This is how you charge the new Apple Magic Mouse - <AUTHOR> http://i.imgur.com/cO5s9h6.png <comment><USER2> Given that the Magic Keyboard can be used while plugged in, and the Magic Mouse (clearly) can't, this should be read as a design decision, rather than simply lazy placement.

My guess is that in testing, they found quite a few users were keeping their KB/Mouse plugged in and charging all the time. The Keyboard remains relatively stationary, whereas the mouse moves around quite a bit.. Given how frayed iPhone Lightning cables become when you move them, Apple probably (rightfully) worried that using the mouse while plugged-in would lead to damaged cables and a bad experience.

Moving the charging to the bottom stops this behavior. People will charge their mouse, then use it wirelessly..

While I think a better solution may have been to re-engineer the lightning cables to be more resilient, this doesn't seem insane. They're trying to use design to encourage certain user behavior, while discouraging others that don't work well.

</comment><comment><USER3> Instead of compromising on aesthetics by putting the port on the side, it charges to 9 hours battery in 2 minutes. I don't see an issue with this design decision, just a typical Apple bandwagon.

<comment><AUTHOR> 2 minutes is way too long. My mouse stops working in the middle of an intense flow? When I'm rushing a piece of work for a deadline? When I'm in the middle of a game? Stopping for 10 seconds to scramble to get the cable in is fine. Sitting on my hands for 2 minutes waiting for the thing to charge, during which my machine is essentially unusable is totally unacceptable.

Why not put the port on the front (like Logitech does)? It can still be placed aesthetically - the front side of a mouse is something you never ever see.

<comment><USER4> OS X will alert you when your battery is getting low.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is ridiculous...

I have a Magic Mouse that uses AA batteries, and I use the Sanyo Eneloop AA batteries in it. They literally last for a month or longer of daily active use at work.

Why Apple couldn't have made a mouse with something like that and a little wireless charging pad is beyond me.

</comment><comment><USER6> If I worked at Apple I'd have made a Qi charging mouse mat. It can charge the new keyboard, the new mouse and the new trackpad. It can also charge the new iphone and ipad.

Now your table can be as clear as the ones that appear in the apple adverts.

</comment><comment><USER7> When you've been married for too long and they don't even try anymore.

</comment><comment><USER8> Mm hmm.</comment>


ETL with standalone Spark containers for ingesting small files - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/readme-mic/etl-with-standalone-spark-containers-for-ingesting-small-files-8d6ee2ebda63 <comment><USER2> sweet!</comment>


Ask HN: ProtonMail – Opinions? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I've been using Protonmail and ProtonVPN for almost a year (Plus subscription) and it's been pretty good. It's now my primary email address. Some cool things

\- You can have a @pm.me address which is much shorter than @protonmail.com \- You can use email clients with bridge \- Mobile apps are pretty good

Their VPN product is really solid too.

</comment><comment><USER3> I switched over completely from Gmail earlier this year. Everything works the way I need it to, the only thing I wish I had was a "Block" button to get rid of spammers or companies that don't respect the unsubscribe button. I also don't understand why I have to 2FA every time I log in on my home computer. I wish it stayed logged in.

These are minor grievances, though. The interface is smooth and mail delivery thus far has been completely reliable.

</comment><comment><USER4> Been using it for several months post-Gmail. I wouldn't expect all the bells and whistles of Gmail, but you get a solid, reliable, fast, and private email option. The mobile app is solid (though I _really_ wish conversation threading was better). And as @diehunde mentioned, you get @pm.me addresses (up to about 5 alternate email addresses). I don't regret my purchase and would buy again

</comment><comment><USER5> I've used it for about six months as a primary email service provider.

Good web app and mobile app. At first I thought it'd be inconvenient to not be able to search the body of emails, as one does in Gmail. But such restriction did not prove to be a big deal. Overall I like it.

</comment><comment><USER6> Drawbacks:

1\. No full-text search in the web app.

2\. IMAP interface is still not 100% reliable (yes, I have the latest Bridge update).

Other than that, it's ok.</comment>


The Klipped app is the best way to book a haircut - <AUTHOR> https://www.klippedapp.com <comment><AUTHOR> Klipped is a new tech start-up based in Santa Barbara, CA that allows you to browse hairstylists' schedules, book an appointment and pay for services - <USER2> from your phone. Klipped also lets hair stylists to manage their bookings, reminders, and payments.</comment>


Youku Transcends YouTube as China Becomes Center of Internet  - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-17/youku-transcends-youtube-as-china-becomes-center-of-internet.html

<comment><USER2> Take any news China related (like Russia related) with a very large grain of salt.

"The Internet's center of gravity is shifting toward China, said Duncan Clark, chairman of BDA China in Beijing, a technology consultant."

This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read recently. China is not the center of the internet. And the only technology they have is either bought or stolen.

</comment><comment><USER3> > _For Youku's Koo, Chinese Internet companies are developing superior > business models_

> _YouTube, owned by Google, is inaccessible in China._

Kind of hard to determine one business model is superior when they aren't even allowed to compete.

<comment><USER4> oh its superior alright - they managed to out compete google even before google entered to compete :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It is not the internet unless it's open. More accurate, imho, to call it Chinanet.

<comment><USER6> How are we supposed to enjoy Chinese language video? The firewall of china is just one barrier. The more significant barrier is how to translate it.

The language barrier is preventing synergy between Chinese and Western cultures.

<comment><USER7> We've solved this problem, at least if you don't mind reading. They are called subtitles.

<comment><USER6> Well, _somebody_ need to translate them with machine assistance into English first.

That mean, probably only a fraction of Chinese work will ever be translated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Sales from online advertising reached 20.7 billion yuan ($3.1 billion) last year, according to data from Beijing-based iResearch Inc. By comparison, ZenithOptimedia estimates U.S. Internet advertisements in 2009 were valued at $54.2 billion."

Seems like burying the lead to me. I don't think you can say Chinese web sites are surpassing U.S. ones _as a business_ until the revenues are comparable. Otherwise, it's more like bit torrent or the Pirate Bay. They may be surpassing YouTube and Hulu in downloads, but that doesn't mean there is a superior business model behind it.

<comment><USER9> Also, the ebay alternative does not charge any fees, it only gets it money from ads. They do this, according to the article, because Chinese prefer it that way. If it is true for other services, then China is more ad driven than other countries, so it should be even higher than normal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think the article starts off badly, its YouTube vs Hulu comparison generates quite a bit of negative sentiments.

Every country has its own policies, it is quite tough for outsiders to intervene or change things around. Think Cambodia, Vietnam. In Chin'a case, it's the government's case to require Web content to be censored. That's how it is, think of it as cultural difference or the rules of the game if you want to play.

The opportunities to grow in developing countries are great, it is just the process to come in, understand how the local does things and how can we adapt our policies to make it work that matters. A few other countries that offer similar growth opportunities less the restrictions are Malaysia and Indonesia. (just look at the Jakarta Composite and KLSE Composite index)

</comment><comment><USER11> @benhedrington doing something involving libraries in beijing. we're in stealth mode ish.

youku and tudou and all the other youtube-likes are essentially unusable in the US. partially intentional to avoid copyright trouble for the companies involved, however they have set up servers abroad to cater to countries with large overseas-chinese populations.

<comment><USER12> My impression is that this is a recent thing. I remember about one year ago youku & tudou were very 'copyright-friendly'. PPStream is still quite good, but it uses a windows-only client.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think it does not make sense to compare USA with China. It rather see english vs chinese, because the language barrier is bigger than the national barrier for a service like Youtube. The english speaking world is much bigger than the USA alone.

</comment><comment><USER12> The most interesting consequence of operating in china is simply the massive scaling ability required of even the simplest of websites. I expect some interesting technologies to come out of china in the next few years because of this.

</comment><comment><USER14> There _is_ no Internet in China. What they have is something else, and something fundamentally different.

</comment><comment><USER15> Anyone here doing startups in China? From inside or outside the country?

<comment><USER16> I run a business in China. To run a business targeting Chinese consumers, you need to be based inside China.

I often see people ask American-based startups: "Why don't you offer Chinese support and try to grab the Chinese market?" It's really not that simple. Even for an existing startup, successfully entering the Chinese market basically requires you to run a totally new business. If you don't treat the Chinese branch like its own indigenous company, you won't get anywhere. I think Google is an excellent example of a company that failed, or refused, to understand this.

<comment><USER11> I wouldn't write off google china quite yet? They still have a huge office here churning out tons of code, making interesting things, kicking ass with android stuff..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Youku seems to be severely throttled in the West. Anytime I've tried to use it, I've given up in frustration at the buffering times.

<comment><USER18> That's official strategy to save traffic, I read somewhere once.</comment></comment>


How Medium is building a new kind of company with no managers   - <AUTHOR> http://firstround.com/article/How-Medium-is-building-a-new-kind-of-company-with-no-managers <comment><USER3> I always scratch my head when stuff like this comes up. Not that it isn't a good idea or it doesn't have its place, but more that people think "traditional management" is a thing itself.

For instance, if I could summarize my 15 years of people and exec management it might be this: empathy and seek first to understand, then be understood (can't remember where I read this one). If I had to tack on something after this is it "take the hill", meaning a very clear shared vision so if there is ever ambiguity, people know what the ultimate goal is so they can make the right judgement call when needed (taken from the military, I believe).

My issue with things like this article is that they use different terms for the same things. It seems there will always need to be someone setting direction, someone following up that people are doing the right thing and some key decision makers. What we call those people might be different and how you "organize" could look different on paper, but those roles kinda, sorta need to exist.

Now, the feel and philosophy of the whole company can be different, but I would say that is more about the culture and _how_ people react to good and bad news.

So things like Valve and Medium try to say they are not "traditional companies". Well, no company ever is, really. It's like when every company under the sun says they "only hire A people". They don't. They say they do and they want to, but they don't. Otherwise no B or C people would ever make their way through these companies and we all know they do. Heck, there are C, D and F people leading venture funded companies in SF right now.

So, in closing to this rambling comment, terms don't matter. Systems of management aren't important. Focus on the people, the mission and understanding both and you'll be fine.

<comment><USER4> I disagree. Systems of management _are_ important. There are going to be some people who work well under a strongly hierarchical system, some people who work well under a flat system, and people who could hack it under either. Thing is, there is no reason to believe that the people you attract under any given culture/structure is completely independent of ability to provide a product or service.

For example, GE is a very hierarchical megacorporation, BUT it has found it expedient to make its aircraft parts manufacturing flat, because parts don't need to be turned out so quickly and individual workers can have multiple specializations.

<comment><USER5> The intriguing thing about the article for me is that it combines a pretty sophisticated description of an alternative management structure with a characterization of "traditional management" _techniques_ which is just daft. There's nothing remotely novel or "flat" about a corporate culture where managers and their reports are happy to discuss their personal lives and socialize with each other; it's pretty standard in lots of very hierachical, old-fashioned corporations whose managers have an above-subnormal level of social skill.

And for that matter, asking employees to rank their "SCARF" priorities sounds like some new form of torture a pointy-haired middle-manager might devise to torment you with the unforeseen consequences of picking the "wrong" order ("in view of your desire for greater autonomy and ambivalence about 'certainty', you're now _part time_ ")

<comment><USER6> Yes, yes, and yes. I work with Holacracy and I will confirm that the techniques described from Stirman's experience before joining Medium (chatting with employees, SCARF, etc.) are not to be put in the same bag as Holacracy.

It doesn't even make that much sense to compare them -- these techniques are bolt-ons - more or less useful practices to make do with the challenges inherent to a conventional structure. On the contrary, Holacracy is a new meta-structure for how power is distributed, how decision-making is distributed, with different channels available to effect changes - a new "social operating system", really.

In my experience, having my manager use techniques like SCARF to "better reward me" is nowhere near as powerful and empowering as having no manager to solve my problems, because there is a system that allows me to address them myself.

-Olivier Compagne

<comment><USER7> > _a new "social operating system", really._

As a species, humanity is about 50,000 years old. Millions, if you include our most obvious ancestral species.

The claim that neologism-of-choice is a "new" system is extremely unlikely to be true. What is more likely is that the new system is a reinvention of a system that has been seen hundreds of times under hundreds of names. Social structures tend to be evolutionarily convergent, depending on prevailing constraints. If a given structure is rare, that is because it relies or can only exist in a peculiar environment (eg Valve + massive profitability).

Truly. There is nothing new under the sun. Including totally "new" social systems that "work" because of short-term enthusiasm.

<comment><USER6> Well, technically, I'll grant you that it's impossible to rule out. IMO it's highly unlikely that someone came up with these rules: [http://holacracy.org/constitution](http://holacracy.org/constitution), but I'm not going to argue that, the novelty is not my main point.

I'm interested in whether it's working. From what I've seen, it is. Perfect? Of course not. The be all and end all of running a business? No, you still need to do work. But it's a much better framework to do so that anything else I've seen. Many people seem to share this opinion, too, and it seems to help them to their work better (and enjoy it more). That's pretty cool in my book, I don't need to convince the world that it's right for everybody. If you find the same benefits with another system, or a similar one from thousands years ago, who cares, run with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I hate this article. It's not bad in any factual way, so it's an opinion...but the hero worship is just intense.

That, and it just reminds me of the hustle startups do all the time. _" We're rebuilding the internet."_ Come on...

Regarding the actual management content of the article: it seems too good to be true. From what I can understand of the article's explanation of "link leads" and "evolving roles" \- it essentially reduces job description to a generalist, jack of all trades perspective.

That's not realistic. Once you pass that beatific startup culture point, you _need_ structure. Structure isn't a bad thing. It's faulty managers who give it a bad rap, but from a group dynamics and sociological perspective, implementing structure in a company makes sense at scale and for maintaining/improving productivity.

Unfortunately, it's trendy to be anti-all-things-BigCo nowadays. "We need an idea for how to run our company!"..."Well, what's Microsoft doing?...Aha! We'll do NOT-THAT!"...

Personally, if it works it works, but I think I'd hate it, and I'm skeptical.

<comment><USER9> _> That, and it just reminds me of the hustle startups do all the time. "We're rebuilding the internet." Come on..._

Merely "rebuilding the internet" actually sounds humble relative to "changing the world" as I've seen so often lately.

<comment><USER10> I don't know. Every action you take "changes the world" even in an incredibly insignificant way. That's a much lower bar than "rebuild the internet". You say that and I'm like "O rly? So does your new internet use IPv6?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Having been there before, once they get to 70 or so people it all starts to falls apart. Once the founders no longer personally know all the people then structure comes in. By 200 people if you have no structure you are out of business. Also once you have lots of legal issues or are required to follow standard accounting practices or other picky stuff like that this nice holocracy will crater.

<comment><USER4> there are some pretty dramatic counterexamples to your claim.

Valve, of course is the most well-known, but Semco is a large brazilian company that runs this way, as is Morning Star, a tomato processing company in California.

<comment><USER5> How dramatic are the counterexamples though?

A browse through Morning Star's website reveals job listings for defined roles. They're looking for (i) people with "a strong business background" and "an aspiration for senior leadership" to manage their finances, (ii) people who "likely have a meaningful formal education in related disciplines" to "coordinate", "train" and "identify proper operating procedures", and (iii) "hands on professionals" who need the "ability to read, write, and comprehend instructions" in addition to specific practical skills.

Sure, they might downplay rank and authority, but it doesn't sound like an organization without structure or _de facto_ managerial roles.

<comment><USER4> fair point. I think corporations live on a spectrum of authoritarianism, and these are "far out in the distribution" but they aren't perfect, and I don't think in reality a perfectly flat corporation can exist because all employees have a natural range of skillsets. But by "dramatic" I meant dramatic relative to the parent post's claim about organizational size relative to success of the model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _" He read all the 'right' books on management and took the advice to heart: don't get too chummy, shield your team from anything they don't need to know, ask them to identify roadblocks to progress, reward them all equally."_

These are definitely NOT the right books on management. Every single one of those things is the exact opposite of what good managers do. That sounds like the advice from the world's most fear-ridden, counter-productive HR organization. Good managers care about their teams as people, communicate openly, and overwhelmingly reward their best.

The approach works great for small, nimble organizations, but it doesn't scale. For instance, I talked with a tech company a few weeks ago that's rounding 50 employees and is now a few years old, and the employees are all frustrated that they've never gotten performance reviews. Founders hate performance reviews, because they're against the DNA of most entrepreneurs. But a lot of the people who become developers, customer support reps, and marketers really like when someone gives them a clear idea of what they're doing well, what they need to work on, and a clear plan for how they can develop.

One of the challenging parts of management is that it's really hard, it's highly situational, and it's non-deterministic. Having really great processes helps, but at the end of the day you really just need to hire people who are good at managing and set the right priorities for them as an organization. Inventing weird systems like this sounds great, but in most cases it doesn't scale. For instance, a role-centric organization will work until you realize that you need 60 people involved to get a press release out because someone declared themselves the Word Master and needs to have a say in punctuation.

But outside the weird jargon, this isn't a new kind of company, it's just good management principles. Have clear accountability; be candid; care about your people; connect everyone to a broader vision. It sounds like common sense sometimes, but when you go to implement it in the tactical reality of the day to day, it's really hard.

</comment><comment><USER13> I hate all of these pretentious claims about new ways of working when they all do exactly the same thing:

1) Set up a straw man in the form of "traditional management", whilst there are hundreds of forms of management and managers, most of which don't "look at reports as resources", or even look at people as "reports". As a manager, I find this insulting.

2) These shiny new methods are the way many small companies have worked _for fucking decades_. They just weren't so fucking pretentious about it.

It's the same shit as with shiny new technology, frameworks and methods in our business: everyone thinks they've invented the wheel, and nobody bothers to look around them (and especially behind them) to see if the same thing hasn't been done countless times before.

Excuse the language, but this attitude is just pathetic. Nothing new is being invented here.

<comment><USER14> But if you're pretentious about it, you can sell certification and licensing.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm nitpicking on a small detail here, but

> _• Autonomy-oriented employees may need the ability to work from home, or > simply slip on their head phones to tune everyone else out._

It's 2013. Are these really special perks to make a certain kind of person happy? Maybe I'm weird, but to me a company that doesn't allow me to tune out with headphones one or occasionally work elsewhere is like a company that tells me what to wear or tracks office presence hours. Do these, in our field, even exist anymore? (barring Yahoo)

For "Autonomy", I'd rather expect something like having a very large say over what an employee is working on and how she does it.

<comment><USER16> > Do these, in our field, even exist anymore? (barring Yahoo)

Company dress codes and time tracking? They are pretty common outside of the startup culture. "No shorts and a collared shirt, please track your billable hours".

<comment><USER15> Really? (I'm assuming you mean to include "in the US"). I'm starting to understand the appeal of Valley startups.

There is no software-heavy company that I know of in the Netherlands that does this.

Sure, it's common that companies ask you to keep track of how many hours you worked on which project, but clocking in and out of the office? I've never seen it.

<comment><USER17> Much of it depends on the background of a company. If you are writing software for a large financial institution, chances are the HR department will ask you to wear business casual (or worse). In my experience in the east, middle-sized companies can go either way--some mandate business casual, others don't care. Again, in my experience, this is often related to whether clients are often visiting the offices.

My current employer, with its tech leadership drawn from the Valley, has been incredibly flexible about most things. But we were recently acquired by a more established, traditional company based on the east coast. There are rumors that I'll have to start wearing something other than shorts and t-shirts at the office, but nothing has been handed down yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Holacracy is an instance of organizational democracy, but it's not new - <USER2> took a holacracy seminar 6 years ago. Kudos to Medium for using the framework though - it's one of the few that lays out, soup to nuts, how to run a democratic company.

There are many companies that operate using democracy as an organizing principle - Semco is the great-granddaddy of them all (two books - Maverick[1] and the 7 Day Weekend[2] - were written by Semco's founder, Ricardo Semler, about how Semco operates).

Other well-known democratically-run companies include Zappos, WL Gore, DaVita (a $12B company), and Dreamhost.

If you're interested, take a look at WorldBlu[3] for more - they've been building a community of these kinds of companies, have tons of resources on their site, and even have a conference on organizational democracy.

[1] - [http://www.amazon.com/The-Seven-Day-Weekend-Changing- Works/d...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Seven-Day-Weekend-Changing- Works/dp/1591840260)

[2] - [http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0446670553](http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0446670553)

[3] - [http://worldblu.com/](http://worldblu.com/)

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm an anarchist at heart so I love these types of stories but I'm also very pragmatic. I work for a very large multi-national concern and I know that eventually you're going to get employees who are more concerned with things at home than their job.

For these people the job is just a meal ticket, something to feed their kids and put a roof over their heads. When the passion goes out of frame like that, what's left is apathy.

No "operating system" in the world has a cure for that.

Personally I know I would thrive in a management-free environment, if anything has been positive in my reviews it has been that I am self managing and do not need any guidance to find things to do. But people around me do their best to avoid hard work all day long. They have what we in Sweden call "tillsvidareanställning" and that means it's practically impossible to fire them.

Seems to me that Holacracy is great if you manage to find driven employees who care about your business. I'm not saying they should dedicate their lives to it but they should feel pride in what they do and a sense of responsibility for their company.

So far I've only seen this in small startups, and even then it wasn't prominent.

<comment><USER20> I do not even believe Valve is immune to this, despite the hoopla.

I've worked on games on my own. I know that there are a 1000 different parts of a game that you simply do _not_ want to touch. The tedious bugs and polish, that every video game has to have. The endless hours of play testing.

Even working for myself, where I have total stake in the product, I have to force things.

Startups are a special breed of crazy. Initially they emulate a dorm-like environment, where you go and hang out with your friends and make "killer" this-or-that. But in the end, it's just a sham. The founders are there to make money. And in Silicon Valley terms, that means urgent breakneck growth. No startup culture survives the onboarding of an HR department and the associated growing pains.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Much more detailed than I thought.

"To help with this, instead of a focus on employees, there's a focus on roles. Each circle has a 'Lead Link' who determines what roles the circle needs and how they get assigned. In fact, one person can hold multiple roles if their bandwidth and expertise allows. Stirman is both the People Operations lead and Word Master (which comes with final say on punctuation and capitalization, among other word-based dilemmas)."

Isn't this another way of saying he's manager of People Operations and Words? Perhaps there is no more formal career ownership, but it still sounds like he's a manager, no?

<comment><USER6> Yes, it's exactly what it means. He's the "manager" of his roles, and within the authority granted to this roles, he can make autocratic decisions that others can't veto (not even the "Lead Link"). And it's true for every employee in every role: they have full authority to exercise their role's authority.

Of course you need a way to modify the roles' definitions; there is a governance process for that, at each team level, and any team member can propose modifying the roles, not only the "Lead Link" (contrary to what this quote mistakenly suggests). I hope this clarifies a bit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I went into this article thinking it'd be a puff piece, but the details about holacracy are very well done and a lot of the insights are more or less actionable even if you're at a more traditionally-organized company.

Something that doesn't get talked about too much is how popular holocratic structures are in non-profits, either formally or informally.

<comment><USER6> In my experience, there are less non-profits formally working with Holacracy mostly because they can't afford hiring the consultants to help them adopt it. And it's not easy to adopt on your own - it goes against a lot of oft- entrenched habits. That said I know that many have tried, though I don't know how it's going because I'm not even indirectly involved.

Interestingly, the distinction between for- and non-profit is less relevant with Holacracy. The bottom line is effectively the (explicit, written-down) purpose of the organization. More on that here: [http://holacracy.org/blog/for-profit-non-profit-for- purpose](http://holacracy.org/blog/for-profit-non-profit-for-purpose)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> These "managementless" companies will be "managementless" for about 5 minutes before power structures start to emerge naturally within the group.

</comment><comment><USER24> I just want to know who the guy that can make the decision to fire you is at places like Github, Valve, and Medium. Either that person doesn't exist or that person is your manager.

<comment><USER25> I heard that at Valve, it's by team consensus. I may be wrong though.

<comment><USER7> Ah, so everyone's boss is the sociopath who's good at whispering campaigns. Swell.

<comment><USER25> I think the proceedings are open and transparent and the employee whose employment is in question would be a part of them. They could start with a group meeting where a discussion takes place about team members' misgivings about the performance or contribution of said employee, with a chance for him/her to respond. After a couple of rounds, if the concerns are not addressed then a decision is made to let them go.

<comment><USER7> Without wishing to seem unnecessarily combative, you are being naive. Nothing about a meeting being open prevents the possibility that its outcome has been fixed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> All this "no hierarchy" and "no management" movement seems really nice. What I want to see, Valve included, is how they keep it when there is no money.

So far Valve is doing pretty good and still sometimes there are some talk about silos and how it does not work for everyone.

I don't know much about Medium finances but I would love to see stories about these management strategies in companies that are actually trying to earn some money and don't have pockets full of cash just waiting to be spent.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm curious to hear how well it scales, and also what the downsides are once they come out. A lack of praise for employees seems like a fairly minor issue.

It's been said Valve is somewhat like high school with their completely flat hierarchy, although this is never mentioned in the many articles praising their management structure (or lack thereof). I'm curious if this type of management system causes similar problems.

That being said, everyone is different and some people (and cultures - Germany, Switzerland) function in a hierarchy very well, while others don't. I think the article alludes a little to this with the comment about individuals who take initiative vs those who don't. IMHO, those individuals who take initiative on their own are drawn to entrepreneurship and small companies, whereas those who don't are drawn to large corporations where others can set goals for them and as they achieve those goals, they move up. As Medium grows, they're inevitably going to attract more of the latter type, and it will be harder to provide meaningful roles for the former type.

<comment><USER6> Based on what I read about Valve, it is not surprising that they have a lot of politics going on. That's the issue with flat structures - when authorities and accountabilities are unclear, you need make alliances (seen as "cliques" from the exterior) to get your projects moving forward.

On the contrary, Holacracy has processes that push for clarity. It distinguishes people and their roles, and provides forums (e.g., clear meeting processes) to address misalignments and conflicts between roles, in service of the company's purpose. It's well explained in this 3-min video [http://youtu.be/9U_XDin5tjI](http://youtu.be/9U_XDin5tjI)

Disclosure; I work with HolacracyOne. Hope that clarifies the difference a bit

<comment><USER28> Not really well explained. Nothing about the process is explained in the video.

The only thing the video does is spend three minutes saying "if you have a problem, solve it among yourselves rather than going to the boss".

<comment><USER6> No, the processes themselves are not explained in this video. This other one explains "tactical meetings": [http://youtu.be/8NrsVBATZCM](http://youtu.be/8NrsVBATZCM)

That said if you want the technicalities of the process, you'll find everything in the constitution (not as entertaining, but more accurate): [http://holacracy.org/constitution](http://holacracy.org/constitution)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> So glad that someone's bold enough to challenge the traditional management system and experiment with a new kind. Having worked at a mega-sized corporation, I definitely felt like there was a serious need to revamp/rethink the current command and control system. Most employees feel disconnected from the decisions made by the management and the managers have hard time earning the buy-ins from their employees. I actually entertained the thought about building a thriving company without central management, with every employee empowered to make their own decisions (also take the responsibilities for them as well). I asked that question to the founder of Hoovers.com at a guest lecture. His answer was, based on his experience, pretty strong no. Most successful companies of our current time are represented by strong leaders, take Apple with Steve Jobs. But Apple will not stay Apple after Steve Jobs. A great company cannot last after the strong leader/founder leaves the company. Can we create a sustainable success with great PEOPLE instead of a single leader? I think Holacracy seems to be a promising solution and I would like to see this system stands the test of time.

</comment><comment><USER30> I believe you could write an article with more bs in it. It would be difficult, but it would be possible.

This paints a strawman of the most dysfunctional traditional structure imaginable where no one knows who has what authority, no one knows what various managers do, individuals have no power, no one listens to the people "at the bottom" and managers are impersonal jerks whose job it is to keep their team in an isolation room.

Maybe Holacracy is the greatest system known to man. It looks like a surefire way to create ultra-political environments, endless meetings on topics unrelated to getting real work done (like restructuring the org and electing people) and eventually a centralized power base around a small political class.

But surely the narrative that Ev Williams didn't like managing, so he decided to get rid of all manager and dump the entire traditional structure because his last company was poorly managed isn't the best way to sell it.

</comment><comment><USER31> I recall an insightful comment here on Valve's flat management style -

When there is no official hierarchy, an unofficial one emerges.

</comment><comment><USER32> Too often I see this piece of advice be overlooked or ignored, to the detriment of the entire department or organization:

"You want to make sure you hire only people you wouldn't mind getting stuck in an airport with," he says. "So many people fall into this trap of hiring highly skilled people who are bad culture fits. And I'd argue that's the worst kind of hire – even worse than a poorly skilled person. If they're as skilled as you think they are, they'll gain power, influence and get more deeply enrooted in your technology, process and product. Then, when the honeymoon of your justifications is over and reality sets in, you're seriously stuck with this person."

</comment><comment><USER6> If you want to hear more about Holacracy, there is a webinar this afternoon at 1:30 PST: [http://holacracy.org/events/intro-to-holacracy-free- webinar-...](http://holacracy.org/events/intro-to-holacracy-free-webinar-19) \- Disclaimer: I work with HolacracyOne, the company behind the model. I'd love to address several comments I see on this thread (and will later), but I'd recommend the webinar for anyone genuinely interested in a comprehensive understanding. It's hard to discuss a 'part' in any depth without understanding the whole.

<comment><USER33> What are the largest companies by revenue, profits, and employees that are using this model?

<comment><USER6> I'd say the largest at this time would be Agencies of Change, 200+ employees (though it was a few years ago, I don't know now). We're currently working with one significantly bigger client, but we let them announce it first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This sounds almost exactly like how traditional management is done at my job. Each "circle" has a lead "point" who distributes roles, but each person is able to make decisions about their particular part.

</comment><comment><USER35> In what sense is this new? No-management companies have been around for hundreds of years, and we talk about how Steam has been doing this for ten years on a fairly regular basis.

</comment><comment><USER36> How is a flat company more efficient than a company that doesn't hire shit managers?

Every article on the matter seems to be written by personalities that have an opinion that management hierarchies can NEVER innovate.

I've found the exact opposite to be true. Great leadership pushes everyone to be better. 2 strong personalities can lead to disaster if nobody is allowed to reign them in.

<comment><USER37> >How is a flat company more efficient than a company that doesn't hire shit managers?

an any meaningful scale these 2 things are impossible.

<comment><USER38> I think michaelochurch has advocated open allocation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Like Valve software you mean. Hope it doesn't turn out to be like a high school.

[http://www.vg247.com/2013/07/08/ex-valve-employee-slams- comp...](http://www.vg247.com/2013/07/08/ex-valve-employee-slams-companys- high-school-clique-management-structure/)

<comment><USER40> Yes. The interesting thing here is that without formal managers, you get informal managers, and the process for the selection of informal managers is likely to work in a similar way to the one in which people get popular at school.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Based on my experiences with their product, I think some top-down direction is precisely what they could use. Just because so many managers and/or management paradigms are inept does not mean that we should throw the baby out with the bath water.

</comment><comment><USER42> Steam has been known to have a manager-less structure:

[http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/valve-how-i-got- here-w...](http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/valve-how-i-got-here-what- its-like-and-what-im-doing-2/)

<comment><USER43> That would be Valve, the company, not Steam, the product.

Also, mentioned countless times in this thread alone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Maybe if Medium spent their time distinguishing their product instead of their corporation I would know who they are. But I don't, and I'm not sure why they think I should, considering they are a blogging platform.

</comment><comment><USER45> If you read between the lines it really isn't about a management style or structure, it's about treating human beings like fucking human beings.</comment>


Ask HN: Review my web app - Modern Ballots - <AUTHOR> http://modernballots.com/zombies/vote I noticed a lot of distain for the two-party system and went about investigating alternatives. Modern Ballots is an attempt to make Schulze STV, a proportional representation algorithm, easy to use for anyone that wants to hold a vote.<p>Thing is, I'm not really all that savvy when it comes to UI design, marketing and all that stuff. Any suggestions on how to make this kind of thing more appealing? Electoral reform isn't exactly the sexiest of subjects, although it does entertain sporadic conversation. <comment><USER2> I've been wishing the US had a score based voting system for a while now, but there are considerable obstacles: -Two dominant, incumbent parties that have no incentive to make it easier for more parties. -A populace that is unlikely to understand why one would even want to change the voting system, and why score-based voting would enable more parties to rise. -Millions of dollars or more invested in the current voting system.

to name a few.

Not to discourage you, though, I think it's great.

Education might be a good place to start, and that seems to be what you're dabbling with in writing this web app. I'd be very interested to hear your ideas regarding the other issues, though (and any other issues you think of).

I don't believe the current system is codified in the US constitution, though I could be wrong - a friend and I couldn't find anything specifically prescribing the choose one candidate ballot system of voting in the national constitution when we looked. The specific methods might be decided at the state level.

<comment><USER3> Not to rain on your parade here, but a multi-party system isn't paradise either. I'm not saying the duopoly is better, but multi-party systems are plagued with immobility, compromise for the sake of compromise, and lack of differentiation. Any European cynic will repeat that for you.

<comment><USER2> I didn't say that I wanted a 3+ party system, the biggest advantage would be that you wouldn't get a situation where voting for your favorite candidate screws over your close second favorite but much more likely to win candidate, as happened with Gore in 2000 when a percentage of his would-be supporters voted for Nader instead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I noticed a lot of distain for the two-party system and went about investigating alternatives. Modern Ballots is an attempt to make Schulze STV, a proportional representation algorithm, easy to use for anyone that wants to hold a vote.

Thing is, I'm not really all that savvy when it comes to UI design, marketing and all that stuff. Any suggestions on how to make this kind of thing more appealing? Electoral reform isn't exactly the sexiest of subjects, although it does entertain sporadic conversation.

<comment><USER4> Don't most elections for which proportional representation is realistically feasible involve democratic governments above the local level, with tens of thousands of voters, serious worries about electoral malfeasance, and sales cycles which require legislation or in some cases Constitutional amendments?

These are not things I would go looking for if I were trying to start a small software business. I mean, in terms of "barriers to achieving conversion", passing a Constitutional amendment is pretty up there.

Not quite sure if that is relevant for what you are doing. If you're trying for a political movement, rather than a web app per se, you might want to lead with an example of a real election rather than a zombie gag.

<comment><AUTHOR> The largest hurdle I see in electoral reform is broadening people's expectations of a ballot, which is all I'm really trying to do with this app. Approaching the problem from a legislative angle is hyperbolically analogous to asking a dictator for fairer representation. People need to see that other systems aren't all that difficult firsthand before anything happens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great app! Really enjoyed it, and definitely will help people get a more visual understanding of how these sorts of ballots could work in real elections in the future.</comment>


My Childhood in an Apocalyptic Cult  - <AUTHOR> http://narrative.ly/desperately-seeking-something/my-childhood-in-an-apocalyptic-cult/ <comment><USER2> Most of Christianity (and quite a few other religions beside) is apocalyptic.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypticism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypticism)

The big difference is that the smaller cults tend to place their 'due date' a lot closer by, this in turn requires extreme (peer) pressure on the followers to keep them from doing what their common sense tells them to do (to get out).

Cults are horrible. Religions are typically marginally better but they still play the same tricks on people.

The biggest problem is that if the prophesied end does not come about as predicted that some of these will not shy away from bringing it about all by themselves.

<comment><USER3> Science is also apocalyptic. The universe will end. Religions just intuited this earlier.

<comment><USER4> Not in the same sense, I think.

Apocalyptic religions want an apocalypse, and followers arrange their views to fit. Note how often the date just gets revised when it misses. If I understand rightly, early Christians expected Jesus to return while they were still alive, and quite a lot of modern Christians expect the same thing, dozens of generations later.

The apocalypses that science predicts [1], though, are narratively unsatisfying. A bunch of bad things will happen, but most are so far in the future that it's hard to imagine that humans will be around for them. It's just not about us. In contrast, the science-y things that people seize upon in an apocalyptic way are generally un-scary to people who can do math. E.g., planetary alignments, the LHC.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Earth](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Earth)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A good friend of mine also grew up in the same group, and is currently crowd funding a documentary about her experiences, as well as other cults in the US. If anyone's interested, you can check it out here. [http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/happiness-is-submission- to...](http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/happiness-is-submission-to-god)

</comment><comment><USER6> The article links to an image of what 'Flirty Fishing' is about. Following that link you can find more graphics produced by the cult leader. This gives a good idea of what the cult is about:

[http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Category:Family_Art](http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Category:Family_Art)

They were not alone in promoting the 'free love' angle. Orange people thought they were in on the same deal, some flavours of Mormonism have the same deal, just so long as you are male. "The devil hates sex but God loves it!' has a certain appeal to it for young recruits...

<comment><USER7> This is the specific one referenced in the article[0]

[0] [http://www.xfamily.org/index.php?title=File:America-the- whor...](http://www.xfamily.org/index.php?title=File:America-the-whore- ml216-cover.jpg&filetimestamp=20050909021739)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Recent New Yorker article about the Branch Davidians at Waco:

[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/03/31/140331fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/03/31/140331fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all)

</comment><comment><USER9> Quite interesting. It's fortunate that she didn't end up abused. Sad to see that other cults like the Church of Scientology keep preying on vulnerable people, though.

<comment><USER10> I think the horrible cases of institutionalized abuse that make it to the media blind most people to the fact that the majority of cult followers, perhaps even leaders, are well-meaning people who care for their loved ones and want to do the right thing.

<comment><USER9> I think most people would agree that the majority of cult members are, in fact, victims. However, since cults encourage the members to cut contact with the outside world, this mechanically facilitate behaviours prohibited by society at large, such as sexual abuse, corporal punishment, forced labour, etc. I don't doubt many of the abusers have managed to convince themselves that they're doing for the greater good, but then again, so do abusers outside of a cult.

<comment><USER11> I believe that many of the thought processes enforced by charismatic cult leaders (respect the elders, listen to the elders / leader in all things, avoid thinking for yourself, submit to god - through me) are designed to create docile followers - open to exploitation in any number of ways (get them to sell their old belongings, hand over their savings, open their legs..).

These vulnerable people can and will be exploited by anyone with the will to do it, whether it's the leader or another elder that does it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Children of God is now known as The Family International.

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

Curiously, the Wikipedia page makes no mention of the 1993 apocalypse prophecy that failed to materialize.

<comment><USER13> Interesting. The Moonies ships an army of Korean boys and girls to the US to solicit money from college students, old people and generally anyone that will look at their flipover clipboards with pictures of impoverished people. [0] It also owns a great deal of wealth and businesses [1].

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

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unification_Church_aff...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unification_Church_affiliated_organizations)

<comment><USER14> They had a lot of power in my country, and own an impressive mansion as their headquarters (they open it to the public on a national holiday, it's beautiful).

It seems to be on the decline here, they used to own a major newspaper, a Radisson hotel (in the emblematic independance plaza), and several other companies:

[http://www.elobservador.com.uy/noticia/231655/el-declive- del...](http://www.elobservador.com.uy/noticia/231655/el-declive-del-grupo- moon-en-uruguay/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The story is fascinating but I also wasn't aware of this site and I quite like it.

<comment><USER16> Agree, other than the insta-popup begging for a social media like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm a survivor of that cult too. Here's a blog article I wrote about the world's worst aviation disaster and the beginnings of Flirty Fishing (religious prostitution) in Tenerife with pictures of cult leader David Berg and his first FFers. The cult tried unsuccessfully to bury the documents that expose this. You can see one of those documents and links to others in the article below.

"Secret letter claims Family International leader caused deadliest air crash in history"

[http://chainthedogma.blogspot.ca/2011/11/secret-letter- claim...](http://chainthedogma.blogspot.ca/2011/11/secret-letter-claims- family.html)

</comment><comment><USER18> If you like this you might be interested in:

        Enlightenment Blues:
            My Years with an American Guru
        by André Van Der Braak

[http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2134031.Enlightenment_Blu...](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2134031.Enlightenment_Blues)

(disclosure; I'm a friend of André's)

<comment><USER4> I'd also recommend the copyright-suppressed book *Life 102: What to Do When Your Guru Sues You": [http://www.amazon.com/Life-102-What-When- Your/dp/093158034X](http://www.amazon.com/Life-102-What-When- Your/dp/093158034X)

The author, who had written tech books, got sucked into an LA-based cult. When an old friend suggested he try antidepressants, he woke up and got the fuck out. When he later fell sick, the cult sued him over the book and got the copyright to it.

It's not a perfect book, because the author was clearly still struggling to come to terms with his experience. But I think that makes it even more interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I recommend the book "Combatting Cult Mind Control" by Steven Hassan. He was in the moonies and talks about his experience leaving the organization and now he helps other escape from similar cults.</comment>


Annotating All Knowledge - <AUTHOR> https://hypothes.is/annotating-all-knowledge/ <comment><USER2> We wouldn't have to annotate at all if we used authoring and browsing tools that recorded knowledge in a more useful format to begin with. For my ideas on the subject, see [http://onemodel.org](http://onemodel.org) and click on "more about om" (or "about"), then go into the future plans and vision stuff. Once we can create & share knowledge at an atomic level, everything else gets easier and we don't have all the problems we do now, IMO.</comment>


AI Against Humanity: Cards Against Humanity Mini-Game with AI-Generated Cards - <AUTHOR> https://www.aiagainsthumanity.app/ <comment><USER2> Crazy! That's just perfect. Imagine the sheer randomness of an AI to produce some immature NSFW humor! Really, the outcomes are hilarious. Especially reading those AI-brainfarts with other humans was absolutely worth it.</comment>


Erlang Releases and Being Right with Sinan - <AUTHOR> http://blog.erlware.org/2012/05/04/sinan-releases-and-being-right/

<comment><USER2> I appreciate the discussion of this topic. The update procedure for distributing bug fixes for Unix/Linux OS object libraries is fairly settled (the OS doesn't free the disk space until anything that has the old version of a shared library memory mapped exits), and as I explore Erlang's environment, I wondered if there was an analogous procedure for Erlang component updates.</comment>


Amazon Prime members get a $1 video credit for choosing slower shipping - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2014/07/30/amazon-prime-shipping/

<comment><USER2> It looks like Amazon can save a good amount of money by providing this no-rush shipping to prime members. The real cost of expedited 2-day shipping would be way less than the benefits Amazon will get through reduced congestion in their warehouses. $1 restrictive benefit they provide seems way smaller than the benefits Amazon would get. Nice move.</comment>


Why Discrete Math Is Important - <AUTHOR> https://artofproblemsolving.com/articles/discrete-math <comment><USER2> Discrete math is important because the universe is discrete. Continuous math is an approximation that sometimes, but not always, is rather convenient.

Once I wrapped my mind around this, I started to understand something. Manifolds are just graphs with many vertices. Fourier analysis studies the eigen-decomposition of the laplacian on a graph, and is used to solve heat, wave and dispersion equations. Stokes theorem (which in a discrete setting amounts to matrix associativity) is a self-evident fact. Most of applied math is thus reduced to a few lines of octave code.

Only when you lose discreteness or compactness things start to get nasty. But this is just a flaw in our current definition of real numbers.

<comment><USER3> Nice thing about "continuous" math is that we have so many "standardised" tools in its toolbox, contrasted with "ad-hoc-edness" of discrete math. Hence interesting is solving discrete problems with "continuous" tools - like e.g. [http://ac.cs.princeton.edu/home/](http://ac.cs.princeton.edu/home/)

<comment><USER2> You can also see it in the opposite sense.

The continuous models are an ad-hoc, purely mental, construction. When you have to solve a PDE, you actually build a discrete model (using finite elements), and solve the discrete thing. Except in very simple toy problems, you can never "solve" anything using only continuous tools.

<comment><USER4> Spectral methods, or any methods where you have chosen a basis of continuous functions and are solving for weights produces solutions in the continuous domain. That's not a discrete model.

<comment><USER5> The grandparent poster might like Chebfun, [http://www.chebfun.org](http://www.chebfun.org)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > _Many students, especially bright and motivated students, find algebra, > geometry, and even calculus dull and uninspiring_

That was me. I grew up believing I hated math. Struggled all the way through middle & high school to AP calc and just found it incredibly boring and tedious. Ended up opting out of doing engineering/science in undergrad because I just couldn't stand doing all the math.

Long story short, years later ended up going back to school for CS and took discrete math as one of my first courses, and remember being blown away by how cool it was. All this time thinking I hated math!

Hard to say exactly what the difference is. Partially I think my brain just groks discrete concepts more easily.

But also the class had a heavy emphasis on proofs, which I think was really important. At a certain level this type of problem-solving can start to resemble philosophy. Chugging through a proof, figuring out just the right way to construct it and slapping a triumphant "Q.E.D." at the end is an empowering experience, especially the first time. There's a world of difference between "you throw a ball, solve for its velocity at time x" and "prove that there must be a ball" (I'm embellishing of course). It's a difference between obtaining an answer for a specific instance of a situation, and shedding light on some fundamental/universal property of the world. To me that feels profound in a sense, which makes it exciting.

Proofs don't belong solely to the domain of discrete math, of course, so this probably isn't as much a testament to the subject as it is to the general problem-solving approach. It would be nice if students could get exposed to this a bit earlier, I think there are many folks like myself who would realize that they can love math too.

<comment><USER7> What you're describing is the basic shift between what lower-ed science/math is like and what "real" (college) science/math is like. The problem is that everything they teach in highschool and below needs to have an escape hatch for "what if they have anti-ADHD* but no clue what's going on?" That's why you were able to solve for _v_ without obtaining any knowledge about the universe, and why taking discrete math did what they _claimed_ geometry would do.

* It's kind of a stupid way to put it, but by anti-ADHD I mean sufficiently controlled behavior combined with the ability to focus on any rote task until it is completely learned (basically, whatever traits or life conditions you need to have the opposite of ADHD). No matter what, you're not allowed to fail that group.

<comment><USER8> > anti-ADHD

awkward way to put it (although i dunno how else to describe them), but i think everyone knows the students you are talking about. these people are the reason why highschool math/science is hell, and you can't get away from them by taken honors or AP courses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Even if we don't teach a single day of number theory, I think we can all agree that modern society would be better if everybody had to have a semester of basic probability or statistics as part of their education.

<comment><USER10> Not really. You have to find a way to make the math real to your students or else it becomes just another exercise of "what set of words do I need to say in order to make the teacher happy". At least in my experience, most learning seems to be either incidental OR some sort of vestigial residue of the social component of making _the system_ happy.

<comment><USER11> What? You can make easily make basic statistic and probability about real problems and interesting. Talk about sports. Talk about risks of the stock market and financial planning. Talk about politics/polling. Talk about gambling/poker. Just takes an interesting teacher to make any subject interesting.

<comment><USER10> Like, I want to believe you that such a thing is easy. But I'm not really convinced by the assertion that it is followed by a non-descriptive blurb. I mean I get what you're saying, "Find what they care about and try to apply statistics to it." However, I don't believe that this process is easy.

Sports is a good example of why I don't think this is easy. What exactly is the point of statistics in sports? Predicting what teams are going to win or what strategies are superior. Most children in school are not interested in sports because they're into strategy or because they're predicting who's going to win. They're interested in it for social reasons. Which team do their parents or friends want to win. Telling everyone at thanksgiving that the family team is going to lose the game will probably not go well for them. And as far as strategy goes ... I thought the statistical analysis of the extra point kick in football indicates that you should never do it. Teams rarely make use of this at the professional level. Also didn't they make a movie about how nobody pays attention to the math in baseball (Moneyball?). Anyway, if adults who have money and fame on the line can't be bothered to care about statistics in sports, then I don't see how children are going to be much different.

Of course that's where you come in. You say it's easy. Personally, I would love to see _why_ you think this because it looks hard to me. I look forward to a more in depth response from you.

<comment><USER11> Well I'm commenting on the internet Verdex_3. I'm not going to take the time to write out a bunch of interesting statistical examples for you. I wasn't trying to say it's easy to make statistics interesting. Was only trying to refute what I thought that you were asserting; statistics and probability are not interesting to teach. Designing enjoyable, interesting, challenging and fair curriculum is a really hard task to do for any subject...

If you don't believe math can be made interesting I would checkout websites like FiveThirtyEight or youtube channels like numberphile. It's definitely possible to describe statistics or math problems in interesting ways. It's hard to make any class interesting, but any teacher can do it if they work at it hard enough.

Also your moneyball comment makes no sense. All teams operate like the 2002 Oakland A's now, if anything the the movie shows the triump of statistics over bad heuristics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have to admit, being a hybrid math/csci student, I never understood the place of discrete math in mathematics or computer science. It always seemed like a mish-mash of different topics I'd studied in algebra->geometry->calc (including mv calc, linear algebra, diff eq, and series and sequences)->real analysis. This article is a bit too brief to properly place it (at least I still don't see it), could someone provide some proper context for discrete mathematics that fits into the mold of the standard maths sequence?

<comment><USER13> It's hard to place a particular "context" for discrete math; it really is a hodgepodge of topics, loosely linked because they deal with discrete structures (integers, graphs, logic statements) rather than continuous ones (real/complex numbers).

It's particularly relevant to computer science because, in CS, we're dealing with discrete structures almost exclusively. The rise of computers and of CS is both what led to the current interest in discrete math subjects as a research field and what led to the development of university curricula in the topic.

So, really, discrete math (as a university course) exists mostly to teach some CS-relevant topics that don't necessarily get much dedicated time in the "standard" algebra->geometry->calc progression, because they're more concerned with continuous phenomena. It's sort of a parallel and independent track from the "standard" math sequence.

<comment><USER12> So all responses thus far have been great, I think the thing I struggled with in HS and into university is trying to place everything and see what the current math leads to. So, responding here, but upvoting those that responded to me at this time because all provided me with insight. Thanks!

<comment><USER14> Head down the Prof Wildberger rabbit hole if you'd like to explore why we might be able to cast aside chunks of conventional math including real numbers and infinite sets. [https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCXl0Zbk8_rvjyLwAR- Xh9pQ](https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCXl0Zbk8_rvjyLwAR-Xh9pQ) [https://njwildberger.com](https://njwildberger.com)

<comment><USER15> Might be? Of course we can. Obviously infinite objects are irrelevant to modeling the real world. They are just a shorthand for adding a bunch of annoying qualifiers to every mathematical statement.

<comment><USER16> It's a good thing we don't actually need the square root of two!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > Prominent math competitions such as MATHCOUNTS (at the middle school level) > and the American Mathematics Competitions (at the high school level) feature > discrete math questions as a significant portion of their contests. On > harder high school contests, such as the AIME, the quantity of discrete math > is even larger.

As someone who participated in these contests, this isn't the entire story. Competitions such as these all require numerical answers, and as such skew _extremely_ heavily towards counting and probability (as in, there's no other discrete math topics but these two). It's only when you get into proof based contents that the real meat of discrete math, namely recurrence, cardinality, graphs, etc. start showing up.

</comment><comment><USER18> The vast majority of people who learn calculus in school will never model a changing system in their life again.

The vast majority who didn't take statistics courses in college will still try to use the limited understanding they have of statistics to assess statistical claims or draw conclusions from reported figures. The vast majority of people who never took discrete mathematics courses will still face problems of figuring out the difference of combinations and permutations at some points in their life.

I love calculus and I'm very happy I know it but I would be lying if I said it even approaches the importance of discrete mathematics and statistics in today's world.

</comment><comment><USER19> I love discrete math, it seems so much cleaner in general. I wish there were more reformulations of calculus, other numerical methods into discrete maths.

I think Knuth's concrete mathematics might have been an attempt at this, but I've never found time to dig into it in depth. Perhaps I should try again...

<comment><USER20> In some sense, don't the modern formulations of real analysis, etc. already start from as close to discrete maths as you can get (set theory)?

Sets -> Naturals -> Rationals -> Reals

I don't understand how you could reformulate study of continuous structures into _discrete_ math in any sense other than the above.

<comment><USER21> Every mathematical object (ok, this is false but that's not the point here) can be constructed in ZFC (the standard axiomatic framework for set theory) so you can construct the real numbers in terms of sets (if you want more precise informations on this construction look up Dedekind cuts).

However this is irrelevant to, say, analysis, you could define the real numbers as the unique (up to isomorphism) complete, ordered, archimedean field and do analysis just as well, so I'd say that you are right in some sense and some formulation, but it's a bit of a stretch to consider analysis as starting from discrete maths.

I also don't see how set theory fits into discrete maths, apart from the basics it seems pretty far from the common structures studied in discrete maths.

<comment><USER22> Pick the Grothendieck-Tarski axiom instead, and use category theory to build ZFC via topos. This path is "big" enough to handle all the interesting sets; it can't deal with proper classes, but proper classes are kind of metaphysical anyway.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski–Grothendieck_set_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski–Grothendieck_set_theory)

<comment><USER21> Sure, but ZFC by itself also deals with every interesting set, I was just being nitpicky of my own assertion.

I'm not familiar with TG, what's the relation between it and ZFC+some large cardinal axiom?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> 1) I loved my undergraduate discrete math class.

2) who can't love a class that teaches you how to understand the math behind poker :)

</comment><comment><USER24> Symbolic logic / truth tables is the single most useful subject I have ever taken wrt programming. It provides an intuitive understanding of conditionals so they can be expressed simply and clearly.

</comment><comment><USER25> Attention parents of "mathy" kids: A bit off topic, but I just want to put in a testimonial for AoPS online math classes. My daughter used it as the spine of her middle/high-school math education. Great program. Check it out.

<comment><USER26> Fully agree - the whole AoPS range of books and courses are just amazing. Highly recommended for all kids.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I wish I had paid more attention to or had a better instructor for my discrete mathematics course, I find many of the topics covered in it extremely fascinating now, years later. :(

<comment><USER28> Surely, online resources for these courses must exist? I guess it's just about finding the will and time to put in double the effort because of a lack of instructor/conducive environment.

<comment><USER29> The Coursera/UC series on discrete mathematics [1] looks like a good introduction.

[1] [https://www.coursera.org/specializations/discrete- mathematic...](https://www.coursera.org/specializations/discrete-mathematics)

</comment></comment></comment><comment> nv-vn Highly agree. As a current high school student, I've gone out of my way to study discrete math. Though I found calculus interesting, it's not particularly applicable to any part of CS except for a few concepts. OTOH, DM is incredibly useful for practically everything, which is what led me to seek it out.

<comment><USER30> if your interests tend toward machine learning, you may run into calculus again. in particular, if you keep going past the "train a neural network" phase (for which very basic calculus is fine) to the optimization problems that are under the hood of most ML algorithms, you wind up in the land of functional analysis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> > Discrete math shows up on most middle and high school math contests.

That seems a terribly weak reason for anything to be important.

<comment><USER32> When funding for your school is based off of test scores in a horrible way this is what we get.

My daughter is in 6th Grade and she has no Science or Social Studies this year. Reason: She has her Math and Science testing this year.

When did science become the enemy of math?

<comment><USER33> Math contests are not related to standardized testing. The contests are entirely extra-curricular, and probably mostly benefit those kids who have exhausted their school's standard curriculum.

<comment><USER32> I understand that BUT school administration is looking at Math contest through standardized testing outcomes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> My peev has been, how do I improve my problem solving skills, not necessarily Mathematics wise. But in general.

<comment><USER15> Read _How to Solve It_ by Polya

<comment><USER34> Bought it just now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I literally just stopped working on my discreet math homework tonight before loading HN and seeing this article.</comment>


Samsung UNPACKED 2013 Livestream - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDXILsX7_QI

<comment><USER2> Well, the launch event alone will certainly not become legendary, nor something worth rewatching.

</comment><comment><USER3> this is so bad it's good. I'm dying of laughter. The technical specs are quite nice though.</comment>


New studies zero in on roots of depression and how ketamine affects it - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/new-studies-zero-in-on-roots-of-depression-and-why-ketamine-reverses-it/ <comment><USER2> That the lateral habenula overfiring leads to depression, and the l.h.'s purpose is to warn us of negative outcomes - that's an amazing insight to me. I think CBT should listen up here. What if you can learn to dial down l.h. activity by deprioritizing negative outcomes in your daily life? This could be the shortcut everybody has been looking for, replacing years of treatment with only weeks/months?

<comment><USER3> Sure I mean CBT teaches you to observe negative thought patterns and answer them rationally. Writing a journal or talking to a therapist helps you escape the mind. But clinical depression has physiological effects too so medication helps with that.

<comment><USER4> In my experience, this is a bad idea. The negative thoughts can use the rationalization engine in your brain just as well as the other parts, so engaging with them on rational terms has, for me, only given them more influence.

<comment><USER5> Part of the point of CBT is recognize when you're engaging in rationalization behaviors so you can prevent it. CBT is meant to increase your awareness of what you're doing in your life to cause you harm and misery and to help you build patterns and habits which relieve you of those things. Maybe I'm being presumptuous, but it doesn't sound like you've had actual, therapist-led CBT.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hmm... that aligns somewhat with my own thoughts on the actual cause of depression. I've spent a lot of time thinking about since I spent a significant portion of my life depressed, and I find the current approach to it in health care unsettling.

Allow me, if you will, to engage in some inexpert speculation. If you read the following, please keep in mind that I am just some idiot on the internet and not in any way qualified to give advice.

It seems to me that depression is not a disorder, disease, or abnormality, but a necessary and purposeful reaction of the mind and brain to certain stimuli. Of course this is not always the case, and the same symptoms can be triggered by other factors that affect our neurochemistry or mental function, but in a normally functioning mind and brain I think this is true. When examined in this context, what do we find?

Depression makes us apathetic, reluctant to act, and unconfident. A while back there was an article on HN spitballing that depression and mania were related to our mind's assessment of its own ability to predict outcomes. Overconfidence in its own predictive ability manifests as mania, and low confidence manifests as depression. This makes some sense. If you are confident in your predictions you are more likely to act on them, and if you are not you are less likely to. Given this, I submit that it's possible that what depression really is, much of the time, is a philosophical problem.

Philosophy is our model of reality, and we use that model to make predictions and decide how to act in the world to affect change. When that model is known to be broken, we lower our confidence in it and act less. Over time, as more and more of our model is revealed as flawed and our confidence in it continues to plummet, we enter a state of learned helplessness. Finding ourselves unable to predict the results of our actions, we are unable to determine how to effect the changes we desire in our lives, leading to interesting contradictions like being bored and at the same time unmotivated to do things we used to enjoy. We don't want to be in this state, but we lack the ability to see a path out of it, so we become frustrated, angry, and/or sad. It can eventually reach a point where the only path out of the suffering that we're confident in, is death.

In fact, this model-breaking occurs many times in our minds' development. As we grow up we form several different models of reality, all of which are inevitably revealed to be flawed. This is the reason you find children who believe they are hidden just because they can't see you (their model of reality doesn't include the concept of different perspectives), and why the terrible twos are so terrible (the young mind is dealing with its model of reality failing), for instance. With children, however, there are plenty of people around them operating with better models of reality to help them work out a new one. Societies can also be modeled this way, and if we look at the past we find that human cultures also go through a similar pattern of forming a stable model of reality, eventually finding it flawed, suffering through process of dealing with that, and ultimately resolving the crisis. I say resolving because, in actuality, there are two solutions to the problem of realizing your model is broken: forming a new, more accurate, one; or ignoring the information that contradicts it.

This is the important point, I think: When an individual's model of reality is broken, and society cannot guide them towards a more accurate one because society itself is still operating on the model that individual has determined to be flawed, then chronic depression is a likely result. Our current societal philosophy, the one our health care system is also based on, see's this individual's suffering not as a transition period in which they form a new model, but a severe disorder. To them, the rejection of the model is a form of insanity, and unclear thinking. This is why you sometimes see people tell a depressed person an obvious platitude in an attempt to cheer them up, only for it to further frustrate the depressed individual: they are aware that the platitude is part of a flawed model.

Further, the health care system is, like most of current western society, firmly implanted in empiricism. Science and measurement are the hammer, and everything else is a nail. Society as a whole forms its model of depression on measurements and manipulation of the neurochemical and behavioral aspects of depression, the social side effects, etc, but without regard for its greater reason for being. They are witchdoctors, sacrificing chickens to drive out the demons and bloodletting to balance the humors. Sometimes it works, because even a broken clock is right twice a day, but a lot of times it doesn't.

If one were to assume that this assessment is accurate, then reason we get depressed is so that our mind is motivated to take a step back and build a more accurate model of reality. The thing to do, then, is to help the sufferer realize why they are suffering. There's nothing wrong with them, they don't have a chemical imbalance of the humors, they aren't bad people for feeling the way they do or for not having faith in what society tells them is true. They have in fact taken a step toward growth, and nearly all growth comes at the cost of suffering. They need to look hard at where reality has shone the light on their flawed conception of it, reason through the problems, and build a more accurate replacement, and we may not be equipped to help them.

<comment><USER6> This is the only sane answer I read here so far. I'm surprised that so many people still believe that depression is at large some kind of pathological condition. I'm even more surprised when people accept the most addictive drugs in existence as a "treatment" for anything.

You make some really great observations in your post. I found them very enlightening, eye-openers. However, I have to disagree on the fact that depression is usually/mostly a change of your perceptual model.

As you mentioned, depression is the state during which your prediction of the future (correctly or incorrectly) is that _any_ action you take will result in a highly unpredictable, and mostly dangerous/damaging/negative feedback. Bad enough feedback for the best action plan to be doing nothing at all.

There are two main, and very important types of depression branching off here.

One is the type where your prediction is wrong. The other is the type that your prediction is right.

There are many cases where your modeling of reality is now flowed or outdated. Maybe you grew up with negative or mentally ill people, and you know no better. Maybe your school teachers were assholes. Etc. In this case someone needs to show you, possibly through demonstrations, that your perception of reality is actually flawed. Off the top of my head, most psychotherapy, like cognitive behavioral therapy, offers just that. Your therapist will try to prove your model of reality to be wrong (even if it's not, but that's another discussion), and convince you that things are better, to look at things positively etc. Some times, for some people, that works. Other might refuse to update their model and choose to ignore reality. Others find dysfunctional ways to cope with life. Others will get a terrible therapist with a worse model than theirs. Many things are possible.

The other main category of depression is the type where your model of reality and your prediction is correct. Like a dog or lab rat that gets zapped with 50% probability no matter what it does. At first it will try really hard to figure out what's going on, and in the end it will figure that trying isn't worth it and it will stop. You can give that animal all the ketamine in the world, and it still won't be happy, because their environment is flawed, not their perception or learning abilities. In real life, examples include dealing with unstable people (bipolar, narcissistic etc), being stuck at an actual dead-end situation with near-zero chances of recovery (homelessness, bad chronic illnesses), etc

In this case, someone needs to fix your environment (if possible, ie homeless or dealing with unstable people) and not your perception.

<comment><USER7> There is also a crossover between both cases you mentioned here which I see in some people close to me (and possibly I have succumbed to it too in the past) in struggling with the inability to change the flawed macro environment we all exist in. The person doesn't necessarily fall into any of the instability categories you mention and have otherwise covered their physical needs well. Typically these are people who expected more from the world and society than was reasonable. When this mental model breaks down the only way out of it is for them to update their model by choosing to ignore, or more accurately not care so much about non-immediate reality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wonder if the author wrote this after seeing it here yesterday...

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16393861](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16393861)

</comment><comment><USER9> Reminder that the FDA seems to fast track the wrong drug:

They gave "breakthrough designation" ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_therapy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_therapy) ) to Esketamine under pressure from Johnson & Johnson:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esketamine#Depression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esketamine#Depression)

Although Arketamine seems like it has a lot more responsibility for the antidepressant effect of racemic ketamine:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arketamine#Novel_antidepressan...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arketamine#Novel_antidepressant)

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

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24316345](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24316345) (2013)

[http://www.cpn.or.kr/journal/view.html?doi=10.9758/cpn.2014....](http://www.cpn.or.kr/journal/view.html?doi=10.9758/cpn.2014.12.1.72) (2014)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26327690](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26327690) (2015)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4910398/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4910398/) (2016)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5487269/#__sec4...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5487269/#__sec4title) (2017)

That isn't to say Esketamine doesn't have an antidepressant effect. In light of the fact that Esketamine makes you Trip Balls(tm) while Arketamine doesn't, I like to think of it this way:

You can likely get an antidepressant effect out of Esketamine in the same way that you can get an antidepressant effect out of psychdelics like LSD-25 & Psilocin. However, like those, it could possibly also make depression worse, and unlike Arketamine doesn't seem to represent anything awfully novel. It however also makes me suspect that like with other racemic drugs like Amphetamine, a shifted ratio preparation might make for a better drug overall than isolating the stereoisomers. For example, Adderall contains 75% dexamphetamine, 25% levoamphetamine, in the form of various amphetamine salts (wheras racemic amphetamine contains 50% of each, typically as a single salt.).

[Semi-related: I still don't comprehend why pharmaceutical companies have yet to create a combination preparation of Lisdexamfetamine with something like Lislevoamfetamine, - which I haven't seen synthesized but I don't see anything speaking against it -, in a ratio akin to the one seen in Adderall. The rational behind that ratio seems sound, albeit I'd perhaps go for an 80/20 split instead of a 75/25 split...]

<comment><USER10> I also wonder if the method of administration of esketamine is a good one. Oral is one of the worst ways to take traditional ketamine.

<comment><USER11> I look forward to the day where the suggested ROA of an FDA approved drug is insufflation

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Esketamine[0] works as a NMDA antagonist. Most nootropic drugs, and anti-AD drugs have some interaction with AMPA, NMDA, and glutamate.

I have a hunch that most mental illnesses have to do with a dysfunctional glutaminergic system, with some misbehaving AMPA/NMDA signaling thrown in there for good measure.

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

<comment><USER10> DXM is a terrible antidepressant. So is Atomoxetine (strattera).

I do look forward to trying esketamine if I can. Probably going to be out of my price range even with insurance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder if it can be used to treat tinnitus.

<comment><USER14> Columbia University is doing a study on it: [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03336398](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03336398)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> It is interesting to see an exploration of astrocyte involvement and the use of optogenetic techniques to establish causality is promising. Hopefully there's more work like this going forward

That said, animal models are poor predictors of human biological activity. Animal models of psychiatric disease are some of the worst offenders. There's plenty of data showing stuff works in rats / mice but not in humans, but just take a step back and think about it: the human brain is unique among all animals, and its uniqueness imbues humans with all sorts of important mental and emotional features (and bugs). a rat brain is a very poor approximation but it's often the best we can do.

<comment><USER16> Is the human brain a difference in kind or a difference in degree, or both?

<comment><USER15> Both; humans brains are obviously bigger, more complex, and a have larger and more complex cerebral cortex (among other differences)

This is a good overview of comparative anatomy in lay terms: [https://canvas.brown.edu/courses/851434/pages/comparative- ne...](https://canvas.brown.edu/courses/851434/pages/comparative- neuroanatomy?module_item_id=6517341)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why are we still testing on rats? Don't we have a better method?

<comment><USER18> IIRC their brain chemistry is more similar to ours than most other animals.

They do simulations and petri dish testing as well, what would a better method look like?

<comment><USER19> We know ketamine is relatively safe for humans from the recreational use.

<comment><USER20> Ketamine was used to sedate my then two-year-old daughter in the ER when she needed stitches near her lip. The doc didn't want to foul up her face if she thrashed. It was definitely odd. She was awake, but no reaction AT ALL.

<comment><USER21> Ketamine gets more use in kids than adults because they tend to react better to the dissociative effects. Adults can become combative.

To your point, when the first dissociative hit the market, phencyclidine (PCP), it was a bit of a miracle drug. No respiratory depression, actually makes the heart beat a little stronger. It wasn't until the dissociative effects became more known was it withdrawn from the market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Strange. Ketamine alone is so insanely dark and boooring. When in combo with LSD it's a lot more enlightening. The researchers should try just that

</comment><comment><USER23> Careful - overuse of ketamine can destroy your bladder.

</comment><comment><USER24> Most doctors are performing infusions with a loading procedure where the patient has six infusions in the span of two weeks. Then the patient is offered what they refer to as maintenance. The space between maintenance doses is a decision made by the patient. Some doctors prescribe additional anti- depressants to help patients sustain the effect until their next infusion. One of the problems with this treatment is that there aren't any studies that show this is effective long term.

I have had ketamine treatments at two different clinics and the procedure and methods varied. There were differences in monitoring and safety protocols.

Initial doses could run anywhere from $2100-$6000. One maintenance dose could be $300-$1000. Hopefully Rapastinel will be approved by the FDA soon and wipes out small industry that is partial to unproven science. Don't be influenced by the hype. Please try everything else before you try Ketamine infusions.

Edit: I also want to mention that there isn't any proof that Ketamine is anything but short acting. See this review by Cochrane: [http://www.cochrane.org/CD011611/DEPRESSN_ketamine-and- other...](http://www.cochrane.org/CD011611/DEPRESSN_ketamine-and-other- glutamate-receptor-modulators-bipolar-depression)

<comment><USER10> I've done this as an amateur. Medical grade ketamine isn't the hardest thing to find and I do not have the money to do it professionally.

A few years ago I remember my first time taking ketamine at all I went from near suicidal to feeling completely fine pretty much over night.

I think that the "side effects" as the article put it are actually pretty helpful. The dissociation gives you a sort of third person view of your problems and life that is very helpful in my opinion.

I found that eventually it stops being as effective but I think there has been some permanent changes. My lows don't feel as low anymore. I still have down periods but they're no where as bad as they used to be.

More recently I've just stuck to antidepressants (I take an NDRI) and vitamin D3.

I've tried some analogs of ketamine (2fdck, dck) and hope they take a look at some of them to see if there can be similar effects.

<comment><USER25> > Medical grade ketamine isn't the hardest thing to find

How do you know the quality?

<comment><USER10> I wouldn't trust it for injection unless it came in medical vial. It's on the darknet, though more expensive than powdered Ketamine.

<comment><USER26> How do you trust anything you get on the darknet?

<comment><USER27> In any system where an actor can be either honest or dishonest but certain qualities of correctness can be probabilistically ascertained, consensus is often a great replacement for trust.

In the case of an anonymous decentralized marketplace, vendor attributes like product quality can be ascertained by achieving consensus in the form of ratings and reviews.

Ultimately, without running the product through a mass spectrometer yourself, you are going to have to defer trust, so consensus aims to reduce the likelihood of dishonesty over an average.

For people in some parts of the world, the level of trustworthiness gauged from online marketplaces can supersede the level of trust given to local vendors.

Take Amazon for example, which, while not anonymous, uses consensus to assure quality in the form of validated reviews. Many people already prefer shopping by reviews than by trial-and-error at brick and mortar stores.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Quote : "In this work the team induced depression in rats either chemically or by inducing what's called "learned helplessness." (The latter involves training the rats to recognize that they have no control over negative consequences in their environment.)"

Oh shit... that's quite disturbing

<comment><USER29> Apparently they made the rats work on maintaining legacy software.

<comment><USER30> While getting paid?

No, they sent them to get their Ph.D.

<comment><USER31> They train the doctoral rats to induce depression in other rats for research purposes, thus completing the cycle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Does Ketamine possibly influence an increase in depression when it wears off?

And how long does it take for it's anti-depression effects wear off?</comment>