Federal judge rips Uber apart over dirt-digging investigation - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2016/07/29/federal-judge-rips-uber-apart-over-dirt-digging-investigation/ <comment><USER2> I wish that more of silicon valley would penalize people for reprehensible behavior. If Uber execs were ostracized rather than lauded... if investors pounded the table about legal risks and the importance of ethical business rather than cheering along any behavior that makes the numbers grow (temporarily)... we might not have Zenefits melting down, nor sociopathic exec teams at major companies that are held up as scions of the tech world. If this is one of the best and brightest companies the tech industry has to offer, we have a deeply worrisome problem. If pursuing paper growth absolutely trumps ethical concerns, we are feeding into a horrible system. If nobody calls this shit out and there isn't actual financial and social/cultural consequence, things will only get worse.

<comment><USER3> I don't see what's so wrong about using an investigator to find out more about the guy who is suing you.

Can someone explain that to me? Is it against the law to find all publicly available information about someone or to follow them around?

The big criminal act that I can see here is that "Ergo" (the company that Uber hired) wasn't licensed in NY. Seems like that would be on Ergo, not Uber.

<comment><USER4> "Investigation" covers a wide range of activities, and many things one would do while investigating can themselves be chilling, intimidating, or harassing; and using investigation to chill, intimidate or harass can be the point. The Church Of Scientology is famous for using "investigation" to destroy its critics. In this case, the judge clearly felt that Ergo's investigations were far beyond routine due diligence on a plaintiff.

Remember, there was previously an incident where an Uber exec bragged at a party about using investigators to destroy journalists who might investigate them. [0]

[0] [http://www.dailytech.com/Uber+Exec+Threatens+to+Spend+Millio...](http://www.dailytech.com/Uber+Exec+Threatens+to+Spend+Millions+to+Stalk+Female+Reporter+and+Her+Family/article36907.htm)

<comment><USER3> Interesting. Thanks for elaborating.

If investigators don't have any power to do anything that a normal public person can do, like finding public information or digging through someone's trash...then I don't see why anyone should be barred from employing that. However, I know that in many states you must be licensed to advertise yourself as a Private Investigator.

I don't know why that would be the case though unless PIs have special authority to do things that normal people can't do. I mean, I do know why - it's political for one thing since you can't even be a PI in some states without having police or military experience.

Looking around, I don't see any special privileges that a PI has that a normal person does not. They cannot trespass on private property, they cannot wiretap a phone or gain access to private records. The only special privilege that they enjoy is that they generally won't be subject to harassment or stalking laws if they follow someone around in public.

<comment><USER4> You're not barred from investigating someone or using investigators to do so in a trial, but the prohibition here is about the effect created by the investigation (just like it's the effect of 100 phone calls a day that constitutes stalking, not using the phone itself). Legal proceedings have a well developed decorum/civility to them that the judge can enforce at her discretion, including criminal penalties.

If Uber/Ergo had limited itself to not interviewing the plaintiff's family, friends, and acquaintances, they'd probably have been fine; but going around to everyone you know and asking a lot of dark questions is pretty clearly going to intimidate a plaintiff and chill other potential plaintiffs, and that's obviously the point--especially when interviewing is unlikely to surface anything not already found through records searches and the discovery process.

<comment><USER3> Thank you. I can totally see why that kind of behavior should be prohibited.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't get it. Uber are offering an extremely good service, one that I'd pay more money for than they're asking. They don't need to be terrible humans to be successful so why do they do it? This seems to be par for the course of them in terms of shady shit they've been accused of or caught doing.

<comment><USER6> _They don 't need to be terrible humans to be successful so why do they do it?_

That's what gets me, too. Though it can be easily copied, their service model is such a night-and-day improvement over the state of things previously that they should be universally loved for what they're doing.

And yet they keep pulling these asshat antics, and gratuitously making a bad name for themselves -- over and over and over again.

<comment><USER7> I think that to some extent, companies -- especially relatively young companies -- reflect their founders. And Travis Kalanick seems like he's just kind of a dick.

But more so, remember that everything's on a margin, here. Uber can obviously be very successful on the level of "a company that provides taxi services in a lot of cities." But they've taken in _more than $10B in funding_ on the premise that they can be much more than "a company that provides taxi services in a lot of cities."

So even though it seems like they should be coasting into victory, they're actually super tense and worried, because what they could coast into victory for is not what they're now obligated to become, based on the money they've taken in and the promises they made to the people who bought them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Creepy. My city local taxis are a mafia. The global one is even worse. I'm afraid about what would happen when they became a de facto monopoly.

</comment><comment><USER9> Did anyone go to jail? No? Well then... it'll happen again.

<comment><USER10> I was going to type a reply about how I'll never take another Uber (not only due to this, but everything else associated with that brand too), but I realized I'd be lying. It's too convenient and available in locations lacking alternatives. My moral outrage won't stop me drunk and wanting to get home to give them more money.

<comment><USER11> If it makes you feel any better, most taxi companies are even more reprehensible than Uber. They just operate at much smaller scale, so nobody notices.

<comment><USER12> The reprehensibility of taxi companies is a big reason why Uber was invented. That said, as with their drivers and corporate practices, Uber and taxi companies are converging on a mean behavior level that in my case has rendered Uber expendable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I really wonder if Uber will stop doing these shady shenanigans before their business runs into the ground. I guess they'll be around for a long time with the enormous amounts of money they're been given through investments, but I feel like, at least in the US, where consumers prefer companies that aren't blatantly distasteful, people will start switching to other companies that have better PR or go back to the traditional taxi services. If what was said in February was true, that they're profitable in the US (which is difficult to believe because I doubt Uber uses GAAP), then they will eventually find themselves in a difficult position with one of their primary markets losing interest in their product. But, on the bright side, at least they're unlikely to have to worry about losing billions of dollars in China as much considering the new law that passed about ride hailing since they won't be providing the same incentive for drivers anymore[1].

1: [http://qz.com/745337/china-finally-made-ride-hailing- legal-i...](http://qz.com/745337/china-finally-made-ride-hailing-legal-in-a- way-that-could-destroy-ubers-business-model/)

</comment><comment><USER14> > Jed Rakoff, has now, in a 31-page order, called "blatantly fraudulent and > arguably criminal."

So? It's Uber, they are above the law. Silly judge.

or is this finally the line? Ignoring regulations all over the place, fine. Questionable "Contractor" status for employees? That's cool. Sharing economy man.</comment>


How I set up my Linode VPS server (an Ubuntu 12.04 LTS build with a LEMP stack) - <AUTHOR> http://cbrac.co/1561ytR

<comment><AUTHOR> Please note that I am a front-end designer, and this was my first extensive foray into the sysadmin world. Constructive criticism welcome!</comment>


Why do pilots say "Roger that"? - <AUTHOR> https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/flights/this-is-why-pilots-started-saying-the-phrase-roger-that/news-story/d6927bc9887674826076e0dc51deecad <comment><USER2> Two of these must be Australian variations, as a U.S. pilot I've never come across "Roger that" \- just "Roger". And never have come across "affirm" only "affirmative".

Examples are in ICAO standard phraseology, FAA ORDER JO 7110.65, and the Aeronautical Information Manual.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I've definitely heard affirm from pilots in the UK</comment></comment>


Facebook's new privacy rules, America's extremely old privacy laws - <AUTHOR> http://www.itworld.com/tech-amp-society/103221/facebooks-new-privacy-rules-americas-extremely-old-privacy-laws <comment><USER2> An irony is, that in the US, _banks_ can share your information with 'business partners'.</comment>


Show HN: IRMFT – A web app for sharing first time experiences - <AUTHOR> http://www.irmft.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey guys! I am excited to share this project that I developed using AngularJS. IRMFT (I Remember My First Time) is a website which aims to collect the stories and recollections of various life experiences, from the first time you chugged beer, to the first car you bought, and of course the first time you had sex. I would love to get HN's feedback!</comment>


Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2 - <AUTHOR> https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2 <comment><USER2> Interesting. I live a couple hours northeast of Anchorage, Alaska. It is a remote, mountainous area that is also in a rain shadow to some extent, thus fairly dry. I was having dinner recently with a local who has lived here his whole life of 60+ years. He said it is remarkable the increase in shrubs, trees, and general greening of the area since when he was a teenager. Places that were open tundra are now impassable. I'm sure some is increase in temperature, but CO2 could also be a factor.

<comment><USER3> Alaska has seen the biggest changes in temperatures in the US. It's not a good thing.

> Over the past 60 years, the average temperature across Alaska has increased > by approximately 3°F. This increase is more than twice the warming seen in > the rest of the United States.

[https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate- impacts/climat...](https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate- impacts/climate-impacts-alaska_.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting, but the deforestation rate as a result of human activities, wildfires, and desertification is probably higher:

'Football pitch' of Amazon forest lost every minute

[https://www.bbc.com/news/science- environment-48827490](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48827490)

<comment><USER5> According to NASA, "A quarter to half of Earth's vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide"

"Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth."

"Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. "The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.""

[https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth- green...](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor- now/)

<comment><USER6> I don't get the down votes. You seem to have provided an interesting source that counters the parent's hunch. Must be that folks don't like the silver lining to a maybe-uninhabitable-by-humans environment.

<comment><USER7> They are distorting the truth, either parroting that narrative out of genuine ignorance or an attempt to start some goal-post-moving trolling. At this point, informed people that would have typically countered are tired of seeing the same behavior on every other social media site. Dunning-Kruger, astroturfing, trolling - doesn't matter, just downvote the garbage.

I'm not going to engage with it either. That kind of statement is just begging for a response because the goal moves in any number of directions - look, plants will sequester all our carbon! Solar minimum will counter human climate change! More food for people! It's all a conspiracy!

No.

There's a reason those climate change reports can be 100s of pages long. Scientists have done very thorough public research, accounting for all those variables - the conclusion is, we're fucked.

All the science is complicated but completely public. Trust the summary provided by the consensus of journalists covering the scientific consensus of raw research - that's called an educated opinion. Alternatively, roll up your own sleeves and probe the research yourself.

 _Never_ let some online rando's idle musings erode your opinions. If it sounds too good to be true, it is.

<comment><USER8> We're _not_ fucked. It's just easier to believe that we are.

The fact is... we don't really know what will happen. Our world will be different, some animals may be gone, some will be better off than ever, but humans will still be here. The inhabitants of Earth have survived far worse conditions and events in the past.

<comment><USER9> > but humans will still be here

Yes, but how many, and who. It's still an existential threat to invididuals, when you don't know what conditions that will make up that survivability. Now that it is apparent that there is the distinct possibility of people dying within our lifetimes, even if not many, it's a concern. It's basically "Evolution has decided that the time has come to select the strongest, and I don't know if I or my loved ones are strong enough."

<comment><USER10> But nobody wants to have the discussion under the conditions you specify. Because this means whatever solution is put forward

1) is limited in how much it is allowed to reduce economic activity (what point is there in saving humanity if you have to do it through famine ?)

2) is limited in how much global warming is allowed

Nobody has any such solutions, except for geoengineering, at which point humanity simply takes direct control of global climate. That means someone, probably in Washington or perhaps Brussels or Beijing, simply decides whether crops in the Sahara will work out this year or not. Are they responsible for the failed yields ? How about fuckups (which we can pretty much assume will happen) ? How about sacrificing one area to save another when they're at war ?

Also this tech is probably pretty easily weaponized.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Want to make a difference on climate change as a technologist? Feel free to join these communities actively looking for support and with ongoing projects (that are alive):

\- [https://climateaction.tech/](https://climateaction.tech/)

\- [https://techimpactmakers.com/](https://techimpactmakers.com/)

\- [https://www.tmrow.com/](https://www.tmrow.com/)

<comment><USER12> and check out this index of companies and projects mining carbon from the air:

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The biggest threat to the environment today is the propaganda.

People with a financial interest in our environmentalist policies use propaganda to manipulate us into passing laws to their benefit.

Futarchy can save the environment from these maniacs: [https://github.com/zack- bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/use-...](https://github.com/zack- bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/use-cases-and-ideas/climate_maintenance.md)

</comment><comment><USER14> Of note: CSIRO appears to have lost some of its independence under Australia's current government[1], probably because "we're harming the planet" doesn't help sell coal[2]. The UN (and virtually every national scientific body) consider desertification (alongside water misuse and land degradation, both of which precede desertification) to be a serious concern[3].

Edit: To be clear, that doesn't mean these results are fabricated or incorrect. I'm calling into question the decision to emphasize them over the overwhelmingly negative effects of climate change on Australia[4].

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSIRO#CSIRO_and_the_Liberal_Go...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSIRO#CSIRO_and_the_Liberal_Government)

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

[3]: [https://www.un.org/en/events/desertification_decade/whynow.s...](https://www.un.org/en/events/desertification_decade/whynow.shtml)

[4]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_A...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_Australia)

<comment><USER15> I agree with your questioning, but find it a bit odd to do so in response to this particular paper if you're really not suggesting some sort of political bias. CSIRO is not 'emphasizing' this paper - it's just one of many news releases.

As for the findings themselves - they're interesting if not unexpected. They don't in themselves have any significant practical implications (positive or negative) as Australian deserts are in zones that the BAU scenario will make too hot for human habitation by the end of this century.

<comment><USER14> > I agree with your questioning, but find it a bit odd to do so in response to > this particular paper if you're really not suggesting some sort of political > bias.

Sorry if this wasn't clear: I _am_ (or was, see the following graf) suggesting a political bias (or at the very least a willingness to turn a blind eye).

I also just realized that this paper and summary were published in 2013, not this year. I don't know enough about Australian politics to know how independent CSIRO was then, but it's very possible that I'm wrong in impugning motives.

In any case, I think the hazard is still present: positive emphasis on the silver lining of what is otherwise an unmitigated disaster gives ammunition to denialists and (undeserved) psychological reprieve to the rest of us.

<comment><USER16> Having met a few at CSIRO, I'd tend to accept that they're real science-y scientists, meaning that they've never really had cause to be labelled as having strong political bias... But that's just my subjective word.

That said, all science is subject to bias according to its funding, particularly if not readily reproducible. The CSIRO is an org that garners public and private funding.

From the narrative :

> _This study was published in the US Geophysical Research Letters journal and > was funded by CSIRO 's Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, Water for a Healthy > Country Flagship, the Australian Research Council and Land & Water > Australia._

So, self funded with a few other gov interests thrown in. Is this enough to invalidate findings? Only if not reproducible... But has anyone tried?

<comment><USER15> Possible problems sometimes cited re CSIRO aren't so much to do with bias, as political pressure from above - similarly to the way the Aus Treasury has been corrupted by the present federal gov. A recent example from the media IIRC was them being given a single afternoon to sign off on the Adani groundwater management plan. It's a matter of what they are allowed to do (and report on) & under what conditions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Uhh... ok so does this research take into account both China and Africa has been spending $$$ billions on reversing desertification? They've been using new technology to make desert sand retain water, thus allowing certain types of trees & vegetation to grow in areas that previously couldn't sustain plant life.

Then there's the fact that China has spent over 30 years investigating how to use desalinated sea water to grow rice. Now they're able to grow rice fields in places that couldn't before.

Africa's Great Green Wall [http://youtu.be/4xls7K_xFBQ](http://youtu.be/4xls7K_xFBQ)

China's Great Green Wall [http://youtu.be/pSn6S-H7m-8](http://youtu.be/pSn6S-H7m-8)

China's Sea Rice Research [http://youtu.be/yN_YnM9OFh8](http://youtu.be/yN_YnM9OFh8)

I'm not trying to dismiss the research but to simply say that rising C02 levels have made desert land fertile seems grossly misleading.

<comment><USER18> The article makes clear that areas that aren't under the massive undesertification programs you bring up have shown the same results.

Kind of like how towns that got fluoride in the water and towns that didn't _both_ experienced an increase in dental health during a period in which there were massive advances in dentistry and fluoride toothpaste became a thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> More CO2 makes plants grow taller, but not with more grain. Being taller, grasses (like wheat) often snap and fall over, particularly in storms. Crop fail.

We are at the shallow end of the changes that are coming. An exponential increase in CO2, means an exponential increase in temperature, slowed down by ocean cooling. The current +1'C is almost beneficial, the predicted +3'C..+8'C in 2100 will be devastating. The rain-forests will go brown and fail before +4'c. But currently it all seems so lovely.

<comment><USER20> How did plants survive in the past when co2 levels were much higher than today?

<comment><USER21> We've just passed 400 ppm, everything was pretty different when it was much higher [https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a- carbon...](https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon- threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters)

> To find a time when the planet's air was consistently above 400 ppm you have > to look much farther back to the warm part of the Miocene, some 16 million > years ago, or the Early Oligocene, about 25 million years ago, when Earth > was a very different place and its climate totally dissimilar from what we > might expect today.

Towards the end Miocene was when grasses began to emerge significantly

> The higher organic content and water retention of the deeper and richer > grassland soils, with long-term burial of carbon in sediments, produced a > carbon and water vapor sink. This, combined with higher surface albedo and > lower evapotranspiration of grassland, contributed to a cooler, drier > climate. C4 grasses, which are able to assimilate carbon dioxide and water > more efficiently than C3 grasses, expanded to become ecologically > significant near the end of the Miocene between 6 and 7 million years ago.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miocene#Flora](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miocene#Flora)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is like cheering about your house warming up in the winter...because it's in the process of burning down.

</comment><comment><USER22> It's always amazing to me how much people hate seeing any facts that don't overwhelmingly blame CO2 as some sort of pollutant. It's beyond rational at this point and is almost certainly simply an emotional response now.

<comment><USER23> It's been well reported that climate change will mean different things for different people, and some of the effects will be beneficial in some way for some.

That doesn't wipe away the fact that even with these factors considered, CO2 is the primary cause of catastrophic, runaway climate change which will make Earth significantly less livable over the next few decades.</comment></comment>


40 Days Without Booze - <AUTHOR> http://jdmoyer.com/2013/08/14/40-days-without-booze/ <comment><USER3> _> booze enables workaholism, because of the fast unwind time_

I think this is the key insight from the article. I went through a stressful period where I used alcohol to wind down quickly. But in reality it just made things worse because it numbed me up to the real reasons why I was stressed out. Sometimes though, we don't want to look at the deeper issues (emotional/psychological) for why we are unhappy, and booze provides some quick and effective relief.

I've recently gotten much healthier and it's amazing to experience that the old adage about "making a lifestyle change" really is the core of it. All the different parts of your life have to hang together for the positive switch to happen. If you think of exercise and diet as a way to "pay down the debt" you'll never get out from under whatever is holding you down.

<comment><USER4> I find that a hardcore workout works even better than alcohol. Not only do you get the same winding down effect in a short period of time (assuming you're really killing yourself and working to exhaustion in the gym), but you get a lot of additional benefits along with it: better focus, improved health, boosted confidence, and improved body composition. You wake up the next morning feeling a lot better about yourself. My experience with alcohol is often the opposite.

<comment><USER5> > working to exhaustion in the gym

I don't disagree, but when I've tried this I just find myself doubly exhausted: once (mentally) from the work, and again (physically) from the gym. Still agree that making time for the gym is really important though. But for me, it's not the answer to mental exhaustion but rather just part of a healthy lifestyle generally (personally, proper sleep hygiene is the only solution I've found to mental exhaustion and overwork).

<comment><USER6> I would hazard that you are coming to this from a relatively sedentary point of view. Often overlooked is the huge hump to get over before exercise starts showing it's benefits. It can take months if you do not have the strength it takes to work out effectively, or are performing less than optimal exercise routine, such as one focused on cardio.

<comment><USER7> I have gone for half a year or longer exercising on average 5 times a week, sometimes more. Excercise is often physically draining for me afterwards. My experience is opposite of it taking a "long time to [feel?] benefits": it just takes 10 pushups to a 7 minute circuit workout for me to feel great and invigorated. A longer workout often leaves me feeling drained in the hours after. My circulatory system might feel much better, but my body feels tired.

<comment><USER4> Not all exercise sessions are made equal. If you're just doing 10 pushups or 7 minute circuits for 6 months, you're still very much in the beginner phase.

It took me a few years of consistent intense training to really get into the groove of things. I've been at it for about 9 years now. This is the intensity that I aim for (mind you, this is not me in the video): [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAhNyvTF5Uw](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAhNyvTF5Uw)

After that level of intensity on a consistent basis for a few years, you adapt to it. While you may feel tired, you gain energy from it as well.

<comment><USER7> I did much more than 10 push-ups or 7 min circuit training each session for those six months (and those six months isn't the only time I've exercised, just one of the longer uninterrupted streaks of it). Don't patronize me.

<comment><USER4> Not trying to patronize you at all, and I apologize if it came off that way. I'd say that most people in the tech/hacker community aren't too well acquainted with consistent, dedicated exercise. It wouldn't be unreasonable for someone to have the belief that after 6 months of 7 minute circuits, their body should be well adapted to intense workouts. Since I don't know who you are or where you stand on the experience spectrum, I took an educated guess, and apparently was wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've slipped into the habit of drinking almost every single night over the past few months and I'm currently trying to cut it out. It's harder than I thought it would be.

Like the author said, I've never noticed any physical withdrawal, but I have a strong urge to have a drink every night (sometimes even in the middle of the day). This is one of the most stressful times of my life and it's so hard not to just say "fuck it" and give up. And even when I don't really have that strong of an urge, I'm haunted by rationalizations and second guessing: "just have one," "moderate drinking isn't bad for you," etc. I'm trying to do more self tracking to prove to myself that the last one is BS.

What really sucks is I've noticed that a few beers will cause me problems with dehydration, weight gain, horrible sleep (I'm told I _always_ freak out in the middle of the night after drinking) and yet I've developed such a tolerance that I don't even get buzzed unless I'm on an empty stomach.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, I assume you are in your late twenties. I've talked privately with lots of people in the Toronto tech scene about daily drinking. I was doing it when I was 27 during a stressful period when the acquisition of a company I started began to fall apart (I only ended up making 9 months of the 4 year vesting).

I was told that it either lasts until you have kids, turn thirty, or turn into a full blown alcoholic. I took the easier way out and just quit my position.

<comment><USER8> Wow. I turned 27 last week. It wasn't always about drinking because of stress (I happen to really like trying different craft brews), but lately it has been. My wife is going through some serious medical issues and depression, which invariably puts a strain on finances also.

<comment><USER9> If there is anything I can do, I'd be happy to help not just you, but anyone in your situation that is reading this.

Medical issues are horrible, especially when then happen to a SO because it puts an unsolvable problem between two people that know they love each other but slowly slide into a distance that only exacerbates the problem.

Not that I could ever properly understand what you are going through, but I've found that being patient, and actively choosing to be patient, even when you don't want to be, and being kind, even when you don't want to be, really, really help a relationship because the other person usually senses that you are choosing to do something for them.

Sometimes it is just this concious choice that gives them validation that they are cared for and the other person can pull themselves up a notch. Sometimes not, but even in those times, the funk they are in is slighly less funky.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> When you click on a link here you never know if booze will mean alcohol or some node.js/go framework you've never heard of.

<comment><USER11> [http://html9responsiveboilerstrapjs.com/](http://html9responsiveboilerstrapjs.com/)

<comment><USER12> Missing the word "beautiful" to describe every aspect of the visual design, but very funny!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Great writeup. As someone who never drinks, and never has, it continues to sound like a drug to me and I want no part of it. That said, I still get questioned about my decision like I have 2 heads.

<comment><USER14> It is not "like a drug", it is a drug just like any other substances commonly called drugs. We just integrated it into our culture, and learned to live with it and accept the consequences of its use (on the societal level, personally it is still as capable of destroying lives as any other drug if abused). But it doesn't change neither chemistry nor biology nor physiology of what is happening.

So if someone talks to you about dangers of such things as marijuana while sipping wine or beer - you're talking to either dangerously ignorant or dangerously dull person.

<comment><USER15> > if someone talks to you about dangers of such things as marijuana while > sipping wine or beer - you're talking to either dangerously ignorant or > dangerously dull person.

Or maybe you're talking to someone smart enough to realize that just because a bunch of things are in the same _category_ , that doesn't make them _equivalent_.

<comment><USER16> You're totally right, I would hope that many people would be as smart as that person and understand how much more dangerous alcohol can be than marijuana or many other drugs.

<comment><USER15> > how much more dangerous alcohol can be than marijuana or many other drugs.

That may be true but is irrelevant. The original claim was that someone talking about the dangers of marijuana while drinking is an idiot.

My claim is that talking about one says nothing about their knowledge of the other since they are _different things_. I can talk about the dangers of bear attacks while driving a car. I can talk about the dangers of flying while using a ladder.

That doesn't make me a hypocrite, it just means I'm not spending every waking moment sorting my activities and discussion points by aggregate danger level.

<comment><USER17> It doesn't make you a hypocrite, but using your example, it would make you an idiot armchair pundit, unaware of your surroundings, or the comedic irony in which your statements are now grounded. Which is more in-line with the original point, I think.

Not that I'm saying you're any of those things, mind you, but your analogy was fairly flawed. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I was a heavy drinker, at some points a 6 pack a night, for well over 10 years and I quit cold turkey and have been sober for going on 5 years now. There was definitely a point where getting to bed was a task but I'm such a changed person emotionally and mentally than I was when drinking. Somethings are just not for everyone. The worst part was definitely seeing who my real friends were and who were just the people who I drank with.

<comment><USER19> Same here, about 10 years. Started off with the Wife and I splitting a bottle of wine every night, or a six pack. It was fine for awhile, then I'd often do a bottle myself. We'd drink 5-6 nights a week, then it was every night. Less than two years ago my son was born and drinking spiked, I cut waaay back, and when I recently changed jobs, I started again (and subsequently quit working out).

I'm not doing it cold turkey though. No AC in the summer here mixed with a lifelong struggle with insomnia has given me more than a few nights of very little if no sleep. At least until Summer is over and the heat doesn't keep me awake, I'll have some wine handy to drink a bit before bed (no earlier than 7pm and I'm in bed by 8:30 or 9:00 - I get up at 4:30 am).

Before the last couple weeks when I decided enough was enough, I'd often, at least the weekend, start drinking at 4pm and take down an entire bottle of wine/saki AND a six pack of IPA.

The irony is, I eat relatively healthy and low calorie, but I've gained 45lbs in the last few years, and I'm thinking most of that is beer and wine - <USER2> rarely drink hard liquor or mixed drinks.

Other than trouble getting to sleep, I've not had any other physical symptoms, but I'm worried. 10 years of constant drinking just cant be good.

<comment><USER20> _" The irony is, I eat relatively healthy and low calorie, but I've gained 45lbs in the last few years"_

125ml red wine = 85 cal, or 510 per bottle. English style bitter is a bit better at 180 cal per pint, so on your consumption mentioned in 3rd para, that is just under 1600 calories extra _per day_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I quit drinking six years ago cold turkey. Working for myself it was always easy to find a time/reason to have a drink and I realized it wasn't heading down a good path. My wife and I were also looking to have kids and I decided I didn't want to drink around them. For awhile people either didn't understand it or were amazed that I just quit (I love to party, still do!).

My best friend kept nagging me about having a few beers with him when I visited. Since we both smoked for a short time in high school I suggested that we, instead, buy a pack of cigarettes and smoke a few while we're hanging out. "But I don't smoke anymore." Lightbulb moment.

The biggest thing i realized is that drinking is something to do. You hang out with the same people at the same bars talking about the same crap. Initially it's pretty boring when you quit but I really don't even think about it anymore. I will say that in the time since I quit drinking I had two kids, my business has seen year over year success and I've completed an Ironman triathlon.

<comment><USER22> _My wife and I were also looking to have kids and I decided I didn 't want to drink around them_

I've actually made it a deliberate point to drink around my children to role model responsible alcohol use: Never in excessive volume, never an excessive frequency, never in response to stress or to drown unhappiness, never alone, never something that's not enjoyable as a beverage, never ever ever before driving (or motorcycling, bicycling, whatever).

I'm hoping it helps. I'll report back in in 20 years to see if my kids are better off with positive role modeling than I was with terrible role modeling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> My wife is pregnant and as a show of solidarity I'm not drinking around her (which cuts out the majority of my drinking). Which is not quite this experiment, but has shown me one thing where his and my experiences differ: Socializing.

As it turns out I socialize a lot in bars - and I don't like bars at all when not drinking. Mocktails° help - but not enough, and basically no bars serve those in Seattle, only fancy restaurants. Which has meant more socializing at fancy restaurant bars…

In general it's been a mildly interesting change in behavior and a pretty good experience.

° Fake beer is just bad. And I don't like sodas. And soda water seems like ostentatious abstinence.

\---

Edit: Thanks for the suggestions! I should clearly have asked the internet before doing this, I could have been doing it much much better :)

<comment><USER24> > and basically no bars serve those in Seattle, only fancy restaurants.

I suppose this depends on what you mean by "bar". I've got some friends who are mostly abstainers, and they've had some delicious mocktails at Vito's, Tavern Law, and Rumba. I treat all of those as more bar than restaurant (I don't know that Seattle has turned me into more of a booze hound, but it's certainly made my booze habit more expensive), but they've all got full food menu's and kitchens. Where are you finding that's less mocktail-friendly?

<comment><USER23> I treat Vito's as a restaurant (a very, very lounge-y one) - this is pretty much a personal choice, as I like their kitchen (and their mocktails). I should check Rumba's mocktail selection.

And I don't find other cities more mocktail friendly - Seattle's pretty impressively good at it - in the restaurant scene. And perhaps I should just be spending more time talking with the bartenders at the bars :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Went from drinking way too much (Think black out) to zero recently. It was actually surprisingly easy - weirdly effortless.

What freaks me out though is how difficult it is to hit the sweet spot. i.e. To drink, but low-moderate amounts and only irregularly. That would be ideal in my view - I don't seem to have sufficient willpower for that yet, so its zero drinks for now.

<comment><USER26> This is one thing that Alcoholics Anonymous gets right... when you're dependent enough on alcohol to get to the "alcoholic" label, drinking just one or two is really not gonna happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I feel that the understated effect is, that _doing x_ or _stopping with y_ for a month gives you the idea (illusion) that you are in full control of your life.

<comment><USER25> Fair point. I'd say as far as strategies goes its one of the better ones.

30+ days is enough to get at least a semi-objective indication of physical dependence, which is a good start.

<comment><USER28> I've heard 40 days is enough to develop a habit (or break one), so to me this is a good period of time to try to work out the kinks of getting into (or out of) something.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> >> ...alcoholism is often linked to highly driven, ambitious, over-achieving personality types...

I have come across this point multiple times in the past -- reading or conversing -- but never has a concrete source or study been cited. Not to say I don't agree with it -- anecdotal evidence is not always false.

It is really true though? I consider myself very driven and ambitious and also have a drinking habit, but know a few others who don't.

<comment><USER30> People who drink alcohol in moderation statistically make 10-15% more money.

[http://www.esquire.com/blogs/food-for-men/drinking- statistic...](http://www.esquire.com/blogs/food-for-men/drinking-statistics- by-income-080210)

<comment><USER31> People who drive Porsches statistically have higher salaries. Lets all go buy Porsches and our salaries will go up. I'm in, what about you?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I know a lot of people who are similarly dependent upon (if not outright addicted to) exercise. Typically running although I've seen it with cycling and swimming as well. For these people if they don't get their exercise on schedule, they go absolutely nuts. There are many benefits to exercise but for many there are also big big risks, e.g. joint problems, soft tissue injuries, etc.

<comment><USER32> I used to be a pack-a-day smoker now I'm a runner/cyclist and you're exactly right if I've been sitting all day and I don't get exercise by the time it gets dark I start going nuts. That being said I'm pretty confident my body was designed to run and not to inhale burning plant matter or drink excessive amounts of fermented grain. So far I feel much better and I don't have any of those problems.

<comment><USER33> >That being said I'm pretty confident my body was designed to run and not to inhale burning plant matter or drink excessive amounts of fermented grain. So far I feel much better and I don't have any of those problems.

Intriguing. Designed by what?

<comment><USER32> Millions of years of evolution chasing food to eat or running from being eaten :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> (I am reading this after two glasses of wine).

Am I alone in thinking that he sounds like an addict? I mean, sure he didn't have a big issue sticking to his decision, but at the same time the list of changes is pretty significant.

<comment><USER35> Was thinking that too. For all the verbiage, there was only a vague " _I had only been averaging a couple drinks a day_ " way down the article as an indication of what the abstained-from baseline was. _Averaging_ two? The "couple" numeric implies room for large values of 2, and "averaging" easily includes two days of nothing followed by 6 in short order.

This brings back the crux of those who argue such subjects: some people are the "a glass with dinner" type and experience almost no effect, some people are the "six-pack at a time" type and experience significant effect, and very few in either category seem able to acknowledge the other category exists at all. Their average may be comparable, but frequency * intensity produce wildly differing results.

<comment><USER36> 2 glasses of wine could be 2 glasses, at 250 ml per glass, of a 14.5% ABV wine. This is a considerable, probably dangerous, amount of alcohol.

(In the UK this is described at 3.6 units per glass, or about 7 units per day. Safe limits for men are not more than 3 to 4 units per day, not every day.)

Or it could be 2 glasses, at 150 ml per glass, of a 10% ABV wine. That would be 1.5 units per glass, or 3 units per day.

<comment><USER35> That just accentuates his curious vagueness about the baseline he varied from.

A "serving" of alcohol is considered 0.6 fl oz, or 14 grams, of ethanol. People tend to overestimate what constitutes a "serving" of any food/drink, with consequences in line with the withdraw effects he experienced.

<comment><USER36> > A "serving" of alcohol is considered 0.6 fl oz, or 14 grams

Not in the UK!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I think the whole premise that it should be hard to go 40 days without alcohol is ridiculous. If not drinking for 40 days is an experiment you're already in a minority with an unhealthy relationship with alcohol.

<comment><USER38> Seriously? Do you eat meat? Try going for 40 days without eating it. Or wheat.

Changing your habits is hard and requires thought. I've recently given up meat and am suprised at the changes I've felt and at how difficult it is to socialize (restaurants, buffets, etc.) Does that mean I had an unhealthy relationship with chicken?

<comment><USER37> The point of the article seems to be that it is an admirable experiment to be able to give up alcohol for 40 days. If that is indeed an achievement for the author, that seems to suggest that he is physically or socially addicted to alcohol to _some degree_, which can be described as unhealthy. For me giving up meat or wheat would be much worse, because they are a part of my diet. I also enjoy drinking, but alcohol is not part of my diet, and I would be surprised and worried if I had any difficulties staying away from alcohol for 40 days.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I can definitely relate to the workaholism issue.

After getting the kid to bed, I often work late and need to wind down fast so I can hurry up, go to bed myself, hurry up and sleep, and then hurry up and get up in the morning.

I need to work on that.

<comment><USER40> Yeah, it feels like a narrow line to walk, but the effectivness of alcohol as a wind down quick elixr can not be denied. I found myself mixing whiskey into a glass of water last night at 2:30 just so I could slow my mind down enough to get to sleep. As I was watering down the alcohol so I could quickly consume it I paused for a second to wonder if this was destructive behavior, but... It feels like I'm in control of it. The alcohol is a tool.

A drink before bed to me is like the inverse of waking up and drinking coffee.

<comment><USER41> > A drink before bed to me is like the inverse of waking up and drinking > coffee.

I find that weird. My sleep is completely wrecked if I have something to drink beforehand - I'll go to sleep fine, but the sleep is always fitful and I don't feel rested in the morning.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> >I did find it more difficult to remain polite in the presence of people who were actively annoying me, but I managed to hold my tongue in most cases.

Recently, I did a 42-day voluntary abstention from drinking. And, unlike everyone else I know who has tried this, I didn't cheat. It was inspired by a 21-day abstention a few months prior, which was due to a backpacking trip on which we decided not to bring any booze.

At the end of these periods I felt great, physically and mentally. After starting up again, my alcohol consumption was less than it used to be. Sleep was better than ever, and I wake up feeling refreshed - the better sleep is far and above the most noticeable effect. Generally I just feel healthier.

The social thing is a challenge, but not impossible. I actually forced myself not to go out any less, I still kept every plan with friends to visit bars, clubs, etc. Just drank a club soda. I quoted the above because I had a similar experience: when you are sober, you quickly realize that there are a few or several of your friends who you cannot stand to be around sober. You realize how annoying they are.

It was fun pushing myself for three and then six weeks. It inspired me to follow up with a three-day water fast (that was particularly painful, again I did not cheat). I am interested if any HN readers have suggestions of other self-denial tasks to try out.

<comment><USER3> The ultimate in self-denial: no computer usage outside of works hours for a week!

<comment><USER43> Does a smartphone count?

<comment><USER3> For anything other than taking phone calls or checking email, yes.

<comment><USER14> How checking email is not computer usage?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I personally enjoy a tasty beverage on occasion. But if I were to go 40 days without drinking I'm not sure that I would even notice. The OP doesn't sound like he was a particularly heavy drinker, but it always has a slight problematic ring to me when somebody tells me they haven't drank for X number of days. Especially when X is a fairly small number. I always figure that since they're tracking the time so specifically that they must be dying for a drink.

</comment><comment><USER45> I have learned distrust. I distrust anything that makes me feel good without having achieved something that merits that sensation.

Alcohol is like being wrapped in a comforter. You are warm, the world is soft, and like a child, you trust in everything turning out alright.

This has no relationship to the real world.

While I have enjoyed alcohol many times, and both drunk to excess and been a social drinker, I find that it distracts me. It distracts from what I should be paying attention to, while I'm busy feeling good and safe.

<comment><USER25> > you trust in everything turning out alright. This has no relationship to the > real world.

I have tried the opposite: 100% serious balls to the wall control freak & pessimism and mistrust of "everything turning out alright". I'm sad to report that that approach is no good.

I'm starting to think a decent dose of naive "it'll turn out alright" is _useful_.

<comment><USER45> Another option is a middle path:

It will turn out, how it turns out.

Sounds tautological, but it preserves the idea that multiple real world forces determine the outcome, not wishing or feeling. That might save us from paranoia.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Tips on abstaining:

* Don't keep any alcohol in your house

* Don't go anywhere that drinking is the primary focus, or even secondary focus

* Pick up a regular hobby that makes you happy and do it at least three times a week

* Talk to people you enjoy and join them in activities that don't involve drinking

* Put the amount of money you'd normally have spent on booze into a piggy bank and watch it grow

* Make a list of things that make you happy, and revisit it when you're feeling down (instead of revisiting booze)

* Get a buddy to abstain with you from drinking or smoking for mutual moral support

* Put an 'X' on a calendar for every day you don't drink

* If you find it difficult, give yourself an arbitrary goal date. Once you reach it, try to extend it further

* Make it easier for you to drink healthy things by getting things you need (tea infusers, pitchers, juice concentrate, water bottles, etc)

(I recently did two months, which was much harder for me than I anticipated, but I finally got over the hump and have had very little to drink for weeks. Feels nice to have more productive things to do than burn money and feel run down in the morning, and i'm looking better too!)

<comment><USER47> > Pick up a regular hobby that makes you happy and do it at least three times > a week

It would be awesome if I could do just that. And I don't even drink. Other points seem much easier though.

<comment><USER46> You just need to try things until you find something you keep going back to. Examples of hobbies:

Exercise (running, crossfit, weight lifting, parkour, tabita, yoga, hiking, biking)

Sports (rock climbing/bouldering, soccer, baseball, basketball, autocross/road racing, roller derby, surfing, archery, sailing)

Martial arts (aikido, thai boxing, brazilian jiu-jitsu, tai chi, capoeira, kendo, eskrima/arnis, krav maga, fencing)

Dancing (salsa, merengue, swing, tango, blues, ballroom, hip hop, jazz)

Music (learn an instrument, live local shows, discover new genres, download and listen to new music)

Literature (join a book club, cheap books from thrift stores or yard sales, try fiction/nonfiction, reflect on what you read, blog it)

Blogging (research and then write about a subject you care about)

Volunteerism (soup kitchens, community gardens, local government, special needs, peace core, hackerspaces, free education community organizations, conventions, public awareness, public services, community programs)

Weird stuff (slacklining, acro-yoga, aerial silks, unicycling, juggling, rope bondage, home brewing, crafting, building models, puzzles, trivia, ham radio, blacksmithing, astronomy, woodworking, car tuning, karaoke, magic, gravestone rubbing, gardening, canning, locksport, leatherwork)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> My old boss told me that her brother spends one month a year not drinking, to prove to himself that he doesn't need the booze... but he always did in in February, because it was the shortest month.

<comment><USER49> That kind of rationalization probably indicates a pretty big problem.

<comment><USER50> ... or a healthy sense of humour. we didn't hear how much he drinks other months.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> These sorts of stories hit me hard - not that I have my own, "I quit for x number of days", but rather, I don't think there was 40 days total in the last year that I had a drink. It would take a few years to get that number.

I guess I just never developed the taste. Hard to understand the other side of the ritual.

</comment><comment><USER52> I rarely drink maybe one beer a month at my wildest but I live in a province of sport drinkers where weekdays but especially the weekend people drink until the pass out. Most events are attended by people who drank before arriving which is common but I mean they started drinking at 7am and the event is at 10pm.

Currently I a non-drinker have non-alcoholic fatty liver disease which sucks because it's insulting for me to have of all things what is considered a disease of heavy drinkers. It hurts, I mean my liver actually hurts and it's frightening to have a problem like this a damaged organ in my body. I'm not even fat my friends all ask how I keep so thin, I mean I'm 5'8" short for a guy and at my peak I was 180 pounds but you'd never know it by looking at me, but all my life up to a few years ago I was a consistent 150 pounds. I'm down to 165 pounds but still my doctor telling my my risk of heart attack and stroke is double due to a fatty liver, and this from a family of people who all die from a stroke or heart attack.

Your liver is precious! I don't think people realize how important it is they hear jokes about their liver when drinking to the point it's a joke or just noise more than advice. Then Tylenol the next day to fix their hangover which damages the liver even more.

You liver is the only organ which can regenerate but I would guess not from systemic damage only physical damage to specific defined areas.

Long live our livers!

</comment><comment><USER53> I can relate. About three months ago i went from drunk daily to absolutely no alcohol. I too felt like it took a lot longer for me to unwind, but now i use my after-work-momentum to get things done at home which i neglected when i was drunk, like cleaning, doing the dishes and general hygiene. My day is generally better balanced; i run a little slower at work, and a little faster in my personal life. Thanks for sharing.

</comment><comment><USER54> In the same vein, I highly recommend people try cutting out grains for 40 days. If you're like me, you may very quickly feel so drastically better that going back to grain-eating would be out of the question.

Don't get me wrong: many people do just fine on grains. But some non- negligible percent of people live with a low-level general malaise without even knowing that it's not normal. I know I did for years.

</comment><comment><USER55> No problem for me: one beer either puts me to sleep or gives me sinus headache. Don't understand what people like about alcohol.

It's a pretty primitive drug too. Such a simple and small molecule, might just as well sniff glue, it seems to me.

Tobacco is so much fun in comparison. Quit that cold turkey many years ago. Still like it though.

</comment><comment><USER56> I stopped for a few months several years ago (to study for the GMAT, of all things). Granted, this coincided with me actively practicing puzzles and trick questions (essentially this is what the high end questions are) but I _felt_ noticeably sharper. Like I'd gained 10-20 IQ points. Prior to this I drank quite often over several years (college plus a few post college years). This break (and my awareness of its effects) caused me to really curb my drinking. Now I drink sparsely and mostly to appreciate a nice wine or beer or well made cocktail. I think there's a balance to strike. Enjoyment in life might be worth a marginal IQ point here and there. I dropped out of bschool but learned this lesson getting myself admitted. Thanks bschool! :D

</comment><comment><USER57> Hey, I did just that few months ago! It worked well for me. It took some time for my friends to accept that I 'm not drinking. I don't think this experience will affect my life, but it was really satisfying to prove myself.

I think I'll repeat 40 days without drinking next year.

</comment><comment><USER58> Just a heads up, if you're thinking about what it's like to give the booze a rest for a while there is a community of people who take on a 3 month or 12 month sobriety challenge and blog about their experiences. It makes for super interesting reading, and the passion in the community really reflects how big the drinking issue is in people's lives.

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

Full disclosure: My team built the tech. But you'll want to get involved for the community.

</comment><comment><USER59> There's some people who drink because they need too. You know who you are. You might be drinking because of generalized anxiety, or panic attacks? I know how you feel. Try to keep the drinking to a minimum though. As you age, the need for alcohol might decrease; it did with me. I never thought I could give up drinking, but I think age played a part? Now, I need to get off prescription drugs? A doctor once told me, every patient is different--that might be the only useful advise he ever gave me.

</comment><comment><USER60> I quit drinking for three 30 days stints last year (not back to back though). I can relate to most of what he says - I did feel a lot better, I didnt lose that much weight though (oh well). In the end, I think this experiment is really great but one also needs to consider where you live - I live in lower manhattan where I cant walk 5 feet without passing a cool looking bar / happy hour. I am glad I quit drinking for three months last year but am I having more fun drinking now - definitely.

</comment><comment><USER61> I gave up drinking for a year and a half. My conscious really expanded in that time, and my stools were like iron bars!

I started drinking after I moved away from that town, and into a new city knowing nobody. Alcohol helps me socialise faster. Anyway I didn't feel like stopping again after gaining friends, as I had already learnt all I needed to know about being sober endlessly. Now I am much older and I don't really drink that much naturally - due to massive hangovers. The circle of life

</comment><comment><USER62> I went the whole of 2011 without drinking.

The only difference was my wallet was fuller and I probably had a slightly better immune system.

The hard part was being at social events where for the most part I was the only one sober. I found I would analysis everything allot more and found that personality types I didnt like got much worse when they had been drinking. I also realized that some of my friends were really obnoxious and hated seeing them like that. When your also drunk you dont notice these things...

</comment><comment><USER63> I did the same thing last year, falling asleep was a lot harder. Its like a circus up there in the brain.

<comment><USER14> There are techniques to handle that. I haven't have too much experience in it but from what I heard in limited encounters with them, unless you have some physiological problem, you can learn to relax and get the circus under control pretty efficiently. Takes some work, of course, as any good thing does :) Drugs are an easier shortcut, that is true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Yoga is how I broke my workaholism. It took a long time though - but it gave me 90 minutes each time I did it where I "couldn't" leave and/or do work; It started to break the cycle, and that's all I needed to start happening initially.

</comment><comment><USER65> My GF and I quit drinking for four months once and it totally changed our lives. All the haziness disappeared, and so did our desire to get senselessly smashed. Everything, literally, improved in our lives --work, school, focus, our relationship: everything.

</comment><comment><USER66> I wish more people would stop drinking for the social benefits as well as the health benefits. In my opinion, alcohol makes people less interesting and articulate even though it makes them feel more sociable.

</comment><comment><USER67> " alcoholism is often linked to highly driven, ambitious, over-achieving personality types." gives me a reason to worry.

</comment><comment><USER68> It's interesting to do "no X for Y days", vs "no X ever". Seems a lot more attainable.

</comment><comment><USER69> To quote Jack Sparrow: "But where has all the rum gone?"

</comment><comment><USER70> I have 34 years w/o drinking buzz, the best way to combat an addiction is to never start it.

<comment><USER71> Welcome Captain Obvious. Please tell us how to achieve world peace. Oh! Don't have wars. We were hoping for some evidence of, you know, intelligence or insight.</comment></comment>


Quick fix for an early Internet problem lives on a quarter-century later (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2015/05/31/net-of-insecurity-part-2/ <comment><USER2> For those wondering "what", it's finally named in paragraphs 8 and 9, or 9 and 10, depending on how you count:

 _Such is the story of the "three-napkins protocol," more formally known as Border Gateway Protocol, or BGP.

At its most basic level, BGP helps routers decide how to send giant flows of data across the vast mesh of connections that make up the Internet. With infinite numbers of possible paths — some slow and meandering, others quick and direct — BGP gives routers the information they need to pick one, even though there is no overall map of the Internet and no authority charged with directing its traffic._

<comment><USER3> BGP was on my short list, based on the title.

And I'm puzzled by this:

> There was no concept that people would use this to do malicious things.

Pranking/rfing was _very_ common, in those days. Not exactly malicious, of course. All in good fun. But still ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There has been some progress recently on this issue, more specifically BGPsec, and with the existence of established (quasi?)-authorities that deal with AS around the world, the RIRs, the prospect of having this deployed on the majority of internet is very practical.

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

</comment><comment><USER3> So this sounds alarming, right?

> There is another dangerous possibility lurking in BGP, what Madory calls the > "dystopian possibility" that some network — perhaps in a moment when > international hostilities are spilling into cyberspace — intentionally > claims control of sections of the Internet that don't belong to it.

> Such a move would confuse the world's routers, which would have to choose > between rival claims to the same blocks of Internet addresses. The overall > network, unable to discern truth amid competing claims, could fracture into > rival fiefdoms.

But hey, the US already does this, for some FBI website seizures. And for black-holing "bad" sites.

<comment><USER5> > Such a move would confuse the world's routers, which would have to choose > between rival claims to the same blocks of Internet addresses.

I know! We can solve this with blockchain technology!

> The overall network, unable to discern truth amid competing claims, could > fracture into rival fiefdoms.

Oh right. The inevitable forks would ruin everything. Oh well...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> FYI: [https://web.archive.org/web/20181213102455/https://www.washi...](https://web.archive.org/web/20181213102455/https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2015/05/31/net- of-insecurity-part-2/)

</comment><comment><USER6> 2016: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12892502](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12892502)

2015: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9636141](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9636141)</comment>


Detailed Street View comes to Mumbai, not from Google - <AUTHOR> http://www.wonobo.com/explore/mumbai/9.430673421791564E7$5.982497056470141E7$137.96583400316564$3 This is superb street view for Mumbai. Every street and nook & corner is covered. Not at all an easy task to achieve in a city like Mumbai. If you have been there you would agree with me.
Google should buy this company for like a billion dollars right away!!
The URL here shows street view of my apartment which was demolished 4 months ago. So I assume that they are collecting this data since a while. This thing is so much better than Google's own street view offering in US. So much contextual information & layering. <comment><USER2> I saw some Mahindra vehicle going with Cameras in Bangalore wondered if it was google in hiding from the strict laws now I connect the dots of those MH boards running around then.</comment>


WTF is HTML5 [infographic] - <AUTHOR> http://pinterest.com/pin/226939268692930868/ <comment><USER2> Link to large readable image is broken. Try: <http://www.focus.com/images/view/11905/>

This is a P.O.S. infographic though. It glosses over the fact that no one could decide on the proper video format, and percentage readiness doesn't specify the version of each browser or why it is only N% ready. The rainbow of colors used to identify each feature isn't even a rainbow (orange at the end?) and hard as s--t to tell the difference between some colors. And so many other screw-ups. It is worse than a USA Today infographic dumned down for the majority. But, to an exec with little time on their hands to actually read it, it probably looks just dandy.</comment>


Understanding Machine Learning: From Theory to Algorithms - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~shais/UnderstandingMachineLearning/ <comment><USER2> I took the author of this book's course during my undergrad and quite enjoyed it. It's a good theoretical introduction to machine learning principles. The video lectures are available here: [https://youtu.be/b5NlRg8SjZg](https://youtu.be/b5NlRg8SjZg)

As others have mentioned this is a fairly theoretical take on machine learning which may not be useful if you just want to use a deep learning library. That said, I think there is a lot of value in having a deeper theoretical grasp of a topic even when practicing.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is one of the standard PhD-level textbooks. It's probably a little bit much if you just want to use somebody else's library, but if you're developing your own algorithms or you want to engage seriously with the research literature, you have to know what's in here.

The main other books I'd consider are Foundations of Machine Learning (Rostamizadeh, Talwalkar & Mohri) and Machine Learning: A Probabilistic Perspective (Murphy). There are a few others, but I think you'd need a good reason not to pick one of those three.

<comment><USER4> How do they compare to

Bishop: [https://www.amazon.com/Pattern-Recognition-Learning- Informat...](https://www.amazon.com/Pattern-Recognition-Learning-Information- Statistics/dp/0387310738/)

and

ESL: [https://web.stanford.edu/~hastie/ElemStatLearn/](https://web.stanford.edu/~hastie/ElemStatLearn/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Looks coherent, informative and not too indulged with proving things with mathematical formulas. Problem is that the only way I could study it with the meticulousness it requires would be during a course. Studying it at my own leisure is a bit too much of a burden.

However what irks me a little, as it did with my university's introductory machine learning course, is the direct jump to the algorithms while omitting explaining the basis for the underlying cause why it is the right thing to do. Perhaps it's presumed that the reader knows the basic statistics behind the idea that we can make assumptions of the data and predict values due to central limit theorem. Machine learning itself then can be seen as a derivate of that as more free-form, heuristic approach to cases where the central limit theorem can't be applied or is too restrictive.

Am I speaking complete nonsense here? Please those wiser than me, tell me am I right?

<comment><USER6> Inferential Statistics lets us make estimates about some quantity given a set of assumptions about how a sample was drawn. E.g., you might assume data is distributed normally.

From a theoretical standpoint, Machine Learning basically just explores what happens if you remove that assumption, and try to draw conclusions that apply no matter what the underlying distribution was.

The book does build up that theory. You need to understand the Probably Approximately Correct framework (e.g., how many data points do you need to be 90% sure your algorithm will generalize with less than 5% generalization error) and VC dimension (basically a measure of how much different algorithms overfit.) It doesn't even introduce an algorithm until chapter 8!

VC dimension is sort of the equivalent of O(n) style complexity for machine learning. You can use this framework to estimate the effectiveness of different algorithms from a theoretical standpoint given a certain amount of data. For example, Linear Regression's VC dimension grows as O(n) with the number of features, while Decision Trees grow as O(2^n) with depth. This means that Trees are much more likely to overfit on small data, but more likely to be find complex structure in larger datasets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I found this book very useful, personally. It does a great job presenting some of the theoretical foundations in an understandable way (e.g. the PAC-learning framework and VC dimension.) I also particularly liked the explanation on PCA.

</comment><comment><USER7> This seems like a great resource for understanding how machine learning algorithms actually work. Anyone reading the book to help them build more accurate models, might also be interested in supplementing it with more research into the importance of feature engineering before training machine learning models.

While feature engineering hasn't been a rigorously studied within the academic literature, this book does have a section on feature generation, which gives some practical tips once your data is in feature matrix form.

For those interested in even more, I work on a python library for automated feature engineering called, Featuretools ([https://github.com/featuretools/featuretools/](https://github.com/featuretools/featuretools/)). It can help when your raw data is still too granular for modeling or comprised of multiple tables. We have several demos you can run yourself to apply it to real datasets here: [https://www.featuretools.com/demos](https://www.featuretools.com/demos).

</comment><comment><USER8> direct to pdf, [http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~shais/UnderstandingMachineLearning...](http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~shais/UnderstandingMachineLearning/understanding- machine-learning-theory-algorithms.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER9> There a lot of books out there now for ML, does this offer something new (material/presentation) that others do not?

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm following it in my master's course on big data & it has some nice uses in sampling:)

</comment><comment><USER11> Well, that's summer studies sorted, thanks!

</comment><comment><USER12> I think this is very advanced theoretical book as per hacker news standard.

<comment><USER13> What do you mean?

<comment><USER14> I'm not the person you asked, but from what I've seen HN tends to have the attitude that you don't need to understand "maths", "algorithms", "statistics", "data structures", or any of that complicated stuff, all you need is to get your hands dirty with code. If you buy that view, then this book is the opposite of what HN usually likes.

<comment><USER15> _I 'm not the person you asked, but from what I've seen HN tends to have the attitude that you don't need to understand "maths", "algorithms", "statistics", "data structures", or any of that complicated stuff, all you need is to get your hands dirty with code._

I don't get that at all. From what I've seen over the years, there is a clear divide on HN between the people who lean towards the "you don't need any theory at all" people and the "you need to know all the theory to do anything" people, with there being a slight bias towards the latter in general.

Interesting how perspectives differ on this site. I guess it's similar to how some people argue that HN is overrun with government hating libertarians, while other people think the site is overrun by granola eating, tree hugging, hippie communists. :-)

<comment><USER14> > I don't get that at all. From what I've seen over the years, there is a > clear divide on HN between the people who lean towards the "you don't need > any theory at all" people and the "you need to know all the theory to do > anything" people, with there being a slight bias towards the latter in > general.

Haha I think I know what camp you're in, since no one claims you need to know _all_ the theory to do _anything_. ;-)

While we disagree on which group is larger on HN, I'd be open to consider that maybe our difference in perception is entirely explained by selective memory (in the sense that you're more likely to remember when people rubbed you the wrong way than when they agreed with you).

<comment><USER15> _Haha I think I know what camp you 're in, since no one claims you need to know _all_ the theory to do _anything_. ;-)_

Interestingly enough, I don't really think of myself as falling specifically into either. But I'm a pragmatist, so I lean a bit towards the idea that you can get things done without necessarily always needing a lot of theoretical knowledge. BUT at the same time, I think that having a solid theoretical understanding is almost always desirable, and all other things being equal, I'd rather know the theory than not. :-)

 _I 'd be open to consider that maybe our difference in perception is entirely explained by selective memory (in the sense that you're more likely to remember when people rubbed you the wrong way than when they agreed with you)._

Agreed. I would think that is probably a big part of it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What's your cookbook? - (37signals) - <AUTHOR> http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/451-whats-your-cookbook <comment><USER2> ' _... infrastructure is a good fit for open source. We don't believe consumer products are as good a fit ...'_

this is a good point. Does MT4 being released as open source mean the source code is no longer the product and the service (source code, hardware, scaling technologies, users) now is?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'd argue that brand is one of the things that 37signals does best. Advancing their brand outside of their product offering seems like a core value for them. I'm guessing this is strongly influenced by the fact they started off as a consulting company.</comment>


Ask HN: How did you set your pricing scheme? - <AUTHOR>

It seems to me that pricing is a neglected topic on SaaS websites: most seem to have a fairly set pricing scheme and focus on optimizing everything but price.<p>I have been experimenting a lot with pricing in my current SaaS. Has anyone experience with A/B testing, discounts, etc?  Would you care to tell me more about thoughts and experiences? <comment><USER2> Some general points/comments.

1\. Most new developers/entrepreneurs always under price their product/service. If you are new to this and the price feels a little uncomfortable you are probably getting closer to its real value.

2\. Discounting screams you don't know the value of your product/service. Try not to "discount" your product/service, instead A/B testing is smarter to set some parameters. Also, I'd second what taprun says on discounts too in his comment.

3\. Set your pricing not based on what the service costs you to operate, develop, maintain etc. Set your pricing based on the value you provide to the client.

4\. Don't immediately reach change the price when you are starting out. Evaluate everything equally to price, it may be who you are marketing to, product/market fit etc. And much of that is far more impactful than just price alone.

5\. Try to keep you pricing scheme simple. The easier it is to understand the better. Ideally I like to see at most 3-4 "levels" of pricing, more than that and users start getting confused what to select and are more likely to bail and not try any of them.

6\. Experiment with free trials to see if it may help your conversion rate. I can't say it is ideal in all situations nor does it work in all, but it is worth evaluating.

</comment><comment><USER3> My first piece of advice is to think about your goals. What do you want to optimize for (# of users, short-term liquidity, long term profits, customer churn, etc).

My next piece is to be wary of discounts. Consumers will become accustomed to them and eventually come to demand their continued use (see J. C. Penney is a great example of a company that got burned by this).

One more tip is to think in terms of value. Don't just think about the functionality you provide - think about intangibles too. Do you reduce risk? You can charge for that!

I could probably write a book about this topic. Oh wait, I did! [http://taprun.com/pricing](http://taprun.com/pricing)

<comment><AUTHOR> Fantastic!I will definately have a look.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [https://unicornfree.com/category/pricing](https://unicornfree.com/category/pricing)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the link</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is there any scalable "blockchain"/cryptocoin? - <AUTHOR> Hi,
I am wondering if there is scalable cryptocurrency (maybe with smart contracts feature) having typical "blockchain" properties of trust?
Best, Wiktor <comment><USER2> [http://Nebulas.io](http://Nebulas.io)

Uses something called "nebulas force (NF)" which is a self-evolving blockchain (no hard forks). Created by co-founder of NEO, he started the project in 2016 and went to work on it full time early 2017 after implementing a blockchain at Ant Financial (alibaba).

The testnet is out now and the mainnet is launching by end of Q1.

[https://nebulas.io/docs/NebulasTechnicalWhitepaper.pdf](https://nebulas.io/docs/NebulasTechnicalWhitepaper.pdf)

Very interesting project.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFB1b1hopmc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFB1b1hopmc)

^ Interview with founder of Nebulas

</comment><comment><USER3> IOTA is probably your best bet, although it is still in development.

HN loves to hate on it (probably because their funds are elsewhere), but if you read through the whitepapers and the Github I think it is probably the one of the most promising cryptos for actual real-world use.

Raiblocks would be my next guess.

</comment><comment><USER4> To my knowledge today the 2 best things are ripple and raiden on ethereum.

<comment><USER5> I think the recent "crypto kitties" issues highlighted some of the scaling concerns of the Ethereum "virtual machine".

Ripple is centralized and can be argued is not even a blockchain.

Litecoin is fast AF but its the "younger sibling" of Bitcoin.

One to keep an eye on in 2018 in Cardano here's the introductory whiteboard talk [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja9D0kpksxw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja9D0kpksxw)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Seems interesting

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> \- RaiBlocks

\- IOTA

\- Hashgraph

<comment><USER7> The raiblocks White paper does an excellent job explaining why it (and other DAGs) are scalable: [https://raiblocks.net/media/RaiBlocks_Whitepaper__English.pd...](https://raiblocks.net/media/RaiBlocks_Whitepaper__English.pdf)</comment></comment>


FCC ignored your net neutrality comment unless you made 'serious' legal argument - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16689838/fcc-net-neutrality-comments-were-largely-ignored <comment><USER2> This isn't a surprise: comments are meant to ensure that rule-making agencies consider relevant information before making a final decision; they aren't an opinion poll.

See the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(c):

 _After notice required by this section, the agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the agency shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose._

<comment><USER3> Are you suggesting that only legal arguments or facts are relevant?

So an actual analysis (which would necessarily include predictions that are not certain) of the impact of a decision is irrelevant?

<comment><USER4> > _So an actual analysis (which would necessarily include predictions that are > not certain) of the impact of a decision is irrelevant?_

Political appointees are entirely within their power to ignore such comments.

<comment><USER5> Are you sure? To change or reverse a rule within the government pretty much every agency has to take into account public comments for a period of time before the change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Current FCC plans run afoul of anti-trust law since they would allow monopolistic ISPs who own the physical network and services like video, to harm competitors (which provide over the top services that have to go through the above physical network) by using data caps, interconnection blocking and other anti-competitive approaches. How is that not a serious legal argument?

<comment><USER7> One answer might be that it's a serious legal argument _not under the FCC 's purview_. FCC has an interest in keeping communications media from discriminating, but anti-competitive behavior and many other aspects of what we think of as net neutrality fall under FTC instead. It was always a bit of a stretch for FCC to be taking the lead on this.

It might even be better to let FTC lead on this, because they have authority FCC does not to regulate parties other than the connectivity providers. For example, they can forbid Google from using their market position in other areas to gain a competitive advantage with their own connectivity services. They can keep a close eye on Netflix's attempts to compete with or blackmail providers over CDNs. That might be _real_ network neutrality, not the one- sided vision heavily promoted by content providers.

<comment><USER8> If true this might inform big tech's position with respect to net neutrality. It seemed a bit off that the FBs, Googs, and other big user facing tech cos would want the FCC and not the FTC in charge.

<comment><USER6> I think the reason is dysfunction of FTC. They claim they handle such cases on individual basis instead of establishing clear rules. It doesn't sound like an efficient approach to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I used to work at a federal agency processing these comments. This practice is not new or unique to FCC. There is a segment of the population who respond to just about ever request for comment the federal government puts out. I think more should be done to cut down on bots. The legal argument thing seems a bit pompous. I've never heard that before and I've reviewed, and filed, a lot of comments.

Unfortunately the FCC's action was predetermined and the result long ago decided. Comments will not change that - BUT if you have filed a legal comment, you can used that to sue later.

<comment><USER10> How does one file a legal comment?

<comment><USER9> You file a comment but argue your point from a legal perspective. Rather than putting forth an opinion, show the FCC why their proposed rule making is against the law; their interpretation of the law is incorrect. Look at EFF's comment, or Googles.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Pick up your phone. Call the number on this page [https://www.fcc.gov/about/contact](https://www.fcc.gov/about/contact). Put your phone on mute and speaker and do something while you're on hold. Wait.

Talk to someone and calmly explain your views. If you are emotional, summarise the EFF's in your own words [https://act.eff.org/action/congress-don-t-sell- the-internet-...](https://act.eff.org/action/congress-don-t-sell-the-internet- out). Get confirmation that your name and views have been recorded. Now call your Congressmen and tell them the same thing, as well as that you called the FCC.

</comment><comment><USER11> To me it is a utility argument: A wealthier household would receive "premium filtered water" through the plumbing while other homes that are paying the standard rate would be given filthy and untreated water through their plumbing. Does the water utility violate a law practicing this way? Because if it does, the same is true of Abolishing Net Neutrality.

<comment><USER12> It's actually worse than that. Cities have different water districts and often wealthier areas will receive better water than no-wealth areas. Instead of different prices, everyone pays the same but gets a different product.

The same is generally true for police, fire, and emergency services ("911 is a joke in your town").

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't understand. Aren't we commenting about what we (the public) believe should or should not be legal? In other words, isn't it about choosing new laws rather than interpreting legality of existing ones?

<comment><USER14> Actually, no. Laws are made by the Legislature, so communications directed to your legislators can express a view about laws you feel should be enacted, repealed or modified.

The FCC is a regulatory body, with certain authority and areas of concern. The rule making is delegated to the appointed members of the commission. Rules != Laws. If a rule breaks a law, you don't have to take it to SCOTUS to overturn the rule; a suit in a Federal circuit or charges from law enforcement will usually do the trick.

All that said, the FCC is there to serve the people and should consider the impact rules will have on society and listen to all voices. They are not limited to accepting only legal input for their rule making processes.

<comment><USER13> Thanks, this helps clarify. It doesn't make the FCC comment much less bizarre, since aside from potential for violating an existing law, my comment seems to roughly go through with "rule" substituted in for "law".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Ignoring the specific issue in this case that the outcome appears to be pre- determined, it remains that the surface process being followed is standard for regulators.

Regulators hold public/industry consultations to gather evidence and arguments that need to be taken into account in coming to their final decision. They are not running popularity contests (which would be too easy to rig if that was the standard used). The arguments submitted are usually a mix of legal and economic (including models) based on data or clearly stated assumptions (ideally). For example, an industry stakeholder might make a legal argument that the regulator is making a decision beyond the remit of the legislation, or make an economic argument that if the proposed decision is adopted, then this will remove the infrastructure investment incentive for the stakeholder (including the data to substantiate this).

In making their final decision, the regulator should take into account all the arguments put forward, and respond to them in their final report. Submissions that are substantially the same (or sections within) will be grouped together and responded to as a single point. The regulator should explain why they reject or adopt each argument.

The criteria that a regulator uses to evaluate the different arguments and come to a final decision is set by the enabling legislation. I have not worked within the US legal framework, but I have both prepared submissions to and worked with numerous regulators in Asia and Europe. In most cases, the criteria is deals with the best interests of consumers with a consideration of both costs and benifits. Often a longer term view is required to be taken, which biases towards promoting investment in infrastructure over time rather than maximising short time utilisation of existing infrastructure.

</comment><comment><USER16> This is changing of the goalposts. A standard procedure these days.

</comment><comment><USER17> Every ISP is now legally liable for every posting made by their users. Including the White House ISP Trump uses to tweet from. So anything abusive, insulting, threatening, etc - they are legally liable for it. They are no longer common carriers like phone companies. If they transmit pornography to a minor, they are legally liable for it, not the site which hosts it. The loss of common carrier status can, and absolutely should, bring these companies to their knees.

Bust out the class action lawsuits.

<comment><USER18> Can you provide a source for this claim?

<comment><USER19> My assumption is that parent thinks this somehow makes ISPs a common carrier, and that means blah, blah, blah. I'd be supremely surprised if highly-paid corporate lawyers somehow overlooked this. "Where are all these class action suits coming from? What?! $1000/hour and you got pwned by some random guy on the Internet?"

Yeah, I don't think so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Here is my legal argument: I pay for bandwidth. The ISP has no right to what goes through.

<comment><USER20> It's an exchange of goods. Doing anything to impede speeds of specific websites is illegal.

<comment><USER21> Anything that congress says is legal is legal. When you vote, you vote for the people who make things legal. You voted to make this legal.

<comment><USER22> I think that people who really care about Internet quality are the tiny minority and being a minority means you don't have enough votes to elect even one member of Congress. So the net neutrality is effectively the minority's rights.

<comment><USER23> You have to convince the people that elected the current POTUS that they won't be able to look at porn, deer hunting, fishing, car, and all the other things they like for "free" anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Online comments are like online petitions: ostensibly "listening" to keep the masses from calling/mailing their representatives or the FCC directly. Persuasion requires messages that are difficult/impossible to ignore: culturally and politically.

Moore's mock funeral for an HMO patient denied a live-saving transplant worked because it was over-the-top and so widely covered.

</comment><comment><USER25> The article says this:

> … the commission said it didn't really care about the public's opinion on > net neutrality unless it was phrased in unique legal terms.

So the article title is incorrect. The point is that submissions to regulatory consolations have to be relevant. Repeating the same argument does not make that argument more relevant.

</comment><comment><USER26> If (when?) net neutrality ends we can crowd fund ISPs to slow down the tubes coming out of our political establishments.

<comment><USER27> Why would Verizon or Comcast agree to do that? The ISPs are the one's pushing to have these kinds of consumer protections removed in the first place. They're not going to start a campaign of harassment against those who agree with them just because you made a kickstarter saying you'd get ISPs to agree to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> According to the article, the FCC received 22 million comments. If they spent a modest 2 minutes per comment - that would be 83 man years of time to process the comments. They obviously need to filter it down. For a system with no meaningful requirements to comment or even proof of uniqueness, quantity says absolutely nothing and fraud is a given. Even if we were able to prove uniqueness -- how should informal internet petitions, which will almost certainly not be representative of any population, be viewed?

So it makes one kind of wonder, what would be a reasonable alternative? Without proposing any viable alternatives, this article just feels like ragebaiting.

<comment><USER29> The simplest explanation is that Pai coordinates with the ISPs to stuff the comment boxes with spam so they would have a justification for ignoring them; courts have occasionally struck down rules because agencies didn't properly consider public input.

That's because the conclusion was foregone: Pai will do what his benefactors want then sail to a cushy consulting job as a reward for his work.

<comment><USER30> No, the _simplest_ explanation is that the FCC just received a bunch of comments. I have no problem believing that -- I've seen quite a few Facebook and Reddit posts encouraging people to comment.

Once you start arguing that a conspiracy exists between the FCC and ISPs to game an online comment system, you're far beyond a simple explanation.

<comment><USER31> The problem with your theory is that the comment system was gamed. Numerous spam comments that are anti-Net Neutrality were made from people who either support Neutrality or are dead.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why The Web Will Win. - <AUTHOR> http://ses.hn/YN4kyh

<comment><USER2> I've said the same thing. I term it "blank hardware." We're already seeing some convergence with cheap Chinese smartphones at unknown-to-America low prices. And there's AllWinner, Rockchip, Mediatek, and other CPUs coming on line to challenge current incumbents. A brand name will still matter for reliability, warranty, service, exchange/refund, and the ego factor, but ultimately most of them will be indistinguishable from one another on the inside.

EDIT: Typo correction.

</comment><comment><USER3> The page is broken: it doesn't show the post when Javascript is disabled.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is not really a well thought out discussion.</comment>


Crit-bit tries without allocation - <AUTHOR> http://fanf.livejournal.com/137485.html <comment><USER2> > _An embedded lookup structure is a data structure in which the internal > pointers used to search for an object (such as branch nodes) are embedded > within the objects you are searching through._

This used to be called "intrusive container" not long ago.

Hey look, it's even a tag on StackOverflow:

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/intrusive- containe...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/intrusive-containers)</comment>