Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence - <AUTHOR> https://www.devaboone.com/post/vitamin-d-part-3-the-evidence?postId=5f4e8bf673d853002ded6cd3 <comment><USER3> It seems interesting that Vitamin D may be so much more prone to false correlations due to the fact that it's tied to going out in the sun, and going out in the sun is what healthy people do. Since so many illnesses and conditions, from psychological to physical, can keep you indoors, one could conclude that vitamin D is really a miracle pill.

I take 1k iu a day, since I barely go outside anymore, but I'd probably cut that in half if life were normal again. I think of _most_ vitamins as a "cover my bases in cases I eat like shit today", not as a "this is going to keep me from getting cancer".

I also found the commentary on metanalyses interesting - they're touted as being very high quality, but of course there's always the garbage in garbage out.

<comment><USER4> RCTs are high quality, because they are done in a controlled setting, testing against a control group, testing the null hypothesis. RCTs are able to show causality. The problem with RCTs is that they are very expensive, since it involves keeping people in a clinic, so usually RCTs are short term and can only afford to look at surrogate markers.

However most often than not, surrogate markers are enough. Also RCTs tend to coroborate the findings from observational studies in about 70% of the cases. Also for really hot topics, like diabetes management, we do have year-long RCTs too.

And drawing conclusions from systematic reviews and meta analyses of RCTs, well, that's basically the best we can do.

For assessing the strength of available evidence, I recommend reading the following: [https://examine.news/how-to-read-a- study](https://examine.news/how-to-read-a-study)

<comment><USER5> > The problem with RCTs is that they are very expensive, since it involves > keeping people in a clinic

This may be a noob question, but why? For something like a vitamin supplement, can't you just give the study participants a box of their 50 possibly-placebo pills and require them to take one per day? If you're worried about compliance, can't you require them to write down the time each day when they take the pill—or even have the pills in a one-pill-per-box calendar arrangement and require them to take a photo with their phone each day? (Doesn't stop malicious noncompliance, but it should cover laziness/forgetting.)

<comment><USER6> They're not all done in a completely-controlled clinic - indeed the 25,000 person study highlighted here, with followup after around 5 years, of course had the subjects going about their daily lives except during original enrollment & occasional check-ins.

But when outcomes are finer-grained than "did the subject die or get diagnosed with a major new disease", or short-term, or need high compliance & regular monitoring, RCTs can become a lot more intense & expensive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What about the study in Spain from a few days ago (I'm in Spain atm and it's kinda big news over here), at the Reina Sofia University Hospital in Córdoba, where they just announced the results of the randomized blind controlled trial and the results are incredible: 1 person out of 50 who got huge doses of vitamin D for a few days after arriving at the hospital with Covid-19 symptoms ended up in the ICU, where 13 out of 26 who didn't get any vitamin D ended up in the ICU? It's "only" 76 people but it's 2% vs 50%.

It was a blind study (AFAICT): patients had no idea whether they got vit D or not and patients got randomly selected.

Here's a doctor's analysis of that study:

[https://youtu.be/V8Ks9fUh2k8](https://youtu.be/V8Ks9fUh2k8)

<comment><USER8> There is a lot of excitement about this study, but the details in it matter. It was randomized - but when you look at the two groups (treatment vs. control), they had some key differences. The control group (who didn't receive Vitamin D) had more men (69% vs 54%), more people with hypertension (57% vs 24%) and diabetes (19% vs 6%). So the groups were not the same. If you just compare the numbers of those who went into the ICU vs. not, then the results look amazing. But once you correct for hypertension and diabetes, it was not so impressive - it was not statistically significant in the study. (It is in the study but most people breeze right over that.)

<comment><USER9> Interesting! Can you quote the part of the study where they say the results are not statistically signifcant when you control for diabetes and hypertension?

<comment><USER8> Here is what the article states: "Therefore, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust the model by possible confounding variables such as hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus for the probability of the admission to the Intensive Care Unit in patients with Calcifediol treatment vs Without Calcifediol treatment (odds ratio: 0.03 (95%CI: 0.003-0.25) (Table 3). The dependent variable considered was the need to be treated or not in ICU (dichotomous variable).) CI:-0.30 - 0.03 p:0.08." The statement is worded in a confusing way, but that is a non-significant p value. Of course we should not put too much into "statistical significance" but it is interesting to note.

<comment><USER10> Unless I'm reading your comment wrong, this p-value (0.03) _is_ actually significant for a 95% confidence test.

<comment><USER11> 0.03 is the odds ratio (a measure of effect size, an odds ratio of 1 would mean the treatment and control arms had the same rate of ICU admittance). The p value is 0.08 from here "CI:-0.30 - 0.03 p:0.08." which captures the likelihood the treatment had an effect.

That said, just looking at p values and applying a cutoff at 0.05 is pretty bad practice that is getting a lot of heat thanks to the replication crisis (does it make sense to behave as though p=0.08 is not true and something at p=0.049 is true? almost certainly not). If you get a value in this range and a huge effect size then it's a really good idea to repeat the experiment with way more data. It's also a common stats error to act as though p>0.05 is the same as knowing something DOES NOT work, all you can say is this specific study wasn't able to show that it does work with 95% confidence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So Vitamin D deficiency is linked to cancer, heart disease, respiratory infection, stroke, diabetes, and death. But taking it as a supplement helps with none of the above. What is a reasonable hypothesis then? That having an active lifestyle that brings you outside in the sun both causes your Vitamin D to go up, and is correlated with better physical health in general?

<comment><USER13> I would frame it in the opposite direction: having a serious illness is correlated with low levels of Vitamin D. People with a serious illness may stay inside more, and go outside less. It's possible that "low levels" of Vitamin D are still within the healthy range, and they merely are an indication of how much time the person has spent outside during the day.

In other words, it's possible that Vitamin D is pure symptom. It's not even necessarily the case that going outside is _healthy_ , but that healthy people tend to go outside more.

<comment><USER14> > It's not even necessarily the case that going outside is healthy, but that > healthy people tend to go outside more.

This is a departure from the discussion of _supplementing_ vitamin D though, isn't it?

I guess the treatment "go out and do sports" is a very different one compared to "X amount of vitamin D per day as a supplement" and the former may indeed be _healthy_ , while the latter may not be, even though they both result in higher levels of vitamin D.

<comment><USER13> > This is a departure from the discussion of supplementing vitamin D though, > isn't it?

I don't think so, no. If my hypothesis is correct, the problem is not that they _didn 't_ go outside and play sports. The problem is that they _are sick_ , and sick people don't go outside as much.

Forget Vitamin D for a moment. Imagine that every time you were outside for an hour, the Outside Fairy granted you one Outside Token. Over the course of a month, it's reasonable to assume that healthy people would have more Outside Tokens than sick people. But these Outside Tokens obviously would have no causal effect on whether or not people are sick. Giving sick people Outside Tokens would obviously not help them - their problem is that they are sick. They have less Outside Tokens because being sick makes it more difficult to be outside for an hour.

In other words, the arrow of causation is _being sick_ -> _less Outside Tokens_ , and _not being sick_ -> _more Outside Tokens_. If that's the case, then Outside Tokens are irrelevant to treating the sick people. If, say, they have cancer, you should ignore the Outside Tokens and treat the cancer with all of the standard means we have of treating cancer.

They hypothesis is that "low levels of Vitamin D" are just those Outside Tokens.

(Yes, when Vitamin D levels are low enough, that can cause other kinds of health problems. But this hypothesis is that what we're measuring as "low" is still within the healthy range. How do we know when it's not in the healthy range? When it tends to cause the kinds of problems we are more confident are directly linked to low levels of Vitamin D.)

<comment><USER15> That's very true, but Outside Tokens are really cheap and are low risk so encouraging people to buy them seems like a reasonable hedge to make until the hypothesis can be proven.

<comment><USER16> So long as it doesn't supplant other real treatments, which it inevitably will within the framework of a recommendation to potentially very ill/desperate people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This seems like it might be a little selective.

What about these [1] [2] randomised controlled trials that show vitamin D supplementation has an effect on IBS symptoms?

Or this [3] double-blinded trial showing supplementation improved sleep quality in people with sleep disorders?

Or this [4] one showing improvements in depressive symptoms in overweight and obese subjects? The study cited in TFA is large but only uses participants aged 50 and above, with a relatively low dose of vitamin D.

Also, is it just me or is the line of argument used a little bit weak? You could use the same kind of argument to dismiss the need for dietary vitamin C, as follows: (a) vitamin C deficiency is associated with a bunch of other health conditions (as it's a marker of poor nutrition or socioeconomic status), so (b) let's look at the effects of supplementing vitamin C, which (c) naturally finds that supplementation does nothing for said conditions, and therefore (d) conclude that it is a pretty useless vitamin, while placing minimal focus on the things that it actually does fix, such as scurvy?

I am not an academic, so perhaps I am missing some context though.

[1] [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27154424/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27154424/)

[2] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5900470/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5900470/)

[3] [https://tumj.tums.ac.ir/article-1-8272-en.html](https://tumj.tums.ac.ir/article-1-8272-en.html)

[4] [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2796...](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2008.02008.x)

<comment><USER18> Did you read the article?

> It is an essential hormone, definitely, but not a magical pill that will > ward off disease. There are conditions that benefit from Vitamin D > supplementation - for hypoparathyroidism, a condition that can cause > dangerously low calcium levels, Vitamin D is lifesaving. For otherwise > healthy adults, the benefit is less clear.

Takeaways: it's not clear what preventative benefits it has.

Even to use your vitamin C example, it's also widely touted to take vitamin C for general well being, such as helping colds. But its preventative benefits aren't clear [1]. Nobody has _ever_ said vitamin C is useless, but it's just not a panacea (much like the article claims about vitamin D).

[1] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1160577/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1160577/)

<comment><USER17> Yes. See response to author's comment below.

On vitamin C - I stated _dietary_ vitamin C to make it clear I was not referring to supplemental vitamin C. I was hoping to avoid this exact rabbit hole; that example was just to highlight an issue with the argumentation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> 0-_-0 Vitamin D study showing a positive effect on treating Covid-19:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24366006](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24366006)

</comment><comment><USER19> May be an unpopular take, but this one felt a bit too academic to me. It also, perhaps inadvertently, argues against several strawmen too.

We've long known D is an essential component of bone-health and the immune system, since it was noticed a century ago that tuberculosis patients that went outside in the sun had better outcomes. Known to prevents rickets too.

The fact that some have tried to apply it to heart disease or asthma, or random unrelated ailments and failed is immaterial, no?

The fact that the benefit of supplementation is strongest for those with the weakest levels is not particularly surprising either.

We also know that the body can make adjustments when nutrients are low in the short term, and that can mitigate some issues and pose unintuitive outcomes in such a time frame.

Bottom line, do we want to face Covid/Flu with an immune system at full strength, or one with one arm tied behind its back due to a deficiency?

Finally, given that a large majority of folks are D-deficient, and few can or will overdose, this push back (on HN and this piece) to warn folks that it is useless/dangerous (on the whole) does more harm than those recommending it, in my opinion.

Moderation continues to be the best path, and a number of studies linked here support benefits of supplementation for bone-health and immune system, but those things only. Don't overthink it.

</comment><comment><USER20> This picture in the article is misleading:

[https://static.wixstatic.com/media/3e0600_a25ba8bbf26b47a096...](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/3e0600_a25ba8bbf26b47a096d2dc2ee7e41fcd~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_644,h_469,al_c,q_90,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/3e0600_a25ba8bbf26b47a096d2dc2ee7e41fcd~mv2.webp)

At the very leat, vitamin D _does_ seem to prevent respiratory infections. The article even admits as much later on. There are several RCTs that verify this. So why put a red cross next to "prevention of respiratory infections"?

Also, worth reading:

"Why randomized controlled trials of calcium and vitamin D sometimes fail"

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427206/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427206/)

<comment><USER8> The chart is only regarding RCTs. In the best individual trials that we have, it does not show a benefit for respiratory infections. But we do see some suggestion of benefit in meta-analyses. In general, if the meta-analysis shows something that is not seen in RCTs, then we probably need more evidence. But it does seem to be a real effect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I read Dr. Boone's article and looked over each intervention in the study's she listed. I noticed that many researchers were dosing once a month (one was only once a year!) at levels I would not consider therapeutic. Yes, at non- therapeutic levels, I would expect vitamin D to not show much difference from Placebo. I am not a vitamin D expert, but am wondering why she selected to discuss research that didn't even match current vitamin D recommnedations. Her favorite research was VITAL which I was thrilled to learn was daily for 5 years. Unfortunately, it was at a level (2000IUs) that could leave many people at subnormal levels of vitamin D. 1000 IU will bring up blood levels 5 ng/mL. 30 ng/Ml is considered okay. Many people believe that levels between 60-100 ng/mL is better. I have a genetic defect that keeps me below 30ng/ml regardless of sun exposure. I supplement at 15000 IU per day. Which brings my levels up around 70-90ng/mL

</comment><comment><USER22> It's the magnesium, stupid!

Dai (2018): Magnesium status and supplementation influence vitamin D status and metabolism: results from a randomized trial [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30541089/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30541089/) "Our findings suggest that optimal magnesium status may be important for optimizing 25(OH)D status. "

Coincidence?

"Vitamin D is currently the only Essential Vitamin or Mineral which appears to have deficiency rates at a similar level to Magnesium"

[https://examine.com/supplements/magnesium/research/#nutrient...](https://examine.com/supplements/magnesium/research/#nutrient- nutrient-interactions\\_vitamin-d)

</comment><comment><USER23> I don't want to be the contrarian that persists in the face of scientific evidences, but I will point out that none of the RCTs listed combined Vitamin D with supplementation of Vitamin K, which several studies suggest plays a synergistic role when it comes to the health benefits. This OSU link covers a number of such studies: [https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-K](https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-K)

</comment><comment><USER24> The most obvious evidence to me has always been that Europeans are not black. A change like the loss of melanin requires selective pressure, which in this case was likely furnished by less vitamin D as we migrated away from the equator. The pressure must have been significant since being white carries a big downside: higher vulnerability to sunburn and skin cancer. When I lived in Cali I always envied my darker skinned friends who did not have to smear goo on themselves at the beach.

I gotta say though... the world would have far less race problems had that odd little quirk of photosynthesis of a key nutrient not existed.

<comment><USER25> > A change like the loss of melanin requires selective pressure

It does? What about genetic drift, random mutations, and artificial selection, where humans select based on qualities not necessarily conducive to survival?

There is also some evidence that this change in skin color was only widespread as recently as 8,000 years ago [1].

> which in this case was likely furnished by less vitamin D

How likely?

> The pressure must have been significant since being white carries a big > downside: : higher vulnerability to sunburn and skin cancer.

Unless you are trying to hide from predators or your prey in snow? As far as skin cancer, as long as it doesn't kill you before you breed, it's not going to have a big impact on natural selection, right?

[1] [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/heres-how- european...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/heres-how-europeans- quickly-evolved-lighter-skin-180954874/)

<comment><USER26> One aspect of sexual selection is that a disadvantageous trait needn't kill to cause differential outcomes in reproduction. If a deficiency results lower hunting success, diminished fighting prowess, loss of mental acuity etc. the individual will be disfavored in mate selection. Iterated over generations, this eventually extinguishes some genes.

There's also the aesthetic aspect, where some traits seem to be favored simply because they are attractive to the opposite sex, which can be justified because offspring will have more favorable opportunities for reproduction, but only because the trait is well liked. A strange attractor in the genetic code, if you will. This happens across species, so I wouldn't call it artificial selection - artificial selection applied to humans is also known as eugenics.

<comment><USER25> > One aspect of sexual selection is that a disadvantageous trait needn't kill > to cause differential outcomes in reproduction. If a deficiency results > lower hunting success, diminished fighting prowess, loss of mental acuity > etc. the individual will be disfavored in mate selection.

That makes sense, and it also supports my claim that skin cancer would likely not be a trait selected against, right? It's something that usually happens later in life and that would not be involved during mate selection.

> so I wouldn't call it artificial selection - artificial selection applied to > humans is also known as eugenics.

Thanks for that distinction. If this attraction is happening naturally and unspoken, it's fair to include it as a part of natural selection. However, I do think some of it is cultural, is spoken, and goes beyond natural attraction. A common example might be the preference for lighter skin in mates that we unfortunately find in several cultures. Maybe we should start calling it eugenics instead of softening it to artificial selection.

<comment><USER26> For skin cancer narrowly, sure. I don't know what it's like to live with white skin near the equator with primitive or no clothing and no access to sunscreen, though. Losing melanin every winter, getting scorched every summer... It seems like you'd have an individual who is pretty useless for persistence hunting across the savannah. On the other side, a darker skinned individual may experience lethargy and malaise in winter at higher latitude. So we should broaden the considerations to include chronic, nonlethal conditions, and competitive sexual selection amplifies their effects. This was my only point.

> A common example might be the preference for lighter skin in mates that we > unfortunately find in several cultures. Maybe we should start calling it > eugenics instead of softening it to artificial selection.

You can do that if you want. People really like their mate preferences and this seems more likely to soften their perception of eugenics as a concept than the other way around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Perhaps I missed it, but I did not see the study including K2 MK-7 and magnesium with D3. The 3 work together and can not support all of the metabolic functions on their own in a silo. There are also enzymes and co- enzymes that are part of the picture and I did not see any mention of them. Is there a more detailed version of the study? Again, could be me, I may have overlooked a link.

<comment><USER28> The doc said "don't think of vit-d as something magical" and you are saying "what if it was with k2 and magnesium; that might be more potent and magical" \-- I think the doctor's general conclusion still holds that it is not proven that vitamin-d helps with certain diseases. And the fact that doing RCTs is time-consuming and expensive still holds. And without these RCTs, at present, we can't conclusively tell if the combination you suggest will help for those diseases that she mentioned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is wonderful scientific writing; approachable without being condescending or over simplifying, without a trace of sensationalism. Really beautiful.

<comment><USER30> I thought the opposite: It campaigns against vitamin D as if it were a wolf in sheep's clothes. I've seen the author (and her partner) post and link about the dangers of vitamin D for a while now and it seems very unscientific to come at a subject with your mind already made up.

The author has clearly made up their mind about vitamin D and now they've made it duty to lobby on behalf of that belief, but I don't think they're capable of honest, unbiased science regarding this subject anymore.

<comment><USER29> huh? They did the research, reached conclusions, and inform the public. That's what scientists should do. Why do you think they first decided they don't like vitamin D, and only then cherry picked research to prove it?

Anyway, If you are an informed enough, you don't have to believe them, you can just read all the research they provided, and see for yourself.

Otherwise, all you can do is trust them. Or not.

<comment><USER31> I think the idea of these articles was to help make people more informed consumers. As Deva says:

> Finally, no one needs to blindly believe what I say - or what anyone else > says - about Vitamin D. You can and should critically evaluate the evidence > for yourself. Below I have listed out some of the most important RCTs and > meta-analyses of RCTs, with summaries and links. When looking at meta- > analyses, Cochrane always provides top quality reviews, and I often look to > them first for quality analyses and thoughtful interpretations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I would have loved to see some of her advice and information dis-aggregated by race.

Low Vitamin D levels of are not evenly distributed among different ethic groups. e.g. "53%–76% of non-Hispanic blacks [ had low vitamin D levels, in the Southern U.S.] compared with 8%–33% of non-Hispanic whites [0]".

Thus the risk-reward considerations of taking vitamin D are likely different for dark-skinned individuals than for light skinned individuals.

I have to assume her advice at the end is targeted at light-skinned people. As a dark-skinned person myself, I'm irritated that she couldn't bother to at least mention the above issues.

[0] [https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/136/4/1126/4664238](https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/136/4/1126/4664238)

<comment><USER8> I wrote the article. It was very hard to write a concise article about all of Vitamin D research, and so I didn't have space to address it, though I really appreciate the feedback. Race and Vitamin D is an interesting area. The VITAL trial, which is the largest study on Vitamin D that we have, with 25,000 participants, tried to enroll more Blacks, and in the end 20% of the participants were Black. They showed the same results, but interestingly it did seem like there might be a trend toward fewer cancers for Blacks who received Vitamin D, but this was not definitive. More research on this is needed.

The other reason I didn't get into race and Vitamin D is that we then start getting into the blood levels, and what really constitutes deficiency. I think we are a little too liberal with our diagnosis of deficiency right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Shouldn't they be looking at getting vitamin D via sun exposure, rather than supplementation? If the real benefit is sun exposure, which also increases vitamin D, then just supplementing vitamin D won't show any benefits.

<comment><USER34> Very hard to quantify sun exposure and do this in a controlled way.

<comment><USER35> Very hard? Sounds one of the easiest things to measure and control for...

Tack a sensor (e.g. watch like) to people working outside, vs people working inside, inmates, etc for example...

Check people in long norther nights vs the carribean (you can find lots of people of either place in the other).

<comment><USER34> I'll clarify: it's harder than giving everybody the same 5,000 ICU tablet of vitamin D. Can it be solved? Yes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I have a couple questions for any doctors out there.

How many times a year should one check his vitamin levels?

I live in Paris, and during the winter months we don't get that much sunlight. My doctor gave me a prescription for vitamin D3 (100,000 IU vial, once a month, for three months). Is this a good dose for the year (provided you get adequate sunlight during the summer months)? How long does vitamin D3 stay in the body until it uses/flushes excess out? Are you better off taking a high dose like this for 3 months, or adopting a more slow and steady method (i.e. supplementing daily).

<comment><USER37> Can you get D3 from a store? Prescriptions are usually vitamin D2.

20,000 IU or 50,000 IU D3 1x/week is a great amount. Or you could try taking a lesser/proportional amount each day.

You could also get one of those sun/S.A.D. lamps or red light devices to increase topically.

<comment><USER36> Just checked the box again and it says "cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) 100,000 IU". I believe the prescription is required due to the dosage (100,000 IUs is pretty high).

I could definitely get some D3 from the store, but I am curious if taking a prescription dosage once a month yields the same result as a lower daily dose.

<comment><USER37> Once a month is too infrequent, but it'll work fine. 1x/week is better. 1x/day is best. Some benefits are missing versus daily dosing, but the main things are still in play.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I've seen a well explained video about a study[1] saying vitamin D3 helps in reducing severity of COVID19. What's your argument(s) against it?

[1][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8Ks9fUh2k8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8Ks9fUh2k8)

<comment><USER39> OP's article does not address Vitamin D's effects on COVID.

<comment><USER40> It indirectly implies that it may be efficacious though as it mentions respiratory infections as one place where meta-analysis has shown benefits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> correct me if I'm wrong (like that ever happens on HN...) but even mainstream SSRIs like Lexapro (which I am taking, I'm a lifelong depressive, thanks) probably get a big red X in "prevention of depression". trying to "prevent depression" is like trying to grab Jell-O.

<comment><USER42> I don't know that there is any drug or intervention that _prevents_ depression in otherwise healthy people, besides eating a balanced diet, maintaining a healthy weight, and getting sufficient exercise.

Preventing relapse in people whose depression is in remission may be a different story (and, one which I'm not terribly familiar with). Part of the problem is that the placebo effect in trials for depression is very strong. See, for instance [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24172161/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24172161/)

BTW, I am also a lifelong sufferer of depression. SSRIs have never really done anything for me, but bupropion has been a lifesafer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> A few thoughts:

Expecting vitamin D supplementation to be some cure-all is silly on the face of it. It's like saying "Your building has a brick deficiency" after some disaster does egregious harm to it and then ordering a bunch of bricks or starting a charity to give away free bricks to the entire community after a hurricane levels things.

Yes, bricks may well be a critical ingredient necessary to rebuild, but getting a giant pile of bricks dropped at your front door is the _start_ of the rebuilding process, not the end of it. And then you will find that you may not able to do anything with your pile of bricks because there's no mortar to hold them together or there are no skilled brick layers available.

The body is a very complex machine. It really shouldn't surprise anyone that a simple solution -- like "needs more vitamin D" \-- isn't going to miraculously get it working better across all categories of things that can go wrong, either due to a deficiency or in a way that will cause a deficiency.

</comment><comment><USER44> For other reasons I get tested for vitamin D every few months and managed to get my levels just above the normally recommended amount as per doctors advice. When people are saying they're taking 25-100k UI a day I'm just stumped why they'd be doing that without medical advice, the amount to change my levels was nothing in comparison.

<comment><USER37> RDA is 400 IU. It's actually the food RDA, with 20% expected from food. Overall RDA (sun + food) is 2000 IU. Therapeutic vitamin doses are 10x the RDA. 6x is elevated while doing "nothing" and 20x is full saturation ("but why").

2x and 4x for minerals.

For vitamin D, that would then be 20,000 IU or roughly 300 IU/kg/day.

No need to take that much or be outside the 40-60 ng/mL range for no reason. On the other hand, many benefits may be had in the higher range with advancing age. Especially when combined with vitamin K2 (1 mg MK-4 and 100 mcg MK-7 per 5,000-10,000 IU) and getting more magnesium than phosphorus (with 1/3rd-1/2 that amount as calcium; for example, 1.5g phosphorus, 1.5g magnesium, and 500-750 mg calcium).

Some magnesium as ZMA is good for males, as it improves sleep quality.

By the way, ancestral eating patterns led to ~1.5g magnesium per day.

At least after development has ceased (ie, plates fused), shifting from calcium to magnesium is a solid step.

The main issues with higher vitamin D3 are addressed by adjusting vitamin K2, calcium, and magnesium.

<comment><USER45> This is a thread about an article citing many studies of RCTs showing no such benefit. For that reason, where is your recommendation coming from?

<comment><USER37> I said no need to take so much.. for no reason.

With advancing age, higher amounts (+ magnesium and K2) mimic/amplify the actions of hGH/IGF-1 pushing back toward youth. More D3 is often needed with age for the same effect.

The combo is also protecting bone and the higher amount of magnesium does countless things: released when the body is ready to unroll inflammation, opposes excess lipid peroxidation, opposes lipofuscin, lengthens telomeres, shifts the calcium:magnesium balance such that less calcium is absorbed into stressed cells, keeps calcium dissolved, decalcifies, vasodilation at skin (improves nutrient flow, slowing aging effects), binds and clears heavy metals as excreted, sensitizes to LH, increases testosterone/progesterone and IGF-1 (directly and indirectly), aids in clearance of estrogens, opposes stress, lowers cortisol and aldosterone, shifting to DHEA and potentially anabolism, improves sleep if taken at night (ZMA for males), etc...

<comment><USER45> You are repeating yourself, so I will as well. The article claims that these health benefits do not exist for normal people. The article has studies with high quality RCTs that would trump other, observational studies.

<comment><USER37> I said higher doses wouldn't be needed for no reason.

On the other hand, I already mentioned what happens with age.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The story is clearly more complicated than, "supplement Vitamin D, improve everything that low-Vitamin-D is correlated with". Getting real sun, & doing the whole stack of things associated with that – being active, seeing nature, joint activities with friends outside the home, etc – is more likely to help with the correlated conditions.

But I can also think of reasons why these RCTs don't quite close-the-book on Vitamin-D as much as this author suggests. Looking more-closely at the 'VALID' 25,000-subject RCT that's highlighted:

* the dose of 2000IU is still small compared to the recommendation of other groups, such as the UCSD/Creighton group that highlighted a massive calculation error in the original RDA determination, that suggests the RDA should be _7000IU_ ([https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150317122458.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150317122458.htm))

* by only enrolling people over 50yo/55yo, the possibility that Vitamin D levels earlier-in-life are important isn't tested

* by eliminating people with any history of cancer/cardiovascular disease, the potential that Vitamin D helps specifically among people whose risk is so high these diseases turn up by their 40s can't be detected. (I'm assuming the 'history' screened for was just the patient themself; if they also screened out _family history_ , that'd be an even bigger limitation.)

* a ~5y followup can't detect effects at 10y or beyond

* Vitamin D's effects are somewhat like, & linked-to, hormones - and indeed there's some indication it should be taken in the AM, rather than before bed, to avoid mild sleep disruption. I don't see any indication as to when the VITAL study participants were coached to take their calendar-packs. Similarly, natural Vitamin D levels vary seasonally. What if unnatural timing (within the day or the year) changes the mix of effects that more natural pulsing would achieve?

Also, the VITAL study did observe "a possible vitamin D–associated benefit with regard to the incidence of cancer among black participants".

So: a great study, in many respects, but still leaves untested lots of plausible ways Vitamin-D supplementation could theoretically help - in higher doses, the younger, the already-sick, during a respiratory pandemic, etc.

</comment><comment><USER46> I think it's related to diet, a deficiency in Vitamin D probably indicates a certain type of diet that leads to obesity. I wonder if metabolic syndrome and vitamin D deficiency are also comorbid.

You need fat to absorb vitamin D and perhaps this fat has additional benefits (satiety, less feeding periods, the integral of insulin over time is smaller). Ketosis probably has some role to play, I should check if they're controlling for this factor. Until they can control for the entire diet it's hard to really tell based purely on vitamin D, the metabolic processes can be so complicated in a human.

Disclaimer: mindless speculation above--I'm no expert, just a mathematician.

</comment><comment><USER47> My main dissatisfaction with Vitamin D studies is the fact that they usually try to isolate it as a self-contained factor that you can simply raise or lower and observe effects, while neglecting the complex system it is normally a part of.

How about instead treating it as a simple block of that complex system? What I mean is that Vitamin D typically correlates with sun exposure and a healthy outdoorsy lifestyle (i.e. the system). I would think that if you want to understand how its presence affects an individual, you would try raising/lowering it specifically on subjects whose lifestyle guarantees the presence of that system.

</comment><comment><USER48> Thank you for this deep-dive, I definitely agree it's not a panacea, though I do supplement and recommend most people supplement.

The question I have -- you did a deep dive into many of the "larger" claims, but the claim that I have found most substantiated and most relevant is preventative to various viruses (such as influenza): [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170216110002.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170216110002.htm)

Do you have any additional information or findings about this?

</comment><comment><USER49> It seems like its easy to identify the harms of extremes. Too little of X causes Y and too much of W causes Z. But with so many variables affecting the human body(nutritional, genetic, environmental, microbial, mental, etc) how can we even approach being certain about optimal levels in the middle? I don't see how we could control for enough variables for long enough to know how much vitamin D is best for the body, and exactly how it interacts with other variables in regards to various diseases.

<comment><USER50> But we can see how supplementation affects outcomes, and it turns out that so far the results on that are pretty 'meh', unless you're supplementing specifically for severe vit D deficiency.

<comment><USER49> I guess my point is, if outcomes are affected by a couple dozen variables, unless we can control for all those variables, then we might not see any affect from this one variable. And there is a limit to how many variables we can reasonably control for.

<comment><USER45> Controling for variables is important to establish causality in observational studies. Many fields in social sciences are developing increasingly sophisticated methods to tease out causal relationships (see Pearl, Angrist&Pischke etc.).

However, many of these methods try to obtain the conditions similar to the gold standard: Randomized Control Trials.

In an RCT, if you assign treatment randomly to balanced subgroups of a population you care about (or one that is even representative), then you do not require to controls.

To see that, imagine the treatment being independent of the confounding factors and the distributions across group being the same. It then follows that you can estimate the average treatment effect without bias.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Serious question, whenever I read something about a Vitamin D deficiency, or a huge number of people getting tests back as lacking Vitamin D, I wonder -- what determined what the baseline of not-deficient is, and for which population? How were the baseline expectations set?

</comment><comment><USER52> >3\. Act in moderation. Low to moderate doses of Vitamin D (e.g. 400 to 2000 IUs daily) have proven to be safe in trials. If you think there is a benefit and we just don't have enough data to prove it yet, you may be right. We do know the harms of taking too much, though, so supplement in moderation. And if you are taking Vitamin D, ask your doctor to check your blood levels.

I'll probably carry on with this then. I was taking a single 4000 IU pill every four days (which was the suggested dosage) but once a week for around 570 IUs a day should be fine. Frankly I hate blood tests and don't believe I'm D deficient, so I'd rather take a lower, even if useless, amount.

</comment><comment><USER53> Don't over-think (unless you're a researcher, in which case that's your job). It's pretty simple:

Low levels are bad. If your levels are low, supplement.

Err on the high side because the risks are low, but don't go crazy for long periods of time without testing.

<comment><USER54> A little more thinking may be in order, since the whole point of TFA is that supplementing doesn't seem to do much good.

<comment><USER53> It has a green check next to "treatment for Vitamin D deficiency". What part of the article says that you should just ignore low vitamin D levels?

<comment><USER13> "Deficient" is not the same as "lower end of the normal range." If you suspect you are deficient, go to a doctor.

<comment><USER53> I said "low" not "lower end of normal". What part of my suggestion is refuted by the article?

<comment><USER13> "Low" is ambiguous. We are clarifying it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> It seems like the nth example of cases where isolating a vitamin as a pill, is not a substitute for acquiring it in the normal way for our species. We are not descended from nocturnal species, as our vision system and other characteristics show. We are evolved to spend a lot of time outdoors. The fact that we have been told for 30+ years to avoid the sun, is an awkward example of experts being incorrect. It happens, even in fields where experts are normally correct, and nutrition is not one of those fields. Keeping a non- nocturnal animal out of the sun all the time, is likely bad for us, in ways that are measured (but not necessarily caused) by vitamin D levels.

</comment><comment><USER56> The July Radiolab episode it good on vitamin D and sunshine and its effect on covid and also on the 1918 flu. In both cases getting out in the sun seemed to have a dramatic reduction in deaths. [https://pca.st/dwgcmlx1](https://pca.st/dwgcmlx1)

I guess it must have quite an effect on things to evolutionarily justify the difference in appearance between fair skinned and dark skinned people - <USER2> fair skin is mostly to allow sun in to produce vit D in northern climes.

</comment><comment><USER57> Which part of the body needs to be exposed to UV light in order to produce Vitamin D?

If I wear a baseball cap and jeans and expose only my arms, is that good enough? Or do I need to expose my face?

</comment><comment> 0-_-0 So what's the purpose of vitamin D then? It must be important if it was worth evolving white skin over, so why are studies failing to find that important reason?

<comment><USER25> > It must be important if it was worth evolving white skin over

Where is the evidence that we evolved white skin to produce more vitamin D? Light skin in Europe may have evolved as a widespread thing as recently as 8,000 years ago [1], which doesn't support the idea that it was essential for survival in northern less sunny areas. Are there any studies giving strong evidence as to the causation for evolving white skin?

[1] [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/heres-how- european...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/heres-how-europeans- quickly-evolved-lighter-skin-180954874/)

<comment> 0-_-0 From the article you linked:

"A sun lower in the sky and shorter day lengths would have favored skin that more easily synthesized vitamin D."

The article also points out a correlation between latitude and light skin, so the evidence is pretty strong (based only what you linked) for why light skin evolved.

<comment><USER25> If you look at the full quote, the purpose is not to confirm your theory but to inject healthy doubt in your theory:

"A sun lower in the sky and shorter day lengths would have favored skin that more easily synthesized vitamin D. But researchers are now learning that other factors must have been at play."

> The article also points out a correlation between latitude and light skin

Well yes, exactly. Correlation. I asked for causation, which it seems you are still lacking.

<comment> 0-_-0 I read the article but failed to see what doubt it sheds on the idea that light skin evolved to increase vitamin D production. Could you help me find it please?

You asked for evidence of causation, which I provided. Correlation of latitude with skin colour is evidence of causation. Light skin colour providing vitamin D while increasing skin cancer risk is evidence of causation. No other known advantage of light skin colour existing is an evidence of causation. Taken together, there is strong evidence of a causative link between the evolution of white skin and vitamin D production.

<comment><USER25> > Correlation of latitude with skin colour is evidence of causation.

Correlation is not causation. I'm sorry but I don't think you have any evidence at all that lighter skin was caused by a need for more vitamin D. It's just an educated guess on your part. Lighter skin could have just as easily been an adaptation related to less visibility to predators and prey in snow. Like the article I cited said "researchers are now learning that other factors must have been at play."

And with the article that started this thread we now have quite a few studies telling us that vitamin D supplementation doesn't do anything helpful. So why would humans undergo an adaptation that provides no benefit? Perhaps exposure to the sun provides health benefits? Or is it that healthy people get outside more and therefor have higher vitamin D levels? I'm happy saying "I don't know" and asking more questions. I encourage you to do the same instead of claiming causation when all you have is correlation.

<comment> 0-_-0 Correlation is not causation, but you didn't ask for proof, you asked for evidence, and correlation is evidence. For example, do you know whether smoking causes cancer? Because all the evidence we have that it does is based on correlation. Or you're happy saying "I don't know" and asking more questions? How would you show a causal link between vitamin D deficiency causing the evolution of light skin colour without being able to conduct a double blind study? It's fundamentally impossible to prove, all we have is evidence, which is this case is sufficient to say as the first sentence in Wikipedia [1]: "An abundance of clinical and epidemiological evidence supports that light skin pigmentation developed due to the importance of maintaining vitamin D3 production in the skin"

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_skin#Evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_skin#Evolution)

<comment><USER25> > you didn't ask for proof, you asked for evidence

I didn't ask for evidence from you. I asked more specifically "Are there any _studies_ giving strong evidence as to the causation for evolving white skin?

> do you know whether smoking causes cancer? Because all the evidence we have > that it does is based on correlation.

That's wrong. We understand why smoking causes cancer. Just for example one of chemicals produced by tobacco smoke is benzoapyrene which is a DNA disruptor, producing mutations that can lead to cancer. [1]

> It's fundamentally impossible to prove, all we have is evidence.

That's progress. We've gone from "It must be important if it was worth evolving white skin over" to "we can't prove that's why we have white skin".

The Wikipedia sentence claims an "abundance" of evidence and then only gives one source, which is behind a paywall. So I'm going to recommend an edit to that article to either give more sources or change the "abundance" claim. Furthermore just a few sentences later it contradicts itself with this:

"This accounts for the development of dark skin pigmentation of people living near the equator but does not account for the increasingly lighter-skinned people living outside the tropics."

Yet more doubt as to why we have white skin. From your source.

Finally, the article that started this discussion provides strong evidence that our need for vitamin D is less important than we previously thought. For sure very low levels of vitamin D are dangerous. But the link between vitamin D and health could be reverse causation: sick people stay inside and therefor have less vitamin D. It could also be that exposure to sun provides something more important to health than vitamin D that we are not aware of yet. So the claim that we evolved white skin just for vitamin D is increasingly on less stable ground.

I'll stop here because I'm happy that you've gone from what seemed like a factual claim to you claiming that it's something we cannot prove. Who knows, maybe someone clever can prove it. But it sure does seem like the evidence itself (about both vitamin D _and_ skin color) is fairly rapidly changing.

[1] [https://www.mskcc.org/news/how-do-cigarettes-cause- cancer](https://www.mskcc.org/news/how-do-cigarettes-cause-cancer)

<comment> 0-_-0 > I didn't ask for evidence from you. I asked more specifically "Are there any > studies giving strong evidence as to the causation for evolving white skin?

Correlation is evidence of causation, and the correlation between skin colour and latitude comes from studies. Therefore I provided that evidence.

> We've gone from "It must be important if it was worth evolving white skin > over" to "we can't prove that's why we have white skin".

We did evolve white skin to produce vitamin D, the evidence is overwhelming. Just like evidence was overwhelming about smoking causing cancer, even before the 2018 article you linked came out. You seem to be misunderstanding the Wikipedia article. It's not contradicting itself. The correct interpretation is that the need for dark skin at the equators doesn't explain white skin nearer the poles, therefore there must be a different reason for it (vitamin D). That article wikipedia links to can be found on SciHub.

Overall, your approach reminds me of creationists that claim that evolution is "just a theory" because noone has ever proven it in a lab, and correlation is not causation. And tobacco companies who have denied that smoking causes cancer because correlation does not equal causation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Unfortunately, Vitamin D submissions are now in the same systematic group on HN as posts from NY Times, Zettelcasteln, Rust, Haskell,'Greenland is melting', 'Tesla is bound to fail', etc.

I understand that dang cannot stem the tide with the resources at his disposal, and the coming November looms over everything else. Still, one can hope for higher SNR here.

</comment><comment><USER59> Is this about Vitamin D or Vitamin D supplements? We already know taking supplements does not equate to the body actually being able to make use of the vitamin. I'd be interested if this study also discounts Vitamin D produced by the body, or if some extra ingredient is needed to allow the body to benefit from the vitamin.

</comment><comment><USER60> I don't really care what RCT trials show.

I have suffered from bone fractures 3 times, 2 spontaneously, and I was eventually diagnosed with osteomalacia at age 46.

I therefore take Vitamin D and Calcium supplements regularly.

My Z score was -5.0 four years ago, but after taking supplementation and Fosamax for several years, it was raised to -2.0.

</comment><comment><USER42> Thank you again for this, Dr. Boone. This particular article has made me feel a little bit better about taking my moderate dose of D3 every day: I have asthma, have had a flare up or two of eczema, don't want to die of cancer, and don't want to break any bones at an advanced age.

</comment><comment><USER61> I'm still on the fence about this. Until someone from my health care system comes out and states that the research looks good I am not going to eulogise it. Do I take vitamin supplements yes, would I say it produces the affect on covid patents to other people, no.

</comment><comment><USER62> TL;DR: skip to the part "The areas in which meta-analyses have identified benefits from Vitamin D"

Also "Vitamin D failed to prevent cancer, stroke, heart attack, or cardiovascular death. "

Which is fair enough. But at least for the cardiovascular diseases mentioned, I don't think it was expected.

And of course, this _does not mean anything against the role of Vitamin D in Covid prevention_

Basically: don't dismiss X for disease D1 if you tested it with disease D2

<comment><USER13> I find it odd to encourage people to skip what I consider the most important conclusion for most people: "Vitamin D does not appear to prevent disease in healthy adults."

<comment><USER62> 2nd line of my post

Describing it as "prevent disease in healthy adults" means pretty much nothing. Which diseases? Does being Vit D deficient count as healthy? It's an empty statement.

<comment><USER63> Diseases americans are concerned with. You definitely don't even hear about vitamin d in Australia but soon cancer research would easily eclipse it. Can you imagine why?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Is there a study that has measure how much vitamin D a person can get from sunlight within some timeframe/hour of the day/place on earth?

</comment><comment><USER65> If deficiency is linked to all these maladies then why aren't we seeing them occur with less frequency in areas that get full sun year round?

<comment> 0-_-0 Do areas that get full sun year round have people with more vitamin D? Those places have people with darker skin which blocks vitamin D production. Actually, the only reason white people exist in the first place is because of vitamin D, so you would expect vitamin D to have strong positive effects based on this fact alone.

<comment><USER25> > the only reason white people exist in the first place is because of vitamin > D

Is there a study to back up that claim? I haven't seen anything claiming to prove that lighter skin was a definite cause of a need for higher vitamin D levels. In fact, the article would seem to prove this theory wrong. Vitamin D supplementation does not help with much of anything as far as we can tell so far.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> There was also an ancillary study to VITAL that focused on looking at depression & vitamin D3. Here's some good commentary on that study:

[https://peterattiamd.com/randomized-controlled-trials- when-t...](https://peterattiamd.com/randomized-controlled-trials-when-the- gold-standard-leaves-you-with-fools-gold/)

tl;dr Due to the study's flawed design, you can't claim there's no connection between depression and oral vitamin D3 supplementation.

</comment><comment><USER67> Have there been any studies on vitamin d from the sun or lamps and health outcomes?

</comment><comment><USER68> A couple years ago my blood tests showed low Vit D and so I've been taking it twice a week since. I don't know about health but on the two days I take it I seem to have a lot more motivation to get things done and instead of thinking "I should go do X" I find myself just doing it.

</comment><comment><USER69> Every year they issue a winter influenza vaccine instead of making vitamin D pills and artificial sunlight available. Young people never take the winter flu vaccine and are fine.

</comment><comment><USER70> Don't you love it when somebody says "there is no evidence" and never shows you confidence/credible intervals?

</comment><comment> privacy-matters But the lady on Joe Rogan disagrees. I now take 25,000 IUs each day so I won't get coronavirus.

<comment><USER71> Good grief. Please be careful and work with your doctor...

ETA: This is probably sarcasm isn't it?

<comment><USER72> Clearly....</comment></comment></comment>


Termux App will drop Android 5 and 6 support since January 2020 - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/termux/termux-packages/issues/4467 <comment><AUTHOR> And here is discussion on Reddit too.[0]

[0] [https://www.reddit.com/r/termux/comments/dnzdbs/end_of_andro...](https://www.reddit.com/r/termux/comments/dnzdbs/end_of_android56_support_on_20200101/)</comment>


Playability Test of 100 Humble Bundle Games on Linux - <AUTHOR> http://blogg.forteller.net/2016/humble-test/ <comment><USER3> Some of these results are off. Shadow Warrior, Shadowrun Dragonfall and Shadowrun Returns are marked as not working, but they definitely work, I just played them on Linux (with an AMD gpu and the free driver). They even worked really well. It seems the author does not have a dedicated gpu, I doubt those games would run well on windows with that laptop.

Some other game that worked for me and marked red there: Spaz, Jamestown and Crayon Physics (I think, might have been another version).

To start those games in window mode is a good way to mimize potential errors resulting from Fullscreen mode, especially in different OSs, and something that many Indie games also do on Windows.

Linux sure is not a perfect gaming platform yet, but this article paints a darker picture than necessary.

<comment><USER4> That iGPU (HD 4400, 20 EU) is more than enough for most of these games. I guess Intel's Linux driver is more buggy than AMD.

<comment><USER5> My brother's laptop has an Intel HD 4xxx (it might be 4440) and it works perfectly. Intel Linux drivers tend to be good in my experience.

<comment><USER6> My experience is that Intel cards produce more problems with OpenGL. But not related to Linux, same on Windows. Part of the reason might be that it's not so common for 3D developers to work with Intel cards so those are less tested.

<comment><USER7> The other side of the coin is that big name GPU manufacturers spend a lot of time working with game developers to fix issues both with the games and with their own drivers. You often see Day 0 driver updates that coincide with major game releases. This kind of constant test and refinement squashes a lot of bugs over the long term.

Intel doesn't do that. You basically get the driver that they originally wrote for your chip and that's it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Most of those ports are being done by one lone developer named Ryan C. Gordon who runs icculus.org Here's a talk he did about porting games to Linux with SDL 2.0 during a Steam Dev Days event: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeMPCSqQ-34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeMPCSqQ-34) One interesting thing to note is that most of those Linux ports can only be purchased through a Humble Bundle. (Playdead's Limbo is a case in point.) It goes without saying that the grand majority of those ports would have never happened if it weren't for Humble Bundle in the first place.

<comment><USER9> > Playdead's Limbo is a case in point

What do you mean ? Limbo is on Steam for Linux as well... [http://store.steampowered.com/app/48000/](http://store.steampowered.com/app/48000/)

<comment><USER8> I stand corrected. I last checked 2 or 3 years ago when that was not the case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Distributing binaries in Linux is PITA.

Compiling a game staticaly with all dependencies is nontrivial (couldn't get it to work last time I've tried), and if you leave some libraries dynamicaly linked - in a few years it won't work. I made that mistake by using now abandoned libparagui in my game ~10 years ago. It uses old libsdl, which doesn't work with many modern resolutions, and it doesn't even compile on modern GCC without patches.

Every time I install new system and then want to compile it - I spend a few evenings to get it to run...

<comment><USER11> A good example is Unreal Tournament (1999). I don't think it's even possible to get the Linux version to run on a modern install of Ubuntu even if you track down all the 32 bit versions of all the libraries it uses. But using WINE the Windows version just works out of the box.

EDIT: Dropped "Classic". Not sure where that came from.

<comment><USER12> Y'know... I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to UT99 as UT Classic.

<comment><USER11> Hm... you're right. Not sure where I got that from. Most people seem to call it UT99 and personally I used to just call it Unreal Tournament (no qualifier). I don't like putting the year on it because it makes me feel so damn old.

EDIT: Hey, fun fact: there's an upcoming free Unreal Tournament game simply called "Unreal Tournament" and apparently it's being developed somewhat openly: [https://www.epicgames.com/unrealtournament/](https://www.epicgames.com/unrealtournament/) (code is visible on GitHub for Unreal Engine 4 subscribers)

<comment><USER10> I hate it when people do remakes with the same title.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Looking at the results, I don't think installing via deb or snap should be a requirement to make a game "recommendable".

In my experience Linux gamers aren't just Linux users and they're quite happy with tarball files and clicking on a executable. All self-contained and without getting all over the place with an installer. List requirements (if any), and it works.

Personally I don't like installing games as root, because the game developer doesn't have the level of trust that my Linux distributor has earned over the years.

Good effort anyway. It is true that Linux support is usually poor. If the game plays OK with WINE I usually don't bother trying the Linux version.

<comment><USER14> > Personally I don't like installing games as root, because the game developer > doesn't have the level of trust that my Linux distributor has earned over > the years.

Unfortunately, that's probably a holdover from game dev on Windows. In theory, you're supposed to install to Program Files (or Program Files (x86)) and store any user config data in My Documents. But most games just install with full admin privileges, and dump everything in Program Files.

Many modern games are more than just games too, they come with patchers/installers that may require extra permissions, and they also tend to run extra anti cheat softare in the background that require elevated privileges.

<comment><USER15> Few games actually need those admin priveleges: Windows since Vista has a feature called VirtualStore which maps underprivileged writes to Program Files to a location inside AppData (which is also where games and apps should save their non-user-facing runtime files - _not_ in My Documents, which is an annoying antipattern).

Your point about patchers is salient - but I know that, say, Steam puts everything in Program Files and does not run itself or games as admin. Other games like League of Legends and World of Tanks work around the issue by installing outside Program Files.

<comment><USER14> I wasn't aware of Virtual Store, that's actually quite nifty! And I was wrong about My Documents being the preferential place to store it. According to [0] it's AppData, as you say.

I never meant to imply that the elevated features were necessary for the reasons mentioned, but it's _why_ it happens. In general, a company publishing a game isn't going to put it's top engineers on writing the installer. Those engineers will be fixing engine bugs or perf upgrades or have moved on to the next project by the time that point comes around, so chances are the installers are written by not necessarily the best people for it, which exacerbates the issue.

Finally, it doesn't help that gamers are conditioned to granting admin priveleges to their games and installers.

[0] [https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/patricka/2010/03/18/where-s...](https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/patricka/2010/03/18/where- should-i-store-my-data-and-configuration-files-if-i-target-multiple-os- versions/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Regardless of whether my own experience agrees with the author (some of the games he had trouble with I could run more or less trouble-free), I definitely approve independent reviews of playability/ease of installation.

I mostly only buy games on Humble Bundle, GOG or Steam now, with emphasis on the first two because they are less invasive than Steam. I sometimes have to deal with 32 bit libraries or problems with the default installation; it's no big deal for me, but I can see it's a problem for non-power users (then again, some drivers used to cause problems for Windows games a few years ago, I don't know what the situation is now. Didn't console gamers use to argue that they were better than _Windows_ games because of this?).

The positive side is that I can play hundreds of games, some AAA, on Linux. The situation is not dire anymore, in my experience. The downside is that sometimes the games require some tweaking to install or play. Occasionally there's a game I cannot play at all (e.g. I bought but cannot play the Linux remaster of Day of the Tentacle: my dedicated GPU is fried, and the game simply doesn't run on Ubuntu 14.04 with integrated Intel graphics. Go figure).

Again, I approve of this effort to review the difficulties involved. It's helpful to Linux gamers!

</comment><comment><USER17> Side note: It's a lot less painful with Steam.

graphics drivers sometimes are a problem, depending on your hardware setup. But if it works it works smoothly.

<comment><USER11> I have an nvidia card because I naively thought having a proper graphics card would be an advantage. I have to run Steam from the shell with an LD_LIBRARY_PATH env to make it work at all.

A recent steam update for no apparent reason moved the steam folder so I had to manually move my steamapps (i.e. installed games) to the new location. Then I upgraded to Ubuntu 16.04 and Steam wouldn't work anymore at all, so I had to reinstall it using steamcmd (because the regular installer did nothing).

Oh, and some games still cause trouble: Wasteland 2 won't launch if I have Google Chrome open. It's a known issue although it sounds completely made up.

It's less painful but it's certainly not foolproof at any level comparable to the experience on Windows.

<comment><USER18> That really doesn't sound right. I have an Nvidia card, too. It works flawless without any workarounds..

Also.. the Steamupdate did not move the steam folder.. There are two versions of Steam. The one from the Steam website and the one from Ubuntu. They have different app folder locations. You probably switched one with the other.

<comment><USER11> Oh, fun. AFAICT I now have three versions of Steam installed.

And I can't even start Steam when I'm not using the nvidia card (and to switch cards I have to log out from Ubuntu and log back in).

Maybe this is just the result of me being an idiot, but either way this proves Steam on Linux does not pass the idiot test either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Results at [https://docs.zoho.com/sheet/published.do?rid=nc4und89223056a...](https://docs.zoho.com/sheet/published.do?rid=nc4und89223056a4745c0adeb0002b7fb3325) (the embed didn't show in my browser)

<comment><USER19> This page has a poor layout to be showing a spreadsheet in anyway - half the horizontal width is taken up by a big static title/header element.

<comment><USER20> I call this "the other UX" pattern: Useless Experience

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I really think this is an awesome effort. I have completely different results, though. Many of the games listed were played recently on my machine and all worked and installed fine.

My machine has Ubuntu 16.04 64bit with 16gigs of RAM and an nvidia 750ti card.

Just for fun I downloaded Aquaria. I tried the mojo installer, which worked without any problems. I tried the 32bit deb and had no problems, either. The 64bit deb is just the 32bit binaries with an additional ia32-dependency. Since Ubuntu is multiarch now, that won't work.

These packages should be removed by humble to avoid confusion.

EDIT: So far I haven't been able to find a single game on the list, that doesn't work.

</comment><comment><USER21> The key here is that games on Windows don't target the NT Kernel, they target Windows 7, or Windows 8.1 or Windows 10, which are full distributions.

To have any reasonable chance that this will work, you have to target Ubuntu 16.04, or CentOS 7, not just any random Linux distribution.

<comment><USER22> But the thing is that a game targeting Windows XP or even Windows 98 still has a good chance of running on Windows 10. On the Linux side, good luck getting binaries made for Ubuntu 14.04 run on Ubuntu 16.04.

<comment><USER23> Interesting relevant tidbit by Linus Torvalds himself about the packaging and distribution of Linux "desktop apps".

Basically, Linus has made a desktop app, and the website distributes binaries for Windows and OS X, but not for Linux. Link goes to 4:50, relevant rant starts at around 5:58 :)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmHRSeA2c8&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmHRSeA2c8&feature=youtu.be&t=290)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is awesome work! I am extremely pleased to see someone do some QA - <USER2> the devs and the humble team obviously aren't doing any.

Also, if you think this is bad you should see their Android games. For example the extremely high profile Android game Desktop Dungeons crashes at start (this is 100% reproducable on Google reference devices) and has been like this since the bundle was sold over a year ago. The bug thread for the game is 300 pages long still the game has not received a single update from humble bundle.

 _Humble Bundle is not a charity anymore, it is a scam._

<comment><USER25> Why should Humble Bundle do QA? do you expect gamestop to do QA also?

They rely on what the developer/publisher tells them, if they say it runs on Linux Humble Bundle classifies it as a Linux title.

<comment><USER26> Because they sell you the game?

If you go to a store, buy a lamp, and it doesn't work, can they just say "our supplier said it works"?

<comment><USER25> If something doesn't work you can return it in the case of some of the bundles it might be a bit more problematic since you aren't buying a single product but a bundle and you can pay as little as like 0.01$ for it:

Not a single store verifies any product to be functional prior to selling it, if you have a problem they'll exchange it or refund you, if they have a problematic product which simply does not work they will usually stop selling it (it's not worth dealing with angry customers) and contact the supplier to figure out what's going on.

So I don't know what expectations you have when you go to a store but when I buy a lamp while I do have a general expectation for it to work I don't blame the store for not verifying that it does before selling it to me.

<comment><USER27> > _Not a single store verifies any product to be functional prior to selling > it_

Bullion stores do. Also, stores that also make the product themselves do, from handmade crafts to factory outlets...

<comment><USER25> You are being pedantic without reason you understood pretty darn well what I meant.

<comment><USER27> Plenty of stores verify things before selling to you. Mobile phone stores will usually make sure that the thing works with the sim in it before handing it over, and will often transfer stuff across from your other phone for you. Similarly, plenty of higher end stores test things out before they stock them. A simple example is a restaurant with a curated wine list. Likewise, used car dealers will usually give a vehicle the once-over before selling it on.

I knew what you were getting at (just like you know what the parent was getting at), but it's not really pedantry to counter a gross oversimplification.

<comment><USER25> Are we now comparing brick and mortar retailers to car dealerships and restaurants? A curated wine list is an expert "advice" I don't expect the guy at the sports store to have tested every running shoe on display when I ask for recommendations.

Car dealerships that sell used cars are effectively responsible for them they not only test drive each car but they do a complete checkup because it's mandated.

As for mobile stores they don't do that to ensure that the phone is working, they do that because they assume most people are too stupid to activate the sim which means they'll come back, and they do a contact/data migration again as a service it has nothing to do with ensuring that the product works.

I can step in buy a packaged PAG phone pay and walk out without anyone testing that it works and you very well know this.

There is no gross oversimplification the truth of the matter is that like it or not 99% of the products you buy of the shelf are never tested by any retailer that stocks them, are there exceptions? sure but these are again exceptions.

I don't expect Gamestop to do curation for me, I don't expect Humble Bundle to do it either.

Not to mention that again every game on that list as far as I can tell runs on Linux (including games that he said do not) he doesn't recommend almost any of those games but that's his opinion. Humble does not sell you an experience, it does tell you that the game will run the fact that he tried to run games on a system that does not meet the minimum requirements which are stated on both the Humble Store, the Steam product page and the vendor website is well his fault. And Humble never argued that playing the game on Linux or even installing it will be an easy, pleasant or consistent experience, no Linux experience is truly easy or consistent the ecosystem is fragmented to hell as for pleasant well that's a subjective opinion some people like to have to recompile the kernel to make their wifi cards work some don't.

When you buy software there are 2 general expectation 1) is that you have a system that meets the software and hardware requirements and 2) that you are generally capable of operating and managing software on the operating system it runs on. He failed to verify point #1 on quite a few titles, infact I am surprised that some titles that should not work on the Intel GPU actually did run (Intel probably have improved their OpenGL minidriver since then) and 2) understanding that running applications on Linux will required ensuring compatibility with dependencies (which may break other applications) and being familiar with the Linux command line and operating system including compiling packages and managing permissions.

I don't fault him at all, and I agree that I would not recommend any of those titles on Linux to anyone who's wants to play, infact if you wish to play games I would not recommend Linux at all not even SteamOS. But that said none of those games are inherently so broken that they will not install or run on Linux if all the hardware and software requirements are met.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> These results are from Ubuntu, which afaik is pretty close to best-case scenario for gaming. It'd be interesting to see similar test done on e.g. Fedora or Arch. It also will be interesting to see how well these games will continue to run in future. My guess is that they will eventually bit-rot and we'll end up using ancient versions of Ubuntu in containers to run the games.

I hope that Snappy/Flatpak/etc would make the situation better once the landscape settles down a bit. The idea behind them seems good enough, and I think this post validates their raison d'être which I have seen people question.

<comment><USER29> I've played the HB Linux versions of Jamestown, Night Sky, VVVVVV, Voxatron, Super Meat Boy, Bit.Trip.Runner, and FTL with no issues on 64-bit Arch, using a 2011 Thinkpad x120e, with zero problems. I remember being disappointed that Crayon Physics and Shank didn't work. The other games in those bundles either didn't work or I wasn't interested enough to try them. (My bar is pretty high as I can't spend a whole lot of time gaming.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Two games from Humble Bundle that are not on the list and I recommend (and have played on Linux): World of Goo and Crayon Physics Deluxe

<comment><USER31> I see CPD on there. If WoG works, then agreed, highly recommended

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Thanks for the effort. I have a Clevo W650RC running Ubuntu 16, almost the same hardware as the author but with an extra gtx950m gpu. I own 4-5 Humble bundles and claimed all Steam keys, which makes installing those games, installable, playable and therefore recommendable. Sometimes I would run with the Intel gpu, and most of the games still ( I am pretty sure all of them) run, but of course much slower. I also bought an Steam controller and really like the setup, most games would pick up the button mapping. The only thing which sucks donkey balls at the moment is tearing under Nvidia + Linux, either in videos games, browser etc..- Also I want to add, that I own Serious Sam 3, Tomb Raider and Shadow Warrior, and I must say that the ports of these games is just top notch.

</comment><comment><USER33> SpaceChem, Spaz, and Jamestown all worked fine for me back when I was running way lower specs than he was. Actually, all of the Humble games did, save Psychonauts, because my machine wasn't powerful enough to run it. Yes, it was that bad.

</comment><comment><USER34> I'd like an explanation of the recommendable column

<comment><USER35> From the document:

"Anyone should be able to use the games they buy, no matter their technical provess.

That means it has to install via deb or snap, register in the OS menu and package manager and run without any issues."

<comment><USER7> This skirts a little too close to "2016 Doom doesn't run on my computer (A 12 year old Core Solo with first generation Intel graphics), don't give me a bunch of technical mumbo jumbo, I want to play it now!"

Also, if you want super easy game installs, use Steam. Either suck it up and accept the DRM or teach yourself enough Linux to understand how to deal with all of the myriad weird game installers.

It's not like the Windows versions are any better on the DRM front.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Wine has gotten so good that it's almost not worth bothering trying to run native Linux versions of games.

<comment><USER36> Yes, it has suffered major improvements, but it still doesn't run everything. Also, online games with frequent updates, break often.

Just my personal experience.

<comment><USER19> > suffered major improvements

I think I'm going to start using this phrase</comment></comment></comment>


Compiler autism - <AUTHOR> http://www.scriptcrafty.com/compiler-autism/ <comment><USER2> Sounds like the author's been using the wrong programming language or doesn't understand at all the purpose of static typing.</comment>


OpenStreetMap Foundation silently sides with Russia? - <AUTHOR> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-November/081683.html <comment><USER2> It's worth digging a bit into the discussion, there are many interesting points and examples brought up.

But the thread starter is pure outrage.

</comment><comment><USER3> This post is from 20 Nov. The situation is evolving and the OSMF board is looking into it and looks like it has overrules that working group.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, and that is why OpenStreetMap _reversed DWG decision on Crimea complaint_ on December 10, 2018[0]

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18662259](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18662259)</comment></comment>


Data-Driven Venture Capital | Matt Turck - <AUTHOR> http://geekli.st/rekatz/links/3797

<comment><USER2> Submit the original article, not blogspam.

From the guidelines:

"Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the latter."</comment>


Need a UI/UX designer/front-end developer contrator immediately - <AUTHOR>

We, a Petaluma enterprise SaaS for the wine industry, are looking for a UI/UX designer who has immediate availability. Our current partner has put us in a pretty bad place just prior to our beta launch. Our app. is built in RoR, so it would be great if you know RoR well. But more important is that you know current HTML/CSS standards and are very familiar with the ins and outs of JQuery. We're looking for someone who can start immediately and has a fair amount of bandwidth. If this short project goes well, there is the opportunity for a lot more work. If you're interested, please contact me ASAP with your hourly rate, availability, and online samples of your work.<p>Best, Chris Cofounder, Brixmark <comment><AUTHOR> Feel free to contact me at email@example.com</comment>


D online tour - <AUTHOR> http://tour.dlang.org/ <comment><USER2> I picked up _The D Programming Language_ on a whim---having not written a line of the language---and found myself reading it straight through in couple of evenings. It's a really clear, insightful, and funny book about the language's design. Since then I've been doing all my hobby projects in D. The language is really fun to code in, mixing really powerful constructs with nice syntax/good ergonomics.

Nice to see this, a relatively complete intro/tutorial to the language for newcomers to explore.

</comment><comment><USER3> Last page of the tour is distractingly entitled "Let's Go!" :) Lowercase "go" would probably be better

</comment><comment><USER4> I think it's time to learn some D :)</comment>


6.824 Lab 1: MapReduce - <AUTHOR> http://css.csail.mit.edu/6.824/2014/labs/lab-1.html <comment><USER2> Very interesting development - this is essentially writing an AppMaster (as in YARN apps) for MapReduce, but in Go.

I've been playing with writing custom MR (style) streaming apps in Go & finding that the go-routine impl fits neatly into long chains of map/reduce/filter pipes.

[https://github.com/hortonworks/gohadoop](https://github.com/hortonworks/gohadoop)

I'm mostly missing a proper HDFS implementation and a proper distributed RPC model (fork of the JNI wrapped libhdfs works, but is single threaded & synchronous).

In good time, I hope - perhaps I get it in by Feb :)</comment>


Ask HN: Whats the best way to keep track of your "to-do's" w/ your co-founder? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Since I'm obsessed with tools, I've tried all of these: Basecamp TODOs, Google Spreadsheet, Lighthouse, Trac, Pivotal Tracker, GitHub Issues. I find Pivotal Tracker and Lighthouse to work best.

Basecamp TODOs quickly pile up and become unmanageable as ideas keep pouring in.

I hate Trac just because of its design and less-than-perfect attention to detail.

Spreadsheet is very limited when it comes to commenting, and does not allow to view tasks using different groupings/filters without interfering with others.

Lighthouse just feels better than GitHub Issues as a traditional bug tracker. I'd say it is the best place to store the 1000s of ideas you will have.

Pivotal Tracker is probably best if you're working stably, nearly full-time. I haven't been fortunate enough to work on my own projects full time so far, and the planning thing really breaks down when week-to-week progress is overly unpredictable.

Personally, I'd recommend to stick with Lighthouse.

</comment><comment><USER3> What kind of tracker do you want? You could start a Redmine/Bugzilla server, or you could write one-word "to-do's" on a whiteboard. There's a lot of work to be done, and one mechanism will not solve all your needs.

For something in the middle, I've found that a shared Google spreadsheet with status, priority, due date, title, and description columns gets the job done with near-zero overhead. Too much effort is wasted on learning/paying for/managing more complex todo lists.

A simple spreadsheet can also be useful to individuals. On that note, do either or both of you have a tool you like for individual use?

</comment><comment><USER4> Currently, Google Spreadsheet and Lazy Meter are working best for me.

I use Google Spreadsheets to share "to do's" with my co-founder. We have a column for priorities and my co founder set it up such that items are colored coded according to priority level.

And I recently started using lazy meter for my day to day to do list. I try to put down at least 5 to do's at the start of the day and try to get though them. This has been working well for me.

</comment><comment><USER5> <http://www.6wunderkinder.com/wunderlist/> and 1-X shared lists.

<comment><USER6> I like this, but it's sometimes victim to Google's capricious Market compatibility algorithm.

Also, try an in-house wiki. It lacks window dressing, but it's a pretty solid tool for collaboration.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> try <https://workflowy.com/>

</comment><comment><USER8> Maybe I'm old-school, but Notepad + Dropbox works fine.

</comment><comment><USER9> keep a tiddlywiki in a shared dropbox folder.</comment>


Ask HN - Anyone working in thinktanks?   - <AUTHOR>

Working in thinktanks/policy related jobs? Something that has significant positive impact on society?  If yes, could you tell us what kind of work it is, and how can one go about getting such a job?  It doesn't need to be a coding job, but if it involves coding, that's great too. <comment><USER2> If you're still a student, a great way to get to know them is to attend the various events they organize. Many of the thinktanks I've been involved in hold events that allow students to attend for free, or at a really low cost. It's great networking (everyone else is paying quite a bit to be there) and you get to know the thinktank staff as well.

Volunteering could also be a good way to do things. Many of the people I know in political parties, NGOs, etc. know people working in thinktanks as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not a student, and can't pay tons of money to attend either. That leaves volunteering as the only option. I'd be more than happy if I can find a good organization to volunteer with. Do you know of any?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I am afraid I can't answer your question.

But I would be cautious about wanting to work in the world of thinktanks and policy institutes. Thinktanks, like policy makers, are influenced heavily by the ideology of the donors who support them.

One way you could make a significant, positive impact on society (without compromising your conscience, I hope!) is to volunteer at your local homeless shelter.

Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> I understand your point. I do spend some time volunteering - but I'd like to work for a thinktank, at least for a while. It would be a good experience, assuming it is an impartial organization. Thank you for your answer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My first job out of school was at a thinktank. Spent a lot of time in those circles. (Defense, security, energy etc.)

It's a terrible place to actually accomplish anything. Donors exchange money (tax benefits) for furthering ideology. The metric of success is that. Not impact on society.

I got more done as a consultant than as an analyst at a think tank.

To actually do something, consider NGOs like Ushahidi.

</comment><comment><USER5> I interned some years ago at the IHMC in Florida, and am currently working in a federally sponsored HIE workgroup. Both cases, it boiled do to who I knew, and I worked my butt off for the first few weeks getting up to speed.

Do you have a specific industry, or cause?

<comment><AUTHOR> Environment, animals would be my first choice</comment></comment>


Licorize beta 1: Get links done - <AUTHOR> http://licorize.com?beta1

<comment><USER2> I started an account here and have had it open in my browser for about two weeks, waiting to dive in. But there's an awful lot of buttons and I still don't really understand how the website works.

<comment><USER3> Recording an instructional video right now ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The concept is great, the design is beautiful and it looks like a lot of thought and work has gone in to. A couple of things that make me take a step back are, like crux mentioned, a lot of buttons. I feel overwhelmed at the get go. If I'm bookmarking, I want to do it clean and fast. The second thing is just the mass integration of tools, almost as if its not so much bookmarking but more project management. Otherwise its great and I'm sure many people will use it.

<comment><USER3> Thanks. If you bookmark with the booklet (or plugin, or extension) you don't have that many buttons; actually, if you use "remindMeLater", you don't even get to see the Licorize interface. Or I didn't understand you?

For the project management... yes, we think that in some cases bookmarking is a relevant part of work ,and hence also for management.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> <nit> Sign-up page username field. When I tab out of the field, I get the message of "This username is still available", ok, good to know, but I think it would be better if you only chimed in in case of an error. My first reaction before I squinted at my monitor to read the small text, was, uh-oh an error message. </nit>

look forward to playing with this. I have a lot of workflow oriented around bookmarking.

<comment><USER3> Good point. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> really like it. i've wanted to do something like this myself for quite a while. one suggestion: your default avatars are going to alienate many non- techies ("what does that weird green and white pattern mean?"). IMHO, you'd be much better off going with a single default avatar that resembles a human (as facebook did).

i can promise you that if i showed your interface to my non-techie friends getting non-techie PhDs (a small but good market), they'd be freaked out by them. They are also distracting given the color palette of your interface.

i guess one final piece of feedback... perhaps lose the idea of a "strip" and call it something else. people don't like to learn new concepts :-)

don't mean to nitpick -- it really is a great launch product. congratulations on your beta!

<comment><USER3> Yes, definitively right, the human avatar would be much better. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sounds a bit like Pearltrees. I'm likely going to add similar functionality to quippd as well at some point, but this looks very nice -- very sexy UI.

</comment><comment><USER8> Great idea. The Safari Extension is very useful and is one of the few to have been published in the Apple Gallery.

<comment><USER9> Is also developing the client for iOS devices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> watched your video to see if this was something i'd want to use, still have no clue! show a useage case in the video please, not just a bunch of pretty words about the service.

<comment><USER11> I signed up for it and started playing around, I still have no idea what it is. I just want to echo the sentiments as I have a feeling this might be a common issue.

The site is gorgeous though.

<comment><USER3> Thanks. For people that have some resistance towards "just try it", we're recording a more feature-oriented video.

We believe this is a really "new thing", so we are trying to avoid forcing an already known interpretation in simplistic terms on the home page, though the standard texts in marketing all say so.

<comment><USER12> I'll give a "me too" for not understanding what to do when I got to the site. You should keep in mind the 2 min test - If I can't understand how it works before that, I'll move on.

It looks great, but IMHO, you should consider simplifying.

Edit: Forgot to say +1 for the idea, it looks like it could make my bookmarking useful again. Save me from delicious!

<comment><USER3> There is one typical Delicious feature that we don't support yet as we'd like to, which is exposing bookmark collections through simple URLs. The simple URL's are there, but we want to present the contents as "booklets", a bit like Flipboard navigation - we hope by next week to add a working version of public URLs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I can't get the bookmarklet to work in IE8. Any suggestions?

<comment><USER3> Working to fix it. Thanks. (Works in Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> your sign-up email has a confirm link. It doesn't show up as a link in my email. I had to do a copy/paste.

<comment><USER3> Could you tell me which e-mail client are you using? We are sending an HTML e-mail. Thanks

<comment><USER5> it was Thunderbird 3.0.7 on linux

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> looks beautiful and cool idea - will try it

</comment><comment><USER15> sounds interesting, i'm gonna try it

</comment><comment><USER16> "Watch the video..."

The video doesn't tell me anything. I cannot hear it. Captions would be nice.

Screenshots and text would be easier to do, and be just as informative. Keep the video, by all means, but don't assume video/audio is the only thing you should support.

Apparently it's a to-do manager. And takes bookmarks and Linked In pages (?) for Projects. Not entirely sure what this means. I guess bookmark sharing?

So... you share a bunk of bookmarks, and people have to "read them".

Screenshot I can't click on.

Use case: "You know I was doing some research about this marketing stuff, and I wanted to collect and share these bookmarks – I used this bookmarking tool, but then … my bookmarks are part of a more general idea, of a project, that is made not only of bookmarks – also of ideas, to-dos, notes… "

What? That makes no sense.

"It is a new and different way to share work."

Hrm, that actually makes some sense. Much better then "For the web worker tribe" whatever that means.

Oh, hey, killerstartups.com does a better job of explaining what this is all about.

So, in essence, I'm still not sure what you are offering besides a way to share bookmarks. Maybe the video explains it. The video I can't hear.

<comment><USER3> We are uploading a new HD version of the video - something went wrong on the first attempt, I agree the sound is bad!

<comment><USER16> Sorry, I wasn't precise. I cannot hear the audio. It's not that it's bad, it's that I have no way of hearing it. =)

Having video is fine. It's awesome. Just replicate in other ways. Screenshots and use cases would be great.

=)

<comment><USER3> Oh sorry - didn't get it. We are thinking about how to solve this - we are exploring the subtitling options. Thanks a lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Nice the web thumbnails.. can't find the iphone client.

<comment><USER3> That's not released yet. But we just released Evernote integration - so that is a path from any mobile client.</comment></comment>