Is there a defined open protocol for distributed version control? - <AUTHOR> In the wake of Microsoft's acquisition of GitHub I briefly entertained the thought of writing my own GitHub replacement, at which point I realized for the first time that the concept of a Pull Request is a GitHub thing, not a Git thing.  Also at the same time we're having a discussion at work about migrating from TFS to Git.  And I've always liked Mercurial best for my own development...  Which leads me to ask:
1. Is there a protocol specification for source control (like OStatus or ActivityPub but for communicating with a source control server)?
2. If not, can we create one with a name like Open Version Control (OVC for short)?
3. Can we then agree on what constitutes the necessary data for a commit, push, user info, etc (so we can make Linus happy[1]) so plugins/extension can be made for Git, Mercurial, TFS, VSTS, SVN, etc such that I can use Mercurial for my local workflow and then use a command like `hg ovc push GitLab/FeatureFoo` and my local Mercurial repo pushes the state of my branch to the FeatureFoo branch on the GitLab remote I've defined (and the fact that GitLab is running Git and not Hg would be irrelevant).
At that point I couldn't care less how the hosting provider works internally; it also means an OVC-compliant host could give you the repo in any supported format you could want for local use (Hg for me; Git for Linux; VSS for Steve Ballmer, etc).
Would this be a useful development or would work on such a project be a waste of time?
[1] https://www.wired.com/2012/05/torvalds-github/ <comment><USER2> > 1\. Is there a protocol specification for source control (like OStatus or > ActivityPub but for communicating with a source control server)?

Yes - each SCM has at least one protocol. Here's the spec for subversion, [https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/subversion...](https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_svn/protocol) , here's the spec for Git: [https://github.com/git/git/blob/9bfa0f9be3e718f701200a242ea0...](https://github.com/git/git/blob/9bfa0f9be3e718f701200a242ea04259a4dc4dfc/Documentation/technical/protocol-v2.txt)

> 2\. If not, can we create one with a name like Open Version Control (OVC for > short)?

Unlikely. Each SCM operates in their own way that might be completely at odds with how another SCM works. Also the union of people that have the ability to do it and the incentive to do it is pretty much zero.

>3\. Can we then agree on what constitutes the necessary data for a commit, push, user info, etc

Unlikely. See 2.

<comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps the nomenclature of "protocol specification" is ambiguous as it seems you're referring to wire protocols. I was thinking more along the idea of defining contracts for "What are the required data attributes for a merge?" or "What are the required attributes -- both in terms of defining the changeset and the user info for the user proposing the PR -- for a pull request?" The reference to "Making Linus happy" is from an interview where he explained that he won't take kernel PRs via GitHub because the user info metadata is different. I don't see why this cannot all be standardized and the various communities can write contract-compliant servers and clients for an agreed- upon distributed version control system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think you should do it! Have you made any progress as of yet?</comment>


Ask HN: Best iOS ad blocker? - <AUTHOR> Is there a uBlock Origin alternative for iOS? <comment><USER2> 1Blocker X works rather well for me and has a large selection of customizable options for selecting just how much you want to block.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> 1Blocker? Crystal? Perfect Browser? Adblock? Adguard? Firefox Focus? Purify? Wipr? Blockbear?</comment>


Ten Machine Learning Algorithms You Should Know to Become a Data Scientist - <AUTHOR> https://blog.paralleldots.com/data-science/machine-learning/ten-machine-learning-algorithms-know-become-data-scientist/ <comment><USER2> The title is clickbait.

<comment><USER3> The linked references inside the "article" are worthwhile, but the article itself isn't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Site isn't loading.</comment>


Did porn warp me forever? - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/2013/01/13/did_porn_warp_me_forever/ <comment><USER4> Both his parents were psychologists.* Any psych major knows the old saw that you probably got bad stuff like this from your parents. Some of the psych majors I have personally known struck me as folks who had no clue how humans work and were hoping to get a clue by majoring in it. When I went to GIS school, this observation was reinforced by a classmate who had a Master's in Psychology and was looking to change careers because of the lunacy of the people around her.

Supposedly, Kinsey's wife said something like "I never see my husband since he took such an interest in sex". In other words, he spent so much time studying sex in an intellectual, analytical way that he stopped bothering to make time for actual sex and relating with his wife. People interested in studying human psychology frequently strike me as seriously hung up. Therapy was useful to me for a time in trying to get over my own hang ups. More useful was spending time with men who liked having actual sex with actual women rather than talking about it in some abstract, analytical fashion.

"Forever" is a really long time. Sexual preferences can change. Pavlovian response is learned behavior. If you don't like the stimulus that makes you drool currently, you can retrain yourself. I am glad the author is actually trying to do that instead of merely blaming his issue on porn/the internet as I have seen other articles do.

* (Not intending to slam all psychologists or psych majors. My observation is anecdotal and admits to bias.)

<comment><USER5> Seems maybe his scientist parents didn't teach him about correlation and causation either. There are many guys who have trouble with "real" sex because of insecurity or any number of other fears that have nothing to do with/were not caused by looking at porn.

<comment><USER4> He talks about how taboo porn was at home and that it was exciting chiefly because it was forbidden. I would guess his parents didn't have a great marriage and didn't model a healthy intimate relationship for him. Sounds like sex was a big unspoken issue in the household. Also, what the hell was a kid in elementary school doing burning XXX CD's to share with some clique in- crowd? They obviously were an elite group, with access to tech and so on. They were savvy enough to rename the CD's something they could talk about in public, which started a trend of unclued acquaintances buying the real music CD's they used as code names, which became part of the in joke.

Edit: Reminds me I read somewhere once that there is as much drug addiction and child neglect in upperclass two career families as in the ghetto. It sounds like he grew up in a two career family where no one was paying much attention to anything he did.

<comment><USER6> > It sounds like he grew up in a two career family where no one was paying > much attention to anything he did.

What if his parents stopped paying attention because he wanted absolutely nothing to do with them and made it known?

That's how I started treating my parents (one career household: pop worked; mom did everything else) at twelve years old and it wore them down after four years. I still feel quite guilty about it, as they were and are excellent parents.

<comment><USER4> Well, I would personally still view that as a failure on the parents part. My youngest is extremely introverted. He would put an axe through my face if I doted on him like I doted on his older brother. I learned to respect his need for space at a very early age, when he was a toddler. He shares with me when he damn well feels like it. But we still have a good relationship, because I realized he was different from me and from his brother. Giving him his space was unnatural for me. Doting was easier. But he still loves me because I didn't dote. I backed off.

But I seem to have crazy good parenting instincts. So my high expectations are probably a tad unreasonable in some sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I know this is outing myself but this is my personal experience. I won't post anonymously in case anyone wants to contact me. I came to the realization about 2 years that I am addicted to porn. For anyone out there struggling with the same thing, it can get better and yes, it is probably having a negative influence on your life. Previously I would look about once per week but in the past 6 months, I have probably viewed only 3 or 4 times and am hopeful going forward that I will never view it again.

The difference between internet porn and porn from the past is just the abundance of new material that there is. Each time you view something new, your brain gives a hit of dopamine. In fact, porn addicts are not really addicted to porn, they're addicted to the chemical sensations that their brain provides. At the basic level, it really is not much different from any other addiction. Old, offline porn is different in that it gets stale pretty quickly. There are only so many times you can look at a magazine or video without it getting boring.

The problem with this is that your dopamine levels get out of whack. You need a higher and higher amount to feel satisfied. This is how people get roped in. This also caused normal, life things that were once enjoyable to become less so, such as hanging out with friends or programming. Life just becomes more dull. In fact, now that I have learned about this, whenever I see a post on HN about how someone has lost their interest in programming or other activities, the first thing I think of is probably this person has a porn addiction. It's not a far stretch seeing as how most of HN is young men. Having drastically reduced the amount I see, I have noticed many benefits in my life including better health and ability to focus better.

Porn, like other addictions, are also a way of masking stress and a way of distracting yourself from negative emotions. Dr. Gabor Mate has done great research linking addictions of any kind to stresses in the body. Porn gives a way to temporarily release the stress but puts the person in a vicious cycle of causing more long-term stress.

Personally, I use the recovery information from <http://www.feedtherightwolf.org>. It has been the only thing I have across which can really break the cycle.

As someone else pointed out the videos from <http://yourbrainonporn.com/your- brain-on-porn-series> will really help you understand what is going on in your brain.

<comment><USER8> > Each time you view something new, your brain gives a hit of dopamine.

Oh dear god. That is not how dopamine works. Dopamine is a chemical that your brain secretes when you are trying to get something, not once you get it - <USER2> when you're hungry, for example, you'll have higher dopamine levels. Then when you eat, they go back down. The actual sensation of higher dopamine levels is stress and anxiousness - it actually doesn't feel good at all.

Here's an NYT article talking about the common misconception: <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/science/27angier.html?_r=0>

> they're addicted to the chemical sensations that their brain provides.

EVERY experience is a "chemical sensation" in the brain. Good. Bad. Whatever.

> In fact, now that I have learned about this, whenever I see a post on HN > about how someone has lost their interest in programming or other > activities, the first thing I think of is probably this person has a porn > addiction.

What the fuck? This is the dumbest thing I've read in a while. There could be a million things that cause a loss of interest in programming. Maybe they got girlfriends or started families? Maybe they suck at it, and just realized that?

It sounds like you used to be obsessed with porn, and now you're obsessed with "porn addiction"

<comment><USER7> Thanks for the article. I'm still trying to learn more about it. However, I would appreciate it if you did not judge me and wrote your response in a more polite manner.

<comment><USER8> I would appreciate it if people stopped making up or repeating ridiculous pseudo-scientific explanations for whatever it is they want to believe.

<comment><USER9> > I would appreciate it

Oh, you would? How dare everyone on the internet not cater to your expectations.

Someone from the community shared a story of personal struggle. They didn't hide behind a pseudonym, and it was probably a hard decision for them. They also, did in hopes it would help someone else.

They might not have used precise definitions or scientifically correct terms but they were honest and civil and even after you insulted them.

<comment><USER10> They were also clearly _incorrect_.

No matter how hard their struggle is, it's akin to linking vaccines to autism - no amount of personal pain overrides _factual inaccuracy_.

It's an _extremely_ important part of public discourse that incorrectness be called out, in a polite way, but clearly and forcefully.

This is akin to 'balancing' a debate about evolution by having an evolutionary biologist there and a doctor of theology there. Just because there is debate does not mean that there is not a clearly correct answer.

<comment><USER9> They were incorrect on a side detail "shot of dopamine equals pleasure". That is not the main crux of the comment and latching onto that side detail and throwing "Fuck this and fuck that" around is is insulting the person and doesn't add anything to the discussion. Even after the original author politely answered and noticed the correction the insults continued with "this is not acceptable" .

> Just because there is debate does not mean that there is not a clearly > correct answer.

The correct answer in this case doesn't really matter for the main point if we are talking about the dopamine. Which, from what I see is the clearly factually incorrect statement. Latching unnecessarily unto inconsequential details and derailing the conversion is also called trolling and bullying and will get the message downvoted or flagged.

<comment><USER11>
      > They were incorrect on a side detail (...)

Doesn't cover it at all. OP gives a mechanistic account of how the construct of "porn addiction" works and how it affects people; there isn't much to his post other than that. His mechanistic account happens to be incorrect, or at the very least sufficiently misguided to be worthless, and people call him out on that.

<comment><USER12> I think the concern is not that people called him out when he was wrong, but that one person phrased it very rudely.

<comment><USER13> Which is, when it comes right down to it, is a tone argument. Which is only one step above fallacious reasoning.[1] Calling something BS that's well, BS in a rude way does not negate that call of BS. The person doing the attacking has done so using an explicit refutation of a couple of the author's main points.

[1]:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grahams_Hierarchy_of_Disag...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grahams_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg)

<comment><USER14> _Calling something BS that's well, BS in a rude way does not negate that call of BS._

And nobody claimed that it does. They simply pointed out that it's kinda weak to be an asshole in response; the fact the the asshole had a point doesn't make them not an asshole "Yeah but he's right". That's great, but not the point, and was also mentioned by the very people criticizing the asshole for being one. All further responses to that just went in circles, attacking strawmen like you just did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Well, if we're all just going to trade anecdotes at each other, I may as well do so too. Unlike the author of the original piece, I'm happy to use my real name.

I looked at porn on the Internet as a teenager. I'm gay and back then I was deep in the closet. And I grew up when Section 28 was still in force. It was a law passed in the 80s that said schools "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality... [or] promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".

In practice, that meant the sex education we got in schools didn't cover those of us with a preference for what the law called unacceptable "pretended" relationships.

Back then, it it was still dialup and early broadband. No high-quality video, so it was almost all pictures. But porn gave to a lot of gay kids the reassurance and sexual freedom that society more generally was unwilling to even see or mention. Porn was a paracetamol for loneliness: it didn't solve it, but it eased the pain. You opened the newspaper and every time they mentioned something related to being gay, it was framed as some giant moral debate, a culture war, a political football. But on the Internet, there wasn't any of that bullshit, just sex and porn and other people (albeit behind screen names). If schools don't want to teach the gay kids about their sexuality, then the Internet and porn will do it for them.

My friends didn't need the Internet: probably every school in the country has an underground trade in porn, whether it's Internet-based, magazines, hacking satellite/cable TV, whatever. Heterosexual teenage boys will get their hands on images of naked ladies and distribute/trade them. That's just how it is.

Access to porn throughout my teenage years made life bearable. And, at risk of oversharing, the thing I find most attractive in porn isn't the whips and chains, as the author says, but simple expressions of real, genuine emotional intimacy.

<comment><USER16> Regarding differences in easy accessibility of "materials" for different orientation persons, one interesting thing worth mentioning - <USER3> heterosexuals, homosexuals carry this "material" all the time with them - their body...

<comment><USER14> Ever noticed how moving your own tongue about in your own mouth is totally not like french kissing someone else? Kinda counterintuitive I know, but those have been my findings.

<comment><USER17> Likely related the fact that you can't tickle yourself:

[http://www.skidmore.edu/~flip/Site/Lab/Entries/2007/1/31_For...](http://www.skidmore.edu/~flip/Site/Lab/Entries/2007/1/31_Forward!_files/BlakemoreWolpertFrith2000Tickle.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I have tried to quit porn before. In high school I tried very hard, for religious reasons. I never succeeded. In college I got to the point where 2 30-90 minute sessions daily was the norm.

I then tried to quit again. I went 5 days, and then 4 days, and then gave up on the idea, resigning myself to immense sexual activity. Every month or so, I'll go on a complete rampage with as many as 10 orgasms a day for 2-3 days, rarely coming out of my room. Sometimes it even interferes with food.

My sexual tastes have grown increasingly complex, sometimes illegal, sometimes not outwardly sexual at all (example, the thought of loneliness in a girl). It has changed how I look at nearly everything, but I'm not ready to conclude that it has been for the worse.

I had sex for the first time this week. I didn't climax. My parter had no issues but I was completely uninterested, which is interesting because I had been looking forward (greatly) to the encounter for more than a week. But when it finally happened... complete disinterest. I did my best to think of porn and at least play along, but part of me felt that was more rude than just failing to climax so I sat back and let my partner enjoy her share. ED was no issue.

It's worth adding that I had never met the girl before, seen pics and talked via phone but never met in person. I had little (if any) emotional attraction to the girl, and for this reason specifically I'm not very worried. It just caught my attention because I would never have guessed that a 19yo boy would go through 40 minutes of sex with an attractive girl and not climax.

Since then I've been more motivated to quit, but I'm still not ready to conclude that porn has been a negative or bad experience. It has consistently given me a lot to think about, especially watching my interests and needs shift over the past few years. I've noticed a better control over my need for porn but it's only been a few days.

<comment><USER19> Don't try to quit. Look into how programs for quitting smoking work. Quitting cold turkey is painful. Some people can do it, but most people can't. Instead, there is a _ton_ of stuff out there to help people step down gradually.

Instead of stopping cold, rate limit yourself. You already have a solid baseline of your current frequency. Pick something a bit less and don't go over that for a week. Figure out some strategies for coping; I'd suggest going for long walks to public places. Note that you've achieved that milestone and step it down another notch the next week.

You don't have to go all the way to zero unless you want to, either. Demonstrating to yourself that you've got a measure of control is important.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> As long as people realize that porn itself is a caricature of sex, then it's fine. Usually sex is a lot more clumsy, and a lot shorter than any of the porn movies you find on the web. Guys with huge penises that take 45 mins to climax, women with huge breasts that love to get finished on, etc, is not how most of the world is. It's certainly exciting to see, but it's totally unrealistic.

It's sort of like martial arts. Real martial arts isn't guys jumping 30 ft at each other, or fighting 10 opponents at once, doing somersaults, etc. If kids go to martial arts training expecting this, they will be sorely disappointed. Most martial arts is practicing moves over and over again. It's tedious and boring for those that are expecting Jackie Chan or Jet Li. Over the course of many years, you can get to a certain level of expertise. But the martial arts movies are essentially a caricature.

Hopefully the kids growing up today realize this.

<comment><USER21> > _Hopefully the kids growing up today realize this._

Martial arts - maybe. But if your never had sex and your only education on the topic is porn, then how could you know how it really looks like? And then you have your first, and second, and third time, and you feel a bit disappointed that it didn't feel or look like you expected, and even if you realize that porn is a caricature, you're still left wondering, how much of the difference between porn and real life is because of lack of realism in videos, and how much is because of your deficiencies.

It's a real problem and it's sad that the only sexual education kids usually get comes from porn.

EDIT

There was a TED talk about this topic once, [0]. While her site doesn't have much content and I don't recall the book being very insightful (though definitely an interesting read), she raises some good points so I recommend the video (it's 4 minutes).

[0] - <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV8n_E_6Tpc>

<comment><USER22> Having porn before sex is probably a lot more instructive and useful to our sexual well being than an alternative world where your only contact with sex before having it is just private conversations about it with the few people you feel comfortable discussing it with. I'm very glad that I live in a post Kinsey Report world.

<comment><USER23> I'd disagree here. _Certain_ porn _might_ be instructive, but most porn includes violence towards women. Not only that, but in 95% of scenes that included this violence, the women responds either (a) with passive compliance or (b) enjoyment. This is teaching observers, those especially which have never been introduced to sex before, that women desire to be hit, beaten, strangled, raped, etc and if they don't enjoy it or allow you to do it to them, there's something wrong. If that kind of porn is what is instructing our youth, then we will have a very dangerous society to live in.

Ref: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaCt6qUL_Pk&feature=share](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaCt6qUL_Pk&feature=share)

I'm a father of 3 girls. I'm teaching them all how to defend themselves with and without a gun.

<comment><USER22> I was making a generalization, obviously imperfect and not applicable to all porn, and you simply pulled out a strawman argument.

Sexual violence towards women existed well before any porn ever existed. For example, the vikings raped and pillaged. I'm pretty sure they didn't have porn available to motivate them. There are many more examples. Rape has been a constant in history and was not uncommon well before porn became readily available.

<comment><USER23> I'm not saying there'd be no rape without porn. What I am saying is that rape and violence toward women _increases_ with it.

<comment><USER22> Citation needed. Your statement is purely speculative otherwise.

In fact, a search for "rape vs porn" suggests that it reduces rape:

[http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/1...](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/10/how_the_web_prevents_rape.html)

<http://www.toddkendall.net/internetcrime.pdf>

<comment><USER23> 1\. [http://pornharmsresearch.com/2012/08/pornography-viewing- amo...](http://pornharmsresearch.com/2012/08/pornography-viewing-among- fraternity-men-effects-on-bystander-intervention-rape-myth-acceptance-and- behavioral-intent-to-commit-sexual-assault-research/)

2\. [http://pornharmsresearch.com/2012/08/effects-of-womens- porno...](http://pornharmsresearch.com/2012/08/effects-of-womens-pornography- use-on-bystander-intervention-in-a-sexual-assault-situation-and-rape-myth- acceptance-research/)

<comment><USER22> My biggest issue with both of those studies, is that they involve self reports with respect to bystander involvement in an emergency. I can think of few other issues in social psychology in which self reporting is going to be wildly out of touch with reality. The only other area in which I can see self reporting being even further out of turn with reality is the subject of conformity. The biggest factor influencing bystander involvement in an emergency is actual experience or training in handling such emergencies and how to resolve them. If you want bystanders to identify a real rape and have them intervene, then you need to train them to identify the difference between consensual sex and non-consensual sex and then train them on the best course of action to stopping the act in question and reporting it. There are numerous examples of studies in social psychology where people self report that they would do X and when put in that exact situation in an experimental setting actually end up doing Y. Situations where the subject is a bystander are among the most notorious for their disconnect between reality and self-reports.

Any study that measures the _real_ impact of porn is going to involve measuring real incidents of rape witnessed or committed by a statistically significant population or porn viewers. Barring actual incident levels, this is crappy research. Asking questions like "Have you ever witnessed a rape in progress? And if so, did you do anything to report it or stop it?" and comparing those numbers to porn viewing habits would be far more valuable. At least in that case it ceases to be based on self-reports of behavior in hypothetical situations and is instead based on correlation of historical fact with porn habits.

Lastly, and I know this is an ad hominem attack, but judging by John Foubert's other research interests, I'd consider his rape research to be tainted and likely to be skewed in favor of demonstrating correlation where there isn't one or demonstrating correlation which is of no consequence but is sensational. Judging by several of his other published papers, Christianity and Spirituality primary areas of research for him. This puts him among a group of people who are impartial and very likely have an agenda with respect to the issue of pornography. ref: <http://okstate.academia.edu/JohnFoubert>

Do you have any research that compares actual incidents of rape and porn?

<comment><USER23> Unfortunately, I don't. But I'm compelled to do my own research... jack up a heroku cluster, run a bunch of image processing across all main-stream porn films... and maybe in 10 years I'll have enough concrete evidence to support John's claims :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> _porn — especially the porn I was watching — just had to be taboo._

The author's fetish is with the anxiety of getting caught. He's making anxiety porn by watching something so extreme that it's guaranteed to offend anyone who catches him. The author has connected the anxiety of being caught with sexual desires in his head. It's actually a very common fetish.

<comment><USER25> Maybe he should be an exhibitionist.

<comment><USER8> Why do you think he wrote that article?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> From my favorite Paul Graham essay, The Acceleration of Addictiveness <http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html>

" Societies eventually develop antibodies to addictive new things. I've seen that happen with cigarettes. When cigarettes first appeared, they spread the way an infectious disease spreads through a previously isolated population. Smoking rapidly became a (statistically) normal thing. [...]

As knowledge spread about the dangers of smoking, customs changed."

So yes, porn has always existed. So has smoking. But, industrial cigarettes and broadband porn streaming are "more concentrated forms of less addictive predecessors." and hence they are more dangerous.

PS: Just to clarify, Pg did not mention porn addiction in his essay. He does mention Internet addiction, though.

<comment><USER27> Characterizing porn as "more concentrated" does not in any way demonstrate that it is dangerous.

<comment><USER28> I don't think that anybody is saying "it is dangerous", just "the ubiquitous and instant availability of virtually any kind of high-definition porn is a relatively new thing, and its effects might be different than the wood block prints and paper magazines enjoyed by previous generations".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I find that its hard to communicate with young people about the weird way in which sexual climax is plugged into your brain. Through out history people have have exploited that link and human physiology as a tool to control people.

Growing up in Las Vegas I had a pretty unconventional view of sex, and was completely caught off guard by the emotions that came with my first actual sexual experience.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm sure there are people who have never watched porn that don't particularly enjoy sex either. This sounds like all other articles that generalize one anecdote to data.

<comment><USER31> Pretty sure the entire piece was anecdotal. I see no call to action indicating that he believes we need to take up some sort of communal mantle to protect our young ones. He just wonders if he blew it for himself.

hehe. Blew it.

<comment><USER32> For sure. Not everything has to have a "call to action". Seems like it was more a prompt for discussion. Appears to be working.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> There's a part of the paleo subculture that avoids porn as an unnatural superstimulus. See <http://yourbrainonporn.com/> or <http://www.reddit.com/r/nofap>

Anecdotally, I find their arguments compelling.

<comment><USER34> Alain de Botton has written about it, too:

"A brain originally designed to cope with nothing more tempting than an occasional glimpse of a tribesperson across the savannah is lost with what's now on offer on the net at the click of a button: when confronted with offers to participate continuously in scenarios outstripping any that could be dreamt up by the diseased mind of the Marquis de Sade. There is nothing robust enough in our psychological make-up to compensate for developments in our technological capacities."

[http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/12/26/why-we-should- limi...](http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/12/26/why-we-should-limit- internet-pornography/)

<comment><USER35> There are few arguments that I have more disdain for than the one that somehow because our brains (or bodies) _haven't_ experienced something before, they _aren't built to cope_ with it. It's not like we are, or have ever been, built for a single temperature, type of sex, kind of food, etc. Our bodies and minds are _adaptable_ , and while we can try to logically reason about _how_ our minds and bodies adapt to certain stimuli, we are still guessing at best.

To address the particular hogwash in that editorial, glimpse a tribesperson across the savannah? Human beings were living in groups with topless women tens of millenia ago. So it doesn't even stand on those grounds.

<comment><USER36> Lets cut this BS argument short: Who is driving a car?

I thought so.

There were no cars, planes, or McDs in the Savannah either yet somehow we cope with those things. Personally I dont think porn comes close what the Romans were actually doing...

<comment><USER37> And a lot of people die from cars. Clearly it's because we were never meant to have them.

</sarcasm>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I can definitely relate to the author. I first found porn at the age of 14. I'm 29 now, and until recently, porn has always been something I've "struggled with".

I've seen several comments that have opposed what I would call the Church & Moral perspective on porn, without really having an example of what that perspective is. Let me put forth a few claims, so those of you who would disagree with them have something concrete to which to attach your arguments.

FWIW, I'm a religious person. I've been married for 9 years, and I've only ever been physically intimate with my wife. I accept that that deeply colors my perception of the world and this issue specifically.

Here are my claims:

\- Porn is designed to be "used" by an individual to satisfy themselves sexually.

\- Especially when encountered at a formative age (such as the author's and my own), porn greatly influences your perception of "good sex".

\- Pornography and sexual intimacy are diametrically opposed.

\- Sexual intimacy is more satisfying, on the whole, than porn.

\- There is no such thing as "harmless porn".

Finally, a standing invitation. If you ever want more information on the mainstream evangelical Christian viewpoint on pornography, or my viewpoint specifically, feel free to email me at donspauldingii at googlemail dot com

<comment><USER39> Well, your claims are largely silly.

While much porn isn't of particularly good quality, lots of porn is designed for couples. And it's great! You should try it with your wife.

Again, you've been watching the wrong porn. Plenty depicts beautiful sexual intimacy.

<comment><USER38> While I don't see how you've refuted any of my claims specifically, I will address your assertion that I should try porn with my wife.

Having used porn myself for the majority of my life, and for almost the entirety of my marriage, I have quite a number of empirical data points of its affects on me and my sexuality. I will say that my wife and I need much less of the influence of porn on our sex life, not more.

<comment><USER40> "While I don't see how you've refuted any of my claims specifically"

Your anecdotes don't require disproving. They are just your anecdotes about your particular personality and calling them "empirical" does not give them any more expandability to the whole.

<comment><USER38> What I offered as claims of the moral/religious position were separate from what I explained my own anecdotal experiences to be. I'm sorry I didn't draw a more clear distinction there.

My "empirical" remark was simply to explain that I have enough knowledge about myself to draw the conclusion that engaging in pornography would _not_ help my marriage. I wasn't expanding it to the whole in any way there.

<comment><USER40> Ah, then my statement wouldn't apply. My mistake.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> On the same topic, "The Great Porn Experiment" TED talk, which provides some empirical grounding for the anecdote in the article:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU>

<comment><USER42> Makes some valid points, but some of the evidence he uses in the talk reminds me of evangelical christians tv hosts - 'Just look at this testimonial! While on the porn he dropped out of college twice, was fired twice, was taking paxil, ritalin, and tried several anti-anxiety pills. BUT once he gave up porn he doesn't need those pills, has no depression or anxiety, and frankly...he feels like a stud!'

<comment><USER43> The testimonial was after 2 months, which is about the longest I've ever restrained myself personally and frankly, by that point, I thought about nothing else. I felt like a stud alright. Everything was hyper-arousing. It just wasn't sustainable for me. It was fun, but I probably would have been arrested for public indecency if I tried for 3 months.

I think it's necessary to learn to live with and love your lusts if you want to be in control of them. "Know thyself."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> It's one of those things that can rapidly spiral, you start needing a bigger kick to keep it interesting. The problem being it is incredibly difficult to talk about, it's something parents will start needing to discuss with their kids straight up.

Porn isn't bad, it's a part of society now and has been for a long while, but it's the same way drugs aren't necessarily bad unless you start needing a bigger and bigger kick.

<comment><USER33> >"Porn isn't bad, it's a part of society now and has been for a long while"

Are you sure about that? It seems that widespread, easy access to porn is something very new. Before the internet, you would have to go through some embarrassing procedure at a checkout counter to purchase just a few pornographic items.

The amount of free porn I could access in the next hour would have cost me thousands of dollars in the 1980s.

We have normalized porn very recently and it is just a piece of modernist faith that it is harmless.

<comment><USER45> > We have normalized porn very recently and it is just a piece of modernist > faith that it is harmless

Do you abstain from television, computers, rock and roll, role playing, comic books and video games by this same line of FUD?

Mass media has the power to create unrealistic expectations. Someone growing up in the age of Petrarch and Dante had unrealistic expectations of romantic love. It's easy to imagine that someone growing up in the age of internet porn would have unrealistic expectations of sex. Beyond that, I'd have to see hard, consistent evidence before I'd write off porn as especially harmful.

<comment><USER33> Some of it. For example, the average American watches 5 hours of TV a day. That will kill you. I watch about 1 hour

Video games are very addictive to me. After playing Starcraft for 16 hours straight one saturday, I carefully watch and moderate my video game play and have deleted most games from my system.

In your battle to live a meaningful, purposeful life, the peddlers of superstimuli are your enemy.

<comment><USER46> The average American isn't dead, so obviously you didn't say what you meant, if what you meant made sense.

<comment><USER47> He never specified a time frame--Watching 5 hours of TV will kill you over x number of years (also it's clear he meant the resulting inactivity will kill you).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> As a counter data point, I immensely enjoy both porn and real sex. I've never had troubles "getting it up" or ejaculating.

<comment><USER49> I agree and I'm the same. I can relate to many of the stories told by the author, however I find real sex immensely more exciting, to the extent that even when viewing porn I will often fantasize about sex I've actually had. I also think more about women I meet and date than I do about porn I've watched (and I've watched pretty much everything there is).

I am curious though, was your upbringing liberal regarding sex, or was it considered a taboo as well? For me, it was very much even taboo to think about it, even though I later found out this is terribly hypocritical considering those telling us it was taboo were doing it just as much as we would eventually. I even got in trouble for uttering the word "condom" once, almost to the same extent as for saying "fuck", which seems utterly ridiculous to me now. I'm curious if sex having been taboo for so many years is actually what makes it more stimulating, or if it's just a difference in sexuality from person to person.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Looks like the author was accurate in how uncomfortable we are as a society to talk about the role of porn in our lives.

I think the article speaks more to the issue with recovery and the issues surrounding "getting back to neutral."

This problem exists. He explains in laymen's terms a simple Pavlovian response that requires more and more brain stimulation to achieve the same level of dopamine needed for ejaculation.

I'm not a neuroscientist, but I bet someone out there can explain it better than I can.

<comment><USER27> Some people don't like how they use porn. But, some people don't like how they use normal sex. And in both cases, the problem isn't porn or sex but that the person doesn't like their relationship to porn or sex; that it is interfering with their lives. This isn't true for everyone and it certainly isn't unique to porn.

For everyone who doesn't like their relationship to porn, there are other people who don't like that they got diseases, or got pregnant without a plan. But we don't pathologize this.

Let's be careful not to follow in the footsteps of Dr. Kellogg, who used the trappings of science to push predetermined conclusions in a campaign against harmless sexuality.

<comment><USER31> Fair point. In my opinion, I don't think this is by any means a "new" problem, its just another way addiction manifests itself as a byproduct of how accessible pornography has become.

It can happen a million different ways; for the author, it was (probably) porn.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Does it make sense to teach this to children? Just like "Smoking isn't good for your health."(which I believe worked for me) you could teach "Porn isn't good for you, if you want to enjoy sex."

<comment><USER50> I think the problem is our society's denigration of sex. We see it as consisting inherently of that mix of thrill and shame - when you're a teenager growing up in America, you're told to feel that way about any nudity, never mind penetration. So you come to associate arousal with this guilt - you never experience the one without the other - and then when you're looking for something to turn you on you're already feeling guilty, and there's a part of you that wants to. So you step a little deeper into the pool of fetishes, find something a little stronger (and I'm pleased that the author's actually given some realistic examples here), something that makes you feel guilty and ashamed and is all the more erotic for it. But the interest half-life for porn is tiny; what was dangerous boundary-pushing last week is pedestrian today. It's a feedback loop, one that can only possibly end somewhere unpleasant.

The author's already found the solution - we need to separate sexuality from guilt and shame, to be able to feel aroused and wholesome at the same time. But it's hard to do that after you've already fallen down the spiral. We need to make our children's first experiences of arousal feel natural and wholesome - which means more openness, more embracing of sexuality in artforms that are going to portray it positively. But that's a hard sell to middle America.

<comment><USER51> _I think the problem is our society's denigration of sex._

Is this really true anymore? It seems that the majority of the media consumed by young people carries the message that sex is extremely important and if you are not doing it with everyone in every way, you are brainwashed by religious or moral beliefs.

Obviously there is denigration of sex from many sources but which of these sources actually have an impact on young people?

<comment><USER50> I said society, not media. My own experience is that I felt very guilty and followed much the same path as the author - but then I was a geeky kid with few friends and a lot of respect for my (relatively old and catholic) parents. I wonder how popular/trendy the author was in high school, and whether those who were had a different experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> The language he uses to talk about his experiences sounds extremely judgmental and puritan. It seems to me that his problem is not pornography but guilt tripping himself.

<comment><USER53> Definitely. Apparently, his puritan hangups are also themselves sexualized - no wonder the real world doesn't do it for him. I find both the article itself and the discussion of it here on HN surprisingly weird and alien. I hope I'm not the only one...

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> There are people who watch a huge amount of porn but have a perfectly healthy sex life and relationship with women. It's about understanding what it is and it's context, and realising that there's a difference between that and reality.

<comment><USER55> This is much easier said than done. Schrödinger's addicts I like to call them.

<comment><USER40> Porn is a symptom of their neuroses, not the cause.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> "Both of my parents were shrinks"

Nope, it wasn't the porn.

</comment><comment><USER57> Yes, I'm glad someone is putting the truth out there that pretty much everyone from the Millennial generation has been watching porn since our pre-teens. The vast majority, as far a s I know, havn't experienced problems from it. There is a vocal minority like in r/nofap, but considering that literally 99.9% of millions of males do it, that can't be a surprise.

</comment><comment><USER58> I remember reading just a couple of weeks back about how this issue goes away after abstaining from porn for a month or two. They called it "porn detox" I think.

<comment><USER43> Assuming there is such a state, calling it detox implies it's normal or good. I'd be curious what, if any, physiological changes result to reduce the influence of one's sex drive. If so, why not "simply" auto-castration? (If the goal is to reject one's drives...)

I see a general male catharsis that borders on the neurotic. Society demands verile/potent men who can, at the same time, subjugate themselves fully to society and their mates.

<comment><USER58> I don't remember exactly what it was, but there are probably some neurological/mental conditioning aspects to it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> The really amazing thing about this article is that I'm supposed to care more about this guy's boner, and guilt complex, than I care about the systematic oppression and degradation of my half of the human species.

Really . . . What a wanker!

<comment><USER38> Technically don't you have a little over half of the human species, due to the extra chromosome?

Seriously though, where is the discussion happening about the link between porn and the degradation of women? Is there just no argument against it, or does HN not even realize it's there?

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> If he had paid attention when he read his Foucault, he'd be keeping quiet rather than wringing his hands and dissecting himself on a major website.

</comment><comment><USER59> I wish you would all read this brilliant speech by Andrea Dworkin. Try to keep an open mind for a seed of truth, even if you come from a very different place politically.

[http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIIE.htm...](http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIIE.html)

". . . if equality is what you want and what you care about, then you have to fight for the institutions that will make it socially real. It is not just a matter of your attitude. You can't think it and make it exist. You can't try sometimes, when it works to your advantage, and throw it out the rest of the time. Equality is a discipline. It is a way of life."

<comment> guard-of-terra How is it relevant to the article being discussed?

<comment><USER61> Dworkin was a big critic of pornography, claiming it caused rape and subjugation of women. While there are undoubtedly some women in porn against their will (or verging on doing it for lack of better options (ie, "for the money")), this point of view completely ignores women who are aware of their options, but choose to do porn and see it as an issue of "their body, their choice".

<comment> guard-of-terra There is enough porn produced already so if the production ends today there's enough already for most of people.

Concerning distribution: is there anybody stupid enough to ask for an never- ending, positional "war on porn"? As if wars on drugs and on pirates wasn't enough

<comment><USER61> I never paid much attention to Dworkin's arguments, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were people interested in a "war on porn". Never underestimate the human capability to formulate simple "solutions" to complex "problems".

As for the production aspect, as I said, there _are_ women in porn who view it as a women's rights issue, ie who is to say what women can and can't do with their bodies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Betteridge's law of headlines.

<comment><USER63> Nope. You can't knee-jerk exclaim "Betteridge's law" when you see a "?". It's meant for news articles. This article is an introspective "life story" article and doesn't meet the preconditions.

For example, the previous life story article ending with a question mark on Salon was "Can I date a Republican?", and the clear answer from the article is "yes."

The one before that is "Should the terminally ill control their deaths?" and the author's statement is "A year after my mother's uncomfortable decline, it's a question with which I'm still wrestling", but it's clear that the author supports people learning more about the options for palliative care over attempts at staying alive for as long as possible. I'll put this as a "yes."

Then there's the quoted question '"Are you on the cover of a magazine?"', where the answer is definitely "yes", but this too doesn't fit Betteridge's law.

And "Was I selfish to have fertility treatments?", where the author states "I honestly don't think my choice was any more selfish than anyone's choice to have a child." So that's a "no." But there wa s a while when she worried about the question.

I think you get the idea.

<comment><USER62> In the case of Betteridge's Law the point being made is that if someone has actual evidence then the headline reflects the evidence. It states the fact that there is new knowledge about something. If it's just speculation or useless fluff then they add a question mark.

And yes, it was not made for opinion pieces or personal narratives and, like in the examples you give, doesn't generally work in these situations.

My intention was just to point out that it happens to apply here because the headline is childish link bait.

The author covers in the piece that it wasn't really porn that lead to this and it's not going to be "forever" either if he does something about it.

<comment><USER63> I can't tell from your response if you think that Betteridge's Law applies here or not. Betteridge's Law describes articles where an author wants to write a specific story but doesn't have the information to back up the point, and/or doesn't want to do the research to get that information.

That doesn't apply here, because "if he does something about it" is a different cause than not having enough information.

It looks like you say that it "happens to apply here" because 1) the answer is no, and 2) it's "childish link bait." Why not then just say "No. This is childish link bait."?

Suppose the NM governor wrote an op-ed piece "Should I stay the death penalty?", which outlines her ongoing thoughts both for and against commuting the sentence for the last two people on NM's death row. Suppose you are ardently pro-death penalty, support RepealTheRepeal, and believe that only fools would be against it. You could quite justifiably answer "no" to that headline and believe the title to be "childish link bait." But you would be wrong to say that Betteridge's Law applies.

<comment><USER62> Betteridges's "Law" doesn't apply to stories like this for all the reasons you stated. I referenced it because all the critiques of writing that Betteridge's Law implies apply here.

I think the misunderstanding here is that you are looking Betteridge's Law as more of a pseudo-law that has specific constraints and I'm looking at is as shorthand for a specific critique of bad writing, which I think does apply here even though, as you stated, it was not created to apply to personal writing.

The difference is that most of the examples you are giving of personal writing are subjective and/or value judgements that have no factual answer to the headline question. This one does have an answer, the answer is "no" and the author knew the answer was "no".

Anyway, clearly a better comment for me to have made would have been "Although it doesn't apply here this post makes me think of Betteridge's Law!" but it's much less pithy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> My wife is a nurse and they have a saying about anyone in the mental health field.

"You can't tell the players from the fans"

</comment><comment><USER65> I couldn't finish the article because I found the examples too disturbing. Just a warning for those of you who aren't very familiar with online porn.

Could someone give me a summary of the article?

<comment><USER36> If you cant even read an article about porn then you certainly have bigger problems than the author of said article.

<comment><USER66> There are people from every walk of life frequenting HN these days. I'm guessing the world of online porn can be pretty disturbing for the uninitiated.

The fact that an average person can't summit Everest while a practiced climber can is not a disparagement on the former.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> I took part in a HuffPoLive chat with Isaac, the author of the post on Salon, Naomi Wolf and John Stoltenberg, 2 days ago - here's our discussion:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/internet-porn- men-p...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/internet-porn-men- pornography-male-sexuality_n_2488056.html)

Do check out my venture <https://makelovenotporn.tv/> 'Pro-sex. Pro-porn. Pro- knowing the difference.'

</comment><comment><USER68> "9/10th* of the working of the gonads is to vitalise the whole body – brain included. If the gonads would secrete a blue fluid, the whole body would be blue, and the brain very blue – and even the bones would be slightly blue. […] It is quite often the case that very creative people have very active gonads."

* fundamentally true; not correct, but fundamentally true.

<comment><USER18> This sounds compelling but I'm not willing to trust it. Where did you get this information?

<comment><USER68> From Alfred Korzybski, who claimed he got it from a physician.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> This comment may be down voted here. But i think there is a case to be made for a new law that mandates the ISP's to password protect all porn websites by default.

<comment> guard-of-terra And in a few days we'll figure that every site The Man does not like is considered a porn site. And is "protected" from you.

Pirate Bay and other trackers, for example.

<comment><USER40> I'm sure that user is just fine with such abuses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Seems that there are a few comments getting killed by an automatic process reacting to keywords or possibly links?

</comment><comment><USER71> really well written piece. Bares a lot of resemblance to my life. I think it takes time to grow up but most of the time most people do eventually do it.

</comment><comment><USER72> I suspect that the article is fictional and is written by a 44-year old female writer.

<comment><USER67> No, he's for real. We're meeting for coffee next week. :)

</comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra Do we care? The next thing he will suggest: let's censor, let's break the web, let's put people in the jail, let's force parents to spy on their children, let's take parenting rights from ones who don't. Let's create a police state because he doesn't like porn.

His problems with porn is just his problems. I suggest dealing with it.

<comment><USER73> While I agree entirely with you, another point the author of the article is making is that his problems may be typical in kids growing up with the world wide web at their fingertips.

That perspective brings us to a different question: What can we do to ensure safe and positive sexual development in children without censoring the web and imposing our generation's morals on the next?

<comment><USER74> > While I agree entirely with you, another point the author of the article is > making is that his problems may be typical in kids growing up with the world > wide web at their fingertips.

what the web has to do with it? as a teenager I could buy hardcore porn magazines without any problems.

<comment><USER62> Right, and because I could buy reference books as a kid without any problems that means that the web has not enabled me to learn more subjects in more depth in less time and meant that I don't spend _more_ time learning than I did before?

Are you really making this argument on HN of all places? That behaviour doesn't have the ability to fluctuate wildly with only small differences in friction (not a pun!)?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> This is not news. Why on Earth was this upvoted?

<comment><USER76> To get it up. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> Betteridge's law applies. Better than an even chance the author will one day die, so won't be warped then. Answer is no.

</comment><comment><USER78> I found this article easy to fap to

</comment><comment><USER79> I only clicked the link to see if there were any boobs. So, in my case.......</comment>


What the Rich Won't Tell You - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/opinion/sunday/what-the-rich-wont-tell-you.html <comment><USER2> The author's entire rant is based on the premise of one's income and one's spending are fair game for casual conversation.

The truth of the matter is that it simply isn't their business to know, nor is it of those employed by the people she discusses.</comment>


Critique our StartupBus pitch video: ChatSpark - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrh_wBfzb7M

<comment><USER2> While I'm not exactly sure how the implementation of this would look. My main concern with the concept is that it shares the same issue that a lot of location-based services have.

They create interesting new opportunities for interaction - but they aren't solving a specific ongoing need the person has.

For example, in the video you mentioned people aren't very interested in small talk - but is it a problem they are looking to solve?

It's important for people to be motivated to seek out your app and most importantly use it.

<comment><AUTHOR> good points! luckily it's a StartupBus project, so fail-early and fail-often is in our genes :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The pictures of a notebook show some creativity, but in the end I think it hurts you more than it helps you. There were some parts I couldn't read well, and writing words on scraps of paper really didn't convey too much about your product (I kept thinking, "what does scraps of paper have to do with meeting people?". Also, by writing down the text, you invite "reading off a PowerPoint syndrome"--show me the story, not the text.

Just my two cents.

</comment><comment><USER4> ...</comment>


Algorithms and data structures in Swift, with explanations - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/hollance/swift-algorithm-club <comment><USER2> Awesome, I will definitely be using this.</comment>


Luke's mutt wizard for automatic Neomutt and OfflineIMAP configuration - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/LukeSmithxyz/mutt-wizard <comment><USER2> Luke is doing "good things" for the community by making Linux actually seem approachable and human; good work dude.

Keep it up!

<comment><USER3> Especially considering how short his experience on Linux has been!

His tutorials are on point and well presented, the surprisingly good side of 4chan.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A similar abstraction is being created into home-manager to generate MUA/MTA/MRA configurations from a central place. For now astroid/alot/offlineimap/mbsync/msmtp are supported. Neomutt support incoming [https://github.com/rycee/home- manager/pull/300](https://github.com/rycee/home-manager/pull/300)

</comment><comment><USER5> While I use notmuch-emacs instead of Neomutt and mbsync instead of OfflineIMAP I prize this idea simply because we need "easy access" for newcomers to spread knowledge especially since actual universities do not teach anymore "real" computing solution preferring the "commercial" way.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is great! I look forward to trying it out with my configs.

I'm currently using Mutterer: [https://github.com/mwnx/mutterer](https://github.com/mwnx/mutterer)

</comment><comment><USER7> It didn't work for me; I have an old expired PGP key associated with my email address in addition to my current PGP key, and the program picked the wrong key to use.

<comment><USER8> That sounds like a great start for an issue :)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: A good startup lawyer (basically cheap yet technically correct) - <AUTHOR>

I need a lawyer who can take care smaller tasks like creating intern/volunteer work agreement, terms of service/agreements for any kind of payment from customers. Location: San Jose (or near by) <comment><USER2> I would recommend joining the SVForum if possible - They offer, among many other things, 'office hours' with technology/startup law firms;

<http://www.svforum.org/></comment>


Mencius Moldbug (Unqualified Reservations) has video debate with Overcoming Bias - <AUTHOR> http://vimeo.com/9262193 <comment><USER2> "Mencius is going to kick your autistic ass. Be prepared to be embarrassed, Hanson."

\- [http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/12/meh- transhumanism.html...](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/12/meh- transhumanism.html#comment-439192)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Use HTML5 player. Flash still seems to be processing.

<comment><USER2> No, it's the guy who is introducing the debate who is buffering.</comment></comment>


Safety Last: Software firms' incentives to take security seriously are too weak - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21720279-incentives-software-firms-take-security-seriously-are-too-weak-how-manage <comment><USER2> One message I hear repeatedly from cyber security pros is their organizations claim security is critical... That its, until you show them the price tag.

So long as they aren't willing to resource to security and they aren't held accountable for breaches this trend will basically continue.

<comment><USER3> Yes, security is a practical reality and firms should be spending more on it. But I don't quite understand the victim blaming. Why should a company that gets attacked be held accountable?

<comment><USER4> Because their negligence results in harm's to entities other than the company.

Often to the firm's customers, either because the firm directly lost control of private data or because their customers got hacked through their software.

<comment><USER3> I don't follow. Are you saying that a company should be blamed for flaws in products which they simply purchased?

<comment><USER5> If you provide a product or service to your customers you are entirely responsible for it.

If I buy a laptop and it craps out I don't send it back to the manufacturer, I take it back to the retailer.

<comment><USER6> Let say I buy a RaspberryPi for use in an IoT product and then it comes out that there is a flaw in Broadcom's Wifi SoC. Who's fault is that?

<comment><USER4> It's everyone's fault, the question is whether RPi or Broadcom were negligent, or not, which has it's own legal standard already.

<comment><USER5> Whether it's the fault of RPi or Broadcom is a matter for Broadcom and RPi, not the retailer of the RPi or the end-user.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think security in general has gotten so bad that keeping things secure by putting them under lock and key is much more practical than using any of the myriad different useless security products that claim to protect you.

<comment><USER7> Security hasn't gotten any worse than it's been. It's much more visible now and all systems are practically connected through APIs..

Lack of security knowledge is the problem I think. In fact most companies that are hacked don't know it and don't have the knowledge to detect and mitigate them.

Security was much worse in the beginning of 2000's with dial ups.

Also don't forget about social engineering...that's a bigger concern than physical hacks...

<comment><USER3> Well it depends on how you look at it. Today we have many more devices connected to the internet, and like you mentioned, the interconnected nature of devices, increases the surface area for exploits (and other non-exploits like denial of service attacks). Also back in the day the people using computers were more savvier about tech in general, making the whole situation much more worse IMO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is the reason we're working on RESTfender [https://restfender.co](https://restfender.co) We're in semi stealth mode but more to come soon!

<comment><USER8> That 4MB background image though

<comment><USER7> Haha...the original is 12MB. I reduced it to 1MB...it's hard to keep the details if the image is any smaller...</comment></comment></comment>


This Is What It Feels Like to Lose to Donald Trump - <AUTHOR> http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/sad/ <comment><USER2> I wish USA the best with its mentally 5 year old president... what could possibly go wrong.</comment>


Amazon locks down internal employee communications amid organizing efforts - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/29/21240049/amazon-internal-corporate-employee-backlash-email-listservs-worker-activism-coronavirus <comment><USER2> As a former member of the local 701 and a current member of a union, keep fighting. You start seeing this stuff when the company knows theres a good chance you'll get a union if you want one.

I once had all of my lunches turned into safety briefings with some slimeball in a suit lecturing us on the evils of unions for an hour. This prevented us from discussing unions favorably during our only time off during the day, so we decided to start an after-work club at the local pool hall. Less propaganda, more beer and real talk.

Try taking your messages out of the office. Find some place the boss doesnt control and believe me, this will help a lot. You're still going to get flyers, phone calls, letters, and even doorstep visitors if you push for a union but just remember: its all bullshit at this point. Remember why you wanted to do this, and keep a running list of issues the company has not addressed. Remember: a union gives you fair bargaining for anything else you want or need for the company to succeed and you to do your job _in the future_ as well. Some of the handouts now might seem generous but believe me, if you back down, the company will fire absolutely everyone they can identify as an organizer that hasnt been let go up till now.

</comment><comment><USER3> > _Internal listservs with more than 500 participants are now required to move > to a moderated model where a manager must approve any content before its > distribution, according to emails obtained by Recode._

Google did a similar thing in November [1]. This is starting to feel like a trend for tech companies reaching a certain level of size/maturity.

Now this may be a contrarian opinion, but I actually think this has the potential to be a _good_ thing if you're on the side of workers. Here's why.

If you're organizing a union, trying to reveal "evil" projects, or otherwise trying to be a force for good in the company, as long as you're doing it on internal message boards everyone's still halfway-careful of what they say, and big movements/protests are less likely to happen.

But by shutting them down or forcibly moderating them, that will hopefully be enough of an impetus for employees to start using third-party forums, where they can "approve" each other through invites, and everyone can speak and organize freely (and with more anonymity if desired) and accomplish perhaps far more than they have so far.

As political scientists know, repression of citizens brings short-term stability at the cost of an increased long-term threat.

Obviously you can't know for sure... but this feels like the kind of thing that's going to backfire for Amazon (and Google), leading to _more_ and stronger union organization, not less.

[1] [https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/technology/googles...](https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/technology/googles- new-internal-rules-take-hold-employees-complain-of-censorship/1753015/)

</comment><comment><USER4> >The company told Recode that the moderation policy is not new but that Amazon has begun enforcement against lists that either weren't following the rules or had previously been granted exceptions after a "routine audit." An internal message to employees, obtained by Recode, said the change was to "minimize disruption to any business-critical email lists."

"We have always had the rule ready, in case we needed to start enforcing it."

</comment><comment><USER5> Don't understand what the fuss is about. To continue their discussions, Can't these employees get on a service like Blind? Yes, amazon throttling such behaviour is questionable, but why bitch and moan about not being able to use a company resource when there's something like Blind available?

</comment><comment><USER6> That's why every workplace should have an off-company mailing list / forum / group.

Yes even your very employee-friendly workplace with image boards that would never stoop to those kind of tactics.

</comment><comment><USER7> Note: this was posted last week, and therefore not caused by a Amazon VP leaving (but perhaps could be partially a cause to the VP leaving)

<comment><USER8> Last week's post (2 comments):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23024033](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23024033)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Url changed from [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/04/amazon-locks- dow...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/04/amazon-locks-down- internal-employee-communications-amid-organizing-efforts/), which points to this.

</comment><comment><USER10> Doesn't this show that the executive layer of Amazon isn't as clever as they appear? Employees can organize easily on Whatsapp or any other platform. In that case, Facebook has all the data and Amazon doesn't have any insight. Facebook then can hire any disgruntled but competent employee easily.

The lock down also signals weakness and insecurity. Amazon pays at least market rates and people want to work there. In case of a strike, they can hire new people with no training because workers essentially shop all day, a skill that is ubiquitously available

What do they fear?

<comment><USER11> I don't find that to be an entirely realistic scenario, but we can talk hypotheticals. As a company owner, I would welcome the opportunity for employees to quit as an alternative to unionizing. Having your problem quit for another job before you have to fire them is awesome. Having a competitor actively recruit your problem employees? That's killing two birds with one stone. You have to just laugh when it happens. It's great.

As for discouraging unionizing via official company communication media, it probably has more to do with discovery and access than wanting to block the communication altogether. Of course they realize people can use Whatsapp, text, online forum, etc. The thing is there needs to be a way to discover a large community of workers on some other platform. That's much harder than going through a company directory or blasting out emails to entire divisions. They don't want to provide easy discovery and access to people who would potentially join a union.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The original article by Recode contains more information than the Ars reblog of it:

[https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/29/21240049/amazon- interna...](https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/29/21240049/amazon-internal- corporate-employee-backlash-email-listservs-worker-activism-coronavirus)

<comment><USER9> Changed now. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is It true that Amazon's internal chat tool doesn't have as much support for "fun chat" stuff like stickers and emoji? I've been hearing along the grapevine.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> @dang + HN moderators: Why did you change my link? I originally linked to the ArsTechnica article. And why was it removed from the front page?

<comment><USER13> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23071016](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23071016)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for pointing that out. I dislike this moderation strategy, but I'll respect it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> To avoid PIP at Amazon you just gotta be more productive than the people on those internal discussion forums. And they wonder why they're getting pushed out. Leave the trolling for after work

</comment><comment><USER15> Does the top management at Amazon know this us ultimately a futile cause? What are they trying to do? Delay efforts until more on their delivery business is automated? If anyone has an idea please let me know.

<comment><USER16> What makes you think this is a futile cause? Union protections are at an all time low right now, it's likely they can continue suppressing employee organization if they kill lines of communication. Especially with the historic high unemployment rates hitting middle america right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Would be interesting to see a comparison of Amazon's tactics and Walmart's. Traditionally Walmart has gotten a lot of bad press for its working conditions and its destruction of small businesses across the US. Amazon has thusfar had far less scrutiny.

<comment><USER18> > Amazon has thusfar had far less scrutiny.

Are you quite serious?

<comment><USER19> Scrutiny is probably the wrong word, but Amazon faces far less practical opposition compared to Walmart.

With Walmart, people will both be mad at them and oppose their stores, warehouses, etc.

With Amazon, anger stops at stage 1 usually.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> tl;dr: Email lists with 500+ people must be moderated and have a manager moderate them. (It's unclear if manager means 'manages employees' or 'manages email list'.)

This seems pretty draconian to me, if it's true.

<comment><USER11> Not really. Big email lists like that generate tons of spam. What Amazon is doing is presumably to block unionization efforts, but, frankly, what's surprising is that they didn't have a control like this in place already. I work for a much smaller company than Amazon (without a chance of a union ever forming) and we don't let just anyone blast out emails to hundreds of people. We used to and it drove everyone nuts. People were selling their event tickets, giving traffic updates, offering up pets for adoption, etc. It's ridiculous. We had one list that was generating 100+ emails a day that were irrelevant to most of the people on the list. Every sizable list has an "owner" who controls access to send to the list. We have other channels like an area on the intranet where people can post these broadcast kinds of messages so it won't clog up people's inboxes. I thought most large companies did this.

<comment><USER20> Amazon has (had?) a pretty vibrant culture of "*-interest @" mailing lists. Whether it's videogames or whatever, people are used to using those lists and more or less self regulating.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> A third party service that validates all members are part of a company/organization, and then allows anonymous postings viewable to just those validated members would be very useful, IMO.

There is good reason to have these discussions in a place where Amazon's management is not in control.

<comment><USER22> My company didn't have a large presence on there, but the app Blind seems to fit the bill.

<comment><USER23> > Blind seems to fit the bill

Blind is based in South Korea. (Disclosure: one of my parents is ethnically South Korean, and I have very high regard for South Korea and its citizens.)

Given the stakes involved with workplace organizing and the opacity (from a legal perspective) of a South Korea-based business, Blind may not be the right platform.

At the very least, some US workers may be reluctant to open up on a platform not subject to US labor law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Seems like Amazon's getting desperate now. Too bad the US government is the weakest in decades it's been to do something for the workers.

<comment><USER25> It wouldn't matter. The current administration is from a party whose platform is as anti-labor as their opposition was under Woodrow Wilson. Even if we had a strong Federal government right now, it would be interested in aiding _Amazon_ , not it's workforce.

As it is I fully expect to hear talking points that "responsible" workers wouldn't strike or try to organize, or that there should be a law against unionization during national emergencies.

<comment><USER26> Trump hates Bezos enough to try to shut USPS to get to him. I'm sure he'd love to get the double whammy of screwing over Bezos and a boost from working class voters in swing states.

<comment><USER27> If that's how he feels personally, his appointments to the National Labor Relations Board don't show it. And if it would take legislation, he'd never get it past Mitch McConnell.

<comment><USER28> Your first point aside, Republicans have been trying to privatize the USPS for decades (though it's definitely the case that many Democrats are in favor of this too for whatever reason). The White House has been actively rejecting the idea of providing aid to the USPS over the last month or two despite the fact that the situation has demolished their revenues.

I think it's at least quite plausible that the WH could try to do this since it aligns with their priorities, and that McConnell would be fine with it. The House, probably not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Here is the page to cancel your Amazon Prime membership: [https://www.amazon.com/mc/pipelines/cancellation](https://www.amazon.com/mc/pipelines/cancellation)

<comment><USER30> i don't understand this movement.

If there is a purity test, to gauge your alignment with the internal company rules associated with every goods + service you rely on, then there needs to be transparency across the entire world economic landscape.

Why cherry pick? Just because media decided to bring it to your attention?

So you canceled Amazon Prime, everything else in your life was produced by some other entity. Do you go insane because you haven't vetted those sources?

<comment><USER31> There's no burden of consistency that anybody needs to meet. I can boycott Amazon because I like purple and they don't have it in their logo. And then tomorrow decide to continue the boycott because it's a cloudy day and my dog has fleas.

If you want a better reason, it can be as simple as, Amazon is the 13th- biggest corporation in the world by revenue ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue)), and someone simply doesn't want to confer any further advantage to them or support that level of wealth concentration.

It's not cherry-picking unless you know that's the only company being avoided. In my case I've significantly cut my direct reliance on the top 12, quite unintentionally, just by

\- not shopping at WalMart

\- not living in China

\- not owning/driving a car

\- not using Apple products, and ironically

\- using Amazon

Yep that's right, ordering from Amazon keeps me from being tempted to fall back on numbers 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 which are all petroleum and car companies. I guess I'm going on the theory that a delivery truck making the rounds to 20 people is more efficient and less damaging than 20 people driving their own cars to various stores. On the other hand, if it's me we're talking about, I would be biking to the store. So already I'm not totally consistent, and I might be further inconsistent tomorrow and decide to boycott Amazon, especially if they don't get their act together on the labor side!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Why does anyone work there? What a nightmare.

<comment><USER33> If you figure out how to find an employer without issues, please let me know.

<comment><USER34> Just because no company is perfect doesn't mean some aren't worse than others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Some comments here really had me scratching my head. Remember, it's not just engineers, code monkeys and managers at Amazon.

The majority of their employees are unskilled labour. Warehouse workers and delivery drivers. An Amazon warehouse worker in Canada makes just a little more than minimum wage. Even if it might be a nice company to work for if you're in an office, it may be a very different reality for the majority of workers.

<comment><USER36> Canadian minimum wage is relatively high (and your statement is only true for Ontario, btw. In other parts of Canada, Amazon warehouse worker minimum pay is 150% minimum wage). When viewed through the lens of the reality that is the American workforce, things look very differently.

In the US, Amazon warehouse workers make more than double the federal minimum wage. They make, at minimum, more than double the wage of an average McDonalds worker. They make more than Starbucks store workers, more than most construction workers. Even in Canada, Amazon warehouse workers make more than your average Tim Hortons worker.

Warehouse workers also get the same health insurance that Amazon SWEs get, which is better health insurance _by far_ than even most white-collar American workers have.

>The majority of their employees are unskilled labour.

Unskilled laborers getting double minimum wage and great benefits seems to me to be a _good_ thing for society. It baffles me that people are trying to decry this.

<comment><USER35> If that's the case and they're making ~$21 CAD an hour, then Amazon's American warehouse workers are paid considerably more than they are in Canada despite the US having a lower cost of living. At least in my local context, their behaviour doesn't seem to be something worth lauding. It's just another grueling underpaid warehouse job. With a union-busting employer.

<comment><USER37> Then quit and find a job with better pay. My guess is most of them can't because they're already getting the market rate for unskilled labor.

<comment><USER38> Right. Quitting to find a "better job" means swirling around the bottom of the puddle. Standing up and bargaining for better working conditions at your place of work has historically been shown to be more effective. Labor movements brought us modern luxuries such as the weekend, the end of child labor, etc. Folks didn't make that happen by quitting and finding a better job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Amazon is interesting because there is a rift in the company; on one side you have upper middle class engineers, and on the other working class warehouse labourers.

It's easy to dismiss union organisation coming from the former side, but the real tragedy is the thousands of workers working in dangerous conditions. They won't get their union.

<comment><USER40> Yea this something I realized recently with the VP guy leaving. As a upper- middle elitist working engineering/ML/management how do you reconcile the cognitive dissonance? I have been considering a career changing and one of the things is studying for interviews at the FAANGS and I have trouble working for the "man" as it is and this whole affair is just turning me off more.

<comment><USER41> This isn't that hard: Just don't work for the evil ones! If their recruiters contact you, tell them why.

There are plenty of non-evil companies that will pay you well to do interesting work.

Even in your "FAANG" list, Netflix just makes entertaining videos. Apple makes pleasantly overpriced hardware and competes on privacy in software.

Apply to them, instead of ad-tech and sweatshops-as-a-service.

<comment><USER42> Just to play devil's advocate a little:

You should look up some of the ethical issues around cobalt mining [1], which Apple is at least indirectly complicit in.

Netflix famously made their culture documents transparent to much derision about their workplace being an unhealthy competitive environment. Relatedly, they're also arguably the most famous progenitor of the "unlimited-vacation- but-don't-actually-take-it-or-else" workplace cliche.

1: [https://www.theguardian.com/global- development/2019/dec/16/a...](https://www.theguardian.com/global- development/2019/dec/16/apple-and-google-named-in-us-lawsuit-over-congolese- child-cobalt-mining-deaths)

<comment><USER41> Maybe we should revise this to "try to work for companies that are only indirectly (rather than directly) evil"</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Toshiba EV battery gives 200 miles after six minute charge - <AUTHOR> https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/toshiba-ev-battery-gives-200-miles-six-minute-charge-2017-10/ <comment><USER2> begun, the EV battery war, has.</comment>


Soylent: Gruel today, gruel tomorrow - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/05/nutrition <comment><USER2> This product is a sad example of the lengths to which some people will go in order to avoid spending time on tasks which are generally necessary and often quite enjoyable and rewarding. Cooking certainly fits this description: it's an enjoyable process, a rewarding skill, and something that others will love you for if you do it well.

The constant focus on saving time and increasing personal productivity is a recipe for mental illness, in my opinion. Most people would do well to slow down, tune out, and make themselves a decent meal. I suspect that some and perhaps many of the people obsessed with personal productivity and life hacking will at some point suffer from a stress or anxiety disorder and will realize that life is short and there's no point in trying to hurry through it.

This trend towards saving time by sacrificing basic requirements like eating and sleeping is increasingly absurd. In a year or two, I'll open Hacker News and there'll be an article in the top ten that describes how you, too, can Avoid Wasting Time Due To Lengthy Bowel Movements. Don't believe the hype. Have a good night's rest, followed by a leisurely shit and a tasty, gruel-free breakfast you made yourself, and you'll be a better person for it.

<comment><USER3> Paraphrasing from their pitch video: "If you can eat out with friends, you should. I love food. But I don't eat twenty-one good meals a week."

I've seen before this idea that people would lose the ability to enjoy cooking or eating if it weren't literally required to survive. It's utterly nonsensical to me. Where does that idea _come_ from?

<comment><USER4> There are some people who just don't seem to enjoy food, and who go for repetitive and bland meals. It's sort of like people who don't enjoy music, or books, or films, or ... you get the idea. Generally they're perceived as a little odd.

Even here in Norway, where food is advertised as "mild" (euphemism for "bland" if there ever was one) people have some concepts of tasty food. You probably know some people who don't enjoy spicy food? Now imagine someone who thought plain bell peppers were too hot (there's no capsaicin in bell peppers).

As for the origin of this culinary anhedonia, Idunno. Maybe poor people who were able to live off gruel without grumbling had better reproductive fitness in the past?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm curious why no one mentions Unimix, memorably described by Roy Blount Jr as "Purina Famine Chow", made and distributed by disaster relief organizations. This stuff has been done before.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unimix>

<comment><USER6> It gets mentioned most times that soylent is raised.

The thing is that soylent is a perfect storm of PR.

Lone genius has brilliant insight, develops perfect food. Just like those 60s pulp SF novels where people eat food in pill form! Why did nobody think of this before?

Lots of things that become popular or widespread do so because of the narrative they fit into.

For example, which story will get published:

"22 year old PhD student corrects famous scientist"

or

"14 year old student corrects famous scientist".

People correct famous scientists all the time, that's how science works. But it is the narrative (brilliant youngster vs establishment) that makes it a story worth printing.

And if a story is good enough, journalists won't look too hard at it. They're called "Too Good to Check" stories.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sometimes, leaving stuff to experts is wise.

<http://examine.com/blog/soylent-is-made-from-hype/>

We complain when non-programmers tell us how to do our jobs because it takes a lot of study and experience to do it properly.

<comment><USER7> I understand Rob Rhinehart just playing around, some initial self- experimentation, that kinda thing. There's no reason to get the experts from the get-go. But when he got serious and made started his crowdfunding, and hired a bunch of marketers and finance people, a customer relations guy and only one scientist that isn't even a food scientist, you wonder -- is he really serious about the nutrition thing? His team might as well have been hand-picked for a social-networking startup.

Not saying that it's impossible for people outside the relevant field can't make breakthroughs, but to assume that such a result were a much more than improbable possibility, such that you didn't even need to hire _one_ guy with the relevant credentials? That's chutzpah.

Good luck with the 300k. Hopefully they hire a few food scientists/nutritionists.

<comment><USER8> > is he really serious about the nutrition thing? His team might as well have > been hand-picked for a social-networking startup

They were a traditional tech startup. They pivoted when that market collapsed.

<http://blog.soylent.me/>

> YC accepted our original idea, to build affordable wireless networks for > developing countries, for the summer 2012 batch. We spent the entire summer > prototyping our technology and looking for a customer. By demo day, we had a > white space radio with a Bill of Materials (BOM) of $70 operating around > Silicon Valley. We didn't have customers and were facing an intimidating set > of regulatory hurdles. We spoke with some of the valley's top VC's but > failed to raise. Instead of pushing for investment that wasn't there, we > went back to focusing on acquiring customers and finishing our product as > soon as possible. We never found a customer.

It is irresponsible for them to launch a product, with massive publicity, and claim the product is safe for everyone (diabetics? pregnant women? People with Crohn's? Anorexics?) and to claim there is much evidence to support safety.

<comment><USER7> Wow, I never knew that (not much of a start-up guy myself, admittedly).

This is really interesting (from their blog):

"By the start of 2013, we were working on a handful of projects. Sometimes collectively, sometimes independently. One day, Rob said, "There must be a more efficient way to eat." He researched the human nutritional needs and was frustrated to find that nutrition is _not quite a hard science right now. Regardless, he identified the essential ingredients the body needs to thrive and, a few days later, began constructing his alternative diet using supplements purchased on Amazon. Pleased with initial testing, he committed to his newly invented diet for 30 days_."

So, despite food science lacking foundations and rigour (in the most neutral way) right now, he still figured out (well, almost, just needed a month of testing and we're good to go!) an unsolved question, without any formal training, in _a few days_.

In the context of their previous failure it just makes me even more inclined to wonder what they're really planning -- their noble goals seem smell much more like marketing bullshit now.

I hope I'm wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I do wonder what the long term effects of eating this would be. Ive read some of the creators blog posts and I get the impression he doesn't know what hes doing. He has no education or experience in nutrition. He seems to have this reductionist view of the human body and eating. For instance he will say I was feeling a little X today so I added a few grams more Y and today I'm fine! Basically he is being incredibly unscientific about it.

</comment><comment><USER10> There's a ton of maltodextrin in this according to the nutrition facts. Can we really say it's a good idea to have that much maltodextrin for carbs compared to whole wheat breads, whole grain/whole wheat pastas, or other "cleaner" carb sources? I'm no nutritionist, but all those bodybuilding supplements and nutritional drinks that are full of maltodextrin don't get a good rep from the health community. Correct me if I'm wrong.

<comment><USER6> Maltodextrin is used in bodybuilding supplements because it's quickly digested. It causes an insulin spike which might help shuttle protein into muscle tissue.

<comment><USER10> Right exactly. It's used as a postworkout supplement often (possibly with dextrose) and it's pretty cheap. I wouldn't want a quickly digested carb as my main carb source in Soylent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think the most interesting thing about this whole experiment is that it took this long for someone to do it. You would assume there'd be a wealth of information from military studies of battle-ready rations, or something.

</comment><comment><USER12> Haters gonna hate, builders gonna build. When's the last time the economist was correct with a prediction of the future?

</comment><comment><USER8> Some people want to try liquid feed. Here are some already existing companies making liquid feeds:

<http://ensure.com/> Ensure

<https://www.nutricia.co.uk/fortisip//> Fortisip

<http://www.complan.com/> Complan

<http://abbottnutrition.com/brands/abbott-brands> Abbott Nutrition Brands

<http://www.medifast1.com/index.jsp> Medifast

<http://www.optifast.com/Pages/index.aspx> Optifast

<http://www.slim-fast.com/products/> Slimfast

Soylent make some claims about world hunger. As the article mentions Soylent is currently expensive. Their crowdfunding level was food replacement at about $7 per day. That's way outside the range of the 20% of the world population living on less than $1.25 per day. The main ingredient of Soylent is water. Unfortunately, about a billion people do not have access to clean drinking water.

Hopefully with mass manufacturing they can get the cost down. And they could plow back some of the profits into providing clean water.

There are other worrying things about Soylent.

> _For anyone who struggles with allergies, heartburn, acid reflux or > digestion, has trouble controlling weight or cholesterol, or simply doesn't > have the means to eat well, soylent is for you._

> _Soylent frees you from the time and money spent shopping, cooking and > cleaning, puts you in excellent health, and vastly reduces your > environmental impact by eliminating much of the waste and harm coming from > agriculture, livestock, and food-related trash._

From (<https://campaign.soylent.me/soylent-free-your-body>)

Lots of 'problems with digestion' are going to be serious illness for which liquid feeds are used. It is irresponsible for Soylent to claim to be safe for those people without extensive testing.

There's no evidence that a liquid feed replacing all meals will put anyone in excellent health.

The product uses agricultural products. As the article mentions, milk proteins are significant impact.

Soylent also claims to have a shelf life of years. I'm still very curious about this. Many micronutrients will not have a shelflife of years. vitamin C needs to be kept in the dark, in an airtight container, away from heat and moisture.

It was a mild irritant when it was one guy experimenting on himself (but giving out the recipe for other people to follow along). Launching a product from that with these claims, especially that there's "much evidence", is irresponsible.

</comment><comment><USER13> Wait, wait, wait. Are you saying that the kid that came up with this stuff only eats it five days a week? I feel cheated.

<comment><USER14> Yes, that's what he does now. For the first two months he ate it 7 days a week. Eventually, doing stuff like hanging out with friends at restaurants, etc, winds up being important in your life, and you do want to try other flavors and textures from time to time.</comment></comment>