Is CoFoundersLab selling user data? - <AUTHOR>

I was spammed yesterday by a company named bosiDNA who sell business coaching services.
I contacted BosiDNA and requested my opt-in records (IP/timestamp) and in their reply they indicated they obtained my address from cofounderslab.  Now this is quite bothersome because on the cofounderslab sign-up page it explicitly states the following:
"We promise not to share your email with anyone else."
The scam seems to work like this.  At some point a few weeks ago I received a private message/e-mail on cofounders lab with the subject "You received a request from ___ on CoFoundersLab"
And inside the email it stated "___ wants to know what type of entrepreneur you are! They've requested that you take the entrepreneurial archetype assessment. It's only 10 questions and it's free! Here's what to do:
Sign in to your CoFoundersLab account Click "My Profile" (under your name in the top right) Click the "Take Assessment" button on your profile (on the right side of your profile)
I followed the link just to see what it was about but decided not to complete this assessment.  More importantly, I never opted-in to being added to anyone's mailing list nor did I ever give permission for CoFoundersLab to share my contact info with a third-party.
This seems like a pretty shady business practice to me, has anyone else been getting spam that can be traced back to CoFoundersLab? <comment><USER3> Shahab here, co-founder at CoFoundersLab. I'd like to respond to the allegations being made on this string.

Regarding Orangethirty's statement, I don't know how you could claim that we sold any data. We absolutely do not sell any data. You should be more careful with your claims online, like many other startups we work really hard to do things by the book and build a strong reputation. Unless you have facts to back your claims up these sort of actions are very damaging to startup brands in their young lives.

Regarding Intellegacy's statement, CoFoundersLab does not have a call center, furthermore we don't even collect your phone number. Unless you are a Pro Member, at which point we collect a phone number for the credit card transaction. We do not use phone numbers for any other purpose. If you are not a Pro Member please mention that on this string, as it would be pretty cut- and-dry that we had nothing to do with the phone call you received since we don't have your phone number.

Regarding pain_perdu's allegations that we're doing anything wrong, I'd like to start with the following. You received a legitimate request from another member on CoFoundersLab to take an assessment. This member was presumably considering you as a co-founder and wanted to see how you matched up from a personality type assessment/entrepreneur archetype is what we refer that as. You then started the assessment but did not complete the assessment. At this point we did store your email on the BosiDNA system.

BOSIdna is a partner of CoFoundersLab. When you sign up for CoFoundersLab's FREE SERVICE you agreed to the following terms IF you take the assessment; "By completing the archetype assessment, you agree to the Terms of Service of BOSI Inc. Find BOSI Inc.'s Terms of Service here: <http://www.bosidna.com/tos>. We rely on bosiDNA to conduct the assessment so you're also agreeing to their terms of use. So CoFoundersLab did not sell any information to bosiDNA, we have purchased a license from bosiDNA, we feel this is a valuable service and we provide it as an integrated experience for our members at no charge. bosiDNA has never paid CoFoundersLab for any service, and certainly not for our data. Therefore CoFoundersLab has not done anything wrong.

Having said all that, while bosiDNA reserves the right to email you; we do have an agreement that our members should not be contacted by bosiDNA directly without permission. There was a campaign that was sent out to a very small group of people inadvertently who were also CoFoundersLab members. I've confirmed with their CEO that issue has been resolved. This was an isolated case and will not happen again.

For those reading this, I want to further explain the email that was sent from bosiDNA was an invitation to join a free webinar. It went out to people who partially completed the bosi assessment to educate people about a free assessment.

It's a real slap in the face that CoFoundersLab provides a free service, made more than 25k introductions, all to help entrepreneurs launch new startups, and to be treated with such disdain is a real disappointment. I'd like to refer anyone reading this to <http://buzz.cofounderslab.com/Successful_Matches/> to have a look at some of the successul entrepreneurs we're helping and assure you, we do not sell data to anybody, and that our mission and values are just, and we hope to make a huge impact on the entrepreneurs who are seeking great co-founders.

\- Shahab

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Shahab, thanks for replying to my concerns.

My intention was not to "slap you in the face"...but I REALLY don't like spam (unsolicited e-mail for which I have not opted-in). I don't feel that the fact your service is free gives you a license to share e-mail addresses without permission. As I pointed out in my original post, the statement "We promise not to share your email with anyone else." is extremely explicit.

Now where I have a problem with your explanation of this incident is the following statement:

"When you sign up for CoFoundersLab's FREE SERVICE you agreed to the following terms IF you take the assessment; "By completing the archetype assessment, you agree to the Terms of Service of BOSI Inc. Find BOSI Inc.'s Terms of Service here: <http://www.bosidna.com/tos.>

I just tried going through the same process from a new dummy account and when I clicked "My Archetype You have not yet taken this assessment - <USER2> Assessment" it then takes me to a link still on your site that says

"What's your entrepreneurial archetype? Take a minute to complete this 10-question assessment to discover your innate entrepreneurial skill set and how you might match up with a potential co-founder."

Upon clicking that link, the BOSI system pops up and that is as far as I ever went on my accounts. There was no indication that my initiating this process I would be having any interaction with a third-party, let-alone being displayed a warning like the one you described. The phrasing you quoted was not displayed to me (I just tested it now) at any point.

This is just not email best-practices.

This is spam.

When good websites (and I wholeheartedly agree you provide a great service to the community) start leaking their e-mail lists to third-parties without the permission of the users, this is where a lot of spam comes from.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Shahab here again. I hope this issue has been covered to everyone's satisfaction. I just want to leave any new readers with this link to our terms of use one more time. <http://www.cofounderslab.com/terms-of-use>

As you see we explicitly mention bosiDNA (this is the only partner in the whole agreement) and that you're agreeing to their terms of use too. If any member of HN or CoFoundersLab community feels we've done anything wrong please send an email to info at cofounderslab. We're happy to consider changes needed to ensure we're running our operations fairly.

</comment><comment><USER4> This incident provides a good lesson for anyone here on HN. Mentioning a future action, communication, or practice that could be perceived as negative in your TOS isn't enough. Sure, it is done all the time by many organizations. That doesn't mean it is the best way to do it. People just don't read the TOS in most cases. Companies shouldn't be surprised if they hear something about someone being upset or confused by something hidden in a TOS.

P.S. CoFoundersLab looks cool. Thanks for having the initiative to start it Shahab.

</comment><comment><USER5> Got an email from BosiDNA but had no idea where it was from. Now I know.

I got a spam phone call too, which may or may not have been from cofounderslab selling my data.

</comment><comment><USER6> They didn't share it. They sold it. Big difference.

</comment><comment><USER7> And just to set the record straight from bosiDNA.com's perspective...

I'm Joe, the founder/CEO of bosiDNA.com.

pain_perdu you are walking on extremely thin ice making the libelous claim that my company is a spammer. Within minutes of you contact my company about the email you received, my staff responded and within the same business day provided you the information you requested. We also apologized for the mistake in including you in an email invitation to our free webinar.

You receiving that single (ONE) email from us was a mistake. We took responsibility for it and apologized. Yet you went ahead and posted this ridiculous claim on a platform like Hacker News. Your intent is 100% malicious. It is designed to hurt CoFoundersLab and bosiDNA.com. Why? Because you received one stupid email? Come on man. It was a mistake.

Had you received multiple emails and no response when you contacted us, I can understand taking the time to make this post. At that point, you would be well intentioned to make the claim that my company is a "spammer".

I think you've crossed a line of human decency by taking our apology for a manual glitch while uploading an email list and turned it into some sort of "knight in shining armor" act to protect the world from "spammers" like my company.

Do some homework on my company - and the amazing impact we are having on entrepreneurship around the world. Read articles all over the world about us and then you and other readers of this post decide if we need to spam anyone...for anything...ever.

Let's all be productive and do things to help others - rather than try and tear things down.

intellegacy - I looked you up and see that you also took the BOSI assessment. You received the same email pain_perdu did. Please accept my apology. That was a mistake on our part internally when sending out the invitation. We have not emailed CofoundersLab users in the past. This was a goof on our part. Hope you enjoyed the process of taking the assessment - and your results. I hope we added value to your entrepreneurial journey - and will always be here to serve in any way we can.

And one last thing pain_perdu - we don't "sell coaching services". We're one of the most successful non-tech Accelerators in the US. Won several awards for economic impact and job creation in just the last 12 months. Haven't won an award for spamming yet though. But maybe someday...

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi bosifounder, thank you for taking the time to create a hackernews account in response to this conversation, welcome to the community.

I think you made some interesting points in what you wrote but at the same time I feel you're missing the broader problem here.

I feel that CoFoundersLab betrayed my confidence by sharing my personal and confidential information with your company without my permission. They told me when I signed up that "We promise not to share your email with anyone else." And then without any appreciable warning or forenotice their system transmitted my personal data to your server when i clicked the "take assessment" link in my internal CoFoundersLab Profile.

Can you please explain why you feel this is an acceptable practice? I would further like to quote for you the relevant section of CoFoundersLab's Privacy Policy which states:

"The Personal Information collected by CoFoundersLab is kept completely private and confidential and is not shared with third parties, unless you submit a lead form from the Resources section of the website; in which base the contact information you provide will shared with the third-party who fulfills the specified product or service. CoFoundersLab shall make no effort to validate any information provided by you."

<http://www.cofounderslab.com/privacy-policy>

I absolutely did not "submit a lead from the resources section of the website" and therefore I do not understand why you or CoFoundersLab felt the sharing of my personal data was OK.

<comment><USER7> pain_perdu we're early in our partnership with CoFoundersLab and I take responsibility for the broader problem you've identified. Shahab and I will work with our tech teams to ensure that only users who complete the process get stored in the system. Had you completed the process and seen the results like thousands of other users, you may have felt differently about the process.

I totally get why you'd be frustrated not having engaged with our full process and then received communication from us. You had no idea who we were. But just know that users who do complete the process and get their results are happy with us, like the BOSI process inside CoFoundersLab and understand that we store their assessment results in case they ever need to be retrieved later. An email address and userID is all we store in order to be able to retrieve results in the future.

As with anything, you've helped us identify an opportunity for improvement. But hopefully next time you run into something like this, you'll deal directly with each company and give them ample opportunity to resolve the issue to your satisfaction - and if they don't, I'll be cheering you on as you go after them publicly.</comment></comment></comment>


Human heart is a Turing machine, research on XBox 360 shows. Wait, what? - <AUTHOR> http://igoro.com/archive/human-heart-is-a-turing-machine-research-on-xbox-360-shows-wait-what/

<comment><USER2> Just because the halting problem can not be solved in the general case, does _not_ mean it can't be solved for a specific program.

So the conclusion with the heart are wrong. The "program" that is a heart might be analyzable as a halting problem. It's not a general purpose program after all - it's a specific one.

<comment><USER3> Not to mention that the human heart has a finite number of cells. The amount of "memory" (or whatever word you use for the heat) is finite, making it a DFA/FSM not a Turing machine.

You could argue that the number of cells is so huge that we might as well treat it like a Turing Machine, but given that the researchers were simulating the human heart, I'd disagree with that.

<comment><USER4> From this(<http://www.well.ox.ac.uk/cvri/people/fellows/sears.htm>), we can infer the apprximative average volume of a cardiac myocyte as 21 048 µm³.

Knowing that the human heart weights on average 300g, it makes about 10^(10(+/-0.5)) cells, hence 2^(10^10) states for a FSM built on it (rough approximation).

Even though the simulated experiment had obviosuly less cells, I think that the real heart can in practice be considered as turing equivalent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> He left out the most interesting part: how exactly a heart cell can simulate a nor gate.

</comment><comment><USER5> This must be one of the loudest screams for a good-looking, ultra-geekily designed T-shirt, ever. I'm thinking maybe something like this: <[http://www.lafraise.com/Article/index/id/25>](http://www.lafraise.com/Article/index/id/25>); but of course with NOR gates on the inside.

<comment><USER4> Especially since the NOR logic gate symbol almost looks like a heart...

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_NOR></comment></comment>


A vegetarian diet could cause long-term genetic changes - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencealert.com/vegetarian-diets-could-cause-long-term-gene-changes-research-shows <comment><USER2> This isn't particularly surprising once you understand that your DNA isn't immutable. Lots of things can change you genetically. For example, a male smoker can have changes in his DNA that increases the probability that his children could get cancer[1], and the grandchildren of a woman who smokes have a higher risk of asthma[2]. _Everything_ that has a significant impact on your body probably changes your genetic make-up in some small way.

[1] [http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247104.php](http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247104.php) [2] [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-09/elf- gsh092515...](http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-09/elf- gsh092515.php)

<comment><USER3> Lamark got it right XD

<comment><USER4> And you got it wrong: Lamarck

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Title is misleading. This is across an entire population over generations. Should be changed to something similar to that. This sounds like it happens to an individual if they eat a vegetarian diet for a long period of time.

<comment><USER6> Title isnt misleading. The title literally said what its content contained.

<comment><USER7> A vegetarian diet carries a certain implication, specifically that we're speaking about such a diet in one person.

"Widespread vegetarian diets among a population could cause changes over time" is wholly different and apparently more accurate.

<comment><USER6> The implication is subjective.

The title said "A" Vegetarian diet. It never referenced whom, what gender or the scope of the study, so in a literal sense, the title wasnt misleading at all.

I took the implication "A" Vegetarian diet, as in any or all contexts with in a long time period.

<comment><USER8> "A" implies that the effect would be felt in a singular case.

<comment><USER9> Not if you know the difference between genotype and fenotype.

<comment><USER8> And the Venn diagram for the target market of this website excludes those who do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> They should have analysed Pakistanis with the Indians many of which few generation ago were vegetarians before converting to Islam. Would really show how many generation it takes for the dna to change etc

<comment><USER11> True, though there's a lot of this going on in just the Indian population as well. Generally, people tend to eat more meat as incomes rise. That is true in the west as well as the east.

<comment><USER12> Upper (rich) class in India is mostly vegeterian, including current prime minister. Historically, outclass eat meat as they were cut off from farm based civilisation.

<comment><USER13> That pattern, to the degree it exists, is relatively recent, compared to the evolutionary time scale. It is no older than the religious encoding of vegetarianism in India, which is ~2k years old, and even that was widespread only at a later date.

A better explanation is to compare to other populations with similar environments, like Africa. In fact the graphic in the article shows a similarly higher rate of the alleles in question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> For those who are interested, here's the article (open access):

[http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/03/09/molbe...](http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/03/09/molbev.msw049.abstract)

It's worth pointing out that here "genetic changes" means evolutionary adaptation over many generations, not some sort of mutagenic effect

</comment><comment><USER15> "there's also an increased risk of the creation of inflammatory acids linked to heart disease and colon cancer, especially in combination with vegetable oils."

But last week red meat gave us colon cancer!?!?

</comment><comment><USER16> There. Is. No. Data. Flow. From. Phenotype. Back. To. Genotype.

It just does not work that way. Mutations could be favorable and unfavorable, but there is no mechanism that "adaptations" are encoded back into genome.

Some random mutation which persisted in one population and wiped out in another has been selected due to environmental factors, such as climate and availability of food sources, does not imply that it is necessarily better or advantageous for a different environment.

And, of course, a diet could not cause genetic changes. Mutations could be selected in a population within some particular environment or wiped out in another.

<comment><USER17> That isn't the claim they are making, because that would be a huge claim. I think the author knows that the occurrence of mutations aren't present because they are eating veggies. Instead, they mean they are being selected because they are eating veggies.

<comment><USER16> Correlation is not causation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Ok. Couple of points: (1) A vegan diet can't "cause" genetic changes. My diet is a part of my behaviour, and short of exposing myself to lethal amounts of radiation or carcinogens, I can't modify my genes with my behaviour. (2) However, if we modify an organism's environment (by, say, restricting what is available to eat), then over many generations, we should expect that organism's descendants to adapt to that change. I guess more experimental confirmation of evolution is nice, but it's not really very exciting. [Edit: Minor grammar picks]

<comment><USER19> _"...I can't modify my genes with my behaviour."_

This is incorrect. Your behaviour changes your environment (both directly and/or by exposing you to new/altered environments) and your environment modifies how your genes are expressed. See the wikipedia page for Epigenetics:

 _" Epigenetics [...] is the study, in the field of genetics, of cellular and physiological phenotypic trait variations that are caused by external or environmental factors that switch genes on and off and affect how cells read genes instead of being caused by changes in the DNA sequence. Hence, epigenetic research seeks to describe dynamic alterations in the transcriptional potential of a cell."_ [1]

These mechanisms act on an individual and are separate from Darwinian adaptation.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics)

EDIT: "and your environment modifies your genes" -> "and your environment modifies how your genes are expressed"

<comment><USER20> Epigenetics is about gene expression, the genetic code isn't changed.

The Danish/ Swedish famine study that first proved epigenetics was real showed that starvation during puberty affected the height of granchildren by switching off genes that were still present. The third generation is unaffected precisely because it is not genetic change.

Enviroment only affects genes by reproduction, successful genes are inhereted or not - there is no change in genes during a lifetime - that would be Lamarkism and he was wrong.

Lifestyle affects methlyation markers,which are added and change gene expression for a few generations.

The underlying genes are not changed and are still inhereted, once the methlyation 'wears off' everything will be as before.

<comment><USER21> There are a lot of assumptions in there. For instance, those methylation marks may in fact lead to changes in the DNA. Epigenetic silencing is possibly associated with gene duplication: [http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00239-002-2446-6](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00239-002-2446-6)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The butterfly effect - or how a single font can take you down - <AUTHOR> http://blog.peecho.com/blog/the-butterfly-effect-or-how-a-single-font-can-take-you-down

<comment><USER2> awesome</comment>


Strategic Laziness: How I learned to run ambitious software projects - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@zerotrickpony/strategic-laziness-61349001d63c#.od7cdt8tn <comment><USER2> In that vein... Sometimes people act like software architecture is about making the difficult choices and tricky decisions.

However, often the biggest value of "architect" is to intelligently _defer_ decisions, keeping options open until new information makes the problem easy and obvious.

Granted, that style of work isn't as glamorous as the "decisive leader who makes the hard choices" narrative.</comment>


Fred Wilson on Social Networking vs Email - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/04/social-networking-vs-email.html

<comment><USER2> So, let me get this straight: People _prefer_ non-private communications, with advertisers, site operators, and a vaugue sense of "friends and followers" listening in?

I don't buy it. Either he's focused on only one segment of the internet population (individuals, not businesses), or it's more wishful thinking regarding social networking.

Just what, exactly, is deemed so terrible about email? Shouldn't this be analyzed via mass correspondence vs. individual-to-individual? I think the author is greatly overgeneralizing, and thus drawing misleading conclusions.

<comment><USER3> This seems like a good place to mention that the author of the OP is an investor in twitter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This post doesn't make sense. It's comparing email to social networking all as time spent communicating. It doesn't classify that time though, is time spent reading emails really the same as any time I spend on social networking sites? How many hours of farmville equals one hour of emailing?

<comment><USER5> It all comes out of the same time budget for computer-mediated communication.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you have to have an email address to sign up to most if not all social networks, how is the sign-up figure correct?

<comment><USER7> You can use the same email address to sign up for multiple social networks?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Key point IMO:

 _The Gotham Gal looked at me and said "why are you checking twitter and not email?" ... I told her that email required a reply and twitter did not._

<comment><USER9> The major success factor is that social networks are by default one to many, while email is one to one. Think if you had to email all your friends to tell them you are in town...

<comment><USER10> If only email _were_ one-to-one. Unfortunately I have to keep on lots of blast-email lists... where I'm expected to filter through what impacts my responsibilities.

And sometimes I dare not ask to be removed from some senders' lists for political reasons.

Time-sucking. Soul-sucking. grrrr...

EDIT: forgot to mention that sorting through the krap via Twit, FB, etc, would _not_ be much more fun.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So in 2007 we switched from the Republic of Email to the Kingdom of Social Networking. Where is the Rebel Alliance of open distributed social networking protocols?

</comment><comment><USER12> Facebook surpasses Google in US traffic. Does that mean Facebook is/will be more important than Google? I think not.

SMS traffic grew rapidly as well, but it did not take away the voice business.

</comment><comment><USER13> In this case, the value vs. volume may be debatable.

Lately, I've been taking notes on this. These are not bad observations:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1223346> \- Networking advices from legendary Silicon Valley networker, Heidi Roizen - 90% of my interactions are on email (and I will say that is the same for almost all highly efficient people I know)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1248503> \- Ron Conway Explained - (quoted email) "AM ON IT."

[http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/03/28/Compartmen...](http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/03/28/Compartmentalization) \- Communication Silos - They differ in their latency, reach, and persistence and, on another axis, in length of form.</comment>


Ask HN: Are there any good forum engine in Node.js - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> A forum is basically a multi-user blog with comments. For many cases, that's all you need. If you need something more like vBulletin, then you should probably just use vBulletin.

I can't see anyone coming up with a forum system like what already exists in the PHP world. These things were created when forums were big and have massive man hours of work to build on. To create something like that from scratch today probably wouldn't be worth the effort. If it were worth it, then there would be more available in different ecosystems.</comment>


Ask HN: Why am I so unhappy in spite of material success? - <AUTHOR> I am in my mid twenties working at a prestigious tech company. I earn almost 5x what I did out of college 4 years ago. I have a very short walking commute. I don't work long hours. Objectively, my actual work is rather interesting from a technical perspective. I am in the best shape of my life. I take around 5-6 weeks of paid vacation per year and travel to interesting places.<p>In spite of all this, I wake up every morning dreading going to work, and I feel that my life has no meaning or purpose. I am constantly unhappy because of this. Why? How can I become happier? <comment><USER2> Every item pointed out is related to work; make good money at work, short commute to work, interesting work, good benefits at work. The only non work item you mentioned is that you are in the best shape of your life (physically at least).

It appears your work/life balance is lacking. Do you have a significant other? Do you have hobbies you enjoy and/or actively pursue? I have been where you are with the dreading going to work each morning even to the point of being physically sick each morning. I had to find purpose in my work and as a result have just recently formed a startup that I hope will be accepted into Y Combinator.

I would encourage you to find someone you can talk to about the feelings you are experiencing before they become even more pronounced. Success at work is terrific but happiness is not always tied to employment success.

</comment><comment><USER3> I felt the same way 12 years ago when I was in my mid-twenties. Long story short is I ended up walking into a pet store and buying a puppy. Around 6 months later the dog started losing hair and turned out he had a mite problem and was born without an immunity system.

I ended up putting down the dog and by my gym was a normal pet store that didn't sell dogs/cats but had a dog rescue event going on. So I went there to donate what stuff I bought. I ended up talking to the founder there on why pet store dogs are so bad.

So that day I signed up to foster a dog. A few months later I was helping with events and then a group of us split from that rescue to start our own that imported dogs from the south that were surrendered up north. It changed my life doing something I felt was good.

Maybe you can try to take some of your time and donate it to some cause you might be interested in. I turned from hating work to thinking of work as a means for me to make money to help a cause I loved.

<comment><USER4> I've found shelter dogs to be more resilient. It seems that's because they're almost always mixed, instead of bred in less-than-ideal conditions with possibly less-than-ideal genes.

The genetic lottery a mutt has tends to make it a better dog.

This is only my experience with 5-10 adopted dogs, though, and 3-5 pure-bred dogs.

<comment><USER3> I've been told that by many Vets. The genetic mixing really helps.

I'm not sure if this is true but one told me most of the golden retrievers in the US can be traced back to just three male dogs from the mid-70s. He said its the cause of a lot of their hip and cancer problems that are common in the breed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I will post this here at the risk of being the most down voted comment of all time but here we go: Read the bible, get to know Jesus. Not a religion or religious path, Jesus the man and the God. Pray and ask Him who you really are in your own eyes and in His eyes. Then, simply Love others as yourself and Him above all else. I personally took this journey many years ago when I was going through a very dark time. I was very unhappy with it all, despite having a good job, a great wife, an amazing daughter, family support and all. I lived religion for many years previous to that and tried to be a good man, going to church and following the do/don't routine. Not until I searched for a relationship with Jesus and asked him to show me who I really am, was I able to live a fulfilling life of purpose. If you feel like it we can talk more in depth about all this and I can tell you my story. DM me on twitter and we'll connect @djbelieny

<comment><USER6> There's religion and there's spirituality. Aim to be more spiritual and less religious. Having a connection with God, Source, Universal Force, whatever you call it is spirituality. Quoting Bible verses and judging others based on a book is religious righteousness.

<comment><USER5> I wouldn't say quoting Bible verses is religious righteousness as much as quoting any other book. As for judging I agree with you 100%. That's why "Love others as yourself" is one of my favorite passages. How can you possibly judge someone differently or "more righteously" than anyone else if you love them as yourself. Love Inception ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm going to be short and to the point, and hope you will take it well. I mean the best, as I myself have been in this place.

Based on what you wrote, it seems like you are only focused inward, on yourself. Figure out a way to focus on someone else.

Had an old, wise friend tell me, "You learn to love, by doing for..." i.e. when you tend to someone who is helpless, you are focused on them, and their needs. You gain a whole new perspective on life.

Do _for_ them. Do something that doesn't bring you any gain or benefit. Just to be a good human. Selfless.

Kids make this happen, naturally. But I'm not suggesting you go have a bunch of kids, just for that, I hope you get my drift.

<comment><USER8> This is good advice. Also, appreciate what you've been given and give to those less fortunate. Working at a soup kitchen, or somewhere where you can come in contact with those less fortunate will help you appreciate what you have. Akulbe mentioned kids. I can't upvote that enough. They really help you become selfless and see the beauty of life.

<comment><USER7> The part about the soup kitchen... I thought about that. One thing I'd caution on this, is check your motives.

If you're going to check the box, okay, I'm a good person because I do this... you've lost. Start over.

Truth be told, any one of us is one catastrophe away from being where the folks who come to the soup kitchen are. We could be uber-successful one day, and penniless the next.

Find out about _them_. It's about THEM. Ask them to tell you their story. Get to know them. Focus completely on someone else. Listen. Don't talk.

Make sense?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Simple answer to your problem. Everything you mentioned about "being awesome" in your current life, aren't things that make you happy. That's it! Switch things up a little bit and I'm sure you're smart enough to make the difference between "what's good for me" and "what people think is awesome".

Try new things, break your routine. Life has a lot to offer my friend :)

</comment><comment><USER10> Work is work . . . it's a means to provide for you (and your family/future family).

Life is about things outside of work, people, loved ones, pets, plants, hobbies.

Set some goals to connect with friends and family. Get a pet, do gardening, volunteer, read. Go hiking, go biking. Play a team sport.

Most people dread going to work, that's why they call it work, btw. Although it is nice if you can enjoy work, short commute, great pay and interesting projects can help with that.

Build other things in your life where you look forward to going to work, but you really look forward to getting off work to pursue the people/hobbies you really care about.

Exercise can help too but sounds like you have that covered. Try something new though. Hiking, Biking, Rock Gym/Climbing. Team sports.

Good luck finding the illusive 'happiness', sounds like you're on the right track.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. At one point in time I really, really wanted my hobby and passion to be my work. But it didn't work out. And honestly, I'm kinda glad it didn't.

It's important to keep the thing that gives you drive in life separate from what drives every other decision in life (money). When they are intertwined, relationships and mental health tend to suffer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Maybe you need to share your life with someone else.

Maybe you need to work on something that helps people.

Maybe your work is the wrong variety. Maybe you need to do work where you shower _after_ your shift, rather than before.

Maybe you need to work for yourself, rather than a company.

Just a few thoughts, maybe one clicks.

</comment><comment><USER12> The only answer to this is, nobody knows why, just try different things and look if they make you happier.

Get into a romantic relationship or even multiple parallel if that is your thing. (I'm in non-monogamous relationships for 8 years now and started feeling much better)

Start a company or get kids. Having to care for your employees or kids can give you a purpose.

Try to help people in general. Teach some lesser fortunate people your skills, see what they make of it, maybe it helps you to get meaning by lifting others up.

Become a monk, christian or some other religion. They always search for people and the constant work and prayers gave some people meaning. Also the 100% structured daily life lets you age much slower.

</comment><comment><USER6> This was posted in HN as well, but it serves to repost it for this question: [http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/04/over- nearly-80...](http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/04/over- nearly-80-years-harvard-study-has-been-showing-how-to-live-a-healthy-and- happy-life/)

Having material things is worthless unless you do not have any long, deep, and meaningful relationship and belong in a community. We, humans, long for deep connections. None of the material things will make you happy unless you share it.

</comment><comment><USER13> Berkeley's Greater Good Science center does fantastic research on this topic. They have a MOOC too.

This article is a great summary that may help you:

[https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/can_helping_ot...](https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/can_helping_others_help_you_find_meaning_in_life)

These parts specifically may provide key insight:

"Often, psychologists have distinguished between two types of well-being: hedonic well-being (a sense of happiness) and eudaimonic well-being (a sense of meaning and purpose). Although happiness and meaning overlap significantly, researchers suspected that helping others is especially crucial to developing a sense of meaning."

"A recent article published in The Journal of Positive Psychology by Daryl Van Tongeren and his colleagues sought to examine this relationship. In a preliminary study, the researchers asked over 400 participants to report on how frequently they engage in different altruistic behaviors (such as volunteering) and how meaningful their life feels. Participants who were more altruistic reported a greater sense of purpose and meaning in their lives."

</comment><comment><USER14> Do you have any goals outside of work - not like vacations but something that is a challenge and requires skill building?

Are you dating?

I'd recommend reading "The Way of the Superior Man" [1]. One of the things that's stuck with me from the book is that no one ever feels like they've "made it". Even if you do feel like you get to the point, like you have, you suddenly become miserable as there's nothing left to strive for. We need some driver in our lives that push us forward.

The author also makes the claim where everyone should have an hour per day to focus on something they want to do. It helps give you direction and purpose. I know the times when I've done this, I've enjoyed work and life a lot more than the times where I haven't.

[1] [http://amzn.com/B004A8ZWM4](http://amzn.com/B004A8ZWM4)

</comment><comment><USER15> Material success makes nobody happy, so do success.

You don't feel happy while conquering, you feel successful.

You feel only happy when you contemplate things. When you look at how much you studied and effort you put to have what you have today, this makes you happy, possibly. Hell, you can even by happy by contemplating your success. I can even read that from your post.

But then that's just one thing. You need to contemplate other things. I for instance contemplate the sweet charm of my wife, the sweetness of my dog, the sound of my guitar.

You need other stuff to do.

I guess by know you also know that there's a lot of people who manage to be just as good as you or successful, how the world is filled with sad people with a good face and job. Perhaps it's time now to look into another direction. I find those people completely uninteresting and boring.

Also, everybody does grow up knowing that they should have a job which pays them well and all, those are the things that society throw at your face, you just handled that well. You need to dig deep on yourself and find out what you actually wanted, and then take this from deep inside to outside, to make it your reality.

It doesn't mean leaving your job or anything, it just means being you.

A obvious choice is travelling, because you just visit a city and contemplate its beauty, the people and everything. No matter how rich or poor, there's beauty, there's only beauty because people are in the contemplating mood.

But then you can turn this to what you want. You might have different tastes.

</comment><comment><USER16> Maybe because you haven't truly answered these questions:

1\. From where you actually came from.

2\. What are you here for.

3\. Where to go afterwards.

By the way, it started with your first intention, i.e. for what did you worked so hard for all these?

</comment><comment><USER13> You may enjoy the books "Happiness" and "Altruism" by Matthieu Ricard, who's been called the "happiest man alive" based on extensive brain scans. His advice is basically to help others in practical ways, as well as more abstract ways such as loving kindness meditation. Tldr: helping others takes attention off of "separate self", which is a common cause of suffering. Wish you the very best!

</comment><comment><USER17> First thing to answer is this material success is this something you really want or is it something that society "induced" into you.

There are many ways to make yourself feel better, but the most effective actually is to understand "Why I am doing this?".

Jesus or a puppy can alleviate the symptoms for some time but if you are living somebody else's idea of a good life it's just kicking the can down the road. It's treating the symptoms.

It is not an easy task to align yourself with you ( as crazy as it might sound :)), but this is the only way to feel right.

And is not an easy thing to do in the materialistic society which we live in. Where stuff and possessions are supposed to make you feel fulfilled . They never will, so try new things that are not about money or owning things but rather about experiences. The more out of the ordinary experiences you get the easier it is to answer this question "How do I become happier?"

</comment><comment><USER18> Do you find your job meaningful? Look into that and you might find that you need to feel that you're making a difference with your work. I had a similar situation where I felt like a cog without much significance to my job. Dealing with technology day in and day out can be very dissatisfying.

Possible solutions:

1)Find out what you really want to do even if it's less money

2)Do you need to find someone to share your life with?

3) Do you need to work up the career ladder?

4) if what you want to do won't let you make a living. Use your current job to finance what you want to do. It will give your job a purpose.

5) Talk to a mental health professional.

I would take one of those long vacations and test different things. You'll have to take action. You can talk about it forever and it won't make a difference.

</comment><comment><USER19> Make a list.

What are the things you want out of life?

List them in order of priority.

Go after each item on the list.

Realize that you may or may not get each item you want but that the thrill is as much in the chase as it is in the outcome.

Realize there's nothing wrong with material success. I've seen both riches and extreme poverty. Riches are better.

 _My list is literally the first thing I see when I wake up; it 's on the wall I face when I wake up._

</comment><comment><USER20> Start creating, and not just writing code, start creating outside of development. Start writing, making music, painting, sewing, designing, woodworking. Try going out with friends to different events than usual and try different things - new kind of music, new kind of food, new kind of drinks.. Smoke some weed and lie in bed thinking about your life.

<comment><USER21> > Smoke some weed and lie in bed thinking about your life.

This led me to a paranoid psychotic break when I was 21.

<comment><USER20> 24 and experienced a similar thing, but it wasn't a breakdown. I smoke late night and sometimes get paranoid about my life falling apart because of my lack of responsibility, then the next day I'm focused with my shit together and improve my life a lot by becoming a more responsible person.

<comment><USER22> > get paranoid about my life falling apart because of my lack of > responsibility

Hell, I get that often without any drugs

<comment><USER20> Hahah me too, but this is like 10x amplified and then I break it down into small things which I can do to keep on pretending I'm an adult.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> What are you doing to make others lives more meaningful and productive? My experience is that refocusing my attention away from myself, and towards others has the unanticipated benefit of lifting my own well being.

As a start, volunteer one hour every week at an organization that interests you. Do the grunt work. See what the effect is after a month and grow from a simple base.

</comment><comment><USER24> Life is more than career and income. You are not your job. Analyse other life choices. Are you with a wrong person? Do you think you let somebody down? Do you have to repair some damage? Are you giving anything away? Are you grateful?

</comment><comment><USER25> Because you are a slave Neo ;-)

<comment><USER26> This is the only real answer

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> You haven't told us enough information. What's your social life like? Do you have any close friends or acquaintances? Do you have any family members you talk to? Significant other? etc...

</comment><comment><USER28> It's not out there, man. The world is an illusion.

Start meditating :)

</comment><comment><USER29> what are your thought patterns when you feel at your worst? (i.e. wish I was doing x thing, or living an x life).

</comment><comment><USER30> Get a new girlfriend / boyfriend

</comment><comment><USER31> Imo happiness comes from our beliefs. Beliefs add up to become perspective. Once perspective aligns we garner from it our personal truths. As humans get older we tend to stabilize perspective and truth changes less. This is why suggestions to resolve inner turmoil commonly focus on stabilizing ones belief structure: it makes truths more reliably convincing. Humans find it deeply satisfying to know the truth. Unfortunately, universal truth is elusive and not likely provable so instead the pyramid paradigm we live in says: convince yourself of whatever truth conveniences you the most, and we'll sell you the means to believe it.

Something has put you near the top of the power pyramid for its own reasons. And the whole of global consumerism is here to service your happiness. Consider all that went into the wealth and influence you have as a rich person. Everywhere you go you can buy approximations of happiness, but your beliefs are preventing that from happening. You worked to get your job that provides your high status. Now you have the right to that level of buying power but your beliefs are holding you back from being a successful consumer at your place in the pyramid scheme.</comment>


Does Digg Want To Be Facebook? - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/09/19/does-digg-want-to-be-facebook/ <comment><USER2> Though I'm still pretty new to news.YC, I think another appropriate and parallel question is this: Does news.YC want to be Digg?

I've seen quite a bit of replication of content across news.YC/Digg/Reddit. Can't we pretty much assume that news.YC readers also peruse Digg and/or Reddit aswell? I do.

</comment><comment><USER3> It sure seems like it. Of course the right thing to do is actually implement Digg inside Facebook... like this: <http://www.jgc.org/blog/2007/09/wildfire- has-launched.html>

John.

<comment><USER4> No, the right thing to do, clearly, is implement Facebook inside of Digg. Why compromise your own social network by embedding it inside of someone else's site? Especially when you're approximately the same size.</comment></comment>


Can the new Firefox Quantum regain its web browser market share? - <AUTHOR> https://amosbbatto.wordpress.com/2017/11/21/mozilla-market-share/ <comment><USER2> Firefox on Andorid works flawlessly for me.

Plus, it's worth repeating that Firefox sync works without problem across desktop and mobile. The sync [0] and auth [1] servers are open source, and one could choose to use one or both on his premises.

IIRC, browser synchronization was a thing on Firefox well before it landed on chrome.

[0] [https://mozilla- services.readthedocs.io/en/latest/howtos/run...](https://mozilla- services.readthedocs.io/en/latest/howtos/run-sync-1.5.html)

[1] [https://mozilla- services.readthedocs.io/en/latest/howtos/run...](https://mozilla- services.readthedocs.io/en/latest/howtos/run-fxa.html)

<comment><USER3> I've switched entirely to Firefox, but I have had some issues where I input an address on Android and the Browser doesn't navigate.

<comment><USER4> Unfortunately I had the same issue on my Android phone - every time I re- opened the app I had to open a new tab in order to browse. I ended up installing and using Firefox Nightly instead (where the issue seems to be resolved).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> No, because people don't switch to the best product, that switch away from the worst.

People went to Firefox because it was head and shoulders better than IE6 for regular use - popup blocking and tabbed browsing were the most obvious examples, but even then (and being advertised on Google's front page), it only for about 35% of the market.

Now let's say it'll be a bit faster than Chrome. Let's say it'll be twice faster than Chrome, with better deep extensions coming back, it won't make a difference. Chrome is too usable.

<comment><USER6> I switched to the new Firefox and removed chrome because I tried it and liked it better, not because Chrome is the worst. Also I'm curious how people went from Firefox to Chrome in the first place using your "move away from the worst" logic. Certainly something else happened there or FF was much worst than I remember.

<comment><USER7> But most people aren't even going to try Firefox. Unless Google do something seriously stupid with Chrome, the average user has no incentive to move. Chrome is good enough.

<comment><USER8> I don't know, I feel like many people started using Chrome because technical- minded folk recommended it to them (certainly, I told many family members to switch to it). So, maybe the same thing will happen with Firefox (I have just switched from Chrome to Firefox and am prepared to recommend it as someone's default browser).

<comment><USER9> Looking towards technical minded relatives and friends definitely helped, but what really pushed Chrome over the top IMO was Google.com, Gmail, Youtube, Google Docs, Google Calendar, Hangouts, etc. all insisting you must use Chrome.

<comment><USER9> To explain why I think this, the Quality delta between Firefox and IE when Firefox reached about 20-30% marketshare was orders of magnitude greater than the delta between Chrome and Firefox over the period Chrome managed to push to 60-70% marketshare.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I stopped using firefox since they are delivering cliqz with every 100th download which will analyze and store your browsing history and is a shame for the mozilla foundation. I'm using waterfox now btw...

<comment><USER6> But at least Mozilla is up front and transparent about what it's doing. I'd love to know the extent of what Google/Chrome is doing...

<comment><USER11> > Mozilla is up front and transparent about what it's doing

A statement in a blog that only a tiny percentage of users will read is not at all transparent.

Do users who receive browsers with Cliqz get a clear, effective opt-out warning? Really, it should be opt-in but that doesn't appear to be the case:

The users _will receive a version of Firefox with Cliqz recommendations enabled out of the box._

[https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing- cliqz-i...](https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-in- firefox/)

<comment> dao- > Do users who receive browsers with Cliqz get a clear, effective opt-out > warning? Really, it should be opt-in

Either way would render the experiment useless (self-selection bias). Obviously if something like this should make it into Firefox proper, that would make something like an opt-out warning a hard requirement.

<comment><USER12> _Either way would render the experiment useless (self-selection bias)._

But that is Mozilla's problem, not their users'.

As probably would be the legal position in many places, if news of this got out more widely and regulators started getting involved. It's hard to see how this wouldn't fall foul of even general EU data protection laws today, never mind anything stronger that is specific to Germany.

<comment> dao- > But that is Mozilla's problem, not their users'.

Sure, I'm just telling you how we arrived at the current situation and why your proposed alternative is a nonstarter for an experiment that tries to figure out if this feature adds user value in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Well, it got my market share back.

I really like the new version. And I am glad to have switched back from Chrome, because I really like what Mozilla is doing - not just with Firefox.

</comment><comment><USER14> Does the new Firefox have a password sync feature like Chrome's? I'd much rather trust Mozilla with that sort of thing (especially if I could host my own backend to it somewhere) than Google.

As an aside, one silly thing that tarnished Mozilla's brand for me was the treatment of Brendan Eich. I may not agree with his donation of money but I think impinging on his rights is a far more fundamental immorality than what he was accused of.

It's like Twitter's controversy over blue ticks. If they'd only given them as a result of identity verification, and not used them to indicate Twitter's approval of someone's beliefs, then they wouldn't be where they are now.

Stick to good tech and fighting for relevant causes, e.g. net neutrality, I say.

<comment><USER15> Eich did not have his rights impinged on. He chose to resign--he _chose_ that --because the community far beyond Mozilla didn't approve of his donations and he saw that he'd lost a lot of people's trust in him. His actions had consequences, which he recognized and owned.

He has, presumably, gone on to find other work, _after resigning_ , he still has a platform, he can still talk and associate freely.

You can dislike the fact that he resigned, but blaming anyone for his actions but him doesn't make sense.

<comment><USER16> >Eich did not have his rights impinged on. He chose to resign--he chose that-- because the community far beyond Mozilla didn't approve of his donations and he saw that he'd lost a lot of people's trust in him. His actions had consequences, which he recognized and owned.

Yes, this is a key point people forget. No one fired Eich. However, a large chunk of Mozilla's open source contributors (along with a decent chunk of their paid employees) were ready to resign.

Eich may not have had good politics, but he legitimately cared about the organization and was not going to let it implode on his account.

Funny how so-called-libertarians love at will employment until it's used to pressure a bigot to resign.

<comment><USER17> > However, a large chunk of Mozilla's open source contributors (along with a > decent chunk of their paid employees) were ready to resign.

Citation, please. I'm a Mozilla employee, and was a Mozilla employee at the time. I'm not going to claim everyone was ecstatic about things; there was a lot of soul-searching going on for some people. But I don't recall any "Mozilla employees", in the sense of people working for the Mozilla Corporation, saying they would resign, nor calling for Brendan to do so.

There _were_ a few such calls from interns, and a few employees, at the Mozilla Foundation. People who were not involved in Firefox in any way, did not know Brendan, and were not relevant to the things that Mozilla is actually known for doing.

Of course the press spun the story in such a way as to make it seem like there was mass unhappiness internally... And most people read the press spin, not the actual blog posts actual Mozilla employees were writing at the time.

<comment><USER16> >Citation, please. I'm a Mozilla employee, and was a Mozilla employee at the time. I'm not going to claim everyone was ecstatic about things; there was a lot of soul-searching going on for some people. But I don't recall any "Mozilla employees", in the sense of people working for the Mozilla Corporation, saying they would resign, nor calling for Brendan to do so.

I'm not saying there was an organized "we, a group, will resing". I'm only repeating what I was told hanging out on the deck during one of the cantinas - that there would have be a lot of turnover if he hadn't left :)

IIRC Eich indirectly acknowledged this when he resigned when he said he didn't want to hurt Mozilla.

<comment><USER18> No, I did not acknowledge that. Stop putting your preferred narrow interpretation on a (too-broad) fact pattern and then attributing your interpretation to me. Doing so takes a low road and can be used against your views as well as for them.

<comment><USER16> I didn't mean to imply you did.

I was merely pointing out that it is my understanding that you resigned, that you mentioned care for Mozilla as why you did, and that many people would have resigned if you hadn't. I thought I made that clear when I said "indirectly acknowledged". I guess my understanding was wrong. Sorry for that.

I definitely don't want to take a low road. We never met, but even the people who disagreed with your politics all thought you were a pleasant person and would mention missing you at the various company events. I hope you know that.

<comment><USER18> "many people would have resigned" is unfalsifiable, but if you mean the six Mozilla Foundation employees who tweeted on day 2 that I should resign, those people never worked for me. For whatever reason they almost all resigned for other jobs within a year of my leaving, anyway. I hope you weren't thinking of them when making the "would have resigned" imponderable claim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The privacy-conscious / anti-Google crowd isn't large enough to move the needle. For Firefox to regain market share, one of two things must happen:

1) Google makes a really poor decision (e.g. disabling ad blockers, charging $$)

2) Mozilla partners with existing web apps or they build their own web apps with extra value that is only available in Firefox (in the same way that Google sites generally perform better on Chrome than FF)

<comment><USER20> Banking on web apps to save Firefox won't work out while the browser continues to not support CSS styling of scrollbars. It's so fundamental to so many modern web apps- and a major part of why they tend to feel slightly worse on Firefox.

The bug's 17 years old now.

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=77790](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=77790)

<comment> dao- Maybe it's just me but the scrollbar thing doesn't look like a game changer to me. Could you be overestimating the severity of a personal pet peeve?

<comment><USER21> Not to mention that many users will very much be a fan of having recognizable scrollbars everywhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Non-tech folks don't care about rendering engine. They might fall for tons of advertisment that Chrome had or they might be force-fed a new browser with a new computer or OS purchase, none of these things are going to happen for FF.

Tech folks might care about shiny new engine, but they are also more likely to care about their favorite extensions not working anymore. I personally wouldn't be surprised if FF actually lost some share in the long run, but that's just my dissapointment talking.

I know for certain that if something like waterfox keeps old extensions running I will gladly give up Quantum for a better UX.

<comment><USER23> "New engine" may not matter, but "fast" probably does.

<comment><USER22> My experience is anecdotal of course, but IMHO "fast" is something tech savy users are looking for. "Which one is the Internet" or "I know this icon from a big shiny ad" is how non-tech folks function.

Full disclaimer: Years spent supporting end users might have negatively affected my view of the "average user".

<comment><USER21> Yeah, I do think your view is a bit skewed. There's an ever-growing number of users that grew up with computers, who know at least how to install a different program on their own, despite most definitely not being a techie either.

And even among techies, I think you overestimate how many actually care about much else than "fast" when it comes to a browser. Just look at how many techies run Chrome. It's usually not the most wizardly of techies, but a good number of techies either way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I have been using Firefox again for a while now after completing my Google exit and I'm enjoying every single day with Quantum. The real game changer for me was the introduction of container though. I only wish they also had separated history.

</comment><comment><USER25> Nothing but negative comments here.

Longtime FF user but I gotta say the new version is great. MUCH faster than the old version or Chrome.

Great work Mozilla. Feck the begruders!

<comment><USER26> Yeah, nothing like waking up one day and discovering that my add-ons have all been disabled...

<comment><USER27> _All_ of them? Really?

<comment><USER26> Yes, really. Why should that surprise you? The majority of XUL extensions had not been ported to WebExtensions when Mozilla pushed this update and Mozilla was well aware of that fact. This was executed poorly and Mozilla deserves to be criticized for it.

<comment><USER20> Mozilla gave extension authors multiple years of notice. I don't see what else they _could_ have done, realistically speaking.

<comment><USER28> XUL extensions e.g. the user interface could not be ported, the notice they were given was "this will stop your extension working" with users being given the advice from advocates "don't worry we'll build some replacement APIs sometime soon..."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Well, large parts of Chrome's market share is caused by their aggressive marketing, which is likely quite effective with casual users. And those probably won't switch for performance or privacy reasons.

</comment><comment><USER30> > Firefox can take comfort in the fact that it is now virtually tied with its > former arch-nemesis, Internet Explorer and its variants.

Instead of an IE monoculture, we now have a WebKit/Blink one:

Chrome: 54.57%

Safari: 14.59%

Alibaba UC Browser: 7.86%

Opera: 3.89%

Samsung Internet: 3.41%

Android: 1.90%

That's a total of 86.22%. Plus ça change.

</comment><comment><USER31> No, no chance Firefox could get back to owning 20% or 30% again. Just look around you, how many of the people you know made the switch? Most of the people I know gave the new FF a try, concluded that it's fine and got back to Chrome. Right now, there's just no reason to switch. Also, everybody's going about FF consuming less memory than Chrome, but in my short personal test there was no real difference.

</comment><comment><USER32> Long time Firefox user every since I left safari I tried Firefox and chrome and didn't like chrome at all. Now I only run some linux with Firefox but have chrome only as a back up to test or if YouTube has a glitchy anti Firefox day.

</comment><comment><USER33> I think currently, market share isn't dictated by quality, but more by pushing stuff on users (Google is really obnoxious with it).

So it's not as much of a technical problem, as a marketing one.

May be mandating browser choice for mobile devices could help it, including forcing Apple to remove the ban on competing browsers, which really should have been tackled by anti-trust a long time ago.

</comment><comment><USER34> After my first few hours using desktop Quantum I thought for sure I was switching away from Chrome. But then videos stopped playing (audio would play and the video would just be black) and didn't work again until restarting the browser. And then it just kept happening every time it had been open for a couple hours. Back to Chrome for now.

<comment><USER35> Did you report the problem? Given how many video-related problems end up being caused by drivers that seems like it'd be a potential entry on the blacklist.

</comment></comment><comment> gator-io Browser share trends with bot traffic removed:

[https://truemarketshare.com](https://truemarketshare.com)

We may post some daily numbers after the holidays.

</comment><comment><USER36> Note that while Chrome is currently the top browser in Germany, it's still not as big as Firefox used to be:

[https://imgur.com/a/dx5n8](https://imgur.com/a/dx5n8)

 _wishes Mozilla luck in reversing the downward trend_

</comment><comment><USER37> I tried it for a week hoping to reduce the amount of swapping my laptop did during a normal workday. It wasn't any better than chrome unfortunately and due to the lack of workaround extensions like the Great Suspender it was actually worse.

<comment><USER38> I found it worse. I was playing process kill whackamole for a week.

<comment><USER39> I'm in the same boat, but the progress they have been making as of late is really impressive, and it was markedly better than the last time I tried it.

Will probably try again in another 6-8 months. I have problems with Chrome eating tons of memory, hoping the new FF gets a lot leaner (and robust) as their newer tech gets integrated. Plus, the blog posts on their usage of Rust are really fun to read!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> The new version of Firefox is great. And a massive improvement over previous versions.

However I think Mozilla have a lot of work to do. Desktop browsing is pretty much legacy at this point so convincing mobile users to use something other than the default browser will be hard.

I work on a site with 8 figure monthly unique visits and the browser stats are startling.

iOS Safari had about 51%, Chrome mobile & desktop about 35%, Samsung browser at 7%. Nothing else has over 2-3%. Edge, for example, is a rounding error.

</comment><comment><USER41> Maybe they need to strike deals to come preisntalled with systems or other software? A browser is just a "the internet" to a majority of people.

<comment><USER42> I used to work with a developer who'd preach the "IceWeasel is the ultimate browser" gospel to us. I guess this makes your argument somehow more valid:)

OS might be hard, as Win and Mac have their own browsers, so my first guess would be Linux or security focused builds of Android. This doesn't sound like enough exposure to make a significant/disruptive change.

I expect Mozilla to be more active in this area though. Yes, performance is important and I switched to FF recently too, but I'm still using Electron powered apps on my MacBook.

What's more plausible is a situation where Chrome for some reason (ekhm... privacy?) loses market share to FF/IE/Safari. Having more competition will make my browser better, regardless of my choice.

<comment><USER43> > Linux

Firefox is the default browser in virtually all distros, even Debian.

As for Android, to make a difference it would need to be installed in Gapps- by-default phones, so Google would have to concede. Maybe if the EU hits them with an antitrust lawsuit Microsoft-style, otherwise it's not gonna happen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Firefox Quantum kills the battery on my Macbook. I love it otherwise.

<comment> dao- Are you using scaled resolution? Then it's a known issue that is being investigated and will hopefully be fixed soon: [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1404042](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1404042)

<comment><USER44> I was using scaled resolution. Switched to default; will report back.

Edit: Been at 100% for 10 minutes. Much, much better. If anyone knows how to set default zoom on Firefox it'd be greatly appreciated.

<comment> dao- Try setting layout.css.devPixelsPerPx to e.g. 2 in about:config?

<comment><USER44> Didn't have any noticeable effect for me.

<comment> dao- Well, maybe it already was 2 by default (-1.0 means auto-detect). Maybe try different values.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I'm holding on to FF56 until an equivalent to my beloved tab tree extension[0] is available

[0] [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tab- tree/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tab-tree/)

<comment><USER46> Did you see this [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15342362](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15342362) ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> For anyone that thought that Microsoft was changing its ways, that should be a big warning:

> Even worse, the new Windows 10 S operating system prohibits the installation > of any apps which do not come from the Windows Store, so it is impossible to > install Firefox on devices running Windows 10 S.

</comment><comment><USER48> Everyone keeps talking about how Firefox is faster than Chrome, but for me Chrome is night and day faster at rendering. And that's comparing Chrome with about a dozen extensions vs a fresh install of Quantum. And yes, that's without cache

</comment><comment><USER49> This morning I came into work to a sluggish FF browser. One of the FF processes was using 1.6GB of memory, and one entire core of CPU. I had 1 pinned and 5 normal tabs open. I'm not particularly impressed with the reality of the new FF.

</comment><comment><USER50> Just installed 57 to give it a try. Damn it's friking good, gj mozilla!

</comment><comment><USER51> No. Most of today's users are using mobiles to surf the web. The new Firefox version is a gamechanger on desktop, but on par with Chrome and other mobile browsers.

<comment><USER52> For me, Quantum is the first usable Firefox version on mobile. I've been trialing various versions of it over the years in desperate hope that it would get to a usable state, because the mobile browser ecosystem is bleak other than Firefox - it's the only browser with actual features I want. I was only held back from it by performance.

So in that sense, I'd say it's a complete gamechanger on mobile, much more than on desktop.

<comment><USER53> And yet all the Quantum code is not yet on Firefox Android 57, so it will get actually better quickly.

<comment><USER54> Yeah but it's still noticably more usable because of the UI change in this release. It basically looks more like Chrome for Android; where as before it looked like a Android Cupcake app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I think it's pretty rad, but some nontechnical people who use FF for years now say they didn't notice much, just that the have to learn a new UI

</comment><comment><USER56> Mozilla should fix battery drain issues on Macbooks. I used FireFox Quantum for a couple weeks and dumped it y'day due to its battery abuse.

<comment> dao- Let me paste my answer to another user reporting (seemingly) the same issue:

Are you using scaled resolution? Then it's a known issue that is being investigated and will hopefully be fixed soon: [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1404042](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1404042)

<comment><USER56> I did not change any default settings for FF 57.

Just checked the config: layout.css.devPixelsPx, default, string, -1.0

Edit: Checked the screen resolution as well: it is default, but not scaled.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> > Even worse is Google's policy of prohibiting the installation of 3rd party > web browsers on Chrome OS devices. Firefox simply can't be installed on any > Chromebook.

The Android version of Firefox can be installed on Chrome OS though.

</comment><comment><USER58> It can, but Quantum was basically just the _very start_ of that journey. They'll need to try and keep one step ahead of Chrome with every release. If they can do that, they'll rebuild the following.

</comment><comment><USER59> Generally, the new FF is great. One small criticism - their GPU accelerated CSS animations are a bit choppy on mobiles (these a generally very smooth on chrome and Safari).

<comment><USER60> What platform? Do you have an example url?

<comment><USER59> Also, noticed another thing - on Android, using FF nightly, I couldn't access a local network URL via FF (Unable to connect message), but could with Chrome - example URL [http://10.0.130.64/path](http://10.0.130.64/path)

<comment><USER61> Accessing my router on [http://192.168.1.1/](http://192.168.1.1/) works fine for me. Firefox beta 58 on Android 7.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Firefox' path to market share growth has to go through mobile. How to get users to switch from preinstalled good-enough Chrome is the tough nut to crack, though.

<comment><USER63> I wonder if the EU will start to consider the situations with iOS and Android equivalent to Microsoft bundling IE ... giving users an obvious post-install choice might help a lot.

<comment><USER64> Neither iOS nor Android are over 90% marketshare, as Windows was at the time of the anti-trust bundling case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> I love FireFox, it's been my primary browser for many years but this is a drop in the bucket of what would make a regular user switch browsers.

</comment><comment><USER66> I've been using Firefox Focus on Android for most things, and if they don't work then I use regular Firefox. I rarely have to use Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER67> So happy with Firefox and the Open Web concept. I've completely switched and happy to stop using Google and Apple products. #openweb

</comment><comment><USER68> FFQ is my new daily driver for regular browsing but I will still be developing with Chrome

</comment><comment><USER69> still check if pitch to zoom available every week from FF. My eyes is not good without zooming :(

</comment><comment><USER70> Yes

</comment><comment><USER71> It is not as fast as advertised. It is not even 'fast', composing emails in Google Inbox web app is laggy AF...

<comment><USER72> Google Inbox web app is laggy af in Chrome for me, honestly. I use it for work. I'm on Firefox Nightly and it's super fast everywhere except for the Google Web Apps (which aren't butter smooth on any browser, even Chrome).

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Quantum was annoying enough to kill Firefox for me completely. I've completely shifted.

EDIT: Added explanation

The big issue is I often switch between Browsers for work. So I often switch between Chrome, Firefox, and Opera with custom extensions for my workflow.

With the amount of choice, I don't need to stick with a browser that makes my life harder than easier.

Chrome is my main browser now, it was already getting close to majority usage for me.

<comment><USER74> What did you switch to? Was it due to extensions?

<comment><USER75> I feel like there's a lot of anti-Mozilla trolls on this particular comments section. Compared to most other articles on HN, it just doesn't align with the views I've heard elsewhere, and certainly doesn't align with my experience as a happy Firefox user.

<comment><USER22> How do you tell "anti-Mozilla troll" from a genuinely dissapointed user? I'm currently on FF ESR, once my favorite extentsions stop working there I might as well switch the browser completely, since my UX will be completely reset just as it would be with a entirely different browser.

I'm not saying I will switch to something else (other browsers seem equally unusable to me as FF57 is currently), but I will certainly try all the options to find out if something else isn't at least marginally better than FF57.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Professional design advice for a simple flat fee - <AUTHOR> https://www.dustinkirk.com?ref=hn2

<comment><USER2> You've submitted this 5 times in the last 2 months. [https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=pseudometa](https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=pseudometa)

That might be a bit excessive.</comment>


How Institutional Complaints Procedures Are Being Weaponized - <AUTHOR> https://quillette.com/2018/05/24/come-attention-institutional-complaints-procedures-weaponized/ <comment><USER2> It's sad how these institutional procedures deny basic legal rights by not allowing you to confront your accusers, examine evidence, or hire competent legal council. Without these important protections, its no wonder they're abused.</comment>


Show HN: An Interactive CLI Tutorial - <AUTHOR> http://gsundeep.com/cli

<comment><USER2> This is a brilliant idea, but the implementation is a bit poor in my opinion.

In other tutorials (such as Try Ruby, for example), the input is actually parsed and executed. I've found people like to play around a bit and try things the tutorial doesn't specify, such as grepping a different part of the limerick or catting a different file.

I know it might be hard to implement but it's much more pleasing to have a more complete simulation - I got confused when I tried to grep 'yo-ho-ho' and just got the full limerick (though I haven't used grep much so I might be at fault here)

Good luck with it!

<comment><AUTHOR> Great points. I'll attempt to implement a "real" grep soon.

Thanks for the feedback!</comment></comment>


Hands-on with virtual reality using A-Frame, React and Redux - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/immersion-for-the-win/hands-on-with-virtual-reality-using-a-frame-react-and-redux-bc66240834f7#.cfmodcayu <comment><USER2> BTW: WebVR is now enabled by default in Firefox Nightly

[https://www.reddit.com/r/WebVR/comments/3zmclh/webvr_enabled...](https://www.reddit.com/r/WebVR/comments/3zmclh/webvr_enabled_by_default_in_firefox_nightly/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Calling this WebVR is stretching the definition of VR. Its 3d content for sure. But does it support HMDs? Can it render at 90 fps?

<comment><USER4> I'm the author of the article and the code example, and I can confirm that it runs well on Google Cardboard, Gear VR and the Oculus Rift DK2.

By "running well" I mean within the limitations of the framerate browsers can currently produce, which is definitely not 90 or 120 fps.

The best performance I've had with WebVR has been a very stable 75 fps in Firefox using this configuration: [https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/web-vr- discuss/2015-Novem...](https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/web-vr- discuss/2015-November/000929.html)

<comment><USER5> How do you run on Gear VR? The Samsung browser doesn't support Web VR yet.

<comment><USER4> [https://www.reddit.com/r/GearVR/comments/3c061s/cardboard_on...](https://www.reddit.com/r/GearVR/comments/3c061s/cardboard_on_gear_vr_for_s6_easy_nonroot_solution/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Free Push Infrastructure for RSS Reader - <AUTHOR> http://rsspusher.eu01.aws.af.cm/

<comment><AUTHOR> Ui - frontpage, if I see that correctly. Thanks for the upvotes.

Some comments to the project: I built it, because i found myself using/implementing pubsubhubbub in another project of mine and realized I would like to subscribe to all possible feeds. Also, I remembered a comment about a free rss reader written on hn, that it is so hard to self-host that reader because of the needed polling infrastructure...

I don't know how you judge the code-quality. But one lection for me was that I once again liked it very much to write something with Ruby and Sinatra. I was quite suprised to find myself using Yahoo Pipes. And the first time I used rest-client, seems good to me.

I would listen to comments made here. Is the explanation enough for the start? The code should be easy enough, or isn't it?</comment>


Cal Henderson leaves Flickr to create new startup - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/after-leaving-yahoo-flickr-creators-team-up-for-a-new-startup-2009-4

<comment><AUTHOR> Cal Henderson gave one of the DjangoCon 2008 keynote talks, and it's very good: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6Fr65PFqfk>

He seems to know his stuff. Good luck to them.</comment>


Optimizing a breadth-first search - <AUTHOR> https://www.snellman.net/blog/archive/2018-07-23-optimizing-breadth-first-search/ <comment><USER2> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterative_deepening_depth- firs...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterative_deepening_depth-first_search)

Edit: for context, wasn't meant to be "zomg how you so dumb" so much as "everyone should also read, cause is relevant".

<comment><USER3> This was my thought too, but I don't want to assume: he cites enough standard but specific sources that he should know the general search algorithms. Also I think that since he doesn't mention standard depth first search at all it perhaps wasn't relevant?

<comment><USER4> As mentioned briefly in the introduction, I didn't have good heuristics to use for a scoring function. A totally undirected DFS didn't seem like a great option. The readme links to an existing Python-based solver for the same game [0], which had both BFS and DFS modes. The DFS one was considerably slower on large puzzles even when given the optimal target depth.

Totally happy to believe I'm wrong about that, though :)

[0] [https://github.com/apocalyptech/snakebirdsolver](https://github.com/apocalyptech/snakebirdsolver)

<comment><USER2> It's a super interesting post, and I've no reason to think that iterative deepening would be better, just that it is designed to deal with exactly this problem. The lack of growth in novel states may invalidate its main hypothesis though (tree-like growth).

The Python version seems to do DFS using function calls, and I could imagine this isn't the most performant way to do it. Also, the description implies that their DFS implementation retains state; not sure what to make of it, and not a Python reader:

> Depth-First should be a bit kinder to system memory, though it'll still chew > up quite a bit remembering which game states we've seen before.

<comment><USER4> Fair enough, and it's easy to test :)

I made a non-iterative DFS, but hardcoded the maximum depth to the optimal solution. On a trivial puzzle that should take <1ms, it takes 6 seconds. The BFS visits 303 states, the DFS 9M (but only 237 unique ones). This is with deduping the states on the path. If we allow the same state on the path multiple times, it'd be 12s, 50M visited states, 239 unique states. This is with a random visiting order, it'd be a bit worse with a static visiting order.

This is obviously not fully optimized code (whee, std::unordered_set). But fixing that won't help when we're off by 3-4 orders of magnitude. I think the shape of the search graph of this game just isn't well suited to any form of DFS, there are far too many alternate paths to each state.

<comment><USER3> Thank you. It's interesting to see the explosion of states. You could add a cache (per search depth) to deduplicate states again. It will reduce small cycles and the used memory is easier to control.

Kudos for the encoding. 0.7 bits per state is dense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Something has happened to Comp Sci programs over the past 3 decades. Based on what's too small a sample size (the graduates I've been interviewing in SF) it seems like a very large number of graduates from CS programs with 3.75 GPAs or above, can't do much more than glue together libraries, can't practically design a system on their own, and if ever confronted with a graph theory problem, can't do much more than name-drop algorithms, and fall far short of being able to implement those algorithms.

There are literally problems that were 1) once covered in freshman year, 2) could once be recognized and solved by CS grads in seconds, 3) stump recent CS graduates, 4) prompt HN commenters to say how they could solve it if given a few days, and 5) come up in conversation if you go to meetups and talk to people doing actual work.

How does this relate to BFS? It used to be that someone trained as a computer scientist would look at a data structure or a graph and start running some quick gedankenexperiments: What would happen if I tried to find that with DFS? What would happen if I tried to find that with BFS? Those aren't going to be suitable solutions for all problems, but it's a good place to start thinking. There seem to be a large number of recent grads who can't even get that far.

<comment><USER6> I think you are using very rose colored glasses looking at the past. The best of the best could do that, likely. However, few could ever do things in seconds. Nor is there really any benefit in being able to solve something in seconds.

Interestingly, to me, it seems our industry was dominated by people that got good at gluing things together. To a very large degree. We bemoan this when we talk about how much more responsive machines used to be, but I think there can be very little denying that computers do more.

Granted, I suspect I am at best one of the bad graduates you are referencing. :(

<comment><USER7> Nobody here would deny the business value of gluing APIs together. We're not asking for your empathy, either; but we are telling you the truth about the difference between where the bar was and where it is now.

The idea that "computers are fast, my code just needs to work" is a really really horrible way to treat your users' devices. A whole host of similar ideas are now popular, and it's pretty obvious that it's because the industry is now dominated by people that are (just) good at gluing things together. This is a bad thing.

<comment><USER6> I'd wager the bar wasn't as high back then as you think. Most people still wrote inefficient things. Lots of it. There is a hope that most of the inefficient things flat out stalled out due to needing to be much more frugal of resources, but I don't know of any data backing that.

So, seriously, do you have data showing that the bar is lower? Or are you just performing selection and survivor bias to get such a negative view? (Similarly, am I doing the same to get a positive view?)

My main qualm is people that seem to hold incoming folks to the bar that they have today, without acknowledging the growth that was necessary for some of that. As a parent, I fully know my children will be better at most everything than I am. In time. Same for most of the younger generation coming out of college into the industry. Most are or will be better than I am. Pretty much full stop.

<comment><USER5> _I 'd wager the bar wasn't as high back then as you think. Most people still wrote inefficient things. Lots of it._

Lots of those people who wrote inefficient things were the C students in Comp Sci. A lot of those people writing bad code were home-grown programmers who were completely missing pieces of knowledge. From what I saw as an undergrad, it wasn't the 3.75 GPA CS students who were doing those things.

 _So, seriously, do you have data showing that the bar is lower?_

It's not my job to do such studies, however I do interview job applicants. A disturbingly large number of applicants, who all have 3.75+ GPAs, try to tell me nonsense, like "null pointers take up no data." I'd say I encounter something about as egregious as that with a bit short of half. In my recollections of interactions with classmates, I could take it for granted that CS students who made it past Freshman year knew enough to actually implement algorithms and could actually implement a recursive function. If you had tried to talk to them about such things as some kind of deep esoteric knowledge, they would've just given you a funny look.

<comment><USER6> More assertions that I just don't know that I buy. I don't ultimately think you have to take my assertions as valid counterpoints, but as things currently stand, I don't think either of us have actually presented any data. I'm just not asking anyone to believe that things are truly different than they used to be.

I've similarly been doing interviews for upwards of 20 years now. There are some particularly bad interviews I've done recently, but there were some particularly bad ones I did towards the beginning of my career, as well. Worse, some of the senior engineers I used to be under were quite bad, all told. (Which does not take away from many of the ones I was with that were bloody amazing.)

<comment><USER5> _I don 't ultimately think you have to take my assertions as valid counterpoints_

Many of your supposed counterpoints are straw-man. No one is expecting someone to have memorized or to reinvent KMP or this algorithm or that. What we're looking at is basic understanding and _conceptual tools_.

 _I 'm just not asking anyone to believe that things are truly different than they used to be._

But things are clearly different than they were years ago. The number of CS grads has fluctuated a lot, in response to increased investment and industry bubbles bursting. Things are clearly very different today than they were in the early 90's.

[https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_349.asp](https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_349.asp)

We also covered "gluing things together" in the early 90's. The concept was already very well worn even when I was a newly minted CS grad, with Jon Bentley discussing it in Programming Pearls using awk. The thing is this: We would also glue libraries together, but we did that while applying our generalist knowledge. It seems to me that there are a whole lot of CS grads who get through their entire undergrad education pretty much only doing that. Maybe that's all well and good, and they can accomplish many great things this way. However, it seems to me that much of the basic generalist knowledge is now mistakenly labeled as "specialist" and is needlessly missing from the general population.

<comment><USER6> (Just so it isn't completely lost, I basically merged my answer for this in the above branch. Realized it was both of us on both of these out croppings, didn't see the point in pretending it was two discussions. :) )

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > 100GB of memory would be trivial at work, but this was my home machine with > 16GB of RAM. And since Chrome needs 12GB of that, my actual memory budget > was more like 4GB. Anything in excess of that would have to go to disk (the > spinning rust kind).

I hope this is a joke, although it's a little scary totalling up how much Chrome is chewing right now, with just one window and seven tabs open...</comment>


Tim Ferris: How to Write a Bestselling Book - <AUTHOR> http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2014/02/04/how-to-get-published/

<comment><USER2> Love him or hate him, this list of reading he's providing looks pretty good.

Time for me to write the 2 Hour Body or the 1 Hour MBA.

<comment><USER3> It definitely looks like quite a good chunk of links. I never really delved into the traditional publishing route until after I had already self-published and I'm particularly interested to read about some of that stuff.</comment></comment>


Greater speed in memory-bound graph algorithms with just straight C code - <AUTHOR> https://lemire.me/blog/2018/05/28/greater-speed-in-memory-bound-graph-algorithms-with-just-straight-c-code/ <comment><AUTHOR> Interesting approach for optimization of an algorithm that I haven't seen in any books(as the author also mentions).

Is there any comprehensive resource for these, or does everyone kind of fiddle around and stumble on these independently. I have always been curious about 'hacks' such as the Fast inverse square root method. How does anyone figure these out in the first place?</comment>


Poor count() performance with MySQL compared to PostgreSQL with JSON datasets - <AUTHOR> https://malloc.fi/mysql-poor-count-performance-postgresql-json <comment><USER2> Did you try SELECT COUNT(*) FROM trip ?

MySQL has optimizations for that, and since you're counting the primary key column, which can't contain NULL values, the result will be the same.

You might want to move the JSON column to a separate table with a 1:1 relationship (same primary key) to keep the row size down in the main table.

</comment><comment><USER3> What are the advantages of using JSON instead of Blob in the DB and convert the blob in JSON in code?</comment>