Entitlement and Acquisition - <AUTHOR> http://mattgemmell.com/2012/07/21/entitlement-and-acquisition/ <comment><USER2>
        Sparrow's acquisition is a success story. Indie devs make a great product,
        build a customer-base, and are rewarded with a buy-out from a big company
        and they get new jobs with that company. It might not be what your
        particular goal or end-game is, but it is a success.

From an end-user perspective, having software you use and rely on on a daily basis completely abandoned is not a successful outcome. The Sparrow devs may have won, but Sparrow users have lost.

<comment><USER3> Since when does "put in maintenance mode" equal to "completely abandoned"?

<comment><USER4> It's like the word "indefinitely". It may mean "we can start it back up anytime!" from a dictionary sense, but it's actual use is that "it's probably not coming back".

"Maintenance" means that they will fix major issues that the paying customers are legally entitled to (such as bugs that make the app unusable). They will do nothing beyond that.

<comment><USER5> What law entitles users to bug fixes for major issues?

<comment><USER6> Nobody is arguing this is a legal problem, they're arguing that this is a moral problem.

Users did buy into the Sparrow thing because they expected updates/maintenance etc etc. Their purchase was contingent on the ongoing support of the service, they _would not_ have bought a product they thought would be discontinued.

Now, you can argue that they should have known that the service might disappear without warning, that they should never have used it if there was the possibility of them being bought, but where does that leave us? Should people just stop buying popular apps created by small companies? Should people insist on a legally binding "community promise" to open-source a product if active development stops?

This also neglects the fact that users are statistically credulous - as a group they're simply not rational enough to seriously consider the possibility of the developer being acquired. The Sparrow guys had to have known this, so they either did something unethical when they sold the app or they did something unethical when they sold the company. The blog post says that it is fine to take advantage of them for their credulity, but that's not an ethical position, that's just Ayn Rand.

<comment><USER7> _> Nobody is arguing this is a legal problem, they're arguing that this is a moral problem._

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The comment above the one to which you are replying states:

 _"Maintenance" means that they will fix major issues that the paying customers are legally entitled to (such as bugs that make the app unusable)._

It's almost like you completely ignored this to make some point about Ayn Rand.

 _> Now, you can argue that they should have known that the service might disappear without warning_

What service? We are talking about a downloadable application that is locally stored on the user's device until they delete it. It will not stop working. I've been using an old version of Thunderbird for a while now simply because I haven't felt like upgrading and setting up all my GPG stuff again.

These things may seem like nitpicks, but I think the nuance here is important and is being skipped over in favor of complaining about something. The reaction is way overblown in my opinion.

<comment><USER6> > The comment above the one to which you are replying states:

>> ...fix major issues that the paying customers are legally entitled to...

Ah craps. You're right, I skipped over that comment and assumed the one I was replying to was making a different point. I look like an ass, and it serves me right. I'd delete or edit the post to make a retraction, but HN has decided that it's important to keep my mistakes around for posterity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The whole of the author's argument, and its weakness, in four words:

> It's fine. It's business.

Why is this inadequate? Because whether something is 'business' is not the beginning and the end of whether it is a good thing to do. It is merely one aspect.

The market is not a perfectly accurate and complete representation for all of human wishes and behaviour. So we cannot delegate to it as the final arbiter on questions of what should or should not be done.

No, the whole issue is really the other way around. What currently happen to be the rules of the business game are not grounds for telling people what they should or should not want. What people want is grounds for examining how the market and business are failing to work well -- and then pondering how that could be improved. That seems the more reasonable, just, and interesting avenue to pursue.

<comment> k-mcgrady The "It's business" attitude has been popping up a lot. Nobody seems to be making the distinction between good business and bad business. Everything I've seen around the Sparrow sale has been bad business. The told users they were working on push notifications and an iPad app. They had a half price sale last weekend! And even though they were charging a premium price and clearly had a sustainable business (they were one of the top grossing apps and were highly rated and publisised) they still screwed their customers.

There was a good way to do this. Finish push notification and iPad support before discontinuing development (i.e. keep your promises). Don't have a half price sale days before you are acquired without informing the users the product will be discontinued.

<comment><USER9> As someone who bought Sparrow during their sale last week, I feel ripped off. I don't think they owe me free updates forever, but I would have liked to have known that it was a fire sale.

<comment><USER10> Did you use a credit card (likely)? Charge-back.

<comment><USER9> I got it through the Mac App Store.

<comment><USER11> Many people have reported getting refunds

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Cue predictable squawking on the internet."

And cue predictable anti-squawking squawking on the internet. The internet is a place for communication and people are allowed to express themselves. It's not entitlement. The entire goal of a software company is to make software people love so much they will complain when you take it away.

Congrats to Google for a smart talent buy, and the Sparrow team for catching the notice of Google and building something people will miss.

Now there is a clear market gap for someone else to reinvent email clients. Again.

</comment><comment><USER13> He's got a point, but it feels like nutpicking to me, and a bit of attacking a straw man.

I don't think sensible people are arguing that the Sparrow team don't have a _legal right_ to shut down or sell their company as they please. The discussion is over something subtler.

When I'm building something for my users, I see myself as in collaboration with them. And it feels the same to me on the user side. I'm not legally obligated to take an hour to write up a good bug report for a product I like. And I'm certainly not entitled to my usual hourly rate when I file the bug report. I do it because we're up to something together; capitalism is just the mechanism by which we make that sustainable and equitable.

I'm not a Mac user, so I've never even seen Sparrow, much less used it. But in their shoes, I wouldn't have just left my users in the lurch. I would have tried to find somebody to take over the product, or open-sourced it. Not because I was obligated, but because service to the users was the spirit in which I would have started the project.

<comment><USER14> It's hard to claim he's attacking a strawman when every point he makes has _tweets demonstrating what he's talking about_.

<comment><USER15> Straw man is not the best concept to evaluate arguments in the world of tweets where every potential argument can be exemplified without nuance or detail by 140 characters. If you are considering writing an essay (or ascertaining the truth of a situation) you should be focused on the best possible argument your opponent could be making, even if it's better than the argument they ARE making. The best possible argument they could make is a better representation of the reality you actually face (i.e. the reality as distinct from the argument you are having; the real reality that you want to come to have an understanding of, and doesn't care that you are arguing about it).

I personally don't think this article addressed AT ALL the best or most nuanced arguments mounted by the the opponents to Sparrow's actions, and I say this as someone who hadn't heard of Sparrow before today and thus doesn't have much of a dog in this fight (Although I am _generally_ predisposed to the notion that people can do whatever they want with their own apps).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't really like the tone of this article.

I think the sparrow team did what was best for them, and congratulations to them for a successful exit. Goodness knows I'd do the same if I were in there position.

I think what's most disheartening about these types of situations is that as a consumer they make me less and less likely to support startups. Sure, a team like this doesn't "owe" you anything -- you purchase their software and that's the end of the transaction... but if you're going to invest your time and energy into learning, adopting, and loving their product/ecosystem you want to believe that it's got a future. It's a shame that the frequency of these acquisitions (and subsequent shutdowns) erodes consumer confidence in small companies that make great products. Why bother getting yourself hooked on a new product if there's a decent chance it won't be around in another year?

To be fair, Google's current culling of its products shows that this isn't just a small company problem. But I have confidence that GMail will still be around for the foreseeable future. Same for Apple Mail. Same for Outlook. They might not be as good, but at least you can be confident that if you learn their ins and outs it they'll probably still be around in two years.

</comment><comment><USER17> I think people are frustrated about this and feel betrayed because they were a great indie dev team that made a great product and the users loved them and their product and supported them by purchasing and recommending their product from the beginning, despite the lack of features. Customers trusted them because they thought that the indie dev team will continue to be focused on improving the app and creating versions for other platforms (iPad, Windows etc) and now, boom, it's over.

The author of the blog post focuses too much on the money. It's not really about the 10 or 3 bucks. I was an early adopter of Sparrow and I literally jumped out of my chair when I read that the iPhone Sparrow app was released, because that almost completed my email workflow. Now Sparrow plays a big part in my workflow and I KNOW that the iPad app will never come out and that they won't release any new features or improvements for new iOS and OSX versions. I'm not frustrated about paying those 13 bucks or so but because I will have to stop using an app that fits so well in my workflow and start looking again for alternatives. Which is not a tragedy in the end and as a developer and startup enthusiast I'm actually pretty happy for the Sparrow team.

We tend to get too attached to these startups and it's painful to see them get acquired by the big players but it looks like it's a trend. It's getting harder and harder to be an early-adopter, to support a product/startup with money, data and feedback, to see it be awesome and then to watch it die.

</comment><comment><USER18> Quick survey: Who paid for TextMate? Who also feels indignant about TextMate 2's as-yet non-existence?

It's intriguing to see the difference in reaction between Sparrow's decisive EoL and the drawn-out, _de facto_ EoL that TextMate experienced.

I'd just like to remind you all: Sublime Text 2 came along, and most of you who were using TextMate switched to that, right? You'll survive. Just stop claiming a non-existent right to the productive output of another human, because once upon a time you bought something from them. You still have the version of Sparrow that you bought, and that's what you paid for, whether you thought that's what you were buying or not.

N.B.: I was tele-raised by Judge Judy, I don't take kindly to irrational sentiment or feelings of indignation.

<comment><USER19> I bought TextMate because it was a capable editor in the midst of many to choose from. I don't use Sparrow but it seems much more like it's filling a niche that's not quite filled yet and people are buying it because it's worth it, but also because they see the potential.

A de facto EOL happens, developers get busy and projects get backburnered. But a acquisition a lot of time means the developers are hitting their stride and have a lot of potential.

Sentiment? Maybe. But come on....they coulda been a contenda. No one is claiming a right. It's just a shame that the potential for _this_ is wasted. (Not the teams' talents, but their development investment in Sparrow.)

<comment><USER18> Sure, I appreciate that it seems like a lot of foregone future productivity/awesomeness (though we _really_ don't know what they'll go on to do as part of Google). But some people _are_ actually claiming a right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Software breaks, sometimes very easily. Who knows if the next OS update or 3rd party add-on will screw something up? Maintenance is important, and unlike some other products you can't just look around your city and choose from 10 or 20 businesses to do a repair. With a lot of software you're screwed unless _one person_ , the author, can keep it working.

I'm not sure this is entirely clear to the average person buying software. The problems that software can solve may not "stay solved"; they depend on their entire ecosystem to be stable solutions. _You aren't paying $10 to obtain something._ You are paying $10 to _temporarily solve a problem_.

That's a little unusual among products that are sold. For instance, if you buy a toaster, the infrastructure dependencies are pretty low; there isn't much risk that the voltage in your wall will change and prevent the toaster from behaving the way it was designed. Not only that but there are many regulations governing how such a product can be made, minimizing the chance that people buying toasters will have to replace them every 4 days. If you buy an appliance, it tends to last. But the reasons for appliances lasting don't really apply to software. It's bad for consumers to pretend that it's the same type of purchase.

<comment><USER21> Either you buy disposable software, or you buy software that comes with a maintenance guarantee. But to buy the former and pretend it's the latter is bizarre.

<comment><USER22> And don't forget that maintenance guarantees come with a price.

I don't know of any $10 apps that have that type of guarantee.

<comment><USER21> Indeed. The very idea that $10 buys a guarantee of years of updates should be absurd on its face.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> He fails to address the point, which I have mentioned on HN before, that _aqui-hires gradually erode the confidence of future customers_.

True, there will be no shortage of indie developers. True, Sparrow didn't owe anyone updates for life.

The problem is that each acquisition reduces trust in the minds of potential customers. It's more the fault of Google and Facebook but I still believe its the core problem.

<comment><USER24> This is a silly developer-centric point-of-view. I will repeat as I have said before - people for the most part invest in an app for the service it provides. In Sparrow's case it was mostly Gmail. If sparrow won't provide it anymore, users will eventually switch to another shiny app. I have never ever come across a person who was hesitant to buy an app just for the fear that it would be shelved by aqui-hire some day.

<comment><USER25> > _I have never ever come across a person who was hesitant to buy an app just > for the fear that it would be shelved by aqui-hire some day._

Give it time. The number of consumers burned by an acquihire is still relatively low, but it's growing. I've certainly heard people say things like, "sure that TV series sounds great but I don't want to get into it until I know they're not going to cancel it," having been burned by such in the past; if the current model of acquisition continues I think it's only a matter of time before it becomes a matter of common wisdom to avoid getting too hooked on a app, because if it's any good its developers will just get bought out and the app shelved.

As for "never ever", I will say that this issue is currently fuelling my own reluctance to even bother getting a smartphone at all, because I'm working from the assumption that any app I find particularly useful (other than the browser itself) will just go away. So, that's one.

<comment><USER26> I think TV series is a bit too much. I mean, even I liked Firefly but "emotionally investing"? Come on.

On a different note, I do have a smartphone. But I hesitate as hell to buy apps on my Android (no paid app here) for the very fear that if I suddenly jump to another platform I'll lose everything. Of course, I'm quite new to this "new" smartphone generation.

My previous smartphone was a S60 Symbian over 6 years ago.

<comment><USER24> You should be on the lookout for apps that have versions across different platforms or at least have a Web access.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Some incredibly valid points in here, but I think there's a middle ground.

While Matt is perfectly correct that when you pay for an app, you get the app you paid for. But there's a very well known unwritten suggestion that you'll get updates for 1-2 years. At which point probably they'll release a new version, and you'll pay the upgrade fee. It's how most software seems to work. So, people technically don't have the right to complain - there is a lot of sense in why people are upset. And there's no real explanation from the developers that buying their software wasn't going to lead down that route.

I think the biggest issue about the acquisition for me is the fact Sparrow bled the product dry a week ago by having a sale and then doing this. It seems underhanded.

And for the record, I also find it a shame that they've been acquired. I'm happy for them to be given big wads of cash, but in a selfish way I would have wished to seen them tackle more problems in their way - producing quality results. I have a bad feeling as we've seen again and again, we won't be seeing anything from Google with the calibre that they did with Sparrow.

<comment><USER22> When I pay more than $100 for an app, I might expect 1 year of support, but for a $10 or $3 app, I don't. Unless you live in the third world, $10 is disposable software.

The contention about the sale last week is just overwrought angst, as it's still a pretty good app, and one that easily pays for itself after a couple of weeks of use, even at full price. From the messaging on the sparrow app store pages, they're still going to be providing bug fixes.

<comment><USER28> If $10 is disposable software, then I intend to stop paying for any software except games.

The problem isn't the amount of money I spend, it's the amount of time I spend mastering the software, and building it into my workflow.

<comment><USER29> If the Sparrow team thought they could have made a bunch more money by selling a support contract, then presumably they would have. That means that either they're unsavvy or you're in the minority. I'm guessing it's the latter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I don't think most people are outright antagonising Sparrow (except perhaps for the fire sale last weekend, which seems a bit scummy.)

Most of the posts regarding this issue seem more to bemoan the landscape of the software industry at this point, where even if you have a well-selling, consumer-facing, high-quality app with critical phrase, it's still a rational decision to take a buyout from a tech giant even if it means shuttering your app.

<comment><USER24> Wasn't Siri's story a similar one? They shelved all the good things after being acquired by Apple. Did you feel similarly outraged at that time?

<comment><USER30> I don't use Sparrow, nor did I have an iPhone before Siri was acquired, so I didn't really feel outraged for either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Wow. This guy is a real jerk.

Why in the world is it wrong for people to feel bad when something they like is cancelled?

<comment><USER32> He addresses just that. Feeling bad is one reaction, feeling betrayed and entitled to limitless updates of an app that you like is something totally different.

<comment><USER4> I haven't seen a single person being entitled or saying that they deserved more from Sparrow. People are upset because Sparrow is being abandoned, and "rights" or what you "deserve" has nothing to do with it. Creating a blog post attacking fake "my rights!" arguments is just silly.

<comment><USER21> I've seen quite a lot of people saying that. The author quotes several in his article. If people were merely upset, that would be one thing. But people are talking as if they deserve updates and new features.

<comment><USER33> I couldn't find any quotes expecting endless updates without paying more. The author is wrong in his approach either way. Looking at each issue in isolation. He also incorrectly accounts for the cost to the user. It's not just $10. It's also the time invested into learning the software, setting it up, etc.

He also makes a bunch of assumptions (of course they asked google about open sourcing, but google said no for example) and also skips over other serious problems (things sparrow said they were working on for the future).

Sorry, but this article is pretty bad.

<comment><USER21> Really? This is the very first quote he has in the article:

"Sparrow OWE me new features, since when you're buying a software produced by a startup, you're also supporting the development."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Google beat us, the users, and Sparrow let them. Google is better at aggregating wealth than either we or Sparrow was.

That's the problem. Now, a solution.

What I think would have been interesting was an auction. Us against Google. Google bids first. $25MM. Then, in a Kickstarter fashion, we could bid against that, within a certain timeframe. I think this kind of "end user buy-out protection clause" should be a standard for startups like Sparrow, looking to both assure the userbase that they will not be pulled out from under them, and their own team that they'll get a comfortable payout no matter what.

Granted, a weakness of this plan is that if the consumers win the auction, what is to prevent someone else from making another offer immediately? The auction becomes something like an extortion scheme at that point. To deal with this the consumer side of the auction is time-limited - if the consumers win the auction, then product improvements are assured for, oh, 3 years.

The fact is that there are still rather obvious error modes. What if the developers sit on their hands? What recourse would the consumer bidders have? The simple answer to this, of course, is "very little." The burden will be on the team to show that they would like to continue to work on the project if the consumer side makes it make financial sense.

<comment><USER35> You're saying that there's a chance that a company who's total sales EVER are maybe 1/10 of that $25MM offer is going to get every one of its users, who ALREADY PAID once for the app, to pay 10X as much to keep them from being acquired?

<comment><USER34> I have no idea, but I like the idea of empowering people, of at least giving them the _chance_ to control their fate. And Kickstarter shows that consumers can aggregate some serious dough if they want to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The one by Cole Peters is the most ridiculous. People work to make money, among other reasons. There is nothing wrong with that. We don't begrudge the accountant, lawyer, or other people in other fields for making money. There is this group of people in our world that looks down on the notion of making money or have no desire to make anymore money than is required to live very modestly in a third world country. Once I was on a thread on HN debating wheher like $75K a year was "FU money."

It's fine to have these views but it is very much out of the mainstream and I think it makes technical people in our field look silly to the public or technical people in other fields.

Now yes there are good and bad ways to conduct business, perhaps it's not good for Google to essentially abandon the software but I don't feel anyone should begrudge the Sparrow team for going for a payday they thought was worthwhile. Someone says there was a "firesale" last weekend, I would say if they knew they were about to strike a deal and made an aggressive marketing strategy, there probably is something a bit wrong about that but I don't know any of the facts regarding that issue.

</comment><comment><USER37> All I can think of after reading this thread is "don't go into the business of selling software to consumers for $5-10".

</comment><comment><USER38> The reason we are angry is that the Sparrow founders (and investors and board) failed to give enough of a damn about their customers, placing shareholders before customers.

They have damaged their personal reputations forever with this decision.

They placed money over karma, dollars over doing awesomeness, cash over changing the world.

I feel they just missed an opportunity to grow Sparrow to dominate email across all platforms - an opportunity worth a lot more in both karma and dollars, and an amazing journey as well.

In short a poor decision made for the wrong reasons.

They may help Googke change the world of email. But they have messed up a beautiful opportunity to do so themselves and will now disappear into the anonymous Borg.

</comment><comment><USER39> This is probably the smuggest smug piece of smug literature that ever smugged. Like I couldn't read through this properly; the smug was hurting my brain and making me forget how to read. The whole blogpost read like he just got in an imaginary argument in the shower and won it by being as condescending as possible and throwing down those putdowns as he did just then.

The only way that this could have been better if it was a facebook screenshot of him replying to someone who's upset with acquisition by writing a large essay about how "GPL will literally kill your family" and other ad-hominems, and then top it off by liking his own comment.

</comment><comment><USER40> "Sparrow's acquisition is a success story. Indie devs make a great product, build a customer-base, and are rewarded with a buy-out from a big company and they get new jobs with that company. It might not be what your particular goal or end-game is, but it is a success."

So when you boil it down "mak[ing] a great product, build a customer-base, ... are rewarded" with a job at google.

Therefore building the product was, essentially, like a job interview.

<comment><USER41> Yes, with a signing bonus of a few million dollars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Using your vast and deep pockets to terminate a threat vs. competing against it simply doesn't sit right for many HN readers. There are some parallels here to the outcry against patents-as-business-strategy.

</comment><comment><USER43> Definitely some odd responses to this acquisition.

1\. The sparrow developers decided to accept a buyout offer. That's their business (literally). Should they accept less money to keep their users happy?

2\. Yes, Google bought them and is killing off their product because of strategic reasons. That's how huge corporations work, if Google/Microsoft/Facebook/etc. didn't do that they would be at higher risk.

</comment><comment><USER44> Sorry if this is a considered a highjacking but I'm curious as to why this post is racing to the top and the post of an active HN member(cpercva) did not get enough attention to make the front page. Colin's post is also from the perspective of an independent developer.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4274016>

<comment><USER45> My post was on the front page for a few minutes, then suddenly dropped down to page 10. Presumably one or more people flagged it -- I'm not sure why, but it happens sometimes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I have a pretty strong reason to be pissed off by the abandonment: there is an _incredibly annoying_ bug[1] in Sparrow, that has been there since launch, and now I'm sure will never be fixed. Am I "feeling entitled" to have the software I bought work correctly?

I really don't see the point in this article. He is mad at everyone because they don't share his lax attitude? What is he trying to prove? Gist of the article: _they're winners, we are losers_.

[1] when you switch inboxes/labels the email list starts at a position seemingly relative to the previous' inbox size. That means almost every time I switch to my main inbox I'm sent back to 2009, and have to scroll all the way back up.

</comment><comment><USER47> Just a few points:

1\. The cost is NOT $10, it was $10, a couple of hours of setup, including filtering my backups, working around two bugs and filing them with Sparrow, following up with more details.

2\. I was more annoyed with the whole "Woo hoo, we got ours! Oh, and we're killing that product that's become an integral part of your life. But aren't you happy for us!" announcement, than the actual sale. Well that and the last minute sales push. That was just shitty.

3\. According to RescueTime, I spend about 6 hours a week using Sparrow. I don't think it makes me a "jealous, confused teenager" to be a little pissed that it just dumped me :-)

<comment><USER48> Good points. I wonder how they'll feel 6 months from now. Google isn't the best place for startup folks post-acquisition.

With a little patience, I think that they could have done better for themselves as well as their customers. As it is, they may have done well financially with this deal, but they've thrown their fanbase into the garbage and it remains to be seen how they'll do at Google.

If enough people liked sparrow, there's a niche for another indie dev to step up and clone the product... and maybe it could even begin as some kind of kickstarter project. but this time make sure that the product has at least an open-source version.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> "You made a buying decision based on a promise. Really, really stupid."

Really?

<comment><USER35> Usually. Especially with software, you should buy based on what it does now, not what is promised. Even from big vendors. Remember how much was originally promised for Windows Vista, and what it turned out to be?

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'm happy for the Sparrow devs and that they have been able to exit for a (presumably) attractive enough sum. What I do feel sad about is that I think they sold too early. It feels like the Sparrow team stopped on first base, when the ball is sailing out of the park.

</comment><comment><USER51> To me, it boils down to this: Sparrow is a success story because its acquisition will make tens of teams try to imitate it and innovate further and we'll end up with some even more amazing email clients. (hopefully some of them open source :)

<comment><USER52> Yes. When I saw this, it summons this to mind: <http://xkcd.com/743/>

I'm not sure if sparrow could have ever existed if it was open source. Maybe it could have. Maybe it could be released that way. However, if one is into the longevity of their choice of tools and wants to have a sense of ownership over the tool's future, this is a suitable reminder.

Sparrow customers now have no economical route to iterate on their tool of choice because of some plaintext forbidden to dissemination, and that is really Too Bad, but it is not mere misfortune: it is entirely predictable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> >Sparrow worked, in part, because it wasn't open source. No, Firefox isn't a counterexample - it's funded by a huge corporation.

Google? Isn't that more of a mutually beneficial business relationship than funding? It was my understanding that Google pays Firefox to be its default search engine, which drives traffic to Google.

Similar business models might be possible for other open source projects. For example, I've contemplated open source forum software which would display ads benefiting the person running the forum 80% of the time, and ads benefiting the author of the software 20% of the time (or whatever).

<comment><USER54> "Mozilla's consolidated reported revenue (Mozilla Foundation and all subsidiaries) for 2010 was $123 million, up approximately 18 percent from 2009"

[http://www.mozilla.org/en- US/foundation/annualreport/2010/fa...](http://www.mozilla.org/en- US/foundation/annualreport/2010/faq/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> We are told that if you don't pay for a product than you are the product.

So when we pay for a product and then get sold (Google wouldn't have bought the team if they didn't have any customers), it does feel disappointing.

<comment><USER55> Ah there's a better post explaining what I mean: <http://www.elezea.com/2012/07/sparrow-google-acquisition/>

<comment><USER56> In this case, though, the customers were still not _full_ customers. The Sparrow developers were being paid less than their real market value. How do I know? Because the market just said they'll be more valuable at Google.

This ignores the linked post's author, who was willing to pay as much as they charged, and probably more. Unfortunately, he was apparently in the minority.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Matt Gemmell has always insulted people and this is no difference. It's okay that Sparrow was acquired but his blog posts, along with Benjamin Brooks, is why I never pay attention to it. It may be intelligent but it's riddled with hate. Most times it is directed at the customer or theists.

He never places the blame on devs like Culture Code who promised Things sync but were quicker to release an iPad app to make more money.

<comment><USER58> I don't find Benjamin's posts as user-blaming, per se, but I definitely don't feel he adds anything to the conversation besides "I got to try an app before you and here's how it doesn't fit my iPad-only blogger lifestyle and therefore won't fit into yours. Have I namedropped one of my friends yet?" That he feels his blog is Daring Fireball subscription-worthy put me (and how he updated his layout to look very similar to Gruber's), a previously everyday reader, off to reading it even in its free form.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> I guess the whiners would have been happier if the company behind sparrow went bankrupt. It would have given them more closure I guess.

</comment><comment><USER60> I can't believe everyone is so upset about this and it didn't even have push notifications. Get an Android device already!

</comment><comment><USER61> Totally awesome. Love this piece!

</comment><comment><USER3> I still wonder how much they got :)

</comment><comment><USER62> I could not possibly agree more. This bunch of butthurt is just the latest in a long, LONG history of self-entitled Apple fanboys whining that someone found their super secret clubhouse.

There is no grand conspiracy. They weren't hired because Google was "AFRAID" that their software was "TOO GOOD" and was somehow a "THREAT" to their bottom line. That argument reeks of that tired old "there's a technology that lets cars run on water, but THE GOVERNMENT covered it up BECAUSE OF OIL!!!1"

Google makes popular mail service. People want a better UI. Third-party team develops a client with a better UI. Everyone loves the new client. Google hires the team that made the new client.

If your first reaction wasn't "Oh neat, now they're going to make the core gmail webapp more like Sparrow!", and was instead more along the lines of "OH NO, now EVERYONE will get to use what I've been enjoying!", then you are a fanboy. There is literally no other meaning.

</comment><comment><USER24> Where the hell was the outrage when a neutered Siri came out with 4S showing that the original Siri that was shelved used to be much more useful?</comment>


The fault-tolerant Auragen file system from pre-history - <AUTHOR> http://www.yodaiken.com/2016/01/25/the-auragen-file-system/ <comment><USER2> What's the "pre-history" bit about? I don't think 1989 qualifies as pre- history, and the linked post is just titled "The Auragen file system".

</comment><comment><USER3> Link to mentioned paper [http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~15-440/READINGS/borg-1989.pdf](http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~15-440/READINGS/borg-1989.pdf)</comment>


Throne of JS: Eight modern JavaScript application technologies compared - steve-sanderson http://blog.stevensanderson.com/2012/08/01/rich-javascript-applications-the-seven-frameworks-throne-of-js-2012/

<comment><AUTHOR> Great comparison. I love knockout for its ease of use.</comment>


Ask HN: New Business Models for Post-Net Neutrality Era - <AUTHOR> I thought it would be a valuable discussion to consider what new opportunities may emerge in the event net neutrality is gutted (which right now, looks imminent).<p>What will people have a harder time gaining access to? What services will be forced back into brick and mortar? What services will require a transformation all together? <comment><USER2> I am interested in hearing thoughts on this too.

In the most optimistic of lights, what _potential_ positive impact can ending net neutrality have on the startup world?</comment>


Knot DNS 2.3.0 release - <AUTHOR> https://lists.nic.cz/pipermail/knot-dns-users/2016-August/000918.html <comment><USER2> Is there a contribution guide?

<comment><AUTHOR> I couldn't find a contribution guide, but here are some useful links:

Mailing list: [https://lists.nic.cz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/knot-dns- users](https://lists.nic.cz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/knot-dns-users)

Repository: [https://gitlab.labs.nic.cz/labs/knot/tree/master](https://gitlab.labs.nic.cz/labs/knot/tree/master)

Gitter chat: [https://gitter.im/CZ-NIC/knot](https://gitter.im/CZ-NIC/knot)

More information: [https://www.knot-dns.cz/development/](https://www.knot- dns.cz/development/)</comment></comment>


Python Logging - Intro - <AUTHOR> http://www.leocelis.com/python-logging-intro/ Stop using print to debug! Become a more sophisticated python ninja by using the logging lib. <comment><USER2> short. sweet. to the point. well done. hope to see you build on it.</comment>


RulersGuides.js - Photoshop-like rulers and guides - <AUTHOR> http://mark-rolich.github.io/RulersGuides.js/

<comment><USER2> If you add some kind of "snap to DOM" ability or whatever, so that the rulers align with "places" already "defined" by the DOM+CSS, it might even be better.

But it may not, obviosly.

<comment><USER3> i actually have something like this already made (with guides and all) that i've been dragging my feet (no pun intended) to open source since it's a bit rough around the edges. i'll put it up in the next week or so. feel free to watch the repo in the likely case it'll not make it to the front page.

[https://github.com/leeoniya/snapDOM.js](https://github.com/leeoniya/snapDOM.js)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This brings back that sinking feeling when a client gets out the ruler and holds it up to their screen and then down to the printout the designer gave to them. _shudder_

<comment><USER5> "How many pixels in a centimetre?"

<comment><USER6> You owe me a mouthful of hot chocolate buddy...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Am I the only one who thinks the vertical lines should be triggered when you click the top ruler and vice versa? Now it's the other way around and it feels counterintuitive.

<comment><USER8> Thought the same, you're likely to click the point on the ruler that you want the guide to appear at.

<comment><USER9> Photoshop has been using the drag&drop method for the last 15 years, so I've gotten used to it. I can see your reason behind wanting to click a point on the scale, but adjusting the guide would require you to drag it orthogonal again anyway.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, after working it out it did feel quite natural - just my first instinct was to click a point

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My coworker was looking for something like this a few days ago, and we gave up on our search. This is awesome. He's a front-end developer and nearly cried tears of joy when I showed this to him. Thank you from one small dev shop!

</comment><comment><USER11> This is really superb! I really like the functionality, this is very impressive.

</comment><comment><USER12> I have been looking for something like this for a while.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think the rulers also need to be position:fixed

<comment><USER14> That wouldn't help when dealing with content that goes beyond the fold though.

<comment><AUTHOR> So the solution would be an option to have it fixed or not.

<comment><USER15> Most of the time, adding an option (particularly toggled modes) is a design failure. A much better solution would be to have the ruler be fixed to the border, but scroll along its axis.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're telling me it's a design failure to give a choice when you're not giving explanations about why fixed would be better. The word "better" isn't a reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> neat.</comment>


I quit my job. Today is Day 16 - <AUTHOR> http://www.nevertryneverfail.com/i-quit-my-job-today-is-day-16/

<comment><USER2> >>> I've felt the pull. However, personal motivation to succeed keeps the wheels churning.

I really like your point about motivation.

I'm a freelancer and working from home, and I used to think that nutrition, physical activity etc has a lot to do with it. Yeah sure it does but recently I think at the end of the day, it's just about will power and deep, personal motivation. If you are not enjoying it, no diet will make you more motivated or energetic. It's about an ability to say firm 'no' to distractions. Especially the 'short' ones, because they never tend to be short [0].

Sometimes there is just shit that needs to be done. I mean ugly stuff, like code written by someone else and you have no idea how does it even work in first place or think that the the other programmer was drunk when coding it. Something that your mind says 'I didn't signed up for this shit!'. You just have to focus on it, and get it done. No 'just going to starbucks downstairs', or 'just a cigarette' will help.

Actually, I think one of the best indicator of maturity of software engineer is dealing with unpleasant tasks. Less mature developers try to delay it to the last minute (when bad comes to worse), or impulsively suggest re-writing everything from scratch, etc. Mature developers just get their shit together and get it done.

[0] Once I noticed that the biggest productivity killers are longer than 5min breaks because once you are away, it's so tempting to do one more thing, and then another. I blogged about it "It's all about the short breaks" [http://blog.gedrap.me/blog/2014/02/09/its-all-about-the- shor...](http://blog.gedrap.me/blog/2014/02/09/its-all-about-the-short- breaks/)

<comment><USER3> With the current market for engineers, if you aren't enjoying your work most of the time, you're doing something wrong and should probably find a more interesting project to work on. Fire yourself if you have to.

That said, good diet, healthy social life, and exercise are of paramount importance to will power. The better balanced your life, the more will power you're going to have.

But it's also important to manage will power. When you're tired, just stop, take a break. Even leave things for tomorrow. You are likely just fooling yourself that you can still get stuff done and wouldn't you rather just take a proper break than spend the next hour or two shuffling your feet and getting neither rested nor getting work done?

As for short breaks -> Timers. Use timers. Seriously, use a timer.

Shameless plug, I've been working on a book about this stuff: [http://nightowlsbook.com](http://nightowlsbook.com)

<comment><USER2> Good points!

>>> With the current market for engineers, if you aren't enjoying your work most of the time, you're doing something wrong and should probably find a more interesting project to work on. Fire yourself if you have to.

Yup, I'm starting a new job in 1.5 week, extremely excited :)

>>> Even leave things for tomorrow.

That is also very true, blogged about it too a while ago as well [0]. Trying to get something done for 3hrs can be replaced by 1hr burst next day, as long as 'tomorrow' doesn't become a procrastination. What is important is to make sure that you are actually having a break, your mind is totally away from work.

And yeah, I agree about the timers. I sometimes use a pomodoro timer app and trying to make it a habit, planning to make a physical arduino one. Some day :)

[0] "3\. Take a break and don't feel guilty about it" [http://blog.gedrap.me/blog/2014/05/19/4-things-i-learned- the...](http://blog.gedrap.me/blog/2014/05/19/4-things-i-learned-the-hard-way- while-freelancing/)

<comment><USER3> > Trying to get something done for 3hrs can be replaced by 1hr burst next day

I've often found that impossible bugs that I struggle with for hours on end and just can't figure out no matter what I do, get solved in 10 minutes next morning.

Now how do I teach this to junior developers? I've worked on teams where juniors will frequently overwork themselves in an effort to "pay their dues" or whatnot, or just because they feel they should offset their lack of skill with stronger work ethics and I am fairly convinced it's counterproductive. But I can't seem to find words to explain this to them. Or maybe I'm wrong and the "leave it for tomorrow" only works when you've reached a certain level of skill.

These are the questions that keep me up at night.

<comment><USER2> Good point again!

Programming largely is creative, with some degree of standard and quite autopilot code. Creative work can't be produced by staring at a blinking cursor.

I agree with counter productivity, and I strongly agree with companies who approach this with 'just get it done, whenever you want'. Twitter certainly does so, Netflix I believe does.

>>> Or maybe I'm wrong and the "leave it for tomorrow" only works when you've reached a certain level of skill.

I think there is some skill involved, or more accurately, experience. The problems we are solving are often unique but still share something in common. After solving a bunch of them, you have a gut feeling when something's going right, and when you must to take a step back.

And it has to do with corporate people and managers, not everyone understands how programming works. Young developers are afraid to look lazy in front of their non-technical managers. It's often important just to appear working hard, e.g. reading HN in terminal ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can you please please remove SumoMe? Or add a button which allows me to disable the stupid highlighting / clickjacking shit it does?

<comment><USER5> I wants me to do _something_ but I can't tell what. Tweet things, maybe?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback guys. It is supposed to make tweeting easier, but apparently it's not doing a very good job (although it probably does make you want to tweet nasty things about me :)

I'll look into a better solution.

<comment><USER6> I find that many-a-web developers don't realize that people impulsively highlight sections as they read them. I usually triple-click to highlight a paragraph as I read it. It's just a habit, but it's apparently one I share with many people. This also frustrates me to no end on the NYT site, and it's the sole reason I'm not a subscriber.

<comment><USER7> Highlighting text you're reading increases readability as it adds a visual clue to where on the page you are reading if you look away from the page.

A lot of people pick up the habit without being taught it because of that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I added caching to my blog, but in case there are issues, I posted to Medium again as well. [https://medium.com/@keslertanner/e6eeeb60360c](https://medium.com/@keslertanner/e6eeeb60360c)

</comment><comment><USER8> I wish you good luck. I will be in the same boat in 2 days. Quitting your job is very hard especially when you are not going for another one. Working on your own project is exciting but the toll comes when you don't see progress for a while and these times will come believe me.

I too will be working on my own ideas but I know after the honey moon is over I will have to face the fact that I have no paychecks coming every two weeks. It will be hard, but if success was easy, everyone will be doing just that.

Again good luck, and I do think freelanceinbox is a neat project.

<comment><USER9> Good luck - and if it helps here is a quote that I find rather motivating (and yes, I do know what it is like to leave a steady job for your own project):

 _" It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."_

[It's an awesome quote made even better by the role it had in a fantastic sporting/political event - involving rugby so therefore doubly awesome]

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

<comment><AUTHOR> That is epic. Needs to belong to the wall behind my monitors.

<comment><USER10> you can also check out zen pencils, prints are usually available [http://zenpencils.com/comic/theodore-roosevelt-the-man-in- th...](http://zenpencils.com/comic/theodore-roosevelt-the-man-in-the-arena/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Oh man, the feels, they burn!

Tomorrow is my last day of dayjobbing. I'm committing full time to my startup. On saturday, I plan to sit down with my lawyer for re-incorporating and re- branding. I've had an LLC and an initial name I used for expenses and stuff, but I have a better name now and I want to start with a completely clean slate.

I have no idea where my mind is going to be in a month, or in six months (I'm giving myself six months of runway to have revenue at least trickling in). Euphoria and terror, all at once.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's awesome and I completely understand :) Best of luck and feel free to reach out anytime.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Freelance Inbox piques my interest, but have you considered a commission fee business model as opposed to monthly payments? I'd like to _try_ it out your service without putting any money up, and if it works well I wouldn't mind paying a certain percentage (or flat rate) to you if the lead turned out to be profitable.

<comment><USER13> I suspect that collecting on such commissions would be a real challenge. I'm not saying the service's customers are dishonest, but...it's easy to "forget" to pay your commission when it's on the honor system. Other bills come in, other responsibilities push it out of one's mind. Human psychology may thus work against an honor-based commission system.

As a customer who's rooting for the success of Freelance Inbox, I want the subscription fee to stick around. Not to be an elitist, but by its nature, this type of service can only work if it's exclusive. (Too many freelancers, and the fierce competition makes the leads worthless.) Which is why I'm also pleased to see that Freelance Inbox will/does have a membership cap.

<comment><USER12> Good point about it being exclusive

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I remember those days. Quitting was really exciting. I got more work done in the first few months after I quit than probably at any other time in my life. I'm on day 1100ish now and it doesn't come as easy, but it is still pretty awesome working for myself. It's still kinda scary, but I consider the experiment at least pretty successful considering I'm still at it 3+ years later. Good luck to you.

</comment><comment><USER15> I like the intellectual honesty and perspective that comes with time. And I hope this post generates interest in the business for the OP.

</comment><comment><USER16> I don't have any words of wisdom since there are too many people here who are smarter than I am that you should be listening to.

But for whatever it is worth -

I signed up to freelanceinbox to show my support.

Not sure how useful it would be since my niche is enterprise web applications but I am going to keep my subscription alive for at least a few months to see if anything converts.

I also promise to sign up for your pro community when you launch that.

If there is at least one lead that converts into a decent client every month, I'd be happy to pay 2-3x of what you are charging right now.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER17> Great post, good luck with the product! I recently did almost the exact opposite of this, quit work with a startup.

While I learned a lot of what you mention in your post (being a self-starter is a huge asset) at the time continuing work there seemed untenable. In retrospect, even though I was quitting into nothing and the next two months were some of the hardest times money-wise I've ever had to get through the decision was the best one I could have made.

I guess what I'm saying is congrats on taking control, which I think is more important then the vector of travel, I'm glad it's going well.

</comment><comment><USER18> Has anyone used the Freelance Inbox?

Curious to know what the experience is/was like and if you actually closed any meaningful business.

</comment><comment><USER19> Great followup to the last post. Interested to read the three month post!

</comment><comment><USER20> This is so inspiring. I'm looking forward to reading your continual followups, hopefully they'll help push me over the edge.</comment>


Cars and hygiene killed the middle-class hat - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/s/pulling-at-threads/how-cars-and-hygiene-killed-the-middle-class-hat-2f382b4a35ec <comment><USER2> I've been wearing a hat outdoors for about 10 years now, since the doc carved pieces of flesh out of my forehead. It was annoying at first, but I grew to like it. It keeps the sunburn away. I was surprised how pleasant it made walking in the rain.

It doesn't affect my hairstyle because my hair departed long ago.

I do get ridiculed for it now and then, but one advantage of getting older is one stops caring about that, and if pressed I'll just tell 'em they'll change their mind after going under the knife.

<comment><USER3> I find that putting on a big floppy hat is quicker and easier than applying sunscreen to my face. So I wear one during the summer when I'm outside. I keep an additional one at work for summertime lunch. The only obstacle is, when I'm outside, I'm often wearing a bike helmet.

<comment><USER2> > quicker and easier than applying sunscreen to my face.

Yup. It's not greasy, don't have to worry about missing a spot, don't have to wait the 20 minutes before it becomes effective, don't have to reapply it after a few hours, it doesn't expire, it doesn't smell like rotten coconuts, and it's very, very effective.

<comment><USER4> Wait, Walter, what is this "wait 20 mins before it becomes effective"? Did I miss something? Aren't the standard ingredients simply opaque to UV frequencies right out of the bottle/tube?

<comment><USER5> The standard Coppertone sunscreen says

Directions: Apply liberally 15 minutes before sun exposure. Reapply: after 80 minutes of swimming or sweating; immediately after towel drying; at least every 2 hours

I've always heard this as time to absorb to become waterproof, but I'm not sure if it's actual skin absorption or the liquid used to convey the sun blocking compounds to dry or evaporate. Either way, apply and then wait.

<comment><USER6> When you film it in UV, sunscreen appears completely black from the first drop out of the bottle, meaning it absorbed all UV. The 15 minutes might be for applying or getting absorbed before there's a chance to get wiped off.

This is a good video to highlight this [0], the sunscreen part is in the second half. Probably many more like it.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9BqrSAHbTc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9BqrSAHbTc)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My wife is Japanese.

She trained as a Milliner, and has been desinging and making hats for decades.

She's a damn great milliner. She won 1st prize in The Worshipful Company of Feltmakers of London competition, in the 90's.

She worked for Philip Treacy.

She's been in numerous magazine and newspaper articles.

There is only one problem: no one buys hats these days :/

<comment><USER8> I have about 30 hats, I don't wear a hat every day because I am usually not leaving the house, but when I leave the house I typically wear a hat. That's just how I grew up in the rural Midwest. I know it's dying out and I've had people make comments that I am old man in a young man's body, but nonetheless it's a habit I have. I'm always on the lookout for good hats so if you'd like to share a link to her work I may be interested to buy. Right now I mostly buy hats from Goorin Brothers.

<comment><USER9> GB quality and selection of nice baseball caps is shot. I never bought the other styles but the last two times I've dropped in it has felt like being in Lids / ToW.

<comment><USER10> Baseball caps offer limited protection for the head as a whole, especially the ears, though. To say nothing of trucker caps and their mesh crown, which fail to even protect most of the head.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As George Costanza said "What a bald paradise that must have been. Nobody knew" referring to the 20's and 30's when everyone wore hats.

</comment><comment><USER12> > dried up in just a few generations

I think a decade from now they'll be analyzing the even more rapid demise of suits and briefcases.

I remember when 'casual dress Fridays' started. A leading men's shop took out full page ads in the newspaper extolling the virtue of _looking professional vs. casual_. They've since gone bankrupt.

<comment><USER13> Hmm, I would have said the briefcase was essentially already dead. When's the last time you actually saw someone carrying one?

<comment><USER14> Before everyone stopped taking the subway here, it was quite common for business commuters to be carrying a briefcase. Though some sort of casual/dressy tote bag is just as common these days.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think the key to the whole thing might be buried towards the end of the article: "Students began to go _without_ hats as a sign of status".

Is it not likely that as car-owners began to shirk hats - and presumably they would have been more affluent - hats were increasingly worn predominantly by poorer people? Not unlike a tan was originally considered unfashionable as it meant you had been working in the sun?

I bet you could find other examples that confirmed that this was a fashion driven by lifestyle changes amongst the upper-middle class.

<comment><USER16> Having a tan in colder latitudes _in the Winter /Spring_ was fashionable because it meant you'd "Wintered" or at least had a long Winter vacation somewhere sunny, which means you could afford (having the time, freedom, and money) to "Winter" at all. Tanning beds killed that, of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've come to really appreciate good hats, especially good bush hats (think Crocodile Dundee type cowboy hat) when I'm in the bush.

They don't just keep the sun out of your eyes. They keep your head warm when it's cold outside and cool when it's sunny. They keep your head dry when it's wet, but don't end up drenched in sweat.

<comment><USER18> They also make boonie hats with retractable bug netting. You can forget it's there until you really need it. After a really buggy May/June trip I never go camping without mine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> As a Jewish man, I come from a long-line of hat-wearers. And I get a lot of complements from people on my hats when I'm out and about. Men are curious about them, as if the want to wear them, but fear looking silly.

<comment><USER20> Some of the orthodox hats are just _so_ cool. Black. Rakish. Almost streamlined.

<comment><USER19> Wear one! It's ok!

<comment><USER20> Huh, the Borsalino. But damn, those are expensive hats!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> My half-baked theory has been that nobody wears hats on TV because you wouldn't be able to see their faces as well, and people started imitating that.

<comment><USER22> Game of Thrones was irritating me in every other scene with the complete lack of headgear. It stuck out so badly in that setting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I spend a lot of time in unfamiliar environments as I travel, and now and then, this results in banging my head against something, followed by, "I can't believe I did that _again_ , I've got to be more careful."

Recently, when it was cold, while I was wearing a couple of hats and a couple of hoods, I happened to bang my head into an object above me, something which happens to me infrequently, but regularly.

Because of all the padding, I felt the impact, but it did not hurt me nearly as much as it normally would have.

Since then, I've been wearing one or two thick hats most of the time, and this habit has already saved me from that very unpleasant experience of hitting my head on a sharp corner.

People ask me if I'm warm, but I barely notice it. I think that, as also with sleeping in a thick blanket, my body adjusts and just produces less heat.

</comment><comment><USER24> A question on a related topic, then: given that hats are dead, how can a person appear reasonably good if they want to wear a hat for comfort/practical reasons?

Clearly one of the big no-nos is mixing formal and casual. Fedora wearers without a suit, also the weird college-student fad of wearing a waistcoat ("vest") with casual clothing, much ridiculed. But on the other hand, wooly hats and baseball caps are _more_ casual than a lot of general leisure and business clothing. We have the flat cap, but here in England that seems like an affectation unless you're from particular places where it's traditional. What alternatives are there?

<comment><USER25> Alongside casual vs formal I think we see workwear and sportswear consistently evolve into fashionwear. I see the baseball cap as an example of that. Baseball caps were originally worn by players. I think the bucket hat is another example, traditionally worn by fishers and farmers. Both of these hats came in around 150 years ago.

Knit or woolly caps on the other hand have been used for over 1000 years. I think it's safe to think the knit hat will be around for many more generations

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I have 3 hats: A seaweed one for summer (very light, protection from the sun), a felt one (warmth and some rain protection) and a faux-leather stetson (sun/rain and very sturdy, so I tend to take it on flights and for festivals). Mainly utilitarian, but I also like how they look. And I find caps hideous.

While there aren't many people with hats, there are some (most, but not all, older than me; I'm 34). Never gotten a weird look or comment regarding my hats. We have a dedicated hat-store (split, one for women and one for men) 2 streets over and usually when I walk past there is at least one customer.

<comment><USER27> Could you link to an example of a seaweed hat? I've never heard the term and Google is giving me very mixed results.

<comment><USER28> Look up a "seagrass" hat instead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Some places still wear hats. [https://vitamindwiki.com/%22No+hat,+no+play%22+in+Australia+...](https://vitamindwiki.com/%22No+hat,+no+play%22+in+Australia+primary+schools) [https://blog.coolibar.com/school-hat- contest/](https://blog.coolibar.com/school-hat-contest/)

</comment><comment><USER30> Sometimes I wear a cowboy hat for fun, but they are terrible in any condition. Outside they blow away because of the wide brim. If you forget to take it off before getting in a car it will either catch on the door frame, or the headrest will knock it off your head. If you wear it inside the brim will knock into something and make you look like a doof.

<comment><USER31> Common etiquette says that you dont wear hats indoors unless you are in service or a woman, I heard somewhere.

<comment><USER32> > in service

Interesting; in British English _in service_ applied to a human being means _in domestic service_ , like the servants in Downton Abbey; applied to inanimate objects it means that they are functioning or that a bus, for instance, is ready to take passengers.

This isn't meant to say that your way of saying it is wrong by the way.

<comment><USER27> I'm pretty sure that's the meaning GP was going for. The only other meaning I can think of would be "serving in the military", which (in the US at least) would be "in _the_ service" and anyway members of the military also remove their hats indoors except in certain specific circumstances.

<comment><USER31> I meant arms service; in military/police duty. Probably mistranslation from spanish "de servicio"!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> If I could get a nice wide-brimmed sunhat that didn't blow off in the slightest breeze I'd be a happy man indeed.

<comment><USER34> You want a Tilley Hat... prized by boaters for not falling off in even the stiffest of winds, keeps your head/shoulders from burning in the sun, floats, and nearly invincible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> They don't mention that so few people have served in the military these days.

Wearing hats could have easily been more popular because so many more men were veterans back in the days after WWI and WWII. They would have been used to wearing hats after being in the service. The time hats started dropping off in popularity also correlates with the rise of the anti-war movement brought on by the Vietnam war.

Also in the 1960s the Catholic Church stopped requiring women to wear hats in church.

<comment><USER14> Men wearing hats in the West predates the military mass mobilization and conscription of the 20th century.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Frequently wear a baseball cap (that counts as a hat? Right?) on weekends thinning hair, pale skin and a subtropical climate pretty much mandate it - and the extra shade certainly improves the efficiency of my sunglasses!

A lot of people use umbrellas here for the same purpose, but with dense crowds, overhead obsticles and tying up a hand... I'd rather wear some form of hat while out and about!

<comment><USER2> A baseball cap works for the forehead but does nothing for the tops of the ears. A fellow I know had the top quarter of one of his ears sliced off by the dermatologist.

<comment><USER35> True, but it's much easier to put sunscreen on my ears than on my head (my hair isn't that thin yet!)

<comment><USER36> On of the benefits of shaving your head! Easy sunscreen application.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Cars also produced the tuxedo/smoking, because tails were not so compatible with bench seats.

</comment><comment><USER38> I have a huge randomly flowing mane that can only be curbed with hats (short - a cap, or long - a soft beanie). I've worn them for more than 20 years.

</comment><comment><USER39> Widespread pandemic hair might be just the luck hats needed.

</comment><comment><USER40> I've often wondered about getting a more wide brimmed hat as I get older, but I find that baseball cap does the job just fine.

<comment><USER2> That'll work if you let your hair cover your ears.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> [http://archive.is/vMEeN](http://archive.is/vMEeN)

</comment><comment><USER42> People arn't wearing enough hats...

<comment><USER43> People aren't wearing enough hats for what purpose?

<comment><USER44> For covering their heads, presumably.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I would love to add more hats to my wardrobe. But I can't shake the thought that a man in a hat that's not a baseball cap just looks like he's trying too hard.

<comment> Digit-Al People will judge you on many things, so what's one more item on the list. If you like the hat and think it makes you look good then wear it and damn the judgemental types.</comment></comment>


What convinced the Supreme Court to take the Wisconsin gerrymandering case? - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/7/11/15949750/research-gerrymandering-wisconsin-supreme-court-partisanship <comment><USER2> This is an interesting article, but the headline is deceptive. The article doesn't answer that question it poses. The reason the Supreme Court granted cert is because the court below, which in this case was a special 3 judge district court panel whose opinions skip the Court of Appeals, ruled in favor of the challengers.

If the Supreme Court had not granted cert it would have meant that this lower court opinion would have in effect (but not technically) stood as a nationwide precedent modifying existing Supreme Court decisions.

<comment><USER3> That's the _procedural_ reason -- the case ended up in the SC because the lower court sent it up the chain, but that's still not an explanation for why they chose to accept it. As far as I know, they still had the option to refuse it.

<comment><USER4> > _If the Supreme Court had not granted cert it would have meant that this > lower court opinion would have in effect (but not technically) stood as a > nationwide precedent modifying existing Supreme Court decisions._

I think this is the part that matters. It's possible that the Supreme Court would rather that the judgement came from them rather than the lower court. Leaving it as-is would modify existing Supreme Court caselaw, but the decision itself wouldn't have come from the Supreme Court, which could lead to a bit of ambiguity. If the Supreme Court itself weighs in, even just to agree with the lower court, it eliminates that ambiguity. No one is left wondering "What if it _had_ gone to the Supreme Court" about the decision.

I am not a lawyer, but that is my interpretation.

<comment><USER5> _" Leaving it as-is would modify existing Supreme Court caselaw, but the decision itself wouldn't have come from the Supreme Court, which could lead to a bit of ambiguity. If the Supreme Court itself weighs in, even just to agree with the lower court, it eliminates that ambiguity. No one is left wondering "What if it had gone to the Supreme Court" about the decision."_

Doesn't this reasoning apply to _every_ case that comes before the Supreme Court, even those it refuses to hear?

<comment><USER6> Most cases that the Supreme Court refuses to hear are those in which lower courts reaffirmed the status quo.

<comment><USER5> Why is that? If this lower court could go against the status quo like this, what stops other courts doing the same in other cases?

<comment><USER7> This[1] may help. The relevant excepts:

> The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare > decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent. A court engages in > vertical stare decisis when it applies precedent from a higher court. > Consequently, stare decisis discourages litigating established precedents, > and thus, reduces spending.

and

> Although courts seldom overrule precedent, Justice Rehnquist explained that > stare decisis is not an "inexorable command." On occasion, the Court will > decide not to apply the doctrine if a prior decision is deemed unworkable. > In addition, significant societal changes may also prompt the Court to > overrule precedent; however, any decision to overrule precedent is exercised > cautiously.

It's worth a read (not terribly long) because of the examples and the rationale behind Louisiana having a different system.

[1] [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Re-posting my comment on _Math Professor Fighting Gerrymandering with Geometry_ | [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13713252](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13713252) 4 months ago:

 _[...] a need for expert witnesses who understand the mathematical concepts applicable to gerrymandering. To meet that need, she's spearheaded the creation of a five-day summer program at Tufts [the first in a series of regional trainings] that aims to train mathematicians to do just that

[...] over 900 people have indicated their interest by signing up for a mailing list_

[http://tufts.us15.list- manage.com/subscribe?u=3529c170e5d9b7...](http://tufts.us15.list- manage.com/subscribe?u=3529c170e5d9b7aa8ab22ea62&id=a979bdf71d)

\--

Quoting from the end of that article, calling out the "efficiency gap" as the spark for work towards a mathematical definition of "compactness" satisfying districting requirements in a way that is convincingly explainable as fair:

 _Recently there was a big media sensation in Wisconsin around something called the "efficiency gap." It was a new metric of partisan gerrymandering that, for the first time, a court said they liked. The way it was devised was that the people who created it, they went back and they read all of Justice Anthony Kennedy's written decisions about measuring gerrymandering. By reading his words and by reading what he said he found convincing and less convincing, they designed a statistic to appeal to him._

<comment><USER9> To rephrase this a little more concisely:

SCOTUS turns based on which side of the bed Kennedy wakes up on (on most issues). There are 4 solid liberal votes and 4 solid conservative votes and Kennedy in the middle.

Kennedy indicated in a ruling a few years ago that in theory he's uncomfortable with gerrymandering and might be open to striking them down, but apart from "I know it when I see it" he doesn't know a neutral/nonpartisan way to actually detect it. And "I know it when I see it" doesn't work well as a judicial test, there needs to be a bright-line somewhere that lower courts can apply.

Well, a bunch of mathematicians heard that and said "challenge accepted" and have been working on mathematical models to quantify the level of gerrymandering. And now the court cases are working their way back up to SCOTUS, only with the academic models that Kennedy has indicated he wants.

Now we get to find out whether Kennedy's interest in neutering gerrymandering actually goes as far as being willing to strike down a gerrymander. Because it's easy to talk the talk, but at the end of the day Kennedy is still conservative-ish and gerrymandering heavily benefits conservatives overall.

<comment><USER10> I was pretty much with you until the last paragraph.

The efficiency gap for all plans[0] shows pretty clearly gerrymandering can occur for either party. In fact, the very pro-Democratic plans are _more_ gerrymandered than the very pro-Republican plans, including the plan in question. There are four pro-D plans with the upper error limit above .2 while the plan in question appears to be at approximately -1.5

There's no need to turn this into "if Kennedy doesn't vote against this he's in favor of gerrymandering because it helps his conservative leanings."

[0] [https://cdn.vox- cdn.com/thumbor/pJwDdPDejaHo83ukoW27r6Yaaxg=...](https://cdn.vox- cdn.com/thumbor/pJwDdPDejaHo83ukoW27r6Yaaxg=/800x0/filters:no_upscale\(\)/cdn.vox- cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8831481/Gerrymander..png)

<comment><USER11> _In fact, the very pro-Democratic plans are more gerrymandered than the very pro-Republican plans, including the plan in question._

The chart shows districing plans with larger _efficiency gaps_ but the article does not offer any of the really damning plan simulation or sensitivity test results for those plans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I wish SCOTUS would put out a Euclidian distance Voronoi metric, where the redistricting map presented with minimum error wins.

You quickly get into non-linear territory by using travel time instead of Euclidian distance. Roads and bridges become weapons for cutting or connecting districts. Bad bad stuff.

<comment><USER13> Programmers like to come up with mathematical plans like this, but you would likely run into the Voting Rights Act!

Many districts which aren't compact have been created as majority-minority districts, to prevent disenfranchisement of racial minorities. Plans which divide or erase one of these districts get stopped by the Supreme Court all the time. It's a 1960s approach to equality, but you can tell its effectiveness by how the House is much more representative of the US population's diversity than the Senate is.

<comment><USER14> > Many districts which aren't compact have been created as majority-minority > districts, to prevent disenfranchisement of racial minorities.

[citation needed]

I have seen many examples of horribly shaped districts, but all of them were done for partisan advantage. I would love it if you

1\. Give an example of a majority minority district that is horribly shaped explicitly to accommodate the VRA. 2\. Give citation for statement that there are "Many" such districts.

<comment><USER15> Some of the ugliest looking district ducklings are beautiful swans in the eyes of the courts. For example, the Illinois 4th Congressional District drawn in the 2000's decade is often called the "earmuff" district for obvious reasons. The western portion of this district actually travels along the northbound lane of Interstate 294! But, this district has a very important purpose. It was initially created in the 1990s to elect the first Latino representative to Congress from the Midwest.

The 4th congressional district has its funny shape because there is an African-American community sandwiched between two Latino communities. The African-American community is represented by the 7th Congressional district, which is designed to elect an African-American candidate of choice. The 4th district was wrapped around the 7th district so that both African-American and Latino communities could have congressional representation.

<comment><USER16> But isn't that gerrymandering for democrats instead of republicans? I am open to the idea that districts could be drawn based on more than geography, but to me this just sounds like "helpful" gerrymandering simply because it assists the democrats instead of the republicans.

There's no reason for congressional districts to be based on race, IMO.

<comment><USER15> You could argue that one race votes for one party over another, but the VRA goal was to ensure minority representation, regardless of the party affiliation. Full Stop.

<comment><USER16> That's a fair concern, but to me it seems like an "easy" yet flawed solution to systemic oppression, kind of like affirmative action. For starters, by drawing districts specifically along racial lines for minorities, you are de facto also drawing the other districts along racial lines for white people. I also think that more diversity in congressional districts is a good thing, as it avoids "lock-in" districts where the incumbent has essentially a 100% chance of winning every election due to homogeneity of their voters. Of course, the other side of the coin is that minority populations can get "diluted" to the point where they can be safely ignored by politicians.

I believe the real solution to our problems is to move away from geographic representation in its entirety. It's too easy to cheat, and by design it only ends up allowing representation of around half the constituents in its area. I'm not sure what could replace it; perhaps a parliamentary system based on opt-in voting blocks could work. But in its present form it does seem deeply flawed.

<comment><USER17> What could replace it is a sufficiently advanced delegative democracy such as LiquidFeedback. The idea is that parties self-organize when sufficiently many votes are delegated to a single person or entity, but they can dissolve and reform at any time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> A proportional representation voting system would also largely solve the gerrymandering problem (no district would be dominated by a single party anymore so exploiting the gerrymandering system wouldn't help much), along with having many other benefits for democracy:

[http://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation](http://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation)

> They complied with the Constitution's one person, one vote requirement

That line is interesting. How is the electoral college system not in conflict with the Constitution then, if a person's vote in one state is much stronger than another person's vote in another state? Or is it enough that it satisfies the requirement technically (still "one vote"), even if not in _spirit_ /based on a (I would think) more common _interpretation_ of the Constitution?

<comment><USER19> It's a bit of a tangent, but the discussion of voting systems reminds me of another modification to voting that I sometimes think might be reasonable: weighting votes based on voter age, with the weight starting off low for the youngest voters and increasing to a peak, and then dropping off again.

What brought this on was thinking about the brexit vote over in the UK, which from what I read had very different outcomes among different age groups. It seems quite unfair that people who are likely to die before brexit is complete should have the same say as people who will be living decades under the outcome.

<comment><USER20> why does it start off low for the youngest?

<comment><USER21> Because younger people have less life experience than older people?

How many times do you see articles about 18-23 year old people doing something stupid, and people come to their defense saying something along the lines of 'They're only children!'?

<comment><USER20> You misunderstand. if you are operating only under the assumption that your voting power should be proportional to the time you have left to live, then there's a pretty clear age-power relationship.

If you add an assumption about life experience though, You're going to have to be a lot more specific to explain how these two functions interact. why is the optimum in the middle? Why isn't it bumpy?

As soon as you start adding other factors into your weighting function, I don't know how you can be confident in the shape of your graph without being precise with your functions.

To be fair though, I think that there's a pretty good argument for inverse age weighting. If you're 20, you will eventually have to be 35, so it wouldn't make any sense for you to screw over 35 year olds. If you're 35 though, you'll never be 20 again. There is no incentive for you to not screw over 20 year olds. (unless you have kids, but at that point, everyone has equal investment in society and the premise falls apart).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm not convinced that the "efficiency gap" is a good metric. My main issue, aside from the difficulty in describing what a "good" map should look like, much less measuring it, is that it is sharply discontinuous around the "winning" criteria -- for a single district, in a 49-51 victory vs. a 51-49 loss, there's a 2% difference in the number of votes, but the wasted votes goes from -50 to +50.

It's not difficult to see that the optimal partitioning is 75/25 (in either direction), which seems very arbitrary.

From a democracy perspective, it seems like the ideal partitioning would be much closer to 50-50 -- hopefully even in the margin of error for the area, so that candidates would have to make a real effort to represent their entire district in order to be assured re-election. Even this feels very questionable, because as I understand it, the idea of congressional districts is that representation should follow groups of shared problems and interests, irrespective of proposed solutions to those problems.

<comment><USER23> You are stating the efficiency gap incorrectly in the single district case. There can never be one, because the seat goes to the party with more votes (the party with less votes should have 0 seats, no efficiency gap).

The simplest example you can work is with 2 districts.

<comment><USER22> The efficiency gap, as described, is the number of "wasted" votes for one party, minus the number of wasted votes for the other party, summed over all districts and divided by the total voting population.

So fundamentally it's just a normalized version of the wasted votes metric. Wasted votes is the thing that concerns me as a metric, and it has the discontinuity noted.

Notably, if you have a circular uniformly populated state that is exactly 50-50 -- let's say the north of the state is 100% Republican and the south is 100% Democrat, and we restrict our districting to straight lines through the center. Then there are two solutions that minimize the efficiency gap, the line going from southwest to northeast, and the one going from southeast to northwest, because both of those result in 75/25 districts (that have 0 net wasted votes). This seems really odd to me.

<comment><USER23> Right, but the efficiency gap isn't obsessed with net 0 districts, it is looking for excess wasted votes. No matter how you draw the line through your circle, the net wasted votes across the districts will be 0, so the state wide efficiency gap will always be 0.

I think it's actually literally impossible to use a straight line there for partisan gerrymanding, so it isn't a real useful scenario.

<comment><USER22> That's a fair point. Still seems off to me in terms of sensitivity, and once again putting aside the discussion of what the goal of districting should be.

Simplifying the algebra in the calculation, though, the efficiency gap is actually independent of the inefficiencies of any particular district, but dependent only on the population of the districts -- the numerator simplifies to

D - R + sum_i { I(D_i < R_i) (D_i + R_i) / 2 }

Where D and R are the total Democratic/Republican votes in the state (across all districts) and the I(x) is an indicator function, +1 if true, -1 if false.

If you hold the size of districts to be about even, then this just says that the ratio of the total population of districts that vote R to the total population of districts that vote D should be approximately equal to the ratio of the total state population of R voters to the total state population of D voters.

That seems reasonable, just seems like a roundabout way to get there, and is sensitive to unequal population distributions.

<comment><USER23> An uncontroversial (perhaps the only uncontroversial) goal of redistricting is to make the population of the districts in a state as similar as possible.

Conceptually, I like the idea of having a test for excessive unfairness; states can do whatever they want to deal with their special cases as long as the result is reasonable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Gerrymandering" is a word difficult enough to grasp, and "partisan gerrymandering" (for me at least) doesn't ring any bells either, so for those of us who don't come from an USA background, but are interested in _how_ someone could mathematically define that, I found this link:

[https://www.senate.mn/departments/scr/REDIST/Red2000/ch5part...](https://www.senate.mn/departments/scr/REDIST/Red2000/ch5parti.htm)

> Partisan (or political) gerrymandering is the drawing of electoral district > lines in a manner that discriminates against a political party.

<comment><USER25> Gerrymandering is by definition partisan (or political). The term comes from when Governor Gerry redrew districts to benefit his party, resulting a district some described as looking like a salamander, causing it to be named the "gerrymander".

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm so glad this is happening. Gerrymandering is for 2nd rate banana republics, not the greatest Republic of all time. This IS a national security threat.

I would add which party is mostly responsible, but apparently mentioning the party, although factually correct, would lead me to get in trouble here. Which is Grand, coz im really Old, and I dont like to Party... anymore!

</comment><comment><USER27> Personally I wish my state would enact a law that says representative districts must be drawn to cross as few county lines as possible.

Yes, some manipulation would still be possible, but it would be greatly diminished.

<comment><USER28> Take the power to create districts away from the legislature. Give it to a non-partisan commission. 1/3 Democrats, 1/3 Republicans, and 1/3 other/no party. We did that in California, and almost none of the legislators were happy with it, which means it probably did a good job. The state still wound up with mostly Democratic representation, but that's more a product of California being heavily Democrat. I'd imagine that if you did the same thing in Texas, even if the districts were much less gerrymandered, you'd still have mostly Republicans.

<comment><USER29> Woo! Enshrining the current two party system in legislation. What could possibly go wrong?

<comment><USER28> So don't include them by name. Just say the two major parties. Doesn't matter, doesn't change a thing.

<comment><USER30> first two parties to finish in the last election would be just as good

<comment><USER28> Sure. I figure if we ever get to the point where there aren't two major parties, it can either be fixed then, or we're under one party autocratic rule and it won't matter anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> mark-r Surpreme? Somebody fix the title please.

<comment><USER31> Thanks! Updated.

<comment> mark-r Now that this comment is no longer necessary, how do I delete it?</comment></comment></comment>


Walter Bradley Center Fellow Discovers Longstanding Flaw in Elementary Calculus - <AUTHOR> https://mindmatters.ai/2019/04/walter-bradley-center-fellow-discovers-longstanding-flaw-in-elementary-calculus/ <comment><USER2> The article's title is misleading. The mathematician has suggested an improvement or clarification to the notation used to describe a second derivative which makes it easier to manipulate formulaically.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, I guess that's debatable. However, the way I see it, the old version was presented as a fraction, but couldn't be used as a fraction. The new version is also presented as a fraction _and_ can be used as a fraction.

Perhaps it is due to my old-school nature, but if I wrote a fraction in school that _didn 't_ work as a fraction, that would be a mistake, would it not? Especially if it was possible to write it correctly? I couldn't go to my professor and just say, "well, actually, while it looks like a fraction, it was actually just a piece of notation that needed future clarification."

<comment><USER3> > Well, I guess that's debatable.

What part of it is debatable? The article clearly states that it is _just_ a notational improvement: there was really no flaw in calculus, it was more a wart in notation. This change would not result in different answers unless the original calculations were done incorrectly.

I'd regard the current notation more like an irregular verb, or something that is spelled differently from how it is pronounced: it's inconvenient to deal with, but everyone adept at calculus knew about it and how to deal with it. This article is just describing a notational improvement that would make it _easier_ to get right.

<comment><AUTHOR> The fact that there was a well-known kludge to get around the problems inherent in the notation doesn't make the notation right. As the paper pointed out, the new notation didn't drop magically from the sky, it is literally the application of the quotient rule to the derivative. The reason that no one noticed this notation before, is that they didn't think to apply the quotient rule to the quotient dy/dx.

If I had a problem, and my solution involved forgetting to apply the quotient rule to a prominent quotient, it would still be wrong, even if I also came out with a set of kludges that allowed me to get right answers in the most common cases.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Fatty Foods Affect Memory and Exercise - <AUTHOR> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/fatty-foods-affect-memory-and-exercise/

<comment><USER2> I can't get at the full text without paying $7, which is not quite something I'm willing to do, but I'd question the timeframe of the experiment. Low-carb dieters frequently report that the first two or three days of the diet are very rough days due to low-energy, but then they bounce back and feel much better, often reporting that they feel better than before. (Self-reporting caveat here, of course. Note that I have heard real people say this in real life, though, not just diet books making the claim, though of course placebo may be in play.) My point here is not that the self-reports should be "trusted", for some value of "trusted", but that there's already anecdotal experience that indicates that the timeframe matters, which I would consider enough experience that investigation across more than just the "short term" is fully warranted. I read the abstract carefully and all it says for the time- frame is "short-term".

In terms of trying to help me understand my diet choices scientifically, this isn't any help, as it doesn't bring any new information in (and then, if I am correct about the timeframe, over-interprets the results). Short-term effects aren't the same as long-term effects in a self-correcting system like a living body.

If someone else is willing to drop the funds, let me know if they're more specific on the timeframe involved.

<comment><USER3> Here's a great response to the study from one of the icons of the Primal/Paleo/low-carb community:

[http://www.marksdailyapple.com/high-fat-diets-make-us- stupid...](http://www.marksdailyapple.com/high-fat-diets-make-us-stupid-lazy/)

Executive summary: This study (or at least the media's response to it) attempts to extrapolate a 9-day study on rats to an overall implication on human diets.

<comment><USER4> >attempts to extrapolate

and fails

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This article - and the abstract - are not specific enough. What kind of fat is being used in the study? Does variety of fats make a difference? Do fats in combination with other foods change the outcome?

My own suspicion is that all of those factors matter, and making blanket statements on the basis of this one case is simply bad science.

<comment><USER6> well it can't be omega 3 right? cause Omega-3 _supposedly_ helps ADHD sufferers with short term memory problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This could just as easily be the effect of fats on the sense of smell (smelling the condensed milk, not the corridor).

Or maybe it just wasn't as hungry, and thus less motivated. Fat is well known for giving a feeling of satiation.

<comment><USER6> Human studies showed similar results right?

<comment><USER8> As far as quantity of media coverage goes, this is the best one so far. So, no, not that I've heard of.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So wait, you stress half the rats by changing their diet suddenly, and the other half you leave alone, and the stressed half under-performs, and you're surprised?

</comment><comment><USER10> This study is not surprising in the least.

Brain burns glucose (on a "traditional" diet). On this high-fat diet (assuming that carbohydrates are dropped, and proteins are elevated), glucose is less available and different fats become more abundant, so the brain starts to use the fats as a fuel source (ketosis) instead of the glucose. This transition becomes easier and more efficient when there are very few carbohydrates in the diet.

Muscle fibers use glycogen (kinda the precursor to glucose) as an energy source, so when your body doesn't have any glucose to convert into glycogen... your body doesn't perform as well as it normally would.

Fun fact: A ketosis-based lifestyle is used by some body builders to lose body fat rapidly and by people with epilepsy to help control seizures.

<comment><USER11> It's worth noting that your explanations are _also_ conjecture based on limited research data.

There actually aren't answers that are this clear about how our bodies use different types of foods, but human brains are wired up to place more trust in very precise explanations and answers. Your explanations are very precise, and thus, we tend to want to believe them.

This explains the popularity of several fad diets based on the model you describe. These diets may or may not be healthy ways to eat for prolonged periods of time. We don't know, because there are several different theoretical models for how the body processes food, and all of them are based on various, but nearly always, limited (in time span and in sample size) experimental data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Where's kingkongrevenge when you need him?</comment>