Ask HN: Review my lockscreen newsreader startup - <AUTHOR> Frontpage launched last week and is very much a minimum viable product at the moment - it only has minimal functionality and there is still lots to do. Its bootstrapped by myself building the frontend and my cofounder developing the backend.
Frontpage allows you to browse your favourite news and social feeds right from your lock screen without having to enter any passwords or fumble through multiple apps.
Once installed, simple activate Frontpage from Frontpage's settings tab, turn the screen off, and when you turn it back on you can begin browsing content.
Frontpage currently only supports the New York Times (remember, its a MVP). Frontpage is also only available on Android due to the fact that iOS does not allow lock screen augmentation.
We'd love to hear your thoughts!
http://www.frontpageapp.com <comment><AUTHOR> The app is free! Give it a try and let me know what you think, any feedback is appreciated.

<http://www.frontpageapp.com>

</comment><comment><USER2> Cool idea, I really like it. Too bad I have an iPhone. Your website seems kind of laggy on my computer, maybe go a bit easy on the graphics next time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi mflindell, what browser were you using to visit the site? This issue was occurring in Chrome for 2 reasons: the first was to do with image scaling and has now been resolved thanks to your comments. The second is due to Chrome's DNS Pre-fetching feature which causes many sites to lag. To disable this feature, look for "Predict network actions to improve page load performance" under the 'Show advanced settings' section of Chrome's settings tab.

Thanks for your input, and sorry we havent been able to put together an iOS version for you. Maybe if we get enough users, one day Apple will reconsider.

In the meantime, please tweet about us @thefrontpageapp. The sooner we succeed on Android, the sooner we can set our sights elsewhere. Cheers!

<comment><USER2> Much better now, but that DNS stuff is pretty confusing. Probably don't tell anyone that because its just babble.

Keep up the good work!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> looks like any other aggregating content website, how is yours different?</comment>


Ask HN: Where is the best place to sell my website? - <AUTHOR> I have a website that generates over £100k a year in revenue and I am looking to sell.. Where would be a good place to locate buyers for a site of this size? <comment><USER2> Possibly Flippa, or you could contact competitors directly and see if you could work out a deal: [https://flippa.com/](https://flippa.com/)

What's the site?

<comment><AUTHOR> It is a combination of a site + app and has an email database of 15k that is very active.

<comment><AUTHOR> Site is: [http://betalyst.com](http://betalyst.com)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> [http://www.websiteclosers.com/](http://www.websiteclosers.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Not seen this before... Will take a look</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Looking for a previous link that had one page tutorials for languages - <AUTHOR>

It was posted sometime in the last 1-3 months. Kind of like http://hyperpolyglot.org but better. You'd click on the language, and it'd be one page of "here's an if statement, here's an array, here's a subclass". I've been searching like crazy with no luck. <comment><USER2> learnxinyminutes

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you so much! That's it!!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is Onrv..xweb.nz? - <AUTHOR> According to https://moz.com/top500, the top 18-37 sites in the world are these urls.  When I load them with curl, all I get is a blank response.
A whois to one of these sites returns
version: 8.0 query_datetime: 2018-01-09T18:55:38+13:00 domain_name: Onrv0izpsitea.xweb.nz query_status: 510 Domain is not managed by this register
Does anyone know what this is?  It smells like malware to me... <comment><USER2> According to Google cache, the robots.txt file and sitemap, it used to be a WordPress-powered link directory that you could pay to submit a link to and purported to offer "authority" to boost your search engine rankings. At some point recently, they probably threw an "exit" or "die()" into the index file: all the pages are there but returning no content. The millions of links were likely created by the site's owner's own other sites/domains; a spammy link network to game search engines again. There's tons of link and content farms like this out there trying to manipulate Google search results.

</comment><comment><USER3> They seems to be registered at "Directi Web Technology Pvt. Ltd" which is a domain register.

It also doesn't say it is the top sites in the world as in visited. It just says that these are the sites being linked to by other sites (in the root dir).

Feels to me that this company set up 1.6 million websites all having links to these URLs. Because they all have the same amount of websites linking to them.

As for the reason I have not the slightest idea.

</comment><comment><USER4> [https://hackernoon.com/im-harvesting-credit-card-numbers- and...](https://hackernoon.com/im-harvesting-credit-card-numbers-and- passwords-from-your-site-here-s-how-9a8cb347c5b5)

was on here like 4 days ago :D</comment>


A new predictive model for more accurate electrical grid mapping - <AUTHOR> https://code.fb.com/connectivity/electrical-grid-mapping/ <comment><USER2> Their model uses night-time lighting data collected by the SUOMI-NPP satellite to infer medium-voltage grid connections. Grid paths are based on Dijkstra's shortest path, with accommodation to follow roads and avoid water. The authors state an accuracy of 70 % of their model predicting grid paths within 1 km of existing power lines. Prior attempts to model grid paths using satellite imagery failed due to the diversity of shape and orientation of poles, and false positives attributed to vegetation, shadows and similar infrastructure.

The rationale for creating this model is the lack of up-to-date electric grid location data, especially in developing countries. While I find the approach fascinating and well documented, I think the error in this model's results is much too high for further use. I would not want to rely on any electricity system planning that utilizes these model results, because the model may omit _entire branches of the grid_.

Can anyone think of any useful applications of these model results?

<comment><USER3> > The rationale for creating this model is the lack of up-to-date electric > grid location data

Certain details about the electrical grid are regarded as a matter of national security in Norway and I would think most other developed countries share this view.

For example, if the exact location of all transmission lines in a country are known to the public then an enemy state or a group of terrorists could use that knowledge to completely cut the power to a city as part of their attack.

The willingness of some to attack the power grid of someone else was demonstrated for example in the December 2015 Ukraine power grid cyberattack.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2015_Ukraine_power_gr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2015_Ukraine_power_grid_cyberattack)

<comment><USER4> What prevents those details from being mapped by volunteers though? Consider openinframap, for most western nations that looks to be pretty spot on?

<comment><USER5> Nothing, but some of the details are not available to volunteers. Even if you know where all the lines are, it may not be clear how to attack those lines. There are redundancies and branch switches and feeder cross connections. If you knew where all the switches and cross connections were, though, then you could really take advantage of any weaknesses in coverage.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Data Protectionism Begins In Earnest - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/05/data-protectionism-begins-in-earnest/ <comment><USER2> I am cross posting a comment here that I posted on TC, this is an experiment to help me compare the reactions, sorry for the potential inconvenience.

2 things:

A) Don't under estimate the power of software. It is obvious that I have full access right to my "friends" list, including data that my friends share with me. It is only a matter of time/need until easy tools to export this will be in the hands of users, power users firsts, casual users next

B) Most users on facebook were rather computer illiterate at first ; we're talking about a population that basically is "discovering" the power of computers. They learn. They will leverage this knowledge to escape whatever walled garden emprison them, if only to do the cool thing that cool guys do.

C) A flat list of friends is a very primitive way to describe social relationships, mixing strong ties with weak ties to the extreme ; this does not scale, this does not reflect the true and essential complexity of relationships. Focus will shift to more fine grained (and fluid) ways to describe relationships.

D) The real issue is the single login one I think. I tend to believe that it makes sense that people will use their most "public" profile to login. That makes Facebook a strong contenter. But for quite some times, there will be services requiring an email address to login. Facebook (and Twitter) should better provide an email address soon, or else people will eventually become fluent enough to use a gmail one...

Facebook is one big step in the evolution of Internet, but it is just a step.

OK, not 2 things... that's serendipity I guess ;)</comment>


Boys are being outclassed by girls at both school and university - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/international/21645759-boys-are-being-outclassed-girls-both-school-and-university-and-gap <comment><USER2> As someone who has been in school for his entire life, I've always noticed that the average girl typically outperforms the average male in my classes. But it seems like the distribution of males was much wider.

For example, if each gender's academic capabilities were normally distributed, then I would expect the mean for girls to be higher than the mean for boys, but the variance for boys to be larger than the variance for girls. I say this because I tend to see many boys at the very bottom of my classes, but also at the very top.

Of course this is all based on my experiences in school, and I have no data to back this up. But I'd be interested in seeing distributions of academic performance for each gender.

<comment><USER3> I think this is a misnomer, in my experience boys just telegraph their academic ability more than girls do.

<comment><USER4> A greater variance among men is a widely-noted phenomena. But by all means, keep selling the narcissism[1]-line if it's more soothing to you.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9153685](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9153685)

<comment><USER5> Lots of widely-noted phenomena do not stand up to actual evidence. ([http://www.minnpost.com/sites/default/files/attachments/rtx1...](http://www.minnpost.com/sites/default/files/attachments/rtx120100010p-2.pdf))

<comment><USER6> Thank you for a great reference. It seems to me that Figure 1B (girls' versus boys' variance scatter plot) clearly shows greater variance for boys.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As someone who proceeded through institution, then was employed by institution...

Not entirely convinced that success in these channels is conducive to anything.

Adherence to a specific structure is just one way to provide merit to youth.

Let's see a gender comparison in lucrative web project creation?

<comment><USER8> Why so defensive?

<comment><USER9> We can interpret the comments in two different ways.

1) Nope, this doesn't mean girls are good as boys.

or

2) That's nice but this doesn't mean we have achieved gender equality.

<comment><USER10> I'm sure there's some defensiveness going on in this thread. But there's also some truth to the fact that people place undue emphasis on certain quantitative measures of academic performance. This is why I don't like it when, for example, people are overly concerned that America's standardized test scores are lower than those of other nations. What matters is what you achieve, not what you are predicted to achieve (although there is certainly a correlation between the two).

<comment><USER4> Maybe certain Americans should get over their we-need-to-be-nr-one-at- everything desire.

<comment><USER10> "Need to be" number 1? Sure, I suppose that would be a bad desire to have. It's impossible for anyone, individual or nation, to be the best at everything. But what about "want to be number 1"? I would love to be number 1 at everything. Balanced with some reasonable expectations, I think this is great; in fact, I think we should encourage more people to feel this way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The problem is not boys. The problem is school. School is like a modern day prison for kids, particularly boys. Kids were not meant to sit still for 8 hours/day listening to lectures, then go home and complete hours and hours of bullshit assignments and busy-work. I hated school back then, and if I had to go back now, I'd probably hate it just as much.

<comment><USER12> Well, at least it prepares you we for a career in programming :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I would be more impressed by this if I thought academic success was any indicator of aptitude. As a hiring manager I have completely stopped looking at things like GPA and in some cases even if you have a degree, they are such poor indicators of aptitude. So who cares if girls are doing better in school I still won't hire 90% of them.

We really need to stop caring about how boys are girls are doing in school and start caring why so many people are being given degrees and can't get a job in their chosen field.

</comment><comment><USER12> Well what should we expect? In the last 20-30 years, a huge amount of effort has (rightly) been put into bringing girls' performance up. Examples include substituting practical classes for theory, exams for courseware, and so on. Also, for quite unrelated reasons, there are fewer male teachers (i.e. role models) than ever before.

So if I was interested in gender equality then I might suggest that maybe the balance has swung too far and we need to reverse some of these changes just a little bit, but I'm actually a feminist so I'm just going to declare victory and move on.

<comment><USER14> > if I was interested in gender equality ... I'm actually a feminist so I'm > just going to declare victory and move on.

I'm not a feminist, but I wonder if you're really representing the feminist point of view, at least as most feminists would like to be seen.

<comment><USER15> I rather expect these results will be used as proof of sexism at the next level. Women outperform men in school (not a problem) therefore men are only achieving through the patriarchy in business.

I say that I expect it, but I've already had friends telling me this is the way it is.

<comment><USER6> I wouldn't say "only" there, but isn't it true that men are achieving through the partriarchy in business?

<comment><USER15> "men are achieving through patriarchy"

That's a true statement, but it's not a basis for action, much less legislation.

Another true statement, "women are achieving by sleeping their way to promotions."

Most of us, however are at a place of employment where men and women do get along. An imbalance of men/women in the workplace isn't by itself proof of anything. I'm in a shop with an imbalance, but we're hiring and can't find _anyone_. If women were out there making 77% of men, we'd love to talk to them. But they're not, and at the same time we're lumped in as the problem because our industry has some "brogrammers" which is a phenomenon I've never actually witnessed. Of course the next thing I'll hear is that because I claim not to have witnessed it is because the culture is so deep it is invisible and I'm a part of it.

Well, I'm sorry, 30+ years of hearing how I'm the problem really gets old. Of course some people aren't talking about all men, but if I say "not all men", I've hit another trigger.

It's a minefield and I'm sure just by writing more than a single line of agreement I've stepped on one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It seems like society is facing two serious problems on both edges of the bell curve: 1) undereducated men can't find good jobs and 2) well-educated women are still not getting the share of CEO, politician, and other top professional jobs that they deserve. I cannot think of any sense in which one problem cancels out, compensates for, or assists with the other.

They're both very serious problems, and we should all be looking at solutions for both.

</comment><comment><USER17> I think the gap in income in the first years after leaving University, is at one point because a lot of woman at least a higher percentage then from men may have not enough confidence in themselfs so at one point dont struggle for higher payed jobs, those jobs they still dont completly satisfy the qualifications for, while a higher percentage of men is more willing to just try to get such jobs even without appropriate qualifications.

Also in my opinion a higher percentage of woman then men are not willing to get a job which has a lot of conflict potential , so at least a higher percentage of men are willing to try more stressfull and demanding jobs which also pay better.

These effects add up showing why there may just be a gab in the first years. This is mainly a problem of preferences.

The gaps later on and in higher positions i think are still really a huge problem for woman in all professions, so i would certainly not include them in this really simplified explanation.

This is truly only my opinion regarding the small gap right after getting a degree.

</comment><comment><USER18> I wouldn't be surprised if part of the problem is lack of role models. There are very few male teachers.

<comment><USER19> Particularly in elementary school and pre-K. Daycares tend not to hire males because of parents and insurance. Add in changes in play that are not boy friendly and you have a trend. At this point, I am starting to lean to separate schools. Twenty years ago, I would have thought that insane.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Hypothesis: School doesn't allow natural Homo Sapiens adolescent male behaviour. Is therefore disliked.

Idea: Compare and contrast school behaviour with behaviour in the wild (youtube comments, videogames teamspeak)

</comment><comment><USER6> From the article:

"According to the OECD, the return on investment in a degree is higher for women than for men in many countries, though not all."

I think this is enough explanation and no more analysis is necessary.

</comment><comment><USER21> [Serious] So, why, exactly, is this a problem?

</comment><comment><USER8> HN is not mature enough to hold a discussion related to gender issues.

<comment><USER22> I would instead gather it's entirely too superfluous and divisive for the HN crowd who is routinely above such pettiness.

I fall back to Carmack on this issue. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzmbW4ueGdg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzmbW4ueGdg)

<comment><USER23> Quickly proving sukilot's point, are you? Gender issues are petty and superfluous?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It seems like whenever someone brings this up, they have an untone of sexism within their point. Like "See! Women are fine, let's ignore pay imbalance, the lack of female CEOs, lack of woman in tech', and every other problem."

Facts cannot be sexist. However I cannot help that feel like this one gets bounced around because people have some type of agenda. This just further goes to prove how powerful of a force patriarchy is. Woman do better in academia but get lower paying jobs and promoted at a lower rate.

<comment><USER25> you are ignorant if you think the pay gap is a function of male patriarchy.

<comment><USER26> How would it _not_ be? Women weren't in work at first, because of patriarchy. After social reforms they slowly entered the workforce, but they were not paid as well and not given as good jobs. Things have improved over time, but there's still a gap.

I don't see why it wouldn't be because of patriarchy. Look at history.

<comment><USER27> If companies knew they could just hire a woman with the same talents and education for as little as all of these reports claim, why don't we see startups filled with women being hired at this low rate? If it's really a systematic problem as claimed all over the Internet, we would see at least some example of this.

"After social reforms they slowly entered the workforce, but they were not paid as well and not given as good jobs."

How many years ago was this? I've worked at many tech companies over the years and the women that were hired were paid just as much as any man in the same position. Of course this is my own personal experience, but again, I would think if it was as wide-spread as many claim, I would have seen it at least once.

<comment><USER5> [http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-09-22/tech- start-u...](http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-09-22/tech-start-up- founder-says-women-are-like-men-only-cheaper)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Feminist Programming Languages - <AUTHOR> http://m.hastac.org/blogs/ari-schlesinger/2013/11/26/feminism-and-programming-languages

<comment><USER2> Non-mobile link, if anyone cares: [http://www.hastac.org/blogs/ari- schlesinger/2013/11/26/femin...](http://www.hastac.org/blogs/ari- schlesinger/2013/11/26/feminism-and-programming-languages)

It's been discussed and linked around here many times, eg, here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6893756](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6893756)

My view, for what its worth, is that she's asking good and valuable questions. We do have different programming paradigms, and those paradigms do shape how we solve problems, and even what problems we can solve, and it is very possible that a different viewpoint could stumble on a very different paradigm. There's a long history of outsiders making valuable contributions to programming and computer science.

...that being said, I rather doubt she's going to get far. The odds of someone doing a bit of research and coming up with something like functional programming or lambda calculus (which as I understand it is more or less what she wants to do) is effectively nil, no matter who you are. But I wish her the best of luck.

</comment><comment><USER3> > In the scope of my research, a feminist programming language is to be built > around a non-normative paradigm that represents alternative ways of > abstracting. The intent is to encourage and allow new ways of thinking about > problems such that we can code using a feminist ideology...

> The idea came about while discussing normative and feminist subject object > theory. I realized that object oriented programmed reifies normative subject > object theory. This led me to wonder what a feminist programming language > would look like, one that might allow you to create entanglements (Karen > Barad Posthumanist Performativity).

Somebody please tell me, is this like the Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity, or is it serious?

This is actually a sincere question. My first reaction was that this must be a parody. What in the world would it mean to code using any kind of _ideology_? "I believe strongly in this principle, therefore my code is correct!" That's what it sounds like to me.

But maybe there is something I missed entirely. If so, please enlighten me!

<comment><AUTHOR> It is serious.

It is a deconstructivist line of reasoning that has crossovers into other Postmodernist theory and philosophy such as Foucault's.

The comments, which are worth reading, even brought up Sapir / Whorf as an analogous subject.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If people will forgive my earlier joke, I have a more serious critique:

While feminist theory may have a contribution to make, it's not at the level the author is talking about.

The author refers to core language paradigms: _functional_ , _object oriented_ , and so on. But these are hard engineering trade offs, not malleable social theories. Language designers will continue to actively explore the design space, and they may look to many sources for inspiration, including feminism, but that's a long way from being able to say, "This programming language has a core feminist paradigm."

I think, if feminist theory has a place in programming language design, it's in the human aspects. The user interface, the surface syntax, and so on.

</comment><comment><USER5> A dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6893756](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6893756).

</comment><comment><USER6> In order to create Feminist Programming Language, one must first create Feminist Math.

</comment><comment><USER4> Well, women are good at typing and keeping things organised, so I guess they could be trained to operate tabulating machines.

 _(It was just a joke. Please don 't hurt me.)_

<comment><USER5> Please don't make that sort of joke here.

<comment><USER4> Yup. Um. I'll show myself out, shall I?</comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft CEO joins dialogue about sexual-harassment claims - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/04/microsoft-reviews-sexual-harassment-claims-after-email-discussion.html <comment><USER2> Massively overblown. Systematic affirmative action is rampant in Microsoft. White and asian men are discriminated against within the company. It will only hurt Microsoft. reply

</comment><comment><USER3> How is this a surprise?</comment>


Compiled links from "Ask HN: Where can I post my startup to get beta users? - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mmccaff/PlacesToPostYourStartup <comment><USER2> thanks for compiling this.</comment>


The Pirate Bay Wants You To Really Download A Car - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-wants-you-to-really-download-a-car-120124/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter <comment><USER2> Cory Doctorow has an interesting take on the ramifications of this in his (2006) short story _Printcrime_ which is slightly too long to post here.

Go read it. It will only take a couple of minutes. [http://craphound.com/?p=573&title=PrintCrime](http://craphound.com/?p=573&title=PrintCrime)

<comment><USER3> Cory's novel Makers[1] deals with the same thing in longer form.

1: <http://craphound.com/makers/download/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Charles Stross' _Rule 34_ dealt with this concept: fabricators with DRM that only allowed them to print legitimate items, and a thriving black market of hacked fabricators and illegal or unlicensed designs. Good stuff - futurism, but perhaps the not-too-distant future.

<comment><USER5> I think that idea appeared 15 years earlier in _The Diamond Age_ , although people were setting their sights higher then.

<comment><USER6> fantastic book; and the first thing I thought of when I saw the original article

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This isn't really about printing a car, in the short term at least. This is a response to the kinds of DMCA takedown notices that Thingiverse has been getting lately, on Warhammer figurine models for example.

[http://groups.google.com/group/thingiverse/browse_thread/thr...](http://groups.google.com/group/thingiverse/browse_thread/thread/599c4e60f459af8f)

This sort of thing will only increase as 3d printers go mainstream.

<comment><USER8> Does copyright apply to physical object? I understand a sports jersey has to be licensed because it has a copyrighted logo on it, but if there is no trademark or logo on a physical object I don't think you can copyright it.

Of course patent laws apply and there is such thing as a design patent: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent>

I would think unless an object is covered by a patent, design or functional, it is fair game to print out

<comment><USER9> I think copyright apply's to sculpture.

<comment><USER8> That would make sense.

I would bet there is some kind of functional vs. ornamental test. Yes you can copyright a sculpture, but no you can't copyright the bolt pattern of a fuel pump to prevent others from making a replacement part.

If that is true, then I would think a figurine is more ornamental than functional.

<comment><USER10> No, but you could patent the bolt pattern if it was a novel way of achieving the connection, as Apple do with their Magsafe connectors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I really like this idea, but with current technology its a non-starter. 3D printing would need materials which improve in orders of magnitude upon the strength, the heat resistance, the hardness and the printable accuracy. Not to mention that the materials must be available in a reasonably abundant supply.

I do however think there is probably scope for 3D printing small replacement parts (I'm thinking of things such as plastic pump impellers etc) , if not at home certainly at a main dealer. I doubt this would come cheap but that might be balanced against the reduced turnaround times and ability to maintain a smaller supply chain.

<comment><USER12> You can print a wide variety of metals, as well as use them for molds for casting. There's also 6d CNC milling etc.

I bet you could manufacture a car if you wanted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So...just looking really far down the road here, but it seems that a common theme among lots of films set in the future is that currency is a thing of the past. If you could print any physical item, especially if you could pirate the plans, then there would hardly be a need for a currency because everything would almost be free. The only way to make money would be to either produce the printers or create new products and sell the plans.

<comment><USER14> Well, presumably you could print the next generation of printers using the previous generation.

You'd still need to pay for the energy/raw materials to run them though. Maybe if LFTR works out, energy will be next-to-free also.

<comment><USER13> Both very good points. Printing a printer is quite a thought.

<comment><USER15> _Printing a printer is quite a thought._

Check out the RepRap project. They're trying to design a cheap, open source 3D printer that can print itself: <http://reprap.org/wiki/RepRap>

<comment><USER13> Oh that's insane. It says it's self-replicating, but can it assemble the parts it creates or is a human needed? And what about the microchips? Those still take expensive machinery to produce, right?

<comment><USER15> Well, their _goal_ is to make it self-replicating, but it's far from it for now. I think it can essentially make the specialized parts, but you still need to buy various common parts and assemble it yourself.

See the BOM of non-printed parts: [http://reprap.org/wiki/Prusa_Mendel#Non- Printed_Parts_.28.22...](http://reprap.org/wiki/Prusa_Mendel#Non- Printed_Parts_.28.22vitamins.22.29)

<comment><USER16> > Well, their goal is to make it self-replicating, but it's far from it for > now.

Indeed. Replicators are at roughly the same point today that personal computers were in 1975. So expect that in a few decades everyone will have one in their house, able to make a very wide range of objects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I remain convinced that coming up with a fair and practical method for dealing with intellectual property is the most important question of the age.

<comment><USER18> I oppose the concept of Intellectual Property as we know it. It is something up with by the entertainment industries to line their own pockets, and it stymies progress and good art.

For the majority of human (art) history, no such concept existed. Ideas were communal (for instance see Bach's famous "Goldberg Variations", which borrowed a lot from popular songs of the time). In what sense is an intangible idea property at all? In what sense do I "own" a riff if I randomly strum it out one day on my guitar? It didn't create it. It existed prior to me playing it.

It has been shown the monetary incentive is not required for great things to be produced. Projects like wikipedia are testament to this, as is the immensity of excellent fiction, music and other art that is available for free on the internet.

The concept of Intellectual Property is outdated, and the world needs to realise this as it adapts to deal with the incredible implications of the developing internet.

<comment><USER19> This is a thread about printing cars and your answer is "whatever, kill the RIAA"? This proves that the whole discussion has been reduced to meme- pingpong.

Have you considered that you are not paying for materials when buying a car, but also for R&D?

<comment><USER18> 1\. Your reductive analysis of my comment inculpates you, not me. "Whatever, kill the RIAA" is not what I said at all.

2\. I was reply to someone who was talking about intellectual property as a concept. Thus, I was engaging in discussion with him, not with the thread in a more general sense.

<comment><USER19> I am sorry for my annoyed response.

What bothers me is that the whole issue is always reduced to the most vulnerable example, which happens to be music. But there is no reason for why the role of IP should be the same for music as it is for movies, or games, or cars, or ... - even copyrights and patents work in different ways.

To name one notable difference, great music can be produced on a hobbyist budget by a single person nowadays, and often is. The R&D that goes into cars cannot. Yet, the results of millions of dollars of R&D are just as "always existent" as an MP3 of Lady Gaga is, so by your logic must not be protected.

The interesting question is, then how do we fund it? What is the incentive for any car company to waste money on crash tests if people will copy their car as soon as they have a matching 3D scanner?

<comment><USER17> It is not a simple situation. In my opinion, the existing systems are all broken in some way -- including even the fully open ones. I don't _want_ all of R&D to look like YouTube and Wikipedia.

I believe there are four hard truths about information that any solution must address:

(A) Copying is easy, and will continue to get easier. This is the essential to nature of information, and fighting it is not practical.

(B) Creating is hard, and will always be hard. Failing to recognize and compensate creators is not fair.

(C) Creating by improving on a copy is more than just an effective way to create. It is essential to the nature of creativity. Fighting this effect is not practical.

(D) Creative contributions are not additive. Determining the exact value of any one creator's contribution to a project is not practical.

Copyright as a concept fails hard on (A) and (C). I think licensing doesn't handle (D) very well. Fully open solutions have varying problems with (B). The best solution I can think of is academia's system of tenure and elaborate recognition -- and even there, the system's failure on (B) pushes people to resort to secrecy, which damages (C).

I don't have a good answer. I haven't even heard a good answer. I even think it's likely that the best answer will be many answers -- secrecy here, censorship there, openness here, copyright there, depending on the field. But I do know the problem will get a lot harder when the objects in question are not merely valuable for entertainment, but might be highly valuable for survival, highly expensive to produce, and dangerous or even potentially criminal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There are open-sourced cars: <http://www.local-motors.com/>

I've driven one! [http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshu/5741482536/in/set-7215762...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshu/5741482536/in/set-72157626642540489/) ... same car that was on top gear, too: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn6rvj08__0>

<comment><USER20> Super exciting, but at $75K for the privilege of taking a week to assemble your own car, it'll be a bit out of my price range for a while.

<comment><USER12> I've driven a lot of different cars, and this one was... interesting. Probably too much for a daily driver.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Board games are at an interesting cross. On the one hand they don't usually require tight tolerances for their parts so 3D printers seem a perfect fit for printing board games. On the other hand you have board games moving to the digital devices like tablets. How will things play out?

<comment><USER22> I'm watching Games Workshop with interest on this one. They make a large amount of their income on selling tiny, expensive plastic figurines and are notoriously litigious. They stand to lose out big time if people start fabbing their own models.

<comment><USER23> Some people already make their own molds out of miniatures and use the to build their own. It's a lot harder than printing them, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm really excited about the potential for personal 3D printing. One thing I wonder, though, is how much would actually be made that way. It seems like economies of scale are such that the current model is more efficient for most products.

You still need the raw materials and the energy to construct the object. Wouldn't large factories specialized for certain products be able to produce them faster, cheaper, and in larger quantities, and by such a margin that doing so and then shipping them still requires fewer resources than everyone individually printing their own?

They're really cool for prototyping or in certain niches, but I can't imagine it taking over all manufacturing.

<comment><USER25> I wouldn't cash your chips in yet. We don't really know what's possible in the realm of personal manufacturing. Theoretically, if it costs a certain amount of materials and energy to produce something, producing it in a smaller factory will cost the same but require more fine grained control of the instruments. I don't think that makes it impossible, just challenging and interesting.

Also, there is a hidden cost to re-tooling factories for new products that goes away if you can create a factory that can produce anything with the same tools, so you can save there as well.

<comment><USER26> _producing it in a smaller factory will cost the same_

No, it will cost massively more.

The factory that builds millions of the same thing has access to pricing and supply chains that are completely out of reach of the factory that builds 100. This is so different that there is really no reason for the smaller factory to build the same thing. They will likely compete on turnaround time, quality, or something the large producer can't do. Any of these will drive their costs even higher.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The million dollar question: are people expecting to print assembled cars?

It seems infinitely more feasible if you print the car part-by-part, but that kind of kills it for anybody unprepared to assemble a car!

(I know, I know, taking it far too seriously)

<comment><USER28> No, but I _would_ like to print car parts. For example, the bit of plastic that fell off the back of my rear windscreen wiper in the carwash, which undoubtedly would cost me $$$ to replace, could easily be printed by me at little cost if I had the plans for my "open source car".

<comment><USER29> I spent a ton of time years ago making molds for some of the hard-to-get plastic parts for an unusual car of mine so that I could produce my own spare parts. Simply being able to print them would be amazing.

Of course, many of those parts might have physical requirements (elastic deformation tolerance, heat resistance, et cetera) that would not be met by 3D-printed materials, so it's not a panacea.

<comment><USER30> Print mold. Use actual material you want. (win?)

<comment><USER31> The initial use of 3D printers was largely to produce parts that could then have moulds made from them. Moulds are pretty cheap and depending on the materials it is easier to print the part to copy than the mould, although both can work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The way they talk about spare parts, sneakers, etc. makes me wonder how we would ever be able to store all of that material. Maybe there will be ways in the future, but with that much variety in things they think we'll be able to print, literally how will we be able to keep it all stocked? Printer ink is hard enough for some people. Of course, this entire thing is about how stuff we take for granted now seemed absolutely ridiculous in the past, so I won't dismiss it.

<comment><USER26> Shhh! You're not supposed to think about that :-)

You are correct, of course. One of the things I find amusing about the breathless talk about replicators is that people conveniently ignore such mundane problems as maintaining material inventory, the various types of material in any nontrival product and the ability of the consumer to evaluate the quality of a design they downloaded off the net. If I give you a design for a new replacement part for your car how do you know it won't cause more harm than good? Now we've moved the concept of malware into the physical realm.

3D printers are certainly an exciting technology with a bright future. But it's just another manufacturing method that's better in some ways than what's popular now, and worse in others.

But saying that doesn't get pageviews.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Cars and 3d printers? That's short term thinking. Just wait until we have the technology to print people. That's when people will really get pissy about pirating.

<comment><USER34> I'm looking forward to it. It is one of the major angles on recreating organs for transplantation.

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

[http://www.createitreal.com/index.php/en/organ- printing/prin...](http://www.createitreal.com/index.php/en/organ- printing/principle)

<comment><USER33> I look forward to that too, although I was thinking something more similar in use to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Dated_a_Robot>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> In this likely future you won't really download items 'for free'. You will still need the raw materials (plastics, metals, thread, etc.) that you would have to pay for. You will simply download designs/blueprints that your printer/fabrication machine can manufacture. You could probably get a bulk shipment delivered to your house of these materials. Or you could just go to 'resources' depot and pick them up.

Granted there are many issues that would arise regarding pirated and trademarked designs. Research, development, marketing, and other costs go into the price of these products when they are sold to us. The disruption this could cause corporations will make our current worries over music, books, and movies seem trivial. Then again, imagine open source product designs. Platforms for creating physical designs that can be sold, and unparalleled product customization. It should be very interesting.

</comment><comment><USER36> What you'll be able to download real soon, if not already, are LEGO blocks. I wonder what LEGO is planning to do about it.

<comment><USER37> LEGO bricks are made to fairly rigorous standards. I suspect DIY bricks would be closer to existing knock-offs: very much like LEGO bricks, but they don't necessarily fit together "just so" all the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> It seems to me that, in many cases, getting one's hands on the materials necessary for printing a car would make things prohibitive for the individual.

Still a very interesting idea, but I'm not seeing something like a car being printed without some major economic shifts.

<comment><USER39> > It seems to me that, in many cases, getting one's hands on the materials > necessary for printing a car would make things prohibitive for the > individual.

Seventy-five years ago (1937), in the era of cellulose film, your statement would have been identically applicable to the equipment and materials necessary for recording a "motion-picture".

Move forward seventy-five years to 2012, and you can walk into just about any store, and for a small amount of money walk out with a "motion-picture" recording device, affordable by an individual, that can record a "motion- picture" every bit as good, if not infinitely better, than what the "professionals" had to work with in 1937.

Seventy-five years from now (2087), 3D printing just very well may have advanced to the point where it would be quite feasible to "print" a car, and at a price perfectly affordable to an individual.

<comment><USER40> Interesting idea. So you go to a download site and grab the latest offering from Ferrari... Everything of value is then IP -- ie the plans and design. Does Ferrari bother selling it's designs if they can be downloaded from a torrent? How does Ferrari stay in business at that point? I've never taken "open source" like this to the logical conclusion before, where anything physical can be constructed if you have the materials and a 3D printer...

<comment><USER41> Let me get this straight.

We propose a society where scarcity is a thing that only exists in fiction and history books, where all physical items can be copied at will, where the idea of "owning" a physical thing is as pointless as the idea of "owning" an idea is, where (as a natural consequence) world hunger is probably a thing of the past, as are poverty, industrial labour, and many other things we take for granted...

And your first question is "How does Ferrari stay in business?"

Worth noting that this is more or less the same thing as what's happening with art at the moment. I could paraphrase it as:

"We propose a society where information scarcity is a thing that only exists in fiction and history books, where all information (sound, video, text, etc) can be copied at will and instantly all around the world, where the idea of "owning" a bunch of bytes is as pointless as the idea of owning the shape of a cloud in the sky, where (as a natural consequence) education, art, civilisation and all those things that make mankind worthy of existence are infinitely more powerful than before because of their ubiquity and availability to all, and your first question is... How does Sony Music stay in business?"

<comment><USER26> The 3D printer is just a manufacturing method. The scarcity problem will still exist in the form of raw materials -- somebody's got to pay for it.

Information is a completely different animal. If there were actual physical costs to the person downloading copyrighted material illegally, do you think the RIAA and MPAA would be as agitated as they are?

<comment><USER41> Matter and energy are somewhat interchangeable (with SF technology, anyway, which is what we're talking about).

We (as in, the face of the Earth) receive 1.7E17 J of energy from the sun every second. That's 53.6E23 J of energy per year.

Worldwide energy consumption as of 2008 was 4.74E20 J. It's risen a bit since (thanks China!), but not by more than an order of magnitude. So that means we're receiving enough energy from the sun to power today's civilisation a hundred times over. And that's just the energy which lands on the face of the Earth.

My point is, really, that energy (and hence matter) is quite plentiful if you know how to make efficient use of it. By the time we have cornucopia devices, we'll probably have the technology so that accumulating the energy/matter for making a car is just a question of leaving it outside in the sun/rain/air for long enough and/or dumping a bunch of dirt into it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> this technology of 3d printing and self-replication is probably postponed consciously because it means the end of todays economy system. and danger if it goes out of control. I mean printing guns and stuff like that.

<comment><USER43> The parent comment is perhaps a bit too thin on content and too much on the conspiracy theory side (edit: it was grayed out when I wrote this reply), but it does touch on an interesting question: is our progress limited more by technology, or is it limited more by socio-economic factors?

Consider that a toy steam engine was built by Heron of Alexandria around 2000 years ago, and yet nobody got the idea of harnessing it to replace human labor. Perhaps this can be explained in part by not-quite advanced metallurgy, but what about the fact that society back then relied on very cheap slave labor? What role did that play?

Think about what the business model for making 3d printers pervasive could be. If you manage to do that, you might become the next generation's Bill Gates. Too bad I don't have an answer there...

<comment><USER44> "Consider that a toy steam engine was built by Heron of Alexandria around 2000 years ago, and yet nobody got the idea of harnessing it to replace human labor. Perhaps this can be explained in part by not-quite advanced metallurgy,"

Exactly, it is explained by not quite advanced metallurgy and tools.

The steam engine works thanks to the small tolerances industrial lathes gave us that let a cylinder to carry a piston without fluids getting out. Watt had to create himself special tools for the creation of his engine.

I have a link somewhere in my browser but zotero search is bullsh*t.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> There is no doubt in my mind that this step must be taken, but I'm fairly certain that as the number of parts and types of material increase any cost benefit from 3d printing will be wiped out.

Sneakers for example would be really tough to just print out and assemble due to all the different types of parts.

Scale in assembly continues to beat out lack of scale. It could change, but I think 3d printing is better for custom applications rather than mass market goods.

</comment><comment><USER46> I think RepRap et al could have a huge impact in poorer countries. Spare parts for out of production goods can be impossible to find, and replacing an old (regular paper) printer or something like that is a big cost. Imagine a small factory in every village. :-)

Fablab is also a very interesting project. They provide free access to 3d printers, scanners and other equipment, provided you share your design. GPL IRL!

<comment><USER31> Easy maintainability is a general policy in third world countries already though, eg India makes 1950s design british motorbikes and cars (Norton, Morris Oxford) because they can have replacement parts made by low tech means.

However 3D printers potentially do make more kinds of materials buildable, especially when combined with printable electronics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I am wondering, if something in that "printed" car fails to operate and leads to a crashes with lethal resolution, who will be to blame? The printer manufacturer? The plan developer? The material provider? I really don't want to see that coming in future, I better go and by a car from Toyota and put all responsibility on them rather than have myself doing all the hard work.

</comment><comment><USER48> Someone needs to figure out how much it takes to get one of these made. I think I'm probably going to order one.

I'll do it later tonight if I remember, if someone else doesn't do the heavy lifting first.

</comment><comment><USER49> Recently added to ted.com : Lisa Harouni: A primer on 3D printing: <http://www.youtu.be/watch?v=OhYvDS7q_V8>

</comment><comment><USER50> I apologize for my lack of imagination, but what does this mean? "We'll be able to print food for hungry people. We'll be able to share not only a recipe, but the full meal."

<comment><USER51> Researchers have been able to print organs from tissue. You basically have a gel medium for the tissue to grow in, and then you spray human tissue (stem?) cells into the medium, layer by layer, and given enough time, they'll grow into an organ.

By that notion, it's not too infeasible to print your own food. If you can print organs, you can probably print muscle meat, or plants. But this sort of thing is a long long ways off.

<comment><USER50> Makes sense, thanks for connecting the dots while my imagination was not working.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Are any 3d printer companies public?

<comment><USER8> yes: 3D Systems Corp. NYSE: DDD

Stratasys, Inc. NASDAQ:SSYS

<comment><USER52> Great! Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> It costs about $80 to get the pirate bay model made. I have one on the way!

</comment><comment><USER53> How do we feed the programmers, artists, and designers whose work appears on this site? As a distribution platform Pirate Bay is absolutely amazing, as an ethical business, not so much, Pirate Bay is making money from ads.

</comment><comment><USER54> The same government forces that protect a company's IP protect employees in a union.

Many times, companies can't automate certain jobs (not just in the US) because it would mean one less job for a person and the wages are artificially inflated.

Wages are usually high because of scarcity (IE: not anyone can do it). Unions, like copyright, allow workers that would normally get paid $8/10 to get $20-30 an hour because of government sanctions.

However, many people here on HN hate copyright but are pro-union. Doesn't really make any sense.

<comment><USER55> Unions are a voluntary arrangement, copyright is not.

Please do not address the "HN Hivemind", that has a strong tendency to be a straw man argument that does not really address any specific points, or anyone.

<comment><USER54> "Unions are a voluntary arrangement, copyright is not."

oh? can GM kick say "no unions"?

I will address the "HN hivemind" when I see fit. Especially when it holds true.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Technology is at odds with capitalism. We need to upgrade our belief systems and our societal structures. See also a related issue <http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm>

</comment><comment><USER57> Think about printing a car when we have point to point instantaneous transportation (beam me up, Scotty)? Perhaps cars will become just another form of entertainment. Perhaps the cost of recycling the material your boat (used to be your couch and XBoxen-5D) into a car via some futuristic process will be negligible, such that it would resemble downloading an MP3 today (after all, you do need some sort of storage medium that you bought to hold the MP3).</comment>


How to Kung-Fu battle with investors - <AUTHOR> http://mealticket.wordpress.com/2007/04/05/how-to-kung-fu-battle-with-investors/ <comment><USER2> Interesting take on the investment process by a YC'er</comment>


Ask HN: Do Aeron chairs make a difference in the office? - <AUTHOR> We have a small software company working remotely on outsourced projects. We've been sitting on these uncomfortable dining chairs for about 3 years now and we got so fed up that were about to shamelessly break the bank!<p>Of course, that Herman Miller's Aeron and Embody seem best to be sitting on for 12-15 hours/day. But I never tried them... never even touched or saw one physically. Are they that good? Should we go ahead with it? <comment><USER3> I've read up and down on that issue because I have problems with my lower back and after reading many many reviews I decided against the Aeron.

The problem I've read of is the hard "lip" on the front of seating area which according to some reviewers tends to cut blood flow from the legs for longer sitting periods.

The Embody should be fine in that regard (from what I've read, but I haven't tried it - neither have I tried the Aeron).

I ultimately decided for the "Steelcase Leap" and from my experience this was the best investment I have ever done in furniture.

Before the Leap I was unable (and unwilling) to go sit at my computer after leaving the office - now if I get backpains while at work I cannot wait to get home and into my chair. This may not be the case for everybody but for me it reliefs my backpain.

If you're going to invest in good chairs, give the Leap a spin.

<comment><USER4> I used to use a Leap at my previous job, and have an Embody at home. I tried the Aeron at a store prior to purchasing, didn't see what the fuss was about.

Overall I like the Leap and Embody a lot. From what I can remember about using it, the Leap v1 had a few more adjustment points than the Leap v2. Both v1 & v2 were comfortable, had all the adjustments I needed to get proper ergonomics. I ultimately picked the Embody for home because while the Steelcase was good, I didn't want to spend 8 hours in the work chair and come home to sit in the exact same chair.

The Embody is definitely more of a flexible chair, you feel it move when you move in it. This has the side effect of feeling like you'll tip over if someone stands behind you and puts weight on your chair back (e.g. shoulder surfing and resting on your chair back). I don't like the arm adjustments as much as the Steelcase v1 Leap, there's no angling -- it just gets closer to you as you raise them up higher. Overall the Embody is very comfortable, and with working from home I use it 8-10 hours a day now. It holds up great.

<comment><USER5> What a coincidence, I also have an Embody at home + use the Steelcase Leap at work. I can confirm that both are outstanding (and better than the Aeron).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> First, don't sit for 13-15 hours per day. You will regret it later and it is detrimental to your health. Either pomodoro every 30 minutes and walk around for 5-10 mins or do a combination of standing desk / sitting.

Second, I can't sign off on the Aeron it's a good chair - but it's far from great.

Personally, and through experience of owning all of these chairs, I would go for the Herman Miller MIRRA 2 chair -or- the Steelcase Gesture chair. They are impossible to beat from an ergonomics standpoint not to mention the countless hours of studied and research that went into these products.

The lumbar on these (all) chairs is negligible, cushioning technology is sound, the extendable lower thigh support is pretty sweet, butterfly suspension adjust to your posture and has a solid suspension / cushioning effect, build quality is A+

We have Mirra 2 and Gesture at our office, originally we started with the Gesture and they are fantastic and more "luxurious" but the Mirra 2 is the current star. They are expensive ($1.2k each) when fully equipped. But they are worth it.

The Aeron chairs we used to have back in the day were given to people to take home and I have two of them in my garage. Don't get me wrong - they're good chairs - but the Mirra and the Gesture are simply better and not by a little.

Don't sit for 13 hours per day. Otherwise you'll be in physical therapy for 13 hours per month. Signed, someone who used to sit for 13 hours per day.

</comment><comment><USER7> When you first sit in an Aeron you think, what's all the fuss about?

But sit in one for awhile and you realize one day that the chair isn't bothering you like every other chair does after a few hours.

And they last forever. I have 2 and the oldest I bought used in 2002.

Grab a good deal on a used one.

</comment><comment><USER8> I too have been working on Aeron chairs for the last 10+ years and have never found a better chair. I may not have researched as thoroughly as many others here but I too have back problems and they never show up on the Aeron.

As to the hard front hard front lip, that to me sounds like either poor adjustment or wrong chair size. There are 3 sizes to pick from and offices often don't contain all 3 to fit the worker's size. So, you may end up sitting in a larger chair than appropriate.

</comment><comment><USER9> I have an Aeron chair in my home office, where I sit for most of my workday. I love it. I'll add this to the discussion about finding (and assessing) a good office chair.

What you need to understand about a quality chair is that while it should be very comfortable, you should not expect to experience nirvana when you sit in it.

Often the prices of these chairs have people expecting some magic to happen when you first sit down. On the contrary, it shouldn't feel "superlative" when you first sit in it, it should just feel comfortable. In fact, it might not feel special at all. It's only later - 4, 6, 8 or more hours later - <USER2> you'll realize the chair's true value, in that it has become an extension of your posture.

The mark of a quality chair is not that you will notice it when you sit down, but rather that you won't notice it after sitting for a long time.

Other than that, ensure that you purchase the correct size. I have never found any problems with the Aeron's lip, but I purchased and customized my own, so I was able to make sure it came in the correct size. Offices with pre-assigned chairs may not offer this luxury.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm measuring almost everything in my day-to-day life - sleep patterns, calorie intake and nutrition, weights lifted and their progression, hours worked, and such. One of the benefits of this border OCD behaviour is that you can see the effects of every single variable - input and output.

In this context, I've been using the Aeron for 2 months now and surely I have no regrets regarding the investment; it's something from which you extract value every single day and you can measure directly how it affects your output. As investment, I would put it right next to the MacBook and resistance/strength training.

When you properly adjust it, the chair feels like a custom tailored suit or glove around your back - it's there, but it's not intrusive.

I'm frugal about most stuff and things - but, in our job even a slight placebo have the effect to benefit you orders of magnitude.

Beware, next coming is the search for the perfect keyboard :) Hint: just jump to HHKB2.

</comment><comment><USER11> Do you consider foam rubber a good insulator? Do you work in an office environment with an ambient temperature about 50F? Would you strap a highly insulating layer of clothing against your buttocks on a normal day?

If you answered: Yes, Yes, No to the questions above, consider the cool and breathable rear-end attire that is the Aeron chair.

</comment><comment><USER12> A good chair is a good investment, because it makes you more productive and you use it thousands of hours every year.

Herman Miller's Aeron seems like a good chair but personally I think the arm holders are not needed as when coding I put my arms on the table. Also I prefer less wheels because they are in the way.

Little joke, perhaps this chair: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Emperor'...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Emperor's_Throne.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER13> A good chair is definitely that good. Incredibly valuable purchase.

You'll save significant money in lost developer hours, physiotherapy costs, etc by buying good chairs (and checking that the rest of your setup is ergonomic too) right now.

Personally I don't get on with the Aeron, which is why I have the Herman Millar Mirra instead.

</comment><comment><USER14> I have been using an Aeron for 10 years in my office. I would recommend it any day.

</comment><comment><USER15> I've had the luck to work in one of those black thrones (Henry Miller Aeron) for 1 year and a half and it is awesome. It is very different from your usual chair in many different levels. Comfort and customization mostly.

</comment><comment><USER16> It's worth it to invest in good chairs. But:

1\. Research chairs beyond the aeron, I personally prefer the steelcase leap

2\. Check out some furniture liquidators (especially if you're in the Bay Area), these chairs are built to last a decade</comment>


RFIDs, Encryption, and Stop Rules - <AUTHOR> http://www.thegrumpyprogrammer.com/2015/04/rfids-encryption-and-stop-rules-oh-my.html <comment><USER2> Stop rules are fine, we'd probably go insane if we didn't use them. But as soon as somebody questions the validity of a stop rule, it should cease to be a stop rule and become subject to rational examination. Once you are satisfied that it is indeed valid, it becomes a stop rule again... until next time.

In other words, we should be comfortable with switching between two modes: a "production" mode where we rely on our stop rules to get things done efficiently, and a "debugging" mode where we can step back to examine our source code. Failure to switch modes like this leads to assholery as exemplified by the various examples mentioned in the article.

The most dangerous stop rules are the ones you don't understand. Most non-IT business executives have no understanding of how encryption works. It's magic to them. Therefore, they are incapable of stepping back and examining it. They segfault as soon as they try to switch modes, so after a while, they don't even try. Most DRM schemes are the same. It's a mantra that they chant without understanding. And from the point of view of consumers who suffer from the consequences, sufficiently serious incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

</comment><comment><USER3> The irony of someone talking about facts and then referencing the Myers Briggs scam!

An absolutely discredited pseudoscience which exists solely to make money for the corporation which peddles it.

An _excellent_ example of a stop rule there - "I am this MBTI therefore..."

[https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2012/12/astrology-for- businesses/](https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2012/12/astrology-for-businesses/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Some good points, except for the point about passwords: passwords are rarely encrypted. While you could say that a salted hash might obfuscate the plaintext of the password - it's not _encrypted_ \-- and it can't be _de- crypted_.

It is of course possible to store passwords encrypted, but that is rarely done.

<comment><USER2> From the point of view of people who treat encryption as a black box and don't care about the details, the passwords are "encrypted" all right. The point of the article is to criticize these people, so the technically incorrect choice of word might be intentional.

Also, it often makes sense to treat hashing as a kind of encryption. It just happens to be a kind of encryption that cannot be (easily) reversed.

<comment><USER4> I supppose you're right, apparently encryption is a relatively new term, derived as a synonym to encode from crypt (derived from cryptic) whose meaning is defined (among other things) as: "to change (information) from one form to another especially to hide its meaning".

So in the colloquial use, encryption does apparently not imply that decryption is possible.

I don't buy the argument that "lots of people use the term wrong, so lets just continue to do that". (As it turns out, _I_ might have been the person to understand the term wrongly, and the word choice might not have been "technically incorrect" after all. Always challenge your assumptions :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There's nothing I love more than articles that are full of 'look how much smarter I am than everybody else'.</comment>


Showboat: billionaire NFL team owner installs Imax cinema on superyacht - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jan/18/showboat-billionaire-nfl-team-owner-installs-imax-cinema-on-superyacht <comment><USER2> He's so rich, he has a yacht in the swimming pool of his super-yacht.</comment>


Judging an App by its Cover - Techniques for Creating & Testing a Pro App Icon - <AUTHOR> http://jayfuerstenberg.com/devblog/judging-an-app-by-its-cover-techniques-and-tools-for-creating-and-testing-a-professional-app-icon

<comment><USER2> I use this > <http://testico.net/> then i test it on my device (iphone 4S) where i relocate it in a couple of pages. I also put it inside a folder too to check if the icon is 'readable' there. Then i ask a few people if it stands out. Then sometimes, i sleep then check it first thing in the morning where i am groggy. If it passes all those then its a good icon. I may have to add a check when I am in a bad mood or hungry for my method to be ultra comprehensive.

If you have budget to spare, A/B test a few different variants on the Facebook ad platform.

<comment><USER3> Would it kill the people at testico.net to display a one-sentence description of what their site does? I had to view HTML source and read the meta description:

"You can to put the icon you've created on your iPhone or iPad home screen, and generate automatic previews of standard icon sizes on the standard iPhone and iPad screens"

<comment><USER4> Testico is beta now. I will add description in next version. :)

Thank you for your feed back!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> That really doesn't stand out in the App Store listings- the detail work is all to emphasize the 512x512 version that doesn't matter. The only color is in the middle keyhole, which isn't particularly visible at the smaller resolution.

The old glowing keyhole was dramatically better- OP might want to take a look at merging the two, with the new box design and the old glow, to help this stand out more.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, the old icon with the bright glow really stuck out to me as well. Wish we could have seen A/B tests, even ones off web ads like someone recommended would have been better than nothing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > <http://testico.net>

> Your browser is out of date!

> PLEACE, UPDATE IT, OR DOWNLOAD ONE OF RECENT BROWSERS:

yeah, like my Chrome V21 is very out of date!

</comment><comment><USER8> This is the most insightful post on HN about icons that has ever been submitted. A lot the people here would do well to take notice and learn something about art design.

</comment><comment><USER9> I am always skeptical about color psychology: in China red is the color of joy and wealth.

</comment><comment><USER10> The link to creative samples and the topic of icons was discussed here a couple of weeks ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4031157>

</comment><comment><USER11> Doesn't anyone else think it's ironic that the name is in all caps which people seem to associate with spam?

</comment><comment><USER12> The shadow under the black panel is unnecessary and breaks the perception of depth.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think having good app icon design is a luxury. There are many things to worry about before your app icon.

<comment><USER14> One of the takeaways of the article is that the app icon is a form of a sales pitch to a potential user. You can have a great product, but a poor icon will hinder the visibility of said product. That being said, if I had to choose between a great app icon or a great product, I'd choose the latter. But I'm not convinced you are forced to choose only one.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How much are you willing to pay to meet a very prominent person? - <AUTHOR> People have role models and they like to meet them in person, talk to them, take selfies and all other sorts of things. They might even stalk celebs anywhere they go to just get a chance to meet them. By celebs I mean tech entrepreneurs, political figures, actors/actresses, singers, tv personalities and ... . So, if you were to meet a prominent person for a 60 minutes talk(coffee/lunch/dinner/etc...), are you willing to pay? <comment><USER2> Nothing. Define 'prominent'. Important to _you_ or important to _me_?

There's no difference between this and the 'pay to play' payments to the Clinton Foundation.

</comment><comment><USER3> How is this different than live performances people pay for?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea, Consider meeting Elon Musk for a lunch. You and him alone without anyone around. You could ask anything you want... It is something like 'Warren Buffett's charity lunch'.

<comment><USER3> I think I don't have enough money to interest Ol' Musky and he has more resources to spend his time on things that create more value.</comment></comment></comment>


Navy tests E-M rail gun - will fire shells  9K kph, 320 km (video) - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/02/28/us-navy-kicks-off-rail-gun-tests-with-a?videoId=230957596&videoChannel=2602 <comment><USER2> Uhh, what exactly can you accurately hit at 320km?

<comment><USER3> With a smart payload capable of self-adjusting? Quite a lot.

<comment><USER2> Well, I didn't see/hear anything about what they were firing, so I assumed they were dumb bombs or shells.

Those launches look pretty violent, could a piece a with rocketry or electronic guiding systems survive a blast like that?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> How about a "rail gun" for shooting things into orbit?

<comment><USER5> Not much would survive that sort of acceleration.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> How is this news? I had a rail gun in UT</comment>


E-Book piracy: a moral dilemma - <AUTHOR> https://reprog.wordpress.com/2015/06/07/e-book-piracy-a-moral-dilemma/

<comment><USER2> The morally incorrect action in this article was downloading an e-book from a torrent site (that was not sponsored by the book author or publisher and not authorized by them or linked in any way to purchase of a physical book). If an author or publisher choses to make an e-book and physical book available for a single fee, that is their choice, but that is not what was described here. So I don't see a dilemma, just an act of piracy.</comment>


Your Professional Network - <AUTHOR> http://robbieabed.com/your-professional-network-sucks-and-its-all-your-fault/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+robbieabed+%28Robbie+Abed%27s+Personal+Blog%29

<comment><USER2> It's working for me, but in case it's down again, here's Google's cached version: <http://bit.ly/OdjSdM>

</comment><comment><USER3> Anyone else getting sick of titles like these?

<comment><USER4> Submit a poll, find out.

 _edit_ Whoops, feature was turned off. That's a bummer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Your network provider sucks and it's all your fault

</comment><comment><USER6> Just to make a point, and certainly not capturing all the grammatical problems with this post:

"Your sitting down eating lunch at your desk."

One list ends with periods, the other does not.

"No one knows who you really are besides your previous title's"

Is grammar now a lost art? I understand the author has a message, but it feels lost and less professional when one doesn't take the opportunity to proofread work.

</comment><comment><USER7> This website is down, and it's not my fault.

<comment><USER8> alright keep the jokes coming :) Wpengine.com here I come!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Given that computers are better at networking than people, if my professional network sucks, it is only my fault to the extent that I have failed to build a system that makes it not suck for everyone.

<comment><USER10> I'm not sure professional networking is something that can be usefully automated. I mean, a LinkedIn network is to a real network as Facebook friends are to real friends.

<comment><USER9> A friend, perhaps, has to resonate certain emotions, but a professional associate just needs to have utilitarian value. A time where you can just press a button and have a system that automatically matches your skills and interests with an employer looking for the same seems quite within the realm of possibility, especially as AI improves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> sorry guys. horrible host... all my fault.. moving it to another server later tonight.

<comment><USER11> Might wanna fix the misspelling in the first word of the post while you're at it, as it gives a bad first impression. It should be "you're", nor "your".</comment></comment>


What the F*** Was Facebook Thinking? – James Allworth – Medium - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@jamesallworth/what-the-f-was-facebook-thinking-a1c49dbf29c2 <comment><USER2> Uh, just throwing this out there, people gave up all that information voluntarily. I'd blame them, or more likely their parents, for not using better PII heigene. This article is sensationalist bullshit though... Really, shame on you, comparing FB's use of data that people gave to it with the hack on Target, or with 'losing nukes'... Whoever gave this guy a job writing tech articles made a pretty aweful mistake.</comment>


There's scant evidence that healthy foods prevent cancer or fatty foods cause it - <AUTHOR> http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/256766501.html <comment><USER2> This shouldn't surprise anyone...

People need to realize that research publications are not textbooks. They are communications to other researchers about the way that the evidence is pointing, that helps them design new experiments, that justifies expensive and spendy clinical trials, which eventually find conclusive evidence.

The idea that one can open a science journal and find interpretable truth revealed is a pernicious one. Trust that the data is true, but do not trust the models or the conclusions. Everything is in flux, and it's science because we likely don't know what the real world is like yet.

History will go back and pick out the key experiments and construct a path of discovery, but in real time almost nobody knows what the most important experiments truly are.

This makes for difficult journalism, but one should remain true to the physical world rather than the narratives that are easy to squeeze into 500 word news blurbs.

<comment><USER3> It's not just that. There's a huge problem with selective bias here. People think that "healthy foods" automatically means good health, and bad health is automatically a result of processed foods, "bad health habits", etc. Bad health is your own damn fault for profoundly insulting mother nature by feeding your body Kraft Diner a few too many times.

News at 11: cancer is a natural occurrence. You could exclusively eat prime quality fish, raw organic fruits and veggies and still get a heart attack at 52 and cancer at 58. In other news, I seriously question the idea that paleolithic humans had incredible food wisdom and perfect health. They probably ate whatever the hell they could find at a given time of the year in their immediate environment, and that was probably hugely lacking in nutritional value when it's the winter, all the plants are dead and most animals hibernating.

I agree that making an effort to eat well is a good idea, but it doesn't make you immune to diseases, and diseases are not necessarily a result of bad habits. There is also a huge amount of conflicting information as to what is healthy food.

<comment><USER4> I think what caused such robust health among paleolithic humans is they didn't drive. They had to walk everywhere. Literally miles to find food.

<comment><USER5> What evidence is there that paleolithic humans had robust health?

I suspect there was a real (literal!) survivor bias is the healthiness of paleolithic humans while they were alive. In a hunter/gatherer society you had to remain healthy enough to be mobile. If you didn't you were probably left behind, and then you died pretty quickly.

Does the high levels of "fitness" of those alive mean they had "robust health" in general? I'd question that: I think cause and effect has been switched, and the only paleolithic humans left alive were those who remained in "robust health".

<comment><USER6> Bingo. Hunter gatherer societies are far less forgiving of the weak and sick.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This newspaper article states "In 2007, a major follow-up [to the 1997 AICR report] all but reversed the findings." They don't cite the study or provide a link, but it's almost certainly the 2007 AICR report.

Fortunately you can take a look for yourself [0]. The published research findings are pretty much the opposite of the Star Tribune's claims that eating healthy has no effect on cancer.

These are the AICR recommendations:

        Be as lean as possible without becoming underweight.
        Be physically active for at least 30 minutes every day.
        Avoid sugary drinks. Limit consumption of energy-dense foods.
        Eat more of a variety of vegetables, fruits, whole grains and legumes such as beans.
        Limit consumption of red meats (such as beef, pork and lamb) and avoid processed meats.
        If consumed at all, limit alcoholic drinks to 2 for men and 1 for women a day.
        Limit consumption of salty foods and foods processed with salt (sodium).
        Don't use supplements to protect against cancer.

[0] [http://www.aicr.org/research/research_science_expert_report....](http://www.aicr.org/research/research_science_expert_report.html)

Edit: formatting.

<comment><USER8> That's odd. The same article was in New York Times, do you know how did they manage to get the opposite conclusions? Maybe it's a different study after all?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Cures Cancer" is a high bar for _anything_.

Eat healthy food because you'll have a better life if you do.

Hell, just _try it_ for a month. Don't eliminate carbs, reduce them. Don't skip meals, shrink portion sizes. Add veg that you've never used before. Instead of mashed potatoes, go for mashed cauliflower or (even better imo) celery root puree. Toss veggies in EVOO, salt, pepper and roast on a baking sheet at 425* until tender. Get high quality proteins and cook in a little fat with simple seasonings. Eat less than you do now. Just because you're not full doesn't mean you're hungry. I found that last lesson hard to learn.

</comment><comment><USER10> Now this is what I call dogfooding your own recommendations:

 _That evening at a reception hosted by the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, guests partook of a sumptuous buffet that included thick slabs of roast beef, a variety of rich cheeses and generous servings of wine. Afterward came the cancer research association's grand celebration known for its dessert buffet._

<comment><USER11> Yeah, it had been 10 years since the first convention which got all preachy about healthy diets. So these folks had all that pent up diet-rebellion, and then the convention says, "Nevermind." They promptly went and _pigged out_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This article (and some people here) seem to be mixing up the conclusion that particular so-called "super foods" are viewed with skepticism by oncologists. And a poor high fat high sugar diet is very clearly associated with cancer, diabetes and heart disease. In between these is a grey area of whether a slightly more healthy than merely adequate balanced diet is good.

Its pretty clear though that poor diet is associated with cancer.

</comment><comment><USER13> No evidence, sources or credibility. Sorry but this article is just silly. This is an old world corporate fed point of view that is obviously incorrect.

<comment><USER14> What's with a news source promoting misinformation?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't understand what's being reported on here.

"The reason for the change was more thorough epidemiology. The earlier studies tended to be "retrospective," relying on people to remember dietary details from the distant past."

So what? Which are the studies that are invalid? If none of them are invalid, then why disregard any information they might give us? 4000 studies with similar observations is not "scant evidence", unless you can rule out every single one. And are these 4000 the only studies which have similar conclusions? Probably not.

"These results were often upended by "prospective" protocols, in which the health of large populations was followed in real time."

I don't know what this means.

<comment><USER16> In a "retrospective" study, you look at the past - for instance, you interview people and ask them what they recall eating over the last year, and see how that tracks with their current health condition. But memories are faulty and selective and easily influenced, so you might be operating from bad data. And the associations you find could be spurious for other reasons. So you can quickly reach some conclusions with this type of study, but they might just reinforce what people already believed rather than tell you what is actually true.

In a "prospective" study, you look at the present - for instance, you could ask a group of people to keep a food journal, measure their health at regular intervals, encourage some of them to make some changes, and see if the advice ends up making them healthier. The advantage is that you have MUCH more accurate data. The disadvantage is: (a) you have to wait many years before you can reach any conclusions, (b) most of the time the conclusion you discover is that the advice didn't help.

Retrospective studies can generate hypotheses but you have to TEST those hypotheses with prospective studies.

<comment><USER15> Ah ok. Had no idea how far back people were expected to remember. A few days might be fine. A year seems crazy.

Also I don't know why the author put prospective and retrospective in quotes. "Prospective study" and "retrospective study" are terms.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Certain kinds of fat are likely healthy. Certain population s of indigenous people thrived on high fat diets.

<comment><USER18> The title of the article really annoys me. Not all fat is unhealthy. What is especially bothersome is that food companies are creating "low fat" foods by replacing fat with sugar, making them much less healthy than the original yogurt or sour cream or whatever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Eating less and exercising more has worked pretty well for me, but that's not for everyone. I've also learned to see which foods give me more, sustained energy over time and which ones don't or even drain me. But, once again, I doubt that will work for everyone.

I'm also very skeptical of a lot of studies that discount things that are clearly working for me. For example, a lot of studies that discount fish oil tend to not take an enteric coating and proper absorption into account. Actually, after many years, I'm still waiting for those studies. In the meantime, I've seen the positive effects myself and will continue to use enteric coated fish oil as a supplement.

I've also watched countless friends, family and acquaintances try the Atkins diet only to yo-yo and see later problems develop. So, I'm not going to consume buckets of lard to lose weight. But, if the Atkins thing works for you, more power to you!

My conclusion is what works for me may or may not work for anyone else and vice versa. But, that said, I still look at some studies over time and try to glean some slight insight into what works and doesn't work for others and experiment here and there.

</comment><comment> dj-wonk Unless an article compares various studies using a meta-analysis methodology (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta- analysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis)), I'm probably not going to give it much attention.

To summarize one key problem: journalists (and even some scientists) are prone to say two studies "disagree" if one demonstrates an effect and another does not. This is a problematic style of argument, because this kind of "disagreement" may be caused by random variation in sample sizes and/or differences in thresholds. You have to dig in to make an honest comparison and synthesis. This requires some basic statistical understanding, which apparently is lacking in many educational programs (but that is another thing!).

Please, if you do this kind of work or care about interpreting a set of studies collectively, go read the first few chapters from "Introduction to Meta-Analysis" by Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, and Rothstein.

</comment><comment><USER20> The primary thrust of the article seems to be that because (1) the American Association for Cancer Research conference had a very small number of sessions on diet and cancer, and (2) a single follow-up study in 2007 concluded there was little link between diet and cancer that it must be true.

This is only one view and hardly comprehensive. If you read [http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/vegetables_cancer.aspx](http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/vegetables_cancer.aspx) by Joel Fuhrman, MD, you'll get a perspective on why the devil is in the details with many of these studies and why broad sweeping headlines like this one are often inaccurate.

Based on everything I've read on this subject -- The China Study, Eat to Live, and a few others -- I side with the Fuhrman article over the one published in the Star Tribune, a statewide newspaper for Minnesota.

<comment><USER20> So, interesting follow-up as I researched this further. First, this article was just published last week in the New York Times ([http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/science/an-apple-a-day- and...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/science/an-apple-a-day-and-other- myths.html?ref=science&_r=1)). The Star Tribune was merely syndicating it.

Second, it looks like the Joel Fuhrman, MD wrote a direct response to this article: [http://eathealthyandthrive.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/the- nutr...](http://eathealthyandthrive.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/the-nutrition- and-cancer-myth/)

It's on a random Wordpress blog here, but this was sent out to his eNewsletter earlier this week (though not posted on his website).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't think any credible health organisation or government body has ever claimed that what you eat has a serious effect on _cancer_ incidence. I'm sure there are plenty of random books written by self-appointed experts who claim that though. They probably recommend coffee enemas for cancer treatment, too.

OTOH, _heart disease_ has long been thought to be associated with eating high levels of saturated fat. Recent evidence is beginning to challenge that though[1].

[1] [http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pages/Saturated-fats- and...](http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pages/Saturated-fats-and-heart- disease-link-unproven.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER21> Cancer is like a random process. When enough mutated cells gets into a certain neighborhood of events which lead to cancer, that's how it starts.

When I went to Aruba with my friend, a sailor there told us that most sailors eventually got melanoma from being out allthe time. That's what made me realize this.

<comment><USER22> [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2515569/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2515569/)

<comment><USER23> _Only 5–10% of all cancers are due to an inherited gene defect. Various cancers that have been linked to genetic defects are shown in Fig. 2. Although all cancers are a result of multiple mutations (9, 10), these mutations are due to interaction with the environment (11, 12)._

That 5% figure is much less interesting when you realize they mean _inherited_ genetic defects.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> If you read the actual title which seems much less misleading than the subtitle it tells a different story.

Foods aren't 'good' for you.

But it seems to fail to mention is the important bit. Some foods aren't bad and some food help stop you eating as much bad foods.

</comment><comment><USER25> Well, there's this: [http://www.clinicalepigeneticsjournal.com/content/3/1/3#B1](http://www.clinicalepigeneticsjournal.com/content/3/1/3#B1)

</comment><comment><USER14> A sensationalist title with no links to any studies cited.

Why the misinformation? Are we, the readers, expected to be so ignorant to think that foods grown in our gardens are equal (in health) to those found at our local fast food restaurant?

No mention of the relationship between genetically modified foods, artificial sweeteners, organic food, oxygen, etc to disease.

Another failure of the fourth-estate to inform the public.

#FAIL

<comment><USER26> I find the evidence for your claims to be lacking. GM foods? Are you kidding me? There's no evidence that GM foods are bad for your health. Perhaps some evidence will turn up. (It's possible; I doubt it will happen.) But there is none. And organic foods? Come on, you're thinking like some ancient Greek who took Aristotelean "essential natures" seriously. Like you're going to paste bird feathers on your flying machine because birds fly so surely the feathers will help.

<comment><USER25> There's quite a bit of evidence that organic foods have higher levels of antioxidants. (This is not a first source, but it references quite a few) [http://www.altmedrev.com/publications/15/1/4.pdf](http://www.altmedrev.com/publications/15/1/4.pdf)

"Organic strawberries had significantly higher total antioxidant activity (8.5% more), ascorbic acid (9.7% more), and total phenolics (10.5% more) than conventional berries (Table 2), but significantly less phosphorus (13.6% less) and potassium (9.1% less) (Table 1)." Organically managed surface soils also supported significantly greater microbial biomass (159.4% more), microbial carbon as a percent of total carbon (66.2% greater), readily mineralizable carbon (25.5% more), and microbial carbon to mineralizable carbon ratio (86.0% greater) (Table 6). These indicate larger pools of total, labile, and microbial biomass C and a higher proportion of soil total and labile C as microbial biomass. All measures of microbial activity were significantly greater in the organically farmed soils, including microbial respiration (33.3% more), dehydrogenase (112.3% more), acid phosphatase (98.9% more), and alkaline phosphatase (121.5% more). The organically farmed soils had a significantly lower qCO2 metabolic quotient, indicating that the microbial biomass in the organically farmed soils was 94.7% more efficient or under less stress than in the conventionally farmed soils [40]. These same differences, except for qCO2, alkaline phosphatase, iron, boron, and sodium, were also observed in soils from the bottom of the mounds (20–30 cm depth). [http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...](http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0012346)

Glyphosate, used with GM soy, adversely affects good gut bacteria in poultry at levels of 5ppm while bad bacteria are highly resistant to it. [http://www.netwerkvlv.nl/downloads/2012-Krueger,%20M-glyphos...](http://www.netwerkvlv.nl/downloads/2012-Krueger,%20M-glyphosate%20effects.pdf#lTab2)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Off to the right there's a picture of a bathroom scale. When you click on it it opens up to ... a larger picture of a bathroom scale. I don't know why I found that so funny but I laughed for a good solid minute.

</comment><comment><USER14> complete bunk

</comment><comment><USER28> Diets are easy.

Don't eat anything that is advertised on TV. If an actor in a televised 30 second play convinced you to eat it, you probably shouldn't.

Apart from that, invest in good quality scales. When the numbers go up, change your behaviour until the numbers go back down again.

Oh, and quit making endless excuses in your head. They are just lies you tell yourself. If you really want to be healthier, than just go ahead and do it.

</comment><comment><USER29> I thought it was sugar that makes your body acidic and that causes cancer...</comment>


Germany and US wrestle over coronavirus vaccine - <AUTHOR> https://www.dw.com/en/germany-and-us-wrestle-over-coronavirus-vaccine/a-52777990 <comment><USER2> previously:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22582721](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22582721)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22584108](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22584108)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22584227](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22584227)

</comment><comment><USER3> Don't bother upvoting. All the other stories about this have been killed.

<comment><USER4> That is because it is a completely unsubstantiated piece of news 'leaked' to appeal to European prejudices and thus increase CoreVac's negotiating power.

The idea that Donald Trump would be the person making an offer to the CEO of a tiny startup for a non-existent, as yet, vaccine should trigger alarm bells, as that's not how these negotiations work, at all.

If you want to understand how these things actually work, read this article:

[https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/fda-grants-roche- coron...](https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/fda-grants-roche-coronavirus- test-emergency-green-light-within-24-hours)

Additionally, US government officials are on the record stating that any discoveries would be shared with the world. Plenty of governments are providing funding to labs all over the world, this is not unusual behavior.

> The U.S. government has spoken with many (more than 25) companies that claim > they can help with a vaccine. Most of these companies already received seed > funding from U.S. investors... any solution found would be shared with the > world

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus- german...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany- usa/germany-tries-to-stop-u-s-from-luring-away-firm-seeking-coronavirus- vaccine-idUSKBN2120IV)

<comment><USER3> I think you have the wrong article. The one I was talking about was from reuters and was officially confirmed by the german government.

<comment><USER4> Right, the german government confirmed that the US was trying to secure an interest in a german company, not that they were trying to get exclusive access. The reuters report even says as I quoted before:

> The U.S. government has spoken with many (more than 25) companies that claim > they can help with a vaccine. Most of these companies already received seed > funding from U.S. investors... any solution found would be shared with the > world

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus- german...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany- usa/germany-tries-to-stop-u-s-from-luring-away-firm-seeking-coronavirus- vaccine-idUSKBN2120IV)

<comment><USER3> Fair enough, so why was that particular article flagged on HN?

<comment><USER4> I imagine because 1) discussion was propagating false information and 2) devolving into political infighting which is not allowed here.

<comment><USER3> I think you're the one who first propagated the idea in this thread that the US was doing this for exclusive access, not me.

We're getting off topic. You agreed that the reuters article was fair. If not then don't use it in your argument. It was this article that got removed.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>