I quit social media and now I want a cigarette - <AUTHOR> https://hadalin.me/blog/i-quit-social-media-and-now-i-want-a-cigarette <comment><USER2> I've always found these articles fascinating on HN, because while anecdotal, hacker news is easily the social media that has wasted the most of my time and been the source of the most stress and anxiety (aren't you using this new tech yet?).

The privacy issue doesn't exist here, at least not unless you decide to share, but if you do, you actually won't be able to delete your posts unless you contact the admins.

Facebook actually adds a lot more value to my life than HN does because Facebook is the place one of my friend groups arrange our 4-6 yearly weekend retreats. This is the only thing I use Facebook for though, I don't have any of their apps and I only log on a couple of times a month. Don't get me wrong, I wish we could do it on some other medium exactly because of facebooks evil history, but unfortunately Facebook is the only place everyone is.

I used to use Facebook differently, I used to follow things and interests, but one I removed all my likes and follows it became a pretty harmless address book that sells my information to advertising. Hacker news on the other hand is where I waste the most of my online time, and mostly it's on feeling inferior because I'm not learning X and Y or starting some side project company. This is anecdotal like I said, but I don't think HN is any better than FB from a purely psychological point of view. Facebook is obviously still more evil due to the privacy issues, but this article is about the cigarette side of social media.

<comment><USER3> we need a legacynews where people discuss how they're not transitioning to java8 but keep java7 for now

<comment><USER4> "How Perl 5 is basically fine and gets the job done"

"If node is so fast why does my PHP site feel way faster than this React+Redux+Node thingy? An inquiry into what 'fast' means."

"Why GUIs in things other than webtech are actually not hard at all and work way better."

<comment><USER3> > "If node is so fast why does my PHP site feel way faster than this > React+Redux+Node thingy? An inquiry into what 'fast' means."

this actually a true statement.

I probably spent a thousand hours deeply mocking PHP, but everytime I use their website I'm shocked how lean everything is.

Given the infinte amount of brilliant work done on js VMs and HTTP2 or whatever, I think there's something to be learned there.

<comment><USER5> PHP is, at its core (i.e. after in-engine precompilation), a hand-coded-in-C virtual machine with its ISA purpose-designed for efficiently generating dynamic HTML from the results of backend network service requests.

Honestly, that's not a bad idea. It's a lot like how many old game consoles have ISAs that specifically make game software efficient to run compared to generic application software. Purpose-built architectures can be exploited to achieve incredible efficiencies in CPU/memory usage for a given effect—as any demoscene programmer could tell you. Even emulators running this CISC code often outperform the same code written idiomatically for the host arch (see: one of the reasons that z/OS FORTRAN programs stick around.)

So far as I know, we haven't recapitulated this approach in any other modern stack. Sure, we "compile" templates, but only to the bytecode ISA of the scripting language hosting the MVC framework, which has none of these dynamic- HTML-oriented CISC opcodes (other than _maybe_ the Erlang VM's vectorized write of "IO lists" using writev(2).)

A web MVC framework for another language (e.g. Ruby, Node, Elixir, whichever!) would actually likely do well in performance terms by having its "view" component be a static PHP (or Zend microcode) generator, feeding the web frontend (e.g. Nginx) a directory of PHP to expose to the world, which would only call into the server backend (and so the MVC controller) through API- subdomain subrequests. The static-generated PHP "app" would serve the same purpose as a JavaScript SPA... but would exist on the server together with the backend, so there'd be much less point in persisting state there (since you're not patching over a latency boundary by doing so.)

There'd probably be even more efficiencies to uncover if you designed an ISA from the ground up to be used _solely_ for this purpose (i.e. being "edge- worker logic" spat out during a backend's compilation phase), though, compared to PHP which must be Turing-complete for those that want to use it as a full- stack solution. I imagine the resulting ISA would look like some weird bytecode hybrid of eBPF, Server-Side Includes, and Nginx's in-memory representation of loaded location{} entries. (I also imagine that some Cloudflare engineer already has a design for such an ISA in a notebook somewhere, as a more-efficient-through-constraints Cloudflare Workers target—but they haven't bothered going further because it's kind of an arcane idea and they'd need buy-in from framework devs before it'd be useful to build.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have partially removed all my social networks except Twitter. I want to find out about things in real time, and from various sources, therefore Twitter is still a valid medium for this purpose. Although I interact little in the discussions.

Leaving Facebook, Instagram, Google+ and other networks gave me automatic anxiety relief. I no longer care what anyone close to me thinks and I don't get into discussions with close relatives.

My life as a conservative is much better without social networks where they censor me non-stop, just Twitter and being very careful with what I write and how I write it I can more or less start conversations. Sooner or later I will leave Twitter too, it is a matter of finding another social network, free and open and nurtured by people.

<comment><USER7> I'm curious why you're being censored. Are you a fiscal conservative, or a social conservative?

Because I have a bunch of fiscal conservatives on my Facebook and the only thing they post about is monetary policy. Nothing about abortions, marriage, immigration, or policing - the things social conservatives tend to drive themselves red in the face with.

It might be worth examining your own discourse to understand why you were being censored (or _felt_ you were being censored). I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong, I'm just wondering if you've ever reflected on what you post and how people react to it.

<comment><USER8> And what's the difference? What makes being a social conservative less valid? You're coming from a very high-and-mighty standpoint here, when the simple truth is that he should not be censored.

<comment><USER7> I don't want to get into the mud on social conservatism. These people want to undo abortion and marriage rights, among a lot of other social progress we have made. Do I really need to explain the difference between someone who likes to debate interest rate hikes with someone who wants to remove rights for women and LGBT people?

I'm not being high and mighty. I simply asked if he had reflected on why he felt censored. If he was sharing fake news about Hillary being a lizard person, then yeah, I understand why people would remove him from their newsfeed.

<comment><USER8> And there you go. Check your bias, because it's making you sound remarkably like you have an excellent elbow-pad-and-fedora collection,

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I can't help but feel that people that become addicted to social media should really be looking for underlying issues they need to address e.g. the need to compare themselves to others, the need for validation from likes/upvotes. If the underlying issue is still there, quitting social media isn't addressing the cause.

I use social media to keep in contact with friends and can't relate to posts like this at all. I don't check often, rarely see the point in posting and generally feel bad for people that boast all the time about how great their life is.

<comment><USER10> In my experience with addiction (drugs), there's always an underlying cause. The problem is, there are lots and lots of people with unaddressed issues that aren't seeking or can't obtain the proper solution/advice/help/whatever and end up self-medicating with drugs, video games, social media, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a refreshing article to see on HN because it's not the typical clickbait "I did X and my life is changed forever" nor is it "I quit X and I'm better than you for it".

It echoes my personal experience. I've gone without social media for extended periods - years. But I've always filled the boredom void with something else: HN, work, other websites.

Now I have a Facebook account but I have a very small number of friends and family I keep up with and I follow a small number of interests. I run out of things to scroll often and that's okay.

<comment> non-entity Same here. Worse, I thought I would be able to channel my time into something at least productive whether that be side projects or getting my life together, but I still can't

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I quit social media and after a while I couldn't even make sense of why I was there to begin with. "There was no value lost... what the hell was I doing on there all this time?" I never had any "glowing" experience on social media, no memories, yet so much time wasted. People just aren't that interesting. It's all the same stuff over and over again. And if you do get into something interesting, you end up with an exchange of 20+ comments which just seems out of place... especially on FB.

</comment><comment><USER13> I quit Facebook and Alcohol at the same time, cold turkey. Facebook I didn't even notice. I looked back after a few months and thought, "oh yeah, I did also quit Facebook". I didn't delete it. I just stopped using it.

Quitting Facebook changed basically nothing. Now I don't get done with a Facebook binge and feel like I just wasted 10-30 minutes of life. Alcohol was a totally different experience.

The one thing that I regret about not having Facebook is organizing events. I've missed a couple with good friends, because I simply don't have Facebook. As a software developer, I wonder if this is something I can change. Perhaps couple Facebook's API with Twilio's API and convert events into text messages. Perhaps a completely separate system that I have to urge my friends to adopt, simply for my inclusion.

Not sure what the solution is, but the problem itself isn't worthy of luring me back into Facebook.

<comment><USER14> Do you care to share more about how quitting alcohol was? How much were you drinking before you quit? How do you curb cravings? I'm in a similar boat and I've honestly found LaCroix to be one of the best substitutes for the urge to open a drink.

<comment><USER15> If you've not already, I recommend reading "This Naked Mind" by Annie Grace

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Social media is addictive in roughly the same sense that not punching yourself in the face is addictive. The "dopamine hit" aspect is grossly oversold. Social media is distraction from suffering. Most addictive behavior is, but social media is almost _entirely_ distraction from suffering.

If you don't do something about the background suffering that's leading you to the distraction, you'll just fill that void with something else.

<comment><USER17> Dozens of studies show the opposite of what you're saying. Social media companies do every tick in the book, and then some, to get people addicted. In certain cases what you're saying is true, but it might as well be the other way around for the rest.

<comment><USER16> Let's say for the sake of argument that I was being hyperbolic with my "punching yourself in the face" statement. Let's say you are addicted to social media, and you use it for 5 hours a day. Let's say I take away your phone. For a week. You will probably feel gradually diminishing impulses to look at your phone, which will eventually subside almost entirely within a handful of days. You will not experience withdrawals. You will not lose sleep. You will (probably) not try to scam somebody else out of their phone. If I hand you your phone back after a week, there's a good chance you might just delete the social media apps off the phone yourself, having realized how much time you were wasting.

In other words, if the social media companies are doing every trick in the book, it's not really amounting to much. If you were spending 5 hours a day on Facebook, it probably had a lot more to do with the general shape of your life and opportunities for actualization and socialization, than it had to do with intermittent reinforcement schedules.

And fundamentally what I'm saying is correct: it is mundane daily suffering that creates the void filled by social media and other distractive addictions, giving them a foothold in your life. This is orthogonal to any claims about whether social media is "actually" "addictive".

<comment><USER17> I think you're still generalizing based on how you feel, instead of analysing this objectively. I quit a few years ago and for the most part I didn't even notice after a month. But I've seen friends get offended and get into arguments over likes, and teens online cry and go through withdrawal-like symptoms over losing followers. The full effects of this stuff is yet to come with young gen.

And no, it's not like anything physically addictive of course, but it still has a hold on some, and the patterns are similar to other non-physical addictions.

Edit: And how can you even say conclusively that it's mundane daily suffering that creates the void filled by social media, and not that social media is causing the creation of this void that is leading to mundane daily suffering?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > I absolutely cannot understand people who have 153 unread notifications. > They're probably the same people who sleep with a blanket turned the other > way around — zipper facing the head.

a) What kind of blanket has a zipper? I don't think I have encountered any.

b) As the kind of person with several thousand unread emails, I don't know why people bother? I can easily search for the important stuff, and visually scan the new pile a few times a day. I have better things to do with my life than manage my inbox, I don't need that stress. Family, video games, basically anything else. It's way more work than reward. I know a number of people this drives absolutely nuts, but I don't get it.

<comment><USER19> > a) What kind of blanket has a zipper? I don't think I have encountered any.

This most probably refers to the "hole" which is used to insert the insert of the blanket, which, for most people at least, means that it should be at the "feet" end of the bed. It's just some blankets have zippers to cover the hole, others have buttons etc.

<comment><USER18> Oh, I think we're taking about a duvet cover? I believe that's distinct from a blanket, which is usually sealed fully or a single ply.

I have certainly never been duvet levels of fancy.

<comment><USER20> One doesn't need to be fancy for duvet covers - merely live in a country where the duvet is standard and the blanket is secondary.

United States: Duvets are fancy. Norway: Common, everyday stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > Social media is like smoking. It takes a while to get addicted. You do it > because everyone is doing it

I would add: Besides, it tastes awful when you start, but you do it anyway until you get familiar with it.

Just like the first days when discovering a social media without understanding it and doing dumb things such as posting the wrong stuff etc.

</comment><comment><USER22> PSA for anyone who does this, regarding the friends part. Hell, works well if you happen to move to a new place too.

Go join a hobby club of some sort. Even if you're introverted. A structured "social" activity makes it super easy, approachable and everyone (in my experience) is welcoming.

Meetup.com is a pretty good place to start. Even the generic social groups are fun too. Try your local library and rec center too for get togethers near you. Or if you do have a decent friend circle already, do the leg work to coordinate something. Doing a structured social activity helps a lot. Even everyone bringing a random bottle of whiskey and watching a movie while you all try different whiskeys is better than being home alone.

Having a real social network you meetup with, makes it real easy to cut back on the addiction of social media.

<comment><USER23> in my experience (4 years without "friend"-based social media), becoming disconnected from friends is temporary. during the first year after quitting social media, you will have to work hard to maintain relationships; _you_ will have to instigate social time with your friends through other channels. but after a while, it will start to work in your favor. when those same friends are setting up events on facebook, they'll start to remember that you can only be reached through other channels and they'll start reaching out to you even when they might not have thought to invite you via facebook. and when they want to have a conversation with somebody but don't feel like opening the facebook app, who will they reach out to? you.

my approach was to keep my facebook account, but strip it of everything except my name and a profile picture that says "i don't use fb, please text me". that way, people can still be reminded that i exist and they know i'm always a text message away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> > I would pay a monthly subscription for an ad-free version of Facebook.

I think we're on the cusp of an explosion of ad-free subscription sites. An ad-free subscription Facebook could provide all of the actual benefits of Facebook at a fraction of the cost. No need to employ hundreds of PhD machine- learning experts to analyze mouse movements if you're not trying to hyper- optimize ads.

<comment><USER25> The paradox is: people with the disposable income to pay for ad-free social media are the most desirable advertising targets.

The reality is that a subscription Facebook would take your money _and_ sell a profile of you for ads on other sites.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> My wife and I have taken opposite approaches, kinda, to curtailing social media.

She removed the FB app from her phone, so she only takes a stroll through that feed at night, while we're watching TV or whatever. She left Twitter entirely (well, her account is there, but she neither reads nor posts anymore).

I still participate in Twitter, though I've moved some of the prolific accounts I enjoy to Feedbin so my feed isn't impossible. It's about evenly split between "people I actually know" and "entertainers / writers I like who are clever." I don't go in for rage-Twitter or whatever.

I wish I could abandon FB entirely, but the network effects keep me there. The biggest one is cycling. I'm an avid road rider, and in my city pretty much ALL the coordination for cycling events (group rides, out of town trips, even happy hours) is on FB. If you leave FB, you're out of the loop.

So in a real sense, FB is both healthy AND unhealthy for me.

<comment><USER27> I did the same thing your Wife did with Twitter. I found myself checking it at work whenever I was stuck on a problem or basically whenever I was slightly bored. It's great on keeping up on things and getting some good laughs, but it was also draining in many ways as well (politics, being up to date on every terrible thing in the world, etc).

I still check it every other night on my computer/ipad at home, or I'll login from my phone if something big is happening. But not having the app on my phone has made a huge difference.

A minor aside, but it was almost pathetic how the first day after I deleted the app, without thinking, I would open my phone and click where the Twitter app used to be. It took me about 2 days to get over that habit. It truly is an addiction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The funny thing is the people the most adamant about quiting social media are usually the ones oversharing the most on it.

<comment><USER29> Selection bias. You don't find out about the ones that don't share.

I also quit social media and told no one (oops, it seems I just did).

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Apropos of LinkedIn: I run my own business. I deleted my LinkedIn last year (having nuked everything else a year before) and the only thing that changed is I get fewer mass mails from recruiters. My overall deal throughput is not large enough make any statistically significant conclusions.

(edit: speling)

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm in the same boat. Recently quit LinkedIn too and am working on my github.io page for people to contact me for potential opportunities. Have no idea if it'll work out or not, in the long run but tbh, I feel a lot better not being on these sites than vice-versa. Just my 2c :)

<comment><USER32> My (early career, not notable - hang on why am I doing this to myself :)) CV is hosted on GitHub, FWIW I have had a few people contact me as a result.

Sample size is small and it's anecdotal anyway, etc., but I do think the quality (of all of them) is much higher than the average I get through LinkedIn. I think it's certainly worth doing.

(And if you want to or have already written it in LaTeX, feel free to use the Docker image & CircleCI config I created for the purpose.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I left Twitter (where I was very, very active since ~2008) and FB (which didn't use much anyway) 2.5 years ago. For me, the typical listed benefits are mostly true. I have a lot more time to spend mainly on side projects and books, I stopped caring about futile arguments (-> less anxiety) and also realized how little real connections most of us have. Overall, it made me focus on the important stuff and never looked back.

Granted I do have other distractions and I'm not aiming to be a perfect productive robot but social networks do affect us in at least some negative ways.

Nevertheless there are cases where balanced usage is possible and you can reap many benefits while experiencing fewer drawbacks. I couldn't use it in a smart way though.

</comment><comment><USER34> > Social media is like smoking. It takes a while to get addicted.

It only takes about a pack of cigarettes to get addicted; but it takes awhile to _realize_ you're addicted.

I'd say the same thing is true with Facebook. It took me about a decade to realize I was addicted.

</comment><comment><USER35> > _For every "good" post I had to consume thirty "bad" ones. 30 /1 is just not > that good of a ratio._

It'd be interesting to see the writer expound on his expectations for "good" and "bad". Speaking for myself, I go into social media with much different (i.e. lowered) standards than I do for other media, because the energy of consumption/opportunity cost is so low. I couldn't stand consuming 10 bad books/movies for every good one, but for tweets it's no problem. And of course there are ways to increase the signal-noise ratio (trimming the list of users you follow), but I generally like the serendipity of seeing what people are randomly tweeting. I don't feel the pressure to consume my timeline feed more than just a few swipes. And I find the Twitter default non-chronological sort does a decent job of surfacing interesting content for me.

</comment><comment><USER36> I can't work out if I should flag these articles or not. They seem off topic and are almost invariably uninteresting and uninsightful. This one has the added flaw of being written in an obnoxious way.

Why are these articles so popular here?

</comment><comment><USER37> Why not balance the usage with moderation that works for you? I would always catch myself picking up the phone randomly and checking Facebook even if I didn't plan to. I decided this was bad and it was distracting me from experiencing the world and spending time with my family in the evening. So I removed FB from my phone. I check FB once or twice a day for a few minutes on my laptop during work and that's all. It works for me. I stay in touch with some friends and at the same time, I am not addicted to checking it over and over again on my phone throughout the day. Has anyone else tried the same?

<comment><USER38> I quit for a year. Then figured I'd just use facebook for the bits that work for me: local sales, peloton and fitness groups. My deal is no friends, not even my wife. No posting about me, just the group, just helping/commenting where it feels healthy for both me and the group.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I've always reflected on the idea of deleting my social media accounts, especially after studying media in University. The more I learn about social media, and other forms of media the more aware I am with regards to what I post and share online. At the same time, I have friends all across the globe and use social media to stay in contact with my friends. I have a question though, would you consider Whatsapp to be social media? Especially because users can share stories on the platform.

<comment><USER40> Don't think of it as "I have to quit all Social Media. What is the exact definition of Social Media so I include it in my quitting?"

If you think something you are doing is harmful, just stop doing it and don't worry if it counts as Social Media. It is highly personal and will be different for everyone. For some people their WhatsApp usage is a net negative and they should stop. For other people it might not be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I have a slightly similar experience - I got off all social media, felt good but not life-changing. My guess is this is due to not being an extremely addicted user in the first place.

<comment><USER42> Don't you consider HN social media?

<comment><USER43> Why would you? I see it as more like a news site with a comments section.

I don't consider those to be social media either.

<comment><USER44> Aren't we socializing right now?

<comment><USER45> We have different definitions of socializing. Commenting on a piece of news or opinions to enhance our thinking and gain knowledge/motivation/ideas, I don't call that socializing. I haven't made any connections through this platform and if I don't check the HNews for a week, I don't feel sad or missing anyone. But that's me. Someone else may be more (in)vested in here and consider HN as an integral part of their social life. I won't judge them.

<comment><USER46> I suppose there's a subtle viewpoint difference. You see yourself "commenting on a piece of news". I (and presumably GP) see you socializing with the GP, the way you could casually socialize with a stranger on a bus stop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> While social media impact on mental health is important, I have to confess it's mostly self inflicted.

Once I realized the unfollow/mute button was there (not knowing it was, realizing it was there), it was a no-brainer to just unfollow toxic people.

And while there's FOMO, sorry, don't turn your social posts into a political propaganda piece/disgrace curating panel and I wouldn't have muted you

Follow the right people and it will be a much more smoother experience.

</comment><comment><USER48> I don't get that people want notifications for basic stuff. I always turn off notifications and only leave the really important ones. Also no blinking lights or sounds or vibrations, I check my phone often enough and if it is really important those people can call me. Then social media is just a thing to scroll through while on the toilet .

</comment><comment><USER49> I had Myspace for a short period of time and hated it. When Facebook came out I had it for about 2 weeks before deleting it, hated it as well. Even back then people would love to get in stupid arguments for stupid reasons and display a fabricated life. I've always felt like the weird one for not being into these forms of social media.

</comment><comment><USER50> According to Hinduism, we are all here in this world because our jiva (souls) want to be the enjoyer, so we get the opporunity to enjoy. Hence the dopamine, on anything, video games, cigs, social media etc. However self realisation is when we realise we are but a tiny spec and not the true enjoyer at all.

</comment><comment><USER51> I've never had any issues with social media, and they key is making sure your feeds are pleasent. I make sure that the people I follow on twitter are people I like and people who post nice things, like fan art of franchises I like or jokes. I never follow people who post stuff about politics.

</comment><comment><USER52> I stopped posting pictures to social media since I realized I was just using it to share them with friends and family. Instead, I just send them to group chats or people individually. It feels a lot more personal that way.

</comment><comment><USER53> I mostly use social media to follow artists and DJs I like. It's my prime source of finding new music and almost everything I see is relevant. I can never relate to these posts and I feel like I'm in total minority.

<comment><USER54> Very similar experience here, plus I find that Facebook is good at suggesting and planning events, seeing who's going. Pretty much the only useful function for me. I follow a bunch of music venues and galleries and occasionally invite FB friends to attend if there's anything interesting. Works just brilliant.

Twitter is more for following music makers, labels and things like Boiler Room. Just for a daily doze of music and music news. I guess that's another form of addiction though...

Everything else, I just don't understand what people are complaining about and why it would require such an effort to quit. Don't like what you see, or don't find it useful? Just unfollow!

<comment><USER55> Guess I'm also in this boat. Facebook is my main way of keeping track of gigs in and around town.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Some people scroll social media, some watch the Khardashians, Some play World of Warcraft, and some smoke cigarettes

Most of the people are addicted to something and it might not be the worst thing in the world if you somehow keep it balanced

<comment><USER57> Just because you spend a large amount of time on something that doesn't mean you're addicted to it. We shouldn't really throw that around willy-nilly. If your hobby isn't detrimental to your life, you're fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> forget social network, join a local group that do whatever is nice for neighbors or the area

it's probably widely healthier on every metrics

<comment><USER58> Many local groups use Facebook to organize/communicate though.

Via private groups: our local Atari group does and we similarly have one for regional vintage computer gatherings, my Church does, one of my Lodges does, one of my gyms does and I know of several others in the area that do.

Via pages/events: some local tattoo shops that regularly have events, several local venues, numerous gyms and their various strength competitions will have all communication/announcements through an event page associated with the page of the gym hosting the event, etc.

It's effective because people know to go check Facebook for an update about the group/event, you don't have to worry about an email ending up in a spam filter or someone not seeing a flyer posted, you can post real-time updates like when our meeting place for the local Atari group was closed due to the weather instead of needing to text 2 dozen people, or when snow/ice necessitates a Church event being cancelled or when there are storms in the area and we can post what members need help.

<comment><USER3> Then cut facebook usage as a tool too. #radical

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> How trendy. Next up hipster PDA making a comeback?

</comment><comment><USER60> Another "I quit social media" post? Haven't we had enough of this? How are these interesting?

<comment><USER61> All of them are about how awesome life is after quitting. This one is not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> the good side about social media is you can totally ignore it, cigarettes on the other side it's not easy as soon as you're among other people

<comment> Funes- Well, social media, and smartphones in general, make people around you ignore their immediate environment--including you--, so there's that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> That Joe Rogan video linked in the article has some _super_ questionable statistics and misleading graphs (which are then described badly for the podcast listeners leaving out "details" such as "there are only three data points but they still drew a line through them").

Not that the thing they're talking about might not be a real effect, but holy hell

<comment> blow-jogan Joe Rogan is fantastically meat headed about so many things, but really he's a jack of all trades, master of none, and he majors in cardio kickboxing.

The thing is, he often operates pretty engaging interviews, and the Murray Gell-Mann amnesia is in full effect for all of them. He's basically talk radio, and despite the subject matter, he refrains from sophomoric shock jock goofing off, unlike Howard Stern.

He is willing to meet most guests in the middle, and he's got the gift of gab, but infrequently waxing blow hard, with a few exceptions. Most notably: gender identity politics. But other than that, he's plays pretty fair with everyone across the political spectrum (he's had more than a few gay/lesbian gender bending guests on), even if head count favors hypermasculine tropes, and satellite ideologies.

But while having serious pop-science guests on the show, fringe UFO theories are bread and butter among pro-wrestling enthusiasts that enjoy the art of kayfabe. And if you think it's all in good fun, hey that's fine, but Joe Rogan certainly seems to eat up junk science all the time.

His recent show with Bob Lazar, discussing Area 51 was filled with "what-if" tales of anti-gravity and synthetic Element 115, which was futuristic when it emerged in the 1980's but hasn't withstood the test of time. He talks of cyclotrons shooting anti-matter at government synthetsized Moscovium fuel pellets to produce free energy and, then by turns, anti-gravity, concluding in time travel and teleportation. Joe just gobbles it up like a wide-eyed Joe The Plumber, and the rest of the bullshit artistry piles up. Now, faster than light travel across megaparsecs is an open, probable reality, and so too, alien races from Zeta Reticuli. The _Grays_ are really androids. They're at war with The Reptilians, which is why an asteroid killed the dinosaurs. Riiiiight...

But it's all faces and heels in an MMA match, nothing more. Unless you're not in on the joke.

Most people don't grok particle physics enough to be dismissive of the premise of magical (or rather, unstable) element 115. They don't get that it's just another blob of the usual nucleons that we're all so familiar with, no free gravity, no free lunch. That lights in the sky do not, a spaceship, make. Oh well...

<comment><USER64> There's no question that Rogan's style is to make every interview as "warm" as possible, rarely challenging any guest on any extraordinary claim.

There's also an argument to be made about his "platforming" of arguable kooks and so on, though it's clearly preferable to entertain unconventional ideas than to dismiss them out of hand, the cumulative payoff of an unconventional idea being so very great.

Flying saucers are always good entertainment, though not good enough to paper over the fact that half of that Bob Lazar "documentary" was footage of a tattooed guy shouting into his smartphone for the benefit of like three different GoPros.

The open secret of physics is that nobody really knows WTF is going on. Particle theory is obviously a rough approximation, and string theory and quantum theory have been effectively stalled for long enough that it's increasingly apparent that the complexity of the Universe has more moving parts than the working memory of the human brain. Humility is called for. "We know" ... yeah, okay.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Malboro red long or die

<comment><USER66> You mean Marlboro Red Long _and_ die?

<comment><USER65> I smoke 'cause I'm hoping for an Early death And I need to cling to something

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> I wonder if the endless edit-compile-run and "see if it works" cycle is as addictive and harmful as social media. At least with social media I'm interacting with other people.

<comment><USER68> It probably isn't, given that social media is intentionally designed to be addictive, while tinkering with things (code in your case) isn't.

<comment><USER67> I was thinking, perhaps it helps to make the edit-compile-run cycle as long as possible.

E.g. coding until 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and only then running code and testing.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Braains.io – HTML5 Zombie MMO - <AUTHOR> http://www.braains.io <comment><AUTHOR> Any feedback will be appreciated!

</comment><comment><USER2> you're a spammer but this game is fun

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks bra. hustler's gotta hustle</comment></comment>


The Screw-Me Scenario - <AUTHOR> http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2009/05/10/the_screwme_scenario.html

<comment><USER2> This doesn't give cookbook answers to difficult presentation situations, but was helpful to me in giving me some ways to prepare myself for the ugly possibilities... which can be worth a lot.

Keeping your cool and your wits about you is inherent to his recommendations... and that there's no substitute for experience to help with that.</comment>


Scuttlebot peer-to-peer log store - <AUTHOR> https://scuttlebot.io/ <comment><USER2> I think the more relevant link is [https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/](https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/) which is more about the use of it and thinking behind it than just dumping you in the core docs... I find it good to know if i should care before i start dissecting the guts of an API.

<comment><USER3> What's the difference between scuttlebutt and scuttlebot?

From the repo…

> There are already several applications built on scuttlebot, one of the best > ways to learn about secure-scuttlebutt is to poke around in these > applications.

I'm very confused.

<comment><USER4> Scuttlebutt is the protocol. Scuttlebot is a nodejs library that has implemented the protocol.

You can use the scuttlebot library to build peer to peer apps.

I looked into it a while back, it seems like a cool technology. Happy to try and answer any questions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I ended up here: [https://ipfs.io/blog/25-pubsub/](https://ipfs.io/blog/25-pubsub/) after reading up on scuttlebutt (again). They've implemented a pubsub mechanism on IPFS, which would (neatly) handle the data distribution challenge of SSB, and largely be compatible with SSB's ethos. They don't have a way to make it so only certain people can publish, but that's a technically surmountable challenge (either filter out invalidly signed publications now, or wait for them to have their solution in place).

Pairing these two approaches, SSB could make a neat application on top of the IPFS pubsub infrastructure (with some work)

</comment><comment><USER6> nice. Kappa Architecture mentioned ! :) -> [https://github.com/ssbc/scuttlebot](https://github.com/ssbc/scuttlebot)

</comment><comment><USER7> I long for the day where we no longer need a server at all.</comment>


Gentrification Spreads an Upheaval in San Francisco's Mission District - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/23/us/high-rents-elbow-latinos-from-san-franciscos-mission-district.html <comment><USER2> I wish they had a reasonable argument that benefitted everyone. They want the owners of properties not to be able to set the rent. But my family had an apartment building in NJ that unfortunately, due to laws, we couldn't raise the rent more than a set amount per year. Soon there was just no way to even pay for maintenance when the roof leaked and things like that and it had to be shutdown.

So giving these people what they want, the ability to force owners not to raise rent, just does not benefit anyone in the end.

She runs a chile shop, how would she feel if protestors were sitting in front of city hall demanding she can only charge ten cents per bowl of chile? Sure the protestors love the idea of nearly free food, but that is just going to kill the business, not give them nearly free food forever.

<comment><USER3> And that is the problem in a nutshell. Price fixing a single thing (in this case rents) means the market moves without those prices changing and that results in huge imbalances.

Now if the NJ government funded a fixed rate building maintenance team you're family could use the price appropriate maintenance team to keep the building in repair, of course they could not pay them market wages (that is why maintenance costs more) so the people working for the maintenance group would have to go to the state run stores where they could get their fixed priced foodstuffs. Of course the manufacturers selling to that store would need fixed price ingredients which you would get from state run farms selling their crops at a set price.

It is a silly ad nauseum sort of response but the kernel is accurate, you cannot successfully control one aspect of prices without somebody getting disadvantaged. Since you want more housing, the answer is to let people build more market rate housing, not to control rents.

<comment><USER4> _Since you want more housing..._

Trouble is what people _really_ want is for nothing at all to change. Prices stay flat, no new housing is built, nobody gets evicted, no new people come to town.

Sadly, since they want to have their cake and to eat it too, nobody seems to be approaching it from the POV of:

 _We are up against an inexorable force of change; how do we channel that change in a way that is most acceptable?_

Instead they demand the impossible and lose all control of where that inexorable force is going to take them.

<comment><USER5> I know us programers have a proclivity towards binary thinking, but these people aren't arguing for a world without any change, just a way to decrease the volatility of a housing market that fluctuates beyond human scale.

Humans are big, blundering slow moving beasts at the top of the food chain. It takes us years to settle in to new homes and communities and find our footings. Having rents double over just a few years is just too much for most people to handle.

Call it "rent stabilization", not "rent control" and it makes more sense. The goal is to slow the rates of change and make sure things are happening at human scale. Real estate, contract law and marketplaces are all human constructions and we shouldn't let them get the best of us.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _Luxury condominiums, organic ice cream stores, cafes that serve soy lattes and chocolate shops that offer samples from Ecuador and Madagascar are rapidly replacing 99-cent stores, bodegas and rent-controlled apartments in the Mission District_

It's a minor tragedy to set up the conflict this way. "Largely useless and hedonistic shops replacing stores that actually matter! How long can the city tolerate these too-wealthy, dandy scum?!"

Certainly, if the stores are being replaced, that's a function of property- owners' decisions to change tenants, is it not? Why are we blaming financially-successful technologists for actions taken by greedy land-owners? Don't you think these "gentrifiers" would be happy to pay the same amount that the "natives" have been paying for so long?

The property-owners are extracting as much from the world as they can, because they have a monopoly on the land/property and nobody except maybe the government can argue with them. They were taking as much as they could from you before, and now they're taking as much as they can from the wealthier people moving in. This is capitalism: they've earned their right to set the price for their property by buying it/building it/inheriting it before you did.

What options do we have, if we want this to change? Let's not pit the victims against each other.

<comment><USER7> imho the landlords shouldn't shoulder the blame either. Regional wealth in general seems to lead to a surplus of culture consumers and a deficit of culture creators, for a variety of structural reasons.

it's funny, because we conflate two sides of gentrification that are actually separate: 1) the harsh reality we impose on oppressed communities of people living in poverty, and 2) the loss of artistic culture-creators from a neighborhood that they are living in because society doesn't know how to reward those who create culture.

Both the marginalized and creative artistic class share a problem, and so have reason for solidarity, but they're not necessarily tightly coupled in all possible societies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > _luxury condominiums .... are rapidly replacing ... rent-controlled > apartments in the Mission District_

Anyone who comments on this subject should disclose if they hold rent- controlled apartment. It is a huge conflict of interest. I know from my own country, how journalists and politicians will jump through hoops to keep it.

Also article tries to create unfair image of new comers. If I would move to SF, I would probably shop in a dollar store as well, since I have children.

</comment><comment><USER9> It's ironic ... The NIMBY's didn't want the BART to go through their neighborhoods, but having two stops in Mission is part of why it's so attractive now.

<comment><USER10> So they were right? Unless they wanted to sell.

<comment><USER9> No. The concern is that it makes it easier for the wrong type of people to get there ... from Oakland, etc.

<comment><USER11> My understanding of the NIMBY thing is it's either: A) keep everything the way it is so that things don't change for me or B) keep everything the way it is so that my home value goes up. The arguments you use to enact a NIMBY strategy are not really important.

So type A NIMBYs were "right" in that they didn't want BART to go through their neighborhood because it would case the neighborhood to change, and lo and behold it did. Type B NIMBYs were "wrong" if they argued against BART because it had a positive effect on their home values.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There is clearly a problem with the rapid rise in inequality and the tensions gentrification create within a community like The Mission District, but what's the solution? Have there been successful efforts elsewhere that have helped moderate the negative effects of such rapid changes?

<comment><USER4> Can there be a solution? I don't really think so. More people want to live there than the area can fit. Someone has to lose out. The newcomers think they should get to live there because they have a lot of money to pay for scarce resource. The incumbents think they should get to live there because they were there first. Right or wrong, one group loses.

<comment><USER13> Here's a politically infeasible solution: Make the pie bigger. People want to live in San Francisco because Silicon Valley is an awful alternative. What are some concrete steps we could take to increase the stock of housing?

* Repeal Prop 13. While Prop 13 stands, cities have a huge interest in combating new residential development because it'll erode the tax base. It serves as a tax on newcomers and discourages people from moving and downsizing.

* Prohibit rent control, it's the surest way to destroy housing stock short of bombing.

* Strip local zoning authority from municipalities. Los Altos Hills has a 1 acre lot requirement and prohibits multi-family construction. Menlo Park has a 30' height limit and a 15' curb setback requirement.

* Institute land value tax. It's inexcusable that 24th Street is surrounded with two-story construction. Compare it with Central Square in Cambridge: [https://email@example.com,-71.103326,3a,75y,273...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-71.103326,3a,75y,273.3h,96.9t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5En2leDaMgVcLGj9Lt2POQ!2e0)

<comment><USER4> _People want to live in San Francisco because Silicon Valley is an awful alternative._

Maybe that's the answer right there. San Francisco doesn't need to fix itself if Silicon Valley can be made attractive, and Silicon Valley has a lot more space than San Fran.

<comment><USER14> the only construction i see is in redwood city. the rest refuse to change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The statistic that "29% of rental inventory is being leased on AirBnB" is absurd. They're calculating it on the number of rentals that just happen to be unoccupied/available right now which makes no sense at all as a statistic.</comment>


Ask HN: If you're funded by the military, how do you tell people? - <AUTHOR> I am a graduate student funded on a DoD grant. Not weapon's development, or anything classified, but I often find in conversation that once "I work at the base" comes up, I have to scramble and explain that I don't work on anything weapons dev related. Obviously, I bear some responsibility by choosing this field, but I often get to the point where I start to feel guilty funded by uncle sam. I'm curious if anyone else in similar places ever deals with this. <comment><USER2> Please don't feel guilty. Voting your conscience is fine, protesting a war is fine, but shaming people who work for the DOD is childish. Americans are risking their lives all over the world for our country. If you're ashamed to help your fellow countrymen survive, to do their jobs better, and to return home to their families, that's not good.

I spent over a decade in the military. I have issues with the military industrial complex. I have issues with a lot of the leadership. But I respect the people who need the tools you work on and wouldn't want to see their lives put in jeopardy. I can understand not wanting to spend your whole life in the DOD world. If you want to focus on other things, move industries, I did, but don't feel ashamed while you're in and don't let others make you feel ashamed either. I respect the job you're doing. Thank you.

<comment><USER3> They're not risking their lives for your country, they're doing it so that american corporations can make more profit.

I highly recommend you read "war is a racket" written by General Smedley Butlers.

I also want to point out that I don't blame anyone who's working for the US military, unless they're like Dick Cheney or something, I understand that people need to make a living, and that a lot might even buy into the big ol' patriotic lie.

<comment><USER2> I've read War is a Racket. It's a great piece and raises issues we all should think about. I also read A Bright Shining Lie, About Face, The Best and The Brightest and other books critical of the military [1, 2, 3]. Like I said in my previous comment, I have many issues with the military, but I'm also concerned when the elite of society no longer feel the need to serve, that makes me think of the Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire [4]. War sucks, but we all need to play our part, either in support or protest, but just pretending like it doesn't exists and going about our day is the worst of both worlds.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Bright_Shining_Lie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Bright_Shining_Lie) [2] [https://www.amazon.com/About-Face-Odyssey-American- Warrior/d...](https://www.amazon.com/About-Face-Odyssey-American- Warrior/dp/0671695347) [3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_and_the_Brightest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_and_the_Brightest) [4] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_the_Decline_and...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> >I bear some responsibility by choosing this field

You bear 100% of the responsibility for accepting a DoD grant. You can't absolve yourself of some nebulous amount of responsibility because of who's writing the check.

<comment><USER5> I don't think that's entirely fair. Graduate students are hardly in a position to refuse a funding source. That's up to the primary investigator and even those only have the luxury if they are able to secure other sources of funding. Unless you're saying you would quit your graduate studies or start over and find another supervisor after your lab becomes DoD funded.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> You know, I'd rather that tax payer dollars go towards something good when it comes to research, rather than wasted on whatever else the government decides to waste it on. And while I don't know all the specifics of where the American tax payer dollars are going, I'm pretty sure they aren't always going to where they are needed or provide the value of what is supposed. Don't feel too guilty. You are probably given funding which amounts to less than 1% of all the funding available. I would hope you are contributing towards something that is for the betterment of humanity as a whole.

You know... we're all waiting patiently for that Star Trek future that awaits... oh and some semblance of world peace, that too ;)

</comment><comment><USER7> if you dont want to say that you work for the military, just say what youre working on.

Instead of "I'm working on stealth technology for unmanned carpet bombers" say "I work on next gen nanomaterials that can bend a broad range of wavelengths around objects - to make them invisible - like the invisibility cloak in harry potter".

Whatever. Frame your reality the way you want it to appear. You're not testifying before a court. Leave the things you dont want to say out.

Just make it sound exciting. Amuse yourself. Don't be apologetic.

</comment><comment><USER8> If you are not ashamed of your DoD connection, why do you feel obliged to state that you are not involved in weapon's development ?

If you are ashamed of your DoD connection, what have you done about getting alternate funding ?

</comment><comment><USER9> Don't feel guilty, the US underfunds basic research as is, if you happen to capture some funding through the DoD route, all it means is that some of the vast DoD funding had a better chance to affect the general good on a practical basis.

On the other hand, the topic you're researching may have an ethical component in terms of its impact in the world. But identification and evaluation of that is completely independent of your funding source. You could be funded completely privately and still need to examine ethics issues.

</comment><comment><USER10> I wouldn't feel this way. I previously worked for the DoD (AFRL) doing research. Since everything is funded by grants, I personally never experienced people making the leap from being funded by the DoD to doing weapons development. There are tons of defense contractors out there and many make pretty benign stuff like inventory management software.

</comment><comment><USER11> People are probably skeptical that the Department of Death would fund anything they don't intend to weaponize.

</comment><comment><USER12> "I'm a DoD contractor"

As for feeling guilty, why? Are they doing bad things with your work?

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't have any such experience. Nearly every nation has a military force, what's the big deal?</comment>


Why we're creating a new video format for code - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/scrimba/why-were-creating-a-new-video-format-for-code-9f674f8dcc46 <comment><USER2> Why not, and here's a thought, just use text?

There's no need for voice or music if you just write out the tutorial. Not everyone needs to be a video star.

<comment><USER3> People learn in different ways. Some prefer text, others prefer videos.

Just look at the all the big sites for learning how to code: Pluralsight, Udemy, Lynda, Coursera, Udacity. They're all based around video. So there's definitely a need for audio visual explanations.

Totally agree that a lot of people prefer text. But not all.</comment></comment>


Mark Suster: uBeam has detailed plans for four product generations through 2019 - <AUTHOR> https://bothsidesofthetable.com/what-is-it-like-to-wake-up-and-have-the-press-ready-to-torpedo-your-business-351f27ca6d67#.l8ajo9bd2 <comment><USER2> Interesting that he doesn't even try for a refutation on technical merit, he just repeats the credentials of the team members, and how hard working they all are.

<comment><USER3> He doesn't understand the tech, and uBeam doesn't have any technical refutation to give.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Am I reading this wrong or is his defense essentially: "This person is smart and has told me they could do this thing, so i funded it. If it ends up not being possible, I'd fund them again because they are smart and driven".

So you want to fund people who are essentially scamming you? Is being a smart and driven huckster better than being a smart and driven person who also doesn't need to make things up.</comment>


Results of Bruce Schneier's experiment in trust - <AUTHOR> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/01/experimental_re.html <comment><USER2> >What is certain is that a great majority of people decided not to uphold their end of the bargain.

Phrased that way, the statement is absolutely incorrect. What is very likely is that a great majority _won't_ uphold their end of the bargain. What is also very likely is that few if any of those made a _decision_ not to uphold their end of the bargain.

Anybody who had that intention from the outset would have simply torrented the book. Anybody who didn't have that intention from the outset is unlikely to switch intentions. This is known as "consistency bias".

But what _does_ happen is that people make commitments and then forget about them if the stakes are low. That is almost certainly what has happened in virtually every case of noncompliance in Schneier's experiment. I have a lot of respect for Schneier and his security and cryptography work. But his science fu is revealed in this article to be rather weak, as is his understanding of human psychology.

<comment><USER3> This is something I've been thinking about a bit lately, the difference between 'intent' to renege, vs 'just happened' to renege on a previous agreement. I had a manager once who well tell people in all earnestly that he was going to work to get them promoted, but when that didn't happen the question became did he lie? did he do the work and not succeed? Could he have even succeeded ? The person who stuck around waiting for the promotion feels completely let down and lied to, regardless.

So how do we make conditional commitments? Sometimes it annoys people when I won't answer yes or no to a commitment but instead say "I'll do my best." When pressed I can articulate the various uncertainties between now and the execution of the commitment that could derail it, but they are just that uncertain. Sometimes people say "Just say yes, and if something comes up let me know." I've done this in the past and had people accuse me of 'making excuses' which of course I feel is unfair :-).

There is certainly an element of 'value' here in that the consequence of not doing something has a cost and if the cost is small sometimes less effort is made in the follow through. If money is involved that is generally a more explicit definition of cost. But if someone says, "Hey my son Jimmy is on the special team at this weekend's High School football game, can you come by and cheer him on?" what is the cost of being unable to do that? Sometimes small (there are lots of people at the game) and sometimes large (this person really wanted to see you validate their support of their child's athletic activities) and sometimes in the middle.

Schneir positioned the transaction into the 'trust' category, you say you will do something and I trust that you will do it. The consequence of you not doing it is a loss of trust on my part. But the trust currency isn't previously established. Clearly my kids have a vested interest in keeping my trust level high because I can restrict access to the vehicles, but Bruce doesn't know me, and if he trusts me more or trusts me less do I care? Do I care $29 worth? Or more importantly do I care 'marginal value of Bruce's book minus $11' worth?

As you can read its something I wonder about but have few really solid lines of reasoning about. A lot of questions, a lot of speculation about the intrinsic forces in the 'trust market' and no clear experimental path.

<comment><USER4> You raise a really interesting point here, and it seems there may be an opportunism vs principles dynamic at play.

Without debating the orthogonality of that assumption, (because it really won't change the overall point), let me begin by saying, most if not all humans I've encountered, have varying levels of principles and opportunism, but we are not made equal (CF fallacy of gray).

>I won't answer yes or no to a commitment but instead say "I'll do my best."

I am one of those, that have traditionally found that statement slightly annoying, especially in a business context. It just seems slippery. What does "doing your 'best' mean? Are you truly going to do your _very_ best and drop everything to fulfill the request? I think not. Hence the precision one is aiming for, does not seem like an improvement on the original brevity of the yes/no.

Furthermore it could give one an opportunity to flake and blame the environment, versus sticking to one's word.

<comment><USER3> _"I am one of those that have traditionally found that annoying, especially in a business context. I seems slippery. What does "doing you 'best' mean? Are you truly going to do your very best and drop everything to fulfill the request? I think not. Hence the precision one is aiming for, does not seem like an improvement on the original brevity of the yes/no."_

I completely understand this response, I actually really do mean I will do everything I possibly can to meet this obligation, but also recognize my commitment is not equivalent to other commitments by people who might use the same phrase.

I find myself stuck in this dilemma:

1) I can say "no" which cuts off the conversation and makes me appear unsupportive.

2) I can say "No, I don't think I will be able to." Which at least invites the requestor to inquire further.

3) I can say "I'll do my best" which accurately conveys my personal intent but sounds weak to the recipient.

4) I can say "Sure, I can probably do that" where I signal that my intent is yes but I can see issues which may interfere with my execution.

5) I can say "Sure" and 'bet on the come' as they say in Vegas which means that if things outside of my control happen in the best possible way I'll be able to fulfill the obligation, and if they don't I'll fail at filling the obligation and let you down.

I have observed that option 5 is the normal usage. It results in experiences like the one Bruce had where there are lots of commitments and not necessarily a lot of follow through. And at low "value" in terms of the commitment/cost the discussion of how much trust is impacted is interesting.

I've also observed that people in management that always say "yes" even if they only deliver a smaller percentage of the time on their commitments are more successful (in terms of raises, promotions etc) than people who actually only commit to things they actually think they can do[1]. So as a success strategy always saying yes, regardless of your understanding seems like a winning strategy. I personally can't do that though, I'm sure it has hindered my career :-).

[1] There is also a very real thing that you can often do more than you think you can, so sometimes over-comitting gets you to a higher level of efficiency. It still annoys me when someone signs up to do something that I know for a fact they won't be able to deliver, and they get full credit for the signup anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> He mailed the books in November, then it was Christmas, and he's complaining that there are not enough reviews on 11 January? That's not an exercise in trust, that's an exercise in priorities! Spend time with family/relax, or earn 5 bucks for a book review?

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure about the details, either. "Please review my book" is a lot more nebulous than "please post a review to amazon using your account, and email me the link to this address." 10% is probably an upper bound on how many people review their purchases on Amazon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> His initial request was weak, so compliance was weak. It didn't feel like much of a commitment. ("My only request is that...")

There's lot of research into getting people to make and fulfill commitments.

If for example he had made everyone write out "I promise to write a review of this book within two months of receiving it and post said review online", compliance would have been much higher. If they had been required to post that promise publicly to their friends when they made it, compliance would have been higher still.

<comment><USER8> I agree. When I read this article I was shocked at the low compliance, but when I read the original offer... it didn't really seem like an "agreement" at all.

>My only request is that, after you read the book, you post a review about it somewhere. On your blog, on Amazon, on -- I suppose -- Twitter. Just let people know about it.

The final sentence reduces it to a "make sure you tell your friends about us", which one usually responds "Ok. I will" but doesn't really plan to do so.

<comment><USER9> The other odd thing about this particular case is that the book's topic seems to include this sort of scenario. Maybe people did read the book with the intention of writing a review, and started wondering if this was some sort of twisted test. E.g. "If I read the book, and follow through with the agreement, will I be tallied among a group of weak individuals?" It seems that if you want to be able to draw conclusions about a social experiment like this, don't screw up the results by introducing a variable (the contents of the book itself) that could alter the results.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In the comments one of the recipients notes that he only received the book in late November. This was just as people were getting into the busy holiday season. He really can't come to any conclusions yet as 6 weeks there has not been enough time for people to write their reviews. He acknowledges this, but discards it, and concludes in essence that most people are thieves who obtained the book under false pretenses. In a year he could make that case, and even then it would only be reasonable if he sent out a few reminders.

I am glad to see though that he did publish lists of the reviews he did find so that anyone whose review was overlooked has a chance to respond.

Unfortunately, his post there ruins the experiment.

I did not participate in the experiment but if I had and was about to go live with my review and then suddenly was publicly accused of being a thief, I would not go forward with an ordinary review publication since it would seem at that point to be trying to wiggle out of something. Instead I would write a blistering criticism of his methodology.

The claims and article are so shoddy in fact that it damages my opinion of his work overall.

I sometimes write book reviews on my blog. I don't accept free or discounted books, it's just books I've read. I have quite a backlog. Right now I have a stack of 30 books that I will read. Some of these I won't get to for a couple years. Not every one of them will merit a review. It's not reasonable for an author to expect amateur reviewers will get to their book within a few weeks of receiving it, especially when there is no stated deadline.

Additional thoughts:

* Reading further through the comments on his blog, in the first few comments I found 15 people who mention they are in the process of reading it, or who have not gotten to it yet but plan to. There were more; I just stopped counting at 15. There are no comments (among those first ones at least) from people gloating that they got away with an unwarranted discount. Several fulfill their obligation inline by posting their review thoughts right there in his blog.

* It should also be mentioned also that these days even hardcover books in modest quantity are very inexpensive to print when there's no color plates, so the $11 paid almost certainly ensured that money was not lost on the deal as far as printing and shipping costs goes.

* Deep down in the comments Scheiner responds to the comments and it seems he realizes he screwed up with his post and drastically underestimated the number of people who take a while to get around to and complete reading a book.

<comment><USER11> > concludes in essence that most people are thieves

I think that's a little more than he concludes. He is always thoughtful, which is a good reason to read him, and he takes pains to say at the end he wasn't complaining only noting. (I don't know if you posted before he added that.)

If I can give my $0.02, coming from my perspective as having worked on a free archive for a long time. My personal experience with giving to people "out there" is that you can expect little return, beyond personal gratification. However, on reflecting on my experience, I've decided that I can't say that the people are freeloaders; probably most of them coach little league, or help out in meals on wheels, or shovel the walk of the old lady down the street. But everybody is very busy and while they sincerely intend to be part of the pay-it-forward group, on any one thing the return rate is just low. Myself, I do the same stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This seems more like an exercise in advertising than in trust. And with a 9% response rate, it just might be a successful one, if the reviews generate enough sales.

</comment><comment><USER13> Perhaps a lot of people haven't read it yet. Especially if it is a special offer, the likelihood for the book to go into the "want to read eventually" pile is quite high.

</comment><comment><USER14> Check out this wonderful read in a similar tho more interesting vein: "What the bagel man saw", the economic and psychological takeaways of a former economist turned honor-system-based bagel salesman [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/06/magazine/06BAGEL.html?page...](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/06/magazine/06BAGEL.html?pagewanted=all)

</comment><comment><USER15> WTF Who necessarily reads books within 4 months of buying? I have many, many bought and borrowed books 3+ years old in my to read pile.

I think this is Bruce Schneier's way off the mark, even inappropriately so. His book culture is not everyone else's and he shouldn't by default expect that from them.

Paying $11 for a book and then having to do a review is not an amazing deal for the buyer. It's just a deal. If no time line was specified in the deal people have every right to read the book when it suits them. They didn't save $5-$15 to get a chore.

For me that would have been a within a year estimate.

</comment><comment><USER16> Why is this an experiment in trust? Seems like trust wasn't isolated. Reading is hard enough, and even Schneier admits writing can be hard.</comment>


How do you rate the performance of engineers? - <AUTHOR>

My current job is to manage an IT engineering department at a growing international airport. Our responsibility ranges from anything like designing a simple network to building datacenters, establishing best practices and standards and architecting complicated high availability systems.
The activities the engineers have to undertake are also broad, from drawing up standards for the cabling infrastructure to the designing various systems but also reviewing consultant designs and verifying contractor implementations.
While I realise the activities are broad and diverse all of them are performed by a relatively small team of people so each of them get involved in pretty much all areas.
In order to be able to monitor the progress, the workload and to report to upper management I am trying to work out a [KPI] system that can give an accurate representation of each engineer's load and progress, in numbers.
I've read a bit on the subject and apparently support guys are measured against the number of calls resolved and developers in terms of volume and quality of code written but the work of this team is so diverse and the outputs so different that I am yet to find a model that is representative for it.
The model should produce some meaningful representation of the work performed but also of the quality of the work. Since there is quite a bit of creativity involved in the process the numbers should reflect an exceptionally good design that is submitted late vs. a mediocre effort submitted on time. Oh, and by the way, the system should also be easy to implement in order to allow engineers to evaluate themselves without too much overhead.
What would you recommend in this scenario? How should a work package be structured to allow for such a system?
Sometimes I am feeling that I am trying to establish KPIs for poem writers. It simply would not be fair to rate them by the number of poems written. <comment><USER2> <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000038.html></comment>


GAE (Google App Engine)+Spring MVC:how to solve the slow load jsp time issue - <AUTHOR> http://localstreamer.posterous.com/gae-google-app-engine-spring-mvc-how-to-solve

<comment><USER2> Always On would probably solve the slow startup issue better, but it's a premium feature.

[http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/adminconsole/instances...](http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/adminconsole/instances.html#Always_On)

<comment><AUTHOR> You right, but if you read the article the solution it is free and easy to try, simply update sdk to last version and use load-on-startup in web.xml . The warmup-requests-enabled feature makes the trick to speed up the application.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Seems interesting but the English is realllly hard to understand :(

"JSP page is first processed very slowly, even the most simple 'hello world' will be more outlay of your time to 300ms rendered view, adding a number of other taglib if so, the processing time to will be more long."

Huh?

<comment><USER4> What he means is that the first time a JSP page is loaded it will be compiled on-the-fly which can be quite slow.

However, if that's your problem then the solution is simply to precompile the page statically. This can be done using org.apache.jasper.JspC. This won't only accelerate first-time loading of the class dramatically, but also slightly improve subsequent load times because the JSP servlet won't have to check file modification times to see whether the JSP has been touched in the meantime.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is not only a jsp problem, read my blog article :-) the jsp compilation not solve the issue.</comment></comment></comment>