A Blend of Ether and Chloroform Is Fueling a Silent Drug Epidemic in Brazil - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-blend-of-ether-and-chloroform-is-fueling-a-silent-drug-epidemic-in-brazil

<comment><USER2> Wow, before reading this article, I had no idea how dangerous and naive it'd be to just take whatever I read on HN at face value. This article is, simply put, false.

As a Brazilian living in Brazil, I'm quite shocked and amazed this kind of yellow journalism is being presented as _fact_. When it comes to drugs, Brazil's number one enemy is crack-cocaine. Anyone who lives here knows that, specially if you get to know crack addicts. Loló addicts? No such a thing, _from my experience_. Hell, it's considered a light drug by many and because of that, also a gateway drug.

This article reads like opportunistic fearmongering. It's light-years from Brazil's reality and it's an insult to anyone who has to cope with violence and drug issues over here.

<comment><USER3> You might not be familiar with Vice, but they are a largely unreliable source for factual journalism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> WTF?! Loló is famous and disseminated in the Brazilian youth since always. The statement "Loló is killing more than the bad guys' guns or the cops" is totally fake. What a stupid article, have nothing to see with the reality in Brazil.

<comment><USER5> I'm from a generation that didn't even knew what loló was. These kids are using it before their teens on these despicable funk parties promoted by the organized crime.

The _reality_ is that we have at least two lost generations to drugs and crime, while fanatical lefties like you deny the reality of Brazil.

<comment><USER6> This is nonsense. "Loló" is the street version of "lança-perfume", it comes from way back in the first decades of the 20th century and it is almost a trademark of the "old timers" carnival parties. Check [http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lança- perfume](http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lança-perfume) (in Portuguese) for more of the story of this drug.

<comment><USER5> Of course I know what is lança-perfume. You missed the point though:

> "The composition of these drugs varies a lot. It's generally a mixture of > alcohol, ether and chloroform in different portions," explained Garcia, > certain that the lança-perfume used nowadays is way more powerful that what > the people on the good ol' Carnival balls used back in the day.

The point is that it's not the same thing and it's causing a new epidemic amongst the youth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Having had used diethyl ether and chloroform as a solvent many times and inadvertently getting a larger whiff than I cared for when some asshole would inevitably leave some out of the fumehood, I can tell you that neither of those experiences were pleasant... but it just might have been the context.</comment>


Show HN: A simple improvement to searching CL - <AUTHOR> http://www.searchclad.com

<comment><AUTHOR> My buddy created this to allow easily switching between the various cities in a given state while keeping your query. I like how it stays out of the way yet provides a pretty useful feature. Some of the others I've seen will search everything at once but the user interface always seems to suffer.</comment>


Over what medium will self-driving cars communicate? - <AUTHOR>

Lets say there are three cars driving in a four-lane road: c1, c2, c3. c1 is driving in the left lane, c2 is in the right lane with c3 directly behind it. All cars are autonomous. c1 needs to change over to the right lane and sends a message to c2 letting it know. My assumption is that c2 will also communicate with c3 to coordinate adjusting of speeds to minimize slow down. How will this communication take place? I apologize for the abstractness of this question, but someone must be on this and I'm geniunely curious <comment><USER2> You should check : [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_ad_hoc_network](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_ad_hoc_network)

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly the type of answer I was looking for. Thanks

<comment><USER3> It's also worth mentioning that in the event that, upon first seeing c1, c2 hails c1 and receives no response, good AI logic will have c2 treat c1 as an unknown and begin running probabilistic predictions against c1.

For a possible example: If there are potential bends in the road coming up, one of those predictions will warn c2's main logic, and then c2 might decide to pre-emptively slow down to give itself leeway to brake if c1 does decide to change lanes. Likewise, if c1 is similarly programmed, it might make a more cautious tentative to shift lanes, but give itself time and space to maneuver back in case c2 doesn't slow down. And again, the same kind of logic can happen between c2 and c3, or c3 could have the same prediction as c2 against c1 or even against both c1 and c2 in the case where none of them can talk to eachother.

So not all is lost, and in cases where reliable communication and acknowledgements cannot be obtained, AI cars would (if they're well programmed) adjust their current logic/driving so that they have the mechanical leeway to adjust to various scenarios.

For a very well programmed AI present in all cars (but without common knowledge of this), each car would consider the physics and pick the optimal way to drive while keeping enough margin of error to react and avoid collisions (or being the cause of collisions! avoiding two cars only to make one of them bump into a third one is no good!). In the vast majority of actually-existing situations, I suspect this would still be faster and much safer than human drivers (given the above assumption of good AI).</comment></comment></comment>


German intel claim PGP & SSH deciphering depending on encryption type & quality - <AUTHOR> http://serendipity.ruwenzori.net/index.php/2013/06/15/german-intelligence-agencies-claim-pgp-ssh-deciphering-capability-depending-on-the-type-and-quality-of-the-encryption

<comment><USER2> They don't claim that they can crack PGP and SSH. They claim that they can crack some encryption, if it is weak. Which is quite obvious and not news or interesting.</comment>


iTunes Store Japan labels all purchases as Title "" by Artist "null" - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/search?q=itunes%20null&src=typd

<comment><AUTHOR> Anyone who let through a massive Unicode bug into production, you can feel _slightly_ better now that the world's biggest music retailer broke sales in their second biggest market...</comment>


JP Morgan downgrades Oracle because it's losing to Amazon, Microsoft - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/14/oracle-shares-drop-after-jp-morgan-downgrades-on-lost-business-to-amazon-and-microsoft.html <comment><USER2> Good. As a former employee, I can assure you that working at Oracle was a complete and total arbitrary mess.

The company has 133,000 employees, of which 80,000 are sales people.

Many don't show up to work. Like ever. And I don't mean like, "Oh I'm working from home"\-- I mean don't work. And they still receive salary AND more importantly bonus checks/commission.

Have you ever seen someone be paid $90,000 for a deal they didn't work on? I have. Hundreds of times, often to the same rep. Oracle has a "sales team" for certain accounts, so most of the work/relationship is guarded by the "principal rep". The others get paid for doing no work as a "secondary rep". Those roles are handed out based on nepotism.

Most of the time spent by employees at the office involves beer pong, 3 hour lunches, fake meetings and trainings, and the occasional cold call to a telephone directory ("fake dials", as we would call them).

And this is not even talking about Oracle's terrible pricing for actual users, its pitiful legal/open source history, and its pitiful customer service.

Seriously. Corporations are bad. Oracle is _worse_.</comment>


Aspirin Really Is Kind of a Wonder Drug, Studies Continue to Show - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/aspirin-really-is-kind-of-a-wonder-drug-studies-continue-to-show/256495/ <comment><USER2> As for the internal bleeding "risks", I was wondering what the actual numbers were. This is based on one low dose aspirin a day.

<http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/545101_3>

"These results translate into an absolute rate increase with aspirin above placebo (the incidence of cases of major GI bleeding attributable to low-dose aspirin) of 0.12% per year (95% CI: 0.07–0.19% per year).[20] Based on this value, 833 patients (95% CI: 526–1429 patients) would need to be treated with low-dose aspirin instead of placebo to cause one major GI bleeding episode during a 1-year period (i.e. the NNH is 833)"

Anyone else care to share quantitative risk numbers?

<comment><USER3> I don't know about bleeding, but what about the hearing loss that's associated with regular aspirin and other NSAID use?

[http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100301/Regular-use-of- asp...](http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100301/Regular-use-of-aspirin- acetaminophen-and-NSAIDs-increases-risk-of-hearing-loss-in-men.aspx)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Please forgive a tiny bit of snark. I've long heard that if aspirin had been discovered today, the FDA would have never allowed it to be sold OTC to people. Along those lines, in aviation there's a saying: Wilbur and Orville would have never gotten permission to build the Wright flyer if they applied last year.

I'm a vitamin junkie (Don't pick on me, it's my FSM), so I've been taking low- dose aspirin for over a decade now. If I remember my health-nut mythology correctly, the theory is that inflammation (and especially inflammation related to blood sugar spikes) is believe to be a contributing factor to a lot of bad stuff: diabetes, cancer, aging, and so on.

Interesting to see aspirin continuing to make the news. Amazing drug.

<comment><USER5> I had the impression that any drug that is not addictive is generally available without prescription?

Also, it's killing me: what does FSM stand for in your sentence? Flying Spaghetti Monster? Fuel Supply Manifold? Free Speech Movement? Something else?

<comment><USER6> That's absolutely not true. Antibiotics require a prescription and aren't addictive.

OTC medications are only approved if the drug and condition are mild enough that a doctor doesn't need to be involved.

And it gets a little bit silly -- 200mg ibuprofen are OTC, 400mg require a prescription.

<comment><USER7> That's largely because there's the potential to abuse the drugs as well. Giving people painkillers is good, giving them at a strength that makes it easy for someone to overdose from one bottle, less good. For what it's worth, you can easily get 400 or 500mg ibuprofen over the counter in the UK, but it will probably involve interacting with a pharmacist who'll probably refuse to sell them to you if they suspect you're going to abuse them.

With antibiotics there's a pretty good reason for them to prescription only, namely that drug resistant strains of illnesses are becoming a serious problem and it's only made worse by the over use of antibiotics. Plus, you likely don't know what the appropriate antibiotics will be for what ever problem you're trying to treat are.

<comment><USER8> Pardon my ignorance... who abuses ibuprofen and why?

<comment><USER9> Many people pop OTC drugs like candy. Ibuprofen is often over-used by people with chronic back pain or other inflammatory issues. They aren't addicts -- just people trying to get through the day.

The problem is, it is a rough drug on your kidneys and has potential cardiac side effects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's a bit improper to mix results from observational studies and controlled studies together to show a reduction of cancer rate and so on. Such studies are made in completely different conditions, it's like mixing apples and oranges and telling you the total in bananas.

Plus, we'd need to seriously look at how patients were sampled and all in both arms of the control study. This kind of article is obviously written by someone who knows nothing about the science of clinical trials, which is a bit of a shame. Tabloid level, really.

<comment><USER11> You're joking right? The fact that it even mentions the terms randomized and observational puts it in the 99th percentile of medical science reporting.

And why can't you combine results from observational studies and controlled studies? Surely they both provide evidence (albiet very weak evidence in the former's case) of the effect.

<comment><USER10> Observational is not considered as evidence. At best, it gives you cues to conduct a next research (randomized, double-blind, controlled) in order to actually do Science.

There are tons of observational studies that tell sh*t like there are correlations between eating cabbage and having great long hair, but most of the time it's pure luck, sample bias, or just error range.

Observational studies are NEVER accepted as sufficient to claim anything with authorities. At the most you can exercise caution based on risks observed in Safety observational studies, but when it comes to proving efficacy ... you will raise major criticism.

And just putting "observational" and "randomized" does not mean he understands the terms. When you write "Aspirin Really Is Kind of a Wonder Drug" without substantial evidence in your article, without dissociating observational and randomized results, I have a hard time believing this is from a science- educated person.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Two recent personal aspirin anecdotes.

Late 2011, I contracted acute idiopathic pericarditis. The medication was fairly simple - a ton of aspirin. 4x 650mg Aspirin daily, to be precise, along with colchicine. It healed after a couple of months.

This month, I recently had a cardiac catheterization in my right radial artery (wrist) - my (now healed, but thickened) pericardium likely was constricting my heart. The wrist pain got worse during the healing process - apparently my whole forearm was clotted. 2x 650mg aspirin was the recommendation due to both the blood thinning as well as the anti-inflammatory nature. Pain became manageable the next day, and my arm seems to be healing. Not clear if I've recovered my radial artery yet, though.

I was an Ibuprofen fan for a long time, but Aspirin for me seems to have been what the doctors keep recommending, and has been indispensable these past 4 months. No stomach bleeding, as they usually prescribe Pantoprazole along with it to reduce acid buildup.

<comment><USER13> Aspirin is an irreversible ('suicide') platelet inhibitor, whereas ibuprofen is reversible. Basically, you don't want those platelets in that thrombus to ever become active again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The question is; Should I, a relatively healthy 31 year old male start taking Aspirin daily?

<comment><USER15> Maybe you should ask a real doctor. Right now you're just going to get people who play doctor on the internet.

<comment><USER16> I think at this point, even doctors don't know. See I have talked to several, and the answers are always mixed.

Some believe the results, some are just waiting for a more definitive study.

In the end one doctor said "..not to take it even if it has _SOME_ benefits. Aspirin, like any other pill can cause gastrointestinal bleeding. So if there is no reason to take it avoid it..."

<comment><USER17> If there's a marked decrease in cancer, associated with a mild increase in gastro-whatever bleeding, then it's probably a good trade-off.

<comment><USER16> If it is mild, it might. I don't know if everybody is willing to take that trade-off. It seems like fixing one problem with another problem.

<comment><USER17> It's funny, though, how _everyone_ already takes similar trade-offs all the time. E.g., we're trading a high risk of dying a violent death at the hands (or claws) of enemies and predators (life in the primeval savanna) for a lower risk of dying of obesity, diabetes, and so on (modern "civilized" life).

<comment><USER18> No one's making that choice, it just kind of happened.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If aspirin were being considered as a drug today, would it ever pass FDA tests? It does lots of great stuff, but it's also got lots of nasty side effects (I'm not allowed to take it, due to its effect on my Crohn's disease).

<comment><USER20> Plenty of FDA-approved drugs have nasty side effects. Isotretinoin _will_ cause such massive birth defects that usually a doctor will get a female user to sign an agreement that she won't get pregnant while taking it.

It has a number of other significant side effects - for me, _marked_ loss of physical strength, plus delicate skin susceptible to sunburn while taking it. But the 6-month course was worth it - cleared up my facial acne to an incredible degree. I had simply gotten used to the fact that my face was always in pain. Now I still get the odd pimple (like most people), but nothing like the boils I used to get.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It does make one wonder what other plant products would have done if they had got in before the whole "war on drugs".

<comment><USER22> The funny thing is, I'm not sure it would be that different.

I'm being tongue-in-cheek. That is, the _effectiveness_ of the medicines would be very different, but the actual substances available in some way would barely be different.

With the exception of marijuana, almost every drug with medicinal use is either available medically in _some_ form _or_ unavailable, but with very related 'cousins' readily available.

Marijuana is available as Marinol - it just doesn't work, because it's synthesized without the full set of ~70 cannabinoids. MDMA isn't available (outside of very restricted research), but it's closely related to methamphetamine, which is available with a prescription. (People are often surprised to hear that one). GHB is available with a prescription. Heroin is really just a synthesized and concentrated form of morphine (available with prescription), and peyote is available for some religious ceremonies. [Psilocybin is not, but oddly enough, I believe mushroom spores are legal, even though the mushrooms are not (because the spores don't contain any psylocybin - I believe this may depend on your jurisdiction, though, and as always, IANAL.).]

So what's the end result? We've criminalized drugs not based on their underlying chemistry - there is almost no Schedule I drug that doesn't have a closely related (and oftentimes _identical_!) counterpart in Schedules II-IV or not scheduled at all.

If I were the conspiracy-theory type, I'd say that this is a way of saying that drugs can only be useful if a pharmaceutical company is profiting off of it. Though I'm inclined to side with Hanlon's razor on this one - that's not really how it came about historically, even if 'Big Pharma' does benefit off of it now. I don't really care - I just wish we'd start drafting laws based on science, not fear.

<comment><USER23> >Heroin is really just a synthesized and concentrated form of morphine

The pharmacology nerd inside me is reeling. Heroin is a semi-synthetic, since it's derived from the naturally occuring opiate Morphine. Concentrated is the wrong word - vodka is more concentrated than beer because it contains more ethanol per ml. Heroin has a (slightly) different chemical structure to Morphine, though it is more _potent_ by weight. You can't say that it's more concentrated without changing the meaning of the word.

>I just wish we'd start drafting laws based on science, not fear.

Completely agree and to add to that, I wish we'd start drafting laws which protect people instead of harming them.

<comment><USER24> "Heroin has a (slightly) different chemical structure to Morphine, though it is more potent by weight."

If I remember correctly it crosses the blood brain barrier faster, but once it's in the brain it acts exactly the same as morphine. I've heard it's actually less potent than morphine gram for gram if you eat it, but I'm not sure.

<comment><USER25> Morphine becomes heroin (diacetylmorphine) upon replacing the naturally- occurring hydroxyl groups (-OH) with acetyl groups (-OCOCH3). This increases fat solubility, which allows it to cross the blood-brain barrier much more quickly than morphine.

The acetyl groups get removed in the brain, and the resulting morphine has the traditional effects. Since heroin includes the extra weight of acetyl groups, it's implied that heroin is less strong per gram than morphine, but is easier to deliver.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The critical reader would be well served to observe the "really is" and "wonder drug" lexical red flags and read Jonah Lehrer's "Trials and Errors: Why Science Is Failing Us" in the January issue of Wired: <http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/12/ff_causation/all/1>

</comment><comment><USER27> People in this thread have mentioned gastric bleeds.

I haven't seen anyone mention the increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke. Heart attacks are serious and they kill many people, but so do strokes.

The end of the article mentions CVD. Here's a Cochrane review of aspirin for CVD:

([http://www.imbi.uni- freiburg.de/OJS/cca/index.php?journal=cc...](http://www.imbi.uni- freiburg.de/OJS/cca/index.php?journal=cca&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=3179))

tl;dr: 5% or greater risk of CVD over 5 years the risks are there but less than the risk of CVD. 5% to 1% risk of CVD over 5 years the risks are there, and probably about equal to CVD, so you need to talk to a doctor to assess. Risk lower than 1% of CVD over 5 years means the risks are more severe than the risk of CVD.

The article is pretty lousy. There's no direct link to the original research, so it's harder for people to see if the science is good or hopeless.

> _One type of cancer called metastatic adenocarcinoma, which can affect the > prostate, lungs, and colon, was reduced by 46 percent in people who took > aspirin._

Most people have no idea how to interpret this sentence. Most people have no idea how many people - out of say 100,000 - will get adenocarcinoma. (Am I reducing my risk from 2 in 100,000 to 1 in 100,000? Or from 300 in 10,000 to 150 in 10,000?)

</comment><comment><USER28> This is consistent with the notion that many (most?) neolithic diseases are caused by inflammation, often expressed by people with paleo/primal/archevore/etc. diets.

</comment><comment><USER29> Hasn't aspirin been shown to cause tinnitus too?

</comment><comment><USER30> Another recent article about Aspirin:

[http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/04/20/3481356.ht...](http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/04/20/3481356.htm)

"scientists have now discovered that aspirin also activates an enzyme that burns fat, a finding that could unlock its cancer fighting properties, according to a new study."

(I've read before about aspirin -- or white willow bark -- being a critical element in an Ephedra-Caffeine-Aspirin stack's so-called thermogenic effect)

</comment><comment><USER3> Could cost you your hearing, though:

[http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100301/Regular-use-of- asp...](http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100301/Regular-use-of-aspirin- acetaminophen-and-NSAIDs-increases-risk-of-hearing-loss-in-men.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER31> This is also a pharma company's nightmare. Built and sold cancer reducing drug for dirt-cheap? Ooops.</comment>


What if other professions hired like software development? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@melissamcewen/what-if-other-professions-hired-like-software-development-d40d2ae256fc <comment><USER2> And if programming careers were like medicine, we'd all have to do four years of residency working in our specialty, for 80 hours a week for half the salary before we could be licensed to program without supervision.

If it were like civil engineering, we'd need to attend a certified program at university, take an exam in our focus afterwards, then work under a Certified Licensed Programmer for four years. After which, we'd have to take another exam to get our state license that allows us to practice programming on our own. *

Maybe we could establish a huge bureaucracy around programming, requiring a decade of schooling and license in order to practice the art. Then we could make these pesky interviews a bit easier!

* The first half of this is already in place. I attended a ABET CS program, and I'm sure many others have as well. ABET has a FE exam for CS/EE that we could take.

> Thanks for your interest in Bueller and Co. accounting. We love to hire the > most passionate accountant rock stars in the industry. In advance of the > interview, please send us links to some of the side accounting projects > you've done for fun in your spare time.

Funny, when I did consulting work, I hired an accountant who did side-gigs in addition to her full-time job.

<comment><USER3> > working in our specialty, for 80 hours a week for half the salary before we > could be licensed to program without supervision

Sounds like a startup, only there's never any supervision.

<comment><USER4> Except working in a startup is optional.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> lloyd-christmas I wrote this a while back on a similar article complaining about technical interviews:

 _Med school is difficult. An internship is difficult. A fellowship program is difficult. Undergraduate degrees are a rubber stamp, CS included.

There are 20k oncologists across all fields of oncology within the US. That's also about the number of engineers Google employs. Most other industries we like to compare ourselves to are leagues above ours in individual merit. My father is an oncologist, and I'm reasonably confident he has some familiarity with every genitourinary oncologist in North America, Australia, and Europe. More importantly, he's on a first name basis with all of their educators. When he needs to hire a new doctor, he doesn't post an ad on health stack exchange. He makes an offer to a specific individual who he already knows.

One thing that we as an industry fail to understand is that we're not special. We desperately claw to it in these conversations. I'm willing to admit it: I'm easily replaceable. Very few of us have any name recognition that exists in other fields. I worked in finance for half a decade before moving to software. When I'd go to interview, people already knew who I was because of the basic human interaction I had as part of my job. When I walk into the door of my next interview, the only thing people know about me is what's on my resume/blog/stack overflow answers.

Personally, I find technical interviews to be a cheap and easy filter. You may not always get the best person from your pool of applicants, but you get someone that's better than most of them. The marginal benefit of one vs. the other is rarely meaningful._

<comment><USER5> >Most other industries we like to compare ourselves to are leagues above ours in individual merit.

I don't think that rings true to those with PhD degrees doing academic research in CS.

<comment> lloyd-christmas Definitely, but when is the last time you interviewed a PhD? If so, did you give them technical questions? The comparison is between practitioners, not academics.

Beyond that, other industries _DO_ use technical interviews. My entry-level interview in finance was extremely technical, but no subsequent interviews were technical. I just think the comparisons being drawn aren't realistic.

I work in med-tech, specifically orthopedics. I recently interviewed for a side job to help build an application related to genomic research. The most technical question I received (related to programming) was "do you have experience in python", and the answer didn't even matter. Why? My boss worked with their lead engineer, and all their researchers know my father. The human element changes things dramatically, and that seems significantly less prevalent in programming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Except for the part where other professions do hire like software development (and a lot of firms don't require take home tests). Generally jobs that require a technical skill set and are equally high paying do focus on these things. Consulting has case study interviews and quantitative tests, finance firms outside of the sales heavy organizations are known for asking complex math problems and puzzles. Hell, even accounting firms do case studies for people with a bit of experience (something you get good at by dedicating extra time outside of work).

In similar fields that don't do these types of challenges, they focus on academic excellence and professional certifications. A doctor will get hired because they came from a top residency program, a lawyer will get hired because they made law review at a T14 school.

The only example that I can't really debunk is the civil engineering one, although, it isn't known for being high paying and i'm not super familiar with the industry.

<comment><USER7> Are all-day interviews typical in other professions? Honest question. I don't think it's a good or bad thing. I appreciate meeting a lot more people when it's a long interview, but of course it is tiring.

<comment><USER6> I think it very much depends, some professions have much longer interviews (at least historically), namely where banks would do super days where you could be having possibly 10 interviews (compared to maybe 4-5 you'd have in software). However, the difference here is that a lot of software companies will then later have you talk to different managers on the phone rather than knowing which team you'd be on at the time you get the initial offer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If other professions hired like software development there would be no licensing and no credibility. Imagine your doctor, lawyer, pilot, construction engineer, or anybody else being hired because they had a nice resume and nailed a 30 minute interview.

When things go bad you could try to sue them, but they will always find a way to blame somebody else. After all there is nothing legally binding to affirm they are competent professionals.

</comment><comment><USER9> I've always explained it to friends like this:

You're a professional baseball player. The team has never seen you play, but asks to see how many pushups you can do in a minute. Then sees how good you are at jumping jacks. These things test your athleticism to some degree, but really have no bearing on how good of a baseball player you are.

<comment><USER10> That's basically how the NFL coonbine works

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This writeup made me chuckle, because we've all had to jump through those hoops in our career. The fact of the matter is, that most of those other professional industries have such a higher bar to getting hired. So much dedication, years of work, and trying your damnedest just to meat the right person who can make your career.

The same is also true for good software jobs, but at least we have the option to dance like a monkey for the chance to get a job. I prefer that to the reality of having to know someone to even get my resume looked at.

</comment><comment><USER12> I have done my share of software-hiring and have been hired plenty of times too.

It's double-sided for a candidate to complain about whiteboard examples, code tests, and code samples in the same breath. You're essentially saying, "Pay me a higher than average salary, with no evidence that I can actually do my job". Pick two, but not all three.

I think whiteboard interviews suck.

I think code tests can often be heavy-handed.

I think providing code-samples, from a side project or something you spend an hour on JUST to use for applying to jobs, is completely justifiable.

</comment><comment><USER13> These are great, but she totally missed the opportunity to list about 20 skills that were important to have for the job. Those skills would encompass upper management, project management, deep technical expertise, willingness to be hands on and work as much as necessary at times, and possibly also cover some support shifts.

<comment><AUTHOR> > upper management ... also cover some support shifts

So true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I see two problems with the implied argument here. The first is that other industries would probably very much like to do these kinds of things, if it weren't impractical to do so. The relevant difference is in fact that these practices are practical for software whereas they aren't for civil engineering and law.

The second is that software development may be unusual in that it's very easy to phrase what are essentially IQ test questions as "coding" questions, even though the code part is secondary. Arguably, the smarter thing would just be to give an actual IQ test, but I think people are squeamish about that idea, so coding questions can be used as a proxy.

</comment><comment><USER15> All examples are _credentialed_ professionals; and more than a degree.

Offering my clients $1M+ in E&O insurance and proof of industry certifications are the nearest equivalents to a Lawyer demonstrating they've passed the bar (that I can think of).

</comment><comment><USER16> _Thanks for your interest in Bueller and Co. accounting. We love to hire the most passionate accountant rock stars in the industry. In advance of the interview, please send us links to some of the side accounting projects you've done for fun in your spare time._

But the difference is, good programmers actually _LIKE_ to code. Even in our spare time. For fun. A better analogy is a graphic artist. "Show us some of your oil paintings/charcoal sketches/etc." They won't be doing any oil paintings at work, but they probably paint/sketch/etc. for fun. At least the good ones.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, no we don't. Not all of us. Generalizing like that is why software development hiring often goes off the rails. Every shop looks for beer & pizza loving, video game-playing, hobby-programming guys who dabble in maker projects and there's a whole world of people out there who are top-notch programmers but have families, non-technical hobbies, and just in general have lives different from the stereotypical brogrammer culture.

Personally, I program a little bit for my own purposes, but nothing more complicated than simple custom script-like utilities to automate things I do all the time. Sometimes I'll put a little time into creating a toy project to learn a new technology, but otherwise I really like to go home and not think about programming for a while. I like to give my brain different things to do to keep it challenged but not bored.

Step out of the bubble/box sometime, meet people different from yourself.

<comment><USER17> Maybe they're trying to hire people with some intersection between work and passion. If I had two similarly qualified candidates but one has a huge interest in coding on the side, I'd be inclined to pick her over the other one if I were a hiring manager.

And to be fair, I've had many ask me for side projects and whatnot (with me providing nothing) and have still received offers from them after an interview. Sometimes, these things are just nice to haves. From a recruiter's perspective, why not ask?

No one said anything about a brogramming culture but you seem very incensed. Step down from the soap box and take a breath or two.

<comment><USER18> One can be passionate at work without enjoying coding on their free time.

<comment><USER17> That's fair, but a hiring manager might be more easily able to see this overlap if you have some recent side projects.

And again, I'm not even the type to code for fun at home (at least not since my first two years out of college). My significant other never codes for fun but is probably one of the most talented programmers I know. I'm just stating some reasons why one might ask this as an interviewer.

The absence of side projects doesn't indicate a lack of passion but the opposite of this is mostly true.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tell HN: Risk, Dan Gardner - <AUTHOR>

Hey Guys,
I just finished reading Risk (The Science of Politics and Fear) by Dan Gardner and figured I should recommend it as a great read. I wouldn't normally recommend a book here but I suspect it is the kind of book a lot of people would dismiss as not-relevant to the hacker sort of mentality (I thought the same).
Basically it sums up the Human reaction to perceived risk. One way to describe the whole thing is how many people, after seeing a coin land heads up 5 times in a row will bet it has a higher chance of landing heads up again next time - regardless of the random aspect.
The most interesting thing I found in the book though was when he presented common "risk puzzles" where our gut causes a knee-jerk answer to a posed question. Several times I thought "that's silly, I'd never fall for that" only to read on an find that I had done :) one big point he makes there is that bad responses to risk and fear are just as much a problem in "intelligent" people.
If I had to sum it up Risk is a good link between some of Dawkins/Hitchens anti-mythology books and popular science concepts (like A Brief History of Time etc.).
His initial example is how after Sept. 11th people stopped using Aeroplanes whilst car travel went up: except more people extra died in that year than died in the Sept 11th tragedy. Car travel was perceived as "safer" even though it wasn't in the slightest.
I think it is really relevant to some of the stuff people here are working on: because it assess how people respond even after considering a problem. It's also proved useful (to me) in making several tough(ish) choices in the recent past. If nothing else it has sat there in my mind so that when "gut" kicks in I have a little bookmark to stop it and rethink what I just did/said/thought.
Anyway, I found it incredibly fascinating & enlightening to read so.... recommended :) <comment><USER3> I'm all for book reviews by HN for HN.

<comment><USER4> I would like to suggest a convention to the title for reviews too - <USER2> Review:

<comment><USER5> I am 100% on board with this. Also, the ensuing discussion and alternate suggestions have the potential to be more valuable than the original reviews, much like the articles submitted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A book that I loved in HS on a similar topic, just more focused on the social aspect of it is "The Culture of Fear" by Barry Glassner. Recommended also.

[http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Fear-Americans-Afraid- Things/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Fear-Americans-Afraid- Things/dp/0465014909)

<comment><AUTHOR> Dan mentions this book several times in Risk actually - because of that it was tentatively on my reading list but now I'll definitely give it a shot :D thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> As a compliment to this book, I submit "Fooled By Randomness" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. An excellent book that describes very well how human beings make deliberate attempts to rationalize random events.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Amazon Link (in case ppl struggle to find it)

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Risk-Science-Politics-Dan- Gardner/dp...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Risk-Science-Politics-Dan- Gardner/dp/0753515539)

<comment><USER7> I cant seem to find it on the US Amazon (Amazon.com).

I see some likely, but potentially renamed alternatives by the same author.

Any of these:

      http://amzn.com/1905264151 - Same name, not sold by Amazon
      http://amzn.com/0525950621 - Different title, same author/approx publishing dates

Thoughts?

<comment><AUTHOR> This is the one: <http://amzn.com/0525950621>

UK sub-title izs "The Science and Politics of Fear". Also the Independant review on that page is the same in the back cover of my copy :)

Alternatively does this link work for you?

<http://www.amazon.com/Risk-Things-Shouldnt-Ourselves-Greater>

That is the correct book 100% :)

Edit: From his site they are all the same just different titles for different countries.

<http://www.dangardner.ca/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "His initial example is how after Sept. 11th people stopped using Aeroplanes whilst car travel went up: except more people extra died in that year than died in the Sept 11th tragedy. Car travel was perceived as safer even though it wasn't in the slightest." I heard that statistic after September 11th. It didn't help. It just made me more afraid of driving.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's gut at work again (he makes this point later on) you have the risks explained and still gut refuses to apply it right. Given the choice between fly and drive now both are worrisome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> One thing I've heard mentioned occasionally but still have not seen covered extensively/comprehensively in the mainstream media, is the shifting of risk in the U.S. in the last, say, 30 years, from institutions to individuals. For example, the movement from professionally managed pensions to individually managed (and often choice-limited) 401k plans as a main vehicle for retirement savings.

I don't know whether the book addresses those aspects of risk, or whether it shares my viewpoint on them, but I welcome the review and the attention the post may place on risk as a topic. The conversation here could become quite interesting.

<comment><USER10> > For example, the movement from professionally managed pensions to > individually managed (and often choice-limited) 401k plans as a main vehicle > for retirement savings.

We've found that the risk of professionally managed pensions is actually borne by taxpayers, not "institutions".

<comment><USER9> Yes, I thought of that as I wrote my comment. However, I see it as a somewhat separate problem. The pension funds were, essentially, raided. If that were prevented (that dreaded word, regulation), we might still be in a situation where pensions provide a very stable retirement income. Further, preventing such behavior would force the pension providers to own up to and correct their problems sooner, instead of milking retirement earnings as a short term compensation for those problems. Those that couldn't correct their problems would fail. But the pensions would remain intact.

I think what is currently happening with many pensions in the U.S. -- e.g. underfunding followed by default of one manner or another that transfers the pension obligations to the increasingly underfunded Federal government insurance/guarantor program that pays a small portion of their original value -- is criminal, ethically where not (explicitly enough, apparently) legally. But it does not of itself discredit the concept of pensions.

At the same time, I'm no expert in this. I'm open to considering opposing arguments. Let me put part of my point another way: Expecting every future retiree to become an investment expert is inefficient. All that time and effort duplicated across so many people, to manage in each individual case relatively small amounts (excluding that small percentage of the very wealthy).

But maybe it's like democracy; all that work by individuals is necessary to keep the system honest. And when the work isn't done, the system degrades. Perhaps the best we can do is to all hire investment advisors (whom we choose) and to treat no investment, no benefit as "guaranteed".

But, with regard to the topic of risk, this is a lot of individual risk.

<comment><USER10> > The pension funds were, essentially, raided.

Not at all. They were unsatisfiable promises.

> If that were prevented (that dreaded word, regulation)

I'll believe in regulation when public employee pensions are less of a disaster than private ones.

> But it does not of itself discredit the concept of pensions.

In theory there's no difference between theory and practice....

> But, with regard to the topic of risk, this is a lot of individual risk.

You can't eliminate risk. You can merely move it around.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Swedish prosecutors drop Julian Assange rape investigation - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/19/swedish-prosecutors-drop-julian-assange-investigation <comment><USER2> There is already a discussion about this topic with currently 70+ comments

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14373951](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14373951)

</comment><comment><USER3> So he can leave the embassy now?

<comment><USER4> I'm guessing this doesn't absolve him of the offence of "skipping bail" or whatever it is the Brits will arrest him for.

<comment><USER5> You're right, he is guilty of skipping bail, of which the maximum penalty is 12 months in prison.

See: [http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bail/#a19](http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bail/#a19)</comment></comment></comment>


Hardware vs. Software: This Decade's Defining Technology Battle - <AUTHOR> http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2010/01/20/hardware-vs-software/

<comment><USER2> HW vs SW seems to be a false dichotomy to me. It's a matter of time, rather than fundamental difference. Software is slower but more flexible. Hardware flows into new niches as it gets more powerful and has lower energy costs, and when it has a surplus of power, much of its function moves into software.</comment>


Pentagon orders Windows 10 to be installed on all 4M of its PCs - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/17/technology/windows-10-pentagon/ <comment><AUTHOR> "But hackers have been gaining ground at such a rapid pace that upgrading to a new operating system now represents a better line of defense."

Really?

</comment><comment><USER2> Meanwhile Russia is installing Linux.</comment>


Steal This #1 Landing Page Hack - <AUTHOR> http://webpresario.com/blog/steal-this-landing-page-hack/

<comment><USER2> I agree with you Ethan. This strategy can be very powerful and boost conversion substantially. Thanks bringing it to my attention.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow. Great article. I was not aware of this. Thank you for sharing Mr.ethan</comment>


Anti-encryption bill: Labor and Coalition agree to encryption "compromise" - <AUTHOR> https://www.itnews.com.au/news/labor-and-coalition-agree-to-encryption-compromise-516489 <comment><USER2> Saying "We don't want to outlaw encryption, we only want to outlaw strong encryption," is a bit like saying "We don't want to outlaw pregnancy, we only want to outlaw being more than 90% pregnant."

</comment><comment><USER3> This law is extremely concerning but I don't see a way for it to be used against communications that are encrypted by a VPN, where that VPN is based outside Australia (most if not all VPN providers are). The Australian government has no power to compel a foreign company to do anything.

<comment><USER4> Don't worry, they'll just block access to the VPN providers without any requiring any further legislation because they can. They literally have no idea of the security implications of pursuing this, they just want to be "tough on crime" and protect us from all the terrorists. They say not to worry, they'll only use it for crimes that can carry a penalty of 2+ years, but that's most of them, and you only have to be suspected in order to be targetted. What can anyone do? Say you're not a suspect? _Hmmm, that sounds suspicious, better give me all your devices and credentials just to be safe._</comment></comment>


Everything the Government Did to WikiLeaks Is Now Done to Mainstream Reporters - <AUTHOR> https://freedom.press/news-advocacy/virtually-everything-the-government-did-to-wikileaks-is-now-being-done-to-mainstream-us-reporters/ <comment><USER2> It's funny how everything US related is flagged or removed, yet China is fair game...

</comment><comment><USER3> To those who view this story as political (such as HN moderators), think about it. Press freedom is a much more fundamental issue than political affiliation.

Much of the discussion that has been suppressed by mods on HN has had to with the knee-jerk characterization of stories like this as political. It will be interesting to see whether this story survives on the home page or whether the thought suppression regime (mods and their cronies) is able to suppress it.

Press freedom is, in a sense, in opposition to authoritarianism. HN mods have shown a strong pro-authoritarian sentiment, so I would not be surprised to see this story (and even this comment) come under attack.

Warning: Up-voting this comment will put you on the radar of the moderators.

<comment><USER4> Guess I'm on the moderators' radar.

For a crowd that likes to consider itself the internet's intelligentsia, HN readers at large seem surprisingly ignorant of the fact that since technology is a human endeavor, politics and tech are forever inextricably linked.

Thus, the blanket ban on political articles only makes sense for articles that have no technological aspect.

Surveillance of journalists, pervasive state- and corporate-enabled surveillance at that, is exactly what HN should be discussing.

But I guess it's easier to just stick our heads in the sand, not think too hard about where our paycheck comes from, and discuss the latest Electron Bloatware as a Service.

<comment><USER3> Very well put. I've made a very similar point to HN mods in the past and it was arrogantly rebuffed. They just don't perceive the distinction you describe.

I think many HN readers agree with the point you make, but a vocal and influential minority (as well as the mods) do not.

<comment><USER4> Well, if any moderator reads this and wants to discuss it civilly then they should email me and I will happily oblige.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > despite the fact that he was just doing what every major US journalism > organization does: publishing leaked classified information in the public > interest.

I'm not sure that major news outlets leak classified information that may put US military and government officials in danger. That's where this article lost me and I stopped.

<comment><USER6> According to the government, every leak of classified information "may" put the goverment's personnel and interests at risk. That doesn't mean it's true, and even if it is true it's not necessarily a sufficient reason to halt publication.</comment></comment>


Fedora 19 released - <AUTHOR> https://fedoraproject.org/

<comment><USER2> to be honest, I'd have linked the features list page: [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/19/FeatureList](http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/19/FeatureList) which bundles a lot of nice informations in a single page!

</comment><comment><USER3> I wonder how to upgrade from 18 to 19 smoothly

<comment><USER2> actually it boils down to very few steps:

      # rpm --import https://fedoraproject.org/static/FB4B18E6.txt
      # yum update yum
      # yum --releasever=19 distro-sync

also see this: [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum#Fe...](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum#Fedora_18_-.3E_Fedora_19)</comment></comment>


Computer Vision for Wound and Skin Lesion Measurement - <AUTHOR> http://neatocode.tumblr.com/post/56543954004/mapping-camera-distance-to-real-distances-in-computer

<comment><AUTHOR> The source code is here: [https://github.com/lnanek/WoundRuler](https://github.com/lnanek/WoundRuler)

Ideas and suggestions welcome!</comment>


Show HN: Interviewing MIT Faculty about their personal lives - <AUTHOR> http://www.teawithteachers.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi all! My team has been working on this project for about 6 months and our goal is to show students that MIT faculty members have crazy life stories and really cool personalities. We aim to make it easier for students to approach professors and to secure research.

Hope you enjoy!</comment>


Motor Vehicles Increasingly Vulnerable to Remote Exploits - <AUTHOR> http://www.ic3.gov/media/2016/160317.aspx <comment><USER2> _" As a note of caution, if manufacturers regularly make software updates for vehicles available online, it is possible that criminals may exploit this delivery method."_

Right. This may be the beginning of the end of remote software updates for "security fixes". The backdoor implicit in remote software updates may be a bigger risk than the existing hole. If anybody ever gets (or already has) Microsoft's or Apple's signing key, there's going to be big trouble.

<comment><USER3> What's riskier? Systems that are never patched with still plenty of potential surface attack area, or systems that have a way to obtain fixes, including fixes to the patching system?

If a system has an options for untrusted I/O (radios, network, unmonitored physical access), I would take the later over the former every time.

Granted not all companies are created equal in how they handle security, but that doesn't change in either scenario. The same team developing a fix are also typically working on the original implementation, so it's unlikely that the system code/design quality would be drastically different.

<comment><USER4> What's riskier? Systems that are never patched with still plenty of potential surface attack area, or systems that are uncontrollably patched with still plenty of potential remote and MITM attack area? I can't decide, but in both cases, removing remote access removes the problem. My car and toaster wouldn't be much more useful with Internet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So why do any of the things mentioned in an article need any form of network connection? All the monitoring could be done at a standard mechanic like how cars are already checked over, the unlock system doesn't need to work over more than a few metres (what's the chance anyone is going to want to legitimately unlock a car from miles away?) and stuff like the entertainment system could be kept self contained.

Then it wouldn't be an issue how 'insecure' the OS is, since a thief would have to be physically near the vehicle to do anything.

But hey, thanks to the obsession with 'smart' devices and the internet of things and all that stuff, everything seems to have an internet connection chucked in for no real reason.

</comment><comment><USER4> Imagine what would happen if a hostile government, organized crime, someone who hated you, or a bored teenager controlled your car. And also your oven, your air conditioner, and your garage door. Welcome to the Internet of Things, folks!

<comment><USER6> Or your own government:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_\(journalist\)#Alleged_foul_play_controversy)

<comment><USER4> Wow. I'm really skeptical of this kind of accusation, since it looks a lot like a loony conspiracy theory, but the Internet of Things turns it into an everyday hack instead of a super-secret state-level one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You know all those things that make it really easy for Grandma to have her identity stolen when checking her email?

They're coming to car/refrigerator/toaster near you.

<comment><USER8> Didn't we know that?

Not that this is "old news", but I thought Rule #1 was that when something is more complicated (or here, "smarter") there's more opportunity for things to go wrong, or for things to get abused.

I feel like we _knew_ this was going to happen, but kind of shrugged it off as irrational.

Right after cell phones with blue tooth were made public, we added "blue snarfing" into our vocabulary.

I mean, I don't put a sticky-note over my webcam; I'm just not surprised at all that hackers are keeping up with tech.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The crime is the NTSB not taking these unsafe vehicles off the road. Drivetrains should be air gapped. Period. You want a multimedia display it should be read only off the CAN bus.</comment>


Email driven apps in Python-Anvils new email service - <AUTHOR> https://anvil.works/blog/email-driven-apps <comment><AUTHOR> To me this makes Anvil an amazing platform for workflow applications, the integration with 365/ Azure AD makes this a really interesting proposition compared to say, Sharepoint.</comment>


Ugc: a single-header garbage collector library - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/bullno1/ugc <comment><USER2> Pretty cool, but 2 pointers of overhead per object is a lot. The linked-list approach to garbage collection is also going to produce a lot of memory fragmentation compared to arena-based collectors. The docs also suggest calling `ugc_step` multiple times per allocation. So this isn't a high performance solution, but the code is clean and easy to read.

Related reading: [http://www.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/NoMotionGC.html](http://www.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/NoMotionGC.html)</comment>


[DOC] Perf Audits for Blink and DevTools, CNet, Wikipedia, Time by Paul Irish - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K-mKOqiUiSjgZTEscBLjtjd6E67oiK8H2ztOiq5tigk

<comment><USER2> Pretty awesome stuff from Paul Irish, as usual. Really digs deep to understand where the slowness comes from, which is _huge_ on mobile -- even current-gen flagships have trouble with poorly composed HTML/JS/CSS.</comment>


Netflix Seeks Its Own Star Wars, Harry Potter-Esque Movie Franchise - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbr.com/netflix-looking-star-wars-harry-potter-franchise/ <comment><USER2> > If you have that kind of imagination — like the Wachowskis with _The Matrix_

I'm hesitant to say "based on", but the movie _Dark City_ from 1998 (a year before _The Matrix_ ) is remarkably similar to it.

I only saw it around 2005 and the plot points for the first half of the two movies fit so closely I went looking to see if it was acknowledged anywhere. Other than people noticing the same thing, I don't recall finding anything, though.

<comment><USER3> 1998-99, there were at least 5 movies about simulations: Dark City, The Truman Show, The Matrix, Existenz, and The Thirteenth Floor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > George Lucas created Star Wars [...] we feel like we're the place to take > the chance on those types of innovative ideas and filmmakers.

I'm glad he acknowledged this. Great stories don't arise from committees. All of the great ones I can think of came from one or two people. Even so, I did not expect the final trilogy of Star Wars, groupthought up by Disney, to be that incoherent!

</comment><comment><USER4> That seems to be a unique and market differentiating strategy.

This article is interesting because of its fluff level. What did the PR firm think they would accomplish with this? Was Netflix not seeking to emulate the biggest film franchises of all time?

</comment><comment><USER5> Anyone here think that the 80s book series from the UK called "Tim and the Hidden People" would make a good movie series?

</comment><comment><USER6> Don't we all</comment>


How to Sleep - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/01/how-to-sleep/508781/ <comment><USER2> My biggest struggle with sleep is that I'm always excited to do stuff, and always feel like I'm not done with my day. Exceptions are when something happens and I end up feeling very depressed during the day, and simply want to shut down and do nothing.

Usually, I get so infatuated with a script I'm writing, a new program I discovered, a bug that I need to resolve, a book that I'm reading, some concept that I'm thinking of, that my mind just keeps on being active, and wants to keep working. It's the worst when I'm working on my computer, due to the blue light (I've started wearing yellow sunglasses to minimize the effect), while it's a bit better when I'm reading or listening to music or thinking.

In any case, this is a great article. I feel like small amounts of sleep has been the greatest inhibitor of my performance in... anything really. Being dumb and young I felt like I could still function correctly, but I really started noticing that I had better tournament results when actually sleeping 8 hours, while my results on all other days were lackluster. I read up on a lot of things and convinced myself that sleeping enough is essential. I still slip up and don't even go on my bed at the right times, my sleep schedule goes all over the place for a lot of different reasons, but I'm really trying. I feel like I might need to seek some professional help on this, but I'll still take it as far as possible before that.

<comment><USER3> This is me, too. My wife complains that it's like I'm trying to have two or three lives instead of just the one. But I know I need the sleep I'm not getting, but I have a really hard time, once the kids are finally asleep, just going to bed myself. When everyone but me is asleep it's so peaceful and quiet, and I can read, slay work dragons, learn stuff, or just veg. Unfortunately this usually results in maybe six low quality hours of sleep. And I pay for it in distractibility, moodiness, not as smart as I am when well rested, etc. But overcoming the size of deficit I've got isn't pleasant either. I actually feel worse much of the time. More tired, speak less clearly, slow thought... It sucks. I probably just need to stick with it until my brain and body adjust and recover, but just haven't gotten to that point yet. My growing concern is that not enough sleep and poor quality of sleep can literally, indirectly, kill you (via things related or compounded by lack of sleep). Yikes! I'd like to grow old with my wife, and see our kids grow up. So... Gotta beat this problem somehow!

<comment><USER4> > When everyone but me is asleep it's so peaceful and quiet, and I can read, > slay work dragons, learn stuff, or just veg. Unfortunately this usually > results in maybe six low quality hours of sleep. And I pay for it in > distractibility, moodiness, not as smart as I am when well rested, etc. ...I > actually feel worse much of the time. More tired, speak less clearly, slow > thought... It sucks.

Are you me?

<comment><USER5> I feel this way about getting up really early. It's a great feeling. And by around 9 I've made a LOT of progress. That feels even better...

<comment><USER6> I'd love to get a 9-5 sleep pattern. Sleep at 9pm, wake at 5am.

<comment><USER5> Two questions.

Why?

And why don't you?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >So either that is the amount of sleep that keeps people well, or that's the amount that makes them least likely to lie about being sick when they want to skip work. Or maybe people who were already sick with some chronic condition were sleeping more than that—or less—as a result of their illness. Statistics are tough to interpret.

Love that, no lazy journalism, no ridiculous claims. Just the facts and some possible implications.

<comment><USER8> From The Atlantic, I expected a little more science and a little more suggestion from this article. This read more as a summary of all of the little sleep tips I've seen and heard anecdotally over the last few years rolled into one summary.

Not exactly on the same level as "When Your Child Is a Psychopath" or "My Family's Slave" (two very recent and exceptionally great articles from The Atlantic).

<comment><USER9> I really wonder about the "When Your Child is a Psychopath" one, it was a good story and all, but I wonder how many people read that article and like me left feeling like "I can relate". As a kid in pre-school, I pissed in another kids face. In elementary I ripped a kid's eyelid off, and pulled another kid's leg through a bike lock station and then broke it amongst many other things. I never hurt a teacher, but I was under a hundred pounds in gr.6. If I had matured earlier I can't say that I wouldn't have, since they definitely manhandled me after every fight I got into. I remember another parent saying that when I grew up I was either going to be in jail for mass murder, or the prime minister, as if there were no other option.

I wonder how many other people did similar things as a kid and turned out completely ordinary.

<comment><USER10> What makes you ordinary?

<comment><USER9> I'm not an offender of any kind, let alone a violent offender.

<comment><USER8> I mean, there is a big difference between peeing on someone and trying to choke out one of your relatives. My family is full of mental health disorders and I've experienced the damage they cause first hand. For me, it was much more of a "so this is the complete extreme" experience -- it was a good example of "almost entirely far gone."

<comment><USER9> I have no mental health disorders though. I just had some completely off the handle reactions to people bullying me, or picking on me in any way. I was one of the smallest people in my class, and it never turned out well for the other person. I would blackout with rage. I've never remembered what happened in a fight, but can still remember every detail leading up to it.

<comment><USER11> Obviously I'm not in your head and I could be wrong, but I think what sets you apart from the kids described in the article is that you acted on emotions. The kids described had none. They knew what they were doing, they did not black out in rage. The harm they did was calculated.

It seems to me that you had bursts of violence because you felt hurt yourself and needed to make things 'right', not just because you found joy in harming others.

<comment><USER9> I guess, but I think when people read the article, the part that's scary is the violence. The lack of empathy is disturbing (i don't lack empathy). I guess I wonder how many people actually have one without the other, either the extreme violence or the lack of empathy without it, and whether it's the combination of the two?

I also have a really low resting heart rate, around 40 beats per minute.

<comment><USER12> I too would get very angry from being bullied. This is actually something that would entertain others at school - seeing how angry I got.

What you didn't mention in your original post was that you'd done most of those things out of retaliation - not premeditated. That's a major difference from being a psychopath.

However, I think my situation is much less severe - I've never caused anyone any more than bruises (nor had blackouts), I would certainly say that the anger I have is a mental health issue. Not at a criminal level, but certainly at a level that can cause problems with work/life relationships.

I've went to see a therapist for about a year and it's really unbelievably helpful.

I wish going to see a psychotherapist was as easy for people to do as going to see a physiotherapist.

<comment><USER9> I wasn't trying to say I was a psychopath, just simply that I could relate to the stories being told.

I've never seen a therapist, and don't know what anger does to you, but for me it's not a mental health issue.

Part of it I'm sure is that I don't bottle anything up any more, and the other is that I'm not a kid and being picked on is just laughable. I think knowing that it's okay to be angry, that it is a normal thing that is perfectly okay, was probably the biggest revelation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I could write an essay about my battle with sleep. I'm in my 30's and I finally think it's solved.

Sleeping meds, sleep studies, CBT-I, you name it - I've done it.

My ultimate solution ended up being:

\- Earplugs

\- Exercise

\- Waking up the same time every single day, no matter how late I stay up. CBT-I had me wake up at 6:30 am every morning, and go to bed at 1 am. After a week of exhaustion, I started falling asleep like a rock. Then my therapist gradually had me go to sleep earlier and earlier until my time-to-sleep was still short and I had few awakenings during the night, but felt refreshed the next day. Turned out to be just around 6.5 hours a night

\- No coffee after 3 pm

There are still nights where I have an active mind and have trouble sleeping, but I'll just let it happen without constantly worrying "oh no, I'm not gonna get ___ hours of sleep tonight". Because the minute you try to force yourself to sleep, it's over.

<comment><USER6> Earplugs are my #1 life changer when it comes to sleep. I found these really soft ones that don't really get in the way when you're lying on one ear, they filter pretty much all of the sound and when I take them out the next day, my ears don't hurt. As it turns out my wife's breathing kept me kind of awake, and traffic sounds too. And now that I got used to it, thanks to the associativity of the brain, these days I fall asleep within 10 minutes of putting them in. Most of the time, anyway. Sometimes I do need sleep meds to just tip me over into actual sleep. But if there's one thing I can recommend to other people is to spend some time to really find your own suitable ear plugs. I'm just lucky my wife is ok with it, she doesn't have these sleeping problems and is on stanby for if our boy might wake up in the night... Which almost never happens.

<comment><USER14> Could you tell me which earplugs you use and how you went about finding the right ones?

<comment><USER15> Easy enough, the right ones are the custom molds earplugs, plugs made from and for your ear canal.

They're not cheap but they fit snugly and tight, plus they last a long time. I got mine from a recommendation from a sound tech frien. There are different kinds with filters, for example to remove the bang from a gunshot or filter out snoring but not the alarm clock or the full plug to cancel all sounds.

While taking the print for the molds I experienced total silence for the first time and enjoyed the slight tinnitus I never noticed I had.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> No small art is it to sleep: it is necessary for that purpose to keep awake all day.

Ten times a day must thou overcome thyself: that causeth wholesome weariness, and is poppy to the soul.

Ten times must thou reconcile again with thyself; for overcoming is bitterness, and badly sleep the unreconciled.

Ten truths must thou find during the day; otherwise wilt thou seek truth during the night, and thy soul will have been hungry.

Ten times must thou laugh during the day, and be cheerful; otherwise thy stomach, the father of affliction, will disturb thee in the night.

When night cometh, then take I good care not to summon sleep. It disliketh to be summoned—sleep, the lord of the virtues!

But I think of what I have done and thought during the day. Thus ruminating, patient as a cow, I ask myself: What were thy ten overcomings?

And what were the ten reconciliations, and the ten truths, and the ten laughters with which my heart enjoyed itself? Thus pondering, and cradled by forty thoughts, it overtaketh me all at once—sleep, the unsummoned, the lord of the virtues.

[http://4umi.com/nietzsche/zarathustra/2](http://4umi.com/nietzsche/zarathustra/2)

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm not sure what the long term effects of chronic melatonin supplementation are, but I'll find out eventually. I've been taking between 3-6mg of melatonin every night for the past few years (2011?) It's almost required. Without it my sleep cycle seems fine at first, but then gets out of whack as I can't seem to keep a circadian rhythm in line with the rest of society / the earth's rotation.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I can't function mentally without caffeine. I tried going off caffeine a few times, and while the withdrawal effects were horrible, they eventually passed and everything felt great except my ability to concentrate on anything. Sadly I can't afford to see a doctor for my ADHD meds. While caffeine helps, it still leaves much to be desired.

Exercise helps immensely, both in terms of sleep and ability to concentrate, but at some point I injured my upper back (rhomboids and rotator cuff muscles), so I can't get the same level of exercise I had before.

<comment><USER18> I take melatonin for sleep only as necessary. I work a physically demanding job that requires approximately 50% computer time, so I find the mixed physical & mental effort of work tiring.

What I found help immensely with regaining my focus and mental clarity after coming off caffeine, and before that methamphetamine 4 days out of 7 for nearly a year, is taking a multi B vitamin plus 1000mcg methylcobalamin (also known as 'Activated B12') sublingually, and 200mg B6 once or twice a day, along with eating fewer sweet things and more protein and raw fats (butter and coconut oil). Plus chiropractic / osteopathic adjustments to deal with my crooked postural habits.

I also find Liquorice root as strong decoction immensely restorative.

That's what has worked for me. N=1 and all that.

Full disclosure: I hold a Diploma in Western Herbal Medicine and an Advanced Diploma in Clinical Nutrition. For what it's worth.

<comment><USER19> Vitamins are a complete scam. They aren't even FDA regulated. After I read about their ineffectiveness and possible harm, I threw all of my bottles into the garbage can.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/07/the- vitam...](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/07/the-vitamin-myth- why-we-think-we-need-supplements/277947/)

The placebo effect is powerful.

I highly recommend reading Topol's "The Creative Destruction of Medicine" for more information.

<comment><USER20> The one vitamin worth taking for anyone living in a northern climate is D, particularly if, like me, you don't consume a lot of dairy. Beyond that, I agree, vitamins are entirely unnecessary.

<comment><USER21> Also those who suffer from Celiac Disease, like myself, are often low on Iron and are recommended to take iron supplements to prevent anemia.

<comment><USER20> Yeah I think it's fair to say that prescribed vitamins for those with a medical condition are probably worth taking. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Personally the change that has helped me the most has been mental. I used to feel "guilty" of going to bed early, not working to exhaustion. Now I view sleep as something to enjoy. Just letting go of that guilt has me sleep a lot better. From being a light sleeper I have gone to be able to sleep through my housemates blaring loud music.

</comment><comment><USER23> I guess it's once again time for my standard PSA response to this genre: various chronic medical conditions can interfere with sleep. If you consistently have trouble sleeping or sleeping well over an extended period of time, it very well could be something more than "poor sleep habits".

<comment><USER24> And it very well couldn't. Slapping medical name to everything is not a solution either. Sometimes sleep disorder is as little as the wrong diet.

<comment><USER23> Sometimes people are speaking from direct experience with well-validated medical conditions fucking up their lives for multiple decades until someone _eventually_ bothered to actually order the relevant diagnostic test.

<comment><USER19> Like sleep apnea: A lot of doctors mistakenly think that only overweight people can have sleep apnea.

I am 6' 150 lbs and was tired my whole life until I INSISTED I get a sleep study. Turns out I had severe sleep apnea.

<comment><USER25> And the solution is to sleep with a CPAP? Could I just rent one and check if I wake up more rested? Does snoring correlate with sleep apnea?

<comment><USER19> Snoring definitely correlates with apnea (your airway is already narrowing enough to "snore"). You could rent one but you wouldn't know the optimal pressure settings without a titration sleep study. You could try renting an auto adjusting machine and set the window wide open so that min pressure is the lowest possible value and Max pressure is the highest. Then if you look at the data and see that the machine had to increase the pressure while you slept with it on, you know you had a disordered breathing event(s). The machine reports back AHI but it really means that you stopped breathing and the machine couldn't treat you effectively because the pressure wasn't set correctly, but it doesn't report apneas that you would have had without wearing the machine to begin with because at pressure, it has no way of knowing/measuring them, if that makes sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm 30 years old now.

I was able to live on 4-6 hrs of sleep a night all the way up to age 25-28. That's when sleep started becoming a problem.

At age 30, I absolutely need 8 hours of sleep _minimum_ average of sleep, but that average has to be accumulated over the course of a week! That means that a single night of sleeping less and doing strenuous tasks on a linux terminal now takes a toll on me in ways that I have never felt before in my youth.

Full disclaimer: I am a blue collar worker at a non-computer job who physically excerts myself and am very fit as a result of my job. This is part of why sleep is mandatory for me.

The older you get, the more sleep you need and the less alcohol your body can handle. This is a universal truth that people <age 25 have a hard time accepting because everybody has to be a superman of course.

<comment><USER27> > _The older you get, the more sleep you need_

This isn't true. Need for sleep declines with age. Youth masks the effects of poor sleep in the same way it masks poor eating and lack of exercise. But young people need _more_ sleep, not less.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It actually does not tell how to sleep, it only discusses common sense strategies like taking melatonine and avoiding (or not) caffeine. Kind of a let down.

</comment><comment><USER29> I don't have a computer at home any more.

Granted, the office is at walking distance, and I can go there 24/7, but not having a computer at home recently made a huge difference.

Once I go back home, I don't have the temptation of hacking something really quick, which will eventually last longer that expected, and I'll then keep thinking about it all night long.

Verdict? Better sleep. And I can get up earlier. Overall I feel better and more productive, if only because there is a better separation between work (including on OSS projects) and personal life.

</comment><comment><USER30> > The original studies seemed to say yes. But when the military put soldiers > in a lab to make certain they stayed awake, performance suffered.

One minor piece of anecdotal evidence here. I have done a few 5-6 day sleep deprivation experiments in my life. I've stayed up for 3 days more times than I can count. I also used to regularly sleep every other day for long chunks of time. It's something that I could do much better when I was younger, and I try to avoid this now as I regularly get sick when I don't sleep for extended periods of time nowadays.

Firstly, performance (particularly my short term memory) always suffered. Sometimes if not active, or sitting for long periods of time I'd also get pain in my joints. Typically, when I fall asleep or start feeling tired it's because I enter a small boring, quiet homely environment (i.e. go home, or sit in a quiet room, or watch tv). My secret to staying awake was constant activity like walking around, talking to people, hydrating (water), small snacks, and walking some more, etc.

I feel that the effects of sleep deprivation hit the hardest when I'm not being stimulated physically. As such, I think dragging someone into a lab would have a harsh effect on one's performance. While I think no matter what you will suffer from performance degradation, I would love to see some contrast between performance given different environments/habits.

</comment><comment><USER31> 1) no glowing screens at all after the sun goes down.

2) no glowing screens at all after the sun goes down.

3) _no glowing screens at all after the sun goes down._

4) very low candle-temperature lighting only after dark. Especially try to keep it out of your direct line of sight.

It'll work, but 1-3 are _hard_.

<comment><USER32> I mean, what am I supposed to do in my leisure time if I _can 't_ look at glowing screens? Just sit around and pretend I'm in the 90s?

<comment><USER6> We watched TV in the 90s. Lots and lots. Try the 40s.

<comment><USER15> Maybe not the 40s, I know who's been there and says it was not the best times to be around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> 1\. Room temperature should be between 60 - 67 degrees F.

2\. No electronics, games, and minimal to no blue light 30min to 1hour before sleep.

3\. Do not exercise less than 3 hours before sleep. Exception: sex.

4\. Coffee and other stimulants before 12pm, not after.

5\. Avoid naps longer than 15 minutes day of.

6\. Stretch before going to sleep, particularly if you experience minor restless legs or periodic leg movements.

7\. Avoid alcohol, will reduce sleep quality.

8\. Avoid stimulating TV, conversations or books before sleep.

9\. Controversial: Sleep in late if you can. Adequate sleep is more important than consistent sleep rhythm. My opinion only.

<comment><USER34> 60-67F? That's cold. I live in Fl so if I were to let myself get used to that temp I would literally melt when I went outside.

76F is more reasonable here.

<comment><USER35> Easy in the winter, crack a window if necessary.

In the summer the A/C bill would be outrageous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> What are your recommendations for dealing with noisy roommates/hallmates?

There have been nights where I had to put on my ANC headphones to get some peace and quiet. (I've heard a good pair of earplugs may work?)

<comment><USER37> Get a white noise machine.

<comment><USER17> Something along these lines I recommend is a loud HEPA filter fan, so you get fresh air + white noise.

<comment><USER38> Currently living in China and this is a godsend

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The article mentions William Dement, one of the pioneer researchers on sleep. His book The Promise of Sleep is a great and easy read, and I absolutely recommend it for anyone looking to learn more about the subject and the history behind the study of sleep.

</comment><comment><USER40> Is nobody else concerned with the implications of what losing sleep does to the doctor going through residency? I've always thought that was insane. The author even admits to having observed the detrimental effects first-hand, yet never suggests that this practice should be abandoned - why is that!?

I as a patient have enough of a problem giving myself into the care of a doctor-in-training, why does s/he have to sleep-deprived on top of not being fully trained? Is this some sort of macho thing, or a "well, I went through this hazing, so you gotta do it, too" kind of thing?

Somebody please enlighten me as to what the point of this seemingly counter- productive practice is!

</comment><comment><USER41> My experience with Melatonin is that about 1.5 mg per night is a game changer. I travel across the Pacific Ocean several times per year and it got to where I was a stick of dynamite temper wise for a week after each trip, just not able to cope with any irritations, due to Jetlag. On top of that, just the general stress of being an entrepreneur resulted in bad sleep. For some reason, I bought the melatonin, and I'm very glad I did it. Now, I sleep like I did when I was in elementary school. Lots of dreams and even wake up with solutions to problems that I went to bed thinking about.

</comment><comment><USER42> My "One Simple Trick" to help limit active thinking when in bed, and thus make it easier to sleep is to write the thoughts down, pen on paper.

By thinking I mean things like being excited about an event, going over a conversation, thinking about some code, an idea, things to do tomorrow, errands etc. All things that can be literally dumped onto paper and stored. In my experience I have found that pen and paper work better than typing into a device.

Now, I still seem to wake up multiple times during the night, but it's not because my brain is excited anymore.

</comment><comment><USER43> > _In 2013, a 24-year-old advertising copywriter in Indonesia died after > prolonged sleep deprivation, collapsing a few hours after tweeting "30 hours > of working and still going strooong." She went into a coma and died the next > morning._

Things like this always slightly scare me.

I have been awake consecutively for far longer, and on several occasions. But does that mean I just _can_ \- or would I really be risking death each time?

<comment><USER44> The article suggests his death was due to a combination of too much energy drinks and a preexisting mild heart condition. If you get regular checkups you should be probably mostly fine for a while until you get weakened by old age and can't do it any more.

That is not to say that it's at all recommended. I personally absolutely cannot stay awake for more than 20 hours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> "Or, sometimes preferable, read something on paper.". Now, to read on paper we need light, so the problem is not solved (altought the ligth is not directly from the device into the eyes). But the real question is, if I use the kindle with its light that lights up the screen, will it be the same as using a phone? or what?

<comment><USER46> The color temperature of a phone backlight and ordinary household lighting are fairly different

<comment><USER47> Ordinary household lighting is more and more being replaced by LEDs, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> William Dement gave a Google Tech talk on September 23, 2008. Dement recalls that Randy Gardner who stayed awake for 11 days in 1964, when asked some 40years later " _would you do this again?_ " he replied " _No way would I do this again_ " [0]

Very interesting from Dement's talk is that equilibrium daily average sleep for completely health young adults is _8:15 ± 50min_ [1]. Most people I meet contest these results and state that they can work optimal with less than 7h25m daily sleep.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hAw1z8GdE8&t=1310](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hAw1z8GdE8&t=1310)

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hAw1z8GdE8&t=28m29s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hAw1z8GdE8&t=28m29s)

</comment><comment><USER49> I've had great luck with these videos.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7OGw1QS9JI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7OGw1QS9JI)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTAwdgf1nZE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTAwdgf1nZE)

I went through a phase a few years ago where I'd fall asleep only to wake up a short time later with mind racing, then be up half the night and tired the next day. This went on for some months and was very annoying.

These videos cured that phase right away. I don't listen to them much anymore but they really worked. It wasn't just staying asleep that was cured, the quality of the sleep seemed much better. Still listen on occasion if having trouble getting in "sleep mode".

<comment><USER2> Is it weird that these videos never work for me? I haven't tried these particular ones, but I've had tons of troubles sleeping through the years, and hypnosis audios never works. It actually gets me frustrated and keeps me up longer.

<comment><USER50> No it's not. Me too

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> How not to sleep:

/this

I read this article 8 hours ago. Now I'm in bed, staring at this screen, typing this comment at 5 AM.

<comment><USER47> Actually, you are only dreaming this :-)

<comment><USER52> [http://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/on-office-mandatory- nap-...](http://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/on-office-mandatory-nap-time)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I consider myself one of those short-sleepers. Ever since I was a kid I averaged 5-6h of sleep a day.

While the differences perceived (which can always be misleading) from sleeping 6 or 8 hours weren't noticeable, if I slept 4-5 for a week my short term memory would suffer, reflexes and split second decision making (think fast passed multiplayer shooters) would also suffer.

But what I noticed was that although the split second decision process would come back after a good night sleep, short memory would take me a whole 3-4 days to come back at its finest.

Obviously this is all what I observed and not to be taken seriously, because as we know observing and understanding oneself is one of the hardest tasks out there.

Just my 2c

<comment><USER42> Interesting 2c about observations - because according the article, people who have less sleep may perform worse objectively, but to themselves they report no noticeable difference.

<comment><USER54> Short term memory variation is very obvious to me when coding. And as the GP mentioned, reflex variation can be obvious when playing FPS games.

<comment><USER42> I wonder what tasks the subjects were given in the studies.

slightly related - I seem to remember a study on the performance of hungover people. Hungover people self-reported that they performed worse, but objectively there was no negative change! (edits...or thinking about it some more, maybe the thing was that they had Common Colds)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> "Dolphins are said to sleep with only half their brain at a time, keeping partially alert for predators. Many of us spend much of our lives in a similar state." This is definitely deep.

</comment><comment><USER56> >In one study published in the journal Sleep, researchers kept people just slightly sleep deprived—allowing them only six hours to sleep each night—and watched the subjects' performance on cognitive tests plummet. The crucial finding was that throughout their time in the study, the sixers thought they were functioning perfectly well.

>Effective sleep habits, like many things, seem to come back to self- awareness.

One of the things I've noticed is that it's really hard to police your own sleep schedule, especially if you aren't aware of the consequences of losing a few hours of sleep. I'm working on a bot that helps you get to bed earlier, and our power users often come to us with a really clear understanding of what happens when they don't get enough sleep (e.g. "I perform way worse on my Army fitness test", "I'm not focused enough to do my side project after work") and still need to set up systems to keep themselves accountable on a daily basis.

That said, I think there's a much larger "zombie population" of the "sixers" described above that isn't getting enough sleep and simply isn't particularly aware of it. From a population health standpoint, the question then becomes: How do we get people to appreciate the effect of getting a full 7-9 hours of sleep when they don't explicitly feel the effects on a daily basis? Not only that, but how do we get them to unwind and prioritize getting good night's sleep at the time of day when willpower is low and Netflix temptations are high.

The CEO of Netflix somewhat flippantly declared sleep their biggest competition, and I think they're crushing the competition right now.

[http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and- tech/new...](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and- tech/news/netflix-downloads-sleep-biggest-competition-video-streaming-ceo- reed-hastings-amazon-prime-sky-go-a7690561.html)

On the bright side there are people who have used our product and seen it make a pretty big difference. The trick was getting them to start with a very unambitious bedtime goal relative to their average bedtime, and gradually make the bedtime earlier week over week until they've dismantled their bad sleep habits.

</comment><comment><USER57> Try 15-20 minutes of meditation right before you go to bed. I find it slows my mind, decreases stress and prepares my body to sleep deeply and well.

</comment><comment><USER58> A recent TED I watched linked sleep deprivation with the speed one can develop Alzheimer

[https://www.ted.com/talks/lisa_genova_what_you_can_do_to_pre...](https://www.ted.com/talks/lisa_genova_what_you_can_do_to_prevent_alzheimer_s)

</comment><comment><USER59> Reading this on Monday morning already late for work and wondering when I can have a nap...

</comment><comment> m-j-fox Whatever you do, don't click the video at the bottom of the article unless you have a few hours to kill. Dr. James is an impossibly engaging and fun-to-watch youtuber and there goes my memorial day.

</comment><comment><USER60> For those struggling with caffeine addiction and poor sleep I strongly recommend rutaecarpine. Take one a few hours before bedtime and it deactivates the caffeine so you can sleep.

</comment><comment><USER61> I had trouble with insomnia until I took up the practice of meditation. It was not my intention to solve my insomnia via meditation, but that's what happened incidentally.

</comment><comment><USER62> Finally. Mankind exists for almost a million years, but only now are we taught how to sleep. Seriously, how did our ancestors survive?

</comment><comment><USER63> One of my cousins is in that 1% of people. He sleeps 4-5 hours a night and stays hyperactive all day. I'm so jealous of him!

</comment><comment><USER64> This was a pretty weak article. Usually The Atlantic packs a powerful punch. This seemed like clickbait.

</comment><comment><USER65> New to sleeping with people, I find the actual sleeping part the tricky bit. Not my expectation at all.

</comment><comment><USER66> I can recommend "The effortless sleep method" by S. Stephens.

<comment><USER67> Can you say more about it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> If you have problem sleeping do this: there will be some times when you will sleep better. What you have to do is go back 3-7 days and see what you did in those days and do more of that regularly.

</comment><comment><USER69> Great article. I especially like the interpretation of the statistics by the author, which is, well, hardly any interpretation at all:

"One 2014 study of more than 3,000 people in Finland found that the amount of sleep that correlated with the fewest sick days was 7.63 hours a night for women and 7.76 hours for men. So either that is the amount of sleep that keeps people well, or that's the amount that makes them least likely to lie about being sick when they want to skip work. Or maybe people who were already sick with some chronic condition were sleeping more than that—or less—as a result of their illness. Statistics are tough to interpret."

Contrasted with articles that take one example (a 94-year old making a breakthrough in some field) and directly generalize it ("to be a genius, think like a 94-year-old"), this is a much healthier and saner approach to interpreting statistics.

(I didn't make this example up; it was on hacker news)

<comment><USER70> Same here. Really impressed how the author restrained themselves from jumping into the most intuitive conclusion, and instead quoted a few other plausible alternatives. We need more of that!

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> This is an interesting article if only for the nugget that only 1% think they function well on 4-5 hours (though they may be mistaken).

The title isn't great - it cautions against common fallacies about aids to sleeping.</comment>


A New Way of Approaching Python - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWVkYkk65RA <comment><USER2> I lost it at "linking the block chain"

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice shitpost</comment>