Alan Kay: Is Computer Science an Oxymoron? - <AUTHOR> http://www.windley.com/cgi-bin/printthis.pl?url=http://www.windley.com/archives/2006/02/alan_kay_is_com.shtml

<comment><USER2> Alan Kay... I saw him speak in college and I had to spend a semester working in Squeak.

I have a love/hate relationship with him. He's a great speaker, got some awesome quotes, but... every speech he gives revolves around the same concepts and he ALWAYS uses the example of drawing a car, drawing a steering wheel, and connecting them. Sure it's a good example but I mean, doing it for 10+ years as the example of the power of Squeak?</comment>


Gripped by disease, unemployment and police outrage, America plunges into crisis - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/plagued-by-disease-unemployment-and-outrage-at-the-police-america-plunges-into-crisis/2020/05/29/c8329bb2-a1b5-11ea-81bb-c2f70f01034b_story.html <comment><USER2> A pretty interesting observation:

> Brinkley, the Rice University historian, said the moment seemed akin to > Richard Nixon's presidency, when the country was divided politically over > the Vietnam War and the president was attacking the press over the Pentagon > Papers.

I see a lot of the fundamental social problems in America and I see elected officials at the federal level largely incapable of / uninterested in trying to tackle them. They all seem to waste a lot of time on smearing their political opponents or in focusing on small, trivial issues rather than the cracks in the foundation of American society (perhaps that is all we as voters incentivize them to do).

</comment><comment><USER3> [http://archive.is/4p9JH](http://archive.is/4p9JH)

</comment><comment><USER4> [https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/30/spacex-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/30/spacex- nasa-launch-live-updates/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Can someone give a link without a paywall?

<comment><USER6> [https://outline.com/cMfrLP](https://outline.com/cMfrLP)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> America was already in a long, slow decline for decades.

 _America: The Farewell Tour_ book by Chris Hedges

 _DECLINE of EMPIRES: The Signs of Decay (2003)_ video by Chalmers Johnson

[https://youtu.be/Q2CCs-x9q9U](https://youtu.be/Q2CCs-x9q9U)</comment>


Magic mushroom chemical psilocybin could be key to treating depression – studies - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/01/magic-mushroom-ingredient-psilocybin-can-lift-depression-studies-show <comment><AUTHOR> LSD is said to be very similar to psilocybin and has the same effects regarding the medical conditions mentioned in the article. LSD is easier to ship/obtain an can be dosed more precisely. Also, always test before you ingest (testing kits are affordable).

</comment><comment><USER2> All the papers in the issue in question:

"Psilocybin for anxiety and depression in cancer care? Lessons from the past and prospects for the future", Nutt 2016 [https://www.dropbox.com/s/s2l739f0gstsyzx/2016-nutt.pdf](https://www.dropbox.com/s/s2l739f0gstsyzx/2016-nutt.pdf)

"Psilocybin produces substantial and sustained decreases in depression and anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer: A randomized double-blind trial", Griffiths et al 2016: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxi3ix88jo67y88/2016-griffiths.pdf](https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxi3ix88jo67y88/2016-griffiths.pdf)

"Cancer patients often develop chronic, clinically significant symptoms of depression and anxiety. Previous studies suggest that psilocybin may decrease depression and anxiety in cancer patients. The effects of psilocybin were studied in 51 cancer patients with life-threatening diagnoses and symptoms of depression and/or anxiety. This randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial investigated the effects of a very low (placebo-like) dose (1 or 3 mg/70 kg) vs. a high dose (22 or 30 mg/70 kg) of psilocybin administered in counterbalanced sequence with 5 weeks between sessions and a 6-month follow- up. Instructions to participants and staff minimized expectancy effects. Participants, staff, and community observers rated participant moods, attitudes, and behaviors throughout the study. High-dose psilocybin produced large decreases in clinician- and self-rated measures of depressed mood and anxiety, along with increases in quality of life, life meaning, and optimism, and decreases in death anxiety. At 6-month follow-up, these changes were sustained, with about 80% of participants continuing to show clinically significant decreases in depressed mood and anxiety. Participants attributed improvements in attitudes about life/self, mood, relationships, and spirituality to the high-dose experience, with >80% endorsing moderately or greater increased well-being/life satisfaction. Community observer ratings showed corresponding changes. Mystical-type psilocybin experience on session day mediated the effect of psilocybin dose on therapeuti"

"Rapid and sustained symptom reduction following psilocybin treatment for anxiety and depression in patients with life-threatening cancer: a randomized controlled trial", Ross et al 2016: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/eol3lp85pgbe8m3/2016-ross.pdf](https://www.dropbox.com/s/eol3lp85pgbe8m3/2016-ross.pdf)

"_Background_: Clinically significant anxiety and depression are common in patients with cancer, and are associated with poor psychiatric and medical outcomes. Historical and recent research suggests a role for psilocybin to treat cancer-related anxiety and depression. Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial, 29 patients with cancer-related anxiety and depression were randomly assigned and received treatment with single-dose psilocybin (0.3 mg/kg) or niacin, both in conjunction with psychotherapy. The primary outcomes were anxiety and depression assessed between groups prior to the crossover at 7 weeks. Results: Prior to the crossover, psilocybin produced immediate, substantial, and sustained improvements in anxiety and depression and led to decreases in cancer-related demoralization and hopelessness, improved spiritual wellbeing, and increased quality of life. At the 6.5-month followup, psilocybin was associated with enduring anxiolytic and anti- depressant effects (approximately 60–80% of participants continued with clinically significant reductions in depression or anxiety), sustained benefits in existential distress and quality of life, as well as improved attitudes towards death. The psilocybin-induced mystical experience mediated the therapeutic effect of psilocybin on anxiety and depression. Conclusions: In conjunction with psychotherapy, single moderate-dose psilocybin produced rapid, robust and enduring anxiolytic and anti-depressant effects in patients with cancer-related psychological distress."

"Survey study of challenging experiences after ingesting psilocybin mushrooms: Acute and enduring positive and negative consequences", Carbonaro et al 2016 [https://www.dropbox.com/s/z18mzgyke0j35b4/2016-carbonaro.pdf](https://www.dropbox.com/s/z18mzgyke0j35b4/2016-carbonaro.pdf)

"Acute and enduring adverse effects of psilocybin have been reported anecdotally, but have not been well characterized. For this study, 1993 individuals (mean age 30 yrs; 78% male) completed an online survey about their single most psychologically difficult or challenging experience (worst "bad trip") after consuming psilocybin mushrooms. Thirty-nine percent rated it among the top five most challenging experiences of his/her lifetime. Eleven percent put self or others at risk of physical harm; factors increasing the likelihood of risk included estimated dose, duration and difficulty of the experience, and absence of physical comfort and social support. Of the respondents, 2.6% behaved in a physically aggressive or violent manner and 2.7% received medical help. Of those whose experience occurred >1 year before, 7.6% sought treatment for enduring psychological symptoms. Three cases appeared associated with onset of enduring psychotic symptoms and three cases with attempted suicide. Multiple regression analysis showed degree of difficulty was positively associated, and duration was negatively associated, with enduring increases in well-being. Difficulty of experience was positively associated with dose. Despite difficulties, 84% endorsed benefiting from the experience. The incidence of risky behavior or enduring psychological distress is extremely low when psilocybin is given in laboratory studies to screened, prepared, and supported participants."

"The Challenging Experience Questionnaire: Characterization of challenging experiences with psilocybin mushrooms", Barrett et al 2016 [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ndp11g9a038ofti/2016-barrett.pdf](https://www.dropbox.com/s/ndp11g9a038ofti/2016-barrett.pdf)

"Acute adverse psychological reactions to classic hallucinogens ("bad trips" or "challenging experiences"), while usually benign with proper screening, preparation, and support in controlled settings, remain a safety concern in uncontrolled settings (such as illicit use contexts). Anecdotal and case reports suggest potential adverse acute symptoms including affective (panic, depressed mood), cognitive (confusion, feelings of losing sanity), and somatic (nausea, heart palpitation) symptoms. Responses to items from several hallucinogen-sensitive questionnaires (Hallucinogen Rating Scale, the States of Consciousness Questionnaire, and the Five-Dimensional Altered States of Consciousness questionnaire) in an Internet survey of challenging experiences with the classic hallucinogen psilocybin were used to construct and validate a Challenging Experience Questionnaire. The stand-alone Challenging Experience Questionnaire was then validated in a separate sample. Seven Challenging Experience Questionnaire factors (grief, fear, death, insanity, isolation, physical distress, and paranoia) provide a phenomenological profile of challenging aspects of experiences with psilocybin. Factor scores were associated with difficulty, meaningfulness, spiritual significance, and change in well-being attributed to the challenging experiences. The factor structure did not differ based on gender or prior struggle with anxiety or depression. The Challenging Experience Questionnaire provides a basis for future investigation of predictors and outcomes of challenging experiences with classic hallucinogens."</comment>


Full text: Slack offers 'friendly advice' to Microsoft - <AUTHOR> http://www.geekwire.com/2016/full-text-slack-offers-friendly-advice-microsoft-full-page-new-york-times-ad/ <comment><USER2> I've been using Microsoft stuff (basically many components from the 365 suite, including outlook) for the last three months, including Outlook.

I must say, I am definitely impressed. I haven't rebooted my work laptop in nearly three months and it's been working tirelessly since then.

You might not like outlook, but it hasn't let me down.

I am impressed by what Microsoft is achieving.

If Microsoft gets pricing right and offers free tier and bot/api, slack is going to have a relly hard time...

</comment><comment><USER3> It's usually unwise to give your competitor free press at your own expense, especially when you're the market leader. In the this vs that space, the underdog has the advantage.</comment>


Banks are rolling out cryptocurrencies to move funds between them - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1066601/ubss-utility-settlement-coin-could-put-cash-on-a-blockchain-in-2018/ <comment><USER2> > _" Each settlement coin would represent fiat currency like euros and dollars > on a one-to-one basis, and would thus be 100% backed by collateral at the > domestic central bank, according to UBS. The idea is that exchanging the > digital currency as payment for assets will be a more efficient means of > exchange. Because the digital coins will be backed by cash at a central > bank, which cannot default (they can always print money if they have to), > the crypto tokens are free from credit risk. UBS says transfers and > ownership could be settled instantly—the promise of blockchain technology."_

Can someone explain how this could work? Suppose on day-1, UBS has US$100M, and wants to transfer that over to HSBC. I'm guessing they are going to:

1\. Create a brand new set of crypto-tokens representing US$100M

2\. Send the crypto-token over to HSBC electronically

3\. HSBC can then pass the crypto-tokens onto whoever they have dealings with

4\. Eventually, someone is left holding the crypto-token and wants to redeem it for actual USD

5\. That person/entity would then go to UBS, hand over the crypto-token in exchange for USD, with the trust that UBS will honor that request?

How is this any different from a bank issuing a IOU? Without voters/governments deciding to back UBS idea, how is the nation's central bank going to figure into this scheme?

<comment><USER3> The difference is an IOU that can be verified independently of that bank (banks don't trust each other), and the role of the central bank is to run that ledger (banks trust the central bank).

<comment><USER4> That still seems like it requires a level of trust that the original bank is holding onto the funds and has the cash liquidity to cover the total number of coins issued.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> they are probably not.

banks always had their own trading platform + monetary system. fully decoupled from the economy. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_pool](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_pool)

there's no way they are making the system they own be subjected to mining proof and other shenanigans. it would be a very dumb move for no obvious advantage.

<comment><USER6> Right -- and isn't massively energy inefficient? I think I saw an article crop up here recently that said a processing a single BTC transaction uses something like 5.8 times as much energy as the median US household uses in a day.

Why would banks do something so monumentally wasteful when they can trust each other?

<comment><USER7> New cryptocurrencies don't require as much energy to mine initially

<comment><USER8> You can set up the crypto to not raise difficulty. Even a CPU based mining could do the job then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> How does Ripple and Tether play into moving funds between banks. I get Tether tries to keep its value the same as USD (USDT anyway). Ripple, I don't understand... as the value per coin changes. So, how do you convert into Ripple and convert out of Ripple without risk of each coin rising or dropping in value? I'd like to see a mutual fund approach to transfers where the exchange rate is fixed for the day, so you know exactly what the exchange in and out will be.

</comment><comment><USER9> verifying the control and transfer of funds is a huge expensive process with investment banking. There are entire companies that specialize in this type of thing.. for example, the one (and only) fintech application I've ever built was a MBS trading system. This is over 20 years ago, but the one component of that process that seemed to be immune from disruption was the trade-clearing process.. this was handled by BONY (Bank of NY.. according to the traders, one of only a few companies that could handle it). I don't know exactly what they did, but they took a 'tick' 1/32 or two off the top of the trade to manage the (up to) 3 day 'settlement' process which, presumably, involved authorizing, possibly insuring, the trade among the counter-parties, and ultimately transferred the funds to whoever involved. Now, I may be off-base on this (I'm sure someone will let me know here), but it seems like that's a pretty good use-case for a blockchain-like system. I think paxos.com is doing something around this too.

</comment><comment><USER10> Can someone explain me the benefit over a simple public private key system between 3 or 4 players that know each others. Can't they send one of their guys to cross the street to deliver their public key in person to the other team and skip the public ledger part?

I have seen first hand how far stupid ideas can go in one of the organisations named in the article when the management is keen on them.

<comment><USER11> maybe the banks don't trust each other.

<comment><USER5> and how instead of trusting each other they will trust the bank with most computers?

<comment><USER12> Nope, they will trust the central bank. It's in the article.

<comment><USER13> If they trust the central bank for settlement why not trust the central bank to keep the ledger?

<comment><USER14> Because if they lie about the ledger then they more easily get away with it, as they could have secretly changed the ledger.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Leveraging blockchain as a distributed ledger is hardly "rolling out cryptocurrencies".

</comment><comment><USER16> SO will they deploy their own blockchains? I've always assumed that if banks rollout their own chain, this will render all other "official" chains useless. Edit: not useless, but certainly now what people hope - so much valuable. Fiat is here to stay.

</comment><comment><USER17> For anyone who can't access the FT link which was referenced: [https://archive.fo/U2BRi](https://archive.fo/U2BRi)

</comment><comment><USER18> Title is actually "Banks are _finally_ preparing to use cryptocurrency to move money between them"

Can we assume this is an opinion piece and not based in truth? Unfortunately I can't access their sources due to paywalls

<comment><USER17> You can read it here: [https://archive.fo/U2BRi](https://archive.fo/U2BRi)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Could no procrastination feature only operate in specified hours? - <AUTHOR>

(this is a feature request)
I note that the no procrastinate page now has no way to bypass. Cool, I like it.
However, I would like to set the time of day ranges for this (I don't actually work around the clock most of the time).
Thoughts? <comment><USER2> If you're on Firefox, you might find that Leechblock ( <http://www.proginosko.com/leechblock.html> ) gives you more control over what and when you can visit sites. It can lock you out of disabling, changing the settings or removing it too.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd been wondering this myself. But then I thought: if one needs a no-procrast filter during 'working hours' then one is probably spending _so much_ of one's day infront of PC that one should be wary of ODing on HN at _any_ time of day.

Perhaps we should interpret the no-procrast filter outside of 'working hours' as a message to go exercise / drink / eat / sleep / hang?

<comment><AUTHOR> hahaha yes. Well I guess that is probably a valid point - how often do I need to spend here ?

FYI I do sleep 8 hours (give or take, have young kids) and work out/excercise > 1 hour per day, as well as work etc.. and still I have time for other things ! So perhaps I just need to tweak my settings a bit.

But I will take your advice and use this full time !

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For no fee at all I will make you stop procrastinating during the hours you desire, what's your ip ;) ?

<comment><USER5> 127.0.0.1</comment></comment>


Facebook's Thiel Explains Failed Twitter Takeover - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc2009031_743025.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily

<comment><USER2> Reading between the lines, they're not avoiding revenue solely to get/keep more users - I think they're doing a last man standing, and waiting for all their competitors to run out of cash and go out of business. Then they bring on the adverts, because there's no competition by then, and nowhere to jump to.

<comment><USER3> Technologically, it is very easy to start a competitor to Facebook/Twitter (the scaling is the hard part, not the starting). So, there will always be competition until the biggest players can somehow raise the cost of entry by a few orders of magnitude.

Socially, I don't think it is that hard for people to migrate from Facebook/Twitter or something else. I think a lot of people think about competition in this area happening like a huge number of people stop using Facebook/Twitter and start using a competitor almost simultaneously. That is kind of what happened in the past, but only because the old social networks had serious problems. Now, significant shifts will still happen but they will be a lot more gradual. A lot of people are on multiple social networks already (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, GitHub, Mixi, Linked In, Flickr). Over time, each user's the proportion of page views on each site changes gradually but often significantly. Facebook/Twitter might remain the site (almost) everybody has in common, but I doubt it will continue to enjoy the huge share of users' attention it has now.

<comment><USER4> >the scaling is the hard part, not the starting

The scaling isn't the hard part when you have some cash to hire ex-Facebook, ex-MySpace, ex-<insert large website here> employees.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think Twitter handled the issue of being bought with 80% Facebook stock very well. After all, how does Facebook even determine their own value? They have revenues, but not enough to justify a valuation as high as $9 billion. Facebook probably bases that valuation on the marketability of their user base. But how do you place a dollar amount on a number of users?

<comment><USER6> I think this says a lot about that $9B valuation:

 _Twitter agreed on one condition: that the Facebook stock it received be valued at the price company shares garnered on the open market. Facebook blinked and the deal talks ended._

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Thiel won't say precisely where he values the company other than to say, 'It's worth more than people think it is.'"

I suppose that most investors desire a greater degree of specificity about a company's valuation before investing, especially in today's market.

<comment><USER8> I laughed out loud when I read that quote. Facebook's valuation is ENTIRELY based on what other people think it is worth.

<comment><USER9> It's based entirely on what people think it is worth, given disclosure of the relevant details. No one outside of Facebook (and, presumably, its investors) has that information.

That being said, I don't think Facebook is being honest with themselves or anyone else with respect to their valuation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Twitter would be stupid to allow their company to be bought by yesterday's men at Facebook. FB is a fad amusement for extroverts, Twitter is a communications medium. One is vastly more of a long term proposition than the other.

<comment><USER3> Unfortunately, mocking of delusional fanboyism is hard to discern from actual delusional fanboyism.</comment></comment>


Tech Crunch For The Enterprise: TechCrunchIT - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/23/techcrunching-the-enterprise-techcrunchit/

<comment><USER2> Let the idiocy begin.

"On the surface, the event features a continuation of the alliance between Salesforce and Google's Apps services. Behind the scenes, this is an old fashioned land grab for developers, trying to pry them off Visual Studio and .Net and into the benefits of collaborative on demand services."

Salesforce's platform competes with .NET? How?

Salesforce provides business applications which interoperates with third-party applications. .NET is a Windows-based development platform -- it includes desktop, graphics, and all manner of things that have absolutely nothing to do with ASP.NET, which is a general platform for making any kind of web application you want. You know, a lot of .NET development consists of assloads of SQL Server stored procedures along with enough C# wrapper code to hook the database up to a web page. The database is fucking _God_ in .NET land -- the interface is an afterthought. Microsoft's tools encourage this by being extremely data/model-oriented.

There is no migration path from .NET to Salesforce, except "let's throw away all our code, chuck all our valuable relational data, and instead use a precanned web-based suite with an API we can develop against in ways preapproved by a for-profit enterprise who now has us by the balls."

Note that I have not even bothered to dignify the retarded utterance that Salesforce is somehow comparable to Visual Studio, a desktop IDE, with a response.

If instead Gillmor meant to compare Salesforce to all of Microsoft's "Live" services that no one really cares about or uses (awful design, awful marketing, awful products), he should get his product families right.

<comment><USER3> I am no fan of his, but I don't think that his statement is too off-base if you look at it from Microsoft's perspective. They see a non-.NET platform trying to poach users from them. However, I'm not sure at all that that's the right view, and in fact I suspect you have it pretty much nailed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> No Arrington? Sweet.

TechCrunch has somewhat gone in a different direction than its original intention with his latest posts that haven't been "insightful" posts.

I'd like to see how these two writers fare on the TechCrunchIT. Definitely an interesting topic.

</comment><comment><USER5> Gah-- Steve Gillmor? That guy is largely unintelligible. Every time he posts on TechCrunch, the comments are full of people who haven't the slightest clue what he's saying.

Joel Spolsky is a huge fan of Gillmor's communication skills: <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/12/23.html>

</comment><comment><USER6> I subscribe to the print edition of eWeek, and the editors and writers do an excellent job of reporting on the enterprise and IT. A lot of research. I'm skeptical about techcrunch trying to enter eWeek's turf. techcrunch breaks a lot of news (e.g. new startup) but doesn't necessarily write a lot of articles and/or stories.</comment>


iCloud services in China will be transferred to GCBD - <AUTHOR> https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208352 <comment><USER2> I feel they try to turn it into a feature... _facepalm_</comment>


Is Joe Rogan right about young men and video games? - <AUTHOR> https://unherd.com/thepost/is-joe-rogan-right-about-young-men-and-video-games/ <comment><USER2> > jiu-jitsu might offer a person physical fitness, excitement, confidence, and > new career opportunities

Jiu-jitsu definitely wins on the physical fitness. Video games win on the lower chance of brain damage from concussions.

Video games can certainly offer excitement and confidence.

I am not sure what new career opportunities jiu-jitsu offers in any meaningful quantity. If we are talking about "jiu-jitsu" instructor jobs, well, there are video game trainer jobs and video game tester jobs as well.

The problems people have with video games come from gamers not meeting societal expectations for their gender and preferring to do something else.

<comment><USER3> Wtf you talk about. The gaming is considered the boy masculine thing and majority of games are masculine fantasies.

<comment><USER2> > boy masculine thing

Your use of the word "boy" explains everything. All of these anti video game articles are basically accusing gamers of never growing up to be good providers, which is the social expectation for the male gender.

The games certainly appeal to the masculine fantasy, but the people who play them are hardly considered masculine.

<comment><USER3> I say boy because I literally see parents being proud when their little boys play games. They are literally happy about their kids doing gender right.

It is different in adults insofar it sux for partner when he is playing all the time while she is dealing with kids and all that boring stuff.

But outside of the addiction situation, male gaming in adults is accepted as being dude doing dude activities. Trying to pretend that you massively popular hobby is making you outsider is ridiculous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "MMA fighter claims that martial arts is not a waste of time and that other hobbies are."

What's the discussion to be had here? Just one biased talking head trying to raise the way he spends his free time above others.

<comment><USER5> You get exercise and some level of mind-body training. That raises it above the most frivolous of time wasting at least. I think you can get a lot out of most media as well, but it doesn't necessarily have the same default utility as physical activity.

<comment><USER4> Spending free time for enjoyment can't be considered a waste. Don't violate the golden rule and the hobby is fine. The only person who cares that your hobby is healthy is you. Don't disrespect others. Martial arts is even worse by this metric because gamers don't insult other peoples' hobbies as often.

<comment><USER6> > Spending free time for enjoyment can't be considered a waste.

I don't think we actually believe that. We don't say that about something like heroin or masturbation.

Also, your future-self doesn't necessarily agree with that either. Give your future-self a say in how you spend you time today because they're the one who has to live with it.

"Time enjoyed while wasted wasn't time wasted!" tends to only be something present-you says to conveniently justify spending time in ways that will turn out to be unfulfilling with high opportunity costs.

<comment><USER4> Those things are often coupled with addiction, is self-destructive. Addiction from lack of a balanced life is an arguably preventable downward spiral.

If you want to say video games fall in the same category, I would argue video games are to heroin as caffeine is to amphetamine. Additionally, things that people get addicted to are not the issue, but rather the life around the things that people are addicted to are the issue. Just look at the use of cell phones in the contemporary world.

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

On future-self: My future-self already makes my decisions. If they choose to appreciate art (as video games are) on a Sunday or repair some electronics older than me, or go on a walk, none of those things are wastes of time. The mere supposition that they are is obnoxious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Video games offer a safe space for healthy aggression. Testosterone levels are insane in teen years and it seems that every other healthy outlet for aggression has been discouraged in society. Games are fine as long as they do not become an addiction. It's too easy to get sucked in and get used to a safe environment where mistakes have no downsides, zero physical activity is had, and a somewhat toxic culture can exist.

I feel that maintaining a balance of physical activity can help temper young men in those years. For my own experience wrestling and MMA were a good outlet for those feelings. Of course the micro concussions probably didn't help me out much, but now I at least know that getting punched in the head regularly is a bad idea. Which, on paper, should have been more obvious.

<comment><USER8> Grappling is a better outlet than boxing or MMA. Physical, real world and no risk of concussion.

<comment><USER9> Low risk of concussion. It's not unheard of to accidentally clash heads with somebody.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> >the discipline, progress, and sense of purpose offered by this kind of physical challenge is absolutely real

The discipline, progress, and sense of purpose offered by video games is equally real. If you think it's lacking any of these attributes you're probably playing something too easy. I've done martial arts before, and the thrill of winning a full-contact fight (in my case judo) is identical to the thrill of overcoming a genuinely hard video-game challenge. You even get much the same physical reaction; watch somebody who speedruns with a heart-rate monitor when they're on world-record pace.

The only advantage of martial arts is the enforced exercise, and it's a form of exercise with high risk of injury. And because the brain is a physical organ like any other, and because there's no clear distinction between mental and physical fitness, most competitive gamers realize that exercise gives them a competitive advantage. It's rare for a pro gamer to never hit the gym. Advertising this fact is probably more beneficial than advertising martial arts directly.

<comment><USER10> I agree, but there are more advantages to real life compared to virtual.

IRL, you meet your opponents, and possibly make friends. Online is often anonymous.

IRL you're learning subtle body-language and other cues.

IRL the discipline is stronger even at the lowest levels, and rewards scanter. Games are designed to give you just enough hope to keep trying - real life isn't. IRL teaches perseverance, even when there seems to be no hope.

The real problem is problem gamers - those that satisfy their drive and desire by playing games all day, rather than progressing their career and real life.

<comment><USER11> To be honest most IRL skills improve at a rate far quicker than grinding online games for skill for exactly the reason you stated, games designed to give you a variable (and marginal) reward, just enough to retain engagement indefinitely. Meanwhile many IRL skills and hobbies will have an entry barrier that may require some perseverance, but once you get engaged with it you tend to make big strides quickly and can look back on the massive progress you've made.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Yes, he is.

Watch a few young gamers. Note how they behave - not how they describe themselves - and you will see he is right.

Now, for most people it's just a phase. But there are a few that keep that mentality for the rest of their lives and then get frustrated when they are not getting anywhere outside their computers (their "battlestations").

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't know why this has become such a hot-button issue. I figured it was quite well established that video games are synthetic goals, and have always been tied to escapism. That is not to say that they are inherently wrong. Unless you are playing competitive games on the highest level (Dota, CS:GO), your charisma and looks are a greater predictor of your success in YouTube and Twitch than anything else.

<comment><USER9> Almost all goals in modern society are synthetic. That's the core of Ted Kaczynski's argument for destroying it all. But most people see no problem with synthetic goals, which is a good thing when the alternative involves the death of billions.

<comment><USER14> Other than basic survival and sex, all goals now and in history are and have been "synthetic." It's irrelevant and certainly not new or noteworthy. Of course most people are ok with it. They've been ok with it since the dawn of civilization. Ted was just a whiny little bitch having an existential crisis who wanted to murder people for pleasure. His ideas were extremely stupid, delusional, and hardly new or interesting. The alternative is not the death of billions. The alternative is for scumbags like him to just shut the fuck up or kill themselves before they start murdering people based on their extreme stupidity and delusions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Who said a hobby had to be useful? This self-improvement cult is really annoying...

<comment><USER16> It's utilitarian society or oblivion. If you're not min-maxing your life you're not a productive member.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> If he was as lazy as I am, there wouldn't be a joe rogan podcast to listen to to begin with. So I'm thankful that there are not just people like me that mostly consume instead of produce.

IMO it's good to be aware of the effects of my actions (or inactions) on my future. If I didn't had the occasional reality check that the things I deeply enjoy is a complete waste of time, then I may lose track of the things I have to do to maintain that lifestyle.

And that is mostly what Joe Rogan tries to say with such statements. Do whatever you like, but don't destroy your future. If gaming all day drives you into a dead end, that may be a problem worth addressing when there is still time to turn the ship around.

</comment><comment><USER18> Imho the comparison by Joe Rogan is skewed. The immediate goal of jiu-jitsu, just like in games, is totally fake: Beat your opponent in a staged fight with strict rules.

All the listed advantages of doing that are secondary effects of engaging in that activity.

And games totally have that too, they can improve:

\- hand-eye coordination

\- stimulus processing speed

\- stress tolerance

\- multi-tasking capability

\- attention span

Depending on the type of game even more positive effects can be shown.

This is not to say that games are better than sports, or that gaming does not have harmful sides. But presenting gaming as totally free of beneficial aspects is not really an argument in good faith...

</comment><comment><USER19> Could apply to programming too.

> Video games are a real problem. You know why? Because they're fucking fun. > They're real exciting, but you don't get anywhere… you're going to waste > your time

Programming is also fun and exciting. And if you're real good at it, you just get to do even more programming ...

<comment><USER20> I think the interpretation of "you don't get anywhere" is the crux. There are a few games I've put a few hundred hours in, and those hours were mostly fun and exciting. I gained skills in the game, some of which are transferrable to other things, but most of which aren't.

If I was to put the same time into a new programming language, I'd have gained a different set of skills, again some transferrable and some not. I think most people judge the second set of skills as more worthwhile than the first (maybe because it is tied to employability, and is seen as more "age appropriate").

Another aspect is that programming isn't designed to be addictive in the way some games are. Something like World of Warcraft seems designed specifically to hook into the part of the brain that rewards grind. In the moment, WoW is very compelling. But looking back on what was accomplished, I don't feel particularly positive about it. Compared to a programming project with a similar time commitment, in the moment it is on average less compelling probably, but the achievements are more satisfying in retrospect. Somehow this makes programming seem more worthwhile (though maybe I have just internalized the societal standards from above, and that's why I feel more satisfied with the programming projects).

<comment><USER6> I'd argue that fulfillment is the variable here and it seems to be what you're describing.

Spending a weekend on a programming project for fun can almost feel like the height of self-actualization to me. A pure intellectual challenge that makes me feel good and gives me a real proving ground. And I almost always look back on it and am proud of my effort even if I don't accomplish what I wanted.

Meanwhile it's too easy to spend empty, unfulfilling time in games. My time in World of Warcraft was wasn't self-actualization but more narcotic entertainment. It was less challenge and more empty feelgood treadmill. It felt good at the time, but not a year later. And it was addicting and easy in a way that programming (creation, exertion) is not. Even when I got into add- on development (which produced some fulfillment), that was only a small fraction of my time spent playing.

I don't think the point needs to be that one is always good and the other is always bad. But my advice to my former self and young people would be to beware of games. Ideally we all have a creative outlet that gives us real fulfillment. Even if you get sucked into games, hopefully it can redeem itself as a creative outlet rather than leave you in a narcotic-like rut.

I think Joe's comments make perfect sense if you see it as a letter to his former self and thus young people in general. I just remember when I was a heavy gamer, I hated acknowledging that yeah, I kinda am wasting my time, and it's not fulfilling. My parents were right, but it's a hard pill to swallow when it's one of the only things you've found that excites you (and you've stopped looking).

On the other hand, I think a lot of life advice is too hard to apply and better experienced yourself. Sometimes you just have to spend a year in an MMORPG in your teens, quit it, and then think "yeah, what a waste of time that was." And you learn a good lesson about how you want to spend your time. The danger is that I have two friends in their 30s who never quit, and it shows. Never had girlfriends, never traveled, slave to games, seem miserable -- and it's hard for me to see how they are setting themselves up for life fulfillment. And I think that matters.

That's all I have to say on the topic. To avoid spamming my PoV any more in these threads, this was my last one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Especially now a-days where games can have concealed elements of gambling as well as using other tricks to keep engagement.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes. It is like with anything else - fun for some time is good for you.

When you become so obsessed with fun that you pull multiple all nighters, are failing in the school due to no effort spent on it, are unable to relate to non gamers or worst are getting moody irritable and yelling around, then it is no longer good for you.

Duh.

</comment><comment><USER22> One could also make a similar argument about wasting time on podcasts and youtube videos, giving the illusion of gaining wisdom and experience.

I think there is a point to made about dopamine addiction and the businesses that knowingly or not prey on those attributes of human nature, but I don't think this article nor Mr. Rogan's podcast is giving any interesting or useful insight.

Oh well, back to my crosswords!

edit: I also wanted to mention Tobi Lütke (Shopify) who firmly believes in the value of lessons that can learned through gaming:

"It's insanely hard to become a pro in Starcraft, significantly harder than it is to get a degree. So I feel like this should be highly valuable on a CV. My offer to bring in ex pro players is more general than my offer to select for an internship,"

From: [https://www.businessinsider.com/retired-gamer-offered- intern...](https://www.businessinsider.com/retired-gamer-offered-internship- for-past-starcraft-2-performance-2019-10?r=US&IR=T)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/dl3o2p/billionai...](https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/dl3o2p/billionaire_shopify_ceo_finds_out_on_twitter_that/f4my8oi/)

</comment><comment><USER23> Yes, mostly useless. Though from my perspective, as a young male that has played video games quite a bit, it has made me curious about certain useful skills. At some point, you'll start playing with the game, modding it, or hosting servers for your buddies, or making cheats. I've learned scripting with Lua because I wanted more. Sure, you won't become a linux admin by hosting a Teamspeak and WoW server, but it will get you closer.

</comment><comment><USER24> Would assume generalizations are bad to make here.

Video Games have:

\- Thought me more English than I could ever learn in school especially TALKING (non-native) \- Started many projects for me that helped me later on from learning programming to analytical thinking and strategy \- Learn to work in teams and become part of a community, even though I still had the weekly sports activity and school etc also \- Got me into PC hardware and MS Windows with great detail to optimize my experience \- Made me "escape reality" without waking up with a broken bone somewhere next to the road

Guess there were many more points, some of which I maybe wouldn't attribute towards gaming but where indirectly affected by it.

But I can also see how other generations might have a different experience. You might no longer need to tinker with your OS and hardware to get a great performance. Creating large spreadsheets to calculate game specific actions and derive decisions is also not needed for many games.

So I guess saying video games are bad is way too generic, as it is to say drinking is bad. Depending on the usage and what you get out of it.

I am more than happy to not have taken jiu-jitsu classes and I would also challenge if that had made it any better for me compared to gaming.

<comment><USER11> > So I guess saying video games are bad is way too generic

That's not the argument being presented. No one is talking about people who play 10-30 hours per two weeks, which is not an unreasonable amount of time for a hobby. This is largely about people who spend 60, 70, 80, 90 or triple digits per two weeks in games.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Now I understand why first-hand knowledge is better than reading summaries and commentaries. Every conversation revolves around a context, which when separated and generalised distorts the entire thing. Anyone who wishes to understand the context should watch the segment from the podcast, there are timestamps under the video. It is as not as black and white as the article makes it out to be, in fact, I've a new found respect for Joe after watching that particular podcast.

</comment><comment><USER26> The title doesn't need the exclamation mark.

The author agrees with Rogan's statement from the get-go and then goes on to choose arguments - notably the a theorem on 'fake fitness' posited by one psychologist in a blog post - that support that statement.

This is fine and valid in itself, but then the article simply becomes what it is: a personal opinion piece based on personal views and values that eschews any critical dissection of arguments on both sides of the aisle.

</comment><comment><USER27> So one big difference between playing some video games and going to do something physical is, when you are a kid at least, there tends to be an adult guiding your experience during the physical stuff... at least some of the time. Think gym instructor, coach, trainer, etc. There really isn't any equivalent when gaming.

</comment><comment><USER28> Tbh video games with your friends is pretty much the same as drinking together but without the alcohol. Equally fun, good for social bonding, but without the adverse health effects or hangover.

Singleplayer games on the other hand are useless, I'd say the equivalent of binge watching tv shows.

</comment><comment><USER15> What's up with that weird tangent about feminism? It's not like no feminist ever noticed the bottled-up toxic masculinity in some gaming communities and started analysing that.

Do more sports is definitely one of the more naive "solutions" I've come across.

</comment><comment><USER29> As a reply to the main quote: if we are talking in absolutes, then yes, playing video games could be a waste of time as you probably won't gain any skills that are useful in the real world, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to have fun and unwind in a fantasy every now and again, as long as you realize that it's just that - a fantasy.

> For some young men, gaming plugs a psychological gap left by the loss of a > certain kind of masculinity, a loss sometimes blamed on feminists, who are > accused of creating a feminised society that leaves no space for men. But in > fact, the so-called 'crisis in masculinity' is a consequence, not of > feminist campaigning, but of societal affluence — a miracle of the modern > world, but one that has inadvertently produced a lot of frustrated and > aimless young men, now directing their pent up energy towards a hobby that > offers fake fitness but which, unfortunately, given the addictive nature of > 'limbic capitalism', is more likely than other hobbies to become all- > consuming, damaging the gamer's health and repelling potential sexual > partners.

This article definitely needs a bunch of [citation needed] tags. I'm a gamer myself and know plenty of gamers, but none that play video games to feel more masculine or which blame feminists in some way for this alleged "crisis in masculinity".

From my experience, these fantasies that the article mentioned: "a soldier, gunslinger, warrior, gangster, or heavily armed survivor in a post-apocalyptic hellscape" are more about us being able to live out fantasies without consequences the same way we would live them out by reading a fiction book, and not necessarily to somehow prop up our masculinity through them, though there might be some men that need that.

</comment><comment><USER30> This feels like sensationalism. You could make the exact same argument for music, books, films or TV - it is an artistic medium. A game can be a complete waste of time, and equally it can be an enriching and educational experience. Blindly sticking them all into one category is naive.

<comment><USER31> If digitally induced dopamine spikes are a concern, why isn't porn at the forefront of the discussion? Erectile dysfunction has roughly doubled in young men over the past decade and some research attributes it to online porn. [https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/](https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/)

<comment><USER32> The article focuses on "fake fitness": the false sense held by gamers that their gaming activities promote fitness and success in the real world.

The article aims to show that this sense is indeed false.

Porn consumers don't generally share a sense that porn consumption improves their real-world fitness and success. You could make a separate argument against porn consumption, but the "fake fitness" argument the article makes doesn't apply to porn addiction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Well this is a surprise; I thought Rogan was marketing primarily towards the young man demographic?

Per other comments, lumping an entire medium "video games" into one and trying to label it "good/bad" is the laziest possible form of cultural criticism. Criticise individual works, or patterns of behaviour instead. You could target gambling/gatcha, or the abuse that players hurl at one another (also a problem in traditional sports!)

<comment><USER34> Rogan was utterly addicted to quake when younger. To the point where he had a high speed t1 line installed at a time when that cost an awful lot.

Having watched the podcast he discussed it in, I think he was more worried about the kind of default usage people slip into, where all their free time is effectively consumed by gaming as he experienced himself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> For the same reason I don't listen to the Kardashians for advice, I am not going to listen to an obnoxious MMA dude for life advice.

Clearly many humans have too easy a life (myself included) when we seek to fill our time with meaningless drivel produced by others who also have too much time.

</comment><comment><USER36> Ok then. I ran 30km today, I can play some video games if I want.

</comment><comment><USER37> Is Joe Rogan right about anything?

</comment><comment><USER38> TLDR: if you are not self improving in your free time your life is a waste

Hope this cult will die some time. It's pretty much the same as with social media too.

</comment><comment> dmch-1 Yes.

</comment><comment><USER39> For a start, who is Joe Rogan?

<comment><USER40> Host of Fear Factor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Nope, he is not right.

</comment><comment><USER42> Ok boomer

</comment><comment><USER11> Seems about right.

</comment><comment><USER40> Yeah pretty much. I can get in a fire fight with my buddies on the internet without actually improving anything.

It's paintball, but you don't get exercise, don't learn about moving your body in space, don't get the same thrill, or the bruises.

<comment><USER2> I can sit on a porch drinking without improving anything. Where is the crusade against men sitting on porches?

<comment><USER3> When men done it a lot, there were multiple strong anti drinking campaigns. Some succesfull leading to prohibition.

I mean come on.

<comment><USER40> That too.

Teetotalers have spent a lot of history trying to stop men from drinking on their porches.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Mad Rush to College Is Killing Our Children's Entrepreneurial Spirit - <AUTHOR> https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-mad-rush-to-college-is-killing-our-childrens-entrepreneurial-spirit/ <comment><USER2> I'm entirely sympathetic to the idea that intense focus on college admissions is bad for kids. But it's a little baffling to me to see the harm of this approach described as limiting of their "entrepreneurial spirit." Maybe I'm the weird one here, but I have never understood the notion that the quintessential object of human ambition or thriving is starting a business.

<comment><USER3> "After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world." \- Calvin Coolidge, 1925

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My wife and I have exactly two goals for our child. Those are for a) him to be happy and b) the world to be a better place for having him in it. That's it. We also realize he has hopes and dreams, so we work hard to instill in him an understanding of working your hardest, using your strengths, identifying your weaknesses, and being a good person.

Good grades and test scores are nice, and poor grades aren't a huge deal if they identify an area where more focus is required. The ARE a big deal if they're the result of lack of effort. I want him to go to college if what he wants to do in his life will be facilitated by that. I'm also a firm believer that college is what you make of it, not what it makes of you.

</comment><comment><USER5> The mad rush to create startups is killing our children's....

<comment><USER6> Spot on

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Yeah, right. Look what it did to Gates and Zuckerberg.

</comment><comment><USER8> > _Liberals who want to make college free have good intentions, and there > certainly was a time when a college degree offered the most reliable ticket > to success. But times have changed. Today, plans for free college are > threatening to make the next generation less entrepreneurial._

It is refreshing to see a well-thought out piece that doesn't demonize and ad hominem their opponent's position</comment>


Renaissance-Era Italian Warlord Was Poisoned, Mummy Reveals - <AUTHOR> http://www.livescience.com/49319-mummy-reveals-italian-warlord-poisoned.html

<comment><USER2> Verona is one of the nicest towns in northern Italy to visit: you have a bit of everything, historically, from the Arena onwards, plus the nice hills to the north, plus the lake to the west.

</comment><comment><USER3> Given the infamy, at least as promoted by their enemies, of the Borgias not quite a century later, not to mention how often this Officially happened in recorded history, I'm surprised the researchers were surprised.

Then again, they might well know that plenty of rumored or official poisonings were just the normal day in, day out deaths in pre-modern public health and then medicine days. About the first thing my professor in Renaissance history did was to try to get across the omnipresence of death in pre-modern times, something that's the antithesis of today's 1st World Zeitgeist.</comment>


Death By Revenue Plan - <AUTHOR> http://steveblank.com/2010/02/16/death-by-revenue-plan/

<comment><USER2> Anyone who wants to try to create a new market (as opposed to get into an existing one) should read _The Innovator's Solution_. I say this because of the excellent chapters explaining all of the ways in which over-investment can kill a startup in a small market which is likely to have a big future potential. (The preceding book _The Innovator's Dilemma_ is also interesting, but doesn't provide any discussion of this dynamic.)

The key phrase that sums it up is, _Good money is impatient for profit and patient for growth. Bad money is impatient for growth and patient for profit._ Unless your company is sized small enough to find and be interested in whatever existing market can be found, you won't be in a position to grow with that market with the right cost structure to take advantage when the market opportunity grows.

<comment><USER3> Well this comes at an interesting time, since Kublax (UK equivalent of mint.com) just announced it's entering the deadpool today

<comment><USER4> I worked on the original design for Kublax. I think there are many reasons why they entered the deathpool.

I second the Clayton Christensen recommendation. For those of you who want a quick look into his thinking I would recommend his speech "Capturing the Upside" <http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail135.html>

Also the book "The Innovators Solution" is good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> After reading this it struck me that no revenue model could really be complete without some statement of the level of uncertainty. In science, for example, you would never make a prediction without also stating the uncertainty in that prediction. But none of the revenue model frameworks I've seen have included uncertainty.

<comment><USER6> In business school we were taught to incorporate uncertainty into projections and models, at the very least by including multiple scenarios. I'm surprised this isn't done in the real world as it doesn't require that much additional effort once you've set up a baseline and identified your assumptions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Besides understanding the growth of a particular market, it's also important to understand the motivations of a VC.

It depends on the overall sharkiness of the particular VC, but in general, VCs like to have entrepreneurs poorly estimate their revenues early on when funding milestones and the price of shares depend on those estimates.

More than one founder has gotten into bed with a VC, blown the revenue plan, and found themselves a minority shareholder in a VC-owned company. It's not that amazing how many founders will give away tons of equity, confronted with lack of revenues and a need for cash to pay all the employees they dazzled with their dream.

</comment><comment><USER8> Good article, but I'd add 'make sure your amount raised matches your market type.' If you do a large round, there's a whole lot of pressure to spend that large round.</comment>


Apple and Nokia patent dispute ends in Nokia's favor - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/14/nokia-and-apple-end-patent-litigation/ <comment><USER2> There's a considerably better article on it here: [http://thisismynext.com/2011/06/14/nokia-and-apple-settle- pa...](http://thisismynext.com/2011/06/14/nokia-and-apple-settle-patent- disputes-apple-to-pay-one-time-fee-and-ongoing-license-fees/)

The short version: there are costs and risks involved in patent litigation and it's likely that it simply became more cost effective for one side or other to reach a compromise on licensing fees - which is what the lawsuit was about to start with.

Alternative hypothesis suggested - Nokia's deal with Microsoft altered the patent landscape and made Nokia's patents available to Apple under better terms on account of the patent licensing deals that Apple and Microsoft have with each other already.

</comment><comment><USER3> Apple always knew it would be paying. It was arguing the amounts that Nokia wanted were excessive (like 10 bucks a device).

So, I've read the compromise was a large, one time payment by Apple. (But the agreement is confidential and the reports haven't said their source, so take that with a grain of salt).

</comment><comment><USER4> in short: European patents in Düsseldorf, Germany trump US patents in Marshall, TX

<comment><USER5> I think it's more a case of Nokia being in this particular game longer (it's also a lot older company), and having a deeper and more defensible patent portfolio as a result.</comment></comment>


Blocked by Facebook and the Vulnerability of New Media - <AUTHOR> https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/04/blocked-by-facebook-and-the-vulnerability-of-new-media/ <comment><USER2> > I do not know if I am blocked by Facebook as an alleged Russian bot, or for > any other reason. I do know that it appears to have happened shortly after I > published the transcript of the Israeli general discussing the procedures > for shooting children.

Another day, another argument for returning to RSS readers so we can filter for ourselves.

<comment><USER3> 'Zuckerberg'

Probably just coincidental. My post will be deleted for pointing this out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you want to be generous, you could say that Facebook simply doesn't understand or grasp the power it has right now.

The less generous take is that they don't want to understand because it would obligate them to grapple with the ethics of having that power and the least generous take is that they understand full well and simply do not care.

No matter what take you subscribe to, almost everyone can agree that as long as the money flows and the government (US and EU) stays at bay, nothing will change with that company.

<comment><USER5> From its foundation, from the beginning, Mark's university were working on plans to launch an online version of what they called -- facebooks -- however they were slower to launch because they had concerns, concerns for student privacy and the like; [http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2004/2/9/hundreds- register...](http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2004/2/9/hundreds-register-for- new-facebook-website/)

In contrast, Mark purposely lied to mislead the brothers who hired him for UConnect so he could launch Facebook before they could launch, he used the name and concept of facebooks from his university and skipped the whole process of caring and worrying about things like privacy, ethics. There are also the transcripts of him calling his users "dumb fucks" for trusting him with their data.

There's never been accountability for Mark, he's never cared for it, and he's only been excessively rewarded by it. He's only learned to control and control his image more and more tightly.

20/20 hindsight, is obvious now that this would evolve like this based on Facebook's beginnings.

To add, FaceMash that Mark had started - [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- switch/wp/2018/04/11...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- switch/wp/2018/04/11/channeling-the-social-network-lawmaker-grills-zuckerberg- on-his-notorious-beginnings/?utm_term=.a57ae634f3ad) \- what kind of game is it of trying to confuse people by using phrases like "unclear truth" as an answer, it's almost in line with "fake news." And I don't care he was younger or the other details, I care that he still hasn't owned up to it, taking responsibility, being an adult about it to help build our trust with him. Instead he continues to play these games, and certain people want him to because it makes them/keeps them rich.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The sinister side of me saw an orchestrated attack by the media (lets call them the establishment) that FB or Zuck can not be trusted to manage FB [1]. There has been a constant narrative, just google around these keywords. Surprisingly from the same "journalistic" machine that pushed a pro-Iraq war narrative without asking the questions they should have asked for [2].

My cynical view is, that this was a way to push FB to censor media content in favor of the establishment. Essentially, FB should allow Washington Post, NY Times, etc. to be shared with no shadow censorship, but the lesser established journalistic outlet should be censored.

You can see it from their side. NY Times or Washington Post are brands. But with FB, their brand value is not bringing them as much traffic as lesser entities. So, if I'm Bezos or others who own these entities, I would be unhappy to see FB providing an equal playing field to everyone.

I think the "RussiaGate" provided the best push for this argument. That if there is no censorship by FB, foreign players can influence our election. Though Comey's letter shown to have impacted the election [3], the $50k of ad buying on FB, made the news round and continues to pervade among many people that these ads probably changed the outcome of the election.

I'm sad to see Zuck and FB have succumbed to these pressures and are closing down venues for alternative journalist to state their views.

[1] [http://time.com/5125267/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-news- feed-r...](http://time.com/5125267/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-news-feed- regulations/) [2] [http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html](http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html) [3] [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter- probab...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably- cost-clinton-the-election/)

</comment><comment><USER7> After finishing The Red Web[0], reports like this absolutely freak me out. This sort of censorship is a totalitarian government's dream, and there's no way to verify who or what is influencing Facebook's timeline algorithms, not to mention that it's simply annoying to not be able to actually control what you see.

[0] [https://www.amazon.com/Red-Web-Struggle-Dictators- Revolution...](https://www.amazon.com/Red-Web-Struggle-Dictators- Revolutionaries/dp/1610395735)

</comment><comment><USER8> > I do know that it appears to have happened shortly after I published the > transcript of the Israeli general discussing the procedures for shooting > children.

That's probably the reason, FB seems to give preferential treatment to some governments.

[https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is- dele...](https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-deleting- accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments/)

</comment><comment><USER9> This is very analagous to the relationship Google has with SEO operators.

When Google changes policies, they have to scramble. The only thing that's different is that some (not many) of these sites have valuable content, so that gives them a soapbox to stand on.

</comment><comment><USER10> In the spirit of transparency, it would be neat if Facebook would show you, how many people saw a post at least then they couldn't just subvert the communication channel, they would have to actively lie to their users. Also, has some other interesting attacks that are possible. I haven't posted anything in over a year though, but I can see that this might be an issue of arbitarry censorship, where fancy AI takes over and noone knows what's going on.

<comment><USER11> Facebook has never been interested in the spirit of transparency.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> One day not too long ago I changed my Facebook News Feed settings from "Top Stories" (the default), to "Most Recent". It was eye opening -- so many friends (and "friends") whose posts I hadn't seen in months or years. I hadn't even noticed they were gone.

On the other hand, the posts of close friends were just us likely to be lost thirty pages down in my feed as were those of people I knew only peripherally.

<comment><USER13> I haven't even been seeing the "Most Recent" option anymore.

<comment><USER14> Adding ?sk=h_chr to the url of Facebook gives me the "Most Recent".

[https://www.facebook.com/?sk=h_chr](https://www.facebook.com/?sk=h_chr)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So is this solvable by writing an app that downloads updates for all of friend/page's walls regularly and creates its own aggregated newsfeed/filter? Or is this not accessible in Facebook API?

I don't use FB anymore, but that's what I'd do. Data is there, so it's only the matter of storing them locally, creating my own wall, and then linking back to facebook for interaction/comments if necessary.

<comment> noir-york > creates its own aggregated newsfeed/filter

I am trying to build this very thing but Facebook's recent privacy issues have caused it to over react and I keep getting the below error:

"Access to this data is temporarily disabled for non-active apps or apps that have not recently accessed this data due to changes we are making to the Facebook Platform."

The API call getting the error is to retrieve the list of posts from a page. Getting an error for that is just silly. If anyone can help please contact me!

<comment><USER15> I guess scraping their UI is not an option either, is it? It looks like it could be quite a bit of pain with all that ajaxy incremental loading, lot of variation in what can be on the wall and obfuscated CSS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Collect content feeds and build a big site aggregator, maybe even distributed DB of them, add a search engine, advertising, crowd sourcing, paid feeds. Kickstarter and gofundme are creating their own advanced pateron clones. You could make a wordpress/drupal theme so people dont have to find all plugins and set it up. Have a dedicated site to collect all the RSS "Content" feeds, and you basically out classed facebook and youtube.

Apple seems to control the podcast database, and its just people submitting RSS feeds.

I've been using IFTTT to build sites that are just feeding multiple sites into 1 location, reddit subs, youtube channels, etc.

The tech is out there, but everyone seems to be thinking they need to be facebook/youtube clones.

</comment><comment><USER17> That's why I left FB, Twitter (Google not yet... although it does the same). And I was not even writing about big politics issues, only about mathematics and open access, open science. Sure, we are paranoid, especially because nobody can verify the evidence.

</comment><comment><USER18> Craig Murray has been deeply involved in covering the Syria/Skripal poisonings taking a line that is questioning. I do not think he has been actively censored with Theresa May going out of her way to ask GCHQ to silence the chap, however, there is a lot going on at Facebook at the moment and they might be blanket banning topics in a shadow-ban way.

Craig Murray is also soliciting donations these days, this only started a week ago. I think he comes across as a bit paranoid.

Hopefully he won't do what that orthorexic vegan did at the YouTube HQ for monetization issues.</comment>


CurbTxt allows you to send an SMS to people blocking your driveway. - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/09/curbtxt_bernal_heights.php <comment><USER2> Oh and yes, I did make this remark "Usually I just scratch the car up first, then I have it towed. Afterward they usually complain to the towing company about the damages." which I assume is the reason for my comment deletion. Well I actually do this, I have done it a 100 times maybe. Because 3 times a week some guy decides to park in front of my driveway. After a while it gets annoying. And yes, I have put up several warning signs asking people not to.

<comment><USER3> Vandalism in most states is punishable by large fines and jail time.

Our hope is that CurbTXT will prevent folks from resorting to aggressive (and illegal) behavior.

Regards, Andrew at CurbTXT (firstname.lastname@example.com)

<comment><USER2> Luckily I don't live in the states. So the jail time or large fines do not scare me. Your app however tells people it's okay to park in front of people's driveways cause we'll just text them right? Also how are you planning on monetizing this? Are you actually going to make money off the misery of others by telling them it's okay to park wherever they want? Imagine my wife has a seizure, some guy with your sticker parks in front of my driveway and I can't rush her to the hospital in time. Can you AND the driver be held responsible for this in court? Since your app clearly condones illegal parking behavior. The rules are simple, if you park somewhere where you shouldn't you will get towed. Maybe you should make an anti-rape app too? The victim can just text the abuser letting him know of his mistake.

<comment><USER4> censormuch, I think you're missing a key point. No where does CurbTXT say they promote, excuse or "condone" illegal parking practices. It's simply a communication tool for notifying car owners of ANY issues with their vehicle. You can of course always tow if someone blocks your driveway. By using CurbTXT, you are not granted any immunity from parking violations, but you are allowing people to contact you directly. It is simply giving them a choice in how they make contact. If you are abusing the use of CurbTXT by say perpetually or indiscriminately parking wherever you want, you most likely will be towed, CurbTXT sticker or not.

However, if you happen to have left your lights on, or forgot to rotate your tires when on a hill, any neighbor can help you out with a friendly reminder. Other benefits would allow people to contact you if they noticed your car was being vandalized (by say someone keying your car).

Of course, CurbTXT isn't for everyone. And it doesn't look like it's offered outside of the States anyway, so fret not, you won't need to worry about helping or being helped by neighbors anytime soon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> It seems my previous comment was removed/censored even though I raised a good point about people abusing these stickers to park wherever they want. I did not use any abusive language, I simply stated my opinion. Do you guys have a stake in this ridiculous app or what? My comment was posted under the nickname "jimbotheredneck" which I created quickly to comment as I do not like being tied to a username. I loved this site but seeing this made me realize most comments are probably staged or fake. I shall explain the situation to my friends at 4chan. Maybe then you will respect freedom of speech.

<comment><USER5> Hi friend,

Actually, looks like it got flagged to oblivion - if you turn on "showdead", you can see things that get enough downvotes to be hidden. I don't have true insight into why it was flagged, but my assumption would be a combination of the keying comments, as well as it being mostly an opinion comment.

Here's a direct link to it, if you want to see if you get any replies: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4573006>

Cheers!

<comment><USER2> Alright well your friendliness and my own stupidity sort of disarmed me. Now I do kinda feel bad about getting all worked up though. You must be a really nice guy to stay calm even though I was ranting like an idiot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That's a remarkably cool idea. Easy to use (although the article didn't mention how you send an SMS only knowing the plate number).

My only concern would be that it's open to abuse. Say you have a neighbor who hates that you park too close to his driveway (not blocking it mind you) and you get constant harassing texts, not fun.

<comment><USER7> Using this is begging for stalking. For most women, putting this on their car will mean receiving tons of lewd, hurtful, or hateful texts messages from anonymous people.

<comment><USER8> What is the incentive to "register" my car? It seems a bit backward. The "F-bomb laced note" is the simpler solution in this case. Straight to the point and no registration required.

<comment><USER3> Good question tvjunky. By registering your car - you allow your neighbors to contact you immediately regarding issues with your vehicle. So if you were to mistakenly block a neighbors' driveway - they could CurbTXT you to move your car rather than have you towed.

An "F-bomb laced note" wouldn't allow your neighbor to pull out of their driveway.

Registering for CurbTXT also allows your neighbors let you know if you're about to get ticketed for street cleaning, if you've left your lights on by mistake, if someone's smashed your window, etc.

Hope this clears things up, Andrew at CurbTXT (firstname.lastname@example.com)

<comment><USER8> Andrew,

        I think you have something here but it still seems a bit cart before the horse. The presumption is that we all want to be excellent to each other. In my experience when people are being rude it's more often a conscious choice rather than an inadvertent mistake. Granted, I don't live in an area where residents have to battle or shuffle around for parking and neighbors will be "neighborly" and register. However, during events with large numbers of people from outside the neighborhood, we often see rude behavior. In these cases there is no opportunity alert the offender of their "mistake". We either must be proactive to guard our parking or start a a tow truck parade to coincide with the event.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why not just not park in front of people's driveways, rather than signing up for this?

<comment><USER3> Most people violate parking regulations by mistake - and would prefer to avoid being ticketed or towed.

CurbTXT lets your neighbors contact you regarding any issue with your vehicle - whether it's your fault or not. Like if someone smashed your car window.

Hope this clears things up, Andrew at CurbTXT (email@example.com)

<comment><USER10> Most people?

I'd say when I've done it, it's been about 50/50 on the lazy asshole/unknowingly split. Am I particularly bad on this? (It's been rare in general, I've got to add--maybe once every year or two).

<comment><USER3> Point taken. We're just hoping to keep tickets/tows/nasty notes out of the equation. Even if you've put yourself in this situation.

Cheers, Andrew

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In South Korea, it's quite common for people to put their mobile number on a sticker on the windshield or even bumper - exactly for this reason.

Of course, abuse of this trend also exists.</comment>


Ask HN: How your small pet project turned to business? - <AUTHOR> Hey Guys
I do job. But really wanted to start my own projects which can turn it as a business. I do not have any idea. (I might have but I am lazy).
Do you have any surprising stories which you can share how you small idea/pet projects turn to valuable business? <comment><USER2> Check out [https://www.indiehackers.com/products](https://www.indiehackers.com/products)

Related: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16617509](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16617509)</comment>


A Father and Daughter Who Drowned at the Border Put Attention on Immigration - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2019/06/26/736177694/a-father-and-daughter-drowned-at-the-border-put-attention-on-immigration <comment><USER2> In the course of attempting to fraudulently claim asylum in the US ("fleeing poverty" is not a valid reason for asylum under international treaties, and even if they had a valid reason such as political persecution they already had a Mexican humanitarian visa and therefore had no need to seek asylum in the US), parents try to swim a _1-year old_ across a huge river, killing her and one of themselves in the process. It does put attention on immigration.

What exactly is the US supposed to do? If they don't "meter" the asylum processing facilities, the facilities will become overcrowded and be dubbed "concentration camps". If they do meter them, they "cause" people to do deadly things with their children in tow, according to people quoted in this article.

<comment><USER3> Maybe people would still be poor in Central America if not, but the US has a responsibility to deal with some of the consequences after decades of destabilization and intervention in the region.

<comment><USER4> There is no nation on Earth that just throws open their borders as is repeatedly asked of the U.S. in recent years.

It is true that the U.S. has a responsibility to its neighbors. It doesn't follow that open borders are the same thing as taking responsibility. In fact, open borders are the opposite of responsibility.

<comment><USER3> USA doesn't need to open its borders indiscriminately, what I'm saying is that it should take responsibility for _some_ of the fallout of its own meddling with Latin American democracies and economies.

Indiscriminately opening the borders is just as bad as indiscriminately closing them, there should be a fair review process to accept some of those refugees. Expecting Mexico to become "the wall" will just stall the humanitarian crisis a few years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> On the same day Óscar Alberto and Valeria died, U.S. Border Patrol agents found four bodies along the Rio Grande in Texas' Rio Grande Valley, about 55 miles west of Brownsville. In that case, three children — one toddler and two infants — died along with a 20-year-old woman.

</comment><comment><USER5> Serious question (ignoring the political perspective) will a wall reduce this or cause more injury by people trying to go under/over it?

<comment><USER6> A wall would deter people from coming to begin with, which would ease the burden on border patrol facilities, making the whole situation more humane.

Let's not belittle these people by pretending that they don't have access to the internet and world news. People will still come, but once word spreads that a wall in key locations is actually being built, at least some percentage of them will reconsider the decision and settle with aid from countries such as Mexico, which had already been granted to them.

<comment><USER3> Key locations of a 3000+ km border? Please realize the wall is just a political slogan. It will never be seriously built because it's insanely expensive, and no matter how many km you manage to save, it will be very big and very hard to guard.

Ironically, you might not need it since Trump and AMLO (the Mexican president) agreed for Mexico to stop the influx of migrants with its own resources. In a sense, we built the wall and are paying for it, by becoming the wall itself.</comment></comment></comment>


How Solo Founders Beat The Odds and Get Into Top Accelerators - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2013/03/12/how-solo-founders-beat-the-odds-and-get-into-top-accelerators/#!/lawdingo <comment><USER3> On the need for more than one founder, I definitely don't 'get it'.

For a minute, let's set aside information technology startups and look at business startups: All across the US, border to border, from crossroads to the largest cities, the US is just awash in sole proprietorships. They mow grass, run 12 fast food restaurants, repair cars, run 10 gas stations with convenience stores, run Italian red sauce restaurants, are dentists, pediatricians, etc. One owner, zero to a few hundred employees. So, sole founder, one owner works fine, millions of times across the US, in business.

Now, for an information technology startup, that's just an advantage, at least through a business of similar size. If a guy running 10 pizza shops can be a solo founder, then a guy running a Web site or writing an app can also.

Technical knowledge? It takes a lot of technical knowledge to repair, correctly, efficiently any car that drives in to an auto repair shop or auto body shop or be up to date on dentistry, pediatrics, etc. Information technology is not nearly the only field that needs technical knowledge.

For an information technology startup, it stands to help if the founder, CEO actually understands the work. The best way for him to do this is to do the work. There actually doing the work may not take so much time and, instead, getting the background, say, 4000 Web pages of documentation from Microsoft's MSDN, can take more time. But if he is going to understand the work, then he needs the background. So, given the background, go ahead and do the work. Later, when there's plenty of revenue and more work to do, start hiring.

If the project grows well past a 'life style' business to a big thing, fine, but still I see no great reason to have more than one founder.

I can guess why some venture investors want more than one founder.

<comment><USER4> I assume this is the top voted comment on HN since it's first.

Sadly, there's not one qualifying statement in your comment which leads me to believe you don't know what you're talking about. And that's fine, except you pretend like you do by rationalizing with yourself while trying to convenience others.

How about you first run a few businesses one your own. Then try one with a cofounder. In 10 years, please email me your thoughts. If you want to shorten that time, just go outside and talk to at least 10 founders who've done it.

<comment><USER5> Your comment is pretty dismissive, without any actual content, apart from "trust me, I'm older, I know better". Perhaps you could back it by some actual arguments in favour of your stance, just like the person you were replying to did?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The comment at the end, about how co-founders can split a company if their vision diverges, is very true. Many companies go through pivots, and without a strong leader they struggle here. I'd rather be a single cofounder and work to bring on a team (being generous with equity) than force myself to bring on the wrong cofounder. Luckily I can code, as doing it without any technical chops would be very hard. The toughest thing I find is switching from a 'maker' mentality to 'manager' mentality as it's hard to get out of a coding mindset when a meeting or call is needed. I find splitting days into maker days and business days works well to balance this.

</comment><comment><USER7> I went through Techstars in 2010 as their first solo founder, and I failed pretty hard. The combination of talks, mentor sessions, wooing potential team members, and pitch practice left me almost no time to code and plan the product. For the final pitch, all I had was demo ware, and I felt an idiot getting up on stage.

It was a worthwhile failure for me, I made some great friends and learned a lot, but I'd counsel any lone founder to focus on growing some kind of support team around them as the first priority. I would never contemplate an accelerator as a solo founder, but I have nothing but admiration for those who have managed it.

<comment><USER8> That might be more of an issue with Techstars than being a solo founder (I've been through Techstars as a solo founder. I'm also a YC alum).

Techstars has lots of talks, sessions, and pitch practice. YC has almost none of that - one dinner a week, otherwise, a complete focus on product and customers.

<comment><USER9> Agreed. I started out solo in an incubator and had to be RUTHLESS with my time. Basically didn't really make use of the mentors / sessions / etc - <USER2> busy writing code / making sales calls. Didn't spend time networking with the other startups - too busy trying to network in my industry. Didn't spend time on pitch competitions etc - too busy trying to find real investors who knew me and knew the space.

I've since added a co-founder, but we more or less still operate the same (probably a bit to our detriment).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's nonsense to say that you must have co-founders...I've been building companies for 17 years as a single founder. People do it all the time...

<comment><USER11> Perhaps a distinction is drawn between building companies, and getting funding from certain types of VCs

<comment><USER12> The former is the only thing that matters. Kudos to you if you can do it without enriching VCs along the way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The focus should really be on how solo founders beat the odds and start top companies.

I think there's way too much emphasis in the press & in people's mindsets these days on getting funding, getting into incubators, etc. Those things may be sexy but they're not the point of the game - at best they're tools to help you get there.

</comment><comment><USER13> And of course, Drew from Dropbox: <http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27532820/app.html>

But he notes that he had a team already working with him, even though technically he was a "solo founder."

<comment><USER14> He almost immediately partnered up with Arash Ferdowsi as his co-founder.

<comment><USER13> Cool. I definitely agree that having a cofounder is the way to go, especially since the best examples we have were rockstar duos: Apple, Google, Microsoft.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This "single founder isn't optimal" idea has been doing the rounds for a while now. I wonder if there is some independent research that either backs it up or refutes it.

<comment><USER16> This is one area where I'd be skeptical of "data" because I think there are too many variables to separate any signal out of the noise. First, there are not all that many startups to begin with, and they all do different things. Whether it's one founder or many seems way down on the list of factors influencing the success. If you had thousands of startups entering a single market within a short time span then maybe you could get something, but not in the current world.

Furthermore, I think as a founder if you concern yourself much over this point you are likely to fail. Building a startup is a game of applying extremely limited resources, if you are focused on structural details like number of founders then you are necessarily not focused on the unique metrics of success for your business. Of course there are pros and cons to being solo or multiple founders, but in the end a motivated individual should never let conventional wisdom get in the way of pushing forward (especially from investors who are grasping for any kind of signal to hang their hat on!). Conversely, if a person with the right talents and skills comes along you should absolutely allow them a co-founder seat even if you planned on going it alone as this will magnify your sphere of opportunity in terms of execution potential.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> While not as famous as Y Combinator, Xin Chen got in to the Bizdom (Cleveland) accelerator with <http://www.queryly.com/> (powering site search with speed, beauty & brains) as a solo founder.

For those who don't know Bizdom is part of the Rock Ventures family of companies. The office: <http://bit.ly/WWfdhJ>

<comment><USER18> [https://plus.google.com/photos/114453701162851629569/albums/...](https://plus.google.com/photos/114453701162851629569/albums/5853762246423701313/5853762260238180210)

The sofa in this photo looks more like a casting couch..just saying xD

<comment><USER17> Funny. From that angle is you are right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> tl;dr

It's difficult, not impossible, to be accepted to a startup accelerator if you're a solo founder.

wtads [What The Article Didn't Say]

      * Startups can't make it without an accelerator
      * Solo founders can't run successful startups

<comment><USER12> "* Startups can't make it without an accelerator * Solo founders can't run successful startups"

Eh? Successful startups without accelerators and successful solo founders have been around since the dawn of time...

<comment><USER20> That's jt2190's point ;) He's reinforcing that the article did NOT say that. The article talks about it being more difficult to get accepted into an accelerator.</comment></comment></comment>


Wriggling worm is breakthrough for artificial life - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10535160/Wriggling-worm-is-breakthrough-for-artificial-life.html

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://github.com/openworm/OpenWorm](https://github.com/openworm/OpenWorm)</comment>


Stock Price Prediction with LSTMs - <AUTHOR> https://miguelgfierro.com/blog/2018/stock-price-prediction-with-lstms/ <comment><USER2> This model is showing predictions one day into the future. The "test set" plot is all predictions made with data from 1 day ago. The input sequences have size 1, so no recurrence is happening (see to_1dimension in [https://github.com/miguelgfierro/sciblog_support/blob/master...](https://github.com/miguelgfierro/sciblog_support/blob/master/Time_Series_Forecasting_of_Stock_Price/utils.py)). If you predict that tomorrow will have the same price as today you'll get better plots under the same operating conditions.

In[2]: TIME_AHEAD = 1

Train set has ~1e-6 MSE, Test set has ~0.8 (0.94^2).

EDIT: I should say this person is probably learning, and a lot of this is honest mistake.

</comment><comment><USER3> Actual way this experiment should work: feed the recurrent NN with stock markets data from the latest 10 years _but_ the latest year. Then display the prediction for the latest year and the actual data. I want to see if it will match like that...

<comment><USER4> Predicting for only the last year is good, but there are two even better ways:

\- An expanding window where you train on the first year of data and predict the second. Then train on the first two years and predict the third, etc.

\- A rolling window where you train on years 1 and 2 and predict 3. Then train on 2 and 3 and predict 4, etc.

You need to show that your predictions work for any time period, not just the past year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Cool to see that you created a notebook and are publishing this like a paper. I was thinking of doing some projects and this looks like a good format to follow.

However, this looks to be grossly overfitting. You can't just randomly drop out samples in a time series and use those for the test dataset. You need to cut out larger contiguous sequential time ranges and reserve those for your test set. Probably a single contiguous time window.

Anyone can predict with a high degree of accuracy what stock price is given the last 5 days and the next 5 days.

Predicting a few randomly dropped out pixels in that graph is really easy due to the nature of time series. You can just interpolate it.

<comment><USER2> It's actually using just one day's data (one point) to predict the next day's data, let alone predicting 5 days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The model could be trained in such a way that it will only work with historical data and pass only back tests accurately. This is because you are training against the "answer" which is already known.

<comment><USER6> Training with trends and patterns is like a technical trader looking for patterns. When things go right they attribute to the pattern, but when it's wrong, they attribute it to unforeseen events. The unforeseen events is something if can be predicted, you will be rich lol

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> According to the graph this seems to basically perfectly predict future stock price. I don't believe it's possible to be that accurate at all, what am I missing here?

<comment><USER5> It's because the test dataset involves randomly choosing samples spread throughout the time series.

Imagine dropping 10% of the pixels randomly spaced out in a historical graph and then try to fill them in. It's trivial because you can just average the previous and next sample and have an extremely high accuracy.

<comment><USER8> I don't think that's true, because of the `shuffle = False` argument to `train_test_split`; it's just chopping the tail off for the test set.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Please forgive my ignorance, since I'm a neophyte in this field.

But since you have taking true value & training data, both, from the past, won't your "prediction value" be prone to lots of biases?

<comment><USER10> I'm the farthest thing from an expert but here are some factors to consider. You're going to train on the past data. Typically at least to begin with you pick some time period and train on part of the data and keep back some to test on. And yes, there's definitely a risk of overfitting. So some of the real data will be in sample and some out of sample for testing. If you want to get more sophisticated there is one of a number of resampling techniques in which you systematically choose different subsets of the data to train on and then look at the variation of the predictions. That can give you some idea of the error you'll get. Not sure how that works on data with high dimensionality but if you're doing an autoregression/autocorrelation (i.e. predicting tomorrows price based on it's past behavior) you'll only have the single time series. The first thing you'll likely notice if you try and apply that sort of model to stocks is that stocks are at least as highly correlated and likely much more so to the market than they are to their own past behavior.</comment></comment>