News is bad for you - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli <comment><USER3> "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers." Thomas Jefferson

"Once a newspaper touches a story, the facts are lost forever, even to the protagonists." Norman Mailer

"Newspapers are unable, seemingly, to discriminate between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilisation." George Bernard Shaw

"In the real world, the right thing never happens in the right place and the right time. It is the job of journalists and historians to make it appear that it has." Mark Twain

"I fear three newspapers more than a hundred thousand bayonets." Napoleon

"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." Malcolm X

"The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything. Except what is worth knowing. Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands." Oscar Wilde

"The lowest depth to which people can sink before God is defined by the word journalist." Soren Kierkegaard

<comment><USER4> ''Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.'' Oscar Wilde

<comment><USER5> It's so ironic to use quotation in this case.

<comment><USER6> The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> While I agree with the sentiment, Rolf Dobelli himself is a plagiarist. This whole reasoning is basically stolen from Nassim Taleb.

[http://fooledbyrandomness.com/dobelli.htm](http://fooledbyrandomness.com/dobelli.htm)

[http://blog.chabris.com/2013/09/similarities-between-rolf- do...](http://blog.chabris.com/2013/09/similarities-between-rolf-dobellis- book.html)

EDIT: For another take on not reading the news, see [http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews](http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews)

<comment><USER8> Of course we can put our heads in the sand.

The problem is: if you do this, you should no longer be allowed to vote. Because democracy can only survive if the feedback cycle is _encouraged_ , not _sabotaged_ :

(Good|bad) news => critical thinking by the citizen => citizen votes accordingly => corruption (and other problems) are corrected.

If you stop reading news, you stop being a responsible citizen.

If you feel bad about the news, there's 1 thing you should do: Channel the anger and produce _positive action_. It will make you feel good and problems will vanish. _That_ is how this works.

<comment><USER9> > If you stop reading news, you stop being a responsible citizen.

If the elected actors interfere with the news you read, you also stop being a responsible citizen. We simply never had a chance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> For anyone who isn't ready to completely turn off the news spigot, consider switching to a weekly (or monthly) source of news.

I get all of my (non-HN) news from The Economist's audio edition. It's released weekly and they have a section right at the start about big things happening in business/politics around the world in the last week. It's no more than a couple minutes to scan, and 10-20 in normal speed audio.

The rest of the articles are at least one step back (since they summarize a week of what's happened). Many others are looking at some larger event or trend, sometimes with a recent event/anecdote as a lead in.

I like the audio edition in particular since I can put it on while I'm doing chores or commuting and I'll pick up bits and pieces even if I'm not fully paying attention. I can also have only the sections I care about included, which lets me skip the ones I really don't care about.

<comment><USER11> Is this only a soundcloud thing or is this available somewhere as an (offline) podcast?

Soundcloud link: [http://l.economist.com/204894&t=v1g49i1qmlsq6a25ld8r6j8u40](http://l.economist.com/204894&t=v1g49i1qmlsq6a25ld8r6j8u40)

<comment><USER10> You have to be a subscriber, and then it's available on their website: [http://www.economist.com/audio-edition](http://www.economist.com/audio- edition)

If you just want to read The World This Week it's available online for free: [http://www.economist.com/printedition/](http://www.economist.com/printedition/)

<comment><USER12> To be clear, since I can't see without being a subscriber, the "audio edition" is different from the "Economist radio" linked on Soundcloud?

<comment><USER10> Yes. Audio Edition is a word-for-word reading of the print edition. Economist Radio looks like it has the random other audio things they do (there's also a podcast on iTunes with those sorts of things)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Whether news is bad for you or not probably depends more than a little on what the source is. I don't watch television—for years our TV was in a box in a closet, brought out mostly just for watching the Olympics. But I do look at Google News and try to train it to give me mostly long-form suggestions about science and world issues from diverse sources with professional reporting and editing. That helps.

The claim that giving up reading news will make you happier is a medical claim in the article that is not backed up by reliable medical sources,[1] so I call baloney on that. The newspaper opinion writer here (promoting his new book with excerpts from the book) doesn't report the issue the way a competent reporter would report it, but just makes a bunch of broad general statements with no nuance. In other words, the medical claims about happier human life in the article are just like the made-up opinions we can all easily find on the Internet, and the article stands as an example of how we can find blatantly misleading "information" inside or outside the professional news media. I have no reason to suppose that the full-length book is a medically reliable source (the publisher of the book is identified at the end of the article).

Anecdote alert: I'm a curious person and I like to learn, and so one of the reasons I come here to Hacker _NEWS_ is to find out new facts about the external world that I didn't know before, including facts about current events ("news" in the narrow sense). My personal experience—which, to be sure, may differ from yours—is that I am a happier and more productive person when I know, from good sources, what is going on all over the world and the broader context of expanding human knowledge. But I'm sure you can find an opinion column somewhere based on a popular book with a different opinion from mine.

AFTER EDIT: Good catch! Another participant here on HN noticed that the author of the article kindly submitted here has credibly been accused of plagiarism by more than one published author who works harder than he does. I upvoted that comment for what it added to our understanding of the article's background.

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

<comment><USER14> You've entirely missed the point. News is bad because it focuses on the sensational and misses the actionable. Ie bitcoin articles focus on the speculative aspect and not that it's a more useful, less friction method of payment. Business shows focus on day to day movement instead of broad sweeping trends that are game changers.

The medium is partly the problem.

<comment><USER13> _News is bad because it focuses on the sensational and misses the actionable._

I think you've missed the point of my comment, which is that I actively disregard sources that have that defect, and look for sources that tell me about verified, actionable information. (I have been wondering about the pattern of upvotes and downvotes on my comment, and if this is what people think I am saying, that I like the sensational, they are badly misreading my comment.)

<comment><USER15> I think there's some misunderstanding over the meaning of the word "news" here. The author of the article uses the word "news" when referring to "sensational, bite sized news articles" (because it makes for a better headline). He doesn't think all journalism is bad. The article concludes with this thought:

"Society needs journalism – but in a different way. Investigative journalism is always relevant. We need reporting that polices our institutions and uncovers truth. But important findings don't have to arrive in the form of news. Long journal articles and in-depth books are good, too."

You and the author seem to mostly agree in that respect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The biggest problem with news is that it's about _newness_ and rarity. Whereas what we actually need to know is mostly not new. Eg, "man eaten by alligator" is a billion times less important than "decades of data say you will likely get heart disease."

Another serious problem with news is its schedule. A daily paper must publish _something_ every day, even if nothing important has happened. An hourly newscast is worse.

My ideal internet news source would publish infrequently and be filtered to the specific reader. The second part is very hard. It would look something like this:

 _Not News_ \- A car accident across town \- A single crime in another state \- Celebrities \- Scandals \- Daily stock market fluctuations

 _News_ \- A trend of car accidents at an intersection near me \- Crime in my neighborhood or a trend of crime in my city \- Economic trends and their underlying causes

<comment><USER17> News in the UK has several problems.

News papers are either _horrible_ \- I cannot describe just how vile much of the UK news press industry is. The decent newspapers have tiny distribution figures. The Guardian, for example, has a circulation of under 300,000 people. Obviously, more people read it, but still, that's a tiny figure.

UK news allows the agenda[1] to be set by spin doctors. We frequently has stories about how a politician "will announce" something - the speech has been released by publicists before it has been given, allowing the speaker to set the tone of the coverage.

I don't know why that's allowed or why they do it. It's incredibly frustrating.

And there's very narrow window of what is or isn't news. A blond white girl goes missing? We'll have wall to wall coverage of it for weeks. A non white person, or a boy, goes missing? Not so much. Compare, for example, the Soham coverage (two white girls killed by a caretaker at their school) with Adam Morrell, a boy who was brutally tortured and killed.

For years I read about agents that would go out and find news items that would be interesting to me. It still hasn't happened. I would pay money for something that works for me:

1) Return items that match some search terms I give. I'm interested in news items about mental health, even if it's poor coverage of a news item that mention MH in a stigmatising way.

2) Suggest items that I might be interested in based on my reading history, and what I am or am not interested in.

3) Provide suggested items to break me out of my bubble. This can be things about what I'm interested in with an opposing viewpoint to my regular sources; or it can be things that I haven't previously shown interest in.

[1] I don't know if "news agenda" is a peculiarly UK term.

<comment><USER18> Not to dump on UK, but I also find the UK newspapers to be very mean spirited. US tabloids gawk at celebrities, but UK tabloids are out to get them. I would not want to be famous in the UK.

<comment> chestnut-tree I'm from the UK and I'd go so far as to say the majority of the British press are toxic. They have an incredibly inflated view of themselves and they couldn't care less about what's in the public interest (just look at how they've responded to the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry which investigated the repulsive ethics and culture of the British press).

The UK press empahtically follow their own self-interests and agendas (and that includes broadsheets like The Guardian). There will always be individual reporters who rise above the abysmally low standard of reporting - but they are a tiny minority.

TV news is better in my opinion - they at least aspire to some measure of impartiality. These clips from Charlie Brooker (British TV presenter) give a good sense of the formulaic way news is reported (strong language in the videos).

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHun58mz3vI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHun58mz3vI)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4#t=38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4#t=38)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've been trying an experiment for the last year or two. I have an app that collects commentary, tech and science stories from across the web. (Recently I added news, but that was a mistake)

I find I stay just as informed reading commentary, where I'm purposefully being manipulated, as I do reading news. In fact the news is better, as various authors advance various personal theories they've been working on for weeks or months, using the current events as fodder. Reading a couple of these from different viewpoints provides wonderful context -- and context is the one thing critically missing from most "breaking news" reporting. The only difference is about a 12-hour delay. Trust me, the world does not depend on whether I know something that quickly. Twitter peeps will annoy me if something truly incredible happens.

I'm also finding that branding, whether by news outlet, author, or social signaling, is a terrible indicator of quality. As I continue to flush out the app, my belief is that a better indicator is statistical clustering around personality types, but that's still a year or two away.

But one thing is for sure: I've been much happier since I gave up all forms of news consumption. News is based on emotional manipulation. It's always a crisis, there's always an argument, and there's always some terrible danger you've been unaware of. That stuff will rot your mind. It's always been bad; it's just gotten worse over the last few decades as the news cycle has shortened.

<comment><USER20> I think this is a great observation that has really only become possible from the internet: the ability to consume viewpoints from others outside of your small social circle has been increased massively. Sites like HN, reddit, dig, slashdot, etc have enabled that dialog on top of the usual one sided article.

Think back to when news was mostly distributed via TV or newspapers. Where could you get alternative views? Neighbors, churches? These folks won't likely come from as diverse backgrounds as folks you might find in an online forum. They will have grown up most likely in the same town you are in, raised in a similar fashion. These days, I might read twenty different viewpoints of NSA wiretapping, from twenty different countries perspectives. It definitely provides the reader with a much richer experience, making the original article less valuable (except as a catalyst for the discussion obviously).

<comment><USER21> Yeah but the internet has also made it easier to filter out news you don't like. Back in the day, your local newspaper had to appeal to a general audience, and contained editorials from people with many perspectives. Now a days, you can chose to only consume news you agree with. If you're a conservative, you can read Drudge Report and Fox News Online without ever having to encounter a liberal viewpoint (except as the target of mockery). Liberals can get all their news from Daily Koz and MSNBC.com in the same fashion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is a rather ignorant stance to take.

I know a lot of people don't like the doom & gloom of news. But it's needed. I recently discussed with someone who doesn't consume news about the NSA revelations. They were shocked. They said "why didn't anyone tell me?"

Instead of blocking things out and being happy with our ignorance, we need to change how news is done. If you whine about something, change it. The Guardian can certainly make an attempt to change the dynamic.

<comment><USER23> > I know a lot of people don't like the doom & gloom of news. But it's needed. > I recently discussed with someone who doesn't consume news about the NSA > revelations. They were shocked. They said "why didn't anyone tell me?"

So I've been following the NSA news closely. But I'm not American! What _actionable_ information has following the minute of the NSA revelations provided me? I can't influence the US government in any way. The most I got out of it was that I should move to non-US based service providers if possible - but this was clear when the first revelations hit. Did I really need to spend (I'm guessing) 10+ hours reading articles about the NSA's revelations?

I could see a case for following local news - where local might mean relevant to your industry or to your community. The more local the news, the more actionable the information. Nightly newscasts rarely focus on this though - they're basically entertainment, _real_ reality television.

<comment><USER24> _What actionable information has following the minute of the NSA revelations provided me?_

Encrypt your data better, perhaps. But that's kind of besides the point - <USER2> you suggesting that there is no point knowing about things you have no control over?

<comment><USER25> Are you suggesting there _is_ some point? That there's real value, to oneself or to anyone else, in repeatedly dismaying oneself over things which one does not have, and cannot obtain, the power to affect?

<comment><USER24> I suppose I just can't imagine being content at being ignorant of the world. By that principle surely it's also worthless to learn about world history?

<comment><USER25> Not in the slightest; the mistake there would lie not in studying the dead past, but rather in taking it personally enough to experience dismay. Taking sides in the past is pointless; one studies the past to take sides in the present.

I also want to pick on the fallacy I find in your equation of largely ignoring journalism and being ignorant of the world. Having in early life studied journalism without reference to history, and then later studied history without reference to journalism, I found the former to leave me bewildered in a morass of facts with no useful means of assembling from them a coherent picture of the world, and the latter to furnish me with the cognitive mechanisms necessary to derive a coherent, if of course not perfectly accurate, model, into which to fit the facts I derive from review of what I am forced to conclude is the rather slapdash and careless journalistic profession.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> _A car drives over a bridge, and the bridge collapses. What does the news media focus on? The car. The person in the car. Where he came from. Where he planned to go. How he experienced the crash (if he survived). But that is all irrelevant. What 's relevant? The structural stability of the bridge._

This is an amazingly bad example. Most news sources would be leading the torch-and-pitchfork brigade to either the relevant road authority or the architect's office.

 _I don 't know a single truly creative mind who is a news junkie_

There is a vast gulf between 'news junkie' and 'don't watch news'. The author may also want to broaden his social circle, because I'm aware of a few. I also find it weird that 'physician' and 'scientist' are classified as 'truly creative minds' \- I've known quite a few of each, and it's a terrible assumption.

The article is an example of poor quality news - consuming it without thought is indeed bad for you. Full points for irony, I guess.

<comment><USER27> Exactly, most are proceeding as if the OP is correct while neglecting that the basic example is completely wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> So what source is there for "what you actually need to know" news? Something that's not afraid to say "today's need-to-know headlines: none." Something that keeps track of the status of significant long-term stories even while they're not catchy, knowing that _something_ is happening, and predicting it will be a big deal again later. Something that dispenses with the "sensational but not relevant" stories. Something that might have a modest price tag attached, to dispense with the necessity to grab maximum eyeballs daily to sell ad space. Thoughts? Future YC candidate maybe?

</comment><comment><USER29> News is terrible for me at least. For stress related reasons I decided at the beginning of 2013 that I would try and avoid daily contact with news (outside of anything important enough to percolate up HN, reddit and FB). I'm _much_ more relaxed and less stressed and find that in casual conversation I'm about as up-to-date on important events as most people I know.

Recently I was looking for information on something and ended up on CNN.com and was awestruck at how much just absolutely unnewsworthy garbage filled the pages. Curious I looked around at other new sites to see if they were all worse than I remember and yes, pretty much they were full of gossip, misinformation and obvious fear mongering.

No thanks, I like this new system better.

<comment><USER30> Huff Po links are like this for me. I'm no staunch republican, I just get sick to my stomach when I click on a link (often from HN!) that might be interesting and I am assaulted by tabloid gossip on the right side of my screen. I check the URI, and sure enough it's HuffPo, and it's _always_ something scabbed from somewhere else (ergo, the original article should have been submitted).

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I was raised on NPR and have used/use it as my main source for general news and find it very informative. Although it is not perfect, NPR seems to focus on the delivery of information in a balanced (if that is possible) way allowing me to draw my own conclusions. My problem with the big news outlets (cnn, msnbc, fox, etc) is that they are clearly a business and focused on profitability (I have much empathy for them as I do the same when I am at work). The problem is when editorial decisions are made not by what is news worthy but by what will draw the most eye balls. For me it feels presenters are trying to one up each other with outrageous comments as their personal views become the story at the expense of the news. I am sorry but I want the news presented in a sterile/factual way. But instead it feels like American Idol with the presenters angling for a book deal, more twitter followers or other forms of personal enrichment. Of course there is nothing wrong with self-promotion, I do it every day at work, but maybe I am old fashion in my longing for the days of Ted Koppel who for the most part delivered the facts as he knew them and purposely tried not to show emotion one way or another. So I don't think consuming news is bad but the self-promotion/echo chamber creating delivery of that news is another thing entirely.

<comment><USER18> Yes, clearly mainstream news has been turned into an entertainment product. Agree that NPR delivers the news in depth without all of the cynicism and noise that makes mainstream news so depressing, except on environmental issues, that's a topic where the NPR coverage will suggest you should have a bunker in the mountains.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> [http://xkcd.com/1299/](http://xkcd.com/1299/)

I grew up without a television - deliberate choice. My friends couldn't believe how much cool stuff I could get done because of this.

<comment><USER33> I grew also up without a television. That was no deliberate choice, my parents are orthodox christians. I was very creative in that period and I kinda miss that now :)

<comment><USER21> So return to that period by giving up the tv again.

<comment><USER28> I did. No TV thru high school, minimal later, culminating in full-slate cable service, then dumped it all for nothing more than an occasional DVD. Have no idea how any TV-watchers get anything done, as I'm working (home chores included) flat-out 18 hours a day and feel I can barely keep up with life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Already knew this, already did this, already got happy. I generally agree with the sentiment of this article. If it's really news and really important, I'll get spammed on Facebook (e.g. NSA, Superbowl Blackout, Healthcare.gov, Paul Walker, Nelson Mandela, etc..).

I would honestly rather just get my news from HN because the intelligence level is a lot higher than any news organization. While I may disagree with certain views on here, it's not a sensationalized conversation. Users on here generally have concrete conjectures and thought out responses which you definitely don't get on the news.

</comment><comment><USER35> I agree... but I think there are two important caveats.

1) Some news is important, purely for social (not informational) reasons. When you show up to the office, you want to know why everyone's talking about Miley Cyrus! And you need to know who won the Superbowl, even if you have no interest.

2) News does have explanatory power, but mostly in weekly mags like The Economist, New Yorker, etc., and occasionally in analysis pieces by the NYT. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

But to my first point -- I would _love_ a service that would "curate" the need-to-know headlines, to send to me every morning/afternoon. Where each headline had a numerical score or increasing importance (say, 1-5), and I could choose to subscribe to all headlines of 5, and all headlines 3-5 in tech, for example. The important thing being that this is not a simple daily digest, but that I'd _only_ receive it when there was something newsworthy -- plenty of days, you'd receive nothing at all.

<comment><USER30> _1) Some news is important, purely for social (not informational) reasons. When you show up to the office, you want to know why everyone 's talking about Miley Cyrus! And you need to know who won the Superbowl, even if you have no interest._

No, just no. Maybe I'll sound like a curmudgeon, but that information is totally worthless, and for people like me, is _exactly_ the kind of thing that makes me depressed. "Oh, hey, some random sports team recreated a pointless tribal warfare act! NSA? Who cares what they do, I've got nothing to hide." There are more important, more culturally relevant things to discuss, and one should not stoop to ignore them merely to "fit in." One should try to elevate discourse by ignoring the shallow, vapid happenings that happen to be in vogue (precisely what this article describes as being wrong with "news"!) and help to enlighten those around oneself.

<comment><USER27> Recreated a pointless warfare act ... Man HN has a strong connection to the real world!

<comment><USER36> You are able to make the same point you are trying to make without over- generalizing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I made the decision to quit news broadcasts (TV and radio) some time ago and I don't consider myself any less informed.

Scientific research publications, local papers, special-interest blogs and good old fashioned conversation are more than enough to get the useful information.

It's extraordinarily rare that the TV/radio news ever contains any information that's directly useful to my life and I have better things to do than pan for gold whilst being subjected to varying degrees of propaganda.

</comment><comment><USER38> I first encountered this line of reasoning in Bulgakov's excellent 1925 book, Heart of a Dog when a doctor advises one of his friends:

      If you care about your digestion, my advice is—don't talk
      about bolshevism or medicine at table. And, god forbid—never
      read soviet newspapers before dinner.

It seems to me that it has long been known that unactionable information is not good for you.

Curiously, another HN reader expressed the same [1] feelings about HN.

[1] [http://anton.kovalyov.net/p/soviet- newspapers/](http://anton.kovalyov.net/p/soviet-newspapers/)

</comment><comment><USER39> As it mentions at the bottom of the article, this is a shortened version of an article Rolf Dobelli wrote in 2010 called "Avoid News" ( [http://dobelli.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Par...](http://dobelli.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Part1_TEXT.pdf) ). The first one was longer under the immediate challenge that people too mired in news would probably not finish it, so it's interesting to me that he shortened this prose specifically to post it on a news site.

</comment><comment><USER40> I'm a fully recovered Digg, Reddit, Huffington Post, & Perez Hilton junkie. I've been clean since 2009. It really is an addiction that takes over your life. It's like a stimulation that you always have to have. I quit cold by banning the offending websites using my linksys router:

● Go to http:192.168.1.1 using your browser, the default name and password is "admin" and "admin" (please change the password to a REALLY long one and write it down on a sticky note next to the router (if you haven't already)

● Click the "Access Restrictions" tab | Enter a policy name and select "Enable" | ignore "applied PCs"'s edit list | Set Access Restriction to "Allow" | Make sure the Schedule portion has "everyday" checked and "24 hours" selected | Enter the URLs of the 4 websites you'd like to block | and click "save settings" at the bottom.

● Sure you can come back here and disable the access restrictions, but it requires extra steps, requires you to get up, requires you to type in a long password. And by that time you'll have realized what you're doing isn't good and stopped yourself. The whole point is to stop the bad habit of subconsciously typing in Reddit.com every 5 minutes. It took me a month and after whatever chemical high I had in my brain that was addicting me to Reddit/HuffPo/etc. wore off I just disabled the bans and haven't been a Redditor ever since. I've visited Reddit months later maybe twice but didn't care and haven't been back since. I'm free.

<comment><USER27> I bet you're fun to hang out with. :) Can you give me instructions for Netgear too?

<comment><USER40> Well, I have started embracing both my masculine and feminine side. I like watching "How It's Made", "Build It Bigger", "Extreme Engineering", "Ninja Warrior", and "America's Next Top Model". I'm not familiar with Netgear though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> If knowing the reality of what happens in the world leads to fear and aggression then perhaps we should be angry and afraid? We can't just shut reality out if we don't like the emotional state it puts us in.

<comment><USER42> The reality of what happens is all around me - I observe it directly. What is on mass media is information that other people want to promote to further their own agenda. Whether it is for ratings, to get us to buy their product or to further political aims it does not matter (we all have our own motivations) but it is clearly NOT reality. The fact that you confuse the two is sad and frightening.

<comment><USER41> There are parts of reality that you can't possibly witness directly because you are located at a single geographic point. For example, someone suffering on the other side of the world because they've been gassed by a dictator or a terrorist group, or wrongly imprisoned, or they are dying of some easily curable disease. You would usually only ever hear of such a thing through the news media, and yet it is real

Things are not all one way or the other. The media is very imperfect, but it is not worthless.

No need to attack me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I have stopped reading mainstream news for last 3 years and its the best mind- hack I ever did.

[http://neurographs.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/news- diet/](http://neurographs.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/news-diet/)

<comment><USER27> What's a mind-hack?

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> The irony of reading this article on a news website.

My man Rolf became a journalist, worked his way up to the Guardian, and wrote a story about how busted up news is.

I look forward to the similar press release from Jony Ive telling us to stop using those blasted iPads.

<comment><USER45> One could argue that it's not news, so it's not ironic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> RSS Feeds saved me from a life of the bl-ews. I've got my hand-picked sites ranging from world news to space news to tech news with a little TIL and Adam Curtis mixed in. It takes me five minutes to see the state of things I am interested in & bookmark any interesting headlines for perusing later when time allows. Many days, there is no later perusing, but I get an idea of what is happening outside my circle of influence.

Now if I could get a continental breakfast one morning without being assaulted by the talking heads squawking on every TV in every hotel lobby saying the same shit every same day.

</comment><comment><USER47> Perhaps because I've lived outside the US and traveled extensively what really bothers me about US news is how egocentric it is. You get a horribly skewed world view if all you watch is US news. Also, when it comes to accidents or disasters (plane crash, terrorist attack, etc.) for some reason I am really bothered when the talking heads engage in US citizen accounting. Something like this: "A plane crashed today in <insert city>, 45 passengers died, 3 Americans". I get it, it's US news, but for some reason it feels really wrong to me that it is being reported that way. It's almost as if none of the other victims mattered. I'm sure that's not how it is intended, but it really bugs me for strange reason.

Also, US news bugs me even more when I am abroad. Watching CNN abroad vs. watching it at home produces different feelings. When out of the country I often feel the news is embarrassing. At home, regardless of the source, it oscillates between politically charged, moronic or down-right egocentric news. Most of the quality information I get is from non-US news programs or the Internet. Local and national TV news programs, regardless of network or political affiliation are deplorable.

I can absolutely see a constant stream of sensationalized and skewed news being bad for someone, particularly if they don't seek balance outside of their usual sources.

</comment><comment><USER48> Anyone find it ironic that a news agency (the Guardian) is saying news is bad for you?

<comment><USER49> Yup. But like cigarette advertisers and spammers who intentionally misspell so only uncritical people pay attention, most mainstream news sources have so effectively created the atmosphere of _learned_helplessness_, they can tell people in bold letters straight to their faces, "this is bad for you" and people still pay for it.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Early this year I switched to skimming headlines and reading editorials only. In short this was the best decision I've made around media consumption. Between how much time it frees up and my reduced stress I'm so much happier.

This thread gave me pause to think about what I believed then, in the media induced state of stress, and what has come to pass. Of the notable ones:

\- twitter would fail and cause the tech bubble to burst. Twitter now sits pretty on $51/share

\- the euro zone would collapse and riots would rock the world. I actually skipped out on two trips (a wedding in France and a stag party in Taiwan) because I thought the world was on the brink of disaster. Nothing happened.

I only list two but there are a half dozen others that haven't happened either. The thing that really strikes me though, is that my perspective on others' has changed dramatically. When I see people spinning themselves up into a state because of some media (and quite often it is not reputable media) I feel a combination of anger and derision; somewhat akin to the emotional reflex I experience when a homeless person is drunk.

</comment><comment><USER51> Yes, though its not that black & white. The optimal solution in my mind is to cleverly filter what news you consume.

In my home country "news" consists mostly of bad stuff. e.g. I glanced at a local news paper _today_...among the headlines "3 y/o baby gang raped". Being bombarded with that kind of stuff daily can break the strongest soul, so I just don't read local news anymore.

I tend to focus on finance & tech. Even if there is an absolute bloodbath on the stock exchange it'll never rattle me like the baby thing does (and I didn't even read the actual article). The stock exchange is just numbers...maybe I lost some money - so be it. That I can absorb without lasting damage.

I'd love a open platform that can process RSS that I know won't close/change/fail me. Google Reader had some ability in this regard but we all know how that went. Plus I think RSS might no longer be sufficient...cutting edge news is now on twitter. Not sure if 140 chars counts as news though...headlines maybe.

<comment><USER52> I am the same as you, as far as focusing on finance and tech. I think there are reasons why these topics are far less stressful or depressing: Tech news and reviews are exciting when they are good, and irrelevant when they are bad. If something gets some bed press, you simply don't buy! Also the tone is often nice, probably because tech reviewers have a pretty good job. They get to play with new things all the time and get paid.

Finance is usually upbeat as well -- now, I get most of my news from Bloomberg, if that matters. But since hedge funds can't advertise, literally everyone in the financial news chain benefits from the stock market going up. This may tend to color reports to the positive, making for a happier listening experience. Giving everyone the benefit of the doubt that they would ever "color" a story, then even in difficult times, the focus is on investment opportunities and interviews are always with those doing well. Ever since I switched to Bloomberg news radio and a focus on online tech news, I feel like I can bear to live in the world again!

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> This is article is very bad rip-off from the book "Art of thinking clearly". This book goes into each of bias that we face in everyday life. Knowing them can help you immensely. The articles just takes contents from the book to and try to infer that NEWS is bad for you.

It is very poor attempt. For every point discussed in the article present so many counter-arguments that are never discussed. Not just that some of the arguments are just contradictory. Not to mention there is hardly any research material pointed that made the author think that way.

Once it says that we don't think about news : "Unlike reading books and long magazine articles (which require thinking), we can swallow limitless quantities of news flashes,". This is ironic. The article itself is NEWS. Is it not making us think. Well if it not making us think this makes this NEWS itself is useless right?

The author just tried to create an article by combining things he read from the book. At the end he just presented HIS OPINION. This should not be NEWS !

</comment><comment><USER54> If you attach a negative connotation to news then you're obviously trying to make people hate it. Essentially this article equates reading the daily news to a quick fix of heroin. But we aren't feeding an addiction when we read the news. On a high level, we are trying to stay informed. But you must recognize the deeper connection our minds make with new information.

The psychologist Gary Klein has written about how people make decisions. His most recent book provides several pieces of evidence that we have good insights because we can connect irrelevant information/ideas to the problems we see everyday (whether these problems are at work, at school, in the laboratory, or on the toilet).

Learning is healthy. Reading is necessary. The news is irreplaceable: not because of its pertinence but because its insightful value.

</comment><comment><USER55> It isn't new per se, which supposed to be just accurate reporting of the recent events and facts, but that unprecedented flow of unimaginable nonsense, propaganda, brain-washing, manipulations, lies and mere stupidity no mind could cope with. It is just unnecessary stress (especially from modern "dramatic" framing of third-rate media) we do not have any adaptation for. So, just switching off a TV and stopping reading nonsense (about Bitcoin or Docker) is really a relief. It is like giving up reading /b/ dramatically reduces the likelihood of developing ulcers.)

The problem is that every fool nowadays could write a blog post or a comment which would be indexed by a search engine, adding a bit to the total waste.

</comment><comment><USER48> If you were ever part of an MLM network, or quixtar or amway, or anybody who was ever big on 'selling' things, you would know better than to read the news. A typical newspaper has a ginormous amount of negative articles. HN is different though.

<comment><USER25> You assume, I think without justification, that someone sufficiently ill- equipped that he cannot avoid being suckered into a Ponzi scheme, is nonetheless capable of recognizing the deleterious effect of excessive news consumption. (I've known a few such people myself -- they were decent enough, mostly, but generally encumbered with a regrettable excess of credulity.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I've been hearing from more and more people each day that they have opted to receive curated news instead of jumping from site to site. Mainly from people outside the IT circle. They seem to me -- my impression -- to be less tolerant to ads then us, and even less to poor quality content. I think we from IT tend to judge content faster by just scanning headlines -- thank HN for that skill. Most people just can't do this, so curated news are a good thing for them, to the point some are actually paying to receive it on a regular basis.

</comment><comment><USER57> Interesting article, but it doesn't seem very balanced as it only focuses only on the negative. Also, it is an excerpt from a dude's book which he is trying to convince you to buy for £7.99.

</comment><comment><USER58> Here's how missing the news affected me: When I finished my CS degree, I decided have a go at postgrad in another field. I reasoned that if it didn't work out, I'd just quit and get a programming job like my classmates had done easily. It didn't work out. But when I went looking for a programming job, it was surprisingly hard. That led me to change career direction. Only later I found out what the "NASDAQ" was and what had happened to it while I was indecisively loitering at university in 2001.

</comment><comment><USER59> Most major news sources are biased that the only way to get anything close to a healthy dose is (a) to turn the volume down and (b) turn the gain up.

Increase the number of sources, believe fewer of them, and use critical thinking. But only pay attention to things you care about.

I may be outraged with recent conflicts between tech carpetbaggers and SF residents, but I try not to invest any energy in it, because I've got my own local gentrification vs. crime issues and I only have so much bandwidth.

</comment><comment><USER33> I have done this and I agree. "News" gives a single side view on the world and it is hardly an uplifting one. Personally I strongly belief that the general public opinion is negativer then needed caused by negative news-feeding. In the periods that I decided to not follow the news (opting out :)) I felt better and more relaxed. In the mean time I did not miss any big news and what I missed turned out not to be important. Easily to do as an experiment.

</comment><comment><USER60> Information overload is depressing. No, I mean it can cause depression. Mild perhaps as opposed to clinical, but you're more stressed when overloaded. My first thoughts on reading the title, however, went here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9pD_UK6vGU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9pD_UK6vGU)

"Life is easier and the world is a much happier place when you're dumb."

<comment><USER16> Funny, I think news tends to _make_ one dumber. For instance, you get exaggerated ideas about the dangers of muggings, lightning strikes, serial killers, etc, and get distracted from things that are actually likely to harm you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> I generally avoid personalization of the internet but there should be a service that informs the individual.

It should be a kind of alarm system with editable preferences like topics of interest also location based warnings with ranking of information importance consisted of social component plus importance rating given from information provider.

However, these days news are bad all over the world so not reading them will truly make you happy. :)

</comment><comment><USER62> I recommend a book by C. John Sommerville, titled 'How the News Makes Us Dumb' from 1999.

One interesting paragraph on backcover: 'news began to make us dumber when we insisted on having it daily'.

As anyone who's tried to make or create (even just writing something about a topic) something would know, creating takes time. Now when something needs to be created daily or even hourly, you end up putting out junk.

</comment><comment><USER63> I disagree. Without news, I wouldn't be able to determine which organizations are legit and good for humanity. Armed with that knowledge, I join the appropriate orgs (i.e. EFF), donate money, and send nasty-grams to the proper senator/congressperson when needed.

The caveat is that it's necessary to know which news is garbage and which is meaningful. Clue: meaningful news is not typically popular.

</comment><comment><USER64> Ostensibly I gave up the daily news a few years ago when The Times [of London] put up their paywall, 4-and-a-half years ago [according to Wikipedia].

I do read a lot of tech news however and more recently have taken up reading the headlines on the local newspaper websites.

For me it's an effort to help me be more positive about life as I have struggled with negativity and sometimes intrusive thoughts.

</comment><comment><USER65> I'm unsure whether OP's intention was to highlight HN's potential for being a well of unhappiness (as the article would suggest). However, it must be made clear that this headline does not apply to many (if not the majority) of HN posts, which are simply more than just current affairs or news; that's why I love HN — it's more than simple news.

</comment><comment><USER66> Totally agree. Actually a few months ago, I blocked the news websites that I was used to reading. I really see news as a form of noise rather than information. Especially all those low quality sites such as the Huffington Post and so on...

Not only they don't provide quality information, but it seems to me they trigger our worst sides (jealousy, hatred...).

</comment><comment><USER67> There is an opportunity here to create technology that will facilitate thinking instead of fragment it. Imagine a distraction-free internet. Our machines are programmed to exacerbate hyperbolic discounting, to replicate and encourage the so-called monkey mind. We much teach our machines to meditate. We must quiet their computations.

</comment><comment><USER68> Like the old proverb goes, ignorance is bliss.

</comment><comment><USER69> Why TV News is a Waste of Human Effort: One Example Worth a Trillion Dollars - by C.P.P. Grey

[http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/why-tv-news-is-a-waste-of- human-...](http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/why-tv-news-is-a-waste-of-human-effort- one-video-is-worth-a-trillion-dollars)

</comment><comment><USER70> [http://goodnewsgopher.com](http://goodnewsgopher.com)

I made a news crawler that automatically filters out bad news articles using sentiment analysis.

I like to think it offers a good reprieve from all of the negative, depressing news you get inundated with from the major media.

<comment><USER71> The first "positive" news today on our site is about execution in north korea... I guess automatic filtering is not ready yet to such kind of tasks....

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Happier at the moment but possibly a lot madder when you find out how terrible the future might become.

<comment><USER25> Which is an excellent opportunity to study the practical application of the valuable old saw: "What can't be cured must be endured."

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> This news article summarises nicely why I went on an extreme news diet over the last 4 months. I broke that streak today by reading the article on the guardian about why I shouldn't be reading the news. I couldn't resist because of the articles obvious reflexivity.

</comment><comment><USER74> I don't watch TV news anymore, it's always same thing ever and ever: economy is bad, protests, war, that team won that game, here's the weather, a disaster just happened and thousand died and in the last 2 minutes is when they show something cheerful.

</comment><comment><USER75>
      s/journalist/commenter

Any journalist who writes, "The market moved because of X" or "the company went bankrupt because of Y" is an idiot. I am fed up with this cheap way of "explaining" the world.

</comment><comment><USER76> What is the motive for a newspaper to tell people not to read news? Reverse psychology?

<comment><USER77> Strictly speaking it's not "the newspaper" saying this, but an op-ed contributor:

> This is an edited extract from an essay first published at dobelli.com. The > Art of Thinking Clearly: Better Thinking, Better Decisions by Rolf Dobelli > is published by Sceptre, £9.99. Buy it for £7.99 at guardianbookshop.co.uk

Newspapers don't necessarily agree with the views they publish – though presumably they found this an interesting piece regardless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Nobody sees that this is just an advertisement for the essay?

Why would a news outlet suggest that news is bad for you. Thanks to hacker news, the article will get thousands of extra reads and the guardian is raking in the cash!!!

</comment><comment><USER79> I understand the author's point, but as a long time SF resident, I would say local news is very important to me. Many of my day to day decisions are dictated by what I read in the news each morning.

</comment><comment><USER80> It's pretty ridiculous to make a blanket statement like "News is bad for you", which is akin to saying "Food is bad for you". Certain food/news is definitely bad for you, especially in large/excessive quantities, but that doesn't mean we don't need it.

The amount of bad food/news in the world has increased exponentially in recent history due to the ease and low cost of production and distribution.

But like we've seen with food, the more unhealthy options proliferate, the more of a premium there is for e.g. home-cooked, organic meals. I like to think that Hacker News, on most days, is my source of healthy and nourishing news, and it's up to me to discern and sift through the junk that might occasionally get mixed in.

</comment><comment><USER81> While it is wise not to believe everything we read in the news, it does not follow that there is nothing we can trust. The key may be to have a healthy skepticism, while keeping an open mind.

</comment><comment><USER82> I should have not read this news... i feel i little bad already

</comment><comment><USER83> Yeah, ignorance is bliss, but, while the premise _is_ fundamentally flawed, I'll direct you to Idiocracy about what happens with an uneducated populace.

<comment><USER37> Pssst. Here's what idiocratic actually means :-) [https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+idiocratic&oq=defin...](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+idiocratic&oq=define+idiocratic&aqs=chrome..69i57.293j0j9&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8)

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5549054](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5549054)

</comment><comment><USER85> News is also highly addictive, I've tried to kick the habit since I read the original article a while back but its been nearly impossible.

</comment><comment><USER86> This article together with Snowden revelations, makes me think that the Guardian is probably on of the last news sources that can be trusted.

</comment><comment><USER87> What is hilarious is that this article was Number 1 on Pocket Hits Best of 2013.

A reading app's top read article was an article about giving up reading.

</comment><comment><USER88> This is exactly why I wrote NoNews.

You can check it out at [http://www.nonews.info/](http://www.nonews.info/)

</comment><comment><USER37> I'd rather be uninformed than misinformed!

<comment><USER89> I'm with you on this. Upworthy is my news source of choice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> News has its uses but at the end of the day its usually negative. Simple as that. Live happy, live longer ;)

</comment><comment><USER91> because of the fact that we discovered the news that news is bad on hacker news, I think (hacker) news is actually cool. This should make another news. Too much news for the day or may be its the lambdas on my screen: lambda f: (lambda x: x(x))(lambda y: f(lambda v: y(y)(v)))

</comment><comment><USER92> Just stick to reading HN. If outside news is significantly important, then it'll reach HN too.

<comment><USER93> That's only (arguably) true for issues of national or global importance. It is also important to be an informed citizen and voter on state and local issues, and many local news sources are woefully inadequate. Many states and towns have local referendums and elections held at times of no national election, counting on apathy, ignorance and low turnout to be able to more easily sway the vote.

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> I would have read this article, but according to the title... I probably shouldn't.

<comment><USER95> not all articles can be classified as "news"

<comment><USER49> Excellent point. I've been debating with my gf a lot lately about the diff. b/t "information" and "observations." I find many articles are simply observations... like molecules in bloodstream, they float around, but only rarely combine into anything worthwhile, as compared to controlled chemical reactions in which ideas and structures combine meaningfully.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER96> "Why I've stopped [perfectly normal thing] and you should too!"

</comment><comment><USER97> News is bad for you, except for this bit of news explaining how news is bad.

</comment><comment><USER98> good one! But I assume its hard to completely banish news. It comes everywhere, on Facebook and daily routines.

</comment><comment><USER99> Way to devalue yourself, The Guardian.

</comment><comment><USER100> tl;dr Ignorance is bliss. :)

</comment><comment><USER101> I am often frustrated by news and think much of it is worth ignoring, but many of the points are not very well-supported.

"News has no explanatory power": I'm not going to argue that most mainstream news is even that good, but to suggest that "the accumulation of facts" is inconsistent with forming deeper knowledge is too sweeping. Readers of news can observe patterns, which hopefully they will check against more in-depth research.

Much of news' task to not the "how?" but the "what?" and on that measure, it does a decent, if inconsistent job: [http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/](http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/).

"News is toxic to your body": The author cites a case study involving the limbic system that doesn't mention media or news at all. It may well be that "Panicky stories spur the release of cascades of glucocorticoid" but do they do so at noticeable or unhealthy levels? I'm not convinced.

"News increases cognitive errors": News is not an ideal way of challenging biases, but it seems much better than not reading news and getting information about filtered through friends with similar biases to you. (Reading carefully filtered news and books is probably best of all.)

"News inhibits thinking": This section only applies if you read news intermittently and let notifications interrupt you. Concentrating on a newspaper (or news site) for 30 minutes would not have the same effect. But continually leaving work for chatting co-workers would.

"News works like a drug": This section is one of the most plausible, but once again, it doesn't cite any evidence. Cal Newport has a similar line of reasoning, but he actually has research to back it up: [http://calnewport.com/blog/2010/06/10/is-allowing-your- child...](http://calnewport.com/blog/2010/06/10/is-allowing-your-child-to- study-while-on-facebook-morally-equivalent-to-drinking-while-pregnant/). (It's about Facebook, but the same principle of distracting activities ruining focus applies.)

"News wastes time": This is all about habits and boundaries. Like "News inhibits thinking," this problem could emerge with any activity engaged in on a whim during working hours.

"News kills creativity": The theory that younger mathematicians are more productive is actually unfounded. See [http://www.slate.com/articles/life/do_the_math/2003/05/is_ma...](http://www.slate.com/articles/life/do_the_math/2003/05/is_math_a_young_mans_game.html) or [http://privacyink.org/pdf/myth.pdf](http://privacyink.org/pdf/myth.pdf). And this last part is pure argument by anecdote:

"I don't know a single truly creative mind who is a news junkie – not a writer, not a composer, mathematician, physician, scientist, musician, designer, architect or painter. On the other hand, I know a bunch of viciously uncreative minds who consume news like drugs."

The points about most news being irrelevant to day-to-day life and story bias are worth pondering, but otherwise this article overreaches. It is a series of interesting conjectures about the effect of news, but often presumes a certain way of reading or watching news. The evidence for each point is slim. I'm forced to conclude his warnings of "panicky" news with "no explanatory power" are hypocritical.

</comment><comment><USER102> theguardian.com excepted, of course.

</comment><comment><USER103> Modern media is a good way to make yourself neurotic. Fear sells and misery sells. Everything else is not of interest.

</comment><comment><USER104> Of course. The news are depressing in the declining empire of the USA, how not to get depressed watching them? It's not like things are going into the right direction and each year is better than the previous one. The things goes in wrong direction and things are worse every year than they used to be. And pretending it is not happening by just simply turning off the news is exactly what NSA and the USG want you to do.

</comment><comment><USER105> I agree on this because most of the news I hear today are bad news..

</comment><comment><USER106> I do not believe that news itself is bad for you. Reading about horrors and then doing nothing to follow-up is bad for you. But these days I do not have to do that. I am not helpless. I can see the Philippines being destroyed and donate money, donate time, talk to people I know who are from there or who are there now. This is true of any event. We are ruined by inaction, not by information.

I can consume any and all news and have it be beneficial to me. Not because I now know facts, but because I can understand each of the stories as a glimpse into the lives and processes of other people in all disciplines and all walks of life. In doing so I can create equality where, in my own mind at the least, it may not have already existed.</comment>


A Machine May Not Take Your Job, but One Could Become Your Boss - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/23/technology/artificial-intelligence-ai-workplace.html <comment><USER2> Most of software engineers would be fine with that, I guess. Or not?</comment>


I'm not smart enough – my humbling experiences from university - <AUTHOR> https://blog.brieftube.net/simple-hacks-for-university-success-part-1-48be9accb53e#.dgs1r752m <comment><USER2> I just read the shorter version of the Igor naming guide[1] today, so the name "brieftube" jumped out at me. I am not a fan. I don't have any better ideas. However, I do recommend the guide (it's free) -- I found it to be useful and well written. It delves into the fundamental aspects of a good name and presents tools for choosing one. I hope to use some lessons from it soon in naming my current project.

[1] [https://www.igorinternational.com/process/naming-guide- produ...](https://www.igorinternational.com/process/naming-guide-product- company-names.php)

</comment><comment><USER3> Thinly veiled advertisement?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm sorry, I wanted to share my experiences and get some feedback on the product I built based on them. Should I write "shameless brag" in the title?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: strip audio from video - <AUTHOR>

I recorded myself sleeping last night, because I do talk in my sleep a lot and I was curious as to what I was saying. How can I strip the audio from this video (recorded with photobooth, im on a mac) then view where sound is so I don't have to sit threw and listen to this video for 7 hours. <comment><USER2> 1 • Save your iMovie project •

2 • Go to File > Export • The exportmovie dialog box appears.

3 • Select QuickTime •

4 • Select Expert settings •

5 • Click Share • The standard Save exported file as...dialog box appears.

6 • Name the file that you are going to export and navigate to the Movies or the Music folder to save it •

7 • Export: select Sound to AIFF •

8 • Click Options • The sound settings window appears.

9 • Select your Sound Settings •

Format: Linear PCM Channels: select stereo or mono Rate: 48.000 kHz Sample Size: 16 bit

Click OK

10 • Click Save • You're done.</comment>


Cinder (YC W15) – Smart Countertop Grill - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/this-smart-countertop-grill-has-all-the-chef-skills-you-1689017439

<comment><AUTHOR> Co-founder/CTO here with a little backstory. Cinder (YC W'15) is like a countertop grill that controls temperature precisely to 2F across the entire cooking surface. I'm hoping this is exciting to HN because it's not just a connected cooker— it means you can hack your food. With this accuracy, you can target specific kinds of chemical reactions, fine tune your preferences and when you come up with something amazing, send the cooking recipe and your friends can replicate it anywhere. I put a quick summary of some of these things at [http://blog.cindercooks.com/cinder/2015/3/4/hot- tips](http://blog.cindercooks.com/cinder/2015/3/4/hot-tips).

Feel free to ask me any questions here about Cinder or the magic of cooking more generally.

<comment><USER2> Do you feel like you are competing with sous vide products like anova?

If so how do you justify the price difference?

I love the idea, but I just got an anova for ~200 and felt like that was just at the edge of a reasonable price for me. Not having to bring water up to temperature/have a giant pot sitting around would be nice, but just not sure if it is worth the extra 300.

EDIT: a tiny amount of reading later: I see that another advantage is that you can do both the low tempature 'sous vide' style work and then sear with the same machine. That is a nice value add.

I personally got an anova largely because of chefsteps. I would highly recommend sending them one if they will take it.

<comment><USER3> We are big fans of chefsteps. Imagine having sous vide precision up to 550 degrees F. Then you can set onions to brown and walk away. It's game changing. We built Cinder to be your go to daily cooker, both Jim and myself experienced decreasing use of sous vide over time.

<comment><USER2> Yeah it really does sound pretty great, not sure if I will be an early adopter, but I will certainly keep an eye on it.

Good luck!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If anybody from the company is reading this, why an app? This seems like a new trend in cooking equipment and I fucking hate it. I don't want to have to flip between a half dozen apps just to make dinner. How hard is it really to put a small display and a handful of buttons on the appliance in question and make it usable without having to use my phone? Maybe I'm just strange but as much as I love the idea and really want one, the lack of a UI on the device itself is currently holding me back from ordering one. Call it the "Old Luddite retro model" and charge me $50 bucks extra if you have to, but give me an interface right on the device and I'll give you my credit card details.

<comment><USER5> But how can you do pervasive user metrics and in-app purchases with a simple button? /sarcasm

<comment><USER4> I guess that's why the version with buttons has to costs more. To compensate for the loss of IAP and ad revenue.

<comment><AUTHOR> There's only one version, and it has both an app and a an onboard UI based on a knob-button with an embedded dot matrix display. We're very conscious of the tradeoff between onboard and app controls.

The knob lets you have full manual control of temperature, but is not a good way to share recipes or learn how to cook something you don't do every day. So you want to make a quick panini or egg, the knob is great. On the other hand, we don't want to be like your microwave, with tons of features hidden behind scrolling text prompts and a keypad.

On the other hand, an app interface lets you have a different UI for each food type, so you can ask for a medium rare steak or light brown caramelized onions.

Once you've used the app to set things up, you'll be hands-on in the kitchen, so the next few steps can be controlled from the knob or the app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Basically the same concept as the sous-vide (precision cooking) without the water bath, right? I like it a lot in theory because I cook several meals a week with sous vide and bet that Cinder will produce a slightly different cook with for the same time/temperature.

$500 is a tough sell though if you can get roughly the same thing with a sous vide for <$200.

<comment><AUTHOR> Precision cooking is the same, but this goes way beyond sous vide, because we can go above boiling, which is where all the fun reactions happen.

Caramelization, browning, and similar reactions are what produce the really great, complex, flavors in the best food. It's not just about searing steak -- we can take apples and convert them into apple pie filling with no added sugar. We can make butternut squash sweet and eggplant creamy. We can perfectly brown cheese without burning it, so you can have a grilled cheese where the cheese inside is browned, like the stuff that sticks to the grill.

We have a test chef who is coming up with new ways to use this all the time, and we're going to share them through the app so everyone can play.

<comment><USER7> This definitely seems complementary to rather than a replacement for sous vide cooking (especially in terms of e.g. gelatinizing collagen in rare meat, since you'd get oxidative off-flavors over the duration necessary using your device).

I'd be very interested in hearing more comparisons between your device's caramelization abilities and e.g. pressure-cooker caramelization with or without added alkaline agents. My experiments doing temp-controlled caramelization in ambient air (rather than the hydrating environment of a pressure cooker) have had mixed results.

Will you have any physical demos in the bay area?

<comment><AUTHOR> We really haven't noticed any significant oxidation over cook times of up to 4 hours; We have not yet tested something like a 72 hour recipe.

We do plan to have public demos from time to time (we've already done a few at various meetups and other events -- we're based here in SoMa). If you'd like, email info >>at<< cindercooks.com, and we can add you to our mailing list so you could be notified of these events.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Question on food safety: What is the longest available cook time? I ask because in an aerobic environment an extended cook time is necessary at 135 degrees to achieve pasteurization. Even in sous vide, it is necessary to extend cook times to achieve sufficient pasteurization. With oxygen present I expect you could grow some very interesting cultures. Specifically in foods like ground beef, where there is no inhibiting the movement of bacteria from surface to center of the cut.

<comment><USER3> We've focused on your daily gourmet of 30 minutes or less, and we make sure to cook to safe temperature. Above 131F is considered outside of the bacterial growth zone (basically between fridge to 131F, bacteria multiplies like crazy); if you hold it, it will eventually pasteurize. A more insurmountable problem comes from anaerobic bacteria that can exist in a true vacuum, and the spores will survive high temperatures; we avoided that problem by not requiring a vacuum.

<comment><USER9> > Above 131F is considered outside of the bacterial growth zone (basically > between fridge to 131F, bacteria multiplies like crazy); if you hold it, it > will eventually pasteurize.

Most food safety sources I've seen cite 40-140 degrees Fahrenheit (or 5-60 degrees Celsius) as the "Danger Zone" in which foods should not be held.

<comment><USER7> It's a combination of temp & time -- 131F for four hours will pasteurize (and, conveniently, is below the coagulation temperature for both the white & yolk of eggs, so you can home-pasteurize eggs for mayo/etc with a water bath). Contrariwise, 140F wouldn't be safe if it only reached it for a few seconds.

<comment><USER8> yeah, the difference being the time...hence my original question. At 135 degrees you need at least 35 minutes of hold time once you have reached the target temperature.

[http://sousvide.wikia.com/wiki/Importance_of_temperature_con...](http://sousvide.wikia.com/wiki/Importance_of_temperature_control_on_pasteurizing_times)

<comment><USER3> correct. that's why it's beautiful to control the entire process with software -- we know your time/temp curve. And why the USDA still gives one temperature which assumes an instantaneous point of contact, but higher than you need if you can simply hold the temp. (As a heuristic, staying lower gives you better quality food.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This looks great, and I'm willing to pay the $500, but there's no release date. If I'm am being charged immediately, you have to have a release date - or otherwise communicate how the pre-order period works.

<comment><USER3> You are correct, and to thank you for point this out I'd like to give you a Cappuccino Card (email me or email@example.com with your Transaction ID and we'll give you $5 off). If you don't scroll the bottom of the page, you don't see "Shipping early 2016." So I have now updated the pre-order page with the expected shipping date.

We plan to ship in early 2016. We're doing everything we can to stay on schedule -- we have a pretty experienced team who's shipped products before, and are working with PCH, a company who specializes in manufacturing and logistics (they do all of Apples accessories and Beats, for example).

If you change your mind during the pre-order period, we will give you a refund if desired.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nifty idea, but how durable will this thing be? At $500, it'd need to be able to cook several hundred meals before needing any expensive repair/replacement, else its market will likely be limited to those affluent enough to not care about the cost.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's pretty, but there's nothing delicate about this cooker, and we plan to do a fairly extensive test program. We intend for this to be a real workhorse for cooks, usable several times per day for years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The parts which contact the food are made of aluminum. Even if they are covered with Teflon or made non-stick, it's still not good.

<comment><USER13> I cook with anodized aluminum pans all the time[1]. What's the problem?

[1]: Specifically, [http://smile.amazon.com/Emeril-All- Clad-E83602-Anodized-8-In...](http://smile.amazon.com/Emeril-All- Clad-E83602-Anodized-8-Inch/dp/B00KG7IEEQ) (not an affiliate link)

<comment><USER12> In time they get scratched by forks, while putting in the washing mashine, by anything and when they are scratched the inner aluminum comes into the open and that's no good. Contacting with food while cooking might transfer the scratched aluminum into the food. Aluminum is outright dangerous for any living body.

<comment><USER13> Sure, but this is why I dont use metal in those pans, why they always get hand washed, etc. Care for and respect your tools and they last practically forever.

<comment><USER12> Well it's not me, the other households handle those parts carelessly and the aluminum is easly dented, scratched. But the point is, such parts should be made of anything else, such as copper, suitable type of iron, anything but aluminum. Also, considered in terms of value a $20 toast machine does have aluminum pressing plates, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It mentions a connected app - will this need an internet connection, or can the app communicate locally, directly with the grill?

(If you are still deciding how to do it, then if it helps, I can tell you I absolutely never buy any device that requires an internet connection to perform functions that should be local.)

</comment><comment><USER15> The article doesn't give a good indication of scale. Is this simmilar in size to a Forman grille? Also where do the juices and fats run off? Do they just collect on the cook surface?

<comment><USER16> Our device will have 10"x10" cook plates. perhaps our video will give a better sense for scale? [https://vimeo.com/120412550](https://vimeo.com/120412550)

And as far as grease management goes, we will have drainage and trays that collect the run-off (similar to products on the market now). Happy to hear any suggestions or insights

<comment><AUTHOR> Also worth mentioning is that there isn't a lot of juice running out of the food, because it generally stays inside. When you see a lot of liquid running out of meat, that's the taste running down the drain. Since I've started cooking on this, I've found that I do a lot less saucing, because the food itself is so much juicier and tastier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I tasted a toast from a smart toaster a few weeks ago and it was the best toast I have ever tasted. Looking forward to taste more products from smart cooking tools.

</comment><comment><USER18> So I am gonna say to the average person this looks like a george foreman grill with an app connected. Are we going to see a smart toaster? How about an app for the vitamix blender?

<comment><AUTHOR> It cooks with heated plates, but it's an entirely different cooking process than something like Foreman-- more versatile, and with dramatically better results and enables new cooking techniques which can't be done reliably on any other device.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> can't wait to own one of these! Solid product + founder combo.

</comment><comment><USER20> never knew yc onboard consumer products

<comment><USER3> YC has backed many, the better known include Pebble and Coin.</comment></comment>


Iran sends Monkey, Mouse, Turtle and Worms in to Space - <AUTHOR> http://news.sky.com/story/1043897/iran-space-monkey-primate-sent-into-orbit

<comment><USER2> Monkey News reported about that a couple of years ago already: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QrOTwAmto>

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, sorry, I just got the link from a friend and thought it was a pretty cool title.</comment></comment>


White House looks to 3D printing plan for military - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/9/4315720/white-house-looks-to-3d-printing-with-200-million-plan-for-military

<comment><USER2> The Clone Army from Star Wars! Admit it, you were thinking the same thing...</comment>


One Fourth YC Startups Funded Before They Finish Program - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2010/03/23/y-combinator-matures-14-of-startups-funded-before-they-finish-the-program/ <comment><USER2> OK, I know I'm old, but really, did she have to lead with that?

<comment><USER3> It certainly emphasizes just how much YC is built upon the backs of the starry-eyed tech youth...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I could be wrong, but the vibe that I'm getting on the ground is that there's a lot more funding deals being done.

I have a hunch that investor's portfolios have recovered from the roller coaster stock market of the past 2 years, and they are in the mood to start taking risks and writing checks again.

It's a good time to be an entrepreneur.</comment>


We're investigating an issue affecting site-wide availability - <AUTHOR> https://status.github.com/messages?ref=site-wide

<comment><USER2> Posted three minutes ago:

> All systems reporting at 100%

That message comes up every day at this time. Is it spurious, or is the problem resolved?

<comment><USER3> Their status page just shows that message each day at midnight to delineate the start of a new day. Unless of course at midnight there is an ongoing problem. It is indeed back up.

I know waaaaaaay to much about the Github status page because of my little side project [https://statusgator.io](https://statusgator.io). Which monitors it and tells you when they post a problem.

<comment><USER4> Nice looking service, I might start using myself.

You have a typo on your pricing page at the bottom on the link:

"Email for Entperprise pricing."

Should be Enterprise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Looks like an anticipated weekend for French developers !

<comment><USER6> I'm confused, what?

<comment><USER7> It's 4pm in europe. And the french are known to work very little. So now's about the time when they leave for the weekend.

<comment><USER8> > And the french are known to work very little

What are you talking about? In France unpaid extra hours is the usual thing if you work in an office even if you are paid hourly. What you say is absolutely not true in the private sector.

On the contrary , since it is our nationaly day in 4 days, french people need to work even harder today to make up for it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Check your passwords against brute force attacks - <AUTHOR> http://lifehacker.com/5072112/check-your-passwords-against-brute-force-attacks

<comment><AUTHOR> Quite a handy benchmark.

I used it a while ago to work out what to consider "strong" in terms of passwords for a web app we created.

Working in security I'd consider some of the calculations _bull_ and I know it doesn;t take into account advanced attacks (like rainbow tables) but it can be a good rule of thumb IMO.</comment>