Chevy Volt discontinued: Chevrolet's last Volt rolls off the assembly line - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chevy-volt-discontinued-chevrolets-last-volt-rolls-off-the-assembly-line/ <comment><USER2> >It's a true shame, as GM finally got the little details right on both how the engine was put together as well as the interior fit and finish on the 2017 model.

Completely agree. I leased a first gen and am now leasing a second gen volt. I'm actually considering buying my current car at the end of the lease. As a bike commuter, it is my only vehicle, which is why I went the hybrid rather than full electric route.

The first gen I got rid of at the first opportunity. The car did it's job but the shifter physical design was moronic and the fit and finish was so bad that I actually cut myself on a piece of the interior plastic one day.

The 2nd gen is 'just a car' a nice car actually. Excepting a maintenance screwup by a dealer I have had zero - zero - maintenance issues with the second gen. Because I don't ever have to charge it, and don't drive it much, I can usually charge it for free (I'm an apartment dweller). I spend about 80% of the miles on electric. I think I've bought two tanks of gas in six months.

Funny story...a friend of mine's mother was actually the lead systems engineer on gen one. I met her at a graduation party and we had about a 3 hr long engineering nerd out over the 1st gen. I asked about a billion 'why did you/why didn't you' questions and was amazed at how many good ideas were left on the table.

<comment><USER3> > the shifter physical design was moronic

The gear shifter? I thought electric cars didn't have those? I thought they were push-pedal-and-go like a go-kart?

<comment><USER4> I think they might mean the shifter to change from park/drive/reverse/neutral

<comment><USER5> Editors at Wikipedia call this a "Selector"

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

<comment><USER6> Pretty sure they're the only ones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Disclosure: im an automotive engine mechanic by trade.

The Volt was a political nightmare. trade rags beat this car night and day for being a fake. but honestly its a damn good car. it was never going to see tesla style torque or mileage but the people driving it werent the whole foods kind of crowd anyway.

the hybrid electric was borne out of the need to create something that couldnt be patent-struck by toyota, whos hybrid synergy drive is basically the entire hybrid market outside of Komatsu/Caterpillar these days. electric motor final drives until the engine kicks in to drive the electric motors also allowed them to avoid the honda tax on motors in the transmission that assisted the drive inline.

the engine drive was crucified by its owners for ever starting. in-town drivers would be well under the range of the vehicles batteries, yet routinely traded the car in or returned it when the engine kicked on. What they didnt understand is that this was done to prevent stale fuel or cycling problems in cold weather. The ECU was smart enough to maintain the engine even when you didnt need it.

If you find one of these used and youre into hybrid (mostly) electric drives, id recommend it. it has a planted and firm drive, similar to a windstar minivan but without the body roll.

The stereo is also surprisingly overpowered for something like this as it borrows heavily from Fords Shaker platform (harmon kardon.)

<comment><USER8> > The Volt was a political nightmare. trade rags beat this car night and day > for being a fake. but honestly its a damn good car.

So you're saying widely publicized biased opinions based on antiquated but longstanding social norms were able to prevent good engineering, measurably better than the status quo, from coming to market? Are you saying that marketing and media can often overcome solid facts? Welcome to humanity.

<comment><USER9> When audi first introduced continuously variable transmissions they had to make them _act_ like discrete transmissions because users complained it felt like the tranmission was slipping.

arrggghghghg

<comment><USER10> This may be true, but Audi was relatively late to the CVT game.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Somehow, I am kind of reminded of GM's Saturn division. 1) make a concept 2) consumers like it 3) but GM can't make it cheaply enough, or sell it at a price that reflects it's cost 4) so they end the model and close the plant

I have the impression that what is wrong with GM is not the Volt, or the old Saturn for that matter, but rather the people who run the company.

<comment><USER12> Correct, at least from my anecdata. Worked for GM in 2010 on drive-by-wire and safety tech for EV:s, but soon quit in disgust. Management had zero drive or vision to make EV's a reality, and would rather just pump out more gas cars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Best car I've ever owned from a reliability and fun-to-drive perspective.

A bit cramped, but it's my commuter car, so don't care.

I drive 100+km a day and charge at both ends, and most weeks use no gas. But still have the flexibility to take very long road trips without the hassle of stopping at DC fast charge stations every couple hundred km.

When this one dies someday, I'll probably buy another used one if I can find one in good condition. The 2019 model is the best, with 7kw charging, power seats, and a new head unit.

Very sad to see it go.

<comment><USER14> > fun-to-drive perspective

What do you consider by fun to drive?

<comment><USER15> I have a Gen 2. 0-30 in roughly 3 seconds. 0-60 in 7.5 to 8.0. Very zippy in traffic, instant acceleration and the handling is on par with some BMW's.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Even the Bolt that is replacing the Volt as their go-to-EV is still losing money per car sold (for now):

> An unnamed source cited by Bloomberg News estimates that General Motors is > expected to take a loss of between US$8,000 and US$9,000 per Bolt sold. A GM > spokesman first declined to comment on the expected profitability.[20] Opel > refuted that in December 2016 and states that GM has battery cell costs of > $130/kWh, and industry is not yet optimized for mass production.[21] A UBS > teardown in 2017 suggested slightly smaller losses per vehicle, of $7418 on > a base spec, or $5520 on a higher spec vehicle.[22]. They estimate that by > 2025 the Bolt will make a profit of about $6000 per vehicle.

[https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Chevrolet_Bolt#/Profitability](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Chevrolet_Bolt#/Profitability)

<comment><USER17> I wonder what will change between now and 2025 to enable profitability on Bolts?

<comment><USER18> See page 42 of the source report. UBS and Munro predict a 33% reduction in battery costs due to broader industry pricing trends, with a further reduction of 10-25% on powertrain components due to economies of scale and technology improvements.

The report argues that the Bolt is already profitable on a contribution basis (sale price - cost of goods sold), meaning that GM make money on every Bolt they sell. What makes the Bolt unprofitable is the high per-unit share of R&D costs and depreciation due to low volumes - the Bolt isn't selling in sufficient quantities to recoup the cost of developing it and putting it into production. The Bolt can become profitable even if manufacturing costs stay the same, simply by selling more units.

Demand for the Bolt is substantially outstripping supply in Europe, because high fuel costs mean that pure EVs already have a lower TCO than ICE vehicles; It's likely that GM can achieve profitability simply by ramping up production, assuming that their battery suppliers can keep up with demand.

[https://neo.ubs.com/shared/d1mFW2YvNRvHXA/](https://neo.ubs.com/shared/d1mFW2YvNRvHXA/)

<comment><USER19> > high fuel costs mean that pure EVs already have a lower TCO than ICE vehicle

Got a source for this claim?

I bought a new ICE vehicle six months ago, in round figures it cost me $13,800 (that's the on the road price of the base model, including a couple of minor extras and all applicable taxes).

The electric version of _that exact same vehicle_ has a list price of $31,300. No, that isn't a typo. The salesman seemed faintly embarrassed when we enquired about the EV version.

The depreciation curve for ICE vehicles is fairly well understood. So is maintenance and the reliability of key components (we've had a previous ICE from this manufacturer that ran for over 9 years without any out of the ordinary components failing).

Before we purchased, a salesmen noted that EV technology is changing so rapidly that even if you do feel like handing over $30k for an EV, in 5 years time it may not be worth very much. Whether its batteries will take you very far is also less than clear.

I wish all of these things weren't so, I'd happily own an EV, but not at current prices.

<comment><USER18> Page 44 of the linked report. There's a full analysis at the link below. There are a huge number of variables (purchase cost, annual mileage, predicted depreciation, fuel and electricity pricing trends etc), but EVs match or exceed the TCO of comparable new ICE cars in a substantial number of scenarios in Europe.

The key factor is fuel costs in Europe - even with oil at around $60 a barrel at the moment, you'll pay $6 to $8 a gallon because of high fuel taxes. Off- peak electricity costs as little as 8¢/kWh on some tariffs, with most EVs doing three to four miles per kWh. Incentives like purchase grants, subsidised charging equipment and reduced registration fees further tip the balance in favour of EVs. Lower maintenance costs are a factor, as is the possibility of lower-than-predicted depreciation due to higher-than-predicted durability of EV battery packs.

We're still some years away from TCO parity in the US, because motor fuel is still incredibly cheap and electricity is often relatively expensive.

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191731526X?via%3Dihub)

<comment><USER19> > the linked report...

Am I reading page 43 right? The _cost_ of the battery in the Volt is currently $12,300? That's almost exactly 90% of the _selling price_ of my new ICE vehicle!

Q: What's the projected lifespan of the battery pack in a Volt?

<comment><USER18> _> Am I reading page 43 right? The cost of the battery in the Volt is currently $12,300? That's almost exactly 90% of the selling price of my new ICE vehicle!_

Yup, and it's why falling battery costs are such a big deal for the EV industry. It's worth thinking about the battery as a pre-payment for fuel; it's very expensive up front, but it substantially reduces your cost per mile for the life of the car.

 _Q: What 's the projected lifespan of the battery pack in a Volt?_

The Bolt's battery pack has an 8 year/100,000 mile warranty, with a maximum capacity loss of 40% during that period. Data from Nissan Leaf owners suggests a capacity loss of about 20% over five years, while Tesla Model S owners have reported much lower capacity loss - sometimes as little as 10% after 150,000 miles. Pack longevity has been increasing due to better cell chemistry and improved thermal management, but only time will tell how well the Bolt's batteries age.

Nissan offer a refurbishment program for the Leaf, which will restore the pack to its original rated capacity for $2,850; I would expect most manufacturers to follow suit. Battery pack refurbishment is also available from a number of third-party providers. Given the excellent durability of the rest of the powertrain due to the very small number of moving parts, EVs may prove to be surprisingly durable - with a battery refurbishment after 10 years, an EV may give 20 years of good service. The Nissan Leaf has fairly high depreciation due to the poor initial range of earlier models, but Teslas seem to be holding their value fairly well.

<comment><USER19> > The Bolt's battery pack has an 8 year/100,000 mile warranty, with a maximum > capacity loss of 40% during that period.

If one were to attempt to market an ICE vehicle that lost "up to 40% engine performance" over 8 years/100k miles, one would struggle.

> EVs may prove to be surprisingly durable

There are many cheap, modern ICE vehicles that are _already_ surprisingly durable - I have the service receipts for the 9 year old VW Polo (bought new, and which we traded in in 2015) as a data point.

Again, I wish EVs were already competitive, but aren't they still stuck as a lifestyle choice for those with "spare money"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This was really shortsighted. PHEV is currently the best technology. I think the push for full EV is premature for mass market. It works for niche cases like Tesla, but not something that can be truly mainstream.

With current battery tech and infrastructure, EV is a 50 mile technology. It has nothing to do with battery tech itself, doesn't matter how light or dense the battery is. The limit is infrastructure. 50 miles is about what you can charge with a level 1 charger overnight. Within those 50 miles EV is amazing, quiet, clean, it's clearly superior technology. And 50 miles is enough for a lot of vehicle trips such as getting groceries, going to school, commute to work, etc.

But imagine you have a 50 mile EV, how to extend the range to something everyone is used to, like 200-300 miles for road trips? There's two options, more batteries or an ICE engine. The problem with more batteries is charge time. It's not good enough right now. Even Tesla is 120kw, which is 30 minutes for 80%. And all other EV are far behind this and the charging network outside Superchargers is pathetic. Range anxiety was only part of the problem, slow charge time will be the bigger issue.

It will never be as fast as filling a gas car because that gets into the megawatt range. However, CCS spec can go up to 350kw. This would be good enough, 80% in 10 minutes. Still not fast as a gas car (which is about 5 minutes to fill a tank), but 10 minutes is ok. Combine that with a 300 mile battery, and it can be a road trip car.

There's basically no CCS chargers at 350kw and no cars that support that rate. EVs will get there eventually and replace everything (ICE, PHEV, etc.), but it's too early now. Also, there's a limit to worldwide production capacity for batteries. The amount of batteries in one Tesla could support 10 PHEV cars. PHEV is a bridge technology, but it's too early to abandon it. Now is the time when every car model should be changing to PHEV.

<comment><USER18> _> With current battery tech and infrastructure, EV is a 50 mile technology. It has nothing to do with battery tech itself, doesn't matter how light or dense the battery is. The limit is infrastructure. 50 miles is about what you can charge with a level 1 charger overnight._

The vast majority of first-time EV buyers also install a 240v charging station, which typically costs about $1200 including labour and will fully charge most cars overnight. Frankly, you'd be mad to spend $40,000 on a new EV but hamstring it by cheaping out on charging.

 _> The problem with more batteries is charge time. It's not good enough right now._

It's already good enough for most users, assuming you have reasonable access to suitable rapid chargers on your route. Very few people drive continuously for three or four hours, stop to refuel and immediately return to their car - human biological functions are a meaningful factor. You might be surprised at how long it actually takes you to refuel, pay for your fuel, visit the restroom, buy a coffee and stretch your legs, especially if you've got kids in tow. Rapid-charging an EV does take longer than refuelling a car, but you can do other stuff while it's charging.

Most ICE car owners only infrequently take long journeys. Most EV owners who do take longer journeys find that charging times only add a few minutes to the duration of their journey and are not a significant inconvenience. Charge times do remain a major obstacle for people who drive substantial distances for professional reasons, but they represent a small minority of car buyers.

<comment><USER21> > Most ICE car owners only infrequently take long journeys.

Sure, but when I _do_ take a longer journey, I don't want to have to hire a car or something. I can see an EV currently being good for 90% of my journeys, but what about the ~8 journeys a year in the ~200 mile range, with the last 30 or so generally on steep/winding roads trying to find a cottage in the middle of nowhere? How practical is that currently?

Edit: making the numbers a bit more realistic

<comment><USER8> > How practical is that currently?

It's not, but it could be. There are no fundamental technical barriers to overcome, just social ones.

<comment><USER22> I don't see any significant social barriers - it's just a matter of infrastructure. Drivers need to be able to depend on the availability of reliable chargers.

<comment><USER8> Public infrastructure is a social issue. It's one thing for a private company to set up a network of gas stations, it's another for an entire country to agree on gasoline standards and regulation so every car can use them. Electric cars will need similar standards, Tesla won't be able to do it on its own.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's a true shame, as GM _finally_ got the little details right on both how the engine was put together as well as the interior fit and finish on the 2017 model.

However, it was probably inevitable once batteries got good enough. Removing the combustion engine and replacing it with more batteries probably saves far too much money.

The current problem I have with electric vehicles is simply that right now they are "5 year" vehicles instead of "20 year" vehicles. Things are changing so quickly right now, that there is zero probability that any electric car I buy today I will have in 20 years. Contrast that to vehicles bought in the late 1990's/early 2000's that are still in decent shape (barring things like winters in the Northeast US) and still running.

And the whole "customers prefer SUV's" thing just drives me bonkers. Customers don't inherently prefer SUV's--the automakers market the hell out of SUV's because they are so profitable. And then everybody has a bunch of vehicles that they won't drive when gas goes up again.

<comment><USER24> Realistically speaking, how important is it that a car last 20 years? If it only lasts 10 years, which current EVs seem on track for, so what? You're not actually out that much on an annualized basis. And don't forget that years 11 through 20 on an ICE car are quite a bit more expensive maintenance-wise.

Depending on how much you drive, two electric cars over 20 years might well be cheaper than one gasoline car lasting that long.

<comment><USER23> > Depending on how much you drive, two electric cars over 20 years might well > be cheaper than one gasoline car lasting that long.

This might be true if it weren't for the fact that the price of a new car keeps going up as a percentage of median income rather than down.

I had two cars bought new from the late 1990's (one finally got totaled). The annual maintenance cost could be _quite_ high (I calculated that about $4K per year would be the breakpoint) on those and it would still come in lower than the equivalent class of car (another used car doesn't reduce the maintenance much _and_ you have a lump payment). I would have the discussion with my wife to get rid of one of them every year, and every year we would come to the same conclusion--replace them when they _die_ and not before.

Now, some of this is dependent upon whether your car is your sole source of transportation and whether you can cope with your car breaking down (money, time, etc.). It was no big deal for me to lose a car and put it in the shop-- someone else will have a different reliability calculation.

<comment><USER24> Don't forget that car safety has improved significantly over the past 20 years. Crash avoidance and survival has gone way up over that timeframe. Once you price in the value of your and your loved ones' lives the old junker car starts looking a lot less appealing.

I got rid of an old junker car after I almost got into what could've been a really bad highway accident (at speed) caused by someone not seeing me and trying to take the lane I was in. My car almost lost control when I swerved into the break-down lane to avoid him. A modern car with electronic stability control, or frankly even just no mechanical/structural problems, would have fared much better. No one is spending thousands of dollars replacing the entire suspension system in a junker car, but that's just the start of what you'd need to do to try to make an old car safer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I've had both the 1st gen and 2nd gen Volt. It is truly a great car that's versatile. You can use it on both a commute and road trip with no issues.

This is a classic short sighted GM move. I hope that at the very least they somehow sell the Volt to another major manufacturer. I'm not transitioning to the Bolt.

</comment><comment><USER26> I call out BS one dollar a charge. At 12 cents a kwh in OK its almost $2 to charge 16 kwh of batteries. And I live in a state adjacent to OK withe the same nominal kwh charge. However when you include all the #$&*: fees (like cellphones) the true cost is 18 cents a kwh. At this rate $2 gasoline in in a compact car is the same cost per mile for electric per mile (6 cents).

I suspect he is averaging the free charging at work which cuts the true cost in half.

</comment><comment><USER27> "Yet the Volt did serve a purpose. It led to advances in lithium-ion batteries similar to those that power smart phones and computers. But such advances ultimately led to the Volt's demise as GM and other manufacturers developed fully electric vehicles that can go 200 more miles per charge."

A better headline would be:

The Volt Dies but the Bolt Lives On.

</comment><comment><USER28> Just chiming in as another happy gen2 Volt owner sad to see the car go.

</comment><comment><USER29> Should have been new Brand.

I feel like the Chevy logo and branding didn't help much with Volt sales. They could have done something similar to what Toyota did with Scion. Create a unique logo and branding.

Create a high tech brand that isn't associated with "Chevy". Is that just me?

<comment><USER30> New branding comes with a lot of overhead.

If you're spinning a new brand out of a known brand, you'll have to educate customers with large marketing investments. This will have to be massive for the car industry.

Given the car's not very profitable already, they'd be running a huge loss for a long time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> PHEVs were such a misconceived idea. So many more parts to wear out for such little benefit.

<comment><USER32> Completely disagree. I have a Volt, and having a gas engine is not a "little benefit" to me. It's a huge benefit, despite the fact that one tank of gas lasts me about 6 months on average. I never have to worry about running out of electric charge and trying to find a charger, and I can go on long trips without having to worry about whether or not I have the range.

<comment><USER31> So why bother with an electric at all?

<comment><USER33> Regenerative braking, significantly simpler drivetrain, pure electric for the cities.

Only problem I have is they use normal car engines as range extenders. Could've gone with a simpler/cheaper wankel or microturbine optimized for high RPM, but I guess it's quicker to slap on an engine you already have.

<comment><USER34> Recently there is some buzz that Mazda might bring back their rotary engine in a hybrid, which actually might be a good way to go about the power/weight problem.

<comment><USER35> There is absolutely zero reason to mass produce a Wankel ever again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Something I don't understand, but why don't they take the Chevy Bolt chassis and turn it into a PHEV Crossover a la Kia Niro? They already have the platform developed, and crossovers seem to be all the rage.

<comment><USER37> I'm almost certain they will. The tech they used isn't going anywhere. It's simply that no one buys sedans. I expect to see a Volt-powertrain-derived crossover or SUV soon.

<comment><USER38> No one buys small sedans for the American market, sure, but cars the size of a Yaris or Corolla seem to be wildly popular in the rest of the world.

<comment><USER37> If I'm reading this properly (and fair warning, there's a _lot_ of data, I could easily be mistaken) it looks like sedans are dropping in popularity across the globe- but that 'mini-SUVs', crossovers, or whatever you call a small sedan-sized hatchback nowadays are gaining popularity.

[http://carsalesbase.com/global-car- sales-2017/](http://carsalesbase.com/global-car-sales-2017/)

Aside from the sedan question per-se, it's interesting to me see tastes change so rapidly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> That's too bad, the Volt's powertrain made a lot of sense for those aren't able to get an EV due to it being impractical (Many apartments).

What's interesting is that Honda's hybrids have basically the same drivetrain as the now discontinued Volt. They too discontinued (edit: some) of their plugin hybrids, which is also too bad.

Looks like the Prius plugin is gonna be the car to pick for a plug-in hybrid. I wish it looked much better, but judging by their success, Toyota seems to know what it's doing with the Prius' styling.

<comment><USER40> The Honda Clarity is their current plug-in hybrid (unfortunately not available in the Accord any more)

<comment><USER15> and sadly not as good looking as the Volt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> A shame. The Volt's been my dream car since I saw the concept vehicle in Popular Science when I was in high school but I was never able to afford one. The cheap daily commute of an electric car combined with the instant fill-up and range of a gas vehicle. Not to mention since the battery pack is much smaller than an all-electric it would be much cheaper to replace once it eventually wears out. Seems I'll never get one, now.

</comment><comment><USER42> >>Sales averaged less than 20,000 per year, not enough to sustain the costly undertaking.

That to me sounds like a decent number. I guess they were selling them at a loss.

<comment><USER43> The one part of this that I feel like I understand is that if you buy this vehicle you've effectively signed up for twice the maintenance expense. While I feel this was a brilliant step in the direction of stop gap between gas and electric vehicles; I could never bring myself to pull the trigger.

<comment><USER44> Why? Yes, there are more components than either a pure ICE or pure EV, but that doesn't translate to "twice the maintenance expense".

In my experience (we own a Pacifica PHEV), a PHEV means less expense than a 100% ICE vehicle, but more than a pure EV.

<comment><USER45> Is it twice the expense? Probably not. Plug in hybrids are simply the worst of both worlds. You still need an engine and everything that goes with it, and your all electric range is anemic.

Why would I buy a Volt when I could buy a Model 3, a Leaf, or another EV? Electricity is cheap, no need for fuel or oil changes, and the driving experience is better (at least in Teslas with quick 0-60 times). You also are still eligible for the federal tax credit at its full amount for EVs where the manufacturer hasn't sold 200k EVs yet.

The Volt died for the same reason the SR71 did: it was no longer needed.

Disclaimer: Tesla owner

<comment><USER46> Because most other EVs other than Tesla lack range, while you can still take a Volt on a long trip without having to plan around finding a special charging station.

It's the single best solution on the market to cutting fuel usage by about 90%, being fun to drive and not having all the headaches that go with range anxiety / locating available charging stations.

The real question is why you'd by an all electric when the Volt was an option? They're totally impractical for anything other than a 2nd car.

<comment><USER45> Because you'd buy a Prius (a wildly successful vehicle) instead of a PHEV (and still realize a drastic reduction in gasoline usage over the life of the vehicle, while still realizing a high level of reliability). There is a reason the Prius was often put into service as a taxi.

I've driven my Tesla from the west coast to the east coast with minimal hassle (using only Superchargers), and with newer EVs having longer range and fast charging stations being deployed rapidly (Electrify America), I argue that the idea that an all electric vehicle is impractical except as a second vehicle is an antiquated notion.

<comment><USER47> The Volt has an excellent track record for reliability, easily better than that of the Model 3, and earlier Model S (haven't kept up with if they ever sorted out the issues from back when I wanted to buy one)

It also has better fit and finish despite costing less.

The Volt was an all around better car than the Model S I test drove and that's why I have one (and two other cars in a similar price bracket so that is clear it wasn't a price issue).

This is a little off-topic but your comment resurfaced my sentiment on the matter... I firmly believe Tesla is making cars that survive on halo effect more than substance and am extremely excited to see what other manufacturers come up with in the future.

Also, to understand the benefits of the gas engine look at it like this.

Presuming you're not one of the owners using/abusing supercharging to replace a home charger, the Volt ICE is like a supercharger.

You only use it on long trips or to top off when you're a little low and want to get rid of "range anxiety"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> While GM is killing it here, they're pushing the Voltec drivetrain in China:

[https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a19843069/velite-nik- buick...](https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a19843069/velite-nik-buick- unveils-velite-6-phev-and-ev-in-china/)

</comment><comment><USER48> Why are people so against it? I mean, plug-in hybrids are a dead end, they made sense only when batteries were super expensive. With almost all producers being under $200/kwh and some under $130/kwh, with $100/kwh just around the corner, what's the point of a plug-in hybrid?

<comment><USER49> Hybrids (or battery swaps) make sense until apartments and employers have power outlets for every parking space.

<comment><USER48> Not really. For daily driving cycle, you will have enough of battery for charging just once per day, overnight, if you can't do it then plug-in hybrid is of no value to you compared to an ICE car (or a traditional non-plugin hybrid), simply because you don't plug in. For long journeys, you need fast chargers anyway, and you mostly have it on highways.

<comment><USER49> Non-plugin hybrids had all the drawbacks of gas engine drivetrains, but I view a plug-in hybrid as an electric car with a backup plan. Pure electric car owners are betting they'll never need that, but some of them are wrong.

That said, I've had a reasonably cheap and reliable used Elantra for a while, and I'm holding off on these until the market settles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Being a leaf driver, this would have been a good deal for me only if they could make it about 20% cheaper. Sad to see it go.

</comment><comment><USER51> I'm not surprised, they were hideously ugly. Is there a reason most electrics are God-awful, looks wise? I'd say it has to do with shape considerations brought about by the batteries, motor, or aerodynamics, but Teslas look great and better than other cars.

</comment><comment><USER52> almost certainly current US policies are making it more difficult for EV to compete. Kind of subtle point. Make sure we don't have to deal with dipshits in the future. Vote!

</comment><comment><USER53> People are no longer buying EVs when there are no more $7500 tax breaks (they are expiring this year)? Who could have possibly predicted that :)

</comment><comment><USER13> I would conjecture that while GM is _saying_ publicly that they're going full- bore on pure EV they've done a 180 since the end of their federal tax credits and the election of Trump and in fact are doing their best to just focus on what makes them money at home, Equinoxs and Silverados, and make all that weird eco-stuff for markets abroad ... in China.

Closing factories in the US and Canada and laying people off is a part of that. Shutting down the Volt is also part of that, as it's a through-and- through domestically produced machine out of Michigan.

Trump style politics and climate denying in the 'conservative' movement is setting North America back. In 20 years when the dust settles the locus of production of the next generation of vehicles will be in Asia, and we'll be behind.

I love my Volt, it's the best car I've owned. I used to be a big advocate of the GM EV program. The engineering is top notch. But the engineers at GM seem to have been undermined by their management. It's very sad.

<comment><USER13> Further to my point above, it's worth pointing out that AFAIK the Buick PHEV Velite, the Chinese version of the Volt, isn't scheduled for cancellation.

It will be built and sold in China.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I fit the concept of the Volt perfectly; Married, Mid 40's male, one kid (6yo), under 50 miles 5 of 7 days a week, wife drives SUV so we have that when needed. Spring of 2017 I was ready for new car and I so wanted to get a Volt as I've been eyeing it for a few years (especially the new revamped model) thinking I would be ahead of all our friends in going EV and saw myself at parties telling people how I haven't been to gas station in months, etc. I lurked Volt Forums, read all car review sites and was ready.

Then the actual shopping started and reality set... I visited all Chevy dealers in a 30 mile radius of my house, about 4 of them. It quickly became very apparent how this car was just a thorn in GM's side and I got the feeling they did not want to sell this car if they could help it.

First dealer I went to for a specific one they had I wanted. When I got there I was told it was at their spillover lot and they couldn't get it that late (7p). But they had one exactly like it just different color right outside I could test drive. The salesman finding the keys for it were a "challenge" and I waited 20 minutes for him to locate them. In the meantime while waiting he asked me if I would be interested in any other of their models, some they have "below wholesale" deals for that would be better than the Volt to own. After telling him no, we got the keys and went to the car outside. I get in to start it, drive it around and notice that we are on the combustion engine the WHOLE time. He didn't know what I was talking about as I explained what the dash was showing - that the main battery was dead and needed an over night charge. He comes back to look for a battery charger and I again tell him he doesn't understand as it isn't a starter type battery typically in cars that needed a charge. I frustratingly left.

Second dealer would not go more than $1k lower from sticker on the one I wanted. Wouldn't budge. I showed him how far off he was to Truecar pricing, explained that these things aren't selling well and here I am for a deal I can feel good about. He then tried to suggest I would be better off in the used Volt market for the price I was trying to get, which wasn't out of realm to what others were getting deals at on Forums. I left.

Other two dealers didn't even have that many Volts on hand but said they could order. Again we got to prices and I'd order one if right for me and they both told me same as above that this city this car is a premium and there are no discounts given, best they could do blah blah. Especially if they have to order one. I was able to test drive one fully charged at one of these dealers though.

The test drive was with my son this time. Him with me realized just how compact this car was, and he wasn't getting smaller. My previous car was a 2007 Mazda3 and it felt roomier inside. With my seat all the way back for my desired driving position, we would not be able to fit a second kid back there. I'd have to scoot pretty far up for him to sit behind me. The quality of the interior actually impressed me and the tech is very cool, but this car even felt smaller than the new Cruze model they had in same showroom.

The size of this car is what ultimately made it fail IMO as well as them just not wanting to sell/push for it compared to even the Cruze or Malibu. It seems like they were more interested in selling the Equinox, Malibu and pickup trucks as those dominated the lots. Buyers as a whole have started to want more room and larger vehicles as evident in the sales numbers past few years in USA, and compact cars were a dead man walking. This is what this car was. A Subcompact car with a 33k sticker price that a majority would take one look at and wonder who hell buys this when the Cruze is 20k. It takes a LOT of miles/gas to make up that difference.

There is also the 7.5k tax credit that would, on paper, drop this car down in price, but still more than a fully loaded Cruze and in some cases I could get a bigger Malibu for not much more (this all at the time over a year ago). To get that tax credit means you have to owe the IRS that much in taxes, which we never come close to each year. You owe less that 7.5k, your tax credit is less! You owe nothing or get refunds each year (us) you get ZERO credit.

I then started to look at used market and started to notice these things were asking prices of more than what new would cost with a full tax credit and there were also very few of them in my area to choose from that had low miles. Basically all ridiculously overpriced enough to where even expert negotiating would be hard pressed to get me a good deal.

In the end, I just ended up realizing the Volt wasn't for me, no matter how much I wanted it. I'd be sacrificing space and my wife even asked how I could even think of getting such a small car as my last one was small enough. It was priced as premium from dealers who were oblivious to how poor it was selling it seemed and didn't want to move it regardless. I'd have to really change up our W4's so we could maybe even get the full tax credit. Plus with the poor dealership mentality of this car all in my area, I even questioned how well they'd handle warranty issues or repair when I eventually needed them.

The Bolt was so new at the time so it wasn't an option/available in my area and any that were in next state over were MSRP and no budge. I'd be highly interested in the Bolt if I was doing it all over right now, but in the end I moved on from the Volt never to really think again about owning one. America has moved on from compact cars as well. I have one year left on a lease and next year i will look at the Kona and Bolt but also in a segment I thought i'd never want to drive - the compact SUV. CX-5 or Rav4 types. I want an EV bad but it is hard to justify from a economic standpoint still in 2019.

</comment><comment><USER55> hopefully this won't lead to another bailout

</comment><comment><USER56> Kind of a fucking shame. As individuals, we are generally quite powerless in the climate crisis. The world is being ruined by companies and governments that we generally cannot influence. The power we retain: how we spend our money. Electric vehicles offer perhaps the most significant opportunity for the average consumer to improve the carbon emission status-quo.

Regardless of the ecological impact, I've quickly come to see ICE cars as quite gross. I don't want tail pipes, the smell of gasoline fumes, or the angry noises. My E-Golf is delightfully zippy and quiet. For the driving experience, I'd choose this car in a heartbeat over any old-fashioned-engine auto.

That being said, it does suck to have an EV because of range anxiety, having to hunt for charging stations, and being forced to camp while the car charges. I really wish I had an PHEV to address these issues, but there are sadly few options on the market today.

I can only drive an EV because I've installed a charger at home, but most people do not have the ability to do so. I'll have to get rid of my EV when I move, downgrading to mini-explosions in my car.

...which leads to my point:

If Tesla was serious about transitioning the world to sustainable energy, they would build a full PHEV lineup, or offer generator options for their existing cars. You need to appeal to the vast majority of consumers who are not ready for full electric. But I suspect Tesla won't do this because they have too much pride.

<comment><USER57> > Electric vehicles offer perhaps the most significant opportunity for the > average consumer to improve the carbon emission status-quo

Public transit. Electric cars hardly put a dent in climate change. We need higher density cities, less sprawl, more robust public transit, and a nationwide high speed rail network. These all require political will, policy change and public money -- no private company will do this.

> As individuals, we are generally quite powerless in the climate crisis. The > world is being ruined by companies and governments that we generally cannot > influence.

Right now the green new deal is an extremely popular idea in public consciousness, and activists have pushed it to the point that nearly every Democrat running for president has signed off on it. We are not powerless, use your platform and your resources to advocate for political change.

<comment><USER58> > less sprawl

> no private company will do this.

Many cities are blocking developers from buying up homes in old neighborhoods to build apartments and condos which could house far more people closer to their jobs. Often this boils down to NIMBYs lobbying city councils while those who would buy said apartments aren't exactly in a place to do that.

There's a lot of low hanging fruit like this where trivial policy fixes could go a long way without the political challenges of massive public spending, but we can't even get these set up properly. A simple shift from allowing developers to build more suburbs to more apartments and condos would do a lot of good in many cities.</comment></comment></comment>


Prototype Puzzles of Oskar van Deventer [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/user/OskarPuzzle

<comment><USER2> I'm currently working with Oskar to produce a new puzzle - he's an amazing guy, and really, really nice to go with it. Phenomenal brain - I already own a few of his puzzles.

</comment><comment><USER3> I had a chance to meet him last year. He is nice guy and enthusiastic about technology.</comment>


Journalists' E-Mails Hacked in China - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/world/asia/01china.html <comment><USER2> How unexpected.</comment>


First Look at Songbird 1.0 - <AUTHOR> http://lifehacker.com/5078386/first-look-at-songbird-10-aka-itunes-killer-aka-sloppy-mess

<comment><USER2> I got really into Songbird a few months ago but it started to feel bloated and slow. The one benefit of iTunes is that its relatively quick and simple.

The blog integration is its best selling point though.

 _Edit: I tried 1.0rc1 on OSX and I can confirm the above is still an issue, I actually think its gotten worse._

<comment><USER3> I agree with you. I too gave Songbird a try but it just felt too bloated. Your comment on iTunes reminded me of this Steve Jobs quote:

 _"Wait wait - put your hands down. Listen: I know you have a thousand ideas for all the cool features iTunes could have. So do we. But we don't want a thousand features. That would be ugly. Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to all but the most crucial features."_

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really want to like Songbird, and have even praised it several times in various places but sometimes it just lets my down. I tried the 1.0 RC but it could never get past "Updating Library" which is a dialog that just sits there before Songbird actually opens.

Granted I have a large one but I've left it on over night for two nights straight with no luck, so I'm giving up until 1.0 is fully out.

Until then, I'm just using Banshee. It seems to do the trick but it's not my optimal choice :/

<comment><USER5> ugh. how big is your library? try killing your profile and just starting from scratch?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've had a quick download and play with it. I'm on a Mac, so if an application closes when you press the close button it's really annoying. Songbird does this. There is no equalizer control either.

Is it meant to look like Firefox with a different skin under the covers? (because the menus and the preferences point to it)

<comment><USER7> Yeah. The rule for Macs, I think, is that your app only should close if the window is inextricably linked to the function. iPhoto, for instance, where the window lets you look at pictures and modify photos, and that stuff happens instantly when you're looking at the window. When you close it, it means you're done using it.

With a music player, you should be able to close the window and still have the music play: the app is linked to the music, in other words, and not the window. Similarly, if I stop the music and close the window, it shouldn't close, because music being stopped is just as much a function of a music player as is music being played.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Smart Domain Search Engine - Review NameMesh - <AUTHOR> Hi Everyone,
I recently launched - http://www.namemesh.com and would love to have your feedback on it.
Briefly:
NameMesh is a smart .com domain search engine which quickly creates, ranks and checks names.
It's
1) Complete - checks for lots of things like synonyms, antonyms, related words, portmanteau, misspellings, phonetic variations, short url, acronyms, suffixes, prefixes etc.
2) Relevant - ranks all the names based on quality metrics. supports ways to do complex queries.
3) Simple & Fast - single step process taking only seconds.
Thanks <comment><USER2> Very nice. I normally do this manually, put together a list of keywords and then obsess over their synonyms and misspells, made-up words, etc. with a thesaurus and domain search website at hand. That is to say, this is definitely helpful in the process of finding a great domain. However, how is this different from the other solutions out there that mix-n-match keywords?

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks for the feedback. I am glad you liked it. What makes namemesh different is that it actually checks for all the ways of creating a name. Plus it ranks them based on metrics like length of domain, how similar are the words, quality of made-up words, so that the good ones are easily discoverable and one is not lost in lots of random suggestions. And it's very easy to use. You can find a great domain much quicker using namemesh than any other solution. I may be able to answer better if you can tell me about the particular solution in your mind.

<comment><USER2> Alright, I'll bite. I have no particular solution in my head, more particular results. I would want to have a service that yields compelling results and goes beyond simple keyword matching. I know you do a little bit more by looking for synonyms and misspells, but it would be good if you looked into web semantics (e.g. OWL) in order to better combine the keywords and thus produce better results. I would like to be able o submit not just a couple of keywords but the 20 plus keywords I typically generate every time I am looking for a domain. Btw you have a great name, I was just going to look for a domain and I remembered NameMesh immediately. Plus good looking/simple interface. Cheers.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks! Will look into OWL.

There is something for 20 keywords as well - <http://www.namemesh.com/company- name-generator>.

It's mainly for mixing words, phonetics and simple permutations. Please do let me know if it works for you.

I created NameMesh (.com was available) using the same algorithms. I think it's possible to find 'available and brandable' .com domains. That's why I built NameMesh. Cheers!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I like this a lot actually. I use bustaname.com because it's pretty simple. bustaname also does a quick check for me if it's available or not.

I have this site bookmarked.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks!</comment></comment>


Optimism - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/raganwald/presentations/blob/master/optimism.md <comment><USER3> I think this might be one of those times where the title might lead to confusion in the comment section and leads people a bit astray.

I saw this talk in person at Nordic Ruby, and it was one of the best talks I've seen (and I've seen a bunch). Strangely enough, I don't really think back and think much about "optimism" when I think of the talk, though, even though the talk _is_ about optimists.

My takeaway was the type of tooling and thought processes that are advantageous when approaching problems and conflict. In many talks — mine included — people will say something along the lines of "be nice to your teammates and leave good feedback", for example, but that's really vague. Reg's talk helped me understand _what_ that type of feedback might be, how it can be explicitly phrased, and how I can give concrete feedback without being antagonistic. I think it makes for a more effective argument, especially when building product, but also it just makes for friendlier humans.

Yeah, this does lead to "optimistic people", hence the title, but I just thought it was weird to see discussion here about the merits of positive people versus negative people. I think the talk's a much bigger dialogue about interacting with humans and, possibly more importantly, yourself.

Anyway, I really liked the talk, and as much as this Markdown is great at getting the point across, this is one of the talks I'd suggest actually watching. \m/

<comment><USER4> The best advice I received on this topic was that feedback should be actionable, specific, and kind.

Actionable and specific mean that the person on the receiving end has a set of concrete actions to take to implement.

For example, "get better at programming" isn't specific, and "get a PhD in Computer Science" probably isn't actionable, but "work on improving your ability to write readable code by working through the exercises in this book" is something that can be worked with (especially if you can spend some time to mentor that person!)

Kindness matters a lot, though, and it is different from niceness.

When giving feedback, some people say that they are brutally honest, but often the emphasis is on the first word, rather than the second. Things like "The module you wrote is crap because your code sucks and is hard to maintain." doesn't help in any way, shape or form.

On the other hand, others that focus on being nice often heap on the praise, while excluding or downplaying the criticism. "You worked really hard on that module, and maybe should should spend a more little time refactoring and cleaning things up" is too nice.

Kindness means sharing the good and the bad, but without being aggressive or accusatory: "Thanks for the hard work on that module. It does exactly what it needs to, but I'm really struggling to understand what's going on in there, as there are some really big methods and classes. Breaking those apart into smaller separate objects and functions would help a lot."

<comment><USER5> > When giving feedback, some people say that they are brutally honest

As someone who prefers giving and receiving terse feedback... I would suggest that there's nothing wrong with brutal honesty _for type of people who appreciate receiving it_.

If I write code and forget to test some specific cases, I would much rather get a code review of "Missing tests for negative numbers, empty string, null" than a longwinded and "nice" version. I don't need to hear compliments on what's right... just what can be improved. Some people really value bluntness and see directness as _more_ friendly because it's honest.

<comment><USER6> > _for type of people who appreciate receiving it_

This is key. I wonder though, what's a good way to signal that to friends and coworkers? I personally declare Crocker's rules[0], but I rarely have the opportunity to communicate that to people I'm talking to.

[0] - [https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Crocker's_rules](https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Crocker's_rules)

"By declaring commitment to Crocker's rules, one authorizes other debaters to optimize their messages for information, even when this entails that emotional feelings will be disregarded. This means that you have accepted full responsibility for the operation of your own mind, so that if you're offended, it's your own fault. The underlying assumption is that rudeness is sometimes necessary for effective conveyance of information, if only to signal a lack of patience or tolerance: after all, knowing whether the speaker is becoming angry or despondent is useful rational evidence. Two people using Crocker's Rules should be able to communicate all relevant information in the minimum amount of time, without paraphrasing or social formatting.

Thus, one who has committed to these rules largely gives up the right to complain about emotional provocation, "flaming", "trolling", "abuse" (hopelessly subjective terms) and other alleged violations of etiquette. They give these rights up in the interest of effective debate."

<comment><USER7> I don't think being blunt is more efficient. First, adding a few "kind" softener words do not really take so much time, don't you think so? Second, efficiency in human to human communication is not only a function of raw information density. Adding well chosen "kind words" may allow the reader to get some context and a better understanding of the message.

A simple example: say you already communicated with the guy in the past. If you add a reference to this previous communication, the reader will remember you better and adjust the frame.

There's so many things passing through language, many are very volatile but still important. We're not computers. Human language have very little in common with computer languages.

<comment><USER6> I think it's already captured in Crocker's rules definition - "one authorizes other debaters to _optimize their messages for_ information, _even when_ this entails that emotional feelings will be disregarded". It's not about being rude for the sake of being rude - if a kind word provides some context best, a kind word should be used. The idea here is to free your interlocutor from having to constantly censor their communication in order not to accidentally offend you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> TLDR;

To be more optimistic assess good stuff as personal, general, and permanent and negative as impersonal, specific and temporal.

Make notes everyday about your assessments and correct them.

There is research backing this thesis.

<comment><USER9> >There is research backing this thesis.

Is there a way for a layman to assess the quality of this research. I've read many assertions of research on HN on topics similar to this. eg: Meditation is supposed to help with depression(among other things) but seems like most research is extremely poor quality [1]?.

1\. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19123875](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19123875)

Most clinical trials on meditation practices are generally characterized by poor methodological quality with significant threats to validity in every major quality domain assessed. Despite a statistically significant improvement in the methodological quality over time, it is imperative that future trials on meditation be rigorous in design, execution, analysis, and the reporting of results.

<comment><USER10> There is a ton of research in this area and an entire field of clinical therapy called "cognitive behavioral therapy".

There's literally too much to cite :-)

<comment><USER11> In that case, I'm sure there's a good survey paper and some decent places to start for interested non-experts.

Googling for surveys, this was the top result: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3584580/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3584580/) (Conclusion: "In general, the evidence-base of CBT is very strong. However, additional research is needed to examine the efficacy of CBT for randomized- controlled studies.")

And as much as I want to resist linking to Wikipedia, it really is a great place to find a bunch of reference material, as well as discover all the search terms you might need to know. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy)

<comment><USER12> See also "Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy".

(I am sorta-kinda a CBT skeptic, at least personally. But I know a lot of people for whom they claim it's been life-changing, and this is what they recommend.)

<comment><USER13> I've recently become a bit of a 'fan' of CBT, so I'd really like to hear some counter arguments!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Author here. Ask Me Anything.

<comment><USER15> > Optimists explain good things as being personal, general, and permanent, and > explain away bad things as being impersonal, specific, and temporary.

Can't this be taken to unhealthy extremes? Sounds exactly like how narcissists think.

Just look at Trump. He claims personal responsibility for his successes, but his failures are always one-time events that were other people's fault.

Where should one draw the line?

<comment><USER16> This is actually one of the strongest criticisms of Seligman's work. There's a clear example of this - after his work was published, the US Army adopted this as part of their training. After all, the results are fantastic - <USER2> become more psychologically robust in all sorts of ways if they're more optimistic, and soldiers are frequently in very stressful situations.

However the flip side of this is that it essentially trains people to disclaim any personal responsibility for bad events, and this has been mentioned in investigations into atrocities committed by the US military. Unfortunately the only citations I can find with a quick Google search are from pretty shady or biased sources, but I do remember seeing some more reliable-looking ones in the past.

It's also a common claim that CEOs tend to exhibit sociopathic tendencies, and it's not hard to see how this might apply there. I read Seligman's book several years ago (and like Reginald, I recommend that almost everyone reads it - it's fascinating) but when I took the test I only came out as mostly optimistic. On 4 of the 6 axes I was considered optimistic, but the other two could be colloquially translated as "when I do bad things I think it's my fault". Now according to Seligman, if I didn't think like that I'd be way better off, but I think I'm ok with maintaining the psychological equivalent of a moral compass there.

<comment><USER14> I don't know if this is what you're thinking of, but Dr. Seligman's other big research work was into "Learned Helplessness."

Seligman did some work with optimism and the forces, but the Learned Helplessness stuff was taken by two people unconnected with Seligman (James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen) who turned it into a manual for torturing people.

Seligman's name was dragged through the mud for this, but he didn't do the work on torture, and his research was into identifying the causes of Learned Helplessness precisely so people could avoid it. He openly discusses helping the forces apply his research to aiding captured soldiers _resist_ torture:

[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/04/21/learned- helplessn...](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/04/21/learned-helplessness- torture-an-exchange/)

There is a lot of he-said/he-said at work, but there is no evidence that he worked with the CIA or anybody else on implementing torture.

Of course, you may be discussing something else entirely!

<comment><USER16> Yes, I remember that as well - it was very unfortunate. It's not what I mean though, I would swear that I had also seen criticism of the optimism training in the armed forces with respect to its tendency to disclaim responsibility for, or otherwise minimise, negative outcomes from one's actions. I can't find a reference now though, although I haven't had time to Google it properly yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> 'Personal, permanent, general' \- all of this is easily explained with 'feeling vulnerable'.

When you feel vulnerable, every little thing is about to crush your soul, so you take everything personally, it will result in permanent damage because you're so vulnerable and the world of full of danger aka very general and accurate assertion.

This is an accurate worldview from the perspective of a child with parents who don't do a good job of building the kid up into a competent adult (everyone I know)

So the solution is to grow into a self-sufficient adult.

Most adults I know are incompetent at most things in life, the ones who are depressed/unhappy are either more sensitive/aware, or have just been dealt a harsher hand in life.

The solution is always the same, and it'll take years, decades even.

But a few small victories toward self-sufficiency will hopefully propel you to believe in your faculties a bit more - we're very capable little creatures :)

</comment><comment><USER18> Let me give an optimistic feedback because Reginald's work is well worth it. Reg's essay and his combinator book have had a huge influence on my career and my way of thinking as a programmer. I really recommend everyone here to take a look at the combinator book at [http://combinators.info](http://combinators.info)

As to the point of the presentation, it's an interesting view of things. Making a note of my explanations explanations is something I should do. Introspective exercises like this can sometimes lead to surprising discoveries.

<comment><USER19> Reginald's writing is of the kind where you immediately know you're learning from an incredibly smart and creative guy. I'm somewhat sad to have lost him to the JS-world, but at least he has expanded into 'soft' topics like management. As it turns out he's not just analytically brilliant but also full of humanity.

To have done all he has with 'a frontal lobe tied behind his back' makes it even more impressive.

<comment><USER20> We're very grateful to have him in the JS world!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Great and honest post. I hope people pay more attention to these topics that apparently are not tech-centric, but imho it's where the tech stuff actually comes forth.

Although I can't say that I agree with all, I can surely identify with the attempt to systematize our way of though, and the division of personal/impersonal, general/speficif and permanent/impermanent is interesting.

On a (not so quite) side note, one thing that comes to mind when reading this is that meditation can be used as an efficient way of controlling your thoughts, to the point where you can learn to avoid the pitfalls that the author mentions (ex: taking criticism to heart, pessimisn, etc).

</comment><comment><USER22> > It is not controversial to say that our moods affect the explanations we > make up for things that happen in our lives. If we are in a good mood and > someone smiles at us, we think they like us. If we are in a bad mood, we > wonder if they have read some awkward code we just checked in, and if they > are laughing at us.

It's not controversial to say that our moods _can_ affect our interpretations and decisions, but it is (to me anyway) to make a blanket statement that moods always do effect interpretations and decisions. I find it extremely controversial to suggest that the answer to this "mood bias" is to willfully delude yourself by forcing yourself to think "optimistically". The author suggests that mood is a binary decision between optimism and pessimism. In life, very few decisions are binary, despite human propensity to view things as black and white. I would suggest that there is a middle ground between optimism and pessimism (call it "realism"). As a poker player for several decades, I can tell you that you are forced to discard optimism and pessimism (at least at the poker table) and adopt "realism" if you want to be successful. You can't let your moods affect your judgement. In regards to the author's statement, when someone smiles at you, you have to dispassionately calculate what that smile means given the context and other "knowns" you have to evaluate the situation. If you allow your mood to effect how you judge that smile will ensure your long-term failure as a poker player.

I'd argue that, with some effort, the same mindset can be extended to every day life, neither optimistic or pessimistic. Calculating outcomes and probabilities based on what you know, see, and hear without "mood bias" because you expect good or bad things to happen. I would agree that if you are going to make deluded, biased assessments based on your mood that you are better off doing so with a smile then a frown, but you are best off if you reject self-delusion all together.

<comment><USER23> That's an interesting observation. In poker, if you have a clear and consistent bias other players will move to exploit that bias.

However, it's worth pointing out that poker is a zero sum game if you choose winning as the measure of success. But many situations are not zero sum. There's the possibility that optimism could increase the pot for everyone. Furthermore, enjoying the process can be a reward in itself. If you enjoy playing poker losing does not necessarily equate to failure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Certainly, an unbiased symmetrical appraisal should be the goal? If the premise is that the effects upon your past success are equally likely to be general or specific regardless of their sign, and any asymmetry between your appraisal of the specificity between positive and negative effects indicates bias, isn't either bias problematic?

All the worst initiatives that have crashed and burned around me in my career, smoldering craters, were built and planned by people who thought they were generally competent and that things would generally be fine, we can bet big on this one. All their past failures, ruins crumbled under the pressure of unmanaged complexity or debris scattered by some unforeseen risk, were minor specifics, won't happen this time.

<comment><USER25> I think the idea is to recognize which side of the coin you naturally or subconsciously tend to fall on, and to consciously apply an asymmetrical or biased force to correct for that.

The author naturally struggles with pessimism, so his presentation and experiences are framed around forcibly developing more optimistic thought patterns. For the people you describe, perhaps the inverse should be applied (the same article from that perspective would be an interesting read!).

I would say that it's probably generally better for you (and those around you) to err on the side of optimism.

<comment><USER26> I've read Learned Optimism, Seligman at no point makes the recommendation that overly optimistic people should be less optimistic. He doesn't seem too concerned with accuracy, he just says that optimism will make you happier and more productive, so you should pursue it.

He comes very close to explicitly stating that mild optimistic self-delusion is good, because it will make you happier.

He acknowledges depressive realism, that is, the finding that depressed people make more accurate judgments in certain situations, but doesn't really address it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Am I the only one who read the paper in a kind of wise-man on high high voice, complete with deep sighs of self-reflecting pauses (perhaps denoted by the '^' characters?). Are those meant to make us think the author is saying something profound and important?

I wish I had the motivation to give a self-help lecture at a Rails conference. I'm sure no one would come though, and if anyone did come, they would probably hate me for talking about such self-important windbag topics like depression, motivation, and cognitive behavioral therapy.

Signed,

The Perennial Pessimist

<comment><USER14> The "paper" is actually the markdown source for a presentation, the ^ characters are markup indicating that what follows is a speaker's note that does not appear on the slide.

Elsewhere in this discussion, you will find a link to a video of the presentation, and I trust that if you go looking for evidence that I am a self-important windbag, you will have no difficulty gathering evidence that is consistent with your preconceived beliefs.

I'm sorry to hear that you think that if you gave a self-help presentation at a Rails conference, that nobody would come, and that if they did, they would hate you. This was not my experience at all, and I hope you learn to distrust these instincts and develop a more accurate ability to predict when such a thing would be well-received and when it would not.

One of the things that helped in my case, is that I wrote many of these ideas up in an essay seven years ago, and it went to #1 on Hacker News that day. From time to time since then, people have rediscovered the essay and it has bene positively received. Other essays I have written about Learned Helplessness and my difficulty learning to play Go have also been well- received.

To boot, this particular Ruby conference is actually not very Ruby at all, and the organizers go out of their way to invite speakers who will give non- technical talks.

So... I had inside information.

<comment><USER27> It's a little ironic that you used this insider information to gauge the reception and audience to your talk about optimism? It's easier to be optimistic when you can more easily expect an outcome, isn't it?

<comment><USER14> "Optimism" in the context of "Learned Optimism" is a term describing the way people explain past events to themselves, not their expectation of whether good things will happen to them in the future.

In my case, I was dropping my line where the fish were biting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Imagine you are a cyclist. At the end of the 100 miles is a sweet, sweet piece of cake.

But the road has uphills and downhills: the cognitive boosters and roadblocks.

The optimist only sees the downhills.

The pessimist only sees the uphills.

The realist sees both, and makes a guess on whether this journey is worthwhile. Is the cake worth the effort?

The optimist, while appealing, will soon be met with unexpected uphills. He will be distraught, and maybe even give up.

Shoot for the realist, not the optimist.

<comment><USER29> The engineer hops in car and drives there.

The cynic figures the cake is a lie.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Optimism is just one side of the story.

A modern and experimentally grounded system of "emotional styles" is provided by neuro-scientist Richard J. Davidson, in his book "The emotional life of your brain".

A bit more nuanced than the "Big Five", he maps emotional traits along six axes: resilience, outlook, social intuition, self-awareness, sensitivity to context and attention.

Optimism would be "outlook" here, which is interesting because it's a different thing than resilience. Being optimistic isn't the opposite of being pessimistic, it's two different skills.

There are neurological explanations for each of the traits and there are exercises given to move your mind along each axis.

</comment><comment><USER31> > In a study published October 9 in Nature Neuroscience, researchers at the > Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging at UCL (University College London) > show that people who are very optimistic about the outcome of events tend to > learn only from information that reinforces their rose-tinted view of the > world. This is related to 'faulty' function of their frontal lobes

[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111009140201.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111009140201.htm)

</comment><comment><USER5> The author linked this written essay form below but it's in a deeply nested comment that might get overlooked. I found this much easier to read.

[http://braythwayt.com/homoiconic/2009/05/01/optimism.html](http://braythwayt.com/homoiconic/2009/05/01/optimism.html)

Also the 30-min talk was recorded as a video.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xjntzo- mYc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xjntzo-mYc)

</comment><comment><USER32> Fake-Edit: I wrote all this, and then realized, I could just ask: Can someone very familiar with recommendation algorithms comment on the content of Reginald's presentation?

TL;DR, references to Pandora's recommendation algorithm:

Describe GOOD things broadly, permanently, and personally. Describe BAD things specifically, temporally, and impersonally.

Now let's think about Pandora. Specifically, Pandora's recommendation that you thumbs up (upvote) a few things, and thumbs down (downvote) many more things. Why?

Let's think about Pandora's recommendation algorithm, or, recommendation algorithms in general (pandora's is good because you can give input every ~5 minutes, as opposed to Netflix, where it's ~1hr). Note: Not an expert! I just read stuff on the internet a lot.

Pandora takes your upvote, and it promotes an entire region of music-space. Pandora takes you downvote, and it demotes a very narrow region of music- space. In other words, it broadly interacts with GOOD things, and specifically interacts with BAD things. Pandora isn't passing judgement on you, but it is a personal thing (or, really, per-channel), and you can un-vote anything; so it at first glance it doesn't apply on the other axis _but_ I wouldn't put it past them if my upvotes carried across channels (so they're more personal, while the downvotes stay "impersonal" to each channel), _and_ it might be better if downvotes decayed in some way over time.

In any event, you can imagine what this looks like in state-space: You start with a broadly defined region, and you start taking holes out of it.

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm finding the in-content markup and heavy in-stream visuals tremendously distracting.

A straight-text extract would be a far more useful presentation online. Following an @idlewords-type presentation, with images _to the side_ of the main text would also help.

I have modest interest in reading this, but not so much that I'm willing to put up with entirely self-inflicted idiosyncracies to do so.

<comment><USER14> As mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, this is the markdown source for a presentation. A program called DeckSet turns it into a conventional presentation.

Having it in markdown enables some useful things like git/github.

<comment><USER33> Having it in markdown form should make outputting to a consumable Web format (HTML, ePub, PDF) possible.

I'm on a platform (Android) which doesn't have a Markdown translator readily available. Not even via Termux.

You're publishing, for the public. If you want to provide editorial sources, that's one matter. If you want to make consumption easy for your readers, that's another.

You've failed at it. And repeatedly defended that failure rather than remedied it.

<comment><USER34> Wow

<comment><USER33> I'm not unaware of Ravenwald's reputation on HN. I've liked some of what he's done myself.

 _Part_ of the reason I'm making a bit of a stink about presentation is that 1) this is a technical site, technique is what we discuss, and 2) I'm aware of the tools and capabilities for doing this.

 _If_ you've got a system with the tools on it (my tablet, as noted, isn't one), _then_ it is _completely_ trivial to output a usable and useful format.

 _I do this fairly routinely myself_ , and on _third party sources_. E.g., a 1793 document, running 72 pages formatted, which apparently _doesn 't_ have a high-quality contemporary formatted version available: [https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/lhw2eq4qmnnwxijlcrfyba](https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/lhw2eq4qmnnwxijlcrfyba)

On my desktop system, where it's supported (again, tablet, not), I've written 1800+ CSS stylesheets (most pretty similar and fairly simple), to fix annoyances with sites.

It's not that I can't fix this, if arsed enough to do something about it.

It's that deliberately fucking up presentations is hugely disrespectful to readers. It's why I try to take pains in what I write and style to _not_ fuck shit up. Which is sometimes difficult (client systems are a complete and total shitstorm). But not falling over the low-hanging fruit _such as providing mark-ed up rather than rendered text_ for readers helps a tad.

(And yes, I've ranted at blog editors, magazines, The New York Times, and Hacker News about various foul-ups.)

There's a greater irony, perhaps, in that my own psychological state is giving me a literal headache looking at Ravenwald's presentation here, given its topic. I really don't have the damned spoons for it.

Just sayin'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This kind of dichotomous analysis of the world -- you explain things in X way, or in opposite-of-X way -- seems to pop up a lot in social psychology.

I also see it in discussion of the idea of "fundamental attribution error" (when I analyze my own behavior, I attribute mistakes to external factors; when I analyze others' behavior, I attribute mistakes to internal factors).

</comment><comment><USER36> Way off-topic but I'm intrigued... anyone know what's up with the presenter and several members of the audience (primarily in the front row) and their clothing (dress?)?

I've no idea where this was at, geographically/physically, so maybe it's a local custom or style or something?

<comment><USER14> The conference is [http://www.nordicruby.org](http://www.nordicruby.org). It was held at a Japanese-styel spa. When you check in, they give you the robe and slippers, and lots of people choose to retain them throughout the conference.

<comment><USER36> That's very interesting, reading about it now. Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> > Are optimists more likely to come up with specific explanations for things > in their life? Or more likely to come up with general explanations?

It seems to me that is just correlation and not causation. It seems that the cause is the time we spend in action, not thinking about us. When we act, we are more likely to succeed. When we think about ourselves, we are more likely to be depressed.

In my experience, the root of these two things is too much thinking about ourselves.

Quote: Don't think about what is a good man, be a good man. It's alright to think about that but it doesn't seems to be a good idea. Taking periods twice every week seems to be a good idea[1].

[1] Turning Pro ([https://sivers.org/book/TurningPro](https://sivers.org/book/TurningPro))

</comment><comment><USER38> Hey, way to go, it's brave and cool to write about this sort of thing!

</comment><comment><USER39> The thing we tend to overlook about our inner dialog is that we actually have very little control over our thoughts. You know you have a problem when they become suicidal, because healthy minds simply do not have them.

But even healthy minds will be pessimistic or optimistic from day to day. The author suggests the explanations we think of dictate our mood, which is true, but also our mood already dictates those thoughts. Our explanations tend to be negative when we're feeling negative. You're just sad already.

The question is this: Is your explanation an objective description of truth, or is it an honest expression of your mood? And it's almost always both. Most explicit negative or positive explanations are also implicit expressions of your mood. Our inner dialog is always emotional, so when we reason with ourselves, we're already reasoning with our emotions, except, they have already happened.

And here is how it works. Intellectual people are capable of coming up with an infinite number of reasons. Give it enough thought and you'll find yourself cataloging reason after reason. The sleight of hand happens when we choose the reason to go with. If you let your gut choose, you'll go with the one that most closely aligns with how you feel, because it will physically feel right. It just clicks. So we reason because of our mood, and further towards that mood. And if you have a working brain, you are an intellectual person.

And here is the common misconception. A reason does not have to be subjective or false to be emotional. All your reasons can be true. The problem is with your selection. Think misuse of statistics [1]. All your data can be true, but can be made to say whatever you want. Conclusions can be written first, then made true. If we can do it with statistics, we can certainly do it with our perception. And this article along with Dr. Martin Seligman methods basically covers the various ways in which we do just that.

So whenever possible just make your mood explicit. Monitor your mood, and take hints from the implicit emotions in whatever thoughts that are about something else. If they're in any way negative or positive, then that's already a clue, because if you think about it, nature isn't inherently either. And if you're down, act on it, don't reason with it. Just hit mute, and physically do things that make you happy (I splurge on a hard root beer or a premium cup of coffee). If your body and mind are healthy, this will work every time. If nothing you do makes you happy, don't feel guilty, just go see a doctor.

\---

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

(right when I try to block HN to concentrate on work, I find articles like these, and am heavily rewarded again for my procrastination :)

<comment><USER40> > The thing we tend to overlook about our inner dialog is that we actually > have very little control over our thoughts. You know you have a problem when > they become suicidal, because healthy minds simply do not have them.

Tell me about it. I've had suicidal thoughts pop up in my mind, unbidden, for over a decade now. From time to time, at LEAST once a week, I'll just start visualizing putting a gun to my head and pulling the trigger. Or jumping in front of the train. Or bashing my head in with a rock. All quite vivid.

And I can't just turn it off. I don't tell a lot of people about it because it frightens them. They've never experienced it before, so they don't understand that having the thoughts doesn't mean that I want to kill myself or will attempt to do so. So mostly on my own, I've been working for years to reshape my internal landscape and to revise the story that I'm telling myself. It's slow going. I've practically become a functional psychologist through thousands of hours of highly motivated research. And I'm in therapy, too, which is a new development. I realized I had reached a plateau where my own solitary efforts had stalled. I wasn't going anywhere.

But over the years I've seen improvements. We can't control our moment to moment thoughts, but we can, over time, change the patterns. We can change the story we tell ourselves. But it takes time. There are no shortcuts. Patience and hope, those are key.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I love this quote: "the plural of anecdote is not data"

<comment><USER19> It's quite old and I like to say: If you think about it, it actually is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> It is often taken for granted that optimism is a positive but I don't think that is necessarily the case.

<comment><USER43> It seems as though you may be using "optimism" in a different sense than the article does.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> that's one heavy-ass .md

</comment><comment><USER45> Beautiful.

</comment><comment><USER46> >the explanations we make up for things that happen in our lives

I guess that's how religions are born.

</comment><comment><USER47> I really enjoyed this, and I've been trying to do similar changes just based on things I've noticed work better but not formalized in any way. Now I have a better guideline to go by and a book to read.

</comment><comment><USER48> I learned everything I need to know about optimism from Hope: A Tragedy by Shalom Auslander when it explains why optimists are dangerous.

\---

Optimist, said Professor Jove. Hitler was the most unabashed doe-eyed optimist of the last hundred years. That's why he was the biggest monster. Have you ever heard of anything as outrageously hopeful as the Final Solution? Not just that there could be a solution — to anything, mind you, while we have yet to cure the common cold — but a final one, no less! Full of hope, the Führer was. A dreamer! A romantic, even, yes? If I just kill this one, gas that one, everything will be okay. I tell you this with absolute certainty: every morning, Adolf Hitler woke up, made himself a cup of coffee, and asked himself how to make the world a better place. We all know his answer, but the answer isn't nearly as important as the question. The only thing more naively hopeful than the Final Solution is the ludicrous dictum to which it gave birth: Never Again. How many times since Never Again has it happened again? Three? Four? That we know of, mind you. Mao? Optimist. Stalin? Optimist. Pol Pot? Optimist. Here's a good rule for life, Kugel, no matter where you happen to live or when you happen to be born: when someone rises up and promises that things are going to be better, run. Hide. Pessimists don't build gas chambers.

<comment><USER14> As the presentation says right at the beginning, "Optimism" in this context has a specific meaning defined by Dr. Martin Seligman for his work. It refers to the way people explain good and bad things that have happened to them in the past.

It does not speak to people's expectations for how things will happen in the future.

In technical contexts, practitioners often use words in ways that do not match the common parlance.</comment></comment>


Keep your wireframes free of distracting Lorem Ipsum - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/christiannaths/Redacted-Font

<comment><USER2> Judging by the examples, the script fonts appear to have been designed to have realistic characteristics such as uppercase letters and a variety of heights in lowercase letters. But what catches the eye is that none of the characters have descenders (the part of the letter that descends below the baseline of the text, like the bottom of a lowercase "j"). This would make it appear that there's more white space between the lines than required, and detracts from the otherwise realistic shape of the text.

<comment><USER3> Very much this. I'd love a block-y looking one that included both ascenders and descenders and had different widths for different lengths of words.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Better use actual copy which will allow you to discover the boundaries of your design, e.g. margins, text size, text width, etc.

<comment><USER5> This is for wireframes, in which you probably shouldn't be obsessing over text sizes and fonts.

<comment><USER6> Wireframes should be created around the content. Content should not be an afterthought.

<comment><USER3> This doesn't account for dynamic content.

<comment><USER6> Because dynamic content is simply made up, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Personally, I find the concept of lorem ipsum or blocked out letters redundant - unless there is indication of what would be there.

The most basic wireframes will be just boxes everywhere and I label the boxes, say 'Pricing Plan Feature'.

Next iteration, would be wireframe still but all the copy need to be clear and thought out ie: the tag line would be 'Pricing Plan Feature' with a sentence below it like 'Our Plan fits any budget, from $5/month to $100/month' and be in that wireframe.

When people wireframe with lorem ipsum/line blocks, giving no indication of what would/is there, it can create assumptions and confusion - for your team mates/clients. If you say it's just for layout, then just use boxes with labels - anything else is just distraction.

When I get the copy after the wireframe, it can be frustation to get handed an essay and try to fit it in a space designed for a paragraph.

Always design around the content/copy, even at the wireframe stage. Knowing the exact (or close to it) copy/content the better - allowing you to gauge the layout and spacing more accurately.

<comment><USER8> The reason for using Lorem Ipsum is so the client can't waste time in the meeting arguing about whether the lowest tier is $5 or if it should really be $4.99, and if it should be phrased "$5/month" or "$5 per month", details that are not relevant to the issues at hand.

<comment><USER7> If you're using lorem ipsum to communicate pricing ($5/$4.99), how do client even know that's what it represents?

Wouldn't it be better if you put that $5/month and let them know upfront copy/prices are not set - they are meant to communicate what that area is for and how much space is dedicated to it.

What if you had in _your mind_ that the space is for $5/month, but used lorem ipsum and designed around that.

Then the client hands you copy that goes '$5/month, $50/ year, Save $10 if you subscribe annually / 20% off.' This will likely to have an impact on your layout and spacing, since you just used 'lorem ipsum' in the wireframe step.

<comment><USER8> You clearly haven't worked with my company's clients :-P They don't listen when you say the copy is filler.

There are also times (like in a small company) when the person reviewing the wireframes is also the person reviewing the final copy, so if you put real copy in there the meeting will always get sidetracked into a discussion of the final copy unless you use some type of filler.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The use of Lorem Ipsum is to have a place holder for your typography. With this you're replacing your typography with unrelated glyphs. This is going to make your mock-ups less relevant and is going to be harder to explain to your clients.

Also the block font looks extremely heavy, would skew the hierarchy of the page and be pretty distracting.

<comment><USER3> Far too often, people nitpick on headers and sentences rather than the actual element placement and overall structure of the page. This alleviates you from having to deal with those situations until they are warranted.

<comment><USER10> Which is the exact same thing Lorem Ipsum was for.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Hmmm... yeah, I agree with some of the other sentiments here.

I personally don't find Lorem Ipsum distracting, and like others have said, think it would be quicker and easier to troubleshoot design issues using real copy. (The no descenders thing especially gets to me.)

If Lorem Ipsum is genuinely distracting to other people, though, then to each his own! Glad there's options out there for everyone.

</comment><comment><USER12> You forgot the blurred version - redacted-quora.ttf

</comment><comment><USER13> Looks familiar...

 _"BLOKK is a font for quick mock-ups and wireframing for clients who do not understand latin."_

<http://blokkfont.com/>

<comment><USER14> From the FAQ:

> Q: What's different about this compared to BLOKK?

> A: BLOKK has unusually large character widths, which adds much length to > "standard" bits of dummy text, and also creates unecessarily ragged rags in > my copy. Redacted solves this by using sane character widths; averaging > character widths of narrow, regular, and wide characters of standard fonts. > This gives a more realistic look to the text and helps it fit into narrow > columns like real text would. Redacted Font also comes with script versions > in two weights: bold and regular.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> When I did web design, one of my favorite questions I'd occasionally get from a client was 'Why is my website in latin?'

</comment><comment><USER16> What exactly is distracting about Lorem Ipsum? I've never found it distracting, and I've always found it super useful for mocking up layouts that have responsive designs to see how the text moves around.

<comment><USER12> When using a filler text, it takes a conscious effort to _not_ read it when glancing through the page and instead try and perceive the filler as a layout _filler_. So it only makes sense to replace the recognizable glyphs with meaningless scribbles and eliminate that effort.

<comment><USER17> When you look at the page with text when it's done, you're going to be focusing on the text too. Judging the page in a more realistic scenario makes sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I can see the clients (and these are the same ones who get confused by Lorem Ipsum) complaining that the "font is unreadable".

</comment><comment><USER19> A large portion of web design is the use of typography, making this largely counterproductive.

<comment><USER20> The first part of your statement is true however this typeface is used during a different phase of the design process. It even reads as such in the headline ("wireframes"). That'd be like suggesting mock responses are counterproductive because a large part of building an application is in dealing with live data. Sure, once your interfaces are hardened then you can worry about handling live data but there is a time when all you're going to worry about is handling the response. Similarly, there is a time in the design life cycle where a higher level, "does this work" is valuable.

It's an appropriate tool for a _part_ of the design process.

<comment><USER19> You are right, this can be useful during initial stages of the design process. Counterproductive was a poor choice of word, let me better elaborate my concern. I assume the use for this typeface is to present wireframes to the client, free of "distracting lorem ipsum". I think showing clients any web design that lacks a typographical direction is an omission of the majority of the design in most all scenarios [1] and not fit as a representation for the future of that design. My personal design philosophy for the web is to accommodate the other aspects of the design to the typography, not to fit the typography secondary to the balance created by the preexisting design.

[1]: [http://informationarchitects.net/blog/the-web-is-all- about-t...](http://informationarchitects.net/blog/the-web-is-all-about- typography-period/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Nice, this looks much better than BLOKK.

</comment><comment><USER22> Coming from a designer that has worked a lot on magazine/newspaper design this is absolutely helpful. I don't know how many times I've seen Lorem Ipsum be glanced over and almost make it into the final print. This is great!

</comment><comment><USER23> I've created a dead simple Chrome extension that uses Redact Script to block out YouTube comments, <https://github.com/ZaneA/YT-Redact>

</comment><comment><USER24> Kind of funny considering that the whole point of Lorem Ipsum was to get rid of the distraction of actual content in the first place.</comment>


A medium agnostic protocol layer - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/gioblu/PJON/blob/master/PJON.h#L447 <comment><AUTHOR> What do you think about it?

<comment><USER2> I need more context, perhaps some documentation or a 'blog' type article.</comment></comment>


Alexis Ohanian: Early results from the redditor survey - <AUTHOR> http://reddit.blogspot.com/2007/08/early-results-from-redditor-survey.html <comment><USER2> Would like to see popular results from the other questions, too.

</comment><comment><USER3> The poll link doesn't seem to be working anymore.

<comment><USER2> It's working now. Be warned, tho, I did it a few hours ago, and it took a ridiculously long time to load between questions (sometimes up to nearly a minute).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The exact date reddit became cesspool-ized was October 31, 2006. Getting bought put reddit at the top of slashdot and other sites creating the eternal september effect.

After October 31, reddit started having hundreds of votes and hundreds of comments on articles. Now we get to wake up to the front page's top five links being [pic] along side the never ending banter of it's-a-conspiracy/it's-not- a-conspiracy.</comment>


The magic of 9 - <AUTHOR> The digits of any multiple of 9 add up to 9 or a multiple of 9. <comment><USER2> So?</comment>


Online Entrepreneur University Launches with a $1 million scholarship - <AUTHOR> http://prweb.com/releases/2007/3/prweb514948.htm <comment><AUTHOR> I should point out that it's $1 million in scholarships and not just a single scholarship.

"The 12-week online program costs $7,000 and has the potential for a value of over $50,000." I'd rather do my own online research, read recommended books, and meet with entrepreneurs than spend money on this. How do they price it at a value of over $50,000?

<comment><USER2> They price it by making it up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> His name is Victory Darwin. Holy crap.

</comment><comment><USER4> the logo says it all</comment>