Death by Cloud - How Amazon is Killing Open Source Software  - <AUTHOR> http://www.keeneview.com/2011/04/death-by-cloud-how-amazon-is-killing.html

<comment><USER2> The author is essentially arguing that platform-as-a-service companies like Amazon reduce the need for e.g. MySQL support contracts. This is probably true, but "killing open source software" is overblown.

<comment><USER3> I'd argue it helps open source software: more people are using it. Pretty sure that Amazon EC2 caused a lot of people to try Linux servers.

I also don't agree that Amazon support is entirely comparable with a real MySQL support contract. If you need a feature that requires changes to the code, the original developers are a better choice.

<comment><USER4> That situation won't ever occur. Once an individual/organization has chosen Amazon RDS, Amazon support versus MySQL support won't be a discussion. You have no direct access to the servers, so you can't make code changes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Companies producing open-source need to make money too -- that's not anything new.

This is the reason why open-source is a commons resource for software developers, but it cannot overtake commercial software for consumers, and rational people could see this coming.

You can also think of it as the commoditization of the software industry, much like Rentacoder. Companies that sell packaged software are against it, companies that don't (i.e. IBM, Oracle, Google) are pro.

        The open source community has tried
        to fight back. For example, the new
        Affero GPL license (AGPL) ...

IMHO, AGPL is the product of sower grapes, and the realization that Free Software needs a business model to survive, which isn't easy when your first customer can redistribute your software freely.

What AGPL truly allows is for dual-licensing to work for server-side products. But what it also boils down to is that such a company isn't in any danger of having any kind of commercial competition from forks (i.e. the perfect natural monopoly over something that should be public commons), which is something Free Software was supposed to solve in the first place.

AGPL is not open anymore and I don't know how it could pass the open-source definition -- because AGPL is an EULA that restrict what users can do with said software, usage rights that don't have anything to do with redistribution by the normal copyright definition.

AGPL is only Free depending on which side of the dick you're standing.

<comment><USER2> Certain groups[1] have always tried to eradicate commercial software. AGPL is just the logical adaption to the current environment.

Also, given that BSD and GPL advocates can debate about which is "more free" for hours, I don't think "free" is a very useful word in this kind of discussion.

[1] "It's called GNU/crazy!"

<comment><USER5> Yes, but by going by the definition of both Open Source and Free Software, I don't think AGPL qualifies; that was my point.

Going by the Free Software definition, which is a lot more relaxed about terms and simpler:

        (0) freedom to run the program, for any purpose
        (1) change it to make it do what you wish

How about changing it into something that has an output for which I own copyright / redistribution rights, such that I can sell it?

If the output of a program can be considered derived work of that program, than freedom (0) is bitch-slapped. And if redistribution is not involved, then freedoms (2) and (3) don't enter the picture; which is why AGPL is trying to redefine what redistribution means.

It's a word-play and I don't know how this was Open Source certified, which makes me think that the process itself is broken (bias towards FSF maybe?).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not sure how this is Amazon, or even cloud specific. Any hosting company, traditional or not, can build enough internal expertise to circumvent support- contracts with the OSS provider.

</comment><comment><USER7> amazon and other cloud services are lowering the access barriere to an advanced server infrastructure significantly. (hey, even i as a private user now have a few instances (i.e.:vpn) in the cloud).

the cake gets bigger -> more demand for support services.

</comment><comment><USER8> nonsense</comment>


Ask HN: If FB workers are killing themselves, why don't they unionize? - <AUTHOR> If Facebook working conditions are so terrible as to make suicide the only viable option, then why don't they just unionize?  With collective bargaining power, they could get much better work/life balance. <comment><USER2> > If Facebook working conditions are so terrible as to make suicide the only > viable option, then why don't they just unionize?

First, unionizing is not simple. One needs a majority of workers in agreement of forming a union and voting on it.

Meanwhile, anyone who stands to lose money from better pay and benefits from the formation of a union -- anyone in management and the executives -- will likely try to stop any efforts, mainly through propaganda: "Unions are not good for you!"

With a company as big as Facebook and management likely monitoring everything its employees do, unionizing will likely be difficult, especially if people are not educated on the benefits of a union.

Contrary to popular belief, you cannot get fired for joining a union.

> With collective bargaining power, they could get much better work/life > balance.

That is assuming they are unionized, which would take a while.

</comment><comment><USER3> The sole purpose of this "Ask HN" post is to put out a slanderous premise.

Facebook working conditions are not horrible, and for people who don't like it there is a great option of not working there.</comment>


The Uncanny Resurrection of Dungeons and Dragons - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-uncanny-resurrection-of-dungeons-and-dragons <comment><USER2> I tried getting friends to play RPG's in the early 1980's but they didn't show much interest until I came across a supply of 6" (150 mm) square pieces of styrofoam (discarded packing material from work) which I painted with gray acrylic paint. I cut some in half and some in quarters and used them to depict the dungeons for use with metal miniatures. After that I had a group which showed up every month for 5 years.

I wrote a program for my computer which generated dice rolls, monsters, treasures, and random names to assist me in my role as Dungeon Master but the critical element was my ability to ignore or re-roll any result which seemed too unfavorable. Good players really help the game but a good Dungeon Master is essential for an enjoyable game. Computers alone cannot exhibit the empathy necessary for a great game.

<comment><USER3> The thing that turned me off is the fake british accents people seem to feel are necessary. It's a fantasy world, who's to say what kind of accent they have??

<comment><USER4> in my current game, the dwarves all have redneck accents, and if anyone questions why they're not talking in bad Scottish accents, they start talking about "ijits" who've never seen a real dwarf but only halflings dressed in fat-suits at the minstrel shows pretending to be dwarves...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My campaign started in 1978. We're still playing. Over 60 players have come and gone, but the current crew has a half-dozen of the original players from the 70s and early 80s still going. We've outlasted at least 6 marriages, lots of moving (I currently Skype in, but will be moving back home next year), and all manner of turmoil. When I've been too busy or burnt out to DM, someone else in the group has stepped up to fill the gap.

It's hard to schedule because of family and work obligations, but we are pretty close to monthly.

<comment><USER6> Wow, it's really Loyd Blankenship! Forgive the gushing fan reply, but I'll take any chance I can to tell you how grateful I am for the GURPS Cyberpunk sourcebook. Definitely one of my main inspirations (along with Gibson's books) for taking up a career in coding.

<comment><USER7> Ahh. The book that supposedly kicked off "Operation Sundevil".

What if I told you that there might have been a different GURPS book that was the real cause?

<comment><USER5> (Also, if I'm being pedantic, Sundevil had nothing to do with the the raid either. Sundevil was run by an idiot in Arizona. All of the Legion of Doom- related raids were run by an idiot in Chicago.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm not sure if it's resurrecting, or just improving it's image, either way it's welcome. Still, it is sad that it is so focused on one game: D&D. It's a decent game, particularly fifth edition, but I can't help finding it a bit... um, artless.

Which isn't a problem, sometimes that's fun. But when there are so many amazing and sophisticated RPGs, with game mechanics that expand the form and support interesting play, it is a shame that DnD still gets all the focus.

I'd love to see more love for 'Night Witches', 'Dogs in the Vineyard', 'My life with Master', 'The Beast', 'Hillfolk', 'The Clay that Woke' even 'Apocalypse World', or 'Fate'.

It's like programming languages, sure you can do anything in D&D (≈ Java, perhaps?), but other games have different strengths. Sometimes, being into non D&D RPGs can feel like people saying "there's more than one programming language?"

<comment><USER9> Actually, D&D is a very American thing. In Germany we have a pretty active Pen & Paper scene as well, but D&D is not so common. Instead, the "major" system is DSA (The Black Eye). But I have a feeling that we have a higher variety of systems played on this side of the sea. I played D&D once and didn't like it that much. Too much focus on being the hero, too much encouragement of powergaming for my taste. But that might be a cultural thing as well.

<comment><USER10> As an avid boardgamer, I've noticed there's a big difference between American and European board games (and probably also table top RPG frameworks) in the sense that the American tendency is to favour luck and hail Mary rolls to save the day. Eurogames tend to be focused on resource management and long term strategy. So definitely a cultural thing. Both systems do have their merits, but "rolling for combat" is traditionally associated with "Ameritrash" games, a term used both lovingly and derogatorily.

I see that The Dark Eye does use rolling for combat, but it calculates armour differently, in a more predictable manner (for example, in D&D armour makes you less likely to be hit, whereas in The Dark Eye it makes you take less damage) which I think demonstrates the different tendencies.

<comment><USER11> > I've noticed there's a big difference between American and European board > games (and probably also table top RPG frameworks) in the sense that the > American tendency is to favour luck and hail Mary rolls to save the day. > Eurogames tend to be focused on resource management and long term strategy.

D&D especially since 4e, is very much by conscious design centered around structured resource management (that in 4e this was done in a very heavy- handed metagame way by way of, e.g., encounter/daily powers, I think, contributed to a lot of the complaints against; 5e's short/long rest system is nearly equivalent in effect but ties the mechanic in a more organic way to the fiction.)

> I see that The Dark Eye does use rolling for combat, but it calculates > armour differently, in a more predictable manner (for example, in D&D armour > makes you less likely to be hit, whereas in The Dark Eye it makes you take > less damage)

This is extremely common in American TTRPGs that aren't D&D or deliberate mechanical clones.

<comment><USER10> Well I think table top RPGs by necessity have to more closely meet in the middle on the luck vs resource management spectrum, but "normal" board games are where the differences really get highlighted. Risk is a traditional "American" game, where you role dice for combat, and it can be very frustrating. More modern examples such as Arkham Horror or Elder Sign are similar, where any turn could be horrible or amazing, depending on your rolls. Compare that with Terra Mystica or Agricola and there's very little "chance" and more about planning ahead, and following some sort of strategy.

I'm not passing judgement or saying one style is categorically better than the other, but there's _definitely_ a huge correlation between continent-of-origin and level-of-chance-involved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think the main thing is 5th edition - it's really good. I briefly tried 4th edition and it just didn't feel right - _way_ too combat heavy and video- gamey.

Then 5th edition came out and it was immediately obvious that it had that 1st edition feel but with all the bugs worked out. I play it with my kids and it's awesome.

<comment><USER13> If you have any, I'd love tips for running a game for kids. (I've never DM'ed or played but am pretty familiar from many podcasts)

<comment><USER14> Honestly, forget about rules. Just tell a story and let them guide it. You can occasionally throw in some d20 rolls if you want to introduce some risk of failure, and from there perhaps start build in some bonuses which let them customise their characters. But the main thing is just collaborative storytelling (and bad jokes and accents) and the best role-playing sessions I've ever had have involved no dice rolls at all.

<comment><USER15> This is the truth of it. The gaming system in use is less important than the game world and the story you're telling.

<comment><USER16> Graham Walmsley's short book "Play Unsafe" is a good introduction to running a game and incorporating advice from improv to improve your group's storytelling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Does anyone remember the MUD [1] days ?

It was a terminal text based D&D where you could connect to a server and create a character and play with other people. Every mud service was a completely different world you could explore and had different characters. You would team up with people and go slay monsters to gain experience and level up or just hang out and do stupid stuff.

You could use a dedicated mud clients like zMud [2] that added some nice key mapping for going north/south/up/down etc. All interaction was text based in CLI.

I was a teenager at that time, late nineties. I spent so many hours playing on a mud called "Merging of Fates" [3] [4] meeting great people day after day. They had occasional meetups in real life, but I didn't grow up in the US so I didn't attend. I think mud was the major factor for improving my English vocabulary as a kid.

I miss those times.

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

2: [http://www.zuggsoft.com/page.php?file=zmud/zmudinfo.htm](http://www.zuggsoft.com/page.php?file=zmud/zmudinfo.htm)

3: [http://www.mudconnect.com/mud- bin/adv_search.cgi?Mode=MUD&mu...](http://www.mudconnect.com/mud- bin/adv_search.cgi?Mode=MUD&mud=A+Merging+of+Fates)

4: [http://www.mudstats.com/World/AMergingofFates](http://www.mudstats.com/World/AMergingofFates)

<comment><USER18> My 11yo plays Minecraft and one of her activities is roleplay, which is 90% text based since graphical character actions are so limited. I think there's a potential for a resurgence of things like MUDs.

I also have a 17yo who's into writing, and I plan on working with her to put together some interactive fiction that resembles MUDs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I always wanted to give it a go, but could never find a group. Now as a careered adult with kids, it is even harder to find time to try this kind of thing, especially since my spouse has few gaming tendencies. Last year or so though, I saw a Pathfinder Humble Bundle for a bunch of rule books and I decided to buy them for fun. And that got me thinking..I started poking around some forums and ended up joining a play-by-post (PbP) Pathfinder campaign over at paizo.com.

I've really enjoyed myself! After a while I joined two more campaigns. A post or three a day is easy to fit in my schedule. It really gives me something to look forward to each morning as I sit down with some coffee.

e.g. [http://paizo.com/campaigns/GMNayrsCarrionCrownAP/gameplay&pa...](http://paizo.com/campaigns/GMNayrsCarrionCrownAP/gameplay&page=1)

<comment><USER20> depending on where you live, you might have some luck via meetups. i'm a long- time rpg player, but I lost my group when I moved to esseph. Meetup started the networking process - there's a _lot_ of D&D and other RPG meetup groups.

<comment><USER16> Many local game stores host RPG nights and welcome new or drop-in players.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> _A few months later, a parent stopped him on the street with tears in her eyes. "What are you guys doing?" she asked him. Her son was dyslexic and had been role-playing at Brooklyn Strategist for a couple of weeks. Before D. & D., he couldn't focus on writing for more than a few seconds. Now he was staying up all night to draft stories about his character. "Whatever it is, bottle it and sell it to me," the mother said._

I mean, product endorsements don't get any stronger than that!

</comment><comment><USER22> I live a couple of blocks from Brooklyn Strategist, the "game space" featured in the article. When it first opened I didn't expect it to last a year. Instead they've gone from strength to strength and more than doubled their size, moving into an adjoining space that had been an architect's office. They have approximately six large game tables which are constantly at capacity. They also have a wall with a library of hundreds of board games that I marvel at. I love that I live in a time and place where such an endeavor can succeed. I only wish I had something like this when I was a kid. Instead, I had our school D&D club which lasted a month before a parent complained that it was devil worshipping and had us shut down (circa 1982/3).

</comment><comment><USER23> It's because of Stranger Things. The article sees it as a symptom, but from a lot of people I know, it's actually a cause.

Shameless plug: If any of you have ever wanted to try DnD but didn't know how to get started, or if you've played before and want to start again, try playing my fun-optimized rule set, _DnD: TL;DR_ - [https://github.com/Miserlou/dnd-tldr](https://github.com/Miserlou/dnd-tldr)

<comment><USER24> This can't possibly be the case.

Nerd culture has spread and with it all things nerdy.

Look at the growth of GenCon for one example of how explosive this has been. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gen_Con#Timeline](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gen_Con#Timeline)

Board games sales are up 28% in the US [http://www.adweek.com/brand- marketing/from-monopoly-to-explo...](http://www.adweek.com/brand- marketing/from-monopoly-to-exploding-kittens-board-games-are-making-a- comeback/)

If anything, I'd say that Stranger things is a symptom of nerd culture. I mean, look at things like Big Bang Theory. There is no way that show would have hit mainstream without nerd culture being even remotely popular.

<comment><USER25> BBT is an attack on, not a celebration of, nerd culture.

<comment><USER26> And the reasoning behind this sentiment usually is that the jokes in the show are made at the characters' expense - people watching the show laugh at them, not with them.

Here's an example of a post that explores that topic: [http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the-p...](http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the- problem-with-the-big-bang-theory)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> For people who don't already know the game or the current edition, it might also be of interest that you can download the basic rules for free.

[http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules](http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules)

These are actually all the rules needed to play, minus special classes, character options and spells found in the players guide. Best place for new players is probably the starter set, because it includes a rather good adventure in addition to premade characters and a rulebook. It is also available at a low price, but you can't beat free of course.

</comment><comment><USER28> >half a dozen paid Dungeon Masters...

Still trying to process that. Do I need to polish my resume? What type of experience is required? How many applications did he get? How old were the applicants?

<comment><USER29> Paid DMs can be a great experience for everyone, especially if all the people in your play group "just want to play."

<comment><USER30> Yeah. I won't play DND because it's too open ended. I simply don't want to commit that much time to a campaign.

But there are board games like Mansions of Madness that use an iPad as DM. You can play as many or as little of the scenarios you want. Then DM later if you get into it.

There are also sandbox type board games. There is no DM but you get to decide what you want to do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'm shocked by the number of people popping out of the woodwork. I've been gaming consistently for the past 35 years, and while gaming was more popular overall in the early 80s and late 90s, I know more gamers right now personally than ever. I have a game group, of older people, on my fucking street!

<comment><USER32> I did play some RPG when I was a kid (born 1981) and I've been thinking about how to get back to it for the las 5 years. I was probably difficult not so long ago, but my friends are starting to freeze their fb accounts and restrict mobile use, might give a try!

<comment><USER33> I'm in a similar demographic and recently got back into it (D&D 5e). The impetus for me was that (a) it had been "long enough" since I'd stopped playing (probably 15 years, Jesus) that I was craving it and (b) I wanted an excuse to drag a group of friends over to my house on a regular basis.

Any resurgence is probably rooted in a number of factors, like the good design of 5e, but I wonder how much of it stems from the same cohort who played it in the 90's simply reaching some point in their life (spending less time at bars, looking for more of a break from work, wanting to spend time with friends "IRL", etc etc) that they fall back into it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm still hoping for a really good online platform for D&D. My play group has aged, sprogged, and struggles for a regular evening to play. We've used forum- based stuff in the past, which has actually led to some really good role-play heaving campaigns, but it's no good for real-time encounters or the beer & pizza fuelled camaraderie that really makes D&D great.

<comment><USER34> Have you tried Roll20.net? I've used it for Pathfinder, D&D, 13th Age, and Blades in the Dark to great effect. The platforms always getting better.

<comment><USER4> I currently play with a group on roll20. It's not perfect, but it's adequate. (We pair it with a discord server for voice and secondary/out-of-character chat and logistics.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I've never played any DnD, but I've spent countless hours playing various video game RPG's from the Baldur's Gate series (based on the ADnD rules) all the way up to modern RPG's like Dragon Age and Pillars of Eternity.

 _A decade ago, when developers attempted to bring Dungeons & Dragons into the twenty-first century by stuffing it with rules so that it might better resemble a video game, the glue of the game, the narrative aspect that drew so many in, melted away. Players hacked monsters to death, picked up treasure, collected experience points, and coolly moved through preset challenges_

Baldur's gate is almost 2 decades old, and I disagree that it did not have the narrative impact that a good DnD game could have (or maybe I'm misunderstanding the authors words). I'm not sure you can even compare what "need" Baldurs Gate satisfies for a gamer compared to DnD. I know gamers who enjoy both. I for one, am glad that computer games like BG exist.

<comment><USER36> Your quote is referring to is the changes that DnD went though to keep up with modern DnD style videogames _like_ BG. Rather than saying those video games did not have a strong narrative impact, its saying DnD lost its own; As the DnD rules became more complex often the priorities of a party shifted to min- maxing over questing for the sake of it.

Recently there has been a change in the core DnD rules away from heavy beardy / min-maxing play back to a DM running a narrative campaign.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> If you have tried getting your friends to play D&D and they say, "too many rules," try Dungeon World. It's designed to be in a similar setting but uses much simpler rules. It also allows you to be much more collaborative in story- building, requiring substantially less DM prep.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/DungeonWorld/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DungeonWorld/)

[http://www.dungeon-world.com/](http://www.dungeon-world.com/)

<comment><USER38> There are also many RPGs don't have much mechanics and are more about playing the characters, if you're not hung up on dungeons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Are there any AR apps that let you set up dungeons/maps on your table (through the view of your phone or tablet)?

<comment><USER40> I just searched for something like this about a month ago and found nothing. I think both an ipad app to design 2d dungeons for print or use on sites like roll20 as well as an AR app could corner the market. The only good d&d mobile apps are on iOS only and have no real competition either (Fight Club 5 and Game Master 5).

<comment><USER11> Deep integration with rules may have licensing issues, and as D&D Beyond expands, apps which lack such integration may have trouble competing with the growing first-party service.

<comment><USER39> What's the growing first-party service?

<comment><USER11> D&D Beyond.

<comment><USER41> WotC is not exactly known for having overly usable digital services. Not to mention there are thousands of other RPGs you can make headway in

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Fantasy wasn't mainstream then, and now it is. Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Harry Potter kickstarted fantasy into the mainstream conciousness. It's no surprise that a growing acceptance of the genre in the large would also lead to a growing desire to participate in it, and the streamlined rules and whatnot are just a little boost to help in that direction.

</comment><comment><USER43> The New Yorker's editors seem to really like board games.

Other related articles: [https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture- desk/dungeons-drag...](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture- desk/dungeons-dragons-saved-my-life)

[https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/the-hottest- new...](https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/the-hottest-new-board- games)

</comment><comment><USER44> The best advice I can give any DnD or aspiring DnD players is to invest in a 3D printer.

<comment><USER45> I've been playing DnD for 22 years now and I don't see why. Figurines are completely accessory. I didn't even used maps until 5-6 years ago when we moved to Dnd4.

<comment><USER44> But if you do use them, investing in a 3D printer will allow you to create your own and save a lot of money on the long run. You can even scale down regular models such as chests, barrels, etc.

It's a fun toy that you can buy together as a group of players. It usually take a few hours to print a model, so you can start a print while you play a game and have a nice surprise when you are done playing.

Printing the exact model of the boss your players are going to fight is priceless.

(I'm talking about a $200-$400 price range printer and not a $2000+ one mind you.)

<comment><USER45> Hmmm yeah that would be nice... If we buy it together we can have it one week each. And you can even print coins, I guess.

<comment><USER44> There's something special about breaking the fourth wall and having the players carry mementos in real life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> > At the end of the 1982 TV movie "Mazes and Monsters," a troubled gamer, > played by a pre-fame Tom Hanks, loses touch and starts to believe that he > really does live beside an evil wood in need of heroes.

Man, I have seen that movie. Having spent a good part of my youth playing AD&D, I did not know whether to laugh at it or yell at it angrily. Either way, it sucked really, really hard.

</comment><comment><USER47> I got into DnD in 3rd edition and played it every weekend throughout high school.

However, once I started teaching this game to other people, even with the "fixed 3.5" Pathfinder, I realized it was super complicated. It requires such a big time investment from the players to figure out what they're doing, especially if they come from a video game background where they want to have "the best".

Now, I use Savage Worlds since it's much quicker, less complicated and you can pick your theme. Only problem is that it requires a more invested GM if you want the same texture as in DnD.

</comment><comment><USER48> I actually shudder at the thought of playing D&D. The idea that I have to make up a story as I go along and am dependant on what the DM thinks about my decisions, just does not appeal to me.

Considering I have never played D&D, I could very well be completely off the mark, however there is nothing that was said in the article that changed my mind, but (and this is important) this is a purely personal view of what I like to play.

I can see the appeal to other people and salute a game (and genre) that brings people together and away from being glued to a screen or computer.

<comment><USER49> Resurrected my old account just to reply to this. I just started playing 9 months ago or so. I was sceptical as I've always felt poor at acting/drama.

Turns out, it's really fun.

You're not making a story alone. You're in a group with 2-5 other 'heroes' and a DM. You're all making the story together and it's easy to go along with the flow until you think of something that pops into your head and you can then do whatever it is you want to.

In my experience, good DMs aren't going to judge you for what you do or don't do.

For me, D&D is way more lighthearted than I thought it would be. I guess this depends on the group, but, I've now bounced around a few and it seems to be a common thread. It sounds ridiculous, but, last night the group I DM'd 'invented' brunch before taking on a quest to save a girl that had been abducted by goblins (but, not before finishing their brunch and making a little picnic for themselves).

It's surprisingly easy to try D&D - there are often people running 'one shots'. These are small stories designed to start and end in a few hours so that you get a feel for it without needing to invest a huge amount of time.

<comment><USER50> if you want a fun game try the pathfinder "we be goblins" scenarios as our gm said it allows you to ply with moral compass of a toddler.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Why D&D and not one of the later RPGs? It seems the RPG world has degenerated since the 90s if adult/YA players are using it for more than an introduction to RPGs.

<comment><USER51> Because it is simple and available without any effort. Everyone knows it exists, it is not obscure.

So they start to play and have good fun, convert their friends by telling them how fun it is, but is there any reason to stop.playing and explore other often more complex rulesets?

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I'd have liked this article if it had taken a more critical stance as to the resurgence of RPGs rather than hand-waving some ineffable bs about simpler times and half-allusions to political tensions.

The more accurate answer is, IMO, two fold: (1) kids who grew up on RPGs are now old enough to want to want to play with their own kids, and funnel disposable cash into it (2) kids who are interested have less stigma to approaching it, so conversion rates from interest to player should be higher (3) a lot of technical advancements from the US indie scene and the Western European LARP scene have slowly diffused out into the more mainstream RPG community, resulting in play that's a lot more fulfilling to various types of players

<comment><USER53> Another very important reason was left out: The 5th edition of the game was very well designed and received critical acclaim among veterans who were disappointed by the 4th edition. The article makes it sound like there's been a resurrection when in fact the game was just hibernating.

<comment><USER54> What on earth are these edition things? I'll have to dig out my DMG, PH, MM, FF etc. Apparently, they might be cool.

Then there is Traveller, Runequest, Tunnels and Trolls, Car Wars (with Truck Stop etc) and rather a lot more.

<comment> squeaky-clean Every 8 or so years they revamp the rules and release it as a new edition. Aside from few exceptions, they're mostly incompatible with each other and offer different rules for combat, skill usage and training, etc, and quality- of-life improvements.

3e (more specifically 3.5e) was extremely popular. There's now a ruleset called Pathfinder made by another company, Paizo, that continues the style of 3.5e and is mostly compatible with it (though it has its own core rulebooks and most people I know don't mix 3e and PF).

4e wasn't as well liked but it still had mostly good reception. It was very polarizing to many players. This obviously isn't the space for a debate about it but I think the biggest cause of complaints are the way the combat system was overhauled. Many people compare it more to a modern RPG video game rather than a pen and paper one.

5e has had a great reception from old and new players. It's rules are definitely closer to 3rd edition than it is to 4th. Though it brought in a lot of quality of life improvements from 4. For example while it makes sense that 'Hide' and 'Move Silently' are two separate skills, it just means a rogue has to split their skill points between two things. There's not many scenarios outside of comedy where you give a character 'Hide' but not 'Move Silently' or vice versa. 5e has merged both of these into a single Stealth skill.

All the editions are still considered Dungeons and Dragons though, and not separate games (of which there are many wonderful ones, some of which have their own 1e, 2e, 3e, an so on...)

<comment><USER55> Nice analysis. I play a bit of Pathfinder from time to time. Do you think 5e copied Stealth from Pathfinder?

<comment><USER56> Probably, but the skill system in 5e is totally different from 3.5e/Pathfinder. To me, 5e feels like it took the ideas behind the simplifications in Pathfinder and ran with them.

As an example, Pathfinder simplified lots of different combat rules under the Combat Maneuver system (CMB/CMD). 5e simplified them even more, simply as contested skill checks selected by GM fiat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Anyone interested in D&D should understand that it originates from Jack Vance's Dying Earth novels. I highly recommend [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eyes_of_the_Overworld](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eyes_of_the_Overworld)

</comment><comment><USER58> Still waiting for that resurrection. Hard getting friends to devote the time, and playing online is meh.

<comment><USER59> Check comic book stores and Meetup.com for pick-up games in your area. Then, drag the friends in one by one till they're hooked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I'll have to look into it again. Lost interest in AD&D at 3rd Edition; everything from the book artwork to the game mechanics made me feel like I was hand-executing a computer RPG game.

I still use my old 2nd Edition manuals for the rare social games I play these days.

<comment><USER61> You should definitely give 5e a try! I only started at 3.5, but I love how much they streamlined the newest edition. It's much easier to DM and play, which leads to better stories imo

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> not sure if mentioned in the article, but Vin Diesel is an outspoken fan of D&D :-)

</comment><comment><USER63> I got back into it because of the Acquisitions Inc podcasts and then the PAX shows.

</comment><comment><USER64> I played a lot through high school then got distracted in college. (Beer, girls, tougher classes, etc) I was pleasantly surprised when my last company started a D and D night!

</comment><comment><USER65> I know that my brother started running a game for us because the podcasts he'd be listening to other people play on had started to run out.

</comment><comment><USER66> You'd better be a level 7 necromancer with an hour to spare if you want to redirect your teen-age table-top golden-years!

</comment><comment><USER67> harmonquest!

<comment><USER68> CriticalRole!

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> I cast magic missile at the darkness!</comment>


ATT loses years-long quest to cripple FTC authority over telecoms - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/att-loses-years-long-quest-to-cripple-ftc-authority-over-telecoms/ <comment><USER2> This is pretty huge, as it ensures that once net neutrality rules are repealed, the FTC will be empowered to go after ISPs for unfair and anticompetitive business practices. The largest issue with assigning ISPs as Title II is that they become exempt from FTC regulation, a status that I realistically, don't think any company should be granted.

<comment><USER3> >for unfair and anticompetitive business practices.

Who goes after the government entities that allows ISPs to operate like localized monopolies?

<comment><USER2> Our federal government should be moving to prohibit local governments from passing or enforcing local laws which guarantee monopolies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > FCC Chairman Ajit Pai applauded the court ruling.

> The decision "reaffirms that the Federal Trade Commission will once again be > able to police Internet service providers after the Restoring Internet > Freedom Order takes effect," Pai said in a statement issued today. "In the > months and years ahead, we look forward to working closely with the FTC to > ensure the protection of a free and open Internet."

I'm glad they included this quote, because the media has certainly been _not_ reporting the complete facts with NN.

As for the question of "local ISPs are monopolies, so free market rules don't work", I have a lot more confidence in network innovation with the last mile problem. If we could transmit gigabit over wet twine, we wouldn't be worried about Net Neutrality because the install costs would be extremely low. I'd give the free market a chance to break up the monopolies first.. There's nothing I want to see more that Comcast going bankrupt and their CEO still wondering why "people are demanding more than 50mpbs of internet access".</comment>


Working While You're Asleep - <AUTHOR> http://www.cstthegate.com/davetrott/2013/03/working-while-youre-asleep/

<comment><USER2> This is the distinction between scalable and non-scalable. I first read of it in one of Nassim Taleb's books (where he advises people to pick a non-scalable career, since the outcomes are more certain and the risks lower) but I'm sure it's been written about many other times. Ben Casnocha talks about it a bit [0].

Startups aim to be scalable. But you should note that you don't have to _start out_ scalable. Doing so might be seen as a premature optimization. You could hand-service your first dozen customers, and worry about scaling only when you start counting your customers in hundreds rather than tens.

[0] [http://casnocha.com/2009/03/scalable-vs-non-scalable- careers...](http://casnocha.com/2009/03/scalable-vs-non-scalable-careers.html)

<comment><USER3> At low levels, it's possible to enter scaleable businesses with relatively low risk.

I started writing e-books for an affiliate. Took ~2 weeks to make the first couple books. Early sales justified continuing. Then mid-run sales justified continuing on a longer term scale.

I ran out of books to write, so I didn't scale that high - but I produced some recurring revenue with very little risk. At each point I knew my efforts would pay off at a certain level.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is it an attempt to imbue each line with a sense of profundity?

Or is it a simple matter of confusing sentences for paragraphs?

Maybe it's just a broken Enter key.

I'm not sure.

All I know is that the sound advice contained with this article ends up coming across like one of those homely Facebook chain stories about a plucky underdog overcoming adversity through character.

<comment><USER5> I'm surprised that you powered through it.

I wouldn't trust anything from a person who expresses themselves via malformed haiku.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This was a big fad with air traffic controllers a few years ago.

<comment><USER7> Do you have any more details?

<comment><USER8> Reference to air traffic controllers falling asleep at work. [http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/story/2011/04/Another- air...](http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/story/2011/04/Another-air-traffic- controller-falls-asleep/45843484/1)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This would be more aptly titled "Make Money While You're Asleep" rather than "Working".

<comment><USER10> That would be too many words without a paragraph break, I think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The book cover on the right appears to show a man being hanged.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a man standing in a corner.

<comment><USER11> The line indicating the corner leads to his neck like a noose.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Service versus product.

<comment><USER13> How so? A haircut is a service as is teaching others how to cut hair. The only products mentioned were the hair products he created, but that only came later.

<comment><USER14> That's actually a really interesting point. In software, selling as a product usually means the customer pays once and never buys that product again. Selling as a service means something recurring like a subscription.

I think it's easy for software people to forget those aren't the only models.</comment></comment></comment>


The rise of alternative milks - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jan/29/white-gold-the-unstoppable-rise-of-alternative-milks-oat-soy-rice-coconut-plant <comment><USER3> I've completely switched to soy milk. It tastes a little different to cow milk but after a few cups of tea over a week I didn't notice anymore. Now cow milk tastes strange to me. Soy milk also lasts around a year unopened so you can save time buying it in bulk as a plus.

People need to stop expecting replacements to taste 100% identical to what they're use to and give their tastebuds some time to adapt. Same with meat alternatives. It's an extremely unrealistic and pretty silly requirement in my opinion especially if you're concerned with climate change.

<comment><USER4> I switched to soy milk for about four months, but ultimately went back to regular milk because it has less sugar and is less sweet. I imagine without the sugar it's not as palatable, but it was a noticeable, negative attribute for me.

<comment><USER5> Try it unsweetened. Most non-dairy milk brands sell sweetened and unsweetened, flavored (usually vanilla) and unflavored. Usually the sweetened one adds up to 8g of sugar in 8oz!

I find the sugar is completely unnecessary, and usually skip the flavor as well. Soy and coconut milk have the best texture IMO.

<comment><USER6> Trader Joe's and eden soy offer soy milks that are soy and water. No added vitamins even. Low on sodium and lower on carbs than cow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If someone is looking to switch for sustainablity reasons, they shouldn't be buying liquid non dairy almond either. You must need a handful of almonds to make your own almond milk. It's wasteful in so many ways..from processing to transporting to the water content and all the middle men charges in the supply chain.

Soak almonds. Peel. Purée with water..strain. Or don't. Fresh almond milk.

I realize many people won't have the time to do it. And that's ok. But I just want to put this out there because it's so easy and there is no special process or ingredient. And it's cheaper and more sustainable. And lesser carbon and fossil fuel foot print.

Plus pistachios make a great nut milk too.

<comment><USER8> I'm told making oat milk is similarly simple. That one is tempting because the ingredients are so cheap.

<comment><USER9> Commercial oat milk tends to have far more protein than almond milk too. Almond milk has almost none. Soy has the most.

(Although homemade almond milk would seem to have a lot more than boxed. 1.5 cups of almonds to 3 cups water is 7g protein per cup. Close to soy milk. Whereas commercial almond milk has more like 1g per serving)

<comment><USER7> What about hemp milk? I haven't tried it yet.

I can only assume that it's not ok to grow hemp in every state(USA)

<comment><USER9> I've seen hemp milk also in the middle range of protein, ~3-4g per cup, similar to oat milks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I know a few vegans who introduced me to soy milk years ago. Now I think it has a fishy after taste and I can't stand it anymore.

2-3 years ago many grocery stores added other milk alternatives. While I think almond milk is the best, oat milk is the second place but much cheaper.

Generally, milk is heavily subsidized in Germany and alternatives are 2-4 times more expensive, so I don't know if this a little hype or the start of a lasting change. Milk costs like 0,60€ a liter, oat milk costs 1,50€ and organic almond milk can cost up to 4€ a liter.

<comment><USER11> As soon as you said "oat milk" is "much cheaper," I knew this had to be in Europe. It's far more expensive in the US than it is here, particularly compared to American soy and almond milk prices. I believe this will change over time due to the large increase in interest (Oatly from Sweden has a North American product and now Silk is starting their own) and the existence of a significant domestic oat industry.

<comment><USER10> Is almond and soy milk a bigger thing in the US?

<comment><USER11> Yes, they're far more common. I don't recall seeing oat milk on store shelves until very recently.

According to a source, "almond (64 percent market share), soy (13 percent market share) and coconut (12 percent market share)"

[http://www.mintel.com/press-centre/food-and-drink/us-non- dai...](http://www.mintel.com/press-centre/food-and-drink/us-non-dairy-milk- sales-grow-61-over-the-last-five-years)

EDIT: I should add, for those interested, that this dominance is perhaps less strange when noting that California alone produces around 80% of the world's almonds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I put away about three gallons of milk a week. I just drink a lot of it (and obviously lactose intolerance isn't a problem). I can't ever stomach these.

My wife, on the other hand, budgets her lactose intake, prefers lactose-free milk (which I find unpleasantly sweet), and will readily drink almond and soy milks which I can't stand. But I'm firmly ready to believe that I'm the dinosaur here.

<comment><USER13> You can stand just about anything, just have to give it a chance. I'm reminded of a decade or two back when I switched to diet drinks, though I preferred the sugared. Now sugar soda tastes horrible. In the 80s we moved to low-fat milk, shortly after whole tasted horrible. How did I ever drink this?

Take a month off then try a unsweetened coconut/almond blend, get over the hump, wait two months. You'll be surprised at the taste and possibly disgusted you ever breastfed as an adult at a random animal you don't know.

<comment><USER14> It's tacky to try to describe things in weird terms to make them sound bad instead of arguing their merirs. I'd rather "breasfeet at a random animal" than "eat genetically engineered things that grow in dirt and manure, covered in bugs".

<comment><USER13> Most gmo free at our market. Drinking milk as an adult is weird. One is natural, one isn't.

<comment><USER15> > One is natural, one isn't.

Yes, but not the one you mean.

Cow milk: can consume it straight as it is produced by nature, right out of the cow (but chilled is probably tastier). Can consume milks from lots of other animals, too. The only reason adult animals don't frequently consume milk is probably just availability. [https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/64822/are- humans...](https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/64822/are-humans-the- only-species-who-drink-milk-as-adults) has interesting info, including adult wild birds finding they could peck through aluminum lids to get milk and wild gulls consuming seal milk.

Soy milk: consuming a liquid produced by soaking, cooking, blending, and straining a plant part that is unsafe for humans to eat until processed by heat or fermentation. [https://healthyeatinghttps://healthyeating.sfgate.com/happen...](https://healthyeatinghttps://healthyeating.sfgate.com/happens- eat-raw-soybeans-11856.htmlsfgate.com/happens-eat-raw-soybeans-11856.html) Then if you're buying it from a market, it has probably been packaged into a plastic or plastic-lined container (like commercial cow's milk) and processed to be shelf-stable for months, all to provide a close similarity to that "weird" drinking milk as an adult.

"Natural", although often overloaded and used politically, can't quite stretch that far.

<comment><USER13> I don't drink soy milk. Packaging is hardly relevant. You may have missed the part of the article that describes how most adult humans are lactose intolerant.

<comment><USER15> Almond and coconut milk? Yes, almost as natural as cow milk.

But why are you blending and steeping and straining the coconut/almond material instead of just eating it? Oh yeah, because you want it to be like what you'd get from "breastfeeding from a random animal" as an adult.

Lactose intolerance is about as relevant as nut allergies, except it's unlikely to kill you.

<comment><USER13> So cooking is unnatural to you? Uh huh.

<comment><USER15> Absolutely - cooking is a totally unnatural thing that humans have learned to do, because it provides additional nutrients, calories, and variety. Find an animal in the wild that cooks its food... Closest may be the firehawks, which may spread fire to help hunting (live) prey. (Though many wild animals are happy to consume cooked food if available!)

But in drinking "not animal milk" you're trying to artificially approximate the experience of drinking "animal milk", which you described as unnatural.

Note that I'm not one to say that "unnatural == bad". I think cooking is good. I think dairy is good. I think consuming something nutritious in its natural state is more natural than cooking something.

You're free to differ.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If you can't/won't drink animal milk, try Ripple. It's by a significant margin the best facsimile thus far, and they even make a heavy-cream version.

<comment><USER17> The vanilla version was tasty, but the plain version was not "yummy." I like what they're doing and want them to succeed so maybe have to give it another go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Perhaps my ancestors were steppe barbarians or something but nothing beats raw cow milk, a taste I never get tired of. These alternatives are fine novelties but they don't come close.

<comment><USER19> They're probably not really trying to come that close. If you drink almond milk expecting it to taste like milk, you'll be disappointed but if you drink it for what it is, not expecting it to taste like milk, it's fine.

<comment><USER20> I agree with you completely, but the marketing and narrative around these products really invite the comparison.

<comment><USER14> Sadly they need to cater to a audience that craves familiarity and fears change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I have lactose intolerance, I am allergic to tree nuts, have an intolerance to legumes, and have yet to find a certified gluten-free coconut milk. Let me know.

<comment><USER22> If you are lactose, nut and legume intolerent, why is gluten free important?

<comment><USER23> The two reasons would be Celiac disease, or pseudoscience. Since there is no reason that someone with Celiac couldn't also be lactose, nut and legume intolerant, it could be that.

<comment><USER22> I assumed thay given they called our lactose nut and legume allergies that if they were celiac,they would have mentioned.

<comment><USER24> Lactose intolerance isn't an allergy. It's lack of an enzyme, so microorganisms end up breaking down the sugar, leading to the gas and other symptoms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Oatly is awesome. It's a great example of the potential of synthesised foods to replace our current consumption habits.

</comment><comment><USER26> My kids are variously vegan / flex, and since I only put milk in coffee, it wasn't worth keeping milk in the fridge for, so switched to one of their alternatives. Soy curdles, so almond it was, until I learned that it takes ~5 litres (1.1 US gallons) of water to produce a single almond!

The Oatly post here a few days ago may have been a shill, but it was enough for me to try it. Far closer to the taste of cows milk than Almond milk IMH(non Vegan)O.

<comment><USER27> I've seen it estimated that it takes 2,000 gallons of water to produce a gallon of cow milk which would be twice what it takes to produce almond milk.

<comment><USER28> Some quick googling suggests there are 4 cups of almonds in a gallon of almond milk, and ~25 almonds per cup, so about 100 gallons of water per gallon of almond milk from just growing the almonds. That's a factor of 20x, if we believe it takes 2000 gallons of water to make a gallon of milk.

But another source on the top links of Google says it takes about 4 gallons of water to make a gallon of milk. This is a difference of 250x. That would imply almond milk takes 25 times as much.

It shocks me how such a seemingly basic consumer question could have such wild orders of magnitude variance in the apparent answers.

<comment><USER29> I mean at a minimum that lower number not taking into account the water needed to feed the cow, grow the cows food etc. I'm sure almonds is a lot of water but there is no way it's close to a dairy cow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I was meeting a client yesterday at their office, they offered me coffee and asked me if I wanted milk, then whether I'd like oat or regular. I said regular (usually drink oat but was somehow preoccupied) and the response was "yea, fortunately that's still available".

To me that was a pretty striking example of how the realities of what climage change is going to push us towards are sinking in.

<comment><USER31> Today we're (the general "we", not you and I specifically) looking at the milk we put in our coffee with disdain, tomorrow we'll be looking at the coffee in a similar manner.

Probably someone somewhere out there already is and we'll start seeing the headlines, blogs and podcasts about it in the near future. By building our societies around globalization, we have in some ways made our societies necessarily globalized. Everything we import/export has a fuel cost including ourselves when we're the passengers, and that cost doesn't stop at National borders, but incurs every time we move anything anywhere any distance.

So when you have a popular crop, coffee, almonds, tea, coconuts, whatever that can only be grown in certain parts of the world, it is going to have an outsized impact on the global fuel economy relative to crops that are grown and consumed locally. The more fuel we consume, the greater the amount of carbon emissions we output, and carbon dioxide only has a global warming potential of 1 (as the base unit). Methane has a GWP of 86 across a score of years and 34 across a century.

Now so far as I know, the GWP metric is only used for individual gases, but if you were to try to isolate it on a commodity by commodity basis, I'm betting Cow's milk as transported to and sold in the supermarket today wouldn't look great. I've worked in a cafe and I know approximately how much milk we went through in a week, often because I was the one buying it. Even a small mom and pop café can easily go through 40+ gallons a week, and that was hardly the only dairy product sold (cheeses of all sorts, whipped cream, ice cream, cheese cakes, chocolate cakes, pastries). I don't even want to think about the amount of milk a single corporate chain like Starbucks or Peet's goes through on a weekly basis.

Fortunately cow's milk is still available. That is really an understatement on your client's part. I think humanity will sooner die out or go back to a technological dark age from which it never fully recovers before we give up cow's milk in its entirety in just the US, never mind the rest of the world.

<comment><USER32> That isn't necessarily true that local is better environmentally - <USER2> assuming that bulk freighters will still be carbon sourced. It may feel flattering to just think of everything in cozy communities and they may taste better from being fresher but it is more complicated than just shipping miles.

There are other variables involved including farming efficiency, transportation efficiency, and the logistics of distribution. Going to get your groceries from a 5 minute away grocery store that gets their groceries from thousands of miles away in bulk shipments may ironically be more efficient than driving an hour away individually to get groceries from the local farmer's market. Essentially for the same reason that concluding that buses are worse than cars because they get lower miles per gallon is incredibly wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> There is another reason to switch from milk. For men over the age of 45, there is correlation between the natural (or added) hormones excreted into the milk and prostate growth causing an increase in urination difficulty. [1]

[1] [http://vqrn.com/Prostate-Milk-Problem.html](http://vqrn.com/Prostate- Milk-Problem.html)

</comment><comment><USER34> We just had this one too: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19025957](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19025957)

</comment><comment><USER35> I do care about nutrition, currently anything but soy milk is just water. Still environmentally friendly. Almond Milk has a couple of almonds in the bottle.

</comment><comment><USER36> All those milks and yet i still can't find a single one that's not completely saturated with Calcium. The levels of calcium added to these milks is truely staggering. Sure, the carton says 30%, but it's actually 65% of your RDI because here in the US the dairy industry has been pressuring for higher and higher recommendations of Calcium. the WHO recommends 500mg, not 1200mg!

<comment><USER37> Is there any reason to avoid the USDA intake of 1200mg instead of the WHO 500mg? Is it a health issue? A taste issue?

<comment><USER38> I am not at all a medical professional and I am on my phone so I can't give sources, but consuming calcium reduces iron absorption? Don't know about side effects, but I know you want your calcium and iron levels balanced. Same with zinc and copper.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> TIL the weirdest term ever, "share of throat."

</comment><comment><USER40> As a vegan/firefighter I made the leap from not drinking milk to drinking milk about a year ago and I'm never looking back. Milk is the future.

<comment><USER38> You consider yourself a vegan, but you drink milk? Am I missing something? Also why are you so excited about milk, you don't really explain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> See also: [https://www.relay.fm/topfour/48](https://www.relay.fm/topfour/48)

</comment><comment><USER42> Milk may not be the healthy food it was touted to be, but neither are most if not all of these "milks" that are basically mostly water and sugar. I'd take lactose over fructose or glucose any day. That's the main selling point: a slightly sweet, natural drink sweetened by lactose rather than fructose and glucose directly. Otherwise, I might as well drink soda--from looking at the sugar content of most of these "milks" it's roughly as healthy.

<comment><USER5> I don't know what region you are in, but in the US almost any store that stocks non-dairy milks will sell sweetened and unsweetened.

Though I agree with disliking the sweetened stuff. I'm not sure who the market for the sweetened stuff is for - coffee creamer maybe, or trying to simulate milk lactose? but the unsweetened works just as well in any scenario.

Additionally, nut and oat milks are very easy and cheap to make with just a blender and cheesecloth. You can control the amount of food you want to "milk" and change the thickness/mouthfeel, add a little vanilla and end up with a much better result than the 'watered-down' store brands.

<comment><USER42> Yeah but the problem with unsweetened soy and almond milk (and even slightly sweetened) is that it's fucking disgusting so it has no use for me and for anyone that feels that way. I highly doubt any of the other veggie milks here are less disgusting. I would guess that lactose free milk is also disgusting before they add sugar back in but can't prove it.

<comment><USER43> > fucking disgusting so it has no use for me and for anyone that feels that > way

That's a completely different argument from your original one. And you could apply it to any food, a lot of people find cow milk "fucking disgusting", there's no point arguing on subjective taste

<comment><USER42> It's a different argument because it addresses a different point: "unsweetened works just as well in any scenario." Clearly, that's not the case as the sweetened and unsweetened versions are not comparable due to taste.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> It's not marketed that way, but Soylent seems kind of similar in the bland- but-supposedly-healthy drink niche?

<comment><USER45> Soylent isn't really aimed at health, more convenience & novelty. Its not unhealthy either, but you get my point

<comment><USER46> I'd suggest it is unhealthy. We don't even know what all is in the food we eat, so to pretend we can combine a bunch of synthetic stuff into some well rounded meal for daily consumption I believe is dangerous.

<comment><USER47> Fruit juice is most likely much worse than soylent. Ditto for milk.sugar and calorie bombs. Look at the ingrediants in soylent .its fine and nothing stands out as non food

<comment><USER46> It's meant to be your entire meal, not just a drink.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Using "milk" in the name of something doesn't make an "alternative milk" in any way that doesn't apply to any other drinkable liquid.

<comment><USER23> It's pure marketing, where the reality would be "juice" if we're being charitable. In a lot of cases it's water with a hint of X, and a lot of added sugar. All told drinking a lot of anything other than water is probably a bad move, but evidence suggests that if you're not lactose intolerant, milk is a healthier choice for what you put on cereal.

All things being equal, my major issue with alternative "milk" isn't the semantic debate though. The fact that they're often high in sugar, low in protein and fat is a bad sign. The fact that many (especially almond milk) are mostly water isn't promising, and the environmental impact of chugging almond milk should become clear to California within a decade or so.

Mostly it's just another fad (in terms of scale), promulgated by people who should know better, and others trying to sell you their "milks."

<comment><USER48> Cow's milk is mostly water.

As for alternative milks being a fad, it's a fad that's more than a thousand years old -- for example, almond milk was important in Europe for meatless Fridays and during Lent. I'm not sure who "should know better" when it comes to religious doctrine affecting food choices.

<comment><USER23> You're the second person to latch on to a single sentence fragment, unfortunately without the context about sugar and protein content. As far as religion goes, what percentage of current "alt-milk" consumption do you think is religiously motivated? A rounding error? A rounding error of a rounding error? Less?

If you wanted to focus on a single point I made, I'd suggest: _All told drinking a lot of anything other than water is probably a bad move..._.

<comment><USER5> Soy milk has protein and doesn't necessarily have sugar depending on the brand, if you are looking for a response to that.

And if we want to talk water usage and environmental impact, any cattle/dairy product is consuming at least order of magnitude more resources and emissions than oats or soy beans.

<comment><USER23> _Soy milk has protein and doesn 't necessarily have sugar depending on the brand, if you are looking for a response to that. And if we want to talk water usage and environmental impact, any cattle/dairy product is consuming at least order of magnitude more resources and emissions than oats or soy beans._

Oat milk isn't even a rounding error of total plant "milk" consumption.

[https://www.statista.com/statistics/693015/dairy- alternative...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/693015/dairy-alternatives- global-sales-value-by-category/)

Almond dominates by an order of magnitude, and has grown a loooot just since 2013, while soy milk consumption has actually dropped. Worse, it is projected that consumption of almond milk will more than double, while all other types are effectively flat.

When we talk about this subject, it's important to realize that to the first order, we're _just_ talking about almond milk, a trend which continue into the future.

<comment><USER5> And? I'm not sure what your point is. I was pointing out there are non-dairy milks with protein in them.

Almond milk still uses less water and way less CO2e emissions than dairy to produce the same volume of milk.

Animal agriculture is horrendous for the planet, any increase in non-dairy milk at the expense of dairy milk is a definite win for the environment.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/science- environment-46459714](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46459714)

From the BBC calculator, which comes from University of Oxford researcher Joseph Poore, and Thomas Nemecek of the Agroecology and Environment Research Division in Zurich, Switzerland

1 glass (200ml) per serving almond milk daily

Over an entire year your consumption of almond milk is contributing 51kg to your annual greenhouse gas emissions. ... 27,042 litres of water

1 glass (200ml) per serving dairy milk daily

Over an entire year your consumption of dairy milk is contributing 229kg to your annual greenhouse gas emissions ... 45,733 litres of water 652m² land

<comment><USER23> I can't tell from that calculation, but it seems they're comparing X of almonds, to a whole dairy cow. That's... weird. It's also odd that they compare by volume, and not by calorie. All I'm all I'm left wanting to see the data behind the calculator so fair comparisons can be made. Either way given that my advice was, and remains "drink water" and not "drink milk" I'm also not sure what your point is.

Especially when looking at the graph on the page you linked to, it becomes clear that the CO2 emission question is spurious. Dairy is fairly efficient, but actually killing and eating the animal isn't. Fortunately beef cattle are not dairy cattle, and while the industries are linked, they are not inextricably linked. Most of all though, I'll say it again, _All told drinking a lot of anything other than water is probably a bad move..._ To that I'd add that if your real concern is environmental, milk is the least of it, cheese being a far bigger offender. Cheese being effectively condensed milk means that your kilogram of cheese took 10kg of milk to make.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I personally wish the same stringent law of domain d'origine was applied here. We can't call Australian sparkling wine made on Pinot noir grapes champagne. If it didn't come out of a cow, sheep, goat, or in the case of "red dwarf" dog teat, I don't think it should be called milk or even mylk.

Partner of a nut anaphylaxis sufferer, parent of a formerly cow milk intolerant child so I've straddled both sides of what people need in their life. The answer imnsho is clarity: call it what it is specifically. (Which most people here do. Nut milk. Oat milk. Soy milk) but please, don't call it milk, unqualified.

<comment><USER48> So, even though "milk" has been used for centuries for almond milk, rice milk, etc, it should suddenly be outlawed?

I've got some medieval cookbooks digitized on my webpages, what punishment do you propose for people like me?

<comment><USER49> I think we should milk this for all its worth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Also known as "the rise of non-milks, usually colored artificially white to lure people to believe they're like the real thing".

<comment><USER11> I've made cashew milk and oat milk at home and they're naturally colored as they are on store shelves. Also, you can look at the ingredients list to verify that they are not colored. I don't recall the last time I saw or purchased one that was artificially colored.

EDIT: Removed the first sentence as recommended.

<comment><USER50> > _Please don 't lie_

Please don't accuse people you don't know and second guess their motives in a conversation with them.

> _I 've made cashew milk and oat milk at home and they're naturally colored > as they are on store shelves_

Which is neither here nor there. I didn't say all are colored white: I used the term "usually". Second, even naturally white "alternative milks" have artificial coloring added for when they hit the shelves for consistency etc (manufacturers that don't do that are glad to advertise it in the box).

Second, both are not milks. Milks are what comes out of animals mammary glands (even legally in most jurisdictions). Advertisers and "health product" peddlers hijacked the term (that existed for millennia) to mean "random juices".

<comment><USER51> Funny enough, nobody complains about "peanut butter"!

"In English, the word "milk" (at the time spelt "mylk") has been used to refer to "milk-like plant juices" since at least 1200 AD." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_milk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_milk) [https://www.etymonline.com/word/milk#etymonline_v_16158](https://www.etymonline.com/word/milk#etymonline_v_16158)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


RIM Unveils Blackberry BBX based on QNX - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-18/rim-unveils-new-operating-system-to-challenge-apple-google.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I think QNX is a neat platform but I really question whether this will be enough to save them. BBX looks like a blunt tool for what is probably a multifaceted cross-company problem.

Edit: Apologies for the Business week article - I haven't come across anything else yet.

<comment><USER2> From the source: <http://us.blackberry.com/blackberry-release.jsp>

The press is talking about QNX but it looks like Cascades is the real news.</comment></comment>


Internet Radio Saved - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/arts/music/02arts-WEBRADIOBILL_BRF.html?ref=arts <comment><USER2> Not exactly saved... They just have until February to beg SoundExchange to not kill them.

<comment><USER3> SoundExchange will generously offer to spare them as long as they play what SoundExchange wants, whenever and as often as SoundExchange wants.

<comment><USER4> It would be horrible if Pandora's algorithm's were effected by some sort of 'deal' like you describe. I hope they can stick to their guns and not bow to pressure to play the 'hot new singles' more (or sneak in unrelated trash).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Proof right there that small boats can make huge waves.</comment>


'Sometimes in one place and sometimes in another': Agnes Cooper in Southwark, 1619 - <AUTHOR> https://manyheadedmonster.wordpress.com/2015/08/05/sometimes-in-one-place-and-sometimes-in-another-agnes-cooper-in-southwark-1619/

<comment><USER2> "He took Agnes on as an apprentice after her step-father's death, and looked after the £6 30s 4d she inherited from him, a precise sum which must have originally been left her by her own parents."

What's £6 then buy today? Reads like £6 30s 4d is the exact fractional amount?

<comment><USER3> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C2%A3sd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C2%A3sd)

The Latin librae, solidi, and denarii became pounds, shillings and pence.

There are 12 pence in a shilling, and 20 shillings in a pound.

So, "£6 30s 4d" is (6)+(30/20)+(4/240)= £ 7.51

It's rather odd that such an exact amount was given, which is what the sentence points out.

<comment><USER2> Found a calculator! [http://www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/](http://www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/)

In 2014, the relative worth of £7 10s 4d (that's what it converted to) from 1619 is:

      £1,320.00	 using the retail price index
      £1,300.00	 using the GDP deflator
      £52,300.00	 using the per capita GDP
      £400,000.00	 using the share of GDP</comment></comment></comment>


Trend Micro says sorry after apps grabbed Mac browser history - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/trend-micro-says-sorry-after-apps-grabbed-mac-browser-history/ <comment><USER2> If I broke into your computer and stole your browser history I'd probably face criminal charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. So why not Trend Micro?

<comment><USER3> I don't want to defend Trend Micro here, but since browser history is a primary vector for malware they at least have a reasonable business purpose related to the intended use of the apps. The contract and permission people agreed to when they willingly installed it and accepted the EULA are probably the distinction between them doing it and you breaking into a system and doing it.

<comment><AUTHOR> > since browser history is a primary vector for malware

Can you expand on this from a technical perspective?

> distinction between them doing it and you breaking into a system and doing > it.

I think a more accurate comparison would be you being given access to a system to perform some work, but then accessing files and performing operations, such as exfiltrating that data, outside the scope of your work.

<comment><USER3> Come on, cut me a break even though I was not 100% precise with my language! I mean browser exploits in general. Unpatched plugins, XSS, spoofing, etc. If they didn't clean up after themselves you could try to correlate an attack with something in the browsing history and try to evaluate it and add it to a shared blacklist. I am not endorsing that, just speculating that could be the well-meaning (if dumb) explanation for this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry about that!

I didn't mean to scrutinize - I just know very little about browser exploits, especially details, and thought there was some specific attack for browser history.

Cheers.

<comment><USER3> No problem at all! I was being a bit tongue in cheek with my response, too. I wasn't really offended or anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> So lets see... this was for the customers benefit AND was allowed by the EULA anyway AND was accidentally enabled on non-security products AND this feature is so important that it is being disabled and the collected archives purged.

I'm skeptical that this is the whole story. And really, why should the benefit of the doubt still be given to companies collecting this kind of data for dubious (stated) reasons without an explicit opt-in?

</comment><comment><USER5> Does anyone know how the post installation process for those applications looked like (on first start)? Did a window pop up asking to accept the EULA and were you able to decline or was the EULA hidden behind some menu entry and using the application was consider accepting it?

I'm asking because I haven't installed an app myself yet through the Mac AppStore which would explicitly ask me to accept any terms.</comment>