Ask HN: Too depressed to continue working. How do I get out? - <AUTHOR> Almost two months ago my father suddenly died. It ripped me apart. I didn't make it in time to see him off and the guilt stays with me to this day. Suffice to say, I'm not over it in any capacity. I cry often and my grief has made way to depression. I decided I can't do this job anymore so I gave my notice of resignation. My employers were sympathetic but reminded me they had a business to run and normally, one must stay on for a month after giving notice. They asked me to stay on for six weeks. Since I spent what little money I had on travel and funeral expenses, I figured six weeks worth of pay would be extremely useful.
I'm on my first of six weeks and I honestly don't know how I can stay on here. I'm the only developer and I handle support as well as maintenance. I can't find the energy to care about my work. I also can't program worth a damn. I'm making silly mistakes and then putting out my own fires in this crazy loop of anxiety and stress.
I've been looking for other work, small website development jobs or helpdesk support, something that I can handle while I continue to grieve. The prospects aren't good for a recent graduate and immigrant in New Zealand but I've got 3 months to try before I have to leave. But until then, how do I even continue at this job? If I could do six weeks, I wouldn't even be considering quitting. I thought I could handle it before but the depression is only getting worse.
What are my options? Screw up and deliberately get fired? <comment><USER2> They have a business to run, but you have a life to live. If something catastrophic happened in the business and it were to shut down, would they continue to pay you at their own expense? Because that's what they're asking you to do—give their business your effort at great personal expense, in the form of your mental health. If you can stay on and muddle on as best you can to collect a paycheck, and you're up to it, great—as you said, you could use the money. But if your sanity requires taking a step back and assessing your life, then you should do that. You are going to have a long career—while your father's death will of course be one of the most impactful things you'll have to come to terms with, this job, whether you leave it or stay on, will be no more than a footnote to this chapter of your life.

My deepest condolences on your loss. We lost three members of my family in just over 18 months, and I know how difficult it can be to process.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm really sorry for your loss. I experienced something similar when I lost my son 5 years ago. It can be very dark the place you are right now, but believe me, it will get better. I went back to work after 2 weeks and it was extremely hard. I couldn't do anything and I would go the the restroom to cry, because people around me were feeling uncomfortable with my grief. I found an online support group that really helped me. I was so depressed that I can't even leave the house and meet other people, so the online group was a good starting point. After two weeks of terrible work, my employer agreed with me that I couldn't go on and I took a leave for health reasons. At my job I had disability insurance and profound depression qualifies as disability. You should go see a psychiatrist to have the depression diagnosis in your records and to try some medication. If you are feeling too bad, please, check yourself at a hospital. In my case it took me over a year in disability to recover from my son's loss.

Here are some links for depression support in NZ: www.depression.org.nz [http://www.mentalhealth.org.nz/page/40-getting- help](http://www.mentalhealth.org.nz/page/40-getting-help) [http://www.depressionsupportnetwork.org.nz/](http://www.depressionsupportnetwork.org.nz/)

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, seek help.

</comment><comment><USER4> Have you considered asking for unpaid leave? I'm not sure about New Zealand, but many companies in the US offer bereavement leave. The company might prefer to have you back, hopefully refreshed and in better spirits, rather than lose you altogether.

In any case, the most important thing is your mental health and happiness. It definitely sounds like you need more time off. You'll be able to find other work, and you have a very understandable explanation for your next employer.

Do you have friends you can reach out to? Somewhere to couch surf? I've found that in grief, having something to distract you makes a big difference in keeping you from wallowing in despair. That, and by the sound of it, you're still pretty depressed; please reach out to someone, you don't need to go it alone.

</comment><comment><USER5> There is an option that will probably be as hard as continuing working but it'll help you in the long run: counseling/therapy. Grieving can be a very long process and you should use all the help you can get.

Apart from that, the only reason to stay with this company is if you want to avoid burning bridges.

</comment><comment><USER6> _I decided I can't do this job anymore so I gave my notice of resignation._ Unless you really need to get back to the home country to fix anything, from what you've said, this is lose-lose for everyone.

You probably spent a lot on your career so far and you will someday not want that investment to fall too hard. Remember they also spent a lot of time with you probably already, and there's a training cost invested in you personally. It seems in everyone's interest to get you back in the zone. If you don't get the edge back, your employer gets nothing, so it's not like you're trying to force them or anything.

Establish that that is the situation, and given that situation, you need to be able to start from "hello world" at work. Get out of your expectations and it will be very easy to work yourself back in knowing that you're not under presser to be 100%. A very workable game plan is to start as if you are a new employee and work up one duty at a time. Get one side of the stress feedback loop broken and the other will dissipate on its own.

You'll be happier when you're starting to work, start picking up duties etc because a career is an investment that has a future. I think when you feel the future seeping in, you'll find it easier than you expected to start getting back into the groove.

</comment><comment><USER7> Most truly efficient anti-depressants would take a couple of weeks to start working, so it is not an option. Your only chance is trying to take control of your mind and shift the focus of your thoughts. Try seeing a therapist, meditation courses or anything like that. Exercise also brings quick results (in a week or so). All of this is related to will-power and it could be trained, so just trying to keep the 'man up' attitude would help tremendously too.

</comment><comment><USER8> My suggestion is try to work it out then leave when you are ready.

Possibly a temporary regimen of anti-depressants. I am sorry for you loss and have experienced something similar (I didn't take anti-depressants but realized later they may have helped when they were temporarily prescribed to someone else in a similar situation.)

Your father is gone but your life goes on. He would almost certainly wish you to make the best possible use of it.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm very sorry to hear of your loss, and wish you all the best in the coming period! While I don't have any light work to share at this time, don't hesitate to hit me up if down the road you feel ready to do some 'small' things. I might have something then.

One question concerning your bosses. How clear have you expressed to them the extent of your suffering? Do they know you cry, and have trouble doing basic tasks?

The reason I'm asking is that I find 'we' are so used to not expressing the true nature of our feelings, especially in a work context (but even with friends), and perhaps especially as men (which I'm assuming you are, erroneously perhaps), that we sometimes aren't even aware that we might not have properly communicated this. I've made that mistake a few times.

Furthermore, assuming you are legally allowed to just up and leave and assuming it won't have negative consequences for you personally, this might be a good time to be selfish about it. They'll figure it out without you! You need to think of _you_ right now!

I don't mean to be presumptuous; just something to consider.

</comment><comment><USER10> Can you muster the strength for a brief run? Changing your physiology, changes your psychology. Exercise has been shown to alleviate depression, force yourself daily. If your father saw you in this shape, what might he counsel? Assuming he was a student of the Old School, he might say "now get your head in the game and tough it out!" Soldier on!

</comment><comment> raving-richard I can't comment on specifics for NZ (but one month? I thought normal was two weeks notice). But, if the normal notice is one month, and they are asking for more, then explain it's not possible. Moreover, explain that while you are there, you won't be able to provide your best work, and moreover, it might even be detrimental to their business if you are working poorly. Especially if you are the only developer, you could be creating a situation that takes a new dev longer to fix, than for them to do the correct thing from scratch.

Read your contract carefully. Also read the laws carefully. You might well have the right to quit when you want. And in NZ I would assume that you would have a strong worker's advocate if the business wants to be shit and not pay you for work done.

Also, as others have said, be sure to use any leave you have coming.

</comment><comment><USER11> First -- you are by no means alone. It may not make you feel any better but you are in good company. Most people suffer depression at some point in their life, some worse than others. Lincoln, Churchill -- this famous VC, Brad Feld: [http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2013/12/dont-fight- depressio...](http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2013/12/dont-fight- depression.html)

If your grief is preventing you from functioning, I agree with people below who suggest therapy and medication. Why not give that a try? There's no shame -- it shows courage, and will help you grieve. Meditation and exercise are great eveners too. And being unemployed and depressed could make things even worse.

Good luck and warm wishes. It will get better. You will find peace and you will recover.

</comment><comment><USER12> Just leave. Wait till you get your next paycheck and explain you can't do any productive work and finish.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm going to skip on the depression stuff apart from: go see a doctor (gp- general practitioner) and tell them you are depressed. Explain why. They will help you. They will also refer you to a free or affordable place to go get counciling. If they dont help, find another.

Regarding work: it is very hard to fire someone in nz. It will likely not happen. You need to talk to your boss be honest and open they will probably give you paid leave or work out manageable part time hours for you to keep things ticking over but not have too much pressure.

The prospects are extremely good in nz right now so I'm not sure where you get that idea. I can refer you to a good recruiter if you want.

</comment><comment><USER14> I second those who said "get help".

But I would also say that YOU NEED TO FORGIVE YOURSELF.

You didn't tell us all the circumstances, just that you didn't make it in time to see him off. I can understand feeling badly about that. I can understand kicking yourself for it. But guilt?

You made a mistake. It worked out badly. It hurts. But forgive yourself, both for your own sake and for your father's. (I didn't know your father, but I suspect that he would not want you driving yourself into the inability to function over this. It seems more likely that he would say, "I forgive you, son. Get back up. Keep going.")

</comment><comment><USER15> First of all, I am so terribly sorry for your loss. I cannot begin to understand the pain you are going through.

I think you need to consider many things before leaving, screwing up deliberately to get fired might shut the doors at this company should you find yourself in better spirits down the road and wanting to return.

I think your father would want what's best for you. Think about that, think about the times you had, it's terrible that you lost your father, but think of all the happy times you had with him and hold on to those memories to pull you through.

I sincerely hope you feel better soon, and again, so sorry for your loss.

</comment><comment><USER16> You need to talk things out with a professional grief counselor.

</comment><comment><USER11> p.s. -- and when you feel better, if you're interested in (paying) freelance work and have the right skills, send me an email at stephen dot impassebreaker dot com. I can't guarantee you that it will be a ton of work or a ton of money. I can guarantee you that depression will not be a strike against you, if you can do the work. But get help first and don't screw up deliberately and get yourself fired.

</comment><comment><USER17> suppose you were not physically well enough to work, and wanted to quit. then it would be ridiculous to "force" you to work.

this is the same.

> "normally, one must stay on for a month after giving notice"

it is not a normal circumstance.

do you have sick leave? can you exhaust that first?

</comment><comment><USER18> Hey, you never replied. How's it going? Can you post a throwaway GMail?</comment>


Barons of Crap: The disruptors who didn't change anything - <AUTHOR> https://thebaffler.com/latest/barons-of-crap-kaiser-schatzlein <comment><USER3> Capitalism optimizes for wealth accumulation, not for utility. If an entrepreneur can sell a false but appealing image for millions and move on, why would they spend their time inventing anything concrete or meaningful? It's a lot easier to sell a viral video of a revolutionary product than it is to invent and sell an real revolutionary product. So why innovate then, if you can just green-screen it and get the same result with less effort?

This article is a fascinating study of the increasingly post-material world we live in where images without substance - signs, signals, and abstract statuses - determine the true price of things. Think of the Supreme brick. It's all about signaling that something has value, like Dollar Shave Club, and in our bizarre economy, that empty signal _becomes reality_ \- the image alone eventually is what _gives the useless thing value_. The fact that in reality they just resell cheap razors made by someone else using a technology - <USER2> mail - that Sears used 100 years ago doesn't matter; they simulate innovation, and so they are innovation. God this shit sucks.</comment>


Howto Reduce Costs of Expensive National Instruments Test Systems - <AUTHOR> http://dev.emcelettronica.com/howto-reduce-costs-expensive-national-instruments-test-systems <comment><AUTHOR> In the world we live today, the cost is considered one of the most important characteristics of a product. No wonder then, keeping production costs down is an important part of the manufacturing of a product. This concept has also been extended over the development costs. In many cases, especially for projects which pioneer a specific filed of electronics, the development costs represent a significant part of the final price of a product. Keeping them down would obviously make the managers happy and win a pat on the back for the engineers (stop hoping for a pay raise!)</comment>


Free Does Matter - <AUTHOR> http://startupmeme.com/2007/04/29/free-does-matter/ <comment><USER2> With all due respect, but how trivial can business advice become?

What I am really envious about is how with ebay it actually benefits the users to be charged, because it keeps the spammers away.</comment>


Using Grunt? Consider Fez - <AUTHOR> http://flippinawesome.org/2014/02/24/using-grunt-consider-fez/

<comment><USER2> So Fez underwent a somewhat significant API overhaul in the last few weeks. Now it is much more of a DSL, but is also much more expressive.

I'm worried that perhaps it's a bit too esoteric. I am confident in every design decision we made, but I want to make sure that those decisions are as transparent as possible. If you find some explanation lacking, please let me know so that I can update the documentation!</comment>


Vipassana Trip Report by Rap Genius Founder - <AUTHOR> http://rapgenius.com/albums/Abominablehoman/Baby-s-first-meditation-retreat <comment><USER2> I did this 10 day retreat and it turned my life around for the better. I wasn't having any life shattering problems, but was just uncomfortable with my life, e.g. confused about career and whether I should stay with my girlfriend.

I did not feel that it was cultish or strong-arm-y at all. Yes, they have rules, but most of them really do help with meditation or they are just cultural rules, which is fine. If I go to church, even though I don't believe it, I'm ok with dressing decently, sitting where I'm supposed to and not yelling in the middle of it. They even tell you that you don't have to chant if you don't want to (I never did.)

Keep in mind that this is all volunteer run, so your experience will vary based on who is managing the course as well as the location of the course. So your experience with a strict course manager/teacher will be different with someone more chill.

I pointed my feet at the TV all the time and no one ever gave me crap about it.

At the end of the day you get 10 days of meditation teaching, lodging and food for free. If you get nothing out of Vipassana, at least you got to learn how to be away from everything for 10 days.

I got that and much more from the experience.

<comment><USER3> I got a kick out of the Criticisms section. It looks like he's got a lot of stuff to work out but overall, a great experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As always, the HN crowd gravitates towards the negative (strong-arm-y, cultish etc.) instead of looking at the entire package and focusing on putative benefits. Just because you don't like the wrapper don't mean the candy ain't tasty (or nutritious or enjoyable)! Pffft! HN, get a grip. Hack your mind, don't give in before you even try! I know, skeptic is the new smart, but that shouldn't be an excuse to summarily discount an idea/concept/practice.

</comment><comment><USER5> I have always been suspicious of those new age/meditation/etc. resorts.

This really shows off the ability to use the Rap Genius platform to annotate writing; I wish there were something like Goedel Escher Bach Genius.

<comment><USER6> There is nothing new age about Goenka meditation courses, and it's definitely not a resort. It's 10 days of hard work, but it's well worth it. It's also purely donation basis (you donate at the end, and it's optional), which I think really helps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> What is the practice of meditation taught there, and what result in a human life do they have if they practice the meditation?

<comment><USER8> Vipassana. The "western" name of the meditation practice is generally given as insight or mindfulness meditation.

In terms of benefits, consider meditation a tool to understand your mind and to be better able to understand your drives and motivations, and to learn how to focus your attention on various aspects of yourself. What "result" you get from that depends very much on you and your motivations and desires, but what I feel I get from it is a stronger appreciation of the world around me, better concentration, and better impulse control.

A particular a-ha moment for me was how I feel I started noticing when I started rationalizing to myself why I should buy comfort food. It was a distinct feeling of "looking in" and getting to catch my mind in action concocting excuses for why I should give in and buy that chocolate that doesn't fit with my diet, early enough to make it easier to stop them. In other words it feels like it makes it easier to exercise willpower.

Note there's a lot of opinion and feelings here. There is actual scientific data on vipassana style meditation, but I'm a sceptic, and I know full well that some or all of the benefits I believe I see from it could be placebo, or unrelated to the meditation (perhaps it's just because I get more rest), and I certainly haven't measures them. But frankly, I'm also of the opinion that it doesn't matter all that much - if it's a placebo, it's a damn good one, that makes me feel good.

Try it for yourself and see. It is not a big investment in time.

A good and mostly secular introduction free of "woo" is Mindfulness in Plain English. It is available for free in non-DRM'd digital versions here: [http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe.html](http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe.html) or you can buy the paper version of Amazon.

It is notable for very popular amongst non-buddhists, including skeptics/atheists for it's lack of religious content. There are some scattered references to buddhism, but they are mostly providing context and explanation of the background of vipassana, and to me at least, as a lifelong hardline atheist, were not particularly obnoxious.

The Urban Dharma site also have a lot of other introductory resources - I'd particularly recommend the "Introduction to Meditation" audio series by Gil Fronsdal.

<comment><USER9> > better concentration, and better impulse control.

I have not done a 10 day sit as described in TFA, but I've had a passably regular Vipassana-style meditation practice for a few years now, and concentration and impulse control have been two major benefits in my life.

One thing that comes with impulse control, but I find valuable enough to merit mentioning on its own, is that I am now much better at letting go of thoughts. I used to have difficulty with intrusive thoughts--fantasies of violence or humiliation that would play on loop in my mind. Now, they appear, drift once through my mind, and are gone. This also applies to getting songs stuck in my head.

For context, I grew up in the Christian church, identify as atheist, and have only a mild intellectual interest in the spiritual trappings of the tradition from which meditation comes to me.

<comment><USER7> When you say letting go of thoughts, how can you differentiate between getting rid of attachments, and abandoning yourself by giving up the questions you have inside?

<comment><USER8> What is the real you?

To me, getting rid of attachments means to reduce the impulses that controls my actions "behind my back". It does not mean not caring, but it means noticing that you care, and noticing how that feels, and noticing what the impulses tell you, and then making a decision based on that information rather than just blindly following the impulses.

Often that means acting differently than the impulses tells you because you recognize that other goals you have are better served by not giving in.

Personally I don't believe that means I am abandoning myself, but on the contrary that I am living up to my belief of who I am and who I should be much better by (slowly) ridding myself of compulsions that made (and makes) me unhappy by getting me to act in ways inconsistent with how I want to be.

A lot of human pain and frustration is down to the inconsistencies of self - how we _want_ to do that coding, but end up procrastinating all day and then afterwards feels guilty about it, for example. Maybe that procrastination was nice, and good for us. But we (or I am at least) are happier when we actively make that choice.

I still don't believe I am good at it, but I hope I keep getting better at it.

<comment><USER7> To be certain, I'm asking happimess how he differentiates between consciously removing an attachment, and abandoning the problems before solving them.

You said, "etting rid of attachments means to reduce the impulses that controls my actions "behind my back". It does not mean not caring, but it means noticing that you care, and noticing how that feels, and noticing what the impulses tell you, and then making a decision based on that information"

What role does the fact that you care, feel, and have impulses play in your judgement about whether to perform a given action?

Those facts by themselves do not reveal the matter connected to the cases that you are judging.

That's why I'm trying to confirm your standard of judgement that you apply.

"But we (or I am at least) are happier when we actively make that choice."

What do you indicate by happiness?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The last section on cultish teachings seems like a deal breaker for me. I've read this a couple times and I just want to go to this place, and meditate in a safe place.

I don't really want to be preached to.

<comment><USER11> "The last section on cultish teachings seems like a deal breaker for me."

I've done the same program at the same location, and it's really not cultish at all. Essentially you're not allowed to do anything that would distract you (or others) from meditating, and that's it. (E.g. you're not allowed to talk with others or eat junk food, as with most similar programs.) The teachings obviously come from a certain sect of buddhism, but that's why you're there. Yes, Goenka does make some counterintuitive claims about the underlying nature of the universe, but the basis for those claims are phenomenological experiences that people have had while meditating; they come from the same set of experiences that you yourself will have if you stick with it.

There are certainly a few aspects that are less than ideal, e.g. there isn't really any way to get medical advice if you need it apart from just quitting the program. But other than that it's hard to complain. It's free, the food is amazing, the quality of instruction is very high, the people are great, etc.

<comment><USER12> > they come from the same set of experiences that you yourself will have if > you stick with it

I ask this very non-rhetorically - do you believe that this is a totally natural convergence of thought, or is it possible that this is the progression of thought that this particular set of guidance will lead you toward?

<comment><USER11> "do you believe that this is a totally natural convergence of thought, or is it possible that this is the progression of thought that this particular set of guidance will lead you toward?"

Happy to answer, but I'm not sure I understand the question -- could you rephrase?

<comment><USER12> Sorry, I should have quoted more.

> Yes, Goenka does make some counterintuitive claims about the underlying > nature of the universe, but the basis for those claims are phenomenological > experiences that people have had while meditating; they come from the same > set of experiences that you yourself will have if you stick with it.

To rephrase the question - do you think that these experiences are convergent, in that anyone with enough discipline to meditate for long enough will have them, or do you think that these experiences are the result of Goenka's guidance?

To further the question, are you saying that the "counterintuitive claims" are something at which (again given enough practice/discipline) we all would arrive, or just that we would all share something similar to the experiences that they were born from?

<comment><USER11> "in that anyone with enough discipline to meditate for long enough will have them, or do you think that these experiences are the result of Goenka's guidance?"

I think they are specific to the technique, but not the teacher. E.g. someone doing concentration meditation (as opposed to insight meditation) is going to have very different experiences.

I don't think the fact that different spiritual techniques yield different experiences says much about their validity though. After all, you could easily consider normal everyday life to be a spiritual technique that yields a certain set of experiences.

"To further the question, are you saying that the 'counterintuitive claims' are something at which (again given enough practice/discipline) we all would arrive, or just that we would all share something similar to the experiences that they were born from?"

I think that for every technique there is a set (in the mathematical sense) of experiences that can be experienced via that technique. And every time you practice the technique, you're basically picking out an experience from that set at random (though certain experiences need certain requisite skill levels). So if you were skilled enough and had enough practice then your odds of having a given experience would increase, but they'd probably never be 100%.

You can see that though, for example, with the Johns Hopkins psilocybin trials, the odds of having some mystical experience over the course of two high-dose sessions are about 80%. Some people might be floating through the universe, others might experience the sum total of everything that ever can and will and has happened from every perspective, others might life a life review, others might relive their birth, etc. But the more times you do it, the more of these experiences you will eventually have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is there a way to get similar introduction to meditation without spending 10 days on it in a wild and listening to all that chanting? Some kind of good old western rational approach to it.

<comment><USER14> Find a local Buddhist meditation group. They'll have at least weekly "sittings", often more frequently. Just recently this searchable list of north american sanghas went up:

[http://buddhistinsightnetwork.org/sanghas](http://buddhistinsightnetwork.org/sanghas)

If you are in the SF Bay Area, the Insight Meditation Center in Redwood City is the home for Gil Fronsdahl, cited above.

[http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/](http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I did the 10 days too and even though it was a great exercise it didn't really change anything in my life. I assume it is because I have always been a calm person.</comment>


Kevin Spacey on the potential of Netflix to disrupt traditional TV [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com.au/everyone-in-the-tech-and-tv-industries-is-passing-around-this-speech-by-kevin-spacey-2013-8 <comment><USER2> Kevin Spacey clearly gets it. Rampant piracy is an indication of a failing business model. It's not that people aren't willing to pay, and that's evidenced by the success of Netflix and shows like House of Cards. Same can be said of Steam's game distribution model. Give people what they want, how they want it, at a fair price, and you'll surely be able to make money.

<comment><USER3> I like the message -- and the messenger in this case -- a lot. Having read the full transcript of his speech, I'm trying to imagine what he might have left out, what his opponents will use to dismiss this event.

Off-hand, the easy out would be that 'giving people what they want' is actually pretty costly. The steep pilot culling selects for mass appeal. If 80% of the (paying) viewing public like a pilot, it's probably a low-risk venture with pretty predictable rewards. If those returns (ROI) are sufficient to keep the studio running, do the people writing the checks really care that more niche products _might_ gain slightly better rewards?

<comment><USER4> Yeap. Locking it all away for an absurdly high price or just giving it all away are suboptimal. Charge a "no brainer" price that most people won't have a problem with is supply meeting demand more optimally... For potentially _higher_ profits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _For example, Spacey says there will be 146 pilots made this year at the cost of $US300-$US400 million. Only 56 of those will actually be made into a series. "That makes our House of Cards deal for two seasons really cost effective," Spacey says in the speech._

Of course it seems cost effective when the show is a big hit. But had it been a flop, it would have seemed a colossal waste of money - something that could easily have been surmised with a much smaller investment. For Netflix's strategy to work, they'll need to be able to continue to pick winners at a much higher percentage than the traditional television network has been able to. To do so they'll need to have content producers that understand what it takes to tell a good story. I think the downside is that this high risk strategy is likely to make them more risk averse in the shows that they choose to produce. They'll be a lot less likely to invest in first time writers, actors and directors. And they'll probably shy away from any story that is at all experimental in nature.

<comment><USER6> This is a good point. A company should not be expected to just throw a bunch of shows out and see which ones stick. Too expensive.

What stuck out to me most in the speech was Kevin Spacey's quick mention of Netflix's response to the pitch: "We ran the numbers and we think our customer base would like it".

Media outlets thinking of taking the all-in approach will need the technology to calculate and hedge the risk . Netflix clearly has that in place, and it helped convince them to take a chance.

<comment><USER7> It's even better for netflix. They has the technology to allow directing decisions , small and big, be decided by data :

[http://gigaom.com/2013/07/25/at-netflix-big-data-can- affect-...](http://gigaom.com/2013/07/25/at-netflix-big-data-can-affect-even- the-littlest-things/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> However it's not a DRM free streaming model. So it's not much healthier than other types of restrictions - it's still DRM. Some truly DRM free streaming should emerge in the face of all these Netflix-like DRMed barbed-wired gardens. Streaming should be a convenience, not a way to restrict copying. Others brought Steam as an example - for Steam, there is competing GOG which is DRM free and proves the point that DRM free gaming without regional restrictions and other such junk can be successful. So what is there for Netflix?

Also, I didn't get his point about the music industry. Most music is easily available DRM free, _unlike_ video.

<comment><USER9> I don't think most people expect DRM-free content when paying for a subscription model - I know I don't. I'm paying for the right to access that content when I want as long as it's available but I am under no assumption that I assume the right to take that content with me and do with it what I please. That type of content is completely different than what this streaming model represents. Netflix is surely on a better trajectory here than other providers, no?

<comment><USER8> It's not better as long as there is DRM in it. Why can't you expect to get the content with you? You can expect paying for titles some one time fee. Not unlike music and games. Streaming is just a way of accessing it from the "cloud" without the need to download it first. But why should it prevent you from downloading if you want to back it up, take it with you somewhere where you have no access to the cloud and so on? There is no good reason for "subscription model" in the digital world which restricts your ability to copy. Buy and use, that's what it's supposed to be.

<comment><USER10> _> But why should it prevent you from downloading if you want to back it up, take it with you somewhere where you have no access to the cloud and so on?_

That's the real problem; that internet is not accessible & free everywhere. I think DRM is fine as long as I can access my media anytime & anywhere on all my devices. Netflix pretty much fits this requirement aside from the hack of Linux+Netflix. The issue that internet isn't available to every human being or costs a ridiculous amount of money is a problem that needs to be fixed. I want to be able to say "Everyone has internet these days" and _really_ mean it for all people of the world. We need to make it impossible for anyone to make the argument _" but what if I don't have internet access?"._

<comment><USER8> _> I think DRM is fine as long as I can access my media anytime & anywhere on all my devices._

I think DRM is never OK. Not only because of privacy and ethical issues, but because if you can't fully control the content and the service which issues DRM closes down you would simply lose everything you paid for. It should be a deal breaker. Then pirating that content will be the only option to get it back. This Xkcd applies to video pretty much the same way as to audio for which it was made: [http://xkcd.com/488](http://xkcd.com/488)

<comment><USER10> Unless we're talking about Win8-BIOS-TPM stuff(which I don't clearly understand just yet), I don't think proper(non-remote-controllable) DRM is a privacy concern. I'm not sure how it's an ethical concern either. But, I do think that if the DRM servers and/or media streaming servers are going offline and making the content disappear forever they should allow it to just be downloaded without DRM for free - since turning off the servers implies they're done making money off it(?).

<comment><USER8> When Netflix (or any other DRMed code) runs on your machine, it runs as a black box for you. Why isn't that a privacy concern and why should it ever be trusted? It's unethical because it's an overreaching preemptive policing, but it's a long subject.

 _> do think that if the DRM servers and/or media streaming servers are going offline and making the content disappear forever they should allow it to just be downloaded without DRM for free_

They may be "should" allow it, but they will never do at that point. They have more important problems to care about when they close down. So it's our obligation as responsible users to demand DRM free content from them right away, and avoid those who refuse to sell such.

<comment><USER10> Okay, I think I see what you're saying about the decryption binary blob. With all this Ed Snowden stuff, it would not be unreasonable to have some suspicion of any network-software that has a wide user base. Netflix-app would be a good place to have a government backdoor...

Then how do we deal with piracy? Is piracy even a problem at all? I guess if iTunes is selling music without DRM and not falling apart, then we think TV- shows/movies can do the same?

<comment><USER8> _> Okay, I think I see what you're saying about the decryption binary blob. With all this Ed Snowden stuff, it would not be unreasonable to have some suspicion of any network-software that has a wide user base. Netflix-app would be a good place to have a government backdoor..._

No need even to go so far. DRM by definition implies that they don't trust you, the user. So, I see no point to trust them in return. It's normal to assume that DRM is always a risk of privacy violation. Surely, it's a good ground for sinister abuses like your example as well.

 _> Then how do we deal with piracy?_

DRM doesn't deal with piracy. Publishers and distributors don't even hide this fact these days. So what are they using DRM for? Guess yourself, but expect nothing good in there.

The recipe for dealing with piracy is ages old - increase quality to be competitive. I.e. some part of piracy which can be affected is caused by the fact that pirated content has higher usability (no DRM, regional restrictions and other such junk). By releasing quality products while being DRM free and delivering them with high level of convenience, distributors can compete with that sector of piracy. The segment of piracy which is caused by people being crooks and getting free stuff won't be affected at all. DRM doesn't affect it either.

<comment><USER11> I think you're being too black and white here.

I agree with you in principle on a LOT of the points, but the real issue is that most content producers (publishers are a different issue...) would LOVE to be able to do this:

"The recipe for dealing with piracy is ages old - increase quality to be competitive"

But realistically it's fucking HARD. Mainly because increasing quality to be competitive with piracy would generally require breaking tax and import laws everywhere.

Even if it doesn't require breaking those laws to be competitive, you have to at least pay enough people to be aware of them, for each and every country you want to be able to distribute your content in.

So decent* DRM isn't about stopping piracy, really. It's about slowing it down just enough that it's still worthwhile to jump through the hoops required to bring that content legally to other regions.

*: It's actually fairly hard to hit this goal on the head, and often I feel companies buy too far into their own bullshit and sense of entitlement with DRM. A lot of shoddy executives with poor understanding of software misuse DRM to the extent that it drastically lowers the value of the content (see: always on DRM) Please continue to bash them, they deserve it.

<comment><USER8> _> Mainly because increasing quality to be competitive with piracy would generally require breaking tax and import laws everywhere._

I'm not exactly sure why so? Take for example gaming. GOG sells DRM free games worldwide, without regional restrictions and no inflated pricing for countries like Australia for example. Why can't video be sold on similar terms?

 _> So decent DRM isn't about stopping piracy, really. It's about slowing it down just enough that it's still worthwhile to jump through the hoops required to bring that content legally to other regions._

In my view it never pays off. The downside of reduced usability is always worse than any potential gain in slowing down piracy on the period between some new DRM scheme is introduced until it's broken. Usually that period is small, and ever since that DRM becomes obsolete, while usability stays crippled for legitimate users. All those involved in production and distribution should always keep in mind that DRM means their voluntary reduction of quality for practically absent gain of shortly slowed down piracy. How are they planning to compete, when instead of increasing quality, they cripple their own products?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think Spotify which I might add has dramatically reduced piracy in the countries it is available has proven that streaming is the future. People don't care about not being able to download it, as long as they can watch it whenever they want. Going back to Spotify, I don't remember the last time I downloaded any music for free, I just use Spotify.

<comment><USER13> It has been argued multiple times that Spotify is not sustainable.

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2012/09/26/161758720/how-...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2012/09/26/161758720/how- musicians-make-money-by-the-fraction-of-a-cent-on-spotify)

So it's cool that you are getting your music legally, nonetheless, in the end it's not that different than in you had pirated it.

<comment><USER14> That's not all that related to sustainability. Sure, it might mean musicians make less but that's just supply and demand and supply is HUGE (still not infinite).

<comment><USER13> Yeah supply of shitty music is huge but that's the way it works with everything.

<comment><USER11> I think this is the wrong way to look at it.

When you're in a constrained format like radio or cable tv you can only play one thing for your audience at a time. Because of that it's critical that what you play has mass appeal so that lots of people will be okay listening to it.

When you're in an unconstrained model that lets users pick what to watch or listen to, that mass appeal factor becomes much less important.

Sure, there's a HUGE array of music available, and each of us can claim that we think most of it's shitty. But when you actually start comparing what you consider shitty to what I consider shitty, I'd be willing to bet there are a LOT of areas that don't overlap.

This is the power that comes with being able to stream the content that the user wants. Mass appeal becomes much less important.

So yeah, there's a huge amount of music out there that I think is shitty. But there's an equally huge number of people that all have different opinions on what the shit actually is.

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure I understand your argument. I agree that in an unconstrained format mass appeal is much less important. Yet I don't feel some sort of 'good music' saturation point has been reached within the single subgenres (and subsubgenres) and I think that it will take a while for that to happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> HN title sums up Business Insider summing up a video sum up of the speech.

<comment><USER16> As long complexity is only hidden but not lost, that's OK.

Here is the full speech: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oheDqofa5NM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oheDqofa5NM)

<comment><USER17> Thank you, from the lazy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I still think Netflix is sapping some of the fun and vitality out of their original series by putting all the episodes up at once. Is binge-watching great? Of course it is! A huge library of great shows to binge-watch is one of the Netflix's biggest selling points.

But getting it all at once is like peeking at your Christmas presents early: you think you want it, but it spoils some of the fun, the eventy-ness of it, and the social context created by a shared timeline (the so-called "water- cooler effect").

Anyone who doesn't want that experience can still wait until the whole thing is out, probably just a few months, at which point it will still be available in the binge library, presumably forever. (I know some who prefer not to start a new series _at all_ until the entire thing is finished, which is also okay.)

<comment><USER5> _Anyone who doesn 't want that experience can still wait until the whole thing is out, probably just a few months, at which point it will still be available in the binge library, presumably forever. (I know some who prefer not to start a new series at all until the entire thing is finished, which is also okay.)_

Likewise, I could say that anyone who doesn't want to watch them all at once doesn't have to. You can choose to watch only 1 episode a week.

<comment><USER19> the problem is that these people tend to enjoy discussing "this week's episode" with their friends, and that's hard when they've watched the entire season/series.

<comment><USER17> This discussion of an ep or event in series happens regardless... You are just defending a timescale based on an old model as a reason for it to exist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The technology and business model side of the equation could be solved, if the licensing problems were resolved. Too bad all the streaming services are still hamstrung by licensing issues from truly providing a service wherever you are. Netflix is still unavailable in most parts of the World, including many Asian countries where piracy is the most prevalent.

</comment><comment><USER21> This reminds of Fred Wilson's post about Piracy [http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/01/screwcable.html](http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/01/screwcable.html)

</comment><comment><USER22> In this interview, is there a relationship between a TV pilot and a lean startup MVP where Spacey is against such a pursuit preferring more visionary endeavours that take longer to get feedback?</comment>


The little-told story of the massive WWII pet cull (2013) - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24478532 <comment><USER2> [In the UK] "People were basically told to kill their pets and they did. They killed 750,000 of them in the space of a week - it was a real tragedy, a complete disaster"</comment>


Information Theory [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0ASFxKS9sg&list=PLbg3ZX2pWlgKDVFNwn9B63UhYJVIerzHL <comment><USER2> Fun fact : entropy really is a fundamental unit, as mentioned in the video.

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

Entropy and temperature are linked together by an energy term. If you like, you can choose Entropy instead of Temperature as one of the fundamental physical dimension

</comment><comment><USER3> As it has been said in another comment this should link to the whole playlist or the video with playlist [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0ASFxKS9sg&list=PLbg3ZX2pWl...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0ASFxKS9sg&list=PLbg3ZX2pWlgKDVFNwn9B63UhYJVIerzHL)

Otherwise it's just an intro.

</comment><comment><USER4> Link takes you to a playlist of which the intended video is a part of. Direct link to vid: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0ASFxKS9sg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0ASFxKS9sg)

<comment><USER5> Ok, we've changed to that from [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbg3ZX2pWlgKDVFNwn9B6...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbg3ZX2pWlgKDVFNwn9B63UhYJVIerzHL). Thanks!

<comment><AUTHOR> Please change it to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0ASFxKS9sg&list=PLbg3ZX2pWl...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0ASFxKS9sg&list=PLbg3ZX2pWlgKDVFNwn9B63UhYJVIerzHL)

Idea was to post the entire playlist...

<comment><USER5> Ok, changed from [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0ASFxKS9sg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0ASFxKS9sg).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Also of interest is algorithmic information theory. In both there are limits to that algotithms can do. There is the data processing inequality and Chaitin's incompleteness theorem.</comment>


Configure DNS Over HTTPS in Firefox - <AUTHOR> https://www.ghacks.net/2018/04/02/configure-dns-over-https-in-firefox/ <comment><USER2> I'm already running Firefox Developer Edition, so I switched.</comment>


Hundreds of Bluetooth Beacons Secretly Track New York City Passersby - <AUTHOR> http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/hundreds-bluetooth-beacons-secretly-track-new-york-city-passersby

<comment><USER2> Bluetooth beacons don't track anything!

It's the applications in the bluetooth BLE enabled smartphones that track the beacons.

And there's nothing secret about bluetooth beacons, anybody can detect them with the right application.</comment>


Rackspace about to leave Public Cloud IaaS market - <AUTHOR> http://cloudcomputing.info/en/news/2014/08/rackspace-about-to-leave-public-cloud-iaas-market.html <comment><USER2> Hmmm... interesting. We're Rackspace customers, but only due to inertia after their acquisition of Slicehost. But we're starting to migrate off of them due to price. I wanted to spin up a new server a few days ago and got sticker shock at the price, decided to check Linode and found that Linode was about half the price, for an instance with better specs. So that new instance went on Linode and I expect we'll move everything to Linode over the new few weeks and months.

It's too bad in a way, because I've actually been a fan of Rackspace in every other regard. But the prices just aren't competitive and we can't afford to burn money to support them.</comment>


Sixteen Years - <AUTHOR> http://metatalk.metafilter.com/23626/Sixteen-Years <comment><USER2> I suspect this is a really common situation. Something that is big enough to be well-known, heavily used by a large enough number of users that it brings a lot of stress, but is not big enough (by some definition of "big" and "enough") to support a team to make it all go smoothly.

I've been in that same boat most of my professional career, and in fact I'm about 16 years into my journey working with the same project (Webmin; which started out with me having a company that used it in products and then ended up with me pivoting and starting a new company based around it); I'm lucky enough to not be the primary developer, and I'm lucky enough to have always had just enough money to keep an extra support person on staff and occasionally pay to make some problems go away (translations now and then, accessibility testing, UI and design assets, etc.), but having some huge number of people expecting things to always Just Work, and never have security problems, and never be confusing, and always get better but also never change in any way that might effect the way they use it, is a definite source of stress that I don't think people working in large companies will ever experience (though they experience their own sorts of stress and I don't think I would trade, even for much better pay).

I've had to step back a few times over the years, in more subtle ways than this. And, I've spent time on other projects and other jobs (either to make money or just to have something else to think about and to play with new languages and tools). But, it's strange to look back on so many years of doing roughly the same thing.

It's also odd to think of things that have been so clearly defined by their founder no longer being operated by their founder. This is, I guess, kinda like Rob stepping down from Slashdot a few years back. Turned out not to really effect Slashdot all that much (though I don't know how relevant Slashdot remains today, since I so rarely visit); I wonder if Metafilter has the team to keep it spinning...it's also a site I haven't spent much time at in recent years.

<comment><USER3> >it's also a site I haven't spent much time at in recent years.

This sums up all I can really muster as a response. I used to visit Metafilter long ago, but I've completely abandoned it for at least a few years. The submissions just lost their way at some point, and the archaic comment system was completely surpassed by reddit/HN.

<comment><USER4> That's because Metafilter doesn't have a comment system. It has a discussion system. The only way to "discuss" anything on Reddit/HN is to yell at each other from your respective soapboxes. In my experience, linear discussion — being far closer to in-person conversation — can lead to more interesting places and actually has the ability to change hearts and minds.

The only places online where I feel a strong sense of community exclusively have linear discussion.

<comment><USER5> How much of that comes from the linearity limiting participation (glibly, an exclusive community)?

I hope people don't do too much deciding about what does and does not work at this early date, we've only had about 20 years of large scale internet participation, and much less of (in the English sphere) near total participation (total participation matters because people faced with the novelty of spraying their thoughts at strangers tend to behave somewhat differently than people who are used to it).

<comment><USER4> Yes, it's good not to lock ourselves into a particular model, and I'm glad that companies like Discourse are exploring new models of community discussion.

However, from my own personal experience, I have to say that discussions become a lot more interesting when they happen in real-time between small numbers of people. Comments tend to be brief. Topics shift around. People respond to each other. Interjections happen frequently. Opinions can freely mix and mingle in this environment, and the end result is a conversation that can actually go somewhere new.

In threaded discussions, it feels more like people posting their pet walls-of- text at each other. In some ways, the "discussion" is already set in stone from the very start. Furthermore, there's a significant penalty to the upvote/downvote model. It incentivizes groupthink; promotes giant screeds and quippy jokes; keeps topics firmly segregated; prevents the discussion from branching out past an initial point.

<comment><USER5> I tend to think of this in terms of high context and low context. In that framework, you are identifying high context conversations as preferable. Given that the vast majority of human socialization has been high context (Between people who know much about each other), I don't think this is surprising. It satisfies our instincts and benefits from our habits.

I don't explicitly talk about it above, but part of what I am getting at there is that you can't force a high context situation; it either exists, or it does not.

Maybe the solution is simply to facilitate small groups that discuss things, I don't know. I think I would be disappointed if that is the case, because it would make it more difficult for me to access a wide range of viewpoints. The seemingly overly serious moderation here can probably be described as an attempt at getting people to acknowledge a little bit of extra shared context.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't think it's a sad day for MetaFilter. I think it is another example of Matt Haughey's wisdom. Knowing your limits and admitting them is hard. It is something a lot of very otherwise talented people mess up.

It is the end of an era, but I think it makes it more likely that MetaFilter will continue to be successful and not become a has-been. It is in good hands with cortex (aka Josh Millard) at the helm now.

</comment><comment><USER7> Context: The founder of Metafilter, mathowie, is stepping down from day-to-day operations. It's been an oasis for online discussion, and it's down to him. He ran it by himself for a few years, out of pocket.

</comment><comment><USER8> Metafilter is a shining example of what an established, long-running internet community can be and what other similar communities should aspire to. The community, content, and careful moderation is consistently the best of the 'net.

Enjoy some relaxation Matt, you deserve it. :)

</comment><comment><USER9> I really respect Matt for stepping back financially, as well as operatively. If he's not actively working on it, he wants that money to go towards better moderation and other expenses. Yes, he still owns the site, so anything could happen in the future. But it's yet another example of why Metafilter is the best community on the Internet.

</comment><comment><USER10> It's a sad day for Mefi but Matt is such a great guy and deserves his break. The mod team is very strong and I have no doubt that Mefi will continue to kick ass in the future.

It's impossible to sum up just how much Mefi means to me but thanks for everything, Matt. Really.

</comment><comment><USER11> Ask Metafilter and the Metafilter archives are among the most valuable corners of the internet. Mathowie has been an excellent steward and I wish him the best.

<comment><USER12> Agreed. I don't know how many times where I've had a very specific Google query return a helpful discussion on Metafilter from many years ago. Here's hoping they can keep the lights on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think it's a good thing for the internet industry to see people publicly step back instead of pretending to be "killing it" constantly with no human cost. And I hope the stepping back is good for Mr. Howie, he deserves it.

<comment><USER14> FYI: while his username is "mathowie", his last name is "Haughey".

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> As mentioned in this link, 10 months ago, they had let go of three of their mods, including LobsterMitten (who is coming back onboard):

[http://metatalk.metafilter.com/23245/State-of- MetaFilter](http://metatalk.metafilter.com/23245/State-of-MetaFilter)

</comment><comment><USER16> "I started reading programming books and attended an intense 3-day seminar and came out of it building basic web apps. By March of 1999, MetaFilter had a name and a community … "

The most impressive sentence comes right at the beginning. This shows what you can do, if you have a goal. All this experience of many years serves only to tame the big companies rampant systems.</comment>


In South Africa, colonialism was written on stone - <AUTHOR> https://www.hakaimagazine.com/article-short/south-africa-colonialism-was-written-stone/ <comment><AUTHOR> _> "It's a painting on a rock," he says. "You can never be completely sure who put it there, that it wasn't some joker in the 1960s. But it's likely that the image is authentic: there are much older paintings, produced with what seems to be the same iron oxide pigments, nearby."_

...so how do they know that those other paintings are not from recent times?</comment>


Ask HN: Is it realistic for nuclear power to replace fossil fuels? - <AUTHOR> A negative assessment of nuclear power's capacity to replace fossil fuels[1].<p>[1] http://energyskeptic.com/2017/nuclear-power/ <comment><USER2> That post makes two correct observations about social issues with nuclear power: it is expensive to build new plants and the latency for building a new reactor is high, 6-10 years.

It also makes a neither-here-nor-there argument that nuclear power does not _directly_ replace liquid fuels that are currently critical to transportation, but this is true of any electricity source.

The rest of the arguments presented are lousy ("too dangerous", "peak uranium", "low EROEI", and "breeder reactors are too dangerous" which is a repeat of "too dangerous"). There's no sign of peak uranium and it takes some real gymnastics to argue that nuclear power has low EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). The danger of nuclear power pales compared to unmitigated global warming or the widespread societal collapse that the Energy Skeptic site seems dedicated to prophesying. But if you've already made up your mind about conclusions, like the Energy Skeptic apparently has, you'll deploy whatever arguments you can scrape up to justify it. Even if they are poor arguments.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the assessment. Sorry for the late reply, I've been away. Motivation to bring up referenced article comes from not being able to refute statements in it. To be honest, I find the form of writing of the article distasteful.

Related question. You mentioned that nuclear energy mitigates global warming. How much heat does a nuclear plant release compared to fossil fuel engines or plants? Or is the noteworthy advantage of nuclear energy in that it doesn't produce green house gases?

<comment><USER2> Current nuclear plants produce somewhat more heat (primary energy) than a fossil plant of equal electrical output. The noteworthy advantage is that it doesn't produce greenhouse gases.

Current radiative forcing induced by anthropogenic CO2 emissions is on the order of 10^15 watts. Current direct thermal output from human combustion of fossil fuels is on the order of 10^13 watts, only 1% as much. That's why CO2 reduction is so important for limiting global temperature rise. Amplifying the warming effects of the sun makes fossil plants warm the globe _much_ more than a nuclear plant that injects somewhat more waste heat into its local environs.</comment></comment></comment>


Humble Weekly Bundle Supports Open Source GameDev Tools - <AUTHOR> http://www.humblebundle.com/weekly

<comment><USER2> MonoGame is not featured, and it's one of the indie engines Sony picked for PS4 support (just to show it's relevant): [http://www.monogame.net/2014/03/23/monogame-for- playstation-...](http://www.monogame.net/2014/03/23/monogame-for- playstation-4/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Wish they would have included OpenGameArt, which is currently trying to become funded. It's such a wonderful resource for the tremendous number of programmers out there that, like myself, can't draw worth a darn.

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

</comment><comment><USER4> What do you guys think of the changes to Humble Bundle in the last year? They have a lot of additions, with not only occasional bundles, but now weekly sales, and their store. Do you think it's for the best, offering more sales and deals, or for the worst, making it too confusing to follow?

<comment><USER5> I can't comment on the changes to the bundle itself but I have seen and used a number of games that use it as a storefront and it seems to work well. The only thing missing would be some kind of integration with some kind of management system like steam or desura.

<comment><USER6> There is a way to connect your steam account to your Humble Bundle account. Instead of getting keys, you can just click a button and your game appears in your steam account. It'd be nicer if they just kinda showed up without me having to click a button, but it's a start.

What other kind of integration are you thinking of?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was a bit surprised to see RenPy on this list - it's the visual novel engine that powers games like Katawa Shoujo.

</comment><comment><USER8> I think that's a great idea, haxe, openfl & FD are all projects that have made my life significantly better - they should get some support!</comment>


Trump campaign pushes government intervention on 5G - <AUTHOR> https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/01/trump-campaign-5g-1230276 <comment><USER2> What a terrible combination. First you have 5G, which, for the purposes of this conversation is high band 5G and not simply massive MIMO on the normal low bands (which would only increase thoroughput by about 15-20%).

High band 5G has terrible, absolutely terrible, propagation properties. It's absorbed by everything, basically only line of sight, and falls of as 1/r^2 in terms of wavelengths when the wavelengths are absolutely tiny (ie, millimeters).

I can think of no worse (modern) RF technology to try to use to provide broadband internet to rural areas.</comment>


Apple confirms it uses Google cloud for some of iCloud - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/26/apple-confirms-it-uses-google-cloud-for-icloud.html <comment><USER2> From Apple's actual iCloud security document:

> Each file is broken into chunks and encrypted by iCloud using AES-128 and a > key derived from each chunk's contents that utilizes SHA-256. The keys and > the file's metadata are stored by Apple in the user's iCloud account. The > encrypted chunks of the file are stored, without any user-identifying > information, using third-party storage services, such as S3 and Google Cloud > Platform.

From what I've heard, Apple's services run on their own cloud platform called Pie [0]. It sounds like this platform probably abstracts away whatever storage service is used, allowing Apple to use whatever fits their requirements.

[0] - [https://9to5mac.com/2016/10/06/report-unified-cloud- services...](https://9to5mac.com/2016/10/06/report-unified-cloud-services- backend-pie-platform/)

<comment><USER3> [Apple] Pie in the Sky for Cloud platform. Clever name, looks like clever tech.

<comment><USER4> Idk, seems like that would be a pretty standard abstraction layer to implement at a large company.

<comment><USER5> Sorry if this is an naive question. If every large companies are doing it, why aren't there a standard open source abstraction library available?

<comment><USER6> I used Jclouds [1] a few years back to do this. While it's very powerful, it's also fairly complex (abstracts not just storage but also compute/etc). At the time, I remember wanting a simpler abstraction layer over it, and ended up building my own. Maybe something like that exists now, I'm not sure.

The devil is in the details of how each provider offers vendor-specific things and you want to take advantage of them. For example Reduced-Redundancy storage is iirc an Amazon-specific offering, or if others offer it, it's probably under different SLA terms/measurements. This rapidly breaks many generic abstractions; maybe this is why everyone ends up writing their own little shim layer for their situation.

In some sense it reminds me a bit of building database-connection-pools in the 90's, before they were really standardized everyone rolled their own and learned all the awful lessons about reference counting along the way. Then along came ODBC, then JDBC, and things were so much easier because you only had to deal with one API, and the databases would conform to their side of it. So I think, isn't that what OpenStack (or something?) is supposed to be for cloud services? But whoa, the depth and complexity of these services far exceeds that of a 90's database. It will take a while -- but over time and with patterns of common use well established, a stable base of standard APIs will abstract away most differences, making things so much nicer. I can dream.

[1] [https://jclouds.apache.org/](https://jclouds.apache.org/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Apple runs absolutely ludicrous amounts of its own storage. The idea that they use GCP for 100% of anything is insane.

Saying they "use GCP for iCloud" sounds intentionally misleading... there's a missing qualifier there. But I guess "uses GCP for some stuff in iCloud" isn't nearly as click-worthy I guess.

<comment><USER8> Can you provide any reference or evidence to support these statements?

<comment><USER7> Nothing in public, no. Apple doesn't talk about this stuff generally. But I know because I helped build a lot of it.

<comment><USER9> I'm familiar with the kind of amounts of storage (in terms of cabinets, # of arrays) for various reasons, and I assumed it was the iCloud storage because of how vast it is. On the other hand, with the high-end gear they're using, likely the cost/GB is insane and more than Google or AWS charges them. I can't imagine the big cloud providers are buying top-end arrays, but I could be wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Since Steve Jobs returned to Apple and Tim Cook took over operation, Apple has always been running "Asset Light" approach. The less asset the better. They value flexibility over the little benefits of owning those asset. Hence why they were very late into building their own DC, the also view the Cash they have as another asset they dont want too much. [1]

Apple also view Data Storage, as another aspect that depreciate quickly and offer no strategic advantage to owning all of it.

Ever Since Apple merged and moved all(?) of its Cloud operation using Mesos, things has been great every since. Last time they said it was the world largest Mesos cluster running in operation. I suspect it is even bigger by now.

I wonder what happen to Project McQueen. [2]

[1]www.asymco.com/2018/01/18/the-apple-cash-faq/

[2]venturebeat.com/2016/03/17/apple-cloud-project-mcqueen/

<comment><USER10> i hear what you're saying.

but how do we reconcile Apple's strategy with the fact that Amazon did invest in an "asset heavy" approach? i have been under the impression that Amazon makes a substantial percentage of its profits from S3 and other cloud services.

<comment><USER5> I am not saying I agree with Apple's Asset Less approach, just pointing it out. I would actually want them to have more DC, and more Apple Store around the world. All should be buying them outright rather then rent.

But then their Apple TV is completely opposite of their Asset Less approach, as they decide to spend more money to create their own TV Asset.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I thought this was the case. I was sharing mobile data over wifi to several iPhone users with some basic data use monitoring so that I could firewall services that used unreasonable amounts of data.

One of them, despite having all the automatic update and backup features we could find turned off regularly attempted to upload gigabytes of data to multiple IP addresses that resolved to Google Cloud. Since there were fairly few apps installed (none of them suspicious) and a large number of photos and videos on the device, my conclusion is that it was a spurious iCloud photo backup.

Unfortunately, iOS does not appear to provide a way to see what's using data on Wifi, only mobile, nor to designate a Wifi network as metered.

<comment><USER12> It could just be using iMessage. When you send photo and video attachments using iMessage, they get stored on iCloud for some period of time so that other users can view or download them.

<comment><USER11> The user was not sending large attachments. While attempting to troubleshoot, the phone was idle. This was definitely an automated background process.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> How is this news? Years ago I've observed system processes like nsurlsessiond and cloudd connecting to AWS, GCP, as well as Apple's own infrastructure for my iCloud storage. It's really obvious for someone who's using Little Snitch and suddenly those processes start connecting to a new/different hostname.

<comment><USER14> The article says claims were made in 2016. The news here is that Apple is officially confirming it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Interesting that Dropbox is saving a lot of money chopping off AWS while Apple relies on Google for exactly the same thing. I would think that Apple would host and build an inhouse solution, really curious what the reasoning is to go with GCP.

<comment><USER16> On the note of data storage, it's frustrating that I can have photos and videos -- that I intend to keep for the next 50+ years -- spread out between 2 to 4 services (iCloud, Dropbox, OneDrive, Google Photos) just by owning a couple phones and a computer or two, which I imagine is pretty typical. I know there's a start-up idea in here somewhere, because I personally would pay premium to consolidate all those into one organized location, but I don't exactly know what that is. I know Dropbox has an option to import data from other services, but in my experience it hasn't been as "smart", automated, and thorough as I'd like it to be.

<comment><USER17> Once the baby videos started rolling in all the cloud solutions started getting expensive real fast. I had to stoop down to running my own file server. Buy a pair of drives every now and then to expand, and nightly rsync to keep things backed up.

The product I would like is a photo album with an indexing and web interface components, and plugins to make sense of different phone platforms. Nannies love to text videos and getting those off the phone has been a pain; I end up saving the whole iOS backup and scraping any media looking files from it.

<comment><USER18> How much baby video do you record?

I have to imagine you're usage is an outlier here.

<comment><USER17> Up to two TB now at 3yro kid. Part of the problem is the video resolutions grew a lot, and having to snapshot the whole phone whenever it fills up. (Though I did some deduping and the redundancy is not as high as I thought...)

I doubt my usage is an outlier. But I suspect that I keep more video than most people just because I can.

<comment><USER19> I do the same thing, although my data growth seems to be a bit higher. My kid is less than a year old and I'm on pace to generate about 2-2.5 TiB for the first year. (Mostly 4k video.)

At some point I might start thinking of re-encoding the originals, but so far storage is cheap to have locally, and I'm going to see how long I can keep this up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Fun fact, Apple also uses(d) Azure Microsoft services as well.

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/02/icloud_runs_on_micro...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/02/icloud_runs_on_microsoft_azure_and_amazon/)

[https://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/09/04/0051209/apples- icl...](https://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/09/04/0051209/apples-icloud-runs- on-microsoft-azure)

<comment><USER21> If you read the article you will see that the mention of Microsoft Azure has disappeared from Apple's security documentation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I've seen (via Little Snitch) at different times, Apple Photo has been downloading data from Amazon, at&t cloud (?) and Azure — at least it's what I allowed it to use up until now. I didn't see Google yet, probably, it's recent development.

</comment><comment><USER23> I thought that's what their DCs were for. It definitely seems a bit out of character for a company that designs its own silicon to outsource something so comparatively trivial.

<comment><USER24> It takes about 3 years to build a DataCenter. Also depending on the type of campus you want to build, the availability of power and contiguous land is fairly limited. Additionally most web scale DCs are "passively" cooled and require the local environment to support this.

We are in a construction boom nationally and it's currently difficult to get enough people to construct DCs. The ability to scale out is limited by construction.

Apple is building DCs, they are late to the game, but they probably can't scale their infra fast enough and need to use cloud services as a way to keep scaling without impacting their customers.

<comment><USER25> > It takes about 3 years to build a DataCenter.

That definitely depends on where and which kind of data center. If you're willing to take a derelict warehouse and put in containers like Google did, all you need to do is providing power and fiber (which should be plenty in any industrial settings) and you're set in a matter of weeks to months.

If you're aiming higher, as in design a DC, buy the ground, build the building itself and then installing all the stuff needed, you're in for much more money and time. Depending on the local politics and laws as well as power/fiber infrastructure, you can cut some corners but the worst-case (uncooperating politicians that need to be brought in line by the courts, the next 110kV transformer being at capacity, no fiber and no empty tubes in the ground which means digging yourself) is the benchmark there.

<comment><USER26> > "...the next 110kV transformer being at capacity"

They will mostly likely work with the local utility to build an entire substation for the DC, so they won't have to deal with sharing capacity on an existing sub's XFMR.

<comment><USER24> Yep these facilities require >100MW and require their own substations. Hence one reason why it takes so long to build.

<comment><USER26> I'd imagine that the lead time on getting the substation equipment is probably the longest for all of equipment inside a DC. Chillers, UPSs, generators, and breakers are probably not in as high demand or take as long to manufacture as a MV XFMR.

<comment><USER27> Why not shorten the lead time by biding higher for freshly built XFMRs from other countries of the desired capacity?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> So does this mean kubernetes will win? :) Why does it matter if Apple uses GCP? I think it's a terrific product and wish I could use it more. I also don't think apple and google are competitors really in the 'cloud' space. It'd be stupid to go to AWS if you were as large as Apple as companies like Apple can actually have leverage I imagine.

<comment><USER29> > It'd be stupid to go to AWS if you were as large as Apple

why is it stupid for Apple to use AWS and not GCP? Personally, I don't think using either is stupid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> So from the anecdotes in this thread, along with some people suggesting Apple use AWS/GCP/Azure for things....

I'm wondering if this is a capacity thing, or maybe a locality thing? It would make sense to use the cloud providers if you don't have a data centre in a nearby region of a user I guess

</comment><comment><USER31> Apple probably needs a datacenter of its own anyway. Just think about all of the data they use internally for projects, and other sensitive stuff they would never allow to leave the network. So building a state of the art DC with low PUE makes sense.

However, farming out some of the costs to other cloud providers seems like a good strategy to eliminate single point of failure, or avoid all data being lost if somehow one provider loses data. And maybe then they can focus on adding compute units rather than storage, and backup for the storage units.

In short, despite Apple's user base, I still don't think it is on the scale of AWS or Google.

</comment><comment><USER32> Could someone please explain to me why this is relevant to anything?

<comment><USER33> Yeah, the linked article feels like someone at cnbc is paid to come up with anything that will get clicks (I wrote that sentence kind of jokingly, but thinking about it now, of course they have exactly that) and it worked great this time. Well played cnbc. You win this round.

Now hopefully there's a Rust vs Go blog posted or something gets merged into systemd today so we can get back to business as usual here ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> What happened to the giant Apple-owned datacenters such as in North Carolina?

[https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1&ei=UR6UWsvn...](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1&ei=UR6UWsvnK8fdjAOLobCgDw&q=apple+datacenter+north+carolina&oq=apple+datacenter+north+carolina&gs_l=psy- ab.3..0i71k1l8.5020.5400.0.54184.108.40.206.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.64.psy- ab..0.0.0....0.tfYXf5e1CIU)

<comment><USER2> I would guess that nothing happened to them, and that they have never been used to store encrypted iCloud data. Apple has an enormous amount of data that needs to be stored beyond iCloud: iTunes, App Stores, Apple Music, etc. I'm sure they store much of that data in-house.

There is also the possibility that Apple eventually plans to move iCloud to their own storage solution, but hasn't yet scaled up to it yet.

<comment><USER35> > iTunes, App Stores, Apple Music,

Would it really require a datacenter to store that small amount of data?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> While Waze (Google) is probably still using AWS.

<comment><USER37> And sticking with their Fisher-Price style UI.

<comment><USER38> It is a bit cheesy, yeah? But I do like the simplistic, big buttons with clear pictures. I don't want to have to take an extra second to decipher a material- design pictograph that sacrifices some aspect of understanding for visual aesthetic. Waze gets their users on the value the app brings to people, not how good it looks. There aren't many other players in the field of crowd- sourced traffic data like Waze shows (at least in the US) so I don't see them working on updating the UI until it actually matters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> It's no secret using Little Snitch (or an equivalent network monitor) - it's interesting to see iCloud services connecting to AWS etc. No real surprising considering Spotify etc all do the same, but one would imagine Apple could run their own data infrastructure by now...

</comment><comment><USER40> This is really not big news. If I were Apple, I would also sort cloud storage vendors by price including building the whole infra in-house, throw away the non secure or risky ones and pick the cheapest.

</comment><comment><USER41> I am new to deploying services on cloud but I am wondering why Apple mixes cloud services between Amazon, Google, and Azure? Is there advantage over using a single provider? Maybe risk management?

</comment><comment><USER42> Not really surprising. Plus it has to be a lot cheaper then Apple building their own.

<comment><USER43> I don't think this is true long term. The cheapness of cloud applies when and where deploying otherwise complicated systems - eg. a hadoop cluster - can be done in matter of clicks, but for something simple - file storage - I'm finding it hard to believe that it's cheaper. However, in case of apple, geo distribution and locality is probably very important, which adds to the cost for sure; I'd still be surprised if long term own/rented hardware wouldn't be cheaper, than SaaS.

<comment><USER44> Especially for object storage. The scale where deploying your own object storage network gets cheaper than S3 is surprisingly small. Even handling your own equivalent of "intra-zonal redundancy" is easy. The main concerns arise in "how do you CDN that data to your customers" and "how do you gain redundancy beyond intra-zonal"; that's where S3/GCS gets more interesting.

<comment><USER45> There are other CDN beside aws/gcs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> > _But in the latest version, the Microsoft Azure reference is gone, and in > its place is Google Cloud Platform._

Ouch. For Apple to move to _Google 's_ cloud infrastructure, they must have been truly disappointed with Microsoft's Azure...

<comment><USER47> A friend messaged me this morning saying he logged into his work Office 365 account and noticed a lot of the URL's (eg for attachments and such) point to AWS services like S3. If Microsoft themselves use AWS instead of Azure.. wtf?

<comment><USER48> I actually interviewed for the O365 team and yes, they said they don't trust Azure at all and host everything they can on their own private cloud. Didn't hear anything about S3 but they really didn't trust Azure, wouldn't be surprised.

<comment><USER49> They don't trust Azure as in "Azure is flaky", or "we're running our own unit, here"? [https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/10/14/in-defense-of- not-...](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/10/14/in-defense-of-not-invented- here-syndrome/)

Though I think their average quality has went down lately (from the days of Excel pcode to the current days of Office 365), I've been seeing Powershell exceptions thrown directly in the UI in the Office 365 Admin...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> It's almost like Google paid Apple to use it.

</comment><comment><USER51> Misleading title, should say Apple also uses Google Cloud. AWS is not being replaced here.

<comment><USER52> It would make sense for Apple to continue to use both AWS and Google Cloud so that it maintains its negotiating powers with both vendors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Strange that they're using Google and not Amazon, considering Google (and MS) are direct competitors in the mobile device space.

Also this doesn't imply that user privacy is less secure, since they probably still encrypt user data before it goes to Google's servers.

<comment><USER53> > since they probably still encrypt user data before it goes to Google's > servers.

It still looks pretty bad for them.

<comment><USER54> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLGFriOKz6U&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLGFriOKz6U&feature=youtu.be&t=25m43s)

They take security for these things seriously. You can store data safely even in adversarial clouds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> This is like finding out McDonalds have been serving you Burger King.

<comment><USER56> more like finding that McDonalds and BurgerKing use SEXTON to source their burgers and that HAYMARKET sources to Wendy's.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> So apple is paying the maker of android to stay in business. Cute.

</comment><comment><USER58> I wonder if this raises questions about privacy, if you're ultimately going to end up in googles eco-system in a way anyway why would you want middleware?

As a cloud provider I really like GCP compared to others.. it's clean, consistent, predictable and easy to use.

Speaking personally in my employment AWS always sent sales folks and Google always sent engineers, this makes me more comfortable too.

<comment><USER59> Hosting encrypted data in the Google Cloud is not the same as having the Google ecosystem where you willingly let Google harvest your email/history/location/etc.

<comment><USER42> Apple does then get Google security. They have found most of the big vulnerabilities including Shellshock, Cloudbleed, Heartbleed, Broadpwn among others.</comment></comment></comment>


The myth of free wi-fi - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14835059

<comment><AUTHOR> seems to me that other than financials/cost of offering stuff for free -- it's a technical issue with wifi technology. Keeping signals strong/repeated....changing/improving approaches...mesh network ideas etc etc...</comment>


CoinOut Wants to Digitize the Pennies in Your Pocket - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/3063827/coinout-wants-to-digitize-the-pennies-in-your-pocket <comment><USER2> _" Not only does CoinOut make it easier to pay but also provides you with a little more data on how to manage your money."_ (shows nice picture of a list of transactions)

Wonderful. Now all my _cash_ transactions can be tracked too! And tied to my real identity. I wonder what they're going to do with all this yummy data...

No thanks, I'd rather just keep those pennies in my pocket and spend them when I can, which was never much of a problem to begin with. (Or use my credit card and get a cash rebate.)</comment>


Study Puts Puerto Rico Death Toll from Hurricane Maria Near 5,000 - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/05/29/615120123/study-puts-puerto-rico-death-toll-at-5-000-from-hurricane-maria-in-2017 <comment><USER2> > _" A research team led by scientists at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of > Public Health didn't simply attempt to count dead bodies in the wake of the > powerful storm. Instead, they surveyed randomly chosen households and asked > the occupants about their experiences."_

I expected the death toll to refer to the former. Whatever was measured here was more like "estimated deaths due to the stressful seqeulae of Hurricane Maria."

> _" The researchers calculate there is a 95 percent likelihood the death toll > was somewhere between about 800 and 8,500 people." _

This actually interprets a confidence interval correctly. Something is getting through to NPR. EDIT: Wait, no it is still wrong. (If assumptions are ok, etc) there is a 95% chance any given CI contains the actual mean, we can't say anything about the chance this particular CI contains it.

> _" This household-based survey suggests that the number of excess deaths > related to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico is more than 70 times the official > estimate... surveys can provide an independent estimate of mortality that > does not rely on death-certificate data"_ > [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1803972](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1803972)

Maybe, but then you need use the death certificate data as a gold standard (somewhere where those records are good) to see if your survey was measuring the same thing. In this case though, like mentioned above, they measured something different from what people usually mean by "killed by hurricane".

<comment><USER3> The article discusses the methodology in-depth including the meat of the specific points you raise. The study was published in a peer-reviewed journal by professionals who understand the subject intimately and whose conclusions carry overwhelmingly more weight than your off-the-cuff analysis, one which misses the overarching point that based on available data, it is a statistical near-certainty that hundreds or thousands of people died as a direct result of the hurricane. Had you been a victim, I sincerely doubt you'd be so concerned about the distinction between being drowned right away or dying of a medical issue that would have been preventable with care that would have otherwise been accessible before the hurricane.

<comment><USER2> > _" The article discusses the methodology in-depth including the meat of the > specific points you raise."_

The meat of my methodological issues is that the survey has not been validated in any way as a measure of mortality. Where do they deal with that? From the supplement, it looks like this is a custom survey that has never been used before to me.

> _" The study was published in a peer-reviewed journal by professionals who > understand the subject intimately and whose conclusions carry overwhelmingly > more weight than your off-the-cuff analysis, one which misses the > overarching point that based on available data, it is a statistical near- > certainty that hundreds or thousands of people died as a direct result of > the hurricane."_

Anyone who has looked at enough studies like this knows the results are typically highly questionable. My comment was more to alert them to which of the usual issues seem to be present. If you are still reliant on the "peer- reviewed" heuristic, then I agree that you should not listen to random people on the internet, or even in person, like me.

> _" Had you been a victim, I sincerely doubt you'd be so concerned about the > distinction between being drowned right away or dying of a medical issue > that would have been preventable with care that would have otherwise been > accessible before the hurricane."_

Taken literally, this is true. If I had been a victim I would be dead, so I wouldn't care about anything at all. I think that is the more generous interpretation of you just wrote. If a family member had been a victim, I would definitely want such studies to distinguish between dying from drowning and dying due to eg lack of access to healthcare a week later. I don't see how it is helpful to conflate these two and confuse the public since they require different solutions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is incredibly tragic, and equally, if not moreso, tragic that this is not in the least bit surprising given that the administration's response was to belittle and attack the people who were on the ground trying to save lives and crying out for help. There is palpable irony too in the administration's relentless crowing and insistence on massive increases in military funding, and yet when it comes down to brass tacks in a situation where the military could have been leveraged in an all-out, no-holds-barred operation to save the lives of thousands of American citizens, they chose not to and instead focused on pathetic, flimsy excuses ("big water, ocean water", heartless arguments about PR's financials, etc.) instead of demonstrating true leadership. These are truly dark times we are living in, and it is tremendously unfortunate that the poorest and most vulnerable of our citizens bore, and continue to bear, the ultimate and final costs in the form of their lives.</comment>


Virtual Reality Users Watch Helplessly as Another User Has In-Game Seizure - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ne4myg/vrchat-seizure <comment><USER2> Since VRchat lets users create arbitrary avatars its only a matter of time before somebody creates a flickering avatar (like the Pokemon cartoon episode that caused hundreds of seizures when broadcast in Japan) specifically designed to cause seizures. With VRChat one could get very close to people essentially filling their VR headset's display with their avatar, focused directly into the victim's eyes by the VR's optics. Kind of scary-- the promise and the peril of user-created content. Some trolls notoriously did this by embedding Flash into an online forum for epileptics.

I wonder if it might be revealed if/when VR gets a wider adoption that VR's unique photic environment might cause the triggering unique types of epilepsy.</comment>


The secret of great online customer service is speed - <AUTHOR> http://blog.omgponi.es/post/93968370/the-secret-of-great-online-customer-service <comment><USER2> When I was tech support engineer many times people were really surprised and thankful for a quick answer.

The trick is to be able to come up with an intelligent answer and not just buying time with the customer. Even though I usually found that it's better to respond fast asking for more info if you don't have the definite answer. The customer usually is happy to have a quick answer but doesn't necessarily get back to you fast. It gives you time to figure it out...

</comment><comment><USER3> Apologies, empathy, fanatical dedication, and accurate responses which resolve problems are more important than getting to someone within 5 minutes. They're also much easier to actually put into practice for most small businesses.

If you establish and cultivate a perception that you'll be on top of all issues within 5 minutes, then you better enjoy that beeper you just bought yourself, because you're going to be hearing it a lot.

Adjust as appropriate for conditions in your business/industry. (If people can die, spring for the beeper.)</comment>


Scientists turn nuclear waste into diamond batteries - <AUTHOR> https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/scientists-turn-nuclear-waste-in-diamond-batteries-thatll-last-for-thousands-of-years <comment><USER2> It is not clear that they have a real working prototype.

The current is very low, only 100uW, and there are similar batteries made with tritium. More info in a video by EEVblog eevblog had a good video about this product: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzV_uzSTCTM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzV_uzSTCTM)

Also, there is a calculation of the low the maximal current per kilogram in [http://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2020/08/diamond-batteries- unli...](http://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2020/08/diamond-batteries- unlikely.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> I believe this is the beginning of an investment scam. This type of alpha conversion battery has an inherently low current, but it does have a very long lifetime. Some pacemaker and watch applications will emerge. The idea it will ever run an electric car is a joke</comment>