Ask news.yc: How do I break up with my co-founder? - <AUTHOR>

The situation:
There are two of us. We are pre-incorporation. I had the original idea. We have done some brainstorming/discussing, and as things start to get more concrete, I'm finding out that my co-founder is not generating the quality of work that I had expected, and the personalities don't match quite right. I don't feel comfortable going forward with this person as my partner.
How do I break up with my co-founder?
My concerns:
a) personal-- not being an asshole.
b) operational-- not having this suck the life out of the project
c) legal -- I don't want a Facebook/ConnectU situation down the road
d) strategic -- not that I expect it to happen, but what's to stop my-soon-to-be-ex-co-founder from taking the idea and finding someone else to execute it? [insert standard boilerplate here about ideas being worth nothing without execution]
ideas?
(submitted anonymously for obvious reasons) <comment><USER2> Just this morning I wrote and email to the 3 other people involved in the project I was working on explaining why I was leaving and what I felt the correct split up was.

I had been doing the majority of the work and the rest of the team was not performing to the level I had expected as well as not meeting several deadlines that they had agreed to.

The only real sticky part is that the really great flashy idea was from one of the other people, who has the potential to pull a ConnectU, but not really a leg to stand on.

No one besides me wrote a bit of code, except there was a minimalistic HTML design stuff.

I made sure to explain what my reasons were for the split and why I was leaving and did say that I intended to make something derivative, although not in direct competition. The platform was more interesting to me then the community site that was the other person's idea. So I'll just think it through and find another way to implement the community aspect without the exact implementation that he had.

The bottom line is that this happens and it is better to make the break earlier, especially before the incorporation. Start looking for a new co- founder and get a better sense of their work before you enter into any kind of a partnership.

As for the IP part of it, that's life. If you never share the idea with anyone without legal papers first you'll never share the idea with anyone who will help you with it in the early stages.

Also, make sure that they are on the same page as you concerning work ethics and integrity. They might be able to become a better hacker, but if they are trying to trick people and pulling underhanded stunts that is a direct reflection on you ...

</comment><comment><USER3> Are you completely sure that it can't be salvaged? Have you talked to your co- founder about the sort of work you were expecting? If you've not called them on it previously, they're probably assuming everything is fine. A gentle prod may be all it needs.

If you really must break up (I feel like I'm giving marriage counselling here...) I'm sure you can do it without being an asshole, something along the lines of the letter you've posted here would be fine - to the point and no personal attacks.

As for your partner having your IP now, well that's probably too late now - horse, stable door, bolted etc. I think the best you can manage is to perhaps come up with some sort of agreement (possibly consult a legal-document- writing-type-person to get this in writing) so that you both agree not to sue each other in the event that either one of you does well with it and the other gets sue happy.

Yes, it'll set you back and you'll have to find someone else which is why I suggest you try and work it out first. Otherwise, I'm sure there web sites where you can advertise for this sort of thing ;-)

Failing all of this and you decide to ignore my advice, I would suggest a fight to the death involving pistols at dawn or something.

<comment><USER4> "Are you completely sure that it can't be salvaged? Have you talked to your co-founder about the sort of work you were expecting? If you've not called them on it previously, they're probably assuming everything is fine. A gentle prod may be all it needs."

It's too early to treat it this way. This is a total Splitsville situation.

<comment><USER5> I couldn't agree more - it's all too easy to construct your own interpretation of what's happening and then convince yourself it's the absolute truth. Before you split you need to talk to your co-founder and at least give him a chance to put his side of the story forward.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> a) "It's business", move on.

b) Don't let it! Move on, worst thing you could do is drag this on and not be up front and clear cut about it, because then it will drag the life out of the project and you.

c) Talk to your lawyer! IANAL, but -- Have you signed anything? If it's pre- incorporation, and you haven't agreed to anything, it's kind of a non-issue. As for ConnectU, I bet the case gets thrown out anyways, they don't have a very strong case and the judge is already annoyed with them.

d) You answered it yourself, plus you've learned a valuable lesson about getting the legalities out of the way before engaging in any part of the business. A good part of incorporating is so that you have a clear way of dealing with dispute resolutions such as this when they arise (and believe me they will!)

<comment><USER7> For part c), I suspect he's thinking he's going to be ConnectU trying to prove that the idea was his to begin with.

My suggestion is to try to find something that he's good at, and let him work on that. Otherwise, before you incorporate, sit him down and ask him flat out if he's committed to the project and share your concerns.

Very few projects I've worked on have succeeded without good communication. Sometimes it's just a matter of realizing that you're going to be the one carrying most of the weight (and varying equity to reflect this may be something you want to consider).

<comment><USER4> "I suspect he's thinking he's going to be ConnectU trying to prove that the idea was his to begin with."

Then he'd be the one in the team that wasn't delivering. We're taking OP at face value and assuming he is the one that can deliver a product that the world likes and that the other person is lacking in that area.

<comment><USER7> As I understand it, ConnectU brought Mark Zuckerberg onto the existing project. From there, Zuckerberg allegedly forked the code into what is now known as Facebook. (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook>)

So assuming OP=ConnectU, the legal issues the OP's afraid of is that his partner will fork the existing code into something successful, even though OP has done most of the work thus far.

At least this is how I interpret it. Please correct me if I'm wrong!

<comment><USER4> We agree in our interpretation, but disagree in whether this is a cause for concern.

If his partner can fork it and build something successful faster than OP, then the OP isn't the productive one and his current deadbeat partner is, the premise of OP is invalid.

Based on the original post, the OP thinks he is the one that can deliver and that his partner can't. If OP can't deliver a product that people want, none of this matters.

That's all I'm saying. You're assuming that ConnectU would have been successful if Facebook hadn't happened. I don't believe that to be the case.

<comment><USER7> I agree that we agree in our interpretation... =)

I thought of this analogy in terms of existing code (rather than being able to deliver, because OP's partner could take the idea and find someone else to do the code). The OP wrote the existing code, which is allegedly what happened to ConnectU. Of course, if you discount the allegations and assume that Zuckerberg wrote the code himself, then the existing code argument is irrelevant.

This is an interesting debate that can actually be answered if the OP chimed in to explain what he meant!

Re ConnectU: I never assumed that ConnectU would have been successful if Facebook hadn't happened. In fact, I believe that the only way ConnectU would have been successful is if Mark Zuckerberg stayed on that project (or _maybe_ if ConnectU made him sign a NCA).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> a) personal-- not being an asshole.

\-- if you know its going to be an issue, its going to be a bigger one later. do what is fair and right as soon as possible. if you need to go your own ways, thats what you need to do, there is always a new twist on an old idea waiting to be developed. having been through this on the other side, i started a company a while ago, sensed things were not right and then after i spent an additional 100k on salaries and training, the guys left with jobs at another company and i was left with nothing. as an entrepreneur you have to learn to trust your gut it will allow you to make the first move advantage.

b) operational-- not having this suck the life out of the project

\--it may, and you will have to face that. most likely you can say that you share ownership of the code/ idea and you can not exclude each other from using it, else release it to the public domain and make sure that either of you can use it along with the world. the value in something is being able to move it forward, not in what you have already produced. if you are so early in the company its likely that you have not produced enough to directly execute, you will need to still move the code/ project forwards. quite a bit.

c) legal -- I don't want a Facebook/ConnectU situation down the road

\-- rethink the problem and solution, for our group, we agreed to own our own code up until the point it was real, maybe you loose a bit of the code, but if there was no nda between members you can go off an recreate it with your own twist. not every idea is novel and unless the patent process was started then that maybe your defense moving forwards.

d) strategic -- not that I expect it to happen, but what's to stop my-soon-to- be-ex-co-founder from taking the idea and finding someone else to execute it? [insert standard boilerplate here about ideas being worth nothing without execution]

consumers like choice and having core differences in values between two competing products helps define the market better and broader. if you are going to compete head to head with a co-founder i am sure you are going to have different core values to derive as a niche. but, even though you are competing, you will be sharing the burden of advertising and developing your market. Java, helped sell .Net; friendster, helped sell MySpace and Facebook; hotmail, helped sell gmail, etc.... competition is good, and a market without any might not be much of a market at all. do not fear the genre, find ways to embrace it.

you might find that you can form two separate businesses that share an initial code base and your partner might go for it if he feels you are driving the company in the wrong direction too.

</comment><comment><USER9> Some good advice: [http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/paul+simon/50+ways+to+leave+you...](http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/paul+simon/50+ways+to+leave+your+lover_20105950.html)

I can't comment on (c) but:

a: Just be open about your reasons. It isn't a personal attack to say someone is a slow/inefficient worker.

b: Work away from the partner. I hope you aren't roommates

c: Ideas aren't worth much, and it sounds like your friend isn't the competition to worry about.

I would follow the advice you hear when you read about how to quit: be direct, polite, in a private/scheduled meeting, and open.

</comment><comment><USER10> Kill the company/project/idea. If you really like the idea, start fresh with new code, new names, etc etc. Your company is way to young to be having this type of problem. It will only get worse.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'd offer them a copy of the whole thing and let 'em compete if they want to. Or buy them out for a few grand. Or put the idea on the shelf and pursue something else.

Or tell them YOU want out for personal reasons, but you'd like to have a written agreement saying you could pursue this on your own down the road at some point.

Next time get a boilerplate buy/sell agreement as early as you can... It's like a prenup and provides clear guidelines for parting ways.

</comment><comment><USER12> Ask the other person what they think is fair. 90% of the time the other person will underestimate their own value relative to what you were going to offer anyway.

</comment><comment><USER13> Three possible solutions to this quandry:

a) Annoy your co-founder like a nagging girlfriend and he will break up with you instead of you breaking up with him. Everytime he uploads a new file or makes a change, complain about it. Ask him to work longer hours or pay you through equity to work longer hours. Find new ways to nag him to no end. Pretty soon he will find you terrible and give up, giving you the project and you will never have to worry again.

If solution "A" doesn't solve the problem move to solution B.

b) Cut and run, now. When you become a multi-millionaire he may go after you. Even if he does, well you are a multi-millionaire and have the money to fight (aka FaceBook).

If solution "B" doesn't solve the problem move to solution C.

c) Program naked, demand that your co-founder be there so you can collaborate closer to come up with the best product. Tell him you won't program unless if he is there.

\---

I believe you have a self-confidence problem, it is very important to be confident in yourself. If your partner is not pulling his weight and you are not far enough into the project to determine if it is worth a red hot cent then it is a great time to split.

Then give him everything you have done and set it up for him on another server. You program on your copy, he programs on his copy, if he ever bothers. I am sure he won't so that means that you will never owe him anything.

<comment><USER13> I want to add this, I was in a situation where I had a co-founder who didn't program much except doing some html and I had to do all of the code. He was also supposed to sell the accounts and we would split the money coming in 50/50.

That system was www.profolios.com which I am very proud of, I made it in about 2003 and it works pretty good (although the html design is dated the backend code is excellent).

We parted ways, I left him with the code and I have the code too. I have not decided to do anything with it yet but one day I might.

This was the most equitable solution because I didn't want to leave him hanging. He did try on his part to contribute but things just didn't work out. Life is like that but now he is happy and I am perfectly happy too. I eventually found a domain modelcoach.com on tdnam.com and picked it up. One day I might revamp the model system code and put it back out there as a service. I just have been focusing in on other things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> No worries, when you get frustrated enough none of the above four points will matter. You'd do anything to get rid of him.

All that is assuming you have a valid case against him not contributing--and not just "we don't get along".

<comment><USER15> I would suggest that "we dont get along" if really true is a good a reason as any to split. If you're not getting along now and have really tried its not going to get any better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Just one question.

What did your partner feels about your work?

</comment><comment><USER17> Do you want to move on because you aren't making much progress with them, or you are making progress in spite of them (they are slowing you down)?

</comment><comment><USER18> Are you sure it can't be salvaged? How about just having a frank discussion? You might be surprised.

<comment><USER4> This isn't a marriage, and if you want to use the analog, then it sounds like the "child" is still-born and really wasn't the original posters to begin with. The time to leave is now. I doesn't get cheaper, easier, or less legally entangling, later on.

Hire slow and fire fast applies to co-founders as well as employees. More, even. An employee can drain a lot of value from a company, but a co-founder can destroy it single-handedly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> sleep with his wife

<comment><USER8> lol, also a bad idea.</comment></comment>


The prospects for 128 bit processors (1995) - <AUTHOR> http://yarchive.net/comp/128bit.html

<comment><USER2> Scaling to a 128 bit system is pretty hard on the layout level. On current designs, something like 95% of the surface is metal interconnects. Where there's metal you're limited in freedom to place transistors. So with 128-bit systems you're looking at 128-bit registers, address buses and data buses. Those take up a lot of real estate on the die and you can only go so far in narrowing them by using layers. 128-bit is a really really wide highway on a CPU.

That doesn't mean that 128-bit systems can't be built. What it does mean is that upgrading a current 64-bit CPU to a 128-bit CPU involves sacrifices. Current-gen 64-bit systems contain a lot of optimizations in silico (branch predictors, cache predictors, ...) and control structures and that's where the problem lies: each optimization (literally) taps into that wide highway and creates dead zones on the die that contain nothing more than metal. And everywhere you tap you create zones where layering can only be applied with reduced freedom.

</comment><comment><USER3> There was once something call a cellarc CPU that promised a 1024 bit architecture and teraflop speeds. Hard to find any info about it now.</comment>


Teach your kids about the NSA with the help of CryptoCat and DecipherDog. - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/06/07/cryptokids_nsa_teach_your_kids_about_the_nsa_with_the_help_of_cryptocat.html <comment><USER2> The campy NSA kids' website has nothing to do with recruitment; the Clinton administration required all Federal agencies to create websites for children in an April 18, 1997 memorandum [1]. This is clearly spelled out in the terms- of-use at nsa.gov [2].

[1]: [https://www.cia.gov/kids-page/privacy- statement/whmemo.txt](https://www.cia.gov/kids-page/privacy- statement/whmemo.txt)

[2]: [http://www.nsa.gov/terms_of_use.shtml#kids](http://www.nsa.gov/terms_of_use.shtml#kids)

<comment><USER3> Fascinating. What are some other websites like this? Are there any that were created right after the 1997 memorandum and then never updated?

<comment><USER2> NRO has some Flash games. There's also ATF for kids, CIA for kids, US Marshals Service for kids ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> At first I thought this was about [https://crypto.cat/](https://crypto.cat/)

And maybe this is the answer to the NSA's CryptoCat.

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't know why the NSA would need a specific children's site as a recruitment tool... with the information they are pulling, couldn't they just watch the child's behavior and identify the ones who represent the best candidates to become spooks based on their internet activity, Facebook likes and personal social network (outside FB)?

I'm disappointed that they have all of this and don't see the value in what they are collecting... __Note the sarcasm __

<comment><USER6> Maybe the best candidates are so apt at covering their tracks that they never make a blip on the radar. hehe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> What ever happened to CryptoCat man after he discovered he had been rooted by the Canadian Intel people? He was as freaked out as could be (prudently) and then I haven't really heard about it since

<comment><USER8> s/discovered/suspected/

You're right about the freaked out part though...

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's a double edged sword. The more people are educated about cryptography, the more they can resist the abusive surveillance.

</comment><comment><USER10> The characters are trademarked. That's disappointing. They would be much more useful in the public domain.</comment>


AskHN: How do I find how old a particular web page is? - <AUTHOR> Hi fellow HNer's,
I am looking to find how old a particular web page is, not a domain. Please understand the difference.
For ex, I am trying to figure out if the information on this web page is outdated since it is pertaining to a law passed at the beginning of this millennia.
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/critical-appraisal-information-technology-act-2000/
If it's not more than 2 years old, I can safely say that the info is bit relevant to my work.
I did a quick Google search but most of the sites speak only of domain age.
Someone please help me out here.
Thanks in advance for any help you could extend. <comment><USER2> Unless the page includes a date of creation or publication (and far too many do not include such dates) then your best bet for an approximate date is as @ohiovr says, use the wayback machine and see how far back in their archives they have a copy of the page.

</comment><comment><USER3> The internet wayback machine might offer some clues to the age of a web page

[https://archive.org/web/](https://archive.org/web/)</comment>


Animal Domestication: Taming the Wild - <AUTHOR> http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/03/taming-wild-animals/ratliff-text <comment><USER2> I got a tour of this place a few years ago when I was in Novosibirsk for a genomics conference. I'll see if I can dig up the pictures and videos, but a few observations.

1\. The different body characteristics (fur coat, ribs, ears, etc) do make the tame foxes look like dogs, more than a wild animal. It's fascinating why those two things co-evolve.

2\. The tame foxes (and especially minxes) seemed more mentally challenged than tame. For example, the tame minxes and foxes would just sit around and purr/drool, and that's pretty much all they did.

3\. The untamed ones looked very unhappy in their cages.

4\. When I was there, they had already begun selling the foxes to rich westerners. I think the going rate was a few thousand dollars per fox.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think your points get at Belyaev's original intentions for the experiments. His papers are not so much "wouldn't it be cool if we could domesticate foxes in just a few generations", but speak much more to the fact that, as you select for behavioral traits, physical traits are sort of unintentionally selected. The interesting thing about it (though I don't think Belyaev said this) is that the domesticated physical traits tend to be "cute" by our standards. For example, the domesticated foxes have proportionally wider skulls, which I can't help but read and think about this: [http://www.exploratorium.edu/mind/judgment/cuteify/v1/](http://www.exploratorium.edu/mind/judgment/cuteify/v1/)

<comment><USER3> Well, our definition of "cute" stems from thousands of years of answering the question "will this animal kill me". Those who successfully answered that could procreate, the others not so much.

<comment><USER4> I'd say it's more likely that our definition of "cute" stems from the question "is this a human baby".

<comment><USER5> And what if I don't find other human babies cute? But still find all kittens and puppies cute?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Video on experiment: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jFGNQScRNY&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jFGNQScRNY&feature=youtu.be)

<comment><USER6> You can see another here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L58NPPQ5eI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L58NPPQ5eI) \- this one is less of a documentary but better illustrates the contrast in behavior between the wild dark foxes versus the artificially selected tamer silver foxes. They're cool, I wouldn't mind having a fox as a pet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wonder if this type of domestication wouldn't be possible with raccoons or some of the great apes, maybe giving other traits like intelligence equal footing with docility. Uplift, in the David Brin sense.

<comment><USER8> Cats were smarter and self-domesticated themselves

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> There's some sort of "exotic pet" start-up here. It may take 10 years of development, but the research costs would be relatively low. I wonder what the ethics of that would be.

<comment><USER10> Breeding animals as pets is gently problematic when there are so many unwanted animals that would make very good pets.

Traditional breeding is notoriously bad at avoiding genetic defects and temperament problems. Mutts avoid a bunch of those.

If you charge enough you could fund humane death for surplus animals (tricky to persuade people this is a good thing) or better animal shelters, which would help reduce some of the problems.

<comment><USER11> > Traditional breeding is notoriously bad at avoiding genetic defects and > temperament problems. Mutts avoid a bunch of those.

A large number of mutts are also either born or placed into bad situations and end up developing social and temperamental issues as a result, which become increasingly difficult to overcome the older they get.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here's the article I originally wanted to post but couldn't find. Does a much better job than the more cursory nat geo piece. [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/807641/posts](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/807641/posts)

</comment><comment><USER12> What patience these scientists had! What dedication to their discipline! Imagine losing your brother to a labor camp and still continuing the work he was punished for. Amazing!

And these were not experiments that gave results in just a few months. These guys were laboring for decades!

</comment><comment><USER13> The description of the article following the title is flawed. It reads _Only a handful of wild animal species have been successfully bred to get along with humans. The reason, scientists say, is found in their genes._

But that's not what the article says - well, not directly or explicitly. Yes, I am being pedantic, and yes, I agree that this is likely the case. But as the article points out later on, _Identifying the precise genetic footprint involved in tameness, however, is proving extremely tricky science... domestication is driven not by a single gene but a suite of genetic changes._

It's an interesting project, to be sure. Might it identify a complex of genes necessary (but not sufficient) to domestication? Maybe.

Or maybe not.

</comment><comment><USER14> RadioLab had an episode on this:

[http://www.radiolab.org/story/91696-new- nice/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/91696-new-nice/)

</comment><comment><USER15> awesome article.

if only it would be as easy to domesticate humans. sadly there is no life form on earth that has the intelligence to domesticate us into a more peaceful species.

<comment><USER16> Domestication of humans is what came to my mind on this topic. I'm not sure I would agree with you that we aren't being domesticated. Maybe countries domesticate humans? Maybe the most violent countries have the least domesticated humans? Maybe freedom and individuality combat domestication? It's definitely worth thinking about!

<comment><USER17> If you look at the driving causes of domestication in animals, it's typically the fact that surviving is no challenge — e.g. food and shelter are easy to come by, danger is rare, and there's little need to fight with other animals or those of the same species.

Following this, I'd think that the same conditions would domesticate humans. There's no reason it wouldn't; there's little value for aggressive behavior in a world where aggressiveness simply isn't necessary (and possibly even looked down upon).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Does anyone know how many foxes they started with for the experiment?

</comment><comment><USER19> I suspect something like this happens with entire societies and humans.

When you first travel to the US you realize there is a different breed of people there. The native American population was basically exterminated and replaced with a European population that were tired of the State, of the kings and the Church and leaved all behind for going there . Also they send to the US lots of prostitutes as women, and then withing America, they send the "wild women" to the West.

You almost could feel the Mustang or Maverick spirit. I have only seen this spirit in some places in Africa.

On the other side when you go to Asia, you find the other side of the coin, submissive to the limit, society not tolerating any minimal deviation of the norm of the pack.</comment>


Jason Calacanis has quit blogging  - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/24/AR2008082401517_pf.html

<comment><USER2> Jason should really just open a PR firm, at least he's good at that</comment>


Ask HN: How did you get started in Network Security/Penetration Testing? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I've been a professional software developer for the last 4-5 years, but never took security serious until iot took off. Get some raspberry pis, install kali Linux on a VM or spare computer, and go to work! It's just so easy and cheap to setup a pen test lab. I'd recommend every dev have a few attack machines for fun. That's how I got _started_.

It's also a huge field. Try checking out security in your current discipline. I was a web developer in 2013, so it was natural that I was inclined to look at SQL injections, XSS, packet sniffing, Etc. I already understood the domain. That is easier than jumping into reverse engineering firm ware if you have no xp.

Now after a couple years of practice, I'm recommitted to security. Huge issue in our current tech ecosystem. I was just approved to take CEH and will be taking it next month. To make it official. If you need some structure to your learning and want to make a career move, check out getting an industry base cert like the CEH or offensive arc cert. most security jobs prefer candidates to have at least one, and they're not incredibly difficult.

Happy pwning!

<comment><AUTHOR> "It's also a huge field. Try checking out security in your current discipline."

I'm actually 15 at the moment with basically no experience besides messing around with kali tools like a script kiddie.

Got any tips for programming languages to learn/where to learn?

I appreciate the post!

<comment><USER3> In terms of languages I'd echo the sibling comment, Ruby or python are likely to be good choices.

If you're looking for things to start getting into security type learning, you could do a lot worse than start with CTFs ([https://ctftime.org/ctf- wtf/](https://ctftime.org/ctf-wtf/)) Whilst they're not identical to what you'll face as a security tester, they cover a lot of similar skills. Also you'll likely meet people in the industry by doing them.

There's also sites like [https://pentesterlab.com/](https://pentesterlab.com/) which have free examples of pentesting challenges.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm those look very interesting. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I decided I wanted to get verbally assaulted by engineering teams I was reporting findings to day in and day out. Who would have thought, I managed to make a career out of it!

(ps, if you do go down this route, try to find a job at a company with a good security culture. starting one from scratch is walking a road of broken glass)

<comment><USER5> Corollary: Don't try to fix a company with bad culture. You can't change enough of it as a low level employee. Quit, and find somewhere better.

<comment><USER4> Working on it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A bunch of comments here warn that you may become unemployable in software engineering as a result. A so-called "security lifer".

I think that's a little silly. I work for one of the top security consulting firms and it's just not my or anyone else I know's reality. In fact, the total opposite seems to be true. We have talented code reviewers and tool writers move on to work at tech companies all the time. These people are still interested in security and from what I've heard, they end up working on or even leading some _really_ cool software engineering projects.

I suppose if you woke up one day and decided that you're no longer interested in security _at all_ , it may be difficult to pivot back if you stopped writing code. But that does not sound like the typical person who was originally interested in both security and code. Most security consultants I know who came from writing code really excel in security doing code review, architecture review, tool dev, etc. and those are all things that can translate back into software engineering experience on a resume.

Of course some people's experiences will differ. There are plenty of employers out there who are biased or looking for a very specific background. But these cases are far from the norm. Perpetuating the whole "security is a dead-end, life-long job" narrative is spreading needless FUD and prevents the industry from maturing.

</comment><comment><USER7> Just to clarify for everyone: Be careful switching your career to netsec/pentesting. If that's your thing, great. But you're likely to be a "lifer" because no one will want to hire you anymore for webdev.

It's not quite as clear-cut as that, but if you're out of the game for N years, it's really hard to get back into it. Especially when you're not younger than 30. Ageism is a real thing.

<comment><USER8> As someone who has tried a couple times to jump the other way I can attest to this. Completely stonewalled for full stack developer positions.

I have found exploits by knowing the quirks of all sorts of libraries and I have to be able to understand how things work on a deep level. But because a lot of the job is tracing other peoples work and finding gaps in their logic, you don't have as much 'dev' time in the traditional sense. Most of your coding turns into ways to prep your exploit. Your life gets wrapped up chasing obscure malloc bugs or strange chrome behavior rather than contributing in normal developer ways and companies don't recognize this as transferable. I'm only a little bit bitter about it, but I love my work. I just hope the pay stays solid and I don't end up in a dead end job later in life.

Also it's really hard to be good in this industry. It is almost entirely driven by the top 1% of people and as someone who is not in that demographic it feels like a constant struggle to keep up.

<comment><USER9> By your text, you're a random senior developer. It shouldn't be too hard to get a position, as long as you live in one of the active tech locations.

It looks like you and the parent poster are facing the usual company that is looking to hire a cheap 20 year old web dev with little experience. Not a good fit for you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A way to validate that you're genuinely interested in penetration testing and to learn is to do challenges on sites like [https://www.root- me.org/](https://www.root-me.org/) for example. It's not necessarily realistic challenges, meaning there can be challenges on vulnerabilities you're very unlikely to see in real life, but you'll always learn something If the challenge does not teach you on some kind of vulnerability, at least it will teach you about how to think and do research, which is the most valuable.

I've seen companies filter candidates based on their score on such platforms. For example, for a junior position in penetration testing, they asked for at least 3000 points on root-me (but it was a few years ago, the number of challenges on the site has increased so it would make sense if they had increased their minimum points requirement).

Compared to certifications, it has two enormous advantages: it's fun, and it's free. I've started that way and never regretted it. I've not needed a certification to land a penetration testing job in a serious company (this was in France though, I don't know much about practices in other countries).

</comment><comment><USER11> I dabble in netsec, but not in it. My job requires me to work with our netsec team so I prefer to be familiar about the subject matter. I usually lurk on /r/netsec and they have a good resource on their wiki[1] on getting started in netsec.

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/wiki/start](https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/wiki/start)

<comment><USER5> Thanks! I'm glad you found that useful (I'm one of the mods there).

/r/netsec is no longer the smaller, more personal community it was when I started as a mod (7 years ago now?). If you're just starting out, one of the things I recommend most is finding a meetup in whatever city you live. It's hard to underestimate how useful an in-person conversation over a beer or two can be when you're early on.

I guess my advice for you would be: take your netsec team out to lunch once in a while! :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I got started for personal entertainment in darker corners of the internet. That ultimately evolved into me writing some of the tools people used in the industry. Eventually that developed into some SaaS products and 2 companies that we ended up selling.

My advice to you if you are just getting started in the infosec world is... don't do it! Short of the increased attention to encryption and various better authz/authn standards... the newer crowd doesn't want to hear anything about the vulnerabilities in their code. 9 times out of 10 the only reason they'll resort to testing anything is to cross off a corp checkbox somewhere. Keep in mind that nobody likes policy and you'll be associated with their hatred for it.

<comment><USER13> > 9 times out of 10 the only reason they'll resort to testing anything is to > cross off a corp checkbox somewhere

Can confirm.

The way it usually works is that Company X has N dollars allocated for security. Company X (or rather, a person or a team at Company X, with his/her/their own internal and external priorities and motivations) buys a service - recurring automated tests/assessments/pentests &c. This is where the usual corporate bullsh*t kicks in. If they want to show that they've done a good job in securing something, they buy a pentest over a short duration for a minor thing and then they claim "<trusted security vendor Y> said we were secure". If they want more money, they obtain data to show that. The infosec companies has a "customer is always right" mind-set. It's business.

You can probably get good cash just for telling people to use TLS. Green padlocks and all that.

EDIT: also, to differentiate infosec from regular security, don't forget to prepend "cyber" to everything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> In school, they taught us of the existence of Wireshark. It lets you see network traffic.

</comment><comment><USER5> I had an oppressive computer teacher in high school and I liked to pull pranks. It started out with simple password guessing, then phishing, then trojaned USB autoruns, SAM hash dumping, and password cracking, then some wifi sniffing... I never thought of what I was doing as hacking at the time (2001-2002). I just wanted to use the computer lab to play video games, and show up my jerk of a teacher.

In my senior year of high school, I was handed a brochure for a scholarship program offered by an engineering school that paid your entire tuition if you studied cybersecurity. I didn't know much then, but I knew loans were a bad thing, so I went with it and attended that university. The final hook was a Capture the Flag (CTF) game hosted by the school. I had not pursued obtaining the scholarship until that point but playing in the CTF got me exposed to the other students and convinced me to go through it. You can read more about the NSF Scholarship for Service (SFS) program here: [https://www.sfs.opm.gov/StudFAQ.aspx](https://www.sfs.opm.gov/StudFAQ.aspx)

I like to characterize myself as one of the first class of graduates with specialized degrees in cybersecurity (at least in the US). Anyone older than me is usually entirely self taught, anyone younger generally had exposure in an academic setting. I was about half and half. For reference, I am 32. I think the NSA Center of Academic Excellence program had a lot to do with that shift. Many US universities were first getting certified with new coursework to meet that standard through the mid to late 2000s, right as I was attending college. [https://www.iad.gov/nietp/reports/current_cae_designated_ins...](https://www.iad.gov/nietp/reports/current_cae_designated_institutions.cfm)

FWIW I wrote a short career guide to help others trying to make sense of the field and how to get started. [https://trailofbits.github.io/ctf/intro/careers.html](https://trailofbits.github.io/ctf/intro/careers.html)

In fact, this year's Flare-On challenge just started today! It's an online game composed of 10-20 reverse engineering and forensics challenges that takes place over the next few weeks. There will be solution writeups after the challenge is over so you can learn how to solve whatever got you stuck. Give it a shot! Flare-On always gets great reviews for being fun to play, and online games (CTFs, wargames, etc) are a great way to get yourself started and add something to your resume. [https://2017.flare-on.com/](https://2017.flare- on.com/)

I am now the CEO and co-founder of Trail of Bits, a high-end software security research firm. I will probably never quit the field. You can read more about what we do here: [https://www.trailofbits.com](https://www.trailofbits.com) AMAA?

<comment><USER15> I feel like it is difficult to get hired right out of college into a pentesting/netsec role without a bunch of certs and CTFs (which you do mention in your career guide). Even then it just looks like just another qualifying tick in the checklist. Right now I'm thinking a dev job for a couple years, then move into security (which looks like what some recommend). What do you suggest one can do to show that they have the chops to take up the a good role short of getting a couple high profile CVEs? Write a blog? Write PoCs for past CVEs?

What will get the attention of someone who hires (like you) to think that they will be a good fit?

<comment><USER5> Easy! Develop software. Don't limit yourself to scripts and small utilities. Work on something substantial, preferably low-level and closely related to the operating system or hardware. If you play CTF, show me the tooling you wrote to prepare, and the process you use to review your past performance and plan your next game. Our biggest ask during our hiring process is a code sample of some kind. If you're talking about finding bugs, show me that you didn't just get lucky, that you know how to make the process reliably produce a known outcome.

Sidenote, I think the dev job for ~2 years out of college then moving to security is a smart move. You're 100x more effective as a security engineer if you have a strong background in development. I'll say that we definitely prefer to hire software developers and teach them security.

<comment><USER15> Thanks! This is great advice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I never went in, but the baseline skills are there.*

Let's just say I was forced to show up at the principal's office at several educational institutions during my youth :).

I now sometimes make money doing white hat stuff.

</comment><comment><USER17> By hacking the planet, duh.

But seriously, I got started by writing exploits for long tail web apps.

<comment><USER18> I understand the meaning of "long tail", but not sure what it means in this context. Is this an infosec term? I work in webdev and have never heard it used. Are you referring to less-commonly used web app frameworks?

<comment><USER17> Less commonly used web apps; they tend to have poor security because no-one has cared/known enough to make them not horribly insecure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I can tell you how not to do it. I'll never forget the funniest interview I ever had. I interviewed with this company called Deja vu Security.

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

I explicitly told them, via email, I have ZERO experience pen testing, or anything related to hacking. I'm a terrific software engineer looking to pivot into this market, would take a salary cut to get my feet wet and be mentored. Would this be possible? Are you guys remotely interested in an arrangement like this?

They say great, when can we sync up? That's definitely something we can do.

So we set a call up and the call takes literally 39 seconds, I'll never forget it. He asked me what experience I had, and I reply: None whatsoever, like I mentioned in my email I'm interested in jumping into this line of work though.

"Thanks but we're not going to move forward."

Before I can even say thank you for your time, goodbye, the dude just hangs up the phone on me lol.

<comment><USER20> We have a hiring process for folks with no infosec experience. It isn't easy, but it works. The guys at Deja are solid and consulting makes for busy folks, so don't hold a low opinion of them. Probably did not pay close enough attention to the initial email.

If you are interested shoot careers at carvesystems dot com an email.</comment></comment>


Flashlight – A plugin system for Spotlight - <AUTHOR> http://flashlight.nateparrott.com/

<comment><USER2> Suggestion: Can you make it so if I just type "weather" it defaults to my current location? Either based on public IP or a user setting maybe?

</comment><comment><USER3> Very cool! Another thing that makes me want to go back to Mac OS.

</comment><comment><USER4> You sir, are getting a coffee mr.parrot

</comment><comment><USER5> This is very useful. Nicely done.</comment>


Magnesium and major depression (2011) - <AUTHOR> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507265/ <comment><USER3> _The onset of depression has greatly increased in incidence, and it is affecting people much earlier in their lives during the late 20th century and early 21st century than before the 20th century (Meyer and Quenzar, 2005). The reasons for these findings are not quite clear, but inadequate dietary Mg is prevalent in America and is the most likely cause. There is probably a real increase in depression, coupled with a change in diagnostic habits, which has to do with the element of stigma. Lower stigma leads to a higher rate of diagnosis._

Somatopsychic medical effects are very real. I've gotten very good results with addressing nutritional deficiencies as a first line of defense for issues that often present as mood or mental health issues.

But I don't think you can reasonably conclude that magnesium deficiency is _The_ explanation for increased prevalence of depression in a world that has had so many profound changes.

Things are more crowded. Most people now live in cities instead of rural environments. Among other things, this means people are subjected to much noisier conditions.

We have far, far better information about the world than we used to. The 24/7 news cycle is incredibly stressful, if only because most "news" is _bad news_.

There are just so very many confounding factors, no, you can't reasonably conclude that this one singular factor is the sole explanation or primary explanation. That's ridiculous.

<comment><USER4> There have been a number of experiments where they gave patients more magnesium, and in response most patients reduce their depression by a statistically significant amount. The inverse was found when they gave them calcium (more calcium increases depression). It's all about the ratio of calcium to magnesium. We're a society that consistently gets way too much calcium and way too little magnesium. That's because our food source isn't diverse. Dairy is considered a food group here in the US, and almost everything in it comes from Milk, is primarily made up of milk. Milk is very unbalanced in terms of Calcium to magnesium, something like 10 to 1 ratio.

Also, there was another study where they found that treatments for depression actually increased serum magnesium levels in the brain.

EDIT: Here is the study: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507265/#](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507265/#) "A dietary supplement of 500mg calcium immediately and severely worsened MD, which was extinguishable within one hour by orally treating with 400mg gel capsules of Mg as magnesium glycinate "

<comment><USER3> I stated up front that somatopsychic effects are quite real. I don't doubt that a magnesium deficiency is a culprit in depression for many people.

But are you arguing that, yea, verily, this article's foundational assumption is true and correct: Magnesium deficiency is the sole or prime cause of all (or virtually all) modern depression?

If so, I think you need to back that up with a whole lot more than a paragraph or two about things you've read, like a long list of citations that not only show the role magnesium plays, but also another long list of citations that affirmatively excludes myriad other potential causes of Major Depression that are generally understood to be contributing factors.

<comment><USER4> I don't think the article is saying it's the sole cause but they're saying it's a factor.

And of course, not everyone who gets too little mag/too much calcium will react in the same way.

<comment><USER3> From the article:

 _inadequate dietary Mg is prevalent in America and is the most likely cause._

It contains zero qualifiers suggesting it is one of many factors, a major factor among many, etc. It uses the word "the" and the singular form of "cause."

<comment><USER5> You skipped right over "most likely" and only focused on "the ... cause". To me it sounds like they are saying statistically Mg deficiency is the most widespread underlying factor. Their language is strong, but it does not come off that absolutist and the "most likely" suggests other causes.

<comment><USER3> I'm a freelance writer by trade. I sometimes write health articles. I could not say what this article says about cause.

At best, I could say something like "Given the proven widespread lack of adequate dietary magnesium and the known side effects of magnesium insufficiency, it seems plausible to suggest that at least some portion of the increase in depression is due to widespread magnesium deficiency."

That may seem like quibbling to you, but scientists get paid to quibble about the details and to be as precise as humanly possible. They should be meeting at least as high a standard as my generally low paid freelance writing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I started taking magnesium supplements about 9 months ago, not for any depression issues, but more for muscle issues. I had a weird leg muscle injury a few years ago that I never really got a proper diagnosis for that happened when doing some light hiking. In doing my own research on that, a condition similar to my symptoms came up, and one of the causes was a magnesium deficiency. I had a few other minor ailments come up, and I have been biking to work for the last few years, and noticed that my recovery time is significantly longer. All of these things cited magnesium as a significant player, so I bought some supplements.

Anyway, I take about 200mg a day, for about the last 6 months or so, and I can not say I have felt any noticeable improvement. This is obviously just a single data point, but even with some specific symptoms that pointed to an Mg deficiency, I didn't see an improvement. If you feel this is some type of magic solution, you should temper your expectations.

<comment><USER7> Anecdotical but for years I had various anxiety and mild depression problems (edit: and various muscle "twitches"). As it was not severe I was always recommended Magnesium. Never had any improvement. Then 2 years ago I started taking vitamin D (thanks to HN discussions) and nearly all my symptoms disappeared (also changed job, started meditation, so the datapoint is not clear but magnesium alone didn't do much).

Also I recommend you get tested for Magnesium as contrary to popular belief (at least here in France) deficiency is not common (contrary to vitamin D).

<comment><USER8> Hello French "brother"

Serum levels of vit D and Magnesium are not reliable indicators. As stated in the study for Magnesium. For Vit D, efficiency of a supplementation of Vit D3 is also not on par with real sun exposure, the skin and subcutaneous fat don't seems to respond the same way.

I sadly did not had any improvement on my side from getting my Vit D level from 15 (which is barely above the deficiency level) to a whooping level of 60 in a few month with Bio-D-Mulsion drops (Vit D3). My mag must be high as I eat a very rich diet in this nutrient, without any dairy from more than a decade now

<comment><USER7> > Serum levels of vit D and Magnesium are not reliable indicators. As stated > in the study for Magnesium. For Vit D, efficiency of a supplementation of > Vit D3 is also not on par with real sun exposure, the skin and subcutaneous > fat don't seems to respond the same way.

Didn't know that, thanks.

> I sadly did not had any improvement on my side from getting my Vit D level > from 15 (which is barely above the deficiency level) to a whooping level of > 60 in a few month with Bio-D-Mulsion drops (Vit D3)

Given how well my state (physical and mental) noticeably improved these last few months I'm think the main factors were psychological instead of a deficiency (notably getting more financially secure with personal business taking off and going abroad and working remotely). Before that I was already working out and eating well for years, and even if that helped the changes weren't as noticeable. Or maybe it was all of that combined and it just took time to cross a threshold.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have found that taking Magnesium is like turning a switch on in my head and I'm suddenly happy again. I don't get upset or angry in the same way, I'm more patient and my thoughts are not obsessive.

Magnesium is best taken with calcium and vitamin D as both are used in the uptake of magnesium.

I have found that processed foods, alcohol, caffeine and sugar all make me worse, but magnesium gives me the will power to change that lifestyle that caused the problem in the first place.

I don't know about quack studies but for the cheap price and quick turnaround (3 days for small effect, 2 week for a large scale shift) it's a simple thing to try.

<comment><USER10> Doesn't the article mention that calcium and vitamin D produce harmful effects?

<comment><USER11> I didn't read the article, but I know you need to be careful with vit. D supplements. If you take too much, the body can't utilize it all, and stores it in places that cause problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> FWIW Gwern has done some careful self-experiments on magnesium supplementation, finding it wasn't all rosy: [https://www.gwern.net/nootropics/Magnesium](https://www.gwern.net/nootropics/Magnesium)

<comment><USER13> Magnesium truly does wonders for my sleep but every single person I've recommended it to has not had similar results. Like many things I'm sure there's a significant difference depending on your biochemistry.

<comment><USER14> > Like many things I'm sure there's a significant difference depending on your > biochemistry.

...and placebo effect.

<comment><USER15> Practically speaking, it doesn't matter how much the effects are mediated by the placebo response; whatever helps you sleep at night.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I love this: "The reasons for these findings are not quite clear, but inadequate dietary Mg is prevalent in America and is the most likely cause." Ah, to be publishing in a book, not a journal. And to know that your reviewers are like-minded magnesium lovers. Imagine submitting an article to something like Junior Forensics, the journal of high school debate. You could include something like, "All the factors that lead to success in life are hard to account for; participation in debate is the most influential."

</comment><comment><USER17> > "Deficits of Mg may result from inadequate intake, malabsorption, or renal > loss"

Unless I missed it, the paper didn't consider another possible cause of magnesium deficiency: depression.

I.e., the paper seems to conflate correlation with causation (i.e., magnesium deficiency may cause depression), and doesn't consider that the causality may go in the other direction: that magnesium deficiency is a physiological manifestation of depression and other types of chronic negative emotion.

My experience with this is that I've worked for a long time to address chronic illness that has included conditions like depression, anxiety and chronic fatigue syndrome.

One of the many things I've tried has been to substantially increase magnesium intake, both via food sources and supplements.

My measured magnesium levels didn't change simply by increasing intake.

What has made a difference was directly addressing the emotional and outer- life causes of my depression/anxiety.

Even then it took a while, and the work/improvement is still ongoing, but it's very clear that my magnesium readings stayed low even when supplementing, and only started rising after a solid stretch of deep emotional healing work and significant improvements to life circumstances.

The still-nascent and controversial topic of epigenetics may be relevant here.

<comment><USER18> Did you test your magnesium level by blood tests? Less than 1% of magnesium (AFAIR) is stored in blood and its level can fluctuate a lot depending on your body state.

Correlation is not causation but what HN readers should remember is that most researchers are aware of that fact.

So yes, I'm pretty sure you've missed it among those 350 pages, especially given that results of treatment are mentioned in the abstract.

<comment><USER17> > Did you test your magnesium level by blood tests?

No, hair tests. Which I dread talking about in forums like this as it can be a red cloth to motivated skeptics/cynics (of which I used to be one until I was blessed with the opportunity to endure this experience), but the results have been consistent with my experienced-symptoms over a long period of time (10 years so far), and the correlation with my emotional work and subjective mood/life experience has been clear.

> Less than 1% of magnesium (AFAIR) is stored in blood and its level can > fluctuate a lot depending on your body state

Yes, that's hair tests are used for this type of healing work.

> So yes, I'm pretty sure you've missed it among those 350 pages

I wish you would take more of a good-faith approach to the discussion and point to where this is mentioned.

I read over the abstract as thoroughly as I could for evidence that they properly considered this.

I can see mention of the observation that magnesium levels seemed to respond to antidepressants, but it still seems to assume that the cause is physiological, and that any mood-change is an effect not a cause/influence.

Nothing I can find in the abstract suggests that depression-causing-magnesium- deficiency was considered, studied and disproven, yet such possibilities are often raised in other circles, and it aligns with my own experience (and available evidence).

Please understand that people like myself and a few others on HN, who have been trying to share perspectives like these for many years, get rather tired of reflexive dismissals, despite having done vast amounts research and experimentation/data-collection.

<comment><USER18> I mean the fact that it works as a treatment. We don't have much more than doing a blind test and checking improvement to test causality. There are so many real world factors that elimination wouldn't work.

I see that you like Jung so I'm sure you're aware that there's more than neurochemistry that can influence it, but when talking about drugs, incentives seem to be aligned such that one should expect patented substances to have the most papers showing positive results vs something cheap and readily available.

Plus I thought you were only basing this N=1 on blood tests so I didn't like dismissal of paper based on that, thus the tone of my prev reply, I'm sorry about that.

<comment><USER17> Right yeah, I see those mentions of past studies, which suggest some positive results but don't say much about long-term outcomes. (My own experience has been that in early stages of feeling impaired, supplementation of Mg and other nutrients would bring about short-term mood benefits but subside in the medium to long-term (and show no measured changes in hair tests), even with consistent ongoing supplementation, suggesting that the emotional/life issues are an overriding factor long-term.

I don't doubt that a simple dietary deficiency of Mg may be a causal factor for some, perhaps even most people. But studies like these often seem happy to report positive outcomes after finding, say, 70% short-term efficacy, but ignore the remainder, in which the causation may be very different.

> incentives seem to be aligned such that one should expect patented > substances to have the most papers showing positive results vs something > cheap and readily available.

Yes, which has been a source of frustration, but I understand modern economics, so I get it.

> Plus I thought you were only basing this N=1 on blood tests so I didn't like > dismissal of paper based on that, thus the tone of my prev reply, I'm sorry > about that.

Cheers for that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I once tried supplementing magnesium while in the midst of moderate depression. Interestingly enough, the effect was not relief, but rather major, absolutely crushing depression (i.e. cannot get out of bed all day depression). I went back to moderate depression after stopping the supplementation and a subsequent second attempt brought back the major depression. By that point I gave up on the whole thing.

Anyone have a similar experience or maybe some insight that might explain this?

<comment><USER20> There are many kinds of depression all shoveled into the one diagnosis. It's as if malaria, flu, bacterial meningitis, and every other infection were called "ague". (They were, once.)

The only way we know to tell one from another is by what med helps, if any. If none do, it's "non-responsive depression" or some other catch-all. Depression, like schizophrenia and a host of other DSM diagnoses are the DSM's equivalents to "wastebasket taxa" in taxonomy.

People insisting that randomized controlled trials ("RCTs") prove that depression meds, and other psychiatric meds, don't work demonstrate their ignorance of the major failure mode of RCTs: unreliable diagnosis. Given that last, the RCT tells you nothing, positive or negative, absent very careful, detailed deconstruction of individual outcomes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm quite skeptical on supplements, but I have to say that Magnesium helps me sleep like a baby and feel much more relaxed generally.

<comment><USER22> I recently realised that Mg is a reliable way for me to stop teeth grinding in my sleep.

<comment><USER23> I am interested in hearing more. Did you try Mg with the intent of grinding your teeth less?

<comment><USER22> First I had toothache. After a while it occurred to me that this coincided with my stress level at work and that it actually was caused by my teeth grinding at night. And then I remembered how Mg helps me to become much more relaxed when under stress. Tried it and it worked.

<comment><USER23> So what form of Mg are you taking?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I take magnesium in the form of trace mineral drops. These are de-salted sea water deposits. Besides magnesium they contain other rare trace minerals which would otherwise be difficult to obtain, particularly lithium which has quite strong evidence of mellowing mood.

The liquid form leads me to believe they absorb well but not sure if that's actually true.

Edit to say I believe these drops have reduced my anxiety and improved relaxation. If nothing else I sleep better due to the mg (no more Jimmy legs).

<comment><USER25> Where do you find such things?

<comment><USER26> [https://www.amazon.com/Trace-Minerals-Research- Concentrace-M...](https://www.amazon.com/Trace-Minerals-Research-Concentrace- Mineral/dp/B000AMUWLK?th=1)

<comment><USER27> I've personally had great success with this particular product. At the end of a long day of coding, when my brain seems "burnt out"/fuzzy, 20-30 drops of this in a glass of water has an almost-immediate and noticeable impact (most of the time).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I found CBD to provide temporary relief - I think my depression was inflammation related. The world is still dark and compressed but also comfortable, like the dark corners fill with algae and the ground with grass.

What ended up working was improving my oral posture and articulation using ortothropics and self-developed speech exercises (the important part is having designed the exercises yourself). Suddenly it's vastly easier to maintain correct spinal alignment and breathing. Depression is just an emotion again.

I supplement fish oil, gradeschool-tier mathematics and meditation, from Vigyan Bhairava Tantra.

<comment><USER29> Can you elaborate on oral posture and articulation? I have a major snoring (apnea) and breathing issue due to dentistry mistakes (taking out teeth when I should not have as a kid) and my face caved in which compresses my breathing. This is my theory at least. I am curious because this is the first time I hear about the concepts you brought up

<comment><USER28> The most important thing is to have the tip of your tongue (almost) touching your teeth and then gradually increasing the amount of tongue-to-roof-of-mouth surface, beginning it the front - your current limit is where it blocks nasal breathing. This stimulates horizontal (forwards) bone development vs. vertical (downwards) development.

A "drill" I can recommend is writing out words a defined number of times (pick a number you like between 10 and 100), as you write also pronounce them without letting your tongue lose contact with the roof of your mouth. This may feel very unnatural at first. If you don't like the result just recycle the paper.

There's also the habit of sucking or pulling in your tongue - don't do that. I think it causes jaw clenching. If you want a fast way to get rid of that, invent metaphors for it and then watch yourself do it automatically in social interactions.

Also check out ortothropics, it's the emerging science of facial development through oral posture. They have a large collection of instructional material on YouTube.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I hope this issue gets more attention. We're so undernourished when it comes to Magnesium. Also, closely related is Calcium. Calcium and Magnesium work closely together in the body for huge number of functions related to brain health. Of particular importance is the ratio of calcium to magnesium. A Significant portion of the population has their calcium to magnesium ratio way too high, something like 10 to 1 or higher. This is not only due to too little magnesium but also due to way too much calcium. It's not commonly known in the US (because big food companies run the USDA recommendations), but you're only supposed to get 500mg of calcium a day, not 1000mg like the USDA recommends. There are so many studies that show that 1400mg+ is approaching a danger zone. this is exacerbated by unusually low magnesium levels.

If you're looking to get more magnesium into your body, I'd recommend whole foods rather than supplements. Supplements are often not absorbed by the body. Whole foods high in magnesium include: leafy greens, nuts (especially cashews), oatmeal, whole grains, beans. and if you want to find more high nutrient foods try my nutrient based food search: [https://kale.world/c](https://kale.world/c) (put the selector on magnesium)

<comment><USER30> How significant is that portion? Have there been any large scale clinical studies recently on calcium and magnesium levels in the population?

Please cite your sources regarding the recommended calcium intake.

<comment><USER4> WHO (World Health organization) says 500mg.

<comment><USER30> False. The WHO recommends 1000mg for most adults. Adolescents, pregnant women, and the elderly should get a little more.

[https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42716/92415...](https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42716/9241546123.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The first author has a publication called "zinc lozenges as a _cure_ for the common cold" here: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19906491](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19906491) and given that the author has his own "research institute" I'm highly skeptical of this guy's ability to do science. Seems like some kind of crackpot

I mean seriously look at this website: [https://m.george-eby- research.com/app/welcome/5310242/36/](https://m.george-eby- research.com/app/welcome/5310242/36/)

<comment><USER32> FYI, The title of his paper is "Zinc lozenges as cure for the common cold – A review and hypothesis". I haven't read it, but the title seems reasonable.

<comment><USER31> In the publicly visible abstract it says:

" Zinc lozenges slowly dissolving in the mouth over a 20-30 min period releasing adequate iZn (18 mg) used each 2h are hypothesized to shorten common colds by 6-7 days, which is a cure for the common cold."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I can't speak for depression, but I was suffering from muscle spasms and tremors last year (both external and internal). Magnesium was suggested, I now take two a day and they have almost entirely dissipated. It certainly wouldn't surprise me that the presence or lack of such substances could have significant effects upon the brain too though I have noticed no changes in that regard.

<comment><USER34> Same thing here. last year I had an almost constant spasm in my right eyelid, after a cure of magnesium it disappeared. I did not find that it altered my mood, I just happy to be relieved from the spasm.

</comment></comment><comment> shaki-dora Needs a [2011] and some scepticism: Many people have tried Magnesium because it is cheap and available without prescription. If it were as effective as "success in 220 out of 250 cases" claims, that would show up.

The 220 of 250 claim also doesn't fit with "as effective as the tricyclic antidepressant imipramine". No antidepressant is 90% effective.

<comment><USER35> Most cheap magnesium is magnesium carbonate which is least effective and causes diarrhoea (should be taken with calcium to prevent that). Magnesium aspartate is sometimes prescribed as "working one", but can be neurotoxic (according to this paper).

<comment><USER36> I take magnesium bis-glycinate, it's well absorbed and has no serious side effects.

<comment><USER35> Me too. I haven't tried other versions which are recommended by this paper, but I can recommend bis-glycinate. I tried carbonate and it didn't work for me. Recommended dose is 150mg/day, but I've found I need even 300mg/day (heavy cofee drinker).

<comment><USER37> I take Mg Taurate against extrasystoles and it works very well for me. I also tried Mg Citrate together with Carnitine which enhances the Mg uptake in the gut. Mg Carbonate or Oxide are hardly soluble and also basic which makes it not very digestable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> An unusual but effective way of taking magnesium is taking epsom salt (magnesium sulfate) baths. This way, the magnesium is absorbed through the skin, so one does not have to worry about possibly not absorbing it through the stomach when taking supplements orally.

</comment><comment><USER13> For anyone here that takes magnesium for sleep, why do you think it works for you?

It works wonders for my sleep but I've never met anyone that shares that view.

<comment><USER39> The cells in our body depend on two essential minerals for normal function: Calcium and magnesium. Cells go into ON state when calcium goes in, and OFF state when calcium goes out. Calcium doesn't go out on its own: magnesium has to go in and displace the calcium. When you are low on magnesium, cells can't go into OFF state. When that happens your muscles become stiff and you need massages, and your brain can't turn off and you can't sleep.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I have some personal experiences to share - anecdotal and not that scientific.

I found it slightly helpful in my own treatment of depression. Not a miracle cure - it was suggested essentially because Proton Pump Inhibitors I am already on were known to worsen/cause it. In my case it seems to make medication a bit more effective and helped thinking a little bit. A few times when I ran out for a week or so waiting for the next bulk order to arrive it eventually caused a mild worsening of mood that went away when resumed. I don't know if I ever actually had deficiencies because needle phobia has meant avoidance such that I can only list my blood type as a question mark.

</comment><comment><USER41> People that rely on desalinated water can become magnesium deficient. There was a study in Israel about a rise in heart attacks based on magnesium deficiency from desalination. [1] I wonder if there might be a mental health angle to this as well.

[1] [https://www.timesofisrael.com/deficiencies-in-desalinated- wa...](https://www.timesofisrael.com/deficiencies-in-desalinated-water-could- lead-to-increase-in-heart-attack-deaths/)

<comment><USER42> Hmm, the city I live in has been mixing in more and more desalinated water in the last few years...

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I'm a cardio addict and do 250mg liquid Citrate and 200mg of Bisglycinate before sleep. Otherwise restless legs syndrome would kick in badly during the night. Sometimes adding 1.000mg of Gaba also helps with recovery and falling asleep.

Just make sure to stay away from cheap Mg Oxide since bio-availability is somewhere in the 4% range and usually comes in Multi-anything pills.

<comment><USER44> Someone recommended magnesium to help with my migraines (turns out it was an eye imbalance), so it's been sitting in a drawer but I also have a hard time staying asleep, and am wondering if I should crack it back out. I have some stuff called "Natural Vitality" and it is magnesium carbonate 325mg, does this sound decent to you?

<comment><USER43> I've never seen Mg Carbonate in a sport supplement but I usually look for the highest bio-availability and the least laxative effect. Hence, Bisglycinate is my best choice. Usually comes in pills and rarely also (expensive) in liquid shots w/ sweeteners.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> There are two huge confounding issues here which make it impossible for me to conclude that Mg has an effect of depression based on the studies I've seen:

1\. Magnesium may treat anxiety rather than depression. This is analogous to various SSRIs which arguably treat anxiety better than depression[1]. Anxiety and depression are highly comorbid, and both doctors and patients may be bad at differentiating between the symptoms, leading to "I feel better"-type reporting. This might mean that Mg supplementation is a good thing for depressed people because it treats their anxiety, not because it treats their depression. This alternative hypothesis is particularly compelling because magnesium deficiency has a variety of well-understood effects on muscle tension[2] which mimic physical symptoms of anxiety.

2\. Magnesium is frequently supplemented concurrently with vitamin D, vitamin K, calcium, and zinc. All of these are known to be active in humans, and vitamin D in particular has been correlated with depression and seasonal affective disorder.

[1] [https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/11/07/ssris-an- update/](https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/11/07/ssris-an-update/) (see under the bolded "fourth" comment--SSC has a bunch of posts on this topic).

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium_deficiency#Diagnosis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium_deficiency#Diagnosis)

</comment><comment><USER29> Remember that it depends what type of Magnesium you take. Not all are created equal. I recommend Doctor's Best High Absorption Magnesium. Since taking that one for many years, digestive issues massively improved with slight improvements in sleep and overall mood.

<comment><USER17> Another one that may work better for people: magnesium malate.

For some people it can be more easily absorbed than other forms, and the malic acid (which occurs naturally in apples and other fruits) can support the Kreb's cycle that produces mitochondrial energy (which is also linked to mood and general healthy functioning of the body).

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I'll add my own story to the anecdata: my young daughter suffered from chronic constipation for years, nearly her whole life in fact. About two years ago I started her on magnesium supplementation, and within two days the constipation stopped. It has only returned once, on vacation when I had neglected to bring the magnesium with us.

The supplementation is simple and rudimentary. I add epsom salt to the tea that we drink as a family each morning. The dosage ends up at about 90 mg of elemental magnesium per day for her. From what I've read this is below the accepted therapeutic dose, but the I believe the cessation of her constipation is unlikely to be a coincidence.

</comment><comment><USER47> An excuse to use too much maple syrup! [https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5602/2](https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5602/2)

<comment><USER31> I see lots of manganese, but you would need to be consuming truly absurd amounts of syrup for the magnesium in maple syrup to amount to much. It says it has 11% of your DV in a cup, which is also 840kcal of mostly sugar

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I first read about magnesium supplements in a random Hacker News comment a year ago. Taking them cured my insomnia. If anyone thinks they might benefit from Mg, I definitely encourage you to do the research.

</comment><comment><USER49> Am I the only person that magnesium makes feel, well, dumber? Pretty much everything that's anxiolytic or GABAnergenic makes me feel dumber (along with nicely relaxed).

</comment><comment><USER50> I just started magnesium again after a month or so off the stuff. I have the bottle right here in fact...

What I originally got it for was percieved joint pains in the morning jogging routine I had just started. I seemed to get some results but wanted to do an A/B, and while I don't have lab results to correlate, I did start noticing some joint issues again by the end. So we'll see where I stand after a week.

</comment><comment><USER22> There are different forms to take Mg and they seem to come with different effects and side effects. It may take a while to find one that works.

<comment><USER51> Tried it briefly and then quit after I realized it was causing excruciating chest pain. Would be nice to have stayed on it to realize the mood effects, but not even close to worth it for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Is Mg normally tested in blood tests? Seems like you could just read the results, and if low take supplements; if not, don't.

<comment><USER53> > "Since 99% of Mg is intracellular, serum Mg testing of the remaining 1% > found in serum will produce misleading results (Mann and Truswell, 2002) and > it should not be used in future research."

Elsewhere in the article they reference testing being of "negative utility"

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Magnesium supplementation changed my life. Better sleep, faster recovery from work outs, better more stable moods

<comment><USER55> How much are you taking daily?

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> It feels like internet people legitimately believe dietary changes can cure every single disease sometimes.

<comment><USER57> Considering how many diseases are caused by lack of, or an excess of specific coumpounds, they are often right. Disease does not always refer to virus/bacteria caused malaides.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I have heard folks say one of the best ways to absorb magnesium is an empsom salt bath. Not sure if there is "science" on this, but hear it is one of the great benefits of a float tank.

<comment><USER59> Agreed. I float 2-4x/month and can confirm that I sleep way better and generally have an increase in mood. I'd highly recommend it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Just another mineral you need enough from to add to the list... It'd be useful to have permanent monitoring of your body to know which ones you have too much and too little from imho

</comment><comment><USER61> Interesting. Maybe, eat more green leafies? Magnesium is what makes plants green (as the center atom in the organo-metallic molecule known as chlorophyll).

</comment><comment><USER51> >Magnesium has been largely removed from processed foods, especially refined grains, in the Western world, harming the brain and causing mood disorders.

This seems to be the case with many such nutrients.

I almost wonder if the most effective solution isn't a medical approach but a medically-informed, government-led incentive program to convince food manufacturers to reintroduce the essential nutrients they strip out of food.

<comment><USER44> When the US government is in charge of feeding people healthy foods, they came up with the now defunct "Food Pyramid" and school lunch, which featured classic gems like "government cheese", "square pizza" and my favorite, mystery meat "salisbury steak"

<comment><USER62> But weren't they simply following the lead of the most widely accepted science at the time? As science has learned more the government recommendations have evolved as well, albeit perhaps not as rapidly or comprehensively as they could.

<comment><USER20> The "food pyramid" you saw plastered all over your school cafeteria was concocted and distributed by the Dairy Council, a powerful marketing organization that has succeeded in establishing taxing authority over dairies in many states. If you wonder who's paying for "eat more cheese" billboards, they are paid out of that tax. It is more of an advertising cartel than anything dairies want.

As you might expect, it is the billboard owners and poster printers who benefit most from the expenditures. The American Cancer Society, similarly, is mainly a printer of junk mail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Take some hart burn medicine and you get all the magnesium you can handle.

<comment><USER64> Heart burn meds are often Mg Oxide or sulfate, which isn't that well absorbed. [1,2] for anxiety and depression, Mg Citrate works well, as does Mg Glycinate [3]

Just a heads up.

[1][http://www.kumc.edu/school-of-medicine/family- medicine/integ...](http://www.kumc.edu/school-of-medicine/family- medicine/integrative-health/health-topics/the-benefits-of-magnesium.html)

[2][https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2407766/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2407766/)

[3] [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolutionary- psychia...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolutionary- psychiatry/201106/magnesium-and-the-brain-the-original-chill-pill)

<comment><USER65> I think it might not be absorbed as well, but often there is just a lot more magnesium in oxide than glycinate. So even though it absorbs worse more actually ends up being absorbed in the end.

Personally I've felt a more potent reaction from oxide than glycinate, possibly for that reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Pink Himalayan salt is supposed to be rich in magnesium. I wonder if it contains enough magnesium to make a difference with depression.

</comment><comment><USER67> Poor man's TLDR: we're not sure yet, but consider taking magnesium supplementation to help with or prevent MD. The downside of light Mg supplementation seems trivial, and the upside could be strong.

<comment><USER68> Mg deficiency is also implicated in some cardiac arrhythmias and supplementation has been shown to help.

<comment><USER69> That's why I'm taking it. I have an absorption disease (Celiac) and I was having terrible cardiac issues at 38 (and with a minor family history of heart issues at older age, but nothing like what I was having). Magnesium is one of the things it has taken to straighten it out.

If you have heart issues, you may have to try to balance magnesium and potassium. If the problem is a deficiency, this is a rather annoyingly difficult balancing act to pull off, because as per the comments in the beginning of Gwern's article about magnesium, magnesium has a very slow-moving component to it, where it depletes slowly but also only fills slowly, and a fast moving component that responds relatively quickly, and based on my experience, the heart's use of magnesium seems to be related to both. Potassium, by contrast, appears to take nearly instant effect. So you're balancing something you can't see that changes over the course of months or years against a nutritional input that is instant. This is not easy.

Several times I've settled on a dosing schedule that seemed to work for me, but had to be changed after a couple of months as the slow-pool magnesium (I hope) continued to improve. I've actually learned the difference in my body's reactions to a potassium deficiency (a tightness in the chest) vs. a magnesium deficiency (restless legs, heart that may not be "racing" but is not slowing down for sleep properly). YMMV; n=1, etc.

<comment><USER37> I have HOCM and afib and Mg and potassium helps wonder with the extrasystoles. I also take taurine against the extrasystoles in combination with Mg and K in the evening before going to bed and I can sleep much better.

<comment><USER69> Yeah, I didn't go into the whole spiel as off-topic (and this comment isn't the whole spiel, either...), but taurine for heart issues seems like something that should just be tried by almost anyone experiencing them. It has basically no overdose risk, as it's an amino acid everybody consumes anyhow, and there are many papers showing it can help. So, very cheap, basically no downside, possible significant upside, abundant scientific support. It was one of the first things I tried that had an immediate, positive effect.

Digging into this sort of thing did convince me there's a lot of truth in the idea that you can't get the medical world very interested in solutions that don't come with a patentable treatment. There's a lot of papers I've found about how much heart stuff can be treated by correcting various deficiencies, such as taurine, or magnesium & potassium, but it all seems very under- utilized by the medical community themselves.

Example: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16797868](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16797868)

(Incidentally, just as that abstract says, the literature suggest adding L-Arginine to your taurine may also be beneficial as they work together. If you're fine now, I wouldn't suggest rocking the boat, but if it's only 80-90% effective or something, you may want to consider adding that as there's a decent chance it could take you to 100%.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> This smells like a crackpot. The first author's affiliation is his own "research institute": [https://m.george-eby-research.com/](https://m.george- eby-research.com/) and they claim a simple, somehow overlooked solution to a difficult problem, citing flimsy and ancient studies.

<comment><USER71> I generally agree with you, but lithium is also used to treat bi-polar disorder (among others) and it was discovered by accident. People used to recommend it without any data supporting it. I suspect this is how most treatments start

<comment><USER72> >lithium [...] was discovered by accident.

No it was not. Development of treatment with lithium was very much a part of psychiatric normal science.

<comment><USER73> I'm sorry - you are wrong. John Cade found the effects - with animals - <USER2> accident. And he was widely ignored because of his lack of fundamental, industry-wide standards for exploration.

Neverless: lithium is now the way to go with clinical treatment of a wide range of disorders and reducing self-harm and suicide rates.

The problem so far: nobody is sure why it works.

The dose is worth mentioning. Clients receive a dose of 200-500mg per day. The lithium you can buy without prescription contains around 1mg. Effects are still there, but the dose on the subjects of matter are quite high and can be toxic if done wrong.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_(medication)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_\(medication\))

<comment><USER74> Wish we knew why it works. But it's also nice that something is accepted based on data alone. Many people in science tend to reject claims based on a lack of explanation alone. But that's the whole point - observe and then try to figure out why or how.

<comment><USER75> > _Many people in science tend to reject claims based on a lack of explanation > alone._

Do you have a good example? Most of the examples I think of are just results got by badly run clinical trials or unreproducible physics experiments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Good old fashioned crackpot science...

</comment><comment><USER77> Why supplement magnesium instead of getting it from dietary sources?

<comment><USER78> You didnt read the article. From the article:

> Magnesium has been largely removed from processed foods, especially refined > grains, in the Western world,

<comment><USER53> You seem to be extrapolating that since refined grains do not contain Mg, no foods do. This is not the case. OP can eat other foods instead of processed grains to obtain Mg.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> I don't get it, why do I so regularly see these random solutions to depression on the homepage? Are startup founders really depressed or something? Is there a rash of suicides in this community? I don't get it.

Overwhelmingly, normal-ass anti-anxiety, SSRs, and therapy is to be the best form of treatment. Pumping your body full of magnesium is a hack that falls in to the bucket of exercise or sleeping more.

If you're scared about going to the doctor and getting prescribed, that's one thing. But mainlining crushed up magnesium vitamins to fix your depression is a complete lack of understanding of depression.

Magnesium is not treatment. Mushrooms and Ketamine is not treatment. Get actual treatment.</comment>


The road from paper concept to working beta software - <AUTHOR> http://blog.benchit.com/the-road-from-a-paper-concept-to-working-beta-software/

<comment><USER2> An interesting approach. A somewhat vague idea turned concrecte by searching a solution space in constant flux. I will be monitoring your progress! :)</comment>


Amazon Introduces Fire TV Set-Top Box - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2014/04/02/amazon-fire-tv/

<comment><AUTHOR> A $99 challenge to Apple, Roku, Microsoft, Google, and Sony. I like the child- oriented controls. And they say they've listened to the complaints of users of their competitors' products.

Now, what is Apple going to announce later this month?</comment>


Everybody Lies: FBI Edition - <AUTHOR> https://www.popehat.com/2017/12/04/everybody-lies-fbi-edition/ <comment><USER2> > say "No, I want to talk to my lawyer, I don't want to talk to you,"

And if I can't afford it, I'm going to get the money for a lawyer ... where?

If I don't have a lawyer, will I just sit in jail until I talk or get a lawyer?

What's the real, practical advise for someone down at the margins?

<comment><USER3> You don't ever have to talk at all, lawyer or not.

If they want to play hardball, they can detain/arrest you, but there's a limit on how long they can do that before they have to formally charge you. If they need you to talk to them before they'll feel like they have enough to charge you, then they probably won't charge you if you keep your mouth shut. Yes, the experience will likely be incredibly awful overall, but it'll probably be better than what will happen if you -- even accidentally -- lie to the FBI.

And if they _do_ decide to charge you, despite your silence, then they'll still have less to go on than if you talked (and likely accidentally lied to them). At that point, if you truly don't have the means to hire a lawyer, you'll at least get a public defender. Yes, they're almost universally overworked and don't have the time to give your case the attention it needs, but it's still better than accidentally lying to the FBI and giving them an obvious crime that they don't need to do any more work to prove.

There is really just no upside to talking to the FBI (or any law enforcement officer, for that matter), and plenty of potential, likely downside. It's a huge shame, because I wish we lived in a world where law enforcement's primary purpose is to help and protect people, and not to help DAs and prosecutors find reasons to jail people, but... well, that's the world we live in.

<comment><USER2> Yep to all that.

But. Meanwhile, you've probably lost your job, either for not showing up or for being arrested. At least then you can argue that you're indigent and need a public defender.</comment></comment></comment>


Roku debuts a new Streaming Stick with a quad-core processor - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/05/roku-debuts-a-new-streaming-stick-with-a-quad-core-processor-support-for-private-listening/ <comment><USER2> Now we just need someone to find out how to install other software on it. :)</comment>


Google Actions Revoked Globally - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleAssistantDev/comments/diyya2/google_actions_are_down/ <comment><AUTHOR> Response from email@example.com about our Action that was approved more than two weeks ago:

Hi developer,

Thank you for your interest in Actions on Google.

I have investigated your Action and can see it is not currently working.

We are in the process of conducting a comprehensive review of Actions to ensure that they meet our developer policies . During this review, some Actions have been paused temporarily.

Once your Action is reviewed and verified, it will become available again on the Assistant. Note this process might take up to a few weeks.

We sincerely apologize for this inconvenience.

Thank you, Yoko Actions on Google Support Team

No public notification except on Reddit.</comment>


Ask HN: Explaining front-end frameworks to a designer - <AUTHOR> Hey guys,
I'll start with some context - I'm a UX designer at Wix.com, where I also get to play around with front-end development (Prototyping).
Whenever a framework like React or Angular comes up in a conversation with fellow designers, I will always have a hard time explaining what these tools are/why do we use it.
(I think) I'm having a hard time explaining, because I had never built anything meant for 'production', nor with vanilla.
What I usually end up with, is: "a framework asks that you write your code in a specific manner, according to a set of rules. In return, it will do some super clever assumptions, such that your end product will be better (Maintainable, performant, etc...)".
I feel like this explanation could be better. Any thoughts?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> Web UI designers should be familiar with concept of web components. Angular is maybe not the best choice, but React is quite easy to explain. It's all about such components. Every React component is like a brick you can use to build the whole house. Every component looks like a custom tag <Message/>, can have clear defined parameters <Message text="Hello World"/>. It is very performant and easy to reason about. Forget about HTML or CSS :) Think about the component and its properties. It's very simple. It does not need to be related to the browser. <Foo/> is just a convenient abstraction which can work with the browser or as iOS/Android native component (thanks to React Native). The component may use HTML inside, but it is it's implementation details.

</comment><comment><USER3> Since designers are presumably aware of things like Photoshop and related technologies, it could be useful to explain by analogy. For example, a framework could be said to have "macros" that apply various types of "effects" and interaction to elements on the page. Frameworks also provide "layers or pieces of templates" (think responsive columns) that make aligning elements more uniform and consistent throughout the site. Another thing to note to the designers is that the original languages for making pages were very cryptic and tedious while modern frameworks take away a good part of the tedium by simplifying the layout and element-interaction processes.

Edit: By "designer", I was thinking you meant graphics designer; I apologise if you meant something else.

</comment><comment><USER4> A framework abstracts away common patterns so you don't have to reinvent the wheel all the time. That being said, not everyone agree on what are the same common patterns or the best way to solve them, hence why there's so many frameworks.

</comment><comment><USER5> Framework is like a joke. If you have to explain it then its not that good. I know its irrelevant but I just had to put it somewhere.</comment>