Mindfulness may have been over-hyped - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180502-does-mindfulness-really-improve-our-health <comment><USER2> Well, mindfulness certainly has been overhyped. Apps and gurus have pushed it as a cure-all and people have eaten it up because our society is broken and people are over stressed. Mindfulness is simply an introductory technique meant to be expanded upon.

Personally, I've still found it very useful. When I'm meditating frequently, I'm less reactive -- it's like there's this new sense of "self" that is observing and controlling my brain, whereas before, or when my meditation habit lapses, my brain is just doing it's thing in a more reactive way. This has been incredibly useful both personally and professionally.

<comment><USER3> I don't think our society is broken, at least not more-so compared to any other generation.

<comment><USER4> You're spot on. Anyone who thinks our society is broken now compared to the past is being ignorant of how downright terrible life was for most of humanity throughout history.

This society has given me, a female individual, full autonomy over my body, my education, and my career prospects (for most anything short of being a catholic priest!) and protects my right to that autonomy via law. My grandmother didn't even have that. This society has produced and distributed vaccines that protect my entire generation from devastating illness. This society has seen the harm that inhumane treatment towards people of color and homosexual people has and legislated protections for both (cultural norms are still behind in some places, but vastly improved over previous generations).

You may think that too many facebook notifications is stressful, but how stressed do you think Alan Turing felt when he was tried for indecency and medically castrated for being gay? Heck, compared to many generations before that (and some deeply conservative societies that still exist in theocracies today), he was lucky to not be murdered by the government.

I freaking love modern western society and refuse to shrug off all the progress we've made and cast it aside as "broken".

<comment><USER2> If you think nothing is wrong with society and everything is great, that's interesting to me. It makes me wonder how much luck you've experienced in your life. I have certainly experienced a ton.

For most Americans, their reality is massive income inequality, insane healthcare expenses, working shitty jobs for 40+ hours a week, suffering from some kind chronic or preventable illness, and numbing the pain with 5 hours of TV per day. It's total shit.

Granted, it's less shit than it was 50 years ago in terms of social progress, medical advances, etc. But fundamentally, I believe it's still broken for the vast majority of people, if you were to somehow measure the NPS of being a human. ("Would you recommend being a human to a friend or colleague?")

<comment><USER4> I never said nothing is wrong. I said that compared to every point in time before now it is fundamentally much better, especially for people who were invisible or oppressed due to sex, race or disability. Because it is so improved calling it broken is meaningless, because it has always been broken.

Working your life away for a substandard living is not a new thing. Not by a mile. It's the norm for history. Someone is always getting exploited. The 40 hour work week was a right that we fought for. The fact that we even have treatments and preventions for illnesses (and get new ones every day, that hep C cure for example) means we are improving, and ensuring people have access is a problem many people are invested in fixing (millenials are big supporters of universal healthcare, it will be a thing one day).

I do think I'm lucky though. I was the first person in my family to grow up middle class. I never had to rely on food banks or welfare, I didn't have to spend all my free time caring for my siblings while my parents worked. My mom had to do those things growing up, but she escaped it because she earned a scholarship to a state university and could get by with that and a part time job. Society is the one who built that college and gave her that chance, even when her family would not or could not. I am thankful for that, because at least I now have the knowledge and opportunity to fix things that do need fixing. And there are plenty. But I don't think for a second that I would have had more opportunity to do that if I had been born at any point in time before.

<comment><USER2> Thank you for the thoughtful reply. You're completely right about life being fundamentally better for the invisible/oppressed. I take your point -- it was always broken for them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can tell it's a billion dollar business, I launched a Meditation app two months ago, we had good retention and users were loving the app. Then the guy we hired to do the voice over disappeared with no explanation so we couldn't fulfill our promise of "daily meditation" because the voice was not the same. 15 days later I understood why: We received a Cease and Desist from one of the companies behind the top meditation and mindfulness apps in the AppStore. They certainly don't want anybody to enter that niche.

<comment><USER6> Your voice guy quit because he knew 15 days from then you'd receive a cease & desist letter from another company?

<comment><USER5> We hired him in a talent website, when I say he disappeared is because he was just unavailable to continue doing the voice over for us, he was not available for booking anymore. I suspect this company reached out to him, booked him heavily or something so he was not available for us.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> When I see mindfulness mentioned, I am often reminded of my eastern philosophy classes. Mindfulness is not a 'moment of the day', it's a way of living your life.

The idea was that in the west, we would take these ideas and try to fit them into a western world which is a world where time == money. So you get these things like 'mindfulness classes' where, for one hour, you practice being in a state of mindfulness whilst the rest of the week you go through your life as usual.

I guess that when we took the idea of mindfulness and put it in a package that fit our society, it might have gotten hyped and more distant from its essence. This just to state that mindfulness might still be worth your time - just not the 'prepackaged' version.

* Small disclaimer: I do not practice it, I'm just being a parrot of some philosophy classes that I thought were interesting.

<comment><USER8> Kurt Vonnegut made me more mindful before I even knew that was a word. In _A Man Without a Country_ he relays some advice given to him by his uncle:

> I urge you to please notice when you are happy, and exclaim or murmur or > think at some point, 'If this isn't nice, I don't know what is.

Since reading that ten years ago I've done that almost daily. Often I'm only saying it to my dog but it certainly has made me appreciate the small moments that can be wonderful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Alternatively: meditation turns out to be harder than popularizers tend to let on

<comment><USER10> It's also probably impossible to assess whether someone is or not meditating.

<comment> the-pigeon I thought there was particular brain wave patterns associated with it. Which if so you could certainly measure them.

<comment><USER11> There was a study where they wrote some software with a bar on it representing brain activity in the area of the brain that decreases when meditating. They then told people to try to get the bar to go down. This worked, and showed that meditation can one day be made easy, and is a valuable tool that can be studied in a clear way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There's an article [1] entitled "Meditation en masse - how colonialism sparked the global Vipassana movement".

When the British conquered the Buddhist kingdom of Burma, Buddhism lost the protection it had from the king. The laity then organized in order to defend their Buddhist institutions, and people began to study the dhamma like never before.

This gave rise to talented monks who preached to the laity. Then Ledi Sayadaw, a Burmese monk, began preaching that meditation was not something that only monks who dedicated their lives to it could do, but was available to anyone. This led to a lineage of lay teachers of meditation, one of whom was Goenka, the founder of the Vipassana meditation movement.

In short, the modern Vipassana movement has its origins in the popularization of meditation which was a result of British colonialism in Burma.

[1] [https://tricycle.org/magazine/meditation-en- masse/](https://tricycle.org/magazine/meditation-en-masse/)

<comment><USER13> I have the book the author of that article wrote (The Birth of Insight: Meditation, Modern Buddhism, and the Burmese Monk Ledi Sayadaw). Its an interesting book. Historical perspective on ideas is fascinating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> As someone who meditates daily, I would be surprised if meditation had substantial therapeutic benefit for anything beyond some behavioral disorders.

Meditation for me is about truth seeking. I emerge from zazen feeling as though I understand myself and the world around me more honestly. It has long term implications for how I think and behave, certainly, but probably not in any medically interesting sense.

I don't expect studying physics or building a deck to change my health outcomes measurably. Meditating isn't different in kind.

The value that I gain from "just sitting" is not something I can articulate very well in words. I would certainly encourage others to meditate daily, but meditation won't mend broken bones or unclog arteries or replace neurotransmitters the body can't produce enough of naturally. It's just sitting, after all.

<comment><USER15> > feeling as though I understand myself and the world around me more honestly

That sounds like it could be rather therapeutic for many folks. Small changes in perspectives can make a big difference, I think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The comments here so far seem to be focusing on the click-baity title... the article is actually a good review of mindfulness research and next steps in the field

<comment><USER17> 90% of it was touting the benefits. I kept reading to see if it would get to the part where it's all bunk, but it never did.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> You don't say. I've seen companies that really couldn't afford it get sucked in to this nonsense at great expense and with very little to show for it. But some 'mindfulness consultant' made off with the loot. Besides the fact that you can't really force employees into stuff that they wouldn't do out of their own volition (imagine a company that suddenly forced all the employees to visit Scientology sessions regularly or something that effect).

These hype cycles only serve the people that peddle the hype.

Of course people are totally free to do what they want in their own time and if they feel like spending that on 'mindfulness' (which conveniently is so vague it could mean just about anything) then that's fine. Back in the 80's everybody seemed to have their personal Guru, now we have this. 20 years from now we'll probably have something else that takes its place.

<comment><USER19> You should separate trendy goal-oriented mindfulness from the thousands year old concept so you aren't throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

A mindfulness consultant forced onto a workforce sounds about as effective as forcing all your employees to run five miles every week. But that doesn't mean that running is bad for you.

<comment><USER20> People believed a lot of dumb things for millenia. The fact that people have believed it a long time is no reason to think the idea has merit.

<comment><USER21> It's actually an amazingly good reason to think an idea has merit. Unless you think all your ancestors were just idiots.

<comment><USER22> > Unless you think all your ancestors were just idiots

This doesn't follow, you can be smart and also wrong. It's also possible to be smart and not have good enough tools. The randomized controlled trial (RCT), for instance, is a marvelous tool that might sound obvious to you, but that's only because you received the kind of education which wasn't possible for most of history. Those ancestors from a millenia ago, however smart they were, didn't have RCTs and didn't have the world-view which would make them value RCTs and even if they did their peers certainly didn't have the right world- view to value things learned from RCTs and as a result, through no fault of their own, those ancestors had a much harder time understanding reality than we do.

<comment><USER18> You could also be super smart and be giving the wrong information.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> If it wasn't this overhyped, and if not everyone and their dog told me to try it, it would have never crossed my mind.

If it works or not, I don't know but I enjoy my moment of silence a lot. I also love that it gives me more and more frequently moments where I realize where and when I actually am instead of moving on autopilot through my day.

As cliche as it sounds, I for example stopped listening to music on the train and just listen to my surroundings and "be there". My social media and phone addiction almost completely disappeared and I'm just in general a nicer person.

Again, what of that is actually attributed to meditation and mindfulness, I don't know but it's been great.

</comment><comment><USER24> Usually, practicing being mindful just brings about more anxiety than if I were to lose myself into doing something that has the capability of swallowing me whole - such as playing video games, running, driving, having long walks.

<comment><USER25> > lose myself into doing something that has the capability of swallowing me > whole

That's what being mindful is all about! It teaches you how to be present in the moment and let those negative anxious thoughts pass by rather than consume you.

<comment><USER26> > let those negative anxious thoughts pass by rather than consume you.

Lol, I'd much rather prefer for those negative anxious thoughts to not occur in the first place (and there is a superior method to achieve this), much less having to have to let them pass by or consume me. This is why meditation is not a solution.

<comment><USER25> Trying to suppress your thoughts is not a solution either, that just gives them more weight. When you let them by, you realize that they were not worth the attention in the first place, and they fade away over time. There is no quick fix.

<comment><USER26> suppression != not-occurring

<comment><USER25> Unfortunately I think you'll find that not everything can be solved, and that you'll always have _some_ anxiety. It would actually be strange if you didn't, everyone has these thoughts every so often. The trick is to not let them take over you, and just move on.

I suspect you're doing this without realizing it; you're analyzing your anxieties until you understand them, and then they stop happening over time as you stop giving them so much attention.

<comment><USER26> I've met people who have eliminated all of their anxieties (and more), so it is certainly possible. I do not armchair analyze or suppress feelings (sincerity is an essential ingredient). There is no need to guess; you could just ask me as to how I investigate and eventually eliminate; though mind you it will likely conflict with much of your cherished values about humanity :-P

<comment><USER25> Sure, would you mind explaining what you did?

<comment><USER26> It takes some effort to grasp the method of actualism, so I've linked the wiki below[1] if you're interested in exploring further (most people run away at this stage :P), but the basic method is to feel good, as a bottom-line, each and every moment again ... and sincerely explore (neither withdrawing nor psychoanalyzing) any hindrances to that feeling good until one can clearly see the silliness (whatever it is) of it preventing one from enjoying this moment (which clear seeing is sufficient to get back to feeling good). It is as simple as that (and, before you bring up any parallel, it is 180 degrees opposite to any meditation/ stoicism practices that HN is so fond of).

[1] [https://github.com/ActualFreedom/home/wiki](https://github.com/ActualFreedom/home/wiki)

<comment><USER25> What is the depth of emotion that you can experience if you are constantly trying to feel good?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Is there a name for this cycle?

1\. Useful $THING gets mentioned in the news (mindfulness, AI, cryptocurrency, ...)

2\. $THING gets hyped into orbit ($THING consultants, $THING apps, $THING books, $THING as a way of life, ...)

3\. We start seeing articles like "$THING has been over-hyped" or "$THING results not replicated".

4\. $THING drops out of the limelight, sometimes into a worse position than it started in because of the 'negative' press.

5\. A new $THING emerges ...

 _Edited_ : not trying to be snarky here (see below for the actual term I was looking for). It's just that this is a pattern I've seen repeated so many times, in tech. and elsewhere.

<comment><USER28> There's something similar to what you describe called the Hype Cycle - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle)

<comment><USER29> Alternatively: Six phases of a big project \- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_phases_of_a_big_project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_phases_of_a_big_project)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'd compare it to a physical workout: it's not necessarily a good treatment for a specific disease or injury and may even be harmful to a person who isn't well. Being in shape, however makes a person generally more resilient to disease and injury.

</comment><comment><USER31> The article talks a lot about PTSD but mindfulness meditation was not designed for that so it's maybe not surprising it doesn't fix it. Funnily enough they recently seem to have found a fix with MDMA [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/mdma-ecstasy- mdma-...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/mdma-ecstasy-mdma-post- traumatic-stress-disorder-veterans-a8332561.html)

Mindfulness, according to Wikipedia:

>In Buddhist teachings, mindfulness is utilized to develop self-knowledge and wisdom that gradually lead to what is described as enlightenment

(by the way there were recent discussions of meditation, more of the get thing done variety, by the Sapiens guy here [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13905249](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13905249) and a link to Seinfeld on Meditation [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13909346](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13909346) which I'm having a look at)

<comment><USER32> Id consider the induced state when I've tried MDMA to be very similar to mindfulness. It feels like I have better communication with my body, and it's easier to listen to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> There is too much analysis of mindfulness and meditation. So you'll end up with analyzing yourself too much while looking for that glorious state of detaching your self from your self to get into that witness mode and apply all the philosophies, ideals, influences crammed into your head to each thought you have.

So my suggestion is while meditating, drop all that stuff, sit alone at home/indoor, or quiet outdoor area, and just be meditative while listening to your breath instead of "meditating", and trust you understand basic human decency. Being yogic-like, or whatever, doesn't mean you have to be what people commonly think that means. Just be you.

That's how I've always viewed yoga/tantra as at it's core. There is more to yoga and tantra than that but there is no need to go there unless you're interested. For most people, they just want to de-stress and heal their mind and body and be themselves. The regular practice of meditation like this extends into regular activities and has improved my productivity, tempered my reactivity to shit, etc.

</comment><comment><USER34> I never understood the difference or relationship between trace-like "meditation" and "mindfulness" (which I thought is something like introspecting into your mental state to recognize and defuse your emotions, like the "HALT: Hunger, Anger, Loneliness, and Tiredness" self-check)

<comment><USER4> Transcendental meditation is probably the trance like one you have in mind, and that's very different from the far more established Buddhist practice of "mindfulness" which is traditionally practiced via meditation. Transcendental meditation is just repeating a nonsense phrase over and over. Both practices typically have you sit still for 15 minutes, but that's where the similarities end.

Mindfulness practice encompasses cultivating awareness of internal states, so the HALT thing can be seen as a limited form of that. The meditation aspect is typically used more to practice non-reactivity, body awareness, and to understand the temporary nature of things. For example, in one practice you sit still and make a mental note of all the sounds you hear. You hear them start and end, consider the qualities of the sound (loud, rhythmic, high pitch, etc) and you notice your reaction to them (do you get startled when the ice maker goes off? Are the sounds of birds calming?). You allow yourself to welcome new sounds into your perception, and try not to linger or dwell on old ones when they're gone. Obviously it's not directly practical to most things, but the idea is that you learn to feel alright with the temporary nature of things, pleasant or unpleasant, and can then apply that to your own emotions or other external situations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Buddha gave the path of end of suffering as eight noble qualities: "right view", "right intention", "right speech", "right action", "right effort", "right livelihood", "right mindfulness", and "right concentration".

Notice "right mindfulness" is different than "right concentration" and it is just 1/8th of the path. When your hypothesis is 1/8th of the complete picture, of course your studies will prove it does not work.

</comment><comment><USER36> This seems to be a phenomenon similar to "agile washing". It actually works if you internalize it, turn it over in your mind and make it your own. It doesn't work if you just hire a trainer and otherwise treat it as a necessary evil. Based on the opinion of a friend who reports good results from reading a book about mindfulness and practicing it.

There are a bunch of similar comments here, this is just a slightly different angle on it.

</comment><comment><USER37> Mindfulness isn't over-hyped. Mindfulness takes __effort __. There 's crazy videos of buddhist monks walking on their thumbs. People can raise their body temperature several degrees at will (and it's how a lot of open ocean swimmers survive, say, crossing the english channel). But it takes practice, every day, for years and you can't fake it - you're body knows you're cheating and can't be bribed.

Given that - how do you do a statistical analysis across the population of mindfulness meditation vs. pill popping? Pills always work, often with horrible debilitating side effects (yay Opioids!). Meanwhile the monk I met who learned to walk again after being confined to a wheelchair (gymnastics injury) had to sit under a tree for several years doing muscle exercises and willing the pain away.

So of course science can't rationalize it. How do you measure the strength of will of people? It's not so easy to put these sorts of things into a study. So I guess we'll keep eating the poison pill. Shrug.

<comment><USER38> People heal from injuries using physical therapy on a regular basis.

I also don't know what walking on ones thumbs has to do with mindfullness.

You don't need to do a statistical analysis. We have other tools that can be used like double blind trials comparing meditation and medication.

Anyways, I think you should be very careful about placing much stock in anything that can't be studied in a scientific way. Such a thing would by definition have no measurable effect on the world or be unchangeable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> $$$ via attention seeking articles : First X gets hyped thanks to tons of articles from publications like this, then there are counter articles calling X overhyped. Then there are articles calling for balance/nuance in X. X = AI, mindfulness, blockchain, health tracking apps, self driving cars, yoga...

News businesses will create a hype curve for every phenomenon.

<comment><USER40> I realized this the other day in the shower: media outlets basically argue with themselves to create their own hype cycles.

First it's a fringe crazy idea, then it's the new hotness, then it should be a part of your daily life, then someone decides they're edgy and it's not for them, then it's basically cancer, then a story of how it grew too fast and has collapsed.

And the funny thing is, it's almost a negative signal of what's valuable. By the time The Guardian or CNN is talking about bitcoin, you have no chance of making a dime.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Say the same people responsible for the overhyping headlines. Obnoxious!

Meanwhile at University of Wisconsin, Madison:

 _Study reveals gene expression changes with meditation_

[https://news.wisc.edu/study-reveals-gene-expression- changes-...](https://news.wisc.edu/study-reveals-gene-expression-changes-with- meditation/)

</comment><comment><USER42> The original article appears here with the much less click-baity headline:

"Peering into the meditating mind"

[https://www.knowablemagazine.org/article/mind/2018/peering-m...](https://www.knowablemagazine.org/article/mind/2018/peering- meditating-mind)

</comment><comment><USER43> Yes, extracting the mindfulness techniques out of vipassana practice and then trying to use it to cure PTSD, anxiety, and poor work performance is bound to fail. Being mindful of your neurotic behavior is useful, but it does not help unless you act and change the circumstances that is causing the problem.

<comment><USER44> I have PTSD and practice mindfulness/buddhism and while it doesn't cure it, it certainly does help a lot. You can only act and change the circumstances when you have some new insights and there is where mindfulness/buddhism helps me. It is certainly not the case of I'm meditating and miraculously all my problems go away...

Personally I don't think that mindfulness/medition/... is overhyped but the tools/apps/courses are. There is really no need to spends hunderds of euro's to being mindfull or learn the practices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Mindfulness isn't overhyped, but it also doesn't work if you're not committed. Mindfulness seminars or apps aren't going to change you, they might be a nice introduction, but meditation is a practice that you need to make part of your life to truly get results.

</comment><comment><USER46> It can be considered "over-hyped" in a way but I believe it is not hyped sufficiently as long as the majority of people still haven't mastered it. Lack of mindfulness skill and habit is pretty much like the "gluteal amnesia" syndrome: there is a natural thing your butt muscles should be doing all the way you go but in just so many people it doesn't, same thing with your mind and mindfulness. And you don't necessarily need an instructor for this: it's a valid way to get started but for many people (not for everybody, of course) some books and free YouTube videos can be enough as well.

</comment><comment><USER47> I am not surprised because Mindfulness is not a cure-all.

I recently read Goleman's Emotional Intelligence. One of the key takeaways for me was the nature of mindfulness/meditation. To paraphase Goleman Mindfulness/meditation works by alleviating your mood. So, if there is lot of anger or you tend to get worried a lot, meditation works.

But, if you tend to be more dispirited most of the time then meditation actually doesn't work for you. A better solution is to try and get into an upbeat mood. Exercise, exciting adventure sports etc might be a better option.

</comment><comment><USER48> Mindfulness brings no advantage except the realization that we are not our mind, that we exist as a being beyond it, that our thoughts are mostly response to stimulus. If you ignore stimulus, there are no thoughts. If you observe the mind intently, it inevitably struggles to do much thinking about anything. What is profound about this conclusion?

Nothing.

It does not lead to better memories. It does not lead to more satisfaction. It does not bring more joy. It does not make you more productive. Does it help you focus better? Maybe. But practicing to actually _focus_ is much more efficient.

<comment><USER49> There is a difference between knowing something objectively and experiencing it subjectively. The really hardcore meditators do it not just so they can recount the experience of emptiness to someone but so they can actually feel it and learn from the experience itself firsthand.

It's like asking someone who did psychedelics to explain it to you. They'll always tell you the experience is not something you can understand with words alone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I have been practicing mindfulness meditation for the past five years and it has shown positive benefits for mental health in terms of being less reactive and calm. My immunity has also increased, I used to have a lot of allergies and used to get throat infection regularly but I don't now.

One observation is that mindfulness meditation in the night reduced sleep quality.

Second is that mindfulness meditation is another exercise. It is aimed at increasing focus, since what you are doing is trying to focus. It isn't a cure for every mental ailment.

</comment><comment><USER51> "Or it may not have. We don't really know anything."

I find these articles very frustrating.

"Maybe it's good, sounds like of good, right? But studies are inconclusive!"

So what are you saying? And why so many stock photos?

</comment><comment><USER52> The article seems to be struggling to differentiate between mindfulness, meditation and negative aspects of the same like rumination.

As the battle for our attention increases rapidly, its going to be ever more important to truly understand all these tools and make use of them.

I think the meaning of mindfulness is mis-understood in a very large part of the population rather than it being over-hyped.

</comment><comment><USER53> The self-help 'there is a book and a subscription and an app for that' modern take on mindfulness which is entirely in place to make money is of course over-hyped and largely predatory in nature.

This shouldn't take away from the fact that mindfulness does help people. Just that if you're paying for it, you are quite likely doing it wrong.

</comment><comment><USER54> I think the entire benefit of this (assuming there is any) is in setting aside a few minutes per day to fully relax. I'm also pretty sure a power nap would be better, but it's generally less socially acceptable, especially in a work environment.

</comment><comment><USER13> Mindfulness style meditation without any goals or objectives, no clock or apps. No expectations. Just the beauty of it. For me, that has been most consistent with the nature of the practice itself.

</comment><comment><USER55> Wim Hof is where it's at though. Cold exposure and breathing

</comment><comment><USER56> Here's a talk on the subject from famous buddhist monk and teacher Ajahn Brahm.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGjXEM1HZ54&t=1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGjXEM1HZ54&t=1s)

TLDR There are other things necessary for mindfulness/meditation to really take off. Things like ethics, right view and other parts of Eightfold Path (buddhist practice). Those give a mind basic clarity and joy necessary for successful practice.

</comment><comment><USER57> Ask 20 "experts" on what it is and you get 20 different answers. :P

</comment><comment><USER58> A lot of things today are overhyped.

</comment><comment><USER59> No kidding. Dealt with pitches for 'mindfulness' as a practicing stoic for years.

"Dude, you should check out mindfulness. You'd really be into it."

Nope. As best I could ever tell, mindfulness was a pop-psych pastiche of various bits of Buddhism, Daoism, and Stoicism designed to sell self-help books and consulting hours.

I can't speak for Buddhism and I've heard that the Daodejing appears cryptic now because the body of contemporary Chinese literature it frequently alludes to has been largely lost to history. But the surviving late stoic works are surprisingly accessible, even in stilted translations, making it much easier to see through attempts to repackage old ideas and make a quick buck.

<comment><USER60> Don't think you deserve the downvotes though you do come off snarky =D

But I always reply the same way to people who preach mindfulness and meditation to me.

I've independently studied the stoics, the east etc etc for years. And always made my time for "vita contemplativa" which doesn't necessarily mean sitting down trying to escape thought.

I am generally much more grounded than anyone even telling me to do it.

Highly recommend these two scholarly volumes about Eastern philosophy -> [https://www.amazon.com/History-Chinese-Philosophy-Vol- Philos...](https://www.amazon.com/History-Chinese-Philosophy-Vol- Philosophers/dp/0691020213)

Can't find the matching references, but he speaks of meditation actually beginning as a walking ritual. There is also a chapter on the Taoist's who found mindfulness through being drunk aha

Edit: Also obligatory Nietzche quote -> "Thoughts that come with doves' footsteps guide the world"

<comment><USER59> Thanks for the recommendation. A more thorough investigation of Chinese history, philosophy, and literature is on my list of long term reading goals. From what I understand already, we have lost a large amount of literature from the same period as Laozi, but we have surviving later commentaries on that literature and on the Daodejing (which give some context).</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Simple Translations for Nurses and their Patients - <AUTHOR> http://www.multilingualnurse.com

<comment><USER2> The language dropdowns appear to have a typo: Vietminese should be Vietnamese, right?

<comment><AUTHOR> Whoops, you are correct. Fixed.</comment></comment>


AT&T CEO voices regret over iPhone unlimited data model - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/04/atandt-ceo-voices-regret-over-iphone-unlimited-data-model/ <comment><USER2> "Apple iMessage is a classic example. If you're using iMessage, you're not using one of our messaging services, right?"

It's hard to believe this is a real quote by such a senior executive. If the profitability of your business is so significantly based on a hack (SMS) that you stay awake at night worrying about it, and you didn't bother innovating by developing a real solution to the problem (pervasive real-time communication) in the past 20 years while the hack became popular, then you _absolutely_ deserve to lose this profitable part of your business - _especially_ when you're in the friggin telecommunications business!

<comment><USER3> Despite SMS being a hack that costs carriers (essentially) nothing to send [1], the reality of this situation is that telcos will be/are quickly losing one of their largest profit points to services like iMessage.

Real question: Where are they going to recover that profitability from?

[1] <http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/12/text-messages-c/>

<comment><USER4> I'm genuinely curious... why is AT&T losing so much money over iMessage? When iMessage came out I went to downgrade my SMS plan, and found you can no longer do so. It is unlimited SMS or no messaging. Not everyone I know owns an iPhone and $.20 per SMS adds up, so I am stuck paying for unlimited.

<comment><USER5> Mysteriously, AT&T changed their plans very shortly after Apple announced iMessage. Obviously they foresaw a lot of people downgrading their plans so they just did away with the tiered plans completely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sheesh. The iPhone pretty much single-handedly catapulted AT&T from an also- ran cell carrier to the top. I'm sure "unlimited" was a bit of a headache for them, but surely it was well worth it in the end.

</comment><comment><USER7> How about AT&T Customer regrets choosing AT&T iPhone model?

As an AT&T iPhone user (grandfathered with the unlimited data plan), I've had nothing but poor service in both Silicon Valley, CA & NYC.

AT&T's CEO regrets offering unlimited data because AT&T has to "invest capital"? As an iPhone user experiencing the _lack_ of capital investment every day, I have no sympathy and only hatred for AT&T.

</comment><comment><USER8> In the end AT&T and the other carriers don't want to be "dumb pipes", but that's what consumers want. Can you imagine the same applied to water? "I'm sorry sir, but we know you used an unapproved toilet AND you went over your allotted shower minutes this month."

We can only hope that it'll work out in our favor and they can stop preaching to us how we should use their bandwidth.

<comment><USER9> > Can you imagine the same applied to water?

I don't get unlimited water for a monthly fee, I get charged per gallon. I'd imagine virtually all people have this situation.

Utilities - water, electricity, gas, etc. - compare to AT&T's new model better than their unlimited one.

<comment><USER10> You're not understanding what tnash said at all. Each of the utilities you list is a "dumb pipe". The utility company doesn't dictate what you do with the utility, and they don't charge you a different price for running a lightbulb vs. a washing machine. It's all about how much, not what's done with it.

The telcos want to be exactly the opposite. They want to control what you do, how you do it, and how much you pay for doing it, not based on the bandwidth used, but the nature of the use. This is the antithesis of a dumb pipe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Rewrite of [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/att-randall- stephen...](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/att-randall-stephenson/)

The crappiest part of The AOL Way that rags like Engadget pioneered ... is that it works better than having people writing actual content.

</comment><comment><USER12> The iMessage thing is, IMO, the more interesting comment. Apple has effectively ripped a revenue stream away from the providers, and they can't do much about it apart from raise prices for other stuff.

They're not alone, of course- BBM does the same thing. But they're all disjointed networks, which plays into the provider's hands right now. People still need text plans to contact people on other devices. I wonder if we'll see an app like WhatsApp finally get big enough to challenge that.

<comment><USER13> Probably not. There have been dozens of challengers (Kik, Beluga, WhatsApp), no one has gathered the ubiquity or reliability of SMS. The one one I can conceive of hitting that goal is Facebook, and at the moment they don't seem to be trying too hard.

<comment><USER14> Just another silo. You know what has the ubiquity of SMS? Email.

<comment><USER13> At least on my device, email's usability is not there. Nor is its delivery latency or immediacy on receipt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I bet Ma Bell had the same sad face on when they no longer had a monopoly on leasing phones to customers.

Time moves on and the pipes get commoditized. I hope congress chooses to side with the people rather than mandate profits for the corporations to whom we lease our airwaves.

</comment><comment><USER16> I disagree with his assessment. He only has to "invest capital" for each megabyte you download insofar as he merely has to maintain his current network. An individual user has a hardware limit on the amount of bandwidth they can consume, be it imposed by the network or the consuming device. "Each additional megabyte" consumes no more or less bandwidth than the megabyte before it nor the megabyte after it. He has the same maintenance cost whether this individual user is paying per megabyte or per day of access.

What causes him to have to invest capital is each additional simultaneous connection which uses his network. These analogize to subscribers to his service, not bits of data sent over his network.

I mean, does he really believe that he can change people's collective usage patterns during peak hours merely by limiting their consumed bandwidth for the whole month? Surely not. If anything, it will persuade people to eliminate their extraneous data usage and only use it when the data connection is "most important". I'm not one for blind guessing, but I have hunch that these "most important" times of data access probably correlate to his current peak hours.

The power companies face this same problem with throughput, and what do they do? Do they cap the amount of power you can receive per month in order to alleviate load? No! They invest in throughput, and when things get sketchy during peak times, they enforce throughput caps like rolling brownouts.

I have a hunch AT&T also does this with their forced data throttling on those who are consuming the most bandwidth, as if they were the problem! But they are also convincing people to pay more for less with monthly data caps. How they can get away with this is very surprising to me, personally.

<comment><USER17> I suspect their ability to get away with it has an inverse correlation to their customer's ability to understand what's going on. There's probably a little bit of the execs having no idea what's going on as well. (They don't strike me as the types who would easily understand the difference you pointed out.)

As customers become more knowledgable about what's going on, and why it makes no sense - AT&T et al will either be required to change their business model or someone will eat their lunch.

I keep hoping the same thing will happen with the major cable companies as well. Die, Comcast, die.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is like regreting modern agriculture because you could charge more from starving people if food was lacking. When given the option, the monopolies will always go after the "easy" model, which is of scarcity, instead of making money by just offering plain good service in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER19> It does not surprise me in the slightest that the AT&T CEO spends his nights lying awake regretting that he could have screwed his customers even harder.

Can imagine him holding back sobs as he considers how he might even have held back the future for 2, 3 more years and squeezed a few more dollars out of 10000% markups on SMS, charging by the kilobyte for data and restricting access to only approved apps/websites. Poor guy, you can tell it's going to haunt him.

</comment><comment><USER20> When something is disrupting your business model, move as fast as you can.

You'll have nothing to worry about but finding a new job after your company fail due to competitive pressure.

</comment><comment><USER21> I would be fine with a data transfer cap, if it scaled with technology or time. However looking at my internet provider, I have not seen an increase in the data cap since it was implemented. Meanwhile both services and technological capability have increased.

</comment><comment><USER22> A CEO publicizing regret over a business decision? Hold on to your wallets, iPhone users.

</comment><comment><USER23> I voice regret of actually using AT&T.</comment>


Flotato – Break Free from the Browser - <AUTHOR> https://flotato.com/ <comment><USER2> I like this. It's using webkit, and it's nice to have dedicated cmd-tab apps with dock notifications for messenger.</comment>


Jobs to iPhone 4 user: "relax, enjoy your family. It is just a phone." - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/5577316/steve-jobs-to-angry-iphone-4-user-relax-its-just-a-phone

<comment><USER2> Though I've never been an apple fan with the exception of early ipods, I am VERY surprised to see them flaunt their arrogance so publicly.

Strangely, it seems many of their minions are still promoting the iPhone 4 as a great device. I was on a plane the other day when a guy who had an ipad and iphone 4 calmly explained to the passenger next to him that all he had to do was hold his palm away from the phone, and things were fine. He RAVED about how great it was! It was his 3rd iPhone, he loves Apple.

If you've never owned an Apple product, or only had an iPod, and went out and bought the iPhone 4, would you become a fan? Particularly when Android is just gearing up with some really interesting devices?

Is the iPhone 4 Apple's Vista?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Okay - here's a conspiracy theory for you.

The iPhone is no longer an immediately recognizable status symbol. It used to be that you could spot an Apple faithful from a mile away. But now, that guy may be holding a Droid or a Palm or a Blackberry or whatever. It's hard to say.

Apple obviously knew about the antenna issue. A couple days after the iPhone is released Jobs issues the strange suggestion "avoid holding it in that way". And boom - you can once again instantly recognize a thoroughbred iPhone user by his or her distinct grip on their phone. Phone away from face, fingers off the antenna. Either that or the blazing pastel band that is practically required unless you want to keep a stack of replacement glass on hand.

Apple has mastered social marketing.

</comment><comment><USER3> Maybe it's just that my mother raised me with the idea that you catch more flies with sugar. But, I don't think it's terribly reasonable to mail the CEO of a company with the tone they used, even if the product in question is defective. I think most people would not have expected a positive outpouring of help if they sent emails like that.

Jobs respectfully told him to shut up and, in not so many words, return the phone if he doesn't like it. Seems like a more than appropriate response.

<comment><USER4> Another blog claimed that Apple had approached this guy to tell him to stop posting videos of the death grip glitch and that's how the exchange started. He still comes off as a loon, but it seems slightly better if you know this was part of an ongoing conversation that he didn't start.</comment></comment>


Amazon pays Microsoft for patent cross-license agreement - <AUTHOR> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2010/feb10/02-22MSAmazonPR.mspx

<comment><USER2> Perhaps we're going to see a new Kindle running Win 7 Phone? It's a longshot, but things like Courier and Zune, albeit Microsofty, would be amazing coupled with the ubiquity and ease of use of the Kindle.

It also puts Amazon at odds with Apple on more than just eBooks. It really makes you wonder how the war is going to play out, but the battle has just begun.

</comment><comment><USER3> From TFA: "The licensing agreement is another example of the important role IP plays in ensuring a healthy and vibrant IT ecosystem."

I bet nobody's surprised by that statement from "Microsoft News"...</comment>


Apple Taps Bob Mansfield to Oversee Car Project - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-taps-bob-mansfield-to-oversee-car-project-1469458580 <comment><USER2> My pet theory is still that the Apple Car project is all just to keep Jony Ive around - he's bored of designing square rectangles, and every day when he gets in his Tesla he swears at the crappy plastic interior. He went to Tim Cook and said "I'm leaving for Tesla to fix their design", and Tim Cook knowing that Jony Ive is probably half of Apple's share value will do anything to keep him on.

<comment><USER3> Jony Ive gets around in his chauffeured Bentley Mulsanne.

<comment><USER4> Now that does not have a crappy plastic interior.

<comment><USER5> It has some of the finest plastic money can buy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What I feel like everyone is missing is that an Apple Car makes sense for the same reason the iPhone made sense in 2007:

The existing technology really blows, and Apple can make a significant contribution.

Remember what "smartphones" looked like before the iPhone? No touch screens, physical keyboards, tiny screens, almost no native web browsing.

Now imagine what Apple could do to the inside of your car with that kind of thinking in mind, and $80,000.

Edit: I forgot one of the biggest problems with the old smartphones is they were ugly as sin, which is also true of modern cars.

<comment><USER7> >The existing technology really blows, and Apple can make a significant contribution.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Apple is starting out at 0 with no real competence in this area, the least of which is interaction with regulatory bodies tasked with consumer protection.

<comment><USER8> All of which is also true when Apple set out to make a phone. They had no competence in RF engineering, or interaction with the diversity of cellphone network providers throughout the world, the conventional wisdom at the time was that an outsider couldn't just break in to the phone market without acquiring an existing manufacturer.

<comment><USER9> Sorry, I call BS on this. I know a good bit about the semi-secret history here. I worked at Motorola before and during the launch of the first iPhone and also knew some of the people on the original iPhone product team. While it is true that they started with very few mobile industry veterans, they hired a few key people; they either quickly learned how to maneuver inside Apple or disappeared without a trace.

So it is not accurate to say Apple just learned how to make smartphones really fast, more that they effectively hacked the whole process with a number of Jedi mind tricks as well as key product decisions, all cemented by classic Steve Jobs dickery.

1\. They cultivated us at Motorola shamelessly by pretending to make an "iTunes phone" (remember the Rockr?) while they were just pumping our teams for information on how the byzantine portfolio and terminal acceptance process at carriers worked. They never intended that phone to ship and used the whole sordid con to get into Ralph de le Vega's office (sorry, Ed Zander).

They then used all the persuasion and BS they had to convince AT&T to give Apple a pass on the incredibly complex field network testing all phones must pass. The reason the overall phone experience of the first iPhone was so bad was not just because Jobs and co wanted it to be a great music and Internet experience first, but because they couldn't make a great phone at all then.

I don't see the exact analogy with teh car industry. cars. The mobile phone business was laughably over-regulated and unlike the extremely competitive phone industry, wireless carriers were not really. And oh yeah, smartphones were terrible, and cars today, whether you like the way they look or not, are some of the most incredibly optimized products ever made by man: safe, reliable, efficient.

Cars just can't be disrupted via a Jesus phone coming in at the high end with innovative features. The Jesus car already exists (Tesla) and it has been extremely successful at influencing one of the biggest industries in the world in numerous ways. But if your goal, like Apple, is to not just influence but manufacture at scale, then Tesla has failed and it appears it will take any company, even Apple, decades to learn how to really make cars for more than a few.

I sure hope this isn't just abut cars as a service, because Apple has demonstrated it just can't do services, even when latched to a truly beautiful shiny object it has made.

<comment><USER10> > because Apple has demonstrated it just can't do services

"In Fiscal 2015, the Services bin, "revenue from the iTunes Store ® , App Store, Mac App Store, iBooks StoreTM and Apple MusicTM (collectively "Internet Services"), AppleCare, Apple Pay ® , licensing and other services" counted for $19.9B, 8.5% of the company total."

[http://archive.mondaynote.com/2016/01/25/watching-apples- fir...](http://archive.mondaynote.com/2016/01/25/watching-apples-first- fiscal-2016-quarter/)

<comment><USER11> People in this thread are talking about the "bullshit" of existing cars and how the AppleCar will be a "come to Jesus" moment.

Pointing to revenue as proof of success is a bad metric here. Great, the App and Mac App Store make lots of money, not the least because one of them is the only way for anyone to make revenue from iOS.

No-one could point to MAS, for example, and pretend with a straight face that it's a "service done right" for anyone except Apple's bottom line.

<comment><USER12> I can point to one service Apple has done right, Messages.

<comment><USER13> > I can point to one service Apple has done right, Messages

Is it the same message that for many years disappeared all message sent to you when you switched from Apple? Perhaps as a final "fuck you" for leaving our ecosystem or them not just caring

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Mansfield has a successful track record with respect to Apple products.

With that said, this is his most difficult challenge to date and I'm not sure how successful he and the company as a whole will be given the difficulties of bringing an autonomous car to market.

<comment><USER15> I believe the goal here is an electric car with autonomous features, branded similar to the S-Class or the new E-Class (instead of going all the way like Tesla's AutoPilot).

<comment><USER16> What's the point of that? Why would Apple want to make such a huge bet on an industry they have never been in just to create an incremental improvement on cars already billed as luxury items?

If they proceed with the Apple Car, I would imagine it would be a disrupting concept that Apple would be uniquely prepared to handle.

<comment><USER17> Ballmer in a 2007 interview with USA Today:

"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance. It's a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I'd prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get."

Palm CEO Ed Colligan in 2006:

"We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone," he said. "[Apple is] not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in."

<comment><USER18> They laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

A smartphone was solidly within Apple's expertise in 2007. It's a small consumer electronics device (iPod, Mac) with a graphical UI (Mac OS X). Apple had tons of experience building (or more accurately, outsourcing the building of) small electronics. What was tricky about the iPhone was the RF stuff, getting the carriers to cooperate, and cutting data usage to squeeze into the crappy data plans available. Except RF stuff is nearly off-the-shelf, and Apple cut the Gordian Knot for the other two items by partnering with an underdog carrier in exchange for unlimited data plans.

A car is far outside Apple's expertise. Are they going to outsource it to Foxconn like they do with the iPhone, and ship them across the Pacific? Doesn't seem feasible. Will they buy or build their own factory? Doable, but totally new for them. What about sales, service, and support? The iPhone was able to use Apple's extensive network of existing retail stores for that, but cars need garages and mechanics.

Obviously, it can be done. Tesla pulled it off with far less. But there's plenty of room for Apple to crash and burn, too. (Figuratively, one hopes.)

<comment><USER19> Jobs built a factory. The NeXT computer was made there and the factory was reportedly state-of-the-art.

Of course Jobs is gone but I would guess there are others still at Apple that were involved so that it might not be totally new to them.

<comment><USER20> I was under the impression due to cost and poor sales, they actually had alternate arrangements to build the NeXT products after a while. It was a nice video and launch story though.

<comment><USER19> You're right they did get out of the hardware business totally in the later years. But still, they build an an incredible factory that was widely praised.

<comment><USER20> I'm not talking about getting out of the hardware business.

"The factory that Jobs had configured to produce 10,000 computers every month produced hundreds every month. Because of the low volume, human labor was cheaper than maintaining the automated equipment."

[http://lowendmac.com/2013/next-years-steve-jobs-before- trium...](http://lowendmac.com/2013/next-years-steve-jobs-before-triumphant- return-apple/)

<comment><USER19> My point was that he built a great factory. That is not diminished by his inability to sell the product.

But, he is gone and as others note it was a long time ago. It's probably not very relevant, in retrospect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> In the long term do people see the automobile industry as a growth industry? Will there be more cars on the road per capita in the future or less?

Some trends make me think there will be less cars around in the future. The average age at which people get drivers licenses is rising for example as it is becoming easier to live without them. The car sharing network Car2Go, which one could look at as an early example of how a vast autonomous car network would work, has shown to take 11 cars off the road for each that it adds[1]. Lastly there is a renaissance in many cities right now with planners turning away from car oriented infrastructure, and more strongly focusing on pedestrians, cyclists and public transit. It seems to me that a lot of the car oriented thinking of the 1950s that resulted in the cities we see today is discredited amongst planners and they are trying to move us away from that.

I wonder where Apple believes the car market share is going. Even if automobiles aren't a growth industry they may think it's worthwhile to them to try to take a good share of the luxury market.

[1] [http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/07/car2go-car- ownership-...](http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/07/car2go-car-ownership- vmt-ghg/491825/)

<comment><USER22> Yes. Cars are a growth industry. Which is kind of crazy but look at it this way. How much bigger will the global middle class be in 50 years? 100?

Oh, and don't forget Africa. Lots of growth opportunity there.

<comment><USER23> Africa is a prime destination for second hand cars coming in from developed countries. I'm skeptical there is much growth opportunity there for car manufacturers.

For the middle class, I can't help but wonder if it'll make much sense for them to actually own cars in 50-100 years if there are company-operated fleets of cheap self-driving vehicles - or at least more than one car per household. Time will tell.

<comment><USER24> >Africa is a prime destination for second hand cars coming in from developed countries. I'm skeptical there is much growth opportunity there for car manufacturers.

That's mostly because New Cars were unafforable to All. At least in the places I've visited there are more and more new cars.

\- because people are richer than a few years ago

\- because financing options that didn't exist now do

\- because laws banning imports of cars "older than x years" also help (even if they have unintended consequences)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Apple is going to seamlessly combine Uber, ZipCar, Tesla's Autopilot, and the US Drone program.

Here is what they are going to build:

A fleet of vehicles piloted remotely like drones, using all the the "tesla autopilot" safety features as augmentation to make the job of remote piloting easier.

The vehicles will be summoned by the iphone.

The fleet will have all-electrics and hybrids, where hybrids are a fallback depending on availability and trip range.

The "front" seats will face the "rear" seats.

Windows will be dynamically shaded from transparent to opaque.

The "doors" will slide to open, including part of the roof, allowing passengers to embark/disembark while standing.

<comment><USER26> You will steer using your phone's accelerometer. Tilt the phone left to turn left, and vice versa.

<comment><USER27> Tilt up to fly? That would be something.

How about tilt down. Not obvious. Maybe you could dive if you were in water?

<comment><USER26> Don't drop your phone while trying to use it to steer.

Shattered glass

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Apple could easily make a branded car. The entire dashboard is usually manufactured separately and installed as a unit.[1] Apple could build those, with screens and Jonathan Ive design. This would come with a matching interior package and exterior logos. Like the "Ford F-150 King Ranch Edition".

The next step up would to have some car company, perhaps in China, build them a chassis, powertrain, and body, to which Apple would add their dashboard and interior, and possibly the sensors and actuators for self-driving. Here are 10 new electric cars from China.[2] Apple could help them open up the US market.

There's no reason for Apple to get into the sheet metal stamping business, even though Tesla did.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxeFEvEQKTU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxeFEvEQKTU) [2] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/tychodefeijter/2016/05/18/10-new...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/tychodefeijter/2016/05/18/10-new- electric-cars-from-china/#15fd56361e2f)

</comment><comment><USER29> If the past is any indication Apple will most likely improve on what is already out there Mp3 player, Cell phone, buying music over internet, GUI, ... were all around before Apple made them big.

Tesla is probably their target this time.

<comment><USER30> It's interesting to speculate about what a 'fast follower' model looks like with cars. Cars have been around a long time. You propose that Tesla has sort of v2.0'ed cars with their fast, attractive, semi-autonomous, electric thing. That could be.

But a fast follower model doesn't admit for autonomous cars; nobody is doing anything like that yet. And we are all sort of imagining like the self driving Apple car "carved from a solid billet of aluminium" (cue Jony Ives), I think.

Apple seems to have the market lead in UI/UX, Product Design, Supply Chain and some forms of Silicon. I guess that could all add up to a greenfield effort at just a car, but better.

I think it's more likely that this is a turning point in Apple's strategy, and that they see the need to make some big bets, like Google. In any event, I'm super curious about what will come out in 2020, or whatever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I've thought a lot about this and don't think that full autonomy is necessary for Apple's car to be successful. I don't even think they need to be anywhere near as good as Tesla. In fact, they probably can't because Tesla Autopilot gets better through the experience of the cars, and that kind of software data expertise is not in Apple's wheelhouse.

Recently I've tested all the auto-sensing, autopilot, and what not features of the latest generation of cars. I've gone on dozens of test drives and I think that something around as good as Honda Sensing will be sufficient for the next car cycle (5-7 years). If they can make iterative improvments that will be even better, but I don't think we are as close to the kind of car Apple would want to sell in the autonomy field. Well understood driving cities like NYC and SF are just not a big enough splash for Apple.

Why Apple will be very successful: Recently they've started to revamp and expand their retail Flagship stores all over the world have recently been remodeled, all to be much larger. I think this footprint of stores, larger than Teslas, will be huge in getting people to buy the cars, thereby circumventing the dealership model. Tesla was the pioneer here, and Apple will ride on their coattails. Apple has incredibly supply chain leverage and capability. In the last 5 years, the cost of batteries has gone down significantly. Yet all the hybrid cars utilizing batteries are still very expensive. The brand new Volvo XC90 is $20k more expensive for a 9kWh pack. With Apple's supply chain and margin control capabilities, they should be able to comfortably source Li-Ion batteries in the $200-$300 range per kWh. Apple also crushes every single other computer and phone manufacturer when it comes to their onboarding experience. This and their experience in UI/UX will be key. The knob-less experience in cars is total dogshit. No one does a good job of realizing that the user experience should not be a monolithic touchscreen for things that are NOT media related. Sure make all Media touchscreen enabled/driven. But not the AC/Heat, and in my mind the volume for the AV system at the lest. If apple can solve that, and make it easy to pair a phone with the infotainment system, then with their competitive pricing and superior experience they will destroy the competition. All the legacy manufacturers are still stuck in the wrong paradigm. Only Tesla is positioned to compete with Apple, it's a shame they didn't buy Tesla earlier and let Musk run both companies. Tim is great don't get me wrong, but with Musk at the helm they would have been totally unstoppable. Tim is a genius at what he does, but he's not the kind of visionary CEO that can launch the car like an Elon or Steve could.

<comment><USER32> > and that kind of software data expertise is not in Apple's wheelhouse

I suspect Apple knows just a little about data science given all of the data they collect: [https://www.quora.com/Whats-a-typical-day-like-for-a-data- sc...](https://www.quora.com/Whats-a-typical-day-like-for-a-data-scientist-at- Apple)

Also they just took a major stake in Didi Chuxing which I assume meant they had access to a raft of GPS points to use for training machine/deep learning models.

<comment><USER33> The responder doesn't even work at apple (from his other post: "I'm not an engineer at apple" [https://www.quora.com/What-does-a-day-in-the-life-of-an- Appl...](https://www.quora.com/What-does-a-day-in-the-life-of-an-Apple- hardware-engineer-look-like) ). His response was also vague enough to apply to most tech companies.

I thought it was suspect, since apple employees tend to be very quiet on social media and in conferences.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The car industry is ready for some disruption. Current car makers are good at what they are doing, but there have been few entirely new developments. So it is no wonder that one of the most desirable cars at the moment is the Tesla, a car which comes from a "startup" and is electrical.

The transition to electrical cars is what is shaking up the industry. All the special knowledge around the creation of combustion engine is no longer needed. And a lot of the non-engine components are sourced by suppliers, which are also happy to supply companies like Tesla. The Tesla shares quite a few components with the well known German car brands. This allows new car companies to enter the market relatively easily.

And beyond the fact that Apple can hire car engineering veterans, Apple is an excellent product design company. The Apple watch should be a warning. All discussions about the usefulness of smart watches aside, one important thing is, that Apple enters an entirely new product category, but if you look of the design and quality of their stainless steel bracelet, it is much better than most of the Rolex bracelets at a fraction of the price. So I would not be surprised, if while the pure driving part (electrical motor, suspension) is rather off the shelf, the overall construction of the car could be both different and unexpected by the current players.

</comment><comment><USER35> In the short term I can see how an incredibly well-made car with AR tech would make people want to own them.

Long term however I believe cars will just be a shared network of autonomous vehicles for moving people and things. In other words a shared commodity with cheap rental prices versus ownership. That doesn't seem like a market for Apple. But hey, if they're investing in electric vehicles then that's better for everyone.

<comment><USER32> > Long term however I believe cars will just be a shared network of autonomous > vehicles for moving people and things

I doubt it.

The majority of drivers on the road are your typical 9-5 commuters. For them it will still be more convenient (no need to wait for another car) and cheaper to just buy a car and there is still something intrinsic to human nature about "owning" something. People leave all manner of goods in their car.

I see autonomous vehicles taking over taxis however.

<comment><USER35> >The majority of drivers on the road are your typical 9-5 commuters.

And a car will automatically be at their house every morning. The car will fill up with people on the same route for cost savings.

<comment><USER19> >The car will fill up with people on the same route for cost savings.

Yuk. No thanks.

<comment><USER35> Then pay more for exclusivity: Car ownership, automated car with privacy, or shared automated.

<comment><USER36> Like uber pool, vs uber normal vs uber premium. Just have to get rid of the pesky drivers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Tesla's market cap is $33 billion. Apple has $200 billion in cash. Why don't they just buy Tesla? They'll spend more than that trying to recreate all the work Teslas already done. I feel like this would help make the future happen faster.

<comment><USER3> Because you can't actually buy 100% of Tesla for $33B.

Elon Musk owns 20% of shares. Does he want to sell?

<comment><USER37> Tesla has been working hard to raise additional capital so they can deliver Model 3. Apple has a lot of capital. Perhaps they could come to an agreement. An acquisition he didn't agree to would probably be unwise since he's so key to the company.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> The more important question here is, why Bob? Does it mean Apple has an culture problem that is hard for other high rank managerial grade to fit in? Why has Bob Retired and then Un-retired?

</comment><comment><USER39> Apple is pretty good at scale manufacturing and lithium batteries and metal and better at AI than any car company except Tesla.

Electric cars are much simpler than ICE ones. So they have a chance...

<comment><USER22> This. Is Apple going to start making a world class ICE from scratch? No. Could they eventually? Yes of course. But why would they want to?

A car without an ICE is a reduced complexity space to engineer a vehicle in. I'll bet they can figure out how to iterate from an electric mule to a safe vehicle just fucking fine. People unfamiliar with the auto industry may also be surprised to learn just how many parts on a Model S tesla _doesn 't_ make.

But an ICE? Fuck I wouldn't want to start that war with zero patents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> i find it interesting that the project is described as the "autonomous, electric-vehicle initiative." isn't there a compelling enough productin the electric vehicle aspect, without the autonomous piece as well?

or does apple believe that the "autonomous" component is the real stand out feature?

<comment><USER41> It really doesn't make sense for Apple to manufacture traditional cars - they're expensive to produce, have steep support requirements, allow limited driver interaction points to avoid distraction, etc. Apple's strength is in combining hardware and software in a way that makes interaction intuitive. If you have to actually drive your car, there's not a whole lot of room for that beyond what's already being done with CarPlay. It makes a lot more sense to create an autonomous vehicle and treat the entire cabin as an interactive experience that people will spend hours a day playing with and spending money in.

<comment><USER42> "It makes a lot more sense to create an autonomous vehicle and treat the entire cabin as an interactive experience that people will spend hours a day playing with and spending money in."

Would be cool if Apple skipped the "car" and went straight to a stylish and modern "RV", basically a small apartment that can also drive you around (autonomously).

Look at this RV tour and imagine something that's a bit bigger in living space (but same size overall (no big engine, no drivers area etc)): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tylz5sfCAOc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tylz5sfCAOc)

It might not be realistic yet, but in a few years maybe, especially if solar panels gets better. Which i'm guessing Apple is doing a lot of research on as we speak...

And if you loose/somebody tows it, you'd just log on to iCloud and use the "Find my House" feature ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> > But building a car is complicated and Apple has struggled to define a > differentiated vision for its vehicle, these people said. Some of the > automobile industry veterans have clashed with longtime company employees on > how best to proceed.

<comment><USER44> Conflict can be a good thing in this case. Instead of Apple running off and doing the "Apple thing" which isn't grounded, they get pulled back in by veterans. Likewise, veterans have their assumptions challenged.

<comment><USER43> Agreed, it will be very interesting to see if "Apple Scale" [1] thinking works in automotive design[2] and manufacturing. Apple can buy 10,000 CNC machines for an iPhone frame, but there are a couple thousand parts at least that size in a car.

The difference in physical scale between a phone and a car should not be dismissed... but I'm very interested to see what comes out of the process.

1\. [https://blog.bolt.io/no-you-cant-manufacture-that-like- apple...](https://blog.bolt.io/no-you-cant-manufacture-that-like-apple- does-93bea02a3bbf#.smhful8w4)

2\. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjcm- ru-9iI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjcm-ru-9iI) (this talk is good, but incredibly frustrating because the slides aren't shown)

<comment> semi-extrinsic There is also a big difference in the importance of reliability. Half the people I see with iPhones older than a year have broken screens. But with a car, you can't engineer it to last for two years and then expect the owner to scrap it and buy a new one. For all the talk of AR, shiny UX etc, keep in mind that a car has to retain at least some resale value for at least ten years, preferrably closer to twenty. Otherwise you'll be left with a lot of angry customers. Planned obsolesence is out of the question.

<comment><USER45> This is true - secondary markets can make a huge difference in how affordable a car is perceived to be. Cars which are considered to have a long life command a high resale value, which cuts the real cost of buying new.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Bob Mansfield?

But John Sculley is tanned, rested, and ready.

</comment><comment><USER47> So Richard Scary wasn't available?

</comment><comment><USER48> another paywall.

<comment><USER49> "complaints about paywalls are off topic"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989)</comment></comment>


New Hosted Blog Contender is a Wee Bit Weebly - <AUTHOR> http://www.cmswire.com/cms/web-cms/new-hosted-blog-contender-is-a-wee-bit-weebly-001273.php <comment><AUTHOR> After reading this article, it seems that these critics are grasping at straws. Their whole point seems to be that Weebly is not an established player yet. That is obvious - it's a brand new service competing (sort of) against players that have been in the field for many years. Anyone who has actually used Weebly realizes immediately the power in simplicity and flexibility that they have going for them.</comment>


Ask HN: Tips on getting better at marketing - <AUTHOR> I want to get a better sense of marketing, and how it fits in with the process of building and releasing a new product.
I _think_ I've always trivialized the marketing aspect of startups & products. It's no rocket science, right? Either ads on social networks* or posting links on places like HN/PH and hoping for the best.
Is there more to it? What are some good resources to learn about some no-nonsense marketing topics? Right now it feels like I'm missing a piece of the puzzle.
Any personal "aha!" moments? Books, talks you'd recommend to help in a slight mind shift?
* - sure, crafting a good, attention-grabbing ad isn't easy  - there has to be <comment><USER2> > good resources to learn about some no-nonsense marketing topics?

\- John Jantsch > [https://ducttapemarketing.com/podcast-all- star/](https://ducttapemarketing.com/podcast-all-star/)

\- Louis Grenier > [https://everyonehatesmarketers.com/](https://everyonehatesmarketers.com/)

\- Seth Godin > [https://www.akimbo.me/](https://www.akimbo.me/)</comment>


Nikola Tesla's Unpopular Inventions - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/nikola-teslas-remote-control-boat-and-other-unpopular-inventions/

<comment><USER2> Even less known is that in the process of making the first radio controlled anything in 1898 Nikola Tesla made first electronic logic circuits!

[http://www.tfcbooks.com/teslafaq/q&a_024.htm](http://www.tfcbooks.com/teslafaq/q&a_024.htm)

"After World War II when computer hardware manufacturers attempted to patent digital logic gates in general, the U.S. Patent Office asserted Tesla's turn- of-the-century priority in their electrical implementation."</comment>


AI beats human poker champions - <AUTHOR> http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=BDYCRFWYJLEDOQSNDLRSKH0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=208802992

<comment><USER2> They at least used a couple very good heads up limit players this time, rather than Phil Laak and some other guy nobody has heard of.

<comment><USER3> Would you agree with me that they are playing a different game?

If you remove the human element, the players can't use one of their skills.

<comment><USER4> Exactly. When playing against a machine, a human can't use one of his skills but it doesn't apply anymore. There's no need to read an opponent or employ deception because a machine doesn't understand this.

Any serious poker player knows that the best strategy for winning is to make your opponent make mistakes while minimizing your own. One of the primary tools for accomplishing this is the use of deception.

Once the game is reduced to calculating the odds at any given moment and betting when they're in your favor, even a simple machine should be able to beat a human as long as it makes reliable calculations.

It should really come as no surprise that a machine can beat a human at a task that machines are really good at.

<comment><USER5> Oh c'mon. Good poker players know all the odds of all hands with an error of at most 2%. Especially in heads-up.

If it's just about number crunching then the first computer AI would be in Omaha Hi-Lo or 7 card stud - because these poker variants have much more complex odds.

<comment><USER4> Hmm... Maybe poker AI is about more than number crunching. Anyway... Interesting tidbit: craps is structured so that the pass line bettor will lose 50.7% of the time. That 0.7% provides casinos with billions in profits every year. I would think that any decent poker player would have to be able to calculate odds with better than a 2% error rate.

<comment><USER2> Poker is not craps, and it's certainly not a game where people sit around a table and whoever calculates the odds best gets the money. There's absolutely no parallel there whatsoever.

Have you ever even played?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would expect this to be true of any probability-based game, particularly where:

1) the distinct human advantage of unquantifiable sensory perception is taken away (i.e., a person can't "read" a computer's body language to make his probabilistic estimations more accurate), thus reducing the game to a number- crunching contest. We haven't been winning those contests since the 40s.

2) enough time is injected into the experiment.

<comment><USER5> You have clearly never played poker.

Suppose the PC has 2 aces. It knows it has the best hand (worst cast: tie against the last two aces), so it wants to put all the money in. However, the human will just fold because the computer is so predictable. Result: the PC essentially wastes his big hands because of the predictable behavior.

So the computer has to start bluffing, and semibluffing, just like humans. However, with every bluff you make you're wasting money (as bluffs are by definition sub-optimal play). So you have to estimate how much you gain in the future by making that bluff. But if the PC uses simple heuristics then the human can once again get the upper hand. E.g. the human can make outrageous bluffs, knowing that the PC knows the bluffs are unprofitable and therefore unlikely. That way the PC will lose once again.

Poker is not trivial - and people without any number crunching skills can win from the best number crunchers if they're predictable.

<comment><USER6> _You have clearly never played poker._

What is it with people that think this kind of quip buys some sort of credibility? This is the second time today that someone has started a response with "Clearly, you have never...". I have played poker. I have also baked (reference to other thread).

Anyway, I don't buy what you're selling. It doesn't seem that it would be hard to make the computer be unpredictable, unless suddenly humans become good at figuring out the machinations of a pseudo-random number generator instinctively, and in real-time. Make the computer do irrational things at random intervals. The whole point is that a human player, not knowing what cards the computer has, will have little introspection into the computer's intended course of action. I suppose you could tell some things, depending on the rules of the game (i.e., if the computer traded 3 cards in a 5-card hand, you might assume he had a bad hand).

Essentially, it seems that you just said "it's easy to beat the computer if it plays stupid". That doesn't have anything to do with this. The computer can be both a perfect number cruncher and entirely unpredictable, and given enough dealt hands, I don't see how you could beat it.

<comment><USER5> The remark wasn't meant to establish my credibility, I was just saying you make elementary mistakes. My hunch is you have no experience playing poker. This doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but it doesn't exactly work in your advantage.

Are you really saying that the computer doesn't need to use any psychology - and can become "world champion" just by playing a mathematically perfect game with some random bluffs thrown in?

You've got to be kidding me.

(Just for the record - I'm talking NL hold'em here. If you're talking about 5 card draw you have a point. As that game doesn't have the same opportunity for psychology)

<comment><USER6> Well, if it's any comfort, your hunch is correct. I'm not very experienced.

My observation, perhaps incorrect, is that poker outcomes are almost entirely based on psychological manipulation, not on probabilities - because people can be psychologically manipulated. In this regard, poker is like Risk. There's an element of probability, but it only rarely tends to dominate outcomes (I _am_ an experienced Risk player). It's possible to write Risk-playing software that is very difficult to beat except in the rarest of circumstances where luck dominates, because you can't convince the computer to invade Asia or fortify in Australia when it would really be against his interests. I see poker in the same way.

Perhaps I'm over-trivializing the difficulty of writing such a system for poker, but I suppose in essence, I am indeed arguing that you could create software that could just ignore the psychological aspects of the game, and instead play a total numbers game, and that over time it should be a winner. I guess I can concede that if you don't ignore the psychological aspects and try to use them in formulating strategy, that would be very difficult indeed; I just don't see the point.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for explaining your argument.

Let's suppose you're right - that playing by the numbers is sufficient. In this case you would not have to keep track of player histories, as you consider every hand without context. But this can only result in one thing: your play style will be constant. You will always take the best action with probability P and (semi)bluff with probability 1 - P. The human notices this and starts playing very aggressively. As a result the PC will fold winning hands and lose many blinds. What the PC should do is change tactics. Get aggressive or start laying traps (e.g. slowplay a great hand so it looks weak, to lure the aggressive human player into bluffing a lot of money).

If the computer always plays optimally from hand to hand it cannot deduce changes in playing style and will therefore always lose. From this I can only conclude that psychological aspects can never be ignored in poker.

<comment><USER6> I never really meant that the calculations should be without context. One could keep a "running distribution" to update P (probably a bunch of Ps, actually) as you play.

Maybe we're now just looking at the same thing from different angles. You say "use psychology" and I say "use numbers", but in the end, maybe it's the same thing and it's harder than I'm giving it credit for.

Thanks for the poker lesson, by the way. Next time I see a game I'll be more interested.

<comment><USER5> Ah-hah. But that's the problem. So you need some kind of distribution for each of the different tactics the player plays. And then you need some heuristics to predict which tactic is going to follow which tactic. It's a slippery slope, I guess.

I don't know where to draw the line myself. It can be argued that as soon as something is modeled by a computer it ceases to be psychology and becomes mundane math. But I do still believe that most tactics people use to trick others with need to show up in the code in some way.

I won't use the "Clearly you've never done x" line again. It was cheap and uncalled for. Thanks for calling me out on that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> more at <http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/07/poker-vs-chess.html> and <http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/man-machine/>.

<comment><USER2> "far more people play poker than chess"

Is that true? Certainly in the US, but worldwide?

<comment><USER8> Well, I've heard that many online players are from Sweden, and I think tour players as well. Other countries have poker rooms and allow online gambling openly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Most people here need to look into what OPTIMAL in a gametheoretic sense means.

It doesn't mean optimal in the way people normally use it.

A player playing gametheoretically optimal will beat ALL other players. That is however not the same thing as playing the most exploitative poker against every single player.

So the perfect bot would beat all the other players in the world, including the best human but if the bot plays the worst pokerplayer in the world and so does the best human player then the best human player might beat the worst human player for more money than the bot would beat the worst human player.

<comment><USER2> Won't a player playing gametheoretically optimal tie with all other players? That's what my math-nerd poker friends all tell me.

<comment><USER9> In for example roshambo that is the case but not in poker.

Poker has dominated strategical choices so someone playing gametheorhetically optimal will beat someone that doesn't.

Of course if his opponent is also playing GT-optimally they will tie.

Then of course there is rake to consider so if the opponent plays close enough to GT-optimal you might both still lose if the rake is high.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm really surprised no one has yet to mention this:

codingthewheel.com is currently going through an explanation on how to build a winning poker bot online. Here's the latest post.

[http://www.codingthewheel.com/archives/how-i-built-a- working...](http://www.codingthewheel.com/archives/how-i-built-a-working- online-poker-bot-4)

</comment><comment><USER11> > BioTools Inc. (Edmonton, Alberta) has built previous versions of Polaris > into a downloadable poker coach called the Poker Academy.

</comment><comment><USER12> Wonder if this was no-limit hold em? If it is it's impressive. If not well the probabilities are not that challenging.

<comment><USER13> Duplicate limit hold-em (same hands played at other table, with human and machine reversed)</comment></comment>