Virtual ANS – Simulator of a Russian musical synthesizer from the 1950s - <AUTHOR> http://warmplace.ru/soft/ans/

<comment><USER2> I really like NightRadio's work. His main synthesizer, SunVox [1] is amazing. Innovative UI, very good analog-modeling, and a wide assortment of synthesis features. Oh, and it is available on almost any platform you want, most for free.

Also, I suggest checking out the NightRadio's other project, PixiVisor. [2] It converts an image (progressive scan) to audio and back again. This lets you, for example, see an image processed by a reverb effect, resonant LPF or whatever. It does things with the Fourier transform that I would have guessed were impossible.

[1] [http://warmplace.ru/soft/sunvox/](http://warmplace.ru/soft/sunvox/)

[2] [http://warmplace.ru/soft/pixivisor/](http://warmplace.ru/soft/pixivisor/)

<comment><USER3> I'd also recommend the Caustic softsynth, another very impressive Android/iOS/Windows tool. The Windows build is free.

[http://www.singlecellsoftware.com/](http://www.singlecellsoftware.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Pixilang looks interesting as well (its the language/environment used to program the application)

[http://www.warmplace.ru/soft/pixilang/](http://www.warmplace.ru/soft/pixilang/)

Excellent find!

</comment><comment><USER5> This is very cool. The core of the code should be pretty simple, here's an article on how to play an image using windowed fft :

[http://www.ohmpie.com/imageencode/](http://www.ohmpie.com/imageencode/)

Then just add some standard chorus+reverb processing, possibly a bit of distortion.

There are other programs that do this kind of thing (Photosounder, MetaSynth), oddly not so much free software.

As a side note, it's kind of odd that the coloring in this gui lays out the light spectrum with the low frequencies in violet and the high frequencies in red.

<comment><USER6> > oddly not so much free software

The Analysis & Resynthesis Sound Spectrograph is the closest thing I can think of: [http://arss.sourceforge.net](http://arss.sourceforge.net) It hasn't been updated in a long time but it's still very useful!

Michael Klingbeil's SPEAR is also open source, but a slightly different beast - focused on manipulation of analysis data as a set of partials - it's still insanely useful: [http://www.klingbeil.com/spear/](http://www.klingbeil.com/spear/)

Chris Penrose's excellent Hyperupic was the first tool of this kind I remember encountering, inspired by Xenakis' UPIC system: [http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/MusicAndComputers/chapter5/05_...](http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/MusicAndComputers/chapter5/05_07.php) It died with OS9 to the best of my knowledge.

EDIT: Just to say that Alexander Zolotov's work is blowing me away. I didn't realize he was behind SunVox until now, but the portfolio of his projects in this thread is really inspiring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> my mind has been blown:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GAJ9e8ifYU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GAJ9e8ifYU)

(same creator)

</comment><comment><USER8> The voice recorder (I tried the iOS version) is pretty cool.

The 80s UI in a 2014 app for a 1950s instrument is also great. Nice and weird. I like it.

</comment><comment><USER9> Oh now this looks fun! Thank you for posting!</comment>


Running Headless Chromium in Azure Functions with Puppeteer and Playwright - <AUTHOR> https://anthonychu.ca/post/azure-functions-headless-chromium-puppeteer-playwright/ <comment><USER2> Looks nice and simple. Adding puppeteer playwright on AWS lambda is also possible, but requires some effort to configure right</comment>


The Vim Beginners' Site - <AUTHOR> http://vim.begin-site.org/

<comment><USER2> I'd recommend just doing vimtutor every day for a couple of weeks to get some muscle memory in.

<comment><USER3> I fully agree. vimtutor is just about the best introduction to vim out there.

After mastering it, I recommend hanging out on #vim on freenode. You'll get a great education just from reading the questions/answers others have. And any time you find yourself doing something complex in vim multiple times, ask about it on #vim and you'll probably get some suggestions on how to do it more efficiently.

Another thing that helps is reading the documentation for every option you put in your ~/.vimrc, and trying to fully understand what's happening there and why. And try to avoid blindly using other people's .vimrc's. Instead, use their .vimrc's for inspiration, transferring over only those parts you understand and find useful.

<comment><USER4> A thousand times yes to this, and not just because it's how I learned. It puts the commands into your muscle memory. You should not be trying to memorise anything; just follow the directions and don't move on until you complete each step. Then when you're done, do it again. Do vimtutor as many times as you need to until you really don't need to think about how to manipulate text.

And yes to the ~/.vimrc advice here. You should start with an empty dotfile and build up from there. DO NOT make the mistake of starting out by installing Janus. There shouldn't be anything in your ~/.vimrc until you understand what it does, and editing that file should be done incrementally by the user instead of being a copied file. This is part of the learning process.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The "Exercises and Challenges" page [<http://vim.begin-site.org/exercises/>] states:

> VimGolf - "Real Vim ninjas count every keystroeke — do you?"

Obviously the writer isn't a ninja.

</comment><comment><USER6> I wish I spent the time trying to learn vIm learning something which is actually productive instead of hoping to have a better editing/writing flow with some deprecated, obscure CLI editor with a way too steep learning curve.

<comment><USER7> I learned Vim because the internet went out one day and I finally decided to check out `$ vimtutor`.

15 minutes later after learning commands like A, I, o, O, dd, p, and P it was clear to me that I wanted to use Vim seriously.

The hard part was arriving at a workflow, a set of plugins that I actually liked using. I imagine a great deal of people don't get to that point. I almost didn't. Especially since the commonly recommended plugins like NERDTree are awkward and clunky.

I think discovering CtrlP was the turning point for me.

A lot of luck was definitely involved. Sometimes I stay up at night wondering just how many versions of myself had given up on Vim when my wavefunction collapsed and I happened to be the chosen eigenstate that stuck with it.

<comment><USER8> CtrlP is the only plugin I use. It's really great.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Use this to learn vim: <http://learnvimscriptthehardway.stevelosh.com>

The parent's site offers nothing productive, in fact I think it causes more confusion with it's terrible UI, terrible content and erratic layout. I feel bad for being so critical, but resources like this are why learning vim was so hard in the first place. Why, when I click on the gigantic "Learn Vim Now" text, am I not directed to some actual learning resources?

<comment><USER10> It says this within the first paragraph:

> It is not a guide to using Vim. Before reading this book you should be > comfortable editing text in Vim

I think a site like the OP (even if it is shitty) is aimed more at the "I know what vim is, maybe I did visudo once and cried a bunch, but I have never touched it" crowd.

<comment><USER9> Then what is it for exactly? Vim has a bad enough reputation as being obtuse and antique. Sites like this just reinforce that perception.

<comment><USER11> No, the fact that you're being obtuse is giving _you_ a bad reputation. Vim is a very powerful and flexible editor. The site you linked to os titled Learn Vim _script_ The Hard Way. Vimscript is not Vim, it is the scripting language used to customize Vim.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily defending Vim here. The learning curve is steep, but the "evidence" you're providing here only illustrates that you can't spot differences in basic nouns (Vim versus Vimscript). This is a challenge that any reasonably skilled problem solver would have resolved with one Google query and 5 minutes of reading.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Games that teach VIM" category was created for VIM Adventures. It has an outdated information there. VIM Adventures now includes saving games. It should also add that currently there are 10 levels consisting of 30 shorcuts for the paid $9.90 version.

</comment><comment><USER13> Is this new? Very thin content, and I can't see how you nominate links.</comment>


Git9: Git Reimagined for the Plan 9 OS - <AUTHOR> https://bitbucket.org/oridb/git9 <comment><USER2> > The most obvious difference is that Git's index is a bit boneheaded, so I'm > ignoring it.

> In fact, the entire concept of the staging area has been dropped, as it's > both confusing and clunky.

Sounds like its on the right track.

<comment><USER3> Opinions obviously vary. The staging area is one of the most useful things about Git for me, and I use it just about every day.

<comment><USER4> Same here. Without staging how do I change 10 files but only commit 3 of them? For example working on a change, then notice a bug that should be fixed now. Currently I just stage the 3 files for the hot bug fix, commit those, deploy, then continue working on the remaining 7 files.

<comment><USER5> I wonder how much overlap there is between the "staging area is useless" and the "never rewrite history" crowds.

Personally, I use staging area all the time to create a curated set of commits that make logical sense when putting them up for review.

My workflow is generally to keep a very messy history of `XXX` commits until I am happy with what I've come up with. Then reset back to the branch point and using the staging area to build up logical changesets.

I don't care about the history of my coming up with the solution, I care about presenting the solution in a way that makes sense to reviewers, including future me.

<comment><USER6> Interesting, so you commit things that are different from the code that is sitting in your working directory at the time of the commit?

<comment><USER5> I use `git add -p` to selectively pick out chunks of code that fit together into commits.

Later on, if I notice that I messed something up, I'll create a fixup commit and do an interactive rebase to squash it back into the correct commit.

<comment><USER7> In my opinion, `git add -p` should be the default, and a `-a` or alike to forcibly commit the entire working tree. I have developed a habit that I wouldn't feel comfortable if I haven't reviewed the chunks I am going to make into the commit.

<comment><USER8> While there are many people who don't understand git's staging area, there are far less that understand how to selectively stage/commit chunks, or even that such functionality is available at all.

It should be a crime for people to blindly stage everything. Cleaning up after my colleagues easily falls under the "lost cause" umbrella.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > _The most obvious difference is that Git 's index is a bit boneheaded, so > I'm ignoring it._

> _In fact, the entire concept of the staging area has been dropped, as it 's > both confusing and clunky. There are now only three states that files can be > in: 'untracked', 'dirty', and 'committed'._

> _Some usage examples:_

        git/add foo.c

So… what does `git/add` do?

> _Tells the repository to add a file to the next commit._

And wherever that information is stored, so that between running `git/add` and `git/commit`, we can remember what things are going to be part of the commit… that sounds an awful lot like something one might call a "staging" area. How have we not reinvented it here?

<comment><USER10> > that sounds an awful lot like something one might call a "staging" area.

What you call it is one thing. The actual code behind git's official "staging" implementation is basically an entire magical branch on-disk. The staging code is a big part of why git submodules are so awkward. I don't even use Plan 9, but I'm interested in this implementation.

<comment><USER6> And that's before you take into account that the staging area's index makes some very interesting decisions:

\- Maximum file size of 4g -- but this limit is only present in the staging area, which means it's possible to construct repos with files that can't be checked out into the index.

\- Dates have the year 2038 problem.

\- Contains non-portable stat fields like the device the file was on.

\- Requires a complete rewrite of the whole index file on every change, making it scale O(n) in the size of the repository.

\- Requires padding of data fields to 8 bytes -- but then has 12 byte header which the fields are packed after, making all of them misaligned to 4 bytes.

The whole thing screams "thoughtless, bleary-eyed 3 AM hack"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There's some good additional commentary in the body of the Lobsters post from the author, including why they wrote it and why not libgit2: [https://lobste.rs/s/bpzl12/git_fs_native_git_implementation_...](https://lobste.rs/s/bpzl12/git_fs_native_git_implementation_for_plan)

</comment><comment><USER12> Anyone else wondering about the name? I'm OK with the absence of staging area, but with such a fundamental change why would it still call itself "Git"? A name like (say) Tig would keep the Git reference alive, but make it obvious the two are different.

<comment><USER13> Next you are going propose that most of the plan 9 commands should change their names because they are not POSIX?

<comment><USER12> That's a very slippery slope. Most of their tools would be just fine since the notions predate POSIX, and people already expect incompatibilities across platforms (plus Plan 9 ones more or less work similarly as their counterparts). Naming a new not-really-Git thing Git causes more confusion than benefits because Git is not a standard but a "product".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> wtf. plan9 is still alive?

There's a name I haven't seen since 1995.

(Vale dhog)

<comment><USER15> There's a community fork named `9front' [1]. Most of the development happens in its community (IRC, mailing list). Expect some hermetic memes.

[1] [http://9front.org/](http://9front.org/)

<comment><USER16> There's also [https://harvey-os.org/](https://harvey-os.org/)</comment></comment></comment>


How real is the threat of autonomous technology? - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14340666&fsrc=rss

<comment><USER2> I love how the only actual example they give is one in which the problem was effectively created by humans interfering. :/

<comment><USER3> This is always the danger when you give humans autonomy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think there is a big gap between autonomous technology that 'works' and autonomous technology that works in all circumstances and won't fail in a way that causes harm.

Re: the example of caring for the elderly. The harm here is going to be psychological and cultural. We are a pretty selfish generation in general when it comes to how we view our responsibility to the elderly. I'm not sure being able to shovel off our responsibility to past generations on a few robotic servants will better us as people.

<comment><USER5> Modern treatment of the elderly is a matter of economics and demographics, not one of moral decay. There are simply too many elderly and not enough workers for the elderly to be afforded the same treatment as a generation ago.

<comment><USER6> On the other hand if morbidity gets compressed [1] we may need fewer caretakers.

[1] People suffer from age-related illness for a shorter time. They stay healthier for longer. Some statistics point in this direction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Obviously the real concern is that "such machines _that_ do the sort of jobs people find dull, dirty or dangerous." will get angry and unionize.

We must prevent this or all is lost.

</comment><comment><USER8> Judging from how often software breaks, not very.</comment>


First Look: Flash Arrives on New Android OS - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/05/first-look-flash-android Excerpt:<p>"We tested different websites with the Flash 10.1 Player on a Nexus One running Android 2.2 and here's our first take: With Flash on your phone, no website is really out of bounds.  Flash does not appear to be a battery hog, nor does it chew away at your phone's resources.<p>But it's not a flawless experience either." <comment><USER2> "We tested different websites with the Flash 10.1 Player on a Nexus One running Android 2.2 and here's our first take: With Flash on your phone, no website is really out of bounds. Flash does not appear to be a battery hog, nor does it chew away at your phone's resources."

Weird. It's like Steve Jobs wasn't telling the entire truth, or something.

<comment><USER3> More like Adobe has finally poured some engineering investment into making Flash work decently on a mobile platform. By all indications 10.1 is a massive improvement over 10. It's still not quite as good as Adobe are saying, but it seems to be a lot better.

For what it's worth, this is exactly what Adobe should have done from the start instead of wasting their time trying to convince Apple to allow Flash on the iPhone. Getting Flash to run flawlessly on competing smartphones would have made it far harder to Jobs to claim that Flash wasn't technically up to it.

<comment><USER2> Great. So Apple will support Flash now that is it up to snuff? Please.

<comment><USER3> Probably not now, after the lines have been drawn this sharply. But what sort of argument would Apple have been able to present against Flash if a full mobile Flash port had been up to snuff two or even three years ago?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> jim-greer We did a kongregate mobile site and I was surprised how many games played really well. The best were adapted slightly for mobile, but a lot of these are just the desktop version - the developers have never seen them on a mobile device.

<http://m.kongregate.com>

<comment><USER4> Love your site! I was at a flash conference last weekend... all the adobe developers compiled to native android apps and then show them working on the nexus one. It was surprising how simple the whole process was.

Do you think the flash games on your site will also be compiled as native apps? If so is there a way to integrate kongregate achievements so I can still gain the points?

<comment> jim-greer Thanks!

At this point we're just doing them through the browser. I don't think 'compiled as native apps' is the right description. They're converted into Air apps, but they're still using the Flash runtime: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Integrated_Runtime>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is good news for the thousands of skilled Flash developers that really know how to leverage the platform for interactivity and gaming. As the article points out, content must still be optimized for 10.1 to see the most benefit and that will take time.

Although Flash filled an important need for video when the FLV format was first introduced, it's role as the primary video player for the web will be marginalized over time. However, that will bring the focus of Flash back towards it's roots of vector animation and interactivity at which it does an excellent job.

</comment><comment><USER6> I wonder if rejecting flash is Apple's 21st century version of not licensing their operating system. In the 80's, nobody knew such a move was a death magnet. Perhaps missing the mobile flash train could be something similar today.

Interestingly, running flash on phones could pose a threat to Apple's current business model. On the iPhone, music/movies/games all come via the app store. However, flash can deliver all of those directly to the browser - whether for free (youtube), or for a fee (netflicks).

<comment><USER7> I don't think protecting the app store is a reason why Apple is disallowing Flash on the iPhone/iPad. Apple has indicated that it runs the app store near break-even, and doesn't view it as a profit generator: [http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/01/26/app_store_wild...](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/01/26/app_store_wildly_successful_but_not_hugely_profitable_for_apple.html). The app store is there to sell devices -- like the iTunes store for the iPod.

<comment><USER8> It's not App Store revenue that Apple's concerned about, it's app exclusivity and platform control, both of which they expect to lead to device sales.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Keep reading. Not sure about you, but I consider using 40% of charge for two hours of Flash a lot.

<comment><USER10> That's actually on par with the iPhone 3GS.

Let's look at some numbers!

FTA: "As I surfed a number of Flash-heavy websites, played movie trailers and little video clips on and off for about two hours the battery level on my phone was down to about 61 percent from a fully charged battery"

So, 2 hours of heavy web usage on flash-heavy websites, at about 20% of battery life per hour. So, that's 5 hours of heavy web usage on flash-heavy websites doing a mix of things.

Compare that to the iPhone:

From the Apple website: <http://www.apple.com/batteries/iphone.html> Under the Battery life sidebar: "5 hours of Internet use on 3G"

So, the author experienced the same level of battery use as a user would experience on an iPhone 3GS doing a comparable task.

Edit: I should point out that the it appears the Wired author was using an internal network, which, for the iPhone is: "9 hours of Internet use on Wi- Fi". However, I still feel as if this doesn't change the results much.

<comment><USER8> It's not clear from the article, though, whether the Android device was on 3G or WiFi... WiFi uses considerably less power.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, I noticed I hand't clarified that. Even still, 5 hours of browsing highly interactive content isn't bad. You get the added bonus of Flash, which for some sites, is critical.

FTA: "Our corporate Wi-Fi connection just didn't seem good enough and most Flash-heavy sites took a while to load."

So I assume the testing with Wi-Fi, though again, this isn't completely clear. Even still, I think this demonstrates that mobile flash isn't the harbinger of death that Jobs was making it out to be, and demonstrates that the reaction to Flash is more than just for technical reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Any word on when Flash 10.1 is coming to OS X? Flash is such a resource hog even on my Mac Pro, I'm hoping this will mitigate the problem.

<comment><USER12> Depending on your needs, you may want to try the 'Gala' beta instead: <http://blog.kaourantin.net/?p=89>

It's Flash 10.0, but with the hooks for hardware decoding in Mac OSX (that Apple only added very recently to the plugin API). It's supposed to perform much, much better on Mac OSX for video playback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "Flash does not appear to be a battery hog, nor does it chew away at your phone's resources.

But it's not a flawless experience either. Flash content — especially video — can take up to a minute to load, which is more frustrating on a phone than it is on a desktop. And it sucks bandwidth."

How am I suppose to merge those two statements?

</comment><comment><USER14> No Hulu? ... Then what's the point?

<comment><USER10> There is more to the internet then Hulu. In fact, the majority of the internet doesn't care about Hulu, because Hulu restricts access outside the US anyways. However, their are a far greater number of sites with Flash content that would benefit from this.</comment></comment>


MinuteProject: App generator from DB structure - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I believe you meant to link to:

      http://minuteproject.wikispaces.com/</comment>


Nuclear Powered Planes - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jt924xjaJo <comment><USER2> Then there was this plan [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto)

heck the mission is to turn the enemy to a radioactive rubble. Trouble is the test flights.</comment>


Visualizing Transformer Language Models: Illustrated GPT-2 - <AUTHOR> https://jalammar.github.io/illustrated-gpt2/ <comment><USER2> My understanding of state-of-the-art language models is limited, but it seems like there has been a lot invested into having models that generate their output one token at a time, no edits.

Have there been any experiments into models that can re-read and edit their work, before spitting out entire sentences, paragraphs, or documents?

<comment><USER3> [https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.04454](https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.04454)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is now my second-best reading on GPT-2 after this one: [https://blog.floydhub.com/gpt2/](https://blog.floydhub.com/gpt2/).</comment>


Microsoft now lets you run Android apps in Windows 10 - <AUTHOR> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/microsoft-now-lets-you-run-android-apps-in-windows-10/ <comment><USER2> Title seems to be clickbait, from the article:

> This feature is only supported on select Samsung Galaxy devices and allows > Android to stream apps to your Windows 10 devices.

<comment><USER3> Yeah I had the same disappointed feeling but maybe it's a sign of features to come? This is a small initial rollout of a future more expansive feature?

Just conjecture.

<comment><USER2> When I read the title I thought that they were announcing something like Anbox, which runs android apps in containers. But it is actually just about mirroring the android screen... I'm not sure why that would have be a feature baked into the operating system. Seems more like a marketing strategy imo.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "lets you" Thanks Microsoft. That's exactly the way they see it, too.

</comment><comment><USER5> Nice now i can stream Candy Crush from my phone to windows.

Oh wait...

Seriously though, is Microsoft working on making Windows a VM for everything?

First Linux, now Android.

<comment><USER6> Hypervisor _

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is pretty cool, I personally don't see how I'd use it, but very cool nonetheless.

<comment><USER8> Board games that have an Android version and not a PC version, or for which you've already bought the phone version and you don't want to buy it again on PC.

At least that's been my use cases for other similar solutions.

Phones have an incredibly rich ecosystem of apps that don't always have PC ports.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Samsung Dex was a stellar success.</comment>


NASA sending humans to Mars - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/nasa/status/539814651404754944

<comment><USER2> i don't visit twitter for some years... it was curious to see the shift from a place full of wanna be journalists to plain YouTube level comments just now.</comment>


To Start a Company or Stay 100% Focused on School? - <AUTHOR> http://bizglue.wordpress.com/2008/10/05/to-start-a-company-or-stay-focused-on-school/

<comment><USER3> 100% focusing on your school?

You can always choose to focus 80% on school while 20% on your startup. When the opportunity really comes, focus 80% on your startup and 20% on your school. And, if the opportunity seems so attractive to you, DROP OUT.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm a little confused. Why is somebody who can't decide whether to start a company or not, or indeed what kind of company to start, writing a blog containing "tips for entrepreneurs"?

<comment><AUTHOR> I've started companies in the past, but can't decide what my next company will be, or when... so I don't think that disqualifies me to give advice on what I've learned.

<comment><USER4> Oh, fair enough, that makes sense.

I got the impression you were a first-time (non)-entrepreneur. My apologies.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Stay in school. It's a pain to catch up on your studies, you have to wait for the start/end of the semester, and a degree is always nice to have, especially if you've already invested significant amounts of time into it.

On the other hand, starting a comany is something you can do at almost any time, including after you graduate. If you don't have a burning passion for a specific idea, don't drop out of school for it now.

It sounds like you don't know for sure what you want to work on if you drop out, and you just want to start a business. I suggest you stick it out with school and _then_ go for your idea. If you know exactly what you want to do with a startup, then it's a tougher choice. I'd still lean towards staying in school and finishing your degree, depending on how far you are from graduation, though.

</comment><comment><USER6> My senior year I scaled back my studies to < 10 hours a week (including class time and papers) and spent 60+ hours a week working on a startup. It was absolutely the right decision. I had my expenses paid for, got to live with all my friends, yet still had lots of time to work on my startup.

The only thing I might suggest is that if you don't have a clear idea, you might want to consult for a while in the target industry. That way you can learn the industry, meet the right people, and understand what people will pay money for.

</comment><comment><USER7> I certainly agree that it doesn't need to be one or the other. Many universities have great resources that you can tap, to help grow your business. The larger state schools are, in many cases, aligned with a small business development center or business accelerator programs. In addition, you have access to the faculty, which can be a huge resource, plus a good source for co-founders. College is a good time for exploration in entrepreneurship.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's especially true at BYU, where I go. Several successful entrepreneurs, including the founder of SEO.com, FundingUniverse, InfoSpace.com, Omniture, and other successes, work with us in and around the Marriott School.

There's a very supportive startup environment in Utah overall, as well (<http://www.siliconslopes.com/>).

All of this support and all of these resources is one of the reasons I've been considering starting something new. When else will I have the opportunity to have so much support and so many resources?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> School gave me the time to think and dabble and develop a lot of my personal philosophies and perspective. The business world tends to do the opposite because of the endless drive for fast and cheap. Either way, you lose one aspect of your individuality and gain another.

The idea of improving "how things are done around here" - the process - <USER2> what ultimately excites me about business. Others, I think, focus on making the best products, on building a great community around the company brand, or on improving the world's condition. And I think it is these high-level endeavors that should be one's focus, no matter what the specific business is. If you don't know which of those interest you, get a job in the field you like, and the business problems you want to solve will reveal themselves quickly.

</comment><comment><USER9> Well I "quit" school last year, I did so because I think I can learn more solo than I can in a schooling environment. Or maybe not "more", but different things that schooling may not focus on. (and I'll be able to return in a few years)

In this time I do what I want with my time (OK most of the time, I still have to do free lance to pay the bills), I don't just learn things, but I learn what I need to do for the task I'm trying to do.

Founding a startup isn't a priority for me, but if the idea comes along then thats great. :)

</comment><comment><USER10> do both. This way you can do your early stage when you have no money coming in while you have free board and food. You'll have 4 years for it to grow to a good business. And if it doesn't, its no big deal...your 4 years of startup experience will be much more valuable to your resume than a 4.0 gpa, extra curriculars and a crappy internship

</comment><comment><USER11> It does not have to be one or the other. It sounds from the article like you have a number of uncertainties on the company front.

I recommend working along side school work. That is easier said than done in most cases, and you surely don't want both to suffer from each other, but it is doable if you play your cards right.

</comment><comment><USER12> Depends on what type of impact your start-up company will have in the society.

</comment><comment><USER13> How about HS?

<comment><USER14> Dude, don't even think about dropping out of high school... at least get your GED and graduate early.

<comment><USER15> David Allen, founder of Quest Online, dropped out of high school.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_M5IMVjeSM>

A lot of the most-successful members of the Terman gifted-group dropped out of high-school.

<comment><USER16> Dropping out of high school contains much more risk, though, and things are much harder.

Don't drop out of high school, just treat it with kid gloves. High school was when I dabbled with things I thought I might want to do later on (I started a community web site, I wrote and self-published a novel). As a result, in college I find that I have not only the freedom to work on whatever projects I want to, but I go into those projects with perspective and useful knowledge.

In the end, the tactic doesn't matter: only the results. You'll find people in any field that were homeschooled and people who graduated with doctorates and spent 10 years working at some generic job, just waiting. If it gets you where you want to be, do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> School mostly sucks. College is a mechanism where mediocre minds fight for status, publishing and tenure like dogs over scraps and ensure the most brilliant people are reduced to a low common denominator, and train people to approach life like children even when they are growing up.

If you aren't 100% certain you need to be in school to do what you want with your life, start the company. Learning is awesome, schooling functions as a mechanism of control to make sure the really smart people don't learn so fast that they live up to their potential.</comment>


Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically - <AUTHOR> http://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound <comment><USER2> _The New York Post has just reported that Brooklyn Assembly Members Annette Robinson [D.-Bedford Stuyvesant] and Darryl Towns [D.-East New York] have introduced a "minimum force" bill that would require officers to "shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg" and to use firearms "with the intent to stop, rather than kill."_

This is what happens when people think TV and movies are an accurate representation of reality. Beyond the problem of police not getting enough firearms training in the first place, it just isn't possible to shoot anything other than center mass with any hope in hell of hitting with a handgun for the average officer.

This is almost as stupid as thinking a taser is non-lethal. Getting hit by a taser can kill people. New research into low lethality weapons for police would be great, but I'm not holding out much hope given the funding.

Perhaps we can stop with the fantasy and start concentrating on things like over use of SWAT, actual police oversight, and liability of the chain of command. On the other side, stop demonizing police before the facts are in.

<comment><USER3> How about loading the first round with blanks. Some times just the sound of the shot is enough to startle and stop a suspect. Shooting in the air would be an option too, but it could be a little problematic, as what goes up, must come down. The blank option would also give an officer a split second to maybe rethink his actions. And if the officer really needs to use lethal force, it's easy to quickly squeeze off 2 rounds, with the second one being the real deal.

<comment><USER4> No. From experience, the only other rounds that would go into my magazine were tracer rounds. Additionally, the mechanics of how these weapons work make that not possible.

Edit: Beyond the above, from a tactical perspective...just think through the game theory on that and you'll see why that would be unwise.

<comment><USER3> Hmm, I am no expert in guns. Is it not possible to use blanks in a standard automatic pistol? I have seen people use blanks in revolvers. Is it because a blank cartridge would be missing the bullet part, so it would be shorter? Just curious.

I suppose that logically speaking, if I know that most cops have a blank loaded as their first shot, logically, I shouldn't be startled by the first shot. But that said, an encounter like that is so traumatic, to both the officer and the suspect, that I hardly think any one in that situation is thinking very logically at the time of the encounter.

<comment><USER5> Automatics commonly work on recoil, sometimes on gas pressure. Without a bullet, recoil is less (see Newton's laws) and so is gas pressure (there's no temporary plug in the barrel). Most semi-auto pistols will not operate with blanks unless modified in a way that would make them incompatible with regular ammo.

<comment><USER3> Ah, interesting. Never mind then, stupid idea on my part :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Shooting to wound is absurd. However, keep in mind that Bill Lewinski is a pseudoscientist who makes his living justifying killings by police.

[http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers- to...](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-to-shoot- first-and-he-will-answer-questions-later.html?referrer=)

<comment><USER7> No, it really isn't absurd. The German police do it very frequently.

[http://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/polizeibericht/article205518...](http://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/polizeibericht/article205518947/Kreuzberg- Polizist-stoppt-Angreifer-mit-Schuss-ins-Bein.html)

<comment><USER8> ... for some values of "very". German police don't shoot much at all.

That said I'm a former Norwegian King's Guard, and we were told to aim for the legs first if shooting was absolutely necessary. Admittedly, since we were shooting with 7.62mm NATO rounds at the time, a shot in the leg would basically be a very crude amputation. They use 5.56mm NATO now, but I bet getting hit in the leg is still not much fun. We were stationed at posts including the palace and the fortress, which are both in the centre of Oslo, so if you're really looking for trouble the threat is not academic. I've never heard of a guard firing at anyone since ww2 though (except themselves in suicide).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The only instance in which an officer should ever be firing a weapon in the field is to stop a target that is posing an _immediate and lethal_ threat. In that situation, shooting to kill would be perfectly justified.

Why can we not address and punish cops who think firing rounds into someone's back as they flee is acceptable instead of trying to mandate that they shoot an extremity (which they will undoubtably 'miss' in the 'heat of the moment' in favor of center mass)?

<comment><USER10> I honestly don't think anyone would disagree with those rules of engagement. The cops simply make errors of judgment. Bringing them to justice would be ideal, but it seems to be a case of some are more equal than others (esp. if you're in a powerful union).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This all makes a very compelling case for "using firearms in an optimal way is outside the limits of human ability, so police should not use firearms." That's assuming your terminal value is not "police life matters more than any other consideration."

<comment><USER12> Indeed, perhaps we should aim to have weaponized drones following cops around that can precisely target weak points when the cop orders.

This article also makes a compelling case that when the necromorphs come, cops will be useless to protect humanity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The real problem is that most officers have such minimal training and conditioning in hand-to-hand combat combat (specifically, grappling), and as a result they panic and shoot-to-kill much more often than they should, or use excessive force to control a suspect also resulting in unnecessary deaths.

Instead of passing stupid legislation (anyone who's used firearms extensively knows aiming for limbs is not realistic, you have to aim for center-mass), they should work on improving ongoing officer training and conditioning so that officers would feel much more comfortable controlling a suspect without killing them.

<comment><USER14> Why would a police officer ever risk his own life by engaging in hand-to-hand combat? If a situation arises that calls for hand-to-hand combat, then the police officer should probably either use a taser or gun right?

<comment><USER13> I've been training in a grappling sport (BJJ) for over 9 years. The advantage a trained person has over an untrained one is massive. Even someone who has been training a few months could easily handle an untrained person without anyone getting hurt.

You can see hundreds of videos out there of police shooting people without apparent just cause - just because they "felt threatened". If they had the confidence they could deal with a physical confrontation if needed, I'm certain the amount of unnecessary shootings would decrease significantly.

<comment><USER14> Would you risk your life by confronting an aggressive person in hand-to-hand combat if you had no knowledge whether he had a knife or gun on him?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Brit here. Is the 'stop or I'll shoot' thing a myth or does it actually happen in the US?

i.e. do police in the US shoot suspects when there is no threat other than the risk they will get away?

<comment><USER16> From Wikipedia:

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

Which to say, yes. Although I don't think there's actually a requirement to verbally warn them.

<comment><USER17> _> > do police in the US shoot suspects when there is no threat other than the risk they will get away?_

 _> he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."_

 _> Which to say, yes. Although I don't think there's actually a requirement to verbally warn them._

Which is to say: not legally.

<comment><USER16> If you're running from a cop, you must be guilty. Right?

Which means you're a criminal; which means you're probably a serious threat to others.

It's a bit of a toothless ruling because it's about the cop's state of mind at-the-time which is damn hard to disprove, harder when it's a cop's word.

<comment><USER18> "If you're running from a cop, you must be guilty. Right?" \- Guilty or not is for judge and jury to decide. So far the only charge will be "fleeing/evading the police".

"Which means you're a criminal" \- you are not a criminal unless convicted.

"which means you're probably a serious threat to others." \- 'probably' is the key word. Cops cannot shoot people because they are probably dangerous. "Probable cause to believe" is not the same as "probably".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> 1\. Dead men tell no tales. 2\. Aiming at smaller and easier to miss areas is a great way to introduce bullets to whatever is behind the intended target. 3\. Getting shot is not a guarantee of a cessation of hostilities.

</comment><comment><USER20> Maybe what's needed are better non-lethal weapons for police.

<comment><USER21> Or better training and actual accountability. It's not like cops use tasers judiciously and intelligently.

<comment><USER20> Tasers are not all that non-lethal :(

Police ought to be part of the community, rather than some external paramilitary force. Their behavior would then be modulated through social mechanisms.

<comment><USER21> Also an excellent point. The selling of non-lethal weapons has been a several- decades long exercise in manufacturers lying about the safety of those non- lethal weapons. Rubber bullets, tasers, it's all bullshit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think this article misses the point of recent controversies, which have dealt with lethal force on unarmed suspects. If a suspect is armed, you probably don't want to shoot their legs and hope they drop their weapon. But if a seemingly unarmed suspect continues to run, or approach, it seems more than reasonable to not shoot to kill. Unless you are Judge Dredd.

<comment><USER23> The part of the article that seems to apply most to that to me is: " "Less- lethal options should be attempted only with tools designed for that purpose," Avery says. "If you deliberately use deadly force to bring people into custody without incapacitating them, you're using the wrong tool for that job."

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Of course if it comes to shooting you have to shoot to kill. I think the problem is with too trigger happy cops that are too quick to pull their guns out and are not utilizing their tools to deescalate the situation. And yes sometimes deescalating means letting someone just get away temporarily if he only stole a pack of smokes.

</comment><comment><USER25> As long as you allow the general public to carry firearms the police will have a hard time establish a power superiority in any stand of without the excessive use of firepower.

As this article talks about firing multiple rounds per encounter is the norm it nigh be worth pointing out that the whole German police fired less than 100 shots at person per year for the last decade. [https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffengebrauch_der_Polizei_i...](https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffengebrauch_der_Polizei_in_Deutschland)

<comment><USER14> It is unfair to quote that statistic. Germany has one of the strictest gun control laws in the world and one needs to give a reason for owning a gun and self-defense is not an accepted reason: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany)

Given that it is harder for an individual to obtain a gun, it naturally makes it less often that the German police will need to discharge their weapon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Maybe, I am from a different planet, but sometimes I heard, that police should protect people, but currently some policemen are more caring about protecting themselves -- and they are trained exactly that way.

This at least, as an European, goes threw my mind, when I read such descriptions and some news from unarmed people shot into the back.

<comment><USER14> Why does it not make sense that the police should be trained on how to protect themselves? Also EU gun control laws are stricter than in the US so that is why maybe your police force will be nice and not expect everyone to own a gun.

<comment><USER26> They should protect themselves, but not protect themselves and forget to protect others. So, they become a part of the problem.

Even, when you expect everybody to have guns, it does not justify shooting others into the back.

<comment><USER14> I never mentioned anything about shooting others in the back.

<comment><USER26> But I did and that is what is happening. And just keeping quiet about it, does not make it better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Someone needs to invent a "shoot to incapacitate" weapon (that is not a Taser).

That said... we have the technology, _today,_ to make a gun that automatically targets, in a split second and with high accuracy, the arms and legs (and any other part) of a person. So why don't we just do that?

<comment><USER14> 1\. Did you just not describe a taser?

2\. Where is this weapon?

<comment><USER27> 1) I specifically said _not_ a Taser. A Taser has a number of negatives- short range, need for both contacts to penetrate adequately, small chance of death of subject

2) I do not know of one that exists, but I am sure that one is possible with today's technology. Perhaps I should gather a team and build it

<comment><USER14> My point exactly is there is no other practical or efficient weapon available or else one would be made already.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I wonder how the London police manage to keep order without carrying guns ?

<comment><USER29> Because western European cities are vastly less violent: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/lets-hold-off- cel...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/lets-hold-off- celebrating_b_4405153.html).

Baltimore, where I live, has 25x the per-capita murder rate of London. Chicago has 13x the murder rate. New York, the safest large city in the country, has 3x the murder rate.

<comment><USER30> B-more the city that bleeds.(I live there too) That said, the murders usually occur in the same bad areas over and over. If you live in a good area, you notice it only on the evening local news.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Sounds like a strawman. Who advocates shooting people just to wound them? Why not shoot to disable a threat?

<comment><USER32> People who don't like the idea of police shooting someone not just a few times but a few dozen or hundreds of times.

When the police seem to abuse their power by shooting many, many more times than is necessary it's natural for people to ask what can be done to restore a bit of balance between the police and the public.

[http://ktla.com/2015/05/23/cleveland-officer-michael- brelo-f...](http://ktla.com/2015/05/23/cleveland-officer-michael-brelo-found- not-guilty-in-killing-of-unarmed-man-woman/)

<comment><USER31> Sorry, I'm discussing the nomenclature: "shoot to wound". It sounds like something someone would do as torture. Why shoot to wound someone? To what end? Just to cause them pain?

However, there would seem to be something worth considering in a "shoot to disable" policy, as opposed to a "shoot to kill" policy.

<comment><USER33> No, call it what it is. I think "shoot to wound" is the correct way to describe it.

"shoot to disable" sounds too abstract, as if guns were something other than machines designed to puncture human flesh with bits of metal, with the express purpose of causing pain, injury and possibly death. Wounding and killing are pretty much the only settings that guns have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Perhaps the solution to police killings is to disarm the police. The current default--police have weapons and can use them as they see fit--seems not to be working.

<comment><USER33> US police have 2nd Amendment rights like anyone else, so that seems unlikely.

<comment><USER35> Does it really work that way? Police men should not be able to use any kind of weapon on the job other than the ones they've been assigned.

<comment><USER33> I'm not a cop or a lawyer, but I can imagine a situation in which people could be expected to sometimes shoot at the cops but the cops weren't allowed to shoot back would meet with a supreme court challenge sooner or later.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Entering the web development business from another technical background. - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN. After about three years of working as a professional chemist I decided that while I like the work, I don't find it particularly stimulating. Consequently, about six months ago a good developer friend of mine essentially mentored me into learning a bit about Ruby and Rails. Up until that point all I had had was a teenage flirtation with web development in the late 90s and a semester of C++ in college rolled into my math minor.
Flash forward to now, six months after starting to learn and I feel I know just enough that I can work my way through just about any problem I run in to, though with a fair amount of head bumping. I'm developing a small bookkeeping app for work and I've successfully launched a silly little project (amitwitterfamous.com, currently down in the midst of the great AWS outage of '11).
My question is, where do I go from here? I'm coding and learning every day, but I don't know where or how to take the next step. Were any of you in a similar position? What were your early experiences? <comment><USER2> At my first professional job, the director of the company was a pathologist for 20 years. It then occurred to him that his industry could be run more efficiently so he embarked on developing his own pathology system. With no previous software background, he had his wife bootstrap his development of the system for a few years before he was able to implement it for production use. He ended up running his new software company for 12 years before he sold it for millions!

He is a prime example of someone with no software experience moving into the industry. However, I believe it worked wonderfully for him because he didn't shift from his primary industry where he held all of his domain knowledge.

Congrats if you're wanting to shift professions and industries as it is a brave move. I would suggest surrounding yourself with talented and experienced people in the software industry. There should be Ruby on Rails and web meetups in your area where you will be able to network and learn from approachable people.

All the best in your endeavours!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the encouragement! I have a few friends in web development and they're huge inspirations and great mentors. I feels incredibly lucky to be entering the field when I am because the communities and tools are absolutely amazing.</comment></comment>


Apple is now presenting its privacy policy as if it were another product - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2019/11/06/apple-redesigned-privacy-policy-pages/ <comment><USER2> I will say I don't really get the point of the article, it seems to verge on being blogspam. So Apple realizes people don't respond well to legal text and try to hide it a bit?</comment>


Show HN: EasyEndorse, a simple way to collect testimonials - <AUTHOR> http://easyendorse.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi all. I just launched EasyEndorse about a week ago, as a bootstrapped solo founder. I'm happy to field any questions/suggestions, and you're more than welcome to email me directly.

I'm initially targetting small B2C companies (restaurants, web hosts, doctors, etc), so if anything on the site comes across as vague or unclear, please don't hesistate to point it out. Any feedback on how to improve the API/code samples would also be greatly appreciated.

You can check out the API docs and code respectively at: <http://api.easyendorse.com/easyendorse.com/> and <https://github.com/EasyEndorse/EasyEndorseAPI></comment>


Ask HN: How do I stay "on" all the time? - <AUTHOR> When I was young, maybe 14, the thrill of visiting forums and discussing things was the absolute best. I was always ON. Messaging randoms just because I can and talk, making friends online. Dying to come home to write that shitty script so I got 3 replies on a forum.
Now, I'm only "ON" about 10% of the time, and that's at work. I got my own apartment, state of the art hardware, I got everything I wanted that I thought would help me, but now I'm here, exactly where I want to be, and yet I still don't have the drive.
It seems like the more I think about what I want to attain in software, the more apathetic I become to the field in general and just want to escape. I have goals, but I rarely come home and work on something, I just go on Reddit and smoke weed until I go to bed then feel depressed for wasting yet another day. <comment><USER2> It's a situation that more software developers than you may think find themselves in.

\- exercise regularly (once a week to start with, ideally every day). A lot of software people are obsessed with the gym, which I personally hate. Find something that fits you. It could be rock climbing, swimming, playing basketball, etc- just do something. It has clear effects on your brain.

\- eat well. Software companies like to feed their employee redbull and Doritos; don't touch that crap. Making a salad at home is cheap, quick and healthy.

\- as another commenter suggested, maybe seek out something more intellectually demanding than software engineering if you're bored. Pick up a number theory or quantum physics textbook, or get into chess- whatever works for you. Making CRUD web apps is not all that it's made out to be.

\- try to cutdown the weed. Force yourself to never smoke before a certain hour. Ie if you get home at 7 and go to bed at 11, no weed before 10.

\- cut the crappy websites like reddit. Modify your /etc/hosts, block the IPs in your router and then change the password to garbage, etc. those sites are a giant black hole and are designed to make people do exactly what you're doing.

\- go out in nature. It may be just me, but living in the city kills my brain cells. Drive out once or twice a month for hikes, etc.

\- other things that have worked for me, but ymmv: getting rid of most of my gadgets that waste time (iPad, super fancy phone with a million useless apps, etc). Installing Linux on a cheap netbook so that i can't get distracted by video games (heck even YouTube videos are rendered choppily, which is great). Meditation. Reading more paper books and less blog posts (a kindle+tpb is great for that). Making a list of leisure activities that I find acceptable and making sure that I do at least one of them a day (reading, drawing, playing an instrument, chess, etc)

\- finally, you may be depressed or burned out. It happens. Think about going somewhere exotic for a week or two, isolated from your daily environment & work. Think about seeing a psychiatrist. They're trained to deal with this.

It gets better, friend. Hang in there.

<comment><USER3> In a way Hacker News more insidious than Reddit, because a lot of the articles are about people being productive and successful it tricks you into thinking it's more "wholesome" than Reddit/Buzzfeed/etc. It is, but that doesn't warrant the hours and hours of idle browsing that you can potentially spend on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think what happens is this: when you're first starting, you tend to get buoyed along by a lot of small victories that give you a big rush. Even something simple like getting a program to compile gives you a bit of a high. All those small victories make it easy to keep going, and you have a definite sense of progress. Once you're more experienced though, those victories start being fewer and farther between, and progress becomes less obvious. Nerdy analogy, but it's like gaining levels in an RPG. The first 10 or 20 are easy, and then each progressive one becomes more and more grind.

Maybe you could get some of that "rush" back by setting your goals to non- technical things for your technical projects? IE, instead of "learn this", maybe "launch this by X" or "get X many users"? Maybe what you need are small measurable milestones to hit.

The other thing is, sometimes it just helps to have some sort of "dumb" activity that can get you into rhythm. Like, when I'm trying to get into coding, a lot of times I'll just sort of start cleaning up code, writing some simple comments, and refactoring things, because it's sort of a brainless activity that can get me going. YMMV, but it helps just to start being active and ease into the hard things.

</comment><comment><USER5> When you were 14 you had a lot less red tape in your world. When you wanted to do something you could just dive into it; you didn't have to wait till you finished your work, paid your taxes, flossed your teeth, and did your laundry.

Something I had to figure out that no one ever told me is that the older you get, the more proactive you need to be about managing your self and your time. A few suggestions for doing this:

\- develop a morning ritual. For me this involves waking up to music a few hours before I have to do any work, making a healthy smoothie for breakfast, doing a few exercises, meditating, and planning my day.

\- before you start working, plan out your whole day into 25 minute intervals. Think about what you want to accomplish to grow for yourself first, and then schedule your work around those personal goals.

\- Keep a journal of your daily plans, and regularly track your progress. Try using Evernote for this.

\- Get in the habit of devoting about 10% of your mental resources to directing your own emotions toward thinking positively, focusing, and eliminating your own bad mental habits.

Hope some of this helps.

</comment><comment><USER6> Everytime you feel you are wasting time during any hour, jog in place for 7 minutes and get a coffee or some gum after. You will either be fit or you'll have things done, either way you will feel pretty good. Rewards systems always help, or chores/exercise where you are slacking i.e. if I don't get this done I'll have to do something worse... Also schedule in time wastage, schedule in a show or movie per day, then only watch at that time. Where that fails I go on lockdown on RescueTime. Occasionally though you just need a break, take a day or two off from work completely. Put some fun items on your todo not just work.

Starting is actually the hardest part if you are demotivated. Commit to work on something for 15 minutes or 3-5 of your favorite songs and agree that if you aren't feeling it you can stop. Many times that is all you need to get going into a full day flow state, small chunks of time with the ability to stop if you want. I also leave an easy issue on some game code if I need to get right back in the next day.

Where all else fails, create a project that is more difficult to work on, if it is procrastination it tends to the easier tasks. Make some tasks that are harder above what you want to get done. If you setup the right rewards/balance systems you won't have to trick yourself, stuff will just get done. Small bites.

</comment><comment><USER7> Is exercise a regular part of your routine? I personally find, as counter- intuitive as it may sound, that I feel more energized when I'm exercising regularly. Also the evidence of the positive effect of exercise on depression is substantial.

<comment><AUTHOR> I most definitely need to get back into that. Moved to a new area out of my comfort zone and the gym options are shit, but I'm sure I'll find something.

<comment><USER8> You don't need a gym to be fit. The cost of a couple of months membership can buy you a pair of kettle bells and some resistance bands. Doing core, functional exercises outside in the fresh air under the sun - it's immensely more refreshing than a stuffy old crowded gym. Good luck to you.

<comment><AUTHOR> I used to be into powerlifting and bodybuilding, dabbled in olympic style lifting as well, so for my hobby I would need a good gym. I agree though, it's just that's not what brings me joy, I much rather push heavy weights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You can't.

This is going to be something that will come up again and again as the lifehackers do whatever they can to trim and prune themselves into the life that's most convenient.

You aren't broken - the framework that you're forcing yourself to operate in is. No matter how many drugs and how much adderall we take, we can only ignore what our minds are trying to tell us for so long.

There's something that you want to be doing right now, and it's not what you think it is. You'll have to figure it out or be stuck in limbo.

</comment><comment><USER10> Work on stuff that matters. If you get demotivated then maybe it means you realized the thing you we working on doesn't matter as much as you thought. So you pivot and work on something that keeps you motivated.

</comment><comment><USER11> You say you got everything you wanted that would help you, maybe that's one of the reasons. Scarcity forces creativity, there's some challenge too.

Also things have developed to be kind of complicated compared to the good old days when commercial games were made by some dude just like you in his moms basement, maybe from zero to completion.

Most things have been done already and done well by either very talented inviduals or companies with lots of people. It's not fun to reinvent a wheel, especially if you're doubtful that it would be any better than what's already out there.

Getting older also gives you self confidence and/or lowers your need for validation from others. Impressing a tiny fraction of anonymous people on the internet doesn't change how you feel.

If you got good at what you're doing, then you know that you could accomplish what you want and how to go about doing it if you just decided to do it, that's mostly not motivating or challenging, more like a chore.

I'd suggest starting a project with some kind of measurable outcome, such as trying to get your stack overflow score up, making some kind of utility that's faster than the existing ones (a faster grep, an xml parser, ..) or something like that.

</comment><comment><USER12> If you're like me, I'd say stop having goals and just do stuff that seems cool.

I'm not a very goal-motivated person, because it always seems far off and unattainable and like there's a lot of work I'd have to do to get there for little payoff until the very end. So I just do little stuff, code dumb little apps that don't do much except teach me something I didn't know before.

</comment><comment><USER13> Consider getting a dog. They're great energy and can help you pick yourself out of a bad mood. The regular exercise of walking one everyday is enough to regulate your stress and improve productivity.

<comment><USER14> There's something to that. I unintentionally adopted a German shepherd a few months ago and learning to look after him has been quite an interesting challenge, though sometimes a frustrating one.

On a broader note, consider that when you were 14 the world and the conept of agency were both novel. In the meantime, you've realized that neither are all they're cracked up to be, and your progress through the world isn't as rapid as exciting as when you first encountered it. Some stuff that you thought was uber-cool back then turned out to be meh.

However, I do find that if you're struggling with boredom the endless flow of trivia on the internet makes that worse rather than better. Rather than Reddit, curl up with a good book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm usually only on about 10% of the time for similar reasons. Once I start browsing I rarely resume what I was hacking on, but I try to force myself out of the habit before I start.

Use LeechBlock or similar browser plugin to limit your reddit to certain times of day (Later, rather than early, or you'll get distracted). Breaking habits like reddit browsing is difficult to do without forcing yourself to do different. Make sure you configure it so that you can't disable the block, or you could develop the habit of just disabling it when you hit the block. Also, if you find yourself mindlessly browsing, take a break from the machine and grab a brew or something to snack on, or do some exercise.

The biggest hurdle is actually getting started. Once you've got open your editor, the project your working on, and a goal in your mind, the rest is straightforward.

One thing that might be holding you back is lack of short term goals or over ambition, because you will always feel like you won't have enough time to complete anything of value, and chose to put it off instead. Give yourself some short goals with some Todo organizer, or org-mode, but don't list to many, and don't expect to finish them all.

Force yourself to consider a joint, or some other entertainment (like Reddit, HN) as a reward for achieving some goals.

Also, consider working on some open source project, or work on one with somebody you know. Having someone else to motivate you and discuss ideas with is a massive help, as long as you don't spend all your time talking crap.

</comment><comment><USER16> I feel you

When i was about that age. The thrill to chat on irc was so big. I remember coming home from school, looking forward to be on irc all night, only to find out there was a netsplit on efnet and the channel was taken 'over'. I could be on irc all day, all night, till early morning. I could socialize with the people i met from anywhere, all day, all night, till early morning. I could code, for things i was excited about, all day, all night, till early morning.

Then, some years later, i realized. Life hit me. Friends moved on, people changed, things around me changed, responsibility changed, i changed. I still code, love to code, even made a living out of coding. But not like when i was young.

I wonder a lot, about what has changed. I could be "ON" all day back then. Now i rarely bother to join, give my opinion or reply immediately. I consume a lot though, reading, thinking. I feel even surprised i am replying on this topic, but it resonates with me very much.

Mind you. If one was to ask me. Are you happy, i am. I don't feel depressed. Love a lot of things and don't waste my days. At least, not anymore.

I wonder, how do you come home. Feeling energized or mentally exhausted. Is there anything (else) that you are passionate about. Is there anything else that makes you forget about time, except for mind numbing drugs? If you feel you are stuck, try changing your environment. Changing your mind goes along with it.

Experiment with your habits, drop some and try some. Enough sleep, a healty diet, exercise and being outside are definitely essential. A different job, new people around you, also worth a try, but harder. More books, less television. Simplify. Your background story is very short though. There are a lot of things to consider when trying to figure out your (own) perceptions, emotions and motivations.

</comment><comment><USER17> Stop smoking weed for a month. See if that increases your drive in some quantifiable sense (it probably will). If so, stop smoking as a daily habit. Save it for special social occasions and only on weekends.

After you've regulated your cannabis intake, try to get some exercise into your routine, in any way possible. The important part here is to FORM A HABIT and stick with it.

I find that for myself the easiest change was to start cycling to work instead of driving. After about two weeks it started feeling like the most natural thing in the world and now driving appears odd.

After your body is reasonably healthy, if you are still unmotivated then maybe it's time to make a major change to your routine. e.g. job, relationships, location, you probably know which one needs to change. If that change doesn't help rinse and repeat.

Another option is that you're suffering from mild depression, in that case consult with a psychiatrist. Some antidepressants work like magic in matter of days.

</comment><comment><USER18> I take smart drugs and supplement with a product called Alleradd which replenishes my neurotransmitters and helps avoid the comedown.

What I will say is that everything I've ever gotten excited about became less exciting as soon as it became my job. The main way to combat this is in your own mind. The thing that makes a job suck is the inane task you have to do as part of of a whole. The way to combat that is to remember what you're really in it for. To think about the big picture. Remember that what you're coding now is training for the big idea that you have that's going to change everything. For me, it's really important to think of the things I'm doing in abstract terms, otherwise I get bogged down in the details. I have to feel like I'm doing something that's part of something bigger!

Good luck, man. I know what you're feeling. Also, exercise never helped me...sorry.

</comment><comment><USER19> First, stop thinking you are wasting your days. Don't ever judge yourself, that will only put you in a infinite loop of judging, nothing good comes out of that.

Forgive yourself even if you got nothing done. Say "This is allright even if I didn't get anything done, it's allright to make mistakes and do nothing. I forgive myself."

Do this whenever you are blaming yourself for something. It's the key to healing from any self placed limitation, to allow it to happen and then allow positive changes to take place.

Start exercising regularly, go running, swimming, do yoga, whatever. Very important in order to keep your energies running and your mind working, like many others here have noticed too.

There are also very good advice here, so I will not go into more detail, but I see these are the most important parts to get out of the place you are in, based on this short information you gave.

</comment><comment><USER20> Write a thousand words before 8 am everyday. Or code a bunch of useful, productive stuff that is concrete (i.e. you can see results immediately after compile - output logs is a very good way to do this). Before going to bed, leave yourself a hard to solve problem and an easy to solve problem.

</comment><comment><USER21> You have aged. Your energy level and motivation will decline until you die.

The rate of change varies from person to person, and you can probably reinvigorate yourself to a degree with a better lifestyle (more exercise, a better diet, a stimulating job, a vibrant social life), but slowing down is inevitable.

<comment><USER22> Ha. I don't think it's quite that grim.

Sure, your overall energy level goes down when you age. But if you matured well, then your motivation goes up because you know what matters to the world and what matters to yourself. And you have more skills. People are motivated to do what they're good at.

When you're young, you're trying lots of shit, but you mostly suck at all of the things you try. You're a dilettante. Your low expectations and sense of novelty keep you excited. You're spending a lot of energy, but objectively not getting much done.

When you're older, you're trying less stuff, but the skills you already have allow you to use much less energy to to accomplish much more.

Honestly I think there is an additional compounding effect with programming -- you can write programs that make you a better programmer. I still use little tools and scripts I built 5 to 10 years ago, and they magnify my productivity. I know that as a 20 year old I would have spent an entire afternoon on something that is now second nature; a one-liner.

It's not a matter of having more energy. You don't want to spend lot of energy while programming, at least.

<comment><USER21> You're describing one method of coping with the inevitable decline, and I think your advice is excellent and I'm glad it works well for you. But the OP was complaining precisely about a decline in energy and that 'sense of novelty'. I don't think there's any point in suger-coating the reality that for most people those feelings peak early in your youth.

<comment><USER22> Well, I'm not and no one should be "coping" (with being in their 30's!), and it's not a "decline". It's only a decline if you look at the downside and not the upside.

I totally agree that you have more raw energy and there is more potential for excitement when you're 14. But like I said, if you want to write good software, "energy" and "excitement" are not top on the list of attributes you need.

I think the OP is basically describing mild depression, which is a completely different issue, unrelated to getting older. You can be depressed and young or depressed and old. In fact I was a lot more depressed when I was younger.

You turned an issue of motivation into an issue of age, when they're not the same thing.

Perhaps if your goal is to write the next Facebook, and you're in your 30's, the time has passed. You're not going to be Zuckerberg, or Larry Page. I guess some people have trouble coming to grips with that. But personally I don't care so much about those kinds of things (and didn't when I was younger either.) You're not going to be Van Halen or Jack White either. Suck it up :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> If you are sure you still want to work in software, a few tips.

1) Work out (if you're not), to keep your energy high; it's also arguably the best combatant of feeling depressed.

2) Work on projects you're passionate about or find challenging in software. If your job isn't fulfilling that overall mission, consider a change.

3) Maybe starting your own business so you can better dictate your goals and challenges, is another answer.

It kind of sounds like you're in the wrong field (given your apathy and wanting to escape). I've known a few software prodigies - people that were seemingly gifted toward writing software from a young age. A lot of them were miserable in the field as they got older (perhaps too easy?). Maybe software is too easy for you, or just boring period at this point.

</comment><comment><USER24> In short,

\+ Exercise regularly (yoga or games/activities) - at least 3 times a week.

\+ Eat healthy

\+ Meditate [0]

\+ Focus on creating better habits (quit smoking; instead of wasting time on reddit, read books, especially this one [1] or go for a walk)

[0] [http://www.siyli.org/take-the-course/siy- curriculum/](http://www.siyli.org/take-the-course/siy-curriculum/) (watch the video on mindfulness meditation)

[1] [http://charlesduhigg.com/the-power-of- habit/](http://charlesduhigg.com/the-power-of-habit/)

</comment><comment><USER25> Take vacations, find stuff totally unrelated to what you do to get into (for me, it was professional wrestling), and take long breaks. The issue is that we all only have so much attention we can use up over the course of a day, a week, and the more that's used, the less likely we are to give a shit about anything. So you gotta refresh it and not worry about being "on" or not. If you do the refresh, you will be.

</comment><comment><USER26> How stressful/demanding is your day job? When I was working 12 hour days at a start up, the only thing I was able to do when I got home was surf reddit and go to bed. I was so drained; physically and mentally exhausted.

It wasn't until I left that I was able to put more energy into the things that I enjoyed outside of work: coding, commenting, creating shit, etc.

I dk, it might be worth it to consider doing something else during the day.

</comment><comment><USER27> > I'm here, exactly where I want to be Moving towards something is more fun > than protecting existing position.

> I have goals, but It seems, those are not 'recharging' at the time

== Try some of these for a week or two == Do nothing(nothing at all, just sit and observe which thoughts are bugging you) Do stuff you like. Do something you haven't done before. Make mistakes. Learn.

</comment><comment><USER28> What do you want to attain in software?

I would recommend writing yours ideas down. If your thoughts are jumbled - (as another commenter mentioned) - you might have the developer's equivalent of "writers's block". Even if you don't release them, it might get you to focus on it, inspire you to think and excited to get started.

I released my list to inspire myself and others.

</comment><comment><USER29> I don't know the full answer, but try vitamin D. I've been taking 4000 IUs of D3 in the morning. If you're inside most of the time chances are you're not getting enough. you might be surprised how much it can boost your mood, and focus.

And like others said, less weed more exercise.

</comment><comment><USER30> I view this as akin to Writer's Block, to which the cure is simply to _get back to writing_. So clearly stated, it seems a daunting task—and yet, there it is.

Get back to making meaningful things. Start with a single line of code. Build, ship, build. Learn. Build more. Ship more.

</comment><comment><USER31> I have been in the exact same position: Nice big apartment, home office full of expensive hardware, weed dispensary pass. I'm not going to tell you what to do, but at some point realized all the drive I had before was just to buy that stupid lifestyle.

Make sure you are not doing the same.

</comment><comment><USER32>
        >smoking weed
        >wondering why you can't stay mentally on

[https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=cannabis+depression](https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=cannabis+depression)

</comment><comment><USER33> Pomodoros! Half the battle is getting started. If I don't know how to start I type steam of consciousness into a buffer until things start to congeal. Once your moving it's all downhill.

</comment><comment><USER34> are you 'sure you'll find something'? Or is it a matter of literally going to a gym and signing up right now.

I noticed that what I do on the FIRST DAY i move to a new city makes a huge difference in what I do for my lifetime of the new city. First day, buy kale, sign up for a gym? I will be healthy for a while. First day, grab some mcdonalds? Here comes fatty.

Here's a video I made about exactly this: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJLKzSO4KBc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJLKzSO4KBc)

<comment><USER35> Good point. You could also say this about first day/weeks on a new job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I also started with computers and programming at very young age (10yrs), and with a lot of ilusion.

3 years ago when I was 29, my daily routine was going home after job and be with computer untill going to sleep. I had periods of gaming, of programming of discovering-linux, install-and-review the latest open-source inovations, reading books, etc...

I always had a big passion for computers, BUT 3 years ago I suddenly got to a point when I realized that computer-time was not satisfying me as much as before... and although my habbits continued to take me home and be with the computer, I started noticing more and more that I was missing other things, like socializing and relating with people in other contexts...

Some months later, I had not really made any real change to my lifestyle, and was becoming more and more apathic and frustrated with everything (including my passion with computers)

Then, one day, I took the resolution of stop thinking and inscribe myself in the first group-activity that I saw... and that is how I got into a class of martial-arts... It was not easy for me the martial-art, and people where not very warm at first sight, but everytime I was there, sweating and feeling like "maybe-I-should-go-home" I remenbered myself the void sensation of being home alone tired of the computer... and I kept going to classes... some 6 months later, I started to know better my colleagues of the class, and my skills improved naturally, and I started to enjoy the classes by themselves and not as a refuge :)

Even still, somedays I got out of job late, or it was very cold and I skipped classes but then it I was at home and feeling frustrated by being there alone with computer, again with that feeling... and that reminded me that I knew I could change it, with my decisions... And that were important frustrated- moments, because helped me see that I could make things to feel better, or I could just not do anything but I would finally feel bad about it...

The martial-art classes have been to me the first intent to change my lifestyle, but since those early days, it has given me much much more than I could expect... I made friends, discovered much more interesting persons than I thought there were, and had great time... some special ocasions just happened after a class which I almost missed because of staying-at-the-warmy- home, and I try to not forget those special days because they would not have happened if I had not _forced_ myself to go to class... that for me meant a huge personal lesson

I also recommend one of my best-books: "The Magic of Thinking Big" from David Schwarz... while reading that book I rethinked a lot of my own actitudes and it helped me be aware of some personal blocks

Hope sharing my experience helps someone :)

</comment><comment><USER37> Lately I've been substituting reddit for reading books. Got myself a Kindle (if I spent that much I better use it!) Been feeling a lot more productive from it.

</comment><comment><USER38> exercise and make lists.

I love making lists and do so everyday. Mostly they are to do items, but they have longer term items as well. During exercise I review my lists, usually in my head. Not only does my mind feel clear through physical exertion, I sometimes have a new angle on my work (and a renewed passion).

</comment><comment><USER39> have a family, live a family life

</comment><comment><USER40> adderall. just keep it in moderation.

</comment><comment><USER41> Save up and take a year off.

Just do it.

You need to LIVE.

</comment><comment><USER42> Stop using cannabis so much.

<comment><USER43> Oh come on. If it's not wasting time smoking weed, it's wasting time browsing reddit, drinking, playing video games, sleeping, going out partying, etc. He needs a mental kickstart to get back on track otherwise he'll replace one vice with another.

<comment><USER44> Sometimes. But for some people, cannabis totally kills every motivation. I saw it a few times, people loosing every motivation to do anything, and it correlated with cannabis overuse.

And cannabis makes you unmotivated. It has an effect on you even on the next day (at least with a bit of bad luck), which can kill even then any motivation. It is one of the worst things you could do if you have problems to motivate yourself to do stuff.

Edit: Maybe I should tell a bit about that.

Take that one guy who lived with me. He lived in the USA for years, had to leave not too soon ago because of visa stuff. Had aspirations of becoming a fashion designer, music producer, had a good paying job as a photograph - never fully graped how much of his high reaching goals were hot air, but at least he could show some stuff he tried to do, he met people for it, and so on. Quite successful with woman, by the way, being a cool and good lucking guy from america.

He had a bit of waiting time before his next step, a design study course on a university, which sounded not too bad. But he started to smoke weed every day. That was a slow process - first, it was occasionally, which was fine and helped with the music, then it got more and more.

He got one small job (starbucks) to fill the time. Before, his day was being at home doing stuff. Now, it was either working, smoking weed and doing nothing, or if not working that day, smoking weed and doing nothing. Nothing got done, the deadline for the university came and went (not quite - a small effort a few days before based on old stuff, didn't work though). If he did catch himself after that, he at least lost a year.

Another guy I knew started with weed, became fully apathic, didn't visit the university anymore, started dealing, taking more drugs - and well, more I don't know, as the contact by then was nonexistent. But before it was sad to see as well, how one quite nice guy became an apathic being not able to buy toilet paper when it's about to go out.

I for sure stay away from that stuff since seeing that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> The good news is that you're still "on" 10% of your time. For some people, that's zero. Also, the fact that your interests and motivations have changed (i.e. you don't like to message randoms anymore) is nothing bad. That just happens as you get older. You start to appreciate quality and detest quantity/complexity. At least, that's how you'll be if you're like me (but I'm a curmudgeon at the relatively young age of 30).

Stop smoking the pot. It isn't good for you. The amotivational effect is real. It doesn't happen to everyone, but I think most frequent pot users have lost quite a bit of their sharpness. Maybe 70%? Some people can take ridiculous amounts of drugs and keep their sharpness and motivation, but it doesn't sound like you're one of them. Sorry.

Stop feeling "depressed for wasting another day". You went to your job, performed well, and got paid, right? Then you didn't waste a day. You shot par. You did what you needed to do. There are a lot of people out there for whom par is a struggle. Make good choices (start working out, look for a better job, stop using drugs if you can't handle them) and the birdies will come-- infrequently at first, with more over time. It won't happen quickly, just like you didn't lose motivation quickly.

The one self-help schema to which I subscribe is the Principle of Moderate Change. Too small a change will not get past the threshold of day-to-day noise and you'll make no real progress. Too big a change will exhaust you or be short-lived. Change one thing to a moderate degree. Pot you can probably give up outright. Reddit is harder. Internet addiction is nasty for the same reason food addiction is so hard for people to kick-- it's something you have to do, it's a good thing, and the problem is too much. That, I've realized, is why it's so hard for overweight people to stop "abusing" food: their problem "drug" is something that they need (in somewhat lesser amounts) every day. For Internet addiction, the Moderate Change might be to limit Reddit to specific hours, or just to mandate periodic breaks and reflection (like the Pomodoro technique). Time-wasting produces its own (worthless) flow state, which is why I think that internet addiction issues are mostly anxiety disorders. It's useful to find a way to stick to something that'll help you break that time- waste flow.</comment>


What Is Sub-GHz Wireless Networking? - <AUTHOR> https://www.thingsquare.com/blog/articles/what-is-subghz-networking/ <comment><USER2> Is there any kit to kickstart a trial project?</comment>