Ask HN: Self Hosted Webmail IMAP Client? - <AUTHOR>

I used to run an email server before, it was fun before, but some how nowadays, it's not a task I want to be bothered with :)<p>However, I am growing more and more concerned with having google be in charge of all my emails. I would like to setup a system similar to Tiny Tiny RSS for email. Perhaps something like a fully featured IMAP client that runs on a server and has a web based interface. I am currently looking at Roundcube, but perhaps there are better alternatives? The idea is to let some one else worry about receiving, spam filtering, and sending mail and such, but have all the mail stored on a server I have in my physical possession, not for privacy, I know privacy is an illusive dream these days, but for security, in case google decides to pull the plug on my account for some reason. <comment><USER3> I don't really understand what you're asking, but...

If you're worried about Google deciding to suspend service, the easiest solution is to use Google Apps for Domains, which costs you a domain registration (~$10/yr at lots of places; search HN or the web for recommendations). If Google ever decides to boot you, move your domain - <USER2> can keep the same e-mail address. Be sure to keep backups of your mail; I like offlineimap, which is also useful if you e.g. occasionally want to mail from the train.

</comment><comment><USER4> [http://isync.sourceforge.net/](http://isync.sourceforge.net/)

isync, now mbsync but still called isync in the ubuntu repositories, may do what you want. It's a command line utility, you may be able to set up a cron job.

I've never used it. My impression is that a) it was originally an imap to local maildir sync, but b) you could sync remote imap to local imap.

</comment><comment><USER5> not sure exactly what you're looking for, but here's what i do:

      - download from isp using getmail via a cron job
      - store in local imap directories using procmail
      - use mutt in a shell window to read
      - use mairix to search

on top of that, in the past, i have run an imap server (dovecot was simplest iirc) and squirrelmail, to give web access. but it was more trouble than it was worth (i have mutt configured to handle the odd html only email via w3c).

<comment><USER5> sorry, talking rubbish. "local imap directories" should read "local maildir directories". i think getmail can also deliver directly to maildir if you don't want procmail in the middle.

and in case the last part wasn't clear, dovecot can serve imap from those maildir directories for squirrelmail to display.

finally, in my experience, opensuse is the easiest linux distro to get this kind of thing working on. the Yast tool strikes a good balance - it gives you auto-config for simple tasks, but you can still drill down to standard config files when needed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I use roundcube, it's actually fairly well-featured, and has worked reliably for years.</comment>


New tungsten alloy has potential for nuclear fusion - <AUTHOR> https://www.theengineer.co.uk/tungsten-alloy-nuclear-fusion/ <comment><USER2> The article does not distinguish between exposure to ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation, both present in fusion reactors. The non-ionizing neutron flux could change the chemical makeup of the alloy, making the alloy useless for reactor linings. Does anyone have more detail on the testing of this material?</comment>


Iran Complies with Nuclear Deal; Sanctions Are Lifted - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/world/middleeast/iran-sanctions-lifted-nuclear-deal.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 <comment><USER2> This is terrific news!

As with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, opening up countries to the world's economy and ideas is the first step towards democracy.

The implications of this are tremendous (not in order of importance):

1) Oil prices will continue to fall as Iran is able to supply the global markets. Many oil states rely on money from natural resources to preserve monarchies. Money for freedom only works so long as the money keeps flowing.

2) Our (US) reliance on Saudi Arabia will diminish as there are now two powers in the region to work with. Having strong relations with both Shiite and Sunni powers in the Middle East will likely reduce sectarian violence. We're light years from being out of the woods, but this is big step in the right direction.

3) The Iranian people will gain access to the world economy. From a human rights perspective, they are the biggest winners here. As with Sunni/Shiite relations, no doubt a long way to go (the Ayatollah is a tyrant,) but you gotta celebrate the wins when you can.

4) De-escalation of our conflict with Iran. We saw it with Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea. Invasion + nation building is sexy, but highly ineffective. Having one less nuclear power that calls for our destruction is certainly a nice to have.

5) Shows Americans that diplomacy can work. Iranians don't hate Americans, they hate what America represents. To them, we represent a superpower that gives little to no thought of anyone else's sovereignty. We assassinated their democratically elected leader and backed the Shah, which got us into this mess. Diplomacy is far less sexy and easily criticized, but that's a huge part of getting this deal done.

Note: Many of these are over-simplified. Nonetheless, this is a pretty big deal and a cause for celebration.

<comment><USER3> What's the deal with this whole push for democracy? (nevermind, checked your company, I see your angle now). As if it's the holy grail of form of governments? Yeah, democracy really turned India around..

Food for thought: Would you rather be an Indian living in India, or a Chinese living in China?

<comment><USER4> Democracy might not be efficient but it is the best safeguard we have against severe abuses. Look at China they might have benefited from their autocracy in recent years, but they paid dearly for it during the cultural revolution. India has been spared horrors like that exactly because they have been a democracy.

Other than that I think the countries are too different to make any hard conclusions. China has very strong traditions for effective administration going thousands of years back. This has likely been of more profound importance than dictatorship. Japan after the war managed to grow very rapidly under democracy. So did Germany.

While economic development in India has always been difficult. Even during the British dictatorship in India they had problems getting any kind of modern business going.

I think India suffers from not really being a single country and from being dam hot. It is harder to get stuff done under such heat. Productivity will pick up there when aircondition becomes far more common.

Really I think India should be multiple countries. When you put together lots of countries which are too different, you will get too many conflicts which will make progress grind to a halt.

<comment><USER5> India was about as poor as countries like South Korea immediately post world war 2. The most massive difference was their embrace of a Soviet style planned economy, which means that they grew at about 1-2% annually for the next 40 years and South Korea grew at a much, much higher rate. It's not a coincidence that economic liberalization in India in the early 90s (as with china, 15 years earlier) coincided with a boom in growth rate.

I fully agree with your point that India ideally should be many, many countries: democracy suffers greatly when a massive, linguistically, religiously, and culturally diverse subcontinent is forced into a single government. Just look at Europe and their cautious, precarious tiptoeing towards political unity, despite having the relative advantage of being infinitely less diverse, way less religious, and way more developed than the Indian subcontinent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This an incredibly subtle deal.

\- Iran gets access to global markets, and in time tourism (there's an incredible number of amazingly beautiful things in Iran for tourists to see, from ancient to modern ski resorts)

\- Iranian oil will keep prices in the toilet, this is basically a way for the U.S. to punish Saudi Arabia for decades of support for various maleficent actors. Except it doesn't involve an invasion, a takeover, or anything else beyond economic sabotage. The Saudis have also had decades to form a more diverse economy, and for various reasons haven't managed to do it...this has kept them vulnerable to this kind of action and it helps free the the major users of Saudi oil from "vendor lock-in"

\- It demonstrates that cool, calm, collected diplomacy can actually work. However, many people will forget that the U.S. and Iran have been fighting a proxy war for decades. It hasn't been a hot war, but Stuxnet, various revolutionary movements and so on have been bits of that war. This isn't just Iran throwing in the towel because the sanctions finally worked, its because all of the other major leverage points Iran could muster were defeated.

\- While the sanctions by themselves failed to work, they helped create a political climate inside of Iran that favored this outcome instead of having another go at saber rattling.

\- This helps provide a mildly more palatable "friend" in the region than Pakistan

<comment><USER7> > \- Iranian oil will keep prices in the toilet, this is basically a way for > the U.S. to punish Saudi Arabia for decades of support for various > maleficent actors.

While I'd certainly support letting SA rot to pieces for their misdeeds, SA alone could with a single move end the low oil prices. It's more like SA wants to screw over both Russia and the US, because neither country can produce oil at 10$ per barrel like SA can.

> It hasn't been a hot war, but Stuxnet, various revolutionary movements and > so on have been bits of that war.

Stuxnet was Israeli with US cooperation, iirc. Not that this makes stuff any better. Only problem is that Israel can and will ignore US opinions if they feel threatened. Unfortunately, Israel is in possession of nuclear bombs and their current government is extremely right-wing; I'm not sure if Israel won't escalate the war to "really hot" now that a deal has passed and they will be afraid that Iran will try to subvert it.

<comment><USER8> > Stuxnet was Israeli with US cooperation, iirc. Yes, and they targeted the > Iranian computers that control their cetrifuges, to sabotage them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is a tremendous news politically and economically.

Economics - 1 - the price of oil has been declining since the IranDeal was signed. In US alone the annual savings as result of cheaper gas and cheaper food (food production costs is strongly tied to gas prices) is about $500B/year (from $4/gallon - $2/gallon). Basically providing additional $500B in spending money in US. 2 - globally, the lower price of food and gas can potentially provide additional spending money.

3 - Iran has crumbling infrastructure and need numerous foreign contractors to rebuild (European and Chinese have already signed up). Sadly US companies will not be able to participate.

4 - Iran has potential for a large consumer market.

Politically -

1 - US will finally have a second option (let's call it the second front) in middle east. We in US have been keeping a blind eye toward Saudis, their indirect financing of ISIS and all types of jihadist fighters in region from Libya, Syria, Africa, Afghanistan, etc.

2 - Iran will be tapped into helping stabilize Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria (there is already talks of providing and exist for Assad)

3 - Iran's gas can provide a hedge (at least the fear of an Iranian pipeline) against Russia. This probably wont happen as Iran relies more on Russia than Europe and will probably maintain that role, but that's a possibility.

4 - The open Iran is forced to further integrate globally. This has always been the fear of the hardliners and it'll be resisted by some within, however, there seem to be an understanding that stopping progress is a futile task.

5 - One of the largest women secondary eduction (close to 70% of college students are women), it will eventually play out as a potential model for other regional muslim countries to emulate.

6 - It will force Saudis to change. Saudis are extremely worried about the IranDeal. But their biggest existential threat is not militarily, but culturally. From having 70% women college students, to hybrid system of government. Iran socioeconomic role, will put pressure internally on Saudi rulers and it will force them make uncomfortable changes or face internal turmoil.

<comment><USER4> Very interesting with the high number of women in college. In the long run I think they will bury Saudi Arabia. Once oil runs out Saudi will have nothing but Iran will have a much stronger foundation to build on.

They already got lots of industry like car manufacture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Iran will use the roughly $100 billion in frozen assets it will receive to > support terrorism and other misadventures.

> Iran's support for terrorism, its imprisonment of dissidents and even some > Americans, its meddling in Iraq and Syria and its arms trade.

Funny that Saudi Arabia is guilty of all the above if not 10X worse but not a single word from those republicans. This speaks volumes of the power of the Saudi lobby in the US political system and how their wealth could influence decisions and policies in the US.

<comment><USER11> Except that allowing Iran to export even more oil keeps the price of crude down on the floor. Saudi Arabia can't survive oil staying at $30 for the next decade.

So maybe this is an end-run around the Saudis and letting things sort themselves out naturally?

<comment><USER12> From what I understand? Saudi Arabia has plenty of money banked; They can survive a decade without the sort of windfall profits they've enjoyed.

"SAMA's net foreign assets totaled $628 billion in November, down from a record high of $737 billion in August 2014,"

The marginal price to produce a barrel of Saudi crude is still the lowest in the world, at just three USD. What's going die out once the equipment is worn out (or require extensive subsidy) are marginal plays in developed countries like Canada, the US, and the North Sea, the Arctic, the deep offshore drilling, tight or heavy oil, tar sands, tar shales, smaller fields without economies of scale, and all forms of biodiesel & ethanol (yes, even the most efficient, Brazilian ethanol).

All the oil-dependent economies are going to suffer and compensate monetarily, by drawing down sovereign wealth or cutting expenditures, but the harder bound is the level at which it makes economic sense to stop drilling. Production prices in the above settings are high enough that they just can't make money at $30/barrel, which is a whole other category of problem than not making enough money to feed the government budget which has ballooned only in the last decade taking advantage of higher prices.

[http://knoema.com/vyronoe/cost-of-oil-production-by- country](http://knoema.com/vyronoe/cost-of-oil-production-by-country)

<comment><USER11> Saudi oil revenue has already sunk below government expenditures[1]. The just- announced 2016 budget has a deficit of $87 billion[2]. That's 7 years to go until the reserves are gone.

And how much does the House of Saud hand out to its citizens to keep things calm and orderly? What happens when that money starts to dry up?

[1] [http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-saudi-budget-expected-to- be-...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-saudi-budget-expected-to-be-squeezed- by-low-oil-prices-1450915313)

[2] [http://english.alarabiya.net/en/special-reports/saudi- budget...](http://english.alarabiya.net/en/special-reports/saudi- budget-2016/2015/12/28/Saudi-Arabia-to-unveil-2016-budget.html)

<comment><USER12> They bleed out savings while slowly ramping back down to the vicinity of the levels that they handed out 15 years ago.

This is a traumatic process, sure - but it's not like they were uncomfortably poor 15 years ago, and they (unlike some others, I'm looking at you Venezuela) have plenty of buffer with which to keep their populations comfortable until a few years after their rivals stop drilling.

<comment><USER13> Going from rich to poor is significantly harder than staying poor.

<comment><USER12> All they need to do is outlast maybe 20% of the rest of the oil producers, enough to raise prices back up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> One very welcome change is reconnection of SWIFT network to Iran. You can't believe how hard it is right now to send money to Iran. This hit me when I had to transfer money to my family in their extremely hard times, when my brother had an accident and needed cash for treatments.

I hope this trend continues and Iran comes back to the international scene. It's good for everyone. Iran is very similar to Israel. Most of people are normal but there is a small percentage of extremist who have a lot of voice. Lucky for Israel they have a better constitution and governance model.

<comment><USER15> Israel and Iran are far from alike. It's likely true that Iranians are, to our best knowledge, some of the most reasonable and liberal-minded in the Middle East, but Israel does not simply have a "better constitution and governance model". In Iran, the extremists are running the place, and are a large segment of society. In Israel, extremists are marginalized, and even the degree of their extremism is less than that of the Iranian leadership.

I am less welcoming of the news that Iran will be reconnected to SWIFT, as I think that the real good news would be the downfall of the Mullahs and the rise of a representative, reasonable Iranian government, in peace with its neighbours and its own citizens.

<comment><USER14> It's proven (North Korea) that crippling a country's economy does not lead to downfall of its government. I wish it was that simple though!

<comment><USER15> One country (DPRK) does not make a rule. An besides, the DPRK and the Islamic Republic of Iran are very different regimes with very different citizenry. Iranians, by and large, do not believe in a death cult of personality surrounding their leaders, and can be much more critical of governmental choices.

<comment><USER16> Cuba? Burma? Syria?

<comment><USER17> Iraq, for that matter. They suffered under severe sanctions _and a no-fly zone_ that left part of the country beyond the control of the state for over a decade and Saddam was nowhere near being overthrown until the US and allies actually invaded (again).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't know why we're so ensconced in Saudi arms. Iran is much more liberal than Saudi Arabia; and Iran doesn't export the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam (Wahabbism) which is causing headaches all over the world.

Now I'll sit back and wait for the "but... but... Iran said they would wipe Israel off the map!!!1!" crowd.

<comment><USER19> This is such an ignorant statement that it is difficult to decide how exactly to unpack it. As an Iranian let me attempt to do so anyway:

First, Iran is Shia, not Sunni. So, no, they are not Wahabi. Just like the Queen of England is not Catholic but rather Anglican (Protestant).

Second, it is arguable whether Iran is more liberal than Saudi Arabia. In some instances it is. In others it is not. This is a matter of religious debate. Just like Saudi Arabia, as a Muslim, you can not simply stop being a Muslim or convert to another religion or become an atheist.

Iran also has consistently persecuted non-Shia Muslims (including Sunnis, Sufis, Ahmadiys, etc.) as well as the Bahais who are the largest religious minority in Iran.

The reality is that Iran implements Sharia just like Saudi Arabia. They chop off hands, blind people, hang people in public hangings off cranes, etc. The Iranian version of Sharia is a little different than that of Saudi Arabia. This is because they are Shia and have a different version of Islam, not because they are full of sugar and spice and everything nice.

Third, Iran certainly does exports their version of Islam just like Saudi Arabia. The most obvious one right now is Yemen where the Houthis are being used by Iran as a proxy to fight Saudi Arabia.

But Iran has also funded Shia Muslims in Nigeria [1] and elsewhere in Africa. They also created and continue to fund Hizbollah to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year as well as shiploads of weapons and explosives which Hizbollah uses as a terrorist organization to perpetrate untold atrocities.

Iran has also perpetrated many acts of aggression and terrorism globally: Kenya, Thailand, Argentina (AMIA bombing), Paraguay, etc. [2]

[1] [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/23/nigeria- s-k...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/23/nigeria-s-khomeini- spreading-iran-s-revolution-to-africa.html) [2] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianoce...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/10033351/Iranians- guilty-of-Kenya-bomb-plot.html) [2] for more complete list, see: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state- sponsored_terro...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state- sponsored_terrorism)

It is only as a consequence of a wholesale ignorance of the reality of the Iranian regime, its government's motivating philosophy, and its brutal autocratic and dictatorial grip on power that someone could say what you've just said.

If this comes across as a sharp response it is because I'm tired of people giving Iran a pass by way of a false comparison to Saudi Arabia and/or misunderstanding or not taking the time in the first place to inform themselves about the realities of the current regime.

As an Iranian who has had family members and friends of my family imprisoned on trumped up charges, tortured and killed and their property seized (to then be charged for the bullet that killed them) it is unconscionable to give such a blood soaked regime a pass of any kind.[3]

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

<comment><USER20> You seem to know a lot about Iranian politics, would you recommend something to read to bring an American up to speed on Iranian culture and politics both domestic and international?

<comment><USER19> It depends what you want to learn about specifically.

For a general introduction there is an excellent 3 part BBC documentary "Iran and the West":

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

If you want an inside account of things from a 'Prince': "Blood and Oil:: Memoirs of a Persian Prince"

For fascinating insight into Iran's geopolitics, economics and the context of the 1979 revolution (with major implications for the current global oil market) consider Andrew Scott Cooper's excellent book: The Oil Kings

here's an article from 2014 by Cooper to whet your appetite: [http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/18/why-would-the-saudis- cra...](http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/18/why-would-the-saudis-crash-oil- markets-iran/)

and here's quite a good interview with Cooper from 2011: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BXCx8oNvoo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BXCx8oNvoo)

His more recent book (not out yet): The Fall of Heaven: The Pahlavis and the Final Days of Imperial Iran

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Heaven-Pahlavis- Imperial/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Heaven-Pahlavis- Imperial/dp/0805098976)

But be aware that as always, behind every tyrant walks a cadre of sycophants with bloody mops attempting to twist history & exonerate the guilty. IMHO Hooman Majd, Reza Aslan and Trita Parsi are all varying degrees of apologists for the Islamic regime.

If you have a more specific interest, let me know and perhaps I'll be able to recommend something else.

<comment><USER21> I really appreciate your sharing these sources.

For anyone else interested, I found the BBC series Iran and the West is currently available on YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka- Wu1jYY9U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka-Wu1jYY9U)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The sad thing is Iran used to be reasonably liberal in the 1960's. Based on pictures from that time period, but politics got really ugly.

IMO, it's a classic case of nut-jobs on both sides of a boarder causing pain for a wide range of people.

<comment><USER15> >IMO, it's a classic case of nut-jobs on both sides of a boarder causing pain for a wide range of people.

I think this is a classic statement meant to be non-controversial enough that everyone can read their own opinion into it, but is inaccurate and adds nothing of substance to the conversation.

Iran didn't become the illiberal theocracy that it is today because of 'nut jobs outside its borders', but because the student revolution that ousted the Shah was co-opted by the hardline clerics, led by Ruhollah Khomeini, who were better organized than the student protestors.

The most reasonable argument for external forces being responsible for Iran's current state as a repressive regime, and as the world's largest state-sponsor of terrorism, is that Khomeini wasn't even inside Iran at the time of the revolution, and swooped in just in time to capitalize on the revolutionary struggle of others.

<comment><USER22> I was more thinking democracy > dictatorship > theocracy. I suspect the direct democracy > theocracy jump is harder, but I could be wrong. So, in this case the external nut-jobs would be the CIA in 1950's.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> A great lecture on Iran: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtELk8S3dhU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtELk8S3dhU)

Really gives some perspective on an oft-misunderstood place.

<comment><USER19> While Rick Steves is a warm and wonderful person he is no authority on Iran. He visited Iran and was carefully stage managed to present only the positive side of things and completely ignore the rest.

He is not a historian, he is not a sociologist, he is not an orientalist, he has zero credentials or background which would make him in any way an authority or a source of insight.

He went to Iran and had a great time visiting different cities and sites. And he talked to many people, while government minders were close by but off camera.

Therefore, this presentation is what it is: an anecdotal account of one man's carefully choreographed visit to a country.

And I'll add that I'm saying this as an Iranian - I wish I didn't have to add that but it seems that sometimes good intentioned people see anything negative written about Iran or a 'brown' country and automatically think it is motivated by racism or bigotry.

<comment><USER24> > He is not a historian, he is not a sociologist, he is not an orientalist, he > has zero credentials or background which would make him in any way an > authority or a source of insight.

He has traveled the world and visited lots of countries and viewed them with an open mind. He can make comparisons and contrasts. He can derive lessons as he did in the video where he touted the benefits of church/state separation. I think he has some expertise now. And definitely more than the theoretical historians, sociologists, orientalists who have never been in the field like he has.

> while government minders were close by but off camera.

Never mentioned this on camera. But he did mention that security would often inquire and investigate what he was up to.

> was carefully stage managed

He was not really stage managed. His focus was on the Iranian side of Iran, the human side, not the government side. And if he found information that he could not document, he spoke about it. That is not 'stage managed'.

<comment><USER19> Iran is an authoritarian country like North Korea. No foreign press is allowed in without first requesting a special permit. Among the information they have to present is who they are and what they are planning on reporting on. This is the first filter.

For example, if you request a press pass to enter Iran and report on the persecution of Bahais, don't be surprised if you are turned down.

But once allowed in, that's not the end of it. They are monitored and carefully managed to only present the positive. Also, who they speak to and what they say and hear is also monitored.

This is well known and routine. Therefore, to think that a choreographed and superficial 'feel good' anecdotal video like Rick Steve's presents anything approaching reality is the height of naivete.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Very exciting news, that made me happy about the news for a change. I am confident we can make Iran into a normal country if we show them some good will. It is a country full of all political stripes like anywhere else. The confrontational policies of the past has emboldened the Iranian hardliners.

It is time to embolden the moderates and reformers in Iran! When you read about the details of Iranian society, it is very clear that they have a huge amount of potential. Regular Iranians are the most positive to the west in the region. Religion is in strong decline there. They got a lot of real industry there. They are big car manufacturers e.g. They have more scientific output than the whole Arab world combined. Their strain of Islam is not as extremist as the one found among the gulf states like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jemen etc.

We got to give the Iranians reasons to believe that playing well with the west will give them a lot more benefits than antagonizing Israel.

I support Israel's existence but I really wish they had a more moderate and constructive leader than Bibbi. He really comes across as a deranged conspiracy theorist. To make real progress we really need to get Iran and Israel to make the peace.

</comment><comment><USER25> Now if only we could do away with the double standard and hold Isreal responsible for their nuclear escapades[0] too.

0\. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel)

<comment><USER26> Israel never publicly announced the willing and need to destroy another country, and it doesn't not support terror organization with monetary and military aid, it has never carried out terror attacks specially targeted at civilians. So yes double standards indeed.

<comment><USER25> This is a really poor argument for why Israel is allowed to skirt the Non- Proliferation Treaty scot-free. _The less nuclear weapons we have to worry about, the better_. But instead, the US rewards them with billions of dollars and high-tech weaponry[0]. When other countries do the same, like Iran, they receive sanctions and threats of military action (Iran is even a member of the NPT[1]). Worse yet, Iran has been clear about its intentions[2] and there's been high-profile accounts of intelligence officials agreeing that Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons[3][4]. And we wonder what kind of message this double standard sends to the rest of the world...

0\. [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf](http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf)

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non- Proliferatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non- Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons#Iran)

2\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran)

3\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_on_the_nuclear_program_o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_on_the_nuclear_program_of_Iran#2007_U.S._National_Intelligence_Estimate_.28NIE.29)

4\. [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy- cabl...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables- netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad)

<comment><USER27> If you read your own link #1, you will see that Israel is _not even a signatory_ to the treaty, so they aren't "skirting" anything.

Iran and North Korea _are_ signatories but violated it anyway.

<comment><USER25> By skirt I meant avoid. It's a lot easier to violate a treaty by not even recognizing it. By that logic, Iran and North Korea would have been better off not signing it too. North Korea actually announced its withdrawal from the NPT in 2003.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> So what did he mean when he said that Iran would be able to access its holdings abroad?

"A senior American official said Saturday that Iran will be able to access about $50 billion of a reported $100 billion in holdings abroad, although others have used higher estimates."

<comment><USER28> Prior to the sanctions, Iran had billions of dollars invested in foreign banks and infrastructure. Their access to this money was cut off when the sanctions were put into place and we're slowly allowing them access. Here's an article from 2014 with more detail:

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-assets-usa- idUSBREA0G...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-assets-usa- idUSBREA0G0LR20140117)

<comment><USER20> Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Crude oil is expected to fall another $2-$3 on Monday after this news. Curious what that will do to the rest of the market.

</comment><comment><USER29> They always did. It's just that now we agree to recognize it...

</comment><comment><USER30> Nice (surprising) to see some let up in the US's brutal war of aggression against Iran!

</comment><comment><USER26> This is the worst news this year. More money for terror, seems legit.

<comment><USER23> The single best way to reduce terrorism, civil strife, and violence in general is greater prosperity. Keeping people poor, ignorant and frustrated is a guarantee of future terrorism.

<comment><USER26> If only that new found prosperity wouldn't be used directly for terrorism I would agree with you. Lack of prosperity and poor education, didn't contribute to the sanctions been put on Iran but of direct action by the government. Lifting them will not help Iran become western democracy or less fanatic it's left wing bullshit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Makes a lot of sense. The scrawny kid with low self esteem who has a bad family life so he lashes out from time to time, is entirely ostracized by all the popular kids until he agrees to turn in his red ruder bb gun.

<comment><USER32> Not sure I'd call the US scrawny.</comment></comment>


Apple co-founder says Apple Card discriminated against his wife - <AUTHOR> https://lite.cnn.io/en/article/h_7ff61b1a9cb38fa656944d61df75f056 <comment><USER2> Since when does Wozniak 'continue to work for Apple'?

<comment><USER3> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak#Post_Apple_caree...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak#Post_Apple_career)

> Though permanently leaving Apple as an active employee in 1985, Wozniak > chose to never remove himself from the official employee list, and continues > to represent the company at events or in interviews. Today he receives a > stipend from Apple for this role, estimated in 2006 to be US$120,000 per > year.

At the top of the same page:

> As of November 2019, Wozniak has remained an employee of Apple in a > ceremonial capacity since stepping down in 1985.

One of the references is to a tweet by Wozniak at [https://twitter.com/stevewoz/status/1193424787248279552](https://twitter.com/stevewoz/status/1193424787248279552) directly concerning the Apple Card issue:

> I'm a current Apple employee and founder of the company and the same thing > happened to us (10x) despite not having any separate assets or accounts. > Some say the blame is on Goldman Sachs but the way Apple is attached, they > should share responsibility.

<comment><USER2> Why does he refer to Apple as 'they' instead of 'we' then?

<comment><USER3> The second person plural was already used as "the same thing happened to us" so using "we" there would ambiguous and confusing. That is, saying "we should share responsibility" would imply that _Wozniak and his wife_ should sharew responsibility.

I also believe "they" refers to legal responsibilities of the company as a whole, which are distinct and independent from the responsibilities of individual members. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood) .

Even if you don't like corporate personhood, "they" can also refer to those people with an executive role, that is, the people who collectively made the decision. He does not have executive authority in this decision, so is not a member of that "we".

Why is "we" specifically meaning employment? Can't being a shareholder also count as "we"? That is, I can own a company, and control a company, but not be employed by the company - surely "we" still applies there.

Consider that, if Wozniak own shares of Goldman Sachs then, as shareholder, he could have a role in guiding its policies. (Ditto for Apple, of course.) But it wouldn't make sense to refer to both roles as "we", as that would make it even more confusing.

<comment><USER2> True but a paid company spokesman typically says 'we', whereas a shareholder does not.

<comment><USER3> Where does anyone claim or suggest that Wozniak is a company spokesman in regards to this issue?

"Representative ... in a ceremonial capacity" is not "spokesman" except in the broadest of senses (eg, all employees, in some sense, can be spokespeople). It certainly isn't a spokesman for all of Apple's policies.

I'll note that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spokesperson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spokesperson) comments "it is the job of a spokesman to faithfully represent and advocate for the organization's positions, even when these conflict with their own opinion."

This strongly suggests that Wozniak is not a spokesman, in the usual sense of that word, for Apple.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> After reading up on the DHH situation I'm starting to wonder if social media is beginning to sneak its way into American banks as a credit worthiness data point.

The Chinese are at least up-front about it, but I've heard talk out of the US financial software area for a long time beforehand as being something that was inevitable.</comment>


What do the best interviewers have in common? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.interviewing.io/what-do-the-best-interviewers-have-in-common-we-looked-at-thousands-of-real-interviews-to-find-out/?p=1 <comment><USER2> I feel this is somewhat industry dependent, so take this with a grain of salt (finance answer).

They cultivate a friendly banter type atmosphere. As to the actual test part:

The ones that have asked questions that require a judgemental answer.

Bad interviewers try to ask difficult or complex questions. (Stupid monkey puzzles / google style "trick" questions")

The good ones assume you're technically competent and throw you questions where the question is crystal clear but the scenario is ambiguous & open to interpretation & vague. I don't need people that can do monkey puzzles I need people that can respond dynamically in the face of uncertainty.

e.g. How would you go about detecting fraud in a scenario like XYZ.

That has a million possible answers...but depending on which route you chose it'll become painfully obvious to the interviewer whether you know what you're talking about. It doesn't even have to be the right one...the language and logic alone will betray you if you don't know what you're talking about.

<comment><USER3> I agree completely, and it applies equally to software engineering. It's how I interview. Now, if it becomes clear that there are gaps in their knowledge, I will spend some time on those areas so I (or the relevant hiring manager) can make a decision regarding if the trade-offs are something I (or they) can live with.

For engineers, that can sometimes mean an algorithm problem--but something they haven't likely seen before. The key here being that I don't want to see someone regurgitate a solution, but to understand how they think. If they can't solve a problem fully but can come up with a list of 10 extremely pertinent questions I intentionally failed to mention, that is good information to have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It looks like their metric is: "good" interviewer means the interviewee enjoyed the interview and to want to move forward if asked.

Likely a very useful metric for figuring out if some interviewers are turning people off about the company.

I (and probably everyone else) would really like to see if this at all correlates with future performance metrics.

<comment><USER5> > I (and probably everyone else) would really like to see if this at all > correlates with future performance metrics.

I don't see how it's not possible. If your manager likes you, s/he will give you good reviews.

<comment><USER6> That's one oddly insightful little comment. It would be interesting to see the relationship between perceived performance and actual performance (by some impartial metric) in teams/management made up of people that get along well versus teams that don't particularly get along, but also don't actively dislike each other.

The trends in 'emotional intelligence' are largely based upon one psychology paper that did not reasonably show what many think it did. The author broke people into groups and found that average aptitude test scores did not work as a predictor for tasks such as 'planning a shopping trip as a team' whereas the average scores of another test, "seeing in the mind's eye", did.

The conclusion was therefore that a team's performance is not determined by the aptitude of its individual members, but their 'emotional intelligence.'. That is quite absurd since in order to make that conclusion you'd need to take the people who are individually best at 'planning a shopping trip' and put them in a team and compare their results to another team that scored well on the "seeing in the mind's eye" test but individually not as well on 'planning a shopping trip.' I think the author did not do this as she was well aware of what the result would be, and it's not publishable.

The reason for this tangent is that 'emotional intelligence' is now being used as a cornerstone for many things, and this article/company is yet another group feeding off of this. Yet wouldn't be it be quite remarkable if having groups that get along 'too well' could end up being counterindicative for performance. Most people find it difficult to be objective around those they're fond of. Create teams/management systems full of people fond of each other and everybody's going to say everybody's incredible and doing incredible things -- regardless of whether or not that's true.

<comment><USER7> Can you please share a link to the paper (if available)?

<comment><USER6> [http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6004/686](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6004/686)

It's paywalled. There's an informative article on Wiki about scientific paywalls [1].

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci- Hub](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Oh, it's only about job interviews. Sigh. Maybe that should have been obvious to me from the title or URL? I'm fascinated by interviews, but job interviews, not so much. Except this, from my favourite book by a mile about philosophy of art:

"Two men meet; one is the applicant for a position, while the other has the disposition of the matter in his hands. The interview may be mechanical, consisting of set questions, the replies to which perfunctorily settle the matter. There is no experience in which the two men meet, nothing that is not a repetition, by way of acceptance or dismissal, of something which has happened a score of times. The situation is disposed of as if it were an exercise in bookkeeping. But an interplay may take place in which a new experience develops. Where should we look for an account of such an experience? Not to ledger-entries nor yet to a treatise on economics or sociology or personnel-psychology, but to drama or fiction. Its nature and import can be expressed only by art, because there is a unity of experience that can be expressed only as an experience. The experience is of material fraught with suspense and moving toward its own consummation through a connected series of varied incidents. The primary emotions on the part of the applicant may be at the beginning hope or despair, and elation or disappointment at the close. These emotions qualify the experience as a unity. But as the interview proceeds, secondary emotions are evolved as variations of the primary underlying one. It is even possible for each attitude and gesture, each sentence, almost every word, to produce more than a fluctuation in the intensity of the basic emotion; to produce, that is, a change of shade and tint in its quality. The employer sees by means of his own emotional reactions the character of the one applying. He projects him imaginatively into the work to be done and judges his fitness by the way in which the elements of the scene assemble and either clash or fit together. The presence and behavior of the applicant either harmonize with his own attitudes and desires or they conflict and jar. Such factors as these, inherently aesthetic in quality, are the forces that carry the varied elements of the interview to a decisive issue. They enter into the settlement of every situation, whatever its dominant nature, in which there are uncertainty and suspense." \- John Dewey, Art as Experience

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure I've ever gone through an interview process where it was just me and one interviewer. Well, there was one time, but that was an exceptionally weird one. Frequently I meet with the department head and someone from HR. Or the whole team. Or a bunch of department heads. Also, the last way I would ever describe an interview is as a "unity of experience". Every person has a different perspective (Rashomon comes to mind - maybe someone should make a movie like that about an interview) and while the interviewers may reconcile theirs among each other to some extent, the interviewee frequently does not see things their way at all.

<comment><USER10> He probably means "unity of experience" in the sense that, one's experience is a unity. Look at the whole sentence:

>Its nature and import can be expressed only by art, because there is a unity of experience that can be expressed only as an experience.

This sounds like more of a phenomenological point, that there's a richness and a completeness to experience that isn't captured in data or theory, and that only something with comparable richness can begin to approach it.

<comment><USER8> Ah sorry, it was a bit random of me pasting that quote. His prose is fairly repellent. To explain a little, he uses "an experience" in a particular way in that book, not in the usual sense.

The book was a revelation to me, having read a lot of books about analytic philosophy of music and art, each analysing their own little corner of art/music, me feeling like I understood less after I finished each one. Then suddenly came this book, relating everything to _life_ \- he talks about poking a fire, firefighters, a job interview etc and how all the stuff going on in these are the building blocks of art. A section of the book is "The Live Creature" \- it's remarkable how many aesthetics books neglect the human/life/planet context of art. "An experience" means something like an aesthetic whole, like the experience of reading a story, watching a movie, hearing a piece of music etc. The chapter's called I believe "Having an Experience". Anyway..after that I stopped feeling the need to read books of philosophy of art/music, as all my questions had been answered. (I'm a musician + artist)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If people didn't routinely fail simple "can you think and write it in code" problems like fizz buzz I wouldn't ask them. But they do so I do.

Dijkstra observed that the majority of working programmers can't even write a correct binary search. I tried using it as an interview question and gave up because nobody got it right.

<comment><USER12> The majority of working programmers rarely have to write a correct binary search from scratch. Why should you ask it? A better question would be to ask when it's appropriate to use the algorithm, and possibly provide a set of data and a scenario (i.e. context) that the candidate might encounter in which using the algorithm is an appropriate solution but not necessarily obviously so, then see if his process of thinking about the problem leads him there.

<comment><USER13> Rarely _have_ to? For a professional programmer, writing their own binary search for actual use at work is nearly a firing offense (with a _very_ few exceptions).

Use the library. Don't write your own.

(Yes, I exaggerate. Train such programmers, don't fire them... the first time. But they're wasting your time, and probably introducing bugs in the process. It's deeply unprofessional.)

<comment><USER14> > Rarely _have_ to? For a professional programmer, writing their own binary > search for actual use at work is nearly a firing offense (with a _very_ few > exceptions).

You really don't sound like you do much coding. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to write my own binary search simply because the existing ones were painfully inadequate.

Pretty much every standard library implementation, for example, expects the data to be in an array in memory. There's no provision for the data to be dynamically obtained (e.g. from disk or generated on the fly) or in any other form in memory (e.g. unsafe/native int pointers in C#). And have fun running your standard library's binary search, whether Python or C++ or Java or whatever, on something more abstract like the numeric interval [0.5, 1.0]. There's just no way to specify alternate termination conditions like tolerances.

Oh, and this is completely ignoring more mundane shortcomings in a significant fraction of implementations, like how in C# there is (or at least was, last I checked) no way to directly obtain both the lower and upper bounds of an equal range via binary search. At least C++ has equal_range!

I could say the same for practically any classical CS 101 algorithm like depth-first search or Dijkstra or whatever you want, too, except those don't even exist in most standard libraries in the first place... and I suspect their lack of existence is not unrelated to their likely practical inadequacy.

<comment><USER15> Either I've been in only mediocre to average roles(for any of the reasons, including my inability) or you're a very small minority not aware of the fact. I'd like to believe in the latter, for peace of mind, but better to believe in former for driving personal growth. hmm.

<comment><USER14> I also forgot to mention another case: where the needle you're searching for is of a different type than the items in your haystack. If you're searching for an integer in an array of strings that you know are integers... good luck convincing the type system to let you even call the binary search method, let alone figuring out which argument to the comparator is what type (if they can even be of different types).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> As an interviewer, I've found that the ability to talk through the problem at multiple layers of abstraction to be one of the strongest indicators of mastery of a subject. This is independent of the topic as well- whether you're interviewing for coding ability, sales skill, or good management practices. Glad to see it show up in these findings as a great way to interview people.

<comment><USER17> One of the best questions I've ever been asked in an interview is: "Can you explain what a RESTful API is and pretend I know nothing about programming but am familiar with web surfing." For the simple reason that it asks the interviewee to show mastery by using use clear, simple language to explain something that can quickly turn into a bunch of rabbit trails.

<comment><USER18> so if the candidate had never heard of 'RESTful' but the hiring manager hired them anyway, how long do you think it would take for someone on the team to teach the new hire what they needed to know about 'RESTful API'ness ? I seriously wonder if the person asking you that question is hoping you can explain REST to all of their coworkers :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> >What do the best interviewers have in common?

Not sticking to some rigid formula or format. Being able to adjust to the particular candidate in a way that works for both sides.

For example, some people aren't great at answering questions rapid fire. Giving them a chance to mull on something, and come back to it later, might reveal something you would have missed.

Or, if they miss a question you feel was obvious, ask them what area they feel strong in...then ask a question in that space.

Interviewing is stressful, and so you're not necessarily getting a clear view of their skills if you aren't flexible.

</comment><comment><USER20> >> If you're asking a classic algorithmic question, that's ok, but you ought to bring some nuance and depth to the table, and if you can teach the interviewee something interesting in the process, even better!

This! This! This!

If you're going to ask a textbook dynamic programming problem, tell me why that is important.

If you're checking to see they can think top-down/bottom up, that's fine. But penalizing (aka no hire) for not knowing "the trick" of that dp problem is futile.

In the end, you want a guy/girl who can do the job well. What signal does a candidate solving max subarray give you? Does it tell you they'll write your mission critical service well?

Also, LOL at "How to be human". It's sad that smart people have to be taught this.

</comment><comment><USER21> _better interviewing through data_ Quote from [http://blog.interviewing.io/](http://blog.interviewing.io/)

 _Writing Good Code is like Writing a Novel_ Quote from [https://hackernoon.com/writing-good-code-is-like-writing- a-n...](https://hackernoon.com/writing-good-code-is-like-writing-a- novel-33973645be01)

When I put above two ideas together, I realized following.

If you were running a publishing house and needed to a writer to publish your next book, how do you go about picking the writer?

You usually look at the body of work from the writer. You read the books the author wrote in the past to decide if the writer is any good.

You don't decide if the writer is good or bad from just

1) reading a page of resume and

2) asking him to write out a clever sentence on a whiteboard in the middle of the interview.

That tiny slice of data is useless for deciding on anything. If you are all about deciding based on data, why would you make an employment decision based on the most tiny fraction of the actual data (resume and 30 min interview)?

Programming/IT/DevOps workers now have ample ways of showing past work. Often it's personal projects in github or a blog with tutorials on how to secure servers. These are far better tools to measure a candidate. Just like reading books by an author is a far better way to predict how that author's works would turn out.

And my personal experiences have shown me that majority of interviewers don't read my blog or my github. I find out in interviews that some don't know it's there. It's at the top of my resume for a reason.

And no one's asked about any question what I've written about in my blog or in my github repo. And these are topics directly related to the position.

</comment><comment><USER22> If you enjoyed this article, you might like HN'er tptacek's [https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/03/06/the-hiring- post/](https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/03/06/the-hiring-post/)

<comment><USER23> Isn't this the streetfighter.io guy? Pass.

<comment><USER24> _Isn 't this the streetfighter.io guy? Pass._

And, ladies and gentlemen, that's how we can get subtle insight into a person's attention to detail.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> we are transitioning from a knowledge based economy to a decision based one- it's useless to ask questions which test skill competency if those questions could be answered by a few search engine queries.

your goal as a person hiring (or firing) is to assess the candidate's ability to consistently make efficient decisions given complex scenarios with many rotating pieces. can this person handle their responsibilities and grow with them, or will they be difficult.

some of the most technical and capable people also have terrible interpersonal skills and a fickle work ethic, which means they follow their interests and not yours. do you want to herd cats or work as a team? teams need leaders, leaders need respect and to be followed. a working environment is a benevolent dictatorship not a democracy. if flat structures worked they would be applied broadly across fortune 500 companies, are you a wheel inventor?

it takes about 6 months to train almost anyone to do almost anything in the modern digital/information world. it takes a lifetime to be agreeable, polite, conscientious, patient, dedicated, unbiased. you'd learn a lot more about someone watching them interact with strangers and friends for 5 minutes than from hours in interviews (which ostensibly they have crammed for and are hiding as much of their weaknesses as possible). i assume this is why so many companies want private information on their employees, social media, public profiles. hiring at the moment works as a great filter, there is no best candidate for any job, a better strategy would be to filter out personality traits which would clash with company direction and assume some level of skill training will be required. pretty sure this transition is already happening.

the real stickler will come when hiring agencies realise basic fitness and hand eye coordination tests are better predictors than technical ability, then you enter into some genetic discrimination areas which will only accelerate the relevant bio-technologies, a fissile cavitation.

<comment><USER15> >leaders need respect and to be followed. This works two ways. Parts of it has to be earned, I've worked with founders, whom I would gladly followed when it comes to s/w engineering, but disagree violently when it comes to product/business calls/experiments to do. The reverse has been hard to detect, but my first instinct is that it's a lower percent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> How good are even good interviewers at picking the best candidate for the job? IIRC what research there is shows mixed results at best.

Or is the only point of an interview to motivate the new employee?

</comment><comment><USER27> Here is a crazy interview trick that I've seen work well. Group interviews! It isn't as crazy as it sounds.

Suppose that you're hiring for multiple related roles. You have a bunch of people who are ready for their in-person interview come in as a group. You go to lunch with some select employees, and explain that they are not in competition with each other because you're hoping to make multiple hires. Then you come back and are asked to do a basic hackathon over the afternoon. (The available projects for which are all small but real stand-alone things that you could use.) Through the time, you take each person aside, ask them for a basic demonstration of ability, then return them to the group.

Hire all who seemed competent and worked well in the group.

This saves a _lot_ of time over interviewing each one, and shows you something important about how they will be in the workplace that you otherwise wouldn't see in the normal interview structure. And it is more fun for the candidates!

<comment><USER28> > And it is more fun for the candidates!

Really? It would be difficult to shake the thought that you're being directly compared and in competition.

<comment><USER27> That can be a challenge for some. But it is more common to see people swapping phone numbers, leads, and tips.

Looking for a job is an isolating experience. And you don't often get the chance to connect with people who are in the same boat as you.

And for the people who really can't get past trying to compete against each other..would you want someone like that on your dev team? That's one of the things that this is intended to weed out.

<comment><USER28> Personally, I would hate preparing for a normal interviewing experience and be thrown into something completely nonstandard like this.

Why would they be swapping tips and numbers if they're in competition with each other?

<comment><USER29> I've never done a group interview, so I'm speculating, but the concept sounds nice, so long as there is also sufficient 1-on-1 time.

> I would hate preparing for a normal interviewing experience and be thrown > into something completely nonstandard like this.

Would it a problem if you told candidates they're doing group interviews? Might be a flaw in this particular variant, not the concept itself.

> Why would they be swapping tips and numbers if they're in competition with > each other?

From the top level comment:

"You [...] explain that they are not in competition with each other because you're hoping to make multiple hires."

<comment><USER27> That explanation is critical. If people can get into that mindset it all works. If not..it is a disaster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> d--b When we do interviews, at least 6 people evaluate the candidate. that would certainly smoothen the cons and pros of individual interviewers and provide a fairly honest picture of the company's culture...

</comment><comment><USER30> The best interviewers have 1 big thing in common : they are the actual team the candidate will be working with.

<comment><USER31> For short term employment, sure. Teams change, though, so you need to be sure you're hiring for overall ability and not just current fit. Same goes for "culture" as well. There's an argument that "who you'll be working with" as a metric leads to homogenous teams.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm so, so tired of doing interviews filled with "did you memorize this particular algorithm" whiteboard coding questions. Especially given I'm not some fresh-out-of-college hire. The industry's research on this is pretty unequivocal that it's a terrible way to evaluate candidates for anything other than "isn't a complete idiot" which would also be accomplished by more reasonable questions.

Why can't the industry finally just drop stupid whiteboard coding and move on to more practically focused questions?

<comment><USER33> Honestly I find most white board coding questions to not veer into the "you'll only get this if you've seen it before" territory. Not to say that it can't happen, but in some of my interviews recently, I got the following whiteboard problems (all asking for optimal solutions):

Find the largest palindrome substring of a string

Shortest path solver (Djikstra's)

Compute a power if the base is any double and the exponent is an integer

Take an unsorted list and put all the odd numbers on one side, all the evens on the other

Given an array/list of numbers that first increases then decreases and a number, determine if that number is in the array/list.

Out of those five, only one requires you to have something somewhat memorized (path-finding), but even that is pretty basic, and I think they would have accepted non-optimal solutions that worked anyway, so really all you needed to know how to do was write a BFS that maintains the cost of the shortest-yet found path to each expanded vertex. The rest I think anybody - given enough time - could solve if they were a good programmer. Of course sometimes there are problems where you don't figure it out in time, and definitely (a minority of) problems that are too hard for a whiteboard interview, but you're not going to get _every_ technical question right anyway.

It increases the stochasticity of interviewing when you can fail the technical challenges of interviews for jobs you, on another interviewing day/with another set of question, would otherwise qualify for, but this is logical from a hiring perspective. It costs less to interview 20 people and accept one qualified candidate than to interview 5 people and accept an unqualified candidate. It's not that you _need_ to know how to solve these problems to be a good programmer, or even that being able to solve these problems is indicative of a good programmer, it's that a bullshitter/unqualified candidate will fail these every time, while at least a few qualified candidates won't fail.

<comment><USER34> Finding the optimal longest palindrome substring algorithm surely is in the "you'll only get this if you've seen it before" territory.

Implementing a binary search algorithm is anything but trivial, you've got overflows, off-by-one errors, passing arguments by value, etc. Sure, the _idea_ of finding the point in the array that starts decreasing with a binary search is simple, but the subtle ways you can write it wrong are practically infinite.

<comment><USER33> That's true about the binary search. I didn't complete that one in time (although I did relay the algorithm structure). Although I think white boarding gets a lot of undeserved hate, one gripe I have is with its occasional focus on compilable code. Obviously you want to hire a developer that is actually capable of implementing solutions to problems, and one that can code in a timely manner.

However, it really stings to get the algorithm right and know _what_ the implementation concerns (overflow/OBOB) are, but simply not have enough time to get them written in a correct/compilable manner. I've failed a few online interviews where I knew the solution to a problem but simply didn't have the time to write it. For example, I got a question that required building a heap, but at some points you needed to remove items from the middle of the heap. This would require being able to call sift-down/sift-up on the underlying data structure. I didn't know how/if I could call sift-down/sift-up on the priority queue implementation of the language they made me use. So I essentially ran out of time because I couldn't look up an algorithm I knew how/why to use.

I have to disagree about the palindrome question only because I got it in the last ~15 minutes of a 30 minute first round interview. With 10 minutes passed and 5 remaining, I still only had the naive solution on the board with less than five minutes to go. After a few more minutes of thinking I eventually realized that I had only been thinking of palindromes from outside-in. With about 1-2 minutes left I hurriedly explained to my interviewer that you should check each character and find the largest palindrome that character is the center (or half of a paired center) of, by expanding outwardly. He asked a few questions, then assured me that it was ok to not write it on the board and that he could tell I understood it. It really gave me a good impression of the company that their hiring practices were so rational, and I now work there.

I really think anybody would have figured out the problem if they looked at it long enough, it's just that sometimes things like this take 4 minutes and sometimes they take 4 hours. It depends on the person but not strictly an "intelligence" way, I just think there's a lot of variance in how long it takes people, even pretty smart people, to solve sufficiently hard problems.

<comment><USER35> That's a good solution but it's not the optimal solution. In the worst case that's still n^2. Nobody expects candidates to answer the linear time solution for that question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Best interviewer is aware of what the actual position really requires and will adjust interview to find match for that exact position instead of some other generic one.

</comment><comment><USER37> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_more_than_one_way_to...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_more_than_one_way_to_do_it)

</comment><comment><USER38> The best interviewers are the ones that see your dribbble/github/youtube/etc.. matches their company needs and reach out directly.

<comment><USER39> What sort of companies need people like me with empty YouTube/dribbble/github accounts?

<comment><USER38> You've built nothing others can see that would make them want to hire you?

<comment><USER39> Nope. I've built tons of stuff for companies though. Stuff you've almost certainly used before, in fact. I do _have_ a github account, but the publicly available stuff is just a bunch of garbage from me tinkering with new technologies or whatever.

The idea that I need to have some sort of public portfolio to land a job is ludicrous. I have a life outside of programming.

<comment><USER40> "I do have a github account, but the publicly available stuff is just a bunch of garbage from me tinkering with new technologies or whatever."

Speaking as an interviewer, that's actually still pretty valuable: it tells me a lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I have really bad anxiety during interviews and it clouds my mind. I'm considering taking a beta blocker for my next interview.

<comment><USER42> Do it. It's an open secret in musician circles that many rely on beta blockers for high pressure performances.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> "When can you start?" question :)

</comment><comment><USER44> I saw this was posted yesterday. For reference, don't delete and resubmit things to HN if they do not get traction.

<comment><USER45> It's true that submitters aren't supposed to delete and repost ([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)) but as the FAQ also says, a small number of reposts are ok when an article hasn't gotten traction. And in this case we invited it, which we do a fair bit of.</comment></comment>


The Five Stages of Fascism (1998) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://w3.salemstate.edu/%7Ecmauriello/pdfEuropean/Paxton_Five%20Stages%20of%20Fascism.pdf <comment><USER2> Why was Trump in my mind the whole time I was reading this?

One thing that I learned was that fascism comes from the masses, not just a dictator. In other words Hitler didn't create the situation, he just took advantage of it.</comment>


iTunes is now basically illegal in the UK - <AUTHOR> http://www.macworld.com/article/2960458/legal/itunes-is-now-basically-illegal-in-the-uk-and-not-because-its-terrible.html

<comment><USER2> This seems kinda crazy. Is the recording industry lobby so powerful that they made this happen? Was there anything else that directly preceded this law change?

The article makes it sound retroactive as well. Is it possible the UK will round up numerous people with large collections for prosecution?

<comment><USER3> This isn't actually a new law but the overturning of a new law passed last year that explicitly legalized these things. The law now is as it was when iTunes was originally introduced.

Story about the passage of the now-overturned law: [https://torrentfreak.com/uk-government-legalizes-cd- ripping-...](https://torrentfreak.com/uk-government-legalizes-cd-ripping- cloud-backups-today-141001/)</comment></comment>


Singles are strengthening society's social bonds - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/34/adaptation/families-of-choice-are-remaking-america <comment><USER2> The flip side of this phenomenon, along with the demise of the traditional family, is, those who aren't chosen as part of the hand picked family, can miss out on having one altogether. Where decades ago there were many people who had no friends besides family, today those people belong to an 'underclass' of loners. That's a worse kind of inequality than the economic inequality everyone talks about.

<comment><USER3> Niche subcultures thrive on the internet. Friendships take an amount of effort and a reasonable level of sacrifice to maintain. The internet also makes it easy to ignore other people and spend time on consuming media instead of creating and sharing experiences alongside other people. I assume this might be why let's play videos and spectator video gaming seems to be gaining in popularity.

<comment><USER2> That's one kind of lonely person, though they are not strictly lonely because often they have lots of relationships online, so they _are_ talking to people. Often they are considered unattractive by women.

The kind I have in mind is 67 year old retired atheist man or woman living next door, unmarried, parents passed away. has 3 siblings with kids but never talks to them. Has to rely on neighbour to call him or her up at the designated time every day to make sure he or she picks it up to confirm they didn't faint in the shower.

I knew a few of these. One of them asked how to meet women because he hadn't talked to one for so long. The other struggle to say "I'm fine" every time I ask her "How're you?".

My parents is the neighbour by the way. I think the man has a son but I get the feeling his son never talks to him.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article really annoys me, I don't really care if people have kids or not, however, all these people doing so much for society came from people who chose to do less for society and instead raise the people doing so much for society.

"As networked individuals, we have the freedom to design the community we want to live in. And if what we choose isn't working for us, we can always try something else."

this a really disrespectful attitude to the kinds of decisions made by their parents to enable them to live such a lifestyle, I'm not saying they owe people to have children just respect that abandoning something when it doesn't suit you is not how great adults are raised, but rather children growing up secure in the knowledge that they are so loved that their parents gave up such a lifestyle to ensure that even when things aren't going well they will be loved and cared for.

We all contribute to society in our own way and it would be great if we could all be proud of what we've contributed without having to compare to others. If you're raising children cherish them, if you're single cherish that, neither decision takes anything away from the other.

<comment><USER5> Having children directly takes from childless single people (in the US) through their taxes. I know that due to the law of averages, everything is supposed to be equal, but that is a direct subsidy to the majority from a minority.

<comment><USER6> Presumably most of those children will be productive members of society whose contributions support your retirement... And let's not forget the benefit you [if born or raised in G20] would have received as a child. So, in essence you are as a single, paying back the benefits you enjoyed as a youth, presuming averages.

<comment><USER7> Every time there is a discussion about people without children versus people with, a bunch of childless people will make the statement about having to pay taxes for these kids. It is like they have read that statement elsewhere and then repeats it without actually thinking about it at all. I don't bother responding anymore.

<comment><USER8> I agree with you and the person you're responding to, but I also understand where the anti-child-tax people are coming from. I think they come from a good place, which is "I shouldn't pay for optional activities of others" and probably some amount of "why pay for THOSE people's kids who are just a drain on society's resources (and mine personally!)".

But if "those people" (trailer park folk, the uneducated, or whoever else somebody dislikes) are going to have kids, wouldn't we all prefer that they at least get a minimum education, basic nutrition etc. so that we don't push them into being an un-educated, malnourished mob that resents the rest of society?

Public education, welfare, etc. might be broken, but that's a whole other argument.

<comment><USER9> A lot of these populations of undereducated are in areas that culturally oppose outside influences. See: cults, extremely rural Appalachia, pockets of immigrant groups opposing assimilation violently in European urban areas. Education = indoctrination to them and a loss of their cultural values. How do you teach people that may need it most when they don't want it?

This is not the case by and large but it puts a ceiling on the efforts to educate away problems with the Idiocracy trends of the world.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Longevity and anti-aging research: 'Prime time for an impact on the globe' - <AUTHOR> https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/03/anti-aging-research-prime-time-for-an-impact-on-the-globe <comment><USER2> This recent interview with Aubrey de Grey (main popularizer of anti-aging science) is really worth listening to:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMFST20xHwk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMFST20xHwk) (1.5x speed is fine)

He seems to think that anti-aging science has speeded up drastically recently, both in terms of the science itself, the funding and the popularity. I really love what the SENS Foundation is doing in terms of spinning research avenues into startups, since most investors are far more likely to fund high-risk investments than non-profit ones.

He also mentions other positive developments in terms of legislation and advocacy.

<comment><USER3> I'm still not sure if SENS should stay non-profit. It produced great results, it would get much more money if it would convert to a for profit company. At the same time it's important to keep the control near Aubrey de Grey, as he has a great track record of staying focused.

<comment><USER4> Non-profit doesn't mean they can't make money - just that they can't outfunnel it to shareholders/owners.

Whether they would get more research funding from accepting investment instead of donations or if the mission would survive is a separate topic.

<comment><USER3> The main goal of going for a for profit company would be to increase funding. It's sad that Vitalik Buterin had to be the biggest donation giver when there are so many people much richer than him (and with shorter expected remaining lifespan).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a great news. Fighting aging is one of the most important challenge of our time.

This is also encouraging:

"Gazette: Are there regulatory hurdles? When we've spoken in the past, you've mentioned that the FDA considers aging a natural process and therefore won't approve drugs to treat it.

Sinclair: I've been part of a group that talked with the FDA, and they are willing and also quite enthusiastic about considering a change that defines aging as a disease."

<comment><USER6> And not climate change? In my mind's model of the future we're going to die within 50 years, this research is useless when the infinitely aged doesn't have clean water to drink.

<comment><USER7> One of the main connections to longevity people usually miss in this whole "climate change" discussion is one of the main psychological reasons people don't take care of the environment in the first place: and it's arguably their lifespan. Everyone in the west knows that they will die at most ~100 years of age, and if you are basically not in some top percentile morality-wise (and also at that point in your life where all more important problems are resolved and you even have energy to care about the environment), you just don't care about it because you know you're going to die anyway. Of course many people think about their children and the other people etc, but many don't.

If we manage to extend the expected (or even just possible) generic lifespan of normal people - that will be one of the best promoters of environment- thinking of normal population. Because suddenly the choices they make today become very real in terms of impact on the environment in the next 50-100-200 years, because there is a good change that this same person is going to be living at that time.

<comment><USER8> But that's two sides of the same coin, individualism.

Even if we lived 120 years in average, do you think the game would change a lot, I don't. I don't see drastic changes in young people today, yet they'll most likely be alive in 60-70 years. And for argument's sake, even if it does we still end up with much more people living on the same resource limited planet at the same time.

You can already bump your life expectancy (and end life quality) quite a lot by eating health, exercising, quitting drinking/smoking. Most people don't do it because it's too much effort and "that's not life", again individualism/short sightedness.

We need a cure for laziness / individualism, then, maybe, we can start talking considering longevity.

<comment><USER7> > because it's too much effort

This is exactly the reason these scientists are focusing on genetic and other medical ways to increase lifespan, which are going to be packaged in products that can be used without effort. One might say what they want about people not wanting to expend unnecessary effort, one might call it lazy or just smart, or a drive of progress, it doesn't matter. The fact is if you give people a method that requries less effort, more people will use it. Thus we will have a greater general effect on the population with these methods.

<comment><USER8> But again, what's the goal ?

Giving lazy people the opportunity to continue living lazily longer while ravaging the planet ? Welcome to transhumanists paradise I guess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

Well, maybe not the last one, but still an important one. Nick Bostrom has a great story describing the underlying philosophy in the fight against aging:

[https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html](https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html)

And here it is in video form as well: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY)

<comment><USER10> Imagine a world in which Stalin was still in power. That is what amortality looks like.

I can't help but think that this would also completely retard scientific progress. Imagine tenure that lasts a milenium or more. We would still be discussing scholastism.

<comment><USER11> Imagine a world where Newton could still contribute, peak scientific output wouldn't be before the age of 35, and politicians would tackle long term problems because they will be affected by them too. That is also what amortality looks like.

<comment><USER12> I'd be worried that Newton would be spending an even higher percentage of his time on alchemy research than he already did, and using his reputation to push promising scientists to do the same.

<comment><USER11> Modern chemistry was born from Alchemy research. I find it unlikely that Newton would have continued to do exactly the same kinds of things for centuries more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What makes people think we want to have them around any longer? To extend life is to decrease it's value. Simple economics tells us it's inflation.

edit: I think Neil deGrasse Tyson says it a lot better than me: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3G9LOJZTmM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3G9LOJZTmM)

<comment><USER7> This makes no sense. Longer productive lifespan means that people can acquire more expert skills and become more proficient at what they do. Or for example switch professions if the economic climate has changed - which will be still much faster than teaching a completely new individual to learn that profession, if there is even a little overlap between them.

I'm not saying that economics should even have any say in making people live longer (I don't think the purpose of life is to make the economy work well, it's the other way around), but even from the point of view of economics, we would want to make everyone live longer.

<comment><USER13> From the point of view of economics maybe. Switching professions can be done in a current lifespan and is not done very often. I don't see people changing just because their life is extended. I just don't understand people's fixation on having a longer life. Seems to me people just keep looking at the horizon to bring them what they want and they forget what's right in front of them.

<comment><USER14> One reason not to switch professions is affordability. Few established mid- career professionals can afford to either take time out to train and qualify in another trade, or jump back down to the bottom rung and take a junior role in something else.

If, at 60, you have paid off your mortgage, amassed some savings, and seen your adult children leave home, then you can consider it. However, by then, you only have 5-7 years left until your pension kicks in and 10 before cognitive decline starts to take hold (either may have already happened), so you will probably just plod on doing what you already know. You might not even have enough time to really get to the interesting part of being a whatever- your-new-career-is.

If at 60, you are still in the prime of your life, with 60 more years on the clock, and 30 more years of full cognition and physical fitness available to you, then the idea of a career shift becomes more attractive.

Even without the affordability question, there is likely to be a point in most people's careers where the pursuit of mastery stops and the doldrums set in. The longer the working life, the more likely you are to reach that tipping point at a point when you have time to do something about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If anyone is interested in tracking progress of clinical trials for age related diseases, there's this roadmap: [https://www.lifespan.io/the- rejuvenation-roadmap/](https://www.lifespan.io/the-rejuvenation-roadmap/)

</comment><comment><USER16> "Prime time for an impact" is kind of an ironic title IMHO.

People already live quite long, so it takes a long time for longevity to take any significant effect.

If a 20yo man became immortal today, he will be 100 in 2099. Who knows what kind of world we'll be living in then?

My point is : longevity is such a slow motion process that its impact on society is not as relevant as the pace of technology in other fields.

<comment><USER11> Having a treatment that allows 20 year olds to live healthily to 120 likely helps the contemporary 85 year olds to live a few more years without being dependent on other people. Ageing populations are a huge problem in many first world countries.

<comment><USER3> Not really. What you're talking about works with solutions that are minimizing the damages building up in your body, but Audrey is specifically researching repairing the damages.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There is a very good recent more informal-type long-format discussion with this doctor (David Sinclair) discussing a lot of longevity topics on the Joe Rogan channel: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOTS0HS7aq4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOTS0HS7aq4)

</comment><comment><USER17> If we can cure aging, then overpopulation will become an even larger problem than it already is. I would propose to only make anti-aging treatments available to people who haven't procreated yet and on condition they get sterilised at the same time.

<comment><USER11> Overpopulation right now is not caused by people getting too old, it's caused by people having too many babies. It is also not a problem in countries where anti-aging treatments are likely to be available first and even less of a problem in the rich population that will be able to afford them at first.

On the other hand, the promise of remaining able bodied until you die from an accident might reduce the number of children because you don't have to have children that take care of you when you're too old to take care of yourself.

<comment><USER17> > Overpopulation right now is not caused by people getting too old, it's > caused by people having too many babies.

Exactly, so if we don't sterilise people who get anti-aging treatments, what's to stop them from having a litter of children every century or so ?

<comment><USER11> I propose we worry about that when it's actually a problem. We don't know how people behave when they can keep youthful bodies for decades longer than now. Maybe we're lucky and they just don't want more children.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Advances against aging are great, but they also call for advances in finances for the aged.

With every advance in medicine, your chances of outliving your money go up as well. Better feed the pig!

<comment><USER19> What are you talking about? If people live longer, healthier lives, then they can work a lot longer.

<comment><USER19> In case anyone is still reading this, I'd like to add to this. Think about humans in terms of corporate employees. A single human in today's society costs an absolute fortune to raise to adulthood in resources. It takes a lot of investment by society and the parents both to have the child, then to educate it. It takes many years of education to turn the child into a citizen. It takes more education (college) to turn the citizen into a highly productive one. Then, assuming all goes well, they go into the workforce and then there's a lot of ramp-up time, gaining expertise, etc. If they go the postdoc degree route, that's more time. Even worse, look at all the training/education needed for specialized doctors and surgeons. People aren't usually really productive until they're 25-30 years old. Then they only have so many decades until they're too feeble to really contribute a lot, and during that time they're expected to have kids of their own, which is basically a second job. (Even worse, women need to have those kids in their 20s-30s, which is exactly the wrong time career-wise.)

In short, the actual _overhead_ needed to produce useful citizens in today's complex society is enormous, relative to the total lifespan of that person.

It wasn't a problem in the hunter-gatherer days because we didn't need much education to learn some simple non-written language, nor much training to go throw a spear and kill some animals and cook them. Things are very different now.

Extending useful and healthy human lifespans would change that equation, and be a huge boon for modern society. Just look at how many women end up postponing having children, or giving up on it altogether, because it just doesn't fit in with a high-paying career. As a result, developed nations are seeing negative population growth, which isn't sustainable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> What you actually see if you study aging carefully is that it isn't anything like accumulation of damage the body cannot repair, it's the accumulation of damage the body can repair.

In fact, among the most consistent things you can see is the accumulation of iron, and to a lesser extent other minerals, such as calcium. The body seems to have a really big trouble regulating those minerals, it doesn't even have its own way to get rid of excess iron, the only way you can get rid of it is blood loss.

Now, what does it mean? One thing, the body doesn't really makes much distinctions when absorbing metals so that when there is excess iron, it cannot absorb other divalent metals without poisoning itself with iron. So it cannot absorb manganese without absorbing too much iron, and manganese is essential for preventing oxidative damage.

A second thing is, the experiments on rats show that lanthanum (and possibly other rare earths) change the homeostasis in the brain so that the amount of iron decreases, while it normally accumulates with age. Multiple rare earths have been shown to bind preferably to proteins, usually over calcium, but possibly also other metal ions, zinc seems to be a kind of universal element that can bind to almost any place that isn't taken. Neurons even seem to dramatically increase in capacity (with each neuron carrying its own signal, instead of many almost exactly the same thing over and over) as the concentration of lanthanum increases in vitro. (it's worth noting though, that lanthanum has been seen as an essential nutrient for decades in China, so if it cured aging, it would be known)

I thing we need to consider the possibility that there is no such a thing as aging, but is the result of some sort of imbalance caused by early agriculture, metallurgy, or whatever human activity that changed the environment in a way that our bodies, and other mammal bodies have no way of dealing with. The rumors of longevity from history and various isolated places are seen as myths, but they may not all be.

<comment><USER21> Gonnna need citations for all of that..

<comment><USER20> Iron is known to accumulate with age: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23237353](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23237353) It has even been proposed as the mechanism of caloric restriction: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2481398/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2481398/) Here is some literature review that I just found: [https://res.mdpi.com/metals/metals-05-02070/article_deploy/m...](https://res.mdpi.com/metals/metals-05-02070/article_deploy/metals-05-02070.pdf?filename=&attachment=1) The absence of iron excretion mechanism shouldn't be controversial, here is the wikipedia article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_iron_metabolism#Iron_rec...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_iron_metabolism#Iron_recycling_and_loss)

Both iron and manganese are transported by the same molecules and the nutrients inhibit each other, e.g.:[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2058577](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2058577)

The need of Mn for MnSOD also shouldn't be controverisal: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOD2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOD2)

lanthanum changing the concentration of iron in the brain: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037842740...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378427406000580)

Review of lanthanide effects, cites the higher affinity of certain lanthanides to proteins: [http://www.actabp.pl/pdf/4_2000/1107.pdf](http://www.actabp.pl/pdf/4_2000/1107.pdf)

Lanthanum increaseing the capacity of neural transmission, (together with [https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(18)31646-5](https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674\(18\)31646-5) [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00198-7?utm_sourc...](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00198-7?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral#references): [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Acute-functional- neuro...](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Acute-functional- neurotoxicity-of-lanthanum\(III\)-in- Gramowski-J%C3%BCgelt/fb6f59438fb3b4d54cd55ef707c14fd4920f57a3/figure/0)

The longevity myths are well known, there are local myths of 100+ year old mountain men, (caucasus + some other range in south asia) and the myths of ancient "golden age" when people didn't age are almost universal, and many of the earliest written sources insist on "implausible" ages of certain people. Surprisingly many religions (virtually all, in fact) agree that people started aging when they previously were not and longevity was the normal state until aging was inflicted on people, only the reasoning why it happened varies. - all the abrahamic religions, a very important part of hinduism mentioned in many texts, the greek religion, sumerian, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Anti-aging: the last nail in the coffin of Social Security

</comment><comment><USER23> Yawn ... This is the resveratrol guy again. Media hound.</comment>


GitLab 8.8 released with Pipelines - <AUTHOR> https://about.gitlab.com/2016/05/22/gitlab-8-8-released/ <comment><USER2> Jenkins 2.0 is also out with a new revamped pipeline feature.

Has anyone had experience migrating from jenkins to gitlab or the other way. What were the gains/issues encountered when trying to re-organized their existing setup?>

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm also in the process of moving from jenkins to gitlab... and until now, the process is pretty smooth and easy ... gitlab-ci is easier to grasp and to work with... the only issues i got is about things like publishing build results (lints check or test results /counts ) althoug there is basic support for artifacts. it's not easily possible (at least for now) to fetch the artifacts for a given commit or branch without doing multiple api calls.

<comment><USER3> Thanks. We are working on bringing missing features to artifacts, so we will improve that workflow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wondering what's the big feature announcement tomorrow.

<comment><USER5> The hint was very obvious.

<comment><USER4> The blog post also mentioned: "This release contains another cool feature that we're saving for tomorrow."

maybe, this is it: [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9H9hnY...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9H9hnYtGM7sJ:https://gitlab.com/kalihsdsdw/presk/container_registry+&cd=1&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=ca)

It was in 8.8 milestone: [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/issues/3299](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/3299)</comment></comment></comment>