Ask YC: The value of internships? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a sophomore in college who has a small non-startup product business that's started taking off. I develop Mac software. It's been paying off well for the small amount of time I've been able to sink into it, and there's a lot I could do to serve my customers better and attract more business. Kind of exciting.
But I'm also interning at a company. I've interned at a few before. Since I've just had the first month where I made more off my own business than wages from the internship, it's made me re-evaluate a lot of things. It feels really weird.
While I could quit the internship and lose credit for it, and funnel all my energy (instead of a couple hours a day) into improving my own business...something in that doesn't appeal to me.
In a way, I kind of want to be a corporate slave for a few years. I'm learning a little about business and working with other people. I really need to have some daily interaction with other human beings to stay sane. I also recognize a lot of gaps in my non-technical skills that I'm going to need experience to fill.
But on the other hand, it's also extremely frustrating and demotivating at times. Everything happens really slowly with a lot of BS in the way. And, even though I've taken some initiative in the company and contributed to a lot of projects...you can't entrust any kind of responsibility to an intern, and you definitely can't promote one. Unlike when I'm working for myself, there's no advantage to figuring out more efficient ways of doing things or pressing myself to work harder.
So I find myself being less effective than I would otherwise be just because of the environment. Most of the interesting, technically-challenging work is given to other people, and, if not, attributed to other people upon completion.
And, because of my own business competing for my time, often the slightest little indignity will make me think about quitting and be really grumpy for a couple days.
So what would you do? I don't want to burn any bridges, but I want to be happy. <comment><USER2> I think having an internship at a powerful company is a great way to open doors in the future; you just may not realize it now. I say if you can manage your company AND intern at the same time, it's more than worth it. Being a young entrepreneur is never easy-but you'll find you can endure a hell of a lot more than you initially perceive.

If best comes to best and your software takes off even more, create a particular limit to decide when you will drop the internship and focus 100% on the software. When you're making 5x from the software as your internship; when you are working 2x as much; etc. It's up to your needs and desires.

The bottom line: Internships are meant to either teach you the ropes or to open doors. If you feel yours isn't doing either, then ditch it; you're not getting your effort's worth out of it. If it's at a huge company like mine was (NASA), then it's a sticky situation and you might want to stay the course just for the sake of resume-building.

</comment><comment><USER3> Experience in a company is not nearly as valuable as you might think. It mainly teaches you to deal with BS and politics. You can probably do without that skillset.

You'll learn far more from working for yourself and trying to grow your business than from putting up with crap at your internship Unless you happen to have some awesome mentors at work, it's not worth it.

QUIT! Focus your energy on your business and on meeting like minded people. Want to interact with people? Find user groups meeting in your area, do some hacking at Starbucks, find some conferences and attend some sprints, hang out here when you get bored.

<comment><USER4> During college: crappy internship < working for yourself < good internship

Sounds like you have a crappy internship. Working for yourself is a good option, but may not be the best. Besides, you have the rest of the year to work on your business.

I was in a similar position as you. I had a part-time business that was making as much as most people their first year out of college. I decided to grow it and work on it full-time during the summers.

Thinking back, it was kind of a mistake. I started hating my work and eventually suffered major burnout, due to a variety of unforeseen variables even though I was still making really good money.

Afterwards, I went looking for jobs, but had limited options due to my hodge podge of expertise. I would have had more attractive options and flexibility if I had covered my bets and taken a good internship.

A good internship is one where you build useful contacts, develop marketable skills, pursue an industry/area that you might be interested in for a career/business. If you are looking for something technically challenging, why not join Google's Summer of Code? Look for a good prof to take you under his wing? Shadow a guy that you want to be in 5 years? Work at Apple? Get street cred with an open source project?

You should be focused on exploring, finding your passions, getting useful experience, opening up more attractive opportunities. Not so much money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> On the issue of wage vs wage:

If you are seeing more benefit from working on your own and producing software you _truly_ believe will succeed use that as motivating platform to become an unsung hero in your niche while at the same time proving to be an asset with the company. This may result in becoming a full-time employee and later on down the road a promotion and bigger paycheck.

On becoming a corporate slave:

Try not to look at it like this. As I mentioned, become an asset early on, but establish a pace in which you can work. Corporate work is very important to have in your tool belt as it shows you have the capacity to work in a very structured environment, and have the ability to interface with multiple levels of personnel. Yes it can be demotivating, but see above on being an unsung hero.

On being effective:

Tell them this. Show them that you want to take on some challenge and responsibility, but remind them you do know your role in the company as an intern and want to maximize the best of that situation. I mention this particularly because I was offered an internship with a radio station with the webmaster. Halfway through the interview it became apparent that the individual was very inexperienced, and only received the job she had because she knew more than the rest of the company about HTML and CSS. It became even more apparent that she was only looking for an intern to perform grunt work and left absolutely no room for growth (not to mention I knew much more about web development than she did). I declined the offer, but was also hired by the IT department at the same radio station as an analyst and I don't regret it one bit.

On being happy:

Do whatever brings about that feeling of joy. If it means leaving the company and following your own path, but receiving a smaller paycheck, by all means go for it. If you're happy doing what you do best, and if it works, no one can tell you otherwise.

These are lessons that I had to learn the very hard way throughout the past 3 years, but I don't regret enduring it one bit.

</comment><comment><USER6> It depends on your personality. I've been working for 9 years, and I hate corporate drudgery like I hate hell. If I were in your shoes and earning enough off my own business, I wouldn't think twice about jumping ship. As your company grows, bring on people with diverse skills and learn from them. Even if it worked, I would never trade a few years on the plantation for knowledge to run my own farm.

Edit: You have to ask yourself: are you an entrepreneur or not? You might not even know for sure at this point, and it's okay to change your mind later. However, you have the holy grail of entrepreneurship sitting on your lap right now: a self-made business that pays you enough to live. After you reach that point, your upside is MUCH greater than working for someone else.

Read "Founders at Work" and ask yourself if you want your story added to a future version someday. Then read "Dilbert", and ask yourself which way you'd rather spend your life.

</comment><comment><USER7> What's your Mac software?

How long is your internship?

I think getting experience in a company is valuable, but if your software is good you might as well run with that and get experience from having to face problems as your company grows. If it's growing you'll be able to get others to impart their wisdom without being a wage slave for many years.</comment>


VHX raises $1.25M for film self-distribution from Lerer, kn0thing, Sacca & more - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/06/19/vhx-1-25-million-lerer-ventures/

<comment><USER2> comments from TC "The best founder/market fit ever" - amen</comment>


TCP/IP over Lego model train - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/110603-tcpip-over-lego-model-train <comment><USER2> Ah, damn. A USB stick. I was really hoping the train would be carrying actual SYNs, ACKs and DATA payloads using differently colored bricks :)

<comment><USER3> The wonderful thing about nerd rage is that it gets stupid things done. I fully expect to see a response project of ACTUAL TCP/IP implementations via lego trains. Hell, multiple response projects, probably.

And then someone will do IPX/SPX just to be cute.

<comment><USER4> > _I fully expect to see a response project of ACTUAL TCP/IP implementations > via lego trains._

Here's hoping that they also work their way up the OSI stack. I'm looking forward to seeing what "418 I'm a teapot" looks like from the LEGO http server.

<comment><USER5> or even a full x.400 mail system linking to a real x.500 directory

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would had called the post "TCP/IP on Rails"

</comment><comment><USER7> The article doesn't do much to explain how it uses TCP/IP which makes me wonder if it does at all?

</comment><comment><USER8> So, token ring networking with a data-carrying physical token. Neat.

</comment><comment><USER9> It would be neater if it were a freight train carrying blocks for bits. Using a USB key isn't really 'Lego' enough.

<comment><USER10> The trick would be loading/unloading the cars in a reliable and fast way. With a multi-cart train running in a loop, I probably wouldn't shoot for TCP/IP.

Something like T1 would be a lot easier to implement because it uses very straight forward time-division-mutiplexing (serial by nature). You could use a simplistic encoding method like AMI, but your frames would have to be much smaller. The simplest T1 carrier frame is 192 data bits with 1 signaling bit, so you're looking at a pretty massive train. Because the physical train itself could serve as the frame boundaries, you could use 16 cars and carry two bytes per trip.

The bit rate and latency are going to suck though ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> it reminds me of IP over Avian Carriers: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers>

<comment><USER12> You mean one of the humorous RFCs that the article refers to and links to already, right?</comment></comment>


Vulnerability in golang.org/x/crypto/salsa20 - <AUTHOR> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-dev/1X7VG7FDw2A <comment><USER2> In the next 10 years or so the use of AEAD modes like AES-GCM and ChaCha20-Poly1305 will come back to bite people. As per usual, the culprit will be really smart people convinced they can get away with compromises made for the benefit of speed and message size overhead, and who feel absolved from responsibility when application developers don't read the fine print.

This vicious cycle won't stop until we simply use a minimum of 256-bit block sizes at all stages. IOW, until it's literally _impossible_ to reuse or overrun nonce and IV space without being willful about it. Anything beyond "initialize X to 0 and initialize Y to 128 bits of random data" will come back to bite people, and the only way to make things that simple is to increase block sizes.

Another way to look at it is that every aspect of the system should provide a minimum of 128 bits of security, irrespective of context--message size, number of messages, birthday attack, etc. Anything less is _not_ future proof, and the future always comes much faster than you think. Again, the only way to get that is 256-bit or 512-bit block sizes.

Alas, even AES-256 still has 128-bit output blocks, which makes AES-256-GCM less than fail-safe when you need to worry about multi-gigabyte streams. Yes, technically doable; trivial, even. But if you have to think about it--if the scheme's characteristics change between a single, 1-byte message and billions of multi-gigabyte messages--you've already lost. On the network and in the cloud systems that are contingent on magnitude are dangerous. I think the future will be in approaches like STROBE. SHA-3 will seem less like it's over engineered and more like it's the final solution.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The relevant diff from the patch can be found here[1].

[1] [https://go.googlesource.com/crypto/+/b7391e95e576cacdcdd4225...](https://go.googlesource.com/crypto/+/b7391e95e576cacdcdd422573063bc057239113d%5E%21/#F1)</comment>


Anthem Blue Cross hack: Millions of records breached at health insurer - <AUTHOR> http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_27462893/health-insurer-anthem-hit-by-hackers-millions-records

<comment><USER2> Here's official statement (got an email from BCBS with same content): [http://anthemfacts.com/](http://anthemfacts.com/)

The biggest question I have is why such sensitive data was not encrypted.</comment>


Facebook Says EU Privacy Law Caused User Drop. Europe Disagrees - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-27/facebook-says-eu-privacy-law-caused-user-drop-europe-disagrees <comment><USER2> sed -i 's/Europe Disagrees/Europe Doesn't Care/' post.title</comment>


Ask HN: What is your preferred data visualization library and why? - <AUTHOR> All other things being equal, which would you choose? <comment><USER2> For geographic data [https://github.com/mapbox/tippecanoe](https://github.com/mapbox/tippecanoe) (examples [https://github.com/mapbox/tippecanoe/blob/master/MADE_WITH.m...](https://github.com/mapbox/tippecanoe/blob/master/MADE_WITH.md)), if I had enough time to learn a new one [http://kepler.gl/](http://kepler.gl/)

For bar charts [http://www.chartjs.org/](http://www.chartjs.org/) and when requirements are more complex [http://nvd3.org/](http://nvd3.org/) or [https://d3js.org/](https://d3js.org/)

For time series it used to be [https://omnipotent.net/jquery.sparkline/](https://omnipotent.net/jquery.sparkline/) but last release was 5 years ago.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> My interest in the different paradigms and approaches to data visualization stems from some problems I'm working on having a lot of parallels with how plotting library APIs work.

Personally, my main encounter with plotting was in Python. I'm not a big fan of matplotlib, I got the impression that with increasing plot complexity, code complexity grew exponentially. Then there's bokeh [0], which I preferred to matplotlib, due to it being more declarative. HoloViews [1] is more declarative than both matplotlib and bokeh, and boasts that "usually [you can] express what you want to do in very few lines of code, letting you focus on what you are trying to explore and convey, not on the process of plotting". I've not used HoloViews yet.

Then I've heard of R's ggplot [2], which is based on (or inspired by?) The Grammar of Graphics [3]. This books is definitely something I want to check out.

Vega [4], an "assembly language" for visualization, is neither here nor there as far as this discussion goes, but nonetheless I just stumbled upon it and I'm quite optimistic about the initiative. Maybe someone will not have heard of it.

[0] [https://bokeh.pydata.org/en/latest/docs/user_guide/concepts....](https://bokeh.pydata.org/en/latest/docs/user_guide/concepts.html) [1] [http://holoviews.org/](http://holoviews.org/) [2] [http://r4ds.had.co.nz/data-visualisation.htm](http://r4ds.had.co.nz/data- visualisation.htm) [3] [https://www.amazon.com/Grammar-Graphics-Statistics- Computing...](https://www.amazon.com/Grammar-Graphics-Statistics- Computing/dp/0387245448) [4] [https://vega.github.io/vega/about/](https://vega.github.io/vega/about/)</comment>


Focus has become more valuable than intelligence (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://alexand.ro/2018/08/how-focus-became-more-valuable-than-intelligence <comment><USER4> As someone that is "on the spectrum," I can report that focus can be pretty awesome. I generate _vast_ amounts of code, in relatively short time, and am an insanely obsessive debugger.

However, it don't come for free. If I get "roused" from my "fugue" (what I call "the zone"), I can be cranky. This has not always been helpful in my marriage.

Also, I find that I can be "vocabularily challenged" for a few minutes after I break out, sounding like a complete moron; struggling for the most basic terminology. "Whatchacallit" is one of my most-uttered phrases.

<comment><USER5> I have been experiencing exactly this in the last 10 years without being aware it was a side effect of high focus.

10 years ago I was really bad at studying, then I had a peak of low self esteem, believing I was not intelligent. Ready to give up uni, my GF suggested I'd give myself only one more opportunity.

So I started studying like it was the very last time I'd do it. Like, in an angry state, like I was demonstrating to myself no matter how hard, it was useless.

This is how I discovered my brain only had a "fast gear", and the "slow gear" that normal people used was basically not working for my brain.

I breezed through all my exams, got a series of cool jobs and promotions, now I own my company and sell my own software to Fortune 50 companies.

The side effect of operating at peak concentration levels is becoming socially impaired, and verbally inept exactly like Chris Marshall above described. This has non trivial social consequences.

The amazing thing here is that I just thought I was getting older and grumpier. But now I understand it's in fact tied to the focus. Thanks Chris, now I know what it is, and maybe I can try to tune it down for a period to see what happens.

<comment><USER6> Does this resonate with anyone else? Is there any studies on this?

I've had a similar experience over the past few years — a ton of work focus (at a FAANGM as an ML scientist/engineer) combined with limited social interaction and I've noticed my ability to have normal social interactions has declined greatly ("verbally inept" and "difficulty with empathy" pretty much hit it on the head). There's potentially confounding factors in my case so I've been hesitant to attribute it to overfocusing at work although I've considered it may be a cause.

In retrospect I'm coming to the conclusion that it's not really a worthwhile tradeoff and I've been pulling back from work a bit. To add to the larger discussion, I thought I was focusing on work for the right reasons (making a difference in the world, gaining skills, self-actualization) but after getting my "dream job" it turned out that it the job wasn't very fulfilling at all. No technical challenge or abstract impact metrics really did much for my happiness (or money fwiw)... at the end of the day it's still rewarding social interactions (which don't necessarily _have_ to be outside of work) that control the needle for me.

<comment><USER7> It resonates with me from a different direction. Up until I've become a dad I could crank out vast amounts of code and dive very deep into a given topic relatively quickly, producing extensive results when being able to focus, but since then I have a strict schedule, can't easily say "I'm coming home a few hours later today" or things like that to conserve momentum, I feel my output drastically reduced.

I'm currently looking for ways to reorganize my way of working so I get a better output and require less compromises of my family.

<comment><USER8> I've found it extremely useful to keep a detailed log of my thoughts and ideas as I'm working on a problem that requires focus. It's like a thread dump or memory dump of my thinking. Then, if I get interrupted for whatever reason, I can easily go back to the notes and "restore" from the thread dump.

This is a pretty good blog post I found on the subject: [http://faq.sealedabstract.com/uninterruptible_programming_su...](http://faq.sealedabstract.com/uninterruptible_programming_supply/) .

I've found various side benefits in addition to being able to focus in shorter time windows. For example:

\- it's useful for dealing with interruptions that are part of work too - e.g. if you're helping teammates with different projects, or have to switch contexts for other reasons.

\- it can be useful as an artifact of work. For example, you've spent a lot of time debugging a weird issue and you're still not making progress, so you can use a second set of eyes. You can share your work notes with a coworker so they can immediately know what you've tried, what worked or didn't, etc. In that context, I like to think of it as "offline pair programming".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There's so much middle-class context assumed in this piece I don't know where to begin. What if, for starters, you have a family and the responsibilities that come with it? "I'm only going to focus on my passion from now on" will probably lead to homelessness in pretty quick time unless you have a nest-egg to burn through while you reach profitability.

What if you're in your 50s and stuck in a low paid job with a wife to take care of? What if you have a disability? The point I'm making is that a lot of life's time-sinks/distractions are non-negotiable and one life varies drastically from another in terms of how much freedom one has to pursue one's passion. Those who shout loudest that money doesn't matter are usually the ones who have plenty.

In the author's middle-class world there are always other options to what you're doing at any point in time. Unfortunately this isn't a universal given. A lot of people are stuck with massive amounts of debt just trying to survive and live from one paycheck to the next. In this context pursuing one's passion is sadly not an option if you want to be able to keep up your rent payments.

<comment><USER10> I think maybe a good way to describe it is a hierarchy of priorities.

The examples you give, taking care of a wife, family responsibilities etc... are in your words "non-negotiable." Which I interpret as required to be maintained as top priority irrespective of all other wants, needs and desires. Each of those examples however, except for having a disability, is truly a choice in terms of priority.

I think most people would argue that it is unconscionable to abandon a family or ailing spouse to "follow their dreams," however it's surprisingly common to see. That's not to defend it, but simply to point out that it is done and with surprising frequency, by people who you probably admire.

Someone quoted Bukowski on here recently, as giving some insight into the mind of someone who is fully invested in something, and I think it's apropos for this discussion:

"If you're going to try, go all the way. Otherwise, don't even start. This could mean losing girlfriends, wives, relatives and maybe even your mind. It could mean not eating for three or four days. It could mean freezing on a park bench...etc [1]"

It sounds like your suggesting that people are actively making that "all-in investment" in what you describe as non-negotiables.

[1] [https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/13275.Charles_Bukows...](https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/13275.Charles_Bukowski)

<comment><USER9> Whatever happened to living a balanced life and the satisfaction of fulfilling a responsibility? It may not be fashionable but some view the follow-your- passion cult as shallow and self-centered.

<comment><USER10> Maybe I didn't make my point clear. The concept here is that, everyone has something that they prioritize - even if not explicitly.

So writing something like "Whatever happened to living a balanced life and the satisfaction of fulfilling a responsibility?" suggests that the primary priority you think is being under-emphasized is "living a balanced life."

This is very similar to the popular philosophy of "diversity of experience" being the ultimate priority, which is a remixed version of the classical philosophy of hedonism [1] (not to be confused with the modern interpretation which only focuses on sexual pleasure).

[1][https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hedonism/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hedonism/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I agree that focus is rare and critical, but I take issue with the closing paragraphs that suggest prioritizing focus over relationships.

What good is it to gain the whole world but have no one to enjoy it with? Of course this is simply another form of focus - choose which relationships to focus on. But putting intellectual pursuits above relationships is a lonely and foolish path, even if you achieve your dreams. If someone close to you suggests spending more time with them, you would be better served to listen to them than to cut them out of your life.

<comment><USER12> I disagree. Keeping focus is a basic biological function of brain. Healthy boundaries and respect are necessary for that. If your "partner" prevents that, relationship is toxic and will probably get even worse over time.

In other words, it is better to be alone, than with someone who ruins your mind and sleep.

<comment><USER13> Well don't have any kids then.

So from an evolutionary standpoint, focus might not be that important after all ;).

<comment><USER12> I have kids. Again it is about setting boundaries and respect.

Most people make mistake they start compromising very early for no reason, and when things get tough, they just get buried.

<comment><USER13> So how do you set the boundry when your baby starts crying in the middle of the night, or when your kid throws up in the bed? Let the wife handle it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I can only agree on that. For people interested in the topic, I would recommend reading Cal Newport's blog too.

Also, I intend to turn internet mostly off in 2020. By that I mean: \- no 'checking' of any websites, no news. I will only use internet to search on specific topics I'm interested in \- subscription to paper edition of Economist, to keep myself informed (albeit not in real time - what's the use of that anyway ?) \- read interesting sites / blogs I subscribe to, once a week

I've tried this for 2 weeks once, and the effects on my mind were amazing - besides the obvious effects on concentration and work quality, I've also noticed that I actually do have plenty of free time !

<comment><USER15> I'm interested in this. How are you planning to execute your plan for 2020? Will power? or will you combine that with some kind of service or application to set some guide rails for yourself? Would love to hear the specifics!

<comment><USER14> No need for technology here. It's an addiction that many of us have. And I feel it got to a point it messes way too much with my brain. So yeah, only 'will power'.

<comment><USER16> Will power does not have a great track record in the "will power v addiction" war.

<comment><USER14> Fair point.

But it's an addiction that I think will be rather easy to get rid off (based on my previous experience) so I'm not planning anything very specific (other than the points I've listed).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "Anathem" by Neal Stephenson describes monastic communities dedicated to studying mathematics.

I sometimes entertain an idea, if a similar monastic community can work in our world - assuming they would be less strict than in the book. Such isolated retreats would be beneficial for rebuilding focus, finding calm and comfort, without noisy distractions, so one could focus most of their time on studying mathematics.

Definitely, nowadays isolated monasteries would not be convenient for doing actual research, as the access to Internet is a must.

<comment><USER18> We already have such a concept, ever been to a remote research university grad school campus?

<comment><USER19> Isn't that tied to being a grad student or an academic teacher?

I wish there was something like this for random adults. I hate the structural assumption in our society that only people on the academic track are capable of doing deep intellectual work. Being in academia, or even in orbit of academia, comes with a lot of irrelevant responsibilities and spatial constraints, making it not cost-effective for someone who already ended up in the private sector.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If you find yourself spending too much time on social media-type or even general information consumption applications (like Redfin) on your phone, one simple step is to remove the native application from your phone. The mobile web for most of these are just janky enough to snap you out of your reverie.

Second, you can try changing your phone to grayscale. Lack of color may make use of your phone less appealing. iOS makes it relatively easy.

[https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/grayscale- iphone-266894](https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/grayscale-iphone-266894)

<comment><USER21> I tend to be a focused person, and like being focused. A couple of years ago I upgraded to a smart phone, mainly to get the larger screen (easier to read) and the speech-to-text feature (I hate pecking out a reply to a text).

I don't have WiFi enabled on the phone, have Cellular Data disabled, have never signed into my Google account (it's an Android phone), have Bluetooth and Location disabled, and have never downloaded any apps. It's a phone, period. I can't imagine having something in my pocket beeping and dinging at me all day long. It would drive me nuts and I'd never get anything done.

If I'm in the car and lost, I have a $100 Garmin GPS that works fine without having to load a bunch of crapps on my phone. Or someone is in the car with me and is quick to start navigating, which is even better.

Try disabling WiFi and Cell Data for part of the day. You might really like it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I've said for years that one of the 20th century's large problems was humans having to learn to live in a world of unlimited sugar, fat and salt.

One of the 21st century's large problems is humans having to learn to live in a world of unlimited information.

Both problems involve overcoming our evolutionary programming to scarf up as much of what used be a limited resource as possible.

<comment><USER23> Solid observations. Do you have any suggestions/resources on how to live well with unlimited information? How do you decide what to absorb and what to ignore?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> > A wasted day may lead to a wasted life

This smacks of anxiety and FOMO. Thinking like this would drive me absolutely paranoid. Life is much more stochastic than this.

Yes, it is likely that in retrospect a few select hours of work may have unlocked huge value. You don't know which hours in advance. It is highly unlikely that one missed day will derail your life.

It's highly more likely that a wasted day was necessary to recover from a lingering illness, fatigue, or stress. It's OK to have an impromptu sabbath.

<comment><USER19> It's not the one wasted day that will derail your life. It's one wasted day after another, after another, after another...

<comment><USER25> Yes, but it doesn't help to fear that one wasted day will lead to this chain.

<comment><USER26> For a year or two I had a mantra: "A day is a length of time that no man is rich enough to waste".

It wasn't grammatically/syntactically valid, but it worked well as a token for a concept that helped me immensely those years.

<comment><USER25> I guess it depends on your personality. Fear-based tactics don't usually work well on me, they just make me anxious about what I am supposedly going to lose. Once I realize that there is in fact nothing to lose, I can relax and handle things effortlessly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> One tactic I've learned is to set aside time to focus on relaxation. Ambitious people assume intention should be applied towards productivity, but relaxation is required for us to function at high capacity. Do not assume idle or distracted time is rejuvenating. Plan it.

I've found that you can't rush relaxation, but you can enjoy higher quality relaxation. Watching youtube videos, reading reddit, or playing a videogame will relax me in a sort of listless, not-quite-satisfied way. Similar to eating chips as an entire meal leaves you feeling full but not nourished.

Meanwhile, a long walk with the dog and a podcast leaves me eager to jump into the next thing. But it requires focus, thought, and effort to get into - <USER2> higher activation potential than scrolling on a phone.

<comment><USER22> _One tactic I 've learned is to set aside time to focus on relaxation._

I got the exact opposite advice from "The War of Art" by Steven Pressfield:

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1319.The_War_of_Art](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1319.The_War_of_Art)

The entire book is how to overcome what he calls "resistance" which is what prevents you from getting creative work done. He says the belief that you need relaxation is false and just another way your mind keeps you from what you need to get done.

<comment><USER24> Interesting. I tend to structure my day around goals and work so much that I don't leave enough time for relaxation.

I likely mistakenly assume most HNers are overly ambitious, perfectionist, neurotic types like myself.

I have no trouble getting started, I have trouble stopping.

<comment><USER19> N=1, but this HNer seems almost opposite from you. My biggest problem is getting started, and maintaining focus for the initial period of 15 minutes to one hour (for some reasons I get really anxious; despite a decade of trying, I still haven't learn how to manage it). But once I get past that hurdle, I can get a lot of high-quality work in short time.

I'd trade my issues for yours in a heartbeat ;).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I employ these techniques with mixed but promising results:

\- I block relevant news and social media sites on my phone and laptop (phone rules are more restrictive)

\- I force myself to note everything I want to research/read down as a todo. This alone helps me to avoid many irrelevant things I would have otherwise read/researched

\- Every month I set priorities, how I want to spend my time. Then every day I go through the list of items I have written down to select and prioritize what I want to do. Then I start working my way from the top item down

This article has helped me shape my thinking: [https://medium.com/swlh/theres- no-such-thing-as-motivation-e...](https://medium.com/swlh/theres-no-such- thing-as-motivation-e02edd7de30)

</comment><comment><USER28> A strategy that kept me pretty productive is to have a "primary task" for the day, scaled appropriately, and a secondary one. Just those two. Say:

Primary task: write outline on all areas of X presentation. Secondary task: replace light bulb of car.

It's just that simple. Two tasks that I'll struggle to finish in a day. From there some properties emerge beautifully.

It naturally forms chunks of focus. The "flow". Yet, it's flexible because the execution details are not agreed beforehand, they're made up as you go.

" _2h on the main task at least, now that I 've done some stuff and have enough free time for a chunk!_"

I can still deal with any blow as it comes. Stuff happens. But at least one can be more mindful about priorities, having the easy to remember two tasks in mind.

loose systems (good ones) often work better and can handle failures without crashing down.

PS for the author: i live & study in Madrid as well! these kind of deliberations are an important part of my self-improvement. I really like trying things out, and bouncing ideas off another person in a good discussion. You can consider this an invitation, open at any time, about things that we both value :)

</comment><comment><USER29> I deeply resonate with this - there are just too many things to do, and too little time. This is a boon and a curse. One cannot realize all things we can do in our lifetime, but if we can fixate on _one_ particular thing, we can compound our efforts. What a great article! A reminder that stop dicking around on multiple things in the shallow waters, instead take a deep dive into depths that no one in the world has explored. You're at the forefront of combining pieces of past knowledge, adding your own intellect into an amalgamation that is truly unique. Build it with all you've got, take as much oxygen as you can with you and stay calm as you dive deep. There is a new world out there.

I feel like I need to print this article out and stick it across from my desk to be reminded of this every day.

</comment><comment><USER30> Underlying focus is discipline. People hate discipline because it is hard. Not eating that donut, exercising daily, turning off your phone, and actually working for multiple hours straight has become rare.

Jocko Willink has written multiple books on the topic of discipline and coined the phrase "Discipline Equals Freedom".

<comment><USER31> Discipline is hard because of two primary things: 1) not enough mindfulness and 2) saying no to things is difficult, but replacing a bad habit with a good habit is easy.

With mindfulness, one is aware before the bad habits starts. The earlier the habit is caught, the easier it is to change. It's the difference between struggling to replace a habit for months vs noticing it once, changing it once, and then reaping the rewards.

The mind when given a situation needs to respond to it. Habits are born and then they stick. Saying no to a habit is almost impossible. Instead an alternative habit needs to be made to replace the old habit. Every time that trigger pops up, the new habit fires instead.

Once those two criteria are met, it becomes easy to self-program.

<comment><USER30> Great point. What you describe is how I improved my procrastination. Anytime I noticed I was procrastinating I had to immediately do the item I was pushing off.

The awareness you mention in the moment is _the_ key to making changes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> One aspect nobody mentioned so far is, why do I have to focus so much on my dreams and "work on the next rocket to mars"? Why isn't it okay anymore to just do my job, have friends and watch movies? Why does everyone has to be an entrepreneur and do a successful side-project? Why can't I just have a hobby that doesn't pay off at all, like playing an instrument alone in my room, without any pursue to ever play a concert?

<comment><USER19> Selection bias. Nobody says _you_ have to be like that. Just ignore the article and move on.

For me, it resonates, because the perspective of "doing my job, having friends and watching movies" sounds depressingly empty to me. I want to work on the next rocket to Mars (yes, I really do want to work on space rockets - <USER3> I care about space rockets).

I don't buy into the pressure you're seeing either. If your heart doesn't drive you to strive for meaning in your own work, then you won't be happy chasing it because social pressure tells you to. Not everyone ticks this way, and this is fine.

<comment><USER32> it's not just this article. I feel the pressure in my every day life. I already have a job that fulfills me and where I give 100%, does that mean I will be the next CTO, no probably not, so I can't even claim to push my career that much.

It's just that you read online about all these people that do open-source stuff, create their own website/business, build tools, do research etc. that you feel left out and the big pressure to do something meaningful. In addition nowadays you have to do something meaningful for the world, but it's hard to impress the world or the community, because in your community (like the hacker-news, reddit, indie hacker) there are now thousands or millions of people, you have to do something very substantial to actual get noticed.

<comment><USER33> > _I already have a job that fulfills me and where I give 100%, does that mean > I will be the next CTO, no probably not, so I can 't even claim to push my > career that much._

What more do you want? Think of how many people there are in the world who want that. Who just wish they didn't dread waking up every morning to go to work. I love my job and I'm completely fulfilled with it. It's all how you look at it - we've made it as far as I'm concerned, anything else is icing on the cake.

Really, the question you might want to ask yourself is: do you even _want_ to be a CTO? I don't, it sounds like a set of skills and activities I don't really want to work on. I'd rather be a good engineer who helps other people grow in their career, who also gets to fish and surf in the morning and play video games in the evening.

Whenever I feel the way you're feeling, I think back to this quote by Kurt Vonnegut about Joseph Heller:

 _True story, Word of Honor:_

 _Joseph Heller, an important and funny writer now dead, and I were at a party given by a billionaire on Shelter Island._

 _I said, "Joe, how does it make you feel to know that our host only yesterday may have made more money than your novel 'Catch-22' has earned in its entire history?"_

 _And Joe said, "I've got something he can never have."_

 _And I said, "What on earth could that be, Joe?"_

 _And Joe said, "The knowledge that I've got enough."_

 _Not bad! Rest in peace!_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> No it hasn't. Focus isn't more valuable than the ability to improvise or memorize.

People are just realizing what's been true all along: IQ is a bunk measurement that points to nothing of note in the brain.

<comment> barry-cotter IQ positively correlates with income, educational attainment, age of death and socioeconomic status, and negatively with criminality, STI infection rates and likelihood of having a child out of wedlock so bunk it is not.

Regarding IQ and the brain there are positive relations between brain volume, white matter volume and IQ and between hippocampal volume and verbal IQ so

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I finally pulled myself away from Facebook a while back and could not be happier with the results and perspective I gained. I removed all "friends" and kept about a dozen family members just to keep in touch. I had to keep the account due to my businesses using it for marketing purposes.

The change in quality of life (due to the negativity on FB) and productivity was instantaneous.

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm surprised meditation hasn't been mentioned yet.

Meditation drastically boosts focus and increases awareness, which then accelerates learning of whatever is being observed / studied.

Because of this, focus is a prerequisite for learning, and learning is a prerequisite for intelligence, so focus is very important and more beneficial than many realize.

<comment><USER36> Meditation is awesome, though I don't do it enough. It's like push-ups for your brain. You just focus on your breath, and if you can do that, you can focus on anything regardless of how boring it is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I've had thought about this a lot as well, I'm really unsure I agree. The main problem is figuring out where exactly is the line. Like some of the best gains I've had in life were from things that others considered a distraction.

I think I have a better solution. Watch your level of engagement, if you are hating something, it's a good signal you should do something else.

Like say Leonardo da Vinci, Goethe and Alexander von Humboldt had a lot of things going on.

</comment><comment><USER38> I was voted most spaced out in my high school yearbook. My creativity and problem solving skills at one point were pretty much off the charts. Got a computer engineering degree, had a few years working at great companies solving important problems.

I have to be honest though, I no longer believe in the startup world. I'm so disillusioned now that I honestly don't know if I can write code anymore. There are so many bad indicators about where all this is going, how it's causing wealth inequality and the destruction of the natural world, that I just don't know if my heart is in any of this anymore.

I'm mostly coping now and coming to terms with the fact that I may have to choose tech or my life. All I ever wanted to do was invent stuff, but as far as I can tell, the whole system is rigged so that that can never happen.

Without hope, there can't be focus. I don't even know what to call the limbo I'm in. It's not really depression, it's not burnout, it's not even apathy because I care very much. It's more a sense that, the best thing to do rather than invent something is to wait a year for someone else to do it. Or more realistically, for 10 other people to try with 9 of them failing. Soon that will be 100 attempts with 99 failures, going up an order of magnitude with each passing decade.

If a true next-gen solution that comes after the internet arrives soon, then it could replace the soul-sucking work-life imbalance that we've all recreated. It could replace late-stage capitalism. But it's looking like tech's going to keep crushing down harder and harder until there is no profit in anything and we're all just running the rat race until we die.

How did it come to this? Am I alone in feeling this way? Seriously, I don't really even know what to do to make my next $100 to survive tomorrow. I don't know if I can eat the $#!@ sandwich and work for someone again and lose however many more years of my life. Why can't I just go help somewhere and contribute in positive ways and make a modest income? Why is it so cutthroat and all-or-nothing? Blah. Just blah.

<comment><USER39> I feel you. But I don't things have to be looked at so narrow. There are hardly any people on this planet that have your opportunity to fix things for the better. There are enough challenges to put your heart into and find fresh energy if you start looking. You just need to fall in love again with something that you really consider worthwhile your time. I am sure there will be something.

<comment><USER38> Thanks, ya I tend to do a lot of soul searching this time of year. My social media feed is so saturated with bad news that all I really use now is the sad emoji. Right now when I think of tech, I feel emotions like disappointment, loathing, frustration, jealously, resentment, skepticism, etc etc etc. All negative.

You are right about love though, that is very insightful. Even though it seems like tech is this analytical endeavor, I've found that it is really built on passion (love, devotion, etc, the things that got us started making things in the first place). Because when you step back from it, why would someone bang their head against the keyboard day after day in endless frustration, often alone and misunderstood, trying to do even the simplest things but coming up short, unless they saw potential in it. That's the real reason why pretty much every tech job listing is looking for passionate people. It's not about excelling now, it's about survival.

Anyway, after 6 months of writer's block, I have finally started seeing some alternatives. When I think about the opposite of the tech world today, I start feeling good emotions again like inspiration, hope and maybe even some love as you put it. Here is a starting point for anyone curious:

[https://qz.com/933681/start-ups-shouldnt-try-to-be- unicorns-...](https://qz.com/933681/start-ups-shouldnt-try-to-be-unicorns- they-should-be-zebras/)

[https://www.zebrasunite.com](https://www.zebrasunite.com)

The table at the bottom of the second link lists some of the problems with the startup world today and some ways that we might transition from consumerist phantom tech to real tech. Where phantom tech mainly distracts or lowers some prices or makes some people obscenely rich, with jobs that provide time or money but not both, at great cost to society and nature. But real tech is things like distributed alternative energy, robot labor, universal basic income, etc that provide both time and money passively (without human slavery in the developing world) so that people can get back to living freely like we did as recently as the 80s and 90s.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Focus, and persistence can be a double-edged sword.

I've seen C and D-level developers create working systems-despite the fact that they are using the wrong tools, creating un-maintainable code, etc.

The key is only letting things go sad far before the right people are brought in to "fix" things.

<comment><USER41> If it's stupid and works, it ain't stupid.

<comment><USER42> That depends on your definition of "works". In a team environment something that is stupid and is barely coughing blood is a tar pit of wasted effort that will ensnare team member after team member, like a repeating land mine. Odd dependencies, bad repeated patterns, and strange process/architectural workarounds will leave a team inefficient, entrenched, and broken.

It's why I'd rather have lazy stupid people than energetic stupid people. Energetic stupid people destroy organizational output. Lazy stupid people just keep a chair warm.

<comment><USER43> "I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage."

[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein- Equord](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Fuck that. I live once. One chance to understand as much as I can about the universe I live in. Fuck chasing human value, that's fleeting, anxiety inducing, and utterly insignificant within probably 20 years of your death.

</comment><comment><USER45> What does HN think of the pomodoro technique?

<comment><USER31> It's a good 101 technique and worth trying, but I prefer a 102 alternative.

If have enough mindfulness, you start to notice this tension feeling that happens when learning. (I'm not talking about trying to get a project done, getting stuck with a compiler error, then "learning" how to solve it on Stackoverflow. The tension I'm talking about is usually subtle and happens when there isn't some sort of pressing other end goal, just learning to learn for learning and enjoyment.)

This tension is correlated to how well the unconscious mind is digesting what was learned and converting it into long term memory.

If I learn a lot and it is a difficult subject, I might get very tense within 5 minutes of reading. This means I need to take a break to let the mind digest what I just learned.

In the other direction, I can be reading a book and most of it is review, so I feel bored. My initial instinct was to skim to go over it faster, but that only reduces learning. Instead, I can dive into deeper levels of detail, focusing on how the author sees the world, why s/he is demonstrating their findings that particular way, and so on. Basically, diving in more aids learning.

Anyways, sometimes I can go for 2 hours of study straight and be in a happy middle ground of tension where my mind isn't overworked or underworked. This is the ideal state, sometimes called flow. By being mindful of this, my study sessions dynamically adapt to it, into an optimal state of learning.

Also, if it's too tense, I may not be getting it, because there is too much prerequisite material I don't know well. I might turn to wikipedia or other text books at that point. A detour can be fun, and is far better than not understanding the material. I once had to spend 3 full days learning over 20 new concepts (due to recursive prerequisites) just to read a paragraph in a book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> add resilience to the mix: focus without resilience when things go wrong, can be counterproductive.

</comment><comment><USER47> "Focus is the new IQ" is the best expression I've seen of this.

I'm lucky to have the gift of focus, and to know other people who also have it.

I know I'm on the right track when I'm asked:

* "You did that yourself?"

* "How did you do that?"

* "How is that possible?"

One person with deep focus can change everything. Nikolai Tesla is the ultimate example of this - he made the modern world.

My secrets? My only social media is HN, and I use a stick phone.

<comment><USER48> > I use a stick phone.

What is a stick phone? I presume you're not referring to this:

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

<comment><USER49> I think they might be referring to what some call the candybar form factor.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_factor_(mobile_phones)#...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_factor_\(mobile_phones\)#Bar)

<comment><USER50> Are you able to buy a reasonably modern version of these that comes with GPS?

Literally the only things I use my phone for is calls, SMS, GPS, and eeeeeeevery great once in a while I'll google something at the store.

I'd love something like this, but it would really have to have GPS on it.

<comment><USER47> No GPS, wifi or usable camera, but older phones have techniques for map location using the cell phone signal.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Are smartphones the new 'opium of the people'? - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48923485 <comment><USER2> More like the new cigarette. 50 years ago you'd look around and see adults everywhere smoking to waste time or to because it was the thing to do or just out of habit/addiction. This happened at train stations, waiting in lines, shopping in stores, everywhere. It was often one of the first things people did (in bed!) on waking up and the last thing before falling asleep.

<comment><USER3> And if you think you're not addicted, just leave your phone at home for a day and count the number of times you catch yourself patting your pockets, looking for a quick hit of dopamine. It'll gross you out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [https://imgur.com/gallery/vdsHl8y](https://imgur.com/gallery/vdsHl8y) "Before phones, people used to talk to each other"

</comment><comment><USER5> >One of his most quoted, but least understood sentences concluded that religion is "the opium of the people". Look at your teenager this evening, glued to social media. Better still, look at yourself, twitching if you don't have your smartphone to hand. What is it stored in there, amid the circuitry, data, addictive material and astonishing engineering - if not the opium of the people?

Atleast religion could solve my existential dread :(

</comment><comment><USER6> Can you wait for the bus without taking our your phone?

Next time, look around and count how many are NOT taking out their phones 10-20 seconds after arriving.

<comment><USER7> It's an efficient use of that otherwise dead period of time. I don't use any mainstream social networks (or take the bus) but if I'm made to wait like that, I will still take out my phone and... read HN.

<comment><USER8> IMHO there are no really dead periods of time. We used to use that time to relax, to observe the clouds, to daydream, to wonder about problems or curiosities. It was a space for creativity and inspiration.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is Science a Religion? No. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent- beauty/201...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent- beauty/201710/is-science-religion)

</comment><comment><USER10> Yes, absolutely.

A smart phone with wifi provides entertainment, communication, endless information, maps, weather, etc. etc.

Just a phone can provide for a lot of needs.

</comment><comment><USER11> Emphatically yes</comment>


Lyft commits to closing wage gaps across race and gender - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/27/lyft-commits-to-closing-wage-gaps-across-race-and-gender/ <comment> wu-ikkyu The central variable that creates the "gender pay gap" is not sexist employer discrimination. The gap is primarily created by the fact that women, more typically than men, are the ones who raise children full time.

[https://www.creators.com/read/thomas- sowell/04/14/statistica...](https://www.creators.com/read/thomas- sowell/04/14/statistical-frauds)

<comment><USER2> Yes, we should also be advocating for better paternity leave policies, so that men can take a bigger role in child care.

However, that does not mean companies shouldn't audit pay across race and gender, controlling for job role, level and performance.

Nor does it mean companies shouldn't audit performance reviews for inequity.

Nor does it mean companies shouldn't audit job role and level and promotion processes for inequity.

Nor does it mean companies shouldn't audit hiring processes for inequity.

Different people experience inequity in different ways. Some people experience it in more than one way. We need systemic solutions to address each of these failure modes.

<comment><USER3> No amount of "better" paternity leave will ever mean that I will be able to birth and nurse a child myself. (First time dad here of a 5 month old) Nor do I require extra time off before the birth. Fathers don't have this issue because they don't lose time giving birth and recovering no matter how involved they are in taking care of the kid after birth. This lost time is unavoidable for working moms.

Even in countries with generous leave policy, this lost time is unrecoverable and has a permanent affect on your career. For example, in Italy the mother is forced to take a year off whether they want to or not. That's one year less of a promotion or pay raise.

Time is money and time not working is time not earning money. These are real obstacles women face in the workforce that drive down their earning potential. Successful women either choose to not have children, or earn enough to pay someone else to care for their children full time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm curious how they determined that the 1% of cases were gender and race- based and not something else. With such a small number, it seems like it would be very easy for the variations to be caused by other factors. It is probably good PR for them, but the math behind the decision would be pretty interesting.

<comment><USER5> 1% of a large number is still a large number.

<comment><USER4> Yes, but with a small enough number you might be able to find that people with blue eyes are paid more than people with brown eyes. You'd expect some level of random variation and such a small number makes it seem that it may really not have anything to do with their gender.

Think of it this way. If you flipped a coin a large number of times and 51% of the times it came up heads would you assume the coin was biased or would you suspect that it could just be random variation?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> This only covers full-time employees (software engineers, designers, and the like), right? Not any of their drivers?

<comment><AUTHOR> Correct. Some economists from Stanford & Uber actually did a fascinating analysis of the gender earnings gap for drivers.

tl;dr - Men earn 7% more:

> We find that the entire gender gap is caused by three factors: experience on > the platform (learning-by-doing), preferences over where/when to work, and > preferences for driving speed.

[https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/UberPayGap.pdf](https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/UberPayGap.pdf)

Edit - I originally found out about this study from a Freakonomics podcast. These economists are chomping at the bit to get newer data (which will include tips). Their hypothesis is that women's earnings will increase, since women's tips are 10-20% greater than men's. However, they also say tipping increases the supply of drivers, which will serve to decrease utilization rate and thus lower hourly pay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> How do you close the wage gap? Is it just bulk monetary transfer to people who identify as women?

<comment><USER7> Presumably Lyft increased pay rates for those they identified as having been paid unequally due to race or gender.

<comment><USER6> Ah, I see this is for Lyft employees, and not Lyft drivers which I assumed. It makes sense that Lyft would have much more data regarding sexism or racism affecting their employees than they would sexism or racism affecting drivers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why is it that Asian people are earning 2x more than white people yet article is focusing on "white men"?

Nice journalism. Not biased at all.

[https://i.imgur.com/rjmHYk0.png](https://i.imgur.com/rjmHYk0.png)

<comment><USER9> This is wrong. The article states Asian males earn 117% as much, which is just 17% more. This is one of the things that turns me off Hacker News, an overly strong bias in defense of white men.

<comment><USER7> I believe in this case it was a simple misinterpretation of the terminology rather than nefarious intent.

<comment><USER10> And I believe I've been here long enough to know that is not a very good assumption to make. Allowances such as yours are usually given in defense of white men, but hardly ever given for other groups.

<comment><USER7> The HN guidelines[0] encourage users to assume good faith in interpreting the comments of others, and I think that applies well here.

[0]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER10> They do, but again, I've been here long enough to know that's not always the case, especially with topics like this.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you moonlight? - <AUTHOR> For those of you with a stable, contract, daily job:<p>- Do you moonlight (work freelance during off-hours) for other companies? - Is your 9 to 5 aware that you're moonlighting?  Are they (or would they be) OK with it? - How do you find contracts that are amenable to this kind of schedule? - Are there any challenges keeping your main job and side job(s) separate? <comment><USER2> I wanted to keep things completely above board so I talked to my boss at my full-time job about my desire to start my own company; that I would do so by working after hours and occasionally taking a day or a week off; and that my company was in a different field and would not be a competitor. He talked to HR and came back and said this was fine as long as I never used any company resources. I'm now working for MY company full-time, and have an employee at 32 hours per week.

Good luck!</comment>


Report examines origins and nature of 'math anxiety' - <AUTHOR> https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-03-nature-math-anxiety.html <comment><USER2> In my experience as a math teacher, there's a lot of sources of math anxiety. There are a few I see the most:

* Stereotype threat.

* High school students thinking "I was good at math in 3rd grade, so I need to be good at math now."/"I was bad at math in 3rd grade, so I will be bad at math now." while not taking into account the differences in the subject and themselves over that time.

* Students never being told that math is actually difficult and requires perseverance, encountering a struggle for the first time in math, and taking it as a personal failing rather than the expected order of things.

<comment><USER3> I've been a middle and high school math teacher for 25 years, mostly to at- risk students. Almost all of them have what we call "math anxiety".

By far, the most common reason I see it is how they were treated by math teachers. One student had a teacher who made students go up to the board and write their incorrect solutions on the board, and they had to stay there until they "figured it out". Many have been told they were stupid, or told they would just never be able to learn. That experience is way more common than many teachers and administrators want to admit.

There's also the pacing issue. Many students get lost in a math class at some point in their early learning career, and then there's no real way to get caught back up. This compounds with teachers who don't really understand math, who are just teaching algorithms and rules and don't know what to do with students who are lost.

I've had good success just by meeting each student where they're at, and letting each student progress from where they are. I always look for what students do understand, and build on that understanding. It typically takes students one or two classes being treated well to start really recovering from that earlier anxiety.

<comment><USER4> does "new math" help or hurt this?

<comment><USER3> I'm not quite sure what you mean by "new math".

<comment><USER5> Look up the Tom Lehrer song with that name. I'm a mathematician who followed a long and nonstandard path into the field and I agree with 100% of what you've said. In my experience, it's "cool" to be bad at math -- typified by that Tom Lehrer bit

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The problem is with mathematical notation, not the students. If you step back and look at mathematics from a product perspective, from a tool designers perspective, it's pretty clear that the user experience is awful. Generation after generation of students encounter this tool and say repeatedly, emphatically, "I hate math." and yet we seem blind to the possibility that the tool itself could be improved.

It's like we're forcing children to learn how to use an astrolabe and then blaming them for finding it complex and inapplicable to their daily lives. Google maps provides the answers they want with a better user experience. I would have astrolabe anxiety, I don't have Google maps anxiety.

Unfortunately there is a pseudo-religious connotation to mathematics. It is "pure", "beautiful", etc. Teachers rarely encourage students to change, improve, disrupt, or invent math.

Mathematical notation and pedagogy is continuously evolving and to think that we're at the global optimum right now both ignores the negative reviews users are constantly providing and ignores the history of math itself.

<comment><USER7> Do you have an example?

<comment><USER8> Skipping all the way to college level, but the notation of quantum physics can get absolutely ridiculous. It's the only system that I can think of which will use both the upper and lower case symbol of a Greek symbol in the same handwritten equation while meaning different things; phi, psi, and theta being the most notorious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I used to tutor folks in basic math classes at a small community college, mostly classes leading up to college algebra (Math 097, 098). Varied backgrounds, ages 18-50s.

There was a common theme to some of the problems these students had: if you didn't quickly grasp a concept in the specific way that particular teacher taught it, the class would soon move on to the next topic anyways. And sometimes teachers would not teach one particular thing very well, but it was something the rest of the class's instruction depended on. This left people adrift for the rest of the curriculum. If they took the class over again, they could get stuck at the same point because the class moved at the same pace, often with the same instructor. That's both incredibly frustrating and a huge waste of time and money!

<comment><USER10> Seriously! I took trig and nobody ever said "Here's a picture of a circle. Here's what cosine, sine, and tangent are".

I had no clue what those concepts were for at least a year, but I managed because I always knew I could take both sine and cosine and say "well I need the bigger number in this scenario ∂or the smaller one in that one, so it must be (cos or sin)"

When I saw a picture of a circle and an angle that basically said "Cosine is how far you are horizontally and sine is how far you are vertically" it was so damned simple I hated that I hadn't learned sooner. How did I miss it? Was I sick that day?

<comment><USER11> Maybe we should have 'intuition checks'? A kind of test (not graded) that regularly checks that key intuitive concept have been learned? Like show a circle and ask to place the sin,cos..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Students often discussed the role that their teachers and parents played in > their development of maths anxiety. Primary-aged children referred to > instances where they had been confused by different teaching methods, while > secondary students commented on poor interpersonal relations.

For the teaching methods, I'll defer to A Mathematician's Lament by Lockhart. Kids are taught to memorize and often by teachers (esp in grade school) who don't understand the math. When I got my teaching credentials in secondary mathematics, one of the points driven home was that a large factor that led many grade school teachers to avoid secondary (high school) was fear of the math.

Case: my daughter's 7th grade teacher taught the rules of exponents. Part of it, he said anything to the zeroth power is 1 and anything to the oneth power is itself and nobody knows why, it is just one of those things. Fast forward a year or two, and kids are lucky to remember a factiod right. A simple pattern matching exercise would have helped kids rediscover the rule if needed.

<comment><USER13> > Kids are taught to memorize and often by teachers (esp in grade school) who > don't understand the math.

On the flip side, if you _don 't_ know e.g. your times tables by heart, you are in for a shitton of trouble when it comes to doing the higher level stuff. The best way to achieve the arithmetical competence it takes to successfully do math at secondary levels and above is drilling. Educational history is littered with the wreckage of alternative attempts: New Math, some of the approaches derided as "Common Core", etc.

<comment><USER14> As someone who majored in math/physics I'm going to heavily disagree. I was quite poor when it came to multiplication tables, and monsters like long division, but was a pretty good student through university. I never felt like I needed any of those things through any higher level maths, and making those a requirement to learn (or at least drill as much as they do) seems counter productive.

<comment><USER2> The basic times tables are a big sticking point in secondary mathematics. Because polynomial work depends heavily on factorization, students who cannot readily see that 56 = 7 * 8, and then apply their elementary operations skills to say 7 * 8 = (2 _7)_ (8/2) = (4 _7)_ (8/4) will struggle more than those that can.

You can develop skills to compensate (e.g., starting with small primes and working up instead) but it's still an extra step in the process.

This does not necessarily affect a student's overall understanding of polynomial functions, but can hang over their head in the actual work with them.

<comment><USER15> I've observed factoring generally to be a big problem. I also recall the official introduction of factoring in our curriculum (9th grade?[0]) to be when they lost an _awful_ lot of people. Perhaps not coincidentally, it's also where things took a big swerve from straight application of memorized facts and the correct algorithms into lateral thinking and intuitive guesswork, and no-one bothered to make that clear at the time. Lots of very angry, discouraged students resulted, all wanting to know exactly WTF they were being asked to do and getting, from their perspective, no straight answer.

Mathematics from there on continued to mostly be the memorizy-algorithmy kind, but with enough of the intuitiony-thinky kind sprinkled in and no clear guide to which was which or even that the teachers were asking us to do something fundamentally different that anyone who hit a big speed-bump at factoring didn't have a hope of keeping up.

[0, EDIT] Maybe 7th or 8th? It's been too long, IDK.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Here's an interesting question: How far should we require students to get in math for a high school diploma?

School districts in the US answer this in a couple different ways. Many define the number of credits you need to earn, and many define the level you need to reach. But that's compounded by all the issues in math education that occur before high school. How do you hold everyone to the same bar if some are coming in with elementary skills and some are coming in already beyond high school? Many systems don't serve either group well, and the effects can be devastating to people in both groups. How many of us on HN had high-level math skills and had to endure years of boring required math classes?

I had an interesting exchange with another math teacher once. My school requires everyone to move forward from where they're at, and to reach a skill level appropriate to your post-high school goals. Many students end up just becoming well-grounded in Algebra 1, which is great. Another school in my district requires students to get through Algebra 2. We were discussing this discrepancy at a district meeting, and I was being looked down upon for "only" bringing some students to Algebra 1 level skills. I looked this teacher in the eye and asked, "How does a D- in your Algebra 2 class compare to a B- in my Algebra 1 class?" (They have to reach B level work to earn credit, which is why we are okay with them staying in Algebra 1 work if they need to.)

His response? "Well, at least they've seen Algebra 2 level work before they leave high school." The arrogance and uselessness of that statement echoed through the room that day. I would love to see this conversation play out more around the country.

</comment><comment><USER16> This topic is addressed nicely in section 1.6 of "How I wish I'd taught maths", by Craig Barton, a famous maths teacher in the UK.

His book covers what he used to think and do in his earlier years as a (successful) teacher, what he has learned since then from academic studies and other teachers, and how applying these principles and techniques has improved his students' learning.

"How children fail" is another excellent book on how not to teach maths.

<comment><USER17> Also, Seymour Papert's Mindstorms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> My first experience with maths anxiety was when going from degrees to radians[0]. Memorising/Remembering the conversions was, for some reason, my fucking kryptonite and, feck me, if I didn't feel like I was falling behind because of it (hint: I was).

[0] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radian#Conversions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radian#Conversions)

</comment><comment><USER19> Why does "math anxiety" get such special attention? What about "foreign language class anxiety" or "essay-writing anxiety" or "being forced to read old books I don't care about" anxiety? Is it because journalists tend to like those activities and be scared of math?

<comment><USER20> Pure anecdote, but maths seems to me to be in a class of its own when it comes to people _feeling_ incapable of solving problems. People may not know much of a foreign language, and they may not enjoy speaking it, but they will rarely look at a sentence in another language and think "Nope, can't work out what that means" when in fact they can.

I noticed a particularly odd example of it with my mother, who "hates maths" but has worked with finances all her life. If you ask her what 10% of 200,000 is, she'll say she doesn't know. If you ask her what sort of return she'd expect on a $200k investment she'll say, no shit, "you'd want 10% per year, so... $20,000.".

It's not that she's incapable of doing it. Her mind just shuts down when faced with the question.

<comment><USER21> This part does seem like the notation is responsible to at least some extent. I definitely have that experience myself when I read things like econometrics and machine learning papers. I know the concepts and could probably handle the words, but the pages full of bizarre elongated Greek letters that has to be translated with some kind of nonexistent Rosetta Stone just induces a bit of panic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I have math anxiety. I've been bad at math since I was a child. Mainly because I was hyper and had short attention span and neither of my parents were good at math, nor did we have money to get a tutor so my basic mathematical foundation has always been weak.

I'm 31 years old now with my BA in Computer Information Systems and I still don't know all of my multiplication problems from 1's to 12's, and have difficulty solving basic algebra problems.

I've always stated that I hated math, and that schools are always forcing students to learn certain types of math just to pass/graduate. Instead I think the schools should focus on math that the students can immediately start applying to their daily lives and jobs; no child working at a fast-food chain is going to even try to apply calculus to their job.

My issue is that not everyone learns or interprets the language the same. Some like myself take longer to process a problem to form a solution, but in school you're on a timed schedule so people like me struggle.

Also, some teachers only teach the way they learned and understood the language and don't really care or think that other students may learn from different ways/perspectives.

I know I can learn any type of math, I just need it explained and demonstrated to me in simple english that even a 5th grader could understand and not with college words that I need a dictionary to comprehend.

I secretly deep down want to be great at math and to learn and master, algebra, trigonometry, geometry, calculus, etc. so that I feel competent in the computer industry to solve basic and more advanced problems. But instead, I am reclusive and feel dumb and that I will never be great at any type of math discipline.

</comment><comment><USER23> I have hard time studying in general, especially math. It's hard to sit down and focus for any significant amount of time. But friends and family noticing the anxiety would do very little for me. Then again, I am a grown man and maybe understanding the plight of the kids will help us not put pressure on them.

But people could also be experiencing this for any subject. I don't see why this is limited to math.

</comment><comment><USER24> I have math anxiety and I have a BS in it ._.

</comment><comment><USER25> I have a recurring nightmare that the semester is almost over and I haven't been to a single one of the math classes that I need to graduate because I keep forgetting about it and I know I'm too far behind to ever catch up. I've been out of college for _years_.

I think my math anxiety started in high school as a result of teachers moving through material too quickly in a learning style that didn't match up with how I learn. Once you get a little bit behind it can be really hard to find your way back in.

</comment><comment><USER26> i think western culture's disdain for people good at maths and stem in general is being ignored

<comment><USER27> Which western culture?

<comment><USER28> The anglosphere at very least but there is a long history of "practical" and mathematical being the proverbial red-headed stepchild of social classes in spite of wealth. And that isn't limited to the anglosphere.

Millers were commonly demonized and scalegoated for neither doing honest work with the rest of the peasants and instead maintaining "strange" machinery that did the work for them and they worked with knowledge but neither as a part of clergy nor nobility. Worse yet knowledge outside of known and respected sources.

Merchants, owing to astoundingly bad economic theories were considered to have to be engaging in fraud because the idea of the value of a fur coat being higher in the mountains than the desert never occured to those not dealing with the bleeding obvious of the profession. They were also widely considered "non-productive" \- without irony given nobility.

Impetus theory is another sign of the disdain for the practical - how long upperclass and "learned" men would use a theory of projectiles in triangular motions that any artilleryman or archer would burst out laughing at from how obviously wrong it is.

One common factor in even more modern times is ignorance and its self- perpetuation. People fear what they don't understand and avoid it leading to not understanding and more fear.

It probably isn't just from this feudal history and the causal link may be tenuous but the tendencies have been around for a long time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Quote from OA

 _" The UK is facing a maths crisis: according to a 2014 report from National Numeracy, four out of five adults have low functional mathematics skills compared to fewer than half of UK adults having low functional literacy levels."_

And yet the pass rate at GCSE and previously GCE O Level has been fairly stable at roughly two thirds passing give or take a couple of percent for 60 years...

Downloading report now.

</comment><comment><USER30> Is it just exam anxiety? Or STEM anxiety? It seems to have the same root cause as STEM supremacy, or some bias opinions towards liberal art majors.

</comment><comment><USER31> Direct link to report: [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/29051...](https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/290514/Szucs%2041179%20-%20Main%20Public%20Output%208%20March%202019.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)

=== Summary of Key Findings ===

o We conducted a literature review into the long-established relationship between maths anxiety and performance (those with higher maths anxiety tend to have poorer maths performance). We conclude that this is likely because anxiety interferes with performance and poorer performance increases anxiety, acting as a vicious circle.

o In our large sample of British children, we investigated the relationship between maths anxiety and developmental dyscalculia. We found that whilst more dyscalculics than typical children met criteria for maths anxiety, the majority of those with maths anxiety had normal performanc.

o In a separate group of Italian children, we participated in research looking at developmental change, gender differences and specificity of maths anxiety. We found that unlike general anxiety, maths anxiety increases with age. The relationship between maths anxiety and performance becomes more specific with age – in younger, but not older, children, this relationship disappears after accounting for general anxiety. See Maths anxiety: Gender differences, developmental change and anxiety specificity for more details.

o We have identified, in our large British sample, anxiety subgroups. These may increase in complexity with age. In our secondary school students, we found that those with anxiety specific to academia (high maths and test anxiety) had poorer performance than those with higher, but less specific, anxiety. We conclude that this may reflect a dual path in anxiety development and maintenance.

o In our smaller subsample of British students, with whom we conducted further testing, we looked at the relationship between various cognitive variables and maths performance. It seems that a myriad of factors are associated with maths performance, but that basic numerical processing is not (unpublished data).

o In another Italian sample, we investigated specific memory subtypes and their relationship with maths anxiety and dyscalculia. Whereas maths anxiety appears to be associated with a deficit in verbal working memory and perhaps also visuospatial working memory, dyscalculia is associated with deficits in visuospatial memory; both short-term and working memory are affected.

o Our qualitative research has shown that children of 9-10 years are able to discuss their experiences and origins of mathematics anxiety. Mathematically anxious children seemed to describe negative events with less contextualisation. They were also more likely to discuss physical sensations in their maths classes and clearly articulated some of the negative consequences of maths anxiety.

=== Conclusions ===

Each of the completed projects within our study further reveals the complex, multifaceted nature of mathematics anxiety. It is likely that mathematics anxiety is not a simple construct with only one cause – rather, it can emerge as a result of multiple predisposing factors including gender, cognitive abilities and general predisposition towards anxiety, rumination or panicking under pressure. This helps to explain why mathematics anxiety is robustly correlated to a small degree with many constructs (e.g. test anxiety, general anxiety and mathematics ability). We have clearly shown that emotional and cognitive mathematics problems dissociate and therefore require different intervention strategies. Our qualitative analysis of structured interviews suggests that children as young as 9 are experts in their own experiences in mathematics and this can be harnessed to further understand the thought processes underlying maths anxiety. This brings us closer to design effective prevention and remediation programs for mathematics anxiety.

=== Recommendations ===

o The 9-item modified Abbreviated Mathematics Anxiety (mAMAS) scale developed by this project proved to be a reliable tool for investigating math anxiety in school context. o Teachers need to be conscious that individuals' maths anxiety likely affects their mathematics performance. o Teachers and parents need to be conscious of the fact that their own mathematics anxiety might influence student mathematics anxiety and that gendered stereotypes about mathematics suitability and ability might drive to some degree the gender gap in maths performance. o Hence, for parents and teachers, tackling their own anxieties and belief systems in mathematics might be the first step to helping their children or students. o With our research showing that maths anxiety is present from a young age and goes through significant developmental change, we suggest focusing further research on how maths anxiety can be best remediated before any strong link with performance begins to emerge. o The qualitative part of our research shows that children are able to verbalise the suffering that mathematics anxiety causes them. Our qualitative research also points to several potential causes of maths anxiety that could be focused upon by further research. o Teacher training should clearly highlight the role of both cognitive and affective factors behind maths learning in schools. o Policy makers should be conscious that emotional blocks can have substantial impact on learning potential. o Emotional and cognitive problems require completely different interventions.

I like the part about "for parents and teachers, tackling their own anxieties and belief systems in mathematics might be the first step to helping their children or students," which I think is super important.</comment>


RxFiddle: Visualize your Observables - <AUTHOR> https://rxfiddle.net/#type=editor&code=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 <comment><USER2> I've found RxViz: [http://rxviz.com/](http://rxviz.com/) to be super useful as well!

</comment><comment><USER3> Very cool. I'll have to try this out the next time I have trouble with a RxSwift observable chain.

One of the nicer sides of using Rx is that converting from one implementation to the next is usually fairly trivial.

<comment><USER4> Yes indeed cool. Find this useful as an Angular dev.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Honestly, I don't get it. What's the benefit here to having this library as opposed to just calling those functions directly when some data in object changes?

I guess you could argue if you had tons of data, but I wouldn't be using a frontend application to implement a distributed queue processing and messaging system...

<comment><USER6> RX is a hilarious pattern IMO. 90% of the usage I've seen would be simpler and less code just doing things the old fashioned way.

The vast majority of observer pattern use cases are solved a lot more clearly by using async

<comment><USER7> Yeah but the pattern emerged before `async/await` was javascript standard so people kind of sticked to it.

I know some not bad js developers who use RX a lot and have no idea about `async/await` existence, I even had to explain to couple of them how `async/await` works and what is "imperative code". No joke.

<comment><USER8> Why not both? It doesn't have to be either/or: async/await is a great monad for cases where you need a simple imperative flow. Rx and the Observable pattern are great for cases where you have more complex data flows with complex needs like backpressure support (throttling and buffering), and complex time management.

Each has very different strengths, and it's very easy to work with both together.

        const someStream = Rx.fromPromise(myAsyncAwaitFunction())

        const arrayINeed = await myRxObservable.toArray().toPromise()

<comment><USER6> let val = await Thing();

Vs

Observable.of(thing).subsribe((res)=>{call back}

For all(most) cases where you only need to hear back once

<comment><USER8> If you only need to "hear back once", then yes, Observables are probably overkill.

But again, it's a false dichotomy, and your second example isn't much different from what await essentially rewrites to:

       Thing().then(val => /* call back */)

The benefit to async/await is that the runtime does the rewriting to Promise callbacks for you. But you can use both and get that advantage for both. Rx has supported converting to/from Promises since the beginning. Working with both is easy.

        let val = await observableOfJustOneThingINeed
          .take(1) // I just need one, I don't care if there are more
          .toPromise()

You don't have to manually subscribe, you can use a Promise and await it.

<comment><USER6> What RX gives you is a smooth flow to the last callback. Async is admittedly less flexible but the only way I know of to trigger asynchronous flow without a callback.

I worked in the C# world for a while and I'm still in envy of how clear and powerful good async support is.

<comment><USER8> Under the hood, async/await is using callbacks into a finite state machine. JS Promise and C# Task<T> (which are very similar in design, for obvious reasons) are both still driving the operations in an async/await function, the JS runtime, C# compiler (or TS compiler), is doing the heavy lifting of converting imperative _looking_ code into a finite state machine for Promise/Task callbacks.

You can't avoid callbacks in an asynchronous flow. async/await is just a conversion between imperative _looking_ code and a callback structure. It's a great win for developers that we've built such conversion tools (thanks to work on monads in languages like Haskell and OCaml).

Rx is for higher-order asynchronous streams where you have multiple events over time. It doesn't have the beauty of async/await because it's a much more complicated abstraction than the basic monad of Promise/Task. If you have a stream of events over time you can use Rx and if you have just one Promise at a time you can use Promise/Task and thus async/await. (The difference between I want to know every click of this button and I want to know just the next click of this button.) Most applications are a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B, and you don't have to pick one or the other, you can use both side-by-side.

<comment><USER6> Async avoids callbacks by restoring your calling context under the hood just like the compiler does for normal function calls and callbacks. It just does it in a way thats clearer IMO</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Russian M-125 Fialka Cipher Device - <AUTHOR> http://www.glennsmuseum.com/encryption/encryption.html <comment><USER2> Really interesting post. Does it have the same weakness as Enigma devices, i.e. that the input char can never become the output char ( encrypt(a) is never a)? This significantly reduces the search space.

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

<comment><USER3> The Engima has that weakness/property because it uses a reflector which reflects the current back through the rotors. The M-125 also uses a reflector so I would guess that the weakness/property exists, but it is likely hard to exploit than the enigma.

Let me explain, the M-125 uses a card reader to alter the input characters sent to the rotors. The rotors aren't being applied to raw input.

input -> card transformation -> rotors/reflector/rotors -> output

>"The activated wire corresponding to the input character wire goes to the card reader (the slot on the left side). Holes punched in the card control the swapping of characters. So, our A is translated to a T. [then it is sent to the rotors]"

After the card reader transformation the "never the same character" property would hold, but the card reader makes it significantly more difficult to exploit. That is, if you could guess the output after the card reader transformation you can apply the attack, but you'd probably have to guess the card reader transformation key first

Note that the Enigma had a plugboard[0] for a similar purpose but was less effective since most characters were left unchanged by the plugboard.

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma_machine#Plugboard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma_machine#Plugboard)</comment></comment>


iPhone XR Review: Almost all the best for way, way less - <AUTHOR> https://m.imore.com/iphone-xr-review <comment><USER2> Lol it has 3gb of ram, it's almost 2019. $750, what a bargain</comment>