Ex-FDA Advisor Says of Lasik Eye Surgery: 'It Should Have Never Been Approved' - <AUTHOR> https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2019/06/17/lasik-eye-surgery-complications-fda-approval/ <comment><USER2> Refractive surgeon here. I work in a well-known eye hospital in Paris. I operated my sister (PRK) and my best friend (LASIK). My mother underwent PRK when I was a child and I think the amount of admiration/gratefulness that she had for her surgeon afterward actually gave me interest for this surgery. We regularly operate ophthalmology residents as well, and one of the surgeons of the center underwent LASIK. However, if you consider surgery, please turn to a well-known and experienced surgeon. It is a very secure surgery that can turn really bad if errors are made during patient selection, surgery planning, surgery itself, and management of the unfrequent complications that can occur. Patient selection is especially important. So you have to choose a surgeon that really cares about his reputation, and that will not operate you whatever your examination.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for weighing in.

A decade back, my SO worked on clinical trials at a research hospital in the eye clinic. I understand nothing about this stuff.

However, I gleened one important bit of advice:

Avoid any surgery, procedure that surgeons themselves avoid. My SO claims that eye doctors avoid LASIK.

Maybe 10 years ago, a visiting eye doctor was lecturing about LASEK (not LASIK), an operation he had done on himself, and other doctors took note. That was evidence to my SO that LASEK was worth considering.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorefractive_keratectomy#LA...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorefractive_keratectomy#LASEK)

Again, I know exactly nothing about this stuff. I am not saying to have LASIK or not. Progress marches on and I'm certain techniques have improved.

But I do think this is a good universal heuristic. So am encouraging patients to ask their care provider if they'd get it done themselves.

<comment><USER2> Actually, we looked yesterday how many eye surgeons underwent LASIK/PRK in the previous 5 years to write a study about this specific topic (this . We found 16 people. LASEK had a surge of interest 5-10 years ago because it was tought that it could have the pros of both PRK and LASIK. Nowadays it is more or less forgotten (no real benefit in comparison with PRK).

Eye surgeons not getting surgery was totally true 15 years ago but it is not anymore (at least in France)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wanted LASIK so bad starting around 2010, I had worn glasses since I was 6 for my astigmatism. The reason I did not get it was because someone I worked with had a friend who they messed up one of his eyes and he was legally blind. My sister got it in 2015 and I kept putting it off. In 2018 i was turning 40 and needed readers, the eye doctor said i should get bifocals or LASIK and readers.

I got LASIK in September of 2018, I did my 1 year checkup in September of this year and am seeing 20/15\. I used eye drops as instructed and now I don't need them. I still use readers for little print (or more light), but I knew I would need to going into this.

No regrets, except I should of done it years ago.

<comment><USER5> I was advised to skip LASIK recently, as I was told I'd need it again when I got older and expose myself to all the same risks of a bad result over again. I instead decided to invest in much nicer contacts which has been life changing. I didn't realize there was that drastic a difference between crappy contacts(not even necessarily cheap) and good ones.

<comment><USER6> How do I know if I've got the good stuff?

<comment><USER7> I'd like to know too. I've worn contacts since I was 12. Originally, non- disposable that I took out and cleaned every night. These were pretty good, but by the end of the year tended to get a bit ratty around the edges. It's been too long to remember the quality of correction, but I know that contacts have always been better than glasses for me.

Then for years I wore the disposable, extended wear kind you can sleep in. Typically replaced every two to four weeks. Aside from dry eyes in the morning, these were by far the best.

They are not without risk and certainly not for everyone, but they had the highest manufacturing quality, were the most comfortable and seemed to me to provide the best correction.

For the last two years I've worn daily disposables. I think these are probably best for eye health since you're not reusing one set over and over and not leaving them in for days on end, but they have the most variation between individual lenses. Sometimes I'll get contacts that are instantly irritating. The next in the package will fit comfortably. Quality of correction varies every day too. This I just live with, as it's not worth (to me) burning through them faster just because my distance vision isn't as good as it could be today.

I've always used whatever brand my optometrist recommended (which I'm sure is whatever they're being paid to promote). If there is some gold standard brand I should be asking for, I'd love to know.

<comment><USER8> I trialed 3 different brands of dailies this year. It was a pain, but one of them did end up standing out in terms of comfort for me. My doctor said there is no pattern - it's really person dependent which is best.

Dailies changed my life. They only started making dailies in something close to my prescription a few years ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There are a couple other mentions in this thread about PRK. I went the PRK route instead of Lasik, and don't regret it one bit. I chose PRK because it was less risky, and was more durable. Look it up yourself, but brief summary:

      - no flap, they remove top layer of cells with a scraper, then laser
      - no flap means stronger eyes. if you box, mountain bike, work in a high risk environment, it's the procedure to get
      - long recovery time, and it's pretty painful for the first week. ~ 2 weeks to reasonable vision, 4-6 weeks for 20/20 or better.
      - less chance of dry eyes (still a semi-common outcome)

My eye doctor, the casey eye institute, pushed lasik, but that was purely for what people commonly want. They were enthusiastic about PRK, considered it a better procedure for people who were OK with the recovery time, with less chance of complications.

My complications:

      - dry eyes, but nothing worse than contacts get midway through a day
      - sensitive eyes. meaning, a scratch on the eye becomes eye wateringly bad
      - slight halos at night, but again, nothing worse than contacts at the end of the day

I am happy with the results, would do it again, and am currently advising my wife to do PRK instead of lasik (she's on the fence of doing anything). I ride mountain bikes, dirt bikes, and do lots of building, so chances of complications with a flap are non-zero. If you haven't read, those complications are pretty bad - get lazik, take a stick to the eye a year later which causes the flap to dislodge, you now have potentially uncorrectable vision in that eye.

Search the rest of this discussion for PRK. If you aren't afraid of pain, discomfort, and a long recovery time, it's the procedure to get.

Also there's a HUGE difference in lasik or PRK providers. As you can imagine, it's worth spending extra. My procedure cost $4k total, which is $3k more than budget lasik providers. However, I worked with some top eye doctors that regularly perform serious eye surgery, and are at the forefront of optometry. Strip mall discount lasik has less time spent on planning, comes with less experience in recommending procedures, and has less experience working with complications. Definitely don't cheap out!

<comment><USER10> > Definitely don't cheap out!

This is so important for any surgery where mistakes can be life-altering. When I was a teenager we cheaped out on braces with a dentist 3x cheaper than the other one we'd spoken to, and my teeth are now slightly misaligned and I have a fairly weak bite.

Fortunately it doesn't affect my outward appearance and I've gotten used to it as it's not too bad, so it was almost worth it for the valuable life lesson.

<comment><USER11> How do you know which providers charge more because their product and competence is actually better, rather than because they are a low quality facility that just decided to charge more?

I don't believe it's as simple as finding a more expensive provider to ensure better outcomes.

<comment><USER9> In my case, I went to a world class eye institute that is part of OHSU. I am lucky in that we have a pretty serious research hospital here in Portland, so I didn't have to travel.

I don't know how you find the best in your area, but I was mostly referring to the strip mall lasik centers. If you aren't familiar with these, they are a budget lasik provider that has past generation equipment, run by technicians instead of eye doctors. They run ads on billboards, and in the local coupon books that are delivered to your house....These are the places that I think are mostly being referred to by the article.

<comment><USER12> Also in PDX - where did you end up going out of curiosity? Casey?

<comment><USER9> Yup!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The article links to a FDA study on outcomes [1] but is very selective at what it chooses to highlight.

Here is what article singled out: "In a recent study, the FDA found nearly half of participants who had no visual symptoms prior to the surgery reported having some complication three months after surgery."

AND here are ALL the conclusions from the linked study results:

* Up to 46 percent of participants, who had no visual symptoms before surgery, reported at least one visual symptom at three months after surgery.

* Participants who developed new visual symptoms after surgery, most often developed halos. Up to 40 percent of participants with no halos before LASIK had halos three months following surgery.

* Up to 28 percent of participants with no symptoms of dry eyes before LASIK, reported dry eye symptoms at three months after their surgery. This is consistent with previous studies. * Less than 1 percent of study participants experienced "a lot of difficulty" with or inability to do usual activities without corrective lenses because of any one visual symptom (starbursts, ghosting, halos, glare) after LASIK surgery.

* More than 95% of participants were satisfied with their vision following LASIK surgery.

* Participants were more than twice as likely to report their visual symptoms on a questionnaire than to tell them to their health care provider

So what this means is that more than 50% of participants of the study had NO visual symptoms 3 months after the surgery and including those that did have some symptoms, 95% of ALL participants were happy with the outcome.

Add me to those 95% -- I had my Lasik done a decade ago at the Stanford Eye Center and had a quick recovery with zero complications and zero side effects

[1] [https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/lasik/lasik-quality- life...](https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/lasik/lasik-quality-life- collaboration-project#results)

<comment><USER14> __Up to 46 percent of participants, who had no visual symptoms before surgery*

Why would you undergo elective surgery if you had zero symptoms?

<comment><USER15> Poor visual acuity is a significant, life-affecting symptom, and neither glasses nor contacts are full-time, all-conditions-suitable corrective measures.

<comment><USER14> The quoted statistic literally says "no symptoms". Like you, I assume "can't see well" is itself a symptom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Holy observation bias, Batman! The only thing even resembling actual negative statistics in this article is the ballpark estimates by the ex-FDA advisor, and those are just guesses.

You can find negative experiences, sure, but what is the actual incidence of that? Without that data, this is utterly meaningless. It certainly isn't damning.

<comment><USER17> Some data here [1]:

 _A recent clinical trial [2] by the F.D.A. suggests that the complications experienced by Mr. Ramirez are not uncommon._

 _Nearly half of all people who had healthy eyes before Lasik developed visual aberrations for the first time after the procedure, the trial found. Nearly one-third developed dry eyes, a complication that can cause serious discomfort, for the first time._

 _The authors wrote that "patients undergoing Lasik surgery should be adequately counseled about the possibility of developing new visual symptoms after surgery before undergoing this elective procedure."_

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/well/lasik- complications-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/well/lasik- complications-vision.html)

[2] [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullartic...](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/2587831)

<comment><USER18> I wonder how people who got dry eye will age. As you age dry eye symptoms tend to increase and can be associated with recurrent corneal erosions which, aside from being painful, can get infected, which can be absolutely terrible and vision threatening in extreme cases.

Dry eye is hell especially if you work at a computer.

As an aside, Ocusoft Retaine drops are the best thing I've found for dry eye; I've never met anyone else with the problem who uses them but it's like night and day.

<comment><USER19> Eye drops do not treat the underlying cause of dry eye (unhealthy/insufficient tears, inflammation (e.g. blepharitis), or in rare cases neuropathic pain). They are just symptom relief.

For anyone reading this who manages their dry eye with eye drops, please do some reading or see a specialist. If all you do is use eye drops, your dry eye will likely get worse.

Eye drops bolster your tear film and help prevent desiccating stress to the eye surface, but they lack growth factors and other important compounds found in biological tears, and can even contribute to washing those away.

Last, whatever you do, don't use eye drops with preservatives (e.g. benzalkonium chloride).

<comment><USER20> > For anyone reading this who manages their dry eye with eye drops, please do > some reading or see a specialist

Good advice to check, of course, but my friend that has chronic dry eye from Lasik was basically told it's a lifetime of drops for her now.

<comment><USER19> How many quality opinions did your friend get? I also know people with DED and from my experience not all docs understand the disease well. Obviously you know more than I do, but I'm very skeptical that there isn't more to the story than "a lifetime of drops". Also, I hope your friend has tried autologous serum drops.

<comment><USER18> That is a great suggestion IMHO. ASTs are pretty amazing but they're not a cure for everyone.

In the case above, I'm referring to my spouse. Her entire family has this problem - dry eye, frequent / continuous corneal erosions - setting in by their mid-late thirties. These are the people who end up wearing sleeping goggles, ointment, taping their lids shut, etc. It's not a lack of tear production, it's poor corneal basement layer adhesion for some undiagnosed reason and, probably, eyelids drifting open during sleep.

<comment><USER2> Ciclosporin 2% eyedrops and/or punctum plugs may be useful. I home she'll get better eventually.

<comment><USER18> she went way past both of those. it was not a fun time getting things compounded.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Had PRK 10 years ago, which I always describe to people as the closest thing to a miracle I've ever experienced. Went from not being able to read my bedside clock to better than 20/20\. Of course, I am getting older so I need readers now, but my long distance vision is still perfect. Would have done it sooner!

<comment><USER22> I had PRK and it left me with astigmatism in both eyes. Afterwards I had both eyes redone and the "touch up" made it better, but it was still bad enough that I needed glasses to correct my vision. I'm trying to decide whether it makes sense to try again a third time.

Whether or not a third time would work, my laser surgeon already told me it would be the last time he'd try to fix it (which is a different tune than he was singing originally). Since my surgery, I've bumped into a number of other PRK patients who've had similar troubles.

Also, the procedure left me with "haloing", which means that when its dark outside and you see lights, they all have a white halo around them, which is super annoying.

Another word of warning to potential PRK patients: the recovery period for me was measured in weeks (over a month, for me), and during that time my vision was hampered enough to make it difficult or impossible to work on computer screen. All in all, I wish I never had PRK.

<comment><USER23> I was recommended if I wanted corrective surgery to do PRK over LASIK and the recovery period is honestly what worries me the most. I'm pretty sure my eyes are tuned so well to displays that even contacts give me eye strain when working on stuff. Having that recovery period would be detrimental to me

<comment><USER24> Eyes don't "tune". Eye issues are strictly genetic unless there is some traumatic damage done to the eye (impact, chemical, staring at the sun too long, etc)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> So in the study the article refers to, when asked after 6 months "Currently, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the result of your LASIK surgery?" on a 6-point scale, the responses were:

        Completely satisfied         69.9%  (151/216)
        Very satisfied               22.7%   (49/216)
        Somewhat satisfied            4.2%    (9/216)
        Somewhat dissatisfied         0.9%    (2/216)
        Very dissatisfied             0.9%    (2/216)
        Completely dissatisfied       0.9%    (2/216)

(this is from eTable 4 in the supplement here: [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullartic...](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/2587831)).

If the FDA guy concludes from this that the procedure should never have been approved, I'm tempted to say that it reveals more about the risk-averseness of the FDA than about the dangers of the procedure.

<comment><USER26> This is a dangerous perspective on the issue. Why should the FDA approve an elective procedure that has the possibility of ruining your life? Lots of perfectly healthy people people who had a bad outcome have committed suicide due to the unbearable pain and suffering.

If this was a life-saving procedure with a 50/50 chance of working with no alternatives, then that's different. But an _elective_ procedure where a perfectly healthy person sees an advertisement one day, and has their life ruined the next is not something that should be acceptable.

<comment><USER27> It's entirely acceptable on a society level if the numbers are low enough. If 1 in a billion die from a vaccine, do you approve it? There's probably at least one person who died in an accident from an airbag that otherwise wouldn't have without an airbag. Do we remove airbags despite them being statistically safer? This kind of "Zero Allowable Risk" attitude is quite frankly technophobic.

<comment><USER28> Not only is it a measurement of how many lives will be improved, it was a stopgap on non-regulated procedures.

So the choice was either rubberstamp it so there was oversight or don't and potentially have even worse cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I had laser eye surgery, but I went with PRK. Less invasive, more durable, far less wasteful of cornea, and its end results are just as good as LASIK's. The only downside is it's a little less convenient because each eye takes a few weeks to heal, so people usually do one eye at a time.

The LASIK procedure is just _utterly insane_ in comparison, especially given its extremely limited advantages.

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

<comment><USER30> I did PRK and have had chronic dry eyes ever since. I can't recommend it. I would go back to contacts if I had the choice.

<comment><USER31> I also had dry eyes after PRK, for about 6 months. Been back to normal for a long time though and I consider the minor discomfort for 6 months well worth it.

<comment><USER32> I occasionally have mild dry eyes after my PRK a couple years ago (very infrequent discomfort in the morning when I wake up), but over all, I'm happy with the results.

The staff and doctor all tried mightily to get me to do LASIK, and after I refused multiple times, every staff member confessed that they either did or would have made the same choice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Orthokeratology contact lenses to reshape the eyes while you sleep are the new thing for teenagers.

[https://www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2015/05/21/4065023...](https://www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2015/05/21/406502395/overnight-contacts-can-help-kids-sight-during-day- but-also-carry-risks)

<comment><USER34> I've used Ortho-k for 16 years, and I've absolutely loved them. I still confuse the heck out of people when I show or tell them I wear rigid contact lenses while sleeping. I've used glasses and dailies, and I without a doubt prefer Ortho-k. I do find it really weird that insurance doesn't cover it though - probably explains why they haven't become too widespread.

<comment><USER35> How do those feel in your eye, though, while you're trying to sleep?

Also, how would you rate your personal pain and discomfort tolerance?

<comment><USER34> I started wearing them when I was 7, so at this point in time they don't bother me at all. I'm pretty sure they bothered me quite a bit back when I started wearing them, but I would still say my tolerance is quite high.

My older bother started them at the same time as me, and he couldn't handle it, so he swapped back to glasses after a few years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is a bit disturbing of a headline to see, literally a couple hours before I'm scheduled for a Lasik procedure.

But after reading the article, I don't know how much weight there is to this. Seems to be a small sample and that report is heavily highlighting a couple negative items out of a largely happy pool of patients.

Was there any connection to the doctor or clinic? Did some clinics or equipment have a higher rate of complications? I'm getting mine performed at a well reviewed practice in San Jose.

This article isn't enough for me to cancel the procedure, but it was enough of a scare to put me on the edge for a second. Sensationalism? Maybe not quite, but it'd be great if these reports would work to remove their bias.

<comment><USER37> LASIK in the 90s versus LASIK in 2019 is almost an entirely different procedure. Modern LASIK procedures involve mapping the eye on a microscopic level, evaluating vision acuity at hundreds of points on the eye surface, and then allowing an automated laser to perform the procedure. This is known as a wavefront-guided LASIK procedure and produces outstanding results.

LASIK in the 90s involved physically cutting the surface of the eye with a keratome (blade) and relied on the precision of the surgeon's hand.

<comment><USER38> And yet they still make a big deal of how you can come in for a "tune up" or whatever. If it's so accurate, how did I end up an entire diopter off target?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> A few years back I was getting a little eye surgery done, under local, a quasi-regular thing with me. Because I like hearing about people's jobs, I asked my surgeon what he thought of LASIK. He has a very dry presentation. He paused and then began, "You'll notice I'm wearing glasses ..."

I filed that one away.

</comment><comment><USER40> Dry eyes and halos, many I speak to say they have these issues. Followed by "I don't regret it, best thing ever". I walk away mostly confused.

Watching my sister, who had it done ~10 years ago, struggle to stay between the lines on the freeway at night due to halos I wrote it off completely. Even with these issues she's perfectly happy with the results. Again, I don't get it.

<comment><USER41> I have halos, very occasional dry eyes. Was worth it.

I was myopic (20/350) that got corrected to 20/15\. Things I can do now: * Being able to lay in bed and look around the room and see things in focus. * Being able to lay in bed and look at my significant other and it not be a out- of-focus blurry mess. * Being able to get up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom without hunting for glasses. * Being able to go swimming without goggles. * Avoiding the discomfort of contact lens wear and cleaning. * Being able to do read while laying on the couch without bending my frames. * Avoiding possibility of eye infection due to dirty contact lenses. * Avoiding the need to clean and wash glasses due to dirt. * Avoiding the painful removal of contact lenses after falling asleep with them in due to tiredness.

etc, etc etc

<comment><USER40> Most of this reads like quibbles to me. The thought of possibly having permanent eye damage, no matter how "insignificant", in exchange for minor convenience/vanity and only myself to blame is a bit too much.

In my sisters case, she now has prescription night driving glasses and prefers not to drive at night with my niece. I'm not sure why but "was worth it" is what she'd say and similar reasons to yours are what she'd give.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> My wife is an ophthalmologist and would never get LASIK. The benefit of potentially not having to put contacts in every morning just does not outweigh the possible complications.

<comment><USER43> Yes, this is why I was never willing to get the procedure done. The risk/reward ratio is too unfavorable. Even if the percentage of people who have problems is very low, those problems are permanent. To take the risk of permanent injury just to avoid the inconvenience of wearing glasses never made sense to me.

<comment><USER44> I can see it making sense if you're nearly blind without your glasses. I'd feel very vulnerable if I'm so reliant on glasses.

If it's just a slight convenience then yeah... keep that stuff away from me.

<comment><USER43> True, I can imagine circumstances where it would be preferable. I was just commenting about my own situation.

(BTW, I am nearly blind without my glasses, but that's never really bothered me. I just wear the glasses.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I didn't know it was this bad, but I decided not to get LASIK for a different reason. It'd fix my near-sightedness, but also normalize my superior close-up vision. I can easily read ultra-fine print that most people need a magnifying glass for, and LASIK would destroy that. Absolutely not worth the small benefit of getting rid of my glasses.

<comment><USER46> Ha! I thought I was the only one that loved being able to see any swimmers in my water bottle. I guess that's more of a drawback, but being able to have magnifying vision is pretty awesome. I use contacts sparingly when working, and glasses the rest of the time, and the maintenance thereof is not really a big deal.

<comment><USER47> I'm very nearsighted. But as I've aged, my "best distance" has increased from ~20 cm to ~40 cm. So now it's perfect for computer work. And I only need glasses for driving, movies, etc.

I can still read fine print etc, however.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> My husband is an Optometrist, and it did not do LASIK for his own eyes. Actually, I do not think I know one Optometrist in our circle of friends who did LASIK. They pretty much all wear either contact or glasses. It does not seem like we should ban LASIK, but LASIK is not for everyone. And here in US, LASIK is a lucrative business. I would not be surprised that some LASIK have been done on people who were not good candidate at the first place. And now those people are disappointed, after spending several thousand dollars.

</comment><comment><USER49> Interesting side note about LASIK, it's caused problems for the navy: it's getting harder and harder to fill submarine crews. It used to be that for top- qualified recruits, the ones with perfect vision became pilots and the rest got stuffed into subs. Then the military started providing LASIK, and suddenly no one's dq'ed from flying because of their vision. The submarine force is a tough sell to begin with, but when the alternative is Top Gun forget about it.

<comment><USER50> Not sure where you heard that. Submarine duty is considered prestigious in the US Navy and most people who serve aboard a submarine wouldn't be rated for (or even interested in) pilot duty.

<comment><USER51> I was going to say the same thing, submarine duty is highly competitive. Every sailor I knew who wanted to get it had to work very hard and was very excited when they did.

<comment><USER52> Just curious, why do sailors want submarine duty? I would have thought, for sailors especially, the weeks without sunlight would be very intimidating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I am a happy lasik success story. The procedure changed my life and allowed me to start diving again, it is the best money I have ever spent.

I think it is unfair to blame suicides on the procedure, as they warn you about the risks beforehand and are clear that you may have some halos/blurriness for a few months.

Blame the suicide on mental illness, because that is where the problem actually lies. Anything else seems like an emotional play to get money from a lawsuit.

</comment><comment><USER54> There has been nothing I've spent money on that has been as useful and valuable to me as getting lasik 15 years ago. If I had known ho much it would change my life I would pay 10 times as much.

</comment><comment><USER55> I was considering LASIK but why risk it? Glasses aren't so bad and I could always get contacts if I really wanted. Even without my glasses I can see okay, not great but okay.

<comment><USER56> If you like to be outdoors, camping etc or in situations where glasses could be broken it is a no-brainer.

Also if you do the math it can potentially save you money on contacts and the ever-obnoxious eye checkups.

9 years since I had it done and it is amazing. No regrets so far.

I get out of bed every day and I can just see. No searching for glasses or going to the bathroom to put contacts in.

<comment><USER57> If I'm in an environment where I'm likely to break my glasses, I want to be wearing some kind of protective eyewear - a scratched eyeglass lens is a lot easier to replace than a scratched cornea. Wraparound safety glasses are comfortable, extremely durable and can do double duty as sunglasses.

[https://www.rx-safety.com/product-category/master-safety- gla...](https://www.rx-safety.com/product-category/master-safety- glasses/prescription-safety-glasses/wraparound-safety-glasses/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Most people I know who have had it are happy. But I'll never do it. I have a fantastic microscope available just by taking off my glasses and I don't want to lose that.

</comment><comment><USER59> A long time ago it was promised that the FDA would eventually approve intraocular lens replacement for vision correction as well. What ever happened to that?

<comment><USER60> It does exist but it's a much more invasive procedure, and I think it's used only for much higher prescriptions (+/-10d and above) - not sure it's approved by the FDA though.

<comment><USER61> I think whether or not LASIK is suitable depends on corneal thickness, corneal steepness, _and_ the level of correction needed, just as a baseline, or so it was explained to me. I was investigating intraocular lenses not too long ago as an alternative because my ophthalmologist advised that I'd probably have difficulty seeing in low-light conditions if I underwent LASIK.

(Apparently my "parameters" are such that I'm in a gray area where some surgeons will perform LASIK, but others won't. My prescription is pretty high in one eye (around -8). I ended up not being a great candidate for _any_ corrective eye surgery, intraocular lenses included.)

Anyway, intraocular lenses are definitely more invasive, but from what I recall they sounded like a better option to me than LASIK in general: apparently vision quality is better than LASIK with IOLs, there's no removal of corneal tissue, and chance for complications was lessened. (Well, as I understood it, there were fewer minor complications, but more possible major complications, which is maybe not a trade-off many people want to make.)

Of course, they cost about 2x as much as LASIK.

I'm pretty sure they are FDA approved, especially given their use in cataract surgery, although the ones in cataract surgery replace the natural lens whereas the corrective type typically do not...

<comment><USER59> Well I think that's where I was going with this. Cataract patients get their lenses replaced regularly and the surgery appears to be a much lower risk than before. A relative of mine, during his cataract surgery, even had the option to get a corrective factor put into the new lens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> I'm kind of glad that I wasn't a candidate for LASIK when I was most seriously considering it (pupils were too big). I know several people who've had it and been delighted, but I also keep reading these horror stories about it making a bad situation worse. At my current age (54) the benefits are likely to be temporary at best, so it's just not worth the risk. Eyesight is not something to gamble with.

<comment><USER29> > At my current age (54) the benefits are likely to be temporary at best, so > it's just not worth the risk. Eyesight is not something to gamble with.

Also, if you're that old, it might mean an instant need for reading glasses (if you don't already have them).

Being nearsighed is like permanently wearing a pair of reading glasses. Given how much of my day is taken up reading vs. using distance vision, part of me regrets getting my eyes corrected to 20:20.

<comment><USER62> Indeed that is the case. I've already been wearing progressives (+2.0 add) for several years. I think presbyopia is something a lot of folks don't consider when they opt for LASIK. It might make your vision better for one decade, but then worse for two or more. Maybe people just can't internalize that age will catch up with them too. Maybe they just hope that medical science will come up with something new by then, so they can have the best of both worlds. Didn't work out that way for me, though I do think we've passed Peak Eyeglass and glasses will seem as outdated as buggywhips some day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is only a mildly disturbing headline to see, literally a couple hours before my Lasik procedure...

But from what I see in the article, the negative experiences are few and far between, not to mention, they don't seem to take into account variation between different clinics. Is there a connection in quality to the doctor or their practice? Is there some problem with a piece of equipment?

<comment><USER63> How did your procedure go?

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> I ran into a lot of the complications this article mentions (halos, dry eyes, and for a few weeks afterwords a blurriness from cells dying called something like "superficial protein keratitis"). All of them were temporary though and cleared up after a few weeks/months. (Well, except the halos, but they're not that severe and I already had bad night vision and halos before this, it just made them a little more pronounced) I do think it's a procedure you should really think carefully about before you do it, but I wouldn't want the FDA to ban it or something. Overall I'm currently happy with it.

My suggestion would be, if you're thinking of doing it, make sure the eye doctor who checks out your candidacy is one you trust and hopefully have been with for a while. When it comes down to it, the procedure itself is pretty safe and automated so the part to optimize is screening people before the procedure happens.

</comment><comment><USER65> I had it in one eye, and after a some eye-1 vs eye-2 comparisons, I never had the second one done.

Now many years afterwards, the only thing I see clearly is that I should never have gotten the surgery.

Both eyes continued to have changes in prescription, and I now wear contacts in both eyes.

By the numbers, it would seem like I have pretty good vision. Corrected I have 20/20 in my non-surgery eye and 20/25 in the eye that had the surgery.

HOWEVER - the non-surgery eye focuses quickly and accurately, even in low light and at night. The surgery eye can read the eyechart as well, but it takes longer, I have to blink and wait and maybe... eventually... I can read the 20/25 line. At night, I get visual artifacts.

I recommend good contacts instead. Your vision will change and you can just get different contacts.

Additionally, contact lenses have advanced. They can now correct almost any level of vision including astigmatism and can be thrown away monthly or even more frequently.

</comment><comment><USER66> Lately my FB feed has been full of Lasik ads, and hilariously, the headline on their banner image was "You will not go blind after LASIK". Perhaps I should feel relieved that FB doesn't yet know that the only non-essential surgery I'd be willing to have would be to re-align my teeth.

</comment><comment><USER67> > She didn't need glasses when she got the procedure, so it frustrates her > that now she does.

Why did she get LASIK? When I got it, it was made _extremely_ clear that it wouldn't help with reading glasses-level problems and may in fact cause me to need them.

</comment><comment><USER68> My fiance just underwent LASIK about 6 months ago. She has had zero complications.

It's a very successful procedure, for the vast majority of people who undergo it. I fail to see why "it should never have been approved".

<comment><USER69> i mean if it blinded 1% of people and worked perfectly for 99% of people I would not want it approved

<comment><USER70> If you don't like those risks then don't undergo it but for other people will find the risks acceptable and want to have it done. Being approved doesn't mean it is forced on anyone.

<comment><USER71> What's the point of any regulatory agency at all then? Just to correctly elucidate those odds?

<comment><USER70> Is the point of a regulatory agency to decide for hundreds of millions of people what their acceptable level of risk? What if thousands of people die from not having access to medications that a regulatory agency deems too risky?

<comment><USER69> yeah that's what regulatory agencies are for. is this the first you've heard of them?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> > She didn't need glasses when she got the procedure, so it frustrates her > that now she does. She blames LASIK for making her eyes worse.

WTF would you get eye surgery if you don't need glasses to begin with!?

</comment><comment><USER73> I asked for LASIK but was turned down by the eye doctor / surgeon because my vision is -9.5 and he felt it was too high of a risk. My optometrist also said to stay away - my eyes are very healthy, so why tamper with them?

I wear glasses every day as I can't seem to read and focus properly using contact lenses (tried about 5-6 times the last 15 years) and the quality is great. I use those high index glasses that are so thin you'd think they are -3.

I still think about some kind of surgery though - maybe ICL ?

<comment><USER37> It's worth investigating whether you're a candidate for PRK or the more recent SMILE procedure. LASIK is not applicable to high prescriptions, owing to how much cornea loss would be required to correct them.

<comment><USER73> I did some research now and SMILE doesn't seem to be too widespread yet, but LASIK, PRK and ICL are widely available. For my case it seems like ICL is the best option. It's also reversible (not that I'd easily want to reverse and have a knife shoved into my eye again).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> Scientific test here: I had only one eye LASIKed and the quality of vision is far below that of the other without LASIK with contact lens (both were approximately -6).

ANYONE who gets both eyes done at once has no baseline to compare against.

I can compare.

The great advantage to engineers/craftspersons of not getting LASIK if you are short sighted, is that you can take out your contact lenses for close/fine work.

The eye with LASIK is useful for swimming, travelling, and convenience of not using contacts (which sometimes irritate).

</comment><comment><USER75> I met a man whose life as a programmer ended after a failed Lasik in the early 2000s - it was quite traumatic and he had serious financial problems afterwards

<comment><USER76> They did both eyes at the same time?

<comment><USER29> I think that's actually pretty common with Lasik, since the "recovery" time to clear vision is so short.

Other kinds of surgeries have longer recovery times, so they're kinda forced to do them one eye at at time.

<comment><USER76> Wow, that's a recipe for nightmares. I'm just now remembering a recent story of a woman killing herself after a failed Lasik operation.

<comment><USER77> Lasik is a great example of the kind of positive-sum risks I would take if suicide were legal and easy. As it is, I risk being legally required to endure fifty years of blindness, so I won't try it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> While we're exchanging anecdotes here: what I gathered from people's responses on the web is, operation outcome differs considerably depending on the clinic and who knows what else. Three are also apparently a dozen, if not more, variations on the few major procedures.

However, I also notice that better results are reported for later surgeries, over e.g. five years.

</comment><comment><USER79> One data point. I had Lasik done about 15 years ago. No problem so far except for the occasional dryness after waking up in the morning. After all the years, still have 20/20 on one eye and the other deteriorated to 20/30\. I would consider a success.

</comment><comment><USER80> I had LASIK done just the year after a new wavelet tech emerged (or at least, after my doc had access to it).

Now, >15 years later, I still have 20/13 vision in both eyes, from a starting point > 20/100.

It's fantastic and greatly improved my quality of life.

</comment><comment><USER81> I had mine in 2002 but it wore off In 2012 so back to glasses. Corneas too thin to do enhancement, eyeballs odd shaped so I can't do contacts. Not much more I can do.

</comment><comment><USER82> i had lasik when i was 24... now i am 44 and would say that number one its really good, but number two it only lasts for about ten years and then your eye sight starts to go bad again... my vision was 20/600 before lasik and 20/20 after lasik. I am probably going to have it done again...

</comment><comment><USER83> Until the day this thing is done 100% by robots, thanks, I think I will stick to glasses and lenses.

</comment><comment><USER13> #protip If you are considering Lasik, do not watch the cinematic gem that is Final Destination 5

</comment><comment><USER84> I have been looking through the literature on lasik complications since I am considering lasik and there were several articles recently such as [1] which goes into a lot more detail. There are a lot of temporary complications/side effects (e.g. a few months), but what I'm most interested in understanding is the risk of lasik causing serious, long-lasting or permanent complications. The main ones discussed in these articles are visual artifacts (halos, starbursts, etc.) and dry eye (which at the extreme end means constant intense pain).

Unfortunately, as far as I could tell, there aren't very good studies on the topic - they're very limited in number of people and in length of time studied, or they don't measure a control group/baseline - which is a big problem because there is a surprisingly high prevalence of symptoms in the population even before lasik. This makes the data very hard to interpret.

E.g. [1] reports that 6 months after surgery, "41 percent of patients reported visual aberrations, with nearly 2 percent saying the symptoms presented 'a lot of difficulty' or 'so much difficulty that I can no longer do some of my usual activities.' But looking at the data from the PROWL-1 and PROWL-2 studies [2], table 3, 67% of patients had some visual symptom _before_ lasik surgery, with 3.3% / 7.5% having difficulty performing activities and 10.8% / 13.3% reporting "very" or "extremely" bothersome symptoms (again, before lasik). The prevalence of severe visual symptoms decreases 6 months after lasik. However, while some people go from severe symptoms to no symptoms, some of that is just due to regression to the mean (see note on test-retest in [2]), and there is also a substantial percentage of the population that goes from no symptoms to having some symptoms (which is the main thing I am trying to estimate).

Surveying some of the other literature [2][3][4], the overall pattern I saw was that pre-lasik the prevalence of dry eye and visual symptoms is about 60% of any severity, 5% severe, 5-10% moderate. Post-lasik they are about 50% any severity, 3% severe, 5% moderate. Overall they are less postop - but the question is how many people who were normal preop develop symptoms postop (minus how many people who were normal develop symptoms 6 months later without any lasik surgery). I haven't found good enough data to answer this with any degree of accuracy, other than an upper bound of <1% developing severe symptoms and <5% developing moderate symptoms. That isn't a very helpful upper bound to me - a 1% chance of permanent severe complications is a lot, and I think it's obvious that if the rate were that high we'd know about it. But from the data it appears plausible that the rate of developing long-lasting moderate complications is 0.1% - 1%, and the high end of that range is still a pretty substantial rate of complications. I think the actual rates are a lot lower, we just don't seem to have enough data to measure it better. I would love to see pointers to better studies, better analyses of the data, etc.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/well/lasik- complications-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/well/lasik- complications-vision.html)

[2] [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullartic...](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/2587831)

[3] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25896684](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25896684)

[4] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27373395](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27373395)

</comment><comment><USER85> I got LASIK at Standard Medical, one of the best things I ever did for myself...

Didn't read the article...

</comment><comment><USER86> Call me paranoid, but I wouldn't be surprised if stories like these were pushed by Big Eyeglass (Luxxotica).

<comment><USER87> But then, maybe you're just a tool for Big Laser... :-P

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> It's really damning how they were unable to find a single patient happy with their outcome.

<comment><USER89> It's pretty unlikely they tried hard then. I know of 4 in my close family alone. Brother- and sister-inlaw, and two cousins.

There have also been a number of co-workers and distant friends who suddenly stopped wearing glasses, and seem quite happy with their Lasik.</comment></comment>


Yahoo Says Hackers Stole Data on 500M Users in 2014 - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/technology/yahoo-hackers.html <comment><USER2> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12559215](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12559215)</comment>


Crypto's 80% Plunge Is Now Worse Than the Dot-Com Crash - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-09-12/crypto-s-crash-just-surpassed-dot-com-levels-as-losses-reach-80 <comment><USER2> I think one of the interesting things is the lack of reason why. There are plenty of theories and many people yelling for the end of crypto, but it seems despite of what people say or predict the crypto market has a mind of it's own. There has been speculation of market manipulation, but it seems odd for there to be a crash now.

<comment><USER3> You don't even need fowl play to get here. The reasons don't have to be economic, they can be psychological.

People sometimes just ride the wave and everything around them might convince them it's the way to go, keep going. But there is a point when the realization that it's unsustainable can creep in. That moment where you go from "infallible" to "hmm... can this keep going?" is when the bubble starts to burst. Panic can spread just as quickly or faster than the euphoria of a quick win.

<comment><USER4> Investors chickening out qualifies as fowl play in my book.

<comment><USER3> Chicken-fowl, I see what you did there :). But no, chickening out will never fall under any definition of fowl play. This involves cheating, malice, breaking the rules, all premeditated perhaps. Playing it safe with your money? Definitely not.

<comment><USER4> *foul

<comment><USER3> Heh, I thought you're semi-yanking my chain for typing it wrong the first time :D. Well, too late to edit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Stop comparing percentage. Look at absolute value - no where near the dotcom crash. Re money laundering having finished: ridiculous. The banks do that job just fine,at significantly bigger amounts.

</comment><comment><USER6> Non-AMP link please. It's terrible on desktop.

<comment><USER7> [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-12/crypto-s-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-12/crypto- s-crash-just-surpassed-dot-com-levels-as-losses-reach-80)

</comment></comment><comment> y-c-o-m-b Does this mean graphics cards are falling back to a more reasonable level again?

<comment><USER8> They already are. You can go and buy an AMD RX 580 with 8GB VRAM for 250€ in Germany. The RX 580, 570, 470, and 470 were the most efficient cards for mining Ethereum in terms of power usage, hashrate, and cost.

<comment><USER9> 1080Tis can be found under 400 in NYC

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Can only hide from fundamental issues for so long I suppose...

Here's a compelling and fun to watch lecture that James Mickens (Harvard SEAS) recently gave about the problems with Blockchain - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15RTC22Z2xI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15RTC22Z2xI)

</comment><comment><USER11> Hard to take this seriously when Bitcoin is up over 6x from less than 1.5 years ago..

<comment><USER12> I don't understand your logic. A crash is still a crash. Consider all the people _didn 't_ buy 1.5 years ago, and bought recently. They have lost money. And judging by historical volume, a lot of people are losing money.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: I have 25k users. Now what? - <AUTHOR> I have an app in the App Store that has 25k users and growing quickly.  Originally I built it as a passion project, but now I'm starting to think about monetization strategies.  What are 25k users "worth" to advertisers? <comment><USER2> Depends how low your costs are and long you can go without needing to make any money from it. If your expenses are manageable and profitability isn't an issue, it might make sense to improve your product (nicer UI, more features, etc) while growing your user base and getting more information about them (location, demographic, age, etc). This will improve your pitch to advertisers when decide to cash in by, perhaps, selling premium placement for ads by keyword (iOS, Python, Devops, etc).

One issue you might have is that your user's are "shortlived", I would imagine a typical user is going to use it for a couple of months every 2-3 years, hence why I'm stressing quick growth.

<comment><AUTHOR> That makes a lot of sense. My costs are essentially $0. My time is the largest factor. Agreed the user's are most likely "shortlived", but I collect emails which could be nice for something like a newsletter.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, newsletters seem big these days so that could work.

Alternatively you could let users make profiles with their preferences for their ideal job (remote only, MEAN stack, >£80k, etc) and notify them when a matching ad appears, you could even charge for this. This strategy allows you to also charge employers to contact/see your users, I think Dribbble does this, so it might be worth taking a look there.

Good luck and let us know how it works out, I love hearing about stuff like that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Someone else just posted this, thought it might be relevant: [https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/13/156737801/the-...](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/13/156737801/the- cost-of-free-doughnuts-70-years-of-regret)

Maybe focus on the brand/scale, this is a unique time in history and monetize low for now, this could be the new normal. Profit when they're hooked and not worrying about rent. Perhaps find sponsor/partner to fund backend scaling/adverts.

Multilanguage support for markets you think might be most related.

</comment><comment><USER4> Build pro functionality to sell to them

<comment><USER5> This sounds like a good idea at first but just don't jump into conclusion about what the pro features should be. Ask you users explicitly, and make your judgement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> well that would surely depend on the app.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a Remote Job Board for iOS [https://apps.apple.com/us/app/remotely-job- search/id13495238...](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/remotely-job- search/id1349523816)

"Remote job boards" are a dime a dozen on the web, but first of its kind in a mobile app.

The easy answer is to sell featured job postings, but my users are candidates and not employers.

<comment><USER7> > my users are candidates and not employers

There's your answer right there. Find remote employers who are hiring and pitch them on a paid listing with prime placement within the app.

Job boards are marketplaces. Supply = employers, demand = candidates. Charge supply for access to demand. You've built up the demand side of the marketplace first. Now you need to build the supply side. How are you pulling in listings right now?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is this US only jobs if not would love to be able to filter on time zone and country of employment preferences, or contractor vs employment etc

<comment><USER8> Yeah sorry a bit off topic...

<comment><USER8> Yet a downvote is a bit harsh?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Nice one! congrats! How did you developed your app ? since when its in the AppStore ?

</comment><comment><USER10> How much you could get from advertisement?</comment>


Facebook's employees reckon with the social network they've built - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/facebook-employee-leaks-show-they-feel-betrayed <comment><USER2> I feel like all of this debate is painfully missing the point. The problem is not some content moderation policy, the problem is that social media has changed social conversations from small local interactions into monstrous virtual fight clubs between millions of people simultaneously, and where the most extreme opinions are rewarded with the most attention. Boring level headed opinions used to at least have a chance of rising above the noise. Not anymore.

<comment><USER3> The other problem is that the business model of social media is based on generating "engagement" at all costs, so the platforms are built to encourage outrage as it generates lots of engagement, among other addictive behaviors (the infinite "algorithmic" feed for example). Social media was supposed to be a tool that serves people but its current business model encourages it to work against people.

There were plenty of other technologies that could've been used to organize large-scale virtual fight clubs (forums, BBSes, chatrooms, maybe even the telephone) but this didn't happen because nobody actually wanted to foster such toxic behavior.

<comment><USER4> > There were plenty of other technologies that could've been used to organize > large-scale virtual fight clubs (forums, BBSes, chatrooms, maybe even the > telephone) but this didn't happen because nobody actually wanted to foster > such toxic behavior.

"Nobody" is leaving out some pretty notorious sources of toxicity (e.g. 4chan). I think a key difference is that these huge platforms dramatically increase the reach of those communities by giving them much better tools, highly-available servers, etc. and in particular mainstreaming them into the same place everyone else is, making it easier to recruit and share outside those communities.

In the forum era, people had to learn about a particular site, learn the community, maybe create an account, etc. to know these existed — now it's just one Facebook share away and there's an advanced "engagement" system ensuring that anyone who likes something widely shared will continue to see other content from the same source without needing to seek it out. Brigading was most noticeable with a wave new of new accounts and there wasn't something like an ML system making that activity drive unrelated users to see it.

<comment><USER5> 4Chan is only 4 months older than Facebook and is hardly that profitable. Which is what changed, online dumpster fires where not attractive to advertisers but add a veneer of social networks and some basic location / demographic data and suddenly things change.

<comment><USER6> And some moderation. 4chan wasn't ever going to attract ad revenue because nobody at Coca-Cola wants their brand run alongside a goatse link.

But massive political fights aren't something that the advertisers (until recently) see as bad imagery for their brands.

<comment><USER7> 4chan has moderation. They just tend to take their duties exactly as seriously as everything else on the website.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I loved Max Wang's point that Facebook has chosen to focus on political engagement over social engagement. Like many people who used FB early, I remember when it was more about friends than allies (and opponents).

Facebook profits massively from the politics of outrage, and for Zuckerberg to claim that Free Speech is a moral imperative is for him to take a Strategy Credit[0]. While I strongly believe that Free Speech is a moral imperative, I don't believe that Facebook makes decisions on a moral basis.

[0]: [https://stratechery.com/2013/strategy- credit/](https://stratechery.com/2013/strategy-credit/)

<comment><USER9> Facebook makes decisions on a profit basis and by that metric is meteorically successful. These Facebook employees that spent years collecting their $500k pay cheques might want to consider this before posting their videos criticizing the company's direction

<comment><USER10> Max Wang, the person who posted the video criticizing the company, left the company.

<comment><USER9> My argument is you can't have it both ways. You want to collect $500k salaries you're going to have to live with your employer pursuing immense profits

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think the idea is we need diversity in online social media. I'd like to see human editors come back.

Here's how Benjamin Franklin dealt with his social media platform:

"In the conduct of my newspaper, I carefully excluded all libelling and personal abuse, which is of late years become so disgraceful to our country. Whenever I was solicited to insert anything of that kind, and the writers pleaded, as they generally did, the liberty of the press, and that a newspaper was like a stage-coach, in which any one who would pay had a right to a place... "

<comment><USER12> As long as the editors are "our guys" and not any of "their guys"

<comment><USER13> On the contrary, I regularly read articles and watch videos edited by "their guys". I don't have much interest in listening to people scream on social media, but I'm genuinely happy to learn the perspectives of people who don't think the same way as me.

<comment><USER14> A consequence of this is that you may find yourself changing your views-- or at least being more open minded about things your friends don't approve of.

If it's just politics with no direct relevance to your life-- are you really better off that way? Is being more right or just more open minded about something that you have no influence do you any good if it alienates you from friends or family at all?

<comment><USER13> Being more open minded allows me to maintain a friend group who's similarly open minded, and wouldn't ostracize me for holding opinions they don't approve of. From what I've seen this strategy works for most people, and life seems like it'd be really stressful otherwise; if I for example got a stalker and needed to start carrying a gun, I wouldn't want to be in a situation where my friends will abandon me if they find out.

I of course don't begrudge anyone who feels they have to keep a closed mind in order to maintain a reputation in their community.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Facebook is not a "social network" in any meaningful sense of that word. It's a largely unmoderated narrowcast platform accessible to anyone willing to put down the money to use it, regardless of motivation, as long as it isn't obviously pornographic.

<comment><USER16> Why can't it be both? I see people using it both ways, every day.

<comment><USER15> You see people _trying_ to use it that way, while wading through a morass of paid advertising and promoted memes. I can use a brick as a hammer, too, but that doesn't make the brick a hammer.

<comment><USER16> Why do so many people forget that _they control their feed_? Maybe less than some of us would like, but I carefully curate my feed and use mute and so on and my feed has _very_ little junk in it. Mostly family stuff and jokes/memes, with some ads for stuff that actually does interest me. It's not hard. Most of us here solve harder problems every day.

<comment><USER17> I did that until my feed was mostly empty and uninteresting, so I deleted my account.

<comment><USER18> But that assumes that the feed is the primary value of FB. For me the value is in the social graph. I don't even follow the posts of people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This long article doesnt address the most critical point.

If employees have an ethical issue with working there, why don't they quit?

This isn't a new dillemma. People working for tabacco companies have always been in the same boat.

<comment><USER20> > This long article doesnt address the most critical point.

> If employees have an ethical issue with working there, why don't they quit?

The article opens with a story of someone who quit.

<comment><USER21> It took him 9 years of collecting a fat paycheck and enabling Facebook to find his moral compass.

Is it wrong to be skeptical of these millionaire developers who ride off into the sunset to retire but leave a final "oh btw, lots of problematic stuff at my former employer" message?

<comment><USER20> It's not wrong to be skeptical. I do think there's a sort of boiling frog effect, though. Internal company culture never matches public perception, and you're always able to tell yourself a story that the public misunderstands what drives the company. After all, you hang out with your colleagues and you know they aren't bad people. But then some big controversy snaps you out of it and you realize that the company's internal collective fiction is no more accurate than the public perception, and perhaps you are the baddies after all.

<comment><USER22> hello, i'm the ex-employee in question and can speak authoritatively on the subject of myself :)

i joined FB for the first time as an intern almost a decade ago. i suspect i have a substantively different view of the company and the people who built it—even compared to many other employees, and certainly compared to folks who have not been in the ~room where it happens~ (heh).

even accounting for some amount of insider bias, i think there's still a material discrepancy between how the public viewed certain major FB "scandals"—via the lens of media spin and profitable reporting—and how many folks like myself, who were privy to additional context and private information, viewed them. to some people, the recent discord around hate moderation might seem like just more of the same FB badstuff. not so for me!

even folks at FB who don't work directly on certain products and policies are often immersed in discussion about them (unless they aggressively unsubscribe). these discussions, again, have their bias, but i hope we can concede that it's still a lot of passive brain cycles being spent swimming among these topics. folks develop deeper intuitions for how troubling X or Y publicized issue actually is, relative to all the things (of all flavors) that happen at FB and among its users. there's also a ton more discussion of legitimately positive societal work and how to extend those successes, whereas those rarely make good media narratives.

the good doesn't cancel out the bad—that's never how it works—but you do have to consider both together at every decision point.

in the leaked audio of my internal video post, i say that my long road to the door started in 2019. i still stand by that inflection point, and feel that before the, FB—while clearly on the back foot for some time due to rampant abuses by powerful groups of its product—was on balance moving in a direction i supported.

you may have made a different choice—or you may feel you would make a different choice, though you may not have the full slate of inputs right now to be sure you would, in situ. but, at least for me, i have reasons why the questions around the 2016 election or fake news or data breaches were things which, to me, seemed categorically different from the questions concerning hate moderation.

feel free to DM any earnest questions about why these things don't all congeal into one mass of problem for me (and i suspect other current and former FBers).

<comment><USER21> Thanks for this, Max. Easy upvote.

I'm still of the opinion that you chose personal gain over doing what you knew to be the right thing. It's something everyone (me included) does many times over. But the scale of wrongdoing by Facebook is exceptional.

Equally as possible is that our intuitions about "the right thing" are wildly different. I think that democracy, societal cohesion, and personal privacy are important and that Facebook has permanently damaged all three.

Which do you think it is?

<comment><USER22> i think you may be setting up a few false dichotomies here.

> the scale of wrongdoing by Facebook is exceptional

absolutely—but i think you (and certainly, many many people in the world) may be missing that this is in large part due to facebook's scale, period, not any specific wrongdoing-at-scale. facebook is enormous and has enormous impact. enormous quantities of good and bad things happen on facebook and through facebook every day. it's not enough to /just/ point to its "scale of wrongdoing" to say that it's "wrong" to associate with it. every government in the world causes harm at scale. should we embrace true anarchy? are we all culpable for participating in society? i mean, maybe yes to that last question; but it's not a very interesting answer, possibly because it's not a very interesting question.

i think you have to consider things holistically. facebook does harm—that's bad! does it do good at scale, also? how much of the harm is facebook's "responsibility", at least from the perspective of assigning moral culpability? (b/c obviously it's better to treat all fouls as your responsibility, because you control only your own actions.)

consider the 2016 election mess on social media. do we pin the blame squarely on social media here? if so, why? i think social media was caught off-guard. social media started its life as small circles and communities, grew into a media and meme distribution platform, and then somehow became hijacked by powerful entities fueled by state money (including states themselves) as a dezinformatsiya and propaganda side hustle. was it FB's responsibility to predict and prevent that, even when so few others did or could? if so—are those other people and platforms not morally culpable for not making enough noise or action? are the state actors themselves not morally culpable for their atrocious agency?

in late 2016 and early 2017, i read lots of opinions and articles on the NYT about how FB didn't defend against disinformation and propped up negative political content. why did the NYT write so few opinions and articles about how the NYT published story after story of tabloidal but-her-emails drama, or how the NYT gave the trump sitcom team so much free press?

facebook is very big and powerful but it is not beyond exploitation. should we hold it morally culpable for being exploited in these ways? facebook is not only the messenger, but a lot of the times it is, and perhaps we should not be so quick to proverbially shoot it.

> I think that democracy, societal cohesion, and personal privacy are > important and that Facebook has permanently damaged all three

dovetailing off the above: are the instruments of the state not causing this same damage? are traditional media conglomerates not causing this same damage? are political entities accepting massive cash injections not causing this same damage? are certain social institutions like megachurches not causing this same damage? are social norms sculpted by late capitalism not causing this same damage?

do you curse your server for bringing you bad food?

this question is rhetorical. the answer is obviously yes, people do that all the time, but like, maybe they shouldn't.

so for me the question is, how much of this damage do i feel that facebook is "immediately" responsible for, versus "secondarily" responsible for. i brought up the 2016 election above. my view is that FB was in large part taken by surprise and exploited in the course of those events.

obviously, i have insider bias here. but much as both-sides-ing every single argument is not actually a "neutral" position, neither is the position of being on the "outside" and not having insider bias. neutrality is a fiction; there's nothing truthier about being on the insider vs. on the outside.

but my position gave me (and other FBers) access to information about motion, decisions, and human actions which informed my evaluation of culpability. much of the "scandals" in FB-the-darling-child-of-the-media's history had a similar feel. facebook had some posture, it largely worked alright and allowed for good or neutral stuff to happen, conditions changed, "small" (but still at- scale) but high-profile harm was incurred due to some bad faith actors, and facebook responded. not interesting to me, someone who watches this process happen literally every day.

employees didn't have trust in FB because they were given literal kool-aid to drink; it's because they had extra information and sometimes it led to obvious conclusions that are utterly non-obvious without that information.

but i think facebook's response to hate moderation has a different texture. it's had years to adapt to the new reality of constant assault from political forces (though i would never, ever expect or want perfection here). but rather than pushing back—as it did in pretty much all past privacy or data breaches—it seems to be adjusting to explicitly allow for and tolerate some of this behavior which i consider "bad".

why i stayed at FB past the moment at which i developed this concrete concern is for entirely selfish reasons. but don't conflate that inflection point with the whole history of FB's narrative, as told by the media. you may feel the whole story has a uniform texture, but i don't, and i suspect other FBers do not, and i suspect it's because there are good reasons to feel that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Facebook's famously tight-knit and tight-lipped engineering organization has become increasingly leaky in the past couple of years, as posts and data make it to the press with surprising regularity.

What changed? Is it morale? Or something that happens at scale? Does the rate of leaks say anything about the health of the company?

<comment><USER24> Talk to a reporter about why people leak. The reason people leak is when they feel that the organization doesn't listen to them and they can't steer the organization any other way. If your employees feel respected and listened to- and that their internal warnings are being heeded- they won't leak to an outsider. If they feel that they are a Cassandra, doomed to be correct but ignored, they will leak.

Now sometimes workers are wrong- the problem they were obsessed with wasn't actually that serious, their boss did take their advice into account and decided to resolve it a different way, etc., but in general, lack of respect is why people leak.

The implications for Facebook are obvious.

</comment></comment><comment> tech-historian > "Yaël Eisenstat, Facebook's former election ads integrity lead, said the > employees' concerns reflect her experience at the company, which she > believes is on a dangerous path heading into the election.

> "All of these steps are leading up to a situation where, come November, a > portion of Facebook users will not trust the outcome of the election because > they have been bombarded with messages on Facebook preparing them to not > trust it," she told BuzzFeed News.

> She said the company's policy team in Washington, DC, led by Joel Kaplan, > sought to unduly influence decisions made by her team, and the company's > recent failure to take appropriate action on posts from President Trump > shows employees are right to be upset and concerned."

This is pretty damning stuff, coming from named, authoritative sources inside the company. I'm hopeful that the recent advertiser boycott will help shift priorities with leadership at the company, but I'm not holding my breath.

<comment><USER25> This is extremely predictable though, because a sizable segment of Facebook users did not trust the outcome of the 2016 election. Why would it be any different in 2020?

<comment><USER26> People trust the outcome generally, whether they like it or hate it. The folks aren't trusting the inputs.

2020 is not 2016. Polling is suggesting a large shift. That may cause distrust in the outcome itself if the outcome doesn't align to polling due to voter suppression efforts and other possible issues.

<comment><USER27> Is the polling really all that different from this point in 2016? As I recall, in 2016, the eventual winner was way down in the polls right up until election day.

<comment><USER2> By the time of the election, the polls had narrowed considerably. There were a lot of clowns with predictions of 99% chances and whatnot, but people that actually understood statistics and polls had the race a lot closer to a coin flip at the time of the election (IIRC 60-40 odds).

<comment><USER28> FiveThirtyEight had Trump at 29%. Most others had him at 1-15%. Betting markets had him at 18%.

[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight- gav...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a- better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Social media, and all of the "talking heads" on network news and talk radio, are basically in an arms race, just like advertisers have been for years. For instance, Coke can't stop advertising because then Pepsi or another brand will take over, i.e., they have to keep it up. We are now at that same point with politics: everyone has to keep it up, and even more so; constantly upping the ante. Facebook is the dominant platform for upping the ante, which gives them money, and more importantly, power.

</comment><comment><USER30> There seems to be a growing consensus here on HN that Facebook's ad-based revenue model is a source issue for why extremity, polarization, toxicity, and usage addition is occurring on the platform. All of these elements drive up engagement. The more engagement you have, the more profit the company makes. It's a feedback loop that's helping the company and shareholders, but at the cost of the stability of society at large. So here's one idea to address the problem that I'd like to get other's thoughts on. What if we declare ad-based revenue streams for social media platforms a form of market failure? What if we made it the law that social networks must charge a premium, a subscription- model if you will, to use their services. "Want to use Facebook? You'll need to subscribe for $2/month". What do you think the experience of using Facebook would be like then and, to an extent, society at large? It has been my experience that services I must subscribe to do a better job of respecting my data, privacy, are less toxic, have higher quality content, and are less addicting. What I am suggesting here is that the desired behavior can be directed through proper incentives.

</comment><comment><USER31> it took Covid for me to really believe how dangerous social media has become to society. it really has made people more divisive and angry and conspiratorial.

didn't really buy it when the Russia bot thing happened but now I do 100%

</comment><comment><USER32> The media always blames Mark for every bad action that his company does, but what about all the other employees, aren't they just as guilty as him?

<comment> site-packages1 It's possible to be an employee at what you think is an immoral company but be doing some innocuous that's just a part of a bigger whole. Does improving an internal observability tool as your job make you just as culpable as Mark? At what point do your actions become immoral? Just working for the company? Building anything for the company while an employee? Maybe you have to be the last step implementor of some bad policy before the immorality attaches. I don't really know.

But the answers to these questions aren't clear and up for debate. What is harder to argue is whether the person directing everything and with a bird's eye view of the direction of the company is culpable for that company's misdeeds. I think this makes it more clear to blame Mark than "all the other employees."

<comment><USER33> > At what point do your actions become immoral?

When your livelihood is funded by this kind of vile deception and manipulation, your actions are undoubtedly immoral.

<comment><USER22> sounds like you should cease participation in capitalism and also society then. i know a guy popping out of a well who would like to have a word with you!

you might not like the messy reality, but there are lots of my former coworkers who feel inclined to stick around because of their work visa, or to pay off their loans, or because they felt their FB offer was a lucky break and they want to best support their kids.

if you're not responsible for all violence or oppression in your nation as a citizen, trust me—folks employed by a given employer are likewise not wholly culpable for the actions of their companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Do people who work at facebook proudly tell people they just met at bar that they work at facebook? cause it wouldn't play well in my circles.

<comment><USER35> no, my team at least says they got bought out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> FB's religion around AB testing for engagement and their views on free speech (which are mostly good) creates a complicated product that brings out much of the worst in people. They need to reevaluate their engagement at all costs philosophy.

</comment><comment><USER37> I used to have a Facebook account and deleted it in 2009-2010. This is just me brainstorming, but would it make sense to have to submit a photocopy of your ID card to create a real name account for such a huge company, for the sake of creating something of a safe online forum/community? I would think people would be more responsible with what they post. I had done so for OfferUp, which to me, makes sense because people need to have a sense of safety and security when interacting with each other. I'd like to hear what others think.

<comment><USER30> Years ago, Facebook for some reason thought I was a bot and disabled my account. They required that I upload a government issued ID to verify I am a real person. I was finding Facebook to be detrimental to my health at that time, so I felt it a perfect opportunity to leave the platform all together. Plus I didn't exactly feel comfortable giving them that kind of information.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> The thing that annoys the living shit out of me are two fold:

1) the content policy for the public is clear, well thought out and easy to understand. but that doesn't apply to politicians. The rules that apply to politicians is hidden, opaque and taken on the fly.

2) the moral compass of the leadership team is fundamentally blinkered and naive. They do not understand or seem to want to understand viewpoints of other people. Unless you are posh & rich and upper middle class, you have to battle really hard to get your point across.

</comment><comment><USER38> Is there a source for the video? I am only seeing an audio clip in this article and I can't seem to find the video by googling "Max Wang facebook".

<comment><USER39> The engineer just posted the video themselves to YouTube: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyBQ1_a70KI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyBQ1_a70KI)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> We should probably make a 2020 version of this post:

[https://qbix.com/blog/2019/03/08/how-qbix-platform-can- chang...](https://qbix.com/blog/2019/03/08/how-qbix-platform-can-change-the- world/)

Another month another 20 reasons to have an open source alternative.

</comment><comment><USER41> I have the impression we invented that Big Machine that drove the Krell to extinction in Forbidden Planet. It's just so that's far less spectacular than in the movie.

</comment><comment><USER42> One thing that's interesting is that Facebook has also come under fire for banning/censoring anti-racists and black people for talking about racism: [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/04/24/facebook- whil...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/04/24/facebook-while-black- zucked-users-say-they-get-blocked-racism-discussion/2859593002/)

It would be one thing if they didn't censor anything, but censoring anti- racism but not racism seems to show that FB is taking a pro-racism stance.

<comment><USER43> From the article:

> "White men are so fragile," she fired off, sharing William's post with her > friends, "and the mere presence of a black person challenges every single > thing in them."

> It took just 15 minutes for Facebook to delete her post for violating its > community standards for hate speech.

I'm pretty sure that comments like that don't count as "anti-racism".

<comment><USER42> They definitely do.

But anyway, that's only a single example, one women was banned for posting a screenshot of a racist message she received.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Does WeChat cause the same problems in China as Facebook & Twitter in the west?

<comment><USER45> Maintaining societal cohesion is the justification for a great many of PRC's actions (I would say 'evils', but that's my judgement), including the Great Firewall, extermination of Uyghurs, etc. It is fundamentally a waste of time to compare that society to America's melting pot on the level we're discussing.

<comment><USER44> Non of the solutions China comes up with is worth to discuss?

<comment><USER46> I've found it even of little use to bring up frameworks of other Western countries. I once got a lot of angry replies because I brought up the German approach of mostly just tackling hate speech and having independent non-profit fact-checking organisations label and correct posts, which is about as non- invasive as it gets while trying to deal with the problem, still got a ton of responses about censorship and free speech.

The US is basically free-speech fundamentalist. Expression trumps truth, with that view in mind you by definition can't deal with the problem.

<comment><USER45> Those concepts of "truth" and "fact" may feel like absolutes but are a product of the observer. When people with similar beliefs/cultures/backgrounds/goals observe the same thing then it's easy to agree on what's true and what's not true. In general I think it's not a good look to tell somebody that the world they perceive is untrue, and that's why I support free speech as basic a human right :)

<comment><USER46> we're not talking about some highbrow philosophical disagreement or argument about cultural values, we're talking about very basic facts, which have the benefit of actually having truth value regardless of whatever people think.

The pandemic is a pretty good example. There are actually a lot of protocols and behaviours that have shown to make it so hundreds of thousands of people don't have to die regardless of what timezone or nation or religion or political party you're in, yet aided by constant social media barrage the US is so divided it can't even manage to enforce that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> need a culture that has integrity, transparency, and social responsibility.

</comment><comment><USER48> I have been wondering why Facebook has become the only platform that tolerates right-wing speech. The other platforms took the convenient route and kicked out right-wing voices.

Why exactly is Facebook risking both bad press and a revolt from its overwhelmingly progressive employees?

<comment><USER49> Facebook can afford to do so because they have higher margins allowing for more experimentation/risk-taking. Businesses in more competitive spaces are unable to take tough stands.

The New York Times cannot be the New York Times of New York Times v Sullivan anymore, because their ad monopoly has been decimated. But Facebook can be the NYT of NYT v Sullivan, because they have 40% margins on their ad business.

One thing I have been wondering is: why is Google so lacking in conviction?

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> > a post from President Donald Trump that seemingly called for violence > against people protesting the police killing of George Floyd.

This seems very unlikely, and there's no link or screenshot of the actual post to support the statement. Twitter has previously taken statements that laws will be enforced as 'calls to violence' so it wouldn't be surprising if the same thing is occurring here.

<comment><USER49> The steel-man argument is that the President's statements practically amount to an _indirect_ call for violence. There's no other way for the state to enforce laws except to use the messy apparatus of the police, which may result in collateral damage/violence.

<comment><USER51> The truly steel-man assessment of the President's statement of "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" is that he meant it empirically, not normatively -- describing what inevitably occurs in an environment of sustained looting (shootings committed by people guarding property, looters, and law enforcement).

If you want to be extra charitable, he possibly made that statement empirically to describe a tragic situation he wanted to prevent entirely by dispersing protests early. Such a justification and reasoning would be very authoritarian and is arguably wrong in efficacy, but that interpretation does not involve an indirect or direct threat of shooting.

My grandmother (an English teacher) once castigated email and predicted it would condition people at all levels to not be precise in language, and warned of how communications and ideas would degrade as a result. As a young nerd I thought that was absurd and the opposite would be true, but now seeing Twitter I have changed my mind.

<comment><USER49> Yeah that's the steel-man counterargument.

My steel-man was an attempt to justify the deletion of Trump's post: by making the best possible case that it's actually a normative call to violence (even if indirect).

<comment><USER52> Since Trump literally explained his comment, your steel-man seems entirely wrong/misplaced.

I'd rather Twitter just ban Trump entirely because he's an asshole and they don't like him. Such a policy would be far more honest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> "If a man is not a Socialist at 20 be has no heart, but if he remains one at 30 he has no head." I don't know who said this, but this is a great example of how our minds mature.

The probably unintentional ageism in tech has a major, quite literally civilization changing consequence.

We are creating power centers which have too many young people who haven't really thought a lot of things through, certainly not the unintended economic consequences, and who glibly dismiss people who disagree with their premises as some kind of "ism".

<comment><USER54> That's a crass dismissal of the people involved here _and_ socialism. You think that the problem really is that everyone at Facebook is too young and is thus more inclined toward recklessness (somehow involving socialism)?

PS: Would you be shocked to learn that some become socialists after age 30?

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Social medias have been silencing every conservative opinion on their platforms, because most of their employees can't stand different opinions. These people are unmanageable and want to make activism using a platform they don't own. At the same time they look the other way when it comes to progressive comments. If he doesn't like different opinions, intrinsic to democracy, maybe we should ask Mr Wang's parents if they miss China.

<comment><USER56> Turning this into a nationalistic slur and personal attack is no way to make your case. It also breaks the site guidelines and will get you banned here, so please don't go that route.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)</comment></comment>


Comparing NLP APIs for Entity Extraction - <AUTHOR> http://faganm.com/blog/2010/01/02/1009/

<comment><USER2> Thanks a lot for this post! I'm currently looking for a tool to help apply semantic analysis to review content. Just signed up for OpenAmplify to get a better look. Let me know if you find anything else.

</comment><comment><USER3> A very informative post. I have used Alchemy and I am very impressed with their Named Entity extraction.</comment>


Ask HN: What successful products you know use the Customer Development model   - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> That's the wrong question. Outside of the startup world, the Customer Development Model is known as "Sales and Marketing".</comment>


Statistical Natural Language Processing in Python - <AUTHOR> http://nbviewer.ipython.org/url/norvig.com/ipython/How%20to%20Do%20Things%20with%20Words.ipynb

<comment><USER2> It took me a while to recognize they were Norvig's notes. Only after I saw the spell checker code it kicked in and then I paid attention to the username in the URL. Perhaps next time it would be nice to make it clear in the title... just my 2 cents.

<comment><USER3> Modern browsers are hiding the url, and title more and more.

<comment><USER4> In this case the title is actually empty.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> +1 nice!

I don't usually use Python (favoring Clojure, Java 8, JavaScript, and Ruby) but I am installing IPython right now so I can play with this interactively. As someone else already pointed out these are Peter Norvig's notes.

</comment><comment><USER6> Unusually for an online notebook, the cells have been saved in an unexecuted state. Making the page uninteresting if not worthless.

<comment><USER7> There's a download link on the top-right.

<comment><USER6> Well at first glance I assumed that it couldn't be run correctly because of the dependency on "big.txt". But digging a little deeper it turns out you can download that file (which happens to be the Project Gutenburg text of The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes) from Norvig's website [1], so I suppose it is useful after all. But not exactly user-friendly.

[1] [http://norvig.com/ipython/big.txt](http://norvig.com/ipython/big.txt)</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Heybill - Automatically Fetch Your Invoices From The Command Line - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/plehoux/heybill

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here, I was fed up wasting my time fetching hundreds of invoices during tax season. Collectively we could create a pretty powerful scraping application that lets us download all of our invoices in minutes.

I plan on adding many more providers, next one being AWS.

I'm open to any pull request!

</comment><comment><USER2> This is what manilla.com does (full disclosure I work there), albeit a few other things as well. We don't have some of the technical (aws, github) providers, but do have more popular ones like amex, att, comcast, etc.

We periodically retrieve them and store them for free-but you have to trust us with your credentials.

</comment><comment><USER3> Cool little project, seems like this would be a good starting point for anyone wanting to contribute to open source.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I'm totally open to pull requests!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Does it pull from AT&T invoices? Comcast? Centerpoint?

</comment><comment><USER5> AMEX statements would be amazing.

<comment><USER6> +1 for Amex statements. Also, would be awesome to have option to store to S3 bucket</comment></comment>


Why restaurants should post calories on their menus - <AUTHOR> http://amazingserviceguy.com/2822/customer-service-and-calorie-counts/

<comment><USER2> _They might become the healthiest and most popular restaurant in town._

Or, they might go out of business, as people are made uncomfortable by the calorie count, and take their business to places where they can eat their calorie-bombs in blissful ignorance.

It's a risk.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> In the end it depends on what customers really want. How important is healthy food as a part of their overall dining experience?</comment>


Introducing Instant Articles - <AUTHOR> http://media.fb.com/2015/05/12/instantarticles/

<comment><USER2> If you can't beat'em, join'em? I'm very skeptic about the sustainability of a model where you, the publisher, are kindly hosted by someone else's platform. You'll have much less control and you'll be basically giving Facebook your content (for free?) in return for the ability to run your own ads on their platform... Just another giant step towards the atomization of publishing.</comment>


Republicans push bill requiring tech companies to help access encrypted data - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/news/republicans-push-bill-requiring-tech-companies-to-help-access-encrypted-data/ <comment><USER2> I am sure that China wants this to happen.</comment>


The First Commit of Kubernetes - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/boddumanohar/kubernetes-first-commit <comment><AUTHOR> Kubernetes was first launched in the repo: [https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes](https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes).

It doesn't use docker as container runtime. And also the pods were also called `tasks`.

From: [https://github.com/boddumanohar/kubernetes-first- commit/blob...](https://github.com/boddumanohar/kubernetes-first- commit/blob/first-commit/api/kubernetes.raml)

``` The Kubernetes API currently manages 3 main resources: tasks, replicationControllers, and services. Tasks correspond to colocated groups of [Docker containers]([http://docker.io/](http://docker.io/)) with shared volumes, as supported by [Google Cloud Platform's container-vm images]([https://developers.google.com/compute/docs/containers](https://developers.google.com/compute/docs/containers)) . Singleton tasks can be created directly via the /tasks endpoint. Sets of tasks may created, maintained, and scaled using replicationControllers. Services create load-balanced targets for sets of tasks. ```

<comment><USER2> First /public/ commit after the scrub. :)

There's an internal repo which goes back a month or so. It turns out Joe Beda wasn't the first first committer...</comment></comment>


Amazon introduces Petlexa – Echo communication with pets - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdhxzqkvkZw <comment><USER2> Oh no, the April Fools stuff is starting. To me it's the stupidest day of the year. Most of the stuff is neither funny nor amusing. It's just a waste of everyone's energy and time.</comment>


Google releases Chrome for Linux beta - Linux Critic - <AUTHOR> http://www.linuxcritic.com/stories/58-Google-releases-Chrome-for-Linux-beta.html <comment><USER2> This article doesn't even really say anything, blogspam it seems.</comment>