The Secret Ingredient In Your Orange Juice - <AUTHOR> http://www.foodrenegade.com/secret-ingredient-your-orange-juice/ <comment><USER3> I don't think that the health conclusions of this piece (don't drink orange juice from the supermarket!) are warranted. All the sources listed in it lead back to Alissa Hamilton's book "Squeezed." While not having read it, all of the information I can find suggest that Hamilton is not trying to suggest that orange juice is unhealthy. For example, this interview in the Boston Globe - [http://articles.boston.com/2009-02-22/bostonglobe/29257797_1...](http://articles.boston.com/2009-02-22/bostonglobe/29257797_1_orange- juice-vitamin-minute-maid) :

 _You'd be better off with a whole orange than a glass of orange juice. It has more fiber and more vitamin C. But I'm not a dietitian. The book is not about whether you should drink orange juice and whether it's healthy. It's about how little consumers know about how popular and - in the case of orange juice - seemingly straightforward foods are produced and the repercussions for agriculture._

<comment><USER4> Regardless of the health conclusions - you can't deny the amount of sugar in single cup - absolutely contributes to the obesity we are all facing.

<comment><USER5> I deny that it contributes to obesity for all people. I believe no one can actually claim people _understand_ nutrition --- in the same way we understand Newtonian physics, for example.

I've never cared about what I eat. If I want something, I eat it. When I'm full, I stop. Over the last two years, my weight has stayed between 210lbs and 220lbs. I'm lucky. But I'm also a datapoint.

Since some people can simply not care about what they eat, and they don't get fat, then I'd bet money other people can watch what they eat and _still_ get fat. And of course, for other people, watching what they eat will make them skinnier.

The point is, everyone is different, and no one can say with a straight face that we understand nutrition well enough to make broad claims like "the amount of sugar in a single cup of orange juice contributes to the obesity we're all facing".

<comment><USER6> No offence, but only an American could make the argument that because their weight has stayed "only" between 95kg and 100kg that they are living proof that people can eat what they want and not get fat.

Unless you are a bodybuilder, which I am guessing you are not since they most certainly do care about what they eat, you are likely considered overweight in every other country on earth.

<comment><USER5> Well, here I am. Judge for yourself: [http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak- ash1/24114_337315700...](http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak- ash1/24114_337315700845_500275845_4090376_7001455_n.jpg?dl=1)

I drink over half gallon of soda a day, and survive mostly on $1 McChickens.

So I'm either a freak of nature, or we don't know as much as we think we do about nature.

<comment><USER7> Dude I hate to break you're little bubble - but you fat. You might not be as hopelessly obese as people you are used to calling fat. But the truth is you are fat too.

You don't look healthy either and with continuing your lifestyle like you do, You are a ticking timebomb of diabetes, cholesterol issues, gout and other nasty metabolic diseases.

Take an example of my mother, she is 70 and has developed both gout and diabetes. Now imagine what you are allowed to eat - to not have issues with your body (hint. For diabetes - sugars are verboten and for gout proteins are denied.). Now imagine that there is a very real risk, that you will be in same condition by your mid 40's.

Wake up. Now.

Edit: I understand that a lot of HNers with our geeky lifestyles deem OP completely "normal" and "healthy" - but this is simply not the truth. And thus everybody might be in a deep denial.

<comment><USER5> This is very possible too. What's the criteria for judging "healthy"?

I mean, I have no ego, and I'm not doing this out of narcissism or some silliness like that. I genuinely care about "the truth". So if the truth is I don't look healthy, then I'd like to know why.

I was just about run up to the local gas station and buy a $0.72 44oz Cherry Coke, then run up to McDonalds and grab a McChicken for $1.09, then head back and keep programming. Total time: 15min, total cost: $1.81. If you give me convenient alternatives, I guarantee I'll switch. And maybe this thread will help educate other people who are doing similar things as me.

<comment><USER7> On health criteria - I'm not implying that you should be all "Jersey Style". However - for me, first sign of health is muscle tonus - yours seems not very good (as is most geeks). Then your hair seems in a pretty bad shape - that has less to do with washing and more with food you consume. And your general posture does not imply - "I am fit for battle" (you also look sleep depraved).

On convenience of healthy food. It's very subjective for me since I was raised on organic food (farmerboy here, it is quite interesting that our farm was organic waay before "organic" even existed. Industrial farming just didn't seem "right" to my parents) I have a general distaste for any kind industrial food (except various sweets :D). Thus you will not find any sodas and/or McStyle food on my menu - because I just don't like the taste of it. (Yes I will turn into a BK or MD every now and then - just to find out that I don't like it - over and over :))

But - being a geek I also have (or at least had) this problem of seeing food preparation as too mundane for me. However since I quit my corporate job I actually started liking to take care of our garden (40m2 in backyard) and orchard, and I have always liked cooking (I love nice tasty food). So now I have learned to treat it as a stabilizing factor in my life, to just you know - slow down for a while while doing gardening tasks it also provides a basic exercise. I know understand that producing your own food is not an option for you - I'd just like to point out that eating a meal that you produced from ground up is one of best experiences in life - right there with drugs, sex and programming. Just to let you know that if you ever get a chance at producing your own food - you should take it. It's not too much work either. A couple of weeks in spring and one in autumn - in between its mostly about basic maintenance and pest control - nature takes care of the rest. Like mentioned - this last paragraph may not do much for you and you might even see me as (rightly) bragging - but it's here just so you can understand what angle I am coming from.

Now about how you can make healthy food convenient and cheap. 1. Accept that it will take more time than junk-food (thats half of its point), but it will take less time than you expect - especially once you get used to it. 2. Stop consuming sodas and just divert "soda fund" into "food fund" - you are meant to drink water and should learn to do it ASAP. 3. Beans, Pasta, Potatoes, Full corn Bread, vegetables, nuts and dairy products should be the staple of your diet. 4. A lot of home cooking can be done fast or semi-absent (vegetable soup - cut vegetables, add water, put on an appropriate power setting - <USER2> after an hour or two - enjoy delicious vegetable soup). Pasta is fast and simple to prepare (also will keep you well fed for quite awhile). To maximise yield, learn to cook larger amounts - don't just cook a single meal worth of soup or pasta. Example: Cook a pound worth of beans (this is 4 days worth of protein) - meal 1: eat some beans with cracklings; meal 2: use some of the beans in salad; meal 3: cook some bean soup with pasta; You can also use your vegetable soup as basis for your pasta sauce, etc. 5\. Salads are super fast to prepare. 6. Fruit meals require no preparation.

But you could also view your food preparation as a ritual that will help you stay balanced in your life - and thus not a waste of time.

Oh and to be honest - its perfectly possible to grow fat on healthy food. It's just not so easy and your organism will not have to endure so much stress.

<comment><USER5> Thank you. It's so rare nowadays to find someone willing to give perfectly honest feedback, like "your posture sucks, and you look sleepy". I didn't realize hair quality might be linked to nutrition. Also, I appreciate how much work you put into your reply.

Do you have any thoughts on using Crystal Light to make water taste less terrible?

Someday, when I have more than $1k of savings, I hope to live in a nice rental house with a garden in the back. What all foods do you grow?

As they say: cheers!

<comment><USER8> >Do you have any thoughts on using Crystal Light to make water taste less terrible?

Water tastes fantastic. It's sweet. An all-soda-and-mcsquats' diet has killed your taste buds, so anything that isn't loaded with sugar and salt (never mind the Coke, your McChicken has a crazy amount of added sugar) will taste bland to you. Cut the crap out of your diet, and the good stuff will taste good again.

Now, all of this is modulo your local water supply. Here in Vancouver our water tastes great, but we're lucky. You might not be in the same boat. Try grabbing a brita water filter and keep it full, in the fridge.

As for grown foods: tomatoes are great and easy to grow. If you have sun, blackberries are literally weeds and will take care of themselves. Carrots and potatoes are the same way. You should always have some chives growing somewhere; they add delicious flavour to most things. Lettuces and cabbages are fairly easy, but you have to keep slugs and whatnot away or they'll eat them before you get the chance. Same deal with spinach. Peas and beans are pretty easy to grow, although you'll need a lattice. Cucumbers and zucchini are easy to grow, as well. Note, that is in no way an endorsement of zucchini. I don't advocate it's consumption; I'm just pointing out that it's easy to grow.

<comment><USER9> Could you explain that comment about zucchinis? I can't find any information about why one wouldn't recommend its consumption.

<comment><USER10> Not sure what the OP was talking about, but I won't touch them because they're completely lacking in flavor!

<comment><USER7> Your doin' it wrong. Zucchini is a fantastic filling and flavor carrier. It loves spices, olive oil, onions, tomatoes and what have you.

Thus it should be used as something that adds volume and takes on flavor of other ingredients.

I used to dislike zucchinis too - since people putting them on my plate didn't have a proper idea of how to use them. But once you use it as Lord intended them to be used, they are THE fruit. Zucchinis are in fact my favorite fruit.

<comment><USER8> That makes it sound a whole lot like tofu, which is another "food" that should be avoided by anyone who isn't a culinary masochist.

<comment><USER11> No, tofu tastes like nothing unless you saturate it with marinade or something.

Courgette actually has flavour. But just like white mushrooms, they'll be (nearly) flavourless chunks if you just throw them in a sauce and practically boil them instead of frying.

You need to fry them, get them just slightly brown on the edges to get the flavour out.

I had some off the BBQ yesterday and I was _amazed_ how delicious they were. Cut them in long strips, bit of olive oil, and grill them. Season with a tiny bit of pepper and salt.

Then, maybe your courgettes are flavourless, it can very well be. It's like that with tomatoes over here, and then I get to Italy and mmm

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Hate to be cynical but I suspect the whole point of the article is to sell you on buying a juicer.

The domain is owned by a copy writing firm called <http://www.wonderworkingwords.com/> . I can't prove it but I am willing to wager that a juicer firm commissioned the article. The firms motto after all is 'words that sell'.

<comment><USER13> Good news! I'm not an industry shill. I'm a stay at home mom who homeschools my three kids and earns money blogging. If you read the disclosure statements on my site, you'll see that I never write paid posts or content. I do sell advertising, though, (from which I make a pretty penny, thank you) and the link is a link to a page full of text ads. I used to be a copywriter, but haven't done that since my blog took off about three years ago. It is true that I operate this blog under the business name I created for my copywriting business, but that's mostly so that I don't have to create a new company or tax ID.

<comment><USER14> Welcome and glad to have you. And while you're not a shill, I find your site misguided, in overly relying on equating natural, traditional diets with healthy, leading you to some recommendations that are orthogonal to healthiness, like fermented veggies and sprouted grains, and some that are unhelpful to health, like red meat and butter. The people of Finland drastically improved their health metrics when they transitioned to a modern mainstream European diet away from their natural, traditional Finnish diet of lots of red meat and butter.

Modern scientific findings, properly analyzed, are an astonishingly better guide to human health than any traditional collection of folk wisdom.

<comment><USER15> I haven't commented on Hacker News for a while now. But let me rake in the downvotes and say that this kind of answer is the reason I can't be bothered anymore. Let's face it, this is a geeky forum. And geeks just can't refrain from giving their opinions and facts. They only need to spend a night reading Wikipedia articles about nutrition to have the right to shit all over someones comments that are marginally overlapping on their new domain of expertise. The tone above, jesus christ. She wasn't even asking for an opinion.

Worst community ever. The arrogance that comes with smarts.

<comment><USER14> When someone takes it on herself to actively evangelize an analysis she acknowledges is controversial, she should expect to be treated like an adult and be presented with honest opposing views, in whatever venue she chooses to take part in. And I'd find a forum disappointing if its default ethic were to reaffirm to all its participants that their current coding knowledge, startup idea, or pseudoscientific views were equally valid and had no room for improvement by frank feedback. I'll let you get back to your much more civilized forums where people simply present their rational analysis and supporting evidence rather than tossing around exclamations of "shit" and "jesus christ" at other participants, especially as part of a call for civility. Oh wait.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Chemical engineer's perspective: This is interesting. I'd learned about the chemical additives required for flavor in from-concentrate orange juice, since the dehydration ("concentration") by nature removes a lot of the more volatile chemicals that give OJ it's flavor. Without looking into it, I'd guess the deoxygenation process works by heating and pulling vacuum to lower oxygen solubility, which would also have the same consequence of removing the flavor compounds.

That said, the addition of chemical flavoring agents is completely irrelevant to health. Again I know more about process design than health science, but I do know that the flavoring chemicals that get removed and added are in such trace amounts that they likely have no health consequence, whether present or absent. In fact, many of the compounds are actually toxic at high concentrations.

And towards the "don't drink juice at all" argument, I feel like the world would be in a far better place health-wise if everyone drank juice instead of soda. At least juice is a fair representation of fruit, while soda is basically fructose dissolved in phosphoric acid. (The article mentions pectin and fiber as missing fruit components in juice - this is true as both are solids likely removed by juicing, but pectin is just a sugar polymer like starch, and fiber is just indigestible solids...nothing special health-wise). The argument reminds me of the people telling everyone not to go to college, just because in their specific case they didn't need it. Potentially decent advice for a small, already advantaged subset of the population, but horrible advice for everyone else.

<comment><USER17> > fiber is just indigestible solids...nothing special health-wise

That's possibly the most wrong statement in this entire discussion. Fibre is a critical part of your diet; without enough of the stuff, pooping sucks.

<comment><USER16> Good point, that bit about fiber is wrong. What I said should probably be amended to mean that juice = (fruit - fiber). But surely that's no reason to stop drinking juice, unless people really use juice as a replacement for whole fruit, and fruit as a primary means of getting fiber. I guess it is a valid concern, though.

<comment><USER17> juice = (fruit -- [the stuff that makes you feel full eventually] -- [the packaging that limits the rate in which you consume it])

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Secret ingredient? It's sugar water.

This is like talking about the chemicals they put into Coke... Yeah, they're in there, and maybe they shouldn't be, but that's not why you drink it and that's not why it's bad for you.

Edit: Downvote why? Sugars in 10oz Coca-Cola classic: 33g. Sugars in 10oz Tropicana Pure Premium original orange juice: 28.1g.

[1] [http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-coca-cola- classic-i98...](http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-coca-cola- classic-i98047)

[2] [http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-tropicana-orange- juic...](http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-tropicana-orange-juice- original-i115273)

<comment><USER19> The articles was about 100% juice. Unless your system of labeling works a lot different in your part of the world you cannot add things to juice and still call it 100% juice.

The blog mentions a ~trick~ to recreate a well-known and stable flavor by adding orange-derived chemicals - but you still cannot add 'sugar water'.

Yes, that stuff contains a lot of sugar. But so does an orange from your own garden (still healthier if you eat the whole fruit, not just the 'sugar water' aka fruit juice).

<comment><USER18> I understood the article fine. But who _cares_ if it's 100% juice or not? 100% juice is _bad_. Coca-Cola wouldn't be better for you if it were 100% sugar and carbonated water.

You make a great point about raw fruit— Sugars in a whole orange: 12g. That is to say, a glass of orange juice has the sugar water from two oranges, without the fiber that blocks absorption and sends satiety signals after an orange and a half. Clearly these are comparable things.

<comment><USER19> Look, we agree on the 'usefulness' of juice. And I didn't down-vote your original comment, merely tried to explain what might seem weird about your post.

Now you're asking 'Who cares if it's 100% juice or not': Well - that's what this article was about. It wasn't about how healthy fruit juice is (as I said before, we agree that it's not a good idea), it was about labeling something 100% (which is interpreted as 'natural' and 'pure' by customers) fruit juice while doing weird and counter intuitive things to the substance in question.

So - this article is exactly for all the people that care about whether it's 100% juice they are consuming.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Sigh... I for one am getting extremely tired of people freaking out because they see organic chemical names among the ingredients that go into food. Lots and lots of perfectly ordinary and harmless chemical compounds (e.g. ethyl butyrate, valencine) have scary-sounding names, and lots of toxic ones don't. If you want to educate yourself, pick up a copy of _On Food and Cooking_ by Harold McGee, and learn about what those compounds actually are.

Or you can run around screaming about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide.

I for one would not be the slightest bit bothered if somebody added orange juice to my orange juice.

<comment><USER21> _"I for one would not be the slightest bit bothered if somebody added orange juice to my orange juice."_

Me neither but the deoxygenated-reflavored juice just tastes crappy, so I'm all for a law obligating the producers to disclose this practice and stop misleading people with the "100% natural juice not from concentrate" bullshit.

<comment><USER22> I find that a "100% natural orange" tastes pretty crappy if it sits on a shelf for 2 weeks before I eat it. Plenty of 100% natural stuff tastes bad.

You might further be shocked to learn that all-natural organic farm fresh- squeezed juice might have actually been pressed out of the fruit by a mechanical juicer that ruins the test, and not squeezed out by loving hands.

What's wrong with a product label that calls things what they actually are, instead redefining all nice sounding words to be "stuff that tastes good to praptak"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Lately I've started drinking OJ from a brand called Evolution. They _claim_ to just squeeze it and bottle it, more or less. They use cold pasteurization, a.k.a. irradiation, which doesn't bother me and helps preserve the taste. I've also found all I really need is a small glass in the morning.

It's quite expensive, however.

</comment><comment><USER24> Hmm,

Although I don't put this below the food industry to do, it is peculiar that the sources listed are all other blogs. Looking through the blog links I found a NYT article sourced but it said nothing about chemically processed orange products being added to 100% orange juice.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/business/22pepsi.html?scp=...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/business/22pepsi.html?scp=1&sq=tropicana%20PepsiCo&st=cse)

Any one have any better sources?

<comment><USER25> Here's a page at the USDA that talks about the deoxygenation of citrus juices for increased shelf life, so at least that part of the article is accurate:

<http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/207232.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Tldr; 100% juice like tropicana is deoxygenated to remove all the flavor and make it last a long time and then natural flavor is added to make the taste consistent.

They shouldn't be able to say its 100% juice. WTF.

<comment><USER27> Why not? When your blood delivers oxygen to your cells, it becomes deoxygenated. Is it no longer blood?

If the natural flavor they add is made of juice (orange or not), and they add it to juice, is the result no longer juice?

<comment><USER28> When the package says "100% juice," I think most people assume that means that the juice is squeezed from the orange and it goes into the carton without any processing or additives. I'm sure that's the impression that they're trying to give by putting that on the label. The fact that this isn't the case, and that the juice is actually highly processed in a very unnatural manner, is pretty alarming.

<comment><USER29> Without any processing or additives? I'm for the most part quite glad the juice and milk I buy at the store has been processed--without pasteurization and homogenization, for example, milk would be significantly riskier AND less convenient.

<comment><USER30> You may be glad that your 100% pure orange juice is in fact highly processed orange juice product, but most people would be rather shocked to find out what is happening.

And you may not be correct about the pasteurization of milk. There are many who feel that natural unpasteurized milk is healthier. Pasteurization is perhaps more necessary in a mass production environment, but it is not necessarily better for our bodies.

This story adds more proof for me that we should consume nothing that "comes in a box", so to speak.

<comment><USER29> There are also many people who "feel" that vaccines cause autism, or that such-and-such an artificial sweetener causes cancer, despite a lack of any real scientific evidence. Once I see a few real studies about the long-term health effects of pasteurized vs. unpasteurized milk (besides the lower incidence of food-borne illness in pasteurized drinkers), I'll be willing to consider it--but not on the "gut feeling" of "moms", those heroes of anti- intellectual anti-science BS everywhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I can't say I really care about whether or not orange juice is "natural" - it's all made of chemicals at the end of the day, so the only thing that really matters to me is which ones, and how much - but the degree to which truth-in-advertising has essentially ceased to exist does bother me. Exactly how much do I have to modify something before I can't advertise it as "100% Natural!" anyway?

Speaking of which, can anyone provide a good (comprehensive) source for information on the subject from a legal perspective?

</comment><comment><USER32> "You see, these "flavor packs are made from orange by-products — even though these 'by-products' are so chemically manipulated that they hardly qualify as 'by-products' any more." (source) Since they're made from by-products that originated in oranges, they can be added to the orange juice without being considered an "ingredient," despite the fact that they are chemically altered."

Does anyone know if this applies within the EU, and more specifically, the UK? I believe our labelling laws are stricter than this.

</comment><comment><USER33> Not sure if this is an urban myth or not, but I've heard Cheese Wiz is actually grey. Orange food coloring is later added to the goo to give it that cheddar color.

<comment><USER34> The orange color you associate with cheddar is artificial. Originally it was due to annatto, though they may use something else now.

<comment><USER35> Is cheddar usually orange? I think all of the cheddar I have ever bought in NH and VT is a pale yellow.

I'm crazy about cheeses, but the only orange cheeses I've ever seen were all very poor brands, unless I'm forgetting something.

<comment><USER36> Pictures are helpful. [http://www.pepperidgefarm.com/Images/Products/prdLarge_12053...](http://www.pepperidgefarm.com/Images/Products/prdLarge_120538.jpg) for Cheddar Goldfish, this is what's usually in stores: [http://staticc.wisegeek.com/images/calories/calories-in- medi...](http://staticc.wisegeek.com/images/calories/calories-in-medium- cheddar-cheese-s.jpg)

I (and I suspect most Americans) would never associate something like this with Cheddar Cheese: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Somerset-Cheddar.jpg> (or any other pic on the page for that matter, except for "#19": <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheddar_cheese> )

I'll have to try some VT cheddar sometime. I stopped defending cheddar's taste (which is none, though I still eat it) ever since I was exposed to real cheeses in my junior high French class.

<comment><USER37> Really? Everywhere I've been in the States the amount of white cheddar is roughly equal to colored cheddar, and in the gourmet cheese section there is rarely any colored cheddar.

<comment><USER36> Here's another couple images I've found: [http://blog.thenickstevens.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/01/ch...](http://blog.thenickstevens.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/01/cheeseisle.jpg) <http://www.flickr.com/photos/claire_waverly/4686708528/> I guess I have seen white cheddar, but most often mixed with the yellow/orange coloring people are familiar with. e.g. "cheddar jack": [http://www.osceolacheese.com/catalog/images/hickory%20smoked...](http://www.osceolacheese.com/catalog/images/hickory%20smoked%20cheddar%20jack.gif) In any case I'd bet people associate white cheese more with mozzarella (pizza cheese, cheese stick/string cheese) than cheddar. Another cheddar product I associate with is Mac&Cheese.

The gourmet cheese section/island is different! And I agree there's rarely coloured cheese. I suspect few shoppers who go straight to the Cheese Aisle (which is dominated by yellow cheddar/cheddar varieties) even know of its existence, even if they walk by it, let alone dare sample anything new/different/highly priced.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Oh, hey, bad news: even if you don't drink juice, never have any sugar, and spend all your time counting calories -- you're still going to die at some point. Sorry, had to ruin the whole health obsession parade here.

This is coming from a guy who counted his calories, and still logs his weight every morning, and freaks out if he's not unhealthily skinny. I just ate an apple and now I'm obese (in my mind anyway) and I weigh 79 kg. I used to feel skinny when I weighed 95kg but ran 6.5 miles. Funny, isn't it?

</comment><comment><USER39> If this is the case, wouldn't it be cheaper to take sweetened water, add food colouring and flavouring? I assume someone's probably doing it already.

<comment><USER40> It's called Sunny Delight. And you would be shocked to learn how many people think Sunny D is real orange juice.

<comment><USER41> I remember watching a Sunny Delight commercial as a kid. Someone is digging through the fridge listing the drink options... "We got OJ, Purple Stuff, Soda... And Sunny D!"

Before that commercial, I was one of those people who thought Sunny D was OJ.

Call it bad advertising: I looked at Sunny D as "Orange Stuff" after that ad and no longer wanted it.

EDIT: I guess I'm not the only one who remembers the commercials, there's a spoof on YouTube: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiOaBTpKqnk&NR=1&feat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiOaBTpKqnk&NR=1&feature=fvwp) (and of course the real thing is on YouTube if you care to find it)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I'm surprised that most of the reaction and commentary on this seems to be about either 1. the vague health claims that fresh-squeezed is better than old OJ enhanced with flavoring or 2. the sugar debate

What I want to know is, why should I pay $4.29 for a carton of old flavorless juice enhanced with a flavoring cocktail, rather than $5.99 for fresh squeezed? I personally don't see the value proposition in the Tropicana any more, and while I have been buying the fresh squeezed kind (that they make from the oranges in the store) I definitely won't be buying the Tropicana/Florida's Natural again. I think if this was more well known there would be a lot fewer people willing to plonk down premium money for a fake premium product in the future.

</comment><comment><USER43> This was covered in a few blogs before, Here's an example from fooducate: <http://www.fooducate.com/blog/2009/05/31/on-orange-juice/>

There is also a response from the Florida dept. of Citrus there.

</comment><comment><USER44> Article says deoxidation causes the orange juice to become bland, so what happens to the original sugars? I can understand adding flavors, but that would not bring back the sweetness, if the deoxidation destroyed them, so do they add extra sugars as well?

</comment><comment><USER27> Why do I drink juice? Because in the morning on my way out the door, I am unlikely to spend the time eating an orange. Because fresh cranberries are nasty.

My own practice to try and avoid extremely fabricated foods: buy the in-house brand. While it will never be 100% pure orange juice squeezed yesterday, they don't have a brand identity to defend, so they seem to engage in fewer food- processing antics.

<comment><USER14> I stopped drinking juice a few years ago, but had the same annoyance at spending any extra time on complicated foods like oranges in the morning. My solution is I usually eat a handful of fresh strawberries as part of my breakfast - they are denser in vitamin c than oranges, and don't require unwrapping and getting juice all over your hands.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I'm not a juice-drinker myself but I'd like a little more detail on what is actually done to the by-products. I think one thing people forget is that for most of us the choice isn't between natural/industrial, it's the choice between industrial and nothing, at least most of the year. Can you grow oranges in your backyard? In Oregon I can't and I hate grass juice.

</comment><comment><USER46> I read all this almost a year ago on CBC's website: [http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/09/08/f-whats-in- it...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/09/08/f-whats-in-it-orange- juice.html)

I stopped buying orange juice entirely because of it. "Perfume packs"... gross.

</comment><comment><USER47> There is a fascinating documentary - Botany of Desire <http://video.pbs.org/video/1283872815/>. The video shows that even fruits are grown in ways so as to make them taste better, and therefore more consumption.

</comment><comment><USER48> i drink brämhults ( <http://www.bramhults.se/> ). at least they taste different every time.

</comment><comment><USER49> Favourite Home-Made 'Juice' Water Kefir[1]. Why?

Can Make massive batches at home.

Add any fruit.

The bacteria eats majority of the sugar.

It's Fizzy.

Slightly Alcholic.

[1] <http://nourishedkitchen.com/water-kefir/>

</comment><comment><USER50> ...and natural flavors too! I used an exclamation mark so I must be female.

[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title21-vol2/xml/CFR-2...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title21-vol2/xml/CFR-2010-title21-vol2-sec101-22.xml)</comment>


Show HN (again): Thanks for the feedback heres Perks 2.0 - <AUTHOR> https://www.perksapp.com/home

<comment><USER2> After entering credit card:

Fatal error: Call to undefined method Process::reset() in /nfs/c08/h04/mnt/147456/domains/perksapp.com/html/application/controllers/process.php on line 104

oops.

<comment><USER3> Our Dashboard:

</comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>==

Fatal error: Unsupported operand types in /nfs/c08/h04/mnt/147456/domains/perksapp.com/html/application/views/profile/dashboard.php on line 14

The messaging tab:

</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>

A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Warning Message: strtotime() expects parameter 1 to be string, array given Filename: helpers/twitter_helper.php Line Number: 38

Fatal error: Unsupported operand types in /nfs/c08/h04/mnt/147456/domains/perksapp.com/html/application/views/profile/messaging.php on line 54

The tweets tab:

</comment><comment></comment><comment>===

A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Warning Message: strtotime() expects parameter 1 to be string, array given Filename: helpers/twitter_helper.php Line Number: 38

A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Warning Message: json_decode() expects parameter 1 to be string, array given Filename: controllers/profile.php Line Number: 81

Fatal error: Unsupported operand types in /nfs/c08/h04/mnt/147456/domains/perksapp.com/html/application/views/profile/tweets.php on line 61

And no (obvious) help or support link where to report this. Otherwise I would have done that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for letting me know about this, it should be patched up now.

<comment><USER3> Works now. Thanks. :)</comment></comment></comment>


Detectron2: A PyTorch-based modular object detection library - <AUTHOR> https://ai.facebook.com/blog/-detectron2-a-pytorch-based-modular-object-detection-library-/ <comment><USER2> Github link [1] for those of us who don't want to connect to facebook.com.

Looks quite interesting and quite scary considering who is making it, but I will play around a bit with it!

[1] [https://github.com/facebookresearch/detectron2](https://github.com/facebookresearch/detectron2)

<comment><USER3> For firefox there is [https://addons.mozilla.org/it/firefox/addon/facebook- contain...](https://addons.mozilla.org/it/firefox/addon/facebook-container/) to limit the interaction between facebook.com, you, and the rest of the internet.

<comment><USER2> Quite interesting!

However I already went for the nuclear option so my router sends *.facebook.com to 127.0.0.1.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> These models looks awesome, but does anyone else worry about unpickling a file provided by Facebook? After all the other sketchy anticompetitive BS they've been pulling who here would really trust what is effectively unrestricted code execution from zuck?

Anyone here got any genius solutions for how one could go about executing the code for these models in a sandboxed environment that lets you export it's output? Or model weights for that matter (model weights are what is picked)?

[https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/21/facebook-removes- onavo/](https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/21/facebook-removes-onavo/)

</comment><comment><USER5> This seems so advanced. I wonder if we're at the point robots could start doing some tasks around the house or office.

Or at least what are some cool things a robot could do with this software?</comment>


Aaargh: an astonishingly awesome application argument helper - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/wbolster/aaargh

<comment><USER2> Cool looking project, terrible name. You have just forced the following upon anyone who uses your module:

        >>> import aargh
        Traceback (most recent call last):
          File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
        ImportError: No module named aargh
        >>> import aaaargh
        Traceback (most recent call last):
          File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
        ImportError: No module named aaaargh

<comment><AUTHOR> I think the name is triple A, and so is the spelling. :)

<comment><USER2> Aye, but in a few weeks time I might have forgotten exactly how many "a"s :-)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do I go about shopping for someone to build me a website/flash app? - <AUTHOR>

I have a video game idea that I'd like to pay someone to build me in flash. Also I have a need for someone to make me a website which will require some cgi content.
Is there a good place to shop for this kind of service instead of just throwing darts at internet? <comment><USER2> Your best bet would be to ask people around you if they would recommend anyone. You could also try hiring freelancers. This thread should be helpful if you're deciding to go the freelance route: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1028327>

Now for some shameless self-promotion: I am a freelance web developer (and I also do software, but that's only for personal projects) based out of Chennai, India, and if you would like to discuss a project, please e-mail me (e-mail in profile).

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a place where flash game developers can list games that they have for sale. I'm sure that if you contact many of them you will find they are willing to do custom jobs. <http://www.flashgamelicense.com/>

</comment><comment><USER4> Hi. Sorry about the self-promotion, but if you want a website or webapp designed and coded (in Flash or any other language), please email me. My email address is mediarosh(at)gmail(dot)com

I hope I can be of some help to you.

<comment><USER5> "Sorry about the self-promotion,"

Self promotion is fine in small doses. Every comment of yours is a shill for your services. Stop already.

<comment><USER6> I'd set the ratio at about 10:1. About 90% of comments and submissions should contribute to the community and its discussions. If you do this, we'd likely welcome a message every now and again about one's services and expertise in the relevant threads.</comment></comment></comment>


America's Cup race goes to American ingenuity - <AUTHOR> http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2010/0214/America-s-Cup-race-goes-to-American-ingenuity <comment><USER2> If we could only turn these egos loose on a race to the moon...or something similar The X-Prizes are great but these guys are putting more money, research and effort into building faster ships when there are much bigger, and more interesting, problems to solve.</comment>


You are not Google. You are not Netflix - <AUTHOR> https://programmerfriend.com/not-google/ <comment><USER3> I worked on the floor with two teams. One (ours) built our apps and infrastructure the correct way. JIT. Get it working, get it working correct, get it working fast. And given the scale, it did wonders.

The other team talked big and gave demos to higher ups and their higher ups and their higher ups. Web scale baby. And with that came the galactic infrastructure and all the buzzword needed in order to run it.

About 6 months later, they quit. They had spent their whole budget on astronaut architecture, that the didn't have any money or time left to build the apps that were supposed to run on said infrastructure.

"You are not FANG". But even if you are, JIT development.

<comment><USER4> I don't believe I'm familiar with JIT in this context? Just in time development?

<comment><USER5> I haven't heard it either, but apparently it's another name for the Toyota system/'lean manufacturing': [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in- time_manufacturing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in- time_manufacturing)

<comment><USER3> Sorry. No, I wasn't referring to JIT Manufacturing...

It was merely a tongue-in-cheek to mean just build what's needed right now in front of you, then get it working at scale once there's an actual needs to scale. This is in contrast to starting from day one spending most of your time thinking of scale, then building everything so that it can infinitely scale (along with the complexities that come with it), only to find out that you have 8 users and your data can fit entirely in memory.

<comment><USER6> there's a vast middle ground between 'astronaut architecture' and 'common sense necessities', and knowing where a good cutoff point is is hard without experience.

I've met more than a few folks who consider web templating systems to be 'overkill', and have 0 understanding of the risk of xss. Same with sql/db escaping - "I just write the SQL and run it, using all those libraries is just a waste of time", etc.

Many of the projects I've come in to over the years were doing with a "JGID" mentality. And they did "get it done", "it" was just a steaming pile of crap when it was done. "Why is this taking weeks to do - the previous guy was so much faster?"

Had this one last year:

"This was never slow before when X worked on it, you've made changes what have you done? We need to call X back in to the project".

X just "got it done". And X was a db admin who was writing code. And X decided it would be good to have views join against other views which joined against other views, and have some queries which used those views run in triggers.

When X was on the project, and there were 40 users, it was fine. They hit 1000 users, and things were 'slow', so they upgraded to a larger EC2 instance. X left, and I came in, and several months later they hit ~30000 users (not active, just ... user account records). The system was dying with more than 5 active users, because of all the views joining other views on 30k+ records.

Unravelling that meant deciphering all the views, all the queries, all the code that touched all of it, and rebuilding a moderate portion, without tests, known 'good' data, or anyone on the project knowing what 'right' was - <USER2> just knew when things looked 'wrong' (or slow).

BUT... 18 months earlier, it was "JGID", and it got done. I'm still a bit perplexed why a professional DB admin thought views joining against multiple other views was a good approach.

We've all got horror stories, I'm sure, it's just that the "JGID" mentality is often preached by competent experts as a good approach, but picked up by beginners as the approach used by experts, and has bad consequences.

<comment><USER7> Out of curiosity - Which database is this? and is it really taboo to have views joining against multiple other views?

If the underlying views were performant- I'd assume the query optimizer would do the right thing(at least 90% of the time).

EDIT: I guess it depends - Just did more research and found this [1]. As long as the views don't do unnecessary heavy lifting or joining unnecessary tables, it should be fine.

[1] [https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/151169/are-views- har...](https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/151169/are-views-harmful-for- performance-in-postgresql)

<comment><USER6> postgres. I realize this is heresy to badmouth Postgres here, but it was Postgres (9.0 or 9.1 IIRC).

Had a query that selected from table X joining against view X which selected from view A, and view A joins against tables A,B and C, and table B also joins against a view which uses table A and C.

This was just bad. But trying to explain to non-tech people how bad it is, when "it used to work", is difficult. It used to work when you had 50-100 records. No one ever tested was this would be like with 30k records and 50 concurrent users all executing the same nested/circular view mess simultaneously.

But the fact that it was postgres is kind of beside the point. I don't know of any mainstream DB that would handle this well.

The short term fix was to do this large query once at the end of a process and cache the results; the set of queries in question were happening on a 'dashboard' view which everyone hit all the time. It would still cause problems with concurrency, because when 80 people would go through a process and get 'done' (think timed training exercises), the queries would still all be running more or less concurrently, and still cause timeouts, but it wasn't _as_ frequent, because people tended to be staggered a bit more as they finished.

<comment><USER8> PostgreSQL has progressively reduced the number of optimisation boundaries that are encountered with views-on-views situations, but you can still wind up telling the database to churn and slosh a whole bunch of data from which you only cherry-pick a tiny portion.

I have definitely been guilty of failing to test how my schemata behave with large data sets.

Oh then there's ORMs. I've seen ActiveRecord spit out some frankly batshit insane queries that would stump a room of Einsteins. But somehow PostgreSQL picked it up, chopped it into a plan and got to work plowing through an incredibly wasteful and repetitious query.

<comment><USER6> > I have definitely been guilty of failing to test how my schemata behave with > large data sets.

As have I. It's the dangerous part of the "get it done" approach. And there's no perfect approach - everything is a tradeoff. How much time do you spend dealing with situations that might never happen?

Experience does give you some grounding when making those tradeoff decisions. No, we don't need the architect the application to scale up/down to handle 25k concurrent users in 5 minutes; that's unlikely going to happen. Yes, we do need to spend the extra 2 hours installing and learning a templating system to avoid common XSS pitfalls.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't think one needs to plan on being Facebook scale from the beginning, but I do think there is some consideration of scalability that needs to be considered from the start. Maybe you don't need to think 10 steps ahead but you should at least have plans for 3 or 4 steps ahead of you don't want to have to rearchitect everything from scratch in a year.

It might not be strictly necessary to containerize your app, for example, if you're just running it on a single ec2 instance behind a load balancer, but it's not a huge amount of work up front and there are some benefits and it means it'll make it easier to move to ecs or k8s later if you need to.

<comment><USER10> Thing is if you want to scale to FB size you _have_ to re architecture / redesign.

No one starts an application with the farm model and multiple colos.

<comment><USER11> Starting with two colos might be a good idea -- at least at the point where you start thinking of adding a second machine for data availability, it may as well be in another colo so you have a disaster recovery option.

Starting with partitioned data is a lot bigger jump. At most, I would say avoid building features that would require heroic efforts to implement in a partitioned world, but a single database can get huge these days, and maybe even huger by the time you need to scale. Chances are, 2TB of ram and 64 cores will fit your live DB needs; and if not, you'll know with time to make something else work

<comment><USER10> Start with a hosted DB service in the cloud. When you outgrow that then start thinking how to scale. 1st start sharding the data, then think about splitting a few services out if they are changing faster.

This concept we need to go full microservices multi region right from the get go is silly and wasted time / effort.

Until your idea sells and your market grows there is no reason to concern yourself with the logistics of scale.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A related issue is also focusing so much on the tech (and often how well the product/service can scale) that you forget to do much marketing and end up delaying the product/service for months as a result. Or worse still, never actually finish building it at all.

Definitely follow the old get it working, then correct, then fast methodology, at least for projects without many billions of dollars in resources.

<comment><USER13> > follow the old get it working, then correct, then fast methodology

And eventually realize there is no correct then fast after get it working, only more iterations forever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think this article is basically right, but I want to provide a personal perspective on this:

This is why I have found that I prefer working on a widely used product at one of these big companies. I find the most enjoyment in thinking through how to make products work acceptably for huge numbers of users, or how to pick the needles I need out of enormous data sets, or how to structure a codebase such that hundreds of people can contribute to it every day. I have found it very demoralizing in my career when I've been told not to think of user or data or codebase scaling considerations because YAGNI. I've lost a number of debates against just-get-it-done ethos, and mostly I think I was right to lose; I was wrong, YAGNI was right. But the rightness of YAGNI for those products didn't make me enjoy the work any more.

So I think the article is right that most companies don't have these scaling problems, but for me, I want to work for the ones that do. I think this is probably a common sentiment.

<comment><USER15> I feel the same way. I have always sought to work for such start-ups that are about to take off and do high-scale; where leverage is important. Leverage provided by code-bases where certain changes to the code makes others working on the same code base 10X more productive; leverage provided by org designs where changes to the org-design can make all the roles 10X more productive. Looking for these leverage enhancing opportunities and making it happen is a very satisfying and unique experience.

But there's always YAGNI of some kind in any situation and I'm good with the kind of YAGNI that these scaling situations have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Two articles on this topic:

You are Not Google (my favorite): [https://blog.bradfieldcs.com/you-are-not- google-84912cf44afb](https://blog.bradfieldcs.com/you-are-not- google-84912cf44afb)

A piece from my Notes to a Young Software Engineer that likens engineering media to a bazaar, not a mirror of the industry:

Beware Engineering Media:

[https://www.nemil.com/on-software-engineering/beware- enginee...](https://www.nemil.com/on-software-engineering/beware-engineering- media.html)

(Martin Fowler's YAGNI article is also great)

<comment><USER17> The first one got 572 comments recently [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19576092](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19576092)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> > A developer's skill is measured in one parameter: how well he writes code.

While this could be a valid viewpoint, one thing I'd caution against is that this type of measurement inevitably leads to the commoditization of developers. Rating skill on a single point will lead to "you're only worth what this metric says you are worth" and eventually to constant competition between developers instead of cooperation. At least that's the experience I had in such positions during my younger years.

<comment><USER19> Actually I've found that a lot of development is actually about image projection, or how good you make other people think you are. This is especially true with non-technical folks, who don't know 1/2 of what developers do anyway.

Our office's "rockstar" dev has his 3 widescreen monitors tilted vertically and he uses a split keyboard. He's so quirky and leet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> There's a lot to be said about org design. Org design has to be right for the size of the company and the velocity you need to succeed. For example, when a start-up that is about to take off like a rocket ship, it needs to make a conscious change in org design to facilitate both strong foundation building as well as fast feature building with a layer of domain-specific platform/frameworks being curated to keep the leverage high and hence velocity high without blowing the headcount budget.

Ideally orgs should sow the seeds of this 3-layer org (and corresponding tech architecture) design from the beginning and consciously choose to scale the investments in those layers as needed in each growth spurt.

Usually people tend to shortchange this advice by thinking they can make the same 10 people do the work in all the layers. And that may be ok when you are small. But specialization in systems vs app-frameworks vs app feature development is highly important for velocity. Also your hiring loops and the "hiring bar" has to be different for these roles. And usually the hiring pipeline depth and churn rate is different for these roles. So, creating a structure where impedances are matched correctly between input and output, so to speak, is immensely helpful for achieving high productivity and cost efficiency.

</comment><comment><USER20> Its all about execution and delivery. I'm pretty happy to have left the old days of corporate committee projects behind to do my own stuff. I'm also financially better off.

</comment><comment><USER21> Kubernetes, Machine Learning, Microservices, Service-Mesh, are the things that immediately come to (my) mind from such discussions with start-up dev-teams.

But somehow all of these are at least a few years old meanwhile. Could it be that the buzzword bingo we experienced in the last years has already peaked or why haven't we seen any new nonsense[1] (at least nothing that I'm aware that is not at least 24 months old)?

[1] it doesn't have to be nonsense but as the article suggests, not everyone is FAANG.

<comment><USER22> Machine learning may have been used and abused as a meaningless buzzword but kubernetes in particular and container orchestration in general is a well established and proven infrastructure technology. If you are not operating a monolith and you need to automatically deploy and scale your service then you have no technically-sound argument to not use this sort of infrastructure.

<comment><USER21> the question is if an early stage start-up with 4-5 devs where they typically already struggle to get basic CI in place ... and where 1 of the devs loves K8 and the others don't really know it (but don't object because it's nice to have it on the CV), whether they should really already focus on orchestration and scaling before they even have a MVP.

I'm not against k8 per se, but its complexity isn't something to ignore. It's all good if you have the people to run this but most places I know don't.

I think we have reached peak k8-hype last year when F. Campoy at GOTO suggested to wrap K8 around GO to make Go as resilient like Erlang/BEAM (see video below ...) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScE9TnoWltA&t=1437s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScE9TnoWltA&t=1437s)

as for ML I really think there are cool use-cases, but why would a pre-MVP start-up already be talking about hiring data scientists, ... when they don't even have any data (exception being they are an analytics start-up obviously).

this is how you get ants.

<comment><USER22> > the question is if an early stage start-up with 4-5 devs where they > typically already struggle to get basic CI in place ...

Nowadays it's super easy to setup a CICD pipeline. The basic settings and intro examples alone are enough to build and publish container images to a container registry.

> and where 1 of the devs loves K8 and the others don't really know it (but > don't object because it's nice to have it on the CV), whether they should > really already focus on orchestration and scaling before they even have a > MVP.

That doesn't make any sense. Developing services to run on kubernetes is a software architecture problem, one which only affects some minot dev level details such as supporting env variable settings. Devs can be entirely oblivious to kubernetes and still be effective.

> I think we have reached peak k8-hype last year when F. Campoy

That's largely irrelevant and misses the whole point. Just because some people present some gimmicky take on a technology it doesn't mean the fundamentals are not good. Kubernetes allow distributed services to be deployed transparently across multiple providers (thus you are not held hostage by a seller), and allow services to automatically scale horizontally with demand and within resource limits gracefully degradate after that point. That doesn't go away if someone decides to reenact Inception with buzzworthy technologies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Having seen the inside of both good and bad product organizations, culture beats process any day of the week. Get the core values right, hire smart people and everything will fall into place.

A corollary is that cargo-culting well-developed processes generally means you're copying from a company with a culture that couldn't address those functions organically. So you may actually just be lifting an over-engineered process designed to address a cultural weakness at the original company.

</comment><comment><USER24> Because we've railed on "programmers" for so long everyone wants to be a "software engineer" which more often than not leads to equally insane architectures. No you don't need multi-region availability. No you don't need to rewrite this in rust. No you don't need a multi-master db setup. No you don't need graphql.

<comment><USER25> These weren't even "things" 5-7 years ago. When did it all change?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> One impression that occurred to me from reading this article, is this excerpt:

"Why try to be like others if you are condemned to being yourself" Link: [https://mutterichbindumm.tumblr.com/post/92142897112/funeral...](https://mutterichbindumm.tumblr.com/post/92142897112/funeral- march-for-ludwig-ii-king-of-bavaria)

</comment><comment><USER27> What's up with the title?

<comment><USER28> Looks like it references the wrong article? This[0] one has the same name as op's

[0] [https://habr.com/en/post/456568/](https://habr.com/en/post/456568/)

<comment><USER29> That was much more interesting article than the submitted one.

<comment><USER30> As an old(?) person who does everything by the book in C++, I couldn't really relate to it.

At least at my company it's hard to get hired to a programming position on soft skills alone. I've interviewed some very nice people who ended up not getting hired due to trouble whiteboarding.

As far as I can tell no one I work with is a an influencer on insta-twit. Some coworkers are better than others, but on the whole they all know the front end of a for loop from the back and are willing to learn.

And I end up spending way more time not writing code than writing it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: As a dev/designer business owner, do your partners try to "manage" you? - <AUTHOR> Usually startups have a tech person and a sales person. I'm curious if because tech people needing to be in production mode, and not necessarily in strategy meetings, does that relationship get abused? Where the person who is doing the work is not the person making the decisions. <comment><USER2> You are either a co-founder or an employee, and if you are a co-founder acting like an employee you are at fault as much as the other co-founder(s).

If you are a co-founder then you should be in strategy meetings and helping to set direction. Just because you are the technical person doesn't mean you are excluded, in fact you are critical to those meetings. Any person who tells you otherwise is not being honest and doesn't have the company or your best interest in mind. It frustrates me to no end when I hear a founder say to a technical leader or other co-founder that they are more needed writing some arbitrary piece of code than in a strategy meeting where product, company or client decisions are being made. A single decision made in a meeting excluding the technical leadership can lead to chaos and cause friction where none need be, not to mention waste more time correcting then even a 1-2 hour long meeting. Excluding decision makers and leadership is always a mistake when strategy is involved. There are however plenty of sales & marketing meetings and others that you as a technical leader/founder do not need to be in, just as a business focused co-founder doesn't need to be in the technical detail meetings where you are working through implementation details of a defined feature (as an example).

To answer your question, there is a difference between co-founders holding you accountable and them "managing" you. Co-founders should hold each other accountable, but to daily manage you is not common, with some exceptions. That said, if you are the kind of person that needs daily oversight to stay on track it happens and I've seen it a few times, some people know themselves and ask a co-founder/friend for it. Also, if you are not really a co-founder but just an early employee with some stock/options then you are just an employee and will have more management. Each co-founder should also have a defined role (in addition to the 10 others they wear early on), so one will be CEO, and one might be CTO etc. With those roles that means people will have specific duties too fulfill and so there is an acceptance to those roles and responsibilities when you are growing a company.

</comment><comment><USER3> Don't let a non-technical founder take advantage of you. A good litmus test is if the non-technical founder has anything to do on a daily basis. If it seems like there's nothing for them to do, because "it's too early," or "the product isn't ready yet," they're probably taking advantage of you. At that point, unless they've got money to offer (and preferably pay you), there is little reason for them to have the same level of equity as you, and you should ask yourself what you're getting from the relationship.</comment>


100% Exclusion from Tax on QSB Stock Bought Before End of Year - <AUTHOR> http://www.startupcompanylawblog.com/2010/09/articles/tax/100-exclusion-from-tax-on-qsb-stock-bought-before-end-of-year/

<comment><USER2> so... can these kinds of stocks be bought on etrade/ameritrade, etc? Anyone know?</comment>


GTalk Syntax Highlighter 0.3 released.   - <AUTHOR> http://go.pehrlich.com/code_chat

<comment><AUTHOR> New in this release:

0.3.0 (accessories release) \- Copy to clipboard, link to this plugin, in a lightly styled menu \- Now supports gTalk with "Pictures in chat" labs extension turned off \- Donate button, toggle switch, and fork banner on options page \- Google analytics for click events \- Sexy new icon.

Thanks :)</comment>


Ask HN: What's the best way to use HN on an iPhone (or other mobile device) - <AUTHOR>

I'm a fairly recent consumer of HN, and I'm looking for the best way to read/vote/comment on my iPhone while commuting.
http://www.icombinator.net/ is quite nice but doesn't let me vote/comment
There are a few paid apps on the app store with no reviews, and a free one that also doesn't appear to let you contribute.
Any recommendations? <comment><USER2> There is a nice app on apple store.

I am using it, but you cannot add comments or points, just browse.

search for hackernews there it's the only hit.

<comment><USER3> There are _several_ apps in the appstore-- I have four of them myself, and a couple of them allow comments and points. The one I use most often is the one by Michael Grinich, but YMMV.

The trick is to search for Hacker News (with the space in between the words).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I just browse with the Dolphin browser. Since it's via the browser, you get to see and do everything. Dolphin also lets you open links in separate tabs.

I imagine any browser is good enough, HN isn't that complicated a site.

</comment><comment><USER5> Currently reading from ihackernews.com...</comment>


Ask HN: Would you want to know more about teenagers? - <AUTHOR>

Hello HN,
My name is David, I'm turning 16 soon and wondering if product makers would like to know more about my age group. I'm wondering because I feel that little is known about us and making an effort to knowing more could be difficult. I'm considering putting a site up where makers could ask questions about my demographic to better tailor products to us. I'm not sure whether or not this would be a valuable product.
I sit at an interesting intersection. I live outside of the valley yet I know a lot (enough) about it. Obviously, I also know about being a teenager. With these qualities in mind, I feel I can answer any questions you would have if you wanted to build a product for younger users.
Any questions/comments/suggestions would be appreciated. <comment><USER2> From a marketing perspective, I think it's a great idea to be able to connect directly with teenagers. Aside from legal issues, the some of the important things on marketers minds are what do teenagers like and how can we convince them to buy products. If you can take all that information and bundle it up into a report, that would be really useful.

</comment><comment><USER3> Stay in school Make a website/mailing list where you ask young people questions that are of interest to older people.

I would sign up for that.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was thinking of doing something like this. What about a forum type site where older people could directly ask us questions?

<comment><USER3> No you should develop a method that allow you to get things out of people. And one to figure out what they are talking about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was wondering what's the most common and frequently bought product in your age group?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a tough one. As you probably know, we all have phones (mostly iPhones) In terms of things that aren't electronic it gets tough. Shoes are a common place to spend money as is most other clothing. I would say apps and downloads are another big thing. To tell you the truth though, nothing really sticks out to me as the #1 best seller.

<comment><USER4> Thanks

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Stay in school, be it academic or technical.</comment>


Don't get bitten by Javascript variable hoisting in loops - <AUTHOR> http://thecomputersarewinning.com/post/a-dangerous-example-of-javascript-hoisting

<comment><USER2> JavaScript variables are passed by reference, the variable `i` on the statement: `var msg = txt[i];` will always reference the last value after the loop has executed.</comment>


Ask HN: About "RESTless?" post on HN frontpage now - <AUTHOR>

Why there is no author? Why no up/down vote arrow? Why can't comment? I think it's a post to advertise their company.. but why and how exactly has it been made into unrateable post and kind of an unavoidable unwanted advertisement? Has it happened before on HN or maybe it's just default for startups being boosted by Y Combinator? Just wondering... <comment><USER2> It's a feature granted to companies involved with Y Combinator.

<comment><AUTHOR> yea, as I suspected :) Thanks.</comment></comment>


Startcraft II sells 1.5 Mil in 48 hours... huh - <AUTHOR> http://www.i4u.com/article37102.html

<comment><USER2> It really bums me out when companies that have terrible, user-hostile policies get rewarded with record-smashing sales. You know their CEOs see the sales report and are all too happy to attribute it to their own doing. See Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 for another example.

<comment><USER3> This might be obvious to most people here, but what do you consider to be their user-hostile policies with starcraft 2?

<comment><USER4> Probably the most controversial misfeature is that Starcraft 2 doesn't provide LAN support, ostensibly to combat piracy. If you want officially-supported multi-player, it's Blizzard's Battle.net service or gtfo.

<comment><USER3> Internet access is so universal now that this doesn't seem like much of an imposition to me. What are the other complaints?

<comment><USER5> Region locked - You have to have the US version of the game to play against US players and no playing against South Korea.

Removed 'spawn' install - locked down installation so you can play 1 copy on several computers - but only with each other.

The single player campaigns are going to be broken up into 3 $60 games.

There's the Real-id fiasco that they've backed off a little bit on.

User made maps aren't files that can be passed around, they MUST be hosted on bnet's servers, and there's a 25MB limit per-account.

\--

However you fall on the question, the real problem is we end up _not_ talking about the various merits of the game and how much we can't wait to play it, but instead dissect the policies surrounding the game.

Also, what happens when battle.net is down?

<comment><USER6> 1.5 million is still pretty low for a game of this caliber and fan base. I know this is hearsay but I can't help but think that the previously stated points on their new user-hostile policies hurt sales fairly badly this round.

<comment><USER7> It's huge for a contemporary PC release. 150k copies would be great performance for a typical PC game in its first week on the market. Most AAA PC titles will never break a million copies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> what I want to know is how come they didn't milk it by releasing a slight upgrade every few years like they did with warcraft?

<comment><USER9> I'm going to guess you're not being sarcastic and give a straight answer.

They _are_ going to do that. This only has the Terran campaign.

<comment><USER8> well, yes... but my question was why didn't they do that for the last 10 (has it been 10 years?) since starcraft was released?

<comment><USER10> 1, They did release an expansion

2, They released another RTS, Warcraft III and an expansion, then an MMO.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google Chrome OS preview - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJByVHyNIi0

<comment><USER2> While Google is targeting smaller notebooks with small displays, and arguably in those cases people are more likely to focus on just a few tasks, I don't like how "modal" the OS seems to be. I like having lots of things open in the background, that are often arranged where I can see them.

<comment><USER3> I like having a mouse pointer slightly more precise than a big fuzzy ball.

But I can see this serving an interesting niche.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is fake, but better than the last one.</comment>


All major Linux distributions vulnerable to MITM compromise during updates - <AUTHOR> https://weaponizedautism.wordpress.com/2017/07/18/all-major-linux-distributions-vulnerable-to-mitm-compromise-during-updates/ <comment><USER2> All the more reason to switch to apt-transport-tor with onion services _only_.

<comment><USER3> Why? You can't prove who owns an onion service beyond what is advertised on the distribution site. But if you use that, you're relying on their servers and certificate signing.

Without onion services, you're still relying on their servers and gpg signing instead.

Additionally, once you lose control of your onion service key, it's game over. If you get certificates / gpg compromised, there are well understood ways to both announce the issue and to update the compromised keys.</comment></comment>


Evaluating page experience for a better web - <AUTHOR> https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2020/05/evaluating-page-experience.html <comment><USER2> "Through both internal studies and industry research, users show they prefer sites with a great page experience." You don't say!!! Good they made internal and industry researches about this since I really thought users preferred poor experience...

<comment><USER3> Based on the update to google groups a few years ago it seems like these findings are at least a surprise to them.

<comment><USER2> So true! Also based on the design of Blogger!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'd like some personal ranking features, or a browser extension that changes the SERP. If a page is capable of asking me to enable notifications, I want it deleted from the results. If a page has a giant popover when it loses focus, I want it demoted. Negative signals for infinite clickbait at the bottoms of articles. Let's be opinionated about the "better web".

<comment><USER5> You know you can turn off notifications in your browser if you don't want them right?

<comment><USER6> I think the larger point is that the user wants their customized results actually customizable using their metrics not Google's predefined metrics of a "better web".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seems like exactly what many on HN were asking for: weigh page speed without biasing towards AMP.

This can only be a good thing.

<comment><USER8> They are favouring pages that weigh less. But they don't say they are putting pages that weigh less above pages that use AMP (if they weigh more). I'm guessing it's another point on their metrics. If it weighs < X MB it's one point, if they use AMP it's another point, so those would still appear first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> These new metrics have a serious flaw. The iframe loophole is so bad, we even did a write-up on it: [https://buzz.swarmify.com/how-to-get-a-100-score-on- lighthou...](https://buzz.swarmify.com/how-to-get-a-100-score-on-lighthouse- pagespeed-in-one-easy-step/). See the article for the gory details, but the gist of it is, you can wrap the entire site in an iframe and always get a perfect score

<comment><USER10> I lead engineering for some of Google's developer tooling like Lighthouse. You are correct that we currently have a gap in our ability to measure subframes in the lab locally on your machine (doing so cross-origin reliably is complex), but we're looking at how we can improve this. The important bit I want to call out here is that "framehole" is a measurement gap in LH: you can currently game the score but you're only fooling yourself in the process — there is no benefit to the user experience.

Speaking of real world user experience, accounting for iframes has a number of complicated privacy and security challenges at the resolution of an individual page load. However, the good news is that the Chrome User Experience Report* aggregates anonymized data from many opted-in users and, as a result, is able to account for iframes in its measurement. Which is to say, the field data we surface in our tools (powered by CrUX) does not have this problem. We're working to get our lab tools to align with this behavior as well.

* [https://developers.google.com/web/tools/chrome-user-experien...](https://developers.google.com/web/tools/chrome-user-experience-report)

<comment><USER9> I appreciate the reasoned and thought out reply. At the engineering level, I get why capturing the results from the iframe is challenging and that its just a gap in the measurement by the tools.

Here is the problem though. When these new measurements roll out to Pagespeed Insights, that score will be treated like the holy bible of performance. Most who use and make decisions off of that score will not read nor understand the engineering level nuance that it doesn't take into account Iframe content.

That means that all over the world, people will be optimizing for the score even if the score is incorrect. Decisions will be made on whether the score goes up or down when using various tools, including our service. As it stands, the score ignores iframed content. So it will ALWAYS be the case that using a 3rd party embed of some content will lead to a better score than natively including the content on the page. Anything embedded from a third party simply disappears in the scoring.

While I don't believe that this choice is being made on purpose to favor Google properties, at the end of the day that is exactly what happens. YouTube embeds improve page speed, slow loading advert iframes, don't impact the score.

So we are trying to shine some light on exactly how important this now is, and how at the extreme excluding iframes can be used to show a score of 100 even when nothing else has been done to improve the actual speed. If there are engineering challenges that prevent counting iframes as of yet, then I would submit that the score is not ready for primetime until that can be worked through. It may not have seemed like a big enough issue, but hopefully I can convince you that it is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I _think_ I welcome these changes, but I'm worried about some of the wording that Google uses.

 _The page experience signal measures aspects of how users perceive the experience of interacting with a web page. Optimizing for these factors makes the web more delightful for users across all web browsers and surfaces, and helps sites evolve towards user expectations on mobile. We believe this will contribute to business success on the web as users grow more engaged and can transact with less friction._

I guess I have a problem with the fact that Google sees the web as primarily a business platform where users simply transact. I do use the web this way, but I don't _mostly_ use the web this way.

<comment><USER12> This requires trust that 1. Google understands how users perceive the experience and then 2. can operationalize something that may be rather personal into repeatedly measurable elements.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > While all of the components of page experience are important, we will > prioritize pages with the best information overall, even if some aspects of > page experience are subpar. A good page experience doesn't override having > great, relevant content. However, in cases where there are multiple pages > that have similar content, page experience becomes much more important for > visibility in Search.

> ...

> When we roll out the page experience ranking update, we will also update the > eligibility criteria for the Top Stories experience. AMP will no longer be > necessary for stories to be featured in Top Stories on mobile; it will be > open to any page.

All sounds pretty sensible.

For anyone working on this: Why wasn't the above done sooner? Was it challenging to come up with a fair page performance metric for instance? Was a very slow loading page not penalised before?

For people that weren't happy with AMP: is this moving in the right direction?

</comment><comment><USER14> Headline:

> When we roll out the page experience ranking update... AMP will no longer be > necessary for stories to be featured in Top Stories on mobile; it will be > open to any page.

</comment><comment><USER15> > By contrast, here are some examples of techniques that, used responsibly, > would not be affected by the new signal:

> Interstitials that appear to be in response to a legal obligation, such as > for cookie usage or for age verification.

Too bad they don't penalize cookie consent popups. Google is in a unique position to motivate website owners to stop using tracking cookies and make the web a better place. As a reminder, under GDPR a consent is only needed for tracking cookies, not for functional cookies. I guess whitelisting such popups is better aligned with their ad business.

</comment><comment><USER16> > ...remove the AMP requirement from Top Stories eligibility. Google continues > to support AMP, and will continue to link to AMP pages when available.

Is this Google backing down on the AMP nonsense?

<comment><USER17> Something might be changing inside Google.

\- Last year after 10 years of utterly irrelevant and insulting ads they've now started to show me relevant ads. I might even have clicked one or two as it was kind of interesting.

\- Twice in the last six weeks when I hit !g in ddg to see if I was luckier in Google, Google delighted me by actually showing exactly the results I wanted.

For those who are too young to remember old Google I'll try to explain: normally when I search with Google the last ten years if the topic wasn't completely mainstream, Google would twist my words to mean something that they could show more results for.

Old Google showed what you searched for in an almost intelligent way, and this is what I have seen again no, for the first time in ~10 years, and not only once buy twice!

\- And now this: they'll stop trying to shove AMP down our throats..?

Let me guess:

\- someone is threatening to sue Google

\- and Googlers are tired of getting rightfully roasted for something stupid Goolge does, every single time they show up here

<comment><USER15> DDG has reduced my need for Google Search for about 99% now. I even dread having to adding "!g" to my search as I have a growing dislike for Google's grey UX patterns.

<comment><USER17> > I even dread having to adding "!g" to my search as I have a growing dislike > for Google's grey UX patterns.

Same here, and often the difference has been down to randomness, but lately - as I mentioned - I have had not just one but two times that Google actually behaved like Google from < 2009.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> not enough rounded borders and box shadow on card like ui and subtle parallax effects. D- you aren't even trying.

<comment><USER19> It just doesn't pop.

Can you make it pop?</comment></comment>


Cortex-M MCU Emulation with Renode - <AUTHOR> https://interrupt.memfault.com/blog/intro-to-renode <comment><AUTHOR> One thing I didn't mention in the article: we built a full emulated version of the watch at Pebble with QEMU and used it for the majority of our automated testing. We even allowed 3rd party devs to build apps against it. Today, I think we'd be using Renode instead. By focusing narrowly on embedded, Renode built a simpler system that is very simple to extend.</comment>


A Preview of HTML 5 - <AUTHOR> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5

<comment><USER2> What worries me is how long it'll take to get the HTML5 Bandpass filter and how frustrating it'll be for the first 5 years after adoption writing the same site twice.

</comment><comment><USER3> thats a really good overview. Naming divs has to be a winner, I am not sure if the names they were using in the article were defined by w3c or it gives you the ability to name your own.

shame each browser will render it differently...

<comment><USER4> Defined by w3c:

<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/diff/#new-elements>

<comment><USER3> aha, shame but there are some cool elements on that list. datagrids etc

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Buh-bye XHTML... this is really a nail in the coffin of xhtml.</comment>


Time to move to C11 atomics? (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://lwn.net/Articles/691128/ <comment><USER2> I think the ISO C and C++ definition of memory_order_consume will need to be fixed first. Perhaps recent progress has been made, but see for example "C++ P0371R1: Temporarily discourage memory_order_consume" and references therein:

[http://www.open- std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p037...](http://www.open- std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0371r1.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Maybe the best thing to do is to write a really, really, really good test suite for the C11 compiler first.

<comment><USER4> I think u can propose it for C22

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> From reading the article it seems they present many negatives and no benefits.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> src [http://linuxfr.org/news/de-la-necessite-d-adopter-les- operat...](http://linuxfr.org/news/de-la-necessite-d-adopter-les-operations- atomiques-c11)

</comment><comment><USER6> From June 15, 2016. They reference GCC 7.1 as being a year away...

<comment><USER7> Is this a thing now?

<comment><USER7> Downvotes? I merely meant to ask if linux implemented C11 atomics or not...</comment></comment></comment>


IVE HAD ENOUGH iQuit. Jobs done. Jony cashes out at Apple to run his own biz - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/27/jony_ive_leaves_apple/ <comment><USER2> Maybe we can have buttons that look like buttons again.</comment>


How Priming Research Went off the Rails (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-train-wreck-how-priming-research-went-of-the-rails/ <comment><USER2> What's frustrating about this situation is how obviously wrong the experiments were as described in the book, and yet how unshakably the findings were defended by Kahneman and others. I read the book before the crisis and stopped reading after the priming chapter, it was clearly fantasy, especially the experiment about reading words related to old age and then walking more slowly down a hallway. Now that the crisis is public knowledge it's hard to believe these findings were ever accepted by the mainstream, but they were.

You just have to think for yourself and weigh the evidence, be humble and open to other perspectives. Mindlessly following perceived experts won't save you.

<comment><USER3> It seems to me that people put too much faith in statistics despite not having a fundamental understanding of the methods. I'm sure in plenty of cases these frivolous results get published due to academic fraud and the pressure of publish or perish. But in other cases, it seems like researchers really think "p<.05" translates to "your alternative hypothesis is irrefutably true" and will believe their flimsy conclusions because, as far as they're concerned, numbers don't lie. (If I remember correctly, when Brian Wansink was exposed for p-hacking, it was partly because he wrote a blog post openly describing his sketchy research methods, where he seemed totally unaware that he was churning out illegitimate results.)

<comment><USER4> I've been trying to find this blog post, any chance you can remember more of it to help my googling?

<comment><USER3> I managed to dig it up: [https://web.archive.org/web/20170312041524/http:/www.brianwa...](https://web.archive.org/web/20170312041524/http:/www.brianwansink.com/phd- advice/the-grad-student-who-never-said-no). It really is incredible to read Wansink's clueless non-rebuttals to the comments that point out his academic fraud.

<comment><USER5> Staggering replies from him on the negative comments on his methods and thinking, what a character.

What a gem to read, absurt funny title "The Grad Student Who Never Said "No".

And the fact that at least 54 times people took a snapshot of the webpage.

We should print this on toilet paper and sell it to universities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's really weird when you hear people saying things like:

> disbelief is not an option. The results are not made up, nor are they > statistical flukes. You have no choice but to accept that the major > conclusions of these studies are true.

It's as if they know they're wrong, but are trying to force themselves to believe it any way.

<comment><USER3> I think that is quite harsh on Kahneman, especially considering how reasonable he sounds in the open letter that is linked. But I am also completely perplexed as to how he was so confident about these priming studies given the research on cognitive biases that he's so well-known for (as mentioned in the article).

<comment><USER7> A great deal of his fame is premised on this priming effect. It's been taken almost as gospel for decades, to the point that a typical applied psychology paper will actually _include_ a priming step even if unnecessary just to spruce up the methodology. E.g. "subjects were primed by having them read articles on spicy food" for a study on water fountains, etc.

<comment><USER3> Oh, wow. Is any of his research still taken seriously? For whatever reason, I was under the impression his work on researcher bias like "the law of small numbers" was quite influential and still cited here and there by trustworthy figures.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The selection effect is also easily explained. 'Top' journals have as explicit policy not to publish the most robust research, but the research they think will have most impact in the field. (Hence 'impact factor'.)

That's why with the project I volunteer for (Plaudit.pub) researchers recommending research have to explicitly indicate whether they think a work is robust and/or exciting, where neither block publication nor the recommendation.

</comment><comment><USER9> Something I've been reflecting on over the past couple of months is how the university system loudly claims to promote critical thinking and peer review, whilst it seems to me that it actually does everything possible to discourage it.

If you look at the unfolding replication disaster in epidemiology, re: Ferguson and his totally non-replicable Report 9, it's really turning over the rocks on an academic culture in which:

• Academics flat-out refuse to question each other across disciplines, practically as a matter of honour.

• Nobody else being able to understand your research is something boasted about on Twitter and in the press rather than being a source of embarrassment.

• Scientists routinely refuse to reveal their data and code, making a mockery of both peer review and replication as a process.

• Anyone who _does_ engage in critical thinking about their work gets shut down, censored, attacked as an "armchair epidemiologist" etc - often it seems by people with academic backgrounds.

After years of non-stop hiring, tech firms are now flooded with naive post- docs steeped in academic culture, who appear to have totally bought into the notion that critical thinking about the output of "experts" is not only morally wrong but outright dangerous and needs to be suppressed. This has led to the absurd sight of Google/Twitter trying to delete anyone who disagrees with the WHO at a time when the WHO routinely disagrees with itself as of a few weeks ago, or where the WHO disgrees with the CDC, or where experienced doctors disagree with both, and it ends up being the _doctors_ that get shut down because they are mere doctors and not "experts"!

It feels like this whole conflation of academia with "expertise" is leading society to disaster; why should any of us believe universities when they say they teach critical thinking? Someone trained in critical thinking wouldn't just accept such a claim at face value, they'd demand a weight of evidence. But no such evidence is ever presented.

<comment><USER10> This situation has been exacerbated by the "barbarians at the gates": stepping outside the zone of people who are trying to do inquiry honestly, however badly, leads rapidly into the swirling internet drain of quacks and cranks who feel under no such obligation to try. Hence all the "miracle mineral solution" nonsense.

The landmark of bad epidemiology is of course Andrew Wakefield, who almost single-handedly destroyed the effectiveness of measles vaccination.

Experts are in trouble. Some of the "non-experts" are right. But as often as not it's the confidently extremely wrong who get promoted by the media and social networks.

<comment><USER9> Perhaps. I used to view things like that too.

Over time it seems like the gap between the cranks and experts keeps closing. How cranky are these cranks, really?

You mention vaccination. Anti-vaxxer has pretty much become a byword for dangerous quack science denier. It conjures up stereotypes of soccer moms who are certain _their_ special snowflake child can't take the "risk". But vaccines are perfectly safe; doesn't everyone know that?

A few weeks ago I got a reply to a comment of mine here on Hacker News that mentioned Pandemrix, a treatment I'd never heard of:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22922864](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22922864)

DanBC, who I often end up debating with on these forums as we are somewhat different in political outlook, remarked _" Pandemrix causes narcolepsy in 1 in 60,000 people who take it. (so, for the entire US that's about 5000 with a life long debilitating illness that requires constant care.)"_

At the time I replied that I'd not heard of this and without doing more research couldn't really comment. I took his claim at face value and didn't think much more of it, filing it away to look at later. Well, turns out this claim is both completely true and much more importantly, to my surprise Pandemrix is a vaccine developed for the swine flu:

 _" In August 2010, The Swedish Medical Products Agency (MPA) and The Finnish National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) launched investigations regarding the development of narcolepsy as a possible side effect to Pandemrix flu vaccination in children,[5] and found a 6.6-fold increased risk among children and youths, resulting in 3.6 additional cases of narcolepsy per 100,000 vaccinated subjects"_

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

So, erm, yeah. About those anti-vaxxers. Who think vaccines might sometimes be dangerous for their children. And who get laughed at and shat on constantly. And shut down. And censored. And told they don't understand the science. About them.

Damn.

<comment><USER3> This is a coarse mis-characterization of both sides of that "debate" if we can even call it that. Are anti-vaxxers mostly worried about proven risks, like narcolepsy in this case, or is a much larger part of their movement concerned with making paranoid claims like that the MMR vaccine causes autism? Are the experts guilty of denying the narcolepsy-Pandermix link, or are they spending more time trying to refute bogus statements because they'd like to see herd immunity maintained for certain diseases?

<comment><USER9> I don't know what they think. How would I? Do you think the anti-vaxxer viewpoint is covered by the media, do we ever discuss it here on HN, is it something that's a part of mainstream debate? No, it isn't.

These people never really get taken seriously regardless of what claims they're making. The moment a position starts being labelled quack/crank/dangerous misinformation, you're already at the point of "coarse" characterisations, or mis-characterisations.

So now look what's happened. Apparently there are two kinds of anti-vaxxer, the ones worried about "proven risks" and then the _real_ cranks making "paranoid claims". But the sort of anti-vaxxers who would have been refusing to give their child Pandemrix _before_ it was understood to be linked with higher narcolepsy rates would have come across as paranoid, wouldn't they? They'd have had to say something like:

"I don't know. It's a new vaccine. It might be dangerous. I'm not sure swine flu is dangerous, I'd rather not vaccinate my child."

and they'd have got an answer from us HN-reading types of the form:

"Swine flu is very serious, the WHO has declared a global pandemic and clinics are being overwhelmed with infected people. Vaccines are well understood and very safe. Experts say the MMR scare was just debunked crank science. If you don't vaccinate your child you're an ignoramus who is putting both your child and other people at risk, you shouldn't even really have a choice. I will report your tweets to Twitter for misinformation."

And we'd have been wrong and they'd have been right.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#Histor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#History)

"The Mexican government closed most of Mexico City's public and private facilities in an attempt to contain the spread of the virus; however, it continued to spread globally, and clinics in some areas were overwhelmed by infected people ... In late April, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared its first ever "public health emergency of international concern," or PHEIC,[38] and in June, the WHO and the U.S. CDC stopped counting cases and declared the outbreak a pandemic"

<comment><USER11> I disagree that the "anti-vaxxers" would have been "right".

They fail to trade off the risks appropriately.

No one can claim vaccines are "safe". They induce a host immune response so that the immune system is primed to fight a subsequent infection. The immune system can cause damage to the host, which is why we have a whole catalogue of autoimmune disorders, many of which can be modulated by infectious diseases and parasites. There is a risk a vaccine could induce a host immune response which causes damage. But it's a small risk.

You have to trade off the risk of vaccination with the risk of being infected with the disease, and the risk to society at large through spread of the disease when vaccination rates are too low.

In pretty much all cases, the risk of the disease is many orders of magnitude higher than the risk of the vaccine. If there's a 0.000001 chance of the vaccine causing problems vs a 0.0001 of dying or suffering long-term damage from the disease then the choice is obvious: get vaccinated.

Unless the "anti-vaxxers" are basing their arguments upon quantitative data, then I'll continue to view them as crackpots with little knowledge or understanding.

(I'm an immunologist, by the way.)

<comment><USER12> >> If there's a 0.000001 chance of the vaccine causing problems vs a 0.0001

The problem is how do I trust these numbers. That the vaccine risks aren't underestimated and the disease damage over-estimated. Something that can be confirmed only when enough time/data has elapsed.

The current pandemic is an example. Almost everyone who publishes data has some motive to push a viewpoint (knowingly or unknowingly). It will take some time before one can trust the data and its inferences. But then meanwhile, one is being asked to trust the experts who are not open about the data and methodologies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Big shout out to the "Reproducibility Project: Psychology" [1] by Brian Nosek and the Center for Open Science in 2015 that started this trend to shine light on "establishment" "conclusions" in the social sciences. People are an awfully tricky subject of study.

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project)</comment>