Gmail in personal search results  - <AUTHOR> https://www.google.com/experimental/gmailfieldtrial <comment><USER3> Even if opt-in, this could be a privacy disaster because people won't consider the consequences. Letting a friend use a computer to look something up in google is something we do all the time. Oh, whoops, turns out there's your email inviting a friend to the swinger's club that happens to be on the same street as the restaurant you're going to lunch at.

<comment><USER4> That's not really a big deal seeing as how I can just click on the big ol' GMAIL button in the top-left and go straight to my friend's inbox if I really wanted to see his email anyways.

<comment><USER5> What is different is that you are intentionally spying on your friend if you did that. Here, your friend is unintentionally revealing contents of his inbox to you.

<comment><USER6> considering the gmail results are hidden and require clicking on a link to show them, its not much different than opening up your friends email now is it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't like this move. Why are they trying to mix private info with public info once again? Haven't they learned that people don't like this?

<comment><USER8> As long as you can disable it if you don't like it, as you can with the google+ linking, I don't really see a problem. If it's forced onto you then yes, get out of here.

> Haven't they learned that people don't like this?

SOME people.

Search is changing all the time, and it seems to happen faster every year. The two big dogs these days are mixing search with social/your data, and smarter results (custom result format and details depending on the subject, for exemple).

Google knows it and make sure to stay on top of the game, frankly not doing it would be the stupid move (one that so many big companies seems to end up doing one day). To be honest I'm even surprised they take the time to make sure you can disable most of this stuff or request verbatim search and things like that, I'm sure it only accounts for a marginal percentage of their visitors (although I'm one of them).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It looks like Google is turning its search engine into a global Spotlight, blurring the distinction between a personal computer and the internet. Or rather, making the concept of a personal computer irrelevant, which I think is a stated goal of theirs.

<comment><USER10> Search is basically becoming a modern version of Google Desktop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have wanted this for a long time. When I'm looking for information it's incredibly useful to have email results returned as well as web. Not to mention the fact that emailing things to myself just became infinitely more useful.

<comment><USER12> This is the exact opposite of what I want. When I'm looking for information it's highly irrelevant for my email to show in my results. If I'd wanted something that was in my email, I'd just search there instead. This is actually motivating me to find a different email host.

<comment><USER13> I email myself stuff all the time just as a "fyi" personal cloud bookmark service. Even disregarding that use case, sometimes I'll think "I know I saw this somewhere" but not know where. If it was emailed to me and I don't remember that it was emailed, I won't even think to search Gmail for it. It's not like you're giving Google any more information than they already have.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I specifically use the web search bar, instead of the gmail search bar, because I want web results.

This strikes me as an enormous case of optimizing for users that search for google.com in the web search bar. Maybe people do get confused around which search space they are accessing - I certainly do not. I really hope this either stays in beta forever, or at least has a toggle in the account settings to disable it.

<comment><USER15> I think it's a great feature. "I remember reading something about X. Was it on Google+? Was it a blog post? Was it in my email?" Now you don't have to hit a number of services. I think your assumption, even for you, that you remember the source of a piece of information is faulty.

I search email a lot, and having access to it from a standard browser address/search bar is much shorter.

<comment><USER16> I do that all the time too. I don't want to have to act like a mini-search engine myself and ask "Now where did I see that?" I just want to find the info easily and quickly.

It's important to emphasize that this is a field trial that people can request to join. We're going to keep the trial relatively small (~1 million people) so that we can collect feedback to make sure that the product is really helpful and that it doesn't surprise people.

I've already seen the product become much more useful just from internal feedback, so I'm looking forward to what the field trial participants have to say.

<comment><USER17> Hey Matt, Been waiting years for this, it's much appreciated.

Any plans to include Google Drive results too? I'm opted in to the _Apps Search_ lab in Gmail, so it would nice if that applied to universal web search results too.

In case anyone is wondering, the "Apps Search" lab[0] in Gmail is described as follows:

      Extends search with Google Docs and Sites results.
      Apps Search will find the most relevant Docs and
      Sites and show them below Gmail search results.

[0] <https://mail.google.com/mail/ca/u/0/#settings/labs>

<comment><USER16> Great point--Liz Gannes asked that question at the event, and the answer she got was that we'd like to explore offering things like Docs or calendar information as well. Gmail seemed like the best place to start for the field trial though in terms of useful information to surface.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Google slowly but surely forces me into a standard two-browser setting. So far the highlight of the forced integration was the YouTube auto login, now with this option enabled it is going to get even worse.

But on the positive side this implementation reminds people with each and every search query how much data Google already has on them.

<comment><USER19> After YouTube auto login was implemented, I started using a cookie manager. With one or two clicks you can enable or disable cookies, which logs you in or out. I don't want every random reddit video that I click on to show up in my YouTube history, so generally I leave it blocked except for when I actually want to view my subscriptions on YouTube.

Also, a fast way to do a logged out Google search, without switching browsers or entering private browsing mode, is to bookmark one of the IP addresses in the 188.8.131.52/25. Since cookies are domain specific and you're not on google.com, you'll be logged out.

<comment><USER20> But do you really think Google can't correlate between IP address, browser signature and your account?

<comment><USER21> Since most people (probably) just stay logged-in, would it really be worth the effort?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't like this either; hopefully we can disable it at the very least.

I do like that flight tracking view, though. That's what I'd like to see more of - making email/search more useful, not more integrated.

</comment><comment><USER23> Could someone explain why this is so bad? I see no privacy problems - <USER2> still can't access your data without logging in to your email.

<comment><USER24> It's a privacy issue because if anyone uses my computer to do a simple Google search to show me something, they'll see content from my emails.

<comment><USER25> I never let people use my cookies. I always start an anonymous window to let people use my browser (especially since most of the time, they'll want to check their email and go to gmail...).

<comment><USER5> Good for you. I bet majority of non-tech savvy people don't do this or even know how to do this

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> While I'm not too happy with this feature, it looks like this is the direction Google is going with SPYW and there's not much we can do about it. Serious question for the privacy folks -- is there a service as good as Gmail that doesn't come with similar baggage? (For some reason this upset someone enough to downvote, but I promise this isn't rhetorical.)

To Google's credit though, these features are fairly straightforward to disable. I'm using their service, and I respect that these are their decisions to make, but I appreciate that I have a choice. Facebook and Quora are recent examples of more unilateral "if you don't like it then tough" policies.

</comment><comment><USER27> If I had two groups of users, one that paid for my products and one that didn't, I would move mountains to make sure that paid users weren't excluded from new features. Why does Google continually give free users first access?

<comment><USER23> Google gets most of its revenue, by a long shot, from its free users.

<comment><USER27> Undoubtedly. However, unless the average free user's eyeballs are worth more than ~$50/yr, any given paid user is more valuable than an identical free user.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> "not available on Google Apps accounts"

At least this is a feature I'm not going to be longing after (but seriously, somebody at Google should figure out how to include apps users into previews like these..)

</comment><comment><USER29> Shades of Google Desktop (their local search application). Only now, it's not a matter of whether or not you install it -- you're dependent upon Google providing and properly managing an "opt out" option.

Yes, the information is already on their servers. This is a reminder that, once that is the case, you may or may not be or remain in control of how it is blended.

I'm not going to make an argument for "good or bad", here. Just the reminder that we've seen this before.

</comment><comment><USER24> I wish you could enable this per-computer. I would leave it disabled for my work computer, and probably enable it on my laptop.

</comment><comment><USER30> As for the video, is that basically Google Now for iOS?

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this so far, but isn't this just begging Apple to sue them directly on the same grounds for which they're suing Samsung (ie, universal search)?

</comment><comment><USER5> I thought Google's goal was to be as creepy as possible but not creepier?</comment>


Our cities' water systems are becoming obsolete - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/2014/10/6/6900959/water-systems-pollution-drinking-water-desalination

<comment><USER2> As far as I can tell, the biggest threat to water in my state are the elected politicians. Certain municipalities are dumping raw sewage into the water. They claim it is due to not enough money to build proper plants, but they keep redirecting the money for other uses. There are now 2 specific taxes to address this, and still the cronies end up with all the money.

<comment><USER3> Where is this? I'd be interested in reading an article if you could link one.

<comment><USER4> I learned about this in passing during an urban planning class during undergrad (it was a great elective, and I really think more people should learn that stuff).

Combined sewer overflow [1] is essentially business as usual in many municipalities. I happened to learn about the Detroit sewer system, but even King Co in the PNW has this issue [2]. I like to think areas like that would think ahead about this, given the high annual rainfall, but separate systems are quite the expense.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_sewer#Combined_sewer_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_sewer#Combined_sewer_overflows_.28CSOs.29) [2]: [http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/ehs/toxic/cs...](http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/ehs/toxic/cso.aspx)

<comment><USER5> It happens in Boston too.

[http://www.mwra.com/03sewer/html/sewcso.htm](http://www.mwra.com/03sewer/html/sewcso.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> None of the points in the article seem like anything particularly new. Looking at the points they mention:

1) Upgrades needed - stuff wears out need maintenance - always has done

2) New populations need new stuff - again same old

3) Global warming may cause drought - or it may make it wetter. There have always been droughts - again nothing new

The article also ignores things that are new - in parts of the world ground water is being used up and will need a big change when that runs out. Also greater prosperity my cause everyone to get pools and golf courses.

</comment><comment><USER7> We will soon be able to make a water treatment plant small enough for a neighborhood or even a house, powered by PV panels on the roof. Then the only water needed would be the small amount needed to make up for evaporation.

The real problem though is golf courses which use as much water as domestic use and ag which uses a whole lot more. We don't have a solution for agriculture yet but parched places such as CA central valley will probably have to give up on ag.

<comment><USER8> > We don't have a solution for agriculture yet but parched places such as CA > central valley will probably have to give up on ag.

The Central Valley is probably the most productive agricultural region in the world. According to the USGS, "Using fewer than 1% of U.S. farmland, the Central Valley supplies 8% of U.S. agricultural output (by value) and produces 1/4 of the Nation's food, including 40% of the Nation's fruits, nuts, and other table foods."[1] California supplies about a third of the nation's lettuce and is responsible for more than 90% of the organic output of grapes, strawberries and other fruits and vegetables[2].

Ag is an important part of California's economy and a critical part of the United States food supply. The loss of California agriculture would be devastating to California and the entire nation on a number of levels[3].

I assume you weren't advocating for the state to "give up on ag" but frankly, that's not going to happen and treating ag as a silo is not realistic. It's easy for many to see this issue as a battle between cities and farms, but most people haven't spent any time in the Central Valley and don't understand how important and unique it is. The number of people in California who don't consume the state's agricultural products and benefit from their contributions to the economy is literally 0.

It's cliché, but we literally are all in this together when it comes to water.

[1] [http://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/about- centr...](http://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/about-central- valley.html)

[2] [http://giannini.ucop.edu/media/are- update/files/articles/v14...](http://giannini.ucop.edu/media/are- update/files/articles/v14n2_3.pdf)

[3] [http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/07/california_grows_all_of_our_fruits_and_vegetables_what_would_we_eat_without.html)

<comment><USER9> I think it's a strategic problem for such a large portion if our food supply to be concentrated in one region.

I think more pain here is good for the nation. There's no reason all of our tree fruits, lettuce, etc need to be trucked out of California. I was in a grocery store in Georgia when traveling awhile back, and couldn't find a single Georgia peach in the produce area of a store, because California agriculture completely dominates.

We have climate issues, but places like New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, etc could easily provide that same output, and there is plenty of water in most east coast areas.

<comment><USER8> > We have climate issues, but places like New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, > etc could easily provide that same output...

That's unfortunately not true. You need to appreciate just how unique California's soil and climate are. Farmers from others parts of the world come to California and literally marvel at what we have. In many parts of the world the same technologies and techniques that we use are increasingly employed but these regions still can't achieve the same yields.

Even if it's possible to grow certain crops in other areas, you will not be able to produce in the same quantities as California can and, more importantly, you won't achieve the same yields. Settling for substantially lower yields effectively means you are accepting less efficient use of local resources (water, energy, labor, etc.). That would be counterproductive.

> I think it's a strategic problem for such a large portion if our food supply > to be concentrated in one region.

Even if there's some validity to this argument, the reality is that you can only reduce the concentration so much. Growing _and_ distributing food at the quantity required in an _efficient_ manner necessitates a higher level of concentration than might be desired in the ideal world we don't live in.

<comment><USER9> I think you need to consider the long game. California was very forward thinking in investments in academic agriculture resource... The state is the Silicon Valley of produce. That's a miracle, but it only works if key assumptions like that awesome climate remain there.

If we are in fact driving into an era of climate change, doing things like permanently depleting groundwater may irreparably affect the ability to continue the current model. That really worries me... I've never lived in an era or place where food wasn't available. That would be a great shock to the US if it were to happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> They'll be replaced by populations shifting to places that can actually support millions of people.

<comment><USER10> ...or we'll all start living inside favela-style communities in some dystopian future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > By Brad Plumer

That's quite the coincidence, there.</comment>


The best colllaborative music experience - <AUTHOR> http://mushin.fm <comment><USER2> This sounds really interesting! I am so annoyed every time I have to ask the bartender for a specific song. How many likes do I need for my song to start playing out loud in the bar?

</comment><comment><USER3> Ha :) I hope to find a bar that use this thing :)

</comment><comment><USER4> Is it already used in venues?</comment>


The Feds are here (or, aliasing for those tight spots) - <AUTHOR> http://thechangelog.com/the-feds-are-here-or-aliasing-for-those-tight-spots/

<comment><USER2> If you use full-disk encryption (cryptsetup/LUKS), you can simply shut down (if you feel your password is strong enough) or overwrite the LUKS header (which makes the data practically unrecoverable).

</comment><comment><USER3> the one for french services is much simpler ! alias le-gign-est-la='halt'</comment>


MS14-068 Kerberos vulnerability: A simple overview - <AUTHOR> http://www.michelledisraeli.com/2014/11/ms14-068-kerberos-vulnerability-a-simple-overview/

<comment><AUTHOR> FYI: I've yet to set up cloudflare's free service, I will look into this when I get home from the office - until then, apologies for the dire performance</comment>


Khandias: The Keepers of Doongerwadi - <AUTHOR> http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/living/khandias-the-keepers-of-doongerwadi

<comment><USER2> Great reporting. Am grateful for Open's work in talking about often unspoken issues.</comment>


Board games are back, thanks to lessons designers learned from computer games - <AUTHOR> https://www.1843magazine.com/features/tabletop-generals <comment> aaron-santos While it's true that negative feedback either by the game's mechanics or the interaction with other players is a feature of newer boardgames, there are a few other points that are just as important.

These games for the most part lack a player elimination mechanic. When games can last a couple of hours, players see early elimination as a failure in design. Board game designers then strive to keep everyone in the game and actively participating until the end of the game. This pairs nicely with hidden or partially hidden victory point systems.

Direct confrontation is largely replaced with competition over action selection, resources, and softer forms of territory control. Players with bad experiences of being ganged-up on are open to the competition of being the first to gobble up pools of resources, or shut out other players from taking exclusive actions.

I'm not that familiar with video games take on these ideas, but my little experience says they tend to do the opposite.

<comment><USER5> Yep, I can't think of a competitive video game that does any of these things well. Maybe this is an untapped market?

Twitch controls and player elimination are still huge with video games. Battle royale modes and MOBAs are very in, but any multiplayer game I remember playing a lot of was usually centered around this. FPS games, RTS games, fighting games, they are all about your reaction speed. A lot of modes will at least let you play the whole match of a game, but still require a heavy amount of confrontation and twitch gameplay. Turn-based games are a slog to play multiplayer though, so I can understand why that's the case.

There are a lot of people who enjoy twitch board games though, games like nerts or slamwich (both of which I'm not a huge fan of), so maybe the opposite is true of board games: that there's an untapped market out there for this style. I do really enjoy Spot-It for some reason however :)

<comment><USER6> M.U.L.E. is the closest thing I can think of, and I don't know that it's had anything even resembling a worthy successor. There were a few attempts, but as far as I know none of them were very well-received.

<comment><USER7> Settlers of Catan is practically M.U.L.E. refined. You start by buying land, then the land bears resources. When you sell to other players, you can ask any price you want. You build up by laying down roads, towns and cities, tech up with random development cards. The most common dice result - 7 - is the Thief, which lets the current player rob any other for half of their resources rounded down.

If you liked M.U.L.E., you will love Settlers of Catan.

<comment><USER8> Just a small correction. The Robber(or Thief) in Catan doesn't allow you to steal half another player's resources, you just steal one card. However, if any player has 8 or more resource cards in their hands when '7' is rolled, they need to discard half rounded down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Board games are back because the Euro game designers kept it alive during what was largely a board game dark age through most of the world. They broke back through into other markets, and re-invigorated creativity elsewhere.

There's been a ton of exciting developments in boardgames over the past few years. Legacy games introduced a whole new element to board games, starting with Risk Legacy, and richly continued by others, including Pandemic Legacy, which has reigned supreme at #1 on BoardGameGeek, the largest boardgaming website, for quite some time.

Dungeon crawlers that are more influenced by D&D and other pen and paper RPGs have been big, with things like Mage Knight, Descent, and more recently Gloomhaven being smash hits.

Board games with "AI" players, like Mansions 2e mentioned in the article, or the automata in Scythe, are influenced by video games in that you can even play single player against a psuedo-player, but not in many other fashions.

Even incredibly niche, boutique, and expensive games like Kingdom Death: Monster which is basically three games and a wallet draining miniature addiction in one very large box have become quite massive.

<comment><USER10> German here. Board games were never gone so I'm not sure what the article headline is trying to say. I guess this is an American perspective? Most of the "innovations" the article mentioned sound mostly like they're responsible for _Americans_ developing a new interest in board games.

"Legacy" games, while somewhat innovative, sound like they're borrowing from pen and paper games (where characters might come back for new campaigns) rather than computer games (although CRPGs were heavily influenced by pen and paper from the start).

<comment><USER11> I think that's right. The OP is on an English site written in American English; the audience is likely that.

<comment><USER10> > English site written in American English; the audience is likely that

Does the term "lingua franca" mean anything to you?

Considering most sites with an international audience use English and most of those use American English specifically, this does not seem like a foregone conclusion.

HN is an English site mostly written in American English, do you therefore reckon its content is intended for an American audience?

<comment><USER12> > _HN is an English site mostly written in American English, do you therefore > reckon its content is intended for an American audience?_

Yes. The coverage and topics are heavily weighted towards companies in the Bay Area + local US events.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I disagree with the article's suggestion for Settlers for boardgame newcomers, since the serial turn ordering causes long wait times, and lack of a comeback mechanic causes 1 or more players to be "out of the running" all too often for 30+ minutes of the game.

A small gamespace setup with Dominion, or 7 wonders (parallel turns, multiple paths to victory) are better intros imo.

<comment><USER14> 7 Wonders probably wins for best _average_ popularity among our mixed-interest gaming group, when there are over four people who want to play. It has an intimidating rules explanation compared to some, but plays _way_ easier than it sounds. Would second the recommendation.

Sushi Go! is another good "getting people into not-awful board games" game.

<comment><USER15> 7 Wonders is played to death here. Catan and Ticket didn't spark that much fanatism, people wanted to play but they wouldn't be planning and calling a week ahead. The thing about 7 Wonders is that you keep learning new stuff about the game, every game is different and new players still can win their first game with a bit of help, luck and wits. But if I lose (and I lose plenty of games) I'm always intrigued why I'm lost and what I could do next time, it never really feels bad. Also people that cannot deal with setbacks, somebody else doing something that thwarts their strategy or losing (I shall refrain from naming them ;) ) never get angry with this game.

Looking into buying a dungeon crawler now (cool map and miniatures preferred) and another game like 7 Wonders, perhaps Puerto Rico.

<comment><USER16> I think the complexity in 7 Wonders is, how should I say, "cheaply" generated. That is, the complexity is right there in the details, and there are so many details. I far, far prefer emergent complexity than that kind of explicitly designed complexity. It's a kind of complexity that rewards nerding out and learning combos and chains.

<comment><USER17> > I far, far prefer emergent complexity than that kind of explicitly designed > complexity.

Can you recommend any games?

<comment><USER7> Lords of Scotland is a fiendishly tricky game that appears simple at first. It's _very_ quick to teach, but there is both strategic and tactical aspect to it and many non-obvious paths to victory. Beware of high player interaction (some people like it, some are hurt). It's rather chaotic in higher player kinds, you need to appear relatively harmless to win.

Tigris and Euphrates is an old classic that has very few tile types to place, but they result in complex outcomes. I can't say very much about it because I only played it once on a game show, but it's on my to-buy list.

<comment> v-erne I cannot recommend Tigris and Euphrates enough. It used to be at the top of BoardGameGeek in the old days. Some of my friends likes to sell it to newbies as 'its like chess, but for four person'. By the way, author of this game (Knizia) is a master Board game builder and has created many more games worth looking into.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Also important to highlight the role of Kickstarter. Of the 100 top grossing projects in Kickstarter history, 26 are Tabletop Games. Board game gameplay has certainly become more sophisticated, but we're nearly 10 years into a funding revolution brought about by Kickstarter. It's not too much of a stretch to say that Kickstarter has had a similar effect on board games that YC did on startups.

<comment><USER7> I appreciate KS made more games happen, but some of these games are just overhyped. Scythe is good but not as great as the hype would make you believe. Zombicide is... well, probably amusing if you enjoy swarms of mindless zombies as your opponents in video games ? Terraforming Mars is quite good though. A bit rough and swingy, but good.

<comment><USER19> But it shows that there has always been sufficient interest in board games to make it worth developing them, but there wasn't a particularly good way to signal that - at least in America - to the people who would develop them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Board games have been experiencing steady growth since the 90s, largely due to games like Catan breaking through to the North American market.

While board game designers surely must have learned from video game design, the success of board games cannot be attributed to this cross pollination. Video game designers, of course, have also learned from board games.

One factor that the article mentioned that I do think is increasing purchases is YouTube videos, especially "Let's Play" videos. There, the correlation between video games is clearer, but it's nothing to do with design.

<comment><USER21> Out of interest, what are the most popular Let's Play videos for board games? The only one I'm aware of is Wil Wheaton's channel, which I've only watched snippets of.

<comment><USER22> Rahdo Runs Through and GameNight! are both popular Youtube series that are basically let's plays. Dice Tower is mostly reviews but they do stream videos of them playing games from time to time. There's probably a few others.

There are a bunch of other popular Youtube series for reviews, but not as many for let's plays.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> _Betrayal at the House on the Hill_ is a pretty social and friendly game. It gives the illusion of making choices, but usually the right one is pretty obvious, and everything after that is pretty random, so anyone can win. It's rare (though possible) for someone to die and sit around waiting for half an hour.

Much of that makes it frustrating for extreme gamerz, but for people who aren't invested in complicated rule sets and deep strategies, it's perfect.

<comment><USER24> The only thing that bugs me about Betrayal is that it feels like the game can get "used up"; if you've played a scenario once, a huge game mechanic (imperfect information) is lost on the second playthrough.

<comment><USER25> There are 50 scenarios, though, and the rules include provisions to choose a different scenario if you'd get one you've already played. That happened only twice to us so far, though. Yes, technically the game is less fun after playing it 50 times. But that's a lot of fun hours until then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> One thing that video games have learned is how to 'onboard' the player.

Portal is a good example. It tells you the bare minimum before hand in the first minute : move mouse to aim, wasd to move and then every other rule of the game is learned along the way.

I just can't stand board games that consist of 20 minutes of explanation followed by one hour of game.

<comment><USER27> Most of the better games are played more often than once...

Explaining rules is a bit like installing software: you do it once, then you run the software as often as you like. If you have to do that every time, maybe the problem is that you're not using the same computer twice.

<comment><USER28> One doesn't know if they're really going to like the game until they play it at least once, though.

I'm with on_and_off - modern tabletop games have too much upfront rule- memorization required before one can even start playing. They're actually worse than videogames in that respect, because with a videogame, at least the UI typically implicitly provides some indication of the ways that the player can interact with the game world. i.e. if I click on a unit or building in _StarCraft_, I get a panel of options for what it's capable of doing.

I'm happy that so many people seem to like them, but the amount of effort that needs to be expended before the actual fun starts (and potentially throughout the game) is generally too much for me. I'd probably like them a lot if they were played on some sort of shared table display, where each player would get an interactive list of allowed actions at each turn, instead of having to constantly refer back to the manual.

<comment><USER27> > _One doesn 't know if they're really going to like the game until they play > it at least once, though._

That is fair, for this I tend to rely on the same thing that I rely on for films and music: a group of friends with varying tastes in "game aesthetics", through which I can get a decent picture of a game by asking different people's opinions. It's easy to forget that this is a luxury not everyone has, though.

RE: comparison to StarCraft: you're underestimating your pre-existing familiarity, forgetting that at one point you had to learn how RTSes work, and that the interface for them has not significantly changed in the last twenty years. Similarly, if you play a lot of board games, you'll notice a lot of mechanics are repeated between different games, and rules are a lot quicker to pick up than twenty minutes (it's kind of comparable to how learning programming languages becomes a lot easier after the first few).

Yes, there obviously is more feedback in computer games, but on the other hand: the only reason you know how to use those units, is because they were introduced one at a time in a campaign.

It is difficult to introduce a slow learning curve to boardgames, unless you start with simple rules and have an "advanced rules for experienced players" section that you can try out after a few games. That only works for a few types of games.

Perhaps this is one of those things where mobile phone apps could help out?

<comment><USER22> Yeah, this is a good point. Imagine immediately playing a game of Starcraft with no knowledge of the units and how they interact with each other and not even any real good idea of what you're supposed to do with an RTS game in the first place. You'd spend 20 minutes floundering about and get murdered by an opponent that knows what they're doing. You have to learn what each unit does and how they work together and how to get resources etc etc somewhere. Usually it's in a campaign that drip feeds the tutorial at once.

A board game that's designed to be an isolated game session that plays in about an hour simply can't afford to drip feed rules to you over the session, because by the time it finished drip feeding you the rules, the game would have been finished already.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> An unique aspect of board games is how extremely moddable they are. People are making house rules all the time (sometimes because they're bad players who can't handle a certain strategy, sometimes because the game actually _is_ unbalanced). People bring their homemade expansions. Modding a game can be as simple as "let's try a game where everyone starts with X or Y!".

Board games also have very few quitters. A person who quits mid-game is usually labeled a jerk and avoided in future. Players might cheat or turn over the table, but griefers can face anything up to physical violence. Players have power to police themselves as they see fit.

Also, while board games are relatively expensive, a whole group can play a single copy. This is almost unheard of in video game world. One example was Starcraft 1 "spawn" feature, another - Age of Wonders 3, where you can play expansions you purchased with people who don't own it. It avoids splintering the multiplayer community. It pays to do some research before buying a game or trying it out a few times.

</comment><comment><USER29> The byline "thanks to the lessons their designers have learned from computer games" is pretty much bollocks, and also not reflected in the article.

<comment><USER7> If anything, computer games have much to learn from board games. Tight, elegant game mechanics. Widespread mechanic innovation.

In computer game world, Heroes of Might and Magic III is called a sequel. In board game world, it would be called an expansion - no joke. The rules are almost the same, almost all additions are incremental.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Someone needs to mention Carcassonne. Far better than Settlers in many ways, for new or experienced players.

<comment><USER31> 100% agree. For me it's also easier to play with the entire family, going from grandparents to grandkids.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I don't dabble with video games very much because I find it to be mostly a solitary experience and they tend to have addictive game mechanics.

Board games on the other hand force you to become social and is often times responsible for bringing your groups of friends together more frequently as well as being a toehold into new social circles.

<comment><USER7> Computer games used to be social, they just found out more profitable ways to milk people.

Dedicated servers in shooter games were social and more exciting. Every server was a mini community for players who frequented it, usually because they had "good ping" there. All skill levels mixed together, so on one hand it could be frustrating when a very good player mopped up, but at the same time you could learn from the best. You don't learn much from people just as good as you.

Local multiplayer (same computer), even split screen games were a thing.

Basically all multiplayer games made before the Internet took off were social. Playing DooM in 4 player deathmatch required bringing 4 computers together.

<comment><USER33> > Dedicated servers in shooter games were social and more exciting. Every > server was a mini community for players who frequented it, usually because > they had "good ping" there

WoW was even more social before they changed things for worse by allowing character transfer between servers and random groups over all realms. It went from getting to know other players by stumbling upon them frequently to being able to experience the whole content while avoiding social activities altogether.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> One design aspect not mentioned here - I don't know if it has an official name or not - is the idea of sub-goals. By which I mean mini achievements, not always explicit, beyond the main goal that players can achieve.

Dominion is a great example of this. I rarely win but I have great fun building a stupidly optimised deck. For me building the 'perfect' deck is as fun a goal as winning. I once bought two colonies (highest victory card) in once turn, and even though I lost by a few points I felt like I'd won.

This feature is increasingly popular in new games.

</comment><comment><USER7> Lords of Scotland is a criminally underrated card game that's fun for beginners and masters as well. Actually I haven't seen anyone master it yet. Like many best games (yes, it means 7 Wonders isn't one) it has simple rules and few components which lead to complicated outcomes. I'm frequently asked to pull it out of my bag. It has both tactical and strategic aspects (you don't draw new cards at the start of new round).

The only potential flaw is high player interaction and potential to hurt feelings, but then again it's what many players love about it. Technically it _is_ a bidding game, but most cards you play affect other players, sometimes directly destroying theirs. Kingmaker syndrome is there, but I view it as an interesting puzzle how to win when all other players are out to get me. Except for last rounds, no one is beyond chance of winning.

\</comment><comment>----

RoboRally is a very fun game about robots racing in a factory. Each player is dealt 9 program cards (move 2, move 1, turn left, turn right, U-turn, backpedal...) and has to put them in 5 registers. All players do this simultaneously, and a 30-second hourglass is turned over when second-last player finishes. Once done, all players reveal their 1st register and perform the action, then 2nd register, and so on. Robots bump and displace each other, fire lasers at the end of each register phase, move onto conveyor belts, avoid pits, rotating floor, pushers and even collect upgrades. It's a hectic game where making an error results in visually amusing consequences. It's very light on rules, instead it demands more from spatial imagination.

</comment><comment><USER35> Pandemic Legacy is a real gem. Me and my friends are having a great time playing it. Even if you have played pandemic to death, the twists at every month make each game distinct and encourages you to try different strategies and characters.

<comment><USER7> Try Robinson Crusoe: Adventures on a Cursed Island. This cooperative game is an amazing story generator, is so difficult it forces you to think hard, and scenarios are highly randomized depending on what comes up. Theme is very strong in that game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I'm curious if people have any recommendations for good strategy iPad games based on board games. Catan is good. Carcassonne is good. Monopoly is painful.

What others do people play regularly?

<comment><USER37>
      - Puerto Rico
      - Race for the Galaxy
      - <USER2>
      - Lords of Waterdeep
      - <USER3>
      - Le Havre

I don't exactly recommend them, because I think they're hard to understand if you haven't played in real life, but also:

      - Terra Mystica
      - <USER4>

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> As someone somewhat new to this genre I must Puerto Rico is an amazing game. The online play is fantastic too (on board game area). Also pretty great is Hansa Teutonica and PowerGrid.

Currently I am pretty addicted to Puerto Rico online. The turn based or real time options are perfect.

<comment><USER7> Race for the Galaxy is upgraded Puerto Rico. Turns are simultaneous so it's no longer deterministic who wins, development is randomized through cards (highly balanced at that), there are variable player powers. You can check it out with an open source app "Keldon AI", but brutally tough neural networks based computer opponent won't tell you why it plays the way it does. It doesn't know.

Also check out Troyes. Alternating turns like in Puerto Rico, decisions are highly meaningful (more interaction than in PR and RftG) and it always feels like resources are scarce but many things you'd like to do. It's a bit more complex than PR. Each playthrough is randomized depending on what crafts and events come up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> My friend just put a boardgame up on Kickstarter, was funded within a day by friends. [0]

Board games offer easy prototyping and are enjoyable by a larger audience than computer games (which typically require certain hardware + specific twitch skills)

[0] [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1019118800/sun-rush- str...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1019118800/sun-rush-strategy- board-game)

</comment><comment><USER40> This article mentions Mansions of Madness Second Edition. It's a good game, but the companion app should be used on a tablet (the article mentions a phone), preferably one with a stand.

If you're into H.P. Lovecraft, Eldritch Horror is an even better game, since it kind of captures the vibe of a number of the stories.

</comment><comment><USER41> Anyone here use tabletop simulator?

<comment><USER42> Yesterday this was in the front page, I have it on my "try out list": [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15810268](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15810268)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> > SORRY, YOU NEED TO ENABLE JAVASCRIPT TO VISIT THIS WEBSITE.

What the hell? It's just an article

</comment><comment><USER27> What the article does not really go into is how designers iterate on game ideas introduced by previous games, taking the parts that were interesting, and changing the rules that are detrimental to the enjoyment of the game.

Take Werewolves, for example[0]. This is a classic roleplaying game, considered one of the originators of the "social deduction" genre. It pits villagers against werewolves hiding among them, where either all villagers end up eaten by the remaining werewolves, or all werewolves are lynched by the remaining villagers. See link for a full description, but the important bit here is that:

\- the villagers can only win by determining who the werewolves are, but there are no in-game reasons to suspect anyone of being a werewolf; it is 100% based on roleplaying.

\- the game is played out through a process of elimination, removing two players per turn (one suspected werewolf, one werewolf snack). If the group is ten people, that means some people will be watching from the sidelines most of the time.

Both of these issues can be big hurdles to enjoying the game.

 _Resistance_ is a "second generation" social deduction game, which removed player elimination[1]. Players are resistance fighters trying to topple an oppressive regime, with a few double agents among them trying to sabotage their efforts. Each turn, players decide together which two or three members will go on missions. If the saboteurs bluff themselves into being sent, they must try to sabotage the mission while deflecting suspicions that it is because of their doing. Meanwhile, the resistance has to figure out who the saboteurs are, to avoid sending them on missions. Which side wins depends on how many missions succeed or fail.

More recently, the lack of in-game discussion starters was solved in _Deception: Murder in Hong Kong_ , where players are investigators trying to solve an ongoing murder case, and one or two of them are secretly the murderer(s)[2]. It adds a clue system that is a bit hard to explain here, but in practice immediately provokes discussion while still maintaining the social deduction aspect[3].

So over two "generations" of game design, two major flaws were eliminated from an otherwise very innovative game genre. And this kind of stuff happens everywhere: all kinds of new, innovative mechanics to solve specific problems are shared and remixed.

[0] [https://www.werewolves.com/werewolf- game/](https://www.werewolves.com/werewolf-game/)

[1] [https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/41114/resistance](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/41114/resistance)

[2] [https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/156129/deception- murder-...](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/156129/deception-murder-hong- kong)

[3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDWvHrt6kG0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDWvHrt6kG0)

</comment><comment><USER44> Draughts is not in Islington it's in Haggerston... apart from that, interesting article.

</comment><comment><USER45> Microtransactions?

</comment><comment><USER46> boardgamearena.com. That is all.</comment>


Mozilla looking to redesign browser bookmarking with Dropzilla - <AUTHOR> http://www.techspot.com/news/50673-mozilla-looking-to-redesign-browser-bookmarking-with-dropzilla.html

<comment><USER2> Bookmarks need a MAJOR redesign, so glad to see this. So much technology has changed and yet no one has kept up. Delicious used to be my go to place as I have been using it since 2005, but no one integrates/leverage social and all the other players out there.

Buffer + evernote + pocket + email + screenshot = awesome new bookmarking tool.

On top of bookmarking, you want content to be able to archive and follow up. Be notified if a site you bookmarked has updated. Get all the details of a sites (twitter/facebook/etc. link up with data and see if ur already following them,etc.)

Build a bookmarking system with utility as a service/tool and not as a storage/organizer. Think about how many links you tweet/share/etc. Make it easier to do this and actually find stuff that you saved but can't remember.

Okay - enough of the rant!

<comment><USER3> Bookmarking is an interesting phenomenon, as there are so many different ways people prefer to save and access information. In your case, you may want to check out how Kippt allows you to archive all your shared links from Buffer:

<http://blog.kippt.com/2012/10/03/buffer-archive/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This has been discussed here earlier <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4714341>

</comment><comment><USER5> I've been drag-and-dropping my favicons to a folder tree on my desktop for years. Dropbox made this become awesome since now my bookmarks follow me everywhere. Screen shotting would be nice as would being built in to the browser, but they're going to have to replicate the dropbox feature to convince me.

</comment><comment><USER6> If only it was some kind of browser-independent way to do it. :/

</comment><comment><USER7> One word: Pinterest</comment>


Ask HN: Why master/slave name change post got removed? - <AUTHOR> I've noticed the post [1] about a dev leaving OpenSSL after having his (among others) master/slave => parent/child naming change[2] rejected and started reading it. To my surprise, after finishing I noticed the HN post got flagged and removed from the list without any reason.<p>[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23737266<p>[2] https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-users/2020-July/012677.html <comment><USER2> Because these sorts of topics are controversial and the mod policy is to remove topics which are likely to result in people talking past each other.

From the guidelines [1] :

> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something > genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.

> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That > destroys the curiosity this site exists for.

I don't agree that these posts should be removed, they're not offensive and they don't incite hatred or violence. If people want to get in a flamewar, that's their business. If you don't want to be involved in the discussion, you can just avoid it. This form of moderation doesn't provide people the opportunity to try and deal with controversial discussions in a constructive way, it assumes that this is impossible and that preventing them from arising in the first place is a better solution.

In terms of this post specifically, I think it is quite newsworthy because Rich Salz is a major contributor [2] .

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

[2] [https://github.com/openssl/openssl/graphs/contributors](https://github.com/openssl/openssl/graphs/contributors)

EDIT: formatting

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot! I have a feeling that some of the successful master/slave renames got to the top list at some point in time, so it worried me why this topic got flagged. Could just be my perception. Thanks a lot, again!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > the HN post got flagged and removed from the list without any reason

Without any reason? The title was "Goodbye". I just clicked on it, (which I wouldn't've ordinarily, with a nothing title like that) it's a very short message, I had no idea at all what it was about. I'm not at all surprised people flagged it. Why wouldn't they?

An overwhelming majority of stories that are flagged on here are flagged by HN users. No conspiracy theory needed.

<comment><AUTHOR> I understand the title was a clickbait. But, in such case, it could have been requested to be changed, no? It's been the case for some submissions I've seen that initially clickbait title was rephrased into something more honest and objective.

For example, "Rich Saltz leaves OpenSSL after rejected master/parent rename proposal".

No conspiracy theory here (might've sounded like one). Both the mail thread and the PR were interesting to read.

<comment><USER3> Yes, you and wcerfgba both sound like you assumed mods removed it, and "for no reason". Why else Ask HN "Why it got removed?" Not exactly a conspiracy theory, but leaping to assume mods removed it, then asking "Why was it removed?" is how conspiracy theorists operate, not how you find the truth. If you really want the truth (not just my guess!), write to HN by email, they will give you a helpful answer I'm sure. But I don't think there was anything right in what wcerfgba said to you.

If you want it discussed, (which maybe the issue already has been, did you check?) write a blog post on it and submit that, or submit it again as news – not an AskHN – writing a comment explaining what you think is fascinating about it.

The title when I looked a few hours ago was just "Goodbye", hardly clickbait - not sure why anyone would click on it. Not sure what interesting stuff you mean, for me it was a short indecipherable message with no context, links, meaning - nothing about it I wouldn't flag, had I looked.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I might've indeed sent an email to HN instead of posting this AskHN post. Thanks a lot!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was reading the Github thread, and I was surprised people who were against it didn't mention any technical problem that may arise from these changes but only opinions about why it's OK to keep them. That alone shows me the disconnection between these developers and the current social situation. I mean, some guys were saying master/slave was unfortunate but too ingrained in tech to remove it! That's sad.</comment>


Atlantic City Algorithm - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_City_algorithm <comment><USER2> I used to think a Las Vegas algorithm just consumed resources and never returned a result.</comment>


Google Apps Script - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/google-d-s/scripts/scripts.html <comment><AUTHOR> Somehow I didn't even know this existed, but it already proved to be very useful ten minutes after finding it so I thought I would pass it along.</comment>


Ask HN: Will you pay to download a fast/secure/privacy web browser? - <AUTHOR>

App.net is gambling that some of us want a paid ad-free/privacy social network. Given that we now do most of our computer usage inside a browser, wouldn't some of us pay to download a broswer that: Sandboxes each site/session/page Blocks ads by default (and learns to block new ad techniques) Runs adware/spyware on each request (and auto-updates threats database) Warns/blocks phishing Blocks 'tool-bars' install Runs TOR Securely stores usrnms/pwds
And yet does not sacrifice standards and compatibility.
I know that I can setup any browser plus download some tools to fulfil this wishlist but I was thinking an out-of-the-box-no-geek-only solution.
I would pay, would you? <comment><USER2> No. Securing a browser is extraordinarily hard, resource intensive, and thus expensive. I would have a hard time believing any new browser project could outdo Chromium, which is free and run by the smartest team in browser security.

This is a little like asking if I would pay for a more secure Linux kernel, even though there's already a grsecurity.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you're doing market research and your market is the set of people who would buy an "out-of-the-box-no-geek-only" solution, why are you asking on Hacker News?

What do you mean by "sandboxes each site/session/page"? Which one? You can't isolate each page from the others in a browser for the non-geek as people expect login information to persist between tabs.

What do you mean by "Runs adware/spyware on each request"?

There are problems with bundling Tor as well. The non-geek is not equipped to understand the caveats in its use, and if you label it with a big easy-to- understand "privacy button" then you've engendered a false sense of security which does more harm than good.

But no, I wouldn't pay, and I would advise my non-geek friends not to either (not that they would anyway what with all the free solutions around). If you have to pay, it's likely closed-source, which is a priori less secure. However, you should know that even if there were a hungry market waiting for you, what you want to do is a Hard Problem.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the comments. This is no market research, I am not apt to program a browser much less sell it.

I took me about 20min of tweaking FF to set the privacy and security to the extent possible. I did not setup TOR b/c I think anonimity is not required for _everyday_ browsing, plus TOR is slow and many sites do not play well with it. I also do not need spyware/adware b/c I run Ubuntu.

I was just wondering if non-techies would be willing to pay for a browser version/bundle that is setup like this out of the box (it can be open-source).

If I tell my mom that she's being re-targeted and profiled b/c her cookies are enabled...she'd bring me some milk :)

</comment><comment><USER4> Beyond proprietary obfuscation and unverifiability, the paradox is that it would take a lot of convincing before I would believe that the seller of a commercial product had any interest other than selling the commercial product.

</comment><comment><USER5> No, I prefer open source browsers.

<comment><USER6> You could pay for an open source browser.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is the most attractive, valuable, and learnable skill? - <AUTHOR>

Attractive defined as increases your mate value.
Valuable defined as increases your income.
Learnable defined as fluency in 2 years or less. <comment><USER2> Communication, meaning the ability to exchange ideas, not just trumpet your own.

Attractive: People love other people who listen to them and provide thoughtful feedback.

Valuable: Communication is basically all that managers, salespeople, politicians, and consultants do. You can make enormous amounts of money without having any concrete technical skills. I have a friend who talked his way to being the head of digital at a massive corporation (moving up through social media ranks). He's 29 and has absolutely no skills other than talking.

Learnable: People will dispute this, but with concerted work and a willingness to go (way) out of your comfort zone, you can learn to communicate. For a lot of people, it isn't worth it. It's scary, embarrassing, anxiety-inducing, and all other manner of unpleasant. That's what continues to make it a valuable skill on its own.

<comment><USER3> Great answer. If I could, I would upvote it twice.

The most _successful_ people (despite this being subjective) I ever met were always people whose priority is communication.

Making a bit of self analysis, my most sucessful times always happened when communication was in the top of my priorities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Discipline

</comment><comment><USER5> skill: patience.

attractiveness:

1) rare.

2) It will make you react better to situations, which might make you reliable and dependable. (ex: having a fight with your wife)

value:

1) Few people are interested in being patient, so you will see things where others give up easily.

2) You will be less likely to act in the heat of the moment and consider your interests and the interest of those around you. This will make your boss, partners, etc come to see you in a different light. (ex: office environment during crunch time)

learnable:

1) any skill takes a lifetime to perfect. Acknowledge this, and be a little bit more patient today.

</comment><comment><USER6> attractive: empathy valuable: empathy learnable: empathy

note: empathy <> sympathy

you may question whether empathy is valuable by your income-centric definition, but the ability to understand the other side's perspective, to put yourself in their shoes, has served me very well in business negotiations.</comment>


Sysadmin Infographic - <AUTHOR> https://bigstep.com/assets/images/sysadmin-superhero-infographic.jpg <comment><USER2> Who use Windows or Mac for Sysadmin things today? Am I missing something here? Last time I went to Sysadmin conference there were a bunch of nerds that running their own custom Linux distro based on Arch or something.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Which server OS do you prefer?", should be: \- GNU/Linux: 55.5% \- Windows: 39.6% \- Mac OS: 3.8%

<comment><USER4> Saying Ubuntu rather than Debian derivative also, I can hear the furious typing of a thousand angry nerds right now.

One in 25 sysadmins manage MacOS servers? That's a solid raised eyebrow from me.</comment></comment>


Computer Science 'Ninja Arts' - <AUTHOR> http://blog.prof.so/2013/03/compsciarts.html

<comment><USER2> Is one of the five computer science ninja arts making a website that is completely blank (like, literally nothing) with JavaScript disabled?

<comment><USER3> Others seem to include hijacking the back button. Could people linking to such sites please include a warning in the title so we can avoid them?

<comment><USER4> Also, I can't scroll the page on my android phone.

Anyone care to copy/paste the text?

<comment><USER5> Text here <http://pastebin.com/vjyHG1aH>

I don't really like to take traffic away from a site but that is _horribly_ designed. I could only scroll with PGUP/DN due to the stupid control bar to the right.

<comment><USER6> This sucky design is further-reaching - it's part of all Blogger sites. There's no way to drop to a sensible version either IIRC.

<comment><USER2> Is that the Google offering? I'm surprised that Google of all people would make something with such a poor concept.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sorry to interrupt the bitching about the UI of the website, but...

I would nominate a working familiarity with:

Non-trivial graph algorithms

Serious distributed systems design (ie. building something where anything and everything can fail at any time, possibly in nasty or even byzantine fashion)

Formal methods

Optimization methods (ILP and so on)

Binary decision diagrams

as some other "ninja arts" if we're going to have to use the term "ninja".

</comment><comment><USER8> If "hack" is the meaningless omniverb of HN, "ninja" has got to be one of its meaningless omniadjectives.

</comment><comment><USER9> I've never seen a worse layout for mobile viewing. Viewing on my iPhone reduces the content div to a mini scrolling box that immediately had me close the page.

</comment><comment><USER10> As far as I can tell, this isn't a website, it's just an animated logo.</comment>


How The Scroll Wheel Should Work in Windows - <AUTHOR> http://www.htmlcenter.com/blog/how-the-scroll-wheel-should-work-in-windows

<comment><USER2> It's nice to see highlighted the things that Linux does well. There are still too many people who automatically write off open-source solutions, even in 2009; it's time they realized that companies don't have a monopoly on good ideas.</comment>


Can wood buildings turn cities from carbon source to carbon vault? - <AUTHOR> https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/can-wood-buildings-convert-cities-from-carbon-source-to-carbon-vault/ <comment><USER2> Does depend on the design life ad of course the elephant in the room that is Grenfell.

For non UK people Grenfell was a high rise block of flats where the use of flammable cladding (let alone made with wood) lead to a huge death toll

<comment><AUTHOR> This article goes further about fire and fire codes: [https://www.archdaily.com/483650/tall-tinder-are-wooden- skys...](https://www.archdaily.com/483650/tall-tinder-are-wooden-skyscrapers- really-fire-safe)</comment></comment>


Nvidia's DG-Net: Dress up people with different clothes/use as training data - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/NVlabs/DG-Net <comment><USER2> So the purpose of this model is to be able to identify a person despite their changing of clothes?

 _Not a sarcastic question_

<comment> 52-6F-62 Or, just as valuable to society: online shopping. ;}

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hilarious how wearing pants in the source image turns later shorts wearing iterations into giant cankles.

</comment><comment><USER4> Sadly, I don't have 16GB GPU memory...

<comment><USER5> I know it's going to become an even bigger bottleneck moving forward, but it really raises the barrier for us hobbyists.

I own a 1080ti (12GB RAM) - and I consider this "high-end" for many people who aren't actively employed for machine learning (College kids and younger especially). I know you can "use the cloud" but I would really prefer not to...

<comment><USER6> Yea some state of the art results are just inaccessible without large budgets, simply because models can scale (and because some orgs have a lot of money to train those scaled models).

You can always just use smaller models and/or lower resolutions though; of course the results won't be on par but it may reach a qualitative result (for research and experimentation purposes) or good enough result (for personal application purposes). E.g. hobbyists don't need AlphaGo-level go playing AI (which I'm sure had aggregate costs in 5 figures or more to train), reduced versions play all far above our levels -- although in this case there's the interesting effort of pooling hobbyist resources to indeed reach SOTA, see LeelaZero[1] and LCZero.

Some kinds of research will be effective only at large orgs, that's always been true. There was indeed a brief period when people realized GPUs could unleash deep learning/CNNs that you could do anything with a good GPU, but that was very much an exception. To borrow from another field, you cannot do a level of car engine research without all infrastructure to fabricate and test engine prototypes (though you can do some/other kinds of theoretical analysis).

[1] [http://zero.sjeng.org/home](http://zero.sjeng.org/home)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Appreciate the plain-English title for the project.

</comment><comment><USER8> The results are awful even in a tiny thumbnail image.

<comment><USER9> I believe the results are for augmenting training data, not for humans to look at.

<comment><USER8> At this point you might as well be adding noise around the face then.</comment></comment></comment>


The best (and worst) ways to spot a liar - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150906-the-best-and-worst-ways-to-spot-a-liar <comment><AUTHOR> What works: * Use open questions. * Employ the element of surprise. * Watch for small, verifiable details. * Observe changes in confidence.

What people think works (but doesn't): * Watch for certain body language * Watch for certain eye movements

Just how badly does the old way work: "According to one study, just 50 out of 20,000 people managed to make a correct judgement with more than 80% accuracy. "</comment>


How To Handle Recruiter Calls - <AUTHOR> http://blog.dweek.ly/how-to-handle-recruiter-calls/

<comment><USER2> Politely inform them that you're not looking right now. Ask them to e-mail you a job description so that if you happen across anyone who meets the requirements, you can put them in touch.

There's no need to go nuclear on them. After all, they might be able to do you a favor one day.

<comment><USER3> I disagree. I get 4 phone calls a day from recruiters trying to sell me "talent" for my startup. They refuse to get off the phone when I politely tell them we have a policy of not using recruiters, follow up by email, and then of course they call again next month. My phone going off causes a distraction, causing me to fall out of the zone and waste a few minutes as I try to figure out why they're calling and try to politely get them off the phone.

Really, they are absolute fuckers with no consideration for anyone but themselves, and going nuclear is long past due.

<comment><USER2> How about not answering the phone unless you recognize the number?

<comment><USER3> Unfortunately, that's completely incompatible with being the CEO of a growing company that prides itself on support and puts its (that is, my) phone number on the website.

Also, this is a bit blaming the victim. My phone is for productive conversations I want to have, not a direct line into my soul for parasites.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Recruiter here. I've written on this topic before (notably here <http://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2012/09/17/disrupt/>), but a major part of the problem is the incentives built into the contingency recruiting model. It's a competitive rat race that is the reason behind both the incessant cold calling and the barrage of resumes sent to companies hoping that one will stick. It's an industry with no barrier to entry with huge potential payoff. I don't think most engineers realize how much good recruiters actually make.

I make relatively few cold calls now, as you shouldn't need to once you are established, but that takes time. The problem now is that there are simply too many recruiters in the marketplace (again due to low barrier to entry and high payoff), and contingency recruiting firms are more than willing to pay recent liberal arts majors from mediocre schools pennies to make calls all day (I'm qualified to say this with my Bachelors in Econ from Delaware).

Companies that farm out their work to 20 contingency firms fuel this fire. Find 1-2 good firms, pay them some money up front and make them earn the rest. My fees are much lower than contingency firms, because I'm willing to take less if my client is willing to absorb part of my risk. Contingency firm had 100% risk, retained firm has 0% risk (some variation) - find somewhere in the middle with a recruiter you trust.

If you are a company hiring manager or startup founder, tell recruiters your company works with recruiters at 10% fees - they should stop calling to solicit your business (but may start soliciting your employees, because in a world with finite talent resources, if you aren't a potential client you are a potential source).

If you are being called with opportunities, that is tough to solve, but making a reference on a LinkedIn profile that you are not interested in recruiter contacts should help. I make few cold calls, but always honor that request when I see it. Keep in mind - when I got into the business in 98, before LinkedIn and when you had to really hunt, many people were somewhat rude when called. A few years later when the market went south, these people became much more friendly. Recruiters don't control the job market by any means, and they are having less and less overall influence as an industry every year it seems as technology makes them a little less necessary. Be nice to them the first time, maybe take a second to tell them what they are doing wrong, set a guideline with them (you can ping me every n months)and if they pester you after that, do whatever feels right.

<comment><USER5> I don't like LinkdIn (I don't like to put up my profile on any social media platform because they are all alike). How do I circumvent this personal preference and still be out there looking? How do I satisfactorily answer that I have no interest in sharing LinkdIn with you?

<comment><USER4> Not sure I follow. You don't have a LinkedIn, so you have no LinkedIn profile to share. There is no reason to tell someone you have no interest in sharing something that doesn't exist, is there? Maybe I am misunderstanding. If you want to be out there looking and be in touch with recruiters, it looks as though you are going to have to find them if they are unable to find you.

<comment><USER5> It is as if the whole professional world is on LinkdIn and I am resisting alone. The pressure is too great and I am looking for ways to circumvent the pressure. I am sure there must be others out there with this kind of mentality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The problem is that the retaining company doesn't receive black marks for hiring bad recruiters because the companies are anonymous until the candidate shows strong interest (and this were happy to receive the call.)

I can think of two healthier payout structures. One is for the recruiting company to pay regardless of results and better instruct the recruiter what to do and not do (this would be followed more closely since there would be little incentive to spam.) The other is to retain the firm and pay an earnout for every candidate hired during that period regardless of source, with the understanding that the recruiter must identify the company that is hiring.

</comment><comment><USER7> I appreciate this article for taking an angle I'd never thought of, actually getting recruiters to stop by punishing them. But if you're not going to actually take those steps, I wrote up a different set of tips. <https://medium.com/tony-stubblebine/cda0c5da9c8e>

Recruiters can be infuriating, so the true cost of the call is the 10 seconds it took for you to hang up on them plus the 15 minutes it takes to calm down. As an example, I hung up on someone yesterday who called right back with this line, "Are you that fast will all your women."

They're relentless.

Anyway, the TLDR; version of my trick in the Medium post above is to have a script that's very happy but which leads to you hanging up no matter what response they give you. Somehow that lets me imagine that I'm having a polite conversation regardless of how they try to trap me.

I'm usually super calm, but these calls used to get under my skin and distract me. I can't have that.

</comment><comment><USER8> I find it amusing that most companies are irritated by recruiters (Yes we can be annoying) trying to sell them their services. Have you ever stopped to think that the organisation you are in, or work for drives people mad trying to sell it's products also? 90% of companies use cold calling as a mechanism to generate sales.

</comment><comment><USER9> How can they earn that much? Most of them are useless as professionals and worthless as human beings. Real mystery for me.</comment>


Ask HN: Ncurses first development - <AUTHOR> rather than mobile first, couldn't apps be built for the terminal first and then given a skin (web/mobile or otherwise), just in the same way you can prototype a program in the CLI before giving it a UI.
But this time you give it an ncurces UI with all the UI paradigms that come with ncurses like windows, panes, panels, buttons, etc.. (web or mobile are just reimplementations)
I propose a react-ncurses or something similar (react-blessed), it would also make for more comprehensible terminal based integration tests. <comment><USER2> The IBM mainframe and AS/400 world has been doing something like this for decades, putting a web layer on top of 3270/5250 terminal applications.</comment>


Top Replicated Findings from Behavioral Genetics (2016) - <AUTHOR> http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691615617439 <comment><USER2> While behavioral genetics is claiming victory in the replication crisis, it should not rest on it's laurels. Replicability is a sign that studies can be conducted consistently. However in the case of behavioral genetics, one fears that all they have managed to do is reproduce and scale up erroneous research designs.

Consider finding 3: "Heritability is caused by many genes of small effect"

This is exactly what you would expect to find if you do a regression with 1000s of variables: many effects, mostly small ones.

Of the 10 findings only 1 is clearly not a fact about statistics in settings where dimensionality is very high relative to sample size.

Finding 5. The heritability of intelligence increases throughout development

Observe that this finding is based not on associations between particular genes and traits, but instead on twin studies. Twin studies have their own problems when it comes to causal identification.

That said, the overall claims here make sense and have some empirical support. My point is that the field has long made outsized claims based on dubious science that is legitimized by it's appropriation of genetics (even though it is a branch of psychology, not biology).

Panofsky's book "Misbehaving Science: Controversy and the Development of Behavior Genetics" is excellent.

<comment><USER3> I don't think this paper was even about replication.

A replication is when one person/group does something, they write down instructions for someone else to do the same thing, and then the results are compared. Is there a single mention of this happening in that paper? I expected a table of such results.

Ie, replication is about doing some very specific thing, instead I see a bunch of vague stuff like "abnormal is normal"...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow, I didn't realize so much progress had been made in behavioral genetics in the last decade. Some of these findings are pretty mind-blowing.

The article mentions multivariate regression quite frequently—does anyone know if more recent machine learning techniques have made their way into the field?

<comment><USER2> | does anyone know if more recent machine learning techniques have made their way into the field?

Oh god I hope not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> As someone with a background in neither genetics or psychology beyond a layman's interest, this was surprisingly readable and informative.

</comment><comment><USER6> The research starts off with citing stats against psychological research, which I am fine with. What I don't understand is; how do governments and private companies appear to have such an absolute grip on human behavior? They can control your carreer, they can make you buy things you don't need, make you sick without you being aware of it and place every complaint under the labels of "fuss" and "conspiracy", those academics publishing unreplicatable papers look like fools in comparison, despite being the actual cited experts.

<comment><USER7> because while governments and companies do it all the time, they don't really know what exact part that they do is actually effective, while the academics job is to dissect and explain what exactly works and why.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Tweet sized: genes are everything, shared environment zero, and measurement error the rest.

<comment><USER9> From the paper:

> Finding 2. No traits are 100% heritable Although heritability estimates are > significantly greater than 0%, they are also significantly less than 100%. > As noted earlier, heritability estimates are substantial, typically between > 30% and 50%, but this range of estimates is a long way from 100%.

Besides, some of the findings look significantly over generalized, and the ones that aren't don't seem very revolutionary or intetesting.

<comment><USER8> You are not going to be able to put this nuance in a tweet, but the major problem with estimating the heritability of phycological factors is the error bars are massive. You can't even get near the same results when you measure the same person on different days.

While there is obviously a non-shared environmental component, it is really noise. The only factors that people care about are the factors that can be studied; shared environment (that is all the environmental factors that can in theory be measured) and genes. Non-shared environment is just what is left over once you account for measurable environmental factors and genes.

<comment><USER10> If I've understood correctly, what you're saying is that there's really too much noise is the results which can neither be explained by shared environment, or genetics?

I've browsed the paper, but must of missed it. How big are the error bars? Is it possible to get a sense of how much variation is explained by genetics alone?

<comment><USER8> There are three components to the variance: genetics, shared environment, and non-shared environment (noise basically). Shared environment is almost immeasurable for most of these traits (under 10%) while most is the variance is due to genetics or non-shared environment. The way non-shared environment is determined is by subtracting genetics and shared environment from the total varience. The worse the test the bigger the component that ends up in the non- shared environment factor.

The error bars depend on the trait being measured. Some are relatively small (like g), while others like "agreeableness" (just choosing a random trait) will be quite large as it is hard to measure this accurately and consistently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If genetics determines behavior then we should be able to gene edit our way to perfect virtue.</comment>


Sedentary Behavior and Mortality in U.S. Middle-Aged and Older Adults - happy-go-lucky http://annals.org/aim/article/2653704/patterns-sedentary-behavior-mortality-u-s-middle-aged-older-adults <comment><AUTHOR> I changed my primary work goal 2 years ago. Now I try to minimize stress as the most important goal of the work day. I redefined my job; it now is to solve problems in the lowest stressful way. In other words, my employer is not paying me to kill myself.

I walk 10 mins every 1 to 2 hours and use that time to review. I try to find ways to solve problems in ways that are more fun, easier, and effective. So to me a 10 min break is a work requirement. Solving a stressful problem and not reducing the stress first is wrong. It isn't just something I do for my health, it is the way people are supposed to work because it produces much better solutions.

After 50 mins working on something very difficult my mind gets so mucked up. Often I discover a simpler solution during the break and end up getting my work done much faster.

Sometimes stress can peak and when that happens I just take a nap until it dissipates. Usually just 30 mins but there are times when it can take an hour or more. Again, I view the nap as doing work because often I wake up with a simpler solution that also has much less stress. If I can't find one, then I escalate the issue. Again, it isn't my job to absorb stress to the point where it degrades my effectiveness.

Please note, I don't work on production system being used by 100s of millions of users. I've done it; it was fun; it is not possible to reduce stress in that work so it is not worth the effort. I now make 2x as much and have almost no stress.

<comment><USER2> _I walk 10 mins every 1 to 2 hours and use that time to review. I try to find ways to solve problems in ways that are more fun, easier, and effective. So to me a 10 min break is a work requirement._

Ah, the old Walk-n-Talk meeting style.

[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WalkAndTalk](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WalkAndTalk)

If I could get Alan Sorkin's endorsement I'd sell it as a work out routine and make millions.

<comment><USER3> For breaks, I find letting my thoughts drift to be important. In fact, I try to avoid thinking about my work doing many of my walks/breaks (sometimes I can't help it though).

Doing a bit of low-key mindfulness and slowing my breathing has been very helpful as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The headline result (sedentary behavior leads to increased risk of mortality) is not completely supported by the results shown in the abstract.

They break the test subjects into four groups ranked by activity level, and compare the the highest activity group to the rest. But in the results, only the lowest activity group has a hazard ratio where the 95% confidence interval does not contain 1. Translation: the data only shows a meaningful difference in mortality risk between the highest and lowest activity groups. For the other two groups, the data does not support show an increased risk.

<comment><USER5> Also they didn't randomize the activity level of the subjects by putting them on different exercise programs.

I would think that people being in an end of life state at the beginning of the study would tend to be more likely to be tired and avoid exercise.

It could well be that early undiagnosed terminal illness causes people to be sedentary and not the other way around.

<comment><USER6> Agreed. We're back in cause vs. correlation territory, no?

The most sedentary people may also be the most obese, the most likely to suffer from diabetes, the most burdened with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, etc. Their expected lifespans will thus be quite shorter.

I'm willing to believe that appropriate exercise is good for you, almost no matter how robust or frail your health is. But this would be a much better study if it tracked cohorts with roughly parallel starting health. That way, the degree of active-vs.-sedentary living could be a study variable that wasn't tainted by undocumented variations in starting health status.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This should be obvious, however people still refuse to get up, and just walk around every hour for a minute. I spend a silly amount of time behind a computer, but I'll do 10-20 pushups / jumping jacks, every hour or so. After hours, I'll bang out six miles on the hiking trails.

Get up, go get a drink, do a lap around the office. Get a stand/sit desk. Do some simple exercises. Pushups can be done anywhere, and will alleviate lower back pain.

<comment><USER8> Seconded. I used to feel lower back pain due to the amount of sitting at a desk. Running and lifting weights did wonders for how I feel on a daily basis.

<comment><USER9> Exercise didn't help me with my occasional back issues, but switching to a standing desk really did. I didn't get one of those adjustable ones, because $400 for a desk that raises and lowers was silly--instead I just got a draft- height chair and stand and sit as appropriate.

<comment><USER10> fwiw, they make drafting stool aeron high-chairs. protip: buy one used, because the new price is high even for HM.

<comment><USER9> You can also buy high bases for existing Aeron chairs. I use a knock-off, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> Al-Khwarizmi 10 minutes is a high bout duration for sedentarism? Wow. Where did they find the group with low bout duration then? That would mean having meals standing up, not driving or commuting 10 minutes or more, not watching even a 20-minute TV program, etc.

<comment><USER11> I've purchased a stationary bike that I'll go on basically any time that I watch TV. I can't imagine just sitting down for 20 or 40 minutes to watch TV anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> There was a thread on here a couple weeks ago about how the good and bad parts of technology go hand in hand. I think this is a perfect example. We went from hunting and gathering to farming and domesticating, to mechanized farming and manufacturing, to cubicle farming and so on...

We've made such great technological leaps that we've afforded ourselves hours to sit on pillows and watch screens and use hydrogenated fat to stave off hunger and boredom.

EDIT: Found the thread. It was actually about the Unabomber. Go figure: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15145849](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15145849)

</comment><comment><USER13> Here's one thing I've done to increase exercise in my life: I keep a jump rope in the trunk of my car, and I have a self-imposed rule that it costs 100 jumps to get into the car. I drive a few times per day, so that adds up to many small workouts!

<comment><USER14> If that wouldn't result in me embarrassing myself in the Target/Costco/supermarket/work parking lot multiple times per week, I would actually be really interested in that approach.

<comment><USER15> Why in the world do you care what some rando in a parking lot thinks about you?

<comment><USER14> Because I've been socially and culturally conditioned to, and no matter how much I can rationally justify that what other people think doesn't matter (which isn't entirely true), that doesn't mean I can emotionally accept that without angst.

Put another way, it's not rational to ignore how you think you _will_ respond to social pressure just because you think you _shouldn 't_ respond that way to the pressure. The human mind is not so simple as that.

<comment><USER13> I totally understand. I know it's irrational to care what others think, but I still do. That said, people are positive about it to me.

Think about it: if you were at Costco and saw some random person jumping rope by a car, what would you think of that person? Would it be anything bad?

<comment><USER14> Well, given how busy my Costco generally is, and how hard it is to maneuver with the people pushing large carts through the parking lot, my thoughts would be mixed. Initially it might be along the lines of "hmm, there are places less likely to get in people's way to do that..." For a less busy parking lot, it would probably be much more positive.

That said, I'm encouraged by the positive responses you say you've gotten. Maybe I'll give this a try.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > Evaluation of their joint association showed that participants classified as > high for both sedentary characteristics (high sedentary time [≥12.5 h/d] and > high bout duration [≥10 min/bout]) had the greatest risk for death.

Is sleep included in the 12.5 hours per day?

Even if it isn't, I and everyone I know sits for at least that long each day. Definitely for more than 10 minutes at a time. If we need to interrupt our sitting bouts every 7.5 minutes in order to be healthy, I don't know how the hell to do this.

<comment><USER17> Well these are the same types of people who told us coffee was bad, saturated fat was bad, low-fat/carbs-rich diets were good, etc. and have been found to be wrong across the board.

I don't worry too much about how other busybodies tell me I should live my life.

<comment><USER18> Come on. This is HN. No one is telling anyone how to live their life. Well, people are but we all already know to ignore them right? We are trying to parse all this data about stand/sit/walk-desk and figure out if there is anything to it regarding overall mortality. If we can make some relatively small adjustments to our lives and gain back years that static positions may be taking from us why not? This is a quest for discovery about what the data is telling us. Yes, some of the time the data leads us on a path that is not the best (coffee/fats are bad?) -- it happens. Food and nutrition studies are worse than these types of studies, I think. There are so many more complicating factors compared to the broader strokes of these sort of lifestyle studies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This shows a correlation between death, and reduced movement before death. Pardon the obvious!

You would expect that many of the 340 subjects who died might have died, rather than accidentally, due to some progressively deteriorating condition which reduced their movement for a substantial period of time; perhaps years.

We don't know whether the onset of death produced less mobility or vice versa.

A relationship between sedentary lifestyle and mortality requires a very long term study. Like following large number s of people from age 18 (if not earlier) onward, and correlating levels of physical activity with life span.

</comment><comment><USER20> I can't recommend varidesk.com or geekdesk.com enough. A varidesk is great if your company already supplies you with a non-standing desk and a geekdesk is excellent if you work from home and get to pick any desk you want. Be sure to get a mat to stand on as well.

<comment><USER21> Big varidesk fan. Got one 2 months ago and haven't lowered it back to a sitting position yet.

<comment><USER9> What good is buying it, then? You could've just bought a higher desk (mine sits at 38") and saved three hundred bucks.

Standing desks are awesome for sure, but I don't get the adjustable trend when draft chairs have been around forever.

<comment><USER21> My house had an office with a built in desk that made Varidesk a great option. I've wanted to lower it a couple of times but opted to push through for endurance sake.

<comment><USER9> Gotcha, that makes more sense. Having that much difference between the table and the desk surface seems clunky though and multiple monitors feels pretty weird. That's why I ended up just getting a table.

<comment><USER21> I got the dual monitor mount on the back too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Using a standing desk leaning against the wall is surprisingly comfortable. I wish someone made a product out of it. This kickstarter comes close, but the project has no update since 2 years ago: [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1133385494/leanchair- th...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1133385494/leanchair-the-portable- reclining-standing-desk)

</comment><comment><USER23> Let's ignore the morality claim and look at this from a pure productivity and intellectual standpoint. It has been proven, many times over, that being active (moving) will make you think better, work better and basically outperform those who do not. So if you need a reason to move around do it for job performance.

</comment><comment><USER24> Would be interesting if the massive (potential) data trove from smartphones and smart watches could somehow be brought to a similar analysis. Apple has ResearchKit and CareKit, but not sure to which extent it's deployed and used and analysed.

</comment><comment><USER25> "high sedentary time [≥12.5 h/d]"

Suppose I'm sedentary 13 hours a day, and that I walk / exercise for 2 hours, does it make me sedentary with a high-mortality risk?

<comment><USER26> > "Even if you're a gymgoer and think you're safe on account of your excellent > effort, you are not," Levine said. "No one gets away from this stuff. … > Excess sitting, this study seems to suggest, is a death sentence."

[http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn- sitting-...](http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-sitting- death-risk-20170911-story.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Honestly, I feel like a study of this nature is backing up what we already know to a degree.

But, we need to know more and I feel like a 4 year tracking period isn't enough. For example, how do we know that people who were already the most unhealthy coming into this study are also the most sedentary? How are they handling these types of things.

<comment><USER28> That's the danger of these types of studies. We all know what is healthy and what isn't, but the methodology here is suspect at best and the analysis shows weak conclusions. When headlines like the one posted here take root and people expose the truth for what it is, it damages the credibility of research and science in the minds of the masses, who are then more likely to ignore science in general.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Those about to die are more sedentary?

</comment><comment><USER30> Is there any evodence to suggest sedentary time is causal?

</comment><comment><USER31> Did they die because they were sedentary, or were they sedentary because they were nearing end of life?

</comment><comment><USER32> I baffled by how many tech guys/girls don't understand this. This is so obvious it hurts. At my company's last year medical checkup the results were just absurd, specially for men above 30 years old. Abdominal fat, high cholesterol, diabetes, etc..Yet, nobody gives a damn, almost no one changed their habits.

Guys, just get up and move. 30m-40m a day, you can fit this into your daily schedule, don't come up with excuses. If you can fit your TV shows/gaming or your accumulative time on social media, you can redirect that to your health instead. And the output will have a major impact not just to your health, but to your appearance and your confidence.

Eat healthy, exercise and go to bed on time. You don't have to go to a gym, you can buy some gear and follow a plan from your home. Trust me, the change can be quite dramatic.

Before work, or after work, pick a time, have a working out plan, track your progress, create the habit. After two months it will feel like not taking a shower if you skip it.

<comment><USER33> It might sound stupid but one of the things that's stood in the way of establishing a workout routine for myself is lack of consistent private space to do it in. The self consciousness and embarrassment is just too overbearing, and between an open office at work and having a roommate at home, adequately long contiguous blocks of privacy just aren't there. Gyms aren't really a solution either, as not knowing those surrounding me doesn't help the issue at all.

<comment><USER34> Gyms are actually pretty great once you "get it". I totally understand self consciousness around co-workers and friends, but I can completely guarantee you that at the gym, nobody cares. Everyone is in their own world.

(Unless you're being a jerk, e.g. hogging equipment)

<comment><USER35> Holy crap, the number of people who do a set, then sit for five minutes playing with their phone before doing another set is just horrifying. They probably wonder why they aren't seeing a lot of benefit despite "working out" for an hour three times a week.

<comment><USER34> To be fair if you're working hard it can take 3-5 minutes for glycogen stores to rebuild for the next hard set.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Can a moderator please kindly delete this comment and the child

<comment><USER37> Your depression may be exacerbated by a lack of exercise/fitness.

<comment><USER36> Please kindly remove these comments.</comment></comment></comment>