Working from home may hurt your career - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20170418-how-working-from-home-ruins-everything <comment><USER3> My take on this is that everyone has their own take on it. Some people like it and want to do it all the time, some hate the idea and could never imagine it as a lifestyle. This makes senses to me. It's a personal preference thing. Different personality styles like different things -- and, as mentioned here already, it can have a lot to do with your personal circumstances and the stage you are in your life and your "career."

What's real nice is to have the ability to find the right balance for yourself, if you have the luxury of a company that's relaxed about such things.

I live in the New Jersey suburbs and have an approximately 2 hour (one way) door-to-door train (includes a 20 minute walk from Penn station) commute to get to my office in Manhattan. For me, I like to be able to work at home 2-3 days a week. I do like to go into the office and see my co-workers and friends. I would feel out of it and lonely if I didn't have that. I just don't want to do it 5 days a week. Thankfully I have that luxury now. Situations change all the time and nothing is forever, but it's great at the moment.

<comment><USER4> I've been working from home for the last 3 years. I much prefer this to sitting in traffic, even if it's just 30 minutes a day.

I wouldn't recommend this for junior devs though. You need to be around experienced people to fast track your learning.

<comment><USER5> I'm a junior developer work at a __BigCo __in NYC. I don 't feel like I am fast-tracking my learning by being in the office. I don't have a mentor or anyone in my office that I can learn about enterprise app dev from. There is a dev in a different office that I ping occasionally with questions, but I really do not think that I need to be in my office 5 days a week. I wonder if my situation is the rule or the exception, and if I am getting shafted by not having a professional mentor...

<comment><USER6> Eventually you would meet people and discuss technical stuff and unofficial mentor/mentee relationships may develop. Most places won't have an assigned mentor. Your boss (if he/she is technical) may become a mentor but it doesn't always happen.

Coffee/Break room chats and other social gatherings would help in building rapport with other devs and eventually you would be learning from each other. Unless the place you work is extremely toxic, I would say just give it time. My 2c.

<comment><USER7> You need to take advantage of the proximity and network! Preferably upwards. Befriending the QA guy may make your life easier now, but he's not going to be the one who can offer you a job in 5 years time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The only thing that working from home hurts is your ability to put up with the general "office bullshit" that you put up with in order to have a career prior to technical remote work becoming a possibility.

I know that, at least for me, I would have to get paid a lot more to come into the office. I don't miss the commutes, business lunches, and the general overcrowding of the city.

<comment><USER9> exactly this. I've been working from home for about 8 years now, and even those days when i don't have 100% concentration I'm still a lot more productive than in an office environment.

I've been offered and approached about multiple roles which have had a variety of nice bits about them, but having to commute for them ...costing me 4 hours of my time per day just doesn't make it make any sense.

I've turned down roles for twice my wage. Don't get me wrong i want a new challenge but i also love my free time. Getting to bed my 22:00 each night and setting my alarm for 06:00 is something i don't think i can tolerate.

<comment><USER10> if those extra 4 hours means you can work those extra 4 hours for someone online in emergencies you can be a lot more valuable.

<comment><USER9> Well I am primarily a NetBackup guy, so those emergencies happen a lot more frequently than you'd think :) And yes, I'm fine with working late when needed.

<comment><USER10> so you're making the most of your available time.

when i'm stuck with a commute i'll cycle, as it replaces gym time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I found the first part, about the difficulties of attaining flow at home, pretty interesting.

I have much the same problems while at the office (and while avoiding open- plan areas helps, all offices seem to be distraction factories to some extent).

Different environments for different people, I guess. Although that doesn't fit well with a culture that says management is about fitting people into standardised processes.

<comment><USER12> >Different environments for different people, I guess

Absolutely! I seem to get the most work done and the best "flow" when I'm sat on a train (the Metropolitan underground line in particular). I believe this is partly down to the complete lack of distractions and inability to do much else but sit and work.

Alan Shreve summed it up perfectly for me: [https://inconshreveable.com/10-17-2013/code- at-30000-feet/](https://inconshreveable.com/10-17-2013/code-at-30000-feet/)

If it was feasible I would spend the entire working day going back and forward along the length of the line.

<comment><USER13> Switching from a beefy i7 desktop to an ancient core2 laptop occasionally did that for me. I'm pretty sure however, that if I tried to use that as a permanent productivity trick my ability for distraction would quickly adapt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> One angle I didn't see covered - if home working works for you it becomes much more difficult for another company to poach you if they don't also offer home working, and so I can see that it might harm your career in terms of inertia. I work from home and I'd say I'd need to increase my salary by around 30% to justify a move taking into account commuting costs, 2.5 hours spent on the crappy train each day and the usual tax robbery..

<comment><USER15> > I'd need to increase my salary by around 30% to justify a move taking into > account commuting costs, 2.5 hours spent on the crappy train each day

Interesting. I'm wondering if that's true in reverse for people. Did you accept a 23% pay cut to work from home? For people who currently work in an office, would you accept that? It seems pretty steep--I don't think I could afford to do that.

> and the usual tax robbery..

You don't pay taxes working from home?

<comment><USER16> This kind of thinking works out if you personally value your time at an hourly rate, and consider the whole commute time as lost and unpaid.

For example, say you value your time at ~$50/hr, and the train costs $8/day, and there are 20 work days in a month. If your daily commute takes 2.5 hrs, that's $2660/month in value to you. If your marginal income tax rate is 28%, then to actually get that amount of additional spending money you'd need to make $2660/.72 = $3695/month. This would be a 30% raise if you currently make about 12k/month (144k/yr).

<comment><USER15> Interesting way to look at it, thanks. My commute costs roughly $10/day (100 miles x $0.12 or so a mile), so that's $2400/yr to commute.

It's hard to justify assigning a dollar value to your time though, unless you'd otherwise be making that ~$50/hr. If I were not commuting for 4 hours per day, it's not like I'd be consulting for those hours, so there's no opportunity cost. Is the time I'd otherwise spend lying on the couch worth ~$50/hr? Hard to say.

<comment><USER17> _> Is the time I'd otherwise spend lying on the couch worth ~$50/hr? Hard to say._

Assign an hourly value to your free time. If you wanted to relax at home on a Saturday playing video games, how much money would I need to pay you to do something for me instead?

I'll work for no less than $20/hr. I'll give up my free time for no less than $100/hr.

My rates differ because, at least for me, I'm _required_ to work to pay bills and pay to do things I enjoy doing with my free time. Since I'm required to do it and I need to be realistic with what I ask for, I charge less. My free time is time I'm not _required_ to work - so there needs to be enough monetary incentive for me to be willing to give up my free time. Idealistically my "work rate" would match my "free time rate".

<comment><USER15> This is a way to think about free time that I've never considered before. Thank you. Curious as to how you arrived at that $100/hr figure. Is it based on any measurable aspect of your life? If I were to adopt your way of thinking, I would have a hard time putting a dollar value to my own because I have nothing but my current job to measure it against.

Would I give up another hour with my family for $100? How often would that opportunity come along? If I had the opportunity to make $100/hr whenever I wanted, I'd first quit my job and fill up that time with this new $100/hr activity, before eating into my free time. But that's a lot of money--it would be very tempting to let it eat into my free time and I'd probably just apply it to as much time as possible in order to maximize the opportunity. That's probably true for any dollar value over what I currently make.

But reality is, whether or not I would give up an hour of free time for $100 is a pointless question to ask because I'm not aware of a way to convert free hours into $100 bills. If I had the opportunity to do such a thing, I'd simply be doing it instead of what I'm currently doing.

<comment><USER17> The figure is simply how much I feel is motivating enough to give up my free time. That's the _minimum_ amount and often times it can be quite higher (see my other post). The opportunities largely don't exist and mostly because people don't want to pay that much for my time. Cash is not a priority for me and I'm not really needing of more of it. [0, tangent]

For some people it could be $5 because they need some money to buy some food to eat. For others it might be $30 to spend at the bar on Friday night. Others charge more - I know a contractor who won't settle for any less than $10,000 for 40 hours of their time (comes out to $250/hr). Some people value their time above all else, refusing any monetary incentive. You simply can't _buy_ their time.

If you think $40/hr is worth your time, do it. If you think $2/hr is worth your time, do it. The value is yours to set - it can fluctuate and change. But learning to value your time is worthwhile. You only get so much of it, so be sure you're happy with how you're spending it.

[0] I've been told that's terrible future planning, because I may need more cash in the future. I prefer to live in the now and worry about possible futures when it becomes the now. There are just so many futures to worry about and plan for. What if I worked harder to store away more money just to die of a heart attack without ever being able to enjoy my life? To avoid stress and simplify my life I don't worry about possible futures.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Mitchell & Webb have a classic take on this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW3lhfVpLL4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW3lhfVpLL4)

</comment><comment><USER19> I worked from home (UK for a US company) for 5 years. The first 2 were great; I realise now that the last three I was close to suffering from depression. Difficulty concentrating, hiding from problems, lack of energy etc.

Less social interaction, no clear home/work time split, lack of the background encouragement and feedback you get constantly from working face to face with people, even the simple lack of exercise and time outside - these are all things you have to be really careful about.

<comment><USER20> Totally agree, almost to the word and the timings. Am not a remote worker though, but my own online programming business, so is always that nag "there is something I should be doing instead to progress the business"

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This has been brought up here before: WFH doesnt work for companies that don't have a culture for it. When a large number of employees work remotely, people seem to like it. Someone should do a poll on it.

<comment><USER22> Most of what they were citing were issues you'd have working for a company that doesn't have that culture, and a guy who was at home all day with a two month old. I love my son, but when he was born I quickly found out why older guys were happy to be at work.

<comment><USER23> But at the same time, I am having zero issues working from home with a 2 year old and a 7 year old. Everyone knows when daddy's office door is shut, he's working and is not to be bothered.

You can't expect to work from home and still interact with everyone who is home.

<comment><USER24> I have a friend with a ADHD 7-year-old. There's no way this would ever work with that kid: you can tell him over and over to stop bouncing a ball around and he'll just do it again in a couple of minutes. Expecting him to not bother you for hours at a time is a pipe dream.

<comment><USER23> I'd assume that if you were to not be disturbed for 8 hours for work, someone else would be there to take care of the children, so ummmm, lock the door?

<comment><USER24> >I'd assume that if you were to not be disturbed for 8 hours for work, someone else would be there to take care of the children, so ummmm, lock the door?

And where is this "someone else" supposed to come from? You have enough money to hire a full-time nanny? For many professionals, both parents work (and the mother taking significant time off to raise kids is a career-killer).

<comment><USER23> Well, if you're not working from home, but instead an office, where do your kids go?

I think you're just grasping for excuses for why working from home can't work with kids.

<comment><USER24> Day care, I suppose. But doesn't having to drive your kids to day care remove a big positive in favor of working at home (eliminating the commute)?

I don't think I'm "grasping for excuses" at all. The kids that I've seen and met would be completely impossible for me to work at home and maintain any concentration. I'm honestly befuddled how parents of kids under the age of 10 get any rest at all. I guess some of them are lucky and get kids like me when I was young (I was quiet and liked to sit in my room on my computer, or doing puzzles, etc.), but the kids my friends have aren't like this at all, and from my observation are the norm these days (I was an odd, quiet kid even back in those days).

<comment><USER23> My wife works, she leaves at 8AM to take our 7 year old to school and our 2 year old to daycare.

At 3:15PM my father-in-law picks up our 7 year old from school and hangs out with her.

At 5PM my wife gets off work and goes and picks up our 7 year old. I go and pick up our 2 year old.

We come home, make dinner, have family time, and put the kids to bed.

My only distraction during the day is my 4 month old lab puppy who needs a little play time and bathroom breaks.

It's not tough. It's about having a consistent schedule.

I did however get lucky as my 2 year old has slept through the night all but 4 nights since she was 2 days old.

My wife goes to bed around 9PM, I go to bed around 11:30PM, she gets up at 6:30AM and I get up at 7:45AM.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's the usual inability to focus for undisciplined people. I am working almost 5 years from home, created some unique algorithms nobody did before me and recently being headhunted by companies like Google, Facebook, Apple SPG etc.

I always think about the study of pianists in Berlin - the excellent ones and mediocre ones put the same amount of time into practice, but the excellent ones did it in two 100% focused blocks while the mediocre ones did it interleaved with other things.

If you need an office, a man-cave, a vacation house on Hawaii, a one-man island, New York during rush hour, noise of Barcelona center, ... to get into the flow, by all means do it!

<comment><USER24> >If you need an office, a man-cave, a vacation house on Hawaii, a one-man island, New York during rush hour, noise of Barcelona center, ... to get into the flow, by all means do it!

The problem is, many people can't afford to set up an ideal working environment for themselves if they need one of the quieter venues. A one-man island obviously is unattainable for almost anyone, a vacation house on Hawaii is unaffordable to all but multi-millionaires, and even a decent house with a separate, quiet room is unattainable for many because of family or roommates.

<comment><USER11> How much do you think an island costs?

Small ones are on the market for less than a modest family home in popular urban areas, e.g. [http://www.orkneyproperty.co.uk/content/b7a2dd97-8b71-4b09-9...](http://www.orkneyproperty.co.uk/content/b7a2dd97-8b71-4b09-9129-4f2e8a1b2c8c.pdf)

Much of the issue with housing costs and difficulty getting the property you want are down to people piling into a few hotspots. More remote work seems like the answer to this.

<comment><USER24> 300k pounds is roughly USD$600k I think; not exactly a "modest family home" in most of the US outside of a few overpriced metro areas like SV.

<comment><USER11> _300k pounds is roughly USD$600k I think;_

Oh, if _only_ that were true! (It's less that $400k at current exchange rates, and arguably even that overstates the purchasing power).

 _not exactly a "modest family home" in most of the US outside of a few overpriced metro areas like SV._

It'll go a long way in the housing market of much of the UK, too. Just not the "overpriced metro areas" (where, sadly, a lot of the software jobs seem to end up...)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> d--b This article can be read the other way around. The article talks about 'interruptions' but what they describe are NECESSARY stuffs like having the plumber over, or going to the post office, or taking care of your child.

When you start working from home you realize that while you were in the office, none of the stuffs that actually matters to you (besides your career) get priority:

\- send that mail to ask for a refund: it's been on the dining table for months.

\- fix that sink: meh... the plumber would not come on Saturdays

\- buy a new bbq to have friends over: I'll go next week.

\- doing your taxes: I'll hire some accountant to do it.

\- wanna buy an apt: I'll do the visits after 7pm please.

Yeah, doing all these stuffs is annoying, but going to the office just to get away from chores seem like a terrible advice to me.

<comment><USER26> FYI: 'stuff' and 'advice' aren't countable nouns in English - you sometimes see a countable 'stuff' as part of a compound noun like 'dyestuff', but it's never countable in the common sense of "a collection of things".

Out of curiosity, are you a native speaker of German or a closely related language? I'm not intimately familiar with the language, but it seems like both these nouns' German equivalents are countable, and I'm wondering whether that is the origin of your unusual usage here.

(ObTopic: In prior positions, I avoided working from home, because there are many more distractions there. In my current role, it's about even, which is regrettable, and working from home is off the menu here in any case.)

<comment> d--b thanks for the info. I knew about advice (despite my mistake!), but didn't know about stuff. I'm French, and yes, in French: stuff, advice and news are countable.

<comment><USER27> Another OT FYI - where you wrote "stuffs", a better word to use would be "things" (because I imagine "thing" is countable in English). It would make the sentence more fluid to most other English speakers.

/for what it's worth, your English is already better than my French, which is virtually non-existent! Also - it's already way better than a lot of adults here in the United States, which isn't saying much...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Work from home and don't have a "career" \- works for me.

<comment><USER29> True, some people just have other goals in life than being defined by what they do to make a living (aka "career")..

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I found "Deep Work" by Cal Newport was very useful reading when I made the switch to working from home. Also, "Remote" by Jason Fried and DHH.

If you have a dedicated home office where you can put your headphones on and shut the door it's an utterly ideal programming environment.

<comment><USER11> _If you have a dedicated home office where you can put your headphones_

Better yet (if you're one who like background music while working): a home office with _speakers_. Even nice headphones get uncomfortable after a while.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> So, let me sum up. If you don't actually do work while working from home and if you work for a company that doesn't know how/want to actually manage remote workers, then you might have a problem.

</comment><comment><USER32> Its interesting to hear about WFH for different people in different locations & situations.

This example working in a small London house, on the dining room table with a baby around is very different to the American guy in a quiet suburb with a few spare rooms for an office, with kids at school or perhaps no kids at all.

Its one of the reasons I dont like working from home - I dont have an office at home and I prefer a short commute to the office where I have some space.

<comment><USER24> >Its one of the reasons I dont like working from home - I dont have an office at home and I prefer a short commute to the office where I have some space.

And this is exactly why I wish I could work from home: at home I have some space and peace & quiet. At work, I don't, because every company in America now has embraced the open-plan work environment, and thinks we need to be surrounded by chattering coworkers to be productive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> One thing that gets me in the zone is time. I really begin to focus at night. When I spend the night programming, it is extremely productive, but during the morning or evening, I can't really wrap my head around sitting in front of a computer.

</comment><comment><USER34> > Caseiro quickly realised that interruptions, like a visit from the plumber > or cooking lunch, added up to too many distractions.

This really comes down to discipline and prioritizing. I'm not saying it's easy, but if you are at an office the plumber will think you're not home and leave. Not answering the door because you're working has the same effect. It's a choice.

For me personally, an office has more distractions than home.

<comment><USER35> I don't get the quote. Isn't a visit from the plumber scheduled? You know he's coming at 2 pm, so maybe plan to not be in the hardest problem then.

In fact, the quote gives an example of why remote working is awesome. The author can get basic house chores and repairs done without doing a scheduling dance with people who also work 9-5.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Hi, this is Eric Barton, the author of this piece. Thanks for all your comments and thoughts about this. So many of you are right that working from home depends, on the person, on the company, on the culture.

In fact, I'm a great example of this. I tried to work from home in my mid 20s, and it just didn't work. I was too distracted by repairs to the old home we were rehabbing, to the dog, to video games. Fast forward a few years later, and my editor let me work remotely. That time, I had a nice office setup separate from the rest of the house, and I found it far more productive for a lot of the reasons commenters have suggested. Now, I've worked for home for more than a decade, and as long as the conditions are right (no inlaws visiting, the dog isn't sick, home repairs aren't calling my name), it's absolutely lovely.

Now, I also rent a co-working desk and go in to the office a couple times a week. It's a way to get the things you miss at home -- coworkers to talk to, especially -- while also having the freedom to stay home when you want.

Anyway, thanks again for the feedback, and stay tuned for a follow-up soon.

</comment><comment><USER37> I have worked from home for about 9 months last year. It did not go particularly well, but now I miss it. I think for a software engineer to be able to work from home and not be impaired by it, most of the team has to be remote. If you are the only remote worker in the group you are going to be shut out of discussions, communication, decision making, etc. If you possess a unique skill and do bite sized pieces of work in agile setting it may work to be the only remote person on the team. Otherwise I found it difficult.

Personally I did not find distractions to be a problem and problem worked more hours from home than when in the office.

Another problem with working from home is lack of human interaction. After a few months you start to want to talk to people (other than your family).

</comment><comment><USER38> Always when I read "may hurt your career" I think: what career? Do I even have one? Do I even want one?

But I guess I might misunderstand the term anyway.

<comment><USER39> I don't really view what I do as a career anymore. Then again, maybe my definition of career is not the norm. I don't identify myself by my job, and perhaps I'm one of those lucky people who actually enjoys what they do in exchange for money. Still, I am not beholden to my career, and I couldn't be paid all the money in the world to do something that I don't believe in doing. If I feel it's best to work from home, I'm going to do so and if my employer doesn't like it, well, there are plenty of other places that value employee happiness and product over process. Beyond the fact that most people don't understand the work that I do, I hesitate to talk about a "career" as if it's something I have to cling to and have to be careful of hurting.

Life may be short, but we often lose perspective of how easy modern life is, in general. Some people have the short end of the stick, and I've had it a few times in my life. But rather than obtaining a career, I'd much rather obtain the ability to give my occupation the middle-finger and just do something else without batting an eye.

As far as working from home vs the office, to me it's not about one or the other. With the amount of isolation we have in the modern world, the office can be a more positive force for healthy social interaction than it once was. But sometimes I want to work in the solitude of my home while being able to do a few chores, eat ice cream, etc., while my Docker image gets built. I usually choose to work at home when I especially enjoy what I am working on but am just sick of the office atmosphere. Other times, I have something I'm less interested in but need a "serious" environment for so I can better concentrate. For that, I choose the office.

I really hope employers don't read more articles like this and take them the wrong way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I have far less distractions at home and see many benefits:

no chewing, no talking, good food, no noisy coffe machine, breaks when I need them (even a bed) and a good sound system (I'm slightly audiophile).

I still never dilute work too much. Sometimes 45min of table-tennis or something, but in general never more than 1h of break time during the work chunk of the day (I do quite strictly 8h plus break-time and finishing some smaller task or short communications with the team).

I do make sure to tell the others what I accomplished or when I'm stuck a bit so they know what I'm up to, even when not following the tickets closely.

</comment><comment><USER41> As a stay at home mom I recommend "Medical Coding" as a wonderful work from home option. Yes, you will need training. You can't just code medical records without having proper training. However, this is a real and promising career. I used to work for "Career Step" and they have an awesome Medical Coding course.

[http://www.referral.careerstep.com/mc?ref=43233](http://www.referral.careerstep.com/mc?ref=43233)

Their training is done online and is self-paced. You could finish the program in 4 months but 6 months is probably more realistic. They do however give you up to a year to get it all done. Their program is approved by the American Health Information Management Association and the American Academy of Professional Coders. They work with companies such as CIOX Health, Lexicode, OS2-HCS, TrustHCS, Inovalon, Mckesson that hire their grads to work from home right out of the program.

The average salary for this career is about $40,000. Their entire program including books, instructors and job assistance is around $3,000 and they offer sweet payment plans.

If you want more info, reference links or have questions let me know @ firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><USER42> It depends on your goals and it depends on you (do you have discipline?) and the company you work for. If you're trying to climb the corporate ladder, then yes this will slow you down if you're working from home 3-5 days a week. If you want something else like work life balance or more time to work on your side projects by saving time (no more commute, less time spent socializing with coworkers, ...), then it's a no brainer. IANAL but I would advise against working on your side projects during work hours.

</comment><comment><USER43> One thing I've realized over 20 years is that while development is what I like, am reasonably good at, and do fine from home, people skills and general smoothing out of things in the office is what the companies have valued me for. I notice when things are going off the rails or nowhere via email and chat, miscommunications, bickering, silly politics, etc. I can't stand that stuff and usually a little face-to-face time helps immensely to straighten it out. All of my bosses have commented on this as a thing they see as a strength.

For various life reasons I've strongly considered fully remote positions recently but am concerned that I'd neutralize my most valued job skill in the process. To that end I've managed to swing at least a partial WFH arrangement.

<comment><USER44> Why not demand more money for putting up with an aspect of the job that you hate and which they need? You have leverage, apply it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I have a lot of experience with remote teams, from both sides of the table. 100% remote work is not a good fit for most people, though some can be highly effective (thinking of a mobile dev whose office is an RV that has been roaming north america for a couple years).

For most people, what does work well is a split office/remote schedule. Some do a couple days a week from offsite. Some will work onsite 3 weeks, offsite 1 week. This sort of arrangement yields the benefits of being in a common location (face time, boss time, etc), while giving workers the option to work offsite part-time so they are not chained to the same desk all of the time.

<comment><USER46> But then I am chained to your office location. What if I WANT to live in the woods in the middle of Alaska, but still work for your company ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> It's not the distractions per se, it's the mental state.

Distractions exist at work too, but when everyone around you is working, you can't help but work as well.

When you're home, your mental state it's "I'm home, I should not be doing work". At least that's how it was for me.

I can be productive working on a personal project when I'm home, but that's because I can work on it whenever and however I want. I can work in bursts of energy. But that's not how professional work is done.

<comment><USER48> It definitely requires a change in your mental state at home. It goes from "my place of relaxation" to constant anxiety about whether you should be working. Unless you start with the mindset that you will now always be working, you won't be as productive from home. Maybe once you get some experience you can lighten up a bit, and you should always keep some off-time scheduled for the weekend, but as they say, you can't go home again. And good for some people for not wanting to trade that (along with typically a lower salary and opportunity) for having to show up 8~6.

<comment> benji-york This is not a universal truth: I have worked remotely for nearly a decade and have no issues separating work from personal. When I type "/me → EOD" into IRC or slack, that's it. My focus shifts to personal tasks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> No one else works on my code. I am not even sure that someone else would even understand it. It is critical code. So, it is not a good idea to fire me either, which would be "hurting my career", but which also seems quite impossible to achieve. All you need to do, in order to be in a position to ignore office politics, is to be the sole maintainer of a pile of mission- critical code. I've seen people come and go, but I don't and I work from home!

</comment><comment><USER50> It really bugs me how often these work-from-home articles have a photo of the working person trying to work with a young child around, implying that they are also taking care of their kids while working from home.

Obviously doubling up like this does not work, and I don't know anyone who tries to do it. Implying that it's common gives working from home a bad name. At least in this article it is the father home with his child though, usually it's the mother.

</comment><comment><USER51> Perhaps if he hadn't tried working at the _dining room table_ with an infant it would have worked.

I work in an office now but have worked from home both as an employee and a full-time freelancer. With the exception of children and sick pets, distractions at home during the work day are a choice. Someone knocking on the door is no different than a phone call at your office desk. If you have the time, answer it. If you don't, don't.

</comment><comment><USER52> working from home entails a personal responsibility for effectively scheduling your time. having a separate space from "normal" household activities can really help staying focused and avoiding overwork / burnout.

over time, the worst part of working from home is lack of eye contact. engaging with others outside of home can help, but there's still an awkward quality to getting to know people without seeing their reactions

</comment><comment><USER53> I have been a full-time remote software engineer for a large (> 15,000 employees) company since 2001, before they even had a formal telcommuting policy. I have seen a lot of things change over the years, much of it in favor of the remote employee. That said, there are still limitations that come from working from home.

The distractions issue mentioned at the beginning of the article falls on the employee: you simply cannot do two things at once. When I first started out I would take a shower, get dressed, etc., then move into a room that I have dedicated to work. That physical "commute" served as a mental delineation between the home and the office, and served me well. Over the years I've been able to change gears more easily, but that break between home and work is still essential.

The larger issue that I feel affects my career is the lack of "water cooler" connectedness that comes from being out of the office. I lose track of company/team strategies, decisions, projects, code names, and the like - <USER2> things that are usually handled by walking down the hallway. Mitigating these issues requires a change to the way the company operates. It needs to have managers that are aware of and accommodating remote employees in ways that would be automatic for an office of employees. When I travel to HQ for work, one of my primary jobs is reminding folks that there's a person attached to the voice on the other side of so many phone calls.

After more than 15 years outside of the office, has my decision to work remotely impacted my career? Almost certainly. Have there been days when I've wondered if it was the right way to go? Sure. At the end of those musings, though, there are benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. I get to have lunch with my family daily, I have the shortest commute in Los Angeles, and I get to set my own hours (within reason.) Professionally, too, there a benefits. I can crawl into my programmer-cave more easily than someone who is part of an office environment. In some ways I am easier to contact than my colleagues, because I never leave my chair.

To address another comment made elsewhere, I have been contacted by other companies, and been given offers that are very competitive to my current compensation. However, the ability to work remotely full-time has usually been the reason I turn them down. Maybe in another stage of life the answer may change, but for this season, I don't think I'd have it any other way.

</comment><comment><USER54> Correction? Working from home with kids and no control over distractions considered harmful?

I've done the best work of my life working the better part of the last decade and a half from a junior fortress of solitude.

But since TANSTAAFL holds, it did nothing good for my social life so I try to blend office time with solitude now.

And your experience will vary. I'm just another data point after all.

</comment><comment><USER55> I think it depends on the person. For me, it worked great during the first 6 months and then gradually got worse after that.

I think it's related to the level of autonomy that you have within a company and how passionate you are about the work.

</comment><comment><USER56> I like having 1-2 days per week available to me to work from home. I don't think I'd take a job offer without this as an option anymore. My quality of life has improved significantly with it.

</comment><comment><USER57> Results, impact, relationships. If you can create all three working from home great. The first can be done from home easily, the second with some difficulty, and the third is exceedingly difficult.

<comment> benji-york Relationship building is harder on a distributed team, but I haven't found it to be "exceedingly difficult". I suppose it would be if the team isn't "remote first" or totally distributed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I've been thinking a lot about this lately, and it might be prudent to take a 'human factors' (Woods, Cook, Dekker, et al) approach to this.

When talking about how it's perhaps more important to investigate the conditions of success over failure, and how the situations contain multiple contributing factors to the way a complex system behaves, one thing that gets highlighted is common ground breakdown between practitioners.

With regard to communication, we are worried about assumptions made, communication fidelity, and the repair process. When we talk about IRC or Slack or Conference calls or email or whatever, those are really just adding another channel of communication and are not necessarily making communication more resilient. Repair processes to communication are a paradigmatic function of good teams.

What makes humans really good at succeeding in high tempo emergency situations is the ability of adaptive capacity.

I think the distinction with regard to remote working can fit into this, albeit with a little bit of corruption and maneuvering of the language.

To speak to this article, the takeaway should be that it's about organizations commiting to a remote-first approach. This goes so far beyond the dicussions we usually think about when wondering wtf people are doing while working from home. It actually also includes the resiliency of working with remote offices globally -- which makes it a culture problem. And the more a change tries to change the culture, the more likely it is that change is going to fail. So remote-first has to be taken by companies on principle or they're just making accomodations and the people who are working remotely are going to suffer. "A bad system will beat a good person every time" for the obligatory Deming quotation. The worst thing a bad process can do is tarnish the repuation of individuals.

Folks whose HQ is in another state/country: do you feel like part of the team or is your influence diminished among the outer rim?

If a team is only simply making accommodations for people to work from home ocasionally or whatever (not truly "remote-first"), then hallway conversations are inexorably changed from a convenience into a liability where people get left out of the loop to develop their own misconceptions about the way things work, the "why's" of what we're doing, and what sort of goals are important.

A remote-first approach can force the organizational infrastructure necessary to make work visible and provide feedback on milestones with distributed, empowered decision making. It is one of the ways (just like TDD, pair programming, etc all attempt to address) to help distribute knowledge across all teams wherever they are to help decrease the heroics needed daily and add ways to address changing demands. Increasing adaptive capacity has to be a fundamental ideal of an organization (aside: the trick here is avoiding building on human misery/heroics, and resulting in burnout).

It also helps improve the onboading process. If it takes 6-12 months for a new teammate to significantly contribute, then that is a risk. An organization with a remote-first approach who can cope with asynchronous workers will have the right kind of documentation, tooling, and relationships between teams to make this robust.

I would highly recommend watching this talk about 'common ground': [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgC_N9glqMs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgC_N9glqMs)

edit:

Let me clarify by that 'remote first' i don't mean force/recommend that everyone work remotely. By remote first, I mean taking the approach that all things should be considering the remote workers in the organization as first class citizens and creating processes that are unable to ignore the aspect of remote working. Pretend that all work could not be done if it wasn't addressing remote working.

In this way, remote working is actually a value add to an organization, not an accommodation.

edit 2:

I've been told my stump speech on this is too much of a millennial idea, which is funny because none of this is my original thoughts. A lot of these ideas come from people who are today aged 50+ or dead.

<comment> benji-york After years of working on 100% remote teams, I agree with your thinking. I am excited about where distributed working is heading in the years to come. I anticipate that it will be a strong cultural force in a couple of decades.</comment></comment>


Fasting leads to stress resistance, self-renewal, and regeneration (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24905167/ <comment><USER3> A total fast is very difficult - intermittent fasting (two fasting days a week, < 700 calories on a fasting day) works well and is easier. Read these articles by Dr. Mirkin, a sports physiologist and cyclist who uses intermittent fasting:

[http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/weight-loss-with- intermitt...](http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/weight-loss-with-intermittent- fasting.html)

[http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/why-we-use-intermittent- fa...](http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/why-we-use-intermittent-fasting.html)

There's a book about it (but read the review below before buying): The FastDiet - Revised & Updated: Lose Weight, Stay Healthy, and Live Longer with the Simple Secret of Intermittent Fasting by Michael Mosley

[https://www.amazon.com/FastDiet-Revised-Updated-Healthy- Inte...](https://www.amazon.com/FastDiet-Revised-Updated-Healthy- Intermittent/dp/150110201X/ref=la_B00LQSMOHC_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487607799&sr=1-1)

Before buying the book, read this review, which gives tips and suggests that the book is unnecessary:

[https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer- reviews/R30YI8D3RGZOFK/re...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer- reviews/R30YI8D3RGZOFK/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=150110201X#R30YI8D3RGZOFK)

<comment><USER4> I rather disagree with that short fasting time. The only real hard day is the first one; so just doing two days is a 'bad deal' I find, you get most of the inconvenient (the first day), and very little in terms of benefits. By the second day you are no longer hungry anyway, so why stop?

Perhaps there's lots of research telling you otherwise, but in my case, if I switch my body and mindset into 'fast' mode, I do it fully. The reason I prefer fasting vs any other calories reducing diets is that it's /binary/ and I don't have to count silly calories.

I think a good 'short' fast is 3 days, and up to 5 in my case, simply because I can fit it into a working week and have a fantastic meal on the friday evening.

The other thing to note is that the 3 and 4th days (might just be me!) I get a 'mental high' that is quite interesting. Everything seems sharper for a while.

Of course this is just my opinion, trust the doctors, they've been telling us lies for 40 years about diet and nutrition -- I'm sure /this/ time around they know what they are doing ;-) [sorry for the sarcasm guys]

<comment><USER5> This guy is describing an eating disorder-- Anorexia Nervosa specifically. Do not start doing what he is describing and put yourself on a similar path.

<comment><USER4> Heh, actually that's one of the few message on HN that wants me to start the message with 'LOL' because I actually did!

I'm french, I cook, I eat, and drink in pretty reasonable amount, and I'm a muscular 90Kg - with a flat belly, thanks to the fasting.

Last saturday I ate a 32 ounces steak in one sitting... Now that's some sort of Anorexia I had never heard of before! I do feel very bad for people who _actually_ have anorexia, but please, don't insult them throwing these claims around.

<comment><USER5> Excessive fasting followed by binge-eating is literally the description of an eating disorder. I know for certain I won't be able to convince you of it because you already said you don't trust doctors-- but if I can get one person in here to not go down this path then it was worth the time.

<comment><USER6> I think the difference is that somebody with a true eating disorder such as anorexia nervosa will still see themselves as overweight regardless of how much weight they lose. To the point they look like someone who just walked out of a prison/war camp and they still see fat in the mirror where it just doesn't exist.

The parent comment sounds as though he his happy with his lifestyle and weight. What really defines it being a disorder is that the person is never happy and always feels they need to lose more regardless of what anyone around them says.

I agree with your sentiment that people should enter such fasting regimes with immense caution (it could be a slippery slope for some), but I also agree with the parent that he is probably not suffering such a disorder.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Since there are a lot of "fasters" here, let me ask something. I'd like to create a fasting habit just to experiment, but can't understand how that's even possible when working out on gym daily. I'm not skinny and have lots of fat to burn, but I think my muscles would catabolyze as soon as I fail one meal. Am I missing something about fasting?

<comment><USER8> Why would you think that? Do you really think all your metabolism is so fragile that a single missed meal would set it on a different course?

Your body burns alcohol first, then carbs and finally fat. When you fast, you only have the last one - but you likely have enough of it for a few days (likely close to a month) before your body needs to break down muscle and convert it to carbs for fuel (gluconeogensis).

It may not feel very good in the first few days, you will need a lot more electrolytes, and it will take a few days before your body is doing it perfectly; fasting puts you into ketosis, with all that entails.

When I fast, I make sure to exercise more than usual, and especially cover all muscle groups (which I don't religiously do when exercising for fun). It is my experience that my body will keep muscles i use, but not keep those I don't. YMMV.

Also, listen to your body but do not extrapolate; the first two days of full fast may seem impossible, and if you extrapolate them to a full week may seem like certain death or madness; but after 48 hours or so, there's a phase change. I stop when I start feeling hungry - usually after a week or so, but once or twice after a month.

<comment><USER9> You've fasted for a month once or twice, do I read that right? Did you do any kind of write-up about it, a blog, anything? Very interested in your experiences.

<comment><USER8> Indeed - and another handful of week-to-three fasts.

No, I did not do any write-up. /r/fasting and /r/keto will probably satisfy your curiosity, but I will mention the following which are not entirely common (or not commonly described):

. my B12 normalized from "very low, needs supplements monthly" which it had been in for 6-7 years at that point, to "slightly above normal without any supplement", and is still there some 20 years later.

. libido went away for the fast, but came back later

. felt perfect, exercised, etc, but friend observed that I was moving much more economically - e.g. that I was lifting my feet only about 2mm above ground while walking. I didn't notice that until he did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The catch-22 is that chemotherapy and cancer itself can reduce appetite and cause weight loss, so doctors demur when their more self-informed patients stumble across research on (temporary) fasting's protective effect (throw "cellular autophagy and health" into Google and you can immerse yourself for hours).

Malnutrition can in turn harm the immune system. Where's the sweet spot? Who knows, and the fear of malpractice suits slows down progress.

<comment><USER11> The effects on mood and brain function is pretty much an established benefit. "... studies have built on decades-old research establishing a connection between caloric intake and brain function."

[http://www.johnshopkinshealthreview.com/issues/spring- summer...](http://www.johnshopkinshealthreview.com/issues/spring- summer-2016/articles/are-there-any-proven-benefits-to-fasting)

As someone that USE TO (Why is it you have more self-discipline in your 20s then your older years???) Fast about once a week for 24 hours (supper to supper). There are many positive benefits as a person when you go past 3 days also. There are plenty of studies out there about fasting and its benefits and risk. People who have never done more then 3 days nor have read scientific research seem to see this as a negative. The human body can go for more then 40 days without food so a few days actually has very little negative "malnutrition" issues.

The stomach takes about 3 days to shrink after that has finished you actually don't really feel hungry and surprisingly you would be shocked at the spike in energy and focus you get for the days 4-10. Longest I have ever done was 10 days but man food explodes with flavor. One of my favorite things is after coming back to food everything taste better and is more enjoyable.

<comment><USER12> What kind of drinks do you drink during that fasting period? I imagine I'd collapse after one day if I wouldn't drink soda or something high-sugar / high-coffeine.

<comment><USER13> It's not uncommon for people fasting have a glass of juice or fruit. When he says flavor is more intense it means sugar as well. An orange tastes really sweet. When having heavily reduced calories your body reacts stronger as well. Hot tea is a big pick me up.

If you are a big coffee drinker then start during a weekend where you can get through coming off coffee. Headaches and a mind like molassis are a hard way to go through th work day.

<comment><USER14> As someone on low-carb and sometimes keto, sugar is so insanely sweet. I basically can't touch heavily processed carb foods as they just taste like raw syrup. Juices too, honestly. Pretty nuts.

<comment><USER13> Definitely. You wouldn't know it looking at me, but I spent a month eatin only vegetables. Not raw, but no sauces other than some olive oil. I ate a donut after and it was so sweet it felt acidic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If this area of research interests you, here are some other resources from recent years:

Will calorie restriction work in humans? [http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/aging.100581](http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/aging.100581)

Diet that mimics fasting appears to slow aging [http://news.usc.edu/82959/diet-that-mimics-fasting- appears-t...](http://news.usc.edu/82959/diet-that-mimics-fasting-appears-to- slow-aging/)

Fasting mimicking diet reduces risk factors for aging and multiple age-related disease [https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-02/cci- fm020717...](https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-02/cci-fm020717.php)

Diet that mimics fasting may also reduce multiple sclerosis symptoms [http://news.usc.edu/101187/diet-that-mimics-fasting-may- also...](http://news.usc.edu/101187/diet-that-mimics-fasting-may-also-reduce- multiple-sclerosis-symptoms/)

Fasting Therapy for Treating and Preventing Disease - Current State of Evidence [http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000357765](http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000357765)

And so forth. There's a lot of information out there.

<comment><USER16> Anybody interested the doctors from the USC article on aging above and here[1] about simulated fasting now have a startup for it [http://l-nutra.com/prolon/](http://l-nutra.com/prolon/) and here [https://prolonfmd.com/](https://prolonfmd.com/) though only available in US, Italy and Australia right now. It's a 5 day fast once a month for overweight people or every couple of months for in shape people. No idea what the price is.

[1][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9741137](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9741137)

<comment><USER15> The price is zero, because the necessary information to do exactly the same thing yourself with plain old food is available in the papers and in the vast number of calorie/micronutrient information sites out there online, and it is really, really easy to just go and do that.

The point of Prolon is that it is a way to obtain money from the regulatory/Big Pharma system in order to do more research into quantifying the benefits fasting and calorie restriction. Not that it is anything special in and of itself. It is just food, less of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Does anyone know why fasting seems to make chemotherapy apparently less harmful to your immune system?

"Multiple cycles of fasting abated the immunosuppression and mortality caused by chemotherapy and reversed age-dependent myeloid-bias in mice, in agreement with preliminary data on the protection of lymphocytes from chemotoxicity in fasting patients."

My theory would be that when in a fasting state the body is less likely to utilise the chemotherapeutic compounds in fasting tissues while the cancer instead steadily grows and consumes these drugs? I'm entirely guessing of course; maybe this could be triggered without fasting somehow.

<comment><USER18> I once read that fasting promotes something like "cell reuse" and the body starts breaking down old/damaged cells faster. I'll try to find the source (and this is not my field by any means)

<comment><USER19> I think you're referring to the process of cell autophagy and the activation of it by fasting:

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> For the "fasters" above who feel like sharing info, a couple of questions: 1\. When you fast what food (if any) and drinks do you consume? Coffee, tea? etc 2\. How long can you go on the above while fasting? 3\. How old are you? 4\. Do you exercise? If so what's the frequency and intensity? 5\. What's your BMI, if you don't know, would you classify yourself as lean, normal or overweight? 5\. Why do you do it? To lose weight? To "cleanse"? To feel better physically and/or mentally?

I'm asking all the above to figure out whether my profile (33yrs old, running every second day with ~30km weekly + basic work out of pushups, pullups, situps, etc, BMI 24) is anything like the profiles of "fasters". A year ago I've noticed I started putting up on weight and decided to switch to a low- carb diet, cut down on beer/wine and exercise regularly. I lost about 6kg of excess fat within 2 months (down to 12% overall fat). Now I have largely reverted back to my standard diet though I avoid sweets/candy, white bread/pasta/rice/potatoes in larger quantities and "processed" food in general. I seem be able to maintain my fat and muscle levels and sustain high energy levels through out the day.

<comment><USER21> 1- Only water and tea, no sugar of course 2- The most I did was 3 days, I did that 3 times. Usually I eat my last meal on sunday, next meal on tuesday night, next meal thursday night and then on friday night I start eating "normal" till sunday night. 3\. 40 years old 4\. Not really, I walk my dog 3 day a week, I would say 40 blocks walking on those days. 5\. My BMI is 22.9 5\. I started doing it to loose weight, I was tired of eating 6 times a day and counting calories and picking what to eat and what not; I find a lot easier and efficient not to to eat. I now have the weight I want to have. I'm 5.3 and weight 132 pound.

I feel really good with that weight and also I love to eat and cook, so in the weekends I cook a lot and eat a lot of whatever I want, then during the week I level everything up with the fasting. I try to avoid junk food but that's just because I love to cook my own meals.

I weight myself naked after my morning bath every weekday, I've noticed that with just 1 day of fasting my weight goes down at least 4.5 pound. I love having total control of my weight and being able to loose weight really fast.

I tell this to everyone who asks about my fasting: TRY IT, it really makes you feel very good and energetic. Most people say "I couldn't do that" but they don't even try... I think that anyone can be 24hs without eating food.

Whatever info you need just send me an email to my username at gmail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I was interested in what their definition of prolonged fasting was, so, FYI:

> Prolonged fasting (PF) lasting 48–120 hours (Introduction)

<comment><USER23> Thanks, I was looking for this.

That is between 2 - 5 days which is a wide span.

I could probably sustain it for 2 days (a weekend, don't have to be "all there" for work etc) but 5 would be a miracle so I wish they were clearer on which one it needs to be.

<comment><USER24> Most people think (like I did) that because they think a sugar crash is the same thing as hunger. Hunger doesn't feel anywhere near as bad. Once you're in ketosis, which is the 72 hour mark (give or take) of water-only fasting you actually feel great. And if you do a keto or paleo diet you won't feel bad in the first place.

My longest fast was 9.5 days and I felt great the whole time and lost a ton of weight amongst various other benefits.

Remember, humans used to fast all the time and it was just normal because either food was unavailable (there didn't used to be unlimited pop tarts for everyone) or for spiritual reasons. Both what we eat and when we eat were all invented in the last few hundred years for the most part (chicken was about 100 years ago, breakfast was 2-300 years ago depending when you count it). Most of these inventions have been a bad idea.

Come join us on /r/fasting and /r/keto on reddit, or read Dr. Fung's books on obesity and on fasting, or Gary Taubes various books, or Dr. Wahls books, or Prof. Seyfried's textbook.

<comment><USER4> I agree with that; I do my fasting during the working week, my typical one is 3 to 5 days, starting sunday evening and more often than not, finish by a fantastic meal on the friday evening.

I haven't tried longer than this, as it suits me. As I mentioned in another post, I get a nice mental high on the 3 and 4th day, but the 5th I'm actually quite happy to hit the food again. Oh and crack a beer :-)

I'm fairly sure I could continue, but I feel that my physical performance would decrease, while the typical 5 day one I don't have any sign of fatigue -- I do tend to sleep a bit more tho.

I do quite a bit of clay pigeon shooting -- that's a sport that requires good speed/strength and mental acuity-- and during a fast I feel quicker and will likely do a better score than on a normal weekday.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> There seems to be a lot of different fasting protocols these days.

What works for me is to only eat between 3pm-8pm.... and here is the big one _I only get to eat if I have worked out that day!!!!_ (usually right before. obviously the workout has to be before you eat or else you might not follow through). Incidentally but not intentionally this sort of mimics what happens in the wild for animals (not really humans because homo sapiens have been able to store foods since the beginning of the species).

I lost 30 pounds doing this. I decided to stop because I had a son recently so it was difficult to workout. So now I just do the 12pm-8pm lean gains method.

<comment><USER26> I've also lost a great deal of weight (~75 pounds) with intermittent fasting, though my hours were from 12pm to 6pm. The biggest benefit didn't come from the fasting itself, but from strictly adhering to the window that I had set. If I can only eat between 12 and 6, then by default I can't graze on food in the morning or the evenings, which was the biggest source of excess calories for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is a personal anecdote, but I went through about 10 years where I was getting colds and flu-like symptoms several times each year. I did a 72hr fast almost three years ago now, and have only been stay-home sick once since, which happened just a few weeks ago. Friends and family have commented on my health, the difference was so noticeable. I am planning on doing it again soon.

Interestingly, I stored my bone marrow stem cells during this stretch of good health, which includes the long-term hematopoietic stem cells mentioned. I plan to transplant them to my older self later in life. I hope the benefits transfer as well. :)

<comment><USER28> That made me do a cartoonish head-shake. Is that something you can request from your physician? Is it the same process as donating marrow? How much does it cost? How long does it take? Is there science on this technique?

<comment><USER27> >Is that something you can request from your physician?

In MI, NC, and CA atm. Full disclosure, I co-founded the company: [https://www.foreverlabs.co/](https://www.foreverlabs.co/).

>Is it the same process as donating marrow?

Like an aspiration, but less. 60cc are taken from your pelvis on your lower back under local anesthetic. It takes a few minutes.

>How much does it cost?

$3500 + $250/yr

>Is there science on this technique?

Yes. There has been an explosion in clinical trials using the MSCs (and HSCs to a lesser extent) for treatments of ailments ranging from osteoarthritis to heart disease. Personally, I've been developing therapies bone mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) for stroke, brain injury, and other neuropathologies for 15 years. You cells diminish in number and quality with age, so it makes sense to store young ones for treatment later.

But, beyond that, there is evidence that young-to-old transplantation increase lifespan: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23967009](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23967009)

We are currently doing our own young-to-old preclinical work in mice, with the aim to do the first autologous young-to-old human trials.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Fasting is normally associated with religious devotion as described in this article: [https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/04/the-law-of- th...](https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/04/the-law-of-the- fast?lang=eng)

However, even while describing the spiritual benefits of fasting, this LDS leader also points out what science has said about the benefits of fasting:

"Fasting is also beneficial to us physically. Some time ago I read an article in Science News written by Charles L. Goodrich, which stated that the advantages of modern eating habits extend far beyond the cosmetic. Numerous animal studies have demonstrated that caloric restriction early in life leads to an increased life span and reduces the risk of certain diseases.

"There is also evidence of health-promoting effects of periodic fasting. Some experiments have shown that periodic fasting not only promotes a longer life, but encourages a more vigorous activity later in life."

</comment><comment><USER30> According to the study it was fasting for 24 to 120 hours or 2 to 5 days. Yikes. Is that without food and water or just without food?

<comment><USER31> Drinking only water for only 24 hours or even 36 hours is not that difficult if you have decent self-control and no medical problems.

Personally, I stop being hungry after about 18 hours and it only returns after about 36, which is as far as I've ever gone.

<comment><USER21> I did the 72 hours fasting 3 times, just to see if I was able to do it and because I read that 3 days it's something like a reboot of the inmune system.

I do this every week: last meal on sunday night, next meal on tuesday night, next meal on thursday night, next meal on friday night and on saturdays and sundays I eat all I want whenever I want. During fasting I only drink water or tea.

I've been doing this for a year, I feel great :)

<comment><USER30> That's also certainly a way to cut down on ones grocery bill. I'm amazed at self control of some People.

<comment><USER32> Personally, I find absolutes like "I will not eat _period_ " or "I will eat only pre-packaged x, y, and z for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, respectively, every day" much easier to follow than more vague calorie-counting rules.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Most of the studies I've come across regarding fasting are done with mice. I wanna see someone test this in production by using human test subjects!

<comment><USER34> Results will be available in ~90 years.

<comment><USER35> If at all: some of these findings were implemented health practises roughly 100 years ago (see for example iodine as mentioned above).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> If I skip just two meals I get irritability, acid reflux, upset stomach, headache, and at worst, aggressive.

The acid reflux can sometimes get so bad that my ears start to get clogged I get other ENT symptoms.

I don't see how people can do it. I can't.

<comment><USER37> You might want to go to the doctor with your acid reflux. I personally have to take an anti-acid everyday else it comes crawling back at me. Things like often clearing your throat can be a sign of it.

<comment><USER36> Thanks. I get that throat clearing, I probably should. I am otherwise very healthy and active so now that I think about it, may be some underlying cause.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> It is interesting that some religions include fasting as part of their rituals and traditions.

Specifically I am familiar with Eastern Orthodox [https://orthodoxwiki.org/Fasting](https://orthodoxwiki.org/Fasting) some of it is just dietary restrictions no meats, sometimes not animal products, etc. And strangely it often includes vegetable oils and wine as well. Monastic communities would practice a total fast sometimes from what I remember.

Wonder if somehow health benefits observed over the centuries ended up codified as religious practice somehow to benefit the followers.

</comment><comment><USER39> I think that people overlook the social barriers to adopting even intermittent fasting. My partner (a doctor) thinks it's bonkers and dislikes it when I want to skip meals that we would normally share (family dinner). That's not an insurmountable barrier, but combined with nights out with friends, drinks after work, etc...my fasting routine can get worn down nothing after a few weeks. I hope as the health benefits get popularized, we see some cultural shifts that make it more acceptable in social settings and family structures.

<comment><USER40> Unfortunately, I dont think this will happen.

So much in society revolves around delicious food and relaxing beverages.

How would a business make money from someone fasting?

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Full title: Prolonged Fasting Reduces IGF-1/PKA to Promote Hematopoietic-Stem- Cell-Based Regeneration and Reverse Immunosuppression.

By 'prolonged' the authors mean lasting 48–120 hours.

</comment><comment><USER41> [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673798/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673798/)

Although intermittent calorie restriction (CR) has been shown to lower IGF-1, this article shows that prolonged CR does not affect IGF-1 levels. However prolonged protein restriction, especially animal protein, _is_ shown to reduce IGF-1 levels.

</comment><comment><USER42> I'd be curious how similar the results of being in nutritional ketosis would be. I've been studies in the past looking at rigorous caloric restriction benefits that demonstrated that people in isocaloric nutritional ketosis got most of the benefits of the restriction group (while not having the misery long term caloric restriction).

</comment><comment><USER43> I enjoyed this recent interview with Valter Longo on the subject of fasting: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6PyyatqJSE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6PyyatqJSE)

They discuss underlying mechanics and various clinical trials and much more...

</comment><comment><USER44> our genetic makeup has adapted to famine and fast, if you don't fast whatever hormones we create during fast are missing from the body.

<comment><USER45> That's it - fasting makes sense from evolutionary biology standpoint - <USER2> food was scarce up until modern era, and thus the obesity was quite uncommon. If one was lucky enough to get a meal, that could be his only meal in a week or a few days at least - that's exactly the fasting cycles that were part of the everyday life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Mainstream religions have been advocating various forms of fasting for centuries. Thank you science for explaining why and how it works.

<comment><USER47> AFAIK this article doesn't suggest getting dehydrated at any point. That's just evil.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Harper's ran an article on this topic in 2012, including a focus on fasting during chemo. It's paywalled, however: [http://harpers.org/archive/2012/03/starving-your-way-to- vigo...](http://harpers.org/archive/2012/03/starving-your-way-to-vigor/)

</comment><comment><USER49> It seems to me that the hardest part about fasting is tolerating the cravings for food.

Do people who fast resort to cheating the hunger urge (prescription pills, foods with no nutritional content, etc)? I know there is a well known and highly-available recreational drug that works extremely well for suppressing the urge to eat.

<comment><USER50> +1. Also, What's often ignored is that many people have inherent problems with hunger, for example due to an untreated adhd.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I have practiced intermittent and prolonged fasting in the past (for approximately 6 months each), but had to stop on account of dramatically increased irritability, especially surrounding planned fast breaking meals.

How do successful fasting practitioners manage the impact on their mood and restraint?

<comment><USER52> I feel irritable when I am hungry. I heard that irritability is from the swinging blood sugar level and Ketogenic diet helps in reducing the swing.

This is interesting to me, but I have not tried any of this.

Maybe anyone with more Ketogenic diet experience/knowledge willing to share his/her experience?

<comment><USER51> I would be interested in hearing more about similar experiences too!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> In south india, we do intermittent fasting i.e. eat in night and the till next afternoon 1 PM do not eat anything. This is on no moon day + another day for most people who follow. But there are people who do this for 2 to 3 days a week.

</comment><comment><USER54> I'm very interested in fasting. I have been doing IF for 4 months and it works out great. Has anyone experience with prolonged fasting (3 days+) and auto immune diseases, specifically Alopecia?

</comment><comment><USER55> Chill out, this is about "fasting on stem cells", not on people :)

</comment><comment><USER56> If I don't eat every 4 hours I turn into a broken aggressive mess!

</comment><comment><USER57> Aside from the "science" that happens inside the body, has there. Has there been an overall study where you compare the overall life span of a twin? If you are fasting like a 3rd worlder, their mortality rate seem high.

<comment><USER58> If you're comparing a lifespan to someone in developing areas, meal tempo is probably no more than a footnote compared to inaccessibility of medical care, safe birth, safe food and water, occupational hazards, destabilization and violence, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> ...in mice.</comment>


Ask HN: Can you show me your MVP? - <AUTHOR>

I have read up on Lean start up movement but am still confused : I want to see an example of  the very first MVP that  founders built to validate their hypothesis.   What did you learn and how are you using this knowledge. <comment><AUTHOR> I have read up on Steve Blank and Eric Reis but I am still at a loss as to what is an MVP. Is a Google adword with a 404 ( and wont that create a bad reputation for your site)? Or is phone conversations with prospective customers ?</comment>


Ask HN: What startups are focusing on poaching? - <AUTHOR> What startups do you know of building technology to help stop poaching? For profit or non profit. <comment><USER2> Fixing the human ego with tech? Sounds ambitious...</comment>


Tech Industry Runs Itself Like the Soviet Union - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/swlh/tech-industry-runs-itself-like-the-soviet-union-63474a15a09a <comment><USER2> I think the article is forgetting that the "tech industry" includes startups. Sure bic companies are rigid top tldown structures, they need to be to accomplish what they want to do. But those companies aren't the ones we look to to break new ground in technology. The market as a whole Is not hierarchical and those who participate in the corporate structures are free to leave AMD start their own structure. That's what makes California the 5th largest economy in the world and while the Soviet union is dead.</comment>


Ask HN: Do you list startup experience on your resume for a `normal' job search? - <AUTHOR>

I'm out of cash and looking for a programming job, but I'm finding that listing my startup experience is serving mostly to confuse recruiters. How do you list your less-traditional experience when looking for `normal' work? <comment><USER2> Well, what _is_ your startup experience? Why not put your resume online and point us at it so we can offer suggestions.

Most recruiters are simple folk and just have a check-list of things they're looking for. Think about the job you want, then list the things you need for that job. Now conflate it through recruiter-think, say you have it all, and see how your experience can be distorted to sound right.

But we need to know what you're looking for, what skills you think you have, and what evidence you can provide before we can really offer serious advice.

And here's something to think about:

<http://www.solipsys.co.uk/new/AnneLearnsToRecruit.html?HN>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the reply. I never would have posted it unbidden, but here is a link to my resume: <http://newcome.wordpress.com/resume/>

<comment><USER2> Firstly, I want to know whether you have the skills I want. That means you should put your claims for skills at the top. Then you should support them.

In addition to your technical skills you need to say that you have led/managed successful projects. Then you should support those claims by naming them.

For HR people or recruitment agencies you need to be short, sharp, and to the point. They need to tick the boxes and have a warm, fuzzy feeling that you really do have those skills.

Personally, I was reading your resume and got a half screen down and was thinking - yes, but can you do what I want?

I hope that helps - I'm sure others will have different opinions.

<comment><USER3> I tend to agree. One of my first thoughts when I looked at it was "You seriously want me to read all this?" If the focus is supposed to be "here are the reasons why I'm a good candidate for your company", make sure that it's as easy as possible for a potential employer to pick out the important points.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Persuasion technique: Low-Ball - <AUTHOR> http://5mins.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/persuasion-technique-low-ball/

<comment><USER2> Time and time again I come across studies that show social accountability and image is one of, if not THE most powerful factor in behavioral change.

The Milgram experiment, smoking room, etc. demonstrate we are easily motivated by peer pressure. I think there is a lot of opportunity in creating a company that uses social networks to drive behavioral change. I am sure they exist, but I haven't heard of any yet.</comment>


A.I. Has Grown Up and Left Home - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/20/creativity/ai-has-grown-up-and-left-home-rp <comment><USER2> I emailed Chomsky a month back about Thoughts and Language. I hope he doesn't mind that I'm sharing it. My email,

I was fascinated by your talk at British Academy. I'm no linguist. Please Ignore my ignorance.

If the formal language is not designed for communication but for our thoughts, Is it not the case that there are two different mechanisms of perception? One to understand internal language (if I can call it a language) and external language we use socially? It is bewildering. As I type this email, I'm thinking of the words that needs to be followed. Because of my ability for pattern recognition or for the conceptual understanding of rules of the external language. I'm not sure if my ability is a natural phenomenon or a self trained one(as far as English is concerned). English is not my native language. It is acquired by study. Recently, My thoughts have been primarily in English. I could switch between English and my native language for thoughts.

Is language the only way to think? Is it crazy to think that our brain does not use language to think at all? Can thoughts/perception , like language, have two different mechanism. Understanding external logic and internal logic? The internal system might be visual, physical etc. It seems to lead to a structure problem. Does internal thoughts have far more complex structure? If dreams are thoughts, It is extremely complex and might be a evidence that there are different systems. I strongly think it is because we have different involuntary mechanisms to perceive like sense of smell etc.

Chomsky's reply,

Very little is understood about the interesting questions you're raising. To study them we'd have to have a way of accessing thinking by some means that does not involve conscious use of language – which is probably a superficial reflection of something happening within. But so far there are no good ways.

<comment><USER3> If you're interested in these questions, you should read [http://www.amazon.com/Whos-Charge-Free-Science- Brain/dp/0061...](http://www.amazon.com/Whos-Charge-Free-Science- Brain/dp/0061906115) to learn more about how brains work.

There is good evidence that different parts of our brain think in very different ways, and we suppress awareness of how different they are. Verbal thinking in particular relies heavily on a section of the brain that is very good at making rationalizations, and is not necessarily well connected to the parts of your brain that are making the decisions you are trying to understand. Therefore our verbal descriptions of thinking is interesting, but not particularly reliable or informative.

It is worth noting that many negative reviews come from people who think that current thought from philosophical schools should have been included. Given my temperament and beliefs, I took this as a buy recommendation and am happy that I did.

<comment><USER4> Thanks. Reminds me of this book, which I also highly recommend in the same vein: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Master-His-Emissary- Divided/dp/030...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Master-His-Emissary- Divided/dp/0300188374) .

<comment><USER3> Thanks, that book looks interesting as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Computers are just as dumb as they were in the 50's. They're just dumb a lot faster.

<comment><USER6> Some algorithms are smarter. The computer system that figures out how to book flights for millions of people every day is quite intelligent when it comes to that specific task.

The problem is, that intelligence is more like an insect's brain in that it doesn't generalize to any other higher level problems. We're still trying to figure out how to organize knowledge so the intelligence is transferable. Doesn't seem too difficult to do in the next 30 years given currently available tools.

<comment><USER7> I think the point OP is making is that the underlying technology and "thihnking process" behind most AI hasn't changed much in the last 50-60 years. We look at a task like figuring out how to book millions of flights and think "That seems like it would be very difficult for me to do, therefore a computer must be intelligent if it can do it". But that isn't true for all definitions of 'intelligent'. The basic optimization process, once figured out (by humans) is fundamentally the same and is just being applied by the computer at greater scales and speeds. If computers were getting smarter, for some definitions of the term 'smarter', they would be identifying problems to be solved on their own, or at least they would be coming up with novel solutions without any human involvement.

A pen and paper can be used to make powerful calculations, but we don't generally attribute intelligence to the tools themselves. The promise of artificial intelligence was that computers would eventually become capable of taking independent action and doing things that humans couldn't predict or do themselves. To say that we're still trying to figure out how to do that is a bit of an understatement. The time frame for fulfilling that expectation is completely unknowable, at best.

<comment><USER8> have you heard about deep learning? Computers are coming up with novel solutions without human involvement. It was done before in the 70s and 80s with neural networks, but it only worked on simple tasks. Now the main limits seem to be computing power (and learning how to train it).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Historical correction: The article mentions "AI Winter" as occurring in the 1970s. AI Winter actually refers to the period from about 1990-1997 when the Expert Systems approach was deemed to be a failure, funding for AI dropped considerably, and it was a mistake to put AI on your resume.

This opened a window that allowed the statistical-based AI techniques that currently dominate the field to mature.

<comment><USER10> As someone who went through Stanford CS in 1983-1985, when the "expert systems" people, led by Feigenbaum, were in charge, I can say that the expert systems crowd was stuck by then, but in denial about it. Feigenbaum was testifying before Congress: "The US will become an agrarian nation" if Congress didn't fund a big national AI lab headed by him. The expert systems crowd were claiming they were headed for strong AI in the near term. They were in complete denial about the fact that expert systems mostly give you back what you put in. You can code up some kinds of "how-to" information as rules, but it's just a form of declarative programming.

It was frustrating hearing those professors. I'd spent time in industry before going to Stanford for a MSCS, and I could tell that they were stuck and covering for it.

A few years later, Stanford moved computer science from Arts and Sciences to Engineering. This pushed the CS department into more practical directions. The School of Engineering had deans, supervision, and planning. CS under Arts and Sciences was sort of what each professor wanted to teach. There was no undergraduate CS at Stanford before that move; prospective undergrad students were told "get a liberal education".

That didn't end the "AI Winter" at Stanford, though. It took the DARPA Grand Challenge, in 2003-2005, to do that. The head of DARPA, Dr. Tony Tether, used the Grand Challenge to force the big-name AI schools to get some results. DARPA had been funding automatic driving work at Stanford and CMU since the 1960s, with disappointing results. The big-name schools were quietly told that if the private sector and amateurs outdid them in the Grand Challenge, DARPA was turning off their AI funding. Suddenly entire CS departments were devoted to the Grand Challenge. Stanford had to bring in machine learning people from CMU to compete. That's what turned the department around and finally pushed the logicians into the background.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> We're still figuring out probabilistic knowledge representation. So much depends on context.

Earlier approaches are fraught with problems. Expressing an encoded fact that translates to "Obama is the president." is far too simplistic. It does not take into account the proper context (president of the USA), and time period (from January 20th, 2009 to the current time) and so on.

These contexts: conversation (were we talking about politics?), location (USA, Russia, etc.), all need to be captured as best as possible and appropriately considered when trying to apply a learned fact. Maybe the context is hypothetical (talking about an alternate history where McCain won the election) or fantastical (talking about President Garrett Walker in the TV show House of Cards).

The existing systems I've seen can't really handle all of that.

Somehow we humans are generally good at figuring out which sets of contexts are appropriate to apply in a given situation, and doing it quickly. What's tricky is that even in a single conversation with one person, the context may switch from historical, to hypothetical and back again quickly.

</comment><comment><USER12> This is one of the better explanations of this fundamental shift in AI research. I remember even a decade ago this would have been a controversial stance.

Now it is very clear the neats have lost and the scruffies are on the rise. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neats_vs._scruffies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neats_vs._scruffies)

</comment><comment><USER13> The article mentions Marvin Minsky as an advocate of symbolic logic approaches, and that Perceptrons (the book) was an attack on perceptrons and neural nets and connectionist theories. This is false on both accounts.

1) Minsky was emblematic of a Scruffy, and to this day, Scruffy approaches are associated with Minsky and MIT. He didn't believe that statistical or connectionist approaches were bad, just that they were not a silver bullet and not going to solve every problem with AI. He has embraced nearly every prominent approach to AI, and simultaneously criticized the near-religious beliefs that they spawn.

2) Minsky didn't attack perceptrons and neural nets. His book was an objective criticism of them, laying out very clearly the mathematical limitations of them, as well as philosophical problems with approaching them as a catch all solution.

</comment><comment><USER14> [http://groups.csail.mit.edu/medg/people/doyle/gallery/minsky...](http://groups.csail.mit.edu/medg/people/doyle/gallery/minsky/mmm.html)

</comment><comment><USER15> This shows the folly of modern approaches:

> Pornographic images, for instance, are frequently identified not by the > presence of particular body parts or structural features, but by the > dominance of certain colors in the images

Neural networks are unsuccessful because they are not detecting anything. They're just making statistical correlations that happen to be right for the specific set of training data they have received. There's no robustness whatsoever. Artificial gullibility.

If we want to teach computers to think, then we have to teach them to model the physical world we live in. Plus the emotional, social world.

And even _that_ is entirely separate from heavyweight abstract reasoning. Just because a computer can pass the turing test, doesn't mean it can spontaneously diagnose your medical problems, design a suspension bridge or play Go.

<comment><USER16> > Neural networks are unsuccessful because they are not detecting anything. > They're just making statistical correlations that happen to be right for the > specific set of training data they have received. There's no robustness > whatsoever. Artificial gullibility.

This is what the brain does, too. All inductive reasoning comes down to statistical correlations. The human brain has NEVER had "robustness".

<comment><USER15> By robustness I mean the brain is pretty hard to exploit. You can't trick it into thinking an image is pornographic just by changing the color balance.

<comment><USER17> > The brain is pretty hard to exploit.

No it's not, just ask any advertiser.

> You can't trick it into thinking an image is pornographic just by changing > the color balance.

If the only data someone has about an image is its colour balance and you asked them to classify which they think are pornographic, then yes you can.

It's a pretty stupid idea to impose such limitations though, on humans or ANNs. Even if you _did_ only care about colour balance, you don't need an ANN to tell you that; just scale the image down to 1 pixel x 1 pixel, then look at its colour.

<comment><USER15> > > By robustness I mean the brain is pretty hard to exploit. You can't trick > it into thinking an image is pornographic just by changing the color > balance. > No it's not, just ask any advertiser.

One of the great things about humans is that they can consider the context of a remark, although apparently this is not universal.

<comment><USER18> Maybe it's an AI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Seems to me you can buy and sell a face detector (or find it open source on github) all the better if somebody or something somewhere can identify the concept of a face detector.

</comment><comment><USER20> state of the art in 1984:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S3m0V_ZF_Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S3m0V_ZF_Q)</comment>