Dancing can reverse the signs of aging in the brain - <AUTHOR> https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-08-reverse-aging-brain.html <comment><USER2> It wasn't just any kind of dancing:

 _" We tried to provide our seniors in the dance group with constantly changing dance routines of different genres (Jazz, Square, Latin-American and Line Dance). Steps, arm-patterns, formations, speed and rhythms were changed every second week to keep them in a constant learning process. The most challenging aspect for them was to recall the routines under the pressure of time and without any cues from the instructor."_

<comment><USER3> I think that part was probably more important than exercise or social interaction. Not that they don't have their places, just that it's likely more the intellectual challenge that gets them going.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You know how there's the runners high? Well free form dancing, ecstatic dance, dance church, festival dancing, you get really high. It's like meditation, insights come unbidden, you get unbounded outlook. It's a great way to sort yourself out, feel really great about being alive, and rediscover your inner spirituality. Honestly, for $10-$15/dance you'll get really high, if you let yourself go and get into the flow state. Try going to the morning ones, don't eat & drink only water, do some stretching at the beginning. Yes the whole thing seems super silly from the outside, a bunch of hippie folks gyrating to music, but man oh man it's profound if you get into the vibe(and if the vibes are high quality, like so called dance churches can be, and you know cause everyone else there are fellow psychonauts riding the bodies internal DMT highway). The great thing about the brain getting high w/o drugs? It's probably fabulously healthy for it. Think about it, super powerful brain drugs come out in a show of force and give you uplifted profound feelings. That sure seems like just the ticket to health, comparable to taking the mental garbage out.

<comment><USER5> That's because of endorphine release at a certain point when engaging in activities like dancing or running.

Endorphins (endo-, produced by the body, -phine, morphine) have identical effects to these of morphine — they just don't eventually cause withdrawal effects.

We have a nice list about the subjective effects here: [https://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Morphine#Subjective_effects](https://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Morphine#Subjective_effects) :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is 100% anecdotal, but a number of swing dance legends have lived to _very_ old age. Frankie Manning, founder of Lindy Hop, died at 94. Norma Miller, the Queen of Swing, is 97 and still alive.

This is a video of Frankie at _92_! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENrqFFU4P5E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENrqFFU4P5E)

<comment><USER7> must be the absolutely killer music they are dancing to

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you're interested in getting into dance and looking for a community that welcomes young and old, can I recommend the Contra Dance community?

Contra Dance looks/sounds like this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m9EGS4iiOg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m9EGS4iiOg)

If you are near Boston, you should definitely stop by the Boston Intergenerational Dance Advocates dances [http://www.bidadance.org/](http://www.bidadance.org/). They teach an intro lesson and then every dance has an introductory runthrough. People there are enthusiastic about welcoming newcomers.

If you're not near Boston, Contra dance is found all over the US. (Also in London! email me.) You can find a local dance by putting your zip code into [http://www.trycontra.com/](http://www.trycontra.com/)

</comment><comment><USER9> Maybe old brains just need some vigorous shaking?

<comment><USER10> Or just any form of excercise..

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Couple of things about dancing: (1) it's easier to think because you're moving about, (2) dancing partners are usually of the opposite sex. Both these factors seem like stimulants for learning and rejuvenation.

</comment><comment><USER12> "Dancing or Fitness Sport? The Effects of Two Training Programs on Hippocampal Plasticity and Balance Abilities in Healthy Seniors"

Front. Hum. Neurosci., 15 June 2017 | [https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00305](https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00305)

<comment><USER12> Adult neurogenesis:

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

IIUC:

{Omega 3/6, Cardiovascular exercise,} -> Endocannabinoids -> [Hippocampal,] neurogenesis

<comment><USER12> "Neurobiological effects of physical exercise" (Hippocampal plasticity, neurogenesis,)

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

"Study: Omega-3 fatty acids fight inflammation via cannabinoids" [https://news.illinois.edu/blog/view/6367/532158](https://news.illinois.edu/blog/view/6367/532158) (Omega 6: Omega 3 ratio)

scholar.google q=cannabinoid+neurogenesis [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cannabinoid+neurogenesi...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cannabinoid+neurogenesis)

Functions of the ECS (Endocannabinoid System):

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocannabinoid_system#Functio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocannabinoid_system#Functions_of_the_endocannabinoid_system)

\- #Role-in-hippocampal-neurogenesis, "runners high"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm assuming this was meant to link to: [https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-08-reverse-aging- brain.h...](https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-08-reverse-aging-brain.html) instead of the front page.

<comment><USER14> Thanks! Updated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Can someone change the URL to [https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-08-reverse- aging-brain.h...](https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-08-reverse-aging- brain.html)?</comment>


The Real Hackers - <AUTHOR> http://www.foreworks.com/hacker.html <comment><USER2> Actually the worm was a characteristic example of hacking in both senses of the word.

<comment><USER3> What do you think of Katie Hafner's account of it? You figure into it.

<comment><USER2> From what I remember it was pretty sloppy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Breaking:

YCombinator's Robert Morris Breeding New Generation of Cyber-Criminals?

;)

<comment><USER3> Since his was the first published stack overflow, containing the blueprint for the shellcode Lopatic, Vicm, and the 8lgm used in 1995 to kick off the "stack smashing" rennaisance, I'd say his work there is already complete.</comment></comment>


Apple has removed Infowars podcasts from iTunes - sahin-boydas https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/05/apple-has-removed-infowars-podcasts-from-itunes/ <comment><USER3> And Facebook has permanently banned them.

There used to be a joke on Slashdot. Whatever was happening in tech, somebody would say "And I for one welcome our new $X overlords"

Now we have all the major internet companies deciding winners and losers. Doesn't seem like much of a joke anymore.

All those years I watched my dear friends on the left march in the streets, claiming that the right was going to shut them down and prevent their message from being heard.

Fooled me, guys. I guess it's true: we become what we fear from others.

<comment><USER4> I was going to add that that quote is a Simpsons reference, but it turns out the Simpsons actually referenced H. G. Wells: [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-for-one-welcome-our-new- ins...](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-insect- overlords)

<comment><USER5> It's a pretty safe bet that any "Simpsons reference" it's actually a reference to something that is at least one level deeper (I consider this one of the great strengths of the show)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm sure people will use the "it's their platform they can do what they want" argument, but with Spotify and now Apple removing a certain person's content, can we call this anything but censorship?

<comment><USER7> Corporations get to choose who they want as customers, suppliers and partners. The whole system would collapse if they didn't have this ability.

It's a stretch calling it censorship as these people can host their podcast somewhere else or even host it themselves if they want to. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on podcast hosting.

<comment><USER8> I find this argument increasingly tiresome. There has never been a time in history in which speech did not in some way depend on private support. Not so long ago that private support came from the owners of printing presses. It came from the landlords that allowed speakers on their property, and rented to unpopular people. It came from the telephone companies that served everyone even if they were saying "hateful" things down the phone.

What we're seeing here seems like a relatively new phenomenon, of private companies that are taking it on themselves to systematically erase entire schools of thought from the modern communications platforms, at least as far as they can. And yes for any given instance you can say, well, you can host your content elsewhere. And that works right up until Google - for example - steals your domain name on moralistic grounds, or your last remaining ISP or hosting provider gets attacked or comes under pressure from activists and so on. Because the sort of people who are doing this don't simply want Alex Jones off iTunes. They want him gone completely, from everywhere, and they will not rest until that happens.

Unfortunately Silicon Valley has long since lost any right to claim neutrality on political topics. That probably makes regulation inevitable. How long will conservatives sit back and watch as tech firms systematically attempt to erase their world view from the political conversation? How long will the wider population tolerate Twitter shadowbanning members of the government whilst doing nothing to an NYT journalist who (as noted above) says repeatedly she wants to kill all men, that she hates whites etc? This sort of extreme side- taking seems both new and very short-sighted. It cannot end well.

<comment><USER9> > _What we 're seeing here seems like a relatively new phenomenon, of private > companies that are taking it on themselves to systematically erase entire > schools of thought from the modern communications platforms, at least as far > as they can._

That's not happening though. Or, if it is, it's nothing new.

Newspapers have always decided to not hire someone. Newspapers are not a free outlet for anyone to publish any content they wish. Editorial choices are made that, in one very narrow (and incorrect) view, could be seen as eliminating speech and "entire schools of thought".

Apple is exercising editorial control over it's platform, like they do with most of theirs. To say that they shouldn't be allowed to do this is a very _interesting_ claim to make, especially when you're trying to promote freedom of speech.

<comment><USER8> There's a key difference.

Newspapers are responsible for what they print. They can get sued if they print things that are illegal, or even just wrong. With the editorial voice comes responsibility for what's said.

Technology companies have historically been viewed more as common carriers. In fact the term "common carrier" was invented to describe an earlier wave of technology companies. They are _not_ responsible for what's said or done with their platform because they do _not_ exercise editorial voice. The DMCA further solidified this notion in law by making it clear that if you respond to legal takedown requests you have a safe harbour and are not considered to be aiding-and-abetting crime if it takes place on your platform.

Right now tech firms seem to be trying to have it both ways. They want the scale, legal immunity and profits that come with bulk automation and claiming to be a common carrier. But then they want to selectively eliminate legal speech as well to make their employees feel good about themselves.

I suspect if regulation is introduced, it will work like that - <AUTHOR> control cuts both ways. If Apple, Twitter, Facebook etc are going to exercise such control over their platform, they'll have to do it like newspapers do. That means if someone "publishes" something that triggers liability on their platform, it falls on them. In practice that would be impossible given their business models.

 _Edit:_ to be clear, I'm making a general argument here rather than about Apple specifically. Apple is a bit unusual in that it does (or at least did) manually review most content put on its platforms. In that sense Apple might well be able to argue it doesn't want or need common carrier status and it would be allowed to do this and equivalent things (removing Alex Jones apps), especially as it's not a monopoly. Also, I'm not explicitly advocating such a legal approach, I'd want to ponder it more first, just speculating on a likely potential future given that the legal tools and precedents already exist. Such a change in legal perspective would affect Twitter, Facebook and Google much more than Apple.

<comment><USER9> _> In fact the term "common carrier" was invented to describe an earlier wave of technology companies._

I mean, _common carrier_ was applied to telecommunications services that acted as dumb pipes, carrying other people's content. Seeing as iTunes doesn't not host podcasts themselves and acts also as a editorial platform, it seems hard to say that Apple / iTunes is a common carrier (especially when the FCC, incorrectly IMHO, declared that broadband ISPs are not common carriers). Of course it gets even more complicated when these tech companies run actual news products, like Apple News.

 _> Right now tech firms seem to be trying to have it both ways._

Honestly, this is the main problem. We don't have good ways to deal with the roles and responsibilities of tech companies. Our old laws were made in 'simpler times' and can be awkward to apply to newer companies and the internet in general.

Side note, I found this on the wiki: _In certain U.S. states, amusement parks that operate roller coasters and comparable rides have been found to be common carriers; a famous example is Disneyland._

<comment><USER8> Yes, I think in the case of Apple specifically you're right, I added an addendum to my post above clarifying that I'm making a more general argument now.

If Apple had done this in isolation I don't think anyone would care. As part of a trend that seems to be affecting most companies based in the bay area, it is far more worthy of analysis and discussion as part of that trend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As long as they don't prevent iTunes from importing the Infowars podcast feed, I don't see it as a major problem.

Apple isn't required to help you promote your content if they don't want to, but they are also not allowed to block your access to legal content, regardless of what they may think of it.

<comment><USER11> > they are also not allowed to block your access to legal content, regardless > of what they may think of it

What law forbids this?

<comment><USER12> Yeah not sure, what argument this stands on, because Apple is private provider of content on their own platform, they can do whatever the hell they want.

<comment><USER13> I think mrweasel meant iTunes the app, not the service.

<comment><USER10> Exactly. It's perfectly fine to exclude content from the iTunes store. Apple have always banned porn in the iTunes/App store, and very few have complained about that.... Not that I would like a PornHub app for my AppleTV.

What I wouldn't like is Apple parsing the podcast feeds I enter into iTunes and potentially block me from adding certain feeds. That should be non of their business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm glad to see him go, but we're at the point where large tech companies essentially control what information we have access to and are beginning to engage with regulating the content for real, but we do not yet have legal or social norms about what they can or should do. I think that means we're in a dangerous position. Right now people get removed it banned based off how much pressure there is to remove them. We should instead have real institutions, either in the company or broader, where the rules are made, the cases are decided and appeals are possible. If this isn't regulated by the government, then we need to demand our information oligopoly helps us hold them accountable.

<comment><USER15> Freedom of Speech does not require large tech companies to carry, promote, and allow easy access to any and all speech. One's rights extend only as far as one has the capability to express them using their own resources. If IW wants to setup their own app, App Store, and distribution channels, no one is stopping them, but Apple is not required to do so for them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Indirectly related. Not sure how many people here know of Father Coughlin, an American Fascist radio priest of the 1930s. He reached millions of listeners.

Was eventually shut down by Roosevelt and his local church parish: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin#Cancellation_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin#Cancellation_of_radio_show)

</comment><comment><USER17> Well, so much for sunlight being the best disinfectant.

You just know Alex will use the deplatforming to "prove" that the globalists are after him, or something like that. Might have been better to ignore him instead of Apple getting into the game of deciding what is and isn't hate speech.

(Does NY Times hiring an openly racist editor make them subject to removal? Who knows...but somebody will start making that argument now that the door is open.)

<comment><USER18> Yet again everyone rushes to the defence of fascists.

If history has taught us anything it's that giving fascists a platform is _never, ever_ the solution, you can never reason with them, you can never argue them out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, and they will _always_ use your kindness as a weapon against you.

There is no value in anyone giving people like Alex Jones a platform, all you are doing is giving him wider access to people who will be swayed by his idiotic ramblings.

It shouldn't even require saying; how do you think he has such a large following in the first place? Do you think he's been unchallenged up to this point? Do you think the counter arguments have had any effect on his base? Do you think the sort of person who ends up falling for a dickhead like Jones is even capable of understanding the arguments against his position?

Stop protecting fascists, open a history book.

<comment><USER8> OK, let's open a history book. How is Alex Jones a fascist? Can you elaborate on that?

Historically speaking fascists were hard left. The Fascist government of Mussolini had the following features:

\- No democracy

\- Massive state control over private industry

\- Forced suppression of the opposition by censorship and intimidation

Has Alex Jones advocated for censorship of his opponents, massive state control over private industry or the institution of dictatorship? If not, what makes him fascist, exactly?

<comment><USER19> Massive state control over private industry != hard left. It's merely a tool to achieve an aim. Otherwise you can start argueing that Hitler was extreme left, which is laughable.

<comment><USER8> How is it laughable, again? You know what Nazi stands for, don't you? And if you accept the premise that America is probably the most culturally right wing society today, then which was Nazi Germany closer to in its policies - <USER2> or the USSR?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is a great time to mention gpodder.net, a libre alternative to the iTunes podcast browser. Aside from not promoting censorship, it also integrates nicely with third party FOSS programs such as AntennaPod for Android or Armarok.

</comment><comment><USER21> The anti-censorship thinking in me is not happy but when it comes to Alex Jones he's one of the people on this planet that I wish I had omnipotence to remove his voice. He does much more harm than good. Perhaps a solution to his influence is educating people to think critically but alas I think for much of his "fans" (zealots maybe?) it might be too late.

<comment><USER22> He isn't being "censored". Anyone who knows the url to the podcast url can add it. A private company can legally decide who to do business with except for protected classes. The Supreme Court just said that someone didn't have to offer service to someone if it went against thier beliefs.

<comment><USER23> If you're referring to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case they said no such thing, the ruling was so narrow (and nonsensical) that it's hard to conclude that it means much of anything, other than the court trying get out of deciding the more general question on a technicality.

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Analysis)

<comment><USER22> I didn't say it made sense. But conservatives have been fighting to allow for profit businesses to be run based on "religious beliefs" - not only the Cake case but also Hobby Lobby - it's the other side of the coin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Can anyone explain why Infowars are bad? I keep hearing they are but no convincing arguments to support that claim.

Edit: Do people giving me thumbs down care to explain themselves?

<comment><USER25> I can't speak for the American content, but the Scandinavian blog entries range from outright lies to gross missinformation.

Would you really want that associated with your brand? I wouldn't.

<comment><USER24> What kind of lies do they tell?

<comment><USER26> Read through a few of them here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoWars#Controversies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoWars#Controversies)

<comment><USER24> 1\. Sexual harassment "filed complaints against Jones" filing and proving are different things. 2\. What's wrong with conspiracy theories? Who cares unless they are real? 3\. Can I see examples of fake news posted by Infowars? Still haven't seen any. 4\. Same as conspiracy theories 5\. I can think of many examples where mainstream media promotes violence and harassment against right wing. 6\. Chobani never proved otherwise? 7\. Not sure about copyright infringement but alright, could be it 8\. Unexplained suspension

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Of course "let's silence and remove everyone that disagrees with us!", i mean c'mon don't censor free speach, let the free market take care of itsef.

You could remove someone who is promoting child abuse, threats, racism (man oh man, did twitter let that NYT editor board woman account stay despite her racist comments), killing and so on, but if you disagree with someone like alex jones, congrats! now move on! (not fan of him, but fan of free speach, i mean i know the price of it and it's not cheap)

<comment><USER28> What about Apple's free speech? They're the publisher. Are they supposed to put their logo on content that they don't approve? That's not how a free market works.

<comment><USER29> I now expect Apple to police all content that appears on their platform. If anything that breaks copyright appreas Apple should be held responsbile. They can not hold on to whatever "common carrier" status they enjoy now and still censor people they don't like.

<comment><USER28> Maybe you don't know how the iTunes and App Stores work? Apple does "police all content" already.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why was this flagged? People support this guy? Or hate the takedown so much?

</comment><comment><USER30> As someone who is a big supporter and fan of public broadcasting - proper, popular public broadcasting like the BBC, I find it super ironic that both the American conservative and hard right, who seem to hate public broadcasting with equal force, are being denied platforms by private, capitalist enterprises who owe them no explanations or responsibility, and who have no true accountability to their audience.

<comment><USER8> What makes you think the BBC is any better?

<comment><USER30> That's not my point. At all. My point is that a public broadcaster is accountable to the public, so they would have offical avenues of complaint.

<comment><USER8> Yes, and what happens to BBC employees if they ignore such complaints? How exactly is the BBC accountable? Has the license fee ever been reduced in response to poor behaviour or problematic journalism by BBC staffers?

<comment><USER19> That's not how it works. There are investigations, public apologies are made, people are fired etc. It's quite clear from the Brexit debate that each side believed the BBC to be biased against them, which in my mind, at least for Brexit, meant the BBC were doing their job.

<comment><USER8> That's accountability for individuals _possibly_ and _very rarely_. That's not accountability for the organisation. Consider what happens if someone is fired and someone who agrees with them on everything is immediately promoted into their place. Nothing changes. Markets create accountability for organisations, not just people.

The BBC love to try and escape accountability by claiming "we found examples of people accusing of opposite biases, therefore we're neutral". However this doesn't logically follow.

<comment><USER19> Markets aren't very good at accountability at all. There are numerous examples of banks/utilities/you name it, just carrying on ignoring the public outcry. The BBC is accountable because it's state run, and so there is a lot of infrastructure in place to force change, fine it, take it to court etc. Further, just because the BBC is a public broadcaster, doesn't mean people have to watch it, or even pay the license fee. The BBC isn't a state monopoly, it's just a state run broadcaster, I think you're confusing the two.

Prime example, license fee revenues are currently falling, because people have been watching online and using services like Netflix, so the BBC has been looking at ways to change their whole model to keep going.

<comment><USER8> Markets don't always work, most notably when heavy regulations make it hard to enter the market at all - like in banking! But it's better than the alternative which is usually nothing.

 _The BBC is accountable because it 's state run, and so there is a lot of infrastructure in place to force change, fine it, take it to court etc_

How exactly can the state force change? The government basically leaves it alone on the grounds of 'political neutrality' except for occasionally adjusting the license fee (upwards). It's left to its own devices. As for fining it or taking it to court, that applies to any company, doesn't it? Fining the BBC is useless anyway, it's just a pass-through fine on people who have a television.

 _Further, just because the BBC is a public broadcaster, doesn 't mean people have to watch it, or even pay the license fee_

Everyone with a television or radio has to pay the license fee even if they don't watch it. Yes, in very recent times for the first time ever there are significant numbers of people who don't have a TV or radio at all. But that's still a small minority. In effect, no matter how great or useless the BBC is, their income remains the same.

At any rate, the original issue is more like "is the BBC more accountable to conservatives than Apple" and the answer is clearly no. The principle that the government leaves the BBC alone, especially in matters of news, is too well established.

<comment><USER19> _Markets don 't always work, most notably when heavy regulations make it hard to enter the market at all_

We all know the problem with unregulated banking. And there is a market in broadcasting in the UK, the BBC doesn't stop that.

 _How exactly can the state force change?_ Because it's backed by public money, so there are laws surrounding its use. The BBC isn't some corporation set up on a whim, great thought went into the system, including the charter. See [https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/regulatory_framewo...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/regulatory_framework/charter_agreement.html)

 _Everyone with a television or radio has to pay the license fee even if they don 't watch it_

This more than anything suggests you don't actually know what you're talking about. The license fee is only for watching OTA broadcasts and certain situations with iPlayer. I don't pay for my flatscreen TV that I only use to watch Netflix, youtube etc. And it's a !TV! license fee, not radio, you don't need a license to listen to radio.

I recommend you read up before posting FUD.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Free speech means you can state and opinion and the government won't put you in prison. That's it, that's all it is.

<comment><USER32> No, that's the first amendment. Free speech is also a broader principle that the first amendment applies by restricting government power.

<comment><USER14> Thank you! I feel like everyone forgot their middle school civics lessons, the amount I hear that line trotted out these days.</comment></comment></comment>


A lightbulb is not an idea - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/personal-growth/a-lightbulb-is-not-an-idea-549e83514587 <comment><USER2> The animations are beautiful and clearly support the text. I agree with all the text except the final point.

"The lightbulb image works on a purely symbolic level, it only replaces the word "idea". This image of a household item contains no original thought about what an idea is."

This may be true for most readers today but when I see a lightbulb representing 'idea' I feel the "Eureka!" moment when the idea was formed as when a lightbulb switches from off to on in an instant. It's a very physical analogy that works for me to represent that same 'associative magic'.

It also seems a bit unfair to compare a static image illustration with an animated one. At least the lightbulb could have transitioned from an off to on state.

<comment><USER3> Even in that case, the lightbulb serving that purpose is naturally ignored, as its been heavily overused and tends to draw no more meaning than the slide "and the solution follows..."; at which point, it offers no more value than the text itself/an emoji, and still fails the task of the author's goal for images</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How are OLED displays for coding? - <AUTHOR> Some notebooks and monitors were sold with OLED displays this year. I really liked them on the smartphone or tablets and now I'm thinking about getting a notebook for coding with OLED display, too. (HP Spectre X360 13-4203ng)<p>Does somebody here use an OLED display for coding? Was it worth it? How is your colourscheme or general system setup for it? Any burn-ins? <comment><USER2> I have an OLED television, but I don't own an OLED computer monitor or laptop. My desktops use several IPS LCDs and my laptop is a Surface Book.

That said, my understanding from credible technology reviewers (e.g., [1]) is that OLED displays are quite good considering they are still "first generation" in this space.

I suspect that most programmers would be happy with an OLED display, but it won't seem notably superior for programming than a high-quality LCD such as a Dell Ultrasharp or Professional series desktop display (e.g., UP3017 [2]) or the LCDs used on a Surface, Dell XPS, or Apple Macbook. In other words, I think OLED is nice, but it is not yet a deciding factor. Second generation OLED displays may create a bit more distance between OLED and LCD. For the time being, for programming, my personal preference favors usable real estate (large desktop displays) before color accuracy and pixel density.

Given all three (real estate, color accuracy, and pixel density), I would be thrilled. But if I had to pick one before the others, as a programmer, I want real estate.

[1] [https://youtu.be/Dtjllca-AaQ?t=2m23s](https://youtu.be/Dtjllca- AaQ?t=2m23s)

[2] This is a 2560x1600 30-inch display which, thanks to the cult of widescreen, enjoys an annoying price premium versus the more commonplace 2560x1440 27-inch form factor. Again, as a programmer, screen _height_ is useful since it allows you to fit more lines of code in view. (Width is also useful for displaying source of multiple files side-by-side, but that utility is probably a bit lower than the utility of height.) This is why 3:2 displays as seen on Surface Book are great for programming.

<comment><USER3> > screen height is useful since it allows you to fit more lines of code in > view.

Many external monitors can be rotated 90 degrees into portrait orientation.

<comment><USER4> If anything I think screen height is even more important if you're going to portrait mode. 16:9 is horribly thin, 16:10 is better, 4:3 is possibly the best portrait aspect ratio.

<comment><USER5> Can confirm that 4:3 is the best ratio for portrait.

I'm using one of those old SyncMaster monitors from Samsung for displaying Code.

Make sure your IDE can hide unnecessary parts of it, like directory view or something, otherwise it gets a bit crunched.

<comment><USER4> Same! 20.1" SyncMaster 204B, 1200x1600!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Dark/black background colourschemes look awesome and you can massively reduce the strain on your eyes. I am planning on grabbing an OLED for my next monitor.

If you code in low or no light environments then I would certainly rank OLED as an important factor. If however your work occurs in brightly lit spaces (outside / horrid offices) then you will be wanting a white screen anyway and it makes no difference.

Of course, always consider having multiple monitors and raising the size of the text - this is often much better at reducing strain than the extra play an OLED will give with light levels.

\- I am not a doctor and am in no way qualified to give the above advice. I have programmed for roughly a week on an OLED that wasn't mine

<comment><USER7> Exactly. I have always thought that short of having a e-ink screen like Dasung (which is a bit buggy and requires a driver not available for Linux/BSD), OLED could be great on black background as no light would be emitted.

Any reasonably priced OLED screens for a desktop?

<comment><USER6> Not really. If you can justify it under being a designer of some sort it becomes simply expensive instead of unreasonable.

As for e-ink, this is the dream. I want to sit out on the lawn working and as far as I can tell e-ink is the way towards this.

<comment><USER7> Dasung is pretty good for eink. But I'm waiting till someone releases a version that uses it's own firmware and not a buggy driver.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Fantastic, but you need a black background (e.g. nightmode, some terminal editors, dark theme, etc). Most major editors either have this as the default or support it (inc. Visual Studio).

For coding OLED is my favorite because in my OPINION it reduces eyestrain. In my experience the two biggest factors in eyestrain are: too small of a font for your eyesight, and too bright of a screen.

With a normal LED-IPS display you can turn down the brightness to approx 25-35%, but even then the screen remains pretty bright and below that the colors and contrast seem to wash out slightly.

With OLED because each pixel is lit as opposed to the entire display, working in a night mode means you're really looking at a very lightly lit screen even on a full page of white colored code.

Plus the white code really pops out because the background is much much darker than other technologies. On other display types the software asks for black but really gets a shade of grey, this is due to unavoidable light leaking. On an OLED it asks for black and gets actual black.

That all being said, OLED is great for coding, IPS might be better for color reproduction (e.g. photo editing) and wide angle viewing, and neither IPS or OLED is great for gaming currently (due to poor response times, etc).

PS - Obviously this post is only about display technology. In the real world other factors may come into play like relative price, resolution, orientation rotation, reliability, and so on.

<comment><USER9> I didn't know I could have an opinion on this, but you sold me on OLED. Let's see when I can get one with a good response time in the format that I currently use (40" 2160p).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have used an Alienware laptop with OLED screen and it was beautiful and I am sure it would be great for coding. My main concern with an OLED is burn in. There are a lot of static elements on a computer screen and if phones are anything to go by burn in of those always-on-screen widgets will leave some nasty marks.

</comment><comment><USER11> Black being actually black (ie no light being emitted vs pixels hiding the display's backlight) feels great for terminal work, but I do not think that OLED is yet worth the overall battery life hit.

For instance, Anandtech [1] reports 6h11m for web browsing on the LCD X1 Yoga, which drops to 3h39m on the OLED variation.

[1] [http://www.anandtech.com/show/10697/the-lenovo- thinkpad-x1-y...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/10697/the-lenovo- thinkpad-x1-yoga-review/9)

<comment><USER12> Shouldn't this intuitively be the other way around? Especially is you utilize dark mode on your editor/terminal.

<comment><USER11> I believe the benchmark was related to web browsing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Due to pentile pixel arrangements OLED screen is less sharp than corresponding LCD of the same resolution, so for coding and readingy my preference goes to high quality ISP panel.

</comment><comment><USER14> What are your favorite models (monitors)? I could not find a decent OLED monitor (or HiDpi, 16:10, not too glossy not to grainy (cheap AG coating)).

I am so upset to see all constructors forgetting devs/ops/office who favore quality, specs and have decent money: 16:10 monitors are dying, monitors panels optimized for text and long days of watching the screen are non- existing (vs optimized for video or image), mouse and keyboards are cheap or for gamers.</comment>


Intel Claims that the Core i3–8145U is Better than the AMD Ryzen 7 3700U - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@areejsyed/intel-claims-that-the-core-i3-8145u-is-better-than-the-amd-ryzen-7-3700u-no-really-were-not-9442db9bd8c6 <comment><USER2> Someone correct me if I'm wrong here but the Intel based laptops touted as outperforming a Ryzen 7 3700U both have Nvidia GeForce MX230s and all the benchmarks are graphics related.

<comment><USER3> Yup, I bought a Ryzen laptop because I didn't want a discrete chip (causes all sorts of issues in Linux), but I wanted decent graphics performance. I have the 3500U, and it's more than capable of what I need it for, without the complexity of switching a discrete GPU on, and I like the 4-core performance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Walled article, requires medium login, any other source to read from?

<comment><USER5> I installed the Bypass Paywalls plugin for Firefox [https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls- firefox](https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox) and my experience reading articles on Medium is much nicer. There's still a popup, but it's small and down at the bottom of the screen, instead of a big popup right in the center of the screen blocking most of the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is blogspam.</comment>


Twitter list of users most followed by readers of HN - <AUTHOR> http://twitter.com/DHS/hacker-news <comment><USER2> I would almost prefer a list of just HN users.</comment>


Don't go to art school (2013) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/i-m-h-o/dont-go-to-art-school-138c5efd45e9#.87guodhbv <comment><USER2> I graduated from art school.

I didn't go to art school to pursue a career in art. The art school I went to basically said, "don't" \- it's a lottery anyways. The people who can make a living as an artist are a few dozen worldwide.

I went to art school to think laterally and critically. I went to have my own ideas of what creativity is exhaustively challenged.

You can also go to art school to make those social connections to the larger art world - the art world is nothing but a huge web of social ties. I found that part of it pretty dark and disgusting, really. I just wasn't willing to stab so many people in the back to get ahead.

My curriculum was not centered around skills and technique - you were to learn that yourself. It was centered around your ideas - get your ideas out of your head and onto a stage basically. The school and my program were influenced by the Black Mountain school in N. Carolina where individuals like B. Fuller, Merce Cunningham, and John Cage taught. Interdisciplinary. It was all a living experiment, and all my higher level courses had, "Experimental" in their name.

I don't regret one second of art school. You get out what you get in. I still would never, ever pursue a career as an artist. I've done lots of creatively amazing projects, but it wasn't for the money - this country I live in (USA) at least really doesn't find monetary value in the arts.

<comment><USER3> I think your advice sounds great for people living in a Star Trek utopia where people only work to better themselves.

However in our present time, how many people can seriously consider going to college without careful thought to how it will relate to their career?

I'd love to go to art school but not be an artist. While I'm at it, I'd also like to earn graduate degrees in history, literature, and philosophy (might help my lateral thinking).

<comment><USER4> If I understand it correctly, the US is actually the perfect system to go to an art school and still make a career in a traditional field: You can still go to law school or HBS.

Many people suffer from "premature optimization", trying to do business- related stuff because they see McKinsey in their future. I've met quite a few people from those global consultancies, and they actively encourage people to study theology or modern french literature.

And don't get me started on parents asking for their children's middle schools to "focus on accounting, not these useless languages"...

<comment><USER5> If you go that route, you'd better not fail. The debt would be crushing.

<comment><USER6> Easy solution: Your parents are well off. Then a lot of those choices are less dramatic.

<comment><USER7> Easier solution for most: go to a not-insanely-priced in-state public university.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I went to art school and dropped out. In high school I had immense pressure from my guidance counselors to go to art school, specifically a private one. What I was told was that if I didn't go to college and get a degree I would be working fast food the rest of my life. Being a dumb 17 year old who had no concept of debt, I listened, I gave into their scare tactics and went.

After my first year, I felt like I was wasting my time. Gen eds were at the level of what I learned in 8th grade and art class grading was completely opinionated and based on what type of art the teacher liked. I hated it and wanted to drop out. But fear of failure and a realization of what debt really was kept me locked into going to college.

I scraped by my second year while becoming more and more jaded. I felt lied to and swindled out of my money and future. I ended up finally dropping out when the realization that I really was wasting my time took over.

I spent a lot of time with computers on my own and taught myself how systems work for a few years while I worked multiple dead end jobs to scrape by and attempt to pay off my debt. Eventually I managed to land myself a jr sysadmin at a company which saved me from drowning. Now I work as a full fledged infrastructure engineer making a very satisfying amount of money and working on an extremely interesting set of problems. I'm actually happy now.

Art school hurt me horribly. I had to dig myself out of a massive hole with sheer willpower and determination alone.

Screw art school.

</comment><comment><USER9> My father went to Art School in India, and despite being an incredibly gifted documentary photographer -- he even won a Magnum Photos Prize in India for his works on the Indo-Pak War in 72--, he bared scraped by. Eventually he ended up working at night to take the GRE, TOEFL Exams and came to America to get his Bachelors in Engineering.

Right from childhood (I was born in America), he groomed me to be an Engineer also, despite seeing a talent in me also for art (fine arts) and sports (basketball). I was angry (at him) as a child, but now, I am very grateful.

What lot of these articles also fail to mention, is that a "Career in Art" is mostly scrapping by for 90%+ of the graduates. We only see the top 10% or so and think it's great money, fame etc etc. They also fail to mention that during economic downturns (think recession every 8 to 10 years) the 1st thing that consumers will cut back on, is in the art, luxury area. So even very successful painters, artists will see drastically reduced income during these times.

</comment><comment><USER10> We're gonna need a culture shift away from "higher education" being the only option for middle class kids. Go to any middle/upper middle class suburb and tell parents their kid doesn't need to go to college and you'll get laughed at.

<comment><USER11> That won't happen unless "higher education" stops being a highly profitable enterprise for those selling it.

<comment><USER12> But how can it be profitable? They are non-profit institutions.

<comment><USER13> A business need not be corporate-profitable to pay its management lavishly. The university may not have shareholders or a dividend but that just means all the money it makes has to go somewhere, and that is often inflated salaries for the highest echelons of the school.

<comment><USER11> Don't forget power and influence.

Besides, there is also multi-billion dollar world of for-profit education.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Guy-who-wrote-this (and often lurker) here. Lemme know if y'all have any questions or anything—this is still a subject I'm rather passionate about.

<comment><USER15> Another thing to add to your $10k education list, look at all the art classes in community colleges around the big expensive private art schools.

I got my BFA from a pricy private art school in LA. We were paying about $1250 a credit. The same teachers were also teaching at Santa Monica college for about $21 a credit. I was furious when I found out. I wish I would have known about that. So I suggest going to that prestigious school you want to go. Look up the classes and teachers, they might be teaching somewhere else for cheaper.

<comment><USER16> Likewise, if you're just interested in learning the material, check out alternatives at the big expensive art schools themselves. For example, RISD offers 2-year certificate programs for about $10k. They're composed of community education classes, but they're taught by RISD instructors in RISD classrooms, and as far as I can tell are equivalent to the corresponding courses taught during the day. The catch, of course, is that you don't have access to the full range of courses, and that you don't get to say "BFA" or "MFA" on your resume at the end -- although you can still say "RISD". :)

[http://ce.risd.edu/pages/certificate-programs-for- adults](http://ce.risd.edu/pages/certificate-programs-for-adults)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The entire world of profiting from education, and from predatory loans for education is locked into a desperate feedback loop that's killing us. Of course, the alternatives involve the kinds of "big government" that have been so ideologically loathsome to many from the 80's on.

<comment><USER17> Ironically back in the 80s it cost around $75/year for UC. I went to UC in 1990, say tuition go from $375/year to $20,000/year by 1995. The changes Bush and Clinton made in the 90s enabled this situation where schools on the one hand lost state subsidies and on the other hand you saw the radical financialization where it became the norm to suddenly be 22 years old and in 6 figures of debt.

<comment><USER18> Ah Bill Clinton, that famous governor of California in the 80s and 90s!

<comment><USER19> The problem impacted all of the schools in the US in the 90s. As a national issue, the governor of California had nothing to do with that.

<comment><USER18> The sharp rise in tuition in UC schools was a result of a national issue?

<comment><USER19> Yes, this tuition spike happened everywhere in the US due to the availability of student loans for everyone who had a pulse at effectively any asking price. All of the universities had absolutely no incentive to cap tuition increases because everyone could always pay.

<comment><USER18> That conveniently ignores state subsidies to the UC system, and dare I say it is pretty ideological.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> In France, art school are free. Wait... The costs are paid by the state! The costs for education that you mention are sick. It would cost Americans less to relocate to Europe and they could eat good cheese.

<comment><USER21> There's lots of great cheese made in the USA. In fact one of them just won the "World Championship" in cheese:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wisconsin-cheese- world-c...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wisconsin-cheese-world- championship_us_56e2d4a5e4b065e2e3d59576)

Food in America has gone through a revolution in the last 20 or so years. American beer used to be considered awful and now is considered the best, most innovative and most complex by many people around the world. Our wines used to be considered awful until the 1980's and now many of them are respected and globally accepted as great.

New American Cuisine and it's offsprings have eclipsed French cooking in many respects. Although it owes so much to French cooking to be fair.

Yes, university is disgustingly expensive here, however.

<comment><USER22> My experience is dating a bit, but in 2009 I spent 3 months crossing the US as a tourist. My experience with the food was that you could get crap for next to nothing, or really good food at a premium. There seemed to be no middle ground; 'normal' food at a 'normal' price.

My first interaction with American food was on landing in LA - on arriving at the place I was staying, I started making a sandwich with some "healthy (check mark) wholemeal bread". I put a slice in my mouth while I was making the sandwich (I was that hungry and couldn't wait), and it was like biting into a slice of cake, flavour-wise. There was so much sugar in this 'healthy wholemeal' slice...

<comment><USER21> After WW2 the USA figured out how to industrialize and process food. We took the model used to feed soldiers and converted it into something for everyday people in the home. The advertising to support this painted the kitchen as a bleak, difficult place where failure was imminent. Instead of being a place of joy and culture it was a disaster waiting to happen. The new alternative was to buy these processed foods as they were guaranteed to work and were convenient. In the 1950's it did in fact probably seem really innovative and novel.

This model was highly successful as it brought down prices, increased profits and liberated women from the kitchen. As more and more people didn't have the time to shop for good food and cook it this processed food industry got larger and larger until it became the dominant food culture in the country. Think of an America food store today and the entire middle of it is all processed foods in boxes, cans, refrigerated and any other form.

In the 1970's it became even simpler with the promise of "we'll cook it for you" and the fast food restaurant was born. These restaurants use the same processing techniques but also have the ability to have some industrial kitchen equipment to make the food taste less "TV Dinner" like.

The problem with all of this is these foods are not only filled with tons of chemicals and other agents but they're packed with salt and sugar. The foods also aren't prepared right.

To you point of bread: Bread was industrialized and processed. If you look at a loaf of bread and read the ingredients you'll see 25 or more things in it! They even were able to breed yeast which could make the bread rise faster which actually is bad as the gluten doesn't develop correctly this way. This isn't bread - it's like you described and it is awful. Using a sour dough culture and making real bread was replaced with this.

It's no wonder we have so many people who claim to have a gluten allergy today. This never happened before and it's because of the way the food made and what is in it. It's no wonder we have kids with type 2 diabetes. It's no wonder people have digestive and heart issues at a rate much higher than ever before.

So yeah to get away from that there's a "slow food" movement and "organic" and all the other labels. What's funny is this is what the rest of the world called "cooking" for thousands of years. We are only now discovering this at large levels here. But lets face it, it isn't like industrialized food is going away. In fact it's growing. We've outsourced cooking and this is the result. And the cost of ingredients has risen where as fast food has gotten cheaper over the last 30 years, adjusted for inflation. And there's the gap you're talking about.

But this is creeping across the world. Europe has had a big taste of this and it's growing quickly. Places like India now are changing this way too. What's in those boxes will just be adapted to local pallets.

It's really a destruction of cultures I believe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Interesting, for for ~$250k (or ~400k if you do it via loan and include repayment cost) you can buy a nice house to your kid instead of burning that on 4y pseudo education.

Knowledge (from best universities as well) is free nowadays. I'm sure for 4y in solitude of your own house and internet knowledge you can advance your skills a lot.

<comment><USER24> Depends on what you really want to do. If you want to be a life sciences researcher then you need all the expensive equipment that only institutions can afford.

<comment><USER25> But you can't play with all that expensive equipment until you get to _at least_ the graduate level. Take chemistry for example. For your entire undergraduate degree you're doing strictly cookbook procedures in the lab. Other than a bit of technique, everything you learn in undergraduate labwork you could have learned from a book.

Try going to the lab instructor and asking him or her if you can come back later at night to run some of your own experiments. You'll get a hearty laugh.

The expensive equipment becomes an argument in favor of a traditional education only after you get to the post-grad level when you have real access to that equipment.

<comment><USER26> "But you can't play with all that expensive equipment until you get to at least the graduate level."

This will come as a surprise to the expensive equipment I used as an undergrad.

<comment><USER25> Did you design and run your own _independent_ experiments as an undergrad? Or did you do assigned and supervised lab work following exact procedures from an exercise book in a group setting with a lab instructor watching over you, and you had to be done and out within 2-3 hours?

<comment><USER26> I ran my own independent experiments, usually designed to help a graduate student with one of his projects, and was then left to my own devices. If it was done in 2-3 hours, it was because the cultures needed to incubate overnight anyway.

I did group lab work with an instructor as well, but my university had a pretty vibrant undergraduate research program.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Law schools and medical schools are expensive, because lawyers and doctors (at least in the US) can expect to have good money afterwards.

On the other hand, art schools or, say, a degree in English poetry are expensive because those are luxury goods. Those are favored by rich people who never have to work a single day in their lives, but they want to be art connoisseurs.

Pursuing an art degree if you have to work for a living later is dubious, to say the least. Taking a huge debt forward it is pure, undiluted madness.

</comment><comment><USER28> In music it may even be worse, because the top conservatories award a good number of full scholarships. A high percentage of the students who go on to have successful careers are already great when they arrive, full scholarship in hand.

In many cases, the demographic that actually pays the sky high tuition isn't getting the best version of the school. They aren't in the elite ensembles or the advanced courses with famous teachers. Launching a successful career from that starting point is even more difficult, debt aside.

</comment><comment><USER29> I have been a working writer as well as a software engineer. I have been a broke poet and fiction writer (for years) and a senior level engineer (for years). I get to be a homeowner because of the software skills and I sent my kid to a good college. Overall I have moved back and forth. I've had 4 books published and I've had some really exciting tech jobs. So I have a 'both sides' perspective.

I have a computer science degree, not a writing degree. If I had gotten an MFA, I might have been able to get a teaching job in creative writing, but the the lit world is more status conscious so I would have had to go to a great school, say Brown, or the like. My CSC degree is from a state university and it has gotten me into top companies and start ups. I did not have to go into debt for my incredibly useful degree.

I think the tech world is actually more decent, fair, and respectful than the creative arts world. The rank exploitation of low paid writers (including the adjunct jobs most get) is truly awful. The level of personal sabotage and jealousy in the creative arts world, where there is not enough to go around, is disheartening to experience. My artsy friends are high horse about the tech bros but they need to be more mindful of the practices in their own back yard - which are worse, in my informed opinion.

If you want an art career you have to plan strategically. You have to go to a great school for an MFA, one that has buzz (e.g. Yale), and you have to network like crazy (there are ways of describing that that will get my post blocked), and you have to be a bit cunning, and you have to have family resources. Oh, you also have to get that MFA right away out of college, because the art world grooves on youth. Possibly for years and years you'll have to work hard without any idea if it will get you anywhere, although the more years go by, the more your chances dwindle. You also need to always be doing self-promotion. It's endless and I can't stand it. I am in that respect a typical engineer and thinking in these ways is unpleasant.

One of the weird things about the art world is that it requires so much money to get a career that rich kids are very over-represented. Young people from all over the world make it - there's lots of cultural diversity, but the other kind, the economic kind, not so much. It's creepy. I think of that every time I see another movie star kid who is making a movie. It's not cool people. It's disgusting.

But my overall message for all you tech geeks is that if you want to be an artist too, you can be. Go for it, be the best you can be, take it seriously, etc. Just realize it is not only hard but somewhat horrible. I have actually had some success and truly it made me love computer science even more.

</comment><comment><USER30> Well I can't see that suggestion resulting in a gallery show for anyone who follows that advice. If you are an outsider, how would you ever get into legitimate galleries to show your work? Never happens because your school background is extremely important there, much like how it is true that anyone on earth can write a Novel but it is extremely unlikely you will find a publisher without being in a top writing school.

<comment><USER31> If you're not in a top writing school - you submit your novel to a publisher and it sits in the slush pile for a few months. You write another novel while you're waiting. When you get the rejection slip, you submit your second novel, and you submit the rejected novel to a different publisher. While waiting for the next round of rejections, you write your third novel. Eventually you get something published. Until then you keep writing and mooching off your spouse.

If you ARE in a top writing school... well... you do EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

<comment><USER32> Not necessarily. If you know people, they would be willing to agent your work to represent it to larger publishing companies that only take agented work. Then you have a much higher chance of being accepted before you write another novel and then it's simply a matter of giving your latest manuscript to your editor and seeing what they say.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is sorta unrelated, but related to engineering.

On my first day in college, the Dean of my Aerospace Engineering program and two other people came into my first huge classroom and said, "there are too many people in this program. Aerospace companies will not hire you. They will hire Electrical Engineers and Mechanical Engineers before they will hire you. If you have a chance, transfer to another program."

They were probably right. I transferred after a semester. Most of the people I know who graduated in Aerospace Engineering ended up writing software (without much training.)

I know people (very closely) who still have crushing debt from art school. And engineering school who can't pass the Professional Engineer test. And law school who can't pass the bar after multiple tries. I studied Electrical Engineering but now I just write software, which was probably my first love.

I can't recommend anything to you, but this article resonated with my experience. If you're really good, go for that thing. Don't pay someone a lot to tell you what you're already good at.

</comment><comment><USER34> The tragedy of unaffordable art school cuts even deeper than the scope of this article. It's really sad, more and more art school is a playground of the wealthy leisure class, leading to a smaller pool of outsider perspectives and new ideas. Hopefully things will change within these institutions, but until then, as the author states, the internet is quite good for basic instruction. You still can't replace the value of group critique, building relationships with your instructions, and networking- but that isn't exactly worth a quarter of a million dollars either.

</comment><comment><USER35> The title of this article should be "Don't go to art school in USA". The rest of the world has it different.

<comment><USER19> I.e. "don't pay for art school yourself"

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Two pieces of advice:

1\. Value optionality. $300k in debt takes too many options off the table, $50k not so much.

2\. College, even (and in some cases especially) art school, is extremely valuable and increases optionality. consider Virginia Commonwealth University. It's a cheap, public school with one of the best and most functional programs in the country. Especially if you're in Virginia, take a look.

</comment><comment><USER37> I graduated from art school and am now a software engineer. I went because when you're really good at drawing in high school--everyone tells you that you should be an artist, regardless of what else you may be good at.

I believe my degree was worth it. If you want to learn technical skills, this article is spot on and has some great advice. There are some great resources he gives for learning this stuff fairly cheap.

What I learned in art school was critical thinking, problem solving, perception, and observation. The most important things you get out of art school that are applicable to software:

1\. How to critique work and talk about your work with others. Most studio classes are basically just a long critique of everyone's work. I use these skills everyday in software in code reviews and in my role as a manager mentoring others.

2\. Problem solving. We regularly had assignments like "Draw a sequence of images defining density" or "Create a sculpture that defines the space between an architectural space and your body" or "Create an invention and build it with only brown paper lunch bags." It takes some novel thinking to come up with creative solutions to that shit.

3\. How to deliver. You need to get stuff done and produce a volume of work to get good.

Of the good friends I had in art school:

\- One is a paper sculptor and has made work for Facebook, Apple, Google, the Queen of Jordan, and has been a guest on Sesame Street. He also works with research scientists on solar cell development. \- One has been the visual effects supervisor for the Harry Potter films, the Dark Knight, and Star Trek Beyond. \- One is the director of a glass blowing school. \- One is a executive creative director at a large design agency.

I would guess that every one of them would attribute part of their success to the art school they attended.

</comment><comment><USER38> Or just come to Australia where a three year fine arts degree can be found for about AU 12 grand per year. Fees will vary depending on the Uni.

Australian students pay less because the government contributes some of the cost. We might pay 10 grand per year instead of 12 in above example.

I regret studying a BA at age 18. The internet wasnt quite around yet and I just didnt care about anything. I went to Art School after the BA and have no regrets. Art School is an awesome thing to do in your early twenties. Its where I figured out a few very important things.

Online resources are amazing now but its important to have that human interaction life experience when formulating your creative foundations. Mingling with other students and lecturers is to mingle with ideas and opportunities.

</comment><comment><USER39> We as a society need a different post-secondary experience.

I went to art school at a state university. Ended up with a BFA in studio art. When I get my background check pulled it just says BFA from STATE UNIVERSITY 2011. It doesn't say it was in art. After that I went to a tech school for a semester and started working in manufacturing. Having my BFA was critical in jumping through the HR loop to get to my current position of analyst.

My department hires with a bias towards fresh graduates with engineering degrees. These workers are great for 6-18 months but they always leave for greener pastures. I keep getting raises to stay were I am. Out of the degrees that the long term coworkers hold, most are in physics, mathematics, or criminology.

</comment><comment><USER40> Of course, the state incentivises this scam by giving massive loans to young people who cannot even comprehend what they're doing until it's too late.

<comment><USER41> I don't completely disagree, but who is at fault there? Most people are >= 18 when they go to college. They're adults, and parents are usually also involved in planning how to finance their children's college education. If they're not going into it with total knowledge at that point, then what should the threshold be for when people are qualified to make their own life decisions? When they're 30 and already self-sufficient? If anything, the government should be more restrained about giving out student loans to protect itself and to protect taxpayers, not to protect adults with poor judgement from themselves. I think much more can be done WRT making sure students understand what they're getting into, but it's not a black and white issue.

<comment><USER42> > I don't completely disagree, but who is at fault there? Most people are >= > 18 when they go to college. They're adults,

In many jurisdictions 18 is still considered too young to drink, buy cigarettes, etc. - likely too young to have lived on their own or practiced much self-sufficiency. Being an adult isn't that binary - it's more a set of skills and responsibilities that build up.

As currently stands, large amounts of non-dischargeable student debt seems to be one of those things where the latter is suddenly cranked up to 11? Seems a bit harsh. Although perhaps less harsh than it initially sounds with income based repayment options...

Ahh - perhaps less interesting than the question of fault, is "who can reasonably and effectively do something about it".

<comment><USER43> Not sure why you're getting downvoted. IMO 18 is _much_ too young to understand the consequences of huge student debt, especially when there's so much cultural pressure to be a student.

There are similar scams in writing, where MFAs have become increasingly expensive and less and less likely to be a good investment.

There's no benign motivation here. It's simple greed by the loan shark companies and university administrators.

More civilised countries understand that a pool of self-supporting graduates is a relatively cheap investment with huge social and economic benefits.

US culture still seems to be spinning around "Why should my taxes pay for your education?" \- which is a naive question that many countries worked out the answer to more than half a century ago.

<comment><USER44> It's more that age doesn't actually impart you any kind of wisdom on its own. A lot of people grow up in misinformation and no amount of years can make up for it. The concepts of adulthood and maturity are not real beyond the biological definitions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I'm increasingly confused by college education discussions. ~$200k+ is a serious, life-changing investment for most people. Bankrolling more than a fraction of that with loans with no plan to make a return on investment (a salary, generally) doesn't even start to make sense. Normally I don't struggle to replace words like "stupid" with something more descriptive, but here I find myself struggling (indicating that I must have a blind spot here). If you're wealthy, who cares, its discretionary income and you should make use of your privilege. If you're not three standard-deviations from the mean in terms of personal or family wealth though, why does this conversation even need to happen? Like at all? Borrowing money without a repayment plan to buy something that isn't worth very much seems self-destructive to the point that if we think buying/selling heroin should be illegal (I don't, but w/e), we should definitely think buying/selling massive crippling debt should be illegal.

For contrast, here's a sane decision: I recently went back to school at 28 to get a B.S. in Computer Science. I bankrolled the degree with a combination of savings, a loan from my mother, and a federal loan. Going back and getting a second degree was a calculated (and in hindsight very good) investment. I put myself around $30k underwater all told, out of the $60k odd required to earn the degree and live for three years in Minneapolis. Before sinking money and opportunity cost into a degree, I worked the math out, computed an expected salary range upon graduation, and said "this is a good investment." I worked my ass off (I worked throughout to keep costs down and to get experience as a junior engineer) and made it work.

The outcome doesn't really matter, but as it happens I was fortunate and landed well above what I thought my expected salary range would be, then got promoted 18 months in to a compensation level I personally think is obscene (I figured I'd be in the 55-80k range, out of college I landed in the 120k range with a move to another state, now I'm in the 180k range total comp). The loans were paid off from remaining savings and the signing bonus for the job.

What I did is an option for most people. It requires nothing more than common sense and some calculated risk-taking.

And p.s., as someone who spent their 20's dealing with some pretty crippling mental health issues and generally avoiding reality for the better part of a decade, you don't need to get a fucking college degree when you're 22 (although if you know what you're doing, go for it!). Stay smart, read books, keep up with basic problem solving, take a community college math course or two (take calc 3 or physics 2 or whatever), learn to program, and keep yourself employed. Invest in knowledge and experience, shed your ego, and learn to be a person who makes things and improves the world around them. Don't dilly-dally around with this clueless fake-school b.s.

</comment><comment><USER46> I recommend everyone to go to art school. Unless you have to take a loan to do it.

I have many artsy friends that make few hundreds of dollars per gig, and are tens of thousands of dollars in debts.

</comment><comment><USER47> He left out, "Watch all the Bob Ross videos on YouTube."

</comment><comment><USER48> The Watts Atelier that Noah mentions also has a great online program with instructor feedback. I've been doing it for about a year now and all I can say is that for $200 a month it's a steal.

It's a shame that art schools are in the state they're in. Where I'm from (South Africa) the tuition fees aren't too bad, however, the training you receive doesn't cultivate any skill (it's mostly contemporary/conceptually driven). Thank goodness for the web!

</comment><comment><USER49> Art schools these days also include design programs, and designers are actually in demand so you can make a career out of that, if you wish. RSID, for example, has a strong visual, graphical, and interaction design programs. Ya, design isn't art, not even close, but if its your thing, you shouldn't avoid art schools just because they also teach art.

</comment><comment><USER50> These is a clear and balanced assessment of the pros and cons of pursuing a career in the arts:

[https://80000hours.org/career-reviews/pursuing-fame-in- art-a...](https://80000hours.org/career-reviews/pursuing-fame-in-art-and- entertainment/)

</comment><comment><USER51> I graduated from art school and went on to do commercial illustration, design, 3D work for TV commercials, then movies and ultimately the games industry.

I'm not saying the qualification helped, but the guidance and time to shape and hone me as an artist was invaluable.

</comment><comment><USER52> It is sad to hear this. As arts are a form of expression, and their appreciation makes us more open minded and connected.

Having said this... You can also study abroad. There are other countries, with universities in term, you don't have to pay that much you know.

</comment><comment><USER53> tldr: Don't go to, like, RISD unless you are a trust fund baby.

</comment><comment><USER54> $245,816 for a degree is damn cruel. tuition costs are probably one of the top causes of stagnation - i'm sure most people do learn something worth while... but damn!

</comment><comment><USER55> My wife went to what she calls a semi-atelier school. It was tiny. She graduated with 24 students. One her classmates and long-time friends went on to his MFA at Yale.

</comment><comment><USER56> I thought what the author really meant to say is, don't go to art school, in the US.

</comment><comment><USER57> Wonderful! I wonder if there was the same plan schedule for computer science like this.

</comment><comment><USER58> If only Hitler had read this.

</comment><comment><USER59> don't you wonder why kids so close to you across the canadian border don't have these problems/dilemas at all?

</comment><comment><USER60> tl;dr: some schools are very expensive

</comment><comment><USER61> This is all you need for being a creative human being: [http://www.venditacasette.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/07/Cas...](http://www.venditacasette.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/07/Casette_in_legno13369868964fb0cd102a5f8.jpg)</comment>


When The Drones Come Marching In - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/29/drones/#comments

<comment><USER2> Decoupling criminal, crime and consequence is truly a scary proposition. It's pretty obvious that lowering the risk and emotional consequences of committing a crime makes it a lot easier to commit to committing. Just look at Anonymous.</comment>


Open Source platform for creating collaborative consumption marketplaces - <AUTHOR> http://www.shareable.net/blog/using-tribes-to-enable-sharing-within-offline-networks

<comment><USER2> Great idea for places that have a collaborative mentality.

</comment><comment><USER3> What a cool idea!

</comment><comment><USER4> Love the idea!

</comment><comment><USER5> Best Wishes!</comment>


Ask HN: How do you process credit card payments? - <AUTHOR>

How do you process credit card payments over the web? <comment><USER2> Authorize.net - <http://authorize.net/>

</comment><comment><USER3> all of the below:

sage pay, transfirst, chase paymentech, streamline</comment>


Ask HN: Whistleblowing on a theranos-like tech company - <AUTHOR>
 3 people with strong engineering backgrounds (myself included) are suspicious of the claims of tech company that's raised a lot of money.<p>How do I whistleblow on them while keeping my identity private? <comment><AUTHOR> For starters, I found a random reddit post supporting my suspicions (I'm not the reddit OP): [https://www.reddit.com/r/meteorology/comments/9okgwi/opinion...](https://www.reddit.com/r/meteorology/comments/9okgwi/opinions_on_climacell_claims/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Tip off the media with your suspicions.

And/or post about it on platforms such as HN or Reddit. Stay anonymous. Good luck.

<comment><USER3> Done! Watch this space...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> you can start right here</comment>


Technology - the party really is over - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/10/technology_the_party_really_is.html

<comment><AUTHOR> "Not a single new technology firm has come to the stock market this year, according to the British Venture Capital Association. And further back the evolutionary chain, venture capital investment in start-ups is now stalling in the US, and it's hard to see that pattern not being repeated in the UK."

"Last time we had a serious downturn in technology investment at the beginning of this decade, the world did not stand still. In a harsh climate, smart new ventures - from last.fm to Skype - were born, and consumer behaviour was transformed by the arrival of broadband."

</comment><comment><USER2> i disagree. i think that the focus of tech has shifted away from trying to build up a company to the point of going public. now, its a market full of big companies snapping up smaller ones, and small companies staying small to stay profitable and/or looking to get bought up.</comment>


Borneo Lost More Than 100k Orangutans from 1999 to 2015 - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/science/orangutans-endangered-species.html <comment><USER2> Its definitely sad to see in person where bordering on pristine primary rainforest are miles of palm plantations encroaching closer every day. Of course, don't forget all the problems caused by the farmers slash & burn tactics too.

Need to boycott companies and products that use palm oil! Make sure you read labels when you buy foods and choose more sustainable options.

<comment><USER3> I hate to remind everyone, but Nutella is Palm Oil with cocoa and hazlenut flavor.

Of course, Nutella works to ensure all their palm oil has some veneer of sustainability, but the fact is the more of the planet that eats it, the more palms need to be planted.

<comment><USER4> For what it's worth...

> Ferrero... reached its goal of using only palm oil that has been certified > by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil... Nutella's palm oil comes mostly > from Malaysia, as well as from Brazil, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, > according to reports.

> Greenpeace, the environmental advocacy group, told Quartz in a statement > that it opposes a boycott of products with palm oil because "a blanket > boycott of this agricultural crop will not solve problems in its > production."

[https://qz.com/430450/no-you-dont-have-to-boycott-nutella- fo...](https://qz.com/430450/no-you-dont-have-to-boycott-nutella-for-the- environment-says-greenpeace/)

<comment><USER5> Well the problem here is that the Roundtable of "Sustainable" Palm oil has HQ in Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, particularly so with politicians who deal with palm oil. Sarawak (Borneo) have seen most of the huge jungle being converted to palm oil plantation because they basically had a dictator in charge for thirty years who enriched himself and his family from it. So this organisation would have very little possibility to actively make improvements due to the political conditions in Malaysia. They don't really have free and fair elections - something that people are trying to change but have been jailed for. The main opposition leader is for example in jail.

While it is better to buy from RSPO than non-RSPO sources it is far from sustainable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It doesn't even stop there.

There are numerous reports of Orangutans being exploited as sex slaves in the midst of this palm plantation induced destruction of their habitats.

[https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=orangutan+prost...](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=orangutan+prostitution)

It's probably insignificant, but I am now very careful when purchasing any manufactured goods, stuff like peanut butter. If Palm oil is an ingredient, I'm not buying it, full stop. Not sure what else an individual can do to combat this disgusting situation.

<comment><USER7> The only solutions is to somehow find jobs or alternatives that pay more than these destructive actions. The problem is this is simply the best option they have. We can't save the animals without helping the humans first. Jane Goodall basically says the same thing in her lectures now.

<comment><USER6> I think it becomes a whole lot easier for the people doing this to rationalize it when surrounded by the destruction being meted out by these huge corporations buying the palm oil.

Like a case of broken windows [1]. One could argue if such wanton destruction of the Orangutan habitats wasn't occurring in the first place, then there'd be significantly less incidence of Orangutan prostitution.

The destruction is not only precipitating Orangutans destined for premature death available to the sex traffickers, it's also setting an example of total disregard for their lives on a massive scale. What harm is there in exploiting them briefly for profit before they die? (Not my position, but I can easily imagine that thought process being real for the traffickers.)

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

<comment><USER8> Broken Windows Theory is at best, hotly contested. The wikipedia article linked above covers the debate (which has been around since the theory was published in 1982, without much resolution in whether the evidence supports the theory).

<comment><USER6> There are obviously limits to the strategy for effectively preventing crime.

But I feel it's also fairly obvious that there are positive effects to demonstrating care and good hygiene in general. It promotes the same from others. To do the contrary, demonstrating carelessness and neglect, has the opposite effect.

<anecdata> This week I was hauling a trailer load of trash from a cabin I'm rehabbing out to the dump. One of my distant neighbors I hadn't met yet walked out to the street and flagged me down to introduce himself and have a chat.

In the course of the conversation, he asked where I was taking my load of trash. I replied "to the dumpsters at the community center", an appropriate place for disposal.

He indicated across the street to an abandoned, decrepit cabin, which is directly across the road from his property a sprawling ~20 acre complex. What he suggested surprised me considering the proximity to his own property. He said "You could just throw it in there, the owner doesn't care about the place."

I bit my tongue and continued on to the dumpster, with thoughts of broken windows circulating my mind. </anecdata>

<comment><USER8> I agree that it feels fairly obvious, but if it were such a strong impact on crime rates, wouldn't that be obvious in the data?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> TL;DR: Poaching.

EDIT: It's not even that, people are just straight up killing these poor orangutans.

> "Worryingly, however, the largest number of orangutans were lost from areas > that remained forested during the study period. This implies a large role of > killing."

> In February, Indonesian police arrested two rubber plantation workers in > Borneo, accusing them of shooting an orangutan multiple times, decapitating > it and then throwing its body into a river. The men claimed they were acting > in self-defense, according to local media reports.

> So, in addition to protection of forests, we need to focus on addressing the > underlying causes of orangutan killing. The latter requires public awareness > and education, more effective law enforcement, and also more studies as to > why people kill orangutans in the first place," he said.

Source: OP

<comment><USER10> It's comfortable to blame poaching because it makes westerners feel less complicit.

But that's not at all what the article states:

>"The decline in population density was most severe in areas that were deforested or transformed for industrial agriculture, as orangutans struggle to live outside forest areas," said a lead researcher for the study, Maria Voigt of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany.

<comment><USER9> You conveniently cherry picked 1 quote that talks about deforestation. See 3 other quotes that blames even the mostly densely forested areas are seeing large numbers of orangutans being killed, almost all attributed to humans.

<comment><USER11> It's not quite so straightforward, the deforestation enables humans to access more of the island than they otherwise would be able to.

<comment><USER12> I was reading a great, longform article recently about deforestation in Brazil.[1] The article explained how logging is really what opens the forest up to invaders. Even when loggers selectively take a small number of trees in an attempt to keep the ecosystem intact, the logging roads they create reach _deep_ into the jungle. These roads substantially accelerate exploitation of the jungle, including clear-cutting for farming.

This isn't obvious from satellite imagery where it would appear that the jungle is intact, but if there's a logging road nearby then you can be sure poachers, miners, and others are running around underneath the canopy.

[1] [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/amazon- rainforest...](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/amazon-rainforest- deforestation-crisis/article37722932/?click=sf_globe)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> When people say life has generally gotten better in the last several decades, this is the kind of thing I think of. Gotten better for who? Not the Orangutans.

<comment><USER14> In that vein, it's definitely gotten harder for pathogens.

When people talk about life getting better they generally mean human welfare, not wildlife welfare. Never the less, without progress in science and industry, I'm sure wildlife would be even worse off. Imagine if most people still burnt non petroleum resources for cooking and heating....

Trivia: Orang orang = people, orang utan = forest people.

<comment><USER15> There probably wouldn't be 7.4 billion people either. People burnt non petroleum resources in that part of the world for a very long time.

<comment><USER14> I'll give you that but I think it likely without advances, we'd've exhausted forests with 3bill subsistence level humans.

<comment><USER16> Subsistence level humans don't get to 3 billion. They'll get periodically wiped out by idiosyncratic events.

<comment><USER14> Depends what you mean by subsistence. I meant like the farming we had in America in the 1900s, or Rural Mexico, rural Kenya in the 70s, Russia 1920s. You can sustain a lot of people --but it requires clearcutting, and burning. Lots of inefficiency and waste.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Indonesia had a revolution in 1998. We got a democracy as a result but also decentralization of governance. In the first and half decade of decentralization the level of corruptions simply spike (from already a high level). You see the aggressive expansion of land grabbing for palm oil.

The only way to resolve this issue is to push for better governance in Indonesia.

</comment><comment><USER18> Full text of the study cited:

[http://www.cell.com/current- biology/pdf/S0960-9822(18)30086-...](http://www.cell.com/current- biology/pdf/S0960-9822\(18\)30086-1.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER19> That's OK so long as we can plant more palm oil. </s>

I really wonder at what point we decide we've destroyed enough of the natural world. It looks like we're not going to stop at all. Which is rather depressing.

<comment><USER20> Since about 2003 or so world forest cover has been growing - not decreasing. So the answer is we've already decided.

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/glo...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/globe- debate/we-are-making-the-globe-greener/article26147272/)

<comment><USER19> We're still losing vast amounts of ancient tropical rainforest whilst we've started to increase temperate and mostly boreal forest (coniferous).

It's not a fair trade and of no help to the species under threat.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Represents an urgent call to action for citizen scientists everywhere. Cataloguing of biodiversity is now possible on an historic scale.

Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632071...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320716303639?via%3Dihub)

The documentary footage from the original National Geographic Bornean Orangutan expedition in the early 1970s really tells the tale. Remarkable how "unstressed" they seem in their ancient lush jungle habitat. Both mothers and babies playfully cavorting with Dr. Biruté Mary Galdikas!

Search for the Great Apes: Part 1 -- Orangutans

[https://archive.org/details/searchforthegreatapespart1orangu...](https://archive.org/details/searchforthegreatapespart1orangutans)

</comment><comment><USER22> Future generations will see this as genocide.

<comment><USER23> I've never been fond of this line of argument, because (A) the concurring opinion of a future person is not a definitive source of authority, and (B) there is no way to verify or falsify such a prediction about opinions in the future.

Not saying I disagree with the overall point, and I personally would not feel comfortable murdering a fellow primate. Just saying I see this "future generations..." line of persuasive reasoning often and it usually jostles me in an unwelcome way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I recently learned that this is yet another reason to avoid banning kratom in the US. It's an understory crop—growers work within the existing jungle ecosystem, because clear-cutting is not just unnecessary but counterproductive. The US consumes a large fraction (~25%) of the world's kratom, and there's almost no local cultivation. So if we were to outlaw it, not only would we lose what I believe is a key lifeline in combating the opioid crisis, but also many growers in Southeast Asia would be forced to switch to plantation crops such as oil palm and rubber. These result in deforestation, loss of habitat for orangutans, tigers, and other species, increased risk of fire, and worsening human rights conditions.

</comment><comment><USER25> >In February, Indonesian police arrested two rubber plantation workers in Borneo, accusing them of shooting an orangutan multiple times, decapitating it and then throwing its body into a river.

This is just fucked up. Human cruelty knows no bounds.

Disturbed individuals who eventually become serial killers, start by torturing animals before graduating to humans.

Maybe the near human appearance and mannerisms of these apes, make them an attractive target for such individuals.

</comment><comment><USER17> I come from North Kalimantan. Palm Oil plantation is very productive. Every single part of the fruit can be used. Nothing is thrown away.

We just need to manage the expansion of the plantation properly. It's getting better now under the Jokowi administration but we shall see if he gets elected the second time.

</comment><comment><USER26> [https://lebenswald.org/](https://lebenswald.org/)

If you are looking to do something, here is a charity that takes care of orphan apes, buys land for the species to live on and lobbies for their protection.

</comment><comment><USER27> That amounts to ~50% of the ~2000 population :(

</comment><comment><USER28> I hope they find them

</comment><comment><USER29> that's a whole lot of orangutans

<comment><USER30> not sure why you're being downvoted. I agree, that is a LOT of orangutans. Too many, IMO. (disclaimer: am not an expert)

<comment><USER31> I don't know for sure, but while the sentiment is something we probably all agree with, the comment itself seems insubstantial and obvious in a way thst isn't compatible with HN guidelines.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Does anyone have recommendations for charities that protect Orangutans ?

</comment><comment><USER16> Humans are too dumb to save themselves. I welcome robots to enforce a hard resource limit within which free enterprise can do its work. Just one overarching resource limit that still leaves a buffer for the rest of the world. And robots can shoot to kill and engage in warfare to enforce that limit.

<comment><USER31> You understand human fallibility and limitations, but somehow trust us to create perfect and impartial robots?

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Where did you last see the Orangutans? Have you tried looking in the couch cushions?

Sorry</comment>


Djng - a Django powered microframework - <AUTHOR> http://simonwillison.net/2009/May/19/djng/

<comment><USER2> So many web frameworks slowly evolve features that Pylons has had for years. I think it's by far the most under appreciated framework out there.

<comment><USER3> I see what you're saying here about how Pylons makes heavy use of WSGI chaining, but I really just cannot fathom that Django is "approaching" Pylons. Perhaps things have improved since I last used Pylons, but there were so many issues with it that drove me absolutely crazy and eventually drove me away from the framework all together.

Off the top of my head:

\- Poorly written, half written, scattered, or plain old missing documentation all over the place.

\- Poor release coordination and communication.

\- Version incompatibility hell between different releases of its components/dependencies.

\- Incomplete solutions for basic things like form generation. At the time that I was using Pylons they seemed to jump between a quite a few different libraries, none of which really worked well.

\- Tons of magic that both offended my sensibilities and made debugging a nightmare.

To be honest, I don't think any Python web framework was quite "there" at that time, but I think today Django has far exceeded Pylons.

Also, I'm not sure I'd consider Pylons a micro-framework.

<comment><USER2> I never said that Django was becoming Pylons or that Pylons was a micro framework. All I'm saying is that features Pylons (and included projects) has had forever keep being reinvented in other frameworks when people suddenly realize what a good idea they are.

Pylons' documentation is a nightmare, I'll agree with you there. It's a shame too, if it was better documented, I feel it could really compete.

<comment><AUTHOR> Guilty as charged - I'm always up for borrowing good ideas from other projects. That's what open source is about. Most of my favourite ideas in Django were inspired by other frameworks (template inheritance came from Cheetah, the request/response objects were inspired by a combination of Java servlets and PHP).

I should probably set aside some time to build a project using modern Pylons and find out about all the other good ideas I've been missing!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice work, Simon. Thanks, and thanks for all the hard work on django as well. Keep it up. :)

</comment><comment><USER5> _Less time on frameworks, more time on useful applications/services._

<comment><USER6> If you want more useful applications and services then go write them, don't complain that other people are spending their time writing open source software that you don't think they should be writing, it's really not your place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't think this can be fairly considered a "microframework" when it depends on Django itself...I will give it a try and look at the source because I think that the author's motiviations for removing urls.py and settings.py are valid (in cases) and would be better fulfilled with a few surgical patches than "turtles all the way down."

<comment><AUTHOR> At EuroDjangoCon I joked that djng is a "micro macro framework" due to the Django dependency. If you look at the source it basically IS a few surgical patches, some of which are implemented as monkey patches.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wonder if this would work on App Engine.

<comment><AUTHOR> I haven't tried running it on App Engine yet, but I think it will eventually be a really good fit there (and in fact it should work right now).</comment></comment>