Wallpaper That Blocks Wi-Fi - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2012/05/25/wallpaper-that-blocks-wi-fi/?mod=e2tw <comment><USER2> Before clicking the link I thought it was a malformed computer desktop wallpaper exploiting some kind flaw in the operating system and using it to block the computer from connecting via Wi-Fi.

Would have been very much cooler, would it not?

<comment><USER3> I thought along similar lines, but with some special texture that made monitors emit some kind of wifi-jamming RF :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "as well as those who, for health reasons, simply want to shield themselves from as many electromagnetic waves as possible"

Is anyone really still concerned that electromagnetic waves in the cell-phone range are harmful?

<comment><USER5> I'm a scientist (certified for radioactive & x-ray research) so I totally hear the point to be made regarding something not being a fact until a thorough investigation has been done on the matter. However, the fact that electromagnetic wave cause harm or may have secondary effect in some people is not that far fetched and should not be discarded as "is anyone really still concerned". We just don't have a sample size of individuals troubled by it that is sufficiently large enough to prove it. The majority of us may show no signs of harm; yet I know of at least two people that suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity, probably resulting from having 30 different wifi signals crossing their walls day & night for the last ten years. Indeed, I don't believe cell-phone tower signals at long range are really the cause. It's more likely to be the high concentration of wifi signals inside of apartment complexes. And even if the exposure intensity is a matter of square root with respect to distance from source, you can get significant exposure when you increase the number of source or the relative average distance you are from them. So no, electromagnetic waves is nothing to sneeze at. If you think so, why don't you go sleep every night in a tiny room with 15 wifi routers on and a couple of cell-towers directly above your head?

<comment><USER6> I'll see your anecdote and raise you another one:

A friend's downstairs neighbour regularly complained of 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity'; it got to the point where the building manager asked that my friend stop using wifi entirely. My friend switched her network to 'hidden'. The symptoms disappeared.

Of course, we shouldn't draw conclusions from anecdotal evidence. Perhaps the neighbour was only sensitive to broadcast packets containing SSIDs?

<comment><USER7> Does the neighbor also block out all the harmful EM radiation that floods from sunrise to sunset? If you want to be cruel, mention that cordless phones and microwaves emit at similar frequencies as wifi.

<comment><USER5> Cordless phones are actually by far the most powerful radiowave emitter inside a home.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Depending on the size/shape of the apartment, this seems like it could cause some interference issues. A hallway lined with wifi-blocking wallpaper would produce some kind of weird multimodal effects, wouldn't it?

<comment><USER9> In the new houses in my neighborhood, I see that they use some kind of 'home wrap' on the wood before insulation. I could see them installing this on the outermost walls of schools, sensitive/government offices, or other places (e.g. churches, aforementioned concert halls, hostels, etc.) between the outer walls and insulation.

However, you are correct with your comment. In some cases, though, this could be desired, e.g. a hotel that wants to provide, track, and bill for WiFi on a per-room basis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Cheap alternative: cover the walls with thin chicken wire.

<comment><USER11> Unfortunately something like this is not nearly as effective as you may imagine. I spent more money than I'd like to admit a few years ago trying to shield my hi-fi stereo from all sorts of interference. I lived on Avenida Paulista with about a half dozen to a dozen massive radio and tv antennas within about a mile. No matter what trick I tried the noise was still getting through in every way imaginable.

<comment><USER12> These kind of filters are attenuators, not blocks. If you're that close to very powerful transmitters, then even reasonable attenuation is going to allow some signal through.

<comment><USER11> Yup. I learned that the hard way. The best I was able to achieve was putting power cord chokes along the entire length of the interconnects (RCA <-> RCA).

The ideal solution would be balance power amp and balanced pre-amp with XLRs carrying the audio signal. Unfortunately this would have required completely new amps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This might be an effective solution to the "no cellphones in class" rule.

Probably the most important factor is still letting emergency bands through. Does anyone know if 911 calls go through normal cellphone channels, or if that's a dedicated channel that can be 'whitelisted' on a device like this?

<comment><USER14> It's not a device. It's metal in a wall paper.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'd use it at home, just on exterior-facing walls. This would not only block any interference from neighbors WiFi/microwaves, but also won't let them see my WiFi traffic. Throw in a cell repeater in the wallpaper package, and it'd be perfect.

</comment><comment><USER16> Looks a bit like a Faraday cage.

<comment><USER17> It is the same concept of a Faraday Cage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Wouldn't this be against the law as causing interference, especially with emergency equipment (in the US)?

Or do those FCC rules only apply to devices?

<comment><USER18> Passive blocking is fine, active blocking or interference is not.</comment></comment>


The World according to Americans - <AUTHOR> http://xkcd.com/850/

<comment><USER2> Are you serious? The Bush Administration knew far less about the world...</comment>


Teens Don't Twitter - <AUTHOR> http://www.cringely.com/2009/06/teens-dont-twitter/

<comment><USER3> "Since texting is usually a binary activity (the texter sends a text for every text they receive) we can guess that Echo writes about 7,000 text messages per month"

A huge oversimplification and probably inaccurate. Especially since most phones made in the past few years have the capability to send a text to multiple recipients, I highly doubt that Echo is typing as many texts as she receives -- both because she's more likely to get mass texts, and because she may herself be sending mass texts (which are charged as multiple texts, but are only typed once). I haven't been a teenager recently, but I also suspect that there is a lot more one sided texting than you'd expect (especially directed at pretty, popular girls).

</comment><comment><USER4> Portland Trail Blazers head coach Nate McMillan was having a hrd time reaching the many very young players on his roster (NBA's 2nd youngest) on a regular basis until an experiment with trying to text his players got back almost instantaneous responses. Now he texts first when he wants to reach one of his players quickly.

</comment><comment><USER5> "An adult or a teen celebrity might twitter but most regular kids see what they are communicating as too private to share with anyone other than the person for whom it is intended, much less any old creep who chooses to subscribe."

That doesn't jive with me- just look at wall postings on facebook (I'm a youth worker, so I have 100+ teens on my friends list- it is amazing the details that they post for anyone, including old aunt Agnes, to read)

<comment><USER6> Agreed. My partner is an IT technician at a school. His friends list has a lot of ex/current pupils & some of the things he sees published make me blush!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Echo, the girl profiled in the post, sends and receives 14,000 messages a month. 29 messages per waking hour. My fingers would be worn down to nubbins.

<comment><USER8> It seems to be an average for teenage girls, when I was in high school thats what I saw but now they have outlawed cellphones in the public schools here, probably just for that reason.

<comment><USER9> Outlawed as in banned by the school? I know the technical policy for my high school was that we had to leave them in our lockers. Of course, nobody actually did that. It was entertaining to see teachers catch students though.

<comment><USER8> As in banned, if you are seen with a cell phone on campus it is taken away and brought to the office for your parents to pick up the first time, second offense it stays in the office for a month and 3rd for a year, at least at my brothers school it is that way.

<comment><USER10> In reality, though, your parents could always come and pick it up. If they weren't allowed to, it would be theft. I just imagine that after the first offense they don't bother calling your parents, and just expect your shame to prevail over asking them to bail it out.

<comment><USER11> No the super douche parent move would be to simply buy your little brat kid another phone and forget about the old one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Teens don't twitter because they are in constant contact with other teens, especially through texting.

<comment><USER12> I'd like to see some actual numbers on all this because I don't think most people Twitter. You hear all these wild numbers about how twitter is growing and growing but that's just people who visit it. I visit it to check on a few people but I'd never use it.

More to the point, in my actual life I know no one who Twitters (or tweets, or whatever). But I do know tons of people who have tried and given up on it.

So is it possible that, as a percentage of society, almost none of us Twitter?

<comment><USER13> Same here. As far as I can tell most of the hype about Twitter is driven by the fact that the people most in control of the popular tech media (slowly expanding to media generally) are also the ones who benefit most from Twitter's success. So every single publicity whore tech blogger is out there evangelizing twitter precisely because they see it as a way to drive people to their blogs where they can make money through ads.

We still have almost no evidence as far as I can tell that Twitter is being adopted as a widespread general communication tool. That's not to say that it won't, just that what we see now is still 90% hype driven and it's anybody's guess whether the thing will collapse or not when the hype dies down. For communication among my friends I still vastly prefer instant messaging which has so many features that twitter and SMS don't that using twitter feels like returning to the stone age.

<comment><USER14> It's the same with many of these big niche products. Nothing wrong with niche, but the people who call FriendFeed the wave of the future are the people who have the most to benefit from FriendFeed's becoming huge.

Twitter is miniature compared to many of the huge networks out there. Bebo, Hi5, Orkut are all huger than Twitter, last I checked. (EDIT: I checked after posting this and Twitter's past all of them globally according to Alexa, but not in terms of users.) I don't go out of my way to analyze Facebook, but I know that a Facebook fan page having a million followers is fairly routine, even for relatively minor fan pages. Getting followers on Facebook is much easier than it is on Twitter, and it gives you the exact same relationship with your audience, but even stronger because there's comment/photo/video support.

I don't mind Twitter at all - I wish more web sites would be so elegant - <USER2> a lot of the hype about Twitter being the "next big thing" is only half true. It's the NBT in that it succinctly represents a lot of the coolest things about the Internet, but it's not the only site to do that and it's one of the smaller examples out there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> When teens text, they are transmitting secrets. "I like billy. Will you ask him if he likes me?" If they weren't secrets, they would twitter them, put them on myspace or facebook, etc.

When adults tweet, they are making public statements.

That is why twitter is not popular with teens: they already make public statements on facebook/myspace, they don't mind the clutter there, and they have no interest in another platform to make public statements.

In time, teens may begin to make their public statements on twitter, because network communities are intensely fashion driven, but as twitter is content oriented - and teens are lite on good content - I doubt it will be as popular for them. Teens like flare.

If twitter had more flare, teens might like it more. But the rest of us would not.

<comment><USER10> I'm assuming that by "making public statements", you mean "showing off." (Not that that's a bad thing; it's also known as "signaling." [1]) The people teens are concerned about showing off to are always in physical proximity to them; they don't need an out-of-band channel for this. Adults are much more physically disconnected from the people they seek to impress. This encourages things like Twitter.

[1] <http://www.overcomingbias.com/category/signaling>

<comment><USER15> Very good point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Many teens twitter. (and I'm sure many teens don't.)

In general i think age is become a less and less meaningful way of identifying somebody (Other sub-cultures describe people a bit better), so I feel a bit funny having this conversation either way.

One of the main concepts of the article was pretty right on, that if you're talking about private stuff like what boy you have a crush on, Twitter's not a good place to do it (for adults either), but "Teens Don't Twitter" is a really bad title for that. It should be called "Teens don't send private messages in places where others can see it."

I mean, how does his thesis reconcile with how teens undeniably use Facebook/Myspace? The teen in question is so busy texting that she can't use Twitter? (But can use other sites just fine?)

Part of me just wants to give up on even responding to the weakness of the premise.

But I want to get this out there: Teens use Twitter. I've learned this from YouTube, where I'm in a lot of mixed (age) communities centered around topics that have nothing to do with age, and people of all ages talk about their Twitter handles all the time.

In fact, it's through YouTube that I've discovered that Twitter is very diverse not just with age, but with ethnicity, disability and all sorts of things. YouTube is one of the most diverse social sites I've ever been a part of, and I see lots of YouTube <-> Twitter mingling and integration done by users.

So yeah, teens are on Twitter, as well as lots of folks that are not your standard members of cubicle nation.

</comment><comment><USER17> As I said in the last article like this (Gen-Y doesn't Twitter), most teens won't twitter, that's fine. Texting or facebook statuses are enough for most. But for those of us looking for a more technological crowd, Twitter is fantastic.

I text between my closer friends, look at Facebook statuses of many of the friends I have, even if they're a bit distant (like my old high school friends), and Twitter to connect with the technological community around me.

</comment><comment><USER18> I don't know anybody under 29 who twitters.

<comment><USER19> now you do</comment></comment>


The Freelancer's Guide To Recurring Revenue - <AUTHOR> http://planscope.io/blog/the-freelancers-guide-to-recurring-revenue/

<comment><USER3> Great post. I have notice a big difference in the attitude of prospective clients since I wrote a book (aimed at my peers). Casually mentioning that I wrote a book on the topic often results in - "what? wow!" type of reaction. Literally no-one else they have spoken would have even thought of writing a book, so it really lifts you up the perceived authority ladder.

<comment><USER4> That's a great point! I hadn't considered looking at things that way - <USER2> things to teach your "peer" audience can still earn you trust from your "client" audience. I suspect that can work the other way around as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> After talking with a bunch of people at MicroConf last week, I noticed that a lot of consultants were having a hard time bridging the gap between selling their time and selling products.

Happy to answer any questions.

<comment><USER6> What would you say is the "minimum viable product" for something like this? I was thinking of writing a book as an intro to project management, but was unsure whether I'd need to do 50 pages or 500.

<comment><USER5> Remember back in grade school when our teachers would require that we write 20 page reports double-spaced?

We all knew that was bullshit, right? Same applies for books.

As long as the amount of value derived from the information outweighs the cost, it's a worthwhile purchase. Don't worry about the length. Write what feels natural, price it accordingly, and slap a 100% moneyback guarantee. If someone doesn't feel it was worth the price, don't take their money.

<comment><USER6> Thanks! :-)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


I have forgotten how to read - <AUTHOR> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/i-have-forgotten-how-toread/article37921379/ <comment><USER2> I don't know why he writes so universally.

>"digital technologies are training us to be more conscious of and more antagonistic toward delays of all sorts."

Indeed and this is why I read: I just don't have the patience for video, much less (shudder) audio. With a book there's no gap between word and image, and the book flows at the speed I want (I can always skip ahead, or linger, or jump back to that previous spot). While a video is forcably linear (not to mention all the buffering, startup delays, and ads).

A tweetstorm requires so much cognitive overhead to follow (since each one is a discrete sentence or two with a large gap to move your eye down to the next one). You have to maintain so much context from the previous tweet while searching for the next one it's hard to actually absorb anything.

Frankly the biggest problem with reading is bingeing. You come up for air hours later with a crick in your neck and wonder where the day went.

<comment><USER3> Agreed on all counts. I generally skip "it's all in the video" unless it's a very high quality production.

For tweetstorms, threadreaderapp.com is a life-saver.

<comment><USER4> What is it you are hoping to find in a tweetstorm that you would want to read through all of it? There is rarely any outcome worth digging.

<comment><USER5> Not true. There are several people I follow who post long threads of 50 or more tweets and the cumulative content is often excellent. It's annoying, however, because the content would be better presented, more easily consumed, and far more permanent/substantial if they would just write it in essay form and post it to Medium or some other blog. I don't know why they persist in misusing Twitter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Anecdotally, I kind of agree with the author. I used to spend whole days as a kid just reading books, sometimes staying up very late to finish them. I don't know if its because my life has just gotten busier, my attention span has gotten shorter, or a combination of the two, but I'm finding it much more difficult to first pick up and crack open a book, then read it all the way through. I do this a lot lately: I will hear about a book I on a topic I find very interesting, Ill read about a quarter of it, amd almost always never pick it up again. Fiction, non Fiction, it doesnt matter the subkect nor the interest level, I inevitably stop reading it. I think it comes down to a few factors, though. The only times now where I can really read through a whole book is when I'm on vacation, usually a long ways away from my home and job. So I'm assuming the short attention span is probably stress/exhaustion related, and at the end of a day or on the weekends I just dont feel I have the energy to pick up and finish a book. And this goes on and on until Ive forgotten about the book I was reading. Anyone else feel the same way? (Sorry for any grammatical errors, I'm typing this from my phone.)

<comment><USER7> Or maybe your "wasted hours" reading a book have turned into "wasted hours" online. Who's to saw which is less wasteful. There is something unique about actually reading a book though, just like there's something unique about it being an actual book, not a ebook. Though these things are hard to classify.

<comment><USER8> > Who's to saw which is less wasteful.

Me, based on what I gain from each experience. Although of course in that case I'm only speaking on the wastefulness of what I do with my own time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What if it's a function of age, rather than amount of tech we're exposed to?

For example, I feel younger people are able to focus for longer periods of time on reading long form texts, and an older person may benefit more from finding specific sections from a longer work that they may find interesting or useful that they can read.

As you age there is much more repetition in things than you are consuming. Maybe it's not bad to be filtering out certain repetitions while hopefully not filtering out things that go against any personal biases.

Furthermore, the books I'm interested in reading now I feel require more time, maybe even a year or two, whereas when I was younger I was really interested in reading massive amounts just for the sake of it.

<comment><USER10> As a young person (high school) I can assure you that this is most probably false.

<comment><USER11> Young adults read the most books, statistically. It is biggest market. They read less then previous generation used to read at their age, but they still read more then previous generation reads _now_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The author is lamenting short attention spans, something people have been complaining about since the advent of radio at least. The author can read and write perfectly well, he just finds reading book boring. Conflating interest with literacy is at least a novel (no pun intended) way to make it seem like the author has something interesting to say about the world. I'm sure sitting too close to the TV and not respecting our elders enough will be the end of us all, too.

<comment><USER13> There's a more subtle point in the article about how digital media have trained us to be less tolerant of delays, more impatient for new information. How often have you gone to a website on a whim, but clicked "back" after waiting 2s for the page to load? -- Nevermind, it wasn't important... I haven't got all day, what's next in my feed?...

This reflexive aversion to interruptions and delays make prolonged focus more difficult. Maybe you don't experience it, but I do, and like the author of this article I notice it most when I try to read a book.

<comment><USER14> > _[...] but clicked "back" after waiting 2s [...]_

This is not a new phenomenon. 2 seconds is already well within the "users/viewers tapering off" band in the Nielsen thresholds.[0] The Nielsen study formulated the usability latencies in early 90's, but the effects of measurable delays have been known at least from the 70's.

The moment you're above 1 second, you're making your users wait for _something_ to happen. Apply power law to get an estimate how many are getting annoyed and giving up.

To make things even worse, keep in mind how horrible the mobile internet latencies are for connection handshakes. It's not impossible to have a base latency of ~700ms for any new connection. That leaves you with no more than 300ms to actually serve the content. And for the mobile device to render it...

0: [https://www.nngroup.com/articles/response- times-3-important-...](https://www.nngroup.com/articles/response- times-3-important-limits/)

<comment><USER15> Except that phenomenon is far more attenuated by interaction and the complexity of the medium. I'd argue; to the point perhaps of being an almost new phenomenon.

<comment><USER14> I find myself disagreeing with you. You are right about this being driven by interaction, and humans needing to see that something is happening. But even if your application responds with "processing request", you have - at best - reset the timer.

If it takes longer than one second from the reset for the data to be shown, the user is again entering the " _is this slow or broken?_ " time band.

The Nielsen thresholds appear to be fundamental to human nature, and I would be surprised if we have somehow managed to teach humanity to be less impatient over the past few decades. If anything, the dopamine-hit fueled online systems have taught the users to expect even more immediate feedback.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I have this exact distraction issue if I try and read on my iPhone or my iPad. I'm 99% sure I could avoid the issue if I read paper books but I very rarely do that; I've avoided it by reading almost exclusively on my kindle paperwhite.

No YouTube app, no Twitter/Slack/Email/etc notifications bothering me. No "I'll just go check the news/stocks for a second."

The fact that I have to physically put down the kindle to do anything else but read creates a physical barrier that I can easily recognize and allows me to mentally avoid most interruption.

</comment><comment><USER17> >Author Nicholas Carr ( The Shallows) writes that, "digital technologies are training us to be more conscious of and more antagonistic toward delays of all sorts." We become, "more intolerant of moments of time that pass without the arrival of new stimuli." So, I throw down the old book, craving mental Tabasco sauce. And yet not every emotion can be reduced to an emoji, and not every thought can be conveyed via tweet.

I read for the reason the author says he can't read. I cannot stand wasting time and I read significantly faster than people speak. For this reason I prefer to read textbooks over watching lectures and I read books instead of watching tv shows. Written news is more accurate and faster to consume than televised news. The only exception I can think of is books that are adapted into movies but that generally comes at the cost of the movie being drastically different from the book.

</comment><comment><USER18> I haven't. Neither has my 13yo daughter, she seems to do nothing but read. I tend to read on my phone, she reads mostly paper books. When I read on my phone I... read. I don't get distracted as the thing is usually in flight mode due to it being late, no bleeps or bloops, no silly animations, just black on white (day) or white on black (night) text.

Reading, and reading books, does not depend on actual paper books. It depends on the level of interest the reader has in doing just that, reading. Someone who reads to kill a dull moment might be easily distracted but that is true whether that person reads from paper or from a screen of some sorts. This was true back when the only option was paper as well, it is just that distraction is easier to come by for those who seek it.

</comment><comment><USER19> For anyone else who gets distracted by the "famous study" mentioned: [https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/people- pr...](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/people-prefer- electric-shocks-to-being-alone-with-their-thoughts/373936/)

</comment><comment><USER20> Well lots of people are still reading books.

[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/19/slightly- few...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/19/slightly-fewer- americans-are-reading-print-books-new-survey-finds/)

The number seems to be holding steady in the low to mid 70% of the population reading at least one book per year.

Further, the MOST likely readers are 18-29 (as of 2015)

The follow up Pew study in 2016 showed similar trends.

Neat human interest/hot take, I guess? But the reality doesn't seem to match with the author's experience.

</comment><comment><USER21> I find this silly to the point of absurdity. I spend far too much time online, read laterally as much as vertically, and have no trouble reading books. I spend 1-2 hours a day reading books of all sorts and have never noticed this attention gathering issue. My kids, who grew up online, also read books and do not seem to have this issue. My granddaughter, who interacts with the Internet mostly through voice at this point (yes, my son has one of those devices and it is interesting to ask her what she thinks she is talking to when she has a conversation with Google) is also quite able to sit down and read a book and spends about an hour reading to herself most days. I don't think any of us are special. I think this is an invented claim being used to make a polemical point.

</comment><comment><USER22> I could not read the entire article to much filler to much jargon. For the same reason that my patience for books have gone down.

My patience for text that is not relevant to the message have definetly gone down.

I find that it is the same with video or really any media. make it concise and keep to the point don't try to impress me with words.

</comment><comment><USER23> Reading is a skill like any other. Ignore it for long enough and you get worse as it atrophies. I read a book a month or so and a fair bit of longform text on the web. I'm as engaged as I was when I was young, going hours at a time if I need to.

</comment><comment><USER24> I don't read. However I go on walks and listen to an hour long podcast or an audiobook the entire time. Audiobooks and podcasts are continually growing in popularity. Is this somehow worse than reading?

<comment><USER25> How do you make a note? Underline a phrase or mark a page? Refer someone to a certain passage of the book? When you want to find something, what's the equivalent of a table of contents or index or skimmint through pages? How do you return to the phrase five paragraphs ago that, hearing a certain sentence at present, you realise that you actually misunderstood, and now are confused about the story/subject/topic/&c?

Nothing wrong with listening to podcasts or audiobooks per se, but it's nowhere near reading when it comes to fruitful interaction with a source of information, and to transmission of knowledge. Written/printed/digital text is the biggest, most important invention, ever.

<comment><USER26> > Underline a phrase or mark a page?

It's so deeply ingrained in me that this is something you _do not do_ that it feels like sacrilege or blasphemy when I see books that are defaced like that. It's not exactly rational, but it's almost impossible to shake at this point. I don't think even my college books have a line of highlighter in them, although there's more than a few sticky notes lurking.

<comment><USER25> Fermat tends to disagree. I prefer taking notes and quoting phrases on a separate paper block because I want my notes searchable and easily organisable, but I'm okay with writing notes or making marks on a book as long as it's mine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I can still concentrate on written matter and read fairly normally as far as I can tell. I read a lot and I occasionally read something like a thriller novel in one 6-8 hour sitting, or maybe a 4 hour sitting + a 3 hour sitting, something like that. The biggest "problem" I have in regards to reading, is having too many books "in flight" simultaneously, and interleaving my reading. According to my Goodreads account, I have 31 books in the "currently reading" state right now. Of course some of those are actually in a state more like "started, set aside, haven't looked at in a year, will resume $ONEDAY", but I do flip flop back and forth between several active books. I sometimes think I'd be more efficient if I just picked one, read it to completion and only then started another.

Anyway, relative to what this article is talking about, I feel like what I've lost is my ability to watch movies (and to a lesser extent, tv shows). I think it's largely because I do almost all of my tv/movie consumption on a laptop, and the allure of the Internet is always _right there_ just a browser tab away. I start watching a movie or something on Netflix and 5 minutes later I'm on Hacker News, or somewhere , surfing. Jump back to the movie for 10 minutes, then surf more. Then another 5 minutes on the movie, more surfing, lather, rinse, repeat. It might take me 2+ hours to watch a 45 minute episode of some show, or 3+ hours to watch a movie with a 90 minute runtime.

If I routinely read books as ebooks, on my computer, I suspect this same phenomenon would creep in with reading as well. But I still read a lot of offline, dead-tree books, which takes me away from the digital world for a while. I also do a lot of reading dead-tree books while soaking in the bathtub, so no laptop there - although my phone or sometimes a tablet is often within reach. I typically only grab that to update my Goodreads account though.

</comment><comment><USER28> > _In a very real way, to lose old styles of reading is to lose a part of > ourselves._ > _Story continues below advertisement_

But neat irony aside, I suppose he does have a point. My reading skills and general focusing is on the mend again after I ditched almost all social media and most of the general newsstream.

</comment><comment><USER29> Apart from reading with no interruptions, you should take breaks and just daydream:

[http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180208-an-effortless- way-t...](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180208-an-effortless-way-to- strengthen-your-memory)

</comment><comment><USER30> That doesn't describe me at all.

I have been into tech ever since I was born, and I have read 5 books in the past 5 weeks... wish I had more time to read more of them... so much to learn.

Spending too much time on a tablet before I read a book does certainly distract from my reading, however.

I tried to swipe up a page in a physical book the other day that really bothered me on a surprisingly deep level, so I have just decided to put the tablet down more often.

I despise the idea of tech consuming my life, as confusing as that is considering I willingly and enthusiastically spend 24 hours of my day completely immersed in it.

Perhaps I am an outlier because I know of the trials and tribulations that too much screen-in-face-time (or whatever you want to call it) can cause first hand.

<comment><USER31> > wish I had more time to read more of them... so much to learn.

What are you reading? It sounds like a self-help book or something pretty easily digestible with a definite goal. I think (emphasis on 'think') that the author is referring more to novels or open-ended content that don't have a point. Less a manual more a story.

<comment><USER32> You can learn a whole lot from fiction.

<comment><USER11> Is that good idea through? I think that one should be careful and avoid learning fictional made up points as if they were true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I always had little patience for books that are not immediately gratifying. If I wasn't hooked after reading few pages then I couldn't read it at all. Words I laid my eyes upon just didn't transfer to my brain if the things they described were overdrawn and boring to me.

Hobbit? No, thank you.

Today, after decade of doing 99.9% of my reading on the internet I have even less patience for boring reads.

But if I find something like "Matter" by Iain M Banks or "A fire upon the deep" by Vernor Vinge you couldn't part me with my book even by using a crowbar.

So I don't think we forgot how to read. We just forgot how and why should we force ourselves to actively suffer boredom.

</comment><comment><USER34> Part of this phenomenon is due to other people's expectation of us. I find it is very difficult to carve out 30 minutes of time where I am not interrupted by someone. If I turn off my phone and IM for that long people start to get worried.

<comment><USER35> Tell them to get used to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Interesting. I still enjoy reading old format books, but my eyesight and my time are not what they used to... not to mention that in the age of paper my allergies often forced me to decide between a book and a pleasant day.

However, thanks to technology now I enjoy books in audiobook format. I spend about an hour every day commuting with an audiobook, and I have discovered that I have good patience for good authors even in academic topics, like political economy. On the other hand, I miss paper books those times when I have to plow through/listen to particularly dreary fragments of a book ... with paper I would skip those so easily ...

</comment><comment><USER37> Basically, while the communist block went through 1984 first, now we're globally going through Brave New World...

Of course, to understand what I say one would have to _read_ the book, and it may be too late to be able to do that :)

</comment><comment><USER38> This is most like the most important thing I haven't read.

Aside - this is good stuff, I find myself in this 'mode' all the time. I used to read 100+ books a year, now it is like 5. But, I read all the time ...

</comment><comment><USER39> One concern I have with losing the ability to read fast with comprehension is what else that ability is used for.

Reading is highly nonlinear using a parallel perception/cognition pipeline. Losing that skill for us technical folk is sad. Sure work involves analytical thinking but it's typically slower paced and rarely nonlinear to any degree. Day day is fairly rote.

</comment><comment><USER40> I can't read fiction as much as I used to when I was younger. But I work in publishing. I figured it was as much burnout as anything else.

</comment><comment><USER41> I'm thankful to have my subway to commute to work, at least. On a good morning/evening, I can snag a seat and sit down, and sometimes get a chapter through if I'm lucky. I've finished most of the past few books I've read over the past few years this way. Unfortunately, I haven't gotten any further than 5-10. It's unfortunate.

</comment><comment><USER7> Just because there are various styles to reading doesn't mean you should forget the other one...

I read on sites like this in an information gathering mode, skimming, searching, for something worthwhile...

I read a book, like I've always read a book, slowly, and without interruption.

I read research (i care about) with a highlighter and a pen.

You don't have to forget.

</comment><comment><USER42> Habits are formed over time.

I began reading "books" again in 2010, after a 10 year lapse of mostly not reading books.

At first, the best I could do was 15 books a year. It took me three years before I "leveled up" to "80 books a year."

Technology isn't the enemy here. Attention span is.

<comment><USER43> But what if technology has deliberately attempted to undermine your discipline?

<comment><USER42> Technology isn't the issue. Technology gave me an ereader that lasts for a week on a single charge and lets me carry around a couple hundred books. It's a large part of the reason why I'm reading 80 books a year.

How creators and consumers of applications, websites, and content USE technology is the problem.

Many consumers spend zero time thinking about the outcome of their technology use. Too many creators spend all their time thinking about only ONE outcome of their technology use.

When someone identifies a problem, it's easy to blame "technology" and not the market and social pressures that created it. If people have "forgotten to read" it's their fault, not Instagram's.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> On a slightly related note. My son was applying for his first job and I found out that he didn't know how to _sign_ his name. He couldn't sign his own name in cursive. He said he hadn't been forced to write cursive since third grade....

<comment><USER45> Signatures do not have to be in cursive, although they commonly are. Just something that is easy for the person to do, but difficult for others to reproduce (or not! I know some people, 30+ years old who just print their name, but their writing style is somewhat unique).

<comment><USER44> I agree from a legal standpoint, but from a cultural standpoint, I think it sends the wrong signal, from a teenager, not writing in cursive. It seems to imply a certain level of immaturity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I worry about reading every year or two, then I read some books, and then I remember that they aren't as interesting as they used to be - I think there are just better ways to stimulate my mind these days. Mostly I end up feeling disappointed.

<comment><USER17> > I worry about reading every year or two, then I read some books, and then I > remember that they aren't as interesting as they used to be

I read a lot and while I strongly disagree with your comment that books are less interesting than they used to be I will say that finding good books is very hard once you have read all the well regarded, widely recommended classics.

I often try reading new releases and New York Times best sellers and they often leave me frustrated because they are never as good as people hype them to be.

One recent example that I read was called "The Traitor Baru Cormorant" where I actually skipped closed to 60 pages of the book near the end and still managed to finish it without missing any plot related details. That book has a 4/5 on goodreads...

<comment><USER46> Looking back at my post, I definitely overstated things. I still read occasionally, and some books I'm glad I read. There certainly is a lot more crud out there these days. Often my disappointment is when I read a good book and then it ends and I can't stay in the world any longer. I find that very frustrating.

Alastair Reynolds is one of my favorite authors, and he wrote a book set in a new setting called "Revenger" that was just amazing, and I loved the world. But I finished the book and there are no more and it bums me out :/

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Well, I do agree, we are actually forgetting to read, especially in this age when you're getting a30sec video of any incidents.

</comment><comment><USER48> i haven't, but i have forgotten how to hold a physical book.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is the definition of clickbait. "I've forgotten how to read" does not mean "I feel like my reading habits have changed" or "I can not defend myself from the invasive world of social media and online content". Valid concerns these are, but easily dealt with: reflect on your usage, uninstall the app, delete the account, make a decision and apply it to your life. Nowhere near being unable to read. At this moment writing this comment I'm procrastinating too, but distractions existed since time immemorial. You decide to let them enter your life, you kick them out.

An example: on my free days I tend to stay up late and get up late, and when I wake up I tend to check some funny/interesting subreddits, losing lots of time. But knowing also that reddit is very useful at times, I remove the app from the phone, and restrict the subs I'm subscribed to to ones that are useful. I see that I'm checking my email too much on my phone when I'm bored, I remove the mail app for some days. All notifications except calls are silenced on my phone. I don't use any social media, except Reddit and HN, if we count them as such (reddit is definitely trying to be, which is annoying, but you can have your niche still). These are my solutions. Each and every life has many problems, and we try to fix them. Introspect, reflect, decide, do. No shortcuts there.

<comment><USER49> > _This is the definition of clickbait. "I've forgotten how to read" does not > mean "I feel like my reading habits have changed" or "I can not defend > myself from the invasive world of social media and online content"._

First, I think you confuse "clickbait" with creative title. Articles are not meant to have literal titles, and they have had metaphorical or poetic or puns or otherwise creative titles since before there were clicks to "bait for" \-- including articles that were deep inside some magazine and not mentioned on the cover to attract attention. Writers and editors simply like to be creative like that.

Second, there's nothing wrong with this title. The situation they describe can very correctly be summed as "I forgot how to read" \-- or even expanded to "we forgotten how to read". Forgetting how doesn't mean "being unable to" \-- it just means forgetting how to read properly, or if you want, the "old way".

Heck, even a title like "I can't read anymore" would have been quite apt to describe such a situation. One would have to presume a very simplistic and imaginative audience to feel the need to spell it out more, to the point of the title being a simple literal description "Modern online media consumption has made my reading of books erratic".

> _Valid concerns these are, but easily dealt with: reflect on your usage, > uninstall the app, delete the account, make a decision and apply it to your > life_

That's like saying that we can end obesity easily if people just eat less. Or end violence if we make a decision to be nice to each other. In other words, it takes a complex issue, with many variables, and factors (from the pressures of modern life to changing ways of media consumption) and makes it into some character flaw or lack of discipline issue one can "easily" overcome.

<comment><USER25> Wrt the title, I disagree, there's nothing creative about it. Wrt the rest, I disagree again. Obesity is a disease that you physically have, and you can't decide to not be fat anymore. Violence is a problem of society and you can't decide that the society won't be violent anymore (that even sounds off grammatically). Consuming too much online entertainment or being distracted by social media is nothing like these, you have all the means in the same devices to cure it. I won't dismiss it can become some sort of addiction, but then again, it won't create new receptacles in your brain, not give you diabetes or heart diseases, you won't crave it and hurt people in its absence that a therapy in a dedicated building will be needed. You seem to like hyperboles indeed.

<comment><USER49> > _Obesity is a disease that you physically have, and you can 't decide to not > be fat anymore._

Obesity is a state, not a disease (there are some diseases that can cause obesity, but by and large it's due to diet for most people).

<comment><USER25> If there's such scientific distinction between a state and a disease, I'd really like to know more. But I can't see how a disease is not just a particular state of being. And if obesity is not a disease, then still, that does not subtract anything from my point in the GP comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Did you read the whole article?

</comment><comment><USER51> Coming to HN less and less with shitty clickbait like this on front page.

</comment><comment><USER52> I buy books all the time. Haven't read one in a couple years because I'm too busy. Some day though....some day.</comment>


Show HN: Android Chorus - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7lKihNI-K4

<comment><USER2> I don't get it, it seems like they just played the song in the background anyway. Why'd they need all the phones?</comment>


Can You Beat Usain Bolt Out of the Blocks? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/13/sports/olympics/can-you-beat-usain-bolt-out-of-the-blocks.html <comment><USER2> I beat him. lol.

[http://imgur.com/gallery/7PJvq](http://imgur.com/gallery/7PJvq)</comment>


We're giving away Zidisha gift cards for our birthday campaign launch - <AUTHOR> http://p2p-microlending-blog.zidisha.org/2015/03/30/introducing-birthday-campaigns/

<comment><USER2> This is really interesting initiative. All the best!</comment>


Parent to Child Propagation of False Meaning - <AUTHOR> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/parent-to-child-propagation-of-false-meaning <comment><USER2> I like this guy, he writes short pithy stuff that should be obvious if not for conventional wisdom. My favorite so far is very simple:

> If you haven't figured out what you want from life, and what makes you > happy, then you can't solve this by adjusting the amount of time you spend > at work or at home. This is because neither your time at work or home will > bring happiness until you've figured this out. - > [http://danielmiessler.com/blog/forget-work-life-balance- > lets...](http://danielmiessler.com/blog/forget-work-life-balance-lets-talk- > about-the-consume-create-balance)

</comment><comment><USER3> You should read "Shop Class As Soulcraft". The answer, for what it's worth, is not necessarily a life spent in the arts.</comment>


Programming Languages Zoo: a few toy languages implemented in OCaml - <AUTHOR> http://andrej.com/plzoo/

<comment><AUTHOR> Previous discussions may be found here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2254557](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2254557)

I just could not help sharing this, this code is concise and clear even for a person who does not know OCaml much and implements diverse concepts (like a ML abstract machine) succinctly.</comment>


Verafin Completes C$515M Equity and Debt Recapitalization - <AUTHOR> https://verafin.com/news/verafin-completes-c515-million-equity-and-debt-recapitalization/ <comment><AUTHOR> I used to work at Verafin (no current affiliation) but a pretty amazing funding round by a company in Newfoundland, Canada (population ~500k).

Other news posts related to the financing - [https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/press-releases- pmn/bu...](https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/press-releases-pmn/business- wire-news-releases-pmn/verafin-completes-c515-million-equity-and-debt- recapitalization-continues-partnership-with-spectrum-equity-and-information- venture-partners)</comment>


Can the pandemic help us fix our technology problem? - <AUTHOR> https://timharford.com/2020/07/can-the-pandemic-help-us-fix-our-technology-problem/ <comment><USER2> Problem is not technology, People are problem.</comment>


Senator Richard Burr Warned of Coronavirus Effects in Private Meeting - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2020/03/19/818192535/burr-recording-sparks-questions-about-private-comments-on-covid-19 <comment><USER2> This is vaguely like insider trading. He knew something was bad, based on privileged information he had from the government, and told a small group, who had bribed him with campaign donations, so that they could "benefit." Meanwhile, publicly, he said things weren't so bad.

<comment><USER2> Well actually, no, it's _exactly_ like insider trading. Literally.

Senator dumped up to $1.6M of stock after reassuring public on Covid-19 (propublica.org) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22631832](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22631832)</comment></comment>


Should Michael Arrington Be Invited Back At LeWeb Next Year? - <AUTHOR> http://www.loiclemeur.com/english/2008/12/should-michael.html <comment><USER2> You can tell a conference was boring if the most exciting bit of news is meta news about Silicon Valley's drama queen.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's interesting that Le Muer talks about extreme quality given the atrocious quality of the venue and speakers at LeWeb.

I'm sure there is room for some fascinating cultural debate, but hot on the heels of a conference so badly managed that even the friendly-home-team Europeans felt it was a frozen no-internet disaster it seems a bit hollow to then talk about the culture of extreme quality.

</comment><comment><USER4> Who cares?

<comment><USER5> Well, I'm up-modding, not for the emo main point, but for all the interesting tidbits about European e-businesses. I never knew that Vente-privee existed. I always suspected that there must be successful web businesses and unexploited markets in other parts of the world, but it is hard to learn about them. Which is why I guess the organizer started the conference in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't have the slightest clue what this guy is talking about. Guy Savoy has a restaurant in the United States too, and it's just as packed. Americans are clearly able to appreciate it. And the wait there is a joke compared to The French Laundry.

Also, Thomas Keller is almost certainly the world's greatest. He has 2 restaurants in Restaurant Magazine's top 50 (numbers 5 and 6).

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't really like him — I just don't know anyone with a bigger ego than his.

</comment><comment><USER8> Flagged. Not HN. Belongs on VW.

No offense to raghus, who's submitted some good stuff.

<comment><USER9> lets not advertise our flaggings,

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> No. (Just to turn this into a poll - here's the second option!)

</comment><comment><USER11> Yes. Controversy sells tickets.</comment>


From Encrypted Drives to Amazons Cloud – The Amazing Flight of the Panama Papers - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2016/04/05/panama-papers-amazon-encryption-epic-leak/#48c726361df5 <comment><USER2> > its portal used by customers to access sensitive data was run on a three- > year-old version of Drupal, 7.23

Drupal 7.23 is vulnerable to [https://www.drupal.org/SA- CORE-2014-005](https://www.drupal.org/SA-CORE-2014-005). Anyone who's ever read a Wikipedia article on SQL injection could have had shell access to that site. As a Drupal core contributor, I've always felt a small irrational amount of guilt for not catching that defect. But today suddenly I feel just a tiny bit better.</comment>


Zappos says goodbye to bosses - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2014/01/03/zappos-gets-rid-of-all-managers/# <comment><USER4> "Instead, there are people known as "lead links" who have the ability to assign employees to roles or remove them from them, but who are not in a position to actually tell people what to do. "

You say tomato I say tomato. Seriously though, renaming a title does not equal removing it from your business structure.

Why not call them managers and simply take away the elements of their job which cause issues? Seems to be this is more about drinking the kool-aid than it is about actual structural changes to how things are accomplished.

<comment><USER5> _Why not call them managers and simply take away the elements of their job which cause issues?_

But what are those elements? A good boss keeps a LOT of crap away from its employees, a bad one is the exact reverse. I want a manager, he does most of the crap political work for me while I grow professionally.

Is it a problem managers exists or is it a problem some companies can't manage to hire good ones?

<comment><USER6> Yes exactly! The best boss I ever had explained his job like this (and yes probably some ego stroking in there):

"You guys are like a rock band. You're the stars. You need to show up, practice, and play gigs on schedule.

I'm like your band manager. It's my job to take care of all the random crap like booking tour buses, replacing blown amps, and protecting you from the annoying label guys so you can just focus and do your magic."

It's a good analogy. A good manager protects their team and lets them focus on their work and gives them what they need to succeed.

<comment><USER7> > It's a good analogy

Yes, a manager is like a manager. :)

The difference is that the band manager is clear he works _for_ the band. His goal is to help the band do what the band does best.

A bad SW manager often operates under the idea that he's in _charge_. He gets to set what the people do, when they do it, and _how_ they do it. He doesn't really care what skills or experience his team has. He's the boss, and they better shut up and do what they're told.

A good manager plays with the team. A bad manager plays _against_ the rest of the team.

<comment><USER8> > He's the boss, and they better shut up and do what they're told.

Hypothetically let's assume you are a manager. You have a team of smart people and like any other team, everyone wants to work on the hardest problem. Particularly two guys want to do the same thing: How do you handle this?

The most important thing I advocate in a manager / employee relationship is trust. You should be able to trust that your manager has your best interests in mind and vice versa. If you do trust each other, I don't see why there will be a problem in doing what is told. In fact you won't even see it as being told to. The managers on the 'good end' of the spectrum will also make it appear as if it is a suggestion, but any smart person should be able to see through that for what it is: an order to do X or Y.

Most of the issues happen because of the lack of trust. This is the prime thing I tell new folks: Choosing a manager who is exactly on the same page is prime directive. Get the human element out and build trust. You miss out on that / settle, you are just settling for a life of misery.

<comment><USER9> Easily, I once worked at a place where everyone wanted to work on the hardest problems. I could have done that also but instead I recognized that there was a lot of grunt work that needed to be done in order to get our product out and meet our deadlines so I volunteered to get that stuff done. The director of our department took note of this and when bonus time came around I received a significantly larger bonus than everyone else and was thanked for my dedication to doing what needed to be done. The lesson being that, you reward people who do what it takes to get the job done not people who are self- serving glory hounds looking to boost their resume with hard problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Tech billionaire checklist:

      - security detail
      - private jet
      - <USER2>
      - professional sports franchise
      - <USER3>
      - once respected media outlet as personal mouthpiece

Once again, Jeff Bezos leads the way.

(Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, parent company of Zappos, owns the Washington Post.)

<comment><USER11> I was most surprised that they don't include disclosure of this relationship when mentioning Amazon in the article. I thought that was comme-il-faut of serious journalism.

<comment><USER12> I see this at the end now:

Note: Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post

<comment><USER13> With no mention of the article being edited. Terrible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This no-managers movement strikes me as disingenuous. The manager is still there -- there's just fewer of them. Big conflicts just get escalated all the way to the CEO/founder/owner.

There was a recent HBR article about Google's management structure. They tried eliminating managers in 2002, but too many people just came directly to Larry when they had a problem (1). Holacracy doesn't scale.

1) [http://hbr.org/2013/12/how-google-sold-its-engineers-on- mana...](http://hbr.org/2013/12/how-google-sold-its-engineers-on- management/ar/1)

</comment><comment><USER15> I find it interesting that the number of Amazon-related articles in the Washington Post seems to have increased since Jeff Bezos' purchase of the Post.

Note that Zappos is owned my Amazon.

<comment><USER16> So your theory is that Bezos spent $250 million of his own money to buy the Washington Post so that he could get more coverage of Amazon in one newspaper?

<comment><USER4> More like; if you spent $250 million of your own cash to buy the WP you _might as well_ use it to get more coverage of your other companies.

Just because it's not the _primary reason_ does not mean it's not happening.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If there are people in the organization who are still tasked with organizing people then they _are_ bosses (or at least, they will eventually act like bosses again).

It is possible to remove the management role, at least at a project level, by using technology. For instance, the first time I saw Trac our team effectively did this.

To be practical however, a technology solution really does require the _right_ group of people. You can't have people who are uncomfortable logging into web sites, or too lazy to write good descriptions for things, and so forth. You need people who are (frankly) professionals, who look at something like a giant task list and do a fair job of distributing things sensibly amongst themselves. A solution like Trac _really_ starts to shine when people learn the little niceties, like additional formatting in wiki entries or the magic sequences that set up links between things. Again though: you need a team that is willing to work with such a tool in the "right way". If they do then you don't really need a manager at all.

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm pleased to see more and more companies shedding more traditional management structures. I think they are the source of pain for a lot of people who flee corporate life to pursue their own ideas.

<comment><USER19> Traditional management structures have their downsides, but I think they can be done well. I have also seen companies do non-traditional management structures that have just been a huge clusterfuck in implementation. It's all about implementation, I believe. I think it is important to keep metrics so we can see what works best for most organizations.

<comment><USER20> Data, not metrics.

Data is facts, it's not opinionated.

Metrics, on the other hands are built upon data but are often carrying an agenda with them, they're political (whether it's office or nation politics) tools.

<comment><USER21> I see what you're saying, but data don't exist in some sort of pure state. All data are collected in a particular fashion. You can get most of the shenanigans you're implying for metrics with data collection as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> For more information about this particular management style, see:

[http://holacracy.org/](http://holacracy.org/)

It's linked from the article, but it deserves to be more prominently noted.

</comment><comment><USER23> Does anyone have a plain English explanation or infographic for Holacracy? Sounds like a lot of smoke and mirrors and happy thoughts.

What is the secret sauce in Holacracy that makes it different from hierarchies?

<comment><USER24> I work with HolacracyOne, the company behind Holacracy. We definitely have a _lot_ of work to do to explain Holacracy outside of our trainings & consulting services - we're a young company and haven't focused on that as much so far, but it's definitely something on our radar (especially after this press storm).

To answer your question, the secret sauce of Holacracy is the Holacracy Constitution – it replaces the CEO in deciding how decisions get made and how we organize. See: www.youtube.com/watch?v=31MljhiyxZ8

Also, you might be interested in two blog posts published in the past couple days in reaction to the often-inaccurrate press: \- "Five Misconceptions About Holacracy" [https://medium.com/about- holacracy/da84d8ba15e1](https://medium.com/about-holacracy/da84d8ba15e1) \- "Holacracy at Zappos" by a Zappos' employee: [http://rianschmidt.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/holacracy-at- zap...](http://rianschmidt.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/holacracy-at-zappos/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I just can't see this working. People are different. Some need to be led more than they can lead, some have a strong voice and others are quiet. Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary?

By work I mean, inevitably it will settle into a more informal hierarchy but still there in practice (just not in title).

<comment><USER26> I agree that it will settle into an informal hierarchy, but I think that is exactly what they are looking for. They mention that they are looking for natural leaders to step up and such. I think the beauty of this plan, if it works, is that people will gravitate towards the roles that they are naturally good at and the heirarchy that emerges could be far better formed than anything that could have been built by hiring managers top down. Not to mention it will be fluid and can adapt with the company as it grows and changes and new projects come along.

That said, I think this can go either way. Not having defined roles and relationships might cause more friction that it relieves. And to quote Douglas Adams, "It is a well-known fact that those people who want to rule are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it". This might just cause a lot of uncertainty with those willing to yell the loudest trampling those around them.

I'll be watching curiously.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> So, poor performers can be identified if "they don't have enough roles" or "they're not a good fit for the company culture". What happens to them? I guess there are executives at a higher level that have the authority to fire these poor performers?

These "lead links" sound like managers with less authority to me.

If they are hoping for natural leaders to step forward then that seems how you become a manager in that company, you ask for it. Which, in some cases, is probably a better system than what many companies have in place that places people in roles they shouldn't be in.

The roles are still there, some of the requirements and responsibilities are shifted a bit, but they just removed the titles.

<comment><USER28> Makes me wonder if part of the intent is to reduce salaries. No managers = no manager salaries. Kind of like getting a promotion without the salary increase, or increased duties without increased pay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm pro new org structures and ways to work together. I'm interested in Valve and Zappos and others.

But the nagging feeling is what this Valve employee (who was fired) described: The company is led by the bullies just like in highschool.

<comment><USER24> Yep, it's definitely the risk when you get rid of an explicit structure – it gets replaced by a new, implicit one. In contrast, Holacracy doesn't just get rid of hierarchy, it REPLACES it with another structure – and in many ways, it's MORE structure (unlike what the press says). See more in these two blog posts that were published in reaction to the press buzz and the misinformation: \- Five Misconception About Holacracy: [https://medium.com/about-holacracy/da84d8ba15e1](https://medium.com/about- holacracy/da84d8ba15e1) \- Zappos at Holacrach (by Zappos' Head of Labs Tech): [http://rianschmidt.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/holacracy-at- zap...](http://rianschmidt.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/holacracy-at-zappos/)

<comment><USER29> Thx, highly appreciated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> previous submission and discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7016107](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7016107)

</comment><comment><USER31> I miss the associate -vs- employee meaningless fad. I guess its inevitable that some other group gets a meaningless renaming fad.

</comment><comment><USER32> We're doing the same thing at Gamevy. We're small at the moment which makes it (fairly) easy. As for how it goes as we grow - you can check out our blog on the "experiment"! [http://giantleap.me/](http://giantleap.me/)

</comment><comment><USER33> I recently read an absolutely fascinating book called _The Origin of Wealth_.[1] Nominally the topic is economics, but it's far broader than that, talking about how all components of the economic system of wealth creation (including "firms") are part of a Complex Adaptive System, and are often CAS's themselves. The author makes the argument that a firm is a CAS using evolution to explore a "fitness landscape" in terms of it's "Business Plan" (his term that encompasses strategy at various levels within the firm). IF you buy this theory, it has some very interesting implications in terms of how firms should be managed, and the author provides some interesting thoughts.

One point that stood out to me, is that all firms face a constant, internal tension between the need to do "operational stuff" that actually works very well with a traditional hierarchical management approach, and the need to do "exploratory work" which does NOT map well to hierarchy. Failing to understand and manage this tension may be why many firms feel so dysfunctional.

The other point that stood out to me, is the idea that instead of a strict hierarchy - or complete undirected chaos - the best way to combine efforts towards both goals is by having individuals with _a high degree of autonomy and empowerment_ coupled with a _strong shared vision and common goals_.

In this model, the primary purpose of leadership is to imbue the members of the organization with that "strong shared vision and common goals". Or to put it more simply, you tell people what needs to be accomplished, not how to accomplish it, and trust them to use their judgment.

On a related note, the book _Adaptive Enterprise_ [2] makes a strong case for the idea of high decentralized teams, connected to each other through what the author calls a "Commitment Management Protocol".[3]

I would say that both of these books have some useful ideas that could be applied to construct a better management structure than what most present-day firms use.

[1]: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Origin-Wealth-Remaking- Economics/d...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Origin-Wealth-Remaking- Economics/dp/1422121038)

[2]: [http://www.amazon.com/Adaptive-Enterprise-Creating-Sense- And...](http://www.amazon.com/Adaptive-Enterprise-Creating-Sense-And-Respond- Organizations/dp/0875848745)

[3]: [http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/conversations-...](http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/conversations- for-action-commitment-management-protocol/)

</comment><comment><USER34> Is there some result in the theory of random graphs that says that you can't have a graph of a certain size without developing hubs? It seems to happen in most systems.

<comment><USER35> There are a number of results about a giant connected component emerging as a Erdos-Renyi random graph increases in size.

A hub however will simply arise as the result of variance.

<comment><USER34> You say "a hub" but I wonder whether it would be many? How close would such an effect be to hubs we see in scale free networks? In those, preferential attachment seems to induce hubs. Airline hubs are a good example - there's more value in connecting to a well-connected hub.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> >show me any group of five human beings or five apes or five dogs, and I want to see the one where a status difference does not emerge. It's who we are as creatures.

This. The need for management arose once we stopped being nomads and started to organize ourselves into collective groups. Look at Native Americans, even they had Chieftains.

<comment><USER37> [http://www.waketech.edu/sites/default/files/libraryfiles/ere...](http://www.waketech.edu/sites/default/files/libraryfiles/ereserves/ant220/kalahari.pdf)

"Yes, when a young man kills much meat he comes to think of himself as a chief or a big man, and he thinks of the rest of us as his servants or inferiors. We can't accept this... So we always speak of his meat as worthless. This way we cool his heart and make him gentle."

<comment><USER36> Managers get chosen to be managers they dont all of the sudden come in after they do something important and say I am a manger or team lead or what have you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Nice gimick, straight from the Tim Ferriss school of language.</comment>


Use of nanoparticles for detection of vascular calcification in atherosclerosis - <AUTHOR> https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/TB/C9TB01918A#!divAbstract <comment><USER2> Assuming they find calcified plaques, then what? Can they be reversed once they're calcified?

<comment><USER3> Yes, some people keep magnesium, K2 MK-7, K2 MK-4 and D3 in their system to slowly break it down. This is done primarily to reverse the calcification in and around the heart to get a lower CAC score. Ideal score is 0.

<comment><USER4> Does this really work? First time I am hearing of this(would be estatic if it did).

<comment><USER3> Yes, there are hundreds of write-ups / studies on nih.gov that explain the process and results. [1] Just one example [2]

[1] - [https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=si...](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=site%3Anih.gov+reverse+calcification+d3+k2+mk-7&btnG=Google+Search&iflsig=AAP1E1EAAAAAXfAHozqAB4LJbzLM9TY_Dtxy7f07XtZK&gbv=1)

[2] - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6112404/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6112404/)

<comment><USER5> Your second citation is an ongoing trial, it doesn't have results. Not to say it's wrong, just that you might want to pick a better example that shows it works.

<comment><USER3> I just linked the first one that comes up in search results. There are literally hundreds of studies on this. I personally know doctors that have lowered blood pressure in their patients using this method. I am also reversing my CAC score, albeit very slowly, but it's better than going up.

A more taboo topic is heart surgeons arguing about the usage of Serrapeptase and Nattokinase to remove scar tissue in the vascular system prior to heart surgery. None of them can agree on whether or not removing the scar tissue makes the surgery safer or more dangerous.

<comment><USER5> Sure, I am just very skeptical of a lot medical research involving vitamins and your first link didn't work on my mobile and the second wasn't results, so I was hoping to see some legitimate studies.

I have firsthand seen several major shifts in vitamins and nutrition in medicine. For example, vitamin D was heavily promoted in the early 2000s for a lot of indications that appeared back by research that in the end was fraud (see [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/researcher-center- ep...](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/researcher-center-epic-fraud- remains-enigma-those-who-exposed-him)).

Vitamin C also was heavily promoted by Linus Pauling but ended up being flat, although now we are seeing a resurgence in the belief that it plus thiamine and steroids can help with septic shock (look up [https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(16)62564-3/f...](https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692\(16\)62564-3/fulltext)). This is being heavily debated right now.

I looked at three papers in the first link but none showed actual results, just hypothetical improvements.

I'm happy it appears to be helping you CAC, how often are you getting CACs?

<comment><USER3> I can only do the test once per year without the insurance company pushing back. Yes the vitamin C studies were quite flawed, especially since they were using ascorbic acid and not real vitamin C. Ascorbic acid is just the outer layer and is missing many components. I would love to see the tests done using the real deal.

I too am a skeptic about many things. I've had no choice but to get into self research and self improvements, or I would be stuck right where I was, in the middle of a failed medical system. If it were up to them, I would just be taking BP meds for the rest of my life. The doctors back them expected me to last another five years. That was several years ago. I refuse to play that game. It would take an hour to explain all the things I am doing. People that have known me for a long time are seeing the results. I look and feel 20 years younger. I have started educating some of the doctors at Stanford about nutrition and a few of them are actually very open to learning new things.

<comment><USER5> I just wonder sometimes about the rationale behind some of these tests like coronary artery calcium scoring, where it is relatively new and we don't as much data about how useful it is to measure year to year results as an accurate prognosis indicator. We do have data that it can be used for risk stratification for heart attack and stroke, but as far as I know there is a lot less data on getting serial examinations in a way that ends up being more useful than the initial one, but maybe that research is being done.

I found one commentary on a paper evaluating it: [https://www.reliasmedia.com/articles/139983-utility-of- seria...](https://www.reliasmedia.com/articles/139983-utility-of-serial- coronary-calcium-scores)

It probably doesn't matter, but getting a CAC does involve a little extra radiation each year, so I kind of worry about what benefit you are getting: ie hypothetical benefit of monitoring risk vs hypothetical risk of radiation exposure.

<comment><USER3> The radiation does concern me as well, especially since the vit-d and bpc-157 are proangiogenic. That said, I have completely removed sugar and carbs from my dietary intake and I use AGE+curcumin to break down biofilm from senescent cells and use Sulforaphane plus Myrosinase to up-regulate NRF2 which in turn increases cellular autophagy and apoptosis of senescent cells. I suppose time will tell if my actions are beneficial.

<comment><USER5> Sounds like you've done way more research on this and could teach me arching or two. I hope you record your results to benefit other people!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What is the clinical significance of the plaque being calcified? Is that worse (or better?) than "regular" cholesterol plaque? Or is that just another term for the same thing?

<comment><USER7> Not a doctor, but my understanding is that the calcification is a later stage of damage. Basically you get Inflammation, Plaques, Calcification in that order.

Someone more educated should chime in, or that could serve as a basis for starting your own learning

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Would this complement a CAC test?</comment>


Software as prose - <AUTHOR> http://warpedvisions.org/2009/08/03/software-as-prose/

<comment><USER2> Interesting, but frankly I need another acting metaphor for application design like I need additional holes in my head.</comment>


Drivetribe's Modern Take on CQRS with Apache Flink - <AUTHOR> https://data-artisans.com/drivetribe-cqrs-apache-flink/ <comment><USER2> I like this architecture a lot but I don't know how "modern" it is. Event sourcing around a message bus is relatively common.

In fact you don't even need that many moving pieces. Akka persistence does most of this out of the box: [http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/scala/persistence.html](http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/scala/persistence.html)

Blue green deployments are a good addition here that many systems don't seem to be able to handle but the article doesn't really get into the details here.

</comment><comment><USER3> It nice to see documentation on a real world implementation of this architecture, and if anyone is interested in more detail, I'd suggest this book[1] on my to-read list (it details a very similar approach).

I've done SOA, and n-tier DDD, and I'd love a chance to build something like this, but as an enterprise developer, I have to operate quite a bit behind the curve (13 years later, and 90% of my co-workers have never heard of Evans' book). Still, selling new approaches to management gets easier if you can point to exiting production systems like this, so, thanks for posting this wints.

[1][https://www.manning.com/books/functional-and-reactive- domain...](https://www.manning.com/books/functional-and-reactive-domain- modeling)

</comment><comment><USER4> Honestly this sounds like overcomplicating a system just for the sake of it. Drivetribe can be implemented reliably in Django or Rails without any of these fancier "architectures". But then considering that the product itself is not innovative, perhaps they needed something to sell to their naive recruits.

<comment><USER5> Hi. I am the author of the article. Thank you for spending time to read this. The combined reach of the co-founders is very large, thus being able to provably handle scale was an essential prerequisite. Additionally, the requirements of the platform extend way beyond a simple content server. Content performance is tracked in real-time and this is fed to multiple ranking and recommendation models. Those frequently change, thus we need a way to retroactively process our data. Flexibility is key when trying to build an intelligent platform. Thus, we decided to early-on invest time in the ability to quickly iterate and experiment on algorithms, in real time over live data. You are right that the API fleet could be implemented using the aforementioned technologies; We use Scala and thus decided to use Akka HTTP instead. The challenging part is how you manage state behind that.

<comment><USER4> Don't get me wrong, I am not denying that CQRS/stream processing style approach is not useful for any application. Rather it is unsuitable for this particular problem.

In my experience all these features sound nice on paper. But you quickly run into practical issues that are far easier when you know approximate information about the state.

E.g. Developing a model? you might just want a subset/batch data. Doing BI/Analytics? are you going to continuously tax your server to recompute? The argument about recommender systems is also honestly flimsy, having built and applied such systems to live traffic at very large scale (more than hundreds of millions of users). There is only a small advantage from being able to quickly reconfigure flows. In most cases you have a single baseline model which you compare against for a small fraction of the traffic. The real complexity/gains in recommender systems lie in choice of algorithm/hyper- parameters/features, not on continuous multi armed bandits with 1000 different models applied simultaneously while waiting an infinite amount of time to produce any statistically meaningful answer. In fact for a website like this one, recommender systems can only provide so much advantage.

There are actually several really good specialized use cases, e.g. Google secmon-tools uses a system like this one.

[1] [https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs259d/lectures/Session11.pdf](https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs259d/lectures/Session11.pdf)

<comment><USER5> You mention the word "batch" when talking about models. Also "BI/Analytics". Since Django/Rails applications do not support any of the two, another sort of system would be needed. This is the point where, having built everything on Django, with no foresight whatsoever about future requirements, we would have ended up creating DataFrames from SQL tables in Spark. Our BI guys have no experience with Spark, so we would need to load data to a DW-like solution, like BigQuery/Redshift/Impala/Presto/you-name-it. Instead of another sink in Flink, we would need to implement and schedule ETL jobs. Even at our current load, computing counters (eg likes) at read time would be slow and inefficient. Which means we would need a way to pre-aggregate them. Maybe another service, possibly behind a queue? You can see where I am going. As requirements evolve, systems evolve, and with no planning before hand, people end up with spaghetti architectures. We knew we were funded enough to run for a couple of years. We knew the site would have traffic. We were tasked with delivering an algorithmicly-driven product, and this is the solution we came up with.

I really do not understand how such a strong set of conclusions can be drawn out of so little information.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> UK-AL Event Sourcing + CQRS is an extremely scalable, and flexible system, but at the same time it can overcomplicate things. I'm not sure it was required here.

Interesting to see it used outside the .Net world.

</comment><comment><USER6> "This is fairly straightforward; professional software developers of all levels usually have some experience building and scaling stateless APIs."

I would question this, in fact suggest the complete opposite. Given that they say they're a team of Scala developers, I think there is definitely some selection bias going on -- in some subset of the wider population of developers that might be the case, but certainly not globally.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm not clear on why you would use redis to get transactions. Wouldn't sending a single message to kafka that represents the whole transaction with acks=all have the same effect? Then instead of pulling from redis like it is a queue, you can just do that from kafka.

<comment><USER5> This is exactly what we did initially. Really early on (before any rate limiting was in place), a few spam accounts followed 100K people, created lots spam content etc. Encapsulating those deletions started yielding messages bigger than the default max kafka message size (1MB). Additionally, this method had a few side effects on the downstream processors. We could of course increase the limit, but we decided to deal with the problem at its core.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Seems over complicated to me. Why do they need so many components?</comment>


Starwars Snowflakes - <AUTHOR> http://mattersofgrey.com/diy-star-wars-snowflakes/ Christmas will never be the same again... <comment><AUTHOR> Next thing you know they'll replacing the crib with Starwars figures, baby Leia in the cradle and Luke being smuggled out by one of the three Jedi Knights.</comment>


How frigatebirds cross entire oceans without ever needing to rest - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/30/how-frigate-birds-cross-entire-oceans-without-ever-needing-to-rest/?wpisrc=nl_draw&wpmm=1 <comment><USER2> This kind of article is _exactly_ what I think of when I think of great HN articles that are not about hacking or startups. It's just plain interesting for people curious about the world, it doesn't have some kind of political point or message, and it doesn't generate lame discussion.

<comment><USER3> Yeah pretty amazing article that was surprisingly not just clickbait. Especially this bit:

 _Frigatebirds are the only seabirds that lack waterproof feathers — if they dive into the ocean or even land on its surface, the water will soak their plumage and prevent them from taking flight again. This should be a death knell to a species that dines exclusively on fish, but it 's not. Frigatebirds can soar high above the ocean, eyes peeled for movement in the water below — a sign that a large predator, like tuna or dolphin, is scaring fish to the surface._

And this bit:

 _It 's still not clear how the birds sleep during these epic journeys. Weimerskirch said there's evidence that they can shut down half their brains as they ascend on updrafts.

"They are probably getting small bouts of sleep at this time — maybe two to three minutes," he said._

Just awesome.

<comment><USER4> (so sorry - cannot resist)

 _It 's not just awesome. It's frigate amazing!_

(please don't hate me. someone had to say it. once again, i apologize.)

<comment><USER2> Sorry about the downvoters - _I_ thought it was funny!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We saw many of these birds and tropicbirds during our Atlantic crossing. They used the trampoline on our catamaran as a rest stop. They also learned that they can't do a carrier landing on solar panels. It was funny to watch them come in for a landing and slide right off the back of the boat.

It looks like they feed on flying fish, primarily. These would jump out of the water and skim across the surface for hundreds of meters, and then BAM!, a bird would swoop in and end its existence.

<comment> jim-greer They do feed on flying fish, among others. Here's a good clip from the newest BBC nature documentary on it:

[https://youtu.be/szuchBiLrEM](https://youtu.be/szuchBiLrEM)

<comment><USER6> Wow who knew being a flying fish was such a pain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _" Allowing air currents to do the work of lifting them makes frigatebirds' flight hugely efficient. The heart rate monitors Weimerskirch and his colleagues attached to the birds showed that they didn't flap their wings at all while gaining altitude — the energy costs of ascending thousands of feet in the air were the same as when they were sitting still."_

Aeronautical engineers: what's it take to develop long-range flight vehicles that are this efficient? Graphite wings/fuselage?

<comment><USER8> Gliders have existed for many years, and sometimes skilled pilots can fly for hundreds of miles riding thermals and updrafts. The problems are payload and reliability. The aircraft itself may not weigh much, but whatever you want to carry will likely be. And if you can't find a thermal when or where you need one, you have to land.

<comment><USER7> If birds can maneuver continuously for over two months without landing, so can a machine. For me the question is can we both design the vehicle to have the correct physical properties, and an intelligent-enough automated flight computer? I think the former will simply require a very very large wingspan made of the lightest strongest material we have [currently Carbyne, formerly Graphite, with the metal alternative being "New Magnesium"].

Once this is accomplished, we could potentially make air transportation [in certain routes] much cheaper. This would have benefits like eliminating the risk of ocean pollution when a large ship crashes/capsizes, faster transportation of goods, and at the same time not be limited in transportation cost by oil market prices. And such designs, if made practical, could possibly be transferred to new aerospace engineering where weight-to-strength are at a premium.

Designing an intelligent flight computer that can account for air currents could also make flight less turbulent, and potentially improve our understanding and prediction of weather patterns.

<comment><USER9> There's also the pesky "refueling" bit. These birds run on fish; I don't think we've really designed effective ICE or fuel cells that run on fish yet.

<comment><USER10> we've developed robots that will 'collect' biological matter (slugs) and ferment it into gases which can be used for electrical generation, but it's incredibly inefficient and likely not suited for aviation.

[http://archive.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/news/2001/10/...](http://archive.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/news/2001/10/47156?currentPage=all)

<comment><USER9> > A prototype robot capable of hunting down over 100 slugs an hour and using > their rotting bodies to generate electricity is being developed by engineers > at the University of West England's Intelligent Autonomous Systems > Laboratory.

That's both... disgusting and delightful!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Fascinating. This bit is troubling though "A follow-up study with miniature loggers that monitor sleep will test this hypothesis". How would such a logger unobtrusively monitor sleep?

<comment><USER12> EEG?

<comment><USER11> Surprisingly, yes; there is a device named "Neurologger 2/2A[0]" which has a mass of just over 2g and a battery life of 33 hours.

From the abstract of "Do birds sleep in flight?", Niels Rattenborg[1]:-

"The recent miniaturization of EEG recording devices now makes it possible to measure brain activity in flight. Determining if and how birds sleep in flight will contribute to our understanding of a largely unexplored aspect of avian behavior and may also provide insight into the function of sleep."

and in the section entitled "Future Directions":-

"Until recently, EEG recording devices were too large for a bird to carry in flight. However, Vyssotski et al. (2006)[2] recently developed and successfully deployed an EEG and a global positioning system (GPS) logger on pigeons during short, daytime homing flights to their loft."

[0]: [http://www.vyssotski.ch/neurologger2.html](http://www.vyssotski.ch/neurologger2.html)

[1]: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7093774_Do_birds_sl...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7093774_Do_birds_sleep_in_flight)

[2]: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7529290_Miniature_n...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7529290_Miniature_neurologgers_for_flying_pigeons_Multichannel_EEG_and_action_and_field_potentials_in_combination_with_GPS_recording)

<comment><USER12> That's brilliant. I love that there are people in the world working on "EEG for birds". It might even be my favourite "X for Y" startup idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I thought they were mainly thieves. When I was in Galapagos, I was actually taking pics of a booby feeding its kid when a frigate flew right through both of them, grabbing the fish as it flew through. All three of us were surprised.

They also bother the other birds in mid flight, causing them to drop their food.</comment>


Gates just revealed the things that could prevent humanity's worst-case scenario - <AUTHOR> http://www.techinsider.io/bill-gates-on-clean-energy-innovation-2015-7

<comment><USER2> > _Gates just revealed the things that could prevent humanity 's worst-case > scenario_

Isn't he just the guy that created a software company? Why would he have any particular insight over Joe Regular?

<comment><USER3> He has actually spent a lot of time reading about this and meeting people for quite many years already.

Not to say he's a top expert, but he isn't a complete beginner. He also has a lot of business experience and money. Many other people talking don't have that.

<comment><USER2> > _He has actually spent a lot of time reading about this and meeting people > for quite many years already._

A lot of politicians have also have done the same, and their "solutions" are usually worse than the problems, not to mention their actions in the past created the problems we face today...</comment></comment></comment>


How Google shut down our startup on Black Friday - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/GlassWireLabs/status/539215763844775936 <comment><USER2> [https://blog.glasswire.com/2014/11/30/google-chrome- blocks-g...](https://blog.glasswire.com/2014/11/30/google-chrome-blocks- glasswire/)

this is probably a better link.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Just downloaded GlassWire in Chrome, it sounds like this has been fixed?

Shitty situation though. The impression I get from Google is that they automatically flag things all the time, their "review" system never changes any decisions, and the only way to get something fixed is if someone with Google connections (John Mueller in the comments) hears about your problem and passes it along to someone who can actually fix it.

How many people get screwed that we never hear about because they didn't have enough twitter followers?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's fixed with Chrome, thanks! Unfortunately Google Webmaster Tools still says we have malware for some reason. Hopefully it will update soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The only reason I know for Google blocking content is, that the website is (was) infected with malware somwhere deep in the structure. This often happens to outdated Wordpress installs, especially after recent exploits. Blocking an executable however is new to me. I wonder what the real reason is.

<comment><AUTHOR> We use Wordpress for our Blog but it's completely separated from our main website. I guess theoretically it could be infected but we don't distribute any software from there. [https://blog.glasswire.com](https://blog.glasswire.com) Google Webmaster Tools pointed specifically to our installer file that is rated as safe by VirusTotal.com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's working now, at least. I was able to successfully download it in Chrome.

<comment><AUTHOR> Chrome no longer blocks the download but Google Webmaster Tools still say we're infected with malware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I feel like there is more to the story...

<comment><AUTHOR> I always feel like that also when something like this happens but we can't figure out what we did wrong. If we figure it out we'll update the blog post.</comment></comment>


Saint Zuck - <AUTHOR> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2012/02/saint_zuck.php

<comment><USER2> I find this very insightful: "What Zuckerberg ... realized is that, in order to create seamless online connections between people, you have to first turn them into objects."</comment>