U.S. Donors, Not French Billionaires, Are Paying to Fix Notre Dame - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-14/us-donors-not-french-tycoons-foot-notre-dame-works-bills <comment><USER2> I don't get why anyone is donating money to rebuild Notre Dame.

#1. The church has a plethoric abundance of money seeing as how it PAYS NO TAXES!!! #2. The timber needed to rebuild has been grown on the grounds of Versaille for over a century.

This rebuilding has been planned since the last time it was destroyed and had to be rebuilt, during the French Revolution. Ridiculous that people would throw away their money at something that was already planned for.

</comment><comment><USER3> "The Friends of Notre Dame de Paris was founded in 2017, and its president, Michel Picaud, estimates that 90% of the donations it has received have come from American donors."</comment>


Ask HN: Have you known anyone who authored malware or adware? - <AUTHOR> Why did they do it? Did they actually make money? <comment><USER2> If you are thinking about it don't do it. These software wreak havoc on people's computer.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, of _course_ I'm not. I DETEST those people. That's why I'm asking-- who actually DOES this??</comment></comment>


Germany Minister of Justice demands immediate response to US spying on Germany - <AUTHOR> http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=da&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dr.dk%2FNyheder%2FUdland%2F2013%2F06%2F30%2F0630124247.htm&act=url

<comment><USER2> I'll repeat a comment I just made in another thread but find to be fitting here too. For the sake of awareness:

It's funny to see all this railing up against NSA and PRISM, while tomorrow, the first of July 2013, the "Bestandsdatenauskunft" will be implemented as law in Germany. A commentator from _Die Zeit_ newspaper tersely summed up the intentionally abstruse wording of the new rules. The law means, "that police and intelligence services will in the future be allowed to obtain extremely personal information about mobile phone users, and do so with the press of a button and without having to face any major legal hurdles".

Crudely translated it would mean something similar to "Inventory Data Information Act". Parts of the new law are the following:

> With respect to the obligations of the access providers, ISPs with more than > 100,000 customers are now required to maintain a "secure electronic > interface" in order to minimise the time needed for certain agencies to > retrieve information.

The innocuous sounding term, "inventory data", should not detract from the fact that the issue involves direct access to people's private lives. "Not only names, addresses and bank account details will be sent to the police. But also the PINs of the mobile phones, and passwords blocking e-mail inboxes and accessing services like Dropbox and dynamic IP addresses", warned Die Zeit .

Proper english article (I don't know about this source in general, but this one is accurate): [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/04/11/germ-a11.html](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/04/11/germ-a11.html)

Google translated german articles:

 _Die Zeit_ : [http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_...](http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeit.de%2Fdigital%2Fdatenschutz%2F2013-03%2Fbestandsdaten- breyer-bundestag)

 _Der Spiegel_ : [http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=htt...](http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fnetzwelt%2Fnetzpolitik%2Fnrw- beschwor-horrorszenarien-fuer-bestandsdatenauskunft-a-899421.html)

 _Netzpolitik.org_ : [http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=htt...](http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnetzpolitik.org%2F2013%2Fwie- fur-die-bestandsdatenauskunft-getrickst-wurde%2F)

The debate about this is astonishing mute on its own, but compared to the NSA, PRISM and TEMPORA public outcry, the debate about the Bestandsdatenauskunft is basically non-existent at the moment.

<comment><USER3> The position of the US could be summarized as, make it easy for us to spy on everyone, make it hard for everyone else. Maximum data for us, minimal data for the rest. While other governments decry spying, naturally they have the incentive to be even more invasive.

Since I was a small child, everyone joked about the NSA listening to US citizen's phone calls. What is unusual about today is now the technology exists to save the communications data forever and organize it in a manner that produces meaningful facts.

Unfortunately we have ended up with a data cold war, where all governments are spying on everyone all of the time. It is logical for the US government to embrace encryption use by Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc, because they are able to access that data that foreign governments can not. I imagine Google's escalating implementations of user security relate directly to international spying activity.

As such, we should expect more spying by everyone, in an escalating manner. In less democratic societies, expect the result of unlimited blackmail, espionage, and murder.

The only alternative we have left for a free society are open source communication platforms that employ user-side encryption. (Sorry Silent Circle.)

<comment><USER4> > a data cold war, where all governments are spying on everyone

One of the least discussed topics in this whole cyber-security fiasco is the issue of the exploit industry: hackers and hacker collectives buy, sell, and trade software exploits between each-other and state governments.

This flies in the face of actual security in that software corporations and state governments purchase exploits in order to buy a hacker's silence (preventing the sale the same exploit to competitors) or clandestine operations. How do you think the NSA (et al) hacked into various computer systems across the world? They've got a stockpile of zero-day exploits.

This stockpile of zero-day exploits is similar to the previous cold war's stockpile of nuclear warheads: it reinforces MAD (mutually-assured destruction). We lived through a little over half a century under the fear of nuclear warfare, do we want to endure the same threat in the 21st century?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It will be interesting to see if this dele ted Guardian article holds some water, then the Minister of Justice will have a long face too:

[http://pastebin.com/NTJvUZdJ](http://pastebin.com/NTJvUZdJ)

<comment><USER6> I also have to wonder how much of this is posturing for the German public. As long as they stomp their tiny feet a little, who can blame them, right? They have nothing to do with this, they're just as outraged as everybody. And then they can use all this for new, even better election promises.

Am I too cynical? I think what I am asking is, does she demand an explanation like Obama demanded Guantanamo to be closed and whistleblower laws to be strengthened?

<comment><USER7> You're not wrong. Our current ruling party has never been actually opposed to surveillance and is not really strong on privacy (to say the least). However, I think besides collecting cheap points with the German public, there is another factor behind this "stomping of tiny feet" as you call it:

Germany is somewhat of an economic powerhouse, but paradoxically radical innovation is culturally frowned-upon. This means that German tech is usually not ground-breaking but incrementally-improved-to-death (by heavyweight scientists with a lot of clout). Since there is reason to believe that a large part of all this spying is simply industrial espionage on behalf of big US companies, I believe the German government is afraid the local industry will quickly lose even more ground than it already has. Since innovation in this country doesn't move very fast, the damage would be long-lasting and potentially devastating.

<comment><USER8> My forecast is that many tech people will move away from public Cloud and host stuff themselves. Also German Cloud service provider will have an easier life getting customers... Eventhough this is private usage, in the long run it will also affect how people choose technical solutions in their day to day jobs.

Therefore I think the U.S. has an interest to seek a solution that Germany and other countries with significant economy are happy with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is there really anything surprising with the notion that the US is spying on other country's official businesses? Did people think that the surveillance apparatus just disappeared with the Berlin wall?

I also wonder why people who are committing to official business aren't having everything encrypted anyways. I don't know how technically difficult it is to encrypt phone calls, but I can't imagine it being that hard.

<comment><USER10> Are you serious? This is not wiretapping a single individual or group. They are spying on ALL people in Germany and violate the German constitution, and if the gov of Germany is involved (which is probably the case) this gets even worse.

I wonder about all those people which think its normal/not surprising. I bet you had not the slightest idea about the scale of NSA spying. NSA even compromised EU offices and there is probably more to come. This reminds me of Cold War and allies should not be treated like that.

By the way the German federal prosecution office has now stated its collecting data about the NSA spying ([http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundesanwaltschaft...](http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundesanwaltschaft- ueberprueft-nsa-ueberwachung-a-908617.html)). NSA spying gets lots of media coverage now, this might also turn the tides in the upcoming election. Good luck pirate party!

<comment><USER11> Of course it's normal, and of course "we" are not surprised y the scale of NSA spying. What did you think the NSA did if not this? Have all of their 40,000 employees listening in on Bin Laden's phone calls?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> He pretends he didn't know?

</comment><comment><USER13> As a German, tell me when there's a statement saying "We are doing this, this and that" instead of "we demand".</comment>


GitHub Codescanning - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/features/security/advanced-security/signup <comment><USER2> Nice, it seems they finally integrated Semmle, which they acquired last year! [https://github.blog/2019-09-18-github-welcomes- semmle/](https://github.blog/2019-09-18-github-welcomes-semmle/)

This is the only static analysis tool I've really been interested in over the past few years; it's crazy effective from everything I've seen, and the queries are easy to write. Can't wait to play around with this beta on my own code.

</comment><comment><USER3> The link is behind a login, I'm on my phone logged out but I believe it refers to this[1]?

[1] [https://github.com/features/security](https://github.com/features/security)

<comment><USER4> Thanks. I'm surprised a mod hasn't changed it by now, but I guess we're the only two people not logged into Github.

<comment><USER5> Me too, because I don't have a GitHub account (I use Fossil).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It seems that it will be free for open-source, public repositories, and quite pricy for private repositories.

"A member of our sales team will reach out to discuss details" is a great euphemism for "be ready to pay quite a few thousand bucks per year for this feature".

<comment><USER7> That means the price is negotiable. Rich users pay more, poor users pay less, both users get value, producer makes a profit; everyone wins.

<comment><USER8> What's the best way to put this politely from the seller's perspective lol. Do sales teams do background homework on clients' revenue and then come up with different numbers for the exact same offering?

<comment><USER7> Sure, why not? Or they impute value from usage.

<comment><USER8> Cost based on usage seems very fair to me, but GP said "rich users pay more, poor users pay less," which seems to suggest that if Microsoft emailed me asking about a SaaS subscription for 1M req/day, I should quote them orders of magnitude more than a small startup asking for the same 1M req/day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One thing that really annoys me about Github/Gitlab et al is that they don't provide a nice UI to show CI results in a structured way.

There are semi-standard XML formats that can be used to provide file position, severity and message, which could easily be produced from CI actions and would give devs and reviewers a great view of failing tests, compiler and linter warnings, ... With links to the files etc.

Instead we are still stuck with scanning text logs to figure out what failed.

I always assumed this is not implemented to eventually upsell something automated.

This is still a great feature though, which will probably prevent a large amount of bugs/vulnerabilities, assuming they can minimize false positives.

To give credit where it is due, I'd also note that most of Githubs new features since the acquisition were already present in Gitlab [1]. Github will be able to commit way more resources to make it polished, though.

[1] [https://about.gitlab.com/stages-devops- lifecycle/secure/](https://about.gitlab.com/stages-devops-lifecycle/secure/)

Edit: apparently both Gitlab and Github have at least a limited version of this now, although Gitlabs implementation seems much nicer. See below.

<comment><USER10> Of course gitlab supports this: [https://git.kuschku.de/justJanne/QuasselDroid- ng/pipelines/5...](https://git.kuschku.de/justJanne/QuasselDroid- ng/pipelines/563/test_report)

It can automatically parse most XML formats, JUnit for example.

<comment><USER11> Thanks! Docs for the GitLab feature to show CI results in a structured way are on [https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/junit_test_reports.html](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/junit_test_reports.html)

GitHub Codescanning functionality is best compared to what GitLab has in GitLab SAST [https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/application_security/sast/](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/application_security/sast/) and Secret Detection [https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/application_security/sast/#s...](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/application_security/sast/#secret- detection)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I wonder how much the difficulty of writing queries varies between languages. I was disappointed to not see Ruby on the beta sign-up list, and GitHub being a pretty heavy user, I'm sure they have their reasons for excluding it.

<comment><USER2> This is based on Semmle, which they acquired last year. According to their docs ([https://help.semmle.com/lgtm-enterprise/admin/help/sys- requi...](https://help.semmle.com/lgtm-enterprise/admin/help/sys- requirements/language-support.html)) it supports C, C++, C#, Go, Java, JS, TypeScript, and Python; no Ruby. (Edit to add: Woops, missed that this list is also literally on the page. I had even looked first.)

It's really hard to do any kind of static analysis on something like Ruby or Perl where 1) you need a ton of context just to parse it properly, and 2) tracing calls is a nightmare. Given that, I'm completely unsurprised they haven't supported it yet.

<comment><USER13> How hard can ruby be compared to python?

Python is very dynamic. I've used and worked on linting tools for python, tried commercial static analyzers, and they do a pretty good job in my opinion in spite of the language being dynamic. Not perfect but miles above anything I would have expected.

<comment><USER14> In Ruby, monkeypatching is idiomatic and you can't even tell what package any given global came from.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It will be interesting to see the false positive rate...

<comment><USER16> At GitHub we're pretty proud of the scan results from CodeQL. Currently, 70% of alerts flagged in PRs are fixed (rather than marked as a false positive or won't fix). We think we can get that number up to 85%+ as we gather more data and iterative the queries (which are all open source).

<comment><USER15> Hmm, can you please share more details about this data: what kind of vulnerabilities you're finding, what does fix mean, what is the sensitivity of the analyser (flow, procedure), what are the underlying abstractions regarding memory, concurrency, etc? From the demos so far it's hard to see past a standard taint analyser. 70% precision on a static analyser is very high for a general purpose analyser unless you have _a lot_ of missing vulnerabilities. The static analysis/formal verification community would be definitely interested in getting more details about your experiments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I had just stumbled on [https://gitpod.io/](https://gitpod.io/) which comes with an extension to add a button next to the clone/download button-down (portmanteau of button and dropdown).

I also use codeanywhere for my personal use and whenever applicable I like to use codesandbox.io when it's JS-ish.

</comment><comment><USER18> I wonder if this uses the Static Analysis Results Interchange Format (SARIF) standard internally.

[https://docs.oasis- open.org/sarif/sarif/v2.0/csprd01/sarif-v...](https://docs.oasis- open.org/sarif/sarif/v2.0/csprd01/sarif-v2.0-csprd01.html)

<comment><USER16> PM for GitHub Advanced Security here.

We use SARIF as the input format so third party code analysis engines can easily integrate with code scanning. Their results can then be shown in the same way that scans using our own CodeQL analysis engine are displayed.

Docs on how we translate each SARIF property into the code scanning display are below:

[https://help.github.com/en/github/finding-security- vulnerabi...](https://help.github.com/en/github/finding-security- vulnerabilities-and-errors-in-your-code/about-sarif-support-for-code-scanning)

(The beta notice on that page is very relevant here - we wanted to build extensibility options into code scanning from its inception, but whilst it is in beta the API won't be 100% stable. We'll do our best to avoid any unnecessary churn.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Seems like a competitor to [https://snyk.io/](https://snyk.io/) . Let's see when it comes out.

<comment><USER20> Snyk is focused on dependency scanning and license management. This is static code analysis, more akin to sonarsource.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Anyone know if there are any open source projects for doing secret scanning? Or if this uses any open source code scanning projects?

</comment><comment><USER21> This is really nice. Even with code review secrets still slip through the cracks. I imagine this will be quite pricey tho.

</comment><comment><USER22> Hopefully this helps with people committing up their AWS access keys...

<comment><USER16> PM for GitHub Advanced Security here.

We handle that with secret scanning - code scanning focusses on static analysis of your code to find vulnerabilities in your code, rather than committed secrets.

We have a partnership with AWS (and many other token issuers) that handles this really nicely. If anything that looks like an AWS credential is committed to a public repo we send it over to AWS - if it's a real token they notify the token's owner (and in some cases automatically revoke the key).

There's full details at [https://help.github.com/en/github/administering-a- repository...](https://help.github.com/en/github/administering-a- repository/about-secret-scanning).

<comment><USER7> Please clarify who "we" is in your comments.

<comment><USER16> Done - thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Another electron app, nothing to look at here.</comment>


Show HN: For SXSW, HotSpot – Find the hottest spots near you - <AUTHOR> https://thehotspot.io <comment><USER2> Is it using tweets to backfill "hotness" of a lay/long?

<comment><AUTHOR> No, but that's a good idea!</comment></comment>


US DoD starts using 126.96.36.199/8 - <AUTHOR> http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2015-August/078057.html <comment><USER2> N.B.: DoD didn't "release" 11/8 in the same way that Interop "released" (i.e., gave back to ARIN) 45/8 several years ago [0].

What they did do was start advertising it into the global BGP routing table (technically, AS23352 did, as the post mentions) -- apparently ~5d6h ago, according to my routers.

In addition, AS23352 is sending the ("informational") community "23352:41216" along with this prefix, which means that it was learned by a "customer" peering session at their Chicago, Illinois, POP:

      Community: 3356:3 3356:22 3356:100 3356:123 3356:575 3356:2042 23352:41216

The other communities attached to this prefix indicate that:

a) ServerCentral is a Level 3 customer, and

b) Level 3 is receiving the announcement from SC in Chicago.

FWIW, I'm receiving the routes via Level 3 peering connections in both Chicago and Cincinnati, Ohio.

[0]: [http://evilrouters.net/2010/10/20/arin-regains-458-from- inte...](http://evilrouters.net/2010/10/20/arin-regains-458-from-interop/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Releases is not the proper word here. It should be 'US DoD starts using 18.104.22.168/8'. Nowhere in that thread does it say the subnet is being released back into the generally available pool, just that it's started to be routed.

<comment><USER4> Ok, we changed the title to that from "US DoD releases 220.127.116.11/8".

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bad news for some ISPs, VPN setups and sysadmins I know who used these addresses as quasi private IPs (extension of 10.x.x.x), as these were all unused before...

<comment><USER6> What kind of company need more than 16M IPs for private adressing?

<comment><USER7> It's not just about number of addresses. It's also about preventing conflicts.

Let's say my company uses 10.0.0.0/16\. Now let's say I set up a VPN. Half my users will be on local networks that are also 10.0.x.x. Fail.

Even worse, let's say my company has two locations and both use 10.0.0.x and now we want to link them on a common network using a VPN or virtual Ethernet bridge. Have fun renumbering one of these two sites, or setting up abominations like internal two-way SNAT/DNAT.

The reason IPv6's address space is so huge is to allow relatively stateless assignment of addresses with extremely low probability of conflicts. An IPv6 address is basically a UUID. That's going to make lots of things easier and eliminate the need for a huge number of nasty hacks.

<comment><USER8> "An IPv6 address is basically a UUID."

This is the reason why I can't believe we're not all on IPv6 yet. You would think that the online advertising industry would have done everything in their power to push IPv6, at any cost. 90%+ of people on IPv6 will literally have a unique identifier FOR LIFE on every device they own. Marketers can now pinpoint down not just to an IP address that identifies a single NAT interface, but each individual device.

I hope that operating systems and/or routers will provide the option to rotate each IPv6 address on a routine basis. It would also be nice if ISPs would rotate the block that is handed out to each customer, but this is unlikely to happen. Every phone, every tablet, every PC, every thermostat, every door lock, every fridge... uniquely identifiable from the day it is hooked up to a network. :(

<comment><USER2> > _I hope that operating systems and /or routers will provide the option to > rotate each IPv6 address on a routine basis._

This is an issue when using SLAAC, yes, but a workaround ("Privacy Extensions") were developed years ago; cf. RFC4941 [0].

You can also assign static addresses or use DHCPv6 -- on your own networks, at least; you obviously can't control how your ISP decides to issue addresses.

[0]: [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4941](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4941)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I remember working with an airline around '01-'02\. The CTO was very excited they had migrated all of their network infrastrucutre to new private lines and gotten off of that "terrible 10-dot network".

I asked which private network they switched to and he said "We switched to 11-dot, because no one else uses it and it'll be unique for the future growth of our private network."

Needless to say, he was not pleased to learn it was not private, or unique and was assigned to the DoD.

<comment><USER10> So this "CTO" had never heard of Whois? I think I first heard of it in 1991.

<comment><USER9> There are still lots of people who have "puppy farm" technical certs. This was certainly one of them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder if this had an impact on the AT&T backhaul that went wonky today.

<comment><USER2> It's been advertised since (at least) around 1800 GMT last Thursday so I doubt it's related.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wish they hadn't. Anything that prolongs IPv4 use is bad.

</comment><comment><USER12> yaay! more IP addresses for all!

</comment><comment><USER13> The problem with ipv6 is that it doesn't consider that people are still remembering and typing ip addresses everyday. IPv6 is more effort on the mind and hand.

A shorthand version would be better.

Ideally if the router ip address is 1, Subnet would be 1.0/24, Client 1.2

Client IP: 1.1

Router: 1

Subnet: 1.0/24

Gateway: 1

I'm too lazy for ipv6. Nothing to celebrate about ipv6 except for a bigger pool and some other minor +.

<comment> SG- What are you talking about? Users aren't entering IPs for anything other than maybe custom DNS servers. Unless you mean 'advanced' users that set up static machines?

Either way if those users want routable IPs going forward and not be stuck behind CGNAT then they'll have to use their brains and learn something new.

The truly lazy people like yourself and remain in some sort of segmented Internet I suppose.

<comment><USER14> I agree with you, except for this part:

 _> The truly lazy people like yourself and remain in some sort of segmented Internet I suppose._

That last sentence doesn't add anything to the conversation. Your comment wouldn't lose anything by removing that.

Also, this one:

 _> they'll have to use their brains and learn something new_

could have been simply written as follows, again without losing anything:

 _> they'll have to learn something new_

<comment><USER15> The last sentence echoes the OP's last sentence, which was as follows:

> I'm too lazy for ipv6. Nothing to celebrate about ipv6 except for a bigger > pool and some other minor +.

Symmetrical construction is nice. :)

Additionally, it's pretty appropriate to say:

> Either way if [advanced users who are setting up static, globally routable > IPs for machines] want routable IPs going forward and not be stuck behind > CGNAT then they'll have to use their brains and learn something new.

Any sysadmin who is configuring a server that requires a globally routeable IP is _expected_ to use his brain. Moreover, he will be expected to have to use that brain to learn new things from time to time, lest his systems become crusty and unmaintained.

There are _many_ things that can go wrong when you configure a machine as an Internet peer. _Some_ amount of savvy and smarts is required.

<comment><USER14> _> The last sentence echoes the OP's last sentence, which was as follows_

Good point. But I found the OP's statement inappropriate, either.

 _> Any sysadmin who is configuring a server that requires a globally routeable IP is expected to use his brain_

Everyone is expected to use their brain. Implying that somebody doesn't use their brain is dehumanizing.

That kind of isults should have no place on HN.

<comment><USER15> > Good point. But I found the OP's statement inappropriate, either. [sic]

OP (workworksleep) was calling _himself_ lazy. You consider it inappropriate to call oneself lazy?

> Everyone is expected to use their brain.

If you work in a technical field, and have _not_ had the inhuman good fortune of never working with C or D players, you will know that some sorts of people will -not infrequently- fail to meet expectations by failing to engage their brain. This isn't an insult, it's a statement of fact.

A Comp Sci student who requests that others write his 1xx or 2xx level homework for him would be quite rightly accused of not using his brain.

Hell, on my worst days, I've failed to use my brain and spent 8+ hours writing code that was -at best- hilariously roundabout and overly complex or -at worst- didn't even solve the problem I had intended to solve. When reviewing days like that, I openly admit to not using my brain and accept the shame and wasted effort that came from my failure.

What would you call a network administrator who knew IPX/SPX inside and out but refused to learn IP networking, declaring -like workworksleep did in his OP- that he was "too lazy" to do so and that there wasn't enough benefit to overcome his laziness?

<comment><USER14> I guess my criticism went slightly over the top.

Indeed, "use your brain" is not an insult if you say that to people you know pretty well, especially if they just did something extremely stupid that was easily avoidable.

However, I still find it inappropriate to say that to strangers on the internet which you don't know. Of course you can try to extract a lot of character information out of a single sentence that somebody said, but the error rate is quite high.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Why is the US DoD permitted to own a /8? They are the greatest force against peace and for suffering the world has ever known. Their robots kill civilians daily and they have compromised the security of the Internet for the sole purpose of expanding and maintaining their power. Every ISP has a duty to block traffic to and from 11/8 until such a time as the DoD relinquishes it to the proper authorities for distribution to legitimate users.

<comment><USER17> Are you aware that the Internet evolved out of a connection of academic institutions with the DoD's network as the backbone? The DoD was literally the first implementators of TCP/IP as well as where the research was started and funded. Vint Cerf was a DARPA manager.</comment></comment>


Why volunteering at your kid's school does not make her smarter - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2013/09/ptas_and_bake_sales_why_volunteering_at_your_kid_s_school_does_not_make.html <comment><USER2> Since this is HN, let's try an analogy.

Pretend you have two clients: One that actively engages in the process and gives you feedback and responds to questions, and one that crosses their arms, never gets back to you with answers to questions and says "just give me what I want when I want it".

Which would you be happier to work with? Which do you think would be more forgiving if there's a problem? Which would you work with again?

My wife and I volunteer heavily at our childrens' school. From my experience teachers know, consciously or _subconsciously_ , which families care about their kids' performance in school and which families acknowledge the teachers as people and not automatons that turn tax dollars into educated children.

When that day comes where your child is struggling and the teacher is making a decision in their head to try one more time or just give up for the day, I'd rather they opt for the former and not the latter. It happens and I've seen it first hand.

<comment><USER3> Since this is HN, let's go for analogies and anecdotes instead of science?

If what you say is true, why doesn't it appear in the data?

<comment><USER4> From the original study:

The children of parents who are more involved in school activities, like parent-teacher meetings or volunteering in the school, also show poorer reading performance. This is probably because parents of children who are having behavioural difficulties or who are progressing slowly in school are more likely to call the teacher to seek ways to improve their child's performance, or to receive a call from the teacher to discuss the child's school work. Similarly, parents of low-achieving students are more likely to seek further engagement with the school to find ways to improve their child's progress or behaviour. _This is indeed a good strategy: other research with longitudinal data highlights how more parental involvement in the school improves children's performance_ because teachers may pay more attention to children of involved parents, and school may become more important to children if they see that their parents are also invested in their progress (Pomerantz et al.,2007) (Table 3.1b).

So I would say that Slate somewhat misrepresented the data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Contribute to the child's education directly, especially early on. Teach the child to read before the first grade. Spend time working on meaningful educational stuff - help with homework. Guarantee good nutrition.

It seems simple to me, and covers all the points that any of the education studies from the past decade or so mention, but it's rare.

<comment><USER6> An aside to your point (which I agree with) -

There is the decoding (the ability to say a word that is written) and the understanding. Decoding is easier for most children, and they can decode sooner most words before they have understanding of those words.

So, teaching a child to read may not be as important as just reading to them. Reading to them allows them to build up a larger vocabulary, and allows them to give meaning to decoded words.

Putting this in the context of parent volunteers in schools: it's easy to see that a parent may be pronouncing the phonic sounds incorrectly, or may be subverting the techniques (moving to a look and say technique), or just generally adding some sub-optimal hints and shades.

I don't know about the HN population but methods for math have changed quite a lot. I'm re-learning so that I can help my son. There are very many innovations.

<comment><USER7> Can you recommend any further reading on these innovations in teaching math? I'm interested, as I'm in a similar boat with my children.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "I came to realize that parents are involved in education in these other countries—but they are involved differently. They are more involved at home. And that, it turns out, might be one secret to their success."

And there it is, folks!

It's an interesting contrast to yesterday's postings wherein I've seen comments from a former member of a board of education, and a teacher involved in a teacher's union. That there seems to be this expectation in America to leave education up to the professionals (state-certified teachers).

There's a stigma attached to home-schooling, as it is highly associated with religious fundamentalists indoctrinating kids, and further, parents might "mess up" their children's education.

This phenomena is thoroughly explored in John Taylor Gatto's book, "Underground History of American Education." In the 1800s, children were taught to read at home. The push towards compulsory education, however, somehow convinced the American public that parents are no longer good enough to teach their kids.

That is crazy.

Coming from an Asian family, this notion would have been absurd. It isn't about who is "qualified" to teach something, and more about gaining competitive advantages. (Now, Asian family dynamics have their own shadow- sides too).

<comment><USER9> There has been an oppressive trend in the states towards home schoolers. In fact, DHS staged a terrorism drill in 2004 where the terrorists were "Wackos Against Schools and Education": [http://hslda.org/hs/state/mi/200409220.asp](http://hslda.org/hs/state/mi/200409220.asp)

Having gone to public school, I can see why people home school their children. I did not home school mine but I did augment her learning with teachings at home.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have three kids in grades 3-7 in USA and I spend a lot of time after work helping them, mainly in math and writing. I think that is the most valuable in terms of the educational benefit itself, but I also have helped in the school.Just rudimentary stuff like I read while the teacher prepared an activity on some tables, or staple sheets together cause that thing on the copy machine was perpetually broken. It's not really about improving education just me being a small help and getting to see what my kid and the staff deal with day in day out first hand.

My wife was educated in Poland, and school is a lot different there, like the article points out. One thing about here though that is better is that there is so much other than school going on, like the sports, music, drama, and art. They also have clubs that meet there. The main fundraiser is like a carnival, again no help in education at all, but the kids like it. Whatever, my view is until uni as long as there was good enough preparation in math and writing, the smart kids will do fine anyway, so people should not stress so much.

<comment><AUTHOR> My friend from Poland (a co-founder of one of the programs run by my nonprofit) was very pleased with his daughter's education until she was in middle school, when he found out that she was learning very little for a few years. He made sure his younger child, his son, had more steady supplementary education through middle school, and encouraged his daughter to challenge herself to catch up during high school. For most of us who have spouses educated in other countries who now live in the United States (I am such a person too), the most successful both-and is to set the expectations of curricula in other countries, while allowing the multifaceted extracurricular activities commonplace in the United States.

</comment></comment><comment> jack-r-abbit It _does_ save the school money though. We have a lot of volunteers that otherwise would need to be paid staff. Crossing guards, valet attendants, playground supervisors, room parents (to assist teachers with stuff).

It also helps build a community. Volunteering in your kid's class along with other parents is a good way to get to know the families you and your child will be sharing space with for 9 months.

</comment><comment><USER11> This article hits very close to home: Given a finite amount of time, what's more important for your children's studies, face time at the school or helping them learn 1 on 1? Clearly it's the latter. What I find so strange about the Bake Sale mentality is that it is a very inefficient use of everyone's time. Someone who works 200 days a year and makes 100K has a time value of $500 per day. These bake sales rarely give a return near that amount of time spent. Better to write a check, skip the bake sale and help the kids study at night.

</comment><comment><USER12> (Edit: rewrite for clarity)

The underlying premise appears to be that parents volunteer to improve their kids' intelligence (eg, grades). Nowhere is this premise discussed, proven, or cited - it's just taken as a given.

The author then goes on to suggest that there are much better things you can do as a parent to improve academic performance.

I accept this, but it's meaningless if he doesn't at least show that _someone_ has demonstrated a significant correlation between parental volunteering and the _intention_ of improving academic performance.

As a parent of a not-quite-school-age child, I will likely volunteer to some limited extent - but I will do it so that I can better know the people who are monitoring and teaching my child for a significant part of every year.

The author also conflates PTA meetings, volunteering, and fundraising - treating them as if they were all the same thing.

Clickbait article without substance is clickbait.

<comment><AUTHOR> You should read her (the author of the article is a woman) entire newly published book, which is receiving very good reviews, and see if you still summarize her argument in the same way.

[http://www.amazon.com/Smartest-Kids-World-They- That/dp/14516...](http://www.amazon.com/Smartest-Kids-World-They- That/dp/1451654421/r)

<comment><USER12> On the basis of the content of the article -- which is my first impression as to the quality of her research -- I am reluctant to buy the book.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "Weren't the parents who volunteered in the school community showing their children how much they valued education?"

Because phoning other parents for money or collecting tickets at the fall fair moon bounce just screams "I value education!"

I volunteered because they asked. Once at least I did not volunteer, my wife volunteered me.

</comment><comment><USER14> It doesn't make child smarter but it makes teachers give better grades.

</comment><comment><USER15> > Finland, like most countries, spends less per student on education than the > U.S.

It seems to me that a lot of "education" money in the US is spent on things that benefit students, yet that benefit is indirect and could be done by more efficiently by other agencies.

Lunch programs, nurses, athletics, and bus service come to mind. A welfare state with less hungry kids, universal healthcare, good parks, and good public transportation doesn't need to have schools pay for all of the above and more.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'll speculate that the cause-effect relationship is: because in the US there are swaths of parents who do not get involved in their child's education at home, schools here have traditionally tried to reach out with PTA's, etc. In countries where the typical parent is involved at home there is less of an inducement for activist schools administrations and teachers to bring parents into the process.

<comment><USER17> I think that's definitely part of it. I think in the US there's another effect where parents view school as an extension of their social circle. This is especially true of affluent suburban elementary school parents, some of which become their children's driver and social/athletic assistant. This behavior is viewed as helpful in solving the American "public school problem" but in effect prevents kids from becoming more independent.

I don't think anyone is complaining about working parents in poor school districts being overly involved. It is in those districts where we need the most improvement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Yes and a thousand times yes.

<comment><USER18> OT: What was deleted here? [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6340427](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6340427)

<comment><USER17> Not sure, was the comment unclear? I was trying to say that my university education helped me appreciate things that I wouldn't have seen as valuable had I only had vocational or self-taught experience.</comment></comment></comment>


Caffeine: A vitamin-like nutrient, or adaptogen - <AUTHOR> http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/caffeine.shtml <comment><USER3> I can help but feel lied to when there is only a laundry list of "good"s and no analysis on downsides.

When I read "it helps with this" "it prevents this", I always ask "but at what cost". Can an exogenous molecule that was so adaptive be missed this bad and now consuming it will just fill that gap we had for millions of years?

Let's not kid ourselves. Concentrated caffeine is a drug and not a nutrient. We drink it because it is psychoactive and we habituate to it. Try drinking redbull as a caffeine-naive person or not drinking coffee as a daily drinker. If an exogenous substance is that potent, it is a drug. (Even though I like it myself too, it is also pretty shit of a drug in my opinion, with 5 hr half- life, a dice roll every time whether it is gonna create more sleep than focus and a steep tolerance curve.) Magic mushrooms also have nutritional value, nicotine also has some benefits, beer has tons of calories, they might even have adaptive value with occasional use. You might enjoy them, you might drink coffee everyday. That is fine. But they are all drugs and not nutrients.

<comment><USER4> A lot of nutrients (e.g., caffeine, vitamin D3, the fiber in raw carrots) are the closest thing we have to a "free lunch" because the evolutionary pressures that limited access to these nutrients are gone.

Our brains used to compete for scarce calories and nutrition, but now we can vastly increase these things with little to no downside.

There is no scientific distinction between food, drugs, and nutrients. They're all molecules. All that matters is the dosage.

<comment><USER3> > There is no scientific distinction between food, drugs, and nutrients. > They're all molecules. All that matters is the dosage.

A few micrograms of LSD and a cheeseburger is not different only for their dosage. One stores solar energy in its molecules in a form we can harvest. Other crosses blood-brain barrier in a way that alters its functioning drastically. Their structural-functional organizations are drastically different, hence the different categories.

Your CPU is also just a bunch of molecules probably as much as your PCs power button, but one packs a very different nature of consequentiality in that small "dosage" of matter than the other.

<comment><USER5> The one that stores solar energy crosses stomach barrier in a way that alters it's functioning drastically by giving it energy. Who knows if LSD equivalents found in plants helped proto-humans (from cells to any mammal) develop key aspects of the brain and therefore we are still receptive to them. Just because it's used as a recreational drug today doesn't mean that "it's altering it's functioning drastically" that's just today's society's opinion on it or just because today we're just simply abusing it by using large quantities of LSD (just like over eating and going obese, you're drastically changing the body).

<comment> GuB-42 LSD works more like a toxin than a nutrient. I don't mean that LSD is deadly, it is actually a pretty safe drug in that regard, but the way it works is similar to how toxins work.

The way it works is that to some neurons, it looks a lot like serotonin, a neurotransmitter produced by our own body. In technical terms, it is a 5-HT2A agonist. But unlike serotonin, it doesn't want to get out, causing the affected neuron to fire constantly.

Not so different from carbon monoxide, which takes the place of oxygen in red blood cells and doesn't want to let go.

Even if the effects are completely different, they are both caused a molecule that mimic what our body normally uses, but not only it doesn't behave normally, but it is also much more durable. Causing a large effect with a small dose.

And in fact, LSD is derived from ergot fungi, which are toxic and have causes many deaths in the past.

<comment><USER5> In the right quantities water is poison too.

<comment><USER6> And in relatively modest quantities, if you drink it quickly enough - <USER2> example eight litres over three hours was enough to kill someone.

It's worth being aware of if of college age and likely to drink a lot, do various sports, go clubbing and related stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ray Peat is an interesting researcher. His ideas tend to be original (as in he does his own research & analysis). Yet, I find a lot of things in his writings that don't gel with my research or the broader research. Namely, he does his own selective reading and comes up with a theory---just like everyone else. E.g. he doesn't recognize hormesis (benefits from fasting or occasional nutrient deprivation). He also espouses a heavy sugar laden diet such as drinking orange juice on a continuous basis and avoiding fiber and starches. He sometimes paints a very black and white picture: XYZ is good, ABC is bad, ignoring the context or the nonlinear dose response relationship.

Long story short, he's a curious character. I would take his writings with a grain of salt.

<comment><USER8> He speaks as if he's making "black/white" statements, but if you listen to him long enough, his ideas do contradict each other. I think the most valuable thing to take away from him is that only you can detect good health by paying attention and making decisions in real time, and that the optimal combo will always be in flux. It's like when he constantly restates his bio on radio shows. He's just a conduit for whatever his intuition tells him is right. I don't hang on the specifics of his work, but rather the mindset that intuition, curiosity, and attention will save you.

<comment><USER9> Could you clarify what ideas contradict each other?

<comment><USER8> As an example, sometimes Ray will say starch is bad, and other times he will say that starch is compatible with a healthy lifestyle. His stance on most things is probably the dose and the condition of the body at any given time determines the nutrient/poison, but he will make firm statements over radio shows and podcasts because, if I had to guess, he says what he thinks is best for the audience given the medium and time constraints. Ultimately, you as an individual will miss things if you rely on someone else's observations instead of your own. Ray's recommendations are a good starting point, but you will likely be better off if you have the last word on what you do and do not do. And Ray would be the first to admit that :).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Caffeine gets a lot of love and hate. Personally, I think it's close to a miracle molecule. What other drug can give such an effective boost to wakefulness, mood, and focus with the only main side effects being possible sleep loss and jitteriness/discomfort? Many focus on physical side effects, but I have never seen any evidence of it negatively affecting mental health, despite being psychoactive. I have not consumed amphetamine, cocaine, or the like, but I have tried many legal "nootropics" and all are <= effective compared caffeine with more side-effects.

I take a small portion of a caffeine tablet under my tongue for exercising and occasionally for study and work. I am more healthy today than I was a year or more ago, a large part in thanks to caffeine getting me off my butt to run when I don't feel like running, and (safely) allowing me to push myself harder and get a better cardiovascular workout.

Is it accurate to call it a vitamin-like nutrient? No, because obviously it's not like vitamin D3 or C where very high levels are beneficial and we don't need caffeine to survive, but it can be taken in moderate doses indefinitely and still positively impact one's health. It depends on how you define "nutrient".

<comment><USER11> > What other drug can give such an effective boost to wakefulness, mood, and > focus with the only main side effects being possible sleep loss and > jitteriness/discomfort?

Modafinil. At least for me (and basically everybody I know that tried it) it's much better than caffeine. Much clearer wakefulness, more focus, less physical, more deep concentration, and fewer side effects (if any).

<comment> aj-4 I'd rate it above most, but we are not sure about the side effects since there are no long term studies on it

imo it's good for certain things like coding but significantly reduces lateral thinking / creativity

kinda gives you "mental tunnel vision"

<comment><USER11> I agree that it may not be suited for every situation, and I really, really wish there were more long-term studies, but at least the ones there are (that I'm aware of) do not suggest horrible results. Given that it produces great results for many people, I feel like we're missing a massive opportunity by focusing on "if you're not really ill, you don't need medication".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've been off caffeine for going on 40 days now. Work/health were suffering and I needed to hit the reset button. Some days its rough, but on average the change is worth it now. Last week I was able to deal with an extremely stressful event at work without losing my calm. If I had been hopped up on my usual morning brew under similar circumstances, I probably would have made some serious career-altering mistakes (not necessarily my career).

<comment><USER13> Good work, I know how hard it is to kick it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have a theory that 50 years from now people will look back on caffeine the same way we look back on everyone smoking in the 50's. There were tons of "smoking is healthy" articles back then too, and it was baked into the culture. Caffeine's negatives are more hidden and second order effects that come from increased cortisol levels, lack of sleep, adrenal fatigue, etc. I've done a bunch of research on this and might write it up in a blog post someday.

<comment><USER15> Drinking coffee doesn't mean you have lack of sleep. I drink 4-10 cups a day and still easily sleep 9 hours

<comment><USER16> Caffeine is well established to interrupt sleep. Interrupt doesn't necessarily mean a person wakes up either. It can mean 9 hours of less restful sleep than without caffeine. Over the long term, the less restful sleep can lead to other problems.

<comment><USER17> I think it effects people differently.

Coffee/caffeine doesn't stop me sleeping, it makes me not want to sleep.

The difference is, I can drink a couple of coffee (long black, strong) then go to bed and sleep soundly. But I have to argue with myself all the way to bed... because now I dont feel like I need it :-P

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> My teeth doctor told me it's bad for my teeth, so I now use a straw to pumpjack my demon nectar

glorious feast

<comment><USER19> He was incorrect based on the existing evidence.

Sugar-laden diets combined with both a mineral poor diet (ergo, no dental remineralization) and a constant subclinical dehydration (did you drink your gallon of water today? no? saliva is the vehicle for said remineralization, and is one of the first to be hit during early stages of dehyrdation; water is required to maintain the pH of your mouth) is bad your teeth.

The worst coffee can do is stain already poor enamel. Coffee is hardly acidic, and its a myth that its more destructive.

Now, if you drink your coffee with sugar? _Thats_ bad, learn to drink it black.

[https://www.ada.org/en/~/media/ADA/Public%20Programs/Files/J...](https://www.ada.org/en/~/media/ADA/Public%20Programs/Files/JADA_The%20pH%20of%20beverages%20in%20the%20United%20States)

Anything on this list that is below a pH of 5 you should strongly avoid. pH is a log scale, so, pH of 5 is 10x worse than 6, 4 is 10x worse than 5 or 100x worse than 6; the hydroxyapatite in tooth enamel starts to dissolve at 5.5, and coffee is only 5.11, well within your mouth's ability to handle.

If he warned you because you suffer from bruxism, not because of tooth decay, for most people, just follow the normal rules for coffee that everyone else should follow: avoid caffeine 6 hours before bed.

<comment><USER20> I agree with you that acidity is the main cause of enamel erosion. The correlation between beverage acidity and tooth decay is such that I think we should highly discourage children from drinking any carbonated or acidified drink .

I disagree that "pH of 5 is 10x worse than 6, 4 is 10x worse than 5 or 100x worse than 6". pH is logarithmic with respect to hydrogen ion activity but hydrogen ion activity is not linear with respect to enamel erosion in a human mouth [1].

[1] [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S199179021...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1991790211000511)

<comment><USER21> Interesting read, thanks. Really drove home the point of how bad soda and energy drinks are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> >Coffee drinkers have been found to have lower cadmium in tissues; coffee making removes heavy metals from water.

How does that work? Where do the metals go?

Searching in the rest of the article I find:

>Coffee drinkers, for example, have been found to have lower levels of cadmium in their kidneys than people who don't use coffee, and coffee is known to inhibit the absorption of iron by the intestine, helping to prevent iron overload.

I'm immediately suspicious of the way this is framed (I know many people who suffer from lack of iron, I guess they should avoid coffee). And what about the heavy metals then?

<comment><USER23> Phenols/catechols in general tend to reduce (in the electron sense) and complex with metals. This can be anti-nutrious if binding iron or calcium, or beneficial, if binding heavy metals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Lets talk about Decaffeinated coffee (asking for a friend...) (a) what benefits of coffee are not attributable to the caffeine, and (b) does the decaffeination process introduce any "side effects" in terms of harmful chemicals etc.

Seriously - I was drinking far too much coffee during lockdown and have switched 2 days ago to decaf. Too early to tell, but it feels like less triggering of hyperness...

<comment><USER25> This doesn't answer your specific question, but I use a mix of decaf and full according to time of day.

So through the day it goes: full (morning), low caff (mix) (afternoon), decaf (evening).

No need for it to be either/or.

fwiw

<comment><USER26> I recently came across some interesting research by the US DoD into optimal caffeine consumption for alertness based on an algorithm they were developing. I can't quite recall the details, but you can find a web version of the tool here: [https://2b-alert-web.bhsai.org/](https://2b-alert-web.bhsai.org/)

Anyhow, as I recall (and I could be wrong), you actually want to start low and end high. Obviously decaf in the evening may still be good though, given you want to be able to sleep without detriment.

<comment><USER24> Thanks! I also saw research where the optimum I think was drinking a cup of coffee in the early afternoon 30 minutes or so before a powernap. This beat (1) No coffee (2) straight coffee, no nap (3) nap, no coffee. I think it tested alertness in a driving game...

<comment><USER26> No worries, and great input - I'm a huge believer of coffee-naps, I used to go on about them to friends and family all the time but stopped having them lately. Thanks to your reminder, I'm going to get back on the wagon. Appreciate it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> If you're interested in a brief 'story' of caffeine - its roots and history leading up to its role in society today, check out Michael Pollan's 'Caffeine: How Caffeine Created the Modern World' audiobook.

It's a short listen (by audiobook standards at least) and explores the the 'good', the 'bad' and everything in between of caffeine and coffee, often using himself as a lab rat to test theories that he comes across in his research.

</comment><comment><USER28> The one thing that interests me in this piece is the bit about cadmium and heavy metals and the references at the bottom don't seem to list a study pertinent to this.

I've used "search page" and I've skimmed through all the titles, but I have crap eyesight. So maybe I'm missing the reference.

But I would love to see good research relating caffeine or coffee consumption to somehow helping with heavy metal issues.

<comment><USER29> The initial phrasing about heavy metals sounded to me like it was referring to the brewing process (without being specific as to which one).

At first approximation, I'd be surprised if agitating heated water in the presence of particular matter that increased its acidity, then running it through a fine woven filter, didn't have _some_ net effect.

As for the exact mechanism and efficacy, that's unfortunately buried under 10,000,000 search results for coffee enema products...

<comment><USER30> I would think the heavy metals bit might be about metals in the coffee itself, from the soil it's grown in. This is common for cacao[0]. What sucks is, iirc, only the EU has limits for cadmium in food imports (or may in the near future?). Beyond that, California requires stuff to have a Proposition 65 label if it's too high in cadmium (but California's limit is significantly higher than what the EU was going to be).

>I'd be surprised if agitating heated water in the presence of particular matter that increased its acidity, then running it through a fine woven filter, didn't have some net effect.

Like sifting for gold? xD

0: [https://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-eating/food- safety/...](https://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-eating/food- safety/article/there-cadmium-your-cocoa)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> If you:

1) Cite only the positive studies

2) Don't make any claims about effect size (i.e. correlation strength & predictive strength)

You can basically make this point about literally any substance with enough studies on it. Ranging from melatonin to insulin, to idk... probably not mercury? So I guess that's a strike against 1 and 2 being fully generalizable.

</comment><comment><USER32> The funny thing is caffeine is produced by the plant to try to poison herbivores. It's a very effective insecticide. So are perhaps most other drugs made by plants.

<comment><USER33> With the exception of fruit perhaps, isn't almost everything produced to deter getting eaten?

<comment><USER34> Eggs and milk are produced to be eaten (by the new organism) and are as close to "stuff produced to be eaten" that you get, perhaps. Super nutrient dense growth broths.

Seeds and legumes are meant to be eaten (by the new plant), but often have anti-plant-eater defenses (like cyanide), including in fruit. Eggs and milk do not seem to have such an analogue.

Fat stores are produced to be eaten (by the host itself), alas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This is stupid.

You can enjoy caffeine and that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. But it is a drug. Your body does not need caffeine to sustain itself, like it does nutrients.

<comment><USER36> This proves too much. Consider

> You can enjoy black pepper and that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. But it > is a drug. Your body does not need black pepper to sustain itself, like it > does nutrients.

A definition of "drug" that counts spices as drugs is probably not a useful definition.

<comment><USER37> Raw nutmeg is actually a very powerful drug, and even dried ground nutmeg has an interesting long-lasting high if you take enough of it.

I've done it a long time ago... it's really unpleasant to actually consume that much nutmeg, even in gel capsules, but the feeling is pleasant, warm, and hazy. I took it in the middle of the day and started to feel the effects late at night, and then the next morning I woke up sky high. It's a fairly lucid drug with an strong body high, but I don't recommend it!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Anyone wondering: The summary is that Caffeine seems to be very good for your health! So keep on drinking

<comment><USER39> There is more in coffee than caffeine. For example cafestol is a substance present in unfiltered coffee that is known to cause health problems.

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

<comment><USER40> I did some reading on that a few months ago when a friend was trying to convince me to filter coffee using paper (apparently that remove cafestol and kahweol). It seems like recent studies have shown more mixed results for these compounds. They can (mildly) increase cholesterol, but are also anti- carcinogenic in the lower intestine and may help to regulate blood sugar.

> Early studies confirmed that coffee diterpenes (especially cafestol), > effectively increase human plasma triacylglycerol and low-density > lipoprotein (LDL), may be a potential risk of inducing some cardiovascular > diseases [7,14]. However, from a more comprehensive perspective, cafestol > and kahweol show a remarkable two-faced effect. In addition to the > deleterious effects on serum lipid levels and liver enzymes in some cases, > extensive studies have demonstrated that cafestol and kahweol exhibit a wide > variety of pharmacological activities, including anti-inflammatory, anti- > angiogenic and anti-tumorigenic properties.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6747192/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6747192/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I love caffeine and coffee! I used to drink two to three cups per day but for the last 6 months I've been feeling rather unwell when taking it; I start getting sweaty hands, shakes, heart palpitations, and start feeling sick and anxious shortly afterwards. I would love to be able to keep drinking coffee but the price is now too high! I have been drinking decaf coffee which is okay but I miss the real thing. If anyone knows a way I scan keep my caffeine buzz without the above I'd love to know...

<comment><USER42> Matcha tea has a bunch of stuff that is supposed to suppress the negatives of caffeine and keep the positives.

Also the taste is strong enough to be a decent coffee replacement.

<comment><USER43> L-Theanine? goes great with coffee (not mixed, just taken near the same time) - smooths out the jitters. Probably why Tea is more 'calming'

<comment><USER44> Could you point to any research? I asked many doctors but nobody really knew about the substance nor could tell me whether it's safe to supplement.

<comment><USER45> FWIW, 200mg of L-Theanine is included in my workout recovery supplement. Research seems sparse but here's what they say about it: (scroll down, click ingredients tab) [https://athleanx.com/athleanrx/reconstruxion](https://athleanx.com/athleanrx/reconstruxion)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> If caffeine is so good for us and not simply the drug that it is why do I feel so lousy for at least 2 weeks after giving it up? There is most definitely a withdrawal effect. Furthermore this article muddies the water between caffeine and coffee. How many of the listed benefits are due to the non-caffeine elements within coffee?

<comment><USER47> By that logic, giving up water for two weeks would lead to withdrawal effects. Does that make it bad? Not defending caffeine, only pointing out poor logic.

<comment> why-el The logic is not poor at all, for quite mundane reasons. Giving up water will kill you, while giving up caffeine for enough time means it is no longer needed (and it is also, quite obviously, not needed for people who don't drink it already).

<comment><USER48> Ok, try giving up fibre in your diet for a while. Or vitamins A/B/C/D/whatever, or many other nutrients.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I am impressed at the lengths people will go to rationalize consuming that to which they are addicted.

<comment><USER50> I am an avid coffee drinker and a former cigarette smoker. While I won't deny that caffeine is addictive, the addictive power is so mild that it's mostly irrelevant. I skip having coffee on some days accidentally. The idea of accidentally going a day without smoking a cigarette is unfathomable. The times I've gone without coffee for a few days or weeks I have felt a little bit sluggish. The times I have gone days or weeks without smoking were nightmarish ordeals that consumed my every waking thought. Point being, I would be very careful to assume things about 'addiction' when it's a phenomenon comes in so many shapes and sizes.

<comment><USER51> I'll match your single sample of anecdata as a previous smoker from the midwest and occasional coffee drinker:

I never found nicotine addictive. It never compelled me to increase my consumption beyond a few cigarettes a day, usually in social settings. I never became a regular purchaser of cartons of cigarettes. It was purely a social activity as most my peers were smokers and participating in the smoke breaks was a huge part of socializing. But it never escalated beyond that, there was simply no draw and stopping cold-turkey was completely uneventful with zero physiological effects.

Coffee however, has such a profoundly stimulating effect on me, it completely derails my life for days after a lone day of consumption. It's a very on-vs- off modal existence, and if I fall into the on mode for more than a couple contiguous days, I begin craving it and actively seeking it out. And when I manage to finally resist those cravings, I end up going through ~three days of hangover-like withdrawal hell which if I'm not up for enduring will just push me back on the wagon to make it stop.

For me, coffee/caffeine is far more sinister and addictive than cigarettes.

<comment><USER52> Without disputing your personal experience, the parents anecdote is reflective of how most people experience the addictive qualities of nicotine vs caffeine.

[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30061507/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30061507/)

"Conclusion: Dependence to traditional cigarettes and snus seem to be relatively similar while NR (nicotine replacement) was rated lower and coffee lowest."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Funny this blog in support of caffeine comes out when I'm two weeks into kicking my coffee habit. Are people going caffeine-free en masse?

In my case, I paid more attention to what I was consuming and coffee seemed like a good thing to drop.

</comment><comment><USER54> I like coffee. Let's skip the marketing words and look at the data.

</comment><comment><USER55> Coffee and caffeine are not mutually exclusive. Coffee is one of the best drinks for antioxidants (without milk). Caffeine in large quantities is bad for the health. Moderate and experiment.

<comment><USER56> >antioxidants

the evidence supporting the value of antioxidants is v. weak. indeed some evidence suggests they increase your chances of cancer.

<comment><USER57> Depends- I've seen studies like that for supplements, but not for antioxidants obtained via food.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> People who aren't super healthy don't typically feel like drinking lots of caffeine. I think that's a more likely explanation than caffeine having tons of assorted health benefits.

<comment><USER14> I think it's the opposite. People drink caffeine to mask an unhealthy lifestyle – lack of sleep, hungover, poor diet, sedentary, out of shape, etc.

<comment><USER59> Haha.

So, your theory is that all the humans over the course of history who consume caffeine do so to mask generally bad health?

Can I guess that you yourself don't drink caffeine?

<comment><USER60> Not arguing one way or the other, but the comment you replied to did not imply every single caffeine drinker falls into that category

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> As someone with acid reflux caffeine is like nuclear waste. I never drank coffee or tea at all until my mid 30s. Now I have GERD and still drink it, I should stop.

</comment><comment><USER62> Is this reasonably balanced?

I'm sure there have been a huge amount of studies of caffeine, and maybe they're favouring those which make caffeine look good.

</comment><comment><USER30> 403

Forbidden

Access to this resource on the server is denied!

It's not easy availing yourself of VPNs as basic Internet hygiene in current year. :C

</comment><comment><USER63> a "nootropic" in modern parlance

</comment><comment><USER64> how probable is it that this study was financed by people who have interests in selling coffee?

if something is not a medicine, in general, it should deserve more scrutiny.

</comment><comment><USER65> Any other article by this guy would be censored from HN due to its anti- vaccination / anti-mainstream medicine content.</comment>


Developers shouldn't distribute their own software - <AUTHOR> https://drewdevault.com/2019/12/09/Developers-shouldnt-distribute.html <comment><USER2> As much I as agree with this, in order for your software to be included in a distribution it needs some initial traction. So you probably want to make it easy for early users to adopt it and to do that you probably want to release build artifacts instead of having each and every one of your users install e.g pandoc or sphinx to build the manual page for your application.

But once a few distributions have started shipping your software sure, it's the best.</comment>


Health and Medicine (Khan Academy) - <AUTHOR> https://www.khanacademy.org/science/health-and-medicine <comment><USER2> Sampling the offerings, it looks like the videos were made in collaboration with reputable health education organizations.</comment>


Rumor Monger - <AUTHOR> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RumorMonger <comment><USER2> From the article:

"The code for this tool was published in CD-ROM, print, and online (ftp.apple.com) in the Advanced Technology Group's nice quarterly journal. Harry also had some Rumor Monger sweatshirts made, and I still have mine. One of the arguments I remember Nagel had was over the name. He did not believe that was the name of the Xerox PARC algorithm. --SteveCisler?"

Fascinating. Anyone got any stashes of the ATG journal referred to above?</comment>


Airbnb to use names and profile photos to infer race of users - <AUTHOR> https://www.airbnb.com/resources/hosting-homes/a/a-new-way-were-fighting-discrimination-on-airbnb-201 <comment><USER2> I can't say I'm fond of this, however well intentioned, and the main issue I take is with this:

"We'll use our partner's perceptions, for example, to figure out whether the reservations of those seen as a certain race are declined more often than others, which will help us create new features and policies to address any difference."

What 'features' could be put in place to prevent this? Modifying the name shown to a booker? Or auto-rejecting non minority names to even the odds?

I don't doubt that the people behind this are doing it with good intentions, but it is an absolutely terrifying to me & I wouldn't want to support any business that is essentially attempting to racially profile its users and potentially treat those users differently based on that profile, regardless of why they're doing it.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Pertinent info: starts today. Opt-out, not opt-in.

>will look at these photos and first names and indicate their perceptions—or, what race they think the information we shared suggests. They'll share these perceptions with a specialized team at Airbnb exclusively for anti- discrimination work</comment>