Vote.org (YC S16 Nonprofit) wants to use cell phones to increase voter turnout - <AUTHOR> https://backchannel.com/the-simple-secret-weapon-that-could-change-elections-9e51f95038df#.uyl8q5weq <comment><USER2> I don't agree that voting on a cell phone is the right solution here. I live in Colorado, we get mail-in ballots and a book describing each of the issues.

I got mine last week. I sat down read over each item, did some research on the internet, and filled in my vote. It was a long ballot (2 legal-sized pages front and back), and took about an hour. Mailed it in earlier today.

How does doing that on a cell phone improve this? In fact, it sounds more frustrating, because my phone is tiny, may need to be charged, internet connectivity issues, etc.

And really, if we're going to talk about how flawed our system is, this is like one of the more minor points. If you want to get to the root of it, let's talk about how to get rid of the 2 party system, and allow more diverse parties and ideas. That's the real problem.

<comment><USER3> Because not every state is like that. I live in Pennsylvania. I don't even know what the ballot issues will be. Hell, I don't even know who is running locally.

I also can't vote by mail just because I want to. I have to be out of town on official business to "qualify" for a mail in ballot. Being on vacation isn't even an apparently accepted reason (on mobile but I'll get a link)

Edit: Link to PA absentee ballot application: [http://www.dosimages.pa.gov/pdf/AbsenteeBallotApplication.pd...](http://www.dosimages.pa.gov/pdf/AbsenteeBallotApplication.pdf)

Relevant parts:

Section A: I declare that I am eligible to vote absentee at the forthcoming primary or election since I expect that my duties, occupation or business will require me to be absent from the municipality of my residence on the day of the primary or election for the reason stated below; and that all of the information which I have listed on this absentee ballot application is true and correct.

Section B: I declare that I am eligible to vote absentee at the forthcoming primary or election due to the illness or physical disability stated below; that the information required to be listed pertaining to my attending physician is correctly stated herein and that all other information that I have listed on this absentee ballot application is true and correct.

<comment><USER4> You can probably access a sample ballot (a quick search has PA counties doing that). That takes care of the information difference.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > VOTE.org is a 501(c)(3) registered non-profit organization and does not > support or oppose any political candidate or party.

this is nothing but a Super-PAC for Hillary Clinton that exploit a loop hole in the robocall laws

60 people holding down the 'enter' key 24/7 (it's not automated!). disruptive.

this is the most unethical company YC has backed since InstallMonetizer

<comment><USER4> Super PAC has a specific technical meaning, it's a PAC that has filed a statement following guidelines established by a couple of court cases. The statements are listed here:

[http://www.fec.gov/press/press2011/ieoc_alpha.shtml](http://www.fec.gov/press/press2011/ieoc_alpha.shtml)

I guess it would be more accurate to just assert that you believe they are partisan.

<comment><USER6> While the literalistic nature of your reply is correct, the parent delivers a valid observation. Although it's true that a journalist may edit content to direct the reader towards a conclusion, the subject of the article certainly appears to have delivered a biased message on her own.

The tagline of the article isn't accurate: > Vote.org wants to use your cell phone to radically increase voter turnout. Meet the woman behind the movement.

Four paragraphs in, the slant becomes clear and never abates: > A cluster of votes could be the difference between Trump accepting a concession and a several-year blowout over the presidency.

I had hoped that at some point the article or this YC-sponsored founder would even tip their hat towards the appearance of equal representation, or nonpartisan ideals, but the closest they came was more of and admission of blatant bias: > Long Distance Voter, like Vote.org, was technically nonpartisan. But many would argue that get-out-the-vote organizations inherently lean democratic, because the citizens most underrepresented in the voting process tend to be liberal.

So long as partisan efforts continue to pass themselves off as unbiased, the problems will continue to mount. If anyone out there really wants to make a difference in the electoral process of the United States of America, you must do so by truly serving the people, not your own interests.

F/d: Of course I have my own bias, but I'm a rampant supporter of neither party's candidate. I still haven't decided how to cast my vote, but I will be voting. You should too.

<comment><USER4> Well no, it isn't valid to call it a Super PAC. Especially given the availability of the word "partisan".

If we were just discovering that groups took sides a little bit of linguistic fuzziness would be acceptable. Not knowing what some jargon means and using it sloppily is just sloppy, again, especially in the face of a meaningful general term.

I did say _I guess it would be more accurate to just assert that you believe they are partisan._ in an attempt to make it clear that my comment was about the language.

As far as whether get out the vote is inherently a partisan activity, I think if you believe that voters skew differently than the general population, the test for partisan activity is that it skews in the other direction, not that it happens to skew less than the population of voters.

If it makes you feel better, I'm generally a crank. Here I am 6 months ago telling the founder of Vote.org that their tax status isn't an interesting defense of the activity:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11718069](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11718069)

<comment><USER6> Ah, I wasn't clear. I was citing the bias indicated by the parent, not the super PAC. You are correct in the definition.

My intent is not too harass you, but rather to encourage true public service to those out there with similar desires (increase voter turnout) willing to look past or work without blatant bias.

Apologies if I came across critical of your accurate statements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Would anyone else here prefer a paper and pen ballot system?

Computers are too easily hackable.

<comment><USER8> I'd love both (paper receipts from an electronic system, that goes into ballot boxes; count the ballots _and_ return the electronic records). But if I had to pick one, I'd pick paper. We _know_ what to look for to spot fraud with paper ballots.

<comment><USER9> In NY, we fill in bubbles on paper forms with a pen, and then we feed our form into a scanner. So you get both an electronic tally of the vote and paper artifacts that can be re-counted (either by scanners or people) if there are any questions afterwards.

When you scan your form, the machine informs you if it's invalid (duplicate candidates selected) or incomplete (no selection for an office), and you can try again.

Before this we had ancient mechanical voting machines that would break down all the time (but made a very satisfying metallic clunk when you pulled the huge lever to register your vote).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't want any corporate involvement in our election system. I don't care if you're a startup.

<comment><USER11> That's impossible to the point that it's completely preposterous. Utter insanity. Even if you could change the law so that corporate involvement of all types were illegal (not happening) corporations would still be involved behind the scenes.

I think there is a fundamental difference between a corporation offering (relatively) agnostic tools to help voters vote more in accordance with their (the voter's) values and a corporation which is trying to actively influence the election according to the corporation's values.

Why do you want to lump them together? And what goal do you think you're furthering by pushing the idea of an election without corporate involvement?

<comment><USER12> There are many countries around the world with actual democracies where elections and vote counts are run by governments with citizens scrutineering.

It is not impossible.

<comment><USER4> This is the case in the United States.

Maybe there are some exceptions, but elections are generally run by each county, with county officials supervising citizen volunteers. Citizens are also able to inspect the equipment and process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> In some ways, people feeling apathetic about elections is a luxury: not having to care about what the government is or is not doing, especially as it relates to your own livelihood, is something rare in history. High turnout (in the US) happens when there is something special going on.

<comment><USER14> I would like to see some voter turnout data for comparison from other "democracies" (e.g. Russia, Egypt) before jumping to that conclusion.

I get the distinct impression that voter turnout is low because no matter who gets elected, voters have become accustomed to politicians not representing their interests in any meaningful capacity.

<comment><USER15> The point still stands, if people _really_ cared they could get someone elected that would change things.

This is still a real democracy if we choose it to be.

<comment><USER16> "people" is not a thing that can make decisions. Each individual person might care deeply, and yet doubt that every other person cares.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The problem is not with the voting system: it's with the fact that most people are vastly under-educated and propagandised -- and that's just the Hacker News population.

</comment><comment><USER18> Mentally replace "voter turnout" with "church attendance" and you'll gain a clearer understanding of our society.

<comment><USER19> You're right, what we really need is a gamified religion app with prayer congestion pricing, exciting confessional tellalls, and micro-indulgences.

<comment><USER18> You interpreted my comment backwards. The point is to analyze Democracy in traditional terms, not to port its techniques to older religions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Why are we interested in getting apathetic and uninformed people into the voting booth?

<comment><USER21> This is really the meat and potatos of the electorate. The system depends on knowing what giant swaths of the country are going to vote for. The people that run for office (the parties, not the candidates) have a vested interest in refining a race down to a few targeted areas. In presidential elections that's only a dozen or so counties per swing state.

I can't speak for this specific effort; but most 'get out the vote' campaigns are designed to fill one a single parties rosters. E.g. Rock the Vote concerts put on by MTV with the Democratic Party pre-checked.

If you don't generate new apathetic and uninformed voters who will do what Kim K tells them to do; attrition will turn your once very predictable race into a much more expensive coin toss.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm still pretty excited by what Vote.org is doing. Clearly something is broken when our turnout is one of the lowest among the OECD. And if our government – particularly state governments – won't fix even problems that are low-hanging fruit, then fundamentally someone has to do something.

My main concern, though, is that we're going to continue to struggle to justify the utility of voting to the average American who truly understands how little their vote impacts policymaking. When 0% of average people support a policy, the chance that it will become law is 31%. When 100% of people support a policy? Also 31%. That's not a functioning democracy.

The fundamentals are very broken. We need to systematically identify how people can wield influence over the political process en masse, and do so without expecting the rules of the game to change. Voting – on its own – has not appeared to be effective at this.

</comment><comment><USER23> How ridiculous. The flaw in the election system is the lack of proportionality, not lack of a mobile voting app. If people really want everyone to vote then they need to first make sure every vote counts.

</comment><comment><USER24> Ah yes, if Soros-owned voting machines can't do the job, let's get the people to vote using an insecure-by-design device

</comment><comment><USER25> Anyone on HN ever seriously questioned popular democracy? (genuinely curious)

<comment><USER26> If you read the Federalist Papers and other writings of those who actually hammered out the US Constitution, there are strong threads of distaste and fear for the consequences of unfettered popular democracy. The mostly wealthy, land-owning, businessmen and aristocrats who met in Philadelphia envisioned a largely oligarchic, Roman-style Republic, not a Democracy of universal suffrage, liable to succumb to the shifting winds of populism and demagoguery. Only the House was to be directly elected; senators would be selected by their respective state legislatures, not a direct plebiscite. Moreover, they mostly restricted what limited voting rights there were, to white adult male property owners, those with "skin in the game."

Largely, it was a slight modification to the British system that they were already familiar with.

<comment><USER25> I'm asking about you though, not the founders.

<comment><USER26> I can't say I'm always thrilled with the results. Popular referendums seem to be disastrous, as often as not. I'd probably say that the 17th Amendment was a mistake. Dunbar's Number seems to be more true than false, and the layers of indirection help to cut down the damage.

There's also the problem of fossilized borders and jurisdictions that no longer reflect current realities. It'll never happen, but some realignment of current state borders would probably be beneficial. There are the lurking proposals to split California into multiple substates. The New York metro area has more in common with its neighbors across state lines than with the people in the hinterlands of their respective states. In my home state, we have one small urban area that can effectively wag the dog of the rest of the state and ramrod through any ill-conceived notion that catches its fancy, with terrible consequences for the rest of the citizens living outside that bubble - on any election, the returns are nearly mirror images of each other for that one enclave versus the rest of the state.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Yes, let add an new black box that will be easily manipulated by those in charges. We don't have enough cheating and the system is already so fair, I thing we need to spice things up.

</comment><comment><USER28> This just demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding at every level of how the political system in the US works.

Our voting system is messed up, but that's a symptom of many deeper problems (FPTP voting, closed vote counting, the mixing of parties with government and others). These problems aren't going to be solved by any one effort. And most definitely not by any SV backed one.

Also, anybody who thinks a text messaging campaign will result in meaningful voter turnout improvement is so distant from understanding why turnout is so low as to be dismissed out of hand.

<comment><USER12> So why is voter turnout so low?

<comment><USER2> I think voter turnout is low for 2 reasons:

1\. Tuesday voting. It's a work day. People have to work. They aren't going to skip work (and maybe jeopardizing their food and shelter) just to go vote.

2\. They're angry and apathetic. People vote for change candidates and people that promise to disrupt Washington. What does that tell you?

People don't like their choices. They feel like the candidates barely (if at all) represent them or their interests. They disapprove of Congress and they have little confidence in government (and have on both points for quite a while).

So some of them decide to stay home instead.

For 1, we have mail-in ballots and early voting. And for 2, it really doesn't matter how easy you make it to vote. That's not the problem.

<comment><USER26> It's absurd that voting day isn't a national holiday.

<comment><USER29> I'm not sure making it a national holiday helps. If you have a heart attack or your house catches on fire, what do you do? Deal with it until Wednesday? No, those people will be working.

In New York, your employer has to pay you for two hours to go vote. [http://www.elections.ny.gov/nysboe/elections/attentionemploy...](http://www.elections.ny.gov/nysboe/elections/attentionemployees.pdf)

<comment><USER30> "Election Day" is now just the last day you can vote. "Early Voting" has been available for the past 2 weeks in most places. Polls are open on the weekends.

<comment><USER2> there are 13 states that don't permit it or require a valid excuse:

[https://ballotpedia.org/Early_voting](https://ballotpedia.org/Early_voting)

<comment><USER29> Yeah, I'm jealous of my friends from other states that get to vote early. Seems much less stressful to sit by your computer so you can Google whoever you want before voting for them.

Sadly there seems to be zero information about judges on the ballot. Except one guy in my district who was added to the ballot by mistake; he doesn't want to be a judge, and isn't qualified. He was nominated accidentally because he has the same name as a prominent lawyer, who also doesn't want to be a judge.

Worst form of government except for all the others...

<comment><USER2> Judges are hard to vote on.. I usually can't find much on the internet on them.

In Colorado, for the past 30-or-so years, there's a "State Commission on Judicial Performance" and they review the judges and it's added to the voter booklet. They put it online: [http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov/review.cfm?year=2...](http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov/review.cfm?year=2016)

And an example of one of their reviews: [http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov/retention.cfm?ret...](http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov/retention.cfm?ret=1095)

It's not perfect.. they recommend all of the judges be retained. No matter how bad they are. So you have to ignore that, and read the review which seems more informative (IMO at least).

<comment><USER31> There is a line of thought that says that judges should not be elected (which most of the world follows), because being subject to election forces them to make the popular decision, instead of the legally correct one.

In this light, there is very good reason to recommend that judges be retained; as having judges be worried about retention causes real problems for our judicial system.

<comment><USER29> At least in my district (Brooklyn), the judges have 14 year terms, and I think that is a good compromise between accountability to the electorate and freedom from the flavor of the month. To get onto the appeals circuit (may be misusing that term), they have to then be appointed by the governor. So I think this is a fine system, if I actually knew who I was voting for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I don't understand how using the internet to vote will fix the flawed voting system. I think fixing fraud would probably be the best way to increase real voting. There is continuously fraud going on. You see the voter registrations for people that died years ago. You see the people at the polls voting more than once. I'm not voting this election because I don't believe my vote matters (and our candidate choices). People want to be heard, yet the corruption continues. I don't believe simply making it easier to vote will drastically increase voter turnout - real voters, that is.

<comment><USER33> Hasn't the notion of voter fraud been more or less debunked? [0][1]

[0] [https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter- fraud](https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud) [1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/opinion/the-success-of- the...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/opinion/the-success-of-the-voter- fraud-myth.html)

<comment><USER32> No. [https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/ij...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/ijr.com/2016/11/722025-14-cases- of-voter-fraud-so-far-this-year-and-its-not-even-election-day- yet/amp/&ved=0ahUKEwivtpOJn43QAhWm6oMKHUQ4CA4QiJQBCCwwAw&usg=AFQjCNFNCVPz6F68Cv11SRtcEH379-wxUg&sig2=83ApJJkjJU0tQJEyQYk2KA) The amount of fake/dead voters registered and the number of recounts should speak for itself. Should it not? You can also at historical election numbers in which the people voting far outnumbered the inhabitants. You can also logically think about the process of counting votes and realize that that is an easy thing to mess with.</comment></comment></comment>


A History of Haskell - <AUTHOR> http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/history-of-haskell/ <comment><USER2> Seems like there are fewer haskell talks going out now on the net than there were in '09 or '07. Though the older talks as collected at <[http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Video_presentations>](http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Video_presentations>); are a great resource still.

Or are they just becoming more high level? <[http://vimeo.com/channels/galois>](http://vimeo.com/channels/galois>); has lots of new, seemingly esoteric talks.

Anyone know of any good sources for new intermediate level haskell talks?

<comment><USER3> There's a handful of Haskell videos on ontwik at <http://ontwik.com/category/haskell/>.

There seems to be quite an overlap with the Galois talks though (but thanks for pointing that resource out as I hadn't seen it).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I read the paper. It is great for beginners of Haskell or enthusiasts that want to learn how it started and why particular choices have been made. Although this paper is from 2007 it covers so much of the bases in Haskell. For example I did not know that at the beginning Monads were NOT part of Haskell and that they joined very late.

I hope this paper will be updated soon, especially because from what I understand in the meantime there is a new Haskell Report 2010.

I am new to Haskell, but even while it is very difficult for me to learn it, this language is so beautiful it is the only one that hooked me since the last language that I had to learn seriously (15 years ago).</comment>


U.S. Sends China Signal with F-35-Laden Warship in Disputed Sea - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-10/u-s-sends-china-signal-with-f-35-laden-warship-in-disputed-sea <comment><USER2> The title implies some geopolitical motive that is not supported by the article. It must be a slow news day.

>an amphibious assault ship outfitted last year with F-35B jets

I.e. not a carrier group which is what most people think of when they hear "F-35-laden warship"

>joined the annual Exercise Balikatan with the Philippines this month.

This is an annual exercise, not an escalation of some sort, doesn't get any clearer than that.

>The USS Wasp didn't pass within 25 nautical miles of the shoal, according to a U.S. defense official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The figure suggests that the ship wasn't conducting a so-called freedom of navigation operation, a practice criticized by China that the U.S. uses to assert international sailing rights within 12 nautical miles of disputed features.

Basically they're just in the neighborhood, not trying to stir up trouble.

>The moves come as officials in Manila escalate protests over...

There's always something else going on at any given time.

<comment><USER3> I too was duped into assuming the headline implied a carrier group. But then I looked up the stats for the USS Wasp and was surprised to find out that it can carry up to 20 F-35s (in addition to a wide array of other VTOL aircraft) and it pretty much looks like a little aircraft carrier. And it can carry 1600 Marines. I agree with your assessment, just was surprised to learn that "amphibious assault ships" are formidable weapons platforms.

<comment><USER4> Is the F35C even ready yet? It was my impression that carrier groups still primarily flew F18s.

<comment><USER5> Amphibious ships like the USS Wasp can only operate the F-35B variant, which has been operational for several years.

<comment><USER4> Yes, which is why I think "marine" pops into my mind when ships with F35s are mentioned, not navy carriers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The message of the F35 is that the US is committed to Military keynesianism.

</comment><comment><USER7> If the article is to be believed why does the USA feel the need to police waters 6,600 miles from its mainland. Surely their claim to this area is lesser when compared to Chain, Japan, Tiawan ect....

<comment><USER8> _Note: I 'm not making a political argument either way here, just a quick aside about the development of the world over the last 70 years._

Since the end of WW2 the U.S. has become, for better or worse, the world's stabilizing agent. Of course there are peaks and valleys - argue all you want about American intervention in the Middle East or South America - but broadly speaking world governments expect America to take care of business.

Huge swaths of modern society depend on the U.S. being a (relatively) honest broker and protector of "peace" \- two notable examples of which, in fact, are Japan and Taiwan. The latter _very_ arguably remains independent today thanks to American protection. If China chose to claim exclusive rights to the South China Sea tomorrow, it's unlikely that Japan or Taiwan or Vietnam or any coalition of coastal nations together - without American or pan-European support - could push back successfully.

All of this is shifting, of course, as nationalist movements gain momentum and confidence in America wanes but for the moment (and the immediate future), this is the world we live in.

<comment> xkcd-sucks It's also worth remembering that USA contributed to postwar reconstruction under informal, and sometimes formal, agreements that the nations would outsource their military operations. Japan does not have a "true" military to this day, and Taiwan never developed or acquired nuclear weapons. This is at the request of USA, paid for in protection.

<comment><USER9> That whole perception of Japan not having a military is just a technicality.....their "Maritime Self-Defense Force" is easily the 3rd largest and most powerful navy in the Pacific (after the US and China).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Japan_Maritime_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Japan_Maritime_Self- Defense_Force_ships)

The "Air Self-Defense Force" has more combat jets that the UK's Royal Air Force, and almost as many as the mighty Israeli Air Force. The Japanese are just postured exclusively for national defense and territorial integrity....which many people don't realize includes the ability of executing credible counter-offensives to liberate lost territory. I would argue that until the past ~5-10 years or so, the Chinese stood no chance in a big fight out here in the First Island Chain. The qualitative AND quantitative differences between the Chinese and Japanese hardware were just that large.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It only sends a 'signal' if you don't believe that aircraft-carrying ships are as obsolete as the gun-carrying ships they displaced nearly a century ago.

Aircraft-carrying ships are so passé in today's world of missile-carrying ships.</comment>


Why does Google still push Dart? - <AUTHOR> https://events.dartlang.org/2016/summit/ <comment><AUTHOR> I personally completely miss the point. Initially it was the idea to intoduce Dart VM to the Chrome, and because it would be superior, all vendors would implement it. As we all know, only Dartium exists, and there are no plans to move it even to Chrome. Compiled code itself is not so wonderful, it's quite close to JS itself. Also, the JS itself is in transpiled era now, and therefore can get new features (which are adopted by possible community) very quickly – and also they favour TypeScript, which solves some pain which was initially solved by Dart.

Community is small, there are not so much libraries, and story of production success are hard to find. Compare with ClojureScript, for instance.

You might say that it is a general purpose language, and they target different things (like mobiles, raspberries), but still, look at the summit program, it is all about web, and other directions seem to be like a pet-projects things.

Am I missing any point?

<comment><USER2> > Am I missing any point?

A few:

1\. The production success stories are good - within google, and that's probably important factor here. 2\. Dart is indeed transpiled to js, like many alternatives. Its no worse than any of them, however... 3\. It is owned by google. This allows it to ensure that it does well all the things google needs: being better than js, having better stdlib, being integrated with google frameworks and work on platforms google needs to support.

So you could in theory pick another existing language and do the same thing with it. And each of them would have some problems - either it wouldn't do something, or would do in a way that doesn't align with google needs or is developed by someone who has different priorities. So having your own does have benefits (at least for Google).

<comment><USER3> Dart team member here - Also, have you checked out [http://flutter.io](http://flutter.io) ? I'm personally pretty compelled (and have been for a long time) by being able to share code/tools/etc between web and native mobile. The quality of the dev experience in flutter is pretty amazing (check out Eric Seidel's video from day 2 of the Dart Dev Summit [just concluded], and the web experience with the Dart dev compiler is pretty neat, too.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, that's cool, thank you for your response.

I've taken a look on the Flutter, but it seems (through a glance) that it is another React-Native (or take Xamarin). So, this is not the first solution to share code between web and mobile. React-Native, though, is not the best for Android, and this framework should be awesome for it, thanks for the same company.

But the main question for me personally – experienced JS developer, looking into possibilities to write more better browser code, why should I consider Dart instead of TypeScript, or ClojureScript, or Elm? I am really curious about this question!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tell HN: We made a Forrst invite code for you. - <AUTHOR>

If you're on HN and care to check out Forrst, you can use the aptly-named invite code "hackernews" (without the quotes) to sign up immediately: https://forrst.com/signup<p>Curious to know what you think. <comment><AUTHOR> And, clickable: <https://forrst.com/signup>

</comment><comment><USER2> Thanks!

I'm getting "This page has insecure script." [sic] in Chrome FYI.

<comment><USER3> For the forrst guys (looking at this), this is triggered by not serving scripts over ssl, while the rest of the page is sent through ssl.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, we're working on cleaning all that up. Sorry about that.

<comment><USER4> Don't forget about protocol-relative URLs! <http://paulirish.com/2010/the- protocol-relative-url/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Between this and your previous post[0] opening up Forrst to folks with active GitHub accounts, it looks like you're very actively and deliberately trying to pull more developers into the Forrst fold. Out of genuine curiosity, why?

PS: The "Log In" graphic never fails to make me smile.

[0]: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2659193>

<comment><AUTHOR> We always intended the site to be a solid place for dev/designer hybrids, as well as outright devs/designers. It used to be our sweet spot as far as user type was concerned, and I think it's something we could still potentially do well.

Glad you like that log :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Thanks for the HN code Kyle. I heard you talking about Forrst at the lunch Noah put together right before SXSW, and I heard you got some funding soon after. Congrats!

Quick problem though: I accidentally tied the wrong Twitter account to my account and can't find where to change it (under "Find Your Twitter Friends").

</comment><comment><USER7> Thanks! I'll share some of my iPad UI designs on Forrst to see if I get any feedback - is that what it's for?

</comment><comment><USER8> On attempting to sign up as a paying supporter I get the following paypal error:

 _We are sorry, we are experiencing temporary difficulties. Please try again later. If this error occurred while making a payment, avoid duplicate payments by checking your Account Overview before resending a payment._

 _Message 3005_

<comment><AUTHOR> Gah, sounds like Paypal is acting up (again).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I signup yesterday and send my first post ([http://forrst.com/posts/Decide_when_you_want_to_send_your_Ba...](http://forrst.com/posts/Decide_when_you_want_to_send_your_Basecamp_messa- IGA)).

I felt like my post was lost in a jungle of new posts every seconds.

</comment><comment><USER10> Interesting ... I received an email today that my application was "approved". It was rejected before because I just couldn't be bothers to go through all the steps and fill out the information.

Looking forward to checking out the site.

</comment><comment><USER11> Been using this for a few months. I love it so much, so many amazing designs being posted every day. The site functions extremely well too. Thanks for building it :)

</comment><comment><USER12> Cool, thanks Kyle...

</comment><comment><USER13> It took me months to figure out you wanted me to comment on the design of the item on the page. I thought it was an ad

</comment><comment><USER14> Thank you very much. Been wanting to join for a long time now.

</comment><comment><USER15> Add me / Follow me: <http://forrst.com/people/bunsen>

Looking for forrst friends!

</comment><comment><USER16> Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER17> Great work Kyle!

</comment><comment><USER18> just open it up, dudes.

<comment><USER19> In this case, I think less is more. I know I will visit and comment on Forrst because the noise to value ratio is still relatively low. I don't feel that it is really an exclusive "club" feel, but it does seem to be more developers and designers that are actually doing the work every day than on more "open" places.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: node.native roadmap - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/d5/node.native/issues/26 I want to ask HN for some inputs on future milestones of the project and looking for people who are interested to help ;) <comment><AUTHOR> I want to ask HN for some inputs on future milestones of this project and looking for people who can help ;)</comment>


Ask HN: Why would anyone want to hijack my HN account? - <AUTHOR> Got a bunch of 'password reset' emails yesterday for this very account, I'm assuming they're malicious. What would anyone stand to gain any HN acct let alone my worthless acct? <comment><USER2> They want your 1 karma! Usually this happens when someone thinks that is their username and then they think the email is not being delivered so they keep trying.

</comment><comment><USER3> Could simply be someone with the same name. Not many people in the US have my name but someone in another country does, and I see when they try to reset their iphone using my name for the apple account. They have the gmail address. We should trade accounts!</comment>


Men Are Waiting to Share Some Feelings (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/08/style/men-emotions-mankind-project.html <comment><USER2> I participated in men's work, not specifically the ManKind Project but a closely related organization. I personally found it helpful doing weekly check-ins and having people holding me accountable to my goals.

Unfortunately, the stigma regarding men sharing feelings is prevalent in western society, and it's not only the men causing it. When I told several female friends about the work they did, their response was: "Are they gay?"

<comment><USER3> _> it's not only the men causing it._

One thing I find fascinating about humans is that we are so _compulsively_ cultural that we will actively propagate cultural practices that are harmful even to ourselves. When you are young, you absorb whatever culture is around you completely uncritically, and then you immediately turn around and start broadcasting to the next generation.

Cultural changes and evolves, of course, but it's _really_ hard to uproot a norm or more once it's settled in, even if it's one that causes you personal pain.

<comment><USER4> > Cultural changes and evolves, of course, but it's really hard to uproot a > norm or more once it's settled in, even if it's one that causes you personal > pain.

Terence McKenna lectured on this at length. Here are some apropos quotations:

"As a global civilization, we can no longer afford the luxury of an unconscious mind. When you can pull down the fusion processes that light the stars on the cities of your enemies, when you can sequence DNA, when you can map the heart of the atom, then it is entirely inappropriate to have an unconscious mind, because the power that is given onto you is a kind of god- like Promethean power. So how can we switch on the lights on our animal nature…? I think it is very simple: we have to de-condition ourselves from culture. We are sick, we require medical intervention… into what is a galloping, cancerous state of neurosis - the growth and spread of ego. Ego is like a calcareous growth in the psyche of human beings, and if it is not treated, it creates the kind of society that we have. A society based on hierarchy, male dominance, accumulation of physical goods,suppression of the weak by the strong… This is why the psychedelics are so socially sensitive, because they dissolve de-conditioning. Every culture is a scam. Every culture is a lie. A shell game, run by weasels, for the amusement of rubes. If you do not want to be a weasel or a rube, then you need to inform yourself of how the shell game works, and what lies beyond the carnival midway of civilized values. And the way to do that is to go back to the plants, to the original gnosis."

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IO7pHD3X9M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IO7pHD3X9M)

"Culture is an effort to satisfy this weird desire human beings have to close off experience, to live with closure, to force closure. That is why cultural trips are so bizarre; why they don't make sense to anybody but the Witoto, or the Guaraní, or the Americans, or the Japanese. If you are not inside a culture, it seems crazy. Cultures do not make sense because they are not trying to make sense. What they are trying to do is produce closure, which then somehow makes a human being, who is living in the light of closure, a more manipulable, a more malleable, a lesser thing… The message coming back at all of us is: live without closure. That is the honest position given that you are some kind of a talking monkey, some kind of a primate, some kind of creature, on a planet, in an animal body,in a time and space. In the face of that, life without closure is the only kind of intellectual honesty there is. If you have to inoculate yourself against the various means of closure that are around,psychedelics do that. That is why they are so politically controversial and potent, because more than any other single act that you may voluntarily undertake, they pull the plug on the myth of cultural meaning."

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

<comment><USER5> Sorry for the offensive phrasing, but was this guy known for things beyond telling people to do DMT?

<comment><USER6> You missed magic mushrooms

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I love HN...I've been waiting for this topic :-D

I'm a man who has focused on and has been building tools to get better at expressing my emotions since 2012, including an app called iFeelio, in which I answered the question "how do I feel" over 4,000 times across 4 years and a class called Emotional Self-Defense, which I've run in the US, Europe, and Africa. I have realized and re-realized many things along the way.

One thing I've seen is that each culture seems to have rules about which emotions one is allowed to express and not allowed to express, based on the specific contexts. We often say that men aren't allowed to express our emotions, but I don't think that's the case. We men (in the US) are often allowed to express anger, confidence, feelings of triumph, horniness (maybe), calmness, and maybe even excitement. We're often not allowed to express tenderness, sadness, confusion, uncertainty, fury, etc. And funny enough, when watching our favorite sports team, we're pretty much allowed to express all of the emotions above and more. On the other hand, in the workplace, we're not allowed to really express much at all.

Women may have a different list, as well as people from the Midwest or California, those born in the 60s, digital natives, engineers, or really any different culture or sub-culture.

That being said, I'm glad to see programs like MKP and Evryman providing the place, and moreover, the permission, to express all of the emotions. (Save a Warrior is one I recommend for military vets—I was a witness on one of the programs and it really helped to open my heart and the hearts of the other guys.)

I'd love to chat with anyone on here about this, either in the comments or on Twitter, Telegram, keybase, or whatever people on HN use these days. Check my HN profile for those usernames.

<comment><USER8> You'll have to keep running it over the next 4-8 years to filter out the short term cultural changes. The expression of sadness will likely ramp up from it's locked up baseline now to 2024.

<comment><USER7> I'm a little confused...what do you mean that the expression of sadness will ramp up?

<comment><USER8> It's an art thing. Hard to compress into a short comment. As the Trump capture on sadness fades there will be a natural reversal into an excess of the expression of sadness. We are seeing the start of it in films where there are women crying. Not that Trump controls that stuff, but rather he is tapping into a deeper principle.

The cult like approach to certainty we see on the web will fade over time as well. Expressions of uncertainty will become more acceptable.

<comment><USER9> Can you please decompress your short comment into a fuller one? I am interested in your thesis, but I still do not understand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Whats wrong with stoicism. Feelings are fleeting in general didn't lead me to positive places. I think we should put a high value on people that can handle their own problems.

<comment><USER11> I've participated in some of this work and agree that having feeling-sharing be the top line item is misleading. Feelings are involved, but the core of it is to face what one has been avoiding, in order to become stronger and grow. There's plenty of room for stoicism in that.

The way to overcome pain is to acknowledge and include it instead of denying it. The difference is huge, and most of us need help to get there—personally contactful help, not idea help. I found it pretty liberating to be able to get such help from other men, in a group no less. The point is not to become a gushy feeling-sharer or a sensitive new-age male. It is to no longer be governed by unconscious feelings and the wounds of early experience.

The organizations that practice this work are not super clear about that distinction, which I suspect limits their appeal to many men. I went because of a friend I respect, who in turn went because of a friend he respects. Had either of us only read an article like this, I doubt we'd have been interested. Its subtle ironizing, which approaches belittling ("chastened menfolk", "There, there"), would have turned me off. The photos would have turned me off too, and I've sat in a lot of workshops (though usually with few men and many women).

Edit: an interesting thing to me was the gap between practice and theory. Even though there were parts of the theory behind that work which I didn't necessarily find appealing, I met quite a few men there who struck me as having a kind of integrated masculinity (maybe not the best phrase, but it's hard to find words for these qualities). They seemed strong and open at the same time. I found myself admiring them and wanting to be more like that myself. None of this had much to do with expressing feelings or being emotional; I would use the word presence instead. They maybe even seemed a bit less emotional than most men I meet—more able to take in what is happening without being reactive.

So I would say the theory doesn't work as well as the practice. You barely ever get that! usually it's the other way around.

<comment><USER9> This _is_ stoicism though. To process things instead of holding them inside, bottling them up, or putting them off such that they salt our enjoyment of life. However there's a social component of this feelings-sharing which is the subtext of the parent comment. Not all issues need to be shared, and in fact it's a kind of emotional vampirism to prioritize sharing emotional context without focusing on the explicit purpose of sharing to process and confront the issue.

<comment><USER12> Agreed. What dang referred to admiringly as "integrated masculinity" sounds a lot like stoicism to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think we're starting to hit a critical moment with this.

As men we have an unbelievable amount of expectation on our reactions, communication, behavior, past behavior, and others behavior. (Their friends and their partners)

On top of all of this: Men spaces have been mostly eliminated.

<comment><USER14> What were the men's spaces before? Legitimate question as I may be too young to have known them.

<comment><USER13> Gentlemen clubs, country clubs, bars (although I don't think it should have been single gender), other than this.. I can't name many of the other ones. They were mostly gone by the time I became an adult.

Anyways, I have heard of discrimination that men have faced when trying to create "safe"/support groups that were men only.

<comment><USER15> I don't think I understand the desire or the concern here. Look around the BBQ in the back yard at any party anywhere in 'merica and you'll find the guys hanging out and chatting away from their wives. Look at sports teams in your high schools, colleges, and local clubs and you'll find men hanging out together. Look at Men's bible study groups or similar if that's your thing. Go to the local men's barber shop and find a bunch of guys getting haircuts. Invite your buddies to your place to watch the game...

<comment><USER13> > Look around the BBQ in the back yard at any party anywhere in 'merica and > you'll find the guys hanging out and chatting away from their wives.

I don't know about your experience. But my experience: BBQs are typically a party situation with your household and others. If it's just the guys that's a friends thing.

> Look at sports teams in your high schools, colleges, and local clubs and > you'll find men hanging out together.

I haven't heard of such of a clubs.

> Look at Men's bible study groups or similar if that's your thing.

I'll agree with you on this. That qualifies for what I was suggesting. It's a social thing and gets people to talk.

> Go to the local men's barber shop and find a bunch of guys getting haircuts.

Is that an environment that guys would open up? Most of these places tend to be "mind your own business and lets not talk that much" kinds of places.

<comment><USER16> You'd be surprised

[https://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/mental-health/what-is- bar...](https://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/mental-health/what-is-barbershop- therapy-20180823)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Having gone through this retreat (the NWTA) with the MKP, I can easily point to it as the most legitimate and profound event I've had/attended in my life. Its important to take in context, I'm in my mid 30s, and was emotionally ready for the messages and teachings. Doing the work in a safe space was nothing short of life changing. In my work life, personal life, and love life. And most of all for my own quality of life.

For anyone who is actually interested, I would recommend the book Iron John, by Robert Bly ([https://www.amazon.com/Iron-John-Book-about- Men/dp/030682426...](https://www.amazon.com/Iron-John-Book-about- Men/dp/0306824264)). The first chapter is usually assigned reading before attending the NWTA, but when read with an open mind I found the entire book to be profound. Profound isnt the best word, but I experienced the content as if I personally was being spoken to through the pages; my problems, my struggles and my victories. Spoken to with support, compassion and understanding. I re- read it every year.

Beyond sharing that however, seeing how much vitriolic hyperbole is being thrown around within 2h of posting, I dont feel it productive to share anymore. You might say that the vulnerability it requires of a man to speak to other men (and women!) who are openly hostile (and often deliberately misunderstanding) about this topic can be nothing short of herculean.

<comment><USER18> I recently did the NWTA and found it shockingly profound and powerful. I'm glad to hear the effects have stuck with you.

<comment><USER17> They have! I went through it in 2017, and the unfolding and cascade of realizations and perspective shifts have not only flipped my life (for the best), but also instilled permanent changes in how i participate in communities, interact with people, and support the ones I care about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Am I the only one who sees men sharing their feelings all the time? To me it seems like men simply process things differently than women, so women and the feminized psychiatry field don't recognize it's happening.

We live in an age where men are being villainized at every turn, and this is just another way men are being told they don't measure up... because they aren't sharing in a way that women recognize. With all due deference to my trans friends, men are not simply women with penises.

<comment><USER20> Men aren't sharing feelings in a way I understand most of the time, and I'm one of them. I could never get my friends to truly open up unless it was a one on one conversation.

<comment><USER19> That's not how men process things. Men process things by trying to eliminate perceived unnecessary information and take action. Women are more inclined to want to sit down and discuss all the details of whatever is going on, many of those details the man would not perceive as useful.

This is the age old men vs women problem where women feel like men don't want to talk about problems/feelings and men feel like women just want to blabber on without ever solving anything.

<comment><USER21> > _That 's not how men process things. Men process things by trying to > eliminate perceived unnecessary information and take action. Women are more > inclined to want to sit down and discuss all the details of whatever is > going on, many of those details the man would not perceive as useful._

I'm a man. Sometimes I do the former, more often the latter. And I do feel shamed for that, sometimes.

Expecting men and women to fit into neat, stereotyped boxes like this is a big part of the problem.

<comment><USER19> I didn't mean every single man on the planet any more than the article did. It's not helpful to change conversations from one level of abstraction to another.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> As a man, I agree sharing emotions is important. Too many males in society don't have someone to cry with or listen to their problems.

On the other hand, I do worry about "emotional masturbation". Simply put, sometimes we indulge ourselves in sadness/fear/anger because it makes us feel _something_ and feeling _something_ is better/more exhilarating/exciting than feeling nothing at all.

For example, I have some insecurities. Sometimes I feel like talking about them may be pro-actively bad because I am indulging myself and making my insecurities occupy more mental space/brain power.

<comment><USER23> Talking about emotions is just one part of it. Society in general needs to be better educated and equipped with mental health tools. Things like cognitive behavioural therapy, emotional intelligence, mindfulness, transactional analysis are all ways to understand and deal with our emotions.

It's no good just blurting out whatever it is you're feeling and like you say, turn it into a masturbatory indulgence, but we should still promote talking about out feelings because suppressing them is no better than having an emotional wank.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This might be one of _the_ issues of our times: men unable to talk about their feelings, unable to maybe even care about themselves because we learned we shouldn't and we are afraid how we are seen if we do.

Sometimes beeing strong means to become vulnerable.

<comment><USER25> It sounds like you're saying this is a high priority issue. Why do you feel that way?

<comment><USER24> It is a legitimate question. I feel that way, because as a society we are in a state of transformation right now.

By pure rational thought many young men have accepted to treat women like equal human beeings, just as many women have understood that the traditional division of gender roles might not fit all social encounters.

The issue is, that understanding and doing are two seperate things and switching between the old and the new paradigma when it fits us seems to be common place.

So many men end up getting the worst of both worlds: they are not the strong leader of the family any more, but they were still raised in a way to hide their feelings, just like many women are expected to be strong while they might not always have been raised in that way.

The thing we aim for as a society here is defintly worth it (I could experience for myself how amazing a relationship of equals between man and woman can be), but there are many people who struggle with this and it leads to all kind of societal side effects like depression, suicide, drug abuse and violence.

To be fair in times when the man had to be strong this was also a problem, because there are always people who simply don't fit the role society wants them to take and if you force them into it bad things happen.

Communicating your own feelings is important for mental health. Anyone who struggles with this: get help. Write letters to a person that you never send — writing will help you to think and reflect.

<comment><USER26> > "By pure rational thought many young men have accepted to treat women like > equal human beeings"

You make it sound as though men have never considered women as equal human beings until some recent enlightenment. I find this world view to be absolutely apalling, and arrogant. You're denying a history where the vast, vast majority of relationships between men and women (eg. marriages) were cooperative, reciprocal, and built upon a foundation of mutual respect.

> "The thing we aim for as a society here is defintly worth it (I could > experience for myself how amazing a relationship of equals between man and > woman can be)"

A relationship of equals betwen a man and a woman is not some novel new concept we should aspire to, it is completely normal and has been for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I wouldn't take this as a representative sample of all men.

In my experience, sharing feelings makes me feel worse and substantially reduces my appeal to others. I prefer to just deal with my problems logically and avoid such navel gazing.

<comment><USER28> What is illogical about discussing feelings?

Is it illogical to ask for food if you are hungry?

<comment><USER29> If he just feels worse, it's certainly illogical to keep doing it.

It's fairly common for people to have adverse reactions to therapy. Not everyone reacts the same to this sort of thing.

<comment><USER18> That's kind of a spurious argument to make without drawing it out a bit. Exercise doesn't feel good (at first) if you're morbidly obese, but that's because you _really_ need it.

Adverse reactions to therapy might mean that therapy isn't for you. But more commonly, I think it probably means that you don't have the right therapist and / or you have some really heavy, painful shit that you need to deal with but don't want to. Otherwise you wouldn't be having "adverse reactions" to simply sitting in a room with another human to talk about your life.

<comment><USER29> Everyone is exactly the same. Everyone feels good about exactly the same things, and bad about exactly the same things.

What I just said is clearly ridiculous.

It should not be a surprise that some people don't feel positive about talking about their lives. If you can't imagine it, I'm afraid you may lack imagination.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I've got a pet peeve for articles that focus on events as if they were isolated in time, one of a kind, or unprecedented.

No mention of similar mens groups that occurred 30 to 50+ years ago? There's the Mythopoetic men's movement for one.

<comment><USER11> MKP has been around for 30+ years and as far as I know is the keystone organization of that movement.

You're right that the article would be better if it weren't so ahistorical.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I feel this article demonstrates why gender equality is damn hard for us right now.

I'm male. I believe that has had a significant effect on my upbringing.

I'm an individual. I believe a whole lot of things have had a significant effect on my upbringing.

Why would I want to try to resolve my issues within this gendered framework? Am I really primarily male? That seems like a forced choice to me.

<comment><USER32> You can't discard the different pressures specific to each gender, and how each gender deals in their own way with those issues. This reminds me of schools that deal with boys like they are "broken girls", they are ignoring their natural gender attributes when assessing what's acceptable behavior.

<comment><USER33> Are you saying that there should be different standards of acceptable behavior for boys versus girls. Or are you saying if the schools paid more attention to how boys normally behave, they would accept a more broad definition of "acceptable behavior" for all children?

<comment><USER34> Yes, people are different, you need extremely flexible standards to accommodate this. Right now the standards are far too rigid, and we have enough data now to know that on average they harm boys far more than girls.

<comment><USER33> So, yes to the second interpretation I mentioned?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I recently did the NWTA weekend retreat with the ManKind Project and found it a surprisingly profound experience. I would recommend it for most men I've known. Happy to answer any questions anyone has.

I'm not surprised to see so much pushback and gatekeeping here from other men, or suggestions that encouraging men to find spaces to "talk about their feelings" are a radical feminist ploy to subvert true masculinity, but I am saddened by them. That attitude reflects a deep sickness that is at the heart of what makes it so hard to be an authentic, open man in today's culture. MKP and similar organizations are one of the few healthy forces I see working against this.

<comment><USER35> It's a mainstream idea now that masculinity is toxic, so it's not surprising that people are projecting that onto this.

Calling it "New Warrior Training Adventure" comes across as super patronizing. "ManKind" isn't great either. The names alone are surely responsible for much of the pushback that you're seeing.

I did a bit of digging though, trying to keep an open mind, and I was surprised to find that MKP is indeed _not_ a radical program to feminize men.

Their FAQ is pretty informative: [https://mankindproject.org/frequently-asked- questions](https://mankindproject.org/frequently-asked-questions)

Their YouTube channel gives a feel for it: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcR01KkQCYfHbzHwBlI8eeg](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcR01KkQCYfHbzHwBlI8eeg)

Basically, it's a small nondenominational religion for woke men. The leaders are a Marine Corps officer, a therapist, and a PhD of "curriculum studies". It's not very surprising to see all the comments here about how profound it was, because it was designed to be a spiritual experience.

It looks like a cult and is certainly weird (nudity is optional), but the leaders aren't getting rich off of it, and you are allowed to leave. There are regular meetings, rituals, a set of shared values, and a drive to recruit more members. It seems like mostly dudes who want to better themselves and the world at large. A lot of it is classic self-help stuff. They advertise NWTA as "Get Ready for a 48 Hour Adventure that Can Transform Your World as a Man", for example.

I think people are right to be skeptical of these types of groups, as they're playing to an audience of disaffected men and trying to improve lives with groupthink and rituals. I'd place MKP somewhere between Scientology and Tony Robbins. Probably a powerful experience in person, but best to avoid it or you might get roped into an organization.

<comment><USER18> I find the comparisons to cults to be completely bizarre. It's definitely not a cult. Or at least, not a very good one. You can leave if you want, you don't have to participate in anything you don't want to, there's no "drive to recruit more members", or even really to become a member at all, it's staffed by volunteers, there's no central figure or authority like most cults, there's very little pressure to participate after the NWTA beyond encouragement to consider attending the weekly or biweekly groups that the article talks about or perhaps volunteering to staff a future NWTA. Placing it between scientology and Tony Robbins is completely off base imo, but I have no direct experience with either. All I'd say is that if they're trying create a cult to rope people into an organization, they're doing a terrible job of it. And it's not even clear what the goal would be. The suggested monthly donation of $10 to support the nonprofit if you do become a member, which again, they don't really push at all? Seems like a pretty shitty cult to spend decades ramping up.

<comment><USER35> I think you took my comment differently than intended. My fault for phrasing it poorly.

First, you are correct that MKP is not a cult and everything you're saying here checks out with the research I just did into MKP.

What I meant was that it is cult-like in appearance. It's an engineered experience for human bonding and introspection. The members are doing stuff that's out of the ordinary and trying to connect to some deeper spiritual thing. Sometimes people get naked. There's a big wooden phallus used as a talking stick. There's a bunch of oversharing. It's not a cult, but it's not exactly Rotary Club either.

As far as roping you in, of course it's designed for that. The group couldn't grow without getting you to come back. There's a good chance you're going to form bonds with the other people in the group if you do a bunch of emotional stuff with them on a retreat. That's a social situation that I'd much prefer to avoid.

I looked at your HN profile and I see that you're a life coach for freelancers, so you might be less sensitive to what's triggering me about MKP. Don't take this the wrong way, but your site gives me a similar feeling as the MKP stuff. I'm pretty sure I'm your target too, as a developer considering switching to freelance work. I wish I could give you something more useful than "feels scammy, stay away", but that's how it comes across to me. And you're blogging about "mastermind groups", which also give me the same feel. It's possible that I'm just hyper-sensitive, but I think you'll have an easier time getting through to developers if you aren't tripping the alarm that tells me "this is a cult" or "here comes a pitch for an ebook".

As a side note, I wonder if you get many calls from putting your number in your HN profile. That was definitely noticeable and didn't trigger my overactive skepticism at all (even though it's obvious self promotion, it feels authentic).

<comment><USER18> _I looked at your HN profile and I see that you 're a life coach for freelancers, so you might be less sensitive to what's triggering me about MKP. Don't take this the wrong way, but your site gives me a similar feeling as the MKP stuff. I'm pretty sure I'm your target too, as a developer considering switching to freelance work. I wish I could give you something more useful than "feels scammy, stay away", but that's how it comes across to me. And you're blogging about "mastermind groups", which also give me the same feel. It's possible that I'm just hyper-sensitive, but I think you'll have an easier time getting through to developers if you aren't tripping the alarm that tells me "this is a cult" or "here comes a pitch for an ebook"._

I hear you, but honestly, that just means you're not the target market. I sell training products and coaching to freelancers of all types, so not really "life coaching". My opinion after selling all types of products and services is that developers are, on average, a terrible market. We know the price of everything and the value of nothing, we value our time way too low, we under- invest in relationship, and we're overly skeptical and critical. Having a marketing message that polarizes people into love/hate is a good thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> According to the San Jose Mercury News, the Sterling Institute of Relationship has a "history of complaints" at the Oakland, California division of the Better Business Bureau, and also at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The seminar was described in Details Magazine as having a "cult like subculture." (Wikipedia)

Also this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Brainwashed/comments/1tb1cb/a_justi...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Brainwashed/comments/1tb1cb/a_justin_sterling_and_the_sterling_institute_cult/)

Classic case of cult business.

</comment><comment><USER37> I only very recently came to the realization that my emotional numbness was caused by the emotional distance & neglect I experienced as a child. I'm still working through it, but I do think part of it was in part due to my immigrant parents believing that emotions were reserved for girls and not boys.

Believe me, it's not a fun place to be, and I hope new parents do realize how important it is to teach young children how to make sense of their emotions.

</comment><comment><USER38> There is much beauty and wonder in the interplay between as well as within the genders. However, men are not imperfect women that would be improved if we adopted the other genders mannerisms. We both need to be open to listening to each other when providing the loving support that we want and need.

This article seem to be written by an ideologically inclined woman. A woman trying to understand the men in her life better might be helped more . by reading: [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594151121/ref=dbs_a_def_r...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594151121/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i1)

A man trying to understand the women in his life better might be helped by reading: [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1601425740/ref=dbs_a_def_r...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1601425740/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i2)

<comment><USER39> Please disclaim when you are linking material that has a religious bent. Both of these books appear to be based upon the Christian belief system and as such might not be of any interest to someone with a different (or nonexistent) belief system.

<comment><USER38> I thought the book was one of the better ones I've read on the topic, so I recommended it. It is not a spiritual book.

I likewise would recommend reading "Islamic Patterns: An analytical and cosmological approach" when approaching geometry.

Either the book is good or not in getting you to understand something you don't currently understand. I trust the reader to be able to make their own judgements, especially in this case where you can read the book for the opposite gender to see if they are full of bullshit.

<comment><USER35> Huh, neat. I had no idea there was a name for "islamic patterns", but they look like exactly what I expected.

People have been making this sort of stuff since way before LSD was invented, but I can't help notice how incredibly similar the patterns are to psychedelic hallucinations. To see them described as "sacred geometries" makes a lot of sense for reasons I can't quite explain.

<comment><USER38> Yes, it's very fun. Studying this is the rabbit hole of rabbit holes.

I recommend the podcast The Portal by Eric Weinstein if you want the idea equivalent of this stuff.

<comment><USER35> In case anyone else is interested: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM9f0W2KD5s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM9f0W2KD5s)

<comment><USER38> I typically listen to it on Apple podcasts [https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the- portal/id146999956...](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the- portal/id1469999563) or Spotify where he posts the episode earlier [https://open.spotify.com/show/3qv8BS1HzrgKpDnXSlYWWL?si=cUA0...](https://open.spotify.com/show/3qv8BS1HzrgKpDnXSlYWWL?si=cUA0m1WxR6y0ClOLiCcFVQ)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Isn't this one of the surprising parts of growing old? As a young person you may feel that your future self will be attended by loving family members and caring friends. But, once you become a "head of household" or head of anything, it's often quite the opposite. Instead, you are responsible for attending to the emotional needs others.

</comment><comment><USER41> _It focuses on men's emotional well-being... and good old-fashioned male bonding. Minus ogling women, drinking or fist fighting, of course._

Nothing helps me get through feelings more than getting punched, and punching someone. Its the main reason I still goto hardcore/punk shows. The moshpit is a group therapy session.

</comment><comment><USER42> I guess it's a balance. Sometimes, you need to face what you're feeling. Other times, you need to avoid getting caught up in it and just press forward. I suppose it might also depend on the character of the feeling. Some feelings seem more honest and connected to something bigger. Other feelings can just torment a person and are like energy traps e.g. feelings of jealousy about not going to an elite college (I've struggled with this a lot. And, as the years go by, I realize more and more that I don't want to waste my time with it). I guess it's up to every person to figure out which is which in their own mind.

</comment><comment><USER43> It's a meme right now that men, as a group, need to be more in touch with their emotions or should express their emotions better, or some variation of the fact. Basically the comparison is drawn to women with the subtext that women are doing it right and men should follow. Has anyone actually asked if that is in fact true? For example, the "strong silent type" (i.e. stoicism) is a an archetype across cultures and maybe for some (or most) men that is the better path forward for their mental well-being.

</comment><comment><USER44> I don't want to go around picking on specific comments or arguments, but I still wanted to address what reads like a lot of insecurity and scar tissue, here...

\- It's better to understand people than to not understand them. Averages and stereotypes are not a great way to understand individual people.

\- If you want to understand why a person did or thinks something, a good place to start is with a generous assumption that you might have done or thought the same if you had the same experiences. Reflect on what sort of experiences might fulfill this statement.

\- Assume completely understanding an intelligence is impossible. If you haven't before, pay close attention to your internal narrative(s) until you catch yourself telling yourself a story about why you did or said or thought something. This is you, reflecting on what sorts of experiences led you to do or think something. This is evidence that we don't understand our own intelligence.

\- Don't be surprised if you find you are less generous when reflecting on what experiences lead you to do something than you are to others. You have, after all, been trying to understand why you do what you do your entire life. Look for opportunities to show yourself (and, more importantly, your internal narratives) that you care. This may feel stupid. Reflect on what experiences might lead you to think it is stupid to show yourself that you care.

\- If you are more generous with yourself, you aren't giving the rest of us enough credit. We all contain multitudes.

</comment><comment><USER45> [http://archive.is/thjVn](http://archive.is/thjVn)

</comment><comment><USER46> Feels a little unnatural.

</comment><comment><USER36> I've done a bunch of these, even went to a jungle for two weeks. After a deep examination of years of this journey the experiences and getting to know the participants I found this to be very shallow kind of temporary relief, also putting aside the fact that it's quite a shitshow and as a man you'll lose a bit of a self respect.

I often looked around and all I've seen was men who don't need more softness but more discipline. And women past their prime who are still childless but looking to find "a meaning of life" while continuing to delude themselves that the natural purpose of breasts and vagina was sexual pleasure.

On the contrary, I found the greatest relief in training Brazilian jiu-jitsu and joining a muay thai camp for a month.

It wasn't far from a popular hippie site. But I looked around and I saw a big difference. A lot of these people on 'retreats' aren't seeking change, they are seeking a pleasurable and an EASY kind of change.

You have people there that cry a little take some drugs hug each other, some hoping to get laid and basically chill on a "retreat" thinking they're doing 'hard spiritual work.

On the contrary, I saw people in the camp that trained for 4-5 hours and woke up early morning, conquered the pain and comfort, got out of the bed and went on to train on their bruised feet. Every day.

And when you're down, your muscles are out of your oxygen and you suffocate wrestling but still have time to go you start to converse with a voice on your head that wants you to give up and you'll question a lot of things and learn a lot about who you really are but you will have to find energy where you think there's none.

This rewires your brain not whining in the woods.

No you don't need drugs and it doesn't take strength to cry in a group where everyone cries.

The reason why all the westernized forms of buddhism and all sorts modified of Eastern practices and drugs like ayahuasca gain popularity is because people look for easy "fast-food" change.

Ironically people despair in comfort but look for comfortable way to get out of it.

Everyone who tried ayahuasca or crying in woods, or some other form of 'retreat' knows the change lasts about a week.

Worse, some people get addicted to seeking this relief and continue falling back to depression actively, just so they can get back and get some hugs. I know it's over-simplified but a lot of them will get addicted to the community and other paying attention to them even though it's artificial they get more of it than in their real lives.

In better case, you'll become a bozo kind of like Jim Carrey and crash parties just to tell everyone how deluded they are and how enlightened you are ... because duh fools, can't you see what I see "we're all one."

Finally, after a decade of searching I found that classical philosophy and in fact christian philosophy, as ridiculed as it is in media and the western society, the true deep philosophy, not the shallow popularized image, it offers all of the hard work and depth none of these 'retreats' will ever provide.

</comment><comment> seph-reed Humanity lives in a bubble, and at the edge of that bubble is an incredibly harsh reality.

Someone has to stand guard, typically men. Part of staring into the void is wearing emotional armor. On occasion you should take a break, go towards the middle of the bubble, be safe and warm, take a bath, eat, drop your armor, etc.

But that doesn't mean you were wrong to have worn armor at the wall. Nor does it mean the bubble is reality.

Reality is harsh, and everyone is trying to forget that. I commend those who refuse to.

<comment><USER47> What about reality is harsh, and of that harshness, what is best addressed by emotional armor, and of _that_ , do you know of any better coping mechanisms than that emotional armor? Although I do have a direction in mind, I am legit asking to understand your perspective and knowledge.

<comment> seph-reed 1\. A single, recent example of harshness:

6 weeks ago Epstein was suicided because his trial might have led to even a few of the super rich 1% from getting reprimanded for raping child sex slaves. Not only is there nothing any of us can really do about it, the world forgot in less than week.

Bad is winning. No path to utopia takes the "let them rich rape children" fork in the road.

2\. Emotional armor:

The above example is a single drop in the ocean. Empathizing with the raped children hurts. Feeling your powerlessness to do anything about it hurts. Now start adding the 1000 other awful things that have being done to people. You already have, and you already have shut down. Nobody can feel that much pain. But having armor is more about letting yourself take as many hits as possible before shutting down than hiding. The more cold your empathy, the more you can stare into the void.

3\. Better coping mechanisms

Dumping this shit into the safe space would defeat the point. It would just make the world even worse. I put what I can into trying to recruit. We could really use more strong people, if you're interested. Most of it though, I let it hurt me, then I use this awesome feature of being a human where I forget about things. In the moment it sucks, but over time I look back and see a beautiful existence.

Valor is a quality not easily acquired, and I wish to.

<comment><USER47> Yeah, that's about the direction I was expecting. I absolutely agree with you that these are things are good reasons to have emotional armor.

I disagree that they're reality.

There's reality, consensus reality, and the outcomes of our collective actions. Including the second two in the first one implies it's unalterable, implies they're not fundamentally artificial.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I really wish HN would implement a 'no ny times' policy.

<comment><USER49> Oddly, using w3m avoids their paywall.

<comment><USER48> The paywall is not what irks me. It's all the crap they post that either invokes super inflammatory commentary here on HN (like, men being emotional, men being anxious, men being xyz) or the really NERF-level stuff that lacks any substance and really just makes you think of Captain Obvious™

<comment><USER50> NERF-level?

<comment><USER51> Soft and harmless, like Nerf balls and projectiles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Female sexual attraction favors secure men who don't talk feelings. This results in men feeling unable to express their emotions around their significant other.

On the other side, male sexuality selects based on looks more than anything.

Feminism calls the latter shallow and toxic, but truthfully both should have that label. Neither is serving society or evolution well anymore. But what can we do? Sexual attraction is an innate, unchanging aspect of what it means to be man and woman. It isn't going to be removed from our genes anytime soon.

<comment><USER53> I've found that women often appreciate and find men who are authentic, emotions included, attractive. You can always overshare and if you express emotions in a way where you put the burden on the other person, I don't think anybody really enjoys that

<comment><USER54> I disagree, maybe those women appreciate authentic emotions among friends, but at least while on the dating scene, authenticity NEVER won me any points, and quite to the contrary, the stoic/mysterious man always won out.

<comment><USER53> I think the stoic/mystery "distant" persona works at first but if you want to foster and deeper connection between someone as an equal than you have to open up

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> How are we, men, supposed to take these articles seriously when we have so many examples of how bad it is to share our feelings?

Look at the character assassination of Stallman last week. He shared his feelings with some women, and look at what happened to him. If he had not communicated his desire to date some of these women, and not communicated his feelings about the confusing ethics (in his mind) surrounding sexual norms, he'd still be the leader of the FSF.

Instead, he (stupidly) did share how he was feeling about something, and did it publically, and look at what happened to him.

I'm sure every single man posting on this website has an example of a time when they shared how they were feeling, or were vulnerable, to some women, and had it blow up in their face. I have.

These articles, written by women, telling men to be more self destructive are ridiculous, and certainly feel like they have an agenda.

<comment><USER56> >He shared his feelings with some women, and look at what happened to him.

I don't think he shared any feelings - he expressed his views. Very orthogonal to sharing feelings.

<comment><USER57> Putting it that way somehow seems to make it even worse.

<comment><USER56> In this particular case, I'm not sure if it would have made a difference in the end (him resigning). But had he shared his feelings adequately, I suspect a lot more people would be defending him now than they are. Had he shown empathy towards the trafficked woman, while still presenting the very view he did have, it would have been more challenging to attack him.

Is it crappy that you can't express your views without showing empathy and then be judged for it? Definitely. But this is nothing new, and not unique to our age. Wishing for things to be different is wishing for humans to be otherwise.

Is it crappy that in an academic setting one cannot discuss things objectively without invoking feelings and get burnt because of it? Yes. But this wasn't that situation. One side was very clearly _not_ having an academic conversation, but a very emotionally loaded one (protesting). It was Stallman's mistake in treating that situation like any other academic one.

Demonstrating empathy[1] is a key aspect of a relationship. Validating someone's feelings (without agreeing with their narrative) is central to demonstrating empathy. Unfortunately, the common mistake people make is assuming that validating one's feelings means you agree with the story in their heads - it doesn't.

I would often be upset with the way the world was. My having a discussion about X doesn't mean I agree with X or advocate for it. Yet people may view me as a horrible person for it. I'm just trying to have an academic discussion, and exploring ideas, damn it! Isn't that what fiction does? Etc.

But once I learned the dynamics behind all this, I couldn't help and look back at my earlier life and realize I did not behave all that different. Indeed it was easy to find examples where I listened more to one side because of their behavior (showed empathy, discussed instead of debated, etc). It wasn't that I didn't weigh different perspectives objectively - it was that I didn't listen as much to one side as the other. And I've realized I haven't met anyone who is perfect at dispassionately looking at all sides regardless of who is advocating for them. Understanding the factors that go into play will make you _better_ at being able to listen to all sides so you can evaluate them objectively.

Showing empathy with the person whose view you find offensive/wrong is going to make it _easier_ for you to understand their perspective and not let your own emotions get in the way. It will help the other person not be defensive, sarcastic, etc. These are things that bring about strong emotions and eliminating them from the other will help them explain their perspective better.

So yes, it does suck - but it's the same type of suckiness as the existence of bacterial diseases or the fact that I'll starve if I don't eat. Dwelling on it is futile.

[0] Note I said _demonstrating_ empathy, not _feeling_ or _having_ empathy. I don't doubt Stallman has empathy for the trafficked person. Sadly, it's not what you know but what you can show.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I don't understand the point of this article, it comes across to me as sheltered people with too much spare time maundering over petty, victimhood- ology nothingburgers. First responders and third-world climate refugees have real trauma to deal with compared to the petty whining and whinging of sub/urban white-collar employees who don't know how good they have it.</comment>


Dinosaur tail discovered trapped in amber (2016) - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/health/dinosaur-tail-trapped-in-amber-trnd/index.html <comment><AUTHOR> The most interesting part to me is that there are feathers trapped inside the amber:

> _The amber, which weighs 6.5 grams, contains bone fragments and feathers, > adding to mounting fossil evidence that many dinosaurs sported primitive > plumage..._

<comment><USER2> Indeed, and a fairly recent discovery among Velociraptors.

> The feathers of the flightless Velociraptor may have been used for display, > for covering their nests while brooding, or for added speed and thrust when > running up inclined slopes.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor#Feathers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor#Feathers)

[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/317/5845/1721](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/317/5845/1721)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The paper:

[http://www.cell.com/current- biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)3...](http://www.cell.com/current- biology/fulltext/S0960-9822\(16\)31193-9)

"A Feathered Dinosaur Tail with Primitive Plumage Trapped in Mid-Cretaceous Amber"

</comment><comment><USER4> I would go back to the market, pay the man extra and ask him to help trace where it came from, as there could be more where it came from

<comment><USER5> Well, the article has a photo of the field where it came from, so presumably something more or less like that has already happened...

<comment><USER6> The mining photo looks really grim, and reminds me of the mammoth tusk mining photos that were linked to from HN a few weeks back.

[https://www.google.co.nz/amp/photofunonline.com/photographer...](https://www.google.co.nz/amp/photofunonline.com/photographer- joins-illegal-mammoth-tusk-hunt-in-siberia-captures-how-they-get-rich-get- drunk-and-nearly-die/amp/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> it's quite beautiful ... and feathered, definitely feathered :-)

</comment><comment><USER8> Clearly there are feathers. Is it finally settled then? Land-based dinosaurs probably all, or at least most, had feathers?

<comment><USER9> The assumption right now is that every theropod had feathers of some kind somewhere. Some of them may have lost them as adults, or only be partially covered, the skin impression information is somewhat inconsistent. But generally yes, theropods looked very much like big carnivorous flightless birds, plumage and all. Velociraptor for instance likely had what today we would describe as wings.

<comment><USER10> Jurassic Park lied to me! Even though the link between dinosaurs and birds is mentioned explicitly. :(

Would be interesting to see a remake that used all of the current knowledge about dinosaurs, what they looked and behaved like.

<comment><USER11> The most recent Jurassic Park movie has a solution to this problem. In it they say that they had to use genes from amphibians together with the dinosaur genes in order to create their animals. This way the issue is reconciled.

<comment><USER10> Now that I think of it, they mentioned the amphibian DNA in the first one (and the book), too, to explain why the dinosaurs were suddenly able to procreate.

Still, a life-size velociraptor ot T-Rex covered in a coat of feathers must be quite a sight.

<comment><USER12> I think someone may have posted this already, but in case not: [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/t-rex-skin-was- not...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/t-rex-skin-was-not-covered- feathers-study-says-180963603/)

"T. Rex Was Likely Covered in Scales, Not Feathers"

What I don't understand is how something the size of T rex doesn't just die from heat shock whenever it breaks into a sprint. I vaguely recall reading somewhere that one of the dangers facing beached whales is that they start to overheat rapidly. Did big dinosaurs just live in cooler environments? Do they have better ways to dissipate heat? Did they like dipping in lakes and ponds? I'm sure someone would have asked these questions already, but no idea what current thinking in the field is...

<comment><USER13> Whales have a lot of fat (and I'm assuming other insulating tools) to keep them warm in cold water, their bodies aren't designed to be beached in warm air under the sun. Elephants, while not as large as a trex, can survive the hot African savanna no problem so I feel evolution could handle making a trex live in moderate temperatures without to much of a problem

<comment><USER14> The question, though, is with or without feathers. Elephants have huge head radiators and no plumage, so there is a point to the article

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Article is from 2016

<comment><USER16> The article is dated one year ago today. I'm honestly kind of shocked I hadn't heard about this for an entire year!

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Fascinating! (Also [2016])

</comment><comment><USER18> Life will find a way

<comment><USER19> I wonder if we can get some DNA from it.

<comment><USER20> The half life of DNA is roughly 521 years [1]. The sample was 99 million years old, so you could expect roughly 3.33347 × 10^-57200 [2] percent of the DNA to be left. And considering humans have about 7 billion base pairs [3], you could reasonably expect no real recoverable information to remain.

[1] [http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/10...](http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/10/05/rspb.2012.1745) [2] [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.5%5E(99+million+%2F+...](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.5%5E\(99+million+%2F+521\)) [3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome)

<comment><USER21> In what sense does DNA have a half-life? It can't be radioactivity so is it seems to be just about molecular disintegration? Which is weird because why should a stable structure have a half-life?

<comment><USER22> The introduction of the first citation explains it a little bit:

> DNA has limited chemical stability and decays without the enzymatic repair > mechanisms of living cells [18]. Following cell death, nucleases start to > cleave the DNA into fragments [19] and during decomposition, the DNA is > digested by micro-organisms [18,20]. In determining long-term DNA decay, it > is believed that hydrolysis of amino groups accelerates the loss of purine > residues (depurination), resulting in strand cleavage [21,22]. This random > DNA fragmentation generates a characteristic negative exponential > correlation between DNA fragment length and number of molecules (figure 1a) > [23,24,26,27].

<comment><USER21> Thanks! I even clicked on the link and read every sentence that had "half" in it but didn't see anything... didn't expect it to be somewhere else in the introduction haha.

<comment><USER20> As a general rule, it's safe to assume every word in the abstract of a paper is significant.

<comment><USER21> > As a general rule, it's safe to assume every word in the abstract of a paper > is significant.

...what? The sentence quote above was from the introduction, not the abstract. Nothing in the abstract answered my question of why a stable structure like that of DNA should undergo disintegration. (Did you read the abstract yourself?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> "the specimen, the size of a dried apricot..."

<comment><USER23> Don't know why I was downvoted...it is a common pastime on HN to laugh at these types of comparisons.

<comment><USER24> I didn't do it, but I'm going to guess that it was because your comment gave absolutely no context or meaningful input, and it therefore seems reasonable that someone has decided that it adds no value to discussion of the article.

I did downvote this one though, because of the antepenultimate entry in [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)</comment></comment></comment>


Paralysed man walks again after cell transplant - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29645760 <comment><USER2> Discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8485662](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8485662)</comment>


You can't decide your app price in iTunes (Apple) - <AUTHOR>

Why is my app out of the App Store for more than a month? As I've been told, they've removed my app because I increased the price too much. If I want to sell the app at that price I need to submit it again for review because my app may not worth it, at least that's what they said.
The agreement doesn't say so (iOS Schedule 2 v21):
"You may change the price tier for any Licensed Application at any time, at Your discretion, in accordance with the pricing schedule set forth on that Exhibit C as updated from time to time, using tools provided on the iTunes Connect site. As Your agent and/or commissionaire, Apple shall be solely responsible for the collection of all prices payable by end-users for Licensed Applications acquired by those end-users under this Schedule 2."
Full Story: https://medium.com/@marcmasat/apple-itunes-support-aa2fb0f9c4c <comment><USER2> I have no problem believing that they have a higher threshold for approving apps that cost more money because of the expectations that come along with a high priced app in _their_ store. A slightly buggy app offered for free could still be helpful, but the same app for a fee could be a liability.

Did you change the price to tier 1, or a higher rate? I have helped test apps that I thought shouldn't be paid, and without seeing yours it is hard to tell.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's pretty reasonable to ask you to re-submit for review and extremely rare that someone wouldn't be able to do so. I see that you don't actually have the app, but Apple doesn't think this is common enough to have a process for it.

Do you have the source? Do you have the certificates and private key that are needed to sign the app -- if not, you should be getting those under your control.

<comment><USER4> I dont disagree with you, but I think his main point was that they removed it without telling him why and then did not respond to his enquiries for 20 days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> You changed from Free to Paid. To be fair, Google Play won't allow this _at all_.

Apple probably should have been more clear about their review guidelines, but since when have they ever done that?

</comment><comment><USER6> Clickable - [https://medium.com/@marcmasat/apple-itunes-support- aa2fb0f9c...](https://medium.com/@marcmasat/apple-itunes-support-aa2fb0f9c4c)

</comment><comment><USER7> _Why_ do people insist on developing for walled gardens? This basic story - arbitrary problems with the owner of a walled garden - has cropped up _so_ many times on Hacker News.

Walled gardens are morally wrong in proportion to the strength of their walls, and suffer from several very significant technical problems.

This sort of thing shouldn't be news to any HN reader.

<comment><USER8> Walled gardens are where the users are, and where users are willing to spend money?

<comment><USER7> Sure. Then don't complain when it goes pear-shaped yet again.

Obligatory: [http://xkcd.com/743/](http://xkcd.com/743/)</comment></comment></comment>


Postgres at the Center of Everyone's Data World - <AUTHOR> http://www.enterprisedb.com/postgres-plus-edb-blog/jason-davis/postgres-center-everyone-s-data-world

<comment><USER2> I've been using Postgres for years and have never heard of Foreign Data Wrappers. A project I'm working on is using both Postgres (PostGIS in particular) and MongoDB, so this would appear to be of use, but I'm not seeing a lot of performance information anywhere. The documentation just states that "there is considerable room for future performance improvements" [0], which makes me a little hesitant.

[0] [http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/sql- createforeignd...](http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/sql- createforeigndatawrapper.html)

<comment><USER2> Don't understand this site sometimes. I got downvoted because I asked about the performance implications of this? I googled around and couldn't find anything.</comment></comment>