Uptime 15,364 days – The Computers of Voyager [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H62hZJVqs2o <comment><USER2> > _Uptime 15,364 days_

Is the uptime really technically true? Sure, the Voyager has been operating for 40+ years, but all embedded systems must have watchdog timers. And given how hostile the space environment is, I'll be surprised if the main system hasn't been reset by a watchdog timer for a couple of times to recover from fault conditions, thus the actual uptime must be much less than that.

<comment><USER3> Isn't this splitting hairs? The real achievement it seems to me is continuous operation within spec. The watchdog timers (whatever they are) are part of the design that enabled this. I don't think it lessens the achievement at all.

<comment><USER2> > _I don 't think it lessens the achievement at all._

I was _not_ implying that "the fact that the system has been rebooted lessens the achievement", I said none of it. I was just wondering about details of the system and technical accuracy of the statement, isn't it the point of posting on HN?

Running a probe for 15,364 days without even a single bit flip or poweroff would be an extraordinary miracle that exceeded all reasonable expectations, not simply the grestest accomplishment.

Please don't assume that every technical statements/questions imply undervaluation, criticism or attack, regardless of how common they are in tech.

Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wonder what the 'safest' uptime possible is today, for a computer connected to the internet? e.g. what's the oldest linux kernel that has no known remote attacks (not just remote exploits but DOS weaknesses too) ?

To make it more difficult, what would be the safest uptime for a box that allowed remote logins? SSH flaws don't count, since you can always upgrade that on the fly, but kernel-level privilege escalation weaknesses would count as critical.

<comment><USER5> Why would you limit yourself to Linux: it has a very large "surface" area so new vulnerabilities are found all the time. It has the benefit of large number of eyes on it, so gets patched quickly (and can be live-patched for most part), but it's not a good candidate for super-long uptime.

I would imagine something small and stripped down serving a particular purpose would fare better. And OpenBSD prides itself in security for general purpose computing, but it still gets regular security fixes.

<comment><USER6> Don't look into BSD, you gotta look at mainframes. Some of the mainframes at banks have been running since they bought the very first one in the 90s or even 80s. Since stuff like VMS allowed to simply clustering, you could simply add modern machines, transfer over and shutdown the old hardware without having to shutdown the system itself. These are probably the only machines with a chance to reach 30+ years of uptime.

<comment><USER7> Many if not all of these mainframes have been fully upgraded or at least serviced due to hardware failure while still running.

I'm not entirely sure how you define uptime for these machines if none of the original parts are still there.

<comment><USER8> Philosophers ask a similar question to yours: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus)

<comment><USER7> I was hinting at that, which is why we should define an uptime of a system rather than a machine because with distributed systems that uptime of the system isn't dependent on the uptime of a single "machine" and a mainframe is a distributed system even if it's in a single rack.

The question is then where you define the boundaries of a system and it's uptime. At least from my recollection for mainframes they defined uptime based on the execution of batch jobs and availability of services not the OS/Hardware which if it crashed often involved Big Blue coming to investigate WTF happened and how it happened since System Z machines are designed with so much redundancy that you can swam RAM modules without interrupting the workflow.

Today with RAIM (RAID for Memory) IBM System Z machines even support an entire memory channel dying without interruption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> That says something about the hardware more than about the software, IMO.

In a smallish embedded system there are not too many (software) difficulties in keeping the software running virtually forever.

Getting the hardware to keep running without any fault for 42 years, on the other hand...

<comment><USER10> One of the main things I remember about these old CCSs is the low level hardware redundancy:

> The Viking CCS had two of everything: power supplies, processors, buffers, > inputs, and outputs. Each element of the CCS was cross strapped which > allowed for "single fault tolerance" redundancy so that if one part of one > CCS failed, it could make use of the remaining operational one in the other. > [1]

Modern systems like that of curiosity rover also use hardware redundancy, (triple redundancy even), but I believe this happens at a much higher level, i.e whole computer.

[1] [https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/voyager-mission- annive...](https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/voyager-mission-anniversary- computers-command-data-attitude-control/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is there somewhere leader board for uptime? I found subreddit on topic [https://www.reddit.com/r/uptimeporn/](https://www.reddit.com/r/uptimeporn/)

<comment><USER12> In that subredit there are usually a lot of reports from network devices. Achieve a large uptime in a server in which the people do things all day, it's difficult.

<comment><USER13> Being proud of not having patched a network device for 15 years is a great way to get in contact with security and HR at my company. I can't imagine thinking it's a great thing to go and brag about on the internet lol, different worlds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Great video! My only nitpick was when Aaron said the camera resolution (800x800) was 640 MEGAPIXELS. I can understand why he misspoke. Everybody today uses megapixels as the measure of pixel density, but back in the mid 1970's, digital cameras did not yet exist and the resolution of the onboard image orthicon tube was actually just 640 KILOPIXELS.

</comment><comment><USER15> Does anyone have any good resources on how to design systems like these? I find the idea of computers that have to work for decades, be autonomous and self reparing really exciting.

</comment><comment><USER16> That's around 12 years more uptime than I have - impressive!

<comment><USER17> Don't you reboot every night? :)

<comment><USER18> Pffft and lose all my tabs!

Seriously, at this point I have multiple browsers open, multiple tabs, multiple programs split over multiple desktops with my workflows.

But more seriously an encrypted drive that has a lot of data on it that I've forgotten the password for, and can't remember the system I used to encrypt it / set it up, and figuring out how to change it is always pushed to future LandRs problem. A restart and I'm screwed!

I'd basically just give up and go live in the woods.

<comment><USER4> I know that feeling. I've got an old mac mini in a remote server room, with limited on-site access. It's been up for 2.5 years, going through various ubuntu releases and upgrades. I'm afraid to reboot it because it initially had a strange boot setup, and there's been enough changes now that I'm not sure it'll come back up. So I keep delaying the inevitable, and hope it'll last until I need to get a new machine :)

<comment><USER19> There are companies in that situation too. They live in perpetual fear of power failure or hardware crashes. It's exactly the sort of thing we're on the lookout for during technical due diligence. Anything that you are afraid of rebooting is a risk that needs mitigation while the system is still up and running.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." -Donald Knuth

<comment><USER21> I strongly dislike that his words are always distorted by taking out of context this small segment of what he said.

"We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil. Yet we should not pass up our opportunities in that critical 3%. A good programmer will not be lulled into complacency by such reasoning, he will be wise to look carefully at the critical code; but only after that code has been identified. It is often a mistake to make a priori judgments about what parts of a program are really critical, since the universal experience of programmers who have been using measurement tools has been that their intuitive guesses fail." \- Donald Knuth

<comment><USER22> To be honest, I don't think taking the sentence out of context distorts much. This quote (which I see in full length for the first time) pretty much says how I always understood the shorter version.

It's not "optimization is root of all evil". The key is "premature optimization". Maybe people gloss over that part, but it is right there.

Yes, Knuth goes into more detail on what he considers premature optimization in the context of programming computers. However the short sentence applies much more broadly in my experience.

For example, "premature optimization" of BOM costs in a hardware project can cost you dearly down the road when it turns out that leaving in some extra flexibility in the design would be mighty useful.

<comment><USER23> Also, of course there are always exceptions to a platitude. I don't think we need to couch every single statement we ever make with "...but there are exceptions, of course!" which is basically what Knuth goes on to belabor.

<comment><USER24> More like such platitudes are nearly devoid of meaning:

Premature X is bad.

Overusing X is bad.

These are true for most X. If it's not bad, then you didn't do it prematurely or overuse it!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Vaping Is big tobacco's bait and switch - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/opinion/editorials/vaping-ecigarettes-nicotine-safe.html <comment><USER2> All advertising of tobacco products has been banned outright for some time in my country, Australia.

Even cigarette packets on a shelf behind a shopkeeper must not be identifiable in any way, and be behind a closed door. And all brands look exactly the same except for small lettering of the product's name (in the same font for everyone).

They all look like this;

[https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/29360d2ce7cffa390ad072b2...](https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/29360d2ce7cffa390ad072b2c248cb14?width=650)

Just grey packets with a confronting image of disease.

But it's the cost that has had the most dramatic effect on smoking rates. Particularly with younger people. A single packet of 25 cigarettes costs something like $35-$40 (@$25US) in Australia now. Teenagers just cant afford to start smoking anymore.

[https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/wp- content/uploads/2013/09/...](https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/wp- content/uploads/2013/09/teenage-smoking-1984-2008-LIGHT.png)

<comment> frosted-flakes How common are contraband cigarettes, or roll-your-owns? I know that here in Canada, many people get their cigarettes by the carton from the nearest native reservation, who can produce them for their own use or are exempt from the rules (I don't know which).

<comment><USER2> All tobacco sales are heavily regulated and taxed. The taxation amount increases each year until 2030 (i think).

It used to be possible to buy them duty-free if you were traveling internationally, but that loophole was closed too. An individual can only bring a max. of 200 individual cigarettes, into the country now without paying the Australian taxes.

I was a smoker, and I looked into roll-your-owns as an option to save on the rising costs, but it was a negligible difference. Gram for gram it was a tiny difference between purchasing loose pouch tobacco and pre-made cigarettes.

It is also illegal for anyone to cultivate it in any amount without a government license, and the penalties are very harsh.

There is apparently a black-market for unprocessed tobacco (known colloquially as chop-chop) but I haven't ever come across it. It is much easier to buy weed, which is still outright illegal here.

[https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/pae75k/we-asked-a- tobacco...](https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/pae75k/we-asked-a-tobacco- farmer-if-growing-your-own-chop-chop-is-worth-it)

For some idea of the crazy high prices; [https://www.cigars.com.au/products/cigarettes](https://www.cigars.com.au/products/cigarettes)

<comment><USER3> The UK cigs seem very reasonable, even low. $10.75 AUD is $7.57 USD, which while not as low as you'll find in the south for example, but for cigs in major cities on the coasts these days it's not crazy.

<comment><USER4> Do they contain any actual tobacco or are they "herbal"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Personal experience:

1\. Smoked in college in earnest.

2\. Started quitting after college with great difficulty.

3\. Failed to quit for more than ~6 months at a go for a decade and half.

4\. Started smoking e-cigs / vape last year (the liquid kind).

5\. Quit vaping AND smoking months ago WITHOUT EVEN TRYING.

There was a pleasure loop hard-wired in my brain from smoking that I could ignore but would always win if 1) I was exceptionally stressed out or 2) I was drunk.

Without any difficulty whatsoever and without a conscious effort to do so, vaping somehow de-programmed that loop. My desire to smoke anything just disappeared. Stress and alcohol cause zero cravings now.

Further:

1\. I don't recommend smoking. Risks far outweigh the benefits.

2\. I don't recommend vaping unless you already smoke cigarettes and want to quit.

3\. YMMV.

<comment><USER6> Juuls have been great for me. Been smoking a pack every 2-3 days for the last 2 years. I tried vaping but it gave me a headache for whatever reason. Tried juul recently and I went without smoking for a few weeks. Improved my breathing a whole lot. Unfortunately I am using both juul and cigarettes now, but I am smoking a pack every two weeks or so since I am okay going days without smoking, which is a big improvement.

<comment><USER7> I vaped and smoked for six months. Its not a race or competition -- just so long as your trajectory is toward quitting tobacco, you're succeeding.

Keep up the pace!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So are newspaper headlines. Big tobacco didn't create e-cigs and in my experience quitting e-cigs was easy, but cigarettes nearly impossible. Maybe it was all about the additives, but I guess no one is sure yet: [https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_l...](https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/tobacco/en/index.htm#5)

Also, if e-cigs turn out to be safe, or can be made safe, what is the problem? Just a bunch of puritan's with their underwear in a knot.

<comment><USER9> "if e-cigs turn out to be safe, or can be made safe, what is the problem?"

This is weasle-wording.

"Just a bunch of puritan's with their underwear in a knot."

Reframing the debate in moralistic terms is not useful here. It's a public health issue, plain and simple. If there is research that you are privy to that shows nicotine to be harmless, please share it with us; don't keep it to yourself.

<comment><USER10> >Reframing the debate in moralistic terms is not useful here. It's a public health issue, plain and simple.

Of course it is a moral debate. Sure its not healthy, but shouldnt people be allowed to use it regardless if they decide to do so? It only becomes a public health issue once people who dont smoke are effected, which is why we got bans to smoke in certain places and not a ban on smoking in general.

<comment><USER11> 1) In countries with public heath system, people who don't smoke are also affected when the government has to subside treatment for smoking related diseases.

2) Smoking impacts on individual productivity which directly impacts on economy:

> Current smokers missed more days of work and experienced more unproductive > time at work compared with former smokers and nonsmokers. The average annual > cost for lost productivity for nonsmokers was 2623 dollars/year compared > with 3246 dollars/year for former smokers and 4430 dollars/year for current > smokers. More than half the costs were due to unproductive time at work. > [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17033509](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17033509)

3) Tobacco smoking is the cause of many preventable diseases and premature deaths in the UK and around the world. It poses enormous health- and non- health-related costs to the affected individuals, employers, and the society at large. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that, globally, smoking causes over US$500 billion in economic damage each year: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4502793/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4502793/)

Dismissing discussions about impacts of smoking as moralistic is borderline disingenuous in face of the numerous studies freely available on the internet.

<comment><USER10> You dont get what I said. I said, despite the effects on health. I am not arguing that smoking is not unhealthy. Its not an either or question between public health issue and moral question. Smoking is bad for you. It will likely kill you. And so are heroin crack and fast food. If it was only a matter of public health all would be banned. They are all unhealthy and cost the healthcare system massively. The decision that we still tolerate some and dont tolerate others is a moralistic one.

<comment><USER11> I misinterpreted your comment. Apologies for my disproportional rude tone.

I'm all for freedom of choice as long as it doesn't impact the collective. And To add to your point, imagine if sugar-rich and fast-food packagings were photos of sickly-looking obese people and insulin injections. Also imagine if fast-food was prohibited from being advertised. That's what some govs do with tobacco. As you said, allowing one but no the other is indeed a moral debate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Vaping has been pretty well studied (except for the flavorings). Nicotine is very addictive but not very damaging on its own. From what I've read, vaping is probably a better habit than, say, eating lots of sugary food. I say this as someone who's never vaped and likes too much sugary food.

<comment><USER13> This is incorrect. E cigarettes are still in a very early stage of research. My partner works at one of the leading institutes in tobacco research and they are literally just kicking off most of their research on e-cigs. Most of the researchers (including one of the world experts on tobacco research) has a gut feeling that the health effects will be in the same magnitude as cigarettes. Early research confirms this, but again it's still a gut opinion. Literally the first major study on e-cigs affect on heart disease was released last year (and it does not look good): [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190307103111.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190307103111.htm)

I don't believe any e-cigarette research institute would agree with either of the claims that: 1) vaping is well studied. It is about 10-20 years from being well studied as most of the major research institutes are just starting (or are in grant application stage). 2) vaping is less harmful than the health effects of a high sugar diet (not to discount that a high sugar is very bad)

<comment><USER14> Public Health England published a review of evidence of e-cigs. They concluded e-cigs are about 95% safer than tobacco. So being the same magnitude as cigarettes seems an absurd claim, on the strength of all studies so far, anecdotally too.

[https://www.gov.uk/government/news/phe-publishes- independent...](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/phe-publishes-independent- expert-e-cigarettes-evidence-review)

<comment><USER15> Because a statement like "e-cigs are about 95% safer than tobacco" seems meaningless to me without any scale to reference it to, I dug out the paper that they based their estimate on [1] (which I got from [2]).

I'm just going to say that this looks like the least rigorous assessment that I've ever seen. As far as I can tell, they went to a conference and over a 2 day period collectively came up with a list of "evaluation criteria" which is not at all limited to health. It includes (among other things) crime, environmental damage, family adversities, economic cost, community,etc, etc).

Then they scored each product against each criteria on a 100 point scale. This is not an evidenced based approach. It was a bunch of people sitting in a room arguing with each other how they _think_ it should be scored.

Then they weighted the results. Finally they gave each a final score of "harm" base on a 100 point scale. Cigarettes ranked at 100. Pipe smoking ranked at 21 (nearly 5x "safer" than cigarettes!) ENDS ranked about 4 (based on what I can guess from the graph). There's your "at least 95% 'safer'" tag line.

Oh and the committee included a consultant working with companies on tobacco dependence, another consultant working with smoking cessation products, and another consultant working for an e-sig distributor. Several of the committee received grants from the nicotine industry.

[1] - [https://www.karger.com/article/FullText/360220](https://www.karger.com/article/FullText/360220) [2] - [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/456704/McNeill- Hajek_report_authors_note_on_evidence_for_95_estimate.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I was able to successfully quit cigarettes (for a year) by quitting drinking and switching to the vape. I reduced the nicotine from 12mg to 1.5mg over the course of three months. One day I realized I hadn't touched my vape all day...then I started drinking again after a year. I was bored. Now I smoke cigarettes when I drink and vape other days. It sucks, alcohol and stress is my biggest trigger for smoking cigarettes. When I do drink, I tear through the pack pretty quick too. Basically turn into a chain smoker.

What I can say about vaping is, my endurance and performance in gym/sports is noticeable improved after 3 days of vaping instead of smoking. I can breath deep and feel better. That's the only proof I need until a study tells me otherwise. I would love to quit everything, but I do enjoy a drink.

Does this story sound similar to anyone who successfully quit? Send advice if so.

<comment><USER17> You asked for advice and mine is that nicotine is your addiction, with a lot of other components swirling around it, and you should decide if you want to quit nicotine or not. Patches, gums and vaporizers are just new and fancy ways to feed your body the ridiculously addictive nicotine it craves.

I also suggest reading "The Easy Way to Quit Smoking". If nothing else it's very encouraging. It might also help you realize that nicotine and alcohol have no special relationship. Not any more than cigarettes and food or cigarettes and sex. When you are a nicotine addict, _everything_ becomes a trigger for your addiction. Trying to differentiate is just playing into the addiction and giving it special powers.

<comment><USER18> > Tobacco may well be as addictive as heroin, crack, alcohol, and Cherry > Garcia combined into one giant crazy sundae. But as laboratory scientists > know, getting mice or other animals hooked on nicotine all by its lonesome > is dauntingly difficult. As a 2007 paper in the journal Neuropharmacology > put it, "Tobacco use has one of the highest rates of addiction of any abused > drug. Paradoxically, in animal models, nicotine appears to be a weak > reinforcer."

> That same study, like many others, found that other ingredients in tobacco > smoke are necessary to amp up nicotine's addictiveness. Those other chemical > ingredients things like acetaldehyde, anabasine, nornicotine, anatabine, > cotinine, and myosmine—help to keep people hooked on tobacco. On its own, > nicotine isn't enough.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-a- nicotine-p...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-a-nicotine- patch-make-you-smarter-excerpt/)

There are other sources and studies I'm too lazy to look up, but AFAIU nicotine is a powerful cognitive enhancer that makes activities easier to perform and more rewarding (including, perhaps, the metabolization of other substances), and it's _this_ experience boost that may be what addicts people. In any event, it's now understood--relatively uncontroversially--that this is why many people with certain cognitive deficits (ADHD, schizophrenia, depression, etc) self-medicate with nicotine, though it works to elevate cognitive performance even for people without deficits.

<comment><USER17> Humans generally move easily from one nicotine delivery system to another but fail miserably when trying to quit nicotine all together.

It's also very important to understand that nicotine, like most addictive chemicals, impacts different people in different ways. Some people have no problem smoking a few cigarettes a month for years bon end without every developing an addiction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Whatever, vaping is still better than cigs - it doesn't load your lungs with tar and doesn't make you stink nasty. If you don't smoke - don't start (or maybe do if you struggle from ADHD and can't get any better treatment), if you do and can't or don't want to quit - switching to vaping is a great idea.

<comment><USER16> I notice a weird tar looking substance in my vape chamber sometimes. I use a 70/30 VG/PG. Not sure what it is, but makes me question things...

<comment><USER20> It's neither the nicotine nor the pg/vg. What flavour do you vape? A sweet one? You could check without flavour or methanol-only to find out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It seems fairly obvious and in line with most research that has come out that #1) vaping is far less dangerous than smoking cigarettes, #2) vaping is not harmless and the true extent of the risks probably won't be known for a generation because there are just no longitudinal studies possible yet, #3) vaping is a great alternative to smoking cigarettes in terms of harm reduction - both in terms of effects on the vaper and effects on bystanders (not to mention it doesn't cause entire rooms and all things in them to stink) #4) The extent that vaping will lead to more nicotine addicts later becoming cigarette smokers is unknown, but seems anecdotally unlikely but worth keeping an eye on (ie; someone that never would have started smoking starts vaping because it is less harmful but then eventually becomes a cigarette addict) #5) Prohibition doesn't in general work with any substance and there is absolutely no moral justification for not making safer ways of delivering substances available while still being open-eyed about their possible risks

Personal bias - smoked heavily starting at age 13/14 until my 30s. Switched to vaping heavily and saw marked improvements in my health. Eventually weaned down nicotine levels while vaping over the course of many months. Quit vaping with some difficulty, but not the difficulty level of quitting cigarettes. Now don't use nicotine at all, but will never be able to use it in moderation.

</comment><comment><USER22> I feel like people often come at this topic from an individualistic perspective that ignores what's really going on. People see a new product has appeared and immediately accept it as a new fact of their environment and then debate whether they should be free to use it or not. This discussion is entirely absent of why this thing has appeared and why not some other thing.

The reason it has appeared is because it is profitable. It is profitable because it is addictive. So some company or companies begins applying a population level medical experiment, introducing an addictive substance with only extremely ephemeral benefits and potentially serious health consequences. Intensifying this problem, the companies proceed to target children, in order to attempt to create lifelong money drips based on a physiological addition. The question is why is this a legitimate activity?

While you personally may have some intelligence and ability to not waste your health and money on this product, simply placing it in accessible areas, advertising it and making it appealing, means that less informed or more risk taking members of the population will basically trip into a bear trap and feel like they're making an affirmative decision about their life because it feels good for a few moments at a time.

This is insanity. Why do we allow known bad actors to manipulate and poison the public?

EDIT: I should clarify that I don't have a problem with individuals growing and making this stuff themselves, just with the license we give to apply these medical experiments at a population level by entities that care nothing about the people they serve.

<comment><USER23> > introducing an addictive substance with only extremely ephemeral benefits > and potentially serious health consequences

This seems like a description of any method of nicotine use, and you're about 3500 years too late for that. I don't see how it's accurate to describe e-cigs advent as the introduction of a new addictive substance: it seems to me to largely be the introduction of a new (far safer) method of delivery for an existing addictive substance.

The complaint about e-cigarettes seems to me to be a complaint about the ease for teens of hiding their usage, relative to stinky cigarettes.

<comment><USER22> To be clear, the use of tobacco has been an element of human culture (broadly construed, not all cultures) for millennia, on that we agree. I also do not have a problem with people growing it for small scale use. I do have a problem with the perverse incentives of industry to scale and market the product far beyond whatever niche it might otherwise occupy in human society. Furthermore, I object to the inflation of market share by targeting children.

I thought about this a bit overnight and I think if we wanted to use this technology in a way to reduce harm and improve human health, we would offer it mainly through doctors' offices. While it would reduce reach among current smokers, it would also be fairly specific to that population sans some small scale cheating. This would prevent uptake by children and non-users. Instead, we take the opposite approach of selling it for profit and expand the market as far as possible. This is a gross behavior that does not care for the value of human life and health and we allow it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The new tactic is to push smoking practice in movie scenes. Though (I don't know for a fact but I presume that) smoking went naturally in movies before, when the actors were actual smokers and choose to have a cigarette in some movie scene, now we have smoking (simulation) performed by non-smoking actors! Smoking in manga animations is yet another thing I don't remember seeing in '90s.

<comment><USER25> A new tactic? People have been smoking cigarettes in movies forever, for a couple reasons.

1) Stylistically, it looks cool and makes great shots. The light going through the smoke, the burning sound of the inhale.

2) It tells us something about the character and their value systems and their psychological state. Maybe they have a devil-may-care attitude, maybe they are under distress.

3) It gives an excuse for characters to stand and talk. It also is an excuse for a character to be alone is silent contemplation while also doing something the audience can see (smoking). Without cigarettes, both of this situations feel more contrived and less natural.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Personal experience:

\- Started smoking as a young teenager (13) \- Quickly turned into a pack a day smoker (16) \- Went up to two packs a day (twenties) \- Spent a year off and on cigarettes using a vape pen \- Decided to completely switch to vaping

It's been 2 months since I've smoked (besides little mishaps at parties).

I've spent the most of the time coughing up all the shit my lungs have been accumulating since a child. I can breath a lot better now, suffer no lung/chest pains (daily before I quit cigarettes).

I'm a happy vaper and will continue to vape for now. I am 100% aware that it may not be risk-free, but I feel an enormous difference between smoking and vaping. I had tried numerous things before vaping (patches are pointless, nicotine gum horrible, champix made me extremely depressed/suicidal), and am grateful e-cigarettes are a thing.

</comment><comment><USER27> I've seen this opinion dozens of times and the best response is a Slate Star Codex post from 2013[1]:

> The worst are the people – one of whom has so far appeared in every article > I have read on the subject – who say that we should be careful because "Big > Tobacco" is pushing them as a "solution" to the problem of declining > cigarette sales. First of all this is just factually wrong; most > e-cigarettes are made by alternative companies in direct competition with > Big Tobacco. Second, if your reasoning strategy is identifying the Evil > People and then minimizing their utility, you probably shouldn't be making > public policy.

> ...if a public e-cigarette ban reduces the number of smokers who switch to > e-cigarettes by 2%, you've just killed an extra 9000 people per year – about > three 9-11 attacks, or twice the number of US soldiers who died in the Iraq > War.

As soon as you do the math, it's clear that allowing vaping is extremely good for public health. Those opposed to it demonstrate their innumeracy and puritanism.

1\. [https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/28/thank-you-for-doing- so...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/28/thank-you-for-doing-something- ambiguously-between-smoking-and-not-smoking/)

<comment><USER28> Yes, and if 2% of Americans _who would not have ever smoked_ start vaping and get addicted to nicotine, and 2% of those people subsequently develop a cigarette habit...

My concern is not that e-cigs are dangerous (they might be, but they're very probably not more dangerous than actual tobacco), but that e-cigs' perceived safety might eventually get people, a lot of them, to start actually smoking.

Personal anecdote: I'm an ex-smoker. I love that e-cigs are helping smokers quit, but I don't like that e-cigs are getting non-smokers addicted to nicotine.

I'm not enthusiastic about banning things in general, and e-cigs are no different. But as someone who was dependent on nicotine for years, I hope The Public is wary: nicotine goes from being your lover to being your boss very very quickly. And once it's your boss, all it does is make you feel terrible if you aren't consuming nicotine.

If you have a nicotine habit: try to kick it. Life's great on the other side.

If you don't have a nicotine habit: life's great on the side you're already on.

<comment><USER29> > _My concern is not that e-cigs are dangerous (they might be, but they 're > very probably not more dangerous than actual tobacco), but that e-cigs' > perceived safety might eventually get people, a lot of them, to start > actually smoking._

If cigarettes are cheaper, some people who use vapes exclusively will smoke cigarettes in order to get their nicotine fix. Addiction doesn't care about price or which delivery method is healthier.

If cigarettes are more accessible, as in if you're out and your vape's battery is dies and/or it breaks and you need your fix, some people who use vapes exclusively will smoke cigarettes in order to get their nicotine fix. Addiction doesn't care about where you are or if getting your fix is inconvenient.

You can draw similarities to the opioid epidemic: if you give 'safer' prescription opioids out like candy, and then take them away, some people who used prescription opioids exclusively will move to cheaper and more accessible heroin.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> FWIW, I've tried vaping, gums and nicotine pouches. They all make me sick, unless I drop the dose to a level that is so miniscule that I can't feel it. Real tobacco, on the other hand, calms me down and feels great as long as I watch the dose(say, 1/2 cigarette, but usually pipe tobacco). I don't use tobacco very often, and I've never had a problem quitting(23andme confirms I have low nicotine addiction risk). Curious if anyone else has noticed this with nicotine products? I know there is a difference in pure nicotine freebase vs salt form, but I feel like it's more than that. There's something else in tobacco that makes it work for me.

<comment><USER25> There's MAOIs in tobacco that are not present in gum or e-cigs. MAOIs change the psychoactive effects of nicotine. There is also some evidence that MAOIs significantly increase the addiction potential of nicotine.

A little off topic, but I find that cigarettes really work for me as a software developer. Program for a couple hours, and then smoke a cigarette, rinse and repeat. More often than not, I catch bugs in my programs while smoking, not while at the computer. It significantly improves my cognition while also inducing a calm and reflective state. Part of this is probably from being alone and stepping away, but the tobacco definitely does have a strong effect separate of this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Gwern has a discussion of Nicotine, and basically concludes it's safe:

[https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine](https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine)

<comment><USER32> How is someone who claims to be known for their writings on dark markets and bitcoins supposed to be an expert on smoking? Meanwhile, actual scientists and oncology doctors have concluded that for nicotine on its own (not smoking) ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/)) "There is an increased risk of cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal disorders. There is decreased immune response and it also poses ill impacts on the reproductive health. It affects the cell proliferation, oxidative stress, apoptosis, DNA mutation by various mechanisms which leads to cancer. It also affects the tumor proliferation and metastasis and causes resistance to chemo and radio therapeutic agents."

<comment><USER23> > How is someone who claims to be known for their writings on dark markets and > bitcoins supposed to be an expert on smoking?

This is a non-sequitur in context: Gwern's whole thing is trying to take a from-scratch look at the literature instead of relying on the standard appeal- to-authority arguments that sometimes lead to flawed conclusions due to things like institutional incentive structures. That is to say, if you're the kind of person who reads thing blindly based on whether the author is an expert or not instead of taking advantage of the fact that he shows his work to assess the quality of his analysis, then gwern's writings probably aren't for you. (FWIW, you should probably be doing this to some degree even when reading the recommendations of those designated experts)

Don't get me wrong, there's obvious ways for "ignore the experts and read the literature from scratch" to lead to flawed conclusions, but it's just a different type of analysis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> There is even some evidence that monoamine oxidase inhibitors in cigarettes, rather than nicotine, may be the causative agent of addiction in cigarettes.

<comment><USER34> Juuls can be relatively hard for long-time users (6+ months) just because they're so strong (50mg/ml, though at low output). But, you don't have to go cold turkey, as they now do 30mg/ml pods, and there's always normal vapes. I'd imagine in any case its not nearly as hard as normal cigarettes, though I wouldn't know (never smoked).

While they've somehow gotten the stigma of being flashy and hip, they're very much designed for a specific purpose: getting people off cigarettes. In doing so: they're expensive, harsh, and have poor flavor options.

I legitimately can't understand why high schoolers would be attracted to them when normal vapes are (1) substantially cheaper, (2) so much more flavorful, and (3) available on a wide variety of websites that do zero age verification. I mean, kids aren't smart, but its almost so unbelievable that, dare I say, the media is making broad generalizations and Juul is just taking the brunt of their ire.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> > Health officials know next to nothing about the flavorings or about other > chemicals generated by the heating of e-liquids.

Even the officials knew anything about the flavourings today, they will spin another five flavours by tomorrow.

And even if knew everything about a flavour.... what's in the mass produced / delivered to consumer flavouring will not remain the same day on day.

This whole thing makes my spidey sense tingle.

</comment><comment><USER36> It's interesting that no-one mentioned Formula 1 in here.

F1 was one of the biggest industries to embrace tobacco advertising, and indeed was exempt from several tobacco advertising laws in the UK. The Ferrari F1 team still takes sponsorship from Philip Morris International (the company that owns Marlboro), and indeed at the start of this year, the Ferrari team was named "Mission Winnow Ferrari". Mission Winnow is Philip Morris' project looking for Tobacco alternatives. Read: Vaping.

As @satori99 mentioned however, Australia has very strong advertising laws when it comes to tobacco, so as the first race is in a few weeks, the Mission Winnow branding was removed from the Ferrari as it was revealed that the Australian authorities had launched an investigation: [https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/141908/ferrari-removes- mis...](https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/141908/ferrari-removes-mission- winnow-logo-for-australia)

</comment><comment><USER37> I was stunned when people actually began 'Vaping'. I thought (and still think) it doesn't have the basic 'cool factor' that a lit cigarette has. (Why I think that's cool is something I probably should think about. It doesn't seem to be a naturally generated thought, but rather one that's been placed there through years of media influence.)

I imagine there's some deep social need that's being met by the e-cigs.

<comment><USER38> It is probably just the addiction. Nicotine is super-addictive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Vaping itself is not the issue, it is better than combusting the product and inhaling the result into your lungs, it's the next step to quitting for addicts. The numerous e-liquid products and vaping devices where quality may vary is where the focus of public attention needs to be on. The additives and potency of e-liquids needs to be advertised clearly and regulated so we can properly see the effects.

</comment><comment><USER40> Banning vaping outright seems ridiculous but there need to be more aggressive policies and enforcement on the sale to children. The FDA did a study and I remember the numbers being staggering (2/3 teens I think) have vaped before. A high number of people using addictive substance before 19 is a recipe for disaster regardless of the compound since lifetime addiction rates soar at that age.

</comment><comment><USER41> I'm one the road in Albuquerque and hearing commercials on the radio trying to convert older smokers to vaping. specifically it is the juul brand. the pitch is that smoking is no longer acceptable so why not vape instead? at the very end of the ad they warn that juul products contain nicotine...... hard to understand how people profiting from this go to sleep at night.

<comment><USER25> What's wrong with nicotine? Besides being addictive, all of its effects are positive: increased cognition and memory, preventive against dementia and parkinson's, mild mood stabilization.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> There is always a new generation of gullible suckers waiting in line to be taken advance of, once I was one of them.

I started smoking when I was 15. I smoked for 15 years and manage to quit 17 years ago. I can honestly say that to quit smoking is the best (health) choice I ever made.

</comment><comment><USER43> The unconscionable marketing of e-cigarettes to minors should alert us to parallels with marijuana. The same concerns apply to marijuana legalization if we are not careful.

</comment><comment><USER44> Never underestimate the relationship between the rich and the ignorant. These people trade tobacco for a synthetic chemical......cancer just comes sooner I suspect.

<comment><USER25> Fortunately we have science in place of what you "suspect." And E-cigs have very little cancer potential (possibly none at all) compared to tobacco.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Stop on holidays. Take champix. An cut alcohol and coffee for a few days and that'all you have to do quit.

<comment><USER46> _Take champix_

That's terrible advice. Champix and Zyban produce " _feelings of agitation, depressed mood, hostility, changes in behaviour or impulsive or disturbing thoughts, such as ideas of self-harm or of harming others_ ". I had several doctors literally tell me "to stay the fuck away from that garbage"

<comment><USER47> Yet it's the only thing I've found that helped me permanently quit a 32 year smoking habit.

My family is deeply grateful for that "garbage".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> They can now optimize the "perfect" amount of nicotine in each hit now that'll maximize profit while accounting for lifespan.

<comment><USER49> Nicotine is no worse for you than caffeine; it's not what kills you in cigarettes, it's just what makes them pleasurable.

<comment><USER50> Battery is dead. Guess I'll just satisfy my addiction with some cigs.

<comment><USER27> Or gum. Or patches. Or lozenges. Or go buy another vape or recharge your battery. You'd have to go out and buy the cigarettes anyway. It's not like they magically appear in your home.

<comment><USER29> I can think of several gas stations, liquor stores and convenience stores that sell neither nicotine gum, patches nor lozenges. They all sell cigarettes, though.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: I net you - <AUTHOR>

I need an app to look out for me. Its a ridiculous hour (6:00 in the monday morning) and an idea.<p>An ideation and strategy works, particularly effective with my previous works. Helps me to prepare my mondays. And less eye strain to start the day. I don't think podcast and video blog collection will help me in my commute. I am an heavy instapaper user but definetly its not enough to pull any lateral work. <comment><AUTHOR> an insiping tale - [http://zerodistraction.com/blog/2012/1/26/thinking-bigger- ab...](http://zerodistraction.com/blog/2012/1/26/thinking-bigger-about-the- future-of-ios-computing.html) and the chrome-ui alertbox - <http://useit.com/alertbox/ui-chrome.html> A serious problem with the controls and intent.</comment>


Wernher von Braun on how to reach the Moon (1955) [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXIDFx74aSY <comment><USER2> This video is notable for a couple of reasons. First, it was produced by Walt Disney. Second, it features a prominent Nazi scientist.

That scientist, von Braun, was the principle designer behind the Nazi's rocket program. He was relieved of his duties in the US space program when he started saying that man couldn't reach the moon in one jump using the style of rockets he had invented, the Saturn type which was the basis of all the Apollo missions.

Interesting.</comment>


Designing Better Levels Through Human Survival Instincts - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6411/designing_better_levels_through_.php?page=1 <comment><USER2> This is one of the most fascinating articles I've ever read on HN. Thanks for sharing.</comment>


Why Standing Desks Are Overrated - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/upshot/why-standing-desks-are-overrated.html <comment><USER3> You know what the problem with problems is? I'll tell you the problem with problems... :)

Imagine Jules. Jules likes to put her laptop on the counter and work standing for an hour after lunch, while having her coffee. ...helps her digestion, or neck or something..

Personally, I like standing and/or walking while working too. I think better, it feels like. I like walking meetings, especially if we're going to be scheming.

Anyway... Jules has a laptop, a counter and she can stand if she likes.

The problem (with problems) is that we^ can't live with "Jules likes X." X must be a universal truth, transformational but as yet undiscovered... something worthy of TedX.

In comes corporate and bureaucratic fact-finding, maybe some pseudo-science. Occasionally actual science weighs in, but those assholes always seem to hedge with fancy "maybes" and "more studies required." So, we create some corporate truth, a way for Jules to stand up with official, legible backing.

It's the same HN debate we keep having about open offices. We can't keep it at "I like/dislike this thing," thing must be quantifiably better.

Not all the decisions we make are factual.

^We means: HN, HR, OHS, furniture manufacturers, ergonomics auditors, techchrunch...

<comment><USER4> Businesses can't seem to admit that they're spending money based on employee preference. There has to be a metrics-driven productivity or healthcare spending argument to justify the budget.

<comment><USER5> I had this discussion with a book keeper about a fancy chair for an employee once. The bookkeeper was arguing that this was more money than they had spent on a chair before and so it needed to be justified.

I justified it by saying, "We pay this individual over $100,000 a year, they are key to the following efforts, and the chair will last them for their entire career with the company. Not to mention it costs about 1% what we paid the recruiter who brought this person to us."

I made a similar argument at IBM (which got me into some trouble) which was that revenue per employee was up significantly from the period when everyone had an office, so why not have an office with some offices, some cubes, and some open space and let people work in the space where they are most productive? Total cost per employee was still going to be a lot less relative to their revenue generation than it had been in the past.

Too often people focus too closely on the one time costs and not the overall expense.

<comment><USER6> That's a really excellent point. If there's any risk that an employee would leave to run after a cheap perk like a standing desk or a good chair, it's just bad management to not spend that money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think I see the problem here (with the comments).

The main problem is that in order to claim something is "overrated", you have to have some idea of the "rating."

So perhaps most of the other commenters were enlightened and knew exactly what the benefits were.

Not me. Like (perhaps) the author, I thought sitting is really, really bad for you: for your heart, for your long term mobility, for your health. And that standing will alleviate these issues.

Under my model, it wasn't just that moving was good and not moving was bad. I thought that specifically sitting was the worst form of non-movement (over lying down and standing).

I can't tell you where I got this but I had read a lot of "sitting is the new smoking" type articles.

Now this author tells me that is not the case, and there was no proof of it being the case.

This is news to me. I had the correct "rating" for this article and it turns out I had "overrated" standing desks.

If you already know all this, then of course it was not "overrated" for you.

<comment><USER8> I think the premise of the article/implication is we went from "Sitting is the new smoking" ("and therefore you should quit - by Standing more" => "Standing is the new nicorette") to "Standing is the new Penicillin!

If you accept the premise, the headline and conclusion makes sense. Standing ISN'T a replacement for exercise. There are ways to stand that will cause independent medical issues in joints.

But, like you, I'm also dubious of the premise. While standing (or actually adjustable) desks are all the rage, I don't see an obsession over the concept approaching other overrated cults like crossfit, or keto.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This article is by a pediatrician, not a physical therapist or a subject matter expert. The article basically consists of the author pointing to some studies on the subject and concluding that there's not yet definitive, decisive evidence as to the long-term benefits of standing desks. Anyone who reads about standing desks knew that already. And, as someone who is known amongst friends and colleagues for using one, I've had numerous cases of people saying "Welp WhompingWindows, your standing desk is pointless, I saw a buzzfeed article about how a single study from North Dakota State said they're not great."

The title of this post and the the title of the article are not justified. The author's take-home in the final paragraph is that standing is not exercise, but standing desks may help those with back or neck pain and some people just prefer it. So, really, there's no evidence here to support the "Overrated" claim in the headline.

Like every post I see on standing desks, or anything with a controversial/contentious set of studies/proponents, each writer can select whichever set of studies from the vast array that conforms to their viewpoint. Those studies that disagree with the final conclusion? Better point out potential confounders, non-causal links, selection bias, etc. Drag out the usual methodological suspects to invalidate an opinion you don't agree with. It's easy to straw-man, though it's also easy to go to the discussion and just copy the authors' own assessment of their studys' weaknesses.

This happens all the time in science like epidemiology, you're not an epidemiologist if you haven't made a dozen complaints about an article's methods before considering its ramifications. Even Einstein - despite the evidence to the contrary, he could not accept some of the quantum-mechanical conclusions that his work helped bring about.

<comment><USER10> The "overrated" claim is that standing desks address the health concerns of sitting too much (a claim that I have heard many, many times). There is no evidence to support that claim. Your third paragraph accuses the author of cherry-picking the studies. Is there an example of a study you feel they should have included that supports your accusation?

The author is not claiming to be a subject matter expert. The fact that they are a pediatrician is irrelevant. Their argument is well sourced, and "even" a pediatrician is able to read and understand papers in adjacent medical fields.

Dr Carroll is also known for the Healthcare Triage YouTube channel, which has numerous video explainers on topics like how to critically evaluate the strength of studies, the dangers of cherry-picking data, etc.

<comment><USER11> There is some evidence[0], but people expect magic bullets, when the reality is that small gains here and there are useful. The only magic bullets I've found are cutting out refined sugar and heart pumping exercise at least 15 minutes a day, and ideally an hour.

If it matters, my back pain largely went away when I switched to working while standing for three or four hours a day.

[0] E.g., [http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=3740](http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=3740)

<comment><USER12> The linked article makes no claims about health outcomes - instead, the participants in that study reported feeling better, which contributes to the reported improvement in health-adjusted life years.

In fact, there was no difference in BMI reported between the standard condition and the intervention designed to decrease sitting time.

I don't know this literature much, but a separate analysis of the same study may show improved cardiometabolic risk profiles in workers who are encouraged to stand more often[1].

1\. [https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00005768-201803000-000...](https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00005768-201803000-00015)

<comment><USER11> Sorry? I didn't mention BMI. I was referring to life year gains.

> Life years (LY) gained is a measure in health economics. It expresses the > additional number of years of life that a person lives as a result of > receiving a treatment.

And a 1% increase in LY after a 12 month intervention isn't a silver bullet, but it's nothing to sneeze at.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Well, obviously it's not a replacement for exercise. Was anyone ever claiming that? Because I'd think it's fairly obvious that standing still doesn't exactly burn the calories off. The key is moderation, like with everything. Alternate between sitting and standing.

This past year I've started to get problems with my legs caused by sitting. Exercise relieves it, but the aches return when I sit down again. I just spend too much time sitting down (I work remotely as a programmer, and I'm also a musician). Swapping to alternating sitting/standing makes a big difference in this regard, and I had hoped to get a new desk 6 months ago, but due to house purchase trouble (and the fact my flat is too small to swap out this desk); I'm still stuck at my current desk. Hopefully it won't be too much longer now; I do worry what permanent damage is happening. Sit/stand desks have an added bonus of letting you adjust the height of the desk when sat down, which makes a big difference.

Chair choice is a big part of it. I do think pretty much all office chairs are designed wrong, in that they have a solid base and a cushion on top. Once you bottom-out (hurr) the cushion, you're sat on a hard surface, and that's most likely part of my issue. Aeron chairs are good in this regard, in that they're a suspended mesh with no hard surface underneath.

I quite like sitting on the floor as well, and I'm hoping to accommodate for that in my office design for my house. I think a wider variety of positions could only help to spread the strain.

<comment><USER14> Honestly there is absolutely no need to splash out on expensive standing desks. I literally have two upturned plastic crates on my desk to support my monitor, and then two stacks of books to support my keyboard and also my mouse. Total cost about 5$. The important point is to make sure the height of the boxes or whatever you use is adjusted to eye level and roughly elbow level for the keyboard.

The only downside is if you want to switch between sitting and standing, but frankly it's easier to just use a laptop for sitting for a little while until you get used to standing for longer.

<comment><USER15> Many people, myself included, want sit-stand desks that don't wobble. That's where the cost comes in. [https://jakeseliger.com/2015/01/24/geekdesk-max-sit- stand-de...](https://jakeseliger.com/2015/01/24/geekdesk-max-sit-stand-desk- review-two-years-with-a-motorized-desk)

<comment><USER16> I've never seen a stack of textbooks wobble. Although they might cost more than the desk!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Haha. So I have a standing desk at work and at home, I do it because it keeps me much more alert, and helps with my back not hurting after sitting for 8 hours.

I don't get how we always go back to debating the medical merits of this, when why don't we just worry about what makes the employee more comfortable? Expense wise, an average standing desk isn't terribly more expensive than a normal desk OR some of the chairs companies are buying for people to be more ergonomic.

<comment><USER18> Because I constantly see arguments that sat "you should use a standing desk because sitting is killing you". And not so many "you should try a standing desk, some people think they're more comfortable".

<comment><USER16> Because people get bored reading articles with neutral tone. We are talking about a choice of desk, after all. Extremes in language are much more satisfying to read, consciously or not, and the ad money proves this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Best strategy is just drinking enough that you need to hit the restroom with reasonable frequency. You stay hydrated and get well-timed walking/headspace breaks. Win-win.

<comment><USER20> Anecdotal, but be wary. I drank a lot of water for a long time (120+ ounces a day of water, plus whatever else I would drink). I was constantly thirsty and was worried I had diabetes. It turns out I was drinking _too_ much water and was flushing out valuable electrolytes from my system. Drinking less paradoxically left me feeling quenched, but it took a doctor's visit and blood work to resolve.

<comment><USER21> Indeed, you have to be careful not to overdose on water. More people die from too much water than too little.

<comment><USER19> You don't need to be particularly careful. Apparently, the stats show the vast majority of deaths from overhydration in normal individuals are the result of water-drinking contests or exercise-related overhydration in ultramarathons and similar

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If you occasionally come by the lastest findings in research, as one is want to do on HackerNews, and have also sat center court at a tennis match, you'll realize that both experiences are pretty much the same.

I don't know if this is the replication crisis rearing it's head or not, but being a casual observer of research is too much of a roller coaster for me to try to "optimize" my life based on the latest findings.

In reality, it seems there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to a general guide to live well: try to get a good night's sleep, abstain from drugs if you can, eat healthy foods while maintaining a slight calorie defecit, and get some exercise every once in a while. Outside of that it seems like you're playing with margins.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Because I disagreed with the conclusions of the article, I submitted this article to the HN community for assessment.

Many of the responses here call into question the article's apparent position, especially as regards its inflammatory title, and these responses reflect my own opinion and experience.

I expressed my objections as a comment to the article, reproduced here for convenience. [0]

> I've been a long distance runner all my life, hovering at a 7:30 pace. In my > mid 40s I began getting pain in my legs while running. Increasingly, I could > not run more than 3 miles at a time without injuring. My pace went to 8:30 > or slower.

> Almost 2 years ago, I went to physical therapy and my doctor prescribed a > standing desk. 1 hour standing; 1 hour sitting.

> Part of the problem according to my doctor is that my legs were tightening > while sitting. Intermittently standing and stretching was not enough to > offset what sitting was doing to my leg and back muscles.

> Since receiving a standing accessory at work and acquiring a motorized desk > at home, my injuries have disappeared.

> Of course the stretching exercises I continue to do as directed by my > physical therapist help. But stretching by itself did not work as I grew > older.

> The combination of stretching exercise and alternating standing and sitting > afforded by a standing desk has helped me recover from my injuries.

> My running pace has hit 7:20 and declining.

> Dismissing the potential benefit of standing desk as an expensive luxury is > about as advisable as dismissing a doctor's visit as unnecessary use of > health care.

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/upshot/why-standing- desks...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/upshot/why-standing-desks-are- overrated.html#commentsContainer&permid=29452335)

<comment><USER23> The article that you are commenting on specifically states that standing desks aren't an improvement for cardiovascular health. The article also states that standing desks can help ergonomic issues.

The article you posted shows that a standing desk can help ergonomic issues, it doesn't mention cardiovascular health.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are right that the article clarifies the lack of relationship between cardiovascular health and standing.

My point is that for me the two are interlinked.

I could not run due to musculoskeletal issues from sitting. Being able to alternate between standing and sitting addressed these issues and allowed me to resume (improve) my running.

I don't have enough expertise to evaluate if the studies cited by the author account for the relatonship between ergonomics (musculoskeletal effects) and cardiovascular health, but I do believe in my specific case the two are inextricably linked.

EDIT: spelling

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> So does the New York Times owe an apology and a correction for this article? "Sitting, it would seem, is an independent pathology. Being sedentary for nine hours a day at the office is bad for your health whether you go home and watch television afterward or hit the gym. It is bad whether you are morbidly obese or marathon-runner thin. "Excessive sitting," Dr. Levine says, "is a lethal activity."" [https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17sitting-t....](https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17sitting-t.html) And this one? "Too much time spent in a chair could shorten our lives, even if we exercise" [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/well/move/get-up-stand- up...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/well/move/get-up-stand-up.html)

I just find it disconcerting that the New York Times publishes an article like this, without any acknowledgement that it has been pushing a different conclusion for the past eight years. I get that that this article is from a different author, but when people go to the New York Times, they are usually trusting the overall institution and editorial controls more than the byline. I also get that new studies comes in and the evidence changes -- but that still requires some sort of acknowledgement that they were wrong before.

</comment><comment><USER25> My main motivation for buying a standing desk would be saving my back from constant pressure. CTRL+F "back" in this article tells me that the author did not care at all about back problems and thought people bought standing desks to exercise. I already exercise in my spare time and commutes.

<comment><USER26> Yeah I can't understand this. I've been in constant lower back pain for years, with it getting considerably worse over the last 12 months. All of the experts have told me that it is some condition or other primarily caused by (and definitely exacerbated by) sitting for extended periods of time.

I literally haven't sat in an office chair for longer than 20 mins for the last 12 weeks and my back is so much for the better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> At work, I hate sitting (despite owning a couple very specific chairs that I'm actually comfortably in) and I also hate standing.

Both seem to keep my body/mind tense - which is at odds with the deep focusing/relaxation I need for working on creative solutions for long stretches of time.

Very recently I discovered the wonders of beanbags, reclinable armchairs, and so on. I might even try a hammock one day. All these mix well with wireless keyboard/trackpad + a projector.

Looking forward to build my next-gen home office in this style (current sofa/projector combo is just me squatting the office event room).

<comment><USER16> How do you deal with sleeping? Every time I sit somewhere with my head supported, I begin to drift off. Doesn't matter if I slept in, or if I've had two cups of coffee. If my head is stabilized, it's over for me.

<comment><USER27> Ha ha, sounds like a good problem to have :)

Can't help sadly, generally computers will leave me well awake for at least a couple hours since the moment I'm done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I suspect people aren't going to read the entire article or are going to be put off by the rather aggressively-opinionated title.

I was expecting a more extreme conclusion than:

\- Sitting all day isn't great, but just sitting won't kill you

\- Standing all day isn't great, but just standing won't kill you

\- Standing isn't exercise

\- As long as you exercise and take breaks during the work day, it doesn't really matter if you sit or stand

<comment><USER29> The last point is not mentioned in the article at all.

<comment><USER23> It is, "Too much sitting over the course of a day is not healthy — let's be clear. And as I've written before, exercise is the closest thing to a wonder drug. Few things provide such a health benefit."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Interesting. I'm always a fan of research challenging wisdom, although I'm not sure who really thought standing alone was exercise. I've found greatly improved comfort with my standing desk at work and I want to upgrade my home desk once I move. I hope that the lack of evidence for specific health improvements doesn't encourage companies to stop offering the desks.

<comment><USER29> I'm waiting for the desks with integrated threadmill and bicycle.

Ooof, apparently no one wants sweaty and loud coworkers.

<comment><USER30> Treadmill desks are already a Thing. Haven't seen one in a big corporate office, yet, however.

<comment><USER31> Ironically, the NYT has one: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/04/technology/personaltech/t...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/04/technology/personaltech/treadmill- desk-office.html)

<comment><USER20> Maybe not ironic, since walking _is_ exercise :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I do not see why it has to ever be an all or nothing when it comes to desks. At work, we have adjustable desks, which can electronically be adjusted to sitting or standing positions.

I alternate between sitting and standing every hour or so, combined with small walks around office between shifting positions (say to the cafeteria or washroom or the game room). When I get off my desk, I make it a point to focus on some point far away to ensure my eyes get a break from simply staring at a screen 2 feet away from me.

Combining this along with ensuring I consume enough water through the course of the day (in AC environments, a very common cause of headaches/neckaches is simply dehydration) means I can ensure that I get to operate productively through the day.

Don't see why people get so paranoid about having to be in a single position for 8 hours a day. The human body simply ain't made for that!

</comment><comment><USER33> By chance the treadmill to go with my sit/stand desk arrived today.

Having used a height adjustable desk some years ago I'd sort of written them off. I can't use one all day on its own, I find the blood just pools in my legs after a while and I just want to sit down.

Equally though I've also suffered sciatica in the past which I attribute to sitting for hours and hour before a log commute driving. It was agony. So to break things up I've got my own treadmill desk for my home office.

I'm walking right now as I type this. I can feel that my heart rate is definitely slightly raised but not so much I"m likely to start sweating. All in all seems pretty good so far.

</comment><comment><USER34> My wife and I who both work at our desks, on computers for a significant portion of the work day, use "ball chairs": [https://www.gaiam.com/products/classic-balance-ball- chair?va...](https://www.gaiam.com/products/classic-balance-ball- chair?variant=32936592129)

These chairs have helped with my leg and foot numbness/cold issues. I couldn't imagine working at a standing desk on days when my energy isn't 100% - <USER2> as a father and business owner is like ... every day.

Note: I am in no way affiliated with Gaiam - but given how many clients ask about my chair ... I should!

</comment><comment><USER35> I've seen a great connection between how happy people feel about their workspaces and how happy they feel they are in are them, physically and mentally.

When on-boarding in my first regular job, we received a couple of hours training in how to adjust you chair from the health-and-safety manager.

Fantastic training, him spinning around a chair showing how everything can be adapted, optimal eye, leg, waist, elbow height, the company gym instructor visiting demonstrating cases of how necks can get bent forward just by looking at a screen for a couple of years, the company doctor telling stories of the results of not complaining about feeling uncomfortable, and the lawyer telling us that this advice is useful coz we're giving it to you now, don't forget it.

I've worked in a lot of other places since. Some have been more haphazard/freedom-giving in implementing a comfortable desk and I'm a fan of that: Put a stack of paper under the monitor. Have a footrest instead of adjusting the chair. Bring in a fishtank and have some (real) fish (not a screensaver) swimming past you while you work, go to the gym for an hour when there aren't meetings, lots of plants, do a standing desk on empty paper boxes, bring a camping bed to store under your desk and take a nap after lunch on it. Pretty free workspaces.

What I've seen work, and not work, and work better, and this is complete anecdote: Colleagues that have the training to have been informed of best practices, and have an idea of the optimal 'springiness' setting to set their chair to have fun with their chair have freedom with their chair. Companies that do that then then also allow their employees to choose how to setup their environment are more productive, committed and a lot happier.

Open-office environments are actually OK for this. But not hot-desking ones. Feeding your fish is 2-3 minutes of not staring at a screen or typing, refreshment. Knowing the cleaner will throwaway a present for a colleague if you're not cleaned your desk in the evening is a prison. Having plenty of small meeting rooms available can provide peace and privacy.

And a quick nap on a colleague's borrowed camping bed when you're in for a long day, is bliss.

</comment><comment><USER36> I believe standing at times during the day is useful for the bones, and never really considered it "exercise," at least not the strenuous kind.

One thing I notice though is that folks often push very expensive powered desks that are not necessary. I've been using a relatively cheap drafting table and tall chair with armrests for years and think it is a great way to go. One can stand or sit during the day according to need.

</comment><comment><USER37> >For convenience and comfort, it's nice to have options if you have various aches and pains — "Alternating standing and sitting while using a computer may be useful for some people with low back or neck pain," he said — but people shouldn't be under the illusion that they're getting exercise.

Yeah and how do many people get to having back and neck pain? From sitting all day! Talk to any spine specialist and they'll tell you that. Since I switched to standing most of the day my pain is definitely reduced, and I know I'm burning more calories because I often incorporate more movements than I would typically do sitting. I stretch more often, do a yoga position, whatever, the point is that incorporating movement is much more likely when you're already standing.

</comment><comment><USER38> I dislike standing desks but I sincerely recommend _trying_ the following:

Buy yoga pants (lulu mens pants look good enough that I wear them for almost everything), take off your shoes, and sit like you used to sit when you were a kid: Sit cross legged, sit on your legs, sit 'normally', and let yourself move around and change positions and fidget naturally.

Over time I have found this much more intuitively comfortable than a sitting or standing desk, and being able to fidget more easily helps me think, just like going for walks helps me think. Point being: try stuff out! Maybe you'll find something more comfortable than the status quo, faddish or not.

</comment><comment><USER39> This just in! Standing is not exercise. I'm glad we cleared up this hotly debated topic.

</comment><comment><USER40> I use a standing desk and my primary purposes are to keep myself more alert and to alleviate back pain. It is the single biggest improvement to back pain that I have found.

As for health, like the article says, the most important things are keep up a good diet (eat just enough, eat as many whole foods as possible, vary what you eat) and exercise.

I also would like to recommend [https://fluidstance.com/](https://fluidstance.com/) which is a board that wobbles to go with a standing desk. This has further improved the benefits to my back and general alertness while working.

</comment><comment><USER41> Standing seems to burn about 50 calories per hour more than sitting [0] and walking burns about 80 calories per mile [1]. So wouldn't a first approximation for the benefits of standing an extra 5 hours per day be the same as walking 3 miles per day?

[0] [https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24532996](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24532996)

[1] [https://www.verywellfit.com/walking-calories-burned-by- miles...](https://www.verywellfit.com/walking-calories-burned-by- miles-3887154)

</comment><comment><USER42> Their results are that standing desks help with back problems, but don't provide cardiovascular exercise - yea, not shit. This is exactly what everyone thought, so I have no idea why this click-baity article exists.

Standing desks don't cure cancer, they don't stop baldness, and they won't do anything for your allergies either, I'm shocked they didn't include these as reasons standing desks are "overrated".

</comment><comment><USER43> Coming from a blue collar job (I work as an engine repair mechanic) ive never understood standing desks. most of the articles are right up there with either crystal chakra magic or "our ancesters were healthier!" crap.

I stand 6-8 hours a day. so do most of my coworkers. Simple observation of a chubby mechanic or a fat construction worker will tell you that the "standing desks are healthier" line is complete bullshit.

<comment><USER44> Umm, sitting kills. The idea is that a standing desk can let you live longer whatever your body formation.

<comment><USER45> I don't think that it's sitting that kills. I think it's more the fact that you are less active. You can have the same problem standing all day without moving around.

<comment><USER44> So either sitting kills by itself and standing up is enough to avoid it, or sitting kills by taking time from being physically active and it's not enough to stand up (which also takes time from being physically active).

Here's some brand-new research based on 1000 people wearing accelerometers 24/7: [http://epublications.uef.fi/pub/urn_isbn_978-952-61-2928-0/i...](http://epublications.uef.fi/pub/urn_isbn_978-952-61-2928-0/index_en.html)

 _Sedentary behaviour, physical activity, and risk of coronary artery disease and diabetes mellitus_

 _" From the accelerometer-derived parameters of SB [sedentary behaviour], a higher number of daily SB bouts lasting over 10 minutes was the strongest predictor of a high CVD [cardiovascular disease] risk."_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I stand 3 hours a day on the busses and trains trying to keep balance to and from work, I can't wait to sit down when I finally get the chance.

</comment><comment><USER47> I feel like I problem solve better sitting. For meetings I tend to stand but if I'm coding anything nontrivial I sit.

</comment><comment><USER48> > _"Alternating standing and sitting while using a computer may be useful for > some people with low back or neck pain," he said — but people shouldn't be > under the illusion that they're getting exercise._

Nobody is under the illusion that standing is exercise. What a pointless article.

</comment><comment><USER49> There are benefits to standing, for one is increased strength in the legs - just try it, it _is_ a workout and you do burn more calories standing up than sitting down.

Increased cognitive ability is another benefit, due to the increased blood flow.

I think alternating is great, its what i tend to do.

<comment><USER29> 1) Show me that study. Also, varicose veins suggest otherwise. Good muscle tone helps to prevent them. Apparently standing does not provide the right impulse. Yes, you will burn slightly more calories but at what cost?

2) This is even more out there and suspicious claim. Varicose veins form out of impaired blood flow, not improved.

3) Do you mean situps? I heard they are an actual exercise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I actually think standing desks are horrible for knees. So I would agree with the assertion to a certain degree. I have tried it for 4 months and only thing I gained out of it is knee pain.

</comment><comment><USER51> I have a standing desk. I've heard about how stupid standing desks were, so I went out and bought a highchair. Now I can sit at my desk like a normal person. Thanks, New York Times!

</comment><comment><USER52> I mean, it's ok for people to like something and others to not like it. Some people like to stand and some people don't.

</comment><comment><USER53> Standing desks might be but adjustable desks are not. Who wants their neck at the same angle all day everyday for years?

</comment><comment><USER54> i just like them cause they are a good change of pace for comfort. If im working on code for 5+ hrs, my butt/back gets sore from sitting for so long. Switching to standing for an hour or so allows me to grind longer. In no way do i think that im somehow being healthier for standing

</comment><comment><USER31> In case anyone wants a different position on standing desks from another NYTer: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/04/technology/personaltech/t...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/04/technology/personaltech/treadmill- desk-office.html)

<comment><USER23> That's a treadmill desk...

I really think this comment section is just people reading the article as "Standing desks are bad" and posting any positive thing about standing desks.

The article is, "Standing desks, by themselves, (no treadmill), provide no cardiovascular benefit. In terms of cardiovascular health, sitting maybe a marker not a cause."

That is, people who sit 12 hours a day on average, typically don't exercise and have poor cardio health. Simply standing instead of sitting won't help that, you have to exercise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> The article is quite misleading IMO. It cites bunch of studies which directly conflicts with headline and the author just brushes them off. For other studies which mildly agrees with title, author overblows its important. For example, one study says:

 _standing or walking for more than six hours a day at work was associated with a doubled or tripled risk of needing surgery_

Note that it's _6 hours_ of standing! Also, important to remember that these are correlation studies meaning that surveyors (I refuse to call them "scientists") sends outs surveys and tries to find statistical correlation. This is much different than real scientific studies, i.e., causal studies, where you try to understand cause and effect of your hypothesis.

One of the major issue in sitting all day is pasture management which causes back pain issues. So it's not about getting cardio exercise (that would be silly) but avoiding long term back pain issues. Also, sit-and-stand desk allows you to adjust height easily which is again important through out the day.

</comment><comment><USER56> Standing desks should come with anti-fatigue mats like most restaurants have.

</comment><comment><USER57> Sitting shortens your hip flexors over time. This causes lower back pain.

</comment><comment><USER58> "Sit-stand desks are not exactly inexpensive, but like many things in life, they're fine if you like them. And if it helps alleviate some back and neck pain, so much the better. It's just that most people probably don't need them." TL:DR

</comment><comment><USER59> I'm guessing this article was funded by Big Chair.

</comment><comment><USER60> TL;DR: Sitting too long is bad. Standing too long is bad. Find a balance!

</comment><comment><USER61> Oh man...these type of overreaching opinions is bound to be controversial.

I bought a standing desk because my ass hurts from sitting down too long and I don't have a lot of flesh down there. I have to use a cushion and eventually that also puts pressure on my back and my ass still hurts.

So I bought a manually operated standing desk on Amazon.ca in order to not hurt my ass from sitting down too long.

Also not good for your prostate health to be sitting down for hours at a time.

But please convince me why I shouldn't stop the pain in the ass.

</comment><comment><USER62> I work remote. And i lay in bed most of the times.

Somtimes, I am laying in the bathtub with a coke and completing projects on my Dell XPS16 running Debian.

I never felt the need to sit or stand.

</comment><comment><USER63> Overrated? Just plain stupid.

</comment><comment><USER64> The author's bigotry is showing in spades. I don't care if standing all day long is "associated with lower socioeconomic status". Standing makes me feel better, improves my posture, and takes away all the literal physical pains associated with sitting. If this makes me similar to a person working in retail, so be it. Am I supposed to be ashamed of our shared fundamental humanity too?

<comment><USER65> "Standing makes me feel better, improves my posture, and takes away all the literal physical pains associated with sitting."

This. After using a standing desk for a few years, I only occasionally want to sit (like 5% of the time). And I generally regret it after about 20-30 minutes.

I see a lot of standing desk users with improper monitor or keyboard height, and I think this hurts standing desks' reputation. If these are not correct, you will get neck and/or lower back pain if you use the desk long enough.

Unfortunately, it can be pricey to have a workstation that is ergonomically correct for you, because the keyboard to monitor height distance is much greater in a standing configuration vs. sitting. Convertible options tend to be expensive.

Having a cushy floor mat also makes a huge difference.

<comment><USER30> I think a lot of sitting desk users also have improper monitor or keyboard height, and many (most, anecdotally) people have atrocious posture. This probably explains a lot of why sitting has a negative reputation.

Personally, standing all day makes my feet tired & sore. I much prefer a well set-up sitting workstation and regular walking breaks.</comment></comment></comment>


Chan Zuckerberg Initiative scientists: FB's practices 'antithetical' to mission - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/06/chan-zuckerberg-initiative-open-letter-trump/ <comment><USER2> The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative's mission is to shelter most of Zuck's wealth from taxation while ensuring that he and his wife retain as much control over it as possible. Facebook's negative externalities are orthogonal to this mission.

<comment><USER3> Zuckerberg net worth: ~$78b.

Mean US neurosurgeon annual income: ~$600k

So Zuckerberg is worth 130K neurosurgeon-years. Neurosurgeons are the highest compensated surgery specialty [1].

In the US there are a total of 50k surgeons of any type [2].

Does anyone think that Zuckerberg created, with his own hands, >=3x the annual economic output of all US surgeons?

[1] [https://medium.com/nomad-health/complete-list-of-average- doc...](https://medium.com/nomad-health/complete-list-of-average-doctor- salaries-by-specialty-e2bbbc0a6186)

[2] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/209424/us-number-of- acti...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/209424/us-number-of-active- physicians-by-specialty-area/)

<comment><USER4> Every single question of that form is impossible to answer with mere words. Luckily, people CAN answer it through aggregate choice, so we don't have to worry about it.

...but since I feel like taking the bait, something like 9 trillion people use Facebook for at least 36 hours a day, while at MOST 4 people ever even need to consult a neurosurgeon per YEAR. So he's clearly the winner there.

<comment><USER5> I think there is a different way of looking at it: how replaceable is he and what he has built?

The truth is -- most of Facebook's value comes from network effects, not the actual technology itself. If Mark Zuckerberg never existed, it is highly likely some other platform would have been created -- the knowledge and skillset he has is not that rare. many other platforms existed before Facebook to let you post pictures and chat with friends.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm a scientist that benefits from this money. I'm not a Zuck fan, but I don't like strict policing of speech so I'm alright Zuck's move here. Moderate scientists keep quiet in academia for their own good.

<comment><USER7> The problem doesn't have anything to do with policing speech. The problem is the intentional propagation and promotion of inflammatory speech. It is one thing to allow hate speech, it is another to increase it's prominence because it is "more engaging." Facebook does just that.

<comment><USER8> The newspaper + money + printing costs system has done that for generations. If you want engaging information to stop being spread more than less-engaging information, then you're going to have to come up with a way to stop more engaging newspapers from printing more copies than less-engaging ones.

<comment><USER9> There is a big difference between a newspaper and Facebook (with over a billion users) spreading misinformation.

This is like comparing a match stick to jet fuel.

<comment><USER10> As long as you never click on a comments button or scroll down on any page, which is basically what Facebook is in reverse.

The comment sections on NYT (apparently the "good" paper) is one of the worst places on the internet. Yet I'm totally okay with it existing because I understand stupid people exist, no matter how much (highly selective) censorship we allow to exist.

Not to mention the serious decline in quality of actual NYT content which seems to select heavily for this commenting audience. I've been reading them for well over a decade and the decline is obvious and full of misinformation daily. There's no winning this fight through letting some random minimum wage moderator FB or Twitter hires, with zero appeals process, or any transparency, and obvious biases, deleting a few articles or comments that offend the type of people who live in the bay area or whatever American city they hire in.

<comment><USER9> Except that Facebook use algorithms to promote posts to its billion users.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> For those who have trouble with the link:

[https://archive.st/archive/2020/6/www.washingtonpost.com/hwg...](https://archive.st/archive/2020/6/www.washingtonpost.com/hwg9/www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/06/chan- zuckerberg-initiative-open-letter-trump/index.html)

Original title was too long. It was:

Scientists funded by Zuckerberg sent him a letter calling Facebook's practices 'antithetical' to his philanthropic mission

</comment><comment><USER11> There are also a lot of people who think the way media companies are acting (in terms of censoring/suppressing speech they don't agree with) is horrifying but are afraid to speak out against it because they fear the social or economic consequences of doing so.

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you use your money as speech to short their stock? How else can you meaningfully joust with a multinational megacorp on an individual level?

Why do you feel that it's censorship or speech suppression as opposed to exercising their own right as a company to set and enforce their own Terms of Service? How would you change the current system? How would you enforce your changes? How would your changes apply to overseas firms, if that is even technically or legally possible?

<comment><USER11> > Can you use your money as speech to short their stock?

I don't think that would have any effect.

> Why do you feel that it's censorship or speech suppression

Because they are removing or not allowing speech that doesn't fit certain criteria. That is basically the definition of censorship or suppression. Of course, it's not illegal, but a definition of right and wrong based on legality is fairly impoverished in my opinion.

As for how I would change the current system, I'm not really sure. The problem could be solved by a change in culture, which I think is preferable to a legal solution, but the solution will have to be legal since I don't see our culture changing anytime soon. The most straightforward thing to do would be to treat sites like twitter/facebook as public spaces and so allow any sort of speech that isn't illegal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Have any returned the money yet?

Until then, well, its just more words.

<comment><USER13> What is wrong with more words?

Putting your name to something like this is certainly endangering future funding, that seems like more than just "words".</comment></comment>