People Searching for "Cancel Google" End Up on Wrong Page, Add Comments - <AUTHOR> http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2010-02-13-n77.html <comment><USER2> The comments he quotes sound most likely to be fake rather than genuinely confused people. "I got the Internet from my dad so I can get the pokemons" is the sort of thing an internet denizen is more likely to say sarcastically, than an internet newbie is likely to say genuinely.

<comment><USER3> I remember seeing that page the other day during the RWW facebook thing and being pretty sure it was going to fill up with those sorts of jokes.

Real users are way funnier than troll-wannabes could ever be, because they sometimes manage to mangle and misunderstand things in a way that reveals that they live in a completely different universe than you do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Searching for "cancel google" brings up <http://cancelgoogle.com> for me. Looks like a mix of legit, fake, and non-native English speaking responses...

</comment><comment><USER5> If this isn't an argument for removing commenting capability from all blog software, I don't know what is.

<comment><USER6> We should remove commenting capability here as well while we're at it!

<comment><USER5> There's a difference between sites designed solely for commenting on arbitrary articles, and comments sections tacked on as an afterthought.

Have you ever seen an intelligent, multi-comment discussion in blog comments? What about here? That's the difference.

<comment><USER7> Yes, frequently, especially attached to intelligent blog posts! For instance, good, well thought-out articles linked here have insightful comments that sometimes people even point out here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Amazing! If true, this and the similar article about Facebook login (<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/02/11/facebook-login>) are mind openers. Pure gold.

<comment><USER9> "If true"?

OK, I've held off for a while, but...

If you know that your browser has a box into which you can enter an address, and use it regularly for that purpose, you're in tiny, tiny, _tiny_ subset of all web users. Ditto for knowing what a "web browser" is (in the abstract sense, not in the sense of "the Internet button, that one that looks like a blue E".

If you know that there's such a thing as a "secure connection" to a web site (knowing the name "SSL" or not), again you're in a very small subset of users. If you also know which user-interface cues your browser presents to show you when you're using a secure connection, shrink that subset significantly further.

I could go on and on about this, but hopefully the point is clear: the way you use the web is not the way most people use the web. They're not "stupid" or "idiots" or "illiterate" because of this, they're just people who've never _had_ to learn these things. And the disconnect between what various small subsets of the population do, and what everybody else does, is one of the most important things you can know about in this business; if you don't understand how the rest of the world surfs, you'll never be able to effectively reach them.

(and don't even get me started on how this informs successful business decisions made by companies which HN readers regularly vilify...)</comment></comment>


The Power of a Dollar: Microcredit exploits the poor - <AUTHOR> https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/11/microcredit-muhammad-yunus-bono-clinton-foundation-global-poverty-entrepreneurial-charity/?mod=e2this <comment><USER2> There have been many valid criticisms of microcredit, but this article is not one of them, chiefly because it falls victim to a few logical fallacies and faulty assertions.

This piece assumes that the poor people using microcredit are doing so to help acquire goods for trade (or another similar), and since their customer base will gain no new wealth, the goods will go unused. Much of the investments that microcredit loans are used for are things like metal roofs (which are far superior to and less maintenance intensive than thatched roofs), and simple tools which improve productivity, thus allowing them to engage in trade or other activites which help to improve their lifestyle. We should remember that just because someone is a poor farmer now does not mean they have to continue being just a farmer with low output; they could get a second job, improve their farm's output, or go out to sell their goods to another village if they had the time and resources; we should not dedicate all aid resources to keeping subsistence farmers tethered to the same farms with the same tools, but slightly improving their plight.

The article also seems to assume that the bad motives (mainly greed) of some microcredit lenders will lead to bad results, and that lending money to poor people is somehow immoral (possibly due to something like the Copenhagen interpretation of ethics), and that this immorality makes the loan bad.

One fact I found very notable and surprising, though not mentioned in this article, is that a great deal of microcredit is actually used as a savings commitment device (as many people have negative effective interest rates for various reasons), so it allows the borrower to make larger capital expenditures than they would otherwise have been able to, because they had issues preventing them from saving up.

<comment><USER3> > _There have been many valid criticisms of microcredit, but this article is > not one of them..._

I agree.

> _It assumes that the poor people using microcredit are doing so to help > acquire goods for trade..._

I don't think it does. I find it hard to figure out what his actual argument is (beyond cheap innuendo about ideologies), but he seems to not assume that, e.g., _" Yunus believed that the poor, and especially women, could establish an informal microenterprise and then sell basic goods and services to other poor people in the community."_

If I understand his argument correctly (including the way he mis-invokes Say's law), he seems to be saying that lending to people to start new enterprises is not a worthwhile activity because the new small enterprises compete with existing small enterprises, in this competition some enterprises go bankrupt (because he says demand for the produced goods is fixed, what?!), thus new enterprises enabled by this lending just displace other enterprises, producing no net benefit to society.

But isn't that just straight wrong? His argument doesn't even seem specific to micro-lending, it reads like an argument against lending and/or entrepreneurship in general.

He also invokes "profitability" as a bad thing, which is weird since why else would anyone commit capital to this. On the other hand, non-profitability and charity, he says, is also bad — _No need for solidarity movements and active resistance to exploitation and unfair conditions imposed on developing countries — just send a donation to Kiva and the poor can take care of themselves!_

I know there are questions about how effective microfinance is in practice (cursory search gave me [http://www.nber.org/papers/w18950](http://www.nber.org/papers/w18950)), but this just seems like a bad argument. Innuendo about "neoliberalism" doesn't help the article either.

<comment><USER4> You're right, many of his arguments do indeed apply to lending to new small enterprises in general, and he actually references a UK working paper making a similar argument about small business funding here. This isn't an argument against lending and entrepreneurship in general; there's strong arguments for lending to existing businesses to ensure they don't run into cashflow issues (if profitable businesses go insolvent it's costly and disruptive), and to allow them to operate more efficiently since this means they can offer the same products for less.

Also, it should be obvious why the immense profitability of microlending institutions is an issue if you think about what that means. It's effectively a transfer of cash from the poorest sectors of society to wealthy investors, and with no countervailing transfer in the opposite direction - because those microbusinesses are selling to other people like them, not wealthy investors - that just makes the poor poorer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Microdebt" clearly does not solve poverty. This idea has always had its critics. It is distasteful at best to be a money lender to the poorest strata of humanity. Common wisdom tells us as much.

But it is also common wisdom that to "teach a man/woman to fish" is better than to just "give a fish." As an entrepreneur I do believe in the unique ability of entrepreneurship to allow people to raise themselves above and out of their present circumstances.

Perhaps "microequity" financing can succeed where "microdebt" financing has failed? Or maybe "micro-crowdsourcing?" How about a Kickstarter for African basket weavers? Would you pay $5+shipping for a hand made African/Asian/Etc cultural craftwork? Would you pay $50 if you saw the craftperson's story/picture/pitch video/poor family? Crowdsourcing has the benefit of solving serious supply chain and financing failure risks for entrepreneurs, it's basically pre-ordering and building product on the customer's expense. Perhaps the solution is a combination of microdebt, microequity and microcrowdsource?

I don't mean to disparage anyone, but perhaps we could all benefit from some young grads with Silicon Valley startup fever focusing technology and innovation on the poorer parts of the world instead of focusing on delivery- based services in rich "lifestyle bubble" cities.

<comment><USER6> _" Microdebt" clearly does not solve poverty. This idea has always had its critics. It is distasteful at best to be a money lender to the poorest strata of humanity. Common wisdom tells us as much._

I couldn't care less about your unsupported "common wisdom".

Show me data.

<comment><USER7> Are you aware of the difference between an empirical claim and a normative claim?</comment></comment></comment>


Joost disappoints as next YouTube - <AUTHOR> http://www.portfolio.com/culture-lifestyle/goods/gadgets/2008/03/17/Joost-Disappoints-as-Next-YouTube

<comment><USER2> maybe google should buy joost</comment>


Mysteries of time, and the multiverse - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-sci-carroll28-2008jun28,0,6029497,full.story <comment><USER2> _The fact that you can turn eggs into omelets but not vice versa is a thing we know from our kitchens._

Unless you feed a hen nothing but omelets. Am I right?

<comment><USER3> What about the hen's mother?

<comment><USER2> Given a sufficiently efficient hen, you could feed her her own eggs.

<comment><USER3> But wouldn't you have to feed omelets to the hen's mother also? Otherwise the hen couldn't have been born. And the hen's mother's mother, and mother's mother's mother, and so on, leading back from the final egg.

edit: on second thought, this is probably too much philosophizing.

<comment><USER4> A hen is a machine which can turn food (including omelets) into eggs. It doesn't matter where the hen came from. The point is one can build a machine to do this.

<comment><USER5> A hen interpreter?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Time cannot change by definition. Nothing can move in spacetime for the same reason. This is why the late Sir Karl Popper (of falsifiability fame) once compared spacetime to Parmenides' block universe and called it "Eintein's block universe in which nothing ever happens". (Source: Conjectures and Refutations).

In his textbook, "Relativity From A to B", renown relativity expert Robert Geroch wrote, "There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes." Very few physicists know this but it's the truth, a nasty little truth for some, but the truth nonetheless.

In conclusion, any talk of time travel in any direction (forward or backward) is pure crackpottery. There is only the NOW, the ever changing present. Don't mod me down because you have a different opinion. Incessant propaganda and sci-fi movies like Star-Trek have duped a lot of people. Just think about it and figure it out on your own.

Nothing can move in spacetime.

<comment><USER7> You're not explaining that very well. Yes, classic relativity is a deterministic theory which doesn't have a time arrow. You can look at it as a single, static universe defined as the sum of all moments. But that's neither here nor there. Classic relativity is, strictly speaking, wrong: the real universe is, as far as we understand, provably non-deterministic.

And in any case, it has nothing to do with this article, which is about the time arrow defined by entropy.

<comment><USER6> I am not sure exactly what you explained. First off, relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, is a classical physics theory. I am not aware of any such thing as non-classical relativity. So why even say classical relativity? At the very least, it is redundant.

Second, of course the universe is probabilistic, a fact that falsifies both relativity and Newtonian physics.

Third, the universe is probabilistic precisely because time cannot change. Why? Because, since time is not a variable and is thus non-existent, the universe cannot calculate precise temporal durations. Thus, in order to properly conserve energy, it is forced to use the next best thing: probability.

Fourth, this has everything to do with article since entropy, as explained in the text books, assumes the passage of time and thus a time direction or arrow. Since time is abstract, it follows that an arrow of time is imaginary. As a result, it makes perfect sense that one cannot reverse entropy. Or anything else, for that matter.

The purpose of my comment was to get people to think and to stop accepting everything they hear on face value. If time cannot change, which is trivially shown to be true (changing time is an oxymoron because it is circular), then all the so-called time-travel conjectures by famous physicists like Kip Thorne, Stephen Hawking, David Deutsch, and many others, are pure crackpottery.</comment></comment></comment>


Fasting & Programming - <AUTHOR> http://www.mahdiyusuf.com/post/28530166837/fasting-programming <comment><USER2> As (a non-religious) someone who tried fasting while holding down a similar job, my advice is simple: don't break your fast every night.

It only takes 24-48 hours for your body to adjust, your fat to start melting and your blood-sugar levels to stabilise. You also stop feeling hungry. I found that while I was generally a little 'light-headed' my powers of concentration were fine and I returned to full productivity.

At first I tried drinking only fruit juice but that gave me an upset stomach so I switched to water and the occasional tea. Once I'd got through the first day of 'starving' hunger I felt great: full of energy and positivity.

As long as you have fat on your body you should be fine, however I'm not sure it would be a good idea if you are all muscle: while shutting down your digestive system saves a load of energy, if you have no fat your body it will convert muscle.

Pros:

      * No blood sugar swings
      * No hunger
      * Fat loss
      * A real sense of achievement

Cons:

      * Greasy skin
      * Zits

Do:

      * Keep exercising to prevent muscle loss
      * Drink lots of liquid
      * Eat something light if the starving hunger returns
      * Be careful if you are already very skinny
      * Talk to a doctor

Don't:

      * Binge eat every night as you'll feel starving again the next day
      * Ignore a return to hunger
      * Drink lots of fruit juice
      * Binge at the end. Gradually introduce food back to your system.

<comment><USER3> This was probably very common in the human experience prior to the development of agriculture. People didn't eat regular meals. Hunting opportunities would not have come along every day, and sometimes hunts would fail.

I don't think humans would become too weak to throw spears because they didn't have their Cheerios in the morning.

When I hear people who have skipped a meal complain "my blood sugar is low", I worry for their health. We have fat stores for a reason. Skipping a meal should not be a big deal.

<comment><USER4> You are mistaken if you think that hunting was the primary source of food in times before agriculture. For many tribes it was (and still is, in some parts of the world) a secondary "luxury" which augmented the gathered food. As you say, hunting can easily fail, or game can become rare because of environmental hiccups. This happens more often than you should think - there are times when deer can't be found for weeks. Blood sugar was mainly kept up with berries, roots, and fruit - nibbling all day long. Fat stores are not so easily accessed - if they were, then all-week-fasting would be the way to go for fat- loss (which mostly leads to muscle wasting and short-term water loss, and a mighty yo-yo effect). Yes, one can use intermittent fasting to lose weight, but weight-loss usually only kicks in after 2-3 weeks.

I agree that Cheerios are a bad idea generally, but I'm not pro fasting or skipping meals for weight loss. Fat is stored as an emergency reaction to high blood sugar levels, and you get exactly that when eating more between the fasts (you have to). You constantly expose your brain to too much and too low sugar levels, resulting in highs and lows in your ability to focus (and also your mood).

<comment><USER5> _Yes, one can use intermittent fasting to lose weight, but weight-loss usually only kicks in after 2-3 weeks._

Citation needed. I personally know people who've lost weight long term with quite brief periods of intermittent fasting.

<comment><USER6> I think he's saying after 2-3 weeks of intermittent fasting, not fasting for 2-3 weeks at a time intermittently.

Anecdote alert, but I started doing alternate day fasting after I read the study, then 22 hour a day fasts after I read that people were having results with that. Went from 235 to 185 in 2 years (6' tall, fairly large build.) I'm not strict, and I go off it whenever I'm bored or severely tempted.

I count any drink other than water as a snack, and watch the bread, potatoes, and cornstuffs when I am eating. Who knew it could be this easy? I hadn't really been an overeater for years, I just had never had time to starve.

<comment><USER5> _I think he's saying after 2-3 weeks of intermittent fasting, not fasting for 2-3 weeks at a time intermittently._

Yup, I got that and I'm challenging it.

<comment><USER6> Just making sure.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for the anecdote, by the way, very interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am currently working in Saudi Arabia (here, fasting is a _national rule_ , however I eat because I'm a Indian and non-Muslim) as a programmer, and I've noticed one funny thing - people just become nocturnal. They eat and work in the night and sleep during the day. This is simply the normal routine reversed. Fasting has minimal effects on them, its not fasting, just the time in which they eat is changed! They work shorter during the day and do the hard work in the night.

<comment><USER8> Humans are funny creatures. To believe on the one hand a god laid down these rules, and then in the same thought think "Well I bet he didn't think of this loophole"

<comment><USER9> I remember having this same thought when I learned about the existence of "Islamic finance." Apparently, Islam has a strong doctrinal prohibition against charging interest, and there's an entire thriving sector of Islamic law and business dedicated to structuring transactions in ways that don't technically charge interest but still yield a return on principal. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking>

This reminds me of a little kid beating up his classmates on the playground being told by the playground monitor to stop touching them, and then turning around going back to tormenting them by starting to punch them and stopping just short of making actual contact, and saying "neener neener, I'm not actually touching you." Except here, instead of a playground monitor, it's...an omnipotent creator deity.

<comment><USER10> My understanding is that a generous portion of Rabbinic legal theory is about tapdancing around the Mosaic law.

Because most observant jews would not, I can only assume, want their children to be stoned to death for giving them a bit of cheek. Or have to be beaten up because they shaved. And so on.

What strikes me odd about biblical law is how little of it is devoted to elucidating the big questions. Such as: what about the corner cases to the Ten Commandments? Is killing in a war forbidden? What about self-defence? And so on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> While the author of the linked article expiates the hit coding performance can take when fasting I have personally observed an interesting phenomena during my observation of Ramadan. Namely, I can experience moments of acute lucidity and penetrating insight into a problem at hand.

Usually this occurs when I am in the midst of something that requires a good bit of effort such as tackling a thorny algorithmic conundrum or analyzing a particularly complex call stack. If I attune my mind to repress the pangs of bodily need I occasionally feel as if the external world melts away and I slip into an almost mystical state of oneness with the task at hand. Needless to say, I have been surprised immensely by this development.

One theory I have is that the blood flow that would normally be assigned by my body to the act of digestion is now free'd up to be reallocated to the ole cranium. Plausible? Unsure, but am certainly enjoying these life experiments!

Side note: for those observing the fast I have also noticed that my immune system is closely linked with the gut and my self-imposed starvations can lead to immune system compromise. Make sure you supplement your Iftar goodies with some replenishing nutrients such as pro-biotic yogurt smoothies rich in vitamin C and home-cooked chicken consomme.

<comment><USER12> I also tend to notice an increase in my productivity and ability to focus during Ramadan. A good breakfast is essential, I usually stick to yogurt, granola and vegetable juice - say my prayers then head back to sleep for a couple hours. I can't say I'm not hungry when 820 rolls around but I don't find the month debilitating and most of the time my co-workers don't realize I'm fasting until it's almost over.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Very interesting, my experience has been slightly different this year.

Normally my brain is thinking 10 different things at one time. It is fairly difficult for me to focus (more so since I work at an office that has 5 TVs that I can see, and a couple of channels I can hear). The first few days of fasting, I was surprised how easily I was able to focus. Frankly I was far more productive than I normally am. Unfortunately, I've since reverted to the natural state of affairs -- I can no longer tune out TVs, youtube clips, etc.

In previous years, the first few days would actually be extremely difficult. I now realize that I was getting what is often called the "carb flu." This year, before Ramadan, I was on a low carb diet (Tim Ferriss' Slow Carb). Perhaps because of that, my body was already used to fewer carbs.

Hunger is not debilitating and if I could have water, I could probably 'fast' for 48 hours pretty easily (such fasting is actually recommended by the likes of "East Stop Eat" author Brad Pilon).

<comment><USER14> > Normally my brain is thinking 10 different things at one time. It is fairly > difficult for me to focus (more so since I work at an office that has 5 TVs > that I can see, and a couple of channels I can hear).

I think a part of the reason why programmers prefer working late hours (late as in after 12 in the night) is that the brain is sufficiently tired as to not be able to jump all over the place. You'd focus on one thing : Your code.

<comment><USER15> Or you think you are focusing on code, and just are too tired to notice context-switches or general slowness.

<comment><USER16> The illusion of productivity can actually increase productivity.

The feeling of gettings things done motivates. Even when that feeling is an illusion.

So what if it actually took 4 hours: if it feels like 30 minute, its easy to invest another "30 minutes".

<comment><USER16> @latch

Yes. I believe it helps with motivation, which for some people, like myself for example, is often the bottleneck of productivity.

Off course, others may have more intrinsic motivation, or just more discipline.

But if you are lazy like me, it helps a lot. Whenever i reach that point, i get into a zone, and just keep going and going. Im not working better, or more effectively, im just more motivated, and end up investing more time and effort.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've been trying one of the more popular Intermittent fasting protocols -Leangains for 20 days and counting. It was uncomfortable only for the first 3 days.

16-20hr (well-hydrated) fasts ended with a heavy lifting workout and BIG meal at 'breakfast' (6pm or later for me). FAQ: <http://examine.com/leangains-faq/>

I love it.

Increased alertness, focus, no more mid-day food comas. I'm a fat guy, so my body is probably fat-adapted after a couple weeks of IF.

And i work at my ghetto standing desk from 9 to 5 weekdays.

I can't imagine living any other way now. It's wonderful not to be a slave to food. I see food as just fuel now.

Note: I do take 10g of BCAAs before lifting heavy fasted. There is evidence that they prevent catabolism of muscle.

<comment><USER18> Any figures on how your body composition has changed over that time?

<comment><USER17> I don't have the resources to properly estimate and track BF%.

However, i've been tracking my waistline measurement every other day after doing my morning business and fasted. I seem to have lost 2cm since starting 3 weeks ago.

I'm inclined to not take this 'loss' that seriously because the consensus is that IF takes about 3-4 weeks to really start showing results.

On the other hand, i know i'm metabolizing fat; family members have been complaining of my new acetone breath. (ketosis!)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> (Disclaimer: I'm a militant atheist now) I think I would find stopping five times a day for prayer to be a bit of a distraction, though I imagine the short bursts of meditation would be good for my concentration overall.

I tended to gain weight during Ramadan, but that's probably because my family made a big deal of every iftar, inviting extended family members, eating out and having big greasy Pakistani meals almost every night. I'm somewhat convinced that the type of food in my family would go towards explaining the early 60s life expectancy. Thankfully I married Japanese so I'm hoping that cancels it out!

I found fasting to be generally easy, even in quite long days in Saudi Arabia. Rather than hunger it was more the habit of snacking as a reaction to it that catches you out. The main tactic we had for dealing with it was (as much as possible) sleeping during the day and working at night, though I imagine you'd need a very understanding employer (or sufficient litigation) to pull that off as a full-time dev.

<comment><USER20> > I would find stopping five times a day for prayer to be a bit of a > distraction

(Disclaimer: Not a muslim)

I think that is exactly what the prayers are for. They remind you that the only thing that matters in this life is submitting to God and to thank Him for His blessings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> > Let's just say fasting isn't one of them. All of my co-workers; I have > worked with past and present have been extremely understanding and > respectful of the [month-long] fast. Also as a by-product of this kindness > they have coined the term: "Ramadan code".

If I were an employer, after reading this...

<comment><USER22> > If I were an employer, after reading this...

There isn't much you can do; at least you can't make religious fasting the reason for your actions unless you are interested in lawsuits and tons of negative publicity.

What does it take to start a new religion? What if I start a new religion which says working more than 4 hours a day is against my gods? Can employers deny me jobs? Or if they don't deny it, are they bound to pay me full salary even though I work half the hours? If not, why am I being discriminated against when you are accommodating others(prayers 5 times a day, month long fasts, pregnancy etc).

<comment><USER19> > What does it take to start a new religion? What if I start a new religion > which says working more than 4 hours a day is against my gods?

It would be somewhat easier to just start your own company if you wanted to work four hours a day. Though with a good marketing department, some cold reading and a truthy sounding manifesto I'm guessing you could probably pull it off if you wanted to.

> prayers 5 times a day, month long fasts,

IME, not many muslims outside muslim countries actually pray five times a day, and as demonstrated by this thread the ones that fast seem to do as much as possible to align their religious obligations with their employers interests.

> pregnancy

Why is this a problem? Would this extend to paternity too? It doesn't really count as discrimination in my book, as barring any social or biological obstacles in your path, applicable to you should you choose to have children.

If I were a full-time employee and by implication not independently wealthy, I would expect an employer to fund some time off to deal with babymaking. I think this is one of the primary benefits of being a full-time employee (especially since as I'm a consultant now, it costs five figures in potential fees to take two months off).

<comment><USER22> > It would be somewhat easier to just start your own company if you wanted to > work four hours a day.

I do own my own company, and I work more than 4 hours a day. Let's say my religion permits working 2 jobs regardless of state laws(they permit multiple wives, multiple husbands. What's the big deal with multiple jobs), but you can work for more than 4 hours only for your company.

Let me try this:

 _The lord sayeth thou shall not work more than 4 hours; except for the company you have more than 35% stake in._

> IME, not many muslims outside muslim countries actually pray five times a > day,

That's not the point. The thing is you are allowed to do so, and the employer doesn't have a say.

EDIT: So let's assume my religion is an exclusive one, and there is only one member - me. Does that mean I should be allowed to work 4 hours a day, come in drunk etc. because only a few people(exactly 1) does that; or else I shout _persecution_ and give my life savings to a legal team.

> pregnancy >> Why is this a problem?

Sorry about that. That was my failed attempt at political correctness. My examples were particularly about Islam, and I thought I should include something non-Islam.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I suffer mainly from the caffine withdrawal. But this is good in a sense. By the end of Ramadan, I typically rid my system of a lot of junk that I'm used to putting into my body. Also, the effects of "performance enhancing" chemicals not being there also means you just have to work harder at what you do. While this may be hard in the beginning, it gets much better as time goes on.

Despite all of this, I know all about Ramadan code. After 5pm my blood sugar drops low enough that I can barely write a line of code without introducing serious bugs or typos. So, I try to get most of the coding done in the morning.

<comment><USER8> Fasting is actually very healthy. Not drinking any fluids, not so much.

<comment><USER23> I drink 3 glasses of water in the early AM meal + 1 glass of milk and then 4-6 glasses in the evening. I even fit in a light workout before breaking fast in the evening. So, dehydration isn't too much of a issue (at least if you're working indoors).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> On the other hand, I find myself a lot more focused and productive in Ramadan.

Knowing that I'm not supposed to eat or drink, I don't have to think every other hour what should I gulp down my stomach. This is a distraction which is a bit difficult to get rid of in normal days.

Also, meal timings become strict which automatically instills disciplines. In normal routine I would adjust the meals by few hours just to get some part of code done. Having such flexibility also allows some buffer to visit Social Media or Hacker News. However with empty stomach, one stays relatively bound to complete the work rather than procrastinating.

<comment><USER25> EXACTLY my thoughts. The reduction of snacking distractions and washroom breaks has always been a productivity boon for me in Ramadan. Nothing to do but pray and code. I love it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> There is quite a lot of science and study behind fasting, and it can actually be good for your health. I say this as someone who does a caloric fast (read: no caloric intake at all, fluids allowed) 6-7 times a week for intervals of 16-20 hours, in addition to my 3x weekly heavy weightlifting programme and my full-time job as a programmer/devops.

As of right now I'm the healthiest I've ever been in my life (physical strength and cardiovascular health), and my mind is as sharp as ever, _especially_ when I'm fasting.

<comment><USER27> Could you detail your diet and exercise routine? I'm new to intermittent fasting and could use a little bit of advise.

<comment><USER26> Sure. It's incredibly simple, even if there are a lot of concepts to grasp.

Diet:

The macro-nutrient decomposition I tend to follow can be calculated for your bodyweight, height and level of physical activity here: <http://www.1percentedge.com/ifcalc/> . Note that your level of physical activity is most likely sedentary, even if you plan on exercising. The higher levels are for people who have physically demanding day jobs. The rest/workout split toggle in the top left of the "Macro Calculator" tab will give you different total caloric requirements based on if you want to gain/lose/maintain weight. Remember: a ~500kcal/day deficit from your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) translates to losing 1 lb/week, and vice versa for a caloric surplus. You can play around with the 4th tab to see what goes on.

The tl;dr version of this calculator is basically: eat more carbohydrates on workout days, and eat more fats on rest days. Eat 1g of protein per lb of body-mass on all days, and try to hit your daily caloric goals on all days.

Meal Timing:

Here's a typical day for me:

        * 6:30am. Wake up. Do morning things.
        * 7:15am. Take 10g of BCAAs with water, 4000IU of Vitamin D, and 10ml of concentrated (high levels of EPA/DHA) fish oil.
        * 7:30am. Take public transport to gym.
        * 8:00am. Double-shot of espresso. Sometimes I skip this - I purposely cycle on/off of caffeine every few weeks.
        * 8:15am. Start exercise routine. Lift heavy things. Lasts about an hour.
        * 9:15am. Finish workout. Ingest 10g of BCAAs.
        * 9:30am to 2:00pm. Work.
        * 2:00pm. First meal of the day. No significant calories (< 50kcal) before this.
        * 6:00pm. Second meal of the day.
        * 9:00pm. End of caloric intake window.
        * 11:00pm. Bed time.

For rest days, I skip the BCAAs and the gym (obviously).

Of course the above isn't written in stone, and sometimes I break my own rules by going out with friends, having a drink or two past 9pm, and so on. But you get the general idea.

Exercise:

Lift heavy things, and perform compound movements. My exercise regime consists of heavy squats, bench press, standing overhead press, Pendlay rows and deadlifts. Any other exercises are incidental, and I try to avoid muscle- isolating exercises in general.

I would highly recommend reading Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe (even though some disagree on his precise methodologies, it's still the best introductory book out there), and perusing the <http://stronglifts.com> site as well. Once you've gotten past the point where those programmes are effective (which will take months, if not a year), there are many intermediate to advanced compound-lift based programmes that you can switch over to.

Sorry for the long post. I could go on for ages about this stuff; it's incredibly interesting, and is actually quite formulaic. If you eat what you're supposed to eat and do the exercises you're supposed to do, your desired results just... happen. Makes the scientist in me very happy ;-).

[Edit: formatting]

<comment><USER10> Fittitor, I take it?

<comment><USER26> Indeed – I try to avoid the hive mind (when it isn't backed by science) and form my own opinions, though. The great thing about personal fitness and nutrition is that everyone has got a great laboratory at their disposal at all times.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> For those of you who feel clear-headed after fasting for a day or two: you might have a delayed food allergy (google "IgG food intolerance"). The most common such allergies are to gluten (not just coeliac sufferers are sensitive to gluten) and dairy products. I believe these delayed-onset allergies are fairly common in western societies, and are due to a "leaky gut", or permeable intestinal lining, that results in an immune system response when those foods get absorbed. Because IgG allergies can manifest themselves up to three days after you eat the offending food, some people may never figure out the cause of their fatigue or foggy-headedness. IgG allergies might be worth looking into if you have those symptoms.

</comment><comment><USER29> Fasting _helps_ me stay focused. I wake up at 8:30 am and have my first meal at around 4pm-5pm, and I just don't get hungry, and the lack of blood sugar level spikes doesn't get in my way.

<comment><USER30> I think I have always been better when I'm slightly hungry. When I'm satiated, I don't do much of anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> IANAN (I am not a nutritionist) but I strongly suspect that the physical and mental exhaustion is primarily related to dehydration (as Mahdi Yusuf himself indicates by bolding "drink"). Looking at some of the comments here, the main difference between those who describe positive experiences with fasting and what the author describes is that the former drink water throughout the day. In that light, let me quote from a very good article [1]:

 _A normal average human body is made of approximately 60% of water. Water is the natural transport fluid involved in all important communication networks of the body. Drinking a lot of water (medium to low mineralization) ensures that the organs responsible for filtering and cleansing have sufficient carrying capacity and can eliminate toxins and wastes. You can see the argument as just plain good sense that we need sufficient water for dilution of wastes. Chemists and physicists know water as a truly exceptional fluid on many accounts. It is not by chance that life emerged and organized itself with water. Water is the best solvent that can dissolve an astonishing number of solid substances. Dehydration is a dominant cause of tiredness, pain and chronic diseases. Drinking about two liters per day plays marvel to keep energy and remove fatigue. Indeed, unknown to or often forgotten by the public is the fact that many chronic diseases may be associated with an insufficient intake of water. Such a simple gesture as drinking water regularly during the day may go a long way towards avoiding fatigue and remaining healthy._

 _I emphasize drinking pure water and not sodas, cokes, processed juices, coffees and so on. Just plain water. The drinks that are processed by agro- business are in general provided with added sweeteners that are known to promote malignant cell growth [Servan-Schreiber, 2009]. In addition, drinking with sugar (glucose, saccharine) prevents the body from strengthening its metabolic pathway of storing fat in time of surplus and burning fat efficiently in case of need. By feeding our body continuously with sweet drinks and sugar, we saturate our blood with sugar and we weaken considerably the metabolic processes of storing and retrieving sugar, making us more vulnerable to hypoglycemia in the rare cases where external sugar intakes stop. The consequence is to easily feel weak and tired. In contrast, letting the body be just flushed by plain water for hours ensures the build up of its metabolic capacities to burn fat efficiently. This is like muscle build-up by training. Art de Vany [2010] develops convincing supportive arguments for this. He correctly argues that our body is basically inherited from our hunter-gatherer evolution and we are thus adapted to strive in a patchy and varying environment for which our metabolism has derived efficient solutions to the energy flow problem. This backfires with our modern caloric and sugar rich, but nutritionally depleted, foods that are available at little expenditure of energy [de Vany, 2010], in the form of chronic diseases, an on- going so-called epidemic of obesity and many other modern so-called developed country diseases [Campbell and Campbell, 2006]._

 _For the determination of the amount of needed water, a rule of thumb is to keep urine transparent. Do you feel a bit tired? Drink water. The effect is almost instantaneous. I constantly keep one or two liters on my office desk and drink when I feel like it and outside meals. I always carry water with me on trips. A minor nuisance is to drink it all before going through airport security._

_Of upmost importance is to drink our water outside meals. Most people use breakfast, lunch and dinner times to fill their body with both the liquid and solid nutrients that their bodies require. This is logical since meals are the times when we re-fuel our body. However, this behavior constitutes a fundamental mistake. Ponder this question: what other mammals in the whole animal kingdom drink their water together with their solid meals? None! We are the only one among about 5500 known mammal species who do it. The convenience of tools and the development of technology have put bottles on our meal tables to consume at the same time we ingest solid food. This apparent gain of civilization collides against a healthy diet for at least three reasons:_

 _(i) Drinking lubricates and help swallow insufficiently chewed morsels; but digestion in the stomach requires the comminution of our food into particles that should be as minute as possible in order to maximize surface over volume ratio and therefore facilitate the digestive chemistry performed by the gastric secretions. This is just plain and simple good sense chemistry. When digesting unbroken food morsels, the stomach and the whole digestive system has to secrete more, takes more time to process our food, all this cumulatively increasing tiredness and fatigue on the body over the long run. I therefore recommend chewing so that you "drink your food". Similarly, water and liquids should stay a while in the mouth before swallowing to warm up and mix with saliva so that you "eat your drinks". A difficult digestion starting in the mouth is probably significant contributor to the feeling of tiredness after a meal._

 _(ii) Starch and other vegetable substances start their digestion with the help of enzymes found in the saliva; lengthy chewing ensures optimal chemical reactions with these enzymes and saves energy for the rest of the process in the stomach and intestines._

 _(iii) Ingested fluids dilute the stomach secretions, thus hindering the digestion process. Again, plain and simple good sense chemistry._

The article was originally written by a true scientist for his Ph.D. students. I think the physical dangers of our work is quite similar in that programmers and phd candidates or scientists will tend to get absorbed in front of a screen, sit for too long at a stretch, forget about or get negligent about food and drink, etc etc. I recommend this article.

________________________

[1] D. Sornette. Optimization of brain and life performance: Striving for playing at the top for the long run. Schweizer Monat, pages 38–49, Dec 2011.

(I believe the article is available on Arxiv.)

<comment><USER32> Yes, fasting really isn't bad if you drink plenty of water. I fast and pray semi-regularly (I'm a Christian). It is rough at first but you get into the groove about half-way through the day. Fasting never hurt by ability to code. Fasting sharpens sensitivity; my body kicks into "prayer" mode and I can focus better. On the other hand, it is really hard to fast and stay up late! I usually end up going to bed early.

<comment><USER33> As a former wrestler, I have had very similar experiences. On days where I could drink water, I assessed no difference in my productivity between days that I fasted and days that I ate, except when my fasting lasted over three days. Even then, my decline in productivity in relation to the duration with my fasting was not very steep.

However, I found that my productivity is very strongly correlated with my hydration, and going an entire day without water showed immediate, significant, and negative effects. I strove to manage my time in such a way to get all my work done without needing to spend those days programming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Hi, HN readers!

As a Christian I would like to tell you my opinion on this subject. Very often people tend to forget that fasting differs from dieting. Hence, there are all these advices on various "tricks" and "optimizations" :-)

What is missed here is that when you are fasting - you are not trying to reduce your body weight or improve your mental abilities :-) In fact, the fasting has nothing to do with you - this is done by you only to praise The Lord, who has created you, is looking after you and forgives your sins.

And if one finds fasting too hard and starts making a shortcuts, it is better not to fast at all - there will be no value in this "eating trickery" for you :-) (or anyone else).

The fasting is all about God and He gives you the strength to fast - but you need to ask Him by praying, reading The Bible, caring about your brothers and sisters, helping other people, giving to poor. And if you find fasting too hard - most probably you are trying to fast for wrong reason or your dieting has nothing to do with The Lord.

Personally, when fasting four times a year, I try doing good Christian things - helping people around me, charities, those in needs. Trying to put my own interests even further away, making peace with enemies, asking for forgiveness of people that I hurt somehow. Working on my project "Read and Think: The Bible for command line people" :-)

This is what fasting is for me and these are my "special tricks" :-)

The best source to read about fasting is The Bible:

................ == THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT MATTHEW == ................... === Chapter 6, Verse 16 === 16 Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 17 But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; 18 That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.

Thank you,

</comment><comment><USER35> How about life without nonsensical ancient superstitions? I am very much not being purposefully offensive when I say that. The initial premis of needing to fast is highly flawed when looked at rationally.

</comment><comment> ramadan-fast I know this is the complete opposite for most people, but my experience fasting is very different. for some reason (maybe someone can help explain why?), I find that while fasting I actually become significantly more productive and enter a state of extreme mental lucidity. the best way I'd describe it as is being on a high-dose of adderall (if you aren't a regular user), but with a clearer head.

this usually kicks-in after the second day of fasting and stays pretty consistent throughout the month. I really feel it peak at about midway through my conscious fast each day (about 7hrs after waking-up) and it lasts up and through the time I eat.

I should just note that, in case someone's thinking this, I'm pretty sure it's not attributed to some sort of increased spirituality or something like that (I'm not particularly religious; more-so fast as a personal challenge and use the opportunity as a sort of annual 'reset' to physical habits)

as for how my fast goes, I think it may be considered somewhat extreme compared to others I know: beyond a fairly large iftar (dinner) at around 8:30pm I don't really eat much else; I still keep vegan when I do eat; never wake-up pre-dawn to eat (though I sort of subconsciously wake-up throughout the night and drink water); and I don't change any of my habits outside my time fasting (i.e. still go to gym after dinner most days, still go out at night, still drink (alcohol), still wake-up early for work, etc...)

</comment><comment><USER36> _Don't skip meals to save time. 5 good hours are better than 10 bad ones._

Can we apply this to sleeping too?

</comment><comment><USER37> I fast everyday. By not worrying about food while I do web-development I've noticed not only am I less distracted and get more done, but I am also less tired because my body isn't diverting energy to digesting food. I'd get really sleepy after lunch usually.

I practice Intermittent Fasting. I typically fast for 16 hours and eat for 8. I've been doing it for about a year now and I love it.

</comment><comment><USER38> I fast regularly and if you already on a low carb diet, then the transition is much easier on your body. I don't notice a a diminishing of mental capacity, but I do notice that I need more sleep.

There are a lot of things you can do to prepare for a fast. For example, cut back on caffeine, sugar and even salt in the days or weeks ahead of your fast. Also, gorging on food the morning of a fast is not really healthy and is a sure recipe for "Ramadan code."

There was a fantastic article on fasting in Harper's Magazine this past March that covers the history of fasting, "Starving your way to vigor: The benefits of an empty stomach." Sadly, you have to be a subscriber to read it online:

<http://harpers.org/archive/2012/03/0083829>

Fasting doesn't have to devastate your mental faculties. I actually find that it helps me focus, and I have started doing it a few times a year.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm currently on Ferriss' low-carb diet and I have found constant carb- withdrawal hard to bear on days on which I do much programming (basically every working day). There are some tricks though which help me keep up focus:

\- MSM,

\- Caffeine (less is more - just a sip of coffee, or half a cup of green tea; too much of it actually downs me after the first high),

\- and regular consumption of "allowed" carbs (lentils being my favourite) and fat (peanut butter, olive oil,...). Native coconut oil is a real brain booster, I feel super-focused after having eaten a spoonful.

MSM does really do much in this regard for me, it feels as if it's helping my body renew its energy stores. I can go a lot further with less food when having taken it - and I do need to take it in order to seriously lose weight.

Eating nothing for more than 4 hours shoots my focus down for hours, and is hard to rebuild with low-carb food.

<comment><USER39> The carb withdrawal is only for like, the first week, right? Then you'll be scot-free! Or so I thought.

<comment><USER40> In low-carb diets, one of the major withdrawal symptoms is actually from a lack of sodium. Your body starts emptying it's water stores when there is no carbohydrate intake to process (carbs need a lot of water to work with), and that takes tons of potassium and sodium out of your body.

Eat or drink something with lots of sodium, and it should hep with the carb withdrawal symptoms quite a bit (the 'keto flu').

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Here is my experience: I am in Egypt, and I decided to stop working at all in Ramdan's day.. I work only during night, because its very very hot here, which you start feel you need to drink by 11 am, and our stupid government keeps cut electricity during the day, so we can't even use air conditioning most of the time, because there is no electricity, and if you don't know, using air conditioning helps so much reduce the need of water.. which is the main problem in a very hot weather like in Egypt.

I spend all the day sleeping, and start working after Iftar.

</comment><comment><USER42> HN is truly a community of many nations, cultures, religions, etc...

I changed my schedule for the past few days and it's working very well. I get home from work at 5 or so, sleep for 1.5 hours, get up and ready myself to break fast. Afterwards I am operational until 2AM. I eat several times during this period and I go to sleep, waking up again at 8-9. (Yes, you guessed it, I am still not able to make Fajr on time).

The above beats going to sleep at 11 or 12AM then waking up at 3:30 to eat before going back to sleep.

</comment><comment><USER43> I personally can't relate to this specific religious practice however this is very similar to the feelings experienced when trying to quite smoking. The second time I tried quitting smoking I was unable to concentrate on my code which unfortunately drove me back to cigarettes for another three years. If you're a software developer it's even harder to quit (words of advice for anyone reading this that might be heading into college this coming fall)

</comment><comment><USER44> That sounds like a lot of fun. I am glad I am not religious.

I have no problem with people having the right to do this type of stuff because I enjoy my right to laugh about it.

</comment><comment><USER45> I started working out recently (about 8 weeks ago) and I'm now following this protocol: <http://leangains.com>

My energy is up, I'm loosing weight (I work out very morning) and feeling great. I do find that I'm having a bit of trouble concentrating, but is getting better everyday.

If I manage to concentrate as I did before using leangains, this is by far the best I've felt in years.

</comment><comment><USER46> Have to say i've not suffered too much. I think it's a combination of what i choose to eat at fasting (suhoor) time, abiphasic sleep pattern and limiting sugar intake when breaking the fast.

I do a light sleep / nap for 2hrs at night, and then eat suhoor and make sure i stay awake for a fixed period of time before going back to bed. i wrote a dedicated post about this last year if anyone is interested.

</comment><comment><USER47> I've fasted multiple times and it was straight days with only water. Never had any problems, in fact, I've always felt much better than before. I feel serene and can do my tasks just fine (or even better than before).

The author must be suffering from dehydration, not fasting.

</comment><comment><USER48> Fasting appears in many of the world's religions. I'm curious about the roots of fasting that have been codified into religious practice. Did the ancients discover that fasting was good for you?

<comment><USER49> The fact that it was popular doesn't mean it was good. Bloodletting was an extremely popular practice too, but it's now a consensus that's it's harmful except in very specific situations.

<comment><USER50> Although people did bloodletting because they _thought_ it was good for you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> In my case, it's ironic that I feel lethargic right after breaking fast (probably due to digestive system kicking in), while the rest of the day is a breezy peacefulness.

</comment><comment><USER52> Fasting is a mental exercise rather than anything else.

</comment><comment><USER52> Strangely, I usually put on more weight during Ramandan. I think it's a combination of work/food/sleep-pattern.

<comment><USER22> > Strangely, I usually put on more weight during Ramandan.

If you are starving, your metabolism slows down to conserve energy. I assume you eat heavy meals(high carb? sugar? oil?) when you break your fast(dinner? before morning prayers?). Slow metabolism, coupled with high calory intake when your body doesn't need it(if you go to bed after a heavy meal, what would your body use the calories for?) would be the reason for the weight gain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Fasting is good for your immune system as it stimulates phagocytosis. Here's a paper on Ramadan fasting:

<http://www.ayubmed.edu.pk/JAMC/PAST/21-4/Latifynia.pdf>

An amusing book on complete fasting by vintage american novelist Upton Sinclair here:

<http://archive.org/details/fastingcure00sinciala>

Personally, I fast regularly up to two weeks at a time, both for weight control and because I believe in it's overall long term health benefits.

<comment><USER54> Up to two weeks at a time of a total (water only) fast? I've done this before, but it was quite difficult to maintain in the midst of work pressures and I'm curious to know how you manage it.

<comment><USER55> I'm very interested in this. I've never tried fasting before -- and I'm 33 years old, which means I've had a lot of time to get used to eating a lot -- so I imagine that I would have a feeling of "starvation" that would be awfully distracting. Plus, I'm a bear when I'm too hungry and I wonder what I could do to avoid taking it out on the people who surround me (especially my 5 year-old kid).

<comment><USER56> I find that passes, as long as I've slept well, drunk enough (water) and am otherwise feeling fine.

I often go all day without eating while I work, and contrary to the OP and more in line with several of the other posters here I do find myself more productive, able to concentrate and focus, and feeling more energetic (I know it's counter-intuitive).

However the slightest inkling that I'm feeling worse for it, or that my productivity is beginning to slip, I'm feeling unusually tired - I'll simply eat. I'm not entirely sure losing much weight would be good for me (I don't have much to lose) and I'm not trying to take things to extremes. I just side with folk who agree that 3+ regular meals a day is not necessarily the only healthy way to do things.

Note well that this is all simply my own experience, and I'm certain people differ. I do this because I'm happy, comfortable and feel better for doing so - if you try it and don't, perhaps it isn't for you. I know I wouldn't do it if that were the case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> >Also another little thing. This entire blog post was written using the dictation feature in Mountain Lion.

So that explains the mistakes in the post I was wondering about. For example:

>(not that I wouldn't I love parks).</comment>


Choosing between two job opportunities  - <AUTHOR> Recently i've been restarting the job search. I've been generating a lot of interest and I guess you could say I have a happy problem. I'm a front-end developer who is also a talented designer in my mid 20's.
I have two job offers and would like some advice about it from some fellow nerds.:)
1. Big fortune 100 company with really cool people from Apple and Microsoft who jumped ship and now work here. Not your typical big company environment has a startup vibe with full fridges, open office, pool tables, standing desks etc. Is a 6-month contract only with potential hire afterwards. Mainly working with HTML/CSS and jquery. None to little design work.
2. Small 30ish person company SAAS service company and would be totally 100% remote. Would have potential to use some new javascript frameworks like Angularjs and test-driven development with also about %30 percent of the work being design. Pays a bit lower then job 1 but is permanent.
My problem deciding is job 1 I feel would be a good learning experience, working with other people better then me and having a big name on the resume. Job 2 i'm going to be able to actually make some more decisions and not have as many people to lean on.
Before this i've mostly been a solo dev slogging through whatever needed to be done back-end, front-end, design etc. If you were personally in this position what would be your thought process to deciding? <comment><USER2> I would try the following. Envision success at both places, what would that look like 3 years from now? What would the job duties include? What is the likelihood of promotion? What current skills would have grown significantly? What skills would have atrophied through lack of use and challenge? What new skills would you have acquired? Who would you know? Project out the differences in income and expenses and calculate an expected net worth at that point?

Now imagine the logical next steps, see yourself switching companies and taking a new job. Or, starting a new venture of your own if that is your dream? Which of those next step outcomes is more attractive to you?

My own take is that the corporate role will lead to more specialization, has better income, benefits and security over the next 10 years. By contrast, the SAAS service company will expose you to a much wider range of responsibilities. You will be more rounded. If you have your heart set on building your own company someday, this role will likely be better preparation.

</comment><comment><USER3> I used to work entirely remotely, and six months ago started working at a hundred-person office in downtown Boston. It has been, without a doubt, the best career move I've made, and I've made a lot of friends in the process. #1 sounds like a hugely better deal if you can handle the uncertainty of not being hired permanently.

</comment><comment><USER4> Take the one with higher pay. If this is your first job, either job will serve well as a learning experience.

Use that pay to build up your savings - ideally, you'd should have at least enough money to survive 6 months without pay. Once you achieve that, you'll have enough financial independence to be able to choose your own adventure, and hopefully you'll have enough experience to make an informed decision.

<comment><USER5> +1 for take the job offering more money.

<comment><AUTHOR> The difference is only 4k. So not much of a difference.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> For one, this is obviously a false choice; you could choose countless other avenues. If you already have a strong resume, job 1 really isn't a risk unless devs suddenly stop getting hired six months from now. If you don't have a strong resume, perform a thought experiment where you are leaving either position sometime during the next year; which position sets you up best for your next job?

</comment><comment><USER7> I would go for the second job. I personally think that developing your overall skills takes precedence over company name and job safety, especially during the initial stages of your career. I don't think it would be that much of a learning experience if you are not allowed to make design decisions.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you think it would hurt me in the future to not have worked in a real office environment?

<comment><USER3> Working remotely may have a small effect on future interviews, but it's negligible -- you can just focus on your work ethic, since you would have been able to produce design/code without someone eyeing over your shoulder.

<comment><USER8> I'm going to have to echo whichdan's sentiments in that working remotely will separate you from the networking and social side of things. You need to have something else in mind (hackathons, meetups, other social type things) because you don't have the social aspects of work if you choose #2.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Scientists Prove Toxic Assets are Impossible to Regulate - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/18/14636/845

<comment><USER2> A lot of people are complaining that NP-hard doesn't mean you can't get good approximations.

I would like to remind you people that we are not talking about abstract problem spaces where you can count on the problems being essentially "randomly selected" for some suitable definition of random. We are talking human-created financial instruments, being created by agents with every incentive to game the system. Complexity analysis is a whole different kettle of fish when you have to assume a malicious agent generating the problems! Everything you think you know about approximation may or may not apply, and probably doesn't apply, because approximation algorithms never (or virtually never) start out with "Assume a hostile malicious agent has constructed your problem instance..."

The correct mindset here is probably the security mindset, where no matter how small or trivial the "arbitrary command execution as root" vulnerability is, you damn well better close it, because in the computing world the smallest crack can be easily widened large enough to drive a truck through.

<comment><USER3> Very true. Especially if the approximation algorithms become well known, people can find ways around them.

I wonder if some sort of game theory and/or randomized algorithms can help...

In any event, the root problem was still giving loans to people who shouldn't have gotten them. Regulation really needs to focus on that...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's also impossible for a traveling salesman to find the best route between cities, but that doesn't mean that salesmen don't travel. Approximations are often Good Enough, and there are a variety of polynomial algorithms that produce Good Enough solutions to NP problems.

Everything in the real world is impossible, but we can try and get good results anyway.

<comment><USER5> I believe that the paper argues that this is one of those cases where approximations are _not_ good enough. You cannot read RSA encrypted email with approximate factorization algorithms. You can't forge a document and fool anyone with an _approximate_ SHA collision. I'm not entirely convinced by this analogy but it was made by Appell, and others pointed out in an earlier HN thread that the authors are experts in approximation algorithms.

<comment><USER6> Sanjeev Arora, paper's coauthor, but also leading expert on approximations to NP-hard problems, has posted a FAQ detailing why he thinks no approximation would help,

<http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rongge/derivativeFAQ.html>

And also his response to RJ Lipton who believes approximation ought to work (but then again Lipton believes P=NP, so for him nothing is impossible):

[http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/helping-wall- street...](http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/helping-wall-street-cheat- with-theory/#comment-1756)

These are mostly practical reservations, carefully stated as to convince of intractability in the real-world case (which they do) but _not_ prove in theory. Excerpt:

       current pricing and rating algorithms use monte carlo methods
       and would not solve densest subgraphs even for moderate parameters.
       So at the very least those should be changed.

Turns out problem they reduced their model to is _open_ in terms of finding good approximation to it. Excerpt from the FAQ:

       The paper relies upon a stronger form of "P not equals NP", namely,
       that the planted dense subgraph problem does not have an efficient
       algorithm. (In fact it is conjectured that there is no algorithm
       to even compute any approximate solutions to this problem).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I only read the abstract and the Daily Kos summary, and am not a complexity theorist, but I have to say this seems a little facetious. Sure the valuation problem might be np-complete, so technically you can't "solve" it. This has a nice ring and I'm sure lots of members of congress are going to hoist this paper aloft in hearings while they're busy chewing out the CEO of Lehman.

But approximation techniques are being used all the time to obtain near- optimal solutions to NP-hard problems. If you can obtain a valuation for a complex bundle of derivatives that's within 10% of the true value, then it seems silly to claim that they whole practice should be tossed out the window. This is like saying salesmen should no longer be able to travel because we cannot solve the traveling salesman problem.

</comment><comment><USER8> hold the phone, just because a problem is NP complete does not mean that it is computationally intractable. most algorithms in the real world are NP complete, but people still try to solve them.

just because there's no way to _prove_ which CDOs have been tampered with doesn't mean that you can't figure it out. there are local search algorithms that may be able to give you a pretty good answer, even if you don't know for sure. there's some extra risk in CDOs because of this, fine, but it doesn't mean that the market would be locked up, or that no one would have any clue if there was misconduct.

regulators also have extra tools to detect fraud. maybe the buyer can't tell, but if the buyer suspects, and the regulator can check the seller's internal records, examine their processes, and in general, investigate whether the seller did any tampering.

<comment><USER9> As much as I love dailykos at times, considering that on top of the factual inaccuracy you point out, the non-watered down non-hysteric version [1] was pretty popular here a little bit ago, I think this article deserves some [dead]-ing.

1\. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=883316>

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Also see: [http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/helping-wall- street...](http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/helping-wall-street-cheat- with-theory/)

</comment><comment><USER10> Why would anyone think that the value of a non-trivial asset could be expressed as a single number?

Let's consider a house. Clearly the amount of money that someone would pay for said house varies from person to person. Which value is "correct"?

Before you jump in with some clever aggregation function, suppose that the owners want to sell said house. Will they agree to the value that your aggregation function produces? (They can choose to delay the sale, so if they don't agree, your function may well deprive someone of the ability to buy said house at a price that its acceptable to said someone.)

Ah, but you say that stock is stock. That's true, but again, different people have different priorities. I probably weight dividend paying history differently than you do. I have different expectations on inflation. I need to go liquid at different times. The end result is that we disagree about the value of the same share of Microsoft stock.

<comment><USER11> _Let's consider a house. Clearly the amount of money that someone would pay for said house varies from person to person. Which value is "correct"?_

The one that actually results in a deal happening, which often means the highest amount on offer. The more standardized a good is and the more it's traded, the more well-defined its price is. If deals don't happen, there's no market-clearing price, e.g. no way to price sex with Mother Theresa.

 _Before you jump in with some clever aggregation function, suppose that the owners want to sell said house. Will they agree to the value that your aggregation function produces?_

Yes they will, by my definition above :-)

<comment><USER10> The market clearing price is one definition o "value", but the folks complaining about complexity of derivative pricing are clearly unwilling to accept it.

BTW - Folks who don't participate in a deal often complain that the price at which it occurred was "wrong". Folks who can't find someone to buy from them at the price they want have an analogous complaint.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would have thought the idea that CDO sellers keeping the most vulnerable tranch protecting against cherry picking was a fairly obvious non-starter anyway. (The following will be massively oversimplified for easier explanation, but I think it still applies in the far more complicated real life equivalent)

If I make 10 CDOs and I think 5% of the underlying assets are bad, if I share them out equally the top tranch takes all the damage for each CDO - if the top tranch is 5% then I make nothing basically. If I make one CDO with 50% bad assets, and 9 with 100% good assets, then some of those losses go to other people deeper into the bad CDO tranch, suddenly 90% of my assets pay off instead of 0%.

</comment><comment><USER13> A fairly good summary, though I'm not certain someone who hasn't studied computability is going to get it. The "See Also" amichail posted is good.

</comment><comment><USER14> The question now is whether this information will have any effect in Washington. My bet is that it will not.

</comment><comment><USER15> Likewise, we should outlaw tide-charts since we haven't solved the n-bodies problem.</comment>


Stealth startup Privacy Labs raises $4M to give consumers control of their data - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/23/privacy-labs/ <comment><USER2> > a stealth-stage startup that wants to enable internet users to "regain > control" of their personal data, has landed a $4 million seed funding > round... Other investors that participated include Lemnos Labs, Liquid 2 > Ventures, CrunchFund*,...

So Arrington is promoting one of his investments on one of his sites. The investment claims to "give consumers control of their data," but the site gives that data to at least 9 companies: AOL, Facebook, Gravatar, Parsely, Taboola, Tinypass, Twitter, Vidible, and Wordpress.

</comment><comment><USER3> There is no news here about the product or service that they're working on. We only have a name and HD Moore's involvement at an advisory level.

This is not interesting.

</comment><comment><USER4> 4 mils seed fund with no product or traction? are they trying to repeat the path color App took?

[http://mashable.com/2012/10/17/color-shuts- down/#9QwfKgsSEGq...](http://mashable.com/2012/10/17/color-shuts- down/#9QwfKgsSEGqZ)

<comment><USER5>
      4 mils seed fund with no product or traction?

... or Head of Marketing, or Head of Design (per their Openings)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "The company doesn't have a product right now and is cagey about what it will eventually release"

Incredible pitching!

</comment><comment><USER7> How timely was this PR considering what happened with CF today[0]. I'm sincerely impressed!

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13718752](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13718752)

</comment><comment><USER8> This reminds me of Arrested Developments Faceblock way too much</comment>


How "Fansmitter" Malware Steals Data from Air-Gapped Computers - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601816/how-fansmitter-malware-steals-data-from-air-gapped-computers/ <comment><USER2> This answers my question. I was just thinking about this and other methods like encoding data in pulses from a keyboard led at high enough frequencies that humans dont see a flicker but an optical sensor can read it, hard drive parking noise, drive activity indicators, and power state changes could be used to transmit sensitive data from air gapped systems.

Also smuggling data out of containers or vms might be possible by these means or manipulating signals measurable across security boundaries. One could encode bits in the cpu utilization of a process and watch the load from another app outside the secured area to read encoded data, or by loading/unloading a measurable amount of data in RAM, for example. Where did my foil hat go?</comment>


Brendan Eich of Mozilla gave $1000 to support gay marriage ban - <AUTHOR> http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/donation/8930/ <comment><USER3> I don't want to condemn Brendan Eich until I've heard his side of the story, though I think he has almost certainly acted in a way that I can't approve of here. I'm disappointed by his donation, though no more disappointed than I am about any of the other donors - I don't expect higher standards of Brendan or Mozilla than I would of anyone else, and I think that people condemning him should remember that liking Mozilla's products is not contingent on liking the personal politics of people who work for Mozilla.

His personal views have no bearing on the work that Mozilla does, or his work as part of that. As a private individual he's entitled to his own views and to support those views with his own money, and I personally believe that society benefits from allowing a distinction between the personal and professional spheres. _Brendan Eich the public figure_ should retain respect as a pivotal figure in the development of the web, even if _Brendan Eich the private individual_ holds views that some (though by no means _all_ ) people find deeply objectionable.

</comment><comment><USER4> As a programmer living in California whose foreign-same-sex-marriage is not recognized by the state... I'm halfway to setting up a Mozilla boycott. It's not Mozilla itself that gave the money, of course... its just their most visible (and well paid) employee.

<comment><USER5> You're entitled to boycott any company for any reason, however I would encourage you to reconsider your position. This is what you are asking of Mozilla:

1) To have a political position on this issue. 2) To enforce that political position on all of its employees.

#1 is somewhat reasonable (that is, it's a bit abnormal for a company to have a specific political position not related to their business but not completely unheard of), but #2 is _very_ impractical and I would argue damaging.

<comment><USER6> I understand where you're coming from with point 2. It can be very damaging for a company. Firing people because they're a Democrat or a Republican (or forcing all your employees to vote for Romney or Santorum) is going to get you in trouble, and quickly.

However, I believe the split here comes whether this is a "political issue" or a "human rights issue". In my opinion, it's human rights. And I believe any company should ensure that its employees are not fighting against equality. I guess this also ties into equality for its employees. I assume there are LGBT employees of Mozilla, and I think they must feel pretty uncomfortable right now.

Unfortunately (again, in my opinion, etc.), it's treated as a political standpoint, something that big parties can argue about. But it isn't - it's about whether LGBT individuals have the same rights as straight people.

<comment><USER6> (Obviously, this instance can be taken solely as a political issue - <USER2> to a political campaign. However, I think the underlying human rights issue is still there. This is an assumption. Mr Eich could have donated for purely political reasons... but I find that difficult to comprehend.)

<comment><USER7> He could have donated for religious reasons. Prop. 8 was supported by the Catholic Church, the Mormons, orthodox Jews, and many evangelical churches.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As a Mozilla employee that strongly supports the right of all persons to marry, let me be the first to say: who the hell cares? At the end of the day, what he believes doesn't matter to me or anyone else.

<comment><USER9> I sincerely don't see the problem. I think those opposed to Prop 8 should demonstrate a bit more tolerance to everybody who may not agree with them.

Now if the $1,000 went towards Westboro Baptist Church, so that they could lash out and call people "faggots", then I would be a bit upset.

<comment><USER4> You and I might disagree on tax policy... that's fine! We might disagree on flavors of ice cream too! We're still fine. But, when you say that I have no right to call my husband my husband. And the very idea that I have a loving relationship with him that the government might recognize and treat equally with a same-sex couple. That very idea prompts you to go google for "nom", then find the donation page, you then have to go get your wallet, you then have to fill out the form on the site, then you type in the credit card number (check it twice!), you then click donate. All of that action was precipitated by the very thought of me and my husband being married. Remember, Prop 8 happened _after_ gay marriage was legal in California. I'm far less offended by Westboro, because they have no concept of what they are doing. They function in a crazy world that is separate from ours. To know that a fellow language inventor has such feeling about _me_... that is hard to describe... and is different than a normal political disagreeance.

<comment><USER10> Maybe this is being overprecise and I share your viewpoint here, but singling out Brendan is perhaps best left until he shares his side of the story. This could be a mistake/error in accounting. I don't know how the US donation system works and if that's likely at all, but..

Of course, if it isn't a mistake, I totally agree. I just find something published by the LA Times to be.. well.. not a real guarantee of authenticity.

<comment><USER11> Maybe he accidentally gave them money twice:

[http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx...](http://cal- access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1302592&session=2007&view=received&psort=NAME&page=5)

<http://puu.sh/nOlT>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This isn't really an HN topic, is it?

Also, anyone can fucking donate to whoever they want. Notice in the "name" column it says "Brendan Elch", not "Mozilla, Inc." What he does with his money is his business.

<comment><USER13> It says "Mozilla" right beside his name. I think most people would have less of an issue of he donated without stating his employer.

<comment><USER14> In the US, currently, if an individual donates more than $200 to certain types of political campaigns, that individual's name, address, occupation and employer must be included in campaign finance disclosures. $1000 > $200, so that's why the information is there.

As an aside: my previous job was in journalism, and generally in that field there's a (self-enforced) ethical code against making such donations largely because the employer's name is disclosed and could lead people to assume endorsement by a news outlet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The assumption here is that there's no legitimate reason for supporting a gay marriage ban. Obviously A LOT of people disagree with that fundamental assumption, otherwise the potential ban wouldn't exist.

Personally, you have to address why the government is involved in marriage at all. From my understanding, it is for the purpose of encouraging the family unit and the perpetuation of society through offspring. Gay people can't have offspring unless you count lesbians and artificial insemination, but that takes the conversation down a whole other tangent.

My main point simply being, there are non-human-rights justifications for not endorsing / encouraging gay marriage, so judgment is premature.

<comment><USER10> By that logic, people who are infertile, have certain disabilities, or who don't plan to have children shouldn't be allowed to get married either. I'm not convinced those are similarly good reasons to restrict marriage.

<comment><USER15> One is a passive granting of rights for a purpose, the other is an active taking away of rights based on faulty reasoning.

Offering a conducive environment will always necessarily benefit others. If it didn't it'd simply be called a reward. Gay marriage proponents obviously call these assumptions into question, but unfortunately offer a worse alternative.

While there may be reasoning to support limiting marriage perks to those who procreate, that only hurts their argument that those benefits should instead be extended to gays who are least worth incentivizing.

There is no more infertile a couple than one that lacks the ability based not on imperfections, but upon their intrinsic biology.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Just removed Firefox for Ubuntu from my system. I've been using Firefox for 8 years under both Windows and Linux, and stuck with it despite all the bugs, but this is outrageous. I won't miss it. Chrome is far better.

</comment><comment><USER17> This would fall under the heading of "political discussion".

<comment><USER11> Yet amazingly the 40,000 "OH HAI SEXISM" posts that blanketed HN for the last week don't?

<comment><USER18> That's at least arguing about whether or not the tech industry has a widespread issue. This is singling out one guy (whose best-known work already had a mixed reputation among nerds). Even if it turns out Mozilla really is being run by a reactionary religious zealot, it doesn't seem to affect their technical direction nor the use of their donated funds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Mr Eich's personal beliefs are of no consequence; when his personal beliefs and his employer's name are connected, then there is a problem. I occasionally have used Firefox for searches. Mr Eich's proud display of hatred, using the Mozilla name on his contribution to Prop H8, contributes to my not using Mozilla again!

<comment><USER14> You may want to read this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3795704></comment></comment>


GEOS on Commodore 64 - <AUTHOR> http://youtube.com/watch?v=j1Mnvead8Tc

<comment><USER2> Interestingly there is a cousin of GEOS for the PC [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEOS_%2816-bit_operating_system...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEOS_%2816-bit_operating_system%29)

</comment><comment><USER3> I remember this ! I can't remember exactly when, but yeah, it was great in 1984 (from memory).

Using a digital joystick for mouse movement was not fun though.

</comment><comment><USER4> Wow, I wish I'd had that in 1982. Hard to believe that a GUI was ever available for the C64.

<comment><USER2> I don't think Geos came out until 1986 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEOS_%288-bit_operating_system%...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEOS_%288-bit_operating_system%29)

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> So that's why they made splash screens.

</comment><comment><USER5> hmmmm. that looks a lot like macos. haha and people say gates stole from jobs.</comment>


God sued for terror acts - <AUTHOR> http://www.ketv.com/news/14133442/detail.html

<comment><USER2> > God "has manifested neither compassion nor remorse, proclaiming that > Defendant "will laugh" when calamity comes.

God sent Jesus the ultimate bearer of compassion. The items he mentions are old testament fare. So go, sin no more.</comment>


Rate my idea: face recognition app that can actually make money - <AUTHOR> http://www.slideshare.net/alain94040/sales-god

<comment><USER2> Personally, I think you need to provide more to be a 50/50 co-founder if you're not helping to build the product, and you only want to give equity.

Just my two cents.</comment>


Rate my app: Costpad.com - Community shared prices - <AUTHOR> http://costpad.com

<comment><USER2> Maybe I'm just ethnocentric, but I don't like all the foreign (greek?) text. It confuses me. When I click the english flag, it doesn't make the greek go away.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, it's greek :). Your not ethnocentric by the way. The national flags let you switch the UI language. Foreign products/purchases/shops will not be change/translated. Not all features are implemented yet though: in the future, these "overseas" items (shops and purchases) will be filtered by the distance of your reference locations.</comment></comment>