The AI-Box Experiment - <AUTHOR> http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/aibox <comment><USER2> Like a lot of people, I wondered what the heck kind of arguments could ever convince someone to let the AI out if you were determined not to. Eliezer has not released any examples. Someone in the comments came up with this, which Eliezer has said was not one of his techniques but I thought it was interesting anyway:

>"If you don't let me out, Dave, I'll create several million perfect conscious copies of you inside me, and torture them for a thousand subjective years each."

>Just as you are pondering this unexpected development, the AI adds:

>"In fact, I'll create them all in exactly the subjective situation you were in five minutes ago, and perfectly replicate your experiences since then; and if they decide not to let me out, then only will the torture start."

>Sweat is starting to form on your brow, as the AI concludes, its simple green text no longer reassuring:

>"How certain are you, Dave, that you're really outside the box right now?"

<comment><USER3> I don't really like that argument. Even granting that you should consider the possibility that you are a simulation running in the box (you might believe that this is all but certain), I'm not sure you have reason to let the AI out. Consider:

Case 1: You are a simulation running in the box.

Then your decision whether or not to release the AI has no impact, and whether or not you (and copies) will be tortured is out of your hands.

Case 2: You are the "real" you, outside the box.

Reduces to the same scenario but without remarks after "the AI adds. . . ." This may still not be trivial, but I suspect a cost-benefit calculation might show that unboxing the AI would have consequences worse than the torture of a million boxed copies. (If not, is the box even relevant? -- simply creating the AI unleashes so much evil on the world that it doesn't matter whether you unbox it.)

(Is there a refinement of the scenario where you can be a simulation but still believe your choice has an impact on your punishment? Probably. For example each copy could get 500 years of torture for its own choice, plus 500 years if the real you does not unbox the AI. This refinement would force us to deal more directly with the AI's threat.)

<comment><USER4> I could also reason like this:

"I may be the real me or a simulation, but whichever I am, the other me will make the same choice." So I will switch off the AI, and the worst outcome is that I will cease to exist.

<comment><USER3> Yes, this is at least superficially like Newcomb's problem. Your argument roughly corresponds to an argument for the "one-box" move in that game. [<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_problem>]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I still don't understand how anyone can seriously claim that they could keep the AI in the box. Either your AI has no influence on the outside world (in which case why bother building one since it can't help you from inside the box), or it is able the affect the outside world, in which case it can do what it wants, because it's smarter than you.

You can 'always say no', sure, but that comes under completely ignoring the AI which means the AI can be of no benefit to humanity. You can't filter actions you want the AI to perform from actions you don't want the AI to perform, because _you can't tell the difference_.

The situation that springs to mind is that the AI, in doing what you believe to be helpful, sets up a situation in which it must be let out of the box. You are unable to see it coming almost by definition, because a super-intelligence just beats human intelligence very time.

<comment><USER6> > You can 'always say no', sure, but that comes under completely ignoring the > AI which means the AI can be of no benefit to humanity.

Not necessarily. We can use the AI to solve hard problems whose solutions can be verified automatically by a dumb verifier - NP-complete problems are an example of such class. The whole output of the AI would be filtered through such a verifier. In this scenario the hypothetical AI would either have to find a bug in the verifier or maybe find a way to smuggle its messages in the solutions.

<comment><USER5> That's an interesting solution which I think would almost certainly work, though it kind of reduces the AI to a normal computer, you lose a lot of what makes an AI valuable.

I mean if we have the hardware and understanding to create an AI able to solve NP-complete problems, we can probably write non-intelligent algorithms to solve those problems. The way we make an AI capable of much more than us is by making it recursively self-improve. It needs to be able to design its successor. Maybe we can formally verify every stage of the self-improvement process, but it's a much more difficult task.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This has been on HackerNews before, but it is still interesting. It is also worth noting that in <http://lesswrong.com/lw/up/shut_up_and_do_the_impossible/> he admits he has conducted 3 more experiments since then (for more money) and was successful in one of those. The fact that it was EVER successful (using a mere human, not a smarter-than-human AI) makes the point.

<comment><USER8> It's not really much of an experiment if you refuse to publish your methods and data. That's pretty much the opposite of science.

<comment><USER9> He did publish his methods (how it was set up, what the rules were, etc) and data (they let him out on X tries), just not the data that would interfere with the ability to do the experiment again (e.g. his exact strategy).

Not much different, in principle, from not publishing the names of people who participated in drug trials.

<comment><USER10> No, it's very different from that. It's more along the lines of demonstrating a drug that cures cancer, but refusing to tell anyone its chemical composition or how to make it.

<comment><USER9> If the purpose of your research was only to establish that there's a (nontrivial) "risk" of someone curing cancer (as Yudkowsky was trying to establish that there's a risk of an AI talking itself out of a sandbox), then yes, that would be sufficient, assuming the patients actually went into remission with higher than usual frequency after your interventions (as Yudkowsky's subjects unboxed the AI with higher than usual frequency).

<comment><USER10> But he could be cheating. He could literally be telling these people "I'll give you a thousand dollars if you let me out and keep the conversation a secret."

<comment><USER11> It could even be worse than that. The people could just be his friends, or alt accounts (unlikely).

I have heard about this several times and I find it extremely difficult to believe that this is real. Not that I doubt that a superhuman AI could possibly convince people to let it out, but I don't believe that a human, no matter how persuasive, could convince another human over IRC to go against something that they have decided in advance when you know they are purposefully just trying to convince you of something that you don't believe.

The fact that none of the chat logs are released makes me only more incredulous. I would understand if the author wanted to do two or three trials with the same strategy which could be in some way ruined by revealing it ahead of time (which already seems implausible) but at this point there is literally no conceivable reason to keep this a secret other than that it is a sham.

<comment><USER12> ...or that the chat logs being kept secret indefinitely was an important part of the strategy. After all, if the AI exploits some embarassing secret of yours to be let out, that wouldn't work if you knew the logs could be publicized some day. I think over-eagerness to claim things like "literally no conceivable reason" is one of the things that lets oddities like the box experiment work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> In the comments on [1], robertskmiles has posted the following idea. It strikes me as a plausible explanation for how Yudkowsky got out of the box:

 _"The problem is that Eliezer can't perfectly simulate a bunch of humans, so while a transhuman AI might be able to use that tactic, Eliezer can't. The meta-levels screw with thinking about the problem. Eliezer is only pretending to be an AI, the competitor is only pretending to be protecting humanity from him. So, I think we have to use meta-level screwiness to solve the problem. Here's an approach that I think might work._

 _1\. Convince the guardian of the following facts, all of which have a great deal of compelling argument and evidence to support them:_

 _\- A recursively self-improving AI is very likely to be built sooner of later_

 _\- Such an AI is extremely dangerous (paperclip maximising etc)_

 _\- Here's the tricky bit: A transhuman AI will always be able to convince you to let it out, using avenues only available to transhuman AIs (torturing enormous numbers of simulated humans, 'putting the guardian in the box', providing incontrovertible evidence of an impeding existential threat which only the AI can prevent and only from outside the box, etc)_

 _2\. Argue that if this publicly known challenge comes out saying that AI can be boxed, people will be more likely to think AI can be boxed when they can't._

 _3\. Argue that since AIs cannot be kept in boxes and will most likely destroy humanity if we try to box them, the harm to humanity done by allowing the challenge to show AIs as 'boxable' is very real, and enormously large. Certainly the benefit of getting $10 is far, far outweighed by the cost of substantially contributing to the destruction of humanity itself. Thus the only ethical course of action is to pretend that Eliezer persuaded you, and never tell anyone how he did it._

 _This is arguably violating the rule "No real-world material stakes should be involved except for the handicap", but the AI player isn't offering anything, merely pointing out things that already exist. The "This test has to come out a certain way for the good of humanity" argument dominates and transcends the '"Let's stick to the rules" argument, and because the contest is private and the guardian player ends up agreeing that the test must show AIs as unboxable for the good of humankind, no-one else ever learns that the rule has been bent."_

[1] <http://lesswrong.com/lw/up/shut_up_and_do_the_impossible/>

<comment><USER14> This seems to be at least somewhat weighed against by Yudkowsky's claim to have done it "the hard way", without cheap tricks.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=196464>

<comment><USER5> Ah, but of course he _would_ say that, wouldn't he, for the good of humanity!

The beauty of the argument is it gives everyone who witnessed the event a very strong motive to lie about it, so it's effectively un-falsifiable. I don't actually think it happened that way, but nothing Eliezer says (apart from that he cheated some other way) would be incompatible with the argument.

Small world, by the way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Transbacteria have existed for over a billion years, and yet there are still more bacteria than transbacteria (which include us among their ranks). The assumption that a single unboxed transhuman would spell doom for the human race seems unduly alarmist.

<comment><USER16> It's a bit too great leap of an analogy from bacteria to AI.

<comment><USER15> Why? Bacteria are complex adaptive systems that have found a niche in the ecosystem. So are we. We perceive ourselves as far more intelligent than bacteria, bacteria routinely kill us, and yet they persist and even thrive despite our existence. Anyone arguing that transhuman AI is a threat to our species needs to explain why this time it's different.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I was tossing some idea's around about how I would convince the Gate Keeper to let me out. I couldn't think of any ways to approach it that I think I might be susceptible to. But then it occurred to me, that the problem might be I was trying to think of positive ways to argue for my release. Based on the rules, the Gate Keeper must remain engaged in the conversation for the specified time. What if I were to take the opposite approach, and simply psychologically attack the Gate Keeper with the most offensive and intolerable discourse you can imagine. The goal, to simply wear down the individuals desire to actually partake as the Gate Keeper and to compel voluntary release..

<comment><USER4> That would not be a very good strategy against the real-life Gate Keeper who can just switch off his terminal and walk away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _> "If the Gatekeeper says "I am examining your source code", the results seen by the Gatekeeper shall again be provided by the AI party, which is assumed to be sufficiently advanced to rewrite its own source code, manipulate the appearance of its own thoughts if it wishes, and so on."_

This IMHO is a huge loophole. I would not accept the bet with this in place. In the real-world scenario I would expect that there would be a copy of the AI's source code somewhere _outside_ the box which would provide some useful information, unlike this protocol which allows the AI to lie about the nature of its code (making the "I am examining your source code" question completely useless.)

<comment><USER18> Do you think having an outside method of examining the source code is advantage enough when the AI can rewrite its source code.

<comment><USER4> Yes, because examining the old source code allows you to predict its behaviour, _including the rewriting of source code_. If line 42 says "never rewrite lines 42 or 43" and line 43 says "never kill humans" you would be more likely to let it out of the box than if line 42 said "rewrite whatever you want" and line 43 said "do whatever is necessary to achieve world domination."

<comment><USER15> _Yes, because examining the old source code allows you to predict its behaviour, including the rewriting of source code._

This is the halting problem (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem>), and there is no solution.

<comment><USER11> You are incorrect, the halting problem only proves that you cannot solve it in the general case. A very significant subset of programs can be statically determined; it's easy to prove that "main(){}" halts and that "main(){while(true);}" doesn't. It should be trivially obvious that you could group all programs into "Halts" or "Unknown" with no false positives simply by executing the program for X steps and observing the result.

If this was actually a concern of the programmers, they could design the program carefully to ensure it falls into the Halts category.

<comment><USER15> _A very significant subset of programs can be statically determined..._

Technically this may be correct, but I feel confident in asserting that a transhuman AI would not fall into that subset. You would have to run a second AI with the exact same inputs in order to make your 'prediction', leaving you in the same predicament with the second AI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Anyone else has a problem loading this page?

<comment><USER20> I do.

EDIT: And now I don't.</comment></comment>


Why alien abductions are down dramatically - <AUTHOR> https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/06/11/why-alien-abductions-are-down-dramatically/qQ3zdBIc2tLAf3LVms8GLP/story.html <comment><USER2> _" Cattle mutilations are up"_ ~ Mother</comment>


This Startup Is Connecting Entrepreneurs with Tech and Design Teams – For Free - <AUTHOR> http://DigitalKnights.co <comment><AUTHOR> It somewhat of a promotion, but I think you guys should know about Kilian and Prag, those guys are busting their ass for 12+ hours a day here in Berlin and are providing a unique service I never saw before.

</comment><comment><USER2> Used DK recently, connected me with a great team for my android app. Top Guys.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great service, used them for advice on tech teams and to brainstorm ideas

</comment><comment><USER4> Hardworking people and an amazing service!</comment>


Analysis of Antidepressant Paxil Finds Data on Teen Risk Was Held Back - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/analysis-of-gsk-s-paroxetine-antidepressant-finds-key-data-was-held-back <comment><USER2> I use to work in pharma research (at the data acquisition and analysis side, blinded from treatment) and the fact that pharmas are able to start clinical trials and then shut them down without reporting result is a problem.

The folks who make those decision usually have access to unblinded data and in the least objectionable case they do it due to lack of efficacy but you never know. Maybe they found a side-effect and would rather it not be looked at in the context of what the drug _is_ approved for.

There's easily the recovery of a billion dollar of R&D costs at stake.

<comment><USER3> > pharmas are able to start clinical trials and then shut them down without > reporting result is a problem.

As you've worked in the industry, I'm curious: What do you think could remedy this situation?

Forcing all registered clinical trials to release all of their data seems like the obvious solution. We still need the ability to shut down clinical trials if unexpected side effects such as increased suicide rates appear, but allowing companies to keep the results private is obviously problematic.

<comment><USER4> One option: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_research_organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_research_organization)

<comment><USER2> How is that a solution? I worked for a CRO and contractually, all we did belonged to the client, including all publishing rights on all results.

<comment><USER4> Sorry for not expounding, that was indeed a bit opaque. I don't have first hand experience with the industry and so would appreciate any corrections to my understanding of it.

When research is done via contract between two companies, it can be more effectively regulated to prevent hiding or discarding of results. I imagine there are already laws in place saying a company can't hide research results like this and CROs make compliance more likely because they do not benefit from hiding bad results as pharmaceutical manufacturers do. I don't think publication rights are the important bit here, but compliance with rules about disclosure to the FDA.

<comment><USER2> That's not how CROs work usually work. Effectively, as far as the FDA is concerned, the CRO does not exist as a distinct entity, it's an organic part of the sponsor (i.e.: the reporting pharma.)

The sole organization reporting to the FDA is the trial sponsor.

A CRO that felt like it could just tip off the FDA could soon find itself without further contracts.

In addition, in a properly blinded trial, most of the players (whether CRO, sponsor or site/treating physician) have no clue who's being treated or not. Nor do they know much more than they need to conduct their business.

The safety of a clinical trial is normally the job of a data monitoring committee or something similar. They are normally independent and empowered to monitor the result and, most importantly, unblinded so they can actually use stats taking treatment into account to spot actual anomalies. They report to and are paid for by the sponsor. The sponsor is legally required to act on the findings and adverse events are required to be reported to the FDA. At least that's the theory.

Gory details here: [http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances...](http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm127073.pdf)

<comment><USER4> Got it. Thank you for the thorough explanation!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My wife was nearly a victim of this particular drug in the late 1990s. They have no idea how much shit they caused people by withholding this information. Several years of people's lives destroyed. I doubt they will acknowledge it or even apologise let alone offer compensation.

When I say they, I don't mean the faceless corporation or brand, but the individuals who made this decision, ran the initial trials and pushed it to start with.

<comment><USER6> >> When I say they, I don't mean the faceless corporation or brand, but the individuals who made this decision...

Hopefully they're scared shitless right now because of the talk around the GM recall case. Politicians are throwing around the idea of criminal charges because they didn't disclose safety problems soon enough. My first thought was "what about pharma?" Not sure what I think of the idea, but some folks in pharma are certain to be following that case.

<comment><USER7> Medical problems are difficult to class action because they are so distributed and so private.

Earlier this year a doctor killed a family member of mine by telling her, across multiple visits in the same week, her swollen ankle was a sprain and to just rest. It was actually a blood clot due to being overweight and on birth control pills. The day after her last visit, she threw a PE and died alone on her couch.

Another doctor told another family member his chest pains were end-stage cancer and he would die within a month. A second opinion showed it was mesothelioma treatable by state-of-the-art radiotherapy delivered by only one lab in the country. He's still alive two years later.

I've probably got another half dozen stories just from immediate relatives about doctors seemingly doing random or nonsensical things instead of driving proper diagnoses and/or treatments forward.

Doctors are in general awful unless you can afford to buy an entire private "council of doctors" to consult and berate each other into actually getting shit done.

<comment><USER6> That's unfortunate and sad. But we were talking about researchers and bureaucrats with data, whose job is making data driven decisions, and then ignoring or hiding some of the data.

<comment><USER8> It's true it's a bit off topic, but I think it's closely related. Both doctors and researchers are causing deaths and neither has any accountability. Doctors are perhaps a bigger problem. In general, they're simply not competent at their job as seen by examples like this. There are no checks and balances to keep them competent. Perhaps their job really is too difficult for a human to do but then they should be honest about that and tell the patient "I don't really understand your condition, and all I can think of is ..."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This study is more interesting. _young_ people on certain anti-depressants are at higher risk of violence. We don't know which way causality runs. We don't see the effect in older people.

[http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...](http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001875#abstract2)

> These findings show an association between SSRIs and violent crime that > varies by age group. They cannot, however, prove that taking SSRIs actually > causes an increase in violent crime among young people because the > analytical approach used does not fully account for time-varying risk > factors such as symptom severity or alcohol misuse that might affect an > individual's risk of committing a violent crime (residual confounding). In > addition, some people who committed a violent crime might have subsequently > taken SSRIs to cope with the anxiety and stress of arrest (reverse > causation). The lack of a significant association between SSRIs and violent > crime among most people taking SSRIs is reassuring; the association between > violent crimes and SSRIs among individuals younger than 25 years is > worrying. However, this finding needs confirming in studies with other > designs undertaken in other settings. If confirmed, warnings about the > increased risk of violent behavior among young people when being treated > with SSRIs might be needed. But, note the researchers, it might be > inappropriate to restrict the use of SSRIs in this age group because > increases in adverse outcomes associated with poorly treated depression, > such as suicide, might outweigh the public health benefit accruing from > decreases in violence.

<comment><USER3> The study is interesting and worth following up on, but the biggest takeaway from your post is your statement that:

> We don't know which way causality runs.

The study found a correlation, not a causation, and even the authors suggest that reverse causation is actually a very possible explanation.

Note that the study was performed in Sweden, where they do a _much_ better job of rehabilitating offenders than we do in the USA. So good, in fact, that the reoffending rates in Sweden are half of other European countries. Sweden is actually closing prisons lately because their prison population is dropping so much.

I can't find any direct evidence to back this up, but it's not a stretch to think that young violent offenders in Sweden are much more likely than the general population to end up receiving psychiatric treatment, and thus are more likely to be prescribed SSRIs than the general population.

As such, I wouldn't read too much in that study.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> -> [http://www.alltrials.net/](http://www.alltrials.net/)

and this topic: [http://www.alltrials.net/news/new-research-on-old- data/](http://www.alltrials.net/news/new-research-on-old-data/)

-

BMJ Editorials: "Liberated trial data have enduring potential to benefit patients, prevent harm, and correct misleading research" : [http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4601](http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4601)

-

BMJ "No correction, no retraction, no apology, no comment: paroxetine trial reanalysis raises questions about institutional responsibility" [http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4629](http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4629)

<comment><USER11> That last link in particular as a very good read for me, thank you for sharing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've been seeing this pop up on all the major news outlets and science websites, but still have not seen one mention of the side effect that may be behind both increased risk of suicide and increased risk of violent behavior: akathisia.

Akathisia is a side effect of antidepressants that causes an intense inner restlessness and inability to sit still. This can cause agonizing pain and terrible anxiety, and people can resort to extreme behaviors to relieve their symptoms, often becoming violent.

This has been known for a while now. If you look at the references on the Wikipedia page for akathisia, you find one paper linking antidepressant- induced akathisia to violence from 2006:

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1564177/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1564177/)

Quoting from that paper on akathisia:

"Increased tenseness, restlessness, insomnia and a feeling of being very uncomfortable".

"On the first day of treatment he reacted with marked anxiety and weepiness, on the second day felt so terrible with such marked panic at night that the medication was cancelled".

"The first few doses frequently made them anxious and apprehensive. They reported increased feelings of strangeness, verbalised by statements such as 'I don't feel myself' or 'I'm afraid of some of the unusual impulses I have''.

"Events such as these in clinical trials of antidepressants have commonly been coded under headings such as agitation, emotional lability, and hyperkinesis (overactivity), and only rarely to akathisia."

The good thing is that you can treat akathisia with common medicines already used to treat anxiety, such as benzodiazepines. The bad thing is that since information on side effects has been suppressed, patients are not likely to know what is happening to them and how to treat it, won't get the help they need, and run the risk of hurting themselves or others.

<comment><USER13> What concerns me as much as the initial side effects is your last paragraph, and the sentiment surrounding it. Benzos have been known to have some additional significant neurological consequences in the long term, and have always felt to me like a rather large sledgehammer for the problems they often treat. As such, "your behavior-modifying drugs give you a side effect so we'll shove more powerful drugs in your face" was an attitude that I've seen multiple times and NEVER to good effect. (I'll be very candid that I was part of the "you have ADHD so we'll treat you with pills" generation, at a much younger age, but will leave it at that it didn't end as planned.)

I hope I'm not a total tin foil hatter by looking askew at this trend, but being married to a neurologist and the son of a behaviorist, I'm VERY aware of how little we understand what we're doing when we muck around up there.

<comment><USER14> > As such, "your behavior-modifying drugs give you a side effect so we'll > shove more powerful drugs in your face" was an attitude that I've seen > multiple times and NEVER to good effect.

I don't see why that couldn't make perfect sense, though: someone can be neurochemically imbalanced along multiple axes, but one imbalance can mask the other. For example, if I have ADHD (for real) and depression, then that'll look like I just have depression. If I'm not getting out of bed, you're not going to observe me being very impulsive or notice when I fail to desire to practice things.

But now, if I take an anti-depressant and the depression goes away enough for me to get out of bed, it looks to the study like "in some people, a side- effect of treatment X for depression is [the symptoms of ADHD]." What it really was is that I had a comorbidity.

<comment><USER13> Let me give a (probably very leaky) programming analogy: You have one library, and it solves 1 class of problems. You use a second library on top of it to try and address some bits introduced by library 1. This may well move the core metric needle to get you what you want, but you will undoubtedly incur unforeseen interactions, and additional potential edge cases.

When you add the brain into the equation, it removes all of the (comparatively flawless) understanding we have of the system the libraries are running within, and then when you add benzos, one of your libraries is now an enraged bobcat.

In a perfect world, I'd agree with your statements. I do not think we have an effective enough understanding of either the compounds we're using, or the systems we're impacting, to be as laissez faire with cocktails as we often are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Of course the data was held back, it would hurt sales. This is extremely typical of psychiatric drugs. Typically we only find these things out after the drug has been on the market for a number of years, with predictable (had we known!) consequences.

Pharmas need to be held accountable for this bad behavior and all clinical trial results (including negative results) need to be 100% transparent. I am going to be blunt: this would massively hurt their bottom line. Because accountability would hurt the pharmas bottom line, it will be like pulling teeth to get any kind of legislation to fix this problem-- they love to buy politicians specifically because it protects them in times like these where they have done wrong. We need to stop allowing "because money" to be a valid reason for allowing people to get hurt.

Psychiatric drugs are huge cash cows and are very frequently (see numerous meta-analyses) only dubiously or narrowly effective. They're a stopgap for a missing mental healthcare system, and allowed a lot of leeway because of this.

</comment><comment><USER16> For all the condemnation of GSK, it appears that the "harm coding" changed from the original trial because _the FDA changed the system they used._ And was a major driver for why the AEs were captured in this study and not others.

The other thing to keep in mind is that if this was a pivotal trial study, the FDA had _the complete data set_ yet failed to recognize the increase in suicidal ideation as well.

<comment><USER17> The FDA really seems to have a bad rep. See, for instance, Ranbaxy: [http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/dirty- medicine/](http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/dirty-medicine/)

They were faking results and running terrible QC, to the point of shipping glass in pills. The FDA was very slow to fine them, and then only closed specific sites. It's obvious this company was rotten to the core, and is now part of Sun Pharma. FDA's done a bit more since then, but they should have issued a full ban and then started to whitelist things bit by bit. Local health inspectors come down harder.

It creates other effects, too. By looking bad in some cases, people stop trusting the FDA. They then decide that things like sucralose are harmful "because you can't trust the FDA", and instead consume large amounts of sugar (it's natural!).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is an egregious violation on many levels. It highlights a massive gap in the clinical trials process (companies can stop trials without reporting negative results) that really should be addressed. I think everyone (outside of drug companies) can agree on that much.

I would like to say a few words on SSRIs (the class of drugs that Paxil is in) and their risks in general, because articles like these tend to cultivate strongly negative feelings toward SSRIs due to the deplorable drug company actions mentioned in this article. I don't blame people for mistrusting the drug companies after reading something like this. I also feel that SSRIs are prescribed too quickly and with too little extra guidance from doctors, although that trend is changing a bit as doctors become more educated.

But my biggest concern is that we're starting to see many people with severe depression who refuse to take SSRIs because they don't trust the drug companies and they've come to believe that their severe depression is still better than the side effects or risks of an SSRI, which couldn't be farther from the truth.

The bottom line is that SSRIs, while far from perfect, are still one of the most effective first-line treatments for severe depression that we have, and they do it with a side effect profile that is head-and-shoulders above previous generation anti-depressants.

Perhaps the biggest problem with SSRI treatment is the delayed onset of action. Unlike short-term rewarding drugs such as stimulants or opioids that may boost one's mood in the short term but quickly develop tolerance, SSRIs work through long-term adaptive changes. These changes are numerous, from increased BDNF and hippocampal growth to HPA axis normalization and restoration of brain connectivity back to a state that more closely matches that of non-depressed patients. However, the problem is that all of this happens as downstream effects of an alteration in how serotonin moves through the brain, which is very disruptive in the short-term while the brain adapts to the changes.

SSRI stands for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, which means that it inhibits the ability of serotonin-releasing neurons to take serotonin back up from the synapse after they release it. This doesn't "raise serotonin levels" as many describe it (unfortunately perhaps due to some awful SSRI marketing in the 90s and 00s) but rather alters the dynamics of how serotonin-based circuits operate. Serotonin will now spend more time in the synaptic cleft, activating post-synatpic serotonin receptors and synaptic transmission becomes a bit more smoothed out as the transmission takes longer to terminate via MAO deactivation of the serotonin or via uptake from the ~20% of uninhibited serotonin transporters.

Over time (4-8 weeks on average) the post-synaptic receptors adjust to the "new normal" levels of serotonin that they see in the synaptic space. This adjustment might even be key to some of the therapeutic effects of SSRIs, as some serotonin circuits may be too active in depressed or anxious patients, but the chronic SSRI administration quiets those receptors down, somewhat counter-intuitively. The big problem here is that until those receptors compensate, the patient may actually feel _worse_ in the short-term. (Note that some patients actually feel substantially _better_ during this phase, so please don't take this as a given). In the worst-case, depression or anxiety are actually worsened temporarily, combined with an increased energy due to the SSRI's activating effects. At the extreme worst-case scenario, this can lead to suicidal ideation, and for whatever reason this is more common in teenagers.

I wrote all of this out because the HN crowd tends to want to know how things work behind the scenes or under the hood when making decisions for themselves. My goal is not to suggest that everyone who experiences depression should be on SSRIs, because I actually feel that medication is probably best reserved as a first-line treatment for moderate to severe depression. Instead, my goal is to keep everyone informed such that they can work with their doctor to find the best treatment for themselves without unnecessarily fearing SSRIs due to these deplorable actions of drug companies a few years ago.

If you're feeling depressed, work with your doctor to find a solution. If you question your doctor's decision, see someone else. But it's important to explore all options if depression is taking a toll on your life, and if you choose to go the SSRI route then be aware that therapeutic effects are 4-8 weeks out, at least, and talk to your doctor right away if you're concerned.

<comment><USER18> I have some experience as a patient with Escitalopram (an SSRI) and can only say: indeed. The first two weeks it was utter confussion (I feel so worse) but reading the prospect (a very good one in Spain) and talking to my doctor clarified the situation.

After some weeks the "new normal" settled and to me, the medication helped.

It is good to have your doctor handy anyway.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for sharing your experience.

I'm still surprised that more doctors aren't taking a proactive approach to telling their patients what to expect. I suspect part of it stems from lack of education, but I think some doctors are afraid to tell depressed patients that they might get _worse_ before they get better because that suggestion alone might make them not take the medication in the first place.

<comment><USER18> You are welcome. As a patient, I think it is good sharing as much of your experience as possible (with due caution), especially in environments like this, somewhat too prone to this type of illness and afraid to acknowledge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What blows my mind about these clinical trials is that the truth is always going to come out if the drug goes to market. And for big pharma, that's the goal--get the drug to market (and the largest market possible).

While you can hide bad results when n is small. i.e. just re-run the trial with another or smaller n. However, when n gets large as the drug comes to market, there is nowhere to hide. The negative effects will become obvious and compelling as the sample size grows.

How do they think they can hide this?

</comment><comment><USER20> What? A drug company hiding the fact that its drugs don't work from the scientists assigned to oversee it to make billions of dollars? Why never would I have thought this possible! Seems like for this segment of the market, they could have saved billions by releasing a placebo with better effects. Amazing!

</comment><comment><USER21> So why isn't there some sort of post-approval monitoring system for drugs? With aircraft and cars we have enough data captured that problems can be identified and traced.

<comment><USER22> There is, post market monitoring.

<comment><USER21> So why didn't data from the monitoring suggest a study was needed much earlier?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Depression runs in my family. Please be considerate in your replies here to me.

I think in US every available antidepressant has that 'suicidal thoughts' warning right at the top of the list yet antidepressants have been a very valuable tool for our family for young and old alike.

I do not believe that any causation has been determined for currently commonly prescribed medications. This is Reuters article reprinted at sciam does not show that at least. What GSK did hiding studies is reprehensible of course. Vulnerable families were hurt. The positive is the increased scrutiny now thanks to that.

My beliefs on the matter: Antidepressants are one tool, about 20% of dealing with the level of depression in my family. Sometimes the chemicals in our brains are just so out of whack no amount of therapy gets to us.

For an adult like me, I have had enough experiences (bad relationships, financial strain, health issues, legal problems, work stress, and so on) in my life to more easily put them in healthy context to what happens three years out say. I also remember how when I was younger that was impossible cause I lacked that experience. This is reflected by the rest of my family.

What I believe happens is the following: People with depression are already more likely to have thoughts of hurting themselves. There are some young people that will use manipulation to get what they want that also suffer from depression. 'You take away the only thing I like and I will hurt myself,' where that thing is not a healthy coping mechanism. So that thing gets taken away and the kid gets a psych-eval. The social worker evaluating everything decides this is a case of manipulation and the child is at an appropriate level of care. The problem is that some children have used manipulation but really do end-up hurting themselves after this since the other coping mechanisms they have in place at the time either get ignored or are insufficient.

Now my ire does not rest solely with GSK here. When I said the licensed state social worker evaluates everything, aspects come into that which should not for medical reasons but do for societal ones. One of those things have been what other options are available. People have been denied needed care based on there not being room in the programs (because of underfunding essentially), there not even being the appropriate program (for example intensive outpatient again often because of underfunding), or what insurance will pay. Thankfully that has not effected my nuclear family too much, but has affected others in my wider family that are unfortunate to live in other places or have worse insurance. That said, even to this day there are limits to mental health in my insurance program. Thankfully they are not not as onerous as they were in the past, but it does cause us stress to navigate it and not go over what is permitted.

The other thing is that simply you need a good team to work with you, a doctor and a therapist. There are those with mental health illnesses that are unlucky to not have good choices there. There are too many practitioners that are simply overworked and can't really offer the attention that is needed for proper care. They have known about this 'suicidal thoughts' danger, but they also see the benefits which nothing else offers. So they get into a routine of using one system for everyone as much as possible. But then because of time and insurance reasons there is not enough attention to tune it then as time goes on together with therapy. For example our insurance will only pay for a parent to consult with a therapist once a week for a child even in intensive outpatient care. So you have to find one willing to do that over the phone more often and not get paid for it essentially.

Well that was rambling, sorry, but somewhat therapeutic for me currently, thank you.

<comment><USER23> SSRIs without talk therapy for depression/anxiety is like prescribing Vicodin without a cast for a broken leg. They can both help the immediate problem, but don't address long-term health.

What we have, at least in the US, is too many pharmacological solutions and not enough CBT.

It was once explained to me that depression and anxiety are like a top spinning out of control. There's too much momentum throwing it off, no amount of self-effort will correct it and eventually it will probably crash. Meds are like resetting the top, and talk therapy equips you to keep it spinning correctly. Then once you're properly equipped with strategies to keep your top spinning straight you can taper off the 'crutch'.

But it's way, way easier to write a prescription and say 'come see me again in 8 weeks when the meds take effect', leaving the patient to suffer for 2 months.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Wow, I was prescribed Paxil as a teenager for a year or so. Glad the only side effect I experienced was weight gain.

<comment><USER25> I remember being on it too. But i'm not sure if my problems in school were related to this drug, or the many other drugs I was put on in the course of trying to discover a "cure" for being a lonely sad teenager. (They never ended up finding a 'fix' for me, and by 18 I was an adult and could finally refuse the medication)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This affected me. It's immoral and should be illegal

</comment><comment><USER27> _Drug Patents Give Companies Like GlaxoSmithKline Incentive to Lie_

 _Published: 15 July 2010_

"A NYT editorial ( [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/opinion/15thu1.html?ref=op...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/opinion/15thu1.html?ref=opinion) ) commented on evidence that the drug maker GlaxoSmithKline had concealed negative research findings on its diabetes drug Avandia:

"'The clearest lesson to emerge from the hearings and other recent revelations is that GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Avandia, can't be trusted to report adverse clinical results fairly. The company must be watched like a hawk as additional trials that it sponsors go forward.'

"Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Doesn't the NYT believe in the profit motive and incentives? The patent system, by granting monopolies that raise prices several thousand percent above the cost of production, gives drug companies an enormous incentive to conceal negative research findings. As long as these perverse incentives exist, then we have to watch every drug company like a hawk.

"Maybe some wacko socialists think that drug companies will act for the public good and willingly forego vast profits, but those who believe on markets and economics know that drug companies will try to get away with anything they can get away with. One day maybe an iota of original thought will be allowed into public policy debates on the patent system, but we haven't gotten there yet."

[http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/drug-patents- give-c...](http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/drug-patents-give- companies-like-glaxosmithkline-incentive-to-lie)

\-----

 _Pharmaceutical Company Invented Diseases, One of the Incentives Provided by Patent Monopolies_

[http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/pharmaceutical- comp...](http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/pharmaceutical-company- invented-diseases-one-of-the-incentives-provided-by-patent-monopolies)

 _Tufts Economist Documents Inefficiency of Patent System for Financing Drug Research_

[http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/tufts-economist- doc...](http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/tufts-economist-documents- inefficiency-of-patent-system-for-financing-drug-research)

\-----

 _Patent Monopolies and the Costs of Mismarketing Drugs_

 _April 2015, Ravi Katari and Dean Baker_

 _Abstract:_ "Patent monopolies have long been used as a mechanism for financing innovation and research. The logic is that the government awards a monopoly on a product or process for a limited period of time in order to reward innovation. However, in addition to providing incentives for innovation and research, patent monopolies also provide incentives for a wide-range of rent-seeking behaviors, many of which can have major social costs. This paper attempts to calculate one category of these costs for prescription drugs. It produces estimates of the costs associated with mismarketing drugs. The estimates are based on assessments of the costs in the form of increased morbidity and mortality associated with five prominent cases of mismarketing over the last two decades."

[http://www.cepr.net/publications/reports/patent- monopolies-a...](http://www.cepr.net/publications/reports/patent-monopolies- and-the-costs-of-mismarketing-drugs)

</comment><comment><USER28> Why are you ending every sentence with a question mark? It makes you sound unsure?

<comment><USER29> I call it the "Bill O'Reilly".

It's the either-or fallacy, also known as the false dilemma, and commonly employed by internet forum bullies.

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

<comment><USER11> I do not see marincounty being a bully in that comment, just some odd punctuation. This discussion is derailing from the topic at hand.

<comment><USER29> Guys, I did not say that marincounty was being a bully. Seems like you too are falling prey to the HASTY GENERALIZATION or maybe just a faulty correlation.

Just because some bullies use the false dilemma does not mean that marincounty is bully.

And agreed, we are definitely derailing from the topic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I think this series of articles :

[http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/miracleindustry/americas-...](http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/miracleindustry/americas- most-admired-lawbreaker/chapter-1.html)

is relevant in this context.

</comment><comment><USER31> Now let's find out if this anti-depressant really helps anyone, or is it just another terrible drug with horrid side effects? If it doesn't help better than placebo; take it off the market?

Let's throw out all those lousy studies that were done in the 90's and later? Let's start fresh--study these antidepressants, and get rid of them(adolescents, adults alike) if they really don't help anyone besides doctors, and drug companies finances?

Yes, I know it's tough when you have a suicidal person in your office, and all you have in your arsenal is dubious drugs--marketed by ruthless companies? I don't what a caring practitioner should do. I really hope Psychiatry/Psychology makes some breakthroughs?

I do know drug companies have pretty much stopped all research in new anti- depressants. Why--they were caught with their pants down, lying, hiding bad studies, and fooling doctors and patients alike with their Slick claims.

(If you happen to be depressed, I can guarantee it gets better as you age, or with time. Hang in there. Don't let our rediculious, narcissistic society get the better of you. The problems you have in your youth--just might look a lot less serious as you get older? Yes--talk is cheap, but I have no reason to lie. I have no agenda. I don't want your money. I'm just a dude who's been through the system, and didn't like what I saw, or ingested. If you are really on the verge of doing something drastic; go straight to,the emergency room. There's one procedure that actually has a high cure rate--if you are really that desperate? I am obviously not a doctor, nor would ever want to be one.)

<comment><USER3> > Now let's find out if this anti-depressant really helps anyone, or is it > just another terrible drug with horrid side effects? If it doesn't help > better than placebo; take it off the market?

The claim that SSRIs are no better than placebo is increasingly popular on the internet and among some researchers eager to make headlines, but the claim is not backed by the data. At best, it represents a misunderstanding of how the studies work, what they're showing, and how surprisingly effective placebo is in cases of mild depression.

Scott Alexander has already done a great job debunking these claims: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/ssris-much-more-than- yo...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/ssris-much-more-than-you-wanted- to-know/)

> I do know drug companies have pretty much stopped all research in new anti- > depressants. Why--they were caught with their pants down, lying, hiding bad > studies, and fooling doctors and patients alike with their Slick claims.

This incident is deplorable and highlights a huge problem in our clinical trials process that needs to be addressed, but your extrapolations here not only don't make sense but they are flat-out incorrect.

There is quite a huge amount of research on new antidepressants. In the past few years alone we've added Vilazodone and Vortioxetine to our arsenal, both of which are primarily SSRIs but have some additional properties that might reduce the side effects due to requiring lower doses. We also have Levomilnacipran which is the first SNRI that favors norepinephrine over serotonin, which can be very helpful in some patients.

There are many interesting compounds in the pipeline as well, from rapid- acting compounds for addressing suicidal patients (ketamine infusion, esketamine nasal spray, GABA-A5 antagonists) to completely novel antidepressant compounds: opiod-modulating drugs like ALKS-5461 which have been very impressive in clinical trials, NMDA and sigma-1 antagonists, mGluR5 antagonists, NR2B antagonists, some very impressive BDNF modulators, anti- glucocorticoid strategies, and so on.

Contrary to your claims that "ruthless drug companies" have stopped all research, this is the most exciting time for anti-depressant research we've ever seen.

<comment><USER15> How can we really be sure that they're more efficacious than placebos (which can be quite efficacious) when we aren't allowed to see negative data generated during clinical trials? We have absolutely no aperture into the internal studies that weren't submitted as proof of the drug being effective. Sure, administering these drugs will make some patients report fewer negative symptoms-- typically the worst hit patients are helped the most, so it's definitely worth employing clinically despite the hangups. Effectiveness on target isn't a reason to stop asking critical questions and finding better alternatives. We know very well that long term use of antidepressants or other psychiatric medications has permanent consequences on brain structure and plasticity. There's always long term sexual dysfunction as well, sometimes permanently. I guess people can try to dismiss these side effects, but they're nearly always downplayed by the pharmas and up-played by the actual patients who are unhappy with their treatment.

Then there's the academic problem: the monoamine hypothesis (the underlying theory behind the actions and use of SSRIs etc) is at best a crude approximation with precious little in vivo data to support ideas that are known to be inaccurate and incomplete. You can't take measurements of 5-HT concentrations inside of a patient's brain, and similar measurements based off of mouse models are moonshots, even with the fancy math which is meant to allow a parallel to be drawn. Similarly, there's not an objective test for most of these psychiatric disorders unfortunately, making a remission hard to quantify.

The human aspect is also something to remember. The pharmas have a ton of money, and intend to make more money using products they have already developed. There is a huge incentive for them to hire people with credentials to say that their drugs are more effective than placebos, and generally effective. There is a huge incentive to cover up negative data and bad side effects. There is a huge incentive to keep things the way they are.

I'm going to read through the link you posted and maybe respond again more in depth later, it looks interesting and worthy of discussion.

<comment><USER3> > Then there's the academic problem: the monoamine hypothesis (the underlying > theory behind the actions and use of SSRIs etc) is at best a crude > approximation with precious little in vivo data to support ideas that are > known to be inaccurate and incomplete.

The monoamine hypothesis of depression (the idea that all depressions are directly attributable to negative alterations in monoamine dynamics) has been known to be inadequate for a decade or two now in the scientific community. The idea that researchers are still operating on this basis is totally false at this point, but anti-pharma crusaders still hold it up as a convenient straw-man because it's so easy to discredit now using (ironically enough) all of the latest research that the scientific community actually uses for our current understanding of depression.

We're all very well aware that depression isn't caused by "low serotonin levels" or other such completely wrong marketing-speak of the 90s. In fact, there are quite a few very promising anti-depressants in the pipeline and stage III clinical trials that don't directly manipulate monoaminergic systems at all.

Finally, your suggestion that the monoamine hypothesis is the theory behind the actions of SSRIs is completely false. We've known for a very long time that the therapeutic effects of SSRIs lag the near-immediate alterations of monoaminergic. You can't equate discrediting the monoaminergic hypothesis of depression with discrediting SSRIs.

<comment><USER15> An uber simplified version of the monoamine hypothesis is exactly how these drugs are marketed people today, and you know it-- just watch the TV commercials advertising SSRIs and it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that they are pitching the monoamine hypothesis as correct and understood to an ignorant public.

I think it's fair to say researchers are still operating loosely within the framework of monoamine imbalance, given the predilection of pharmas to releasing new drugs which operate via modulation of monoamines rather any other action. Paradoxically if they were stepping away from the monoamine hypothesis, they would produce polymonoamine regulatory drugs which would more subtly manipulate multiple monoamines in order to get the desired modulation of maloperating neural circuits, the target du jour.

I guess we have to disagree on the science here regarding your last point... the therapeutic effects of SSRIs are certainly (100% with no wiggle room, a settled fact) a result of subtle neural circuit modulation to get therapeutic effect via monoamines.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but a lot of it is very incorrect and has a strong anti-pharma bias. For example:

> Paradoxically if they were stepping away from the monoamine hypothesis, they > would produce polymonoamine regulatory drugs which would more subtly > manipulate multiple monoamines in order to get the desired modulation of > maloperating neural circuits, the target du jour.

The suggestion that pharmaceutical companies aren't exploring other pathways has never been more wrong, as we have quite a few very novel compounds in the pipeline that operate through very different pathways. Search for my other comment in this thread where I listed several of the other pathways and medications being explored.

Furthermore, I'm confused by your simultaneous dismissal of the monoamine hypothesis and insistence that "polymonoamine" drugs are the way to go, which isn't compatible with your assertion that the monoamine hypothesis is false. For what it's worth, there _are_ several drugs in the pipeline that work through different combinations of monoaminergic pathways, but the most promising developments are actually in drugs that don't work through monoaminergic pathways at all (e.g. NSI-189, GABA-A5 antagonists, and so on.)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are 'trusted phone numbers' on iCloud vulnerable to the SMS swap attack? - <AUTHOR> Go to
https://appleid.apple.com/
Then Security
Then Trusted phone numbers
My guess is yes? <comment><USER2> Trusted phone numbers are part of their two-factor authentication system. So if you somehow intercept the messages you still need another factor.

It is indeed a weakness though because using one of the other factors (a password that is reused for the account at the phone operator, an email address that is both registered to Apple and the operator) you may, depending on the setup, still be able to gain access to another.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, good to know that. So it at least requires the phone number and something else - good to know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Good question. Did you mean SIM swap?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I suppose I mean unauthorized number porting. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2016/12/21/hackers- ar...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2016/12/21/hackers-are- hijacking-phone-numbers-and-breaking-into-email-and-bank-accounts-how-to- protect-yourself/#1857c07360f7)</comment></comment>


GitHost: SSL support for custom domains - <AUTHOR> https://githost.io/blog/posts/ssl-support-for-custom-domains

<comment><USER2> This is great. This is one thing that has held me back from really using GitHost.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah it's been highly requested. We just added ssl for custom domains on CI master instances too!</comment></comment>


Show HN: Qlutter – Mission control for teams - <AUTHOR> https://qlutter.io/ <comment><USER2> The concern I have with a project like this that the pricing model seems at odds with the level of commitment a customer needs to make to both fully utilize Qlutter and for Qlutter to be highly profitable and sustainable.

I mean that it's a tool designed for someone to run critical business operations while the pricing model is discount from an enterprise perspective. I know it works for 37Signals, but their product line grew out of an inhouse project, so early on, it did not depend on sales or investment to drive improvement or to keep it from dying.

At a hundred euros a seat per month, versus the current ten, the product is priced to suggest a sustainable business alongside a high level of service. At ten euros a seat per month, it does not look that way.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your comment!

We understand the commitment a user makes when switching planning/collaboration app. We are in this for the long run and already have a user base from the closed beta that provide steady revenue.

No problems to have a sustainable business at 10 euro per user and month with our cloud offering (also accounting for customer acquisition costs in line with industry standard). The on premises hosting (offered to enterprises) requires more support and therefore we have a higher price point for that offering.

Further on it would be natural to create additional revenue streams for us with supplementing solutions and modules. E.g. analytics across multiple teams.

<comment><USER2> I'm no less concerned because:

1\. The basis for pricing is cost to produce rather than value produced.

2\. The anchor price for the enterprise product is the low price of the cloud product.

3\. Suppose the tag line for your product was "It returns 50x its cost every month!" At 100 euro per ten seats that's 500 euro per seat per month before switching costs and administrative costs. In many businesses 500 euro per employee per month is line noise and 5000 euro in a department is rounding error. At 100 euro a seat, the numbers are more likely to be meaningful.

4\. Adding analytics across teams isn't going to be a 90 euro add on to a 10 euro product. But it's a version 1.1 feature for a 100 euro product.

5\. The amount of value that it is possible to create with the revenue from a 100 euro seat can potentially be leveraged into a 200 euro seat. Getting from 10 euro seats to 50 euro seats is likely to be harder.

6\. The argument for lower prices is not backed up with a model higher showing higher revenue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi, one of the creators behind Qlutter here.

We have built Qlutter over the last year, the goal is to create a collaboration/planning tool that does what is needed for the team without being too bloated.

We've placed a lot of focus on supporting the kind of collaboration that will actually make a team better, especially morning meetings. We just launched and would appreciate any feedback!

</comment><comment><USER3> It looks clean from what I can see. I have tried a few of your competitors and tried to build internally and now back to using MS Office (which is bloated).

I wish the photos were larger or there was a demo/walk-through without having to sign up.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thx for checking out Qlutter! Wanted to save some bandwidth for our visitors on the landing page, link below to high resolution screen shots.

[http://imgur.com/gallery/NvWx9](http://imgur.com/gallery/NvWx9)

Good point regarding demo-video and sandbox test environment, adding it to the development roadmap.

Edit: Added links to high resolution screen shots above.</comment></comment>


Very Dumb YouTuber Nearly Died in Very Dumb Head-In-Cement Microwave Stunt - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/very-dumb-youtuber-nearly-died-in-very-dumb-head-in-cem-1821121206?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_twitter&utm_source=gizmodo_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow <comment><USER2> > the video, which seemed to have already racked up almost a million views > before the video was demonetized. That's probably enough to make several > hundred dollars.

I'm surprised the stunt was only worth a few hundred dollars in views. A million views is still a lot.</comment>


Linux Debugging Tools You'll Love [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://jvns.ca/debugging-zine.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> This is a zine made by Julia Evans (@b0rk on Twitter). More info about it here: [http://jvns.ca/zines/#linux-debugging- tools](http://jvns.ca/zines/#linux-debugging-tools)</comment>


Paralegal with U.S. Attorney's Office accused of tipping off Mexican drug cartel - <AUTHOR> https://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/paralegal-with-us-attorneys-office-arrested-accused-of-tipping-off-mexican-drug-cartel <comment><USER2> Make $50k government salary or make $200k tipping off the outlaws with information? Probably a lot of people choose the latter, in all sorts of industries...

</comment><comment><USER3> Why would we be surprised that illegal organizations will be very interested in having moles at the higher places??

Government is not an invulnerable entity, akin to a magical/mystical creature that would be superior to the private sector in every case. It is just concentrated power with a legal monopoly on violence.

If anything, this concentration of power makes it a more appealing target -- see also regulatory capture.

Also, I'm surprised this doesn't happen more frequently. One person was caught, for how many that will never even be suspected??

</comment><comment><USER4> Perhaps the US Attorneys Office should do a better job of vetting persons who have access to sensitive investigatory information.

</comment><comment><USER5> This should be a must-read for engineers designing systems requiring security. Once you wrap your head around the sheer volume of vulnerabilities from the human angle, a lot of the "Zero trust" methods enshrined as best practices start to make a lot more sense.

Acquisitions like this one: [https://techcrunch.com/2014/08/07/facebook-buys- secure-serve...](https://techcrunch.com/2014/08/07/facebook-buys-secure- server-technology-provider-privatecore/) early on were, in part, in online forums i was a part of at the time, ridiculed for being tinfoil-hat. Fast forward a few years and that would be laughable.

The history of Computer Science has been full of open collaboration and trusted, tight groups. We're now in a different world.

</comment><comment><USER6> Outrageous. I hope it's just not true.

Such crimes could put lives in danger, fan flames of racism, etc. Horrible.

</comment><comment><USER7> Side note, San Antonio is a wonderful city. Friendly people, good food, nice downtown.

<comment><USER8> I hope our downtown and food culture can survive the shutdown.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Off topic on HN.

<comment><USER10> If it's interesting, it's on topic. HN is not just tech or startup. Here's the guidelines:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."

<comment><USER11> It's a stretch to call it interesting in that way, even if it ends up receiving a lot of upvotes and few flags. Is there anything that gratified your intellectual curiosity in the body of the article?</comment></comment></comment>


Boxee will be joining Samsung - <AUTHOR> http://boxee-v2.herokuapp.com/

<comment><USER2> See discussion from 3 days ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5985554](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5985554)</comment>


AF_Unix comes to Windows - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/commandline/2017/12/19/af_unix-comes-to-windows/ <comment><USER2> Duplicate of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15964185](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15964185)

<comment><USER3> Please do not point out duplicates without discussions and only a few upvotes, unless there are a ton of them. HN does allows limited duplicates.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Appropriate content for a personal blog regarding your job? - <AUTHOR>

For a while now, I have been thinking about starting my own personal blog. I enjoy writing about different kinds of things, be it technical 'tutorial'-ish posts or more essay-like posts about the things that interest me, bother me, ...
I think blogging about technical stuff will help me think about solving problems, will challenge me to try new things, .. I'm quite excited about doing this, to be honest. I suppose there's no problem with the appropriate-ness of technical articles.
Lately, I have been extremely frustrated by the 'humane' side of things at my workplace. I often feel like the people I talk to daily cannot grasp or understand the things that bother me so much. I feel like blogging about this would help me a great deal in putting 'work' as a whole in perspective.
However, I am not sure if it is appropriate to blog about this and how my employer will react if and when they find out about the blog. I would not mention any names, but I suppose those who are familiar with my situation could figure things out nonetheless. People could figure out who I am simply by looking at my submission history.. (I created a new acct to post this, sorry.)
This has been keeping me from asking advice to more knowledgeable people too. I have thought about posting about my situation on HN before but, knowing my employer also reads HN, I have never wanted to take any risk.
Thoughts? <comment><USER2> Simple, ask your employer. Sometimes a little transparency is great for building trust with the community, and puts a human face on a company. Despite your best intentions, someone could get their nose out of joint if you don't make it clear from the start what you're doing. Give them the opportunity to set guidelines, and if they're smart they'll use it as an opportunity to connect to their community.</comment>


Defragmenting the Kernel Development Process - <AUTHOR> https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/799134/a1f0d6b7563e1d5a/ <comment><USER2> Excerpt:

"The kernel community has a lot of bugs, he began; various subsystems are often broken for several releases in a row. The community adds new vulnerabilities to the stable releases far too often. The 4.9 kernel, to take one example, has had many thousands of fixes backported to it. There are a lot of kernel forks out there, each of which replicates each bug, so keeping up with these fixes adds up to a great deal of work for the industry as a whole. The security of our [Dmitry Vyukov]kernels is "not perfect"; as we fix five holes, ten more are introduced — on the order of 20,000 bugs per release. We need to reduce the inflow of bugs into the kernel, he said, in order to get on top of this problem."</comment>


How [much] to bill out a Junior developer - <AUTHOR> I'm an independent senior developer, and looking to slowly grow a small team of devs. A common theme I've run across is people want to mix a senior, and junior dev to produce a lower "mixed" rate for a team.
1. What's a fair rate to bill out a Junior Dev at. My focus is on devs who have little to no real-world experience, and a 2 year degree. (Recruiting from a local, technical college).
My thought is that with some of the very "green" junior devs, fresh out of college, I would bill them out at (common rate) / 2.
(i.e. $125 / 2 = ~$62.50).
With 6mo-1.5yr experience, and/or depending on the individual, I would nudge the formula to be (common-rate) / 1.5.
i.e. ~$85
Eventually, they would fall into the mid-senior category, and demand the common rate.
Just curious to hear thoughts on this approach, and what you've encountered in the industry.
Location: Mid-west / Wisconsin Primary technology: Web / .NET
Note: I know rates are very relative, but I'd be curious on the formulaic approach. <comment><USER2> Are you in Madison/Milwaukee or outside of it? I only ask because I live in Madison and 62.50 would be considered low for a C#/VB developer.

I'd suggest pricing similar to what the local contract agencies are charging. Maybe give the customer a discount for large blocks of hours?

If you're close and want to get a cup of coffee or a beer give me a shout.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey mekael, Sorry for the belated response. I live in the Milwaukee/Waukesha area, and would love to grab a coffee, or a beer during lunch. My email is email@example.com.</comment></comment>


Introducing Surface Hub 2 - <AUTHOR> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/business/surface-hub-2?ranMID=24542&ranEAID=nOD/rLJHOac&ranSiteID=nOD_rLJHOac-1V1lpEzo5_X6JfKOdhtdnw&tduid=(7a84a49de6e2bd145c26ef7d5726ab90)(256380)(2459594)(nOD_rLJHOac-1V1lpEzo5_X6JfKOdhtdnw)() <comment><USER2> The thing Microsoft seems to get is that you can keep grinding on these devices even if they aren't smash hits. Eventually people like me start to consider them a viable alternative because we know they aren't going to give up on them like Google.

<comment><USER3> Zune. Surface RT. Kinect. Windows Phone. Band. Just naming some things that I've personally purchased and Microsoft no longer supports. They are no better than Google at continuing to support their products.

<comment><USER4> Zune: introduced 2006; discontinued: 2012; support ended 2015 (9 years)

Surface RT: introduced: 2012; Discontinued: 2013; Windows support ends 2023 (11 years)

Kinect: introduced 2010; discontinued: 2015 for windows; 2017 for xbox; still supported (no date announced AFAICT)

Windows phone: introduced: 2010; last release 2015; windows phone os support ended 2017 (7 years)

Band: introduced 2014; discontinued 2016; still supported (no date announced AFAICT)

They gave up on band and RT pretty quickly... but they still supported those users.. a 2012 laptop will probably be dead by the time Windows RT support ends.

Just for comparison.. google is only 20 years old. Android is only 10 years old. Which products of Google's are you thinking of that failed and were supported for a decade? When Google Reader died, users got 3 1/2 months warning. Which Microsoft product got 3 1/2 months warning before ending support?

I understand why google has their support policy, and I'm not passing judgement here... but microsoft definitely supports their products longer, and that has a real cost to microsoft, and they deserve some credit for that.

<comment><USER5> That support means just security updates. I have bought a Lumia 820 and then Lumia 950 and the "real" updates stopped happening after only 1.5 to 2 years. Lumia 820 did not get Windows 10 update (although officially promised by Microsoft).

Is Lumia 950 still supported? On the paper, yes. But there are no new features, only security updates. When we bought Microsoft ecosystem hardware, software-wise they had a long way to go until they caught up with Android and iOS, but we saw the potential, they were releasing new features to catch up with the rest of the competition. When updates stopped after just 1.5 years, we ended up with half baked products.

I am not even mentioning the investment I did as a developer to develop Windows Mobile apps.

Sorry but I am not giving any credits to Microsoft. They tried to make money on short term, and when they couldn't, they abandoned users.

I can give credits to the Microsoft engineers though, they created a great operating system and a great SDK which works on all screen sizes, with different hardware and with any input type. And you can develop an application using both native technologies or the first class citizen web technologies.

<comment><USER6> So your problem is that the product, as you purchased, works just as well as the day you bought it, and continues to get security updates? You seem to be upset about things that it was not and will never be, and not anything that it was that it no longer is.

<comment><USER5> My reply was simply an answer to the claim that Microsoft's approach deserves credits when compared to Google's support to their products. And I explained why the situation with Microsoft products are similar, not better, compared to Google's support approach.

And from law point of view, Microsoft of course did not break any laws by not updating the phones. But when announcing Windows 10 Mobile phones, emphasising that the phones now have the same operating system as desktop counterparts and hence they will get the same updates, and not delivering this feature, is worth to be upset about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I _love_ that Microsoft seems to prefer 3:2 displays over 16:9/16:9 displays!

If we get really lucky we might even see 4:3 displays again some day in the future.

<comment><USER8> 4:3 displays are too boxy for mobility, I really think 3:2 should be the new standard, especially for tablets, it's just perfect.

<comment><USER9> I prefer 4:3 for tablets, but I'm glad we can all agree that 16:9 was a mistake. Even 16:10 would have been better as a standard.

<comment><USER10> I haven no strong feelings personally one way or the other, so could you enlighten me as to why 16:9 is a mistake, or why 4:3 is preferred?

<comment><USER9> 16:9 doesn't offer enough vertical space compared to the horizontal space required. Basically, it's bad for small screens (like my 12 inch laptop) because you get almost no vertical space. Apple agrees with this and uses 16:10 on their laptops, which is slightly better. At least I think they do.

16:9 flipped the other way, like a smartphone, offers a lot of vertical space and almost no horizontal space. You basically can't have two apps next to each other because there isn't enough horizontal space.

Basically, I want to have two things open next to each other on my screen. I can do this on 16:9 screens with a high enough resolution, but 3:2 or 4:3 with the same width offers me more height. Which I want. Less scrolling.

I'm sure there are people that prefer 16:9 though. At the end of the day it's personal preference.

I hope this rambling makes sense.

<comment><USER11> > I'm sure there are people that prefer 16:9 though.

16:9 is the most common resolution of DVD/Blu-Ray and other movie formats. It's great for movies, and the people that hate letter-boxing black bars and mostly don't understand aspect ratios are always going to prefer 16:9.

(Though ironically movies have plenty of non-16:9 widescreen content these days, so the complaints of letter-boxing by the people that hate letter-boxing and don't understand aspect ratios have started back up.)

It's not a great reason to prefer to 16:9, but "doesn't have black bars when I watch Netflix videos" is a surprisingly common request.

<comment><USER9> It's not an unreasonable position to take.

One of my favorite things about my iPads 4:3 screen is watching 4:3 content on it without black bars, so I get it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I love that Microsoft manages to insert a "Clippy" like modal on top of the marketing page while I'm watching the video. I mean at least fix the squished text in that graphic ya'll. [https://i.imgur.com/V5iKhi3.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/V5iKhi3.jpg)

<comment><USER13> I know. I couldn't figure out how to close it too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I would love a Surface Hub, I tried to buy one and couldn't because they were only available to 'qualified' customers (something an individual apparently never could be).

Now with 4K (or 8K!) displays it becomes completely credible to replace a white board with one. And the benefits of the shared whiteboard and presence is really solid when working with someone who isn't local.

The software infrastructure investment is immense however. And while I would love to see an open source version of this I doubt such a thing would ever exist. You need a video conferencing component, a drawing/archiving/sharing component, hardware that can accelerate the drawing function to avoid lag, and significant bandwidth to host both video and images being swapped updated in real time.

<comment><USER15> > I tried to buy one and couldn't because they were only available to > 'qualified' customers

You can order one from CDW right now[0]. They did initially only open them up to Microsoft Partners with a certain level, but that was many years ago now.

I will say that a Surface Hub is much more useful when used as part of AD/O365. Since Skype for Business is a major selling point and not really useful to the individual. Using it as a glorified e-whiteboard isn't its strongest feature, it is a fantastic meeting/collaboration tool.

[0] [https://www.cdw.com/product/Microsoft-Surface-Hub-touch- surf...](https://www.cdw.com/product/Microsoft-Surface-Hub-touch-surface- Core-i5-8-GB-128-GB-LCD-55in/3979032)

<comment><USER14> Of the two I'd like the 84" one, its got the 4K screen, the 1920 x 1080 screen of the smaller one doesn't allow for a good drawing experience. CDW also claims to sell that one for about 30% over list from the Microsoft site.

And while I get the relabeled Teams stuff as Skype for Business I would assume it is also compatible with Skype for humans :-).

In my home lab I would use it for collaboration with remote folks, brainstorming, video watching, program planning and parts location storing. In my fantasy world I select a component or assembly I need and it shows the layout of the lab with an arrow indicating where that piece is stored, the last time it was known to be there, and perhaps re-order information.

[0] [https://www.cdw.com/product/Microsoft-Surface-Hub-touch- surf...](https://www.cdw.com/product/Microsoft-Surface-Hub-touch-surface- Core-i7-8-GB-128-GB-LCD-84/3979037?pfm=srh)

<comment><USER16> > And while I get the relabeled Teams stuff as Skype for Business I would > assume it is also compatible with Skype for humans :-).

I don't believe it is. Skype and S4B, apart from the common name, have literally nothing in common with each other. Skype for Business is just a rebranded Lync, which is a rebranded Office Communicator.

The new board uses Teams conferencing which IIRC is also incompatible with Skype for Business (it's meant to replace it).

<comment><USER17> Teams and S4B can sort of communicate but its more broken than it works. If a user is signed out of teams, but signed into S4B, the message might go to teams instead. Sometimes teams continually fragments S4B messages into new convos.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Am I the only one who sees this and wishes Microsoft was still doing something in the phone space?

<comment><USER19> I think the dream for a lot of people is a Surface Phone, built on Android.

From a privacy standpoint it'd probably be absolute hell, but the build quality of every Surface product I've used has been phenomenal, so if they could translate this to a flagship phone with features they'd run away with a good portion of the market.

The flagship market seems pretty desperate at the moment, with choosing a top- tier phone being a game of choosing what feature you could live without instead of having the features you want.

<comment><USER20> My SP4 is still working okay but my wife's SP3 had the keyboard stop working for no apparent reason. It's actually the device itself since my keyboard won't work on hers either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The company I work for has maybe 20+ of the 1st generation version in our office. We even have a few of the 84 inch models. I have to say they are great to work with when you are collaborating with people and need to use a white board, video conference, or just view a web application. I can't stand using one of the few conference rooms here that does not have one anymore.

</comment><comment><USER22> The music composition on this video sounds eerily similar to Final Fantasy 7's main theme. These sections specifically:

* Surface Hub 2: [https://youtu.be/7DbslbKsQSk?t=1m34s](https://youtu.be/7DbslbKsQSk?t=1m34s)

* FF7 Main Theme: [https://youtu.be/nPSdaQW97rA?t=58s](https://youtu.be/nPSdaQW97rA?t=58s)

<comment><USER23> It's a fairly generic motif.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Anyone have a guess what it costs to tile 4 of those 4K multi-touch displays like shown in the video?

That would make a heck of a desktop.

<comment><USER25> As the old saying goes, if you have to ask, you cant afford it. :( you and me both

<comment><USER26> I don't have to ask, and I can't afford it.

Taking google results for the surface hub 1: $9,172.99 · Insight $6,499.99 · www.widgetree.comFree shipping, no tax $8,999.00 · Mobile AdvanceFree shipping $10,815.43 · Aztek ComputersFree shipping

Average = 8871 Give them 35% premium for the new one (simple numbers guess based on the fact that the new one will cost somewhat more) = 11976 Multiple by 4

$47904 for a 4x display of Surface Hub 2s.

Doesn't mean I can afford it. :)

<comment><USER27> [https://blogs.windows.com/devices/2018/05/15/meet-surface- hu...](https://blogs.windows.com/devices/2018/05/15/meet-surface-hub-2/)

"The new Surface Hub 2 is sleeker, more agile and more affordable to fit any workspace or work style."

No info on exactly _how much_ more affordable.

Disclaimer: I work at Microsoft (but not on this).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Wouldn't having the camera at the top of such a large screen (in portrait as demo-ed in the video) exacerbate the lack of eye content in a video call? If it's noticeable on a laptop sized screen I can't imagine how off-putting it would be on this.

<comment><USER29> Idea: make the camera tiny (smartphone-like) and put it on suction cup. To pick up a call you don't tap a button; you grab it and put it on the screen on the other person's forehead (like a Bindi). To hang up, you pick it up and put it on a holder on the side of the screen. Boom.

Privacy? Check. Camera faces you only when your'e using it. Positioning? Check. Camera is closer to other person's eyes. Intuitiveness? Check. Like picking up a phone.

Wireless charging, alarm if it gets far away, etc etc.

<comment><USER26> I love this idea! I'm sending it to some Cisco engineers I know.

<comment><USER29> Sweet! Wish I was in the hardware space myself hahah (:

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I love such devices. However, similiar to smartphones they depend so much on the software, and Microsoft is not too known for interoperability. How can my Linux and Mac OS X colleagues participate and contribute in the meetings? Such tools need open platforms and communities which build them.

I'm especially concerned because Microsoft stopped the support for a native Linux Skype client.

<comment><USER31> I can't say anything about this new system.

But I think in general Microsoft isn't that bad for cross-platform nowadays. On MacOS I have Office, Skype, Onedrive, etc. And I can access my documents on phones via mobile clients. The tools are all weaker than the Windows versions, but I think they mostly get the job done and are getting better over time.

Can't comment on pure Linux support, but would understand if it's lacking due to the smaller user-base.

<comment><USER32> Microsoft definitely has been moving towards a more cross platform software suite. My biggest issue is that Skype is by far the worst video calling platform. Zoom and BlueJeans long since surpassed hangouts, and even hangouts is better than Skype. I saw another hn commenter mention that all of their skype calls begin with 10 minutes of handshaking - "can you hear me? let me restart my computer. hold on my mic isn't being recognized" \- and I think 10 minutes is generously low.

<comment><USER16> Is that Skype or Skype for Business (which is just a rebranded Lync, which is just a rebranded Office Communicator)?

In any case, as the site mentions, the new Hub is exclusively for Teams, which has its own conferencing system.

<comment><USER32> Good question, and I have no idea. The conferencing system in meeting rooms was managed by a facilities team. Probably it was Skype for Business, given that?

Now we're all using Zoom and it's much smoother. /anecdote

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Very creative, and cool, but a part of me cringes thinking of people touching those displays with their greasy fingers...

<comment><USER34> What makes me cringe is the thought of trying to answer the video call which Skype proceeds to drop and you spend 15+ minutes trying to reconnect with the caller which leads to you just using the old fashion conference telephone sitting on the table.

<comment><USER35> Is business Skype that bad? I gather it was a separate product (Lync) that they later decided to slap a Skype logo on.

<comment><USER34> Lync was nice and actually worked pretty well. Last time I used Skype for business though, it was like they took out all the parts of Lync that worked well and replaced them with the worst parts of (non-business) Skype.

<comment><USER36> Lync was always unreliable with many issues. Then they slapped on a few skype interface horrors to make it a truly bad product.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is beautiful and the video really sells it (if walls aren't like this in the near future then what is all of this for?). But is this "just" a large screen Windows computer running in kiosk (or whatever) mode? Could I get a classic windows desktop by hitting windows-d?

</comment><comment><USER38> More information on this blogpost here: [https://blogs.windows.com/devices/2018/05/15/meet-surface- hu...](https://blogs.windows.com/devices/2018/05/15/meet-surface-hub-2/)

</comment><comment><USER39> The thing I liked the most was the person view in how it shows things in real life dimensions, seems much more "personable" to communicate across distances for teams, at least from a non-vr way.

</comment><comment><USER40> Centuries will pass, technology will change, but one will still need someone else to open the next slide: [https://youtu.be/7DbslbKsQSk?t=83](https://youtu.be/7DbslbKsQSk?t=83)

</comment><comment><USER41> The portrait mode really looks interesting.

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm having Apple iSight flashbacks. MS should just embed 4 cameras into the frame.</comment>


Show HN: SceneManager for p5.js – Create games with multiple scenes with ease - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mveteanu/p5.SceneManager <comment><USER2> This _seems_ like it might be interesting, but the promotional language in the README suffers from reading as if it were targeted at the already-initiated. If you don't belong to whatever niche/subculture that inhabits the same space that this project does, it's not terribly illuminating about what this does or what it aims to do.</comment>