The Ketamine Chronicles, April 2019 - <AUTHOR> https://humanparts.medium.com/30-years-of-depression-gone-3dffafabc7cf <comment><USER2> I did a bunch of ketamine and mdma in the early 2000s. They're miracle substances and they changed my life in positive ways that I can't even begin to talk about, but they are not cures for depression. Eventually the effect wears off and all of the stuff that bothered you before will start bothering you again.

If you don't figure out how to give your life meaning, the drugs aren't going to do it for you. They'll give you time and space to do it, but you really need to make the best of the opportunity while you have it.

This guy's blog post sounds exactly like a hundred conversations I had with people I met at raves. We all knew that it was making our lives better, but most of us were broken people going into the scene and at best a lot of us were slightly less broken coming out of it.

Someone I'm sure is going to say that it's a medicine and not a party drug now because a nurse is giving it and someone wrote a prescription, but it's the same drug with the same effect. I'm not saying that to be judge-y. I think people should have a right to improve themselves or have fun anyway they want to without hurting any body. Just that if this thing cured depression, there would have been a whole lot of ravers that were permanently cured and I know from personal experience that it isn't the case.

I'd really hate to see people try this thinking they're going to be happy and be even worse off after the fog settles in again.

<comment><USER3> Your anecdata doesn't match up with current ketamine research. The protocol for depression is really different than using it for a party drug. Same for mdma for things like ptsd- it's paired with therapy that helps you work through things. You're right that just taking drugs isn't enough, but please don't discount medical treatment that changes the lives of many people.

<comment><USER2> Rubbing 'medical' on something doesn't magically change how it works. And it's pretty much impossible to take mdma and not engage in talk therapy. I had conversations that went from favorite djs to the time they were raped in middle school with complete strangers. And then you go out and dance. I don't think a hospital is going to improve the situation much. It's just a loophole people have to go through to make it socially acceptable.

<comment><USER3> What? Talking about hard or traumatizing experiences is NOT the same as working through trauma with a trained therapist. It's great, and it can be helpful, but just talking about something is the first step.

Also, I don't why y'all are acting like folks who use things like mdma and ketamine in a medical/therapeutic context haven't also used them recreationally. It's different, because the environment, intention, and often the dosage are all different. You taking drugs at a party is not the same, and using absolutist language to say otherwise when there's actual medical research that contradicts you is an odd choice.

<comment><USER4> Do therapists actually contribute? I'm sceptical. For me, I got so much of the value from taking MDMA and just knowing my friends were around and actually loved me. Ended so much anxiety. Between Molly and Acid and these folks, I think I'm pretty much safe for the rest of my life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This was written a month after the treatment ended. I would love to hear how the author is doing now, because all of my research has conluded that this therapy -- while really powerful -- does not make a lasting and permanent change in your brain.

I would really like to give it a shot -- but for a couple thousand bucks for the initial series of treatments, I would hope that the change is more lasting.

<comment><USER6> It holds for a few months. During that time you can get your shit together. Try to figure out what is triggering the depression and try to change that thing. If you fail you can just do it again.

<comment><USER7> In many cases, depression is not triggered by some external influence.

<comment><USER8> The issue with saying this is we should probably have many words for different types of depression.

Probably not only split on this one variate (externally or internally triggered), but it means that certain types of depression are usually triggered externally and certain types not externally.

It's like saying that "in some cases, a broken leg is not triggered by some external influence". Sure, you could develop some bone density issue and break a leg when walking normally, so we tend to distinguish treatment of these cases--we may recommend a more permanent solution for someone who is prone to breaking their leg.

How can we even falsify your statement? To do so would require self-reports or some sort of real-time 24/7 measurement of the brain, the first doesn't really falsify anything, and the second is not very viable at the present.

Self-reports can easily lie. They also may simply not remember, or be in denial.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Long term use of ketamine can cause irreversible damage to the urinary tract. I'm not how well it's been studied, and I doubt it's known how much and use for how long causes this damage. It is best to be careful.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4544340/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4544340/)

[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160318090442.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160318090442.htm)

[https://www.nursingtimes.net/clinical-archive/medicine- manag...](https://www.nursingtimes.net/clinical-archive/medicine- management/addressing-ketamine-bladder-syndrome-19-06-2011/)

<comment><USER10> This is very true for long term recreational doses and is often overlooked by many.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I took twice, three times racemic pills and then a couple grams of esketamine in five or six sessions, everything illegal.

Racemic was funny. Esketamine is extra-weird, I felt the movie on tv was real and I was chatting with Antonio Banderas, an undercover CIA operative. Later my body felt as a paper balloon. No K-hole though.

A year later: I haven't smoke weed since. I just got uninterested. No more ketamine, but I'm considering buying again. For months after the binge, alcohol didn't get me drunk, _that_ was weird. Anxiety, a little better. Block was no better.

</comment><comment><USER12> I've been on prescribed ketamine for over a year and I can't even begin to articulate the improvement I've made.

<comment><USER13> What is the protocol you are using (dose, frequency, method)?

<comment><USER12> 1.85mg/kg injection IM once or twice a month in office, then 200mg sublingual or 80mg intranasal at home twice a week. Improvement has been steady for over a year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Any given document, or event in reality, can be read (interpreted) from a wide variety of perspectives, often with completely contradictory conclusions.

Individuals reading this article from a purely logical, scientific materialist perspective, may form drastically different conclusions than those reading from the wide variety of different possible perspectives. And that's fine, it is the nature of humanity. But it seems very plausible to me that an inability (or _unwillingness_ ) of people to interpret ideas from multiple perspectives, is not fine.

There are many problems in the world (yes, I know, this has always been the case... _from a binary perspective_ , but that is only one perspective on it). The world is complex, and getting more complex. Perhaps the manner in which we currently evaluate the world lacks the dimensional complexity required to manage it in a reasonably optimum way?

If(!) this was the case, what might that look like? What would discussions about reality look like? Is it _possible_ that we might be in a situation similar to this? How might we know?

<comment><USER14> What that I've written is offensive or incorrect downvoters? You have a _sense_ of righteousness, but do you have any _courage_? How do you know your ideas are correct if you never put them to the test? Hiding in a mob seems like a waste of something precious.

<comment><USER15> I'm curious, how is your comment related to the article? Or in other words, don't you think your comment could be posted in any other entry and would be equally (ir)relevant? It's not that it's incorrect, more like it's kind of non-sequitur-ish, as if you omitted a part of it that connects the comment to what it's commenting on.

<comment><USER14> My comment could indeed be posted in many other threads and be relevant, but not equally relevant.

I felt this article did a well above-average job communicating details about what alternate states of consciousness are like, and how it can fundamentally change your thinking, in at least a semi-permanent manner. However, most of the comments on the article seem to be written very much from a scientific materialist perspectives, and are often utterly lacking in epistemic humility.

Take the very first sentence from the top voted comment in the thread:

>> I did a bunch of ketamine and mdma in the early 2000s. They're miracle substances and they changed my life in positive ways that I can't even begin to talk about, but _they are not cures for depression. Eventually the effect wears off and all of the stuff that bothered you before will start bothering you again_.

This is fairly representative of many comments. Some obvious questions:

\- how does he know this to be true?

\- it may be pedantically true that they aren't 100% cures on their own for every single person, but might they get us 75% or more of the way there for most people?

\- it's true that the effect diminishes over time, but do you completely revert to the previous state? Can the improved state be maintained with ongoing usage (something which is rarely disputed for mainstream pharmaceuticals, but often seems to be considered unacceptable for psychedelics)

>> If you don't figure out how to give your life meaning, the drugs aren't going to do it for you.

This is another one of those comments that may be _pedentically technically_ true, if read very generously, but also very misleading. Might the subconscious mind choose casual expressions like "do it for you" to maximize persuasion, while minimizing opportunity for criticism ("hey, I was speaking colloquially, man"). The next sentence _appears to_ undo much of the harm, but _what impression is left in the mind of an unknowing reader_? Who knows. Does it matter? I think it probably does, and maybe a lot.

I would argue that result of this style of speaking is a kind of epistemological chaos - we are discussing substances that may finally offer at least a partial solutions for much of what ails the world, but the status quo aggregate opinion (~nothing particularly noteworthy to be seen here, just woo woo, move along citizen) in most threads like this seems completely incorrect to me. At least, there is a serious lack of epistemic humility - strong, conclusive opinions, on topics where the facts are currently _unknown_ \- literally. _And no one can admit it (that such things are unknown)._ To me, this is a utterly surreal state of affairs, and it is incredibly frustrating to experience this, and then open the next thread on HN and hear people complaining about problem-of-the-day that could be fixed if group <x> would "just" stop being "stupid". The irony is bitter sweet.

>> Someone I'm sure is going to say that it's a medicine and not a party drug now because a nurse is giving it and someone wrote a prescription, but it's the same drug with the same effect.

Again, _pedentically technically_ true _as written_ (maybe, if read generously), but completely overlooks the essentially undisputed (among knowledgeable people) notion of the importance of set and setting. Ignorant and misleading comments like "not a party drug now because a nurse is giving it and someone wrote a prescription" getting heavily upvoted kind of disgusts me to be honest. I am of the opinion that that thinking like this, and the people that support it, are preventing the world from improving. And most likely, many of the people complaining about faults in the world are the very same people who _refuse_ to consider alternative ways of thinking about issues, and downvote anyone who makes such a suggestion.

These substances, and articles like this, are finally giving us some new insights into possible underlying reasons of why people behave like they do, and believe the things they do (anti-vaxx, climate change deniers, I have no reason to be happy, etc), in spite of overwhelming and "obvious" (or so it seems) evidence to the contrary.

And it seems if you try to point this possibility out to people, _they will get angry at you_. What could explain these effects (of the substances), and this behavior (~refusal to even consider certain possibilites)? How about this: the human ego. The human ego often doesn't like to be disagreed with. This is clear as day, _if one is willing to look_. But it seems like the ego will only allow this on certain topics, almost as kind of a self-defense mechanism.

> It's not that it's incorrect, more like it's kind of non-sequitur-ish, as if > you omitted a part of it that connects the comment to what it's commenting > on.

I don't think it's so much that it's a non-sequitur (it isn't), but perhaps that it _seems_ (but actually isn't, _if one is willing to think_ , which is my point) irrelevant (or blatantly obvious) to the degree that it is considered useless. With any topic, if people refuse to use their minds (and that very much is the case), there's a good chance they won't understand the material. Mocking various out-groups for refusing to acknowledge facts and think properly is a popular pastime on HN, but rare is the individual who is able to even consider the possibility that they suffer from the very same psychological affliction.

<comment><USER15> Trust me, without reading this last comment, I couldn't have known what you meant with the original comment. I tend to fall in the same trap, thinking that people understand what I have in mind with minimal explanation.

<comment><USER14> Ah, well thank you for your patience!

I wonder how often this is the case, where the shortcomings of language, the medium, and many other things, result in incorrect perceptions of disagreement, where none actually exists.

That's the kind of thing I wish people would be able to take away from essays like this.

>> ...and began to understand, on an emotional plane that overshoots the academic level at which I'd only previously understood this— that all that's come today comes from all that's come before, and as all things must pass, so must we always find ourselves fighting the same battles forever and ever, until the lesson is learned.

>> I emerged from that realization inspired, empowered and with a newfound sense of gravitas where rage and anger once resided. Where we are, now, as a human collective, is further along on the continuum of progress, yet no closer to achieving it. The moral arc of the universe is long, and bends toward justice, but that bend is fraught with fractious regressions, pauses, and misfires.

>> ...continuing for the next several paragraphs.

>> I began to confront things I felt I had forgotten. People I'd hurt. People I'd wronged. People who'd hurt me. People who'd wronged me. Traumas of every degree, gradient, and sub-genre stretching as far back as preschool. My brother who severed contact with me five years ago. Friends I'd let down. Bosses who'd fired me. Drugs I wished I'd never done. Drinks I wished I'd never drank. Decisions I made and regretted. Decisions I never made and regretted not making.

>> I was not scared — I gazed at them right in the eyes, and forgave them right in the moment. I forgave myself, too. "It's okay," I told them. "You are free." And then they would leave, or I would leave. Determining who "leaves" during a ketamine trip is a bit like trying to choose which half of the car you want to drive while the other half is a boat. I rose in a grain elevator I didn't willingly enter, and I escaped the minus-world as it crumbled and roared behind me. Safe.

And so on.

These sorts of sentiments seems potentially more productive than the "You're wrong, no you're wrong, and stupid..." mode that much of humanity seems stubbornly dedicated to currently, but then it doesn't seem clear to me that everyone experiences these things in the same way, and many seem(!) opposed to the very idea.

<comment><USER15> This place seems a little less infuriating taken into context, much in the "zen" spirit of the article that you quote.

Ten years ago I used to find tech news from other forums. The two more popular were Reddit and Slashdot. Both had unfortunate trends that made discusion tiresome to follow. Reddit had those pun threads in which everybody seemed to compete to be the funniest guy in the room while Slashdot was the church of the Free Software and Saint IGNUtius.

It was as if in any conversation that you tried to have, a bunch of laughing teenagers making jokes, or a bunch of quasi-religious zealots took over. Hacker News on the other hand was the forum for YC startup founders, with a practical approach to the same subjects, so it was a welcome change.

Ten years later it has been slowly degrading. It's full of self-serious young people that instead of making tons of jokes, frown upon any attempt of humour and, instead of the classic FSF zealotry, we have the usual offline causes, trying to shame everybody into thinking "the right way". If you take this place as some kind of contest to defend the best ideas, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Such place doesn't exist. It's enough that there's a place where interesting ideas are at least presented as articles and some comments.

About the drugs discusion, there has been a couple of topics here that may explain the caution some of us have. One was modafinil. A few years ago a bunch of articles were posted telling wonders about it. A guy said that he had learnt quantum physics in an infamous article, other guy that his procrastination problems had disappeared thanks to the drug.

[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Aycombinator.com+modafinil](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Aycombinator.com+modafinil)

You'll see that recent comments that appear in the search were starting to be negative. Modify the search to show last years results. There is none. That was a fad, people spent their money because what do you expect in a site like this where everybody wants to be more creative, smart and procrastinate less?

Similar things are being said now about hallucinogens. Most repeated line is that the experience is life changing. I dropped an acid more than 30 years ago. It was spectacular, but I wouldn't call it "life changing" and I haven't had the desire to repeat since. I don't feel like I have the right to recommend against it because "do as I say, not as I did" doesn't seem like honest advice. But I wouldn't tell anybody to do it, specially after I've seen three acquitances to lose their minds because they abused LSD.

Ketamine seems very promising. But it's illegal, unless you want to spend big dollars in it. The problem I see is: should we recommend a drug that will probably be acquired illegally and taken in unknown sets to a bunch of people that might be desperate to find something to cure chronic depression, burnout or blocking? I'm sure you understand what could go wrong. I know what I would do, but I know myself, I don't know what's in the minds of everybody reading HN, so I would be very catious to create false hopes and real risks.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Portrit.com - My Visual Facebook Experience - Use Key HN - <AUTHOR> http://portrit.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> It's been four months of hacking and now I am ready to show the world Portrit. Portrit brings you your Facebook friends in visual experience. Portrit is all about your friends photos and making the Facebook experience cleaner, quicker, and more fun. Create a account at <http://portrit.com/create_account/> Use the key HN. Limited supply!

I started working on Portrit because Facebook's photo service is junk and I wanted something better. Originally this was a personal side project but it has grown into my first startup! This is just a limited preview launch with official public beta coming soon.

If you don't have a Facebook account or just don't trust me with you data :), check out this blog post showing all the functionality of Portrit. <http://blog.portrit.com/what-is-portrit>

*edit - I just upgrade everyone who made an account to Social. This key was supposed to give everyone this upgrade when you made an account...My Bad. The Social account lets you comment and like post as well as select favorite friends or hide friends.

<comment><USER2> Wow this is pretty awesome. The photo perusing is quite fun with this UI.

In your Privacy Policy, you state that "We[you] only collect user analytics data. " For being more open with data, could you create some page within your application to report what bits of data you are storing about me?

<comment><AUTHOR> I am using Google analytics to measure trafic as well as events. On the backend I store the email address the user used to create their account, their Facebook ID, favorite friend ID's, and hidden friend ID's. I wanted to be as private with data as possible. 95% of the code runs client side and never talks to the server.

I plan on updating both the privacy policy and the terms of service. I modeled them off of Digg's but I am no lawyer, I am a hacker :).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Your email validation code is too strict.

From Wikipedia:

      The local-part of the e-mail address may use any of these ASCII characters:
      Uppercase and lowercase English letters (a–z, A–Z)
      Digits 0 to 9
      Characters ! # $ % & ' * + - / = ? ^ _ ` { | } ~
      Character . (dot, period, full stop) provided that it is
      not the first or last character, and provided also that
      it does not appear two or more times consecutively
      (e.g. John..firstname.lastname@example.com).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I will update the regex in the next release.

<comment><USER4> You should use the HTML5 email field:

[http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current- work/multipage/...](http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current- work/multipage/states-of-the-type-attribute.html#e-mail-state)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Very well designed, would be especially delightful on an iPad type device.

Using Chrome on a Mac though, nothing happens when I click on images from my feed. I'd expect that to at least preview a larger version, or maybe take me to the post itself.

<comment><AUTHOR> There is actually optimized versions for iPad and mobile (iPhone and Android).

The photos in the feed do not open larger at this point. Still trying to work the black magic that is the Facebook API. The cursor pointer is some dev code that made it through to production be accident, whoops!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If I try searching for a friend by using their last name (easier in this case), it starts to match the name in the autocomplete but drops out once I've typed the full name for some reason...

also probably not a typical use case for names, but I do have FB friends that go by their middle names although their facebook profile has their full name.. can't search for them using middle name in autocomplete search

<comment><USER6> I forgot to say, awesome work and I like the visual look and feel and it does feel snappier than the real FB but still don't see why I should use it... maybe I don't "get" it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. At the moment there are not many differentiating features compared to Facebook, but I have a bunch planned. There are a lot cool things you can do when you are a intermediary between the user and all their Facebook data.

My guess is the target demographic is younger women or just women in general. Not to sound sexist but in my experience women browse Facebook photos in a much higher degree than males.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is there any purpose in having a sign-up? If you're already linked to the user's Facebook account, isn't this enough?

Is it not a one-to-one relationship between Portrit and FB account?

The UI for 'likes' is confusing. The icon seemed very foreign, and the whole idea of putting profile pictures of people who have liked the post on the right isn't intuitive either.

<comment><AUTHOR> The login is it limit the amount of users. This is what the key is for. When we officially launch this will be removed.

I agree that the like icon could use some work. The idea behind showing profile pictures of likes instead of names is one of the main ideas of Portrit. We are trying to limit the amount of text and promote discovery that may not have happened if the name was shown. We will look into making this action more intuitive.

Thanks for the feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Great interface. Please add anchor titles to primary navigation buttons so I can figure out what they do by hovering before I click on them.

</comment><comment><USER8> Looks great!!! but what would be the business model?

<comment><USER9> Yep, nice nice UI !! Bravo. So, about this business model ? :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Possible bug. I see two profile picture for each friend for every alphabet. Am using Chrome 7.0.536.2.

<comment><AUTHOR> I checked and this is the dev version of chrome right? The dev version has JavaScript errors in the Jquery library. I am looking into why this is. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Mine is stuck with a loading image. Server too busy or does it take a while to initialize?

</comment><comment><USER12> Too bad I do not have a FB account, but the screenshots look awesome. The stream page is kinda taking away from it, imo. I would focus 100% on photos.

<comment><USER13> I agree with this. It seems to me that Facebook puts most focus on the feed and that's hard to compete with. Flipboard has a nice take on this - unfortunately, locked in an app instead of on the web.

You have done a great job with the rest, navigation, and image browsing. There were a few glitches, the user info box and posts in the feed with images in them could use some finish.

All in all, great job and I think I understand where you're going with this!</comment></comment>


Liberty's lost decade - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21582525-war-terror-haunts-america-still-it-should-recover-some-its-most-cherished

<comment><USER2> The majority of those supporting Manning/Snowden maintain that neither man did anything wrong. This seems to be a much more reasonable and fair-minded approach.

> _" Mr Manning's public-interest defence is especially thin: he leaked over > 700,000 files with little judgment about what harm or good this would do."_

I agree - it was irresponsible and unwise, and it may have ultimately harmed the country more than it helped. I think Snowden has generally used his best judgement; we can disagree with what he saw fit to leak, but at least he takes some responsibility for the information he holds.

I also agree that we've gone way too far in restricting liberties. We have a bill of rights for a reason: individual rights the government shouldn't be able to ignore, even when it's inconvenient.

<comment><USER3> It depends on your point of view:

Does government exist to serve the people, or do people exist to serve Washington?</comment></comment>


Fail Open or Fail Closed? - <AUTHOR> http://devcentral.f5.com/weblogs/macvittie/archive/2008/07/02/3419.aspx

<comment><USER2> Decent reminder about the issue. I think I've heard the Bob and the crystal widgets story before. Actually, that's a great name for a company. Or a band. "Bob and the Crystal Widgets".

I think the main case where Fail Open is important is if it prevents physical access/egress. Your laser alarm system can fail closed, because an inappropriate alarm won't stop someone exiting the shop. Your heavy iron bars should fail open, so you don't end up with trapped customers in a fire.

I can't think of any data/online cases where failing closed is really dangerous, as opposed to inconvenient, but I'm pre-coffee.</comment>


Google ditches QR codes for NFC - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/Google_Joins_NFC_Forum_Ditches_QR_Codes.php

<comment><USER2> So these articles seem to imply that they are completely doing away with QR codes. This makes zero sense because these are two completely different technologies. A QR code can be printed IRL or posted on the internet and thus can be viewed and accessed easily. This NFC business would not only require everyone to have a device that is ready to accept NFC communications but also require an emitter at each location. The ability to put a QR code in something as simple as a magazine or put it on a sticker that can be placed anywhere is just being tossed into the oblivion. I am all for technological advances but sometimes bridging the gap between the analog and digital worlds is an important feature.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, this was unexpected. Since NFC and QR codes have some overlap but in general fill two very different roles (unless you're talking about a putting RFID chips into magazine adverts I guess), there is a missing piece of information.

I'm going to speculate that the missing piece is related to Microsoft patents or other patents around 2d bar codes.

<comment><USER4> That was my first reaction too. I guess I have to go back to my CueCat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> For QR-code companies it means one competitor less: [http://servletsuite.blogspot.com/2011/03/no-more-qr-codes- fr...](http://servletsuite.blogspot.com/2011/03/no-more-qr-codes-from- google.html) How to put NFC chip on screen for example ...

</comment><comment><USER6> Same story from gizmodo, but no discussion there. Link provided for the different POV:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2391971>

</comment><comment><USER7> If this is true, this is lame.

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't see this going over well at all...</comment>


Covid-19 twice as contagious as previously thought – CDC study - <AUTHOR> https://thinkpol.ca/2020/04/08/covid-19-twice-contagious-previously-thought/ <comment><USER4> I will repeat a question I would love an epidemiologist to reply to: Where is the random background testing? Not testing "I feel unwell" presentations at random, truly going into the field and testing the wider population at random, healthy (believed) or not?

You cannot model the IFR accurately from skewed samples and it feels like we aren't even doing skewed sampling.

<comment><USER5> Epidemiologist here: you're right.

Testing resources are in short supply, so testing is being performed to guide clinical decisions (ie sick people) rather than public health/science (ie random sample).

The handful of serosurveys that have been performed have been quite valuable, but there aren't nearly enough.

Hopefully this changes as testing capacity ramps up.

<comment><USER6> Soooo....

\- SARS started out with a similar <4% estimated fatality rate and was then revised upwards to anywhere from 9-15% later.

\- COVID-19 is caused by a different strain of the same virus as SARS.

\- The CFR of SARS and COVID-19 appear to be very similar, and more notably, appeared by be very similar when we had around 8,000 infections which is where SARS ended. (Similar meaning the CFR hovers between 4% and 20% of closed cases.)

 _How are we so sure that this is any less deadly than SARS?_

The above suggests to me one of the two is likely to be true:

1\. There could have been many more undetected cases of SARS than we knew about, indicting an IFR much lower than it's recorded CFR.

2\. COVID-19 could actually end up having an IFR that is similar to SARS (~10%).

But of course, I am no epidemiologist, so I assume there's a flaw in my logic.

Did I miss something, or is this pretty much the same disease as SARS but with a higher R0?

<comment><USER7> There's little to no data that backs up your guess.

Studies on COVID-19 estimate that the true IFR is somewhere between 0.1% to 0.39%...why? Because the more we test, the more we find asymptomatic and mild cases. And we're yet to even do the type of serological testing that would give us such a decisive sample. Yet we're ALREADY seeing data that suggests that the IFR is lower than SARS and asymptomatic cases/transmission are common. [0]

I never read anything about SARS being mild or asymptomatic in the majority of patients...in fact it was the opposite. It was so severely symptomatic that the virus killed itself with natural selection. If you had SARS-COV-11 and exhibited high viral load, you were likely too sick to go spread it. The only serological testing they did on SARS-COV-1 deemed asymptomatic cases to be uncommon [1]. Quite the opposite of COVID-19.

0: [https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case- fatality-...](https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality- rates/)

1: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3035549/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3035549/)

<comment><USER8> I've posted this in an earlier thread but I don't think that low estimates make sense. The virus killed 0.44% of total population of Bergamo

4500/1112187

[https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=https:/...](https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=https:/..).

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

EDIT: and there are harder hit communities: 400/40000 [https://www.ecodibergamo.it/stories/valle-brembana/il- grido-...](https://www.ecodibergamo.it/stories/valle-brembana/il-grido-daiuto- della-valle-brembana400-morti-su-40mila-abitanti2000_1348457_11/)

<comment><USER9> take the age bias into account. 45 for Bergamo and 29.6 for the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Stanford just tested 3200 people in Silicon Valley for antibodies at a drive- through location.[1] There are similar group tests being run in LA and Colorado. In a few days there should be more solid info on how many people have had the disease without symptoms.

[1] [https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/04/04/stanford- researcher...](https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/04/04/stanford-researchers- test-3200-people-for-covid-19-antibodies/)

<comment><USER11> (As someone who knows next to nothing about medicine or microbiology) I'm curious how they already know which antibodies to look for? Are antibodies unique to each virus? Is it possible that some people have stumbled upon antibody X at some point in their lives that maybe isn't perfect for fighting off this new coronavirus but still helps? Along the same lines, is it possible some people have antibodies IgM and IgG from some other illness they've encountered in their lives? Or is the presence of those antibodies conclusive evidence that they've been infected with COVID-19?

<comment><USER12> They are looking for antibodies to the spike protein on COVID-19. So if a person has those, then it's proof that they've been exposed to it.

Antibodies are unique for each virus, but there can be "cross-reactivity" where an antibody for a different virus also binds to COVID-19.

Yes, it is possible that there are people out there who have antibodies that bind to COVID-19, who have never been infected with it, but rather have an antibody that cross-reacts with COVID-19. But it would be a very rare occurrence.

So having COVID-19 antibodies isn't a _perfect_ was to tell if a person has been exposed, but it's a _very good_ way to do it since antibodies is highly correlated with exposure.

<comment><USER13> Would antibodies that can attach to COVID-19 but were produced from a different viral infection potentially make you immune to COVID-19?

<comment><USER14> That was the case with Smallpox and Cowpox, and the original vaccine.

<comment><USER11> Interesting! From the smallpox wikipedia page:

> The term vaccine derives from the Latin word for cow, reflecting the origins > of smallpox vaccination.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've seem people theorize about this before saying maybe it's good news because that means it's less fatal than we thought and therefore maybe we're closer to herd immunity. But I saw an epidemiologist talk about how an R0 of 2 meant you needed 50% of people to be immune for herd immunity, and an R0 of 3 meant you needed 66%. This would mean it'd need to be even higher - <USER2> article says 82%. We're nowhere close to that now - even northern Italy, they're estimating that maybe 10% have caught it.

<comment><USER16> > because that means it's less fatal than we thought

Don't we already have solid numbers on the fatality rate because of the Diamond Princess? A change in estimated R0 wouldn't affect that.

<comment><USER17> Diamond princess is a non-stochastic sample, with all its attendant biases.

<comment><USER18> What does that mean?

<comment><USER19> People on cruise ships are usually not a good sample of the general population, for example, the mean age is quite high.

<comment><USER20> But it is also a sample with few in the sickest bracket, who are a disproportionate fraction of deaths.

And the number of deaths is sufficiently small that it is consistent with a wide range of death rates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The actual article that is both readable and informative [https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article](https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article)

</comment><comment><USER22> Here's an early estimate graphed by the NY Times at the end of February (scroll down a bit):

[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/world/asia/china- co...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/world/asia/china-coronavirus- contain.html#virulence)

R0 estimated to be 2 - 4. Fatality rate: 0.1 - 3%.

This was the first information I saw that helped me understand why this was more than just a bad flu. Still didn't truly understand it at that point, at least the way I do now that we're experiencing the consequences of failing to contain it.

<comment><USER23> In pre-print on Feb 7, this paper initially estimated R0 to be somewhere between 4.7 and 6.6. People dismissed it as being not possible. It was never picked up by the MSM.

Now we're seeing from the both the real world and other studies that it's pretty plausible.

<comment><USER24> Yep, I read the preprint as soon as it was published and it scared me into buying masks back in mid-February.

<comment><USER23> Basic math, knowing population density, and then that paper was my "oh shit" moment. Got some half respirators and 300 rolls of toilet paper over the next week.

The toilet paper wasn't to prepare for a post-apocalyptic world. It was because I knew that was the first thing other idiots would buy when news of this thing hit your average Joe :)

<comment><USER25> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but it sounds like your bragging about being the first person to start hoarding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Can anyone explain how the virus is twice as infectious as we thought, but we're consistently lowering our death projections everyday?

<comment><USER27> "but we're consistently lowering our death projections every day?"

'The first casualty if war is the Truth'.

Whatever the government tells you during a time of crisis is a form of propaganda, 'for your own good' so to speak.

Even if individuals are intelligent, crowds are not.

Whatever they say is very calculated and controlled, as if to achieve a specific outcome. So imagine a very cynical view of political messaging in normal times, but now tilt that towards a more truly civic situation wherein maybe it doesn't seem quite so cynical because, well, there is actually a crisis.

The 'numbers' projected a few weeks ago will have been constrained by a) what people could handle without panicking, b) what kind of numbers might get them to actually behave properly, c) what will save every political leaders skin (i.e. give bad news then everything after that seems like good news), d) how much we can bend reality without hurting their own credibility by being perceived as lying.

It's _extremely_ hard and politically risky to 'shut down a country' and get millions of individual actors to 'buy-in' to behave as we want especially if it means annoyance or personal hardship. Political leaders are used to acting in a very populist way, and basically right now they are doing the extreme opposite. Every day, politicians have to act against their best populist instincts. It's hard to overstate what a sensitive time this is, it could go sour very quickly.

So take everything with a grain of salt, knowing that whatever is being said is calculated and 'all projections' are filtered somewhat. Ostensibly 'for our own good'.

I think there are often more qualified numbers published out there, but you have to go right to the source, if available.

Edit: the 'masks' PR and policy is probably the best example of that. In reality, there's not much harm, and likely a little bit of good that can come from masks. But the strategy was to get PPE to the front-line health workers who have a greater need and were in a real crisis, so, the public messaging was 'no masks'. But the 'truth' of masks started to creep to the fore, more were asking questions, moreover, the PPE situation started to stabilize a little bit and 'poof' all of a sudden 'masks are good'. Now they are telling us? The Canadian Chief Medical Officer literally did a 180 on that, sounding a lot like Donald Trump in his total about turns. The communications strategy early on was fairly clear and it made sense, but it's a little uncomfortable to see your so-called leaders only make decisions 'after everyone else' so as to avoid taking and risky or blame (Canada wouldn't budget on it until most other countries did first). If you read the fairly confident communications about masks from several weeks ago and compare them to the messaging now - <USER3> see a problem that very only makes sense in the context of "purposeful misdirection for the 'public good' ". Masks did not 'get safer' and nor did our understanding of them change. What changed was who ostensibly needed them the most.

<comment><USER28> The IHME model has been revised every 2-3 days.

It has always assumed that lockdowns would be everywhere and would be observed.

Every new revision in the last 20 days has been a revision _downward_ in death rate.

10 days ago, the 95% confidence interval was 100k-240k deaths with lockdowns observed.

2 days ago it was 45k-145k, with prediction of 81k.

Today is is 37k-137k, with prediction of 60k.

IHME has no incentive to downplay the severity, yet every time the update the model, they have to adjust it downward because reality had failed to keep up with the model.

Meanwhile, reporting of fatalities has actually gotten looser, with all deaths of tested-positive or presumed-positive individuals reported as covid deaths, regardless of cause or comorbidities (that became universal yesterday, and is why yesterday saw a big increase in deaths despite a huge dropoff in hospitalization over the last 6 days)

<comment><USER29> my pet theory is the malaria drug is actually working. we won't get the final say until the trials are over however.

<comment><USER28> It probably is working, but it also seems likely that locking everyone in their houses reduces spread -- so three weeks after lockdown, there are fewer sick people to find each day.

It actually is likely that the decrease in cases is more dramatic than the numbers show -- now that the acute pressure on the healthcare system in New York has abated, they're probably detecting a higher percentage of their cases.

(And on top of that, testing has begun increasing again -- we tested 127,000 people today, up from 107,000/day just 6 days ago.)

<comment><USER28> In case anybody is still looking at the case numbers (especially in NY) and wondering why they keep kinda not going down even though things look better, we are actually still increasing testing rates (despite what you may have heard)

As I said above, we tested 127,000 people yesterday.

We're at 142,000 today already.

<comment><USER28> ... and we're at about 170,000 tests today!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This seems a bit odd. If it was my job to estimate R₀ for the coronavirus, I'd look at Singapore, Korea, Australia, New Zealand and so on, where there are thousands of patients, and almost all of them know when they caught it and who they caught it from. Why would you choose to study a place where people don't know those things?

<comment><USER21> Because that is the definition of R0. Once people are aware and change their behavior R changes as well and is not readily translatable to a different setting.

<comment><USER31> So you want to measure transmission rates under normal interactions, not during shelter in place/everyone wearing masks?

<comment><USER32> Yes.

From the article:

 _Dr Feigl-Ding explains that R0 is the "R reproductive number at time 0 before countermeasures"._

 _He points out that this is not the R(effective) at current time under mitigation measures such as distancing and testing, tracing and quarantine, which are expected to slash chains of transmission._

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Title correction: this isn't a CDC study, just published in a CDC journal

<comment><USER34> I think they're pretty reputable, regardless.

"Author affiliations: Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA"

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> If people weren't dying, it would be hilarious had badly understood this epidemic is. Months since the start, we have no idea how infectious the virus is, how many people have been infected, how deadly it is, how effective (or not) containment is, how many people will need to be hospitalised or how long for.

It's actually incredible. I'm very cynical, but I wouldn't have believed Western governments could have floundered so badly if I'd been told even a month ago...

<comment><USER36> It doesn't help that they leaned heavily on Chinese numbers. Even with data from southern Europe that is likely to be more accurate, people relied on numbers coming out of China because they were early and more numerous... But not enough thought given to openness, and now we've been trying to correct interpolations and extrapolations with a fraudulent starting point for the past two months.

<comment><USER35> China causing this should be a massive scandal. China lying about their numbers so we can't deal with it effectively should be second bigger scandal.

Historically, I've been quite pro China (until they started rounding up Muslims recently at least). But this is totally unacceptable.

</rant>...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I hear a lot about how we may be seriously underestimating the CFR denominator, due to undiagnosed mild cases. Ok I get that.

What I don't hear much about is that the numerator is also probably understated at any point in time for several reasons.

First I don't trust the China data I think it's understated and that's the oldest, most mature data we have.

Second, in an exponentially growing disease with something like a 6 week course from infection through to mortality/recovery, we will always have diagnosed cases that are 6 weeks, or whatever the true course is, ahead of the final death tally and as the diagnosed cases are rising so rapidly, including those weeks and weeks worth of diagnosed but unresolved cases could add up to a huge amount of error to a simple deaths/cases CFR analysis that would significantly understate what the final CFR will look like. Cohort analysis does not appear to have caught on in the CFR calculation world from what I've been reading.

Third, I've read that there are likely a significant number deaths that are probably attributable to COVID-19 that are not being counted as Covid-19. The death rate in northern Italy over the last month, even when all the COVID-19 attributed deaths are removed, is significantly higher than it has been in similar periods in the past I have read. I believe the same is true in New York City. So if these stories are correct, there are likely more COVID-19 deaths than are being counted.

So while it is probably true that the denominator is understated, it seems to me that it's also very likely true that the numerator is also understated making it very difficult for me to believe any of these estimates are very accurate until both these issues are addressed.

Has anyone seen anything that explains some of these issues and calculates a cohort-based death rate, which somehow estimates or adjusts were incorrect, time shifted or under counted Fatality data?

</comment><comment><USER38> No one thought that it depends on people's habits, say common social norms? Say in Asia it was commonplace to wear masks even before epidemic and it is considered polite to stand far away from one another, and people bow instead of shaking hands. Quite clearly there, or say in Sweden with their tradition of having a large privacy distance, R0 is much lower than in Italy where people hug and kiss seeing each other.

</comment><comment><USER39> Twice as contagious = half as deadly?

<comment><USER40> Much, much less than half. Contagiousness affects the exponential spread.

<comment><USER39> So maybe cov2 is on level with the flu after all.

<comment><USER40> I'm not a doctor, but I'd bet it's closer to a cold - it spreads much faster, but may be less lethal. Also, when a virus jumps between species, its virulence can be elevated during the initial period of spread. So it might be a "really bad" cold, at least early on:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4361674/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4361674/)

<comment><USER39> I wonder why such panic then.

<comment><USER40> _If_ it's really not that bad, I would guess that the panic is because this is the first time we've been able to observe a brand-new cold virus as it spreads around the world. When the general public starts to understand all of the damage that these things do, and how quickly they can spread, it's understandably pretty scary. Plus a whole bunch of other factors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> If that is true China cases will sky rocket again this month.

</comment><comment><USER42> There are plenty of anecdotal stories that show that it spreads very quickly. A highly publicized story in Germany was about one of the first ten cases here. This guy merely sat behind a patient and got asked for a salt shaker. That was his only contact. And I know of a company where someone who returned from a vacation in Italy was in a meeting with 6 people. 5 of them got infected.

</comment><comment><USER43> Here's the study from the Diamond Princess which elucidates what the percentage of the population is asymptomatic: [https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.E...](https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.10.2000180)

</comment><comment><USER40> And now we wait for the other shoe to drop: serosurveys showing that at least one-third of the US population has already caught COVID-19 and recovered.

</comment><comment><USER44> Excellent. The faster it moves through, the sooner we'll get back to work.

<comment><USER15> You've got to do the math on that. Estimate the percentage of people that have caught it. Then compare that to how 82% people need to catch it in order to have the bare minimum of herd immunity. And factor in that health systems in many regions are already overwhelmed. If you want to get to herd immunity just from catching it, you'd have a health disaster that is impossible to imagine even now.

<comment><USER45> I suspect in 2 years time the death toll will be about the same for everyone. What we will look at is how countries handled society while it happened.

This 'overwhelmed' the system is a deadly meme, the numbers don't work out.

The best model might be wear masks, physical distance, keep hands clean, testing and tracing. Ban really large events.

<comment><USER15> I don't see how you can say the numbers don't work out, unless you believe hospital systems are lying when they say they run out of beds/equipment.

<comment><USER45> Try to work out the actual numbers for strict lockdown vs not strict and model it over two years being practical. No hand waving.

Include the second and third waves for instance.

You won't see the difference you think.

Vaccines may never happen ( but post a second winter is a best case ) and treatments don't make things much better.

Once you get 1000000 dead vs 1050000 two years later we can talk about the additional dead from being unable to do things like cancer surgery.

<comment><USER15> Or asthma attacks, or infections from broken arms, or "minor" heart attacks, or anything else that people can fully recover from but still need immediate assistance with at risk of death.

You're going to have to show more of your work if you're convinced there's negligible difference. We know that even now some hospital systems are overwhelmed, at a point when the worldwide population has room for another 10-13 doublings. We also know that mitigation has already proven to bring effective R0 down to close to 1.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Finally, getting some decent data!

This means that "herd immunity " is a non-starter: natural immunity through infection/recovery requires large fractions of the high-risk population to be infected, and vaccines are too far out (economic destruction would occur before vaccines _may_ exist).

We must pursue large-scale testing on a "total war" basis, with the goal of containment and extinguishing the virus.

<comment><USER47> Herd immunity was a non-started way before this. Just based on death rate it's an insane strategy.

Even if the death rate is 1%, then in the USA, to have even 60% infected and recover, you need to have 192 million infected.

1% death rate = nearly 2 million dead.

But it would be way higher than 1% death rate with these sort of numbers because most of these people are not even getting a hospital bed, never mind ICU.

<comment><USER48> Didn't a study show that the death rate is a magnitude lower than previously thought? Something like 0,6% IIRC.

<comment><USER49> even if the death rate is that low, you have to account for the fact that health systems in first world countries are overloading with the initial stages of the spread, leading to more people dying because there's no medical attention to patients who would otherwise make it through the disease.

<comment><USER47> In Italy they have 10% of people who they know have the virus dying (deliberately not calling this death rate) but they are testing pretty well and that seems very, very high. Can there be 10X more people with the virus than they know about? Not sure.

Also, OK let's call it 0.6%. Only just over a million deaths in the US alone then, even before health systems overwhelmed.

Still a non-starter in my book.

<comment><USER50> Italy is testing at a rate less than NY. I live in NY and I personally know over a dozen people with presumed COVID-19. Only one has been tested as he is a first responder.. The others are not in the stats. I know this is anecdotal but it appears that there are WAY more people that have this than the official tested positive number.

It seems once this takes a hold in an area that it really gets a lot of people. Me and my wife also had lung congestion, cough and brief fever but will never know if we had it until widespread antibody testing occurs. But it seems very likely there are many more cases than reported and 10x could be possible.

<comment><USER51> Conversely, my jurisdiction (Alberta) has been testing a lot of symptomatic people, and ~98% of people with COVID-19 symptoms have tested negative.

<comment><USER52> In VA we've done 30,645 tests and have 3,645 confirmed cases. That tells me that 88% of people tested were negative. Either they're spreading a whole lot of "potentially" exposed people or there are a lot of people with symptoms who actually have something else.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


H&R Block and Intuit Lobbying Against Simpler Tax Filing (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.propublica.org/article/filing-taxes-could-be-free-simple-hr-block-intuit-lobbying-against-it# <comment><USER2> _In an opinion piece for The Daily Caller and on his site, Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., said "making the tax collector also the tax preparer creates an inherent conflict of interest while forcing citizens to relinquish control of their taxes to the government."_

The government already controls taxes and thus citizens' incomes. In a time when so many are worried about privacy, few voice any concern about the enormous privacy problems inherent in the forced full disclosure of the intimate details of one's financial affairs.

Fiscal year 2019 is forecast to have federal revenue of $3.422 trillion[0], of which $1.688 trillion will be from individual income taxes. That means repealing the income tax and replacing it with nothing would take the federal budget not back to the founding era or even the nineteenth century but to the Clinton years[1].

[0]: [https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government- ta...](https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax- revenue-3305762)

[1]: [http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt- an...](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay- summary)

<comment><USER3> This quote is just another example of willful misunderstanding of issues by the people in Congress. They don't even try to understand an issue but stick to some talking points that make sense only on the surface. It's really infuriating that such idiots are allowed to participate in the discussion of important issues. The same happens in health care.

If the IRS sent a pre-prepared tax return it would give the tax payer an advantage because the IRS would give away what it already knows. In the current situation the tax payer sends a return and the IRS compares it to the data they already have. The tax payer doesn't know what the IRS knows though.

<comment><USER4> "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

In the very article, it's noted that Roskam was the direct recipient of campaign contributions from Intuit and H&R Block. To me, this is plain anti- establishment pandering, and ironic in that the anti-establishment movement was once considered the domain of radical leftists. That the people are better off having their taxes calculated by for-profit corporations that directly donate to the individuals who control the government seems counter-intuitive to me.

<comment><USER5> > In the very article, it's noted that Roskam was the direct recipient of > campaign contributions from Intuit and H&R Block.

The contribution from Intuit was $13 600 over 10 years. During that same period there was also $21 200 from individuals who worked for Intuit. If we count all of that as being Intuit, that's a total of $34 800 over 10 years. For H&R Block, it was $2 500.

If $3.7k/year is enough to buy a Congressman's vote, a handful of middle class people in the district should be able to get together and easily afford to counter that. For a group of 10 like minded people, that's only $31/month each.

I think people generally get the causality wrong on the relationship between campaign contributions and the positions or votes of the politician. The politicians don't set their positions based on campaign contributions. It's usually the other way around--the contributors chose where to place their contributions based on the known positions and past votes of the politician. If that is not known, they place contributions based on party, on the assumption that the politician is going to generally go along with the party.

<comment><USER3> "The politicians don't set their positions based on campaign contributions. It's usually the other way around--the contributors chose where to place their contributions based on the known positions and past votes of the politician."

That's how it should be but often it's the other way around. Don't forget that most laws get written by lobbyists and the politicians are just a front for them.

There are few issues where the people in Congress have their own opinion but there are lots of other issues where a well spoken lobbyist with some cash has a big influence.

I agree that the contributions are really low. That why lobbying has a huge rate of return. You can get billions in tax breaks for a few million in expense.

<comment><USER6> Your conclusion makes no sense. If you can get "billions in tax breaks for a few million in expense," then every money manager who isn't investing in campaign contributions is breaching their fiduciary duties. As a general economic principle, investment opportunities that return 1000x don't just sit around, they get arbitraged until the rate of return drops to match the risk.

The fact that campaign contributions are so small relative to the amount of money affected by these decisions is powerful evidence that they have extremely attenuated influence on the results.

@tzs's theory makes much more sense: companies contribute to the candidates that are ideologically predisposed to them in hopes of ensuring they keep their seats.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's worth noting that they're also against it getting too complex too. There's a sweet spot where most people feel comfortable using software to complete and file their returns but is also not too simple to need software.

Also, their position is that simple filings allow the government too much control and that taxpayers are better represented by an entity that is incentivized to minimize their tax burden.

Still, I always found Intuit's lobbying efforts to fail Brad's (Brad Smith is, the CEO) "you wouldn't tell your mother" test and it was one of the main reasons I ended up leaving Intuit.

</comment><comment><USER8> Lobbying is a way for the rich to legally shortcircuit democracy. It's legal corruption and as bad for democracy as the illegal counterpart.

In Denmark we have had prefilled tax forms for I don't know how many years. More than two decades. Nowadays its online. You log on and see your taxes and edit when necessary. It's still unnecessarily complicated if you are not an employee, but for the 90 percent who receive salary as their only income and only have ordinary deductions it's somewhat bareable although it can be hard to check if the tax authorities calculated the tax correctly.

<comment><USER9> I don't think lobbying per se is a problem. I have friends who have successfully lobbied in the the U.K. to get bills introduced to curb climate change. I support the Alltrials people, lobbying to ensure that the results from _all_ medical trials are published whether 'successful' or not.

Groups of people or interest groups _should_ be allowed to bring their case to legislators to try to convince them.

It's when the convincing them comes in the form of personally enriching the legislators that it turns into bribery and the problems occur.

<comment><USER10> Not necessarily personally - all sorts of exchanges here should be banned, including contributions to the election campaigns, which in true democracy should be funded solely from public money. Being allowed to bring the case does not mean that you have to or should be allowed to pay for that.

<comment><USER11> Isn't funding election campaigns from public money a quick and sure route to totalitarianism? I'll say the opposite - any kind of public money involvement into elections should be banned.

Don't get fooled with 'democracy' thing. Election and democratic process are the way for the elites to decide matters between themselves without resorting to civil wars/violence, in an orderly, regulated manner. They were invented for that purpose in the middle ages England which got tired of civil wars and serve that purpose perfectly.

'Opinions' of ordinary people are not important because they effectively, don't exist: propaganda decides what their opinions will be.

<comment><USER12> > Don't get fooled with 'democracy' thing. Election and democratic process are > the way for the elites to decide matters between themselves without > resorting to civil wars/violence, in an orderly, regulated manner. They were > invented for that purpose in the middle ages England which got tired of > civil wars and serve that purpose perfectly.

That's a fascinating thesis, can you point me to sources on it?

<comment><USER13> I think they are talking about the Magna Carta.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There is a useful distinction to be made among three things:

\- The activity of lobbying, which is explicitly protected by the 1st amendment as petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

\- Contracts to pay someone else to engage in lobbying, which apparently used to be illegal[1].

\- Giving gifts to legislators, which is illegal if quid-pro-quo.

[1] My source is [https://priceonomics.com/when-lobbying-was- illegal/](https://priceonomics.com/when-lobbying-was-illegal/) though that does not itself cite any sources. I'd love if someone more familiar with legal history could comment on its accuracy.

</comment><comment><USER15> Reminds me of the similar article posted recently, '"Is curing patients a sustainable business model?" Goldman Sachs analysts ask.' Or net neutrality. Regulatory capture is out of control in at least a dozen american industries i know of.

I've read a thread like this before, prepare for lots of people from countries that aren't the US explaining that their taxes are way simpler.

</comment><comment><USER16> I wouldn't be surprised if a significant part of the GDP of the US comes from rent-seeking "services" that are either not needed or overcharged. Like "credit protection" for "identity theft". Healthcare seems to be the main contributor to this.

<comment><USER17> This is a really important issue that I've never seen addressed well...

We measure numbers that are easy to measure, like GDP or GDP PPP according to some basket, or unemployment rate.

But how much of it is _real_?

We have a ~18t GDP, but how much is actual productivity vs rent seeking?

We're at 4% "unemployment", but how many people have busywork jobs that don't fundamentally need to be done? How many have crappy jobs / bad bosses / no security/ need a second or third job to make rent?

Without digging deeper, I think the top line numbers are misleading and lead to optimizing the wrong things.

I think the things we care about most are the things we aren't measuring yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Governments across the world are becoming more proactive and trying to improve ease of doing business and paying taxes. This is the way it should be. Citizens shouldn't have to run around or pay someone to pay taxes. In India, starting a business used to be a hassle taking more than 2 - 3 months, now they have completely made it online and free. So players in India like [https://www.indiafilings.com](https://www.indiafilings.com) are also adopting to the changes by providing more services or lowering the fee, which is great for Entrepreneurs. Hopefully, the politicians will not budge for lobbying to satisfy a few corporates and look at the bigger picture.

</comment><comment><USER19> Am I disappointed? Yes. Am I surprised? Absolutely not. They truly fear for the safety of their industry, which is responsible for ~$7.5B in revenue between the two (per annum).

<comment><USER20> Would it make sense for the government contract out the pre-filled tax returns to these companies?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> In Germany, many people don't need to file taxes, as they're deducted anyways. But you can and it usually saves you some money. If you do though, it's about as complex as in the states, the only difference being that there is only one form you'd need to fill and not 2-3 (federal, state, city)

<comment><USER22> My impression is that "US taxes are complicated" arises from the fact that they have such a wide variety of possible tax deductions and tax credits, each with complicated conditions and rates. For medical expenses, moving expenses, training expenses, for various personal purchases that you use for work, for solar water heaters, and so on.

If you earned salary from one employer and used only a few standard deductions, then filing US taxes should be easy as well.

<comment><USER23> I'm a Canadian who has filed taxes in Canada (file like the US, but it's simpler), the UK (no filing necessary if you only have interest and employment income) and the US.

One of the other complications with US taxes is that payroll systems and the exemption formula make it hard to get your deductions exactly right (this happens in Canada too), because you have to be able to exactly predict your annual income. In the UK the "Pay As You Earn" system deducts exactly what's needed as you earn it. Even interest payments from the bank will have a line item for withheld taxes.

<comment><USER24> How do different entities determine your current tax rate for correct withholding? Say your interest payments from the bank — does the bank consult the tax authority to determine the correct rate? Similarly, how does it work if you have two employers?

Second, in a graduated income tax system, this would result in decreasing take-home pay over the course of the year. Does that not cause some confusion/strife? Seems like plenty of people struggle to budget beyond paycheck-to-paycheck as it is (in the US).

<comment><USER25> EU country: My employer reports my salary and already paid my taxes for me, deducted from my pay check. All banks report what I paid in interests on my loans and how much interest I got paid on my savings accounts. They also report what profits I made from funds and whether I sold any at a profit (in which case they deducted and paid the tax on those profits).

The rates are fixed for most kinds of income that entities other than employers are concerned with. So a bank can deduct the dividends tax easily. Tax brackets for salary taxes exist, but so long as you have _one_ employer only, and don't suddenly get a massive pay hike/cut, they will know your yearly income and can deduct given the correct bracket. There is no decrease in take-home pay and no confusion (I honestly didn't quite understand where the confusion would arise?)

If too much or too little has been paid for the whole year, that's simply mentioned at the bottom line of your prefilled online tax return form.

<comment><USER24> > Tax brackets for salary taxes exist, but so long as you have one employer > only, and don't suddenly get a massive pay hike/cut, they will know your > yearly income and can deduct given the correct bracket. There is no decrease > in take-home pay and no confusion (I honestly didn't quite understand where > the confusion would arise?)

That's pretty much identical to US withholding. As long as your employer can easily predict your annual wage income, that part is withheld basically correctly. If you change jobs or experience an unusual bonus or hold multiple jobs, good luck.

> If too much or too little has been paid for the whole year, that's simply > mentioned at the bottom line of your prefilled online tax return form.

Yeah, that's similar to the US, except the prefilled form isn't always online and is called a W-2. It is copied into the actual filed 1040 document and withholding is credited against your taxes owed.

The grandparent post claimed: "One of the other complications with US taxes is that payroll systems and the exemption formula make it hard to get your deductions exactly right (this happens in Canada too), because _you have to be able to exactly predict your annual income_. In the UK the "Pay As You Earn" system deducts _exactly what's needed as you earn it_." (My emphasis added.)

That comment (and the name) suggests that — unlike the US — the UK withholds at the rate of your exact current tax bracket. If that's true (perhaps I am misreading it), your take-home pay would decrease as your tax rate increases over the year, assuming your gross pay is split evenly across pay statements.

<comment><USER25> That does seem confusing (unless the gp was formulated incorrectly). Most tax systems have some progressivity such as a large base deduction which could effectively make your first salary tax free and quite possibly make the last one of the year be taxed at over 50%. It would be confusing to say the least. I'm guessing the GP was just poorly formulated and that doesn't happen and "exactly what's needed as you earn it" is still involving at least a multiplication with 12 as the prediction for yearly income from monthly salary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> IMO the problem is the tax code itself rather than who is filing the paperwork. Unless that is simplified, there is zero chance the average citizen can work through their taxes themselves and pay the correct amount.

<comment><USER27> I'm always puzzled when average people argue that taxes are too confusing. It seems to me like people make it out to be a much larger burden than it actually is. If all you have is a W2, and deductions less than the standard deduction (which is what I'd argue is average), then you can fill out a 1040 by yourself in 30 minutes or less. Even faster if you use some of the software solutions out there.

<comment><USER28> Half the people filling out taxes were in the bottom half of their math class. Its not easy for everyone. This forum may suffer from selection bias?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Nothing can be done about open corruption like this until money is taken out of politics. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that this can't be done by banning donations or limiting political advertising, the solution is to reduce the size of each electorate so that politicians don't need to raise truckloads of cash in order to run.

If there were only 20,000 voters in each district then people would be able to run (and win) on personally meeting all the voters. No need for advertising and the money this requires. If you got rid off all the political staff then it wouldn't even cost anymore.

</comment><comment><USER30> > Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., offered a bill last year that would have > actually allowed the government to start offering prefill tax returns.

Ironically, just last year, Massachusetts got rid of its own simple, free online tool for filing state taxes, and instead directs residents to commercial offerings.

</comment><comment><USER31> Related thead on SE: [https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/30223/why- doesn...](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/30223/why-doesn-t-the- irs-just-send-me-a-bill-for-the-taxes-i-owe-based-on-the-info-th)

</comment><comment><USER32> Planet money had a podcast on this subject. [https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/03/22/521132960/epis...](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/03/22/521132960/episode-760-tax- hero)

</comment><comment><USER6> It's annoying to see this pop up every year. H&R Block and Intuit aren't somehow blocking tax reform that would simplify filing for all the other huge companies that do taxes. That's an absurd theory. They're lobbying to support something that'll happen anyway because a huge bloc wants people to be outraged every April 15 when they do their taxes.

And you know what? It works! Every year I write a check to pay our marriage penalty and fume about how it. I think it's responsible for why middle and lower income Americans feel like they're over taxed (even though they pay much less taxes than in europe).

<comment><USER24> > And you know what? It works! Every year I write a check to pay our marriage > penalty and fume about how it.

FWIW, the marriage penalty almost completely disappears in the 2018 tax reforms. There is still a higher rate for very high earning couples than for very high earning singles, and some deductions are not doubled for couples, but most of the tax brackets now line up as exactly double the single bracket (up to the 32% bracket). This markedly closer than prior years.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertberger/2017/12/17/the- new...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertberger/2017/12/17/the- new-2018-federal-income-tax-brackets-rates/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> For those interested in the theory of lobbying and special interest groups one of my favorite books is Mancur Olson's Rise and Decline of Nations ([https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-Nations-Stagflation- Rigi...](https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-Nations-Stagflation- Rigidities/dp/0300030797/)). It's an incredibly approachable read that does a wonderful job digging into the incentives and explains why lobbying exists and why it works.

</comment><comment><USER34> I might be alone here but in high school we had a single class to teach us money management and how to file taxes ourselves. It's only complicated if you have complicated situations. Vast majority of people probably shouldn't be using software anyways but the marketing makes them think they'll get a bigger refund.

I also wouldn't have a problem with them getting rid of all the weird rules around certain deductions. Example, is web hosting a utility or subscription service?

</comment><comment> tuna-piano The legitimate side to this is that people should know what their government is costing them. Because of tax withholding, many people don't even realize how high/low their taxes are.

I have a belief that we should get rid of tax-withholding, and have people just write a big check (or receive a EITC check) for all of their taxes at the end of the year.

To me (and I think many republicans), hiding the taxes you pay with withholding is really pretty slimy.

<comment><USER35> It's hardly hidden. Withholding is clearly listed on each pay stub. It's true that people often don't pay attention, but that's not at all the same thing as hiding it.

If you ended withholding, tons of people would spend too much during the year, not have enough saved to pay their taxes, and get into serious trouble. It would be the mirror of how so many idiots are giddy about their refund each April, except instead of feeling like they got a windfall, they'd end up with massive penalties.

You could argue that it's their own fault and they should be more responsible. I'd agree that they should, but they won't, any more than they'll be responsible enough to read their pay stubs and understand their withholding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> What are the examples of some of the other industries that thrive on this kind of asymmetric information for the buyer?

Reminded me of this article by Tyler Cowen [https://www.cato- unbound.org/2015/04/06/alex-tabarrok-tyler-...](https://www.cato- unbound.org/2015/04/06/alex-tabarrok-tyler-cowen/end-asymmetric-information)

</comment><comment><USER37> Every year a week before the tax deadline, this exact topic pops up. I've noticed now for the past 4 to 5 years.

The IRS should really advocate for this since it makes their jobs easier due to people making less mistakes. The IRS also has it's own lobby group - the US Congress. It's just not good at lobbying for the IRS...or Americans.

</comment><comment><USER38> Yeah, they are known crooks who want to retain their middlemen position at the cost of the public. Quite disgusting.

</comment><comment> Pierre-C I have found a free spreadsheet online,and I mail a paper return. The spreadsheet is surprisingly good, and I can use it in libreoffice. I started doing that after finding $22,000 worth of errors in years past. I call it paper protest.

</comment><comment><USER39> Tax companies whose existence relies on them and only them to decipher cryptic government tax laws. Quite literally the most predictable and unsurprising news article to come out on the internet.

</comment><comment><USER40> Don't hate the player? Lobbyism doesn't serve the public, but it _is_ how American law-making is done. Of course companies will lobby to keep their business.

<comment><USER41> That's apologism for a despicable practice. Hate the player and hate the game because we're all getting played in systems where lobbying is legal. This is how politicians end up serving corporations instead of people.

<comment><USER42> Writing a letter to your congressman is also lobbying. Are you going to make that illegal too?

<comment><USER43> Only if there is money in the envelope.

<comment><USER42> Oh, gotta outlaw all forms of political fund-raising too, then; apparently it's ok to give money to your neighbour unless that neighbour is running for office. Am I still allowed to spend my own money on an ad in the newspaper extolling the virtues of my preferred candidate?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Personally I've always found it sickening that a government would just hand you a prefilled form and say _This is what you owe!_

Feels much better to do it all yourself and declare _This is what I'm going to pay_. It's a careful distinction.</comment>


Freelance-for-equity marketplace: Loom - <AUTHOR> https://www.joinloom.com/ <comment><USER2> I'm a little sceptical because I feel like founders overvalue equity in their companies and the companies I see on here don't seem that different. And outsiders tend to undervalue it.

It's also pretty hard to evaluate the true value of startups, and even harder when you have no idea what their traction & financials are like.

I will be surprised if you see a significant amount of bids which take significantly less cash for equity.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hey guys, would love to hear any constructive feedback on what we're building with Loom! Based out of Austin, we're on a mission to bring together passionate developers with great ideas for mutual interest.</comment>


Hostage Situation - <AUTHOR> http://exple.tive.org/blarg/2015/07/24/hostage-situation/

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure how universal this problem is, but Mike would probably know better than I do.

How can we get beyond the anecdata, and put some comprehensive numbers on this problem?

</comment><comment><USER3> Reproducible research is good for academia for the same reasons open source is good for software.</comment>


Ask HN: Are data science bootcamps worth it? - <AUTHOR> Hi HN. My friend is a former project manager and data hobbyist who taught himself some Python and does little data projects. He's interested in moving into a 'data job', but my sense has always been that companies looking for a data person want some kind of traditional data science educational background, like Masters or PhD. However, a bunch of bootcamps like GA now offer data tracks; just wondering if these are a viable path to a career- it might also depend on whether he is trying to work as a "data scientist" or an analyst? Thanks for your opinions. <comment><USER2> Tell them to become a data cleaning monster - This is a great way to get in at a lower level and get an interview. Bigger teams would appreciate help in that way.

</comment><comment><USER3> As someone who taught at a bootcamp (not at GA)... It may be a good way to learn how to get things done, but you will still need to be very resourceful and persistent to land a job.

I would take a hard look at whatever promises GA makes about job placement, with the caveat that these statistics are still just marketing material. IMO blogging, going to meetups and networking may prove necessary even with a bootcamp

</comment><comment><USER4> I think they are a great idea if you are trying to expand your role in a company, for a job that you already have.

But most companies are really looking for the Masters or PhD.

However, I know of 2 people who were "self-taught" and able to land Data Science jobs, with Bootcamp style credentials. I'm not sure how many jobs they applied for before getting hired, but I got the sense it took 4 to 5 months.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you market your self-published book? - <AUTHOR>

I recently published a book and while the initial feedback I've gotten is all positive, the sales aren't quite where I was hoping they'd be, or where I think they could be.
Things I've done:
Show HN - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6399339 - good feedback, but it only got to the top of page 2.
Reddit AMA - http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1mpx4x/iaman_app_developer_and_selfpublished_author_who/ - went over really well but I was mostly talking about my business and didn't try to sell the book much. Tough to market on Reddit without getting downvoted to oblivion. Stayed on front page of AMA subreddit most of the day though.
Mailing list / blog - I've been giving a sample chapter on signup to my mailing list for awhile as well as sending out an email to everyone on launch. I've also talked about it on my blog a bit, and there is a prominent link in the sidebar.
Things I've considered, but haven't had time for yet:
Guest posts
Podcasts
Press Release
More consistent blogging on my own site
????
Has anyone had a successful self-published book? What tips do you have? Thoughts on which of things I've been considering would have the best ROI? What other things might be better?
I debated linking to the book here as I really don't want this to seem like one of my marketing attempts, but perhaps conversions are a problem in addition to just getting more people into the top of the funnel. I'd love to get feedback on this page as well - http://buildanappbusiness.com/ <comment><USER2> Good info - thanks for starting this. I'm along for the ride of it (i.e. watching this thread for good info). I've self-published a book years ago and my only "marketing" was listing it on Amazon. That was in 2008 IIRC and, for me, the PIA of formatting the e-book for the various formats was just so much work that I've not written another.

When I look at your list, I see a lot of things that I'd put in the "publicity" category rather than in the pure "marketing". Both are good, but there's a time and place for each. Maybe you were just doing what amounts to "brand awareness" and expecting the results of "targeted marketing"? I think of "targeted marketing" along the lines of running ads in AdWords, AdSense, on other sites, in other newsletters, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> I forgot to mention I did a small experiment with adwords, but the clicks were far to expensive to actually make money with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The marketing funnel is breaking at the top because you are asking for my email in exchange for a chapter of your book, which is unfair because I don't even know you and all of a sudden you're going to learn a lot about me. Remember Godin's Permission Marketing.

Make the product your hero. Right now it's tucked away at the very bottom behind a paywall (I pay with my email). Let me read your free chapter right away, no string attached. Then you can start selling to me.

Quickest fix though is just to move that 'For a Free Chapter Join our Newsletter' call-to-action to the very top. Check your analytics after that and I bet you conversions will improve drastically.

I would even go so far as to just make the whole page a free chapter and having the newsletter call to action and that's it. You can start selling the book in the newsletter, which is far more likely to drive a sale (engaged prospects) rather than fly-by lurkers.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the suggestions. I had been considering making the sample chapter more prominent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's twice today I've recommended this guy:

[http://nathanbarry.com/](http://nathanbarry.com/)

Read some of his articles about how he marketed his books.</comment>


Ask HN: Is it healthy to have 20 years of archived emails? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I have 23+ years worth of e-mail. Started as Pine back in 1995, moved to Postmaster (on BeOS) at some point Eudora, Evolution (on Linux), Thunderbird, GyazMail, Mail.app and now considering moving to Mutt and pop-ing down mail locally again. Currently takes up about 46gb.

I did at one point start to write my own e-mail client and I stored all of my mail in SQLite, using SQL to organize, search, tag, etc.

About 4 years ago I had an old employer e-mail me out of the blue asking if I remembered some code that I wrote. I hadn't worked for them in about 15 years. I was able to send them all the e-mails I had from the project that spanned 6 months.

<comment><USER3> > I did at one point start to write my own e-mail client and I stored all of > my mail in SQLite, using SQL to organize, search, tag, etc.

That sounds like a fascinating idea. I wrote my own email client, but it uses Maildirs for storage (with optional IMAP support), and one of the biggest issues is that reading every file in a large directory is slow.

(Well if I'm honest the issue is reading and parsing every file from a given maildir hierarchy.)

Caching headers helps some, but if it were all in a database I'm sure it would significantly simpler. "notmuch" went down that route, and it seems like it pays off in terms of speed. The issue really is importing the mail, and making sure your database doesn't get out of sync with the files on-disk.

If you were really brave of course you'd remove the maildir-contents post- import. But I think I'd be too scared to do that!

<comment><USER2> > If you were really brave of course you'd remove the maildir-contents post- > import. But I think I'd be too scared to do that!

Oh, I did! I figured why not? It would just mean that I needed to use my client for history if I ever stopped developing it and went back to some other solution. Of course I used a copy of my e-mail while developing and testing, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Maybe if you printed them as a "backup". What makes you think having them is unhealthy?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure. Something about holding onto baggage of things that are no longer relevant to me. In the same, or a similar, vein I kinda feel the need to purge 80% of the photos I've taken from the last 25 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you're asking for permission to clean it all away, you have it. rm -rf that sucker.

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't even ask about my last 20 years of projects - Carbon apps for Mac OS 10.4. Maybe I should just run `rm -rf ~`

<comment><USER5> Hey, if you haven't used it in the last 10 years you probably never will OR a more efficient solution has already been found for the frame-work you're using now.

Unless it's truly a one-of-a-kind genius solution that no one will ever come up with again...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't see why it should be unhealthy unless you use past memories to escape the present.

I'm keeping a daily journal since 2005. I started this to document my thought process and to improve my writing. It's a treasure trove that helps me to understand myself better and to find out my blind spots. As memories are fickle I wish I had emails to give me another view of my past.

</comment><comment><USER7> If you haven't been accessing it and are thinking about deleting maybe consider starting it off with the older half and wait for a while and see how it goes.

</comment><comment><USER8> If you need to ask a bunch of internet strangers how healthy this is, the answer is probably _not very._

</comment><comment><USER9> How much space does it take up?

<comment><AUTHOR> 30GB. It's not so much about the space. It's the baggage of having access to a ton of information. And the increased risk of losing my identity of my account was hacked.

<comment><USER9> Which is more sensitive if your account is hacked? Emails from 20 years ago, or emails from this past month?

<comment><AUTHOR> Flip a coin. I probably have some emails from 20 years ago that contain health information, SSNs, passport info, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> java-man what is the problem with 20 years of archived emails?

<comment><AUTHOR> Largely, the baggage of having 20 years worth of conversation at my fingertips that is largely irrelevant.

I guess I could try and reconstruct my life with my emails, or of course, someone else could - say my account was hacked.

<comment><USER10> Well it's your data, you could do some data science and NLP to study your life since 20 years ago.</comment></comment></comment>


Streak (YC S11) launches Google Drive Integration - <AUTHOR> http://blog.streak.com/2013/04/adding-files-to-your-boxes-using-google.html

<comment><USER2> A few thoughts on Streak...

We quickly adopted Streak to do customer support right when it came out, because we were stoked by the GMail integration.

In the end, we found the canned responses to be no better than GMail canned responses though, and also Streak never seemed to "stick" as part of the support workflow. The support team ended up basically just sending emails, and the dev team didn't end up getting better visibility into issues.

Recently, we switched to using UserVoice to handle support, and it works really well. We were using them for their IdeaForum, but also replaced our wiki/manual with their knowledgebase, and replaced Streak with their helpdesk. UserVoice ends up giving us a lot of data about support, and integrates search/knowledgebase nicely with support. I also like that the UserVoice iOS SDK is open source, and I was able to fix a display issue I noticed, and get a pull request accepted immediately.

I also tried to use Streak to do PR - that might have not worked out because the intern wasn't very into doing PR, but I also felt a little clumsy trying to collaborate with her via Streak.

<comment><AUTHOR> Co-founder at Streak here. Would love to know how we can do better in the support use case. We've gotten much better since first launching but, admittedly, we aren't that great at that specific use case. Feel free to send to me directly at aleem at streak.

<comment><USER3> It's common for me to make a quote for each box. I've to go to Google Docs, generate a Document, sometimes a Spreadsheet for a Bill of Materials, Redactate the quotation, Download the file as PDF, upload it to Gmail, attach it and send it.

It would be awesome if every block could have some "special files", not the ones the customer send you (request for proposals, work orders, purchase orders), but the one you generate and send. I would like to have a button to just simply attach a Google Docs Word File as PDF on a mail, and send it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I heavily rely on Streak in my day to day and honestly can't imagine how I got by without it. I'm excited to try out this new feature. Seems pretty useful to be able to box files.

</comment><comment><USER5> Why not just use Filepicker?</comment>


How We Grew Our Side Project to $60K Revenue in 6 Months - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/keep-learning-keep-growing/how-we-grew-our-side-project-to-60-000-in-revenue-in-6-months-a41f70bc752b <comment><USER2> The craigslist strategy is really smart. Email has way better response rates than, say, facebook, and it seems like a solid way to get past the initial "spread beyond your immediate social network" problem. That said though, it doesn't sit quite right with me. I'm aware this is mostly a problem inherent with the craislist format, but it seems like scraping tools like they used [1] are ripe for abuse, and that by some definitions, unsolicited and unrelated emails could be considered abuse. Nonetheless, it's a really smart growth strategy.

[1] [http://www.craigslistscraper.net/](http://www.craigslistscraper.net/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I particularly like 2 things about this story: 1) They chose the market niche BEFORE designing the product 2) The Craigslist scraper growth hack.</comment>


Looking for contributors: Fancy i3status replacement in Rust - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/XYunknown/i3status-rust <comment><AUTHOR> This is a little sideproject I've been working on. If you love i3, you'll love this project. Minimalistic in system resource usage, yet packed with features to get so much more out of your i3bar. Because this is only something I can work on in my spare time, I haven't finished many modules yet (like CPU usage, battery, device mounts etc etc.). I only got around to get the framework working properly so far. This is why I'm looking for contributors to get this thing everyday-ready. It is going to add a nice look, buttons and dynamic blocks to your i3bar, al the while using less system resources than i3status by saving block updates through push-updates, caching and individual block update intervals. Let me know what you think, it's my first public Rust project.</comment>