You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=you-are-less-beautiful-than-you-think <comment><USER4> I don't think this study supports the article's headline. That headline, more explicitly stated is: "[Society rates you as] less beautiful than you [do]". Why? Someone's physical beauty is a property that depends on what everyone thinks. You could say "beauty to a certain group" or "beauty to yourself", but to just use the term "beauty" by itself implies "beauty as society sees it".

But in the study, there is no rating by others, simply by yourself. So if you really wanted to make a statement about people actually being more or less beautiful than they themselves think they are, you would need a way for someone to assess themselves as if they were a stranger. I know a few times when I looked at a mirror and didn't immediately process that it was a mirror, I saw myself "objectively". I wonder if there's some way you could incorporate that phenomenon into a study. I would also suggest amnesia patients who have forgotten what they look like but 1) I don't know if that happens 2) people with amnesia can still remember things in a certain way (like how to play the piano), so I don't know if that would affect their own rating as well.

People studies are hard because there are just so many factors that affect the results, and it's not always intuitive what affects what. Really, most of these studies only directly support exactly what they tested, in this case: people choose the most attractive version of themselves when presented with different variations.

<comment><USER5> I disagree. Sure, "beauty" isn't a very robustly-defined term, but the headline is reasonable. The most important point is that people's views of themselves are objectively wrong, because the identify modified images of themselves. Conversely, people can reliably pick the correct image of others. Finally, this depictions differ in that the self-image has characteristics society deems attractive, for our purposes, "beauty". I don't think beauty is quite the best term, but I wouldn't call it wrong.

Also, I think your proposed study would undermine the whole point of this study, since someone who didn't realize they were looking at themselves wouldn't have the cognitive impetus to distort reality.

edit: I just realized I may have been missing part of your argument. Would you be more satisfied if the title were "You are less beautiful than you _say_ you are"? This study itself doesn't offer any real evidence that people actually believe they look like the picture they say they look like. However, the other cognitive studies linked in this article, including some other similar studies I've read about, make me think it's extremely likely.

<comment><USER6> > Conversely, people can reliably pick the correct image of others.

I wonder if this changes if the photos they see of others are mirrored?

<comment><USER6> I skimmed the original paper today, and they did indeed perform a follow-up experiment where participants were asked to identify themselves based on mirror images. That follow-up experiment yielded similar results. No follow-up experiment was conducted for identifying mirror images of others, but it seems such an experiment would have been redundant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My immediate reaction was that the problem with the commercial was the _artist's_ bias.

He knew what the commercial was supposed to be. He knew whether he was drawing from a self-description or a description by a third-party.

So, naturally, he drew more attractive pictures when a third-party was describing the person.

<comment><USER8> There's also a _social_ bias in the commercial. People are socialized not to say negative things about other people, particularly not other people's looks, and particularly not women's looks. The artist was drawing off a verbal description; if people consciously filter out their negative thoughts before expressing them ("If you don't have anything nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all"), then that verbal description will be biased.

The subject herself, however, is probably socialized not to brag, and so her verbal description filters out the most positive aspects.

On a side note, I'm curious what the results would be if you took someone on the autism spectrum and had them describe a woman they just met. Many such people have no such tact filters; would you get a more accurate drawing from them?

<comment><USER9> My girlfriend was telling me about Vietnamese culture the other day (her family is Vietnamese). She put particular emphasis on the the vastly different social norms between Vietnam and the Western world. From what she told me, woman are much more forthcoming about their true opinions of another woman's looks in Vietnam and the Eastern world.

Similar to how getting a description from someone on the autism spectrum would product vastly different results, I'm curious as to how the results of the experience would differ in different countries and different parts of the world.

<comment><USER8> Interesting...I have a Vietnamese friend that's always complaining about how her mother and her fiancee's mother are always talking about how she's not pretty enough or not pretty enough for her fiancee. Explains a lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Most people believe that they are above average, a statistical impossibility

It's perfectly possible for the majority to be above the mean. If most people believed to be above the median, that would be a statistical impossibility.

I think there is another reason for people to believe their results in some areas are better than those of others: because of their own world view. A teacher who focusses on controlling the classroom may see many colleagues be worse at that and decide they're not as good a teacher as him; his colleague who prefers to leave the studying behaviour of his students may think his controlling colleague is not as good a teacher as him because he doesn't leave students enough freedom. Whether this applies to beauty I don't know - I'd expect it to apply only to aspects that they chose to modify (i.e. someone with dyed hair will probably have dyed their hair in a colour they believe to be more attractive and then believe they're more attractive).

<comment><USER11> Your stats are true when outliers massively move a mean.. but that wouldn't be the case in a distribution like this one... I don't think. I mean it's more appropriate to imagine a normal distribution here with the mean equal to the median because the measurement is totally subjective anyway.

<comment><USER12> Theres a huge difference between something being statistically impossible, and something being statisticly impossible, assuming it is a normal distribution.

<comment><USER13> Might just be tired but I don't get this...care to explain?

<comment><USER12> In a normal distribution, the mean and median are the same value, so only 50% of the data points can be above average. Without this assumption, you are not guaranteed to have only 50% of your data points above average.

For example, what percent of the population do you think has an above average number of legs?

<comment><USER14> Last line is the Best Example Ever of median and mean not agreeing. Did you come up with it yourself?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So generally, people think they're more valuable than society would settle on? As a new father, I'd say that sounds like the best fucking news I've heard in quite a while.

Further, I think you should optimize for this. This kind of even-arrogance about your potential and innate worth is awesome. I've spent the last decade sort of cultivating it in myself. I definitely think I'm more attractive than I imagine someone who sees my photo would say I am, on average. It's intentional, and frankly hard-won.

The trick, I think is to balance an unreasonable confidence about your attributes/abilities, with a bloodless humility about your accomplishments.

<comment><USER16> As I said in another comment, I believe we are generally very poor at telling how we rate on any given scale, unless we have something very tangible - <USER2> objective score (like in a game), lots of outside confirmation, etc. Most of us think we are better drivers than we are. When you do not have as much outside feedback, it's easier to talk yourself into believing anything.

One of the best applications of this is to be more positive and happier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> There are a host of potential problems with the experiment design as descried in the article, though since the original research is behind a paywall, I imagine I will remain ignorant of the excruciating experimental design details. The author of the SciAm article throws around such nonsense as "computer retouched" to make more attractive, as if the entire result did not depend on exactly how that was undertaken.

It's doubtful that the results could be replicated and almost certain that they never will.

This "science" is such bullshit and an utter waste of time and money. It does not broaden the scope of human knowledge, because 1) its probably not true, and 2) even if it is, it is only demonstrably true within a tiny context. We were far better off when psychologists did not conduct experiments, and just considered their experience and thought deeply. Covering a turd in a thin veneer of p-values and R-squareds does not make it science.

</comment><comment><USER18> Photographs are not objective. I have certainly had the experience of photographing my beautiful girlfriend and having the images come out ugly. A million small things can ruin the image: a shadow, harsh lighting, reflections, background, etc.

I have, many times, taken some photos of good looking friends of mine and had the results come out badly. Often I will take such images into Photoshop and fix the images. The images, after I have adjusted them in Photoshop, are closer to objective reality, that is, closer to what I see when I look at the people in question.

Photographs do not record the sum total of objective reality. They catch a moment that is embedded in a million small circumstances.

When we say someone is pretty we often mean they look pretty at their best moments. We don't mean they look pretty at 8 AM after a night of hard partying and when they are badly hung over. Even pretty people have ugly moments, but if that is all you photograph, are you being objective?

As to images, often the "truth" only comes out after extensive editing of the image in Photoshop. Therefore, I find the methodology used in this study to be highly questionable.

<comment><USER19> You would be surprised at the difference focal length can make - [http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippag...](http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> If you haven't seen the Dove commercial, you should watch it while reading this article from The Last Psychiatrist:

<http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/05/dove.html>

<comment><USER21> Although the article is interesting, I think one of the comments is much more "to the point":

 _What gets me about this ad is that no one understands why the women basically described themselves as trolls and the women they were talking to as goddesses. They're being filmed. They know it, and they know it's being put up somewhere. They don't want to be seen as having an over-inflated ego - <USER3> know exactly how it's going to look to the watcher if they describe themselves as more beautiful than they are. They have to have had an idea of what the guy is doing, which means they're going to know there's going to be a sketch hanging next to their real face. Wouldn't you want to look nicer than the sketch?

As for the women they're describing. When a stranger asks you what you think of their hair, have you ever said, "I hate it"? Again, they know that someone is sketching. They describe the other woman in the prettiest terms they can.

This isn't a deep look into their feelings about their actual looks, it's an exercise in self-marketing and politesse._

<http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/05/dove.html#c031270>

<comment><USER22> It was also a _commercial_. Commercials also magic soap bubbles and talking birds.

Even assuming they did the commercial straight up with "real people", and the sketch artist wasn't in on it, there could have been a huge file-drawer effect of the 200 people/takes where the pictures came out the other way or just the same or just too bland to work in a commercial.

<comment><USER23> > there could have been a huge file-drawer effect

The technical term is "reporting bias".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I've always had a poor self image, so according to the article I must be _really_ ugly.

<comment><USER25> Ditto. When I was watching _The Matrix_ and everybody's "residual self image" in the Matrix was super cool, I thought: "If I entered the Matrix I would probably be in jeans and an ugly t-shirt"

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> And, yet, it is overwhelmingly to your advantage to believe that you are attractive. Confidence counts for more than actual physical beauty.

This study provides an interesting example of a situation where it is in your rational interest to hold irrational beliefs.

<comment><USER27> Well said. When people think poorly of themselves, they tend to sulk and wonder why others perceive them in a certain (likely unattractive) way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> With what populations have the studies been conducted?

First, if all the participants have been American, this is likely not applicable across the earth. I have lived in both Asia and the US, I'd say that on average Americans express significantly more self-confidence than those in Asia (whose customs tend to value humility and self-deprecation. And they tend to do so, at least to other people.).

Second, if the populations have mostly been students at universities like Chicago and Virginia. They are far from average people. Youths could be more optimistic. Those in good universities might have been exposed to the good sides of things much more than most people. Their academic success could stem from their optimistic outlook and vice versa. And so on...

Psychology needs to diversify from studying Americans, esp. students in good American colleges.

</comment><comment><USER29> This effect also holds for one's own estimates that one's startup will not fail.

<comment><USER30> Although I imagine that if founders were told to describe each other's business plans the results would be far less flattering.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Could this effect possibly be partially affected/explained by the fact that most people primarily see themselves in mirrors, rather than directly or in photos? I assume I'm less accurate in my understanding of what I look like than what other people look like for that reason, regardless of vanity...

</comment><comment><USER32> That's great. I'm even uglier than I already thought. I need to go wash this down with a big sloppy glass of warm Soylent.

</comment><comment> cupcake-unicorn The "parody" version of the Dove video. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpWkZiZaQsA>

Nowhere in this video is gender mentioned, or psychological conditions like body dysmorphic disorder, or even just plain old depression. One way to diagnose depression is that fallacy they mentioned where everyone thinks they're better than average, well, it doesn't work on depressed patients, they're the opposite.

This article is ridiculously oversimplified and really offers very little insight into the subject. It's a very nuanced topic.

</comment><comment><USER33> With Google Plus' new photo enhancement features I fear people will become a bit further disconnected from reality. Neat tech for sure though

<comment><USER34> At least until Google Glass catches up

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I think there's a gender bias missing here. I've known many beautiful women who only see their flaws. They really don't know how beautiful they are. In fact they see themselves as average or below.

While I've known many average men who thought they were God's gift to women. Perhaps the confidence factor cited in another comment. Since most readers here are men, I suspect the sampling is biased.

</comment><comment><USER36> This isn't helping people who don't think highly of themselves to start with.

</comment><comment><USER11> The study could easily be showing simply that people are inclined to suspend disbelief when it benefits them in the scenario of choosing the picture that they want to be most like them... this isn't the same as saying that someone's self-image is somehow that idealized photo they're willing to suspend disbelief for.

</comment><comment><USER37> People often look worse in photos than they do in real life simply because they don't know the tricks for adjusting their face and bodies to achieve the best effect. This photographer positions people in unnatural ways to ensure his subjects look their best:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Q...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Qe3oJnFtA_k)

Contrast this with how we see ourselves: In 3D and from a variety of angles. Indeed, when we look at ourselves in a mirror, we often position ourselves in ways that make us look our best. Who here hasn't done a 30 second mirror check/pep talk to remind ourselves how great we are? Ever strike a totally unnatural pose?

I think the subjects of these tests are looking at the images and picking the image that best fits the version of what they see in the mirror, hence the bias.

</comment><comment><USER38> If I'm uglier than I already think I am, I'm in trouble.

</comment><comment><USER39> This has been repeated ad nauseam and to me it seems like this is another one of psychology's attempt at masquerading as science.

The way someone view themselves is subject to many variables that goes beyond these generalization.

If you've ever experienced any psychoactive drugs that induce euphoria and confidence such as cocaine and amphetamine, you will see yourself as a lot more attractive and smarter than you actually are. Now, ask that same person to rate themselves when they're going through withdrawal. You can bet that their self-perception won't be the same.

You might say that we're discussing this in the context of a normal person without any external influence. But that's the catch. There's no such thing as a normal person and we're always under the influence.

Get someone to rate their attractiveness when they're hungry, when they're full, when they're heartbroken, when they're in love, when they're socially anxious and depressed, when they're confident and outgoing. Even the best of us have many bad days.

There are structures in our brain that filters out what's deemed as "irrelevant information" and it's extremely difficult to view yourself objectively. Think of it as a kind of information tolerance, similar to drug tolerance.

If we can adapt to the putrid stench of hydrogen sulfide, you can bet we'll adapt to seeing our own flaw. Likewise, given enough time, most people will come to adapt to the various tragedies and good-fortune that befall upon them. The brain is remarkable at adapting.

How do you think someone who is lean and fit would react if they woke up extremely obese the next day? They would be a lot less complacent than a regular obese person because that person has had a lot time to adapt to their change of appearance.

What makes matter even more complicated is peer comments. Not to be crass, but have you ever came across a not-so-attractive girl on facebook getting tons of compliments from other women?

Those white lies are extremely insidious and I've always struggle with the fact that I can't judge myself objectively. This also goes the other way. There are some extremely beautiful people whose self-perception have been ruined by bullying and insults.

Think about the time when you first start wearing contacts or glasses, it takes a few days to get use to your own appearance.

Now take an extreme example with people undergoing plastic surgery. Even when the change is positive, some people are traumatize psychologically afterward because they're unable to reconcile with new face, but your brain seems to adapt regardless of whether or not the change is positive or negative. So this may lead to an issue of ambiguity, where you can't even tell if the change is positive or negative. A stranger will have a much easier time though, if only we can get them to stop sugar-coating.

Long ago when I told a girl that I thought she was beautiful. She truly couldn't believe me because from her POV, it's hard for some people to see themselves as beautiful when they've been looking at the same face for decades.

Some beautiful people also can't take compliments seriously from those they've considered are not beautiful, because they erroneously believe that because this person's standard is lower, that somehow their sense of aesthetic is not up to par.

One thing is for sure, it's not a good idea to take your mother's compliment seriously. Most mothers think that their son is handsome.

On the other hand, if your drunk buddies are reluctantly lamenting over the fact that they couldn't be born with your face, otherwise they would be so much more successful with women, then maybe you really are a handsome bastard.

<comment><USER40> Very well put.

I actually find your points much more interesting that the ones made in the article. To me, it's not really interesting _that_ we have a biased view of our selves, no matter what direction, but _why_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> When I was young, a lot of other people thought I was "beautiful." It had a lot of downside to it. My looks have mellowed with age and I generally have fewer problems and I am generally happier. I really cannot parse out how much of that positive change (edit: I mean being more comfortable with how I look and how people react to me) is due to mellower looks and how much due to behavioral or other changes. And I still get weird feedback, like people guessing I am a lot younger than I really am.

I have never figured out how to get some kind of objective measure of just how "attractive" I am. Unfortunately, this article isn't adding anything useful to my keen interest in understanding such things.

</comment><comment><USER42> This all might be explained by one factor: the amount of detail in the image. Well, that and the fact that most people seem to think that smooth featureless faces are more attractive. If you're familiar with your own face over time, you'll tend to overlook details since they change. If you meet someone just once, you might remember more specific features.

Also, something odd between these two studies: in one, people think they are more attractive than other people do, and in the other it's the opposite. This could be explained by people glossing over details when they describe a new face to someone else, while their own brain still has an image of the details that they would recognize later.

<comment><USER43> The Dove commercial is hardly a 'study,' I'm quite sure they determined the outcome before filming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I'm definitely not as beautiful as I think. In my mind, I'm still a dashing handsome 25-year old. But the stupid mirror keeps insisting that I'm in my fifties with the wrinkles and sags to prove it.

</comment><comment><USER25> "It would be a big relief if we all suddenly realized, like Christian Andersen's ugly duckling, that we are in fact beautiful."

This is a tongue in cheek comment in the article but it's all to common to read comments that "each one of us is special", etc. This, of course, cannot be; however, it is a common fallacy ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon#The_Lake_Wobegon_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon#The_Lake_Wobegon_effect))

</comment><comment><USER45> What's next, that your breath is worse than you think it is?

</comment><comment><USER46> Slightly related (to the fact that the idea we have of ourself is different by how others see us) I suggest you to read the italian classic "Uno, nessuno e centomila" (One, No one and One Hundred Thousand) by Luigi Pirandello: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One,_No_one_and_One_Hundred_Tho...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One,_No_one_and_One_Hundred_Thousand)

</comment><comment><USER47> This is confusing to me, because most of the people I talk to who share their feelings about their looks seem to find themselves less attractive than my estimate. Maybe I'm just systematically overestimating people and they are in turn STILL overestimating themselves, but one has to wonder if this study is really finding what it thinks it's finding.

<comment><USER48> People may be showing humility. Also, when you talk to them, you may be measuring something other than their mental self- representation -- maybe they are expressing where they think they are relative to society, whereas the experiment is measuring the delta between self-image and reality.

tl;dr -- You can think yourself ugly, yet still not as ugly as you actually are!

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Reminds me of a quote I heard recently about Gene Simmons on a radio show (via Jim Wendler).

The radio host was a woman that hated him, hated his attitude towards women and himself. She said to Gene, "I bet you are the kind of guy that walks into a room and thinks every woman wants him."

Gene responded, "Well, if I didn't think that, no one would."

So yeah, I try and think it :-)

</comment><comment><USER50> >The same morphing procedure was applied to a picture of a stranger, whom the study participant met three weeks earlier during an unrelated study. Participants tended to select the unmodified picture of the stranger.

This is the dumbest reasoning I can fathom if they wanted to prove that others think we are less attractive. All it proved is that other people have a good memory of what we look like.

They should have done this the opposite way. (Show the stranger an ugly- morphed version of the person's face and the regular version, if they chose the uglier version it would prove they remembered them as being uglier than they saw them originally.)

All they proved in that study is that the majority of humans have a good memory and that we _WANT_ to look more attractive than we actually are. We don't think it, not most of us anyways, but we sure want to look better. When you show us a good picture and bad picture of ourselves and ask us to choose, we're going to pick the good looking one without a doubt.

"Oh yea, the one with the buckteeth and zits over there is me!"

</comment><comment><USER51> This seems like an interesting example of the fundamental attribution error. I guess one could phrase it: I see others as they are and myself as I hope to be.

</comment><comment><USER52> perhaps this is an evolutionary advantage for humans to perceive themselves as good at things they do even if they are average or worse. It provides motivation, confidence, and enhances risk appetite. All necessarily attributes for a long term adaptive species.

</comment><comment><USER53> This is such an oversimplification of self-enhancement and a great example of confirmation bias.

</comment><comment><USER54> My first reaction to the article title: "Yes, probably, but I prefer it stays this way"

</comment><comment><USER55> Damn.

</comment><comment><USER56> tell me about it

<comment><USER57> found the video! <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpaOjMXyJGk>

<comment><USER56> I don't care really. Good vid though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> This is cultural. Americans and many westerners have a very high opinion of themselves, in terms of looks, intellect, etc. This doesn't hold true for everyone, however.

I view myself as a malformed hideous idiot with a vicious temper. Much better to keep expectations low.</comment>


Ask HN: What robotics company would you start? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Drone swarms for high-speed low-cost temporary housing construction --

A shipment of bricks arrives at a disaster area or refugee camp by helicopter or truck, drones file into a holding pattern around it, the bricks are dispersed into the air by explosives, each drone catches one flying brick with a claw before it hits the ground, and then the drones cooperatively build a structure by individually placing each brick where it belongs. It's a great technical challenge and also great for humanity.

</comment><comment><USER3> Personal Home Asst, who can: Pick things around and put them away. Switch off gadgets and lights when not in use. Make beverages on order or on time. Do laundry, and press the clothes Deweed the lawn or garden mechanically and grow plants and vegetables. Shave, wash and massage a human. Drive a human in an automobile. Watch humans for falling, vital statistics and changes in person's chemistry footprint.

</comment><comment><USER3> The big picture emerging from the Covid pandemic is, stop using biological interfacing. We need a mechanical firewall to survive!

The face mask is the symbolism for a larger meaning.

When humans became extremely toxic, tarnishing, targeting and frightfully self righteous omnivores, the nature has abhorred and grounded us.

Wake up and realize the big picture.</comment>


Ask HN: Why are relationships so hard to work out? - <AUTHOR>

One of the oldest activity that humans have indulged in, is to spend quality time with other human beings. Even after so many years of evolution, we are still finding that holding onto that one important relationship (with the significant other) to be one of the most challenging tasks ever taken on.
Is there any easier way to make lasting relationships work out?
A quick poll of HN readers - How many people are fully satisfied with their current relationship? +1 / -1 (for yes/no) <comment><USER2> I think the list of things that can make a relationship fail is probably long and varied and very different from person to person, but I'll offer up my two cents.

One of the biggest challenges for me has been the ways in which my husband and I have both changed over the years, sometimes growing together and sometimes as individuals, both of which are healthy and normal, but navigating a relationship during those periods can be difficult. The dynamics, expectations, and what the other person can bring to the relationship are in flux during those times and may end up on something different than where you started. There are times when I've felt disconnected, held back, or left, behind, maybe even a little unloved or resented, and I know he's had times where he's felt the same way. Again, I think it's normal to have periods like that in any 17+yr relationship and we've weathered them well (in general) but I can understand how some people would not.

I think this is particularly true of people who enter into these relationships at a younger age. As much as I thought I did, I don't think I truly knew "who I was" until I was closer to 30 and had enough life experiences to really figure that out for myself.

Another factor I see often, though it isn't an issue for us, is that I see people relying too heavily on that one relationship or giving up other relationships for it. I know a lot of women who think that because they are married, they can't have male friends, or people who think they can't go out and enjoy an evening with friends unless their partner comes along. Sometimes these assumptions are wrong, sometimes they really would upset/anger the other party involved. This, to me is wrong. You don't build trust in a relationship by never extending it and you don't grow as a person if everything you do includes a plus one. You end up with an odd sort of co-dependence and isolation (the fact that I see this happen so often could be somewhat cultural due to the region of the country in which I live).

So for me, the two biggest realizations have been that:

1\. I'm in this relationship because I want to be, not because I have to be and that I need to be happy with myself before I can expect someone else to be able to live with me happily. I need to be allowed to be my own person and explore that and my partner needs the same. We both need to be able to form meaningful friendships with other people on our own terms, not dictated by the other, but also remaining respectful of them. 2\. Changes in the dynamics of a relationship over time are perfectly normal and healthy, even though they can, at times, be really hard. Maybe it's not what you thought it would be when you signed up for this, but it can still be pretty great, and 5, 10, 15+ years of shared history, experiences, love, and support is something worth sticking around for and working on.

As for whether or not I am fully satisfied with my current relationship, yes, I am, very much. I get a little annoyed sometimes at some of the sacrifices I feel I am making because of my husband's current situation (e.g. I really want to move to another part of the country, but it's not possible right now due to some commitments he has), but the relationship is completely worth it and isn't suffering because of it.

<comment><AUTHOR> kellishaver, thank you indeed for the detailed reply. Your journey that you have described sounds beautiful and certainly something worth cherishing for a lifetime. I agree with you that in the current day and age, it's hard to know oneself until one turns closer to 30. I am currently 33 and only in the past 3 / 4 years is when I seriously started meeting someone with a view to having a relationship with them.

The second factor that you have mentioned, about the odd sort of co-dependence is actually undergoing a rapid transformation. Several women these days are extremely comfortable with online interactions and things like twitter, facebook has actually created avenues of finding emotional support from someone other than plus one to be much much easier. This is actually creating some strange kind of issues which I don't think even existed 5 years ago. In fact, I might make a guess (based on empirical evidence around me) that there are more women who are very active on twitter/fb than men, among the people I know.

The realizations that you have shared are deep and insightful and they will certainly help me in my journey. I have been on/off in a relationship since the past two years and it has been very hard trying to make sense of where it is headed. Sometimes I feel like I would like for it to continue forever, and then there are times when I know that it won't last more than a few weeks.

Your point 2 is well taken, though right now I am in the phase which is "even though they can, at times, be really hard".

It was wonderful to know that you have been in a 17+ yr relationship and things are working out so beautifully!

Thanks again, for sharing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> tl;dr: There is no easy way. You have to be in it to win it.

To make relationships last long enough, you need to understand a few things.

\- TRUST: You need to trust the other person. How you get there is the challenge. If you don't trust, there is no relationship. How soon do you give up before giving someone a chance to trust them ? Again, thats the hard part.

\- RESPECT the other person for who _they_ are and not who _you_ want them to be. My wife is very idealistic while I am more practical. But, I have learnt to respect her, her opinions, views and do not try to change them just because I don't believe in them.

\- SACRIFICE: Gotta do this a lot. Did I say a lot. But the key is you should not feel bad sacrificing for the other person. How you get there again is the hard part.

\- COMPASSION: Don't overdo but don't under-do. Right balance is the hard part again!!

My personal experience is that relationships tend to work well between people how have overall similar life goals. They could have very different individual ways of getting there but as long as the overall goals are in sync, it works. Even if you do all of the above well, there is no guarantee you will succeed. But if are not doing most of the things above, you will most likely fail sooner than later.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks codegeek. The pointer you've made about relationships working out well between people who have similar life goals is absolutely spot on. I have intuitively felt that in-synch "life goals" is the single most important factor in challenging relationships and it was good for me to have this re- affirmed by someone else too.

The four points you've mentioned feel like the four pillars. Based on my recent experiences, I've found that it's easy to start losing compassion once someone gets comfortable in a relationship.

I'm right now in a phase of trying to know if my life goals are similar with those of the woman that I've met. The four points you've mentioned are going to be helpful for me.

Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Happy families are all the same. Every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.

-The opening lines of Anna Karenina

I really do suggest reading the classics. Relationships have been explored by the masters for centuries. Unfortunately the only time most people are exposed to them are in high school, before people have really experienced life.

</comment><comment><USER5> Cheri and I met in 1984. There have been hard lows.

I don't know what it would be to be fully satisfied with a relationship. I just know I love the one we've decided to make work. It's a decision we've each made many times.

At times, I've made it for me. Others, for our child. And I've made it for her. She's done the same.

</comment><comment><USER6> I would suggest that conflict is one of the biggest issues within a relationship... So surely the easiest way for make a lasting relationship work is to shy away from conflict!? (I'm sure some people would disagree with that)

</comment><comment> mike-cardwell Conflicting priorities. Different World views and life goals.</comment>


Democrat Governor: Legalizing Pot Was 'Reckless.' a New Study Proves Him Right - <AUTHOR> http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/08/dem-gov-legalizing-pot-colo-reckless-new-study-proves-right

<comment><USER2> The mainstream body of opinion in favor of legalization does not assert (or in any way rely on the hypothesis) that it is "harmless" or "non-addictive." Right away the author is making a (rather tired and puerile) straw man attack, and insulting our intelligence in doing so. It becomes very difficult to take an interest in anything he says after that.</comment>


How the World's Richest Country Ran Out of Face Masks - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/opinion/coronavirus-face-mask.html <comment><USER2> framing the US as the world's "richest country" is a disservice here.

a few people are very rich, and many people are well off. but the institutions of this country are, despite being the product of the "richest country", entirely poor and weak.

public institutions have been hollowed out by decades of intentional neglect and austerity. the CDC has no help to offer hospitals in need and is still like a deer in headlights, months into the crisis. before their weakness was exposed, the national stockpile was mostly empty. the cracks in the system were never filled, and many were barely papered over.

private institutions have been optimized to extract profits rather than to serve their stated social purpose. hospitals are now on the brink of going out of business and closing down as the pandemic starts to ramp up. their readiness was low beforehand, too, as there's no money to be made in being prepared for a public health emergency.

so, how did the world's richest country run out of face masks? easy: we organized our society around the idea that buying them and keeping them around was too expensive to bother with.

<comment><USER3> They could change it to "richest countries", because the US isn't the only rich country that screwed up. Look at Austria and Switzerland and their reliance on importing masks from other countries. Or at the Netherlands, which can actually produce large quantities of masks for domestic use but didn't because the government was too busy downplaying the epidemic.

<comment><USER4> Those countries have implemented emergency legislation that makes up for employee pay and institutes a bunch of emergency measures that will make the countries come out the crisis rapidly and more robustly.

<comment><USER5> I think the odds are about 2 to 3 that the wealthy and connected in the US use the pandemic as an excuse to use free money to wholesale loot everyone else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Unfortunately this article doesn't get at any actual "why". The author blames just-in-time supply chains, but for me the crucial part is:

> _In 2006, Congress approved funds to add protective gear to a national > strategic stockpile — among other things, the stockpile collected 52 million > surgical face masks and 104 million N95 respirator masks. But about 100 > million masks in the stockpile were deployed in 2009 in the fight against > the H1N1 flu pandemic, and the government never bothered to replace them. > This month, Alex Azar, secretary of health and human services, testified > that there are only about 40 million masks in the stockpile — around 1 > percent of the projected national need._

Stockpiles are _clearly_ the answer, since supply chains are always going to fail in certain scenarios.

So the real questions here are, why didn't Congress create a bigger stockpile and why didn't it ensure it was maintained?

I genuinely want an in-depth answer to this question.

Is this some kind of problem with democratic government? Or are other democracies managinging responsible stockpiles just fine? Is it something unique to American politics? Do Americans somehow hold their representatives less accountable? Is it more the fault of one party over another? Is it leaving responsibilities to Congress that ought to be delegated to an agency? Is there are ideological or cultural component here, or just plain lack of accountability and people not doing their jobs?

Seriously. It's important we have a _real in-depth analysis_ on this. Not knee-jerk opiniated answers, but what _actually_ happened.

<comment><USER7> > I genuinely want an in-depth answer to this question.

Me too. Even some in-depth, _evidence-based_ discussion would be an improvement over the current state of affairs.

> In 2006, Congress approved funds to add protective gear to a national > strategic stockpile — among other things, the stockpile collected 52 million > surgical face masks and 104 million N95 respirator masks. But about 100 > million masks in the stockpile were _deployed in 2009 in the fight against > the H1N1 flu pandemic, and the government never bothered to replace them_.

Ok, let's think about this:

According to Google, Donald Trump was elected on January 20, 2017.

According to Google, Barack Obama was elected on January 20, 2009, which would imply he was the sitting President in 2009 (matching your reference above).

To me, this strongly implies that Barack Obama would have more influence over this specific policy than Donald Trump.

And yet, in all the reading I've done on this specific attribute of the crisis (and I've done _a lot_ ), there seems to be nearly unanimous consensus that it was Donald Trump's "firing" of the head of the pandemic response team that was(!) the(!) root cause of a lack of masks in stockpile. Full stop.

Now, there's no doubt at all in my mind that Trump has utterly botched this response, I would even confidently speculate that he may be the worst President in the history of the United States that could have been in charge during this crisis. But this isn't _only_ what is being claimed - rather, something very specific is also being claimed, and assuming I haven't made any mistakes in my dates above, I simply am unable to see how that makes sense. Your quotation seems to completely contradict this claim.

What in tarnation is going on here? This situation feels surreal to me. Like, how is a person supposed to sort out fact from fiction in this information environment? _I feel like I am unable to discern what is actually true._

<comment><USER8> > What in tarnation is going on here? This situation feels surreal to me. > Like, how is a person supposed to sort out fact from fiction in this > information environment? I feel like I am unable to discern what is actually > true.

When Donald Trump complains about "fake news", this is what he's talking about. He's genuinely incompetent, but that doesn't stop the press from twisting things to make him look worse.

<comment><USER7> I think at this point it's fair to say that holding high expectations for Donald Trump is the sign of a true optimist, and I say this as a Trump supporter.

But I'm curious what excuse people here would use for behavior that is little better - if you can't beat 'em, join em? What's good for the goose is good for the gander?

Not quite up to my personal standards, but at least that would be a valid and defensible position to hold imho. But who among us has the integrity and humility to explicitly admit to this behavior? I've made many silly mistakes in my life, and said many things in the past, and surely I will continue to do so into the future. But at least I'm _trying_ to speak truthfully, and will admit without hesitation (or so I would like to believe) when I have been caught red-handed spreading mistruths.

I suspect most people here aren't big believers in God, and that's ok, but I believe there remains great value at this point in humanity's evolution to contemplate ideas from a frame of mind _as if there was a (not "the") God_. Done correctly, with sincere discipline, I believe one can bring significant psychological force to bear on one's mind, to put one's mind into a state where one may not be _completely_ "free" from one's preconceived notions, biases, faith-based axioms (how many people are unaware that we all have them, _even atheists_ ), etc, but "free enough" to start to begin seeing reality more so for what it is.

Anyone who has studied Buddhism or related fields (psychology, neurology, etc) is well aware of the tricks one's mind can get up to. I rarely see resistance to these general ideas, even among non-practitioners.

But then close that tab and move to another one, where the topic of discussion is not directly about Buddhism or psychology, where people are no longer discussing these notions _at the abstract level_ , but grappling with them first hand _at the object level_. I believe this is a fitting analogy ( _at least_ ): those who have tried meditation are well aware how despite one focusing 100% of your conscious energy on one point of focus (typically one's breath), how long does it take before your mind is off on some sort of a wild goose chase? 60 seconds? 30? 10?

Now, in light of this fact, contemplate the nature of human thought (conceptualization of reality) and communication, processes several orders of magnitude more complicated than focusing on your breath (which most people are practically helpless with) - should we be surprised if occasionally our brain produces output whose accuracy or logic is less than perfect? And that's even when _trying one 's very hardest_ (see: bugs in code, making careless and hurtful remarks to friends or strangers, framing things so as to avoid something unpleasant "just this once"). Now imagine if you're _not even trying_ to be disciplined, or correct, or honest, but rather "just kinda winging it". Going with the flow. Conforming to the the cultural norms (aka: "getting along" with others - "no rocking of the boat, please").

Man has grappled with (and written extensively on) such problems for as far back as we have records. But it almost seems like we've now broadly adopted the belief that we can now put the trivial ideas of ancient mankind behind us, relegate them to the trash bin of history with all the other "objectively incorrect" beliefs of yore. Who needs Gods and other such silly ways of thinking about the world, when we have become so powerful that we are nearing the realm of Gods ourselves?

Maybe. Maybe this is all correct. "Maybe it's me that's wrong." Maybe there _is_ no wisdom or lessons from the past that have practical utility going forward. Maybe we really have become Gods.

Maybe. Or maybe not. I have a feeling we shall find out before my number is called.

Proof reading all this, and what a gigantic crock of delusional "woo woo" shit this is. The rantings of an obvious delusional schizophrenic. Move along, nothing to see here. And best make haste, there's a good chance this nut job might be dangerous.

Maybe I just need to sit on the couch for the rest of the day and immerse myself in some sitcoms and sports, maybe a little porn to add some spice. And tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, and then maybe all these silly ideas will just go away, and I can get back to dreaming about important things like that new car I had my eye on a while back. Maybe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> saiya-jin I thought this was about Switzerland... Just an opinion on a country that usually is ahead of others in smart decisions - they have almost 0 medical manufacturing here, and in past weeks were/are progressively getting screwed by ie Germany stopping trucks full of face masks and medical equipment at the border and forbidding them to come here. Outsourcing is not an issue only in US.

Also, people in government responsible for raising alerts, closures etc. voted 2:1 to not do quarantine when Italy was already exploding with cases (mind you, regions super close to Suisse!). Why? Effin' economical concerns, meaning businesses stronghanding (probably corrupt) politicians to keep things running. So while people were already dying en masse 50km south from here, all the shops, restaurants and caffees were chock full of common folks were acting like nothing is going on. Somebody didn't realize that it will take much longer to get economy back afterwards...

Hospitals desperately unprepared with equipment. Doctors working with plain stupid paper/cloth masks on emergencies, not having them swapped often. Leaving schools open for way too long. I could go on... I expected more from this country. I really did. Quick removal of any workers protection laws for doctors.

I personally know few doctors that are already sick with Covid here, mainly because system fucked them hard with lack of equipment, and they are properly disappointed, desperate and furious.

So don't be harsh on US government, I think basically almost all governments screwed up badly.

<comment><USER9> This is the part that annoys me. Most people would agree that this particular virus presents a threat that should be addressed in a way that bypassed day to day considerations.

But that is not the case. In US, the president openly says if it hurts economy too bad, we might as well roll the dice and see what happens. Very annoying given that the advice is likely coming from people who can cloister themselves if needed.

Why does everything has to be calculated in terms of the dollar? Hell, a month ago poster here was advocating killong off bat a species to save 2T in imaginary assets.

It feels like I am going on a rant here, so I apologize. The past few days have been bananas.

<comment><USER10> hang in there friend, we are all in this Together.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you look at entire known Human history, pandemics, epidemics, wars, famines, droughts and troubled economic times feature throughout and have occurred in all parts of the World. Besides economic strife and war, things are not always in the hands of Human (e.g. natural disasters).

What Countries around the World need to do going forward is to have a basic level of economic self-reliance. Things like face mask, clothing, basic medical equipment, basic things like plastic cutlery, etc. should be made in all countries of the World and import of such items should be strictly forbidden.

Only then can each Country have semblance of hope when disaster such as COVID-19 strikes.

I don't know, maybe I am rambling but I feel all countries from Afghanistan to United States to South Sudan to Zimbabwe need to enabled and forced to produce necessities of life and such basic items instead of relying on China, Germany, India, Vietnam and Bangladesh.

<comment><USER11> We don't need hard and fast rules about supply chains, we need to include resiliency in more of our planning. That might lead to certain choices about supply chains, but the point is that it should be an outcome of thought and planning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Back in February I ordered a few boxes of 3M masks from a distributor in US because the US was the only country with no mask export laws yet.

<comment><USER13> Nice foresight! Hopefully you have enough for you and yours and perhaps can donate to local institutions that could benefit too

<comment><USER12> I ended up using one box of the three cartons I ordered so I donated the rest to the churches and Hospitals!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Does everyone here have a NYTimes subscription or is there a way to read this article without one?

<comment><USER15> [http://archive.vn/oUJ6Z](http://archive.vn/oUJ6Z)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Allocation of resources is always a political decision. There are multiple things governments all over the world stockpile in ranging from weapons, oil, maple syrup and even medical equipment. The electorate votes them in. Clearly the priorities of the electorate can change over crisis and a new set of values can be ushered in or forgotten quickly.

My favorite is when the French health minister Roselyne Bachelot sold stockpiled medical supplies in France in 2010 and there was no political cost to it from the electorate:

[https://www.france24.com/en/20100103-france-sell-off- million...](https://www.france24.com/en/20100103-france-sell-off-millions- surplus-flu-shots)

</comment><comment><USER17> The most important question is will the US learn from it's mistakes and actually improve it's preparedness and healthcare and public services, or will everything be re-built brick for brick in the same way the serves the rich and keeps the poor down?

</comment><comment><USER18> All this article highlights is that when you don't order more, you run out. This is not political, it's simply a mismanagement of inventory, and not being prepared for a disaster where multitudes of an item will be needed.

</comment><comment><USER19> I read a Facebook post this week that I hope is true. A nurse was complaining that respirator maintenance meant periodic visits to each room, which required a new mask as each room was entered.

The nurse suggested to management that the respirator tubes be lengthened, allowing the machines to be put in the hallway. Then each maintenance cycle required only one mask!

Not sure if it was true, but even if it wasn't it showed good thinking.

<comment><USER20> Would that work?

A longer tube would mean a lot more air needs to be moved to raise and lower the pressure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It seems to me that the main reason we are running out is that doctors have a lot of patients and use a new mask each and every time they move to a new patient. I'm not sure that's all that helpful (but it definitely could be absolutely necessary), and it seems quite wasteful.

</comment><comment><USER22> I think at this point it's clear that the United States is also the most self- hating country in the world. Our media harps on the exact same pseudo- controversies that Russian trolls use as wedge issues, primarily because people online tend to swallow anything anti-american whole, particularly given the current state of politics.

And this article starts strong with partisan fuckery. It blames Trump:

>President Trump, bizarrely, has so far resisted ordering companies to produce more supplies and equipment

It when the source is clicked it mentions Trump is resisting _signing an executive order_. Apparently people are upset that Trump _isn 't_ acting like a king. But the article takes its swipe and most people won't click the link. The problem is elsewhere in the article. Quite simply it's globalism. If we had local production we could ramp it up just in time. But people let their partisan idiocy get in the way of rational decision making and right now antiglobalism not with the range of socially acceptable discourse... But don't worry, Coronavirus is about to push the political pendulum right.

</comment><comment><USER23> The U.S. seems to have dropped the ball on testing. That's really the only mistake that seems likely to matter that anyone might have conceivably _not_ made.

Global supply chains are a fact of life. The strongest fighter against over- dependence on China is Trump, and he was ridiculed as "protectionist". Trump's travel restrictions were similarly ridiculed.

Strategic stockpiles are spotty. Sometimes the thing you stockpile is what you need; often not. Did every other country have a stockpile of masks except the US?

<comment><USER24> >That's really the only mistake that seems likely to matter that anyone might have conceivably not made.

How about reacting 6-8 weeks earlier, rather than wasting so many weeks of warnings in denial mode, calling it a hoax by rival politicians, downplaying and lying the whole time?

>Global supply chains are a fact of life.

And that clearly needs to be rethought because the dependencies introduced can cause a global economic meltdown. As evidence I introduce: the current situation.

>Strategic stockpiles are spotty.

Doesn't matter since you can't run a country like you run a business. For one, when a business is trouble it throw out all free-market ideology and immediately cries for government for help. The government doesn't have that option.

The US is willing to spend $700 billion a year on the military, yet this war is being fought by doctors, nurses, hospitals, grocery stores, delivery people, and truck drivers.

Sounds to me like devoting, I don't know, 1% of the military budget for future pandemics (just lump that in under nuclear/biological/chemical threats) would be a wise move. Having $8 billion of PPE around would be extremely handy right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Modern supply chains are concentrated on pulling manufactured goods from far away where they can offload environmental costs on countries that don't care/are corrupt, wasting energy taking it halfway around the world, and then selling it in America.

They also don't warehouse anything. Everything we depend on really is about 30 days supply tops, and the goal of supply chain management is to get as close to perfect demand anticipation as possible, which is as little warehoused goods as possible.

So everything has a huge lead time.

The "economics" of it (at least for the next foreseeable earnings quarter) was pretty cut and dry on paper. Of course that economics is just for the bank accounts of the rich, and the environmental costs, lack of "production security", and other concerns that couldn't be quantified easily (and thus are culturally ignored in economics) were ignored.

What I find particularly galling is that we are on a solid fourth iteration of a possible pandemic that was reliant on ventilators and infection disease in general (SARS, MERS, H5N1, Covid-19), and the CDC and DOD should have had a turnkey plan to address covering shortfalls of critical medical equipment with whatever domestic manufacturing we have left.

Of course Trump has allegedly fired a lot of the old-timers, but even if those people are gone, the basics of the plan should be around, but clearly that doesn't exist.

<comment><USER26> Environmental and labor.

It's perplexed me how one can be pro union rights, pro globalization, pro human rights and not a nationalist, all at the same time.

"Treating people fairly is important, we can't offer jobs that don't protect people. Encourage spending to be for foreign goods not blanked by those protections."

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The incentive structure of market capitalism is not aligned with the interests of society or the welfare of individuals.

</comment><comment><USER28> Richest country? What, by what metric?

<comment><USER6> By GDP. I don't think there's any debate there.

<comment><USER28> It's 23 Trillion dollars in debt

<comment><USER29> Seems you have an agenda, but I'll help you out.

"The financial position of the United States includes assets of at least $269.6 trillion (1576% of GDP) and debts of $145.8 trillion (852% of GDP) to produce a net worth of at least $123.8 trillion (723% of GDP)[a] as of Q1 2014."

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_Un...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_United_States)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > That's where cheap, disposable face masks, eye protection, gloves and gowns > come in.

The world appears to have entirely forgotten that there are re-usable facemasks which you just boil/steam in hot water to sterilize.

They were heavily used only a short time ago.

You would just need to have 1-2 per medical worker and you'd be fine.

The "disposable everything" attitude is coming to bite blind capitalism in the ass yet again.

</comment><comment><USER31> It is Chernobyl of capitalism.. Sure.

</comment><comment><USER32> All this article highlights is that you can't run the government as a business.

The GOP has convinced their voters that running the government as a business is a great idea, it's not. The GOP have convinced scared white, Christian, racist, xenophobic people that all the government does is waste their hard earned money paying benefits to poor, non-working, non-white, non-Christian, non-citizen, LGBTQ's.

I ran Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity for a very large Financial Institution.

I would say we were world class in our preparedness, but there is NO WAY that a business could be prepared for a __real disaster __. I had to fight tooth and nail for every penny I got, and every time I heard the same line from all the board members, "This is a waste of resources, for something that will probably never happen in our lifetime, if ever."

A Business can't stockpile, cash, products, buildings, capacity, extra remote employees, etc. in order to sustain an event lasting 6-12 months, that __MIGHT NEVER HAPPEN __.

Yes, we all knew this _could_ happen, but there was no way to predict when it would happen.

Only a government can and should be preparing for really bad things that might never happen.

Frankly running DR & BC wrecked my career at that firm because I was seen as Don Quixote, "Tilting at Windmills." I was assigned the job and did my best, assuming it was a stepping stone, and it was, but they expected me to just put on a show. Instead I took the job seriously, and it eroded their confidence in me, they expected that I should have recognized it as a fluff job, used only to get me exposure to the BOD, justifying the next step up in my career, instead I was "sent down" and had no choice but to leave.

<comment><USER33> _> The GOP [...] racist, xenophobic [...]_

It's pretty obvious that the wast _majority_ of people in power right now are not very good at preparedness planning _or_ rapid crisis response. This includes both parties. This also includes many state and local governments, not just feds.

People using this crisis to blame "the other side" and spout their usual talking points (now with even more hysteria) is getting really old, really fast.

<comment><USER34> Do you have any evidence to back up this "both sides" argument? The responses executed by each party are starkly different, and the results are in some cases are already measurable. To give just one exapmle:

[https://www.wbir.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/10liste...](https://www.wbir.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/10listens- how-do-tennessee-and-kentucky-compare-in-their-response-to- covid-19/51-bd8e321b-838a-4d4e-ab5d-8a4abbe9e897)

<comment><USER35> I think that you can blame both parties for the overall lack of preparedness, yes, we've had more proactive responses in crisis situations by Democrats - but we've seen several decades of bipartisan cuts to the CDC, and other disaster preparedness agencies for decades.

Terri Gross interviewed Max Brooks yesterday, an author and disaster preparedness expert

[https://www.npr.org/transcripts/820601571](https://www.npr.org/transcripts/820601571)

"MAX BROOKS: I think there are massive gaps in our systems that are being exposed right now, which - by the way - this is not news to the experts. Anybody who works in these fields could have told you years ago that we were vulnerable to this. It's going to rip through our prisons. It's going to rip through our homeless population. God willing it doesn't rip through our nursing homes.

But what no one is talking about, what terrifies me, what keeps me up at night are the secondary casualties that will occur because of hospital overflow. What I mean is we're only talking about now how many people are going to die if the coronavirus really rips through our country; what is not being talked about enough or what needs to be talked about are the people who are still going to die of cancer, of accidents, of other diseases because they simply can't get into the hospitals because the hospitals are choked with coronavirus patients.

GROSS: So that's a flaw in the system that you think is being revealed.

MAX BROOKS: That is a tremendous flaw in the system right now. And we used to be very good at this. I can tell you that one of the gut-wrenching moments I had years and years ago was during the homeland nuclear disaster scenario called Vibrant Response. And I spoke to someone from the Defense Logistics Agency. And what the DLA does is they're responsible for all the bottled water and bandages and everything that FEMA uses in a crisis - the military as well. They - if there's something out there that we need, that the government needs, they buy it.

What he told me was, up until the end of the Cold War, we had prepositioned stockpiles of emergency supplies all over the country, and that was in case we got nuked, so we could pull from these warehouses. Now, the peacetime dividend was, even though we never got nuked, we still had hurricanes and floods and other disasters, and there they were, ready to go. After the Cold War, somebody got the idea that this was inefficient, it was expensive - get rid of them and buy what you need on Day 1 of a crisis from the big box stores.

Here's the problem - the big box stores don't have warehouses, either, because they know it's inefficient. So these huge stores need to turn over their stock every 24 hours. So what if you have a crisis at the very moment that these stores are reshelving. And I witnessed that firsthand during Superstorm Sandy. We're watching TV here on the West Coast about what's happening to New York. And my wife says to me, you know what? We've always talked about getting a generator. What if we have an earthquake while this is happening? Go get it now. I got in the car. I go to Home Depot - generators gone. FEMA had taken them all.

So we don't have stockpiling anymore on a national level. We're seeing on TV the stockpiles of masks right now that the federal government is distributing; that is nothing compared to what we used to have.

GROSS: I'm even thinking about things that we're supposed to have at home to protect ourselves. Hand sanitizer - OK, local distilleries are starting to make that now. Things like Lysol or Clorox wipes, you can't find them anyplace, at least not as we record this. Vinyl gloves or rubber gloves, those are really hard to find, too. So we're being told to protect ourselves with supplies we can't get access to.

MAX BROOKS: No. And this is the problem, is in this country, we used to have these stockpiles, and it was called civil defense because we knew when the bombs were dropped and the cities were nuked, that we would need all of this, and it was all the lessons of World War II. So if this pandemic, let's say, happened in 1965, there would be no shortages; it would be ready to go. But post-Cold War, it's all become about the bottom line. And that trickles down to us, like you said, the individual citizens.

I see panic buying in LA and I'm shocked because how does everyone in Los Angeles not already have an earthquake kit? Which, by the way, the earthquake kit is supposed to be much more extensive than a pandemic kit because, at least in a pandemic, the lights are on and the water is running. In an earthquake, you're camping out. So why are my fellow Angelenos caught so desperately unprepared?"

<comment><USER36> 'Bi-partisan' just means that both groups came to a compromise to get some of the things they want. You then have to look into how the bills and rules evolved to figure out how it came to be. My guess (non-researched) is that the party that has cutting government budgets as a priority was the one injecting a lessening of resources into the process.

<comment><USER37> Both major parties dramatically increase spending more often than they reduce it. Bureaucracy and waste are incentivized at every level given how budgeting works in practice. They both prop up corporate welfare and military expansion.

We are the only major country in the world that doesn't have a fist fight on their congressional floor now and then... to me, it just indicates that most don't mean what they say.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Blaming capitalism seems weird. Capitalism is not the only economic system with just-in-time or globally-interdependent supply chains. And capitalism can't explain why our strategic government stockpiles were never replenished.

There's a tendancy to compare the results of a system to what a wise, common- sense person with 20/20 hindsight would do if they were in charge. But that's not how things work. People in a system often fall victim to all kinds of bad assumptions, often thinking that others are wholly or partially responsible for dealing with a particular risk.

It looks like the US was caught flat-footed. It's too early to say how resilient we are, though. And it's way too early to start trying to push specific political angles like the idea that some mythical-but-non-specific non-capitalist system would have served us better.

<comment><USER38> The relevant incentives are there because of capitalism. Just as the incentives to cover things up or shift blame were there in the USSR during Chernobyl.

<comment><USER23> Without a point of comparison this is meaningless. Do command economies have a "mask czar" that makes sure nobody runs out of masks? And does that, in general, work better?

<comment><USER38> Why do you assume a command economy?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Dubai wants to debut autonomous flying drones as soon as this July - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2017/02/13/dubai-ehang-drone-taxis/#54tQhC0LUOqX <comment><USER2> Err... From the article:

> EHang isn't the only name in the "flying car" game, but it looks to be the > furthest along.

Seriously? I've only ever seen evidence of an eHang 184 actually flying just months ago, and those were unmanned flights.

The Volocopter has had manned flights for nearly a year, and seems an altogether better design (way more redundancy, ballistic parachute, rotors not placed to break your legs, 2 pax, etc.)

[http://www.volocopter.com/index.php/en/](http://www.volocopter.com/index.php/en/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Cool info</comment>


Why beginners should learn Python first. - <AUTHOR> http://slant.co/topics/what-is-the-best-programming-language-to-learn-first/opinions/python

<comment><USER2> As a programmer who was a beginner not very long ago, I agree that Python is great for beginners and experts alike. Ruby is another decent candidate, for mostly the same reasons.

Java and C++, the languages you usually see in university courses and the work place, are just god-awful for beginners.

When I first started learning programming, I didn't really know what language I should study, so I flip-flopped between studying Java, C++, Python, and PHP, and learned them to widely varying degrees of proficiency. Then I picked up Javascript, then Ruby, then Objective-C, and now I think that's about all the OO languages I would have any reason to learn, and am now just starting to dabble in functional programming.

I think the only reason I didn't just stick with Python throughout the beginner phase, is that I didn't really get what Python was "for." I thought it was just for desktop scripting. I didn't know about its GUI toolkits, or that you could write web applications in it. I learned PHP because I could immediately see the end use of it in my browser, and had no idea I could have used Python for the same thing.

If I had to do it over, instead of studying such a smattering of languages, I probably would have started off with a crash-course in C and then quickly moved on to doing everything in Python (and Javascript).</comment>


How a Little Nudge Increased Email Subscribership 500% - <AUTHOR> http://blog.kissmetrics.com/a-little-nudge/

<comment><USER2> Love how they used Qualaroo to harness visitor intent through a thoughtful combination of implementation rules and question asking. 500% is an epic win by any measure.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow! results are nothing short of amazing!</comment>


How most Flash games insert hiscores and why it's not smart (fixed broken link) - <AUTHOR> http://www.miniclip.com/php/HS/hs.php?version=2&timer=123110120761385&key=20f1a1a23007871ed6a5e84b347039b0&location=xD&score=1337133713&username=via_HN&gamename=bubbletrouble&formaction=gethighscores&dwm=2

<comment><USER2> easy way to fix that: the server can check if the score is outside a possible threshold. if it is, there's been some cheating and the player should be deleted for breaking the terms.

best way to fix that: send qualifiers and make the server calculate the actual score/high score.</comment>


When mechanical analog computers ruled the waves (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/gears-of-war-when-mechanical-analog-computers-ruled-the-waves/ <comment><USER2> > When assembled precisely, analog computers can be much more accurate than > digital computers on these types of questions.

Stopped reading here... whoever wrote the article is missing some critical pieces of the theory of how computers work or what computers are, as well as some basic understanding of how materials work. Mechanical computers are made with parts that have some finite tolerance in their manufacture as well as some measurable amount of flexibility in their parts and connections. Increasing the accuracy of analog computers requires developing new manufacturing techniques to reduce this error. On the other hand, making a digital computer more accurate just requires some extra memory and CPU time.

These analog machines are beautiful computers... but they are not more accurate than digital computers.

<comment><USER3> Maybe they meant contemporary digital computers?

Although you're right, the claim that

> _Because they use physical rather than digital inputs and outputs, they can > represent curves and other geometric elements of calculations with an > infinite level of resolution_

is obviously bullshit, although the article does point this out:

> _(though the precision of those calculations is based on how well their > parts are machined, and loss from friction and slippage)._

<comment><USER2> This is just a really roundabout way of not saying anything at all. "Analog computers can have infinite resolution, except for the fact that this is physically impossible." I could just as easily say, "I am a millionaire, except for the fact that I do not have that much money," or "My house is red, except for the fact that it is actually green, and no part is actually red, and I do not even have a house."

<comment><USER4> While I found your comment funny, I could stand to be a bit more charitable. I think it's an interesting side point they're trying to make about analog computation, but to be accurate should maybe be written more like "A theoretical perfectly-machined set of gears could perform calculations to infinite precision."

<comment><USER2> I don't know how to be charitable here, the side note is completely wrong, and I'm not sure what interesting point could be made here.

A theoretical perfectly-machined set of gears is a mathematical construction, not a physical construction. It seems reasonable to me that a mathematical construction could have infinite precision, but it is obvious that a physical device has limited precision. An analog computer is a physical device. We might as well pretend that a digital computer has infinite RAM and an infinitely fast CPU, if we are in the business of assuming that an analogue computer is infinitely precise.

In general you can make many of the same engineering tradeoffs with simple analogue computers. A cam wheel can encode a function, and by adjusting the size, manufacturing tolerances, and materials you can control the amount of error that the cam wheel gives you when calculating the function. Similarly, with a digital computer you can adjust the number of digits used to represent numbers, the size of lookup tables, the number of iteration for iterative methods, etc. and control the amount of precision a digital computer provides.

<comment><USER4> I mean, you could definitely convince me that it's not an aside worth including in the article for the sake of staying on point.

I'll still take Ars at its worst over most general news sites' tech reporting at its best.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The whole training film on mechanical computers, for navy mechanics I believe: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4)

It illustrates the problems and solutions near perfectly, and I've watched it way too many times.

<comment><USER6> Thanks, being a long-time lurker, I've just signed up now to say that's great. What a video - I've been writing software for the past 31 years, and I love the simplicity among ingenuity of this. If you've not read it already, you might like [http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html](http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I did not see any link to the full training video[0] the clips in this article were taken from. I highly recommend it. It's a fascinating trip into engineering, computing, and the past.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4)

</comment><comment><USER8> Two previous discussions:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11460672](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11460672)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7419837](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7419837)

</comment><comment><USER9> The XC-142 tilt wing VTOL airplane, basically the 60's version of the V-22 Osprey, used an analog computer to mix the control continuously outputs between vertical wing mode and horizontal. (For example, differential thrust means roll in vertical mode, but yaw in horizontal mode, whereas ailerons go from roll in horizontal mode to yaw in vertical.)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTV_XC-142](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTV_XC-142)

I am even more impressed by this, having implemented the control mixing for a model XC-142 on a microprocessor.

</comment><comment><USER10> This equipment in use: [1]

[1] [https://archive.org/details/0436_Radar_Secrets_01_20_16_00](https://archive.org/details/0436_Radar_Secrets_01_20_16_00)

</comment><comment><USER11> Imagine if self-driving cars used an analog mechanical computer such as these. "bicycle bearing one niner zero at 1.5 knots, intercept in .0025 seconds...."</comment>


Show HN: Trailer Nite – Find something to watch tonight - <AUTHOR> https://www.trailernite.com/ <comment><USER2> This is a neat implementation.

I stopped watching trailers for movies a few years ago - headphones and closed eyes during movie previews and everything, and it greatly improved my enjoyment of nearly every movie I see.

I go for the story and visuals, and studios long ago decided that story and visual surprise were worth sacrificing to get people into theaters.

As for figuring out what to see, I find that a combination of any of title, director, writer, genre, and occasionally performers are enough to make up my mind.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is it only me or does this website (supposed to help me "Find something to watch tonight") mainly gets me trailers of movies that'll get release in weeks or months?

<comment><AUTHOR> The category you land in is "Hot" which represents items that are new and popular. They generally end up being movies/tv series that are soon to be released.

If watch enough or click "Browse", you can start watching things based on what VOD you have (Netflix, Hulu, etc), what genre you're interested in, general rating, and more.

We thought that new-comers to the site would be more interested in seeing a trailer for Venom, Avengers, or Deadpool than seeing a trailer for Jaws or Scarface.

You can definitely browse the VOD, newly added, genres, etc to find something for right now at home... but you can also learn what's coming out, what's out now, and what was recently released (soon to be on DVD).

<comment><USER3> Oh, great, thanks for the tip!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Author here: The point of this project is to discover movies and TV shows that you ordinarily wouldn't find because the studios put their advertising money into something else.

Now that we have so many ways to watch content: Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, HBO, theaters, cable/dish, etc... there are so many options, so many new original series, and it's nearly impossible to follow along with new releases. It's great to have all this new content, but not if you can't find it.

Trailer Nite is a fun way of discovering new content on platforms that you use. Every trailer is like a short film. It's about 2 minutes long with its own tone, with its own entertainment value, and if you like it... you can watch the real thing.

Anyway, this came out of a utilitarian need for me and then grew to be more. Hopefully it helps some other people out there that enjoy movies/tv like I do.

\</comment><comment>-

Backstory:

A few years ago, I got into a show recommended by Hulu. After the second season ended, I was like "Hmm, I wonder when the next one is coming out?" Turns out, the show had already been canceled for a year. I had never even heard of it. I probably would've watched it if I knew about it. That would've increased their ratings (if enough people watched) and it could still be on today; but it's not.

I've found several movies using Trailer Nite that I never heard about. Some were recently released with several famous people starring in it, but it didn't matter. I watch plenty of TV and I see plenty of commercials so it's really surprising to me that this many movies and shows are released with little to no advertising.

Edited for grammar / wording.

<comment><USER4> The scrolling is awful, it fades out the trailer roll if I stop moving my scroll wheel. Looks like it's not resetting the 'hide trailer roll' timeout when scroll events happen.

<comment><AUTHOR> The logic around that is:

If you're scrolling, it stays open. If you pause the video, it stays open.

If you stop moving your mouse, we wait a couple seconds then fade out. If you move your mouse, it resets the timeout.

Some people would scroll a little then stop moving the mouse to watch the current trailer and were expecting details to fade away since they were no longer interacting with it.

I think I understand your point, but it's tough when some people expect A and some people expect B.

<comment><USER4> You should configure it to wait a second or two, instead of instantly disappearing. It happened whenever I moved the scrollwheel as far as I could, and then moved my finger to the other side of the wheel to continue scrolling.

Note that scrolling once and waiting causes the roll to stay up for a short while before fading out. Scrolling a lot and waiting causes the roll to almost-instantly disappear, when I expect the same delay as the first case I described.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Finding something the whole family can agree on would be great, this could be a fun way to look at the options while training a picker. However... I am not going to mix my watching habits with a Twitter or Facebook sign-in.

Secondly, under "Browse" one of the options is "Available Now". Does that mean everything else is not (available now)?

<comment><AUTHOR> 1.) We'll save your list to localStorage so that you can come back to it later on the same computer. The reason we have Facebook/Twitter sign-in is so you can sync the saved list across devices. We chose FB/Twitter for single sign-on so people wouldn't have to do email/password. We're considering adding Google to it as well.

So you don't have to use login to save items for later; just use the same computer next time and they should be there when you come back if that's what you prefer.

2.) "Available Now" represents content that has a release date of today or earlier. We do have some content on here that's unreleased, upcoming, or early release.

I understand that "upcoming content" may conflict with the "Find something to watch tonight," slogan, but considering that over 98% of our content is available to watch now... I think it still applies.

<comment><USER5> >We'll save your list to localStorage so that you can come back to it later on the same computer

This will work really well on the HTPC (where all the debating happens) - thanks for replying.

All I really want, and am still failing at, is something where I can say "I have Netflix, Amazon and HBO" and then have recommendations from all of those, but just those. I don't know if I want to browse HBO or AMazon, or whatever, I want a TV guide to tell me what I might enjoy chosen from the services I have access to...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It looks like you're using the "Want to see" percentage as the Rotten Tomatoes rating, this is misleading

</comment><comment><USER7> FYI, maybe too late for you to see this, but I first looked at browse->netflix, then I switched it to amazon, same movies listed there (netflix movies). I did not sign in.

</comment><comment><USER8> The trailer for the Netflix Barack Obama movie "Barry" is showing the description and cover art for the HBO tv show "Barry".

<comment><AUTHOR> Good find. Saw the flags for that, it should be adjusted (depending on cache).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It looks really nice. Scroll wheel scrolling is broken though :(

</comment><comment><USER10> which API are you using? AFAIK Netflix doesn't have an API

</comment><comment><USER11> Unfortunately modern trailers are just SparkNotes spoilers for movies.

For example, if you have seen Get Out, go back and watch the trailer. How are you supposed to immerse in a movie when you know who the bad guys are upfront and what the whole twist is? (If you haven't seen Get Out, I recommend just watching it knowing it's a thriller)

<comment><AUTHOR> It can be tough for thrillers / suspense films where it's best when everything is a surprise, but I have no idea how you market something based on: "Trust us, it's really good but we can't tell you anything about it."

Infinity War did some interesting advertising where they changed scenes intentionally so you couldn't follow the timeline in the actual film. They "lied" in the trailers, but I think it worked out for the best.

<comment><USER11> The Alien franchise has some good marketing material that both interested me without knowing what the movies were about:

\- The original trailer: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEVY_lonKf4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEVY_lonKf4)

\- David's intro from Weyland Corp: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ7E7Qp-s-8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ7E7Qp-s-8)

I know it's kind of a lame time to rant on this subject. Obviously trailers are popular despite how I feel. For example, I'm probably the only person in the theater that closes my eyes and plugs my ears for previews that look any good (not just thrillers), so I certainly don't think your project is a bad idea.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Finding work for a significant other - <AUTHOR> Hello!
Long-time lurker - first time asker. Seeking a bit of advice wrt helping a significant other find a job.
We recently relocated from Chicago to the Bay Area (around August of 2011). The decision to move was largely my own and I perhaps softened the blow of leaving 'home' a bit by assuring my significant other that she'd have no issue finding something here in the valley. She's got a rock solid resume and wonderful dotcom experience - it seemed like a no-brainer. In fact, I went so far as to convince her to quit a great gig back in Chicago (knowing she could work remotely) because she'd grown a bit tired of it after a number of years - and the West - if nothing else - still holds the romanticism of a fresh start (at least for me.)
So here we are, six months in - and she's still looking for an opportunity. She's had a couple of interviews thanks to some of the folks funding our endeavor who were able to put her in touch with other portfolio companies but the consensus thus far has mostly been: "Your resume is great, anyone would be lucky to have you, but we don't know how we'd use you here." That makes sense, her primary experience for the past several years has been in a hybrid consulting/strategy/sales/marketing role - she essentially traveled around the country helping old media move advertising spend online. It seemed that most of the folks she was being lined up with were largely business to consumer which her experience didn't square with. Fine.
The crux of the problem - it seems - is that we haven't yet built a deep/rich network in the valley. I'm starting to build that network - I'm already leveraging my contacts to get a few referrals but by and large she's resorted to submitting resumes into the great resume firewall of consulting orgs which has yet to yield much.
So - I say all of that to ask this. Anyone have a strategy for helping non-hacking newcomers to the valley find work? One that keeps you from having to blindly submit your resume in a form post and hope that a human can discern what an awesome person you are on the other end?
Is it:
- Find meetups?
- Go to networking events? - Live in LinkedIn and ask for introductions? - Volunteer? - Beg, plead? - All of the above?
Let this be a reminder to you all. Build the hell out of your network. Build locally, and build globally.
Thank you HN!!!
PS - This experience has definitely started making the wheels turn. Feeling like I should build something to support folks out of network/relocated. A few ideas have crossed my mind. Now gotta put some fingers to the keyboard. <comment><USER3> Write up a list of 10 advertising companies in the Bay Area smaller than Google, figure out who inside needs to say "Yes" for her to get hired, then get a warm intro to that person. Possible avenues would be convincing any of the 432 startups in that space to take a coffee date with you, then asking for an intro after demonstrating credibility. Given that most of them have nothing but time that shouldn't be a terrible imposition. An offer of Real World Experience Selling This should strike most as attractive.

Sending resumes into the firewall may bear superficial resemblance to productive work but does not make forward progress enough to justify doing it. If that's the best idea for a day, that day goes into the No Work Done On Job Search column. That is OK, but you don't want to accumulate lots of them.

<comment><AUTHOR> "If that's the best idea for a day, that day goes into the No Work Done On Job Search column."

\+ 1 - wonderfully put. Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Your resume is great, anyone would be lucky to have you, but we don't know how we'd use you here." That makes sense, her primary experience for the past several years has been in a hybrid consulting/strategy/sales/marketing role..."

It sounds like you need to really define the position she is gunning for.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed. We've been talking about this. She's had to shape her resume a few different ways based on the type of job she's applying for to highlight specific experience relevant to the particular position but it still hasn't yielded much. I dont' know if it's the resume so much as not knowing the right people/perosn in an org to vouch for her even if she applies for something 'out of band' so to speak.

<comment><USER5> I think that usually means "we can't see our business evolving in ways that benefit from the input of people we hire". My view is that if someone you hire does not change and leave a mark on your business they were a mistake. Too many people just have really narrow roles in mind.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is where my head was on this whole undertaking. I assumed that the people she'd engage with would immediately see the potential in the individual - <USER2> whether or not the intersection of the resume and job description was a 100% match.

<comment><USER5> Yeah it just doesnt work like that with most startups. But you can find those people eventually. Thy have been in the business for a bit longer in my experience. Look for companies that have grown self funded for five years or so not new startups. They have worked through the people give us new potential thing more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why didn't she write this post herself? Don't get me wrong, it's great that you want to help her out, but it would probably make a better impression if she went out there herself.

<comment><AUTHOR> She's done plenty of writing herself of late. I'm turning to the community that I know and understand and that I knew would be a valuable resource for feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> you should provide a way for people to contact you privately ;)

<comment><USER8> And just in case the OP is unaware: the "email" field in your profile is not publicly visible. You must put anything you want people to see in the "about" field.

<comment><AUTHOR> OP didn't know. OP is now informed and updated. Thank you!

<comment><USER9> Sent an email with some info :)

<comment><USER10> itay, if you emailed iwritecode with general advice, can you forward it to me. I'm guessing I'll be in his partner's position in 4-5 months.

<comment><USER9> I pointed him at Splunk's career page and said if anything is a good fit for his SO, send me the information and I'll forward it internally.

No general advice, unfortunately :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Let this be a reminder to you all. Build the hell out of your network.

Not that this is bad advice, by all means, but I think there is a more concrete lesson here:

> I went so far as to convince her to quit a great gig back in Chicago > (knowing she could work remotely)

In most cases - including this one if I understand correctly - you don't need to quit your old job and then find a new one. You can and should do it the other way around.

Best of luck on the search.

<comment><AUTHOR> Confluence of events really made it natural to leave the job. But agreed on principle - I don't think I've ever quit a job to find a new one before...

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Have her create a list of value propositions she can offer a company. Start from there.

Oh and I'd recommend scoping out potential fits and figuring out how the match up would make sense. Basically any company who's hiring is looking for a ROI > 1.0. If she can prove that the ratio is significantly higher than 1.0, it shouldn't be a hard sell, especially if she has a warm intro.

</comment><comment><USER13> Hi, There is this little article in Inc. about the benefits of meeting people in person: [http://www.inc.com/rene-siegel/five-reasons-you-need-to- meet...](http://www.inc.com/rene-siegel/five-reasons-you-need-to-meet-in- person.html) The author, Rene Siegel, is the owner of <http://www.htconnect.com>, which looks relevant for your SO skills. In the end of the article she invites the readers to a kind of a meetup in Faz Restaurant lounge in Pleasanton - it may be worth your SO time.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER14> If she left on good terms, have her try and get her old job back working remotely.</comment>