"They Basically Reset My Brain" - <AUTHOR> https://www.theplayerstribune.com/jermichael-finley-packers-injury-retirement/ <comment><USER2> I am a geek, always have been. But my dad was an all state football player and a golden gloves boxer in the Army. Despite my "best efforts" I was muscular, and was (for real) forced to play football against my wishes. I played for 6 years, and finally stopped after an injury that crushed vertebra in my lower spine. Healing from that injury, I went from a weight of 210 to 135, and required therapy to learn to walk again. I took me 10 years after that before I was physically active again. Reading this article is reading symptoms I have. I think I need to go to this clinic...

<comment><USER3> Are you back to a more balanced weight ? By physically active you mean soft sports or just able to leave the house without worry ?

<comment><USER2> Thanks to my wife, I work out 5 days a week now. It was a month of walking before I could run more than a block, but within a year I was jogging beside her for two miles five days a week. I'm at 165-170 now, with a real ease at bulking, which I don't really want. I saw chiropractors and acupuncturists quite a bit for the first 5 years I was active again. As my health returned to more-or-less athlete level my back / vertebra / neck and hips issues reduced and only happen if I miss workouts for more than 3 days. It's actually amazing what happens when I can't workout: not only do multiple joints slip, but my mental state just crashes. I can't code, can barely read, irritation at the tiniest things, pretty much a tunnel vision of perception takes place. I recognize the state now, get some protein and find a way to get a cardio hit that makes me pant, hard. That will head off a crash, both mental and my joints slipping. In many ways, I'm glad to be alive now, as places like this clinic are starting to appear. Previously, an injury such as mine put people into a disability state for the rest of their lives. Today, the dynamic nature of our bodies and advances in medical technology have brought forward a strong recovery attitude for many previously hopeless situations.

<comment><USER3> I remember feeling so much joint "safety" when working out. Everything seemed to fit and lock into place much better.

It seems that your mind is a bit stuck though. Having to exercise to be able to be "happy" in a way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I find it interesting that at the end he doesn't blame american football in itself for the negative long term effects in his health as I thought he was heading to. He ends up (spoilers alert) coaching football.

I myself do not have a strong opinion on the matter of the ethics of creating a billionaire business around a game that is so dangerous to everyone that plays it seriously, from high school to pros. I am instinctively against, but as long as the issues are clear, transparent and everyone involved have all access to information needed to do their own informed choices, it seems correct.

That said, a very brave and insightful tale on how these personal struggles are. Very well written too. And glad to know that there are effective treatments out there that can help this kind of health problems.

<comment><USER5> >He ends up (spoilers alert) coaching football.

That is actually really sad.

Motor sport used to be very deadly half a century ago, and it took hard work from drivers to change that. Drivers that were often ridiculed for talking about the need for safety. Now professional motor sport is surprisingly safe, just take Scott Dixons crash at Indy 500 yesterday from which he escaped unscathed.

Football players have to demand their safety is taken seriously before any positive change is going to happen to the sport.

<comment><USER6> I think it's going to take more than just the players demanding their safety, mainly because as this article notes, it's not going to happen on it's own.

Why not align the incentives? Fans of the game should be putting pressure on the coaches about ensuring that their favorite players aren't injured, coaches should be pressuring the association to force better safety systems so their players don't get removed from the game, the contracts with players should value their long-term abilities more than their short-term wins, the association can start including more and more safety requirements and rules to make sure that the fans keep watching for their favorite stars.

This kind of thing needs to be attacked at all angles, make everyone involved WANT better safety by making it make beneficial to everyone involved.

<comment><USER7> There is only so much safety when you're talking about 300 pounds meeting 250 pounds. The problem with football is physics.

<comment><USER6> Then change the rules of the game.

Racing did it, they regulated the max amount of fuel, they reduced the top speeds, they added safety barriers, etc...

Do it with football. Change their gear, change the allowed "hits", remove their cleats, etc... I don't actually watch football so I'm not sure what would help or wouldn't, but don't act like this is just impossible to resolve.

Yeah, people would probably hate these kinds of solutions right now, but if you get the public opinion on your side, and you start moving in that direction people will change, they will realize being able to watch a safer form of football with their favorite players in it beats being able to watch "current football" but with all their favorite players horribly injured with their lives ruined.

<comment><USER8> This is happening, although not as much as it could and probably should be. One example is moving kickoffs to a higher yard line so that the chance of a touchback (no return) is greater. Since kickoff returns are some of the more dangerous plays, it lessens the times returns actually happen. Helmet to helmet collision rules are another example. So is the rule for the horse collar tackle. Things are changing, but perhaps not enough or fast enough. Further, as a huge fan, these rules are minor changes and do not at all detract from the game, IMO.

<comment><USER9> I really don't know anything about American football, but in Rugby a lot of work has gone into this kind of thing. You can't tackle a player who has jumped to catch the ball until his feet touch the ground. If you pick a player up, you are responsible for putting them down. High tackles (around the neck) or not attempting to wrap your arms around a player when (so you 'clothes-line them) you tackle is much heavily penalized. All of these will result in 10 minutes in the sin-bin at least, maybe bans after the game. All head injuries result in the player being sent for 'assessment' by a doctor during the game, and a concussion protocol which enforces long breaks from the game. With regards to American football I have two questions

1) Is the impact to the brain higher because of the protective equipment? Would people tackle as ferociously without it? You are allowed very little of that gear in Rugby. Head clashes in particular are rare in Rugby, without the helmet you put your head to the side of someone when you tackle!

2) American football players seem to carry a lot of body mass for fast people. Is it possible that their advanced sports science is a bit too pharmaceutical in nature? I wouldn't want to suggest anything, but is there a chance steroid use is widespread? If this is the case then clamping down here would presumably lessen the hits?

<comment><USER10> It's likely that a bit of the size /bulking up is steroid based, but a lot more is just based on the relative size of the population pool and the kinds of exercise and diet regimens used with a focus on size and burst speed. Where some sports will stop at a certain level then focus on stamina and maintenance, US football may keep pushing for more bulk.

<comment><USER9> How much time would the average player actually spend on the pitch in American Football? It seems a lot of sprints and changes. Rugby players play for 80 minutes with one half-time break. I'm guessing that produces a more compromised physique.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm 33 and played sports my whole life.

This includes:

\- Hundreds of competitive basketball games - youth, AAU, high school, etc.

\- Thousands of running miles - including completing (and winning) trail/mountain ultra marathons

\- Dozens of soccer games at mixed levels

\- Training and sparring at a boxing gym for 4-5 days a week for a year

And none of this has caused any major injury.

The two years I played high school football? A separated shoulder, and a torn MCL. Not to mention having my bell rung many times. I could measure the amount of football games I actually played in like under an hour worth of actual time.

<comment><USER12> I'm from Brazil, a soccer crazy country. All of my friends that continued to play soccer for fun started to get injuries after they were 35yo.

<comment><USER13> Amateur soccer is mostly played without a referee -so it usually doesn't punish aggressive players-, and there are no paramedics next to the field to immediately treat any injury/pain, plus little to no aftercare for the muscles/ligaments. So what I mean is that professional and amateur are a lot different, at least in football soccer.

But of course as you get old your body is gonna break more easily, that's what aging after 25 means: decay.

<comment><USER14> And then there are amateur and amateur games: ones where people take it too seriously (and get hurt) and the ones where everybody is just to enjoy. Do a rough play in the last one and your punishment is to never be invited again by the same people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As a person who works with their mind all day long, concussions scare me. They scare me more than injuries to my hands do. I took a good hit to my head in a really slow lowside on my motorcycle (I, to this day, don't remember the incident itself, but I'm pretty sure it was a combination of loose gravel and rolling onto the throttle early). For months after that hit, I had more trouble than usual understanding complex concepts; had trouble building that mental model which lets us work.

Concussions result from your brain rattling around inside your skull like Jello. It's hard to write them off as minor inconveniences when you look at it like that. I recommend watching the "beer bottle to the head" episode of Mythbusters; those slow motion shots are scary (though exaggerated).

<comment><USER16> Might be worth not riding a motorcycle.

<comment><USER17> It's absolutely worth it.

I got hit head-on, suffered several broken bones, now have a bunch of metal in my body, and couldn't walk for a few months (and I know several people who have been killed), but I got right back to riding as soon as I could.

<comment><USER18> I think you left out the part where it brings enough joy and excitement to your life that you feel it is worth the risk of dying.

This is a valid personal choice. But with what you've written above, you're just convincing me to never ride a motorcycle. This is coming from a bicyclist who enjoys good downhills on my road bike at speeds in excess of 40mph (fast for a bicycle and little armor). So I get the thrill, but I've never experienced the number of issues and extreme physical trauma that I read about people on motorcycles.

<comment><USER15> What happened to me could easily happen to a bicyclist. I wasn't going that fast, maybe 5-8 MPH in a turn from one road to another. It was an unlucky fall. I had a full-face helmet, full riding armor, and the bike was in great repair.

I daresay a bicyclist would have come off worse than I did (hello, road rash) - especially if they hadn't worn a helmet (Montana doesn't have a helmet law for anyone over 18).

EDIT: The risk of dying is higher than that of being in an automobile by the pure statistics of it, but by riding smart you can easily bring them down significantly - there's a lot of idiot riders out there wearing flipflops and shorts, with no helmet to pump those statistics up.

Wear a helmet. Wear leathers or their synthetic equivalent. Wear armor to protect your joints (usually built into riding gear). Keep your bike in good maintenance. Don't ride beyond your limits.

Yes, I feel a bit hypocritical saying this after discussing my own concussion, but damn it, it's fun. As freeing as a bicycle, but faster.

<comment><USER10> And if you're going to ride like an idiot, please be sure you're registered as an organ donor. I know I've heard of sport bikes being referred to as "donor cycles" (according to the med student relating it) due to the number of young bodies in relatively good shape except for massive head trauma that they saw.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Key takeaway:

> They had all kinds of neuro training exercises and routines they put me > through, but a lot of it was centered around meditation and intense > emotional therapy sessions. The exercises and therapy were to stimulate the > parts of my brain that were running slow, and the mediation was to slow down > the parts of my brain that were going a mile a minute.

I guess that is how they reset his brain. I need the same thing. Three years and still recovering, I have counted five bottlenecks in getting there.

1\. Fear of memories, 2. Ego/arrogance, 3. Imbalanced thought pattern, 4. Mental unrest, 5. Lack of stimulating activities.

Now that I think of it, the author has described the same thing. Meditation has worked wonders. I have combined it with philosophy and reasoning. I am also trying to identify and reduce areas of ego. Stimulating activities is a recent discovery but I am still working at finding stuff for it.

And the results are interesting: before my mind was on infinite replay, then had a hard time remembering stuff, and now memories from when I was one years old are coming back like it happened yesterday. That never happened!

<comment><USER20> Do you have a routine you follow? Any chance of getting a more detailed account of what activities you're doing for each?

<comment><USER21> I'll second this, especially the bit about bringing memories back. I haven't had much head trauma but don't really have any memories from longer than 5 years previous.

<comment><USER19> This is difficult to answer in a post like this, but I will try. The problem is that for every technique or idea I put here, there will be a dozen who disagree, but I won't care.

Meditation: Put yourself in an uncomfortable balancing position, like tip toeing. Any trembling is a symptom of subconscious issues, so clear your mind and you will be able to balance without much effort. Add stress to the balancing act to uncover the more subtle subconscious problems. This should begin the healing process. The issues were pulling at you even when you least realize it and cause much damage and tension to the brain. Meditation reduces bottlenecks 1, 3, 4.

Philosophy/Reasoning: Watching dog whisperer, I am learning calm assertive energy techniques. Reduce your hyper self. Don't take action from a fearful, frustrated, angry, or low-self estem position. Because then you are in a compromised state. Don't react, and if you do, know that nothing you do when you are reacting counts. Reaction is not bad by itself. It just causes actions that would not have happened in a calm state. In moments of a highly reactive state, remove yourself from the situation and clear your mind. Try to figure what frustrates you or makes you fearful and disassemble it into small manageable parts that you reason through one by one.

Reduce your ego: Meditation is clearing your mind. Philosophy and Reasoning loosens the viscosity of the toxic liquid. Ego is the shell that protects it and keeps you in an entangled state. Although ego is normal and makes you human, too much ego puts you into a state of arrogance. Loosen the arrogance. Eliminate the arrogance. Remind yourself that nothing you do is amazing and all that you have is a priveledge and was given to you and was never yours to begin with. Then reduce your ego. Think of all your skills and abilities as something you have done a thousand times, a million times, and it lost its awe. Do you have ego in your ability to walk? So why do you have ego in everything else?

Stimulating activities: I am new at this, so I am still trying to figure this one out. PH.D. research stuff and logic gets me excited. (It also brings back ego, arrogance, fear, etc.) Problem solving gets me excited. Being better than everyone else gets me excited. (THE conundrum!). If I can preserve the first three steps, or the longer I can mantain it, the more I benefit from a stimulating activity.

So that is my attempt and my mind is somewhat healing. I hope you make it out alright.

A few things on the side: a messy room, or a messy essay, or a messy thought process is a reflection of your state of mind. Coming to terms with your inabilities brings rest to your mind. Collapsing from a highly skilled intellectual position means you have to rebuild yourself up. If the skills and confidence you developed was scaffolded with one on top of another, then your recovery will be painful. Don't scaffold again this time. Hope all this helps.

<comment><USER22> Very interesting, thanks for writing it up.

Did you learn this approach through trial and error or were you following some teachings?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Glad to see The Players Tribune on here. If you haven't read it before, it has some amazing content - not just from pro athletes, but college athletes you've never heard of.

The perspectives are often fascinating. Here's another great one from Bronson Koenig, a Native American and one hell of a basketball player, on his experience at Standing Rock: [https://www.theplayerstribune.com/bronson- koenig-wisconsin-b...](https://www.theplayerstribune.com/bronson-koenig- wisconsin-basketball-standing-rock/).

<comment><USER24> Have never seen the site before, but +1 to this after browsing casually.

It's great to see profiles, nuance, perspectives, and discussion from players - not the league or talking heads on ESPN who won't even really touch a lot of issues with or tangential to sports with a 10-foot pole. Sports don't have to be separated from other parts of culture.

<comment><USER25> Yeah! That site is a treasure. Everything there is very well-written, and would (I think) be interesting even to those uninterested in sports.

FWIW, some articles are written by the athletes themselves, and others are ghostwritten in close conjunction with the athletes. (I have no problem with this at all; it's still the athletes' stories)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> A friend of mine has been working on an app (based on research from Dr. David Eagleman) to help you track any cognitive declines from, among other things, participating in contact heavy sports.

One use is for coaches to mandate players retake it periodically, so players can stop playing _before_ the point of no return.

[https://braincheck.com/](https://braincheck.com/)

[https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/27/braincheck- raises-3-millio...](https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/27/braincheck- raises-3-million-for-app-to-monitor-brain-health/)

[http://www.tmc.edu/innovation/companies/brain- check/](http://www.tmc.edu/innovation/companies/brain-check/)

<comment><USER27> Interesting, I wonder if this could also be applicable to that other article regarding sleep deprivation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The entire history of the NFL and concussions is incredibly damning, including the league denying the damage concussions cause and the league buying their way into medical journals to push "studies" that supported that position. If you want to know more "League of Denial" is a phenomenal book. PBS also created a two hour documentary with the authors that has the same name.

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

</comment><comment><USER18> > So today, I put on football camps and work with kids in the small town of > Aledo, Texas, where I live, and I work with my own boys, coaching them up, > too.

This is a fantastic story, and a wonderful recovery, but getting to the end of it and coming across this line... it's great that he's helping coach these kids, but it would be even better to steer them in a direction where they won't end up with the same story, or worse. Never making it, but still having the same symptoms. There are other sports, way less impact.

I grew up playing soccer, and even there they, at least in the US, as I understand it from my nephews, heading the ball is illegal until high school.

Concussions are problems in all sports, but American Football is just about the worst, and on top of that does so much other damage from the heavy hits. Concussions are perhaps the most prevalent and biggest problem.

<comment><USER29> I played a bunch of high school football, and had a very severe back fracture that I'll be living with forever. I'm functional, but have to keep very on top of things to not suffer chronic pain.

I used to be absolutely obsessed about football, and getting used to not playing anymore was a real challenge to my identity.

I look back on it now though (that was > 20 years ago now), and I wouldn't choose to play the game again. It was an amazing way to push myself, and I learned a lot about character and determination. The cost really isn't worth it though, and I've seen a bunch of people pay even higher costs than me.

I also think - if I had kids, I wouldn't want them to play the game. It's just too dangerous, and that danger is built into how the game is played. People in the business often say "don't hit with your head" but watch any game, and you'll see lots of head contact on every play. The cumulative effects of that alone, not even counting the big hits - I think is quite substantial.

Unfortunately I don't see the game or the protective gear actually changing much to lessen the degree to which these (predictable) injuries happen. And to a great extent, more protective equipment means people just hit that much harder - often times still injuring, but in ways that are harder to see.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> That agent is a hero for insisting on that insurance policy.

<comment><USER31> This kind of thing (a friendly intervention) seems to happen more often than you'd think - Allen Iverson is still solvent only because his friends talked him into taking $30 million or so of his last shoe deal as a trust fund that he can't access until he's 55.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Quite a few negative reactions regarding the decision to go back to coaching in retirement. I think change has to start at the coaching level, as boycotting the sport will do little to change the status quo, especially in the immediate.

A few thoughts -

In my own experience in playing contact sports (lacrosse, not football), it's a trained behavior to shake off injuries, avoid trainers, and otherwise ignore your body's warnings of potential harm. This is taught by the coach [or worse, parents]. The encouragement to push yourself beyond natural limits only increases as you progress to the collegiate and professional levels.

The unfortunate effects of competition are that coaches skirt a dangerous line of balancing the star player[s] safety and winning the game, and this behavior is clear to the players lower in the depth chart who wish to become the next star.

Some of the more disturbing things openly shared were how to pass the concussion protocol, that coach will let you take off a week of practice after a hard head hit so don't go to the trainers, and to shake off any and all injuries as you will be rewarded for being tough. I, and any number of my ex- teammates, agree we experienced what are now known as "minor concussions" constantly throughout our season. Only major concussions would go reported. Being able to walk off the field typically meant you had only a minor injury, and could go back in once getting some wind.

The fact that so many are injured during practice goes to show, it's coming from the coach's inaction and not just during the heat of the game.

Under this light, I think Finley is taking a proactive approach to change by inserting himself on the front lines.

<comment><USER33> > This is taught by the coach

Absolutely. Personal experience FWIW -- 30 years ago, different sport (wrestling), different country, different culture, very low amateurish level, but typically the same attitude. First time I got a moderately serious injury (torn acromial ligament, couldn't move the arm for 6 months), I basically got yelled at by the coach saying either I continue to came to training and work with the other hand, or I split off. So the next time (I landed almost vertically on the top of my head instead of flatly on the back -- now he was afraid, but I was so proud of myself, didn't even want to interrupt the exercise.

Fast forward 30 years. I realise now that in some sports, people who didn't make it "to the top", are sometimes left with what seems like small stuff when you're 16 -- damaged teeth, torn ligaments, broken ribs -- but which age much, much worse than the rest of the body.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> No one has mentioned the movie, Concussion, with Will Smith, who portray Dr. Bennet Omalu. According to wikipedia, he "was the first to discover and publish findings of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in American football players." Seeing the injuries dramatized, the effects those injuries have on football players, really drives home how serious concussions are.

</comment><comment><USER35> Football ruins this guy's life and when he finally gets better he coaches kids' football. It sounds like he has an abusive relationship with football.

<comment><USER36> Multimillionaire retired at 27. I don't think you can call his life ruined.

I wonder how the health damage of sitting at a desk for years compares.

<comment><USER37> >I wonder how the health damage of sitting at a desk for years compares.

Not comparable, the only real risks of brain damage sustained while working a cushy software job are injuries sustained while commuting and reading really bad HN comments.

<comment><USER38> Working with legacy C++ code at work is a serious risk for my brain. It hurts physically to read some of these lines of code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Coaching and proper equipment are important. The biggest thing is that the better the equipment gets the more comfortable players are trying to hit harder and faster.

Rugby matches are very rough with near constant collisions but no pads. I'd be really interested to see a comparison study between to two.

<comment><USER40> Concussions are a big problem in rugby too, and they have only relatively recently realised the extent of the issue. The NFL may have swept the issue under the carpet for years, but everyone was burying their head in the sand until very recently in rugby - there have been multiple cases of players clearly getting knocked out and playing on after a short head injury assessment this decade.

There are many accounts of players saying they don't remember huge periods of matches. Shonatayne Hape gave a great interview which is absolutely terrifying, where he describes the effects and how it became progressively easier for him to lose consciousness to the point where he didn't even have to been hit in the head by the time he retired:

[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...](http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11264856)

<comment><USER41> Former UFC champion George Saint-Pierre has described in interviews how he basically loses consciousness for hours at a time, and doesn't know what happened. Like he'll come to and an entire day has passed. He suspects alien abductions (!), but there's no doubt this is brain trauma from all the hits to the head in MMA.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> A good friend of mine died a few months ago from ALS, clearly - also by his own reckoning - a delayed consequence from a severe car crash in his youth. "I was given an extra 29 years, I can't complain" he tapped out to me the last time I saw him, speechless and immobilised in a hospital bed.

There's a fairly well established correlation between head trauma and this abominable affliction. Why anyone _voluntarily_ would throw themselves into that kind of risk is utterly beyond me.

But then, so is any kind of football, be it the US or the European kind.

<comment><USER8> "But then, so is any kind of football, be it the US or the European kind."

How so?

<comment><USER42> Beyond me. Not understood. I don't get it. I don't get the attraction, the excitement, the hype. Which is all purely subjective, of course. I see two teams of idiots chasing a ball. Haven't they got better to do?

<comment><USER8> Can you even tell the difference between American football and association football (soccer)? Seems doubtful. You certainly have no basis to discuss the comparative risks between the two. Maybe the people that play these games don't want to sit around in front of a computer all day atrophying and getting fat and sick. Maybe they like to be healthy and have fun. That doesn't make them idiots. It just shows your intolerance to something that doesn't even affect you.

<comment><USER42> May I humbly suggest a basic course of reading comprehension?

<comment><USER8> You're the one that needs to learn how to write properly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> This appears to be similar to "Brainspotting", a technique that emerged from Dr David Grand's work with EMDR therapy. They're trying now to get funding for fMRI studies during treatments to better understand and possibly validate the treatment. The mode of operation appears to be increasing metabolic activity in certain areas of the brain for the purpose of enhancing processing/garbage collection.

</comment><comment><USER44> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopathy)

From the Mayo clinics page on CTE

"CTE is a progressive, degenerative brain disease for which there is no treatment."

</comment><comment><USER45> tl;dr: "Football gave me multiple concussions and severely broke my brain. Now I am seducing kids into the same passion for football that lead me to that point."

</comment><comment><USER46> Wold be nice to have a submission title that actually says what the article is about.

</comment><comment><USER47> I wonder if similar things (stimulating some parts of the brain and not others) can be done for other professions, such as coding where you are addicted to it, or maybe even the autism spectrum.

</comment><comment><USER48> I really enjoy stories like this. Are there any place with more like it?

<comment><USER49> Well, the site it's on (The Players' Tribue) basically specializes in those.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> What he has sounds like it is most likely [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalop...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopathy)

</comment><comment><USER51> I suffered 3 concussions in a 3 year period -- all from stupid accidents, not sports -- and the effects have persisted for years, even with various types of rehabilitation. It's very difficult to describe how a concussion changes a person. Of course, problems with balance and speech are obvious. But for me, the concussions also impacted my mind, my ability to think. I used to be able to read for an entire day, soaking up information. But now, it's like I hit a brick wall after a certain point, where it becomes impossible to proceed. I basically have a set amount that I can learn in one day -- whether it's the API for a library, the architecture of legacy code, etc.

Multitasking has become extremely difficult, even though it was never a problem for me before. It's a complete killer for my mind and it will exhaust it at the expense of the previously mentioned information-acquiring capacity very quickly. When I worked as a developer, trying to switch between multiple tickets between code reviews, conducting chats in multiple channels, and jumping back and forth between various programming languages was a huge sap upon my limited mental energy.

My first concussion wasn't too severe, but my second one was more so, as I probably was still healing from the first one. I had just come back from a break from work and didn't feel right in taking sick time. Compounding this, I was in the process of switching careers to become a developer and was studying very hard every night. I remember one night, about a week after my concussion, when I was writing some code. The pain in my head increased, until it became a pain of an intensity that I had never experienced before. This was probably my first experience of what would become many years of migraines... and this next part is probably unscientific, but I really felt that something "broke" at that point, as it signaled the start of many months of cognitive decline and emotional instability.

I sustained my third concussion when I felt pretty well healed from the second one. Not having learned my lesson, I didn't take much time off of work. While I didn't feel something "break" like the second time, I was working on a difficult project under a short time schedule, and I was worried about losing my first programmer job and the damage that could occur to my career if that were to happen. I made it through that project, but then new problems began to develop... and to persist. Two years later I still have many of the same problems. I wonder if my dedication to that job and love for programming have resulted in irreversible damage. It wasn't worth it.

Friends, we are all on this site because we are people who greatly use our minds. I want you all to remember that we each only get one brain, which is not only essential to our profession but which is the core of our personality, of who we are. The severity of impact is not associated with the severity of damage from a concussion, and experiencing one concussion makes you more prone to further concussions. My 3 dumb accidents have made the last 5 years of my life difficult in many ways, and have probably changed me for the rest of my life.

As such, I cannot condone willingly embarking upon an activity such as football which so clearly places one's mind at risk. To the author of this piece and to some who read it, football may be a game, but I think that our lives are more valuable than games to be played, than entertainment to be had. For every high profile recovery like this, there are countless children who are severely and permanently damaged for the sake of sport. Treasure your mind and the minds of your loved ones. And if you ever do suffer from a concussion, take complete and absolute rest, lest you jeopardize the healing process and find yourself with lifelong injury.

</comment><comment><USER52> Hmm too bad that there are literally at least a billion people on earth with much more sad stories that didn't have a 10 mio. policy coverage for "when they can't do what they love to do" anymore, and also most people can't do what they love to do in the first place.

There is a name for all that, it's called "luxury problems". Like Paris Hilton telling us that her boyfriend threw her diamond thong out of the window and she can't find it anymore. Terrible.

<comment><USER25> 1\. I don't see this athlete claiming his story is comparable to the plight of refugees or anything like that.

2\. Nobody is requiring anybody to read his story; he's simply making it available to anybody that is interested.

3\. His story _is_ relevant to millions of (professional, amateur, and occasional) athletes around the world... and millions more with traumatic brain injury.

4\. He does have millions of dollars, but a lot of people with chronic illness would gladly trade all that money for a clean bill of health.

5\. Consider that when you hear figures like "ten million dollars" that the player may receive only half of that, when taxes and agents' fees are deducted.

6\. Even _if_ he got to keep all $10mil tax-free (which he almost certainly didn't, IMO) if he lives another 50 years, that's only $120K per year. A comfortable living, well above average, but certainly not unlimited.

<comment><USER53> _" 5\. Consider that when you hear figures like 'ten million dollars' that the player may receive only half of that, when taxes and agents' fees are deducted."_

The $10 million he got was from an insurance policy, which he said was "tax- free", and which it sounds like he bought for himself. That agrees with what the IRS says:

 _" If you pay the entire cost of a health or accident insurance plan, don't include any amounts you receive for your disability as income on your tax return."_[1]

And I doubt that his agent would be entitled to any of his disability insurance.

I agree with your other points.

[1] [https://www.irs.gov/help-resources/tools-faqs/faqs-for- indiv...](https://www.irs.gov/help-resources/tools-faqs/faqs-for- individuals/frequently-asked-tax-questions-answers/interest-dividends-other- types-of-income/life-insurance-disability-insurance-proceeds/life-insurance- disability-insurance-proceeds-1)

<comment><USER25> Thanks! I missed that.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Stackoverflow on Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> https://synapsi.com <comment><USER2> So I'm a little confused. You don't hold the bitcoins deposited into the question? Where do you they go?

<comment><AUTHOR> The bitcoins are locked on the blockchain and can only be released when both the site and the depositor sign the transaction. The depositor signs the transaction with a payment password which is not stored anywhere (we only generate a seed from it) and is created before he deposits anything.</comment></comment>


The API economy - <AUTHOR> http://dennybritz.com/blog/2013/09/27/api-economy/

<comment><USER2> Awesome article! I agree that the API represents a huge opportunity (aka potential for disruption). Software is eating the world and I see the API as a building block of technology innovation. Data has become a commodity, and the API controls how Data flows. Two of my side-projects relate to API's, but I'm still in the process of team-building for both Projects. I'm not really aiming for replacing people or automating things to the extent you've described here, but I still find the concept fascinating. It will be interesting to see how the API evolves!</comment>


Are People Getting Dumber?  - <AUTHOR> http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-11/are-people-getting-dumber-one-geneticist-thinks-so

<comment><USER2> First comment, by the OP, asked,

 _I'm curious as to what HN thinks about this._

Since you asked, I'll say that Crabtree has certainly mastered the Science News Cycle

<http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174>

by making a press release that has had uptake from dozens of news outlets. But none of those news outlets seem to have reporters on staff who are competent to judge the genetics issues involved, or who even know sources in the Behavior Genetics Association. (The article you have kindly submitted has better sourcing and analysis than most of the previous articles based on the same press release that I have seen, as the reporter took more care before rushing to print.) I have friends in the Behavior Genetics Association (I'm part of the Facebook group for the association), and I've already asked them about this. Gerald Crabtree has some interesting institutional affiliations and previous accomplishments,

<http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/crabtree_bio.html> but he is not leading researcher on the genetics of human intelligence--I have met most of those at a meeting of the International Society of Intelligence Research. If I saw more discussion of this idea in the actual science online sites rather than just in gee-whiz popular articles, I would think that there is more "there" here.

Have you seen reviews of James R. Flynn's new book Are We Getting Smarter? Flynn's book deals with much more recent times (just the last century) but has the advantage of being based on actual IQ tests.

<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1107609178>

[http://www.cambridge.org/us/knowledge/isbn/item6835805/Are%2...](http://www.cambridge.org/us/knowledge/isbn/item6835805/Are%20We%20Getting%20Smarter/?site_locale=en_US&?site_locale=en_US)

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044403240457800...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444032404578006612858486012.html)

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/sep/28/are-we- getting-s...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/sep/28/are-we-getting- smarter-review)

Flynn is very well respected among behavior geneticists for his careful research work.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Link to the actual paper here: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168952512...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168952512001588)

I'm curious as to what HN thinks about this.</comment>


Ask HN: How to get a job at a startup that is not technical? - <AUTHOR>

I'm eager to find a job with an innovative company and I'm very technology savvy, but I don't code or design. How do I get a job at these companies? P.S. I live in Downtown SF. <comment><USER2> Well run companies exchange something they have (money) for an outcome they want.

Don't think of what you skills, degrees or characteristics. Think in terms of what you can provide. If you can't build software, can you build an audience? Can you find customers? Can you bring in investment dollars?

Your pitch should be something like "If you hire me, your company will ...".

<comment><USER3> The first line of this response is the absolute truth.

I work for a startup, one that is categorically on track for significant success. I'm not a programmer, designer or product person so lets apply your questions to my situation...

 _Can you build an audience?_

Not in the companies target demographic. Not even close.

 _Can you find customers?_

As above. Not even remotely close to my remit.

 _Can you bring in investment dollars?_

Debatable. The question is vague. My presence alone wouldn't attract investors therefore the answer must be 'no'.

Despite all that, I work for a start-up. I have a lucrative job paying a decent salary as well as a healthy chunk of equity. Just before I joined, the company raised a significant series b round[1].

The value I add to the company is that I can solve a significant problem that is key to their growth. I can triple their staff numbers in a very short period of time without the need to spend ridiculous money on agency fees.

To refer back to the first line of your response:

 _Well run companies exchange something they have (money) for an outcome they want._

They exchanged money for an individual who could abolish one of the significant hurdles preventing their rapid growth.

You don't need technical chops to work for a startup. You need to possess skills and/or experience that the founders do not have in order to facilitate their growth. What those skills and/or experience is, depends entirely on the company you want to work for.

[1] [http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/23/lyst-a-fashion-e- commerce-a...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/23/lyst-a-fashion-e-commerce- aggregator-raises-14m-more-plans-beacon-rollout-with-paypal/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is an interesting problem since most companies that post jobs at sites like [https://angel.co/san-francisco/jobs](https://angel.co/san- francisco/jobs) are mainly Engineering, Design, or Product Mangagement. Finding companies that aren't building software is your best bet, IMO.

</comment><comment><USER5> I would suggest studying marketing and getting your feet wet in that space. Outside of the code and design, I think its one of the most needed skill-sets in this space. I could be mistaken though. Or maybe you are looking for an executive assistant type position?

</comment><comment><USER6> Well what can you do?

<comment><AUTHOR> \- Experience as Administrative Assistant

\- Speak, Read, and Write Spanish Fluently

\- Some knowledge about app and mobile QA testing

\- Dabbling with Python on Codecademy

\- Experienced in Child Development Studies and Childcare

<comment><USER7> I got my foot in the door doing QA for a tech company, and then transitioned into Product Management (which I've been doing for about 8 years). If you really shine in QA then you'll probably find some doors open up for you too.</comment></comment></comment>


Perception trumps knowledge: optical illusion - <AUTHOR> http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html

<comment><USER2> WAY more dramatic for me: the blue and green spirals are the same color. [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/24/th...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/24/the- blue-and-the-green/)

<comment><USER3> Not really the same; the blue and green areas are mixed with other colors; its wellknown the eye sees finely mixed colors as different colors. The greyscale illusion uses quite large areas which is remarkable.

<comment><USER4> "the eye sees finely mixed colors as different colors"

These are hardly finely mixed. I'm 1.5 feet form my 24" monitor, looking at the thing, amazed at the illusion. I clearly see distinct stripes of color. I have to block out the bordering color with my fingers to perceive the real color.

<comment><USER3> Still they are one tenth the dimension of the b&w illusion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What's even more interesting is how much of the image you can remove while still maintaining the illusion. Block out almost all the image except for squares A and B and just a VERY little bit of space around them. The two squares still look different colors.

The brain can mess with perception in pretty significant ways based on very little information.

<comment><USER6> I tried covering up bits with my hand, with bits of paper, and staring at it with varying intensities - I still didn't believe it until I loaded it up in Gimp and checked the colour values.

It seems our perception of colour could be like our perception of temperature - comparative, rather than 'quantitative' in any way. Anyone here know of any studies into this?

<comment><USER7> I even got suspicious that the right image on the Proof page might have been doctored, but it does pass the Gimp test. :)

<comment><USER3> Make a little circle with your index fingers and thumbs, put it over each square, that breaks the spell.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> More illusions: <http://web.mit.edu/persci/gaz/gaz-teaching/index.html>

</comment><comment><USER9> Once I was told they were the same color it became one of those "CAN'T UNSEE" things.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is sooo old. HN shouldn't have this crap on the front page.</comment>


Apple Watch Series 6 delivers breakthrough wellness and fitness capabilities - <AUTHOR> https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/09/apple-watch-series-6-delivers-breakthrough-wellness-and-fitness-capabilities/ <comment><USER2> Most sport/smart watches like Garmin and Suunto have had a blood oxygen measurement function for a couple years now. Not sure what the "breakthrough" is here, I guess it is the Fitness+ app.

<comment><USER3> The breakthrough is that it is included in a good product, instead of a shitty one.</comment></comment>


How to Qualify Your Leads in 3 Easy Steps - <AUTHOR> https://marketjoy.com/how-to-qualify-your-leads-in-3-easy-steps/ <comment><USER2> I currently work for a solar panel company as an "appointment setter".

We have probably over 6,000 people's contact info in our Salesforce database (the admin doesn't let us see or query the data because that's _her job_ and the CEO feels similarly).

Us 7 reps have thoroughly exhausted these leads. 50% of the phone numbers are disconnected, the remaining 50% have been contacted over 10 times and many are fuming pissed that they keep on receiving calls.

Easily less than 1% of these 6000 people have a genuine interest in solar panels, and these leads were allegedly collected through door knocking and web forms.

There are no questions you can ask these people to get them to open up. They wouldn't be interested even if you were offering them a pot of gold.

Honestly, word of mouth remains king in an industry like this. It's way different from how you would sell a mainframe or a widget subscription, but this is my experience _" in the trenches"_.</comment>


Ask HN: How would you promote a social network start-up? - <AUTHOR> Hello all!
My bosses have just bought a social network website with 20K+ userbase and 80K pageviews per day, it is basically a copycat of facebook for Russian market. We have large social networking websites here in Russia like vkontakte.ru, odnoklassniki.ru with tens of millions of users, so the competition is quite high. Our goal is quite ambitious – to get a decent market share and grow our audience at least to 1M users in the first year. The problem is that our marketing budgets are relatively small and absolutely not comparable to those big players.
Ideas that have come to my mind are referral contests like "get more friend signed up and win an iphone", cross-promotion with our friendly websites, sending invitation to users from email accounts, maybe some kind of viral videoclips...
Any more ideas how to promote a website like this?
P.S: I don't have any realworld marketing experience, I'm actually the CTO of the project but would like to contribute to project success as well. <comment><USER2> Well what's the name of it? Surely everywhere you go, you should be telling people about it as a start

</comment><comment><USER3> Build a ChatRoulette like feature.

<comment><USER4> "Russian ChatRoulette" could be either a horrible or fantastic idea!

<comment><USER3> Actually, the original ChatRoulette was built by a Russian.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The Vaynerchuks have some very good advice:

<http://mixergy.com/wine-library-tv-gary-vaynerchuk/>

<http://mixergy.com/aj-vaynerchuk-vaynermedia/>

<http://vimeo.com/4671951>

In one word, _care_.

<comment><USER6> And in another, _differentiate_. Build something different, or adopt a different focus; don't just be a clone.

<comment><USER5> That's true, but it's easy to make something no one wants just for the sake of differentiating. If you care, you differentiate only if it actually matters to your customers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Obviously, if you're just going to copy Facebook's offerings, you might as well copy Facebook's launch plan and marketing. Their high level marketing strategy is very well documented and most of the tactics can be inferred.

Secondary suggestion: Pick a niche and focus on it.

</comment><comment><USER8> Buy all the Russian school and college name domains. Allow members to add content to those domain names (Ning style) if they have joined that particular school group - from your social network website itself.

Then do the same thing with Russian city names.

</comment><comment><USER9> Start innovating. Figure out a core offering and stick to it. Read rework by 37signals, it might help you out.

<comment><USER10> what's the relation of rework and innovation? Can you quote some stuff? I am considering this book, but to me it doesn't seem like it has anything innovation, especially since 37signals didn't really do anything innovative. Can't count open source framework there, as by itself it's just a framework.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> What's your target demographic?</comment>


The Rule of 72 (2007) - <AUTHOR> http://betterexplained.com/articles/the-rule-of-72/ <comment><USER2> In addition to being nicely divisible, 72 has an important advantage which most people don't realize: It's _on the right side_ of 100 ln(2).

The exact "rule" for N% interest is N log(2) / log (1 + N/100), which has taylor series 100 log(2) + log(2)/2 N + O(N^2) ≈ 69.315 + 0.34657 N - 0.0005776 N^2 + ...

For N approaching 0, the exact "rule" becomes the "rule of 100 log 2"; but for larger N increases slightly; the "rule of 72" is exactly correct for ~7.84687% interest, and for 15% interest it only gets as far as a "rule of 74.4".

That said, the power series gives us a way to get a significantly more accurate result: Divide the annual percentage interest rate into 832 months, then add 4 months. For any interest rate between 1% and 40%, this result will be accurate to within 3 days.

<comment><USER3> Maybe I'm obtuse but I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the "right side". You definitely want to use a number that's slightly larger than 100 ln(2) ~= 69.3 to account for the linear factor, but is there some inherent reason to use 72 rather than say 70 or 74, other than that assuming that 8% is some useful midpoint for the type of growth rates you're likely to be interested in?

<comment><USER2> 72 is better than 70 or 74 because it's divisible by more small factors. My point was that it's fortunate that 72 is slightly _more_ than 100 log 2 rather than slightly _less_ ; for "how long will it take for money to triple" (100 log 3 = 109.86) taking the closest number with lots of divisors would lead you to take a "rule of 108" but since 108 is slightly less than 100 log 3 instead of slightly more, it will produce larger errors for the common range of interest rates.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I never understood how ten percent errors, when applied to decades by creatures who expire in decades, were acceptable. This is a great approximation trick, but as with most things, please understand its derivation.

Most of the time when I see the "Rule of 72", it's in Excel spreadsheets. I passed on investing in an infrastructure project by changing a Rule of 72 calculation to:

        YearsToDoubling = ln(2) / ln (1 + Rate)

and watching it cascade to a negative NPV.

<comment><USER5> It's a great trick for approximating a value with _mental maths_. When my boss says he thinks the team can double revenues over 5 years - I can pretty quickly see what sort of year on year growth he's magically assigned.

When you're in a goddamned fancy calculator, you do the full form calculation because what the hell. I mean, I don't understand why you'd be deriving NPV from "years to doubling", but you can sure as hell get it exact.

(Also, as someone who's never actually invested, do people really judge investments on that number rather than internal rate of return, payback period, etc etc?)

<comment><USER4> > _do people really judge investments on that number rather than internal rate > of return_

Internal rate of return (IRR) is the rate at which the net present value (NPV) of a set of cash flows is zero. NPV is, in essence, a scaled IRR. If you have a budget of capital to deploy, NPV is preferred. For example, if you have a $100MM budget with a cost of capital equal to zero and two investment options: a $10MM project yielding 20% and a $100MM project yielding 10%, and you cannot purchase parts, only wholes (see the appeal of securitisation?), then IRR would guide you to the former while NPV to the latter. When dealing with securities or any other sufficiently quantised investment, IRR becomes a good enough approximation.

<comment><USER6> You say IRR is _the_ rate, but not every project has a unique IRR, e.g. if there are negative cash flow periods interspersed with positive cash flow periods.

Your assertion about NPV being useful when you have a budget confused me. If you have _no_ budget then NPV is useful. You just do every possible NPV- positive project.

If you do have a budget, as in your example, you could not pick between those two projects without considering some missing information (the length of time). You can't just pick the highest IRR project, or the largest project. The NPV of your larger project with a slightly lower yield could be lower than that of the smaller, higher yielding project. Consider if the larger one had a length of 1 month, and couldn't be repeated, whereas the smaller one would take 5 years. Or you could flip it around. The information you gave is not enough to choose, regardless of whether or not you're budget-constrained.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> People shouldn't be able to get credit cards until they understand compound interest. This stuff should be taught in high schools.

There's a group doing that: [http://schooold.com/](http://schooold.com/). They have a financial curriculum that's now part of the Kitty Andersen Youth Science Center.

<comment><USER8> _" This stuff should be taught in high schools."_

Strange, so it's not taught in USA? I always assumed compound interest to be basics and taught universally. I did learn about them probably in 7th or 8th grade.

<comment><USER9> I think every time I've heard someone say 'this should be taught in public school' it's in reference to something that already is taught in public school. The problem is we don't internalize things that we haven't had to experience yet very well, and we forget.

<comment><USER10> On the flip side of your point, I find myself taking weird positions on issues of what should be in curricula. It seems to me that most people carry around a mental model of schooling such that schools just pour knowledge onto a hard drive that then retains it for the rest of that person's life. But this doesn't stand up under 5 minute's examination if you look around in the world. All those polls about how 60% of $FIRST_WORLD_COUNTRY can't even name the number of $SUBDIVISION they have (state, province, whatever)? They all went to school, too. Is it really a crisis if we remove something from the curriculum that 90%+ of 40-year-olds can't recall anymore? Curricula debates should be grounded in reality, not some fantasy where we apparently spend 12 years downloading a couple dozen megabytes of text into people's brainharddrives and set the read-only bit.

Also: It is impossible to understand the solution to a problem you don't have: [http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2943](http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2943)

<comment><USER11> I'm with you on this. I would rather have schools spend more time on problem solving and critical thinking, and less on memorizing facts that can be looked up later.

The major obstacle is that it is much more difficult to teach thinking than it is to teach facts. So it's harder to find, train, support, and retain teachers who can do that well.

"Common Core" math (the stuff you might see mocked on Facebook) is trying to move toward teaching kids how to think mathematically, rather than memorizing equations and formats. But it's hard going (again, see the mockery on Facebook), and may not actually the right direction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The same blog has an interesting explanation of the 80/20 rule [http://betterexplained.com/articles/understanding-the- pareto...](http://betterexplained.com/articles/understanding-the-pareto- principle-the-8020-rule/)

</comment><comment><USER13> I first heard of this rule in the seminal book, Programming Pearls.

In case you have not yet read it, please do.

</comment><comment><USER14> I just read about the Rule of 72 in a book titled The Intelligent Asset Allocator: How to Build Your Portfolio to Maximize Returns and Minimize Risk by William Bernstein.

It is a good book, I recommend it.

</comment><comment><USER15> My Economics 101 professor in university taught this in class, and told us that if we only remembered one thing from his class, it should be this.

<comment><USER16> It's the one thing I remembered from my high school US Government teacher. (Or was it Sociology? Same teacher, two classes. What's up, Mr. Swigert?) I always thought it was really cool that he taught us that and it stuck. It had nothing to do with the lesson of the day, he just did it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Glad to see this rule come up on a tech site. This is Finance 102 stuff and it's good for everyone to know.

Just in case this hasn't been said elsewhere, the rule is more precise for numbers whose factor into 72 is closer to it. So medium numbers, for lack of a way of saying it. Not 50, not 1, but 12, 8, etc.

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm still wondering why there are 72 points in an inch. Probably only because it is nicely divisible.

<comment><USER19> also why there are 60 minutes to an hour, 360 degrees to a circle, etc. every multiple of 12 works really nice.

<comment><USER18> yeah, but why didn't they just add a factor 5 to the mix?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Related:

"The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See"

(it's an old youtube obviously click-bait-style title, but it's a video of a lecture worth watching, see the description):

[http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25458.htm](http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25458.htm)

</comment><comment><USER21> I prefer the approximation (4+832/N), which gives its result in months. Not as easy to do in your head but it's quite accurate.

</comment><comment><USER22> This is a neat trick, but why would we need to approximate something that is so easy to calculate in the first place?

<comment><USER23> Is it easy to calculate in your head?

<comment><USER24> I think he's asking under the (reasonable) assumption that everyone has a smartphone handy.

<comment><USER25> For a great many business discussions, a close enough answer that's technologically unaided is way more effective than a precise answer that takes an extra 45 seconds and the incorporation of a smartphone (or one person per smartphone) into the discussion.

I think of it as akin to the fluidity of a conversation between two native speakers versus a conversation with a translator in the room.

<comment><USER26> You save a bit of time and you look pretty smart.

I can do calculus in my head, but I struggle with arithmetic. My colleagues who can do fast mental math but can't do any algebra to save their lives end up looking much more competent in meetings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra The rule of 7% is more potent and easier to understand.

It tells you that if market grows by 7% annually, it's going to move more volume in ten years than in all years before, combined.

For example, of country's electricity consumption grows by 7% YoY, it's going to consume more electricity in (any) ten years than it ever consumed before that, grand total.

<comment><USER27> I fail to see how you can compare the two rules of thumb. For starters, the rule of 72 is simply talking about doubling (not about aggregate consumption)and the rule of 72 isn't fixed to a single interest rate (7%).</comment></comment>


Show HN: My Immunizations app, an app to help manage your vaccine history - <AUTHOR> http://appstore.com/myimmunizations <comment><USER2> This sounds super interesting and I'd love to read about it, but I do not have an iOS device and cannot open the app store because I am not on a Mac at the moment. Possible to link to a web page?

<comment><USER3> [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/my- immunizations/id914709957...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/my- immunizations/id914709957?mt=8)</comment></comment>


IPv6 support for 4chan - <AUTHOR> http://blog.4chan.org/post/87993160342/ipv6-support-for-4chan

<comment><USER2> Interesting. I asked moot some years ago about that, hopefully he's okay with sharing his reply here: [http://i.imgur.com/JXoyUdA.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/JXoyUdA.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER3> as called out in the cloudflare blog post from the other post[1], implementing the spam / abuse / fraud detection piece to be as effective in an IPv6 world is a huge challenge. IPv6 opens up so many different attacks that can be used based on the increased address space, you have to give 4chan kudos.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7858536](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7858536)

<comment><USER4> > _and yes, I can 't believe I said that last part_

Why? It seems like everyone who has never used 4chan conflates it with /b/ or something. The rest of the boards have pretty good discussions actually.

<comment><USER3> very fair, appreciate the feedback. editing my comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> -Anyone else having issues reaching the site? I'm getting an SSL connection error to blog.4chan.org.-

Never mind... I'm in now.

<comment><USER6> Yes, they have an HTTPS Everywhere rule which forces SSL on blog.4chan.org that doesn't actually support it.

<comment><USER7> Already fixed in dev branch: [https://gitweb.torproject.org/https- everywhere.git/commitdif...](https://gitweb.torproject.org/https- everywhere.git/commitdiff/58e138d7dce3df244ade2cd92fb199557c1e4b49)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wonder if anyone appreciates the irony of IPv6 Day and D-Day being both on the same day -- both difficult struggles for a critical objective. Of course one is a matter of life and death, and the other just continued freedom.

<comment><USER3> I think comparing something like IPv6 adoption and D-Day really is beyond apples and oranges. IPv6 is important, make no mistake. but compared to what the world went through on D-Day?

<comment> vezzy-fnord Not to mention he's exaggerating just how much of a solution IPv6 is. It solves the problem of address exhaustion, no doubt, and that's really about it. From a security aspect, it's just as bad, if not even worse with unauthenticated NDP, ICMPv6 router solicitations and so on. Try playing around with the THC-IPv6 toolkit some day.</comment></comment></comment>


What Happened To Compromise? - <AUTHOR> http://seersuckermag.com/politics/read/what-has-happened-to-compromise-politics-congress-gridlock-millennials

<comment><USER2> I would lean more towards the number of laws repealed than the number of laws passed as a measure of the quality of the legislature.</comment>


Achtung Criminal Investigation Against YouTube Underway in Germany - <AUTHOR> http://newteevee.com/2009/10/23/achtung-criminal-investigation-against-youtube-underway-in-germany/ <comment><USER2> When are people going to realize that you can't (shouldn't be able to) sue people like Google. The internet is a virtual reality. Hosting servers are the physical space of this reality. The files were put there by people, not by Google or YouTube. I know it's an old argument, but certainly still prevalent: Would you sue the manufacturers of inkjet printers because people are counterfeiting currency? It's quite ridiculous what Germany is doing. If you don't like it, block YouTube. See how your citizens react and tell me if it was a good idea.</comment>


MIT analysis paints bleak outcome for Mars One - <AUTHOR> http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/mit-analysis-paints-bleak-outcome-for-mars-one-concept <comment><USER2> Bas Lansdorp already responded to some of the criticism: [http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/mit-analysis-paints- bl...](http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/mit-analysis-paints-bleak- outcome-for-mars-one-concept#comment-1627471528)</comment>


Instagram seems to be having technical problems - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/search?q=instagram%20slow&src=typd&f=realtime <comment><AUTHOR> Their servers are back to normal now. They were lagging for approximately 40 minutes.</comment>


The FBI wants to build a data dragnet on Facebook - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/8/9/20797808/fbi-data-surveillance-proposals-hyp3r-homeland-security <comment><USER2> The best gift you can give your loved ones this holiday season is convincing them to get off Facebook.

If you didn't feel like leaving over the political misinformation and data privacy abuse, maybe it's time to leave when the FBI wants to scrape your data.

You may not have anything to hide, but as the article mentions, there is a lot of room for false positives. Trying to prove your innocence can be much harder and more expensive then not being identified in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER3> The irony is a dragnet facial recognition system has existed for at least 10 years that looks for people on watch lists. I know this for a fact because a friend of mine at a big name forensics shop was at a security research conference after-party and took selfies with some random people. Not a few hours later did he receive an awkward/creepy call from his boss that his bosses received a call from a government three-letter-agency person who noticed that said friend was spotted in a picture with a "foreign agent." Sure, it's good to know if there's people out there who are intent on stealing trade secrets but the process of placing millions of people on watch lists doesn't seem to lead to much than arbitrary paranoia and intentional political harassment conflated with a kernel of legitimate "baddies."</comment>


Career Advice – Is $40K normal for Developer with 5 or 10 yrs experience? - <AUTHOR> I work for a rural American wireless telecommunications company. Our service area covers half of the state. The company employs a little over 200 people. The IT department is small, but has a few System Admins who also are responsible for VMWare, ~200 Linux Servers, Windows and Exchange. As well as tasked with all internal development. This includes custom intranet tools, command line scripts, public websites, telco integrations ( SMSC integrations, Apple API integrations ), web applications for the customers, etc. We work with lots of technologies, Oracle, Postgres, MySQL, multiple API's, PHP, Python, JS. All of us make around $40k per year regardless if we have been here for 1 year or 15 years. Considering the amount of responsibility and the type of work involved, is this level of compensation standard ? We manage a fairly large infrastructure and continually work on new software projects. Does anyone have similar experiences ? <comment><USER2> No, not at all. Your pay is definitely going to be lower than others here on HN because you're in a lower CoL area (I imagine, rural generally is, compared to Bay Area), as well as doing Sys Admin which is less lucrative than development. But even considering both of those factors, that's quite low - I'd check glassdoor for more info on salary ranges in your area, and start shopping around for jobs, either to bring an offer to your boss for a raise, or to take the new job.

</comment><comment><USER3> No. That's absurdly low and the company knows it. They also know they can get away with it because you live in a rural area and the IT department is small.

I once met a developer who had been working for Accenture on the same project somewhere in Indiana for ten years who was making 50k. That project ended and last I heard he was making 110K+ at a large Chicago based .com company.

Take a couple interviews and see what other companies will throw your way if you are unhappy with your situation.

</comment><comment><USER4> Maybe you should look at glassdoor or something for a near by city and see if it's worth the move.</comment>


Ask HN: Is censoring dissenting opinions about the lockdown a bad idea? - <AUTHOR> Facebook, Google, YouTube, etc. censor dissenting opinions about the Coronavirus lockdown.
No doubt the people doing this believe they are doing a good thing. They no doubt believe they are protecting ourselves and others from our own stupidity.
People who want this lockdown no doubt think they understand something the rest of us do not. Except they don't.
The death toll of this virus needs ONLY be measured in percentages. Headlines about the thousands who have died only fuel panic. Example: 1000 people died in our County because of Coronavirus! Except our county has a million people. Coronavirus deaths are on the same order of magnitude as the flu, heart disease, obesity, suicide, etc. when taken in perspective even without the lockdown.
By censoring dissenting opinions we are adding fuel to the fire. We are getting people to ask for more control and more laws in the name of protection from a disease that we have drastically over reacted to.
Those who love rules and love being controlled are coming out of the woodwork. Dissenting opinions are not allowed (for your safety because you're too stupid to have a valid point of view). This country is heading straight towards third world status complete with mandatory face masks in public.
We've already passed the point where this was about the virus. From here on out this is about control. You have no access to information that the powers that be don't want you to have. Your opinion, your understanding, is incomplete and substituted with that of celebrities.
Please wake up and see that censorship like this is extremely destructive to the free society that we aspire to be. We need to tale a stand against censorship while we can still even remember what the before times were like.
I know many of you may not agree with my views on the cost/benefit of our reaction to this virus but I think we can all agree that we have to start standing up to censorship.
First they came for the Communists... <comment><USER2> No, it's not a bad idea. Take your crack pot anti-science rants elsewhere.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean companies have to give you a platform to say stupid shit. It just means the government can't stop you from saying (most) stupid shit.

You've been brainwashed by the ruling class to keep working like a good little slave.

They don't care about pain, death, suffering, and life-long complications. All they care about is getting even more filthy stinking obscenely rich. Why are you enabling them? Why are you spreading their message and doing their work for them? For the measly scraps they're feeding you?

<comment><AUTHOR> > Take your crack pot anti-science rants elsewhere.

sigh. Which part is crackpot? Which part is anti-science? Can you please explain why you think that? I hope to convince you that I am not anti-science in the least. Rather, I think we are looking at this situation wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Yea, I agree. It's not the first step down that slippery slope, but it's a big one. If you care about being able to say what you really think, even when it's unpopular, you really have to host your own website on your own equipment.

</comment><comment><USER4> If it were political censorship, that might be something to discuss but infectious diseases can spread to people regardless of what their politics are. Reality trumps beliefs every time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Are they not preventing the right of individuals to organize?

<comment><USER4> Public safety of innocent third-parties trumps the right of individuals to organize.

Were the disease only to sicken those who congregated and not spread from them, I would have very little objection to allowing them to do so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm glad you're showing concern. I don't think I'm equipped to take any particular side, because I can clearly see an argument for both courses of action, with the only differentiator being your order of priorities with regards to realizing a commitment to an ideal.

If you happen to prioritize the ideal of equality in all things; including mindshare/being heard, then of course the answer to your question is no.

If you prioritize the minimization of loss of life within a particular timescale however, the answer could be both yes or no; a fact that I think leads to most of the controversy on this topic.

For instance, those prioritizing minimization of loss of life due to viral spread and lack of treatment would not be interested in hearing about you wanting things to open things back up, not condoning contact tracing, etc. as that runs completely counter to trying to minimize the rate of spread in the immediate term. It is something that can be done now, while the unknowns get figured out, and we have faith that the best and brightest amongst us are doing their best to make it happen as quickly as possible. Efforts to disrupt that societal momentum to them are something to be minimized.

Those who have concern in regards to the capacity of the economic system to change in order to meaningfully accommodate the necessary change in circumstances created by the massive disruption to the underlying assumptions on which the previous Market's optimizations were based, and who are concerned that this abrupt transition may cost lives via increases in crime/joblessness/homelessness/systemic collapse combined with catastrophic failure of the societal infrastructure requisite to coordinate the efforts of everyone in ways that help sustain everyone at a higher standard of living than an every-man-for-himself arrangement can? They may see a viable direction in not censoring protests of the lockdown approach, and opening things back up for the sake of trying to limit the damage done. Which, by the way, makes that type of person extremely distasteful to the first group.

To someone more interested in just having everyone make their own decisions, and wishing that there was a mandate that employer's must honor an employee's wishes to comply with lockdown; but that there was no restraint other than due diligence on those that wish to try to keep the economic machine going and in the process of change? I see value to both sides getting first-class attention. I'm convinced we're going to be saddled with this thing for a long time, so I don't feel that brutal, immediate short term measures are necessarily going to do a great job at keeping things stable. On the other hand, we're definitely in a situation that carries with it a very real and tangible health risk, that I have no wish to sacrifice people on the altar of continuity of the previous economic status quo in order to sustain.

Evaluate, measure your risk, do as you wilt, accept the responsibility for the outcome, and don't begrudge others for the decisions they make in doing the same. It is really the only sensible way forward. I really don't care if all that "wealth" out there disappears in a flash as the economy bounces back down to more reasonable intrinsic values. I just hope everyone is willing to get along with, take care of, and treat each other with dignity and respect.

Then again, that's what I thought we were doing all along, and boy, did I have that wrong. So, take it or leave it I guess.

It certainly doesn't help that we're in the midst of a national crisis in terms of credibility management. Civic trust/civic institutions being demonstrably worthy of significant trust would be nice.

</comment><comment><USER6> > First they came for the Communists...

When do they come for the innumerate conspiracy theorists?

<comment><AUTHOR> What conspiracy?</comment></comment>


Strider – Continuous Integration and Deployment Server - <AUTHOR> https://futurestud.io/blog/strider-getting-started-platform-overview/

<comment><USER2> Seems like a comprehensive and well designed system.

The project repository[1] has a great README that allows you to spin up a heroku version near instantly, which is a great touch.

[1]: [https://github.com/Strider-CD/strider](https://github.com/Strider- CD/strider)

</comment><comment><USER3> We used Strider heavily at my last venture and I am using it again at our new one. Great to have a JS-based CI/CD flow that also incorporates other stacks. It's been easy to extend and the devs are responsive to PRs.

Frankly we need more such CI/CD solutions that the community can sharpen. I'm a huge user and proponent of Gitlab but as a Node/JS shop it's great to have a native CD solution besides Gitlab CI. The integration and extension is just too clean. Kudos to the Gitlab and Strider teams for having such easily matched APIs.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've been using Strider for a few months now and I'm very pleased so far. Simple, easy to setup, slick UI and good integration with GitHub out of the box. I always keep build server configs very simple, basically only running shell scripts, and Strider fits well with that.</comment>


Techstars Community launched - <AUTHOR> http://www.techstars.org/community/

<comment><USER2> I'm surprised they didn't just use the Hacker News source and make the same site but with different colors.

<comment><USER3> Why would they do that?

<comment><USER2> Well, they just ripped off their application and business model. Why start doing something original now?

<comment><USER4> They didn't rip off their application, I think that was a different company from Seattle not Boulder... and that wasn't really a bad thing to do either BTW.

Seed investment for equity is hardly a new business model nor was it invented by YC.

<comment><USER2> No, trust me, it was Techstars.

[http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2007/03/anyone-else- notice-...](http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2007/03/anyone-else-notice-that- techstars-and-y.html)

And doing the seed equity in batches with a 3 month "camp" format and a demo day near the end is pretty original.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting just how different it is from this site.

An invite code, not sure if more people can use it:

Invitation Code: friends3253

<comment><USER6> Wonder what their Myers-Briggs personality types would be :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I signed up, as I got one of those funky codes.</comment>


The 3/2 rule of employee productivity - <AUTHOR> http://www.cybaea.net/Blogs/Journal/employee_productivity.html <comment><USER2> This study seems fundamentally flawed. The Fortune 500 are the 500 companies with the highest revenue. This means that smaller companies only make it into the Fortune 500 if they already have very high revenues/employee. Since costs/employee are necessarily bounded, what the study ends up comparing is the productivity in the most profitable small companies with the productivity in the (roughly) average large companies. That's a serious sample bias and invalidates the conclusion, IMO.

<comment><USER3> But S&P 500 are not the 500 companies with highest revenue. Its 500 companies selected by a committee to be representative of the american economy. Its not as biased as you suggest.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500#Selection>

<comment><USER4> Yet they are still pretty large companies:

 _The stocks included in the S &P 500 are those of large publicly held companies that trade on either of the two largest American stock market exchanges; the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ._ Wikipedia

<comment><USER3> I agree that companies with 3-100 employees will just not appear in SP500.

However, Mercury Interactive was included when it had around 1000 employees. 1000 is a lot, but you can still learn by comparing a company with 1000 employees to HP with 300,000.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's not just bureaucracy + increased communication costs of course. At some point, it just becomes harder to find as many skilled employees to hire either because there isn't any left (a common problem when looking for skilled developers) or the really talented people are looking for smaller/younger companies where they can get outsized returns.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think this is the exact problem Goolge is facing right now. It's increasingly hard for them to keep their high standards in hiring worldclass engineers and hackers. There simply aren't that many of them.

<comment><USER6> Is that really Google's problem? I mean I realize there aren't a lot of great engineers, but it seems to me that their primary problem is that they are no longer the "hot" company to work for. I think all companies reach this point as they mature. Either they have to start paying a lot more than their competitors or they have to lower their standards. Most companies do some of both (best example would be Microsoft right now, they have good engineers, but not as good as they used to. They also pay well)

<comment><AUTHOR> The two are probably linked. A hot company for hackers is one where there are other hackers that are great. Once you reach the point where your company isn't only staffed with only great hackers but also merely good developers the company seizes be as hot as it was.

It's a hard problem to solve. Especially if, like Google, you're a publicly traded company that needs to grow constantly to appease investors. Growth means hiring more people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> One other potential problem I see with this study is that it doesn't seem to take into account that not all employees put in the same amount of time for an employer. For instance, some employees work only part time. So if 80% of your workforce is part-time, you're going to have a lot more employees than a company that produces the exact same profit with all full-time employees. The numbers would look a lot worse for you because of your high employee count, even if your productivity per employee-hour is the same.

Also, in salaried situations, you may have some employees who work 60-80 hour weeks while others only work 40 hour weeks. Now the high hour-per-employee count will probably effect productivity in other ways (extended periods of long hours tend to actually reduce productivity), but the difference in hours- per-salaried-employee is going to have some bearing on productivity also. This may not make as big a difference as the part-vs-full-time situation, but it could be significant.

</comment><comment><USER8> Yet another flaw with this study is domain bias. Domains which require many employees per company are domains which are based on economies of scale, and usually have low profits per employee (manufacturing, retail). A better study to support (or refute) the conclusion would be one comparing similar companies.

</comment><comment><USER9> Whether it's possible for an employee to contribute a huge amount of profit is highly dependent on the business and the function of the employee. If you're a restaurant chain (like one of the examples in the article), and most of your employees are waiters or cooks or delivery drivers, then there's no way that any one of them can possibly generate a million dollars of profit. If you're a software developer or a banker, then you can. Making generalizations across such widely different business categories doesn't seem to make sense.

A better methodology would have been to track productivity per employee vs. number of employees, but broken down by industry group. Then you could see if the relationship is true of only some industries, or across all of them.

<comment><USER10> It _is_ broken down by industry group. If you look at the graph, each industry is a different color.

<comment><USER11> It's fairly hard to tell from the graph, but it seems that if you look at any particular industry, the gradient is much less steep.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> anything is linear if you use a log-log scale and a thick marker pen

</comment><comment><USER13> Sometimes I wonder why big corporations can even exist competitively as there is such downward pressure on productivity as they grow. Some companies handle this better than others, Amazon being one that comes to mind first, but everyone ultimately suffers a significant efficiency loss at scale. The only reasonable answer that occurs to me is that the economies of scale and available capital provide such a dominating competitive advantage as to allow outmaneuvering of smaller companies whom are 10x as profitable.

<comment><USER14> _Sometimes I wonder why big corporations can even exist competitively as there is such downward pressure on productivity as they grow._

High barriers of entry. In 99% of cases the barrier is either capitol requirements, government regulation or both.

Or to put in other words, any business which can be challenged by a startup, will be. And it is only a matter of time until enough startups iterate through enough business plans until they find one that will steal your business.

So either be productive or be behind significant barriers to market entry.

<comment><USER15> Network effects are a major barrier as well. The biggest problem facing a Facebook or eBay competitor, and the problem that's faced various would-be Windows competitors, is that it's hard to beat a platform that derives value in large part from its ubiquity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think it's a bit more nuanced than this. It's like the example given in the Mythical Man Month. If you want to grow corn, you can pretty much be assured that no matter what you do, you can harvest the corn more quickly if you put more people towards harvesting it. This is because harvesting corn is a _partitionable_ task (in other words, you can easily divide the work up amongst an arbitrary number of workers). Of course, productivity per person will go down, but the overall rate at which you're harvesting corn will still grow.

Programming isn't easily partitionable. Programmers need to communicate with each other to do their task. Thus, adding more people makes you progress faster _up to a point_. At a certain point, adding more people starts to slow you down. Therefore, individual worker productivity will go down more quickly faster than it would for the corn harvesters.

Lumping all the different positions from all these different kinds of companies ignores these differences and really makes it difficult to apply the idea in general. For technology companies in particular, I'd say that the productivity loss can be even _higher_ than 3/2.

<comment><USER17> But that's assuming that you're hiring more programmers to do the same task. Programming is partitionable at a larger scale - if I hire more programmers I can start more projects/create more products.

So I guess what I'm saying is that for a one product company, yes, there is a point where the productivity loss from adding another employee gets very big. But for multi-product companies (think Google, Adobe, Microsoft, Apple), more employees just means more parallel projects.

<comment><USER18> It would seem that way, but I seriously doubt all of those parallel projects exist in vacuum. They likely will share frameworks, they should certainly share UI elements and designs.

I mean, Apple can't have the iPad, iPod, and iPhone teams not talk to each other, their clearly linked on numerous levels.

Likewise, Microsoft's apparent reliance on "parallel projects" is why we geeks poke fun at them so much. Anyone remember the screen shot of the 20+ styles of Window decorations just in Microsoft products on XP? Or howabout the fact that the Windows team has to basically reverse engineer (or at least re-develop from scratch) all of the UI features of the Office team.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't think the correlation is that strong. Most of the points are in the centre. Is there any statistical data on how strong the correlation is?

</comment><comment><USER20> An update of this is at [http://www.cybaea.net/Blogs/Data/Employee- productivity-as-fu...](http://www.cybaea.net/Blogs/Data/Employee-productivity- as-function-of-number-of-workers-revisited.html)

This echoes the often-cited effect that communication overhead increases drastically with headcount. Barry Boehm: adding programmers to a late project makes it later.

<comment><USER21> > Barry Boehm: adding programmers to a late project makes it later.

It was Fred Brooks who observed that. So famous is the observation that's known as Brooks' Law.

Not to denigrate Barry Boehm, mind you, who is a fantastic researcher.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I wonder how much can be attributed to: the larger you get, the less transparency, which contributes to the greater likelihood of hiring someone who is "corrupt".

Most of the work I've done is at large corporations, and some of the things I see there, I can't fathom there _not_ being a brown paper bag full of cash being involved somewhere during the decision making process. I was having lunch with a friend of mine the other day, and according to him, in his industry, it is _routine_ for employees to take kickbacks in the form of "unrelated" consulting gigs through their side companies in exchange for choosing a certain vendor. That's just the way it works.

</comment><comment><USER23> It reminds me of the Main Sequence graph:

[http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cs.wellesley.edu/...](http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cs.wellesley.edu/~cs112/assignments/assign1/HR.jpg&imgrefurl=http://cs.wellesley.edu/~cs112/assignments/assign1/assign1.html&h=564&w=824&sz=51&tbnid=WJx5qfvKHs3FMM:&tbnh=99&tbnw=144&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmain%2Bsequence&zoom=1&q=main+sequence&usg=__aFXgeDXUrr6JiJKYW- hy54_RHwk=&sa=X&ei=O1pUTa-FGcT_lgebycTbCg&ved=0CDMQ9QEwAg)

I wonder where the White Dwarfs and SuperGiants are?

</comment><comment><USER24> This throws aside IMO the major contributing factor, that these big companies generally run in heavily commoditized sectors where the margins have been forced down by the competition. High volume, low margin.

</comment><comment><USER25> Isn't this just rational behavior? As long as the marginal profit produced by hiring another employee > 0, then you hire another employee.

</comment><comment><USER26> This study focuses on big corporations. I wonder how these findings would hold to small companies - let's say, that a company grow from 5 to a 100 employees. Management-layers and meetings would certainly bog down productivity, but as much as for large corporations, or more?

</comment><comment><USER27> Automation? With 100,000 robot waiters Darden Restaurants would have a much more favorable ratio.

</comment><comment><USER28> I wonder at what point it starts dropping off. I know that if I added two employees to our company (currently just my co-founder and I), we would be vastly more efficient, since neither of us would have to context switch so much.

</comment><comment><USER29> Creative knowledge workers make more than those operating their creations. And companies that can really scale have many more of the latter.

</comment><comment><USER30> I suspect that a relationship of this sort is due to Parkinson's law. But I have trouble identifying a power law from his graph.

</comment><comment><USER31> I'd think it's more steep than this.</comment>