An aspirin a day keeps many cancers away, study suggests - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/10/30/aspirin-day-keeps-many-cancers-away-study-suggests/ <comment><USER2> I take aspirin protect, made by bayer. Grandad and dad had heart issues, so my dr started me a while ago on it as to curb the risks.

An aspirin a day will also make your nose bleed after a few weeks. Albeit not profusely but if you blow your nose, you will see blood.

take one every 3rd say. Unless its a very small dosage with delayed release.

Aspirin should not be messed with, make sure you eat before you take a pill, or itll tear a hole in your stomach. Ive made that mistake once a decade ago.

Please consult your doctor before grabbing off-the-counter aspirin.

<comment><USER3> > An aspirin a day will also make your nose bleed after a few weeks. Albeit > not profusely but if you blow your nose, you will see blood.

Should depend on dose and physiology: for low doses (below ~4g) the half life of aspirin is 2 to 4.5h depending on the person. If you saturate the metabolic pathway however the half-life shoots up to 15~30h.

> take one every 3rd say. Unless its a very small dosage with delayed release.

The study was done with _80mg_ aspirin daily (sometimes called "baby" aspirin). Standard adult dose around here is 500mg.

<comment><USER2> My experience is with 100mg delayed release over 10 years.

And jesus, 500mg? Holy crap

<comment><USER4> As far as I know, the over the counter 500mg dose is sold over here as a painkiller, it's certainly not meant for long term preventative use.

<comment><USER3> > the over the counter 500mg dose is sold over here as a painkiller, it's > certainly not meant for long term preventative use.

Most def', but if you ask for aspirin without specifying any further that's what you get (that's what I'm given every time anyway). I'm not sure you can even get 75~80mg, 100mg seems to be the lowest dose available (for long-term use after infarction & stuff, and for toddlers).

<comment><USER5> In the US and UK one can get ~80mg (75, 81) OTC, at any drug store / chemist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >If taking aspirin were without side-effects and completely risk free, it might make sense for everyone with heart disease, or just worried about it, to take it. But aspirin does have risks. Reducing blood's clotting potential can lead to hemorrhagic stroke (bleeding inside the brain). In the stomach, aspirin can cause everything from a feeling of mild heartburn to bleeding ulcers. Severe gastrointestinal bleeding can be deadly.

[https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/should-everyone- ta...](https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/should-everyone-take-an- aspirin-a-day)

<comment><USER7> Even _with_ the side effects and risks it might make sense for almost everyone who is aged 60 to take aspirin every day.

There is now good evidence [1] that if 10,000 people aged 60 took aspirin for 20 years there would be:

174 fewer deaths from cancer and heart attacks

24 more deaths from strokes, ulcers and gastric bleeds

So it seems that the benefits far outweigh the costs.

[1] [http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/08/06/aspirin-a...](http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/08/06/aspirin- and-cancer-not-quite-but-nearly/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Just an abstract. Limited or no peer review so be careful. Here's the text.

Background: Chemopreventive effect of aspirin on colorectal cancer (CRC) has been reported, but there are indications that effects of aspirin are not limited to the colon or rectum. The aim of this study is to evaluate the long- term use of low-dose aspirin at 80mg for other gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Method: A territory-wide dataset which includes all patients admitted to public hospitals of Hong Kong were used to extract a cohort between 2000 and 2004 with long-term use of aspirin and matched against non-aspirin users in 1:2 ratio. Further matching on survival time with duration of aspirin prescribed for at least 6 months was conducted to avoid immortal bias. Patients' outcomes were documented for up to 14 years until 2013. Changes in cancer incidences on colon/rectum, liver, oesophagus, pancreas and stomach were the primary outcomes. Cancer related mortalities were the secondary outcomes. Odds ratio (OR) was used to measure the cancer incidence, and Sub- distribution Hazard Ratio (SHR) for competing risk mortality was fitted to adjust for other cause-ofdeath. Results: A total of 618,884 subjects were included; 206,295 aspirin users with average aspirin prescribed for 7.7 years were matched with 412,589 non-aspirin users. The mean ages of patients in aspirin and non-aspirin group were 67.5 years and 67.6 years respectively. The median dose of aspirin prescribed was 80mg, and inter-quartile range was from 80 mg to 100 mg. A total of 18,500 (2.99%) cases of CRC, 9,433 (1.52%) of hepatic cancer, 2,658 (0.43%) of oesophageal cancer, 2,796 (0.45%) of pancreatic cancer, and 5,877 (0.95%) of gastric cancer were observed. Long term used of low-dose aspirin showed significant reduction on cancer incidences for CRC (OR:0.76, 95% CI:0.73-0.78), hepatic cancer (OR:0.53, 95% CI:0.51-0.56), oesophageal cancer (OR:0.53, 95% CI:0.49-0.59), pancreatic cancer (OR:0.66, 95% CI:0.60-0.71), and gastric cancer (OR:0.62, 95% CI:0.58-0.65). Long term used of low-dose aspirin also showed significant reduction on mortality from GI cancers (Table 1). Conclusion: Long-term use of low-dose aspirin, at 80mg, significantly reduced both incidence and mortality from colorectal, hepatic, oesophageal, pancreatic and gastric cancers.

<comment><USER9> It's not double blind. Aspirin takers might have other correlated behaviors which reduces cancer risks

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> In case you don't like pill popping, remember that many foods contain natural salicylates, including salicylic acid itself.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11493722](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11493722)

<comment> 52-6F-62 Great tidbit.

The advice always seems to come back to: "EAT YOUR DARK GREENS ALREADY!"

Spinach goes into my eggs every morning, and my poor girlfriend has suffered enough fresh salads with cucumber, broccoli and onion at my hands that she's come around to liking them — looking forward to them, and even _requesting_ them. My god.

Eat your spinach!

<comment><USER10> Yes! And just remember, spinach is very healthy for you so long as your calcium/magnesium situation is balanced and you're drinking enough water and are moderate with caffeine/alcohol!

Spinach will help your urinary tract do what it's designed to do, but it needs _your help_!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Aspirin is metabolised to salicylic acid (SA) in the body. SA is a plant hormone found in many common food plants. I wonder if some of the health benefit of a plant-heavy diet can come from the SA. Maybe we are adapted to a certain level of SA intake, and eating aspirin helps us fulfill our SA "requirement" ... and then some, a baby Aspirin gives us 10-100x as much SA as a day's worth of plant-based food.

<comment><USER12> SA is also the active ingredient in wart removal balms, so there's that. Bio is SUPER complicated and really can't be reduced to first principals outside of breathe, drink, eat.

<comment><USER13> Breath, drink, eat, sleep?

<comment><USER14> What, no code?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > [blah blah blah], study suggests

Nobody outside medical research should pay the slightest attention to to anything _a_ study _suggests_ , especially not if they're ignoring what _many_ studies _give strong evidence for_.

Nothing to see here.

<comment><USER16> I'm possibly misreading you here... But:

You do know that it's not literally a study walking up to some journalist, speaking the words "I suggest some Aspirin!", right?

...because you seem to put some rather misplaced importance on the exact phrase used to introduce the study.

<comment><USER15> Yes, I'm aware that studies do not converse with people.

When someone says a study "suggests" something, I understand them to mean that it gives very tentative evidence. Such evidence is frequently contradicted by other studies: see [https://www.sciencealert.com/images/art- apr-15/Medical_studi...](https://www.sciencealert.com/images/art- apr-15/Medical_studies-05.0.png), which another commenter has linked.

If one study suggests that eggplants may prevent heart disease, you can pretty much bet that another will suggest it causes it.

That's why I'm saying to ignore this. We would all do well to eat better and exercise more, suggestions that are well-supported by many studies. If we're not doing that, we're certainly wasting our time on uncertainties like this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The close to 40% reduction (for several types of cancer) is pretty dramatic. And the breadth of the study (600k patients) seems reasonable.

Is this really big news, or some skewed view of a study?

<comment><USER18> > Is this really big news, or some skewed view of a study?

Observational studies about the so-called benefits of aspirin come several times a year. But hey, why don't they put it in actual clinical trial instead, if they are SO confident it works so well?

<comment><USER19> Clinical trials for cancer prevention would mean 20-50 years no? That's a pretty big undertaking.

I mean you would need a control group and a real one, and then just wait ... for a long time

<comment><USER20> no. Cancer trials take a few years. You don't need to wait for everybody to get cancer, because small numbers of people get cancer stochastically every year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Or people who care enough to take an aspirin a day probably also take care of themselves better in other ways, which might be what keeps the cancer away?

<comment><USER22> What if they are hypochondriacs filled with anxiety and stress? -- feel like these people would definitely take an asprin a day out of fear.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> So why don't we all take acetylic acid? Because as all blood diluents it can have dramatic consequences - a hemorrhage. Also, if you have an accident, things can get quite complicated. That's why a doctor will prescribe acetylic acid only if the benefits outweigh the risks - which is not always easy to assess.

<comment><USER24> I take aspirin on a regular cadence and have tinnitus as a fun side effect. This is actually quite common [1] but you won't hear a doctor giving that warning. No pun intended.

[1] [http://www.arthritis.org/living-with- arthritis/treatments/me...](http://www.arthritis.org/living-with- arthritis/treatments/medication/drug-types/analgesics/pain-drugs-hearing-loss- men.php)

<comment><USER25> Some commmon drugs cause hearing loss (ototoxic), but this is rarely mentioned by doctors. I guess hearing isn't considered as important as sight.

<comment><USER24> In my case, hearing loss is less of a problem than closing off of the arteries. I'm going as far to experiment with off-label 2-hydroxypropyl-Beta- Cyclodextrin which can also cause hearing loss. My only point is that people should not take aspirin unless they have a medical need to do so that outweighs the risk of hearing loss.

<comment><USER26> But what dosage are you on? Say I use a pill cutter and take half a baby aspirin a day (40-50mg). Do I risk hearing loss?

<comment><USER25> There are papers on PubMed that can point you in the right direction on that; but I just wanted to point out that if you get a DNA test (23andme and others), you get tested for a mutation that makes stomach bleeding more likely if you take aspirin. So the answer to both may be "it depends on your genes."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Correlation or causation?

Interestingly, the cancers that are most lifestyle related (liver, lung) are the ones seemingly most affected by taking aspirin.

Perhaps those taking aspirin are simply taking better care of themselves?

<comment><USER28> There are meta-analyses of the RCTs for baby aspirin which also indicate reductions in all-cause mortality probably through its effect on cancer rates. I'd consider them much more important than this result which is ultimately just another correlational/observational result. Some of the studies I'm thinking of:

\- Rothwell et al 2012 "Short-term effects of daily aspirin on cancer incidence, mortality, and non-vascular death: analysis of the time course of risks and benefits in 51 randomised controlled trials" [http://www.istudymedicine.com/wp- content/uploads/aspirin.pdf](http://www.istudymedicine.com/wp- content/uploads/aspirin.pdf)

\- "Effect of daily aspirin on long-term risk of death due to cancer: analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials" [http://www.beppegrillo.it/immagini/Aspirin%20and%20death%20f...](http://www.beppegrillo.it/immagini/Aspirin%20and%20death%20from%20cancer%20\(Lancet%202010\).pdf)

\- "Aspirin for prophylactic use in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer: a systematic review and overview of reviews" [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0083409/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0083409/) , Sutcliffe et al 2013

\- Pignone et al 2013, "Effect of including cancer mortality on the cost- effectiveness of aspirin for primary prevention in men" [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3797356/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3797356/)

\- "Estimates of benefits and harms of prophylactic use of aspirin in the general population", Cuzick et al 2014 [http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/1/47.full](http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/1/47.full)

\- Cuzick et al 2015, [Estimates of benefits and harms of prophylactic use of aspirin in the general population" [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4269341/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4269341/))

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here are two more studies suggesting that aspirin reduces cancer [1] [2]. The second is from 2014 but is particularly compelling because it assessed whether the drop in cancer was worth the increased risk of stomache bleeding.

The head of that study said that taking aspirin "looks to be the most important thing we can do to reduce cancer after stopping smoking and reducing obesity, and will probably be much easier to implement"

[1] [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/aspirin-may- preve...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/aspirin-may-prevent- cancer-from-spreading-new-research-shows/)

[2] [http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/06/aspirin- could...](http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/06/aspirin-could- dramtically-cut-cancer-risk-say-scientists-biggest-study-yet)

</comment><comment><USER29> Unless you have strong preferences on the diseases you end up getting, isn't the important thing aspirin's effect on total all-causes morbidity/mortality?

</comment><comment><USER30> Cancer Research UK has great articles on taking aspirin both to prevent cancer [1], and to prevent the spread and recurrence of cancer [2]

Their tweets [3] today on the topic lay out the current situation pretty clearly

Quoting their tweets and blog post:

"Aspirin can help protect against bowel cancer, and possibly stomach, oesophageal and other cancer too"

"Aspirin also increases the risk of strokes and stomach bleeding"

"the benefits start building from age 50, so there's little to gain from taking it below that age"

[1] [http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/08/06/aspirin-a...](http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/08/06/aspirin- and-cancer-not-quite-but-nearly/)

[2] [http://about-cancer.cancerresearchuk.org/about- cancer/cancer...](http://about-cancer.cancerresearchuk.org/about- cancer/cancer-in-general/treatment/cancer-drugs/aspirin-and-secondary-cancer)

[3] [https://twitter.com/CR_UK/status/925323615360487425](https://twitter.com/CR_UK/status/925323615360487425)

<comment><USER7> I find the advice given by Cancer Research UK in your first link quite strange.

They seem to accept that if 1000 people aged 60 took aspirin for 20 years there would be:

17.4 fewer deaths from cancer and heart attacks

2.4 more deaths from strokes, ulcers and gastric bleeds

That's a net reduction of 15 deaths per 1000 people. Yet before they recommend that everyone aged 60 take aspirin, they want to know:

a) What age should people start, and stop, taking aspirin?

b) What dose should they take?

c) What are the factors that should rule someone out from taking aspirin, and how should we test for them?

Here are my answers to Cancer Research UK:

a) People whose age would put them within the study cohort. From my reading this is at least people aged 60 for 20 years

b) They should take the dose that was looked at in the study

c) We don't know what factors should rule someone out, but until we do know we should recommend aspirin to everyone who would have been within the cohort study.

There are probably around 10 million people aged 55-65 in the UK. 15 extra deaths per 1000 people means an extra 150,000 deaths over 20 years.

So the cost of waiting for more studies is about 7 extra deaths _per day_ in the UK alone. Cancer Research UK is being too hesitant in its recommendations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_fatty_acid_interacti...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_fatty_acid_interactions) . Some recommended keywords that are not mentioned in the article: inflammation, essential fatty acids (EFA), and the Arachidonic Acid Cascade.

A feature that significantly distinguishes modern diets, especially after the advent of "vegetable" oils and grain-fed meat, is the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 (the two types of EFA).

Aspirin works by irreversibly inactivating the cyclooxigenase enzyme, which is involved in the Arachidonic Acid Cascade. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_action_of_aspirin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_action_of_aspirin)

Edit: Added last parragraph.

</comment><comment><USER32> From what I can see, there's no control-group, so it's showing correlation, and not causation.

I read that people who floss daily live longer too. It's not because they floss, but the ones who floss are more likely to have healthier lifestyles in general. This study seems to fit into the same bracket.

</comment><comment><USER33> Most of the negative effects of Aspirin can be countered by combining it with vitamin C [0]. In Europe, there are several combinations (Aspirin-C or Upsarin C) and the effervescent versions are especially nice.

[0]: [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-galland-md/aspirin-and- vi...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-galland-md/aspirin-and-vitamin-c- tog_b_529058.html)

</comment><comment><USER34> Aspirin always makes my stomach hurt terribly. Even low dose aspirin makes me feel like I have an ulcer. I wish I could take it...

<comment><USER35> I hear you... I'm in the same boat. I've tried it many times, but my stomach wasn't happy about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I ate an entire box of baby aspirin when I was a kid. Seriously. I clearly remember hiding under the bed while crunching away. Nothing happened.

Come to think of it, I got the flu twice in 30 years.

<comment><USER37> Study suggests that consuming an entire box of baby aspirin causes reoccurring flu.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I can see this being true. Also Xarelto and other drugs that can be used to prevent strokes are good for some things but the cons outweighs the pros for sure.

</comment><comment><USER39> Beware also that Aspirin allergy is a thing and often accompanies a general allergy to NSAIDs such as Ibuprofen. In my own case the allergy results in a moving facial swelling (angioedema) which my family dubbed 'Quasimodo Face' before we realised the cause. This effect lasted a day. I had it a few times before I worked it out. The allergy came on after a period of work stress and minor illness where I was taking Ibuprofen to get through the day.

</comment><comment><USER40> I really look forward to big (hopefully open data) and health services to merge more. This could be one of the great wealths of information for the 21st century to progress health and treatment.

If the governments put half as much effort into spying on our heath decisions and putting that data out there I'm guessing it would save more lives than current efforts!

</comment><comment><USER41> The abstract of the study is here:

[http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(17)30803-X/a...](http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085\(17\)30803-X/abstract)

</comment><comment><USER42> Who was the study sponsor?

</comment><comment><USER18> Please post something more substantial. No links to the actual papers, no proper summary of how the data was generated (who they recruited, etc...), in other words it's blogspam at best.

<comment><USER17> The actual paper is locked up in Elsevier. [http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(17)30803-X/p...](http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085\(17\)30803-X/pdf)</comment></comment>


Ask YC: Should Fridays and Saturday nights matter to a young hacker? - <AUTHOR> Last night I spent from 10pm to 7am this morning hacking at the school science building.This his slowly now started to become a not so unusual occurence for me since dropping out of college in the middle of the semester to work on my startup project.
I've come to accept this as a new lifestyle and a necessary exchange of time if I'm to be successful in a highly competitive internet startup scene.
Yet I can't help but hear that little man in the back of my head every once in a while saying "your young and your being dumb, you should be out having some fun". <comment><USER2> The last two sentences of Warren Buffet's answer are priceless:

Q: What is your career advice?

A: If you want to make a lot of money go to Wall Street. More importantly though, do what you would do for free, having passion for what you do is the most important thing. I love what I do; I'm not even that busy. I got a total of five phone calls all day yesterday and one of them was a wrong number. Ms. B from NFM had passion, that's why she was successful. A few months ago I was talking to another MBA student, a very talented man, about 30 years old from a great school with a great resume. I asked him what he wanted to do for his career, and he replied that he wanted to go into a particular field, but thought he should work for McKinsey for a few years first to add to his resume. _To me that's like saving sex for your old age. It makes no sense._

[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/clubs/investment/WarrenB...](http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/clubs/investment/WarrenBuffett.html)

<comment><USER3> For more on this watch some of this talks....this is from 1998 but still so relevant.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfuXKpMFUjc>

<comment><USER4> Buffett is pure awesome. Thanks for the link!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Rules I wish I had followed when I was 20(-ish):

1) Listen to the little voice. If he wants to be doing something else, so do you. You can only ignore him for so long.

2) When you can't do #1, make sure that you're doing something _valuable_. Don't squander your precious youthful enthusiasm on non-productive crap.

3) If you're prone to overwork, make your social life a priority. Never turn down a social invitation, unless you have a life-changing reason not to (your computer will be there when you return).

<comment><USER6> > 1) Listen to the little voice. If he wants to be doing something else, so do > you. You can only ignore him for so long.

Careful; he can get you in trouble. Wear protection. ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I can't speak for you, but I find that working crazy hours is a big waste of time in the long run. My health, happiness and mental soundness all deteriorate due to a screwed up sleep schedule and lack of socialization. Aside from the long-term consequences to body and mind, all this deterioration adversely affects the quality of my work. I spend a lot more time chasing dead ends when my life is out of whack. So take a break, have a drink with friends, maybe even get laid. Your project will thank you later.

</comment><comment><USER8> I think it's a good idea at any age to take some time off and have fun. But you don't have to do it each Friday and Saturday. That custom is just an artifact of people having regular office jobs. It might work better for one person to work 7 days a week but take two hours off each day, or another person to work solidly for two months and then take an entire week off.

</comment><comment><USER9> You've got to balance that stuff out dude... if you _really_ only enjoy hacking and don't like hanging out with friends, going to movies, eating out, partying, whatever, then cool. But if you're working long hours just to be competitive, then don't do it! Life is too short to treat it like some sort of war. Have fun while you're young.

Hacking can be a social activity too. Do you have any friends that are programmers that work on hobby programming? Maybe work alongside them.

But I really give props to you for dropping out of college; probably took a lot of balls. Where did you go to school?

<comment><AUTHOR> I've always enjoyed hacking since I was 12, and when I'm doing it, it rarely feels like something I have to do. I do it because i want to.

I didn't study computer science in college, I choose to study Philosophy instead. Mainly because in highschool programming courses weren't challenging, and the questions I had my teachers couldn't answer.

Fortunately philosophy has been a pleasant surprise, I've learned alot of new things related and unrelated to hacking. But I knew there was no point in going on when I spent my time in class drawing out concepts and writing algorithms for my project instead of taking notes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> IMHO it's all about the correct balance. If you want to succeed at anything in life you need to balance your leisure and your work. Too much work will consume you as a person, ruin any relationship and get you emotionally unbalanced. Not working and having way too much fun will ruin your economy, your health and your work. Try to have at least a little bit of fun. Sometimes you need to chill out if you want to focus on something. Don't try to focus it as two different things, they are both connected and part of the same cycle. PS: Don't drink too much tonight ;)

</comment><comment><USER11> A part of me wants to scold you that you need to balance your leisure and work, but I totally understand how one can be consumed by his work and vision. I have the same problem :)

But I usually find that a few hours in the "middle" of the work night spent socially with friends or in a club do wonders to my concentration afterwards.

And even more important we need to get our heads out of the fox holes once in a while otherwise we lose a lot of our creativity and very few things are more important in this field.

</comment><comment><USER12> All pretty good advice. However, if you find yourself out with friends and almost all you do is think about your project, work on your project. My girlfriend was dragging me out to parties, weddings, her family's house, etc. All I did was think about my project.

We've since separated. Things are working out far better now for my programming schedule. Unfortunately, no more sex.

Socialize, but not for the sake of it. Also, some people are for the late nights, some aren't. Just remember to keep tabs on your health. And I mean that more in the mental sense.

</comment><comment><USER13> it's always been super important for us to take at least one day and night a weekend off, except in special "crunch time" occasions. otherwise, the weeks seem to blur together. we also take our weekends very seriously, as it's a good time to let loose after a hard week of working.

</comment><comment><USER14> When I was starting up my business there were a lot of nights that turned into day that turned into night. Each spring/winter/etc break during college was me sitting in a room with CS students I'd hired coding furiously and batting design ideas back and forth.

From the outside, you could say with a good bit of justification that I needed to go learn how to ski or drink some beer or something. I'd argue though that "getting lost" is one of the rewards of working on a startup project. There's a mix of satisfaction in the sacrifice, the joy of unbridled creation and the camaraderie of taking on something that you may or may not pull off with a lot of people you respect and trust.

These days, I live in a nice part suburbia with my wife, who would feed me every 10 or so hours during those projects. She's getting an MBA and I'm running the business I started, but our pace of life is much more normal.

My advice, having lived on both sides of the fence, and without knowing the specifics of your situation past what you posted, is to grab as hard as you can for that vision you see. You'll learn, grow and stumble into things and people that will greatly enrich your life.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER15> Not necessarily Friday and Saturday nights -- but socializing with other people is important. There are a number of "good for the startup" reasons to do so -- e.g. bouncing ideas off other people, networking with potential VCs / partners / employees, and keeping your sanity.

But in order to get the maximum benefit, you'll want to have at least some social time not oriented around the startup. My co-founder and I have keep our sanity by spending time talking about girls, baseball, and TV shows. Not sure if it would work if we discussed social networking and Javascript.

</comment><comment><USER16> "What matters is people. Which kinda sucks when you think about it."

But it's true. You make money by making people happy. And "stuff" is only a small percentage of what goes into making people happy. So if all your skills revolve around making stuff, then you have the ability to tackle a very small percentage of what goes into MSPW. A quick glance into any OB text will confirm.

</comment><comment><USER17> When you are young you have time so you should go ahead and work away. Don't eat too much fast food or drink too much soda though.

<comment><USER18> And exercise 4x a week with good sleep every night. Even better if you work with friends.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Hard to say. One of those things you just need to figure out for yourself over time.

I do really recommend adding exercise and a non-computer hobby to the mix though. Makes a ton of difference for your well being and happiness.

</comment><comment><USER20> I see no reason to miss out on two perfectly fine nights to get work done. Of course those nights matter to a hacker.

</comment><comment><USER21> You should plan breaks into your lifestyle. Friday nights has always been a minimum for me.

</comment><comment><USER22> What school do you go to and do they teach writing composition and spelling?

</comment><comment><USER23> Po Branson's book. Read.

</comment><comment><USER24> If you're looking for people to have sex with, this is the easiest, cheapest, and most direct way to make it happen.

<http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/cas/?query=w4m>

<comment><USER25> Where is the sense of humor on here, this was hilarious.

Part of being young is also relaxing and not being so serious all the time. (pro-tip: Laugh a little more often, it melts away the stress)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Why are you using university resources for your startup?

<comment><USER24> They have fast internet and an environment conducive to productivity? It's extremely unlikely that the university would come after him for his IP, especially if he is a student and is not spinning off university sanctioned research into a company.

Of course, you're right, he would still be better off staying away from all university resources, depending on his school's tech transfer policy.

<comment><USER26> He's actually not a student anymore. Using university resources for your startup is a really bad idea!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> yeah have fun, go out party, meet some partners, and take off some of that insane workload.

</comment><comment><USER28> If you feel healthy and you're getting _enough_ sleep then there's no problem. Working nights is fine -- the thing that drives people nutty is _rotating_ shifts, e.g. switching between a night and day schedule too often.

It all depends on what you enjoy, and that's the bottom line. Bill Gates _wanted_ to have his own company more than anything else; he wasn't doing it to make money "so he could do what he really wanted". The #1 thing he wanted to do was _run his own software company_ , and you can see that despite becoming a billionaire long ago he didn't stop. Neither did Steve Jobs. If you're doing what you love then you're doing the right thing.

That said, humans need variety, so when you _want_ to do something else, don't _make_ yourself work more. Making yourself work more is only for people who need discipline and aren't putting in a decent number of hours to start, not for people working overtime to work even _more_. Bill and Steve had a LOT of variety at their jobs and plenty of social functions (including company social functions).

Think of it this way -- you're making a huge investment of your time and energy, but you're going to BLOW IT ALL if you burn out. You'll get like 80% done and then it will just sit there forever and you won't want to look at it.

So, make sure you don't burn out.

It's a bit like overtraining when you work out; except severe burnout isn't like fatigue that gets better in a couple weeks, it's like needing hip replacement.</comment>


Positional effect on the height of soccer players in Champions League 2018/2019 - <AUTHOR> https://www.quarkanalytics.com/Blog/one-way-anova-champions-league-2018-2019/ <comment><AUTHOR> In the analysis we can only see that the goalkeepers have high structure but there's no correlation with the performance at this point. Only height of the player and position occupied. And we can see that for instance for this sample, they have more 10 cm than the midfielders. But it's a valid assumption to say that players with higher structure are prefereble by the coaches since they can reach faster and cover more sectors than a person with small structure. But we did not correlate with performance metrics for this small example

But agree with you maybe we can pick up your idea to develop a next post

</comment><comment><USER2> > Players with a higher structure actually make better goalkeepers

Is that shown anywhere in this analysis? Or is it just conjecture?

(I'd love to see an actual breakdown of GK height/weight vs OPTA stats to see if there's a correlation between "quality" and the physical attributes.)</comment>


What Google is Making Space for at the Googleplex - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/27575/?ref=rss

<comment><USER2> " A 120,000-square-foot private museum to be called the "Google Experience Center", which filings said would be "to share visionary ideas, and explore new ways of working" with up to 900 guests."

So _that's_ why they walled off half of building 40! They're putting back the big "show off space" from the days of SGI! Who needed all of those little rooms named after programming languages, anyway?

How long did SGI last after it built that space?</comment>


PyCharm 2017.2 Released: Docker Compose on Windows, SSH Agent, Amazon - <AUTHOR> https://www.jetbrains.com/pycharm/whatsnew/ <comment><AUTHOR> Do you have a 4K screen, and another lower resolution screen? We now support per monitor scaling on Windows.

Good feature</comment>


San Francisco proposes "IPO tax" on eve of Uber offering - <AUTHOR> https://www.axios.com/san-francisco-proposes-ipo-tax-uber-lyft-63d1d608-0819-44ab-860b-066371b08038.html <comment><USER2> San Francisco legislators' complete inability to understand economics never fails to amaze me. There are twenty different taxes and bonds proposed every single year by the city to "build affordable housing." And every year, that money is squandered in regulation and red tape, while housing prices continue to rise.

The issue here is, first and foremost, supply and demand. San Francisco has made the process of building new housing so incredibly onerous that, once a developer finally succeeds in erecting a building, the only ones they can sell to are the wealthy. If it was easier to build in SF, with less regulation, less restrictive zoning, and less expense, then housing would be built for the middle class. Then, the city could apply affordable housing policies to reserve units in middle income buildings, and the housing crisis could be averted.

But instead, our legislature continually enacts nonsense like this, which accomplishes little beyond rabble rousing.

<comment><USER3> Do you have sources for these claims? I feel this narrative is often repeated on HN and it becomes kind of an echo chamber. Then I read in the SF Chronicle that there's permitted and approved projects that developers are not moving forward with, like around the new hospital off of Van Ness, due to the "tightening of capital markets" and "soaring construction costs."[1] Not NIMBYs or government regulations.

And then I dig a little deeper into the "it's just supply and demand, dummy" narrative and find articles that document how luxury housing development actually is associated with a rise in rents for the working class.[2] Who would have thought macroeconomics is complicated?

I feel the narrative here is highly politicized around are particular market- driven philosophy, so much so that people feel comfortable posting unsourced polemics. In the spirit of HN I would like to steer us toward a real analysis of the facts in the ground.

[1] [https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Turns-out-SF- s-b...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Turns-out-SF-s-big-new- hospital-on-Van-Ness-13698405.php)

[2] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in- expensive...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-expensive- cities-rents-fall-for-the-rich--but-rise-for-the- poor/2018/08/05/a16e5962-96a4-11e8-80e1-00e80e1fdf43_story.html)

<comment><USER4> Not OP, but Seattle is almost as big as SF [0] (825,000 people in SF compared to 775,000 people in Seattle), Seattle has 2.5x the number of cranes up compared to SF [1] (65 cranes in Seattle compared to 26 in SF), Seattle rents have actually gone down recently because of so much new supply [2], and Seattle's average rent is only 57% of SF [3]. I'm not going to say it's just NIMBYism, but whatever they are doing, they are a prime example of what not to do.

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population)

[1]: [https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/seattle- to...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/seattle-tops-the- nation-in-tower-cranes-for-third-straight-year-as-construction-reaches-new- peak/)

[2]: [https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2019/01/apartment- rents-...](https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2019/01/apartment-rents- dropping-in-seattle-landlords-compete-for-tenants-as-market-cools.html)

[3]: [https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/personal- finance/hi...](https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/personal- finance/highest-rent-us-cities/)

<comment><USER3> Ah, thank you for the sourcing. I shall read them but I was wondering if you have a response to this critical analysis, "Seattle — A Cautionary Tale for Supply-Side Housing Advocates."[1]

It notes how Seattle is often cited by deregulation advocates, but that "in spite of decades of indisputably strong development, Seattle's share of cost- burdened renters has barely budged." And "by overbuilding housing for the wealthy, Seattle has achieved some short-term improvement in affordability for the middle class, at the expense of substantial displacement and continued upward pressure on the most vulnerable."

This I think is at the heart of what in SF some call the YIMBY vs. PHIMBY[2] debate. YIMBYs tend to skew towards more privileged techie types (happy to dig up sourcing on this.. I recall the YIMBY national meeting being called overwhlemingly white). Whereas the PHIMBYs or whatever you want to call them, the deeply affordable housing advocates, see flaws in that simplistic trickle- down economics model based on lived experience in working-class neighborhoods undergoing gentrification.

[1] [https://knock-la.com/seattle-a-cautionary-tale-for-supply- si...](https://knock-la.com/seattle-a-cautionary-tale-for-supply-side-housing- advocates-5b4ca5ed6d02)

[2] [https://yahbayarea.org](https://yahbayarea.org) or [https://twitter.com/YahBayArea](https://twitter.com/YahBayArea)

<comment><USER5> I upvoted you, although I disagree with you. You made an argument, deepened the discussion and offered some sources -- it's more than most people do.

Regarding the second site that you linked, and the PHIMBY idea in general -- if it's summed up by "housing is a human right", then there is a certain weakness built into it from the start. If you do not have a house, can you sue someone? Can you sue the government, for example? That is an important part of what a right is -- it provides a "cause of action", a basis for suit, when it is abridged. If it doesn't provide that, then it is not a right.

Freedom of movement within the United States, guaranteed by the Privileges & Immunities Clause of the Constitution, is a right. When someone writes something like "by overbuilding housing for the wealthy, Seattle has achieved some short-term improvement in affordability for the middle class, at the expense of substantial displacement and continued upward pressure on the most vulnerable.", they seem to be operating from a frame where it is the government's responsibility to provide housing, but it's not clear where the government gets that charter. Not every nice or good thing needs to be effected by government agency. However, respecting the right of people to move in -- to buy or rent property on the same terms as non-residents -- would seem to be completely in line with a broad commitment to the equality of all American citizens, regardless of their place of birth, before the law everywhere in the country.

<comment><USER3> The essential view of PHIMBYs is that government should invest in housing, which is the mechanism by which the postwar generation achieved housing security (HUD had a huge budget).

Thanks for the upvote. Allow me to critique your argument. You focus solely on interpreting the term "right" and suggest that it is beyond the charter of government to provide housing, which is just completely and utterly ahistorical.

<comment><USER5> When you say my argument is ahistorical, do you mean that in the past, people have generally been able to sue for not having a house?

Calling housing a right is extreme and inaccurate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> San Francisco is one of the most mismanaged major cities in the world and it's on such a negative trajectory. It's blessed with an incredibly successful homegrown tech industry, but there's only so much that can do to hide the underlying disfunction and the cracks are starting to show.

As a VC in San Francisco, I've recently given up my residence here, and am increasingly looking outward for tech and culture. I see many of my peers doing the same, moving east, south, or out of the country entirely.

It's bittersweet. I used to love San Francisco, but have recently entirely lost faith in it ever getting better. I've given up. And honestly, I feel a weight lifted from not having to care and constantly deal with the frustration anymore. There's so much tech & entrepreneurship worth promoting outside of SF, and it's so often overlooked.

<comment><USER7> It's not just SF. The whole state of CA is woefully mismanaged. They just have enough money to smooth over much of the stupid stuff. When the money runs out (next recession?) they are gonna get hit really really hard (and they deserve it, stupid should hurt).

<comment><USER8> CA is actually quite well-managed. One of the reasons we pay so much in taxes is precisely because CA legislators have a better grasp of financial realities than their counterparts in red states: if you want to spend more, you need to collect more money to pay for it.

And CA voters like to pay for things. Red-state voters do not; they like to pretend that people will do things for free (i.e., teachers) until things break and they accept the reality that nice things cost money.

<comment><USER9> How are you quantifying (qualifying?) "well-managed". If the metric we care about is along the lines of cost of living, then it's arguably the worst in the county. I could afford to buy a house in pretty much any Red State. What's that a function of? People _not_ wanting to live there? I doubt it. I sincerely doubt it, because every time this topic comes up here on HN we hear stories about people leaving SF/SV for Austin or the South East - and there's plenty of data showing an exodus out of the West Cost corridor. Will housing costs go up in those areas? Maybe - but if/when there's a reshuffling I have a lot more faith in city leaders in those other parts of the country not to use the San Francisco checklist for "how to turn your city upside down".

>And CA voters like to pay for things. Red-state voters do not; they like to pretend that people will do things for free (i.e., teachers) until things break and they accept the reality that nice things cost money.

I think this point is also way off the mark. I should not have to shell out thousands a year for _pre-school_ if I want my kids to be competitive. This is the reality for friends I have in SF. Not so for friends in Houston or Austin.

I don't live in SF, but I turned down a job there entirely because of the cost of living and that, at least from where I'm standing, the city is run by idiots that are completely disconnected from reality. You might think I'm conflating state and city government, and to an extent you're right, I am. But as city leadership is so often a launch pad for state (and then national) government I'm not particularly bullish on California's future.

<comment><USER10> Cost of living is high is because people want to live here. CA population is actually going up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If SF wants more affordable housing, step one is to allow developers _to build more freakin housing_! Then sure, you can tax IPO lottery tickets if you want. Honestly it probably won't make any startup leave the city. The companies don't bear the tax burden, the employee does. And I don't think a company is going to lose out on employees simply because the employee doesn't want to lose an extra 1.2% in their stock comp.

<comment><USER12> > The companies don't bear the tax burden, the employee does.

When employees increasingly leave the SF Bay Area or refuse to relocate to the SF Bay Area, driving up the cost of acquiring talent, the companies most certainly are bearing the burden.

<comment><USER13> Right, but the point is that this is a very slow feedback loop, at least compared to e.g. taxing corporations directly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I would be OK with such a law if it only applies going forward, to companies that are headquartered in SF and _formed_ only on this date or later.

But to pass an IPO tax after hard-working employees have put in literally years of longer/more-stressful hours at reduced compensation levels (relative to working at established companies) to get to this payoff is unfair and unjust. Those employees have entered this arena (the startup game) with certain expectations and rules in mind, which made taking on risk and deferring gratification worthy to them. Pulling the rug out last minute to shore up the city's own finances is punitive and unreasonable, especially when the law is targeted so narrowly. And no, the fact that some of those employees will get large sums of money out of this does not make it less unfair or less unjust.

<comment><USER15> Agree completely, although I'd frame it differently. I'm not sure how much sympathy anyone has for the Uber folks specifically, but this would certainly be food for thought for anyone thinking of starting a company in SF, or contemplating shifting their headquarters.

Congress actually did something similar in 1980 when they passed a Windfall Profit Tax on oil to capture "unfair" profits in the wake of the OPEC oil embargo. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_profits_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_profits_tax)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> For anyone else immediately curious: the US's [ex post facto]([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_State...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States)) law applies to retroactively deeming acts to be criminal. Challenges to retroactive tax laws on this basis have not succeeded.

<comment><USER17> "Fun" fact: tax law is the one domain where "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply. If the government says you owe money, the burden is on you to prove that you do not.

<comment><USER18> > "Fun" fact: tax law is the one domain where "innocent until proven guilty" > does not apply.

No, it's not the one domain. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies only in criminal law (neither "innocent" nor "guilty" even applies outside of the domain of criminal law, much less that maxim about the relation between them.)

<comment><USER19> Indeed. There's much more symmetry outside of the criminal law. Not sure if applicable to the US, but in my home country you can sue people if you want money from them (as one would expect), but you can also sue "to determine whether a payment is needed", which means you initiate a lawsuit that can result in you paying the money. This may make sense if you deny the claim and are wealthy (i.e. you could pay up) and want to speed up clearing the air. Otherwise the claimant can wait a few years and use the court approved interest rate (high) to hit you over the head a few years down the line.

<comment><USER18> > Not sure if applicable to the US, but in my home country you can sue people > if you want money from them (as one would expect), but you can also sue "to > determine whether a payment is needed", which means you initiate a lawsuit > that can result in you paying the money.

In the US this would be a suit for declaratort judgement in which formally you asked the court to declare you did not owe money, but functionally it seems generally similar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I hope this dissuades any more startups from locating in SF. It's gotten to the point where even highly paid software engineers cannot afford to live in the city. The Caltrain is packed every afternoon with engineers evacuating to the safety of MTV and Sunnyvale.

The lack of affordable housing is the reason I moved from SF, since my wife and I wanted to start a family. I just wish more companies would do the same.

<comment><USER21> The rest of the Bay Area from Berkeley to Morgan Hill is not much better in terms of price. Perhaps more livable in terms of less density and less flagrant poverty as S.F.'s urban environment, but the region in general is already glutted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Yep - just a few more taxes and regulations will fix everything! And if these don't work, add a few more!

<comment><USER23> Those silly legislators. Trying to pass laws to solve problems.

<comment><USER24> If something doesn't work, try it 99 more times!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I said it before and I'll say it again... Japan has a great idea: make rent deducible from salary before tax. Then if the city wants some tax revenue they'd better have affordable housing!

</comment><comment><USER26> Here's the actual proposal: [https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7216619&GUID=22E...](https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7216619&GUID=22E765B8-90CC-45B5-9BC7-87E7C576F907)

It's very clearly targetting Uber's IPO by retroactively applying the tax to May 7th. Though even the legislation seems uncertain that's legal.

It has a provision that if retroactive taxation is "held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction" then it will apply as soon as the new law is introduced...which seems the more usual way of doing things.

(Was a pain to find...none of the news coverage linked to it.)

</comment><comment><USER27> San Francisco's administration is the poster child of corruption and mismanagement. It's a controversial topic because it comes across as a strong and opinionated comment, but decades of failed policies, unaccountability and lies give strength to the truth that the city of San Francisco is inadequate to enforce law and order and help the people who are - in the tech capital of the world - literally dying in the streets. I wish this was a bad dream, a nightmare, but it's the real life.

Banning electric scooters, taxing IPOs, soda taxes are all distractions that prevent the voters to focus on the problems that really matter: the needles, the drug abuse, the human feces, the absolute lack of enforcement of the most basic, essential, rules of society.

San Francisco must enforce the "Broken window policy", and it needs to start from the broken politicians and local administrators that are betraying their fiduciary duty and, by doing so, hurting the community.

</comment><comment><USER28> If they want to change the law going forward, then sure - they can continue to cook the golden goose. I don't live there, so in the narrow sense it's not my problem.

But changing it retroactively - dated to a few days before a particular company's IPO - is banana republic shit.

</comment><comment><USER29> Can someone explain why they are raising taxes specifically for stock-based- compensation and not for all high-income-compensation? What's so special about lawyers and bankers making hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash- compensation, that they deserve an exemption from these tax increases?

<comment><USER30> Not to defend the bankers and lawyers, but they are taxed at the income tax rate which is much more than 1.5% more than capital gains.

<comment><USER31> In California capital gains are taxed as ordinary income. You don't get any benefit at the state level for capital gains.

Also, under the new federal tax law, many lawyers are classifying their income as qualified business income so they pay much less than ordinary income. This is something that a software engineer working for a company couldn't do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Imagine giving a child who is bad with money, more money to compensate for their mismanagement of money.

</comment><comment><USER33> From a national security standpoint, it's probably a good thing if hi-tech firms are dissuaded from the SF. A magnitude 9+ earthquake is going to hit the area one of these days. It's simply inevitable. Making the city a critical networking hub is sort of crazy if you think about it.

<comment><USER34> What datacenters are here? I thought everyone was throwing their servers out in Utah. Would be a bit mad to build a server farm on land you could make millions on building housing on instead.

<comment><USER35> Sacramento

<comment><USER34> This wouldn't affect those data centers though

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The retroactive component will be tossed out by any sane judge. There's no way that'll hold up in court.

</comment><comment><USER37> I really hope this brings more jobs and businesses to Oakland. Oakland has a lot more undeveloped space, better major rail access (BART / Amtrak), and is way more open to newcomers (both business and individuals). Does anyone know what happened with the Square office (formerly Uber) in Oakland?

<comment><USER38> Square leased it at the end of last year and if this[1] article is to be believed, they won't move in until end of this year at the earliest.

[1]: [https://sf.curbed.com/2018/12/21/18151762/square-uptown- stat...](https://sf.curbed.com/2018/12/21/18151762/square-uptown-station- lease-oakland-uber)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Earlier article with more information: [https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Here-come- the-I...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Here-come-the-IPO-s- and-here-comes-a-proposal-13790280.php?psid=3JjOR)

</comment><comment><USER40> >Opponents argue it will discourage startups from locating in the city

This may not be a bad thing. And not from a cynical, anti-capitalist, "keep SF shitty so poor people can live here" point of view. The country would really benefit if tech companies were more spread out.

<comment><USER41> Second-order (mostly service sector) would, but the network effects and job flexibility of sector hubs is means concentration is better for the industry. Depends what you're optimizing for; there's pros and cons to specialization.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Would a retroactive tax like this be constitutional?

</comment><comment><USER43> If anything, this tax should go to repay San Francisco taxi medallion owners.

<comment> 33MHz-i486 why, the city sold a fresh batch of medallions to raise funds, took their money, then refused to give them a refund after CPUC legalized ridesharing across the state. Who's really at fault?

<comment><USER43> You're suggesting that Uber didn't have lobbyists involved? My view is that Uber manipulated the system (I don't agree with the previous system), and the people who suffered are the medallion holders.

<comment><USER44> The whole reason there are medallions is that there is so much taxi money lobbying to limit entry to the market.

<comment><USER43> How likely are disparate medallion owners to hire a lobbyist and influence the legislature versus Uber?

<comment><USER44> The medallion restrictions and lobbying goes back decades before Uber. There would be no Uber without the taxi lobby backed, government enforced, artificial restriction on supply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Sure, why not? Uber fights dirty with municipal government, might as well fight dirty back.

<comment><USER46> But passing this tax will affect all future IPO's. If the city wants to take a hard line with Uber, then do that. But don't pass a tax that affects all companies going public. That just puts an incentive for startups to move outside the city before going public. Is that a good thing? Is that what the city of SF wants? I don't know, but giving a reason for all these workers to commute up and down the peninsula seems silly. Especially because CalTrain is already insanely crowded as are the roads.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Open-Source Software Newsletters - <AUTHOR> Does anyone know of any good newsletters that follow the open source software space?  Even just a list of repos of new or interesting projects would be sufficient. <comment><USER2> Check out, [https://www.programmerweekly.com/](https://www.programmerweekly.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> > [https://www.programmerweekly.com/](https://www.programmerweekly.com/)

This isn't quite what I had in mind. But thanks anyway! subscribed!</comment></comment>


I've decided to reclaim my life – by using an old Nokia phone - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/mar/31/nokia-3310-t9-phone-smartphone-iphone-reclaim-life <comment><USER2> A GO android phone with some lockdown might suffice for me. I sort-of get what this back-to-basics is doing, and I know some people who are on equivalent handsets.

I like google authenticator for 2FA. If that was on a nokia.</comment>


Dave Morin: The Next Chapter - <AUTHOR> http://davemorin.tumblr.com/post/347832449 <comment><USER2> Dave was an awesome mentor in Techstars, really engaged and helpful, despite being crazily busy. I'm really looking forward to following his adventures in startup-land, and can't wait to see what he comes up with next.</comment>


'Leftover Women' Chronicles China's pesters on Unmarried Professional Women - <AUTHOR> https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/332975 <comment><USER2> Heartbreaking. But not surprising.

That the surplus of males in China will likely lead to military adventurism would make it our problem, too.

</comment><comment><USER3> Considering the vast gap between the male and female population, that is, many more males. It should not be hard to find a partner but it is. Women will not talk to you unless you own a house and houses are about 50-70 times the average salary.

<comment><USER4> I've been living in and out of Southern China for a long time as part of my job. I think I will be looking for wife here.

Finding a good wife here... means finding a level headed woman above anything else. Not too crazed about getting married, nor too crazed about work and personal accomplishment – a very small minority by late twenties here.

My two best tries were other foreigners.

First, Chinese Pakistani, well... never expected such a youthful looking woman to be in her thirties.

Second, Malaysian Chinese, met on tinder, she had a chemical, and a machinery parts businesses, PhD in nanotechnology, a patent portfolio, and a defence procurement contract from CAIC. It would've been way too impressive for a 28 years old if she did not have mistyped her age by quite some number...

Other attempts, mostly locals, well I can not not start relationship with a woman who start a talk about marriage on a first date. It just feels so awkward for me.</comment></comment>


AI Weiwei on his new life in Britain: 'People are at least polite.' - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/jan/21/ai-weiwei-on-his-new-life-in-britain-germany-virtual-reality-film <comment><AUTHOR> "Germany is a very precise society. Its people love the comfort of being oppressed."

What rubbish. It's an insult to the people of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_Revolution#Weekly_dem...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_Revolution#Weekly_demonstrations)</comment>


Nim in Action – Final PDF EBook Edition Is Now Available - <AUTHOR> https://www.manning.com/books/nim-in-action <comment><AUTHOR> Website doesn't seem to be updated, received email notification says:

"(...) We are pleased to announce the publication of Nim in Action. As a MEAP subscriber you can now download your copy of the finished PDF eBook. (...)".

And the final PDF is available for download.

<comment><USER2> Keep an eye out on Nim's website and Twitter for the print release.

<comment><USER2> Also, I am planning to create a dedicated page for the book. I'll likely submit it to HN right before the launch of the printed book.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: TouchRemove – Remove unwanted objects from photos (open beta) - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.genewarrior.touchremove <comment><AUTHOR> TouchRemove is currently available free and in open beta: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.genewarrio...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.genewarrior.touchremove)

TouchRemove let's you easily erase unwanted objects from your pictures (think Photoshop's content-aware fill). The implementation is inspired by the PatchMatch inpaint algorithm; it's quite an interesting project to get it to work acceptably using the computing power of a mobile device.

I'm looking for feedback regarding the performance (it's a fine balance between the quality of results and computation time), handling, any errors and possible improvements in general.

Any comments are appreciated, directly in this thread or email@example.com</comment>


Limiter, compressor, reverberation, equalizer, auto volume for Pulseaudio - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/wwmm/pulseeffects <comment><AUTHOR> If you want a serious equalizer on Linux to enjoy great sound (even on laptops) this is the real deal. I can't believe I never came across this before.</comment>


Low-protein high-carb diet shows promise for healthy brain aging - <AUTHOR> https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-11/uos-lhd111418.php <comment><USER2> I've heard the complete opposite, so as usual, it's impossible to know what to actually believe outside of a few basics when it comes to nutrition. I figure I might as well just stick to believing higher fat and protein is good for you since you can find other articles saying so and it aligns more with what I like to eat and carbs seem to make me tired.

</comment><comment><USER3> What's the glycemic index of the carbs?

The article says

> complex carbohydrates derived from starch, and casein protein

"Complex" probably means a pretty low glycemic index.

But what does that mean to me at the grocery store?

It's sad how we don't make glycemic index easier for people via nutrition facts.

For example, eating 100g of cauliflower carbs is a lot better than 100g of refined sugar. But, by looking at the nutrition facts I see "both are 100g of carbs."

Edit: fix high to low as pointed out by child comment.

<comment> saiya-jin > "Complex" probably means a pretty high glycemic index.

AFAIK it is the opposite - complex carbs are the best carbs to consume, since they don't release energy all at once but slower. Complex -> Simple -> Absorb instead of just last 2 steps.

Even better is to consume them with plenty of fiber, slows down absorption even more, and spikes in glycemic index are much lower

<comment><USER3> Your right, that's correct. I need to edit that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This reminds me of the calorie restriction research done in fruit flies (e.g. [1]). They found that protein was toxic to fruit-flies, and then journalists foolishly extrapolated that to humans. Apparently, feeding fruit-flies _yeast extract_ gives them a short life-span. Who would have thought?!

Now in mice, who primarily eat _grains_ , researchers find that feeding them milk is bad for their brain health. How is this research even funded?! Extrapolating this to humans in any way is entirely foolish.

[1] [https://phys.org/news/2017-11-protein-diet-early-life- lifesp...](https://phys.org/news/2017-11-protein-diet-early-life- lifespan.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> A high-carb low-protein diet probably is a good recipe for having a healthy brain when you tip over - you'll die of diabetes or heart disease well before you get a chance to get squishy.

<comment><USER6> the most nutritionally dense foods in the world are carbs. I know people love to oversimplify and demonize entire macronutrients, but not all carbs/proteins/fats are good/bad. Many carbs are bad due to heavy processing and added sugars/fats, many are good such as fruits and vegetables.

<comment><USER7> Uhm that isn't right isn't it? Not sure what you mean by nutritionally dense, but fat as more calories per gram

<comment><USER6> Nutrition Density, not Calorie Density

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient_density](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient_density)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So basically, you can be overweight with great brain function or ripped and risk losing your marbles. You sort of can't win either way really can you!

</comment><comment><USER9> Probably carbs from veg and beans... Not wotsits

</comment><comment><USER10> Death or insanity, diabetics. Choose!

</comment><comment><USER11> From public health perspective these studies work only for people who are able to control their eating long term. That's minority of adults.

Put mice in high stress environment, let them choose when and how much they eat. Allow them to choose from large variety of diets. Then find out foods that are both healthy and something that mice choose to eat without becoming fat.

My guess is that oatmeal with trace amounts of cocaine would be close to optimal.

</comment><comment><USER12> As already discussed on Joe Rogan's show ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eefgRVi7Ko](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eefgRVi7Ko) \- 25 minute summary), most of these studies are epidemiological studies and are not suitable for the field of nutrition.

<comment><USER13> This study isn't epidemiological, it's randomly controlled. But it's on mice, and there's no reason to think that the macro nutrient ratios required by mice are the same as for humans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is really cool. I know it's just mice but I find it really valuable more research is poured into how people can affect their health through simple choices like diet.

So, given this study is valid for humans... Atkins to lose weight, then dial back to carbs to stay healthy?

<comment><USER15> Unfortunately, diet is often not a simple choice. The price of calories has gone down significantly for mass-produced, less-healthy food, whereas healthy food (like fresh fruit and vegetables) are nowhere near as cheap.

Look at fast food restaurant menus and the processed/frozen food section of your supermarket and it is 50% cheaper to feed a family of four that way (and perceived to be faster) than it is to use fresh, healthy ingredients.

Then factor in less-developed countries, where access to food is a major issue (today, it was announced that ~85,000 have died in Yemen due to starvation) and it becomes clear - for a very large portion of the world, diet is not a simple choice.

<comment><USER14> Um, a discussion about nutritional science went suddenly really political.

Should I say next time that I cherish every living being, and wish that everyone could be well and happy, and that I'm grateful for my capacity to make life choices including my diet, and that I wish that everyone would have this capacity, while recognizing that the world is full of suffering and evil, that I strive with my every breath to increase the happiness of others and promote good?

It gets really repetetive, really fast. I don't see how it promotes an interesting discussion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Does this mean a low carb diet like keto is bad for brain aging?

<comment><USER17> It's nutrition science so it probably means nothing without large scale replication in humans.

<comment><USER18> s/probably//

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I love mice

</comment><comment><USER20> Does that mean, taller people suffer more brain damage?

Tall = high protein generation after generation

At least that's what we find from Native American diet consisting of 65-75% animal protein and they were tallest at the time.

Genetically, they were Asians who moved out of Siberia into North America but Asians were and are still short.

The difference between them was their diet, environment not genes. Genes might have changed later.

<comment><USER21> Why on earth would eating more protein make your children taller? That's the weirdest reading of evolution I've ever heard.

<comment><USER22> Epigenetics?

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905637/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905637/)

[http://www.pnas.org/content/107/39/16757.full](http://www.pnas.org/content/107/39/16757.full)

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-of- human...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-of-human- height/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Native American ate 65-70% animal protein in their diet.

What was their life expectancy and brain health?

Checkout diet of diffent tribes: [https://thepaleodiet.com/north-american- plains-indians-tall-...](https://thepaleodiet.com/north-american-plains- indians-tall-and-robust-meat-eaters-but-not-a-milk-drinker-among-them/)

<comment><USER20> Downvotes explain what's wrong with my statement?

<comment><USER23> I didn't downvote, but I'll make a guess:

Native Americans comprise a broad range of cultures that developed in a variety of geographies and climates. Making sweeping generalizations about their traditional lifestyles is both flagrantly poor anthropology and a known practice among peddlers of diet pseudoscience.

<comment><USER20> This lists different tribes and their diet [https://thepaleodiet.com/north- american-plains-indians-tall-...](https://thepaleodiet.com/north-american- plains-indians-tall-and-robust-meat-eaters-but-not-a-milk-drinker-among-them/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "However, the majority of people have a hard time restricting calories, especially in Western societies where food is so freely available."

Sorry what? Nobody is force feeding you. (FWIW, I've been eating once a day, except on weekends, for at least a year now).

<comment><USER25> > I've been eating once a day,

Completely irrelevant when talking about caloric intake. For all we know, you're gorging on deep fried butter once a day.

<comment><USER24> Sure, but the quoted part still does not make sense, I mean the claim for "the majority of people".

<comment><USER26> Sure it does. For most people, food improves their mood and removes discomfort. Sweets even go beyond improving mood and into creating something of a high.

A relatively inexpensive and broadly available product that makes you feel better and that your body naturally craves? It takes restraint to _not_ consume it in excess.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Berkeley Bionics: Introducing eLEGS - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcM0ruq28dc&feature=player_embedded <comment><USER2> Great isn't it! They are having a live press conference at 10.30 am PST on <http://berkeleybionics.com/>

</comment><comment><USER2> The video is down right now I guess it will come back up after the press conference</comment>


Distributing a self-replicating malicious code using NPM - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@gajus/distributing-a-self-replicating-malicious-code-using-npm-cf2bf3209293 <comment><USER2> Why not add a few lines to search for wallet.dat files while you are at it?</comment>


Cloudflare: Making DNS record changes more reliable with confirmations - <AUTHOR> https://blog.cloudflare.com/making-dns-record-changes-more-reliable/ <comment><USER2> That is a step forward. But I'm still missing few features. Most annoying is that there is no way to make multiple changes as one atomic change. From time to time I need to change an A record to a CNAME record. It's not possible without first deleting the A record and then creating the CNAME record. This creates a short window when the record is missing. The NXDOMAIN response can be cashed by recursive resolvers creating temporary outage for some users / whole networks. Unfortunately I'm also unable to change negative TTL for the zone which is set by CF to 1h. For that reason I have to do such changes in the middle of the night and even then I'm nervous doing that for important records.

<comment><USER3> Very true. Many service without any bold claims like Cloudflare allow you to make multiple changes and press Save/Apply and have an atomic operation. I am also annoyed that many operations are not available in bulk - like seeing the DNSSEC status, enabling it, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> These kinds of instant edit UIs are largely a terrible idea but really caught on at some point.

Glad to see one of them going away.

<comment><USER5> They have their place, I think we've been trained to expect to have to save/confirm changes. In non-critical places it can be delightful.

However, I really couldn't believe that cloudflare had no confirmation with the DNS ui - I'm really glad they've changed this.</comment></comment>


Programmer Test Principles - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@kentbeck_7670/programmer-test-principles-d01c064d7934 <comment><AUTHOR> > If I care about the order of operations, I've designed the system wrong.

Let's say I have a complex set of components that move robots that ultimately move stuff around. I have tests that simulate the movements and test that stuff actually moves around. I very much care about the order of operations, otherwise stuff wouldn't move around in production.</comment>