The Dangerous Effects of Reading - <AUTHOR> http://blog.davidtate.org/2011/12/the-dangerous-effects-of-reading/ <comment><USER2> I definitely agree about the "filtering crap from gold" bit. Once you reach a certain level of skill it can become a hindrance: you develop an extremely low tolerance for anything that doesn't catch you as interesting within a few seconds, and you start speed-reading absolutely everything. This is good in that you aren't wasting time consuming something that's not really useful, but it's bad in that you end up continuously subjecting yourself to input in this way. You can spend a whole day processing a million inputs, throwing them all away and learning nothing, when the alternatives are to spend your time doing something more fun or productive, or slowing down a bit and maybe actually getting a tidbit or two out of the first few hundred inputs and leaving the rest for another time.

A while ago, when I was reading for the purpose of focused learning (technical books, scouring blogs for information about some framework/API, etc.), I began the habit of taking copious notes. My notes are very wordy; it's almost like I'm having a conversation with myself and rephrasing ideas so I can understand them better. OneNote is my weapon of choice - for me it reduces the "barrier to entry" of starting notetaking because it's easy write now and organize later.

Over time, I realized that when I took notes this way, I had a much higher retention rate and a much greater understanding of what I was reading. So much so that when I find myself sitting at my desk or on the couch and "infosnacking," I try to stop and ask myself, "is what I am reading right now worth taking notes on?" If it is, then I start writing. If it's not, I make the effort to tear myself away and either do something that's more productive or something that I really enjoy.

<comment><USER3> Crap. Right around sentence three I started skimming your post.

Thanks for waking me up

<comment><USER2> When I hit submit and saw the length of my post I realized the irony :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't know if it's that dangerous. One of my biggest fears is to be stranded somewhere and not having anything to read, and I had this fear way before smart-phones were invented. I can still remember how at 14 I was reading "Ender's Game" in the middle of nowhere where my grand-mother had sent me to graze the cows.

From time to time I would just take my eyes out of the book to make sure that the cows hadn't trespassed our neighbor's property, and then I would quickly return to reading. To this day I always carry something to read with me, be it a book, a magazine or something like that.

And regarding the author's remark that his grand-grand-father would be horrified to learn in what strange circumstances we do read nowadays, I remember my peasant grand-mother scolding my grand-father for "preferring to read" instead of doing something more productive like feeding the cows. I heard a similar argument between my parents when I was little, with my father being accused of reading too much, and sure enough my (future to be ex)-wife also reproached me for reading too much.

<comment><USER5> "stranded somewhere and not having anything to read". I can associate with this. Although there has been much written about the function and role of boredom in modern society. In particular, that while boredom may not be pleasant, or well understood, it is a different state of mind as opposed to active engagement and entertainment. And perhaps in the state of mind, certain thoughts may rise that need such an environment to percolate to the surface.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Jesus Christ. Can't a guy do anything without a corresponding pseudoscientific (actually, wholly arbitrary) blog post about "$anything considered harmful"?

The thread through all these stories is an author's dissatisfaction with their own life. "I found myself reading/working/eating too much. And I didn't like it. So Everyone Else in the world ought to stop reading/working/eating so much." Next week it'll be about how too much focus on creation makes one a narcissist. Or something. There's always something you can point to for making your life bland and unfulfilling. If you find yourself stuck in that loop, consider meditation instead of heroically "creating" a pile of unsubstantiated pontificating.

<comment><USER7> Meditating would be a very beneficial activity, but the over-active analytical mind would put it down as 'one of those things that would make me better' and never actually get around to doing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Timeboxing.

If you're going to devote a portion of your life to "consuming" (or, to use a more elevated term, "researching"), and a term to producing, and you're finding you're overwhelming yourself with the research phase, timebox it. Set a limit to how much time, or how much of your day, you're going to expose yourself to inputs.

Identify the stuff that you've absolutely got to pay attention to: the truck barreling down the street, the cliff at your feet, bills to pay, eating, time on the loo. Exercise.

And identify the time you're going to spend being creative and productive.

It doesn't have to be absolutely rigid deadlines, but there should be some sense of order to it. Some people work better with more structure, some with less. Find your own method in the madness and stick to it.

Yes, we're in a culture that makes consumption, and productivity dedicated to the interests of others (often our employers) easier, the norm, and default. Think of it as yet another system to hack for _your_ interests and goals.

Good filters are good. But the flipside of a strong reject discriminant is identifying that which _is_ worthy or simply that which you want to spend time with, and do so. Wiping out the other distractions at this point is very useful.

</comment><comment><USER9> Often reading is just distraction. There's often very little actionable information there. It's just taking your mind off your real problems. It's basically all entertainment.

I go home and I watch Khan Academy videos now. I read Wikipedia. I read some Hacker News mainly to distract myself from work. I pretend that it's useful, and it sometimes is, but sometimes I wonder if I'm engaging in repetitive naval gazing and somehow getting off on the ubiquitous outrage.

Why do all this reading anyway? To be more fun at parties? To pretend like we're part of something important when all that lies ahead of us is years of sitting in a cube and stuck in traffic?

I guess it's all not so bad. Whatever floats your boat. Just realize that it's mostly entertainment unless you actually DO something with what you've learned. It's not what you think. It's what you DO that matters.

<comment><USER10> I'll just set up every straw man and let you tear 'em down, I guess.

Reading isn't always just distraction, in the same way that the internet isn't and, as you've said, you use the internet for Wikipedia, Khan Academy videos, etc.

I just bought Ron Paul's "End the Fed" book (it's on sale in hardcover at Amazon), which I feel will give me a more informed position in politics. You'll have to pardon my belief that politics matter, and aren't a waste of time.

The book I'm currently reading is Higbee's "Your Memory : How It Works and How to Improve It", which I believe will help me extend my mnemonic memory, which will allow me to remember the things that never stuck with rote memory (capitals of all the states, periodic table, presidential terms, etc.)

These aren't fiction (well, depends on how you interpret "End the Fed" I guess), and aren't just a 'distraction', at least in my opinion.

Even if these things ultimately get categorized as 'Entertainment', I don't know that to be a problem either. The mind needs entertainment, and if trying to enrich your experiences and imagination is a 'waste of time', then I don't know what isn't.

What's the end game for watching Khan Academy videos? To know more? To be more successful? To make more money?

I don't know that any of those motivations (other than the first) is philosophically any better than reading for entertainment.

<comment><USER11> The Higbee memory book is fun. I used it to help my kid memorize some things before kindergarten (spell a complicated last name, sing daddy's phone number, where I live, etc).

I am planning to refresh my data structures and algorithms background with an eye on using some of the techniques in this book to memorize them.

<comment><USER10> I got started with the idea of mnemonics by reading Jonathan Foer's "Moonwalking with Einstein[1]", which is an exceptionally good read.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>* Potential Spoiler Alert* </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>=== It isn't a 'how- to' book per se, as it mostly tells the story of how the author went from being a journalist who covered the World Memory Championship tournament and within a year of training, became the US Memory Champ.

Regardless, it's a really fun read, and Foer is a really good writer. It does have some 'how-to' moments in it, and the little I've learned has been 100% effective, but I needed something to deal with more complicated data structures -- I could easily memorize the periodic table now, in order, but I don't know how I would store associated data, like atomic weights, symbols, melting point, boiling point, etc. That's why I got the Higbee book.

Glad to hear an endorsement on it. The one deficiency I have with Moonwalking is that it doesn't go on to recommend a book or technique that would work. I debated over a few of the books mentioned in Moonwalking, and ultimately decided to go with the (not mentioned) Higbee book based on an external review.

<comment><USER12> Moonwalking actually has a pretty extensive bibliography. In addition to the memory techniques, the references to Dr. K. Anders Ericsson's work on how to become an expert at anything was really interesting ([http://www.coachingmanagement.nl/The%20Making%20of%20an%20Ex...](http://www.coachingmanagement.nl/The%20Making%20of%20an%20Expert.pdf), for example)

<comment><USER10> Sonofa... I saw the notes and errata at the end, but in skimming through on my Kindle, looking for references, I must have missed it.

Thanks a ton.

The one book that was in there that I really wanted to get was Pridmore's "How to be Clever", but it isn't available on the Kindle. :'(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> You are right. Excessive consumption can get in the way of creation. However, I think consumption can also inform creation.

I have recently made a conscious decision to comment more-often and submit more links to Hacker News. I want to create, engage, contribute and create more content. The transition from using HN as a tech RSS reader to actually engaging more with the community has been a really refreshing one. I do not feel that time spent writing this comment is time wasted. It is time contributed and, hopefully sometimes, appreciated.

PS - Upvote for the _why quote alone :)

 _when you don't create things, you become defined by your tastes rather than ability. your tastes only narrow & exclude people. so create._

PPS - I enjoyed the effects of reading your post ;)

<comment><USER14> Yeah, honestly, there's a weird dichotomy here. The post mentions things like reading in the bathroom, or reading on the way to work, or whatever. But there's nothing inherent in those that doesn't mean you can't also be creating when you get home. I suppose there is a mention of getting home and just reading/watching TV/playing games on electronics, but other than that every other "excessive consumption" example isn't even necessarily in the way of creating. If your mind is also scanning for ideas while you read, all of those situations can in fact be _boons_ to creation rather than obstacles.

<comment><USER15> I agree, is not consuming prevents creating, it's consuming too much takes time from creating. In that sense, developing a good filter for crap would allow you to consume faster leaving more time for creating.

A second issue is that it's assuming that if you develop an efficient filter for incoming crap, that filter will be applied to what you generate. And that if that filter threshold goes beyond the level of your own ability to create, all you do is crap and you stop creating. The input filter does not have to be the same as the output filter.

<comment><USER13> You express exactly what I was trying to. If you read HN all day and write no code that is a bad day for creation. If you code as much as you can and broaden your mind by reading HN in your downtime that is probably a good balance.

I find HN is a pretty good filter for incoming crap.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _You stagnate at work for fear of everything you do being judged like every news article or viral video that you view._

I feel like this about blog posts (even sometimes facebook/twitter updates). Is what I have to say so interesting that I need to share it with others? My cumulative reading filter usually says no.

</comment><comment><USER17> "Side note: how freaking scary would it have been to explain to your great- great-grandfather that people would carry around computers and look at them while in the bathroom or driving - he would have been terrified of this future"

And terrified he should be, I am terrified thinking other people are not paying attention to the traffic.

</comment><comment><USER18> There is a big difference between musician and non-musician members of the audience. At this point in our history, there is no reason why a denizen of the first world can't be a maker or a creative of some sort.

Being a maker or a creative of some substance requires one to study a particular subject _in depth_. A part of the challenge the Internet creates, is that it's very easy to get a hugely broad sweep of rather shallow information. It's just not possible to study the whole range of information in depth, but we can send deep probes at one, two, or a few points and thus get a good idea of _how deep the ocean of knowledge really is_.

</comment><comment><USER19> In my experience, speed of filtering ("is this thing I'm reading cool enough to continue reading?") and fear of being filtered ("is this thing I'm creating cool enough for other people to read?") are 100% orthogonal. They are simply not related even a tiny bit, which makes this post seem kind of hilariously inane.

<comment><USER20> For extroverts maybe? I could totally identify with that part of the post and the _why quote. Impostor syndrome is another example of better-tuned filters getting in the way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> _how freaking scary would it have been to explain to your great-great- grandfather that people would carry around computers and look at them while in the bathroom or driving - he would have been terrified of this future_

Given that my great-great-grandfather would have been born in the mid-1800s, explaining it would be _arduous_ , not scary. I'm pretty sure that all of the other things I'd have to explain to give him proper context on, "people use their phones in the car and in the bathroom" would probably scare him more.

</comment><comment><USER22> Purposeful consumption is different than impulse based consumption. Investigating ideas by reading specific books, articles, and reflecting on the idea is consumption at its finest IMO.

I'm trying to be more mindful about what I consume, but also more committed to finishing what I begin consuming. I try to eliminate the meta-think in your head constantly assessing whether the content is worth my time, instead fully committing to exploring the idea being espoused, even if its bullshit. Its much more mindful to dissect the bullshit rather than dismiss it as low thought.

The link-based architecture of the web contributes heavily to the way we bounce from idea to idea. I've been thinking about how to de-emphasize the constantly shifting focus of clicking on a new link to explore an idea (If you've ever got lost in a quora/wikipedia loop, you understand this phenomenon). What if we could anchor an origin (say, this HN page about "The Dangerous Effects of Reading"), and when we explored links from here, we started a new path on a map showing how deep we were surfing from the original page. If we return to this page, we start an adjacent path that we can explore again. At the end of our browsing session, we have an information map showing how different ideas linked to each other. It might provide a meaningful perspective to our browsing experience.

<comment><USER23> related: [http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/05/chase-your- reading.htm...](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/05/chase-your-reading.html)

<comment><USER22> thanks for this. I'll begin each article I read now with a question.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> More appropriately titled: The Dangerous Effects of Reading Crap. Should be paired with a companion piece: The Dangerous Effects of Eating Dung.

</comment><comment><USER25> I really like this except:

"I need to hear what others think before I form an opinion (If you have ever read a review of a new gadget before it launches: think about how ridiculous this activity is)"

While I agree that I read too many product reviews, on larger issues, I need to read the opinions of people who actually know what they are talking about. I am so sick and tired of people offering up their opinion on complicated issues like economics when they have nothing other than a few crappy talk show hosts to base their opinion on. I wish people would just say, "I don't know how to fix the deficit or whether my candidate has a good plan, but I did check this book out on economics and I am reading through it"

<comment><USER16> _If you have ever read a review of a new gadget before it launches: think about how ridiculous this activity is_

Maybe I'm "too far in the rabbit hole", but exactly what's wrong with this? Is it a bad thing to be informed before spending my money?

I have been burned by buying things that have reviewed well but I ultimately found not up to the task, but I'd rather find out something is a dud before rather than after (e.g., Kindle Fire).

<comment><USER26> I think the emphasis was supposed to be on _before it launches_. As in before it has seen a useful spectrum of usage upon which to base a review.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'd offer my opinion of this piece, but the irony overwhelms me.

<comment><USER28> Over consumption is bad, so produce more things for others to consume?

<comment><USER29> No: read this article that tells you to stop reading so many articles, agree with this opinion that says you should stop agreeing with everyone's opinion that you read about, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > Get off the popular train – teach yourself not to judge based on anything > other than your own view. Stop listening to the mainstream radio or to > popular music channels. Try college radio.

This will just make things worse! Trust me.

<comment><USER31> I don't remember the last time I listened to mainstream radio or watched a TV channel. Can you explain how this makes things worse?

<comment><USER30> I didn't quote anything about TV -- I was pointing out that getting deeper into music, especially of the indie/college radio variety, is an even bigger step into the mire of trying to discern quality/buzz/popularity/etc.

<comment><USER32> It can be. However, if you find DJs who you really enjoy, then you let them do all the curating and mire wandering for you. I posted a bit about this and the difference between college radio and freeform radio: [http://cacciatc.github.com/other/2011/12/29/get-off-the- popu...](http://cacciatc.github.com/other/2011/12/29/get-off-the-popular- train.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> As a counterpoint, there is also a danger to writing without reading. Reading other people's work can stop you from needlessly reinventing what already exists. It informs your opinions and reminds you to consider things that you might have otherwise neglected to. It can also act as a reality check and prevent you from disappearing too far up your own bumhole (when you write about something, and then write about what you wrote, and iterate until your whole argument becomes a house of cards).

For balance, I recommend keeping a pen and a paper by you (or a text editor open) and occasionally pausing your reading to have a scribble whenever something strikes you as interesting.

Additionally, the thing that you absolutely must take the trouble to read are other people's comments on what you have written (exceptions allowed for people who get too many of these comments to make that practical).

</comment><comment><USER34> <Quote> Time in bathroom spent reading on your phone [Side note: how freaking scary would it have been to explain to your great-great-grandfather that people would carry around computers and look at them while in the bathroom or driving - he would have been terrified of this future] </Quote>

Really? Try telling your ancestors that you have bombs that can destroy entire cities. Or try telling your ancestors[few centuries back] that you could go to moon today, or that you have the whole world's information in your fingertips, they might faint in disbelief! My point being, that our ancestors' reaction is not a reason why we should not be doing something!

But, I do agree with the author that, the availability of tremendous information is forcing us to judge too quickly, and probably will lead us to making bad judgements!

</comment><comment><USER35> Reading this (excelent) post made me realize I made three very important decisions in 2011: 1) start carrying a notebook at all times; 2) stop reading so much stuff and filter my content sources; 3) start a blog.

The results? I feel more action-oriented, I have more free time, I feel my thoughts are more organized and I no longer feel the "feed stress" (you know, when you look at 1000 unread items and your heart starts pumping faster).

Overall, fantastic post, fantastic insights I fully support. Btw, sorry for the shameless autopromotion, in case you're interested I blog at <http://restreitinho.com>.

</comment><comment><USER36> I think the author is expressing that if you (only) let external sources be the inpiration of who you are, you will lose yourself. That's why it is important to create (also).

</comment><comment><USER37> We are given 2 ears and 2 eyes to read and listen, but given only one mouth to express ourselves. So, nature herself optimized us for consumption ;-). Also, when we use the term reading it is usually meant for longer content. But, most of what people do with smartphones could at best be called juggling or glancing.

We don't stop creating because we are consuming more. It is other way round. We are consuming more because we are afraid of creating.

<comment><USER18> _We don't stop creating because we are consuming more. It is other way round. We are consuming more because we are afraid of creating._

I think that is very key. If one can convince a population that they are _not capable of mastery_ then you can make them feel inferior and keep them as your subjects. This is why so many royal courts funded and raised up artists and musicians and claimed the culture they created as theirs. The inverse is also why so many independence movements have also grown up beside artistic and intellectual movements.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> [http://grammar.about.com/od/advicefromthepros/a/Writers- On-R...](http://grammar.about.com/od/advicefromthepros/a/Writers-On- Reading.htm)

The one I knew of initially was from Faulkner (One of my moderately favorite writers)

"Read everything--trash, classics, good and bad, and see how they do it. Just like a carpenter who works as an apprentice and studies the master. Read! You'll absorb it. Then write. If it is good, you'll find out."

</comment><comment><USER39> We are of one mind, davidtate!

I posted this today, too: [http://adrianoferrari.com/essays/silence- compelling-creativi...](http://adrianoferrari.com/essays/silence-compelling- creativity/)

For those who say that reading can inform creation, I think neither David nor I would disagree.

It's just that the balance is so weighted on the consumption side that we need go to the other extreme once in a while to redress the balance.

<comment><USER40> >If you are a programmer, you could write code, but you shouldn't execute it

I'm not sure I understand - why shouldn't I execute what I wrote? Isn't it like a musician not listening to what is he playing?

<comment><USER39> You are right.

My thinking is that, especially for beginners, it's too easy to get into a tight write-compile-debug loop without thinking in broader terms about the problem. It's just an exercise in thinking about the structure of your code.

Also, you can do, or not do, whatever you want :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Kind of ironic how he mentions productivity posts 3-8 times, all the while giving advise to create more(aka productivity improvement)

</comment><comment><USER42> When I'm drivin' in my car And that man comes on the radio He's tellin' me more and more About some useless information...

</comment><comment><USER43> I'm suprised nobody has mentioned Clay Johnson's new book, "The Information Diet." Pretty interesting read that goes with everything in this article. Side effect to overconsumption is increased personalization of information which makes us more ignornant to new/foreign ideas.

Also, I feel so ashamed listening to podcasts on my way to work now.

<comment><USER20> You probably wouldn't be creating anything on your commute. And podcasts aren't easily skimmed, they should give you enough headspace for reflection.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> The truth is that I don't think most people have it in them to create. The ones that will actually create new things will know when to stop listening to other people. The rest of mankind is probably happy just consuming for their entire lives.

</comment><comment><USER44> Interesting piece, and for the most part, spot on. A few thoughts as I read this, though:

 _> I need to use other peoples work to make myself look cool through sharing them with my friends_

To me, sharing other peoples work is a channel for opening up dialog with my peers and learning more about them, and sharing more about myself. While I see that "looking cool" may sometimes be a motive, I think many may share things to spawn discussion (i.e. HN).

 _> I need to hear what others think before I form an opinion (If you have ever read a review of a new gadget before it launches: think about how ridiculous this activity is)_

This one really threw me. Sure, _forming an opinion_ based on reading reviews before something launches is ridiculous, but if somebody has a gadget that is soon launching that you may be interested in, it is only part of curiosity embedded in human nature to read what their experiences of it.

And I definitely go by others' experiences (reviews -- "what they think") of a product before making a purchase. To me, this is just being responsible with my money, and time -- and I believe this has paid off for me, and will probably always do this. I know several that don't do this, and often end up regretting purchases they make.

Reading others experiences -- not just on products, but in general -- help us be more educated and can prevent us from making mistakes. The key is to be able to filter out objective experiences vs. subjective garbage.

 _> Get off the popular train - teach yourself not to judge based on anything other than your own view._

I find that most people I know either follow pop culture or avoid it -- rarely have I heard about someone that on one end of the spectrum and decides to move to the other end.

I believe the real moral of this piece would be: Be open and make a conscious effort to change your habits.

Most adults are stuck in habits that take years to form, and will likely not change over night, and it will require ongoing effort. They have to first make be willing to do this, and make the decision to do this.

 _> Cease input - turn your cellphone off, stop reading every stupid blog post about productivity, just stop._

Remember that in order for our creations to be beneficial to others (and often times, that is the purpose of our creations), others must consume our creations. So I think it's more of a matter of finding the balance between consumption and creation, vs. altogether ceasing consumption. (I don't think this point was intended literally, but this thought did cross my mind as I read that statement.)

</comment><comment><USER45> this is wonderfully ironic.

</comment><comment><USER46> On the other hand: <http://www.merlinmann.com/better/>

This is my favorite thing Merlin has ever done, and I think about it all the time. I identify strongly with the following three points.

* identify and destroy small-return bullshit;

* shut off anything that's noisier than it is useful;

* make brutally fast decisions about what I don't need to be doing;

I completely disagree that honing your filter (um, to mix metaphors) is a bad thing. At a time when we have tons of ideas thrown at us constantly every single day, it is _the essential thing_. Otherwise you're looking at every stupid god damned cat video thrown your way.

<comment><USER47> Also on early episodes of Back to Work he talked a lot about oscillating between time and attention. That is if you stay in your bubble all the time you won't create very interesting things, but that's not a common problem these days because distribution and consumption is so easy that the vast majority of people can go through life without creating anything (which was not the case when 90% of people were subsistence farmers). Instead you need to find the balance where you are actually receiving the right amount of input to do your best work.

I love hearing Merlin talk about this stuff because he is intellectually honest and communicates in an almost koan-like style. That said, the hard part is closing the gap between thought and practice. I struggle with it every day.</comment></comment>


My Internship Experiences at Pixar, Google, and Two Sigma - <AUTHOR> http://evjang.com/articles/internships <comment><USER3> > you'll see lots of edges going from Goldman, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook > to Two Sigma. There are very few edges going the other way.

Perhaps one reason for it that they don't advertise is the ridiculous non- competes that their employees have signed and it's limited their future career options. I have first hand experience with this. They had the audacity to ask me sign a 18-month IP assignment (basically with FROR), a 1-year non-compete, and a fucking 5-year non-solicit (much stricter than the non-solicit in a Google's contract) clause. They want slaves, not employees. Of course I threw up on that contract, especially considering their history of bringing criminal lawsuits against their former employees. Avoid.

<comment><USER4> I went from TS to Google and personally know quite a few: \- They only enforce non-compete if you actually go to a competitor (like rentech, KCG, Citadel). You also get paid your normal salary during those time (just to chill around). One of my friends is using that to travel all over the place. If you go to other tech company like FB or Google then you can start the next day (which I did) \- I only have 2 years non-solicit so may be that's a recent change. It doesn't affect you that much though (you can't refer people you know from TS or give them recommendation, that's it). \- If you actually follow the law suits, those people actually tried to upload model to external servers. If you try to do that with Google's HIP code I'm pretty sure they would do the same to you.

I picked TS offer over Google offer before and now that I'm on the other side I regretted nothing. Both are great place to work.

<comment><USER5> > _They only enforce non-compete if you actually go to a competitor (like > rentech, KCG, Citadel)._

Does the contract _say_ that?

Never trust anyone who asks you to sign away your firstborn, but says "Don't worry, it's just legal boilerplate, we don't enforce it!" If it's not enforced, it shouldn't be in the contract.

<comment><USER6> They have to pay you not to work if they elect to enforce it; the contract actually says that. They don't actually enumerate who is a competitor, but in practice they aren't interested in enforcing against Google, Facebook etc.

<comment><USER4> Yes. One MD told me that non-compete is not enforceable if you don't pay. I don't think anyone want to pay six figures and lots of good wills for no good reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The writer seems mature and should go far.

If he wants advice from someone in finance, I'd steer him towards Pixar. The math might be harder and the prestige may be greater at the hedge fund, but making beautiful things is inherently satisfying. Sweating to make a big number get a bit bigger isn't good for the soul in the long term.

<comment><USER8> > Sweating to make a big number get a bit bigger isn't good for the soul in > the long term.

I've been working as a programmer for the last 5-6 years, and I strongly disagree.

Pixar, Google and Two Sigma, and many similar companies in these industries, are ultimately absolutely pointless and empty. Entertainment (distraction), ads (mind pollution), and arbitrage (stealing) is essentially what they do. Working for any of them will become mind-numbingly boring and damaging to the soul very soon.

There are only two things that keep _me_ motivated; (1) hard problems, and (2) money. (1) are hard to come by, most of my time I spend dealing with stupid problems caused by stupid people. (2) is why I work on pointless problems, the more I earn the sooner I can retire to do something actually useful.

Therefore, I think that working for a hedge fund in a money-generating role can do wonders to one's motivation; the better you are, the more you earn. Not many roles, in general and in software development, offer such direct payoff.

<comment><USER9> Be that as it may, it's worth noting Google does other things as well. You could always try to get a job there working on self-driving cars (saving lives) or solar energy (saving the world).

<comment><USER10> Obligatory nit: those are now things that Alphabet does, not Google.

<comment><USER11> Google is the brand still.

Plus, it's Google[X], which is a subsidiary of alphabet. So nitpick that if you want to nitpick. It still wouldn't be called Alphabet.

Also you still apply to Google for the job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This made me laugh:

> What I did in my spare time Browse the intranet for juicy info Browse the > intranet for juicy info Browse the intranet for juicy info

</comment><comment><USER13> Very objective write up Eric. I'm an Xoogler with good friends working/worked at Two-Sigma, and it's pretty much what you described. Good luck on whatever you decide to do, don't stress out too much on your first job choice, there are no wrong decisions here.

</comment><comment><USER14> Mirror (down at 4:54EST 8/17/2015)

[http://pastebin.com/8t0BquQg](http://pastebin.com/8t0BquQg)

<comment><USER15> ^^^ This is why I love HN.

Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi all, author here. thx for the upvotes. Webpage is back up.

<comment><USER16> _" If you care most about raising a family, work life balance (i.e. work the least hours) and job security, you really can't go wrong with Google."_

This is such at odds with everything I've heard and read about Google, I'd like to know if there's a typo in that sentence, and if not, how to you square the wider perception with your perception?

<comment><AUTHOR> All I had to compare Google to were my limited experiences in the other two. I thought Google was the most laid-back of the three.

No doubt you've heard about dinner cafes opening late to keep employees at their desks, but the reality is that a lot of people's productivity slows down from 5-6 anyway (that was ping pong hour for me). Go! cafe is open all day, and lots of people grab a sandwich before skedaddling at 5pm sharp.

Maybe there's more pressure at some teams to put in more hours. I have no data on that.

I think overall vacation benefits, hours, and pa/maternity leave are slightly better, but I'm not certain.

<comment><USER4> TS's medical plan beats Google handedly, no copay, no deductible for a minimal $7/paycheck (just so you can refuse it if you want). TS also starts out with 20 days vacation compare to Google 15. Hours is the same, you do whatever you want to get it done.

<comment><AUTHOR> ok! thanks for the info ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> How do you even manage to land such internships? It baffles me. How can somebody after their first year of CS bachelor's education get an internship with Pixar, and then with Google in the second year, and then with (bloody) TWO SIGMA in the third year? Stuff like that is just ... incomprehensible here in Europe (Netherlands). Crazy!

<comment><AUTHOR> It helps to be a student studying at an elite american university - <USER2> opens a lot of doors, for better or worse. Also, I had a shit ton of luck with interviews and recommendations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is a cool post, but I hope it doesn't get him blackballed by any of the mentioned companies.

<comment><USER13> I highly doubt it will happen. He is very objective about the pros and cons, in fact if I were running the internship program at those places I'd take these as valuable feedback.

And he put all of them under a positive light anyway (probably well deserved too).

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I am amazed at how awesome the projects page of his website is. I see so many successful people on here, I just... wow..

<comment><USER11> I had a similar reaction. It's incredible. He definitely deserves his success.

Someone like this working on iOS Play Books is the biggest downside to working at Google.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > _you 'll see lots of edges going from Goldman, Microsoft, Google, and > Facebook to Two Sigma. There are very few edges going the other way._

Is this surprising? Big tech companies employ orders of magnitude more technologists. In many small tech companies you'd expect to find a similar pattern.

</comment><comment><USER21> > At Google and Two Sigma, interns are kept in an "intern container"

As an employee of Google who has hosted numerous interns, I can say this is not true. Interns have broad access to information at Google.

</comment><comment><USER22> The author was definitely most passionate about Pixar. But he'll probably decide based on prestige and go with Two Sigma. For most programmers, Google is probably the best of the three for future career opportunities.

</comment><comment><USER23> Website over quota. :/

</comment><comment><USER24> i use ios play books! your work is not in vain!</comment>


Transferring GitHub stars - <AUTHOR> https://francisco.io/blog/transferring-github-stars/ <comment><USER2> To point out what might be obvious: this doesn't transfer _just_ the stars. It simply swaps two repos, which means the issue tracker, pull requests, watchers, forks, projects, etc., also get transferred with the stars.

It's not possible to transfer just the stars while maintaining all the things that you can't directly control.

I did something similar when I decided to change my github username without changing all the import paths of Go packages I had. I changed the username, made an organization with the same name as my previous username, then moved all my repos to the organization. So the URLs of all the repos stayed unchanged. [1]

[1] [https://twitter.com/dmitshur/status/1021266582834634752](https://twitter.com/dmitshur/status/1021266582834634752)

<comment><USER3> When you rename yourself on GitHub, their Help says they put in redirects for all of your repositories (that last until such time as someone else claims your old name and creates a new repository with the same name as one of your old repositories, as this new repository supersedes the redirect). So squatting on your old name is a good idea to protect the repository URLs, but actually transferring your repositories to the squatted name seems unnecessary.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, I was aware of the redirects, they're very helpful! It would've been okay to rely on redirects on a temporary basis if my long-term plan was to move everything to the new username. But I wanted the repos to keep their old URL permanently, so that's why I moved them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Fun fact: there's a reflog on the _GitHub_ remote so even if you force push you can still see what the previous commits in the repo were.

So in this case even if you force push to the highly starred repo people _could_ see that it had old commits (and restore to those on their local too).

Nice writeup on it: [https://medium.com/git-tips/githubs- reflog-a9ff21ff765f](https://medium.com/git-tips/githubs-reflog-a9ff21ff765f)

This has definitely saved my bacon when I've force pushed to a GH repo before and had to restore something.

<comment><USER5> I'm no git master and after searching around a bit I wasn't able to find a clear answer to this so I'm hoping someone can enlighten me:

Say I accidentally push some private info and overwrite the commit with a force push. The commit history doesn't show the mistake commit at all, but is it actually still accessible through reflog?

I'm pretty sure I've done this with some of my smaller projects so now I'm concerned that some of my passwords/keys are actually floating around somewhere. I read some info about reflog automatically pruning, is it likely that this is the case for my projects and I have nothing to worry about?

<comment><USER6> Afaik (I'm no security expert), as soon as you pushed them to a public repo you should change them all regardless of force pushing, because there's no way to take it back. Folks do trawl github for passwords and secrets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Makes me think of Theseus' ship. Change piece by piece out over time. Is it still the same repo people starred?

This feels a lot like what happens when a brand is sold. Is it really the same product?

Stars generally "work" because, I think, we assume repos converge to something. The older it is, the less likely changes are to be drastic. And maybe that's true. But it clearly doesn't have to be.

Of course we shouldn't rely on star count as any sort of quick and dirty metric of quality... But I think many of us do.

<comment><USER8> I'm still hoping for a system that can evaluate the quality of a codebase given certain parameters and assign an average rank automatically.

<comment><USER9> I'm extemely skeptical about automated code quality scoring tools. Most of them focus on superficial metrics and completely miss the important stuff.

One of the most important metrics for project quality is how easy it is to implement new features. Good code is easy to extend and build on top. Developers who haven't worked on the project before should be able to easily jump in and start contributing good PRs. I don't think that this kind of scoring is something that can be automated... At least not for a long time.

<comment><USER10> Actually this is somewhat already done in a quite clever way by the product CodeScene by Empear ([https://empear.com/](https://empear.com/)). This tool looks at the history of files in a repo and detects a lot of things such as:

* Correlation between files (we always seem to change b.cs when we change a.cs) * We have lost knowledge in the team, file a.cs was 85% created by developer X who has now quit. * A certain file is often modified (indicating too many responsibilities, and thus "bad code").

and so on.

More details: [https://empear.com/blog/software-revolution- part1/](https://empear.com/blog/software-revolution-part1/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't understand why this is a major deal, though. Allowing users to rename resources will always result in this kind of behavior, but I don't see how this could be a bug or a security hazard. Some similar things you can do:

\+ Swap the handles and profile information on instagram — transferring Instagram followers

\+ Swap the handles and profile information on twitter — transferring Twitter followers

\+ Change the team name & URL on Slack — transferring Slack users

This is fairly widespread but benign behavior.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree, it's benign behaviour but developer and companies should be aware of the potential for misuse. Specially, stars in Github should not be considered a proxy for quality (I say this as the #2 most popular in star count in Japan).

It's a warm reminder for the future, since as the JS ecosystem keeps growing exponentially people will very likely start to search for metrics such as star count to know what to trust. This made quite a bit of noise recently for instance: [https://hasvuepassedreactyet.surge.sh/](https://hasvuepassedreactyet.surge.sh/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I noticed the HN comments at the bottom of the article. Is HN sending webmentions or is there another way that the site is retrieving them?

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here, I created and alpha-launched [https://comments.network/](https://comments.network/) a while back, but have since officially discontinued it and you should really not depend on it. I am considering open source-ing it, would that be interesting at all?

<comment><USER13> Ah, something like this has been on my TODO list forever, would greatly appreciate it!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's obvious why this works. What would be great is to be able to merge stars from two projects into one.

<comment><USER15> That's from the project owner's point of view but what about from the starrer's perspective?

I _think_ most users use stars to denote endorsement/interest in a project. If you move my endorsement from projectA to projectB just because they merged, that assumes my endorsement/interest still applies.

That feels like a significant assumption that may not hold.

<comment><USER16> Exactly. I'd be 100% mad if I found out somebody shifted my public validation of their project to something entirely different. If I catch anybody doing this, they're dead to me. It's straight up fraud.

<comment><AUTHOR> When should a project be considered something entirely different? See the other top level comment about Theseus' ship. Is Angular 2 different from Angular 1 for example? Would you be mad for them keeping your star? What about changing the direction of products? There _are_ valid cases and how much something changes is variable, so there is no clear line IMHO. It depends on each individual then to make their own judgement.

<comment><USER16> There are no clear lines anywhere in the world. Everything gets subtle upon close examination. Do you bring this fact up all the time? E.g., if your friends are going out to brunch, is their a long soliloquy about how the right term depends so much on exact time of day, history of the cuisine involved, and the specific foods people eat? That really maybe it's more lunch, or elevenses, or perhaps really more what's meant by morgenmete or perhaps petit- déjeuner? Perhaps best not to name it at all and let each person just see it as they see it.

Or do you instead only demand this level of philosophical nuance when, as here, it lets someone committing fraud off the hook?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup, I love discussing the limits of reality with my close friends. Obviously it's not a soliloquy if I'm discussing with my friends. The way different people see the same thing is f __*ing interesting TBH, and one of the things I love the most of meeting new people.

And no, I don't think here I was commiting fraud. I purposefully did this to push and find out what other people think! But still staying on the side of what I consider ethic. (Honest) thanks for letting me know your opinion though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What's the practical use of a high star count?

<comment><USER18> If I'm looking for a library and I find two that do what I need, I generally go with the one with the higher star count because it signals a larger community and therefore it's more likely to get some bug fixes and improvements.

<comment><USER19> I don't think GitHub stars a reliable indicator of community size. They are often an indicator of how much effort someone has put into promoting the library on social media. Some people have starred thousands of repos that they only ever looked at once when they saw it on the front page of HN (I know, because I'm one of them).

A quick read of the source, tests, documentation, issues etc provide better information than counting stars in my experience.

<comment><USER20> > Some people have starred thousands of repos that they only ever looked at > once when they saw it on the front page of HN (I know, because I'm one of > them).

If you ever want to process and try and extract some value from those, I recommend this: [https://astralapp.com/](https://astralapp.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This requires owning both repositories. The user puts a measure of "trust" in the owner whose repository he had starred already, so this seems more like a violation of that trust rather than an "exploit".

</comment><comment><USER22> > While there are some shady services to buy fake Github stars, with this > exploit a company could just pay someone and get their repository with real > user stars.

Is that a thing?

That link to duckduckgo doesn't return anything relevant.</comment>


So you think you know pointers? - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/q/232303/184 <comment><USER2> I wonder if pointers confuse people because C's syntax for pointers is confusing. The confusing examples always involve arrays, where a statically allocated array's behavior is different from one that's dynamically allocated and not necessarily what you would expect as a beginner, or where the vagaries of operator precedence obfuscate the pointer arithmetic.

I think the C++ programming book I first used made it worse by equating pointers and arrays from the start, making it seem like they were interchangeable.

At least for me, no other languages including assembler seemed to generate this amount of confusion over such a simple thing.

<comment><USER3> C style arrays are the lowest level model for flat arrays that I can imagine. Maybe it's more accurate to say that computers are confusing, and C is just being C.

<comment><USER2> But computers aren't confusing; the idea of a block of N bytes memory containing M-byte sized elements is dead-simple, and the same whether it's statically or dynamically allocated.

The semantics associated with accessing those elements in C is anything but, especially for a beginner.

<comment><USER3> Arrays are "dead simple", but addressing their elements can get very complicated, especially if you might want to address the array itself.

<comment><USER4> Can you explain?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Further clarification from the C FAQ:

<http://c-faq.com/aryptr/aryptrequiv.html>

<http://c-faq.com/aryptr/aryvsadr.html>

<http://c-faq.com/aryptr/aryptr2.html>

</comment><comment><USER6> The Butt-Ugly Fish Book has a great section on this: [http://www.amazon.com/Expert-Programming-Peter-van- Linden/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Expert-Programming-Peter-van- Linden/dp/0131774298/)

In fact it's filled with great sections - go read it if you haven't.

</comment><comment><USER7> If you enjoy this kind of puzzle "The C Puzzle Book" if full of them with a clear explanation: <http://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Book-Alan-R- Feuer/dp/0201604612>

It's a funny little book that can keep you busy during compilation time.

And the "C Reference Manual" (<http://www.careferencemanual.com/>) is the best, up-to-date reference to understand how this small language can be abused.

</comment><comment><USER8> If it had declared

         struct { int x[4] } s;

...then &s, &s.x and s.x would all evaluate to the same address, but with three different types.

</comment><comment><USER9> Damn, I failed the last one.. thinking it would only have been a pointer further.

</comment><comment><USER10> That seems like an odd feature. I mean, useful in some cases where the size of the array is statically determined, but kind of fiddly and not the same across such unusual things as function calls.

</comment><comment><USER11> gaaaaaa this made it to HN's frontpage?

</comment><comment><USER12> printf("%p\n", (void*) (&x + 1));

News flash: it's easy to confuse people such as myself who don't know, and don't care, whether the & unary operator is above or below the + binary operator in the precedence hierarchy. Anyone who writes an expression like this without parentheses has been educated beyond their wisdom. Ric has more at 11.

<comment><USER13> Can you provide an example, from any language, where a unary operator has a lower precedence than a binary operator?

<comment><USER14> -3^5 = -(3^5)

Not to defend that guy or anything.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, because it's impossible to be a skilled C programmer without knowing this stuff by heart.

/rolls eyes

<comment><USER14> There are plenty of confusing order-of-operation things in C, especially around pointers, but is "&x + 1" really one of them? I basically know nothing about this subject and it's still pretty clear that the & would take precedence. Would you balk at that expression if x were an int pointer?

<comment><USER12> This particular case isn't that interesting because if the expression _were_ equivalent to &(x+1) the compiler would complain about taking the address of a non-lvalue.

But ryanf, while not defending "that guy" (me), made my point for me: if I have to stop and think about whether -3^5 == -(3^5) because some hotshot didn't consider it manly to use parentheses, nobody wins.

If I were writing that expression I'd use (yes, completely unnecessary) parentheses around &a out of habit... the same habit that wouldn't let me write -3^5. Either way, it doesn't burn any more cycles.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Godaddy parking page results in a disgraceful UDRP decision - <AUTHOR> http://domainnamewire.com/2011/12/08/what-a-disgraceful-udrp-decision/

<comment><USER2> Yet another reason to avoid using GoDaddy.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, we are a competitor to godaddy and this really isn't their fault the way I read the story (as much as I would like to heap on them, which I could do for other things, this isn't one of those times).</comment></comment>


Computing 52 by Hand - <AUTHOR> http://www.solipsys.co.uk/new/Calculating52FactorialByHand.html?TW_201560105 <comment><USER2> The original title is "Computing 52 Factorial by Hand" or "Computing 52! by Hand". HN probably ate the "!".

Edit: For the lazy: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=52%21](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=52%21) says that it's 8x10^67, so the approximation here is only a 20% bigger and has the correct magnitude order.</comment>


Characteristics of DSLs (Domain Specific Languages) for everyday API's - <AUTHOR> http://www.agiledeveloper.com/blog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=2ff2e485-031b-4f29-af6c-e0e4c9cdd7b9 <comment><USER2> When I first started reading about DSLs I thought "what a great idea". But the more examples I see, the less convinced I am that there's anything there.</comment>


When Will Apple Cave And Accept Flash? Maybe When It Doesn't Suck - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/28/apple-flash-suck/

<comment><USER2> Having been a Flash developer and now an iOS developer, I find most of these opinion pieces to be agenda driven. Apple's camp doesn't care or what to know the gritty facts pro-Adobe, and pro-Adobe/Flash users think Steve Jobs is a dictator.

No matter what side you sit on, make sure your argument is beyond skin-deep. It's common to see an Apple zealot post about Flash as a proprietary sand trap, while they are essentially using entirely proprietary, closed software to do so. The Flash camp isn't much better, claiming a mishmash of mobile efforts as _ready to ship_ \- and we've yet to see something stable come forth.

<comment><USER3> You're spot on there. I feel like the odd-man-out in a lot of Apple/Flash discussions. I understand the reasons _why_ Apple doesn't want Flash on their devices, but I see the hypocrisy in the "open" arguments. On the flip side of the coin, I'm not crazy about Flash, but I do miss being able to view Flash- based websites. I think it's a bit disingenuous of the author to suggest he never encounters this problem. I browse the web a lot on my iPad. We've been shopping furniture over the last couple of weeks, and IKEA's website uses Flash. They have an iOS app, but it's formatted for the iPhone, thus I am unable to shop IKEA furniture on my iPad. Boooooo :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The fundamental problem is that flash sucks, in these ways:

1\. No or "only when the designer feels like it" accessibility. Go ask a blind person how much they love Flash websites. I've been recommending against flash since the late 90's for this reason alone.

2\. The performance sucks, and has historically sucked on non-Windows platforms.

3\. It goes outside the browser security model. Flash cookies anyone?

4\. Every change must go through the designer with the original files, unless you've decompiled everything (which may or may not work). God help you if you inherit a site with no source files and someone wants you to change something.

Not a fan, never have been, even before iOS was out. Fix the above

</comment><comment><USER5> It's not about flash sucking or not. It's about Apple wanting to have more control over their destiny than they used to. I think the bad years when Adobe decided to abandon the Mac platform left a bitter taste in Apple's mouth, and now that they don't have to kowtow to anybody they're making sure they do things their way.

</comment><comment><USER6> _I have been using my iPhone for years and my iPad for one year. I honestly can't remember the last time I went to a Web site that wouldn't load because I didn't have Flash installed._

This seems self-selecting. I use Flashblock with win and lin desktops and are constantly coming across sites "missing bits" or "missing everything" because of blocked flash. Half the time this is advertising - I love my Flashblock - but there's a lot of content blocked as well,

<comment><USER7> Keep in mind many popular sites assume desktop users have Flash and mobile users don't.

I use flashblock, too, and see "missing bits" frequently as well — but on my iPhone, this is indeed relatively rare. Does it happen? Yeah, but in the literal sense, I can't remember the last time it did.

Anyway — flagged this article, it's not HN caliber and nothing more than fanboy shouting at this point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Flash could end world poverty and somehow increase battery life at the same time, Apple would still not include it. While I am sure performance doesn't help, Apple's Flash policy reasoning is very similar to its subscription policy. Either you are made by Apple or you take a back seat.

</comment><comment><USER9> Why would Flash sucking or not influence Apple's decision?

</comment><comment><USER10> I suspect that some of the problems with Flash are Apple's fault.

Here is the evidence. Flash crashes in Safari but not in Firefox, using the same computer and Flash installation.

<comment><USER11> Personally, I've found Flash crashes every browser on my Mac including Firefox.</comment></comment>


Model built by researchers suggests coronavirus outbreak began in November - <AUTHOR> https://www.utoronto.ca/news/model-built-u-t-researchers-suggests-coronavirus-outbreak-began-november-has-yet-be-controlled <comment><USER2> I am writing this from a cruise ship in the south china sea. We have been at sea for ten days because one port after another has been closed off to us. Some have closed to all cruise ships, some have closed to use because we have passengers who transited through Hong Kong. Every passenger now has to have their temperature taken twice a day. We have been told that we will be able to disembark in Singapore two days from now, but God only knows.

Corona virus has infected fewer than 100,000 people and killed less than 1000. To put these numbers in perspective, seasonal flu results in 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness every year, and kills 290,000 to 650,000. [1]

Personally, I am much more worried about public officials freaking out about the corona virus than I am about the virus itself.

[1] [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact- sheets/detail/influenza-(...](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact- sheets/detail/influenza-\(seasonal\))

<comment><USER3> So what do you think would happen if no quarantine was in place (because "the flu exists"), the virus spreads and suddenly that 1% mortality rate starts to stack up.

Is your country ready to handle 1% of its population dying, and many more falling ill? Flu is seasonal - predictable, known and accounted for. When flu season hits the system copes. This virus? Not so much.

Sorry you're stuck on a boat, but it's for the best.

<comment><USER4> I don't think the Corona Virus is as benign as a flu virus. Sure the mortality rate is 1% but that is what we know today. No one knows what this Virus is capable of, in terms of mutation etc, and it is because of these unknowns organisations and public officials are on alert and taking quarantining steps - rightly so.

It is foolhardy to undermine WHO's cause for concern.

I am sorry you are stuck on a ship and I do hope you get to disembark in Singapore.

<comment><USER5> Yeah from the Singapore numbers, 45 cases and 7 in critical care. I don't recall seeing those sort of numbers with flu.

edit - googling a bit the % going into critical care seems to be about 0.2% for flu vs the above about 15% for coronavirus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not surprising considering for a few days there, after control was implemented, the National Health Commission numbers adhered to an exponential trend with an R __2 value of 0.995-9.

[https://twitter.com/whistle_posse/status/1221964216040509440](https://twitter.com/whistle_posse/status/1221964216040509440)

An exponential curve is a great way to catch up to the numbers of infected that already exist.

The good news is this means the outbreak is less contagious and uncontrolled than was reported.

Its also probably harder to hide deaths than recoveries, so the mortality rate is likely lower.

The bad news is, people may be infectious for longer before they show symptoms.

<comment><USER7> _" The bad news is, people may be infectious for longer before they show symptoms."_

There is evidence that the study claiming the virus can be transmitted by people without symptoms was flawed.[1]

Also, according to that article, even if asymptomatic people transmit the virus _" asymptomatic transmission likely plays a minor role in the epidemic overall, WHO says. People who cough or sneeze are more likely to spread the virus, the agency wrote"_

[1] - [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non- symptomati...](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomatic- patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrong)

<comment><USER8> >There is evidence that the study claiming the virus can be transmitted by people without symptoms was flawed.

There's also a recent news story that a UK citizen is a "super spreader", and that he had contact with all the cases in France while being asymptomatic. He even went home and felt fine, carrying on his normal activities for four days before becoming Ill and being confirmed with the virus.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> TLDR: A research by Uni Toronto suggests that the coronavirus epidemic started one month earlier than is commonly reported (Nov 2019) and has yet to be brought under control.

David Fisman, one of the model's creators said: "You can't get up to that level of cases if the epidemic started in December. even if you pushed the reproduction really high. The plausible start date seems to be mid-November,"

Wikipedia lists[1] start date to be Dec 1, 2019 and with Fever, cough, shortness of breath etc as symptoms[2], I think it's difficult to predict even for doctors exact date of the outbreak.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak)

[2] [https://thestrife.co/wuhan-coronavirus- resources](https://thestrife.co/wuhan-coronavirus-resources)

<comment><USER10> Yeah, running a regression back to the Y intercept to get a 0 time is nice in retrospect, but you'll never find the index patient, the cell or origin, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> There was an article in China News Weekly that investigated the origins of the Virus and also pointed out that 1) the first cases were in November and 2) that the first cases were not linked to the Huanan Seafood Market.

[https://chinachange.org/2020/02/09/the-regret-of-wuhan- how-c...](https://chinachange.org/2020/02/09/the-regret-of-wuhan-how-china- missed-the-critical-window-for-controlling-the-coronavirus-outbreak/)

</comment><comment><USER12> If the blue dots represent the data and if the yellow line represents the model -- doesn't the picture show an obviously bad fit?

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm in China and it's astonishing how different out lives changed with less than 10 days.

Quarantine and lockdown came so quick a lot of people still haven't got used to it.

I've made a video about it and you can see it for yourself: [https://youtu.be/uxW7k5462Ms](https://youtu.be/uxW7k5462Ms)

This is something I've never experienced before.

<comment><USER14> How many coronavirus articles are you going to post this to?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22294779](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22294779)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Remember ~15% of common cold cases are caused by a coronavirus, one that has evolved so as not to kill it's host .... there's a good chance it started out a lot like the current coronavirus

</comment><comment><USER16> Oh good so the German scientist who visited for a few days last week, who was working in Wuhan in December and caught a pathogen ("but it wasn't the flu") may have been carrying coronavirus?

<comment><USER17> If he's been symptom free for 3+ days then no.

<comment><USER18> dont you mean 24 days? [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.06.20020974v...](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.06.20020974v1)

"The median incubation period was 3.0 days (range, 0 to 24.0 days)."

<comment><USER17> I read it that the person got sick after the visit to Wuhan but recovered from that before the visit to OP. Hence 3+ days should be enough to rule out a possible infection of OP with whatever the scientist had.

Since they traveled to Wuhan in December, from then to last week, that would've been more than 24 days, so in case they did not get sick yet and I read that wrong, it should also be pretty much impossible, since that would be the longest incubation period of ncov by quite a bit.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Fake News - <AUTHOR> https://stratechery.com/2016/fake-news/ <comment><USER2> The world's intelligence agencies were wrong about Iraq's nuclear program, but this is hardly "fake news" on par with "Restore hair growth with this one simple trick". This whole "fake news" issue is one giant slippery slope. True fake news that damages someone is already actionable under our defamation laws. But what about facts being bandied about in the marketplace of ideas? Do facts counter to the current dogma become fake? Do we allow state or corporate curators to determine for us what the facts are? One only has to go to Wikipedia discussion pages to see how difficult that can be. I can't help but be reminded by Orwell in 1984, "He who controls the present controls that past. He who controls the past controls the future". Is controlling the facts we read what Orwell was warning us about? The only defense against fake news is an informed educated reader.

<comment><USER3> _The world 's intelligence agencies were wrong about Iraq's nuclear program, but this is hardly "fake news" [...]_

That is absolutely not the way it went. Essentially nobody believed what Iraq was accused of by the USA, not even the CIA trusted the available evidence. It was all fabricated to justify the invasion, a total fake.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think all of this talk about "fake news" in the abstract is unhelpful, because I suspect we all have something different in mind for "fake news."

I mean, if there's a widespread belief that Secretary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a Washington D.C. pizza parlor[0], widespread enough that it's turning up in response to random phone polling in the days before the election, that's a different category of "fake news" than "Restore hair growth with this one simple trick."

If a tweet of some parked busses for a Tableau conference in Austin, Texas, can result in a tweeted claim by the President-Elect and a thread that runs for more than a week on cable news about "paid protestors,"[1] that's not the same as "Aliens take President-Elect for a ride on their flying saucer."

These seem to be in a different category than the NY Times' in-retrospect- horrible reporting prior to the US invasion of Iraq. It's possible to be certain but wrong, and marshal evidence in support of your beliefs. In the case of the NY Times, that mistaken reporting was enormous, and the impact of it was enormous, but it is reasonable to think that others given the same information would have made the same mistakes. Lots of people did, in fact. In the meantime, 99% of the rest of NY Times reporting was accurate, as is usually the case. The two examples of "fake news" I linked seem ludicrous, and they're just the tip of the iceberg.

Anecdotally, I personally saw claims about eight LGBT youth having killed themselves as a result of the election, but those claims seem to be unsubstantiated at best, and most like "fake news" from the other political side. It's not entirely a partisan issue.

So yeah, Judith Miller's reporting turned out to be terrible. I'm not sure how that counters the fact that the so-called "fake news" currently being discussed is reprehensibly awful, and apparently effective.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13011496](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13011496) [1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/media/how-fake- ne...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/media/how-fake-news- spreads.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> Coincidentally, I was on FB today and started seeing a red flag on two friends' posts reading, "This website is not a reliable news source. Reason: [REASON]" with reasons like state-sponsored news and unclassified. The flag appeared on an article about Pokemon Go that was clearly sensationalist speculation and a conspiracy website about George Soros. The div tag in the post had a class "bsAlert" and, my favorite part, a poop icon beside it. None of my other friends are seeing the flag, so I suspect I'm one of the lucky A/B testers.

This article notes that consumers want fake news, but I want to see more of these flags. I realize it's a huge risk for FB, as the article notes, but I've unfollowed (not unfriended) so many friends for posting this nonsense that it's really hurting my own end-user experience in the network. When you're dealing with people for whom snopes and wikipedia are "part of the MSM," you are dealing with people who are living in a consensual hallucination. It's simultaneously infuriating and frightening to be exposed to that on a daily basis.

<comment><USER6> "State-sponsored news" \- will I see that tag next to NPR articles? What about wikileaks?

I have very mixed feelings about this. I know that Facebook is a company and can censor or allow whatever they want to. They censor obscene and offensive stuff, sure. But deciding what is "true" and "false" is a whole new ball game. Do we want to get used to having a central authority telling us what's true and false? If I want to say something stupid on Facebook, I should be allowed to say it.

Remember that you can have an authority run by a trusted leader one day, and someone else the next.

<comment><USER7> Well, firstly, this isn't "censoring" as such.

I know that, living in 2016, the concept of "objective truth" and "objective falsehood" is a hard one to really wrap our brains around. But lets try:

Some things are true, and some things are false.

You're very welcome to say "something stupid on Facebook" as an individual because you haven't presented yourself as a news source. But Facebook shouldn't play willing participant in giving conspiracy sites a platform to present made up stories as truths.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I can't help but feel that "fake news" is just the latest scapegoat being used by all the left-leaning media organizations (which represent a majority of the media in the US) in an attempt to hide the painful reality that they've been feeding us B.S. for years - and Trump's election effectively calls them out on it.

If there is a problem with the media in general (apart from strong political bias), it's a human problem that we all share. People respond to shock, outrage, and disgust much more than they respond to pragmatic ideas, logic, or even truth in general. As long as media companies are built on revenue models tied to ad impressions and social engagement, we'll likely see more of the same.

Censorship will not help; it can only make the problem worse. Perhaps instead, social networks should return to being _social_ networks rather than scrolling billboards. I recall a time (around 2005-2006) when Facebook consisted mostly of people's own words, thoughts, and conversations rather than embedded media. I think I'd really enjoy a Facebook that didn't even turn URLs into hyperlinks - one where the only media that can be embedded is your own original content. That's partly why I believe Instagram is on the rise, while Facebook seems to be on the decline (depending on who you ask - and yes, I know Instagram is owned by FB).

The current social media landscape is like trying to host a party at your house with TVs on every wall (showing random propaganda) so loud that no one can even hear themselves talk.

<comment><USER9> But they _haven 't_ been feeding BS for years. The vast, vast majority of news reporting done on a day to day basis is factually correct. Journalists call people, check facts, get quotes.

I'm not saying that the media is faultless and never makes mistakes. Or that they don't, from time to time, overhype absolute nonsense stories or clicks or viewing figures. But we're comparing infrequent reporting mistakes with deliberate and calculated lying. They are not anywhere near the same thing.

The fact that you _feel_ like fake news is being used as a scapegoat should make you stop and wonder if there is any evidence to back up that feeling, rather than double down on it.

<comment><USER10> Calling people, checking facts, and getting quotes are also tactics to push an agenda. Most of the lies in the media are omissions they make, associations they imply, and opinions they insert. For example, the New York Times recently wrote _edit:published_ an article about Jeff Sessions' civil rights issue with schools. They talked about Alabama's history of segregation, mentioned segregation over and over again, and talked about how he continued the problems inherited by the legacy of segregation by refusing to raise taxes to give schools more money.

What they didn't mention is what he did instead, which was to desegregate schools. There's good evidence that desegregating schools is the most effective way to improve them. You have to admit it's a little dishonest to throw the word segregation around over and over again in response to someone following a strategy of desegregation instead of your personal solution of raising taxes. It's a strategy that would make Orwell proud.

<comment><USER9> If this is the article you're talking about:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/opinion/jeff-sessions- othe...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/opinion/jeff-sessions-other-civil- rights-problem.html)

It's an opinion piece, so neither is it written by the New York Times, nor is it surprising that the author might be "inserting opinions".

<comment><USER10> I never said anything about it not being an opinion piece, just that it's published by the media. It's just a great example of how you can use words and repetition to create an association without actually accusing someone of something and leave out facts which might be important.

It's an especially good example because it _is_ an opinion piece. It checks facts, cites sources, and presents a lot of evidence instead of just giving a straightforward opinion. All these facts give legitimacy to the implications. Instead of making the article more objective, they enhance the bias.

<comment><USER11> _For example, the New York Times recently wrote an article about Jeff Sessions ' civil rights issue with schools._

 _I never said anything about it not being an opinion piece, just that it 's published by the media._

I agree with your original critique, but writing "the New York Times recently wrote an article" is not saying "just that it's published by the media". Whether or not an opinion piece is sufficient to make your point, you said the NYT wrote it, it turns out that they did not, but you are claiming that despite this you were right all along. Don't do that!

<comment><USER10> I'm sorry. I honestly didn't even realize I worded it that way, and that's totally justifiable to call out. It was meant to flow from inserting opinions to an example of an opinion that used facts to push an agenda, but it was sloppy wording on my part.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I cant believe I'm posting a quote from a video game in a thread debating politics, but I guess we live in strange times...

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

</comment><comment><USER13> One side calls it fake news, another lugenpresse.

Some from both want to police it and tell everyone else what needs to be silenced.

This is why free speech is so important.

<comment><USER14> _" One side calls it fake news, another lugenpresse."_

Correction: two groups are using that word. One is an extremist faction. The other is an opposing faction gleefully trying to connect the historical use of the word to a candidate and his supporters in general.

Edit: to the authors of the responses below, thank you for taking time to provide a rebuttal (I'm not sure why HN isn't allowing me to reply further). To those individuals who simply downvoted and moved on, I believe the German word you're looking for in this case is _säuberung_.

<comment><USER15> I don't think anyone is gleeful about it at all. I think people are freaked out, angry, and frightened and have a right to feel that way.

The candidate drew on that extremist faction for support during his campaign, didn't make any effort to distance himself from that extremist faction, and surrounded himself with people that that extremist faction were delighted by during his campaign.

Then, after winning, not only does he not distance himself from the people he had previously surrounded himself with, but appears to be following through in terms of appointments and proposed legislation that, again, absolutely delights that extremist faction.

I get that the candidate is not a member of that extremist faction, but if that extremist faction adores that candidate and voices strong agreement with every political appointment and policy position, many people have good reason for being a little concerned about it. I don't know why this is so hard for people to grasp. Just because a particular argument is being used by his political opponents for the purpose of discrediting him, doesn't mean that that argument isn't a real issue that people should be very aware of and concerned about.

<comment><USER16> Except that the extremist faction is tiny, politically irrelevant, and not nearly that happy with his proposed appointments and legislation. For example, the New York Times Editorial Board is currently attacking Trump for failing to denounce a 200-strong white nationalist meeting that's been happening annually in Washington since 2011 and has achieved nothing in that time, organised by a man whose hope for the Trump presidency - as per the NYT's reporting - is that maybe he'll abandon all his actual policies and adopt ones that actually make white nationalists happy. Their only victory so far seems to be getting the NYT to give them a whole bunch of free publicity by quoting them in great detail yesterday.

<comment><USER17> Except for the fact that Spencer is one of the leaders of the alt right. He even coined the term "alt right". And Bannon turned Breitbart (which my conservative friends derisively call Trumpbart) into a "platform for the alt right" and used it to both get Trump elected and get himself into the White House.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Great writeup. I had the same concern, that is, who controls the censorship.

It is far better to have a multitude of sources and let people choose, which is not what occurs for the corporate news media.

<comment><USER19> Having a multitude of sources and letting people choose as a solution presupposes that people have the time and the inclination to fact-check and are capable of evaluating news and sources critically.

If I see how much time it takes to carefully fact-check some of the nonsense articles that have been doing the rounds recently, it would be a full-time job just to stay reasonably up-to-date. This is why people have been sourcing out the job of fact-checking and editing to e.g. newspapers in the past.

I also very much doubt that the majority of people are capable of critically evaluating news items. Some of the discussions I've had recently, where people wouldn't change their opinion even when confronted with clear-cut evidence, haven't helped convince me otherwise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I gotta say, watching the political ideology that doubled down on postmodernism massively backpedal on the "truth is relative" meme is endlessly entertaining.

</comment><comment><USER21> If you want to understand how this works, you can find some example in some other thread that was started a bit ago but I think it got moderated, here's the link to it: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13016561](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13016561)

It's an article about the "scapegoat" person behind the website dolartoday.com

You can find my explanation about how much damage this website does by publishing fake news to a large audience... I dont even go in details about the economically damage (the one with more impact on my country) just a simple example, link to my post: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13017182](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13017182)

</comment><comment><USER22> A nothing-burger of an article, im my opinion. There is a problem, can't really be fixed, also 'liberty.'

I am actually concerned by the implications of our destroyed arbiters of truth, but I'm not smart enough to envision a path back to sanity. People accustomed to the relative political stability of the US have no idea how bad it can get.

</comment><comment><USER23> In my view, we need to go farther than just fixing Facebook in this regard, although that would be a great start. We have "truth in labeling laws" and I think we should also have "labeling of truth laws". What I mean by this is that we restrict the free speech rights of those selling food and drugs and require that claims of ingredients and claims must be truthful. This is of course because it goes to the health of the public.

I assert that we need something similar when it comes to "NEWS", anything labeled news should have certain standards of accuracy such that the public consuming something labeled news can be confident that what they are consuming is reasonably factual much in the same way that someone consuming food and drugs feel reasonably confident they are consuming what is on the label. This goes to the health of our democracy and hence indirectly to the wellness of the public.

I know this sounds pretty controversial and has 1st amendment implications but it is not without precedence. Prior to the 1996 telecom deregulation act, there were restrictions placed on the public TV networks under something called the "Fairness Doctrine". That was done under the 1934 telecom act which ([http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/piac/novmtg/pubint.htm](http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/piac/novmtg/pubint.htm)), in return for free use of the airwaves in exchange for "public services" such as news programming.

With deregulation came the selling of spectrum through auction, which in my view, I don't think it was a good bargain for the public. But I also think that falsely calling something news could also fall under the regulations by the FTC.

I think it is important for the functioning of a democracy that the public have access to a source of information that they can feel confident is fact based.

All of this is obviously academic as it seems pretty unlikely the Trump administration would consider anything like that.

<comment><USER24> > _anything labeled news should have certain standards of accuracy such that > the public consuming something labeled news can be confident that what they > are consuming is reasonably factual_

Who determines what is factual? How do you police the global Internet?

Consider the Snowden disclosures. The government held its line on their non- factuality for surprisingly long, including by lying to Congress [1]. Also, The Guardian, who led the charge on vetting and publishing Snowden's claims, is a British newspaper.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia- di...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director- john-brennan-lied-senate)

<comment><USER23> Good point. But I know a lot of people who feel very exasperated and frustrated in not knowing who to trust. I think for democracy to work, we have to figure out a way to provide people with some level of confidence in some sort of information source they can trust. If not, I sincerely worry about the future of democracy.

<comment><USER24> We used to have nonsense toolbars "scanning" Google links, _et cetera_ for viruses. Perhaps a similar, but federated, trust system?

I could choose to have sources flagged as trustworthy or untrustworthy by the ACLU and the EFF thusly indicated in my browser. (Similar to AdBlocker Plus lists.)

It would be simply for a campaign to publish its own trust ratings, however.

<comment><USER23> Something like that would be great, something like a virus checker but a fact checker button, so it is quick and easy for people to know if what they are reading is true or not. A lso, it would be great if TV network News shows had to display their "accuracy" rating at the beginning and end of their shows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> In this article, Ben Thompson proposes no clear alternative to the status quo of Facebook distributing fake news/propaganda, suggesting, vaguely, that "whatever fixes this problem must spring from the power of the Internet."

Furthermore, he seems to argue for an economic fatalism about both the news media and Facebook, that they _must_ provide what users want, and that users want fake news/propaganda to support their own opinion, so the media and Facebook must provide it.

On the media: "The media couldn't have done a damn thing about Trump if they had wanted to. The reason the media covered Trump so extensively is quite simple: that is what users wanted."

On Facebook: "the company is heavily incentivized to be perceived as neutral by all sides; anything else would drive away users, a particularly problematic outcome for a social network."

If this economic fatalism argument is correct, then I see no reason to believe that some other solution will "spring from the power of the Internet," and democracy is doomed.

Certainly Thompson himself provides no reason to think a solution will exist, even one that "springs from the power of the Internet." He is correct that "if we choose, [we have] access to more information and sources of truth than ever before, and more ways to reach out and understand and persuade those with whom we disagree." But if we can't actually tell which news sources are providing truth, and we all want lies, and so thereby the lies are easier to find/access/distribute, then the problem cannot be solved.

But if his economic fatalism argument _isn 't_ correct, then it really has nothing to do with his second argument that FB shouldn't decide the news.

As for Facebook, most their proposed solutions [https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103269806149061](https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103269806149061) look like solutions Thompson would like. Thompson argues that Facebook shouldn't "decide the news," not for economic reasons, but because FB could make the wrong decisions under a totalitarian government. Facebook strongly agrees, "We do not want to be arbiters of truth ourselves," so they won't.

FB proposes easy reporting and third-party verification, which sound to me like they "spring from the power of the Internet," whatever that means. If FB decides to "raise the quality bar" on the "Related Articles" section by measuring positive citations, in a way vaguely reminiscent of Google PageRank, that would spring from the power of the Internet, I guess.

None of that matters if people are always going to click on propaganda and share it no matter what. So Thompson is either wrong about the economic fatalism argument, or FB is already planning to give him what he wants, or both.

</comment><comment><USER26> Beware, a new trend in social media: Confirmation Bias As A Service.

</comment><comment><USER27> "Fake news" is an oxymoron. I think you mean "propaganda."

<comment><USER28> Propaganda can be truthful. Propaganda is defined by intent and breadth.

<comment><USER14> In the truest sense of the word ("that which is to propagated"), yes.

But for common usage, it's seen as less than honest. For example, consider "spreading awareness" and "spreading propaganda". Which seems benign and which sinister?

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Mr Propaganda himself, Edward Bernays, had consumer-facing Propaganda renamed as Public Relations because people had a sour association with the word from the Great War, but openly stated that it was the same thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Why are we talking about fake news now? Would we be talking about it if Clinton had won?

<comment><USER30> "Social Media" in general is another scapegoat, but don't you remember when everyone was changing their profile pics to be that "Hope" meme that Obama did? Why was social media good then but evil now? No-one seems to be able to explain it.

<comment><USER9> How on earth are those things connected? Changing your profile picture is nothing like disseminating factually untrue news stories to an audience of millions.

<comment><USER30> They are connected by being scapegoated, in a display of cognitive dissonance to avoid a real root cause analysis.

No piece of "fake" news changed anyone's mind, simply reinforced beliefs they already had. Same reason people subscribe to newspapers that reflect their existing worldview or value system.

<comment><USER9> > No piece of "fake" news changed anyone's mind, simply reinforced beliefs > they already had

You make it sound like that doesn't matter. It does. Reinforcing an incorrect belief is a bad thing.

<comment><USER30> Who gets to define correct or incorrect here? _Everyone_ has an agenda.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>