression of silly ASCII things has been sort of a hobby of mine for a while and I intend to blog about that in particular. Another little compressed snippet is my "email signature" at the bottom of my site root. Try clicking on it.

<comment><USER4> Both of these (the signature, and the post) are amazing!

.... _jealous_

<comment><USER5> <http://a1k0n.net/2006/09/15/obfuscated-c-donut.html>

Jesus Christ. I love you, dude. Your site must have the highest awesomeness- per-bit ratio on the Internet :)

<comment><USER3> Thanks. :) I'm most proud of my IOCCC 2006 winner (the IOCCC organizers announced the winners, but not the actual entries, then disappeared from the planet): <http://a1k0n.net/2006/09/20/obfuscated-c-donut-2.html>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting indeed. But weird that he uses obfuscated code when doing a piece of explaining how it's done. Or do people actually write for loops like those? :P

<comment><USER7> This is basically the a C equivalent of a JAPH. A JAPH is a usually short bit of perl code that prints "Just Another Perl Hacker", but it isn't obvious that that's what it does. Trying to figure out how it works without cheating is part of the fun.

<comment><USER8> a.{~(/:a+c=:_29 14 _60 12 8 0 _2 5 3 2 11 6 14 _1 8 13){+/\a=:(#.1,5$0),1,(#.1,6$0),0,(2$2),(#:20),~(3*1 1r3,|.i.3)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> the javascript port is awesome too

<http://jsfiddle.net/mrpollo/jeNau/>

tho i cant make it run yet on jsfiddle

<comment><USER10> Copied and pasted that into JSBin and it worked like a champ: <http://jsbin.com/osihah/edit>

<comment><USER9> Awesome!, thanks, it runs great

</comment></comment></comment><comment> johnx123-up My favorite is world map code by Brian Westley <http://www.ioccc.org/1992/westley.hint>

                 main(l
            ,a,n,d)char**a;{
        for(d=atoi(a[1])/10*80-
       atoi(a[2])/5-596;n="@NKA\
      CLCCGZAAQBEAADAFaISADJABBA^\
      SNLGAQABDAXIMBAACTBATAHDBAN\
      ZcEMMCCCCAAhEIJFAEAAABAfHJE\
      TBdFLDAANEfDNBPHdBcBBBEA_AL\
       H E L L O,    W O R L D! "
         [l++-3];)for(;n-->64;)
            putchar(!d+++33^
                 l&1);}

BTW, how to convert C to JavaScript?

</comment><comment><USER11> Wow, impressive. And I love your humour about warnings :)

</comment><comment><USER12> I sometimes wonder if code golfing has the risk that some junior developers might confuse it as good code.

</comment><comment><USER13> Now I really want to learn ray tracing (and computer graphics in general).

</comment><comment><USER14> 'warnings which real programmers ignore' ... That tells me pretty much all I needed to know about that article.

<comment><USER15> I can't speak for the author, but I'm pretty sure that was a joke.

<comment><USER3> I can, and it obviously was.

<comment><USER16> Well played, sir. Brief in text as well as code. :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Joomla Data Breach: Joomla Resources Directory Users Exposed - <AUTHOR> https://howtohosting.guide/joomla-data-breach/ <comment><USER2> I like this one, finally some breach with good news. "The good news is that the impact of the data breach is considered low, as most of the breached information was already publicly known. However, this is not valid for hashed passwords and IP addresses, which were not public prior to the breach."</comment>


Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/17/when-parking-spaces-shouldnt-be-wasted-on-cars/ <comment><USER2> On a closely related note, I read a very interesting piece about "curb cuts" in San Francisco.

[http://www.spur.org/publications/article/2008-06-01/eye- stre...](http://www.spur.org/publications/article/2008-06-01/eye-street)

The image showing the difference between Park Slope (without curb cuts) and a stretch of Dolores street in San Francisco (with curb cuts) is really eye- opening.

It's a bummer, because a lot of SF really is small and walkable, but you know, we really do spend a lot of time dodging cars on the sidewalk. I didn't notice as much this until I had kids, because while you can dodge the cars coming and going across the sidewalk as an adult (or the cars just parked on the sidewalk, which is common here but nearly impossible without curb cuts), for a kid, it actually is dangerous.

It's a shame that SF allows curb cuts to render even the sidewalks a hazardous place for people (esp kids) to walk, cause let's face it, SF likes to tout itself as a more urban city with a vibrant pedestrian life.

The irony is that curb cuts - the bit of concrete cut out of a curb so a car can get out of the driveway and onto the street, doesn't even increase parking much, since it divides the street up into tiny bits of actual curb too small to fit a car! What it does is take a spot from the public and turns it into a private "reserved" street space. In fact, one study estimated that 50% of garages in the mission are unusable for parking (used instead for storage or other purposes), so really, this is just a reserved parking spot on the street.

<comment><USER3> Has SF ever been considered or even wanted to be considered a kid/family- friendly place? Watching from the sidelines, it's never seemed like a priority.

<comment><USER4> Being friendly to incumbents has always seemed to be the highest priority.

<comment><USER5> Which incumbents do you mean? The millionaires or the people being displaced?

<comment><USER4> Neither, because policy has largely been written to favor those who already live on or own a given patch of dirt. Most of SF is neither millionaires nor being displaced.

<comment><USER6> "Peninsula Lords"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Kind of related. This week in Medellín, people got fed up of car dealerships parking in sidewalks and made fun interventions like practicing yoga and setting up beach furniture (article in spanish).

[http://www.semana.com/nacion/articulo/en-medellin-se- cansaro...](http://www.semana.com/nacion/articulo/en-medellin-se-cansaron-de- que-los-concesionarios-invadieran-el-anden/421201-3)

<comment><USER8> That reminds me of this in Mexico: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMPBlZMQhgo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMPBlZMQhgo)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> One of the cities this is popular in is San Francisco. And the data the article suggests is correct. If you don't have to worry about taking a car to park, you are more likely to spend more time in a local area with businesses available to spend your disposable income.

The second benefit is creating a sense of place. The place to see or the place to hangout in. This personal behavior of a local population can transform a regional neighborhood into a vibrant culture and/or community.

Great post!

</comment><comment><USER10> It's nice that this is getting some press, but my sense is that it's no longer news that pedestrianism has been on the rise in dense urban areas for a tick[0].

Thanks to edward for posting this, though!

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism)

</comment><comment><USER11> Two talks worth watching regarding this very issue:

Enrique Peñalosa, former Mayor of Bogota: "In no constitution, parking is a constitutional right." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3YjeARuilI&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3YjeARuilI&feature=youtu.be&t=6m50s)

Bruno Moser, Head of Urban Design at Foster + Partners: The amount of space a car requires isa problem yet to be solved: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rUH63c1n0c&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rUH63c1n0c&feature=youtu.be&t=2m20s)

</comment><comment><USER12> Philadelphia does not have a very good public transit system. It's fine if all you want to do is get to the center of the city, but to actually travel around the city it sucks.

And parts of Philadelphia have a severe parking problem. I'm convinced that the only reason South Philadelphia works is because 1/4 to 1/2 of its population isn't at home at any one point in time. It's like sailors hot- bedding on a submarine.

So if you're going to be an urbanite in Philadelphia, you have to live your entire life in Philadelphia, in your neighborhood. Which is probably why so many of the people I knew there hadn't even been out of the state, say nothing about to other countries.

For some people, that's all they want, a provincial life. It's not for me. I grew up surrounded by people with that very same attitude, in a rural environment, that attitude of "why would you ever even _want_ to go somewhere else?" I really don't see the difference of it in an urban setting and I really just don't like being around it.

But I'm getting sick and tired of being treated like I'm a complete waste of a person for that reason. Seriously, the title is "Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars", meaning the other times it's still wasted on cars, but it's somehow ok. It's just a smug sort of attitude.

<comment><USER13> South Philly resident here. Philadelphia has "pretty good" public transport compared to many other large cities. It is particularly easy to get around by bicycle and by foot. It is no problem to get to any part of the city proper by subway, bus, taxi, uber, bicycle or foot. There are connections to NJ via bus and PATCO. Much of the outer suburbs are connected via SEPTA. You can get to NYC via NJtransit (cheaply!) or Amtrak (more expensive). It is not perfect, but I have trouble understanding why you're complaining, where do you want the public transit to go that it doesn't already ??? BTW, the lax attitude about parking is true: I own a car and park it on the sidewalk in the alley behind my house.

<comment><USER14> I live in Bella Vista, a tiny neighborhood between Center City and South Philly and echo @angdis' sentiment. The Philadelphia _subway_ system leaves a bit to be desired, but considering the trolleys, buses, and "regional" rail options, as well as the ease of making connections between most of these systems, Philly has a more than adequate public transportation system altogether.

Also -- Philly is one of the most walkable cities in the country. It's not difficult for someone to walk river-to-river or throughout University City to get where they're going.

I know plenty of folks that live and work within their neighborhood and rarely go elsewhere, but I know more people that explore all over the city and towns outside.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> In Chiang Mai near Chang Phueak Gate a sizeable paved area in front of a few mini-stores and a Ford dealership every day after 6 PM turns from parking space into busy street food market. Struck me as efficient use of space.

<comment><USER16> I think it's pretty common to use downtown parking lots for events on weekends. I know DC also has "rush hour lanes" \-- parking spots that turn into a lane of traffic during rush hour.

<comment><USER12> It also doesn't help that Philadelphia's property taxes are based on decades- old property value assessments, and instead of reassessing buildings, they just jack up the property tax rate. If you build a new building today, you'll get murdered in taxes. That's assuming you don't get murdered on the union labor, or murdered by the unions if you try to avoid using union labor.

So in DC, there isn't as much residential property in the city proper. It's a lot of grandiose buildings meant more for showing off the might of the empire than for fitting in lots of people. Also, the housing tends to be newer, more vertically scaled, with their own parking garages. In Philadelphia, people hold rallies to block construction of parking garages.

<comment><USER16> Not sure what "city proper" means in this context, but something like 600,000 people live in the District, which is not a terribly large city. Very few of them live in grandiose buildings like you might see around the Mall. In fact, there are pretty strict height restrictions, which means there aren't any highrise apartments and vertical development is limited.

<comment><USER12> That's the point I was trying to make. The ratio between the available street space for parking and the people who need to park in the District is much higher than the in Philadelphia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > Other research suggests that cyclists may actually spend more than drivers > at some kinds of businesses because it's easier for them to pop in often and > unplanned.

This is probably due to a shortage of parking spots.

<comment><USER18> It's impossible to have 'enough' parking spots. Induced demand shows that cars, like goldfish, always grow to fill the space they're given. It's politically difficult process, but just refusing to try to solve this problem (which leads to more New Urbanism-friendly locations) is often the right solution.

<comment><USER19> I've heard this theory applied to traffic, but not parking.

Because no, it isn't impossible. I've never had a problem finding parking when there's a parking garage nearby. E.g. 5th and mission. Just go to the top open floor, and there's always several spaces waiting for you.

It's just street parking that is difficult. Which makes sense because if you think about it, streets don't provide much parking. Maybe 1 car per shop.

<comment><USER20> Street parking is difficult to find because it cost less to park on the street, so people cruise around for spots instead of heading to a parking deck.

I just heard a Marketplace segment on this [1] where they talk about on-demand adjustable pricing. Very interesting.

[1] [http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/tricky-practice- pr...](http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/tricky-practice-pricing- parking)

<comment><USER21> The Parking Is Hell Freakonomics episode is pretty good. In it they estimate that there are something like 800 million parking spaces in the country and recounted a study by Donald Shoup that estimates that up to 30% of traffic in cities are people cruising looking for street parking.

Basically, we don't have a real market for parking in most cities, so people will keep their car parked on the street forever instead of using market forces to induce turnover which is better for the city(revenue) and the nearby businesses(more customers).

[1] - [http://freakonomics.com/2013/03/13/parking-is-hell-a-new- fre...](http://freakonomics.com/2013/03/13/parking-is-hell-a-new-freakonomics- radio-podcast/) [2] - [http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/CruisingForParkingAccess.pdf](http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/CruisingForParkingAccess.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Wouldn't that just cause the clients that came by car (because of distance, health, whatever) to go somewhere else because there is no parking space? It looks to me like just another gentrification result. The new hip clients never needed those parking spots.

<comment><USER23> The problem with parking spots is that with single occupancy vehicles you're allocating 170 sq feet per customer for a few dollars. That's a terrible deal given real estate prices downtown.

Also very few people are going to drive a significant distance for tacos or ice cream.

These shops only cater to foot traffic.

<comment><USER22> Yes few people are going to drive significant distances for tacos or ice cream but people drive distances to shop and buy then tacos and ice cream. Those are also cars with a whole family in it. Try to park your van with 3 kids in it in that gentrificated area for some ice cream. But hell...you don't want those loud suckers in your fancy eco-cafe.

Upper class gentrification people don't need to drive to shop. They eat in restaurants or order online. Because they can afford it.

You are causing a separation of classes here again. The whole argument runs on it and the arrogant way this class handles that by writing such 1st world problem articles is disgusting.

<comment><USER22> Downvoting without comments. Great.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It makes for interesting speculation for when automated cars come along and you don't need to park. Of course you don't need automation of you're willing to forgo parking via other services. Which leads to the many cities with adequate public transit/taxi service which already have areas configured with less parking. e.g. many European cities & New York city I would guess...

</comment><comment><USER25> I wish valet parking was more prevalent. Does the additional real estate space from efficient parking lots/structures justify the labor cost of providing free valet to customers?

Of course, the real solution lies in eliminating personal car usage altogether (e.g. Uber)

<comment><USER26> > Of course, the real solution lies in eliminating personal car usage > altogether (e.g. Uber)

eg bicycles and walking

<comment><USER27> Or buses, trams and trains.

<comment><USER28> Or a combination of all of these things!

There are definitely times when it would be inappropriate to take a bike over an uber, and times when it would be extremely inconvenient to walk.

For instance: tonight. St. Patrick's day will be my girlfriend and I going to a brewery about 10 miles from our house to try a beer they are brewing especially for today.

It would be irresponsible of us to bike home after drinking, and inconvenient to walk that far. We will almost certainly be taking an uber.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> That parklet-sidewalk interface looks like an obvious trip hazard.

</comment><comment><USER30> It seems like roughly the same goal could have been achieved by condemning a comic book store and turning the space into a park. Is there anything to this article that isn't just the observation "People like to go where parks are" repurposed into anti-car propaganda?

<comment><USER31> why are you so eager to defend cars and car-culture?

cars are the single most dangerous thing in the daily lives of most Americans. they are rolling manslaughter engines. they are destroying the environment, leading us inexplorably down a path of global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion. they have been undermining good public transportation infrastructure investment for decades. they are destructive of communities, encouraging sprawl and long distance commuting.

<comment><USER32> How about the freedom to set your own travel plans, efficiencies in travel with all the attendant economic benefits and vital tool in improving real estate quality?

The road-and-traffic free utopia you seek cannot exist.

>leading us inexplorably down a path of global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion You forgot creating runny noses and ingrown toenails. Rhetoric is a tad overblown.

<comment><USER31> clearly we need the ability to travel. allowing every person on the planet (with sufficient money anyway) to ride around in their very own 3 ton machine, moving at 80 mph is not the right way to do it. a better world would have different vehicles than cars.

global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion are realities. this is not overblown rhetoric. we are removing millions of years of fossilized plant-collected sunlight, previously sequestered deep in the crust of the Earth, and burning it at a rate so fast that the biosphere of the planet cannot keep up with the changes in the climate. there are other fossil fuels as well that contribute to this besides just the petroleum burned by cars, but petroleum burned by cars is a huge factor here.

seriously, you shouldn't be dismissive of these problems. there is a basic need to provide transportation to people. we have done a terrible job of finding a good solution to that needs. what we do now with cars is one of the most destructive and unsustainable ways possible to solve the problem.

<comment><USER30> > _global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion are realities. > this is not overblown rhetoric. we are removing millions of years of > fossilized plant-collected sunlight, previously sequestered deep in the > crust of the Earth, and burning it at a rate so fast that the biosphere of > the planet cannot keep up with the changes in the climate. there are other > fossil fuels as well that contribute to this besides just the petroleum > burned by cars, but petroleum burned by cars is a huge factor here._

These are not problems with cars, though. These are problems with internal combustion engines. Over the next half a decade, electric cars are going to take off in a big way, as EVs with low prices, long ranges and good performance characteristics become common (so far we know about the Model 3 and the Chevy Bolt, both coming in two years, and a significant range bump on the Leaf is likely by then too).

<comment><USER31> electric motors are more efficient than gasoline powered motors, so there is some real gain to using cars of that type. however, the electric energy still has to be generated by something, and frequently that something is a coal, gas, or oil burning power plant. its still better than burning the gasoline in the car engine directly but not a fundamental solution.

the fundamental solution is to drive less, to carpool more, and to reorganize our communities to make effective public transportation a focus instead of an afterthought. we have to find ways to meet the transportation needs of people without using so much energy to do so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Here we go with privatizing public resources and assets again. It galls me to hear moronic, self-serving corrupt things like "...the growing economic case for deploying our streets differently, for use by more than cars." In a capitalist predatory economy and society like ours public resources and assets should almost never be used for private purposes, especially not for private profit, gain, or benefit of any kind. Whether it is clogging up the city of Austin for the monkey shit show that SXSW has turned into, or taking over public parking spaces for private enterprise profit it's corrupt misappropriation and misuse of public resources and funds. It's simply corrupt and the government, on all levels, should not be engaged in commercial revenue generation precisely because it invites corruption.

<comment><USER34> _In a capitalist predatory economy and society like ours public resources and assets should almost never be used for private purposes_

So, in non-capitalist economies, they should? :)

I find your rant misguided. Parking spaces _are_ public resources being used for private benefits, i.e., for car owners. As a member of the "inferior" class of transit and foot travelers, I see no reason why _your_ private use trumps any other.</comment></comment>


Salmon Farmers Are Scanning Fish Faces to Fight Killer Lice - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-08/salmon-farmers-are-scanning-fish-faces-to-fight-killer-lice <comment><USER2> I just watched a nice documentary in German television about it.

The Salmon industry in Norway is a huge billion dollar industry, labor costs there are high so it's dependent on technology.

It's profitable, but also very competitive and every small edge increases it. The ingenuity of optimising every step is inspiring.

It's also in the bigger picture pretty ethical, it satisfies the demand for fish without destroying the natural ecosystems.

<comment> saiya-jin Do you mean farmed salmon? Aka 'fish' meat which, due to crap the fish are being fed resembles more pork than wild salmon? Not even talking about the amount of antibiotics, growth hormones and god knows what other chemistry pumped into them to get as much $$ as possible.

2 of the most healthy fish to eat on paper are pretty dangerous these days - tuna due to buildup of mercury and other metals since it is a relatively long- living predator (you can't avoid this), and farmed salmon due to stuff above. Maybe a proper wild one is still OK to eat often (and priced accordingly), but farmed ones are generally subpar food I try to avoid.

<comment><USER3> 1- Farmed salmon does not receive growth hormones. Is a fish.

The kind of growth hormone that you could find in the market are from mammals (or humans). I'm not an expert in hormones, but I doubt that fishes could make anything useful with it.

Farmed salmon are genetically selected, so they grow fast. No need to burn your hardly earned money chasing and injecting expensive and useless growth hormones in each one of your 100.000 fishes. Is antieconomic and would be a really stupid move.

2- Farmed salmon _COULD_ receive antibiotics, as any cattle or poultry do, _WHEN_ there is a disease that can be treated with antibiotics. Point.

Treating a big mass of open water with antibiotics is really, really expensive. Giving antibiotics in the food is not easy when you have some hundred thousands of mouths. As farmers do not have a printing dollars machine and is their money what is over the table, I bet that they think twice before to use this weapon and try to cut the medication as soon as possible.

To save antibiotics, and chemicals is the reason for doing the scanning in the article, so there are room for improving with the use of computers, and they are actively trying to improve at least.

On the other hand, antibiotics for veterinary use are legal and regulated by the EU. I bet that the period of days before the fishes can be killed and somebody could buy this meat in a marketplace is carefully followed by the farmers. Because is a REGULATED industry in the European Union.

<comment><USER4> Not everything is as regulated as you make it appear to be. e.g. virtually every pig farm in Denmark regularly gets antibiotics, and MSRA is found on pretty much every pig farm.

The average antibiotic use in Europe was 152 mg/kg of livestock a couple of years ago, with Spain and Cyprus being up in the 4-500 mg/kg.

On the brighter side, Denmark is starting to seriously reduce antibiotic use in pig farms with a goal of being virtually antibiotic free within 4-5 years.

Norwegian farmed salmon uses virtually no antibiotics, with only 5 of 799 farms performing minor treatments in 2016 . while 20 years ago, pretty much all farms used regular treatments.

<comment><USER3> Salmon is only seriously breed since 1985 (or so). I'm an ex-biologist 'specialized' on parasites and diseases of marine vertebrates, from fishes to whales and turtles. (Specialist is a big word. Lets say that I spent a few decades studying it, a few hundred pages of my thesis deal with parasites of marine farmed fishes... and still feels like a newbie). A lot of things had improved in our knowledge of marine diseases (and understanding of marine organisms) in the last twenty years.

The pig is a domesticated animal, breeded since many thousands of years. You can pick one and give it a shoot of antibiotic. Then release it and will run happy again.

Marine fishes aren't in the same league. Can be shockingly delicate sometimes and get badly stressed when caught and put off the water. I have killed many thousands of them and would not use antibiotics or mess with the tank just because, without a good reason.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Poll HN: Is TechCrunch Doomed?   - <AUTHOR>

Jason Kincaid, Sarah Lucy, the list goes on. Is TechCrunch over? <comment><USER2> Realistically.....yes. There are so many new tech blogs popping up everyday, one of them is going to nail content and insight; but at this point TechCrunch is a sinking ship. Even Mashable has been extremely flakey with content lately. It's all "oh check out this meme" or "top ten comments this week"; there's no real value or insight. It seems like Mashable keeps hiring these flakey interns who have no idea how to write insightful content. TechCrunch on the other hand has been trying out multiple writers every weekend with guest posts. Some of them are really well written, others are not so hot.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes, AOL will turn it into another pointless blog like Engadget where all the news is just 2nd or 3rd hand link-bait stuffed with SEO-bait.

No, because the authors are smart enough to realize The AOL Way of journalism doesn't have to be a one-time payment so they're setting up new sites for AOL to buy. Those blogs will carry the TC torch until they return to AOL.

</comment><comment><USER4> It will lose its status as the "paper of record" for Silicon Valley. It won't actually die for a long time.

</comment><comment><USER5> My previous employer insisted that I read every single article on TechCrunch. I could not possibly imagine better ways to bore myself. Avoiding it ever since (both of them, actually.)

</comment><comment><USER6> No. The brand is pretty strong and AOL will bring more traffic to the site. However, I think the profile of the average reader will change significantly.

</comment><comment><USER7> In what sense? Will news quality go down? I think it already has. Will ad revenue follow? I'm not so sure.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> No. They'll find a way to keep their readers engaged.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Yes - TechCrunch is over.</comment>


PC World, 1983-2013 - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/pc-world-1983-2013-7000017963/ <comment><USER2> As PC magazines go, I have to admit, I kinda miss Computer Shopper. Some of my earliest, and fondest, memories of getting started in computing involve poring over issues of that magazine, reading the columns, drooling over the parts advertised in the copious ads, and dreaming about ordering up a motherboard, case, power supply, video card, etc., and building a computer from scratch.

As history would have it, that's pretty close to what I did. I bought a 386DX/40 motherboard and CPU, a whopping 1 megabyte of RAM, and a few other bits, as I pieced together my first PC. Then a guy I went to school with offered to sell me a dead 286 box that had a good power supply, videocard, floppy drives, etc., that I needed, so I bought that, and cobbled together this Frankenstein's PC of a computer. Got myself a 28.8 modem and start exploring BBS's, Tymnet and Telenet networks, reading Phrack magazine, got into phone phreaking and other sordid activities...

Then somehow I got hold of a shareware C compiler, and a copy of Herbert Schildt's book Teach Yourself C. That started an addiction that led to Borland Turbo C++ for DOS, and the need to upgrade my computer to an absurd 4 megabytes of RAM.. and eventually to Borland C++ (the full suite), a whole shelf full of C/C++ books, and my earliest forays into this strange world of something called "linux" and "open source". Then came the Internet, Slashdot, Kuro5hin, Freshmeat, BOFH, Sluggy Freelance, User Friendly, Dilbert, etc...

Years later - who knew that this is where it would all lead? _wistful sigh_

Call me a sentimental old fart, but Computer Shopper will always hold a special place in my heart. :-)

<comment><USER3> To be honest, an ad in Computer Shopper had a nice means of pitch. In just a few square inches they had to fit their pitch into an ad, maybe with a diagram. I couldn't get tricked into some website signup, they had to make their elevator pitch on paper for what ever product or service was offered.

There was no lying about CS -- you were buying a telephone book sized tome of ads, and that was fine -- that's the reason you got it. It was a virtual analog marketplace. Anything and everything you could have wanted was in there.

<comment><USER2> Absolutely. Seems almost funny in hindsight, but I absolutely bought Computer Shopper for the ads! The articles were basically an afterthought, most of the time.

<comment><USER4> [http://www.sohcahtoa.org.uk/legacy/blog/maths/spreadsheets-t...](http://www.sohcahtoa.org.uk/legacy/blog/maths/spreadsheets- to-talk-about/index.html)

I did read some of the articles as it happens, but I know what you mean...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wrote regularly for PC World and NeXTWORLD from 1988 to 1993. The magazine had high standards and my editors, Robert Luhn and Wes Nihei, were demanding, driving me to find ways to enliven laser printer "roundups" with language that was colorful, engaging, and sometimes over the top ("This HP LaserJet, like a Clydesdale of workhorse printers, delivered consistent performance..."). Every day that I write, I remember them, and wish I had them around to improve my prose. But this is the Internet and we no longer have editors.

PC World deserves a eulogy and a better one than this from its archival Ziff- Davis. In those days, magazines created communities. Readers became part of a magazine's world, identifying themselves, forming affinity groups, despite geographic isolation, and without barriers to participation. Something like Hacker News in that regard. The publisher, the editors, the writers, and the advertisers fostered the creation of the community, and the communities created by the computer magazines of the 1980s and 1990s created our technology culture as much, and maybe more, than any single individual or Silicon Valley company. Yes, we say Steve Jobs was a genius, but part of his genius was realizing he needed David Bunnell, the founder of PC World and a former radical political organizer, to create a magazine for the Mac if his new computer was going to succeed. The dirty secret of that time was that Steve Jobs paid Bunnell to publish MacWorld (and later, NeXTWORLD) and the Apple community arose from it. The origin of our present world lies as much with David Bunnell and PC World as with Vint Cerf and DARPA but, sadly, there's no one to tell the tale.

</comment><comment><USER6> Personally, the only computer magazine I feel sad about not being in print is Byte. I loved that magazine.

<comment><USER7> Byte was one of the clear contenders for the best (if not the best) general computer magazine - but as an avid commodore 64 hacker back in 1982-1983, Compute!, with it's monthly updates on various things like undocumented 6510 opcodes, and their interesting assembly programs that we _typed in_ by hand (mostly consisting of a bunch of data/poke statements, will always hold a warm place in my heart.

<comment><USER8> You're in luck: [http://archive.org/details/compute- magazine](http://archive.org/details/compute-magazine)

I just had a burst of pleasurable nostalgia, followed by the sting of feeling old. ;)

<comment><USER9> And also.

[http://paper.textfiles.com/](http://paper.textfiles.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As per all magazines, it declined to 10% content and 90% advertising that you had to pay a large chunk of cash for. Good riddance to them all.

<comment><USER11> I seem to remember it being mostly advertising even in the early 90s.

My thought on the headline was "and nothing of value was lost", but thats perhaps unfair since the last time I looked in one was probably 20 years ago.

<comment><USER12> I used to page through the ads and find the biggest, fastest computers and I'd fantasize about having them. (I was a kid)

<comment><USER13> That's exactly what I did. Kind of funny now that the only computer I own is a pretty low spec MacBook Air and I'm perfectly content with it.

<comment><USER4> "low spec" now means "unimaginably fast and powerful" around 1995 and "Martian Supercomputer" in 1985.

At some point recently, we crossed a threshold from being hardware limited to being originality limited (or I did anyway).

<comment><USER13> Yep, I think we crossed that line with the release of Intel's Core2Duo line of processors. My 2010 MBA actually uses the C2D 2.13ghz, 4GB ram, and a 256GB SSD and it performs perfectly fine for 99% of my uses. Only time I feel bogged down is when I run multiple Play! Framework modules at once.

I remember when the first C2D benchmarks were released, it was hilarious at just how much faster they were than anything else around. Poor AMD hasn't recovered since...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Speaking as somebody born in 1986, PC Magazine and Ziff Davis ignited my interest in software and computers as a child.

It will always have a special place in my heart, even as a relic of print media (Ars Technica and AnandTech have replaced or obsoleted many aspects of the magazine even in its ironic non-computer print death throes of trying to modernize to the Web).

<comment><USER15> Slim pickings reading wise the decade your were born for computers. I had to drive up to the Princeton U. Bookstore (about 40 miles away) in order to get a book on Unix or C.

The year before you were born I had a machine in which 4mb of memory (in 80's dollars) was something like $4000. That was the cost of the extra memory (the machine was perhaps 35k in 80's dollars approx.) The hard drive was 70mb (Unix multiuser system).

Separately you missed out on the era of hiding Playboy under the bed from mom.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16>
        >in 1991, a fresh-faced CompuServe service dubbed ZDNet—

Apparently the author of the article is not too familiar with Ziff Davis. (PCMag, etc)

(from Wikipedia) _In 1989, the company launched the ZDNet site. In 1991 ZDNet on CompuServe and on the fledgling Internet were augmented by the purchase of Public Brand Software, the leading shareware disk provider. In 1995 it launched the magazine Yahoo! Internet Life, initially as ZD Internet Life. The magazine was meant to accompany and complement the site Yahoo!._

I picked up on it immediately because I was once a subscriber to several Ziff Davis publications.

</tangent>

</comment><comment><USER17> The magazine's title always seemed like an omen that death was inevitable.

<comment><USER18> It makes me wonder...in the faced paced tech world today, where things appear as fast as they disappear, what the odds are of finding a title that stands the test of time.

<comment><USER19> The Verge seems like a candidate. If you name a tech publication after an aspect of technology itself, like Wired, the name is destined for quaintness.

<comment><USER20> Verge is French slang for a phallus, which might make it an unpopular title in some regions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I personally prefer a copy in my hand, that I can carry around with me, and flip pages.. the quality of e-ink or tablet displays isn't the same.. I find navigating most e-versions of magazines I've tried to be beyond irritating. I stopped subscribing to Linux Journal when they went electronic only.. I know the reasons why, just the same it was less appealing to me. I still subscribe to Maximum PC, but even that is getting stale now.

</comment><comment><USER22> Yes, but the BIG question is: with the move to 'digital', are they going make available all those precious back issues in electronic format?

Years back, I eagerly ordered the Byte CDROM archive from DrDobbs. My expectations were dashed: no glossy pdfs, nor even illustrations or ads; the articles were just text files. With those historical mags, along with the technical content, I find context very important...

</comment><comment><USER23> _> PCW and its peer publications—PCMag, but also BYTE, Computer Shopper, and in 1991, a fresh-faced CompuServe service dubbed ZDNet—helped bring a niche interest into the mainstream._

I have fond memories of BYTE and Computer Shopper. I repeatedly pored over the same random issue for Computer Shopper for years before I owned a PC.

More recently, I was sad to see SysAdmin go.

</comment><comment><USER24> Well, from IDG, I prefered to read ComputerWorld anyway.

It's apparently for IT managers (which I am not), but it at least contains some information, unlike PC World's "top 10 shareware applications of the month" and "let's test this random hardware and put the results in a big table".

</comment><comment><USER25> I learned a lot from the ads, it was a way to stay current with the latest video card or motherboard, or CPU release. I watched the ads change from cga to VGA to retina, from Athlon and Pentium to the current crop, which interestingly have broadened out to include more variety again, thanks to mobile. I liked ETI a lot too. I suppose these days the need to stay current on hardware has really gone away, we all run little client machines (chrome book/Air etc) and use server side services, even development is mainly on remote machines managed by people who specialize. We are today li tied not by the hardware, but by our creativity. With a few hundred dollars anyone can release software that can reach millions. We've come a lot way since PC world started.

</comment><comment><USER26> PC World the magazine. Not to be confused with the retailer of the same name ([http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/index.html](http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/index.html))

Not that I would be too upset if that retail chain closed down.

</comment><comment><USER27> I really hope somebody has these magazines scanned and archived somewhere. Recently I've been looking at old Amiga and MSX magazines and they're both really fun, but also really good documentation of the era. In a decade or so, a PC World archive could become possibly the only documentation of the release dates and prices of various products and the histories of entire minor industries.

</comment><comment><USER28> I remember when this was thick as a brick. An engine for printing money. Those were the days.

</comment><comment><USER29> I predict MacWorld will soon follow up. Sad... I always loved reading PCWorld at the grocery store as a break from the monotony of shopping for food.

Print is dead. The LCD hath killed it. Long live the LCD, and long live e-Ink displays.

</comment><comment><USER30> RIP, it was inevitable but it served a purpose in its day.</comment>


Join the survey to expand PostgreSQL ecosystem - <AUTHOR> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F561EFA@G01JPEXMBYT05 <comment><USER2> Please follow the first link in that post, and take the (super short) survey. It's for helping us gather info to improve PostgreSQL. :)</comment>


The Great Food Crisis of 2011 - <AUTHOR> http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/10/the_great_food_crisis_of_2011?page=full <comment><USER2> this is very concerning</comment>


The History of 'Easter Eggs' - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/08/technology/easter-eggs-tesla-google.html <comment><USER2> Easter eggs can be fun, but you got to be careful too! I know of a group that put a "PC Load Letter" error on a $100k machine as a joke (Office Space reference), all in good fun. Well years later a unit completely broke, kept saying "PC Load Letter", and caused a big problem for the customer. Somehow an executive caught wind of the whole situation and was not too pleased...

So maybe the moral of the story is put Easter Eggs where a user can find them to have fun, not as an error message!

</comment><comment><USER3> I prefer James Thomson's presentation on the history of easter eggs: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAaqSr- yShc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAaqSr-yShc)

<comment><USER4> I prefer Brian Moriarty's lecture (showcased in The Witness):

[http://ludix.com/moriarty/psalm46.html](http://ludix.com/moriarty/psalm46.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> That "Josh" guy makes the best easter eggs.</comment>


How I Learned to Stop Procrastinating, and Love Letting Go - <AUTHOR> http://zenhabits.net/leggo/?utm_content=buffer5f9b3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer <comment><USER2> You may want to not waste time reading this but instead use that time to read pg's essay on similar ideas, "How to Do What You Love" ([http://paulgraham.com/love.html](http://paulgraham.com/love.html)), which, if I had the power, I would have millions of copies printed and have every kid in the world read it. It explains (at least) two simple ideas very effectively:

1\. The work versus fun dichotomy is taught very early:

"The very idea is foreign to what most of us learn as kids. When I was a kid, it seemed as if work and fun were opposites by definition. Life had two states: some of the time adults were making you do things, and that was called work; the rest of the time you could do what you wanted, and that was called playing. Occasionally the things adults made you do were fun, just as, occasionally, playing wasn't—for example, if you fell and hurt yourself. But except for these few anomalous cases, work was pretty much defined as not- fun."

2\. To compare two activities, you have to compare the area under their utility/fun vs. time curves.

"But the fact is, almost anyone would rather, at any given moment, float about in the Carribbean, or have sex, or eat some delicious food, than work on hard problems. The rule about doing what you love assumes a certain length of time. It doesn't mean, do what will make you happiest this second, but what will make you happiest over some longer period, like a week or a month.

Unproductive pleasures pall eventually. After a while you get tired of lying on the beach. If you want to stay happy, you have to do something."

<comment><USER3> > Unproductive pleasures pall eventually. After a while you get tired of lying > on the beach. If you want to stay happy, you have to do something."

Nonsense. This in itself is a result of falling prey to what Leo Baubata (the author of the linked article) writes about: Inability to "let go".

There may certainly be things you'd find more fulfilling. But if you _need_ to do stuff to be happy, you are letting yourself suffer from attachments to things that more the most part are relatively inconsequential.

PG's essay suffers from this assumption that happiness is tied to achievements.

I used to think that too. The problem with that line of thinking is that it often leads to putting the shutters on and focusing on getting stuff done to get your happiness from it eventually, while ignoring all the sources of happiness around you. Further, that makes procrastination worse, in my experience: It creates guilt that you're picking the short term pleasures instead of doing the stuff you're sure will make you fabulously happy later, once you've just achieved something.

These days, I still get stuff done - more than ever, in fact -, but I might suddenly stop during my commute and look up at the clouds and enjoy the sight, or just close my eyes for 10 seconds and enjoy the calm, and I'm happy whether or not I'm doing anything. The two are not related. If you can't be happy even while doing the dishes, or fighting your way onto a commuter train, or carrying out some mind-numbingly boring menial work, you're missing out.

<comment><USER4> Happiness is a natural measurement of how well you (believe you) are achieving your goals. If you are unhappy, it's a signal that you should change something about your life, not a signal that you should short-circuit the measurement system.

<comment><USER5> Changing something about your life is a valid response. So is short-circuiting the measurement system. Keep in mind that the measurement system includes external cultural/societal pressures, out-of-date instinctual responses, and your emotions _as interpreted through the lens of your own emotions_. A disadvantage of changing what you do, instead of how to feel about what you do, is that you will probably arrive at a place of dissatisfaction over and over again.

<comment><USER6> This. I have a friend who changes jobs about every 6-12 months chasing happiness. And every 6-12 months, I can count on him starting to bitch and moan about everything at the job. He refuses to listen to the idea that maybe happiness should be externally obtained and instead should start from within somehow. In a lot of ways, this seems to be an Eastern-Western dichotomy.

We can decide to wake up and be happy or we can decide to wake up and let something dictate our happiness. Whether we do it consciously or not, it's still a choice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I feel like procrastinating is such a common human condition that it's really not about you but about the work you're putting off.

When I was in college, I would put off doing lab reports until 6am in the morning. Watch youtube, surf the web for 30 minutes and actually work for 5 minutes.

But there was a reason. It was boring drudgery. Now that I get to work on my own project, I code almost all day. When I eat, I think about my code. When I brush my teeth I think about my code. Before I fall asleep, I think about code. My code is the first thing I think about when I wake up in the morning. I usually can't wait to finish breakfast and start working. So much for that ADHD diagnosis.

<comment><USER8> My son's got an ADHD diagnosis and he seems like you. Whatever is slightly uninteresting is terribly difficult for him to focus on but if there's something interesting, he can maintain perfect focus for hours.

I imagine it might be days if he wasn't interrupted.

<comment><USER9> * Whatever is slightly uninteresting is terribly difficult for him to focus on but if there's something interesting, he can maintain perfect focus for hours.

Aren't we all like that?

<comment><USER5> I don't think so. I think most people can do "slightly uninteresting" things, especially when they can see the benefit, and I think that many people have trouble focusing on things that they are interested in after a few hours.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I do empathize with the original article a lot. I used to have/still have a strong fear of failing, especially in intellectual tasks. According to my own introspection this is primary angst that caused/causes me to procrastinate. There are two major references I often go back when I find myself paralyzed.

One being an advise I got from one of my PhD advisors: All creative tasks might appear that it requires enormous amount of courage and effort. But usually it is more like a kitchen sink heaped with a lot of unwashed dishes. Chances are that once you wash one dish, you will end up cleaning the full lot; and you often get a strange form of pleasure while you are performing the task.

The other one is this essay [http://www- rohan.sdsu.edu/~psargent/Mills_Intell_Craft.pdf](http://www- rohan.sdsu.edu/~psargent/Mills_Intell_Craft.pdf) on intellectual craftsmanship by Wright Mills. I do now a days actively collect memories of pure immersion and pleasure I experienced while my craft got exposed and exploited to its potential. The thought of me improving as a craftsman, coupled with these memories is a powerful self motivator to me. The shit feeling I gets when I waste my time is another reference. One of the potent lessons was also that craft can be improved only by dedicating time ( which is pleasurable); and by disassociating the end result and fears. The toughest part is to replay this logic while I find myself slipping into vortex of non productivity, but that is something I can work on and probably in my control.

<comment><USER11> I just have to say, I love washing dishes. I was convinced by Leo (the author) to start trying to enjoy myself while washing dishes, and now I love it. I don't even use the dishwasher anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The Now Habit is also good reading on the subject of procrastination [http://lifehacker.com/5658620/the-now-habit-overcoming- procr...](http://lifehacker.com/5658620/the-now-habit-overcoming- procrastination-and-enjoying-guilt+free-play)

<comment><USER13> I found the Procrastination Equation to be a better read. The Now Habit can be summed up as "don't be a perfectionist", whereas the Procrastination Equation says there are three types of procrastinators, and perfectionism isn't actually what causes most procrastination. The latter book is much better sourced and more thorough: there are loads of footnotes where you can look up the studies and the articles he's citing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Was I the only one expecting it to be a fun play on words and be about embracing golang?

<comment><USER15> Yeah, perfect title, just add a couple more words...

"How I Learned to Stop Procrastinating, and Love Letting Go Garbage Collect"

<comment><USER16> That sounds like a randomly generated title from the HN Headline Generator :)

[https://github.com/sursh/markov-hacker-news](https://github.com/sursh/markov- hacker-news) or www.blarworld.net/hackernewsgen.html

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Mark Twain nailed it: "Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day AFTER tomorrow."

<comment><USER18> Left recursion

\-- noam chomsky

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> On a side note, I just listened to this audiobook "The Art of Procrastination: A Guide to Effective Dawdling, Lollygagging and Postponing"

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Procrastination- Lollygagging-P...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Procrastination-Lollygagging- Postponing/dp/0761171673)

A humorous take on working with procrastination, not against it. Short, but highly recommended.

<comment><USER20> In the same vein: structured procrastination.

[http://www.structuredprocrastination.com/](http://www.structuredprocrastination.com/)

<comment> contr-error Yes, more precisely, it's the (audio)book's author's webpage ;-) The book presents an attainable ideal to strive towards as a procrastinator, instead of a lofty hyper-productive pipe dream. In any case, it's a fun read and an interesting take on living with akrasia.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> For me, the single most efficient anti-procrastination technique has been Don't Break The Chain. I have a few tasks that I need to complete _every day_ and the point is that the longer the streak is the bigger the incentive will be to continue. It also creates a clear routine which helps a lot on the psychological level (anyone who is into physical training of some sort knows how important this is).

I usually break it up in "do X for Y minutes" and timebox it to 1 hour. Right now it's "read a book for 15 minutes, clean the house for 15 minutes and code on a side-project for 25 minutes". I also have a shorter version for busy days which is basically "read two pages, do one chore and complete a trivial task on the side-project" but as long as I do something it's fine.

<comment><USER22> "Don't Break The Chain" can be dangerous on its own.

Whenever I do break the chain, I feel unmotivated to start the chain again ( _especially_ if I've done a good job, because it seems overwhelming to pick it up again from the start of the chain).

I've had to move on from Don't Break The Chain to being positive about making consistent progress.

I would say Don't Break The Chain is great for a fixed-length, short-to- medium-term task, rather than instilling permanent habits.

<comment><USER23> You can make your chain more coarse than daily. For example, for me it's a lot easier to commit to doing something 5 days a week rather every single day so my chain links are measured in units of weeks rather than days. You don't need to beat yourself up about missing a day or two here and there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Welp, those were a good 2 minutes of procrastination

</comment><comment><USER25> There's no relation between 'procrastination' and 'letting go'. Procrastination is pretty much normal, everyone procrastinated once entire days on HN/Netflix/...

There are easy cures and proven techniques against procrastination and not a single one is mentioned in this write-up.

<comment><USER26> Procrastination is often caused by the urge to find a small comfort to escape discomfort. Checking your email account in the middle of a difficult task, checking the news, etc. Letting go of this urges helps you stop procrastinating. There are no practical methods explained in this article but the main idea is a solid one that may help people overcome this problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Any article on procrastination that contains a to-do list is a procrastination-feeding item itself.

</comment><comment><USER28> The author had me until he talked about giving up beer. :-)

Seriously, though, I think getting rid of the distractions on the fringe of our lives is important. For me it was getting rid of the TV. That doesn't always link to killing procrastination (I'm on here, aren't I?) but it does create a lot more time for being in the flow.

</comment><comment><USER29> I wouldn't have read this article if I were not procrastinating...

<comment><USER30> You stole the words from my thought .. damn you !!

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I will read it later

</comment><comment><USER32> I couldn't help but think I'm procrastinating while reading it (+ reading the comments) ... Ahhhh !!! I better get back to work !

<comment><USER33> uu, a lifehacker article! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> If you like the concept of letting go. Jamie Smart goes deeper about explaining the concept in his book, Clarity.

</comment><comment><USER35> Pomodoro really works.

</comment><comment><USER36> Herman Hesse's pop Buddhism is strong in this one.

</comment><comment><USER37> Its all about Time Value of Happiness

</comment><comment><USER38> Procrastination comes from lack of motivation. Address that first.

<comment><USER39> Hrm I thought this was true at first. Spending lots of time consuming materials on how to increase my motivation, etc. Nothing worked! But then, why would it? I'm obviously motivated to do what I want to do or else I wouldn't be trying so many different ways to stop putting off!

The best results I've had have been from a) just doing and b) reducing anxieties. Nothing I have tried has been sustainable but I still keep trying.

If I wasn't motivated, why would I keep trying?

<comment><USER40> It is always possible that one wants to have done something, but does not wish to actually be doing it. So one has difficulty starting, and if one starts one has difficulty following through, but one still keeps trying to start. Or, better yet, starts doing other things which don't really cause forward progress but which seem like they might eventually - like reading motivation books</comment></comment></comment>


I will draw you a monster for $8 - <AUTHOR> http://uphype.com/hype/draw-a-monster <comment><USER2> More interesting than a guy drawing monsters, is the site UpHype itself.

Besides a lot of "I'll spam your site/service on twitter/fb for $8", there seems to be quite a few designers and artists offering logos, voiceovers and other potentially useful things.

Their "All for only $8, $16 or $24" model is simple enough to work well. I'll keep an eye on it.

<comment><USER3> Which is basically a clone of <http://www.fiverr.com/> (everything is $5 there though).

<comment><USER4> I used it to get a postcard from japan sent to my japanophile sister.

Every time I see this website I can't help but think about the fact that they made the classical mistake of having a decriptive name for their product and are now forever stuck with a five dollar price tag.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just used the service (twice!) and I'm very happy with the results. Just wanted to have 2 works of digital art from 2 ideas I had long time ago.

Thanks to cogstar I made finally have it.

You can see it the artwork at: [http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=6214500&l=3263b382...](http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=6214500&l=3263b38201&id=694860912) [http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=6241999&l=1da74b8b...](http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=6241999&l=1da74b8b33&id=694860912)

</comment><comment><USER6> Interesting proposal. Why would someone want a monster though?

Who owns the image copyright once the work has been done?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Simon,

I'm the monster artist. I doing it mostly for fun, but there are a few people who will use them for logos, avatars, and character designs for role playing games. As for the copyright - I say if you buy it, you own it. If for any reason the monster goes on to be famous - just let me know! You keep the profits, just give me credit please.

<comment><USER7> I had Simon draw a monster version of the mascot from my open source project for no other reason than it was fun. For $8 it seems like a bargain for a bit of a laugh.</comment></comment></comment>


The Rise of Post-Familialism: Humanity's Future? - <AUTHOR> http://www.newgeography.com/content/003133-the-rise-post-familialism-humanitys-future

<comment><USER2> I read recently that in medieval England large distributed families (i.e. families with lots of extended cousins in different towns and counties) had important network effects for finance, information, and so on. It was a great benefit to have a second cousin in that other town in the rather parochial society of the time.

I wonder if the rise of urban density, fast transportation, and more efficient technological networks have served to replace these benefits?</comment>


'Hi-tech' farming in Japan - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8365599.stm

<comment><USER2> This has been tried elsewhere. The costs with hydroponics greenhouses are so high that it doesn't make economics sense to grow food, only much higher value crops like flowers.

Yet every few years someone comes along only to prove the economics don't work. Last I read someone was trying to get funding for a skyscraper hydroponic greenhouse in NYC which would be clear folly.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Without going all Matrix esq, this is fascinating.

1) The potential to grow food anywhere. ( Spaceships, submarines, cave systems )

2) From a green perspective, it would reduce many a carbon foot print in terms of travelling.

Still to conquer would be the electricity bill.

A country like Iceland tho, could become a major food provider with its almost free electricity.</comment>


Google Maps and the rise of the Hyperlocal web - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/15-07/ff_maps <comment><USER2> that's a long article.

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha yeah, it's from this month's magazine.</comment></comment>


PHP7 – 100% perf improvement, supports existing apps - <AUTHOR> http://talks.php.net/sunshinephp15

<comment><USER2> You can click the labels under the benchmark charts to see different tests.</comment>


Police Save Black Lives - <AUTHOR> I have been a bit concerned about the latest idea of defunding the police in the US.
Straight out its a very bad idea I will explain: I have compared figures from South Africa (SA) and the United States(US) firstly because I live in SA and both have a history of racial conflict. In SA there has been a defunding of the police as well as affirmative action.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/murder-rate-by-country/ murders per 100,000 people.
US 5.35 SA 33.97
Police killings per 10 million people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_by_country US 46.6 SA 76.9
The figures speak for themselves but the message is look after your police, pay them well and train them and you will save lives. <comment><USER2> I think you could use some more information on what people mean when they talk about defunding police.

Here's an easy-to-read FAQ:

[https://www.instagram.com/p/CA59D-eFTzE/?fbclid=IwAR3RbTvBSb...](https://www.instagram.com/p/CA59D-eFTzE/?fbclid=IwAR3RbTvBSb1PtF- xi_x5stYCYi74kHYGt5sgggibl5a2M4jwZlLossns-ww)

</comment><comment><USER3> Currently police has funds for surplus military equipment. ([https://www.stripes.com/how-and-why-local-police- departments...](https://www.stripes.com/how-and-why-local-police-departments- get-military-surplus-equipment-1.299570)) Therefore, they have funds for serious training. If it's not used in better ways, it can be at least taken away.

<comment><AUTHOR> Civilian law enforcement is different to military action. Police training is also complex and needs legal as well as weapons training.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [https://i.imgur.com/WknEZ7m.gifv](https://i.imgur.com/WknEZ7m.gifv)</comment>


The 5, 10, 20 year plan - <AUTHOR> http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/542-the-5-10-20-year-plan

<comment><USER2> Real opportunity comes from being opportunistic. Opportunities are spontaneous, but when you're sticking to your five year plan you don't deviate. You're putting the blinders on. "This is where we're going because that's what we said!" When you don't have a plan you can pick up on an opportunity that comes along. You're taking the blinders off. "This is where we're going because it makes sense today." I'd rather stroll into the future with my blinders off.

One of the best pieces of advice I've ever read from 37 signals.

</comment><comment><USER3> Make 5, 10, 20 year plans anyways.</comment>