When Google Hates Your Name: Why We Renamed Our Startup - <AUTHOR> http://www.masschallenge.org/blog/when-google-hates-your-name-why-we-renamed-our-startup <comment><USER2> Sounds like the author had some human-centric reasons for changing the name of the business. It's worth noting that Google can be taught to like invented names in a pretty short amount of time, though.

Three of my four iPhone projects shipped with invented words for names (Oddage, Tallymander, Globejot). Even after the sites were live and indexed, Google would do its "did you mean..." or worse, showing results for the word it thought I meant by default.

So, searching for Tallymander, for example, would give you "Showing results for Sallymander" for the first two results.

With any amount of press or other web conversation that generates inbound links, though, this problem ends up taking care of itself. About a week after launch, Google recognized each word as legitimate _and_ I enjoyed top ranking.

<comment><USER3> I found this pretty quickly with Cursebird.

<comment><USER2> Did you mean custard? Showing results for custard. Click here to see results for cursebird.

Ah, Google.

<comment><USER3> I assume you're joking? If not, let me know.

Here's what myself and most people see: <http://cl.ly/2SzP>

Interestingly, if you search for "cussbird" it will correct you to "cursebird": <http://cl.ly/2TPX>

I'm not logged in, and people in the U.S. see the same results.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> While much of this is good advice, the "name that says what you do" is tricky. _Product_ names should say what they do, but _companies_ sometimes find it more useful to remain vague.

Consider: Yahoo, Google, eBay, Amazon. None of these words had, when invented, any associations in the public mind. This allows those companies to grow and change their brands and their focus.

Imagine if Amazon had been called "Bookery". Or if Google were called "Searchio". Great names for what those companies started doing, completely misleading now -- especially in Amazon's case.

<comment><USER5> One of the biggest mobile phone retailers in the UK is called "Carphone Warehouse" - people don't think twice about the name. People treat the name as a brand rather than a literal interpretation of the words that make up the brand.

<comment><USER6> However, they seem to think the understandability of the name is important. Internationally, they are more likely to be known as "The Phone House".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I feel the blame is very much misplaced; Google had nothing to do with the viability of "Cadio" name. It was inevitable that people would confuse it with "Cardio", whether Google auto-suggested it or not.

That said, I do sympathy for the difficulty in finding short, easily spelled domain names. It's been downright ridiculous trying to find good names in recent years.

<comment><USER8> I spend weeks and weeks deciding on a name. So far I've had Rankiac and BitBuffet, both of which were almost 80% completed before I ever had the domain. EveryMentor wasn't available and I had to WAIT for the domain to expire for about 20ish days (it was pending deletion).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am doing SEO consulting for a company called South-Pak that makes custom travel and road cases. Obviously, the business owners don't want to change the name and obviously Google thinks it's a misspelling of South Park (if you query South-Pak, you must then click on the link to confirm that you are looking for results for South-Pak.

Combatting the fact that many are searching for the name of the company and getting frustrated, I'm working hard to associate South-Pak with the word cases. As a result of the anchor text, et al, when one types in South-Pak you should, South-Pak Cases should be one of the options generated by Google Instant.

As long as you have the .com domain though, Google can't hurt you much. Fundamentally, you want to have the .com domain, have a name that is difficult to misspell and easy to explain on the phone.

If people that don't know about your name and they are looking for you, they should be able to find you on Google. That's what Google is for. If that's not the case, it's probably you, not Google.

<comment><USER10> > easy to explain on the phone

So many people forget about that one, it's _really_ important. Of course all the rest is also important, but one of the major drivers of viral traffic is still people telling other people about your product, in person or on the telephone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Domize (<https://domize.com/>) and Wordoid (<http://wordoid.com/>) both seem really useful

</comment><comment><USER12> Also ask yourself:

Can spell it out to somebdy over the phone without resorting to phonetic alphabet?

Do you use numbers in the name - worse do you use them to be cute ?

Do you mix words that sound like letters eg. "see" and "c" in the name ?

Does the name contain a joke/pun/double meaning that only makes sense written down or read outloud?

<comment><USER10> > fghjhgbvf

I rest my case ;)

Good advice otherwise though, another one is make sure that the people in the major markets can pronounce the word in an unambiguous way.

<comment><USER13> I don't know, I like fhqwhgads more (<http://www.homestarrunner.com/fhqwhgads.html>).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> When I read your name the first time I read "locality" and then I realized it was something different. You might run into yet another human centric reason for not liking your name.

<comment><USER15> I agree, also on the pronunciation front, I am assuming: Low-kate-LEE

Try saying that 10 times fast, the ending in the last two syllables make it a bit of a tongue twister.

What about other possibilities that seem like often-occurring interpretations?

Low-Kate-{soft eh}-LEE

Low-CAT-{soft eh}-LY

<comment><USER16> Interesting. It jumps out at me as low-KATE-lee, growing up speaking California English. (If by caps you're indicating putting the emphasis on that syllable.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'll make no comments about the SEO viability of the name, but I find these ending-in-"ly" names (I've seen a few of them recently) atrocious. An "ly" is one of the strongest markers in the English language for a part of speech: an adverb. When you make an adverb out of something that shouldn't be, you get something that sounds like it was uttered by a 3-year-old.

<comment><USER18> I feel agreely with you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Why do these articles never mention the aftermarket? It's like businesses refuse to acknowledge that good domains are available to purchase. Sedo? Afternic? BuyDomains? Auctions? Personal portfolios? Wake up! This is where the real gems are.

Domain finder tools are dead. They don't work.

<comment><USER20> It's like bootstrapped businesses don't want to pay $10000 for a marginally better name.

<comment><USER19> <http://auctions.godaddy.com> \- $5 bargain bin

<http://sedo.com> \- "Make an offer" on thousands of keyword names

<http://freshdrop.net> \- Filter and sort pretty much every marketplace.

<http://BrandStack.com>

<comment><USER20> Yes, you can get cheap domain names, but they'll usually be _worse_ that whatever nonsense you think up. Look at those links you just posted. Anything near the going price of a domain name is going to be absolute crap. Here's the first page of the Godaddy auctions page:

formenti.tv, live960.tv, news18.tv, kamerali-sohbet.info, jeong-vs- jpmorganchase.com, watchmadmenonline.info, randy-orton.org, tvlima.tv, youngshemales.info, 3wolves.us, specialq.mobi, b2bmarketplace.us, straightdaddies.com, epiphonesheraton.com, schooltools.tv

The only names that look remotely useful for any conceivable purpose (youngshemales, b2bmarketplace and schooltools) are all in spammy-looking TLDs.

<comment><USER21> We bought Locately.com. I don't know if we're not creative enough, but it was much better than anything we were able to come up with which wasn't registered. And having a better name is definitely worth the small amount of money we paid for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> As to the Pronounceable, Spellable, Memorable bit... That can't be emphasized enough. Actually, I bet you can find me personally emphasizing it a half dozen times if you do a search here.

But I don't buy the Google part.

I personally run a little startup that had no trouble ranking for its own name, despite the fact that the first Google search we ever did for the name resulted in "Did you mean _Twiddle_?" That only lasted a few months.

Now we've crowded that poor word completely off the results for our name, and we've even kicked it out of the top slot when searching for "twiddle". I won't be surprised when Google starts coming back with "Showing results for Twiddla. Search instead for Twiddle" for that search.

It just takes a bit of time and exposure.

</comment><comment><USER23> I made all these mistakes as well, but continue to soldier on with my original name. Google has grudgingly accepted it and the mis-directed traffic is quite minimal now.

One thing the author didn't mention was that when you're getting a lot of mispell traffic, it plays havoc with your traffic stats, and it gets very hard to move the needle testing different content because you might have 60-70% of your traffic in the early days boucing immediately.

</comment><comment><USER24> My site Techinch.com came up first for "techinch" with no problems on Google until they switched to instant search. Now it says "Showing results for techniche. Search instead for techinch" Grrrr

So would you recomend sticking it out, or trying for a new name? Just a small blog right now, but I definately want it to grow...

<comment><USER21> If you like your name then I wouldn't switch. Techniche is not that common a search term and as you start to get more traffic and mentions, you should be able to overcome it quickly.

In our case, "cardio" is a very common search term. Also, we didn't like our name for the other reasons given (hard to pronounce, doesn't say what we do, not memorable).

<comment><USER24> Thanks for the encouragement. Yes, I like it, and think I'll stick with it. I can defiantly see why your former name could have problems in search, and it turns out that Techniche is a tech conference in India this year ... who knew? So hey, should work itself out over time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It is tough acquiring a short (under 8 letter) meaningful domain name now. I am curious to know how much it cost just to buy that domain. Sometimes you can make a nonsensical name stick with enough effort/branding: see zillow.com, it is all in the sub title.

<comment><USER26> Supposedly the 'internet generation' are now savy enough to know this.

If you launch a site called "sport.com" or "music.com" young people know that however hip and trendy your graphics you must be a bank/$Bn corp to own that name. So to appeal to 'yoof' you have to have a "the only address we could get" type meaningless name ( even if you are a $Bn corp!)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Out of curiosity, is there another way to pronounce "cadio" other than cad- e-o?

<comment><USER28> KAY-dee-oh, kah-DEE-oh, KAH-dee-oh, kaa-DIE-oh...

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> To me, Cadio is much better than Locately (I brake my tongue trying to pronounce it). Easier to remember, spell and pronounce. English is not my native language so that might be the reason why I think that.

</comment><comment><USER30> It must be a tough call whether to battle on with a four/five letter miss- spell, or change to something longer. Obviously locately is much better though.

</comment><comment><USER31> A couple of other factors that we considered:

1\. The spelling should be obvious from the pronunciation.

2\. Should have as few syllables as possible. Two is great if you can find one.

</comment><comment><USER32> I actually thought the problem was with masschallenge.org before reading the article. Added the idea to my domain buying checklist.

</comment><comment><USER33> Good thing you realized this in the beginning.</comment>


Hell Yes, Mayor Bloomberg. I'm With You. - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/15/hell-yes-mayor-bloomberg-im-with-you/ <comment><USER2> The only thing I disagree with in this article is Arrington's assertion that "the issue of illegal immigration over our Southern border must be separated from the issue of immigration of people who want to come here to build companies."

I don't really see why we need to separate those issues. They are the same issue. We should discard isolationist policies in both cases and move toward a more enlightened policy in both cases.

After all, one can't always tell with certainty which immigrants are the "good" immigrants and which are the "bad" ones, in advance.

<comment><USER3> It's certainly a thorny issue though. If you're going to run any sort of welfare state, it's pretty hard to argue for totally open borders; it simply leads to financial ruin, as much of Europe has found out over the last 30 years (which is why European countries have swiftly and brutally tightened immigration policies). If you're giving away a lot of free stuff, you're forced to guess at which immigrants are going to be productive and contribute to your society and which are just there for the freebies.

I've always found this cognitive dissonance interesting (particularly and recently evident in France): those who feel it's morally wrong not to support the poorest of their societies have no problem refusing to do the same for those who were born on the other side of an arbitrary stripe on a map.

<comment><USER4> "Give me your tired, your poor,/ Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,/ The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."

While I don't grant your premise (that open borders in a welfare state lead to financial ruin), I think the US has a special consideration in that it was founded not on a race, ethnicity, or culture, but an ideology of self-evident truths. And immigrants.

<comment><USER5> 1) Was the US a welfare state when that poem was written? From seeing "Gangs of New York", I think not. :)

2) You do realize that Asians were excluded from immigrating to the US until very recently, right? [http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/immigration_c...](http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/immigration_chron.cfm)

<comment><USER6> That's a nice resource but I don't think it shows what you intended it to show. From that timeline all I gather is that the United States has always wavered between xenophobia and the need for labor.

<comment><USER7> There were essentially four brief periods of high immigration in American history, usually lasting on the order of 20 years or less. Outside of those periods essentially zero immigration was the norm. From 1924 to 1965 immigration was zero (somehow business and technology advanced in America; not sure how). There were many such periods farther back.. Allowing only immigration from Western nations was the norm.

We are now in the fourth decade of an unprecedented experiment with extraordinarily high immigration. The length of this wave and the volume of newcomers dwarfs all previous waves. This is also the first experiment with high numbers of non-Westerners, who to all indications do not appear to be assimilating and intermarrying as previous waves did.

The lesson to take away from the history of American immigration is that immigration waves should be followed by long periods of zero immigration for assimilation.

<comment><USER8> Looking at the US Census data from 1850 onward (they didn't ask where you were born before the 1850 census), the percentage of the US population was a steady 13-14% from 1860 to 1920. In 1950 (they didn't ask in 1930 or 1940), it's down to 9% presumably from the changes in immigration law in the 1920s. Then it's around 5% for 1960-1980 and from 1990 starts to rise up to 12.48% today. That's roughly where the percentage of immigrants was for the 6 decades before 1920. That doesn't to me look like "an unprecedented experiment with extraordinarily high immigration"

<comment><USER7> Despite reaching replacement level fertility in the 70s, the population has continued to explode, and this is due entirely to immigration. This is historically unprecedented.

[http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/sustainability/bigge...](http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/sustainability/biggest- population-boom-ever.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Two questions. What counts as an advanced degree? And why is starting companies considered important separably from say working in one?

Starting a company and moving to another country are both fairly large life disruptions, and doing both at once would decreases the success of either working well.

If I manage to get a green card I would probably focus first on just getting a job to move to and get myself stable before starting a startup, whereas I am already stable here and could consider starting a business where I already know my way around etc.

</comment><comment><USER10> I find it interesting where he says "we wouldn't have become a superpower without the contributions of immigrants", rather than consider that almost every American living today had immigrant ancestors.

At which point does he draw the line of immigration? At which date does he (or any American) consider himself "American" rather than an immigrant?

<comment><USER11> I suppose at the point where one feels closer to the "generic" American values/culture than to that of your forebears. I think it's the truest definition, however it is often hard to prove/demonstrate, so the arbitrary definition "have be born in this country" is used instead.

<comment><USER12> _so the arbitrary definition "have be born in this country" is used instead_

That hardly seems arbitrary -- it's what the word means. If you were born outside the country then you have immigrated, therefore you are an immigrant.

<comment><USER11> Well it may seem a bit arbitrary to those who grew up in the U.S. but were born elsewhere (or even to those who were born in the U.S. but grew up culturally isolated).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I heartily agree, but would still place this article firmly in the "politics" category - it's not just about startup visas or things like that.

For exhibit A, we have some guy commenting already "If you're going to run any sort of welfare state, it's pretty hard to argue for totally open borders; it simply leads to financial ruin, as much of Europe has found out over the last 30 years", which is of course complete bunk, as "much of Europe" is most certainly not "financially ruined".

<comment><USER14> I read that as saying that Europe found out that they had to strengthen border controls to _avoid_ ruin, not that they were _already_ ruined.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Everything Bloomberg talked about is correct except it applies to LEGAL immigration. ILLEGAL immigration is the problem.

<comment><USER7> Legal immigration is a huge problem. We are taking in vastly more people than the nation can culturally assimilate, and statistically these legal immigrants are net economic tax drains.

Even if the legal immigration screening were fixed and we stopped bringing in so many economic losers, the cold hard fact is this country is full. _MOST_ of the US is facing fresh water crises in the next couple decades. We will become net importers of food within the next 20 years as prime farmland is consumed. We already have become net importers in most categories.

The USA is overpopulated. Net immigration should be ZERO.

Did you know the US would not be an oil importer if immigration had been stopped in 1970? Instead of being in a position to peacefully mind our own business we're spending trillions on wars for oil.

<comment><USER16> You realize the US is facing an enormous labor shortage in the coming decades as the baby boomers retire?

<comment><USER7> That's not really true. Social Security is insolvent, but so what; the sooner that gets shut down the better. There's no evidence that boomer retirement is creating a labor shortage. The boomers are retiring now and wages are not increasing. Japan's boomers are 10 years ahead of ours and their retirements have not created problematic labor shortages.

Even if there were labor shortages, impending water shortages rather plainly remove the option of continued population growth.

The native population of this country decided the land was full in the 1970s. Native born birth rates leveled to replacement. The current immigration paradigm is a political agenda at odds with democracy. Poll after poll shows pretty much everybody agrees we don't need more people. What we have here is a political alliance between certain business interests and certain ethnic interest groups to benefit at the expense of the majority.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> As a guy who works for an american company, living in south america, i say: make this happen. please.

</comment><comment><USER18> He's certainly the only Republican I'd ever seriously consider voting for.

<comment><USER19> Actually Bloomberg is not a Republican. He changed his status to Independent a couple of years ago, but got permission from the Republican party to run on their ballot line during the last mayoral election.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm with you too. But who's the gatekeeper?

<comment><USER21> he's describing a meritocratic system. The gatekeeper is still the US government. The acceptance criteria is still merit in one shape or the other. It's all just easier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Yet another harangue from a capitalist running dog. Move on nothing new here, nothing to see. We all know immigration is a capitalist codeword for labor exploitation, keep those wages low, benefits nonexistent, and jobs to a minimum, so they will be docile and subservient.

</comment><comment><USER23> American pyramid scheme does rhyme with American dream; this seems like a way to keep newcomers working to feed the incumbents.

This worked fine when Europe was heavily in debt post world war and China was a backwater, but Europe is now ticking along fine, China is doing well, and we are all looking abit wryly at America's lack of social safety nets.

Grrr... Hands off our entrepreneurs. Grow your own.

<comment><USER9> Personally I am keen to get the hell out of Germany with its 50% tax PLUS 13% compulsory health insurance. Social safety net is one thing, but it is ridiculous here, even rich families get government money for having kids. Foreigners get unemployment benefit. Utter insanity and no one wants it to change. America, please let me in!

And don't get me started on trying to start a business. Europe is purging its entrepreneurs like some sort of viral infection.

<comment><USER23> Ha ha. I am moving to munich germany on sunday and i will find out for myself.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How much do you exercise a day/week? - <AUTHOR> How much time do you spent making sure you are healthy?<p>What type of exercises do you do? <comment><USER2> with exercise i've found benefit as a function of time to be crazy non-linear. there's a much bigger difference between 0 minutes and 20 minutes spent exercising than between 20 and 40 or 40 and 60. so when i'm busy, i do what i can, keep it short, but never cut it out. i try to do something every other day at least. it clears my head and resets my stress.

i like to run. simple. no gym membership. no complicated/expensive gear -- only necessary investment is a pair of running shoes (runs around $90). best of all, you can exhaust yourself quickly: if you don't have much time to spare, just run faster* for less time.

* i wouldn't recommend taking this to an extreme. i knew a guy in college who'd max out the treadmill for a few minutes, sweat like crazy and call it a day. odds are that's terrible for you. (he also had an anger management problem...related?)

<comment><USER3> I'd like to add that I believe basic calisthenics to be superior to weight training for most people. Whereas weights are designed to exercise specific muscle [groups], I think that activities like sit-ups and push-ups work muscles in such a way as to deliver more real-life benefit. They certainly expose you to less risk than weight-training and can deliver a full workout without much planning, a requirement when using weights.

In my opinion, most people lifting weights do so for superficial reasons, (not that there's anything wrong with that). I feel more practical strength when using a conservative calisthenic workout than I do when I used to lift weights, although my physique was more impressive when lifting. Note that I had proper guidance when lifting weights.

<comment><USER4> If you do a bodybuilder-style lifting workout, it will target specific muscle groups. But if you're doing squats, cleans, deadlifts and their variations, you're using many muscles, sometimes your whole body. The transfer is going to be the same.

You are exposed to more risk (I'm recovering from a minor strain in my lower back from deadlifts - I'll be more conservative next time), but I think in the long run, the rewards outweigh the risks.

<comment><USER5> Do you have an idea, how to do deadlifts and cleans without "professional" weights and without a gym?

Bodyweight squats are good. So are chin-ups, pull-ups, dips, push-ups, burpees and planks. I'd avoid sit-ups, especially if you hunched over your desk all day. A fun way to spice up the workout is "Parkour".

My workout is running a few kilometers to a selected tree, doing some of the exercises above and running home. Takes about an hour each. Three times a week.

<comment><USER6> I've been doing this (other than doing it I'm unaffiliated with the site):

<http://www.simplefit.org/>

It's been good - it's a program of pull-ups, push-ups and squats with 3 sessions a week and a series of levels to work through. Pretty nice if you're busy, none of the workouts go past 30 minutes because there's a focus on high intensity in the workout.

Probably wise to take the guys nutrition advice with a grain of salt, since it doesn't see to be his main area of knowledge.

Other than that I run about 5km 3 times a week.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You almost nailed it. It's not how much exercise you do during the week, but that you spend time to do it regularly. Again, it doesn't matter exactly what you do. The point of exercise is that it challenges you a bit. So, if you go to the gym 4 times a week, even half hour before they close, you will be able to get 20-25 minutes of running in.

That consistency of showing up, even for 15 minutes a day 4 times a week, is what builds the habit. Building the habit is the important part. After you get the habit, then you will naturally start doing more challenging things to avoid boredom, because the constant is that you keep going, but what you do is what may change day to day. As well, you will find yourself setting aside more time to go to the gym because you'll feel more confident with your surroundings and the people. You may also become interested in classes, and start promising friends that "you'll see them at 5pm tomorrow." As you get (or stay) in good shape, you will learn about and be invited to various other athletic events or sports, which will reinforce the habit to stay in shape.

</comment><comment><USER8> I walk from the sofa to the microwave and back to retrieve my hotpocket. Some days I go out to the mailbox to collect the pile of mail that has built up from the days I didn't quite make it out (but the sun hurts my eyes and burns my pasty skin so I quickly retreat indoors to bask in the glow of my monitor).

On those days that I manage to taste the fresh air I occasionally get the feeling, way in the back of my head, that I should get out and do something. Someday.

<comment><USER9> on one hand, I love this joke, but on the other hand, while i enjoy nice weather, I'm sufficiently sun burnable that my idea of nice outdoor weather is a bright day with diffuse light due to a thin film of clouds

[edit: i do tan, just very very slowly :p, though that may be a consequence of summers spent doing cs / math research rather than healthy stuff :)]

<comment><USER10> Sounds like skiing is for you, get to enjoy the great outdoors while usually being protected from the sun.

<comment><USER11> Ouch, I'd advise you to never go skiing without copious amounts of sunscreen. I've gotten crazy sunburns from the sun reflecting off the snow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What took me off my armchair some years ago, when I had really become a couch potato, was weightlifting. By chance a gym opened 2 minutes from my flat, so I paid them a visit. First the guy there showed me how everything works: he did a few repetitions, then I did a few repetitions (of course, at the lowest setting) on every machine there. After 10 minutes I thanked him, sat on a couch, begged for a bottle of water and spent the next 20 minutes trying hard not to be sick.

In a few months I was in reasonable shape, but you could see a big difference in posture (and in not getting sick) from the second visit. Kept doing it for about 6 months, then on and off another 2 years. Then I started doing other stuff, mostly for fun. Last thing was indoor climbing - most fun I ever had doing sports. Also very good at unexpected things: I never expected my balance to improve so much.

My point is: weightlifting is the best thing to start with, for two reasons. Time wise it's by far the most efficient, both as time spent per week (twice is enough), and as time until getting into shape. Second, it's very useful for whatever you want to do in the future. Whatever the sport chances are basic strength and a bit of endurance are required.

</comment><comment><USER13> 30 to 40 minutes a day, 7 days a week.

4 days a week: cardio. 3 days a week: weights.

For cardio, it's most often the stationary bike in my condo gym. I pedal as fast as I can get to 1,000 calories (about 32 minutes). I sometimes go for a 10k run instead, if it's nice outside (about 45 minutes). In the summer, soccer with my work team replaces cardio once a week.

For weights, I run through a circuit of exercises in about 35 minutes. On a universal gym: seated bench press, quadricep extensions, hamstring curls, tricep extensions, lat bar pulldowns. With free weights: back flys, shoulder lifts. On a mat: various situps. To finish off: 2 minutes of very high- intensity cardio on a stairclimber.

Weekdays, I do my workouts right after work, before dinner. I don't think I've missed a workout for about four years, except when traveling. (When traveling, I do a 25-minute body-weight "core circuit" of situps and pushups in the morning immediately after getting up.) Weekends, I get the workout (usually the cardio) out of the way as soon as practical...usually after getting laundry or some other task started.

If doing this every day without fail seems rigid and bordering on obsessive, it's because I've learned for my own personality type, it's vital to make it part of my daily routine. The less I have to think about it, the more likely is that I'll stick with it and make no excuses. There's now never any question as to whether I will or won't exercise on any given day - it's as routine as eating dinner.

</comment><comment><USER14> Daily.

I commute on a bike (5 miles each way). I also run 5k's when they come around, Lift weights twice per week, and go on long (50+ mile) bike rides when I can.

</comment><comment><USER15> if you're looking for motivation, i highly suggest finding _some_ sport that you enjoy doing. go looking for it, i'm sure one exists.

i do a 2-3 hour workout 2-3 days/week centered around a martial art i compete in on the national/international level. the enjoyment factor really helps get you off the couch.

and i do about 1 hour or so of warmup into a weight routine 2 days a week to compliment the other training.

<comment><USER16> Totally agree. I find organised and/or team sports to be most effective because you are committed to going regularly.

<comment><USER17> I was spending too much time at the computer, and decided to put together a basketball team together for the UCSF (mission bay) rec league. I also shoot at the park on Folsom & 7th every day from 5-6pm. Feel free to join if you like to ball - it's great exercise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Uh, zero, none, and, uh, N/A.

But I should do more!

<comment><USER19> You should consider doubling or tripling it.

<comment><USER20> 0 * 3 or 0 * 4 is still 0 :D sorry couldn't resist

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you cannot do any excersize (ie - can't leave the office) I found the Tibetan Rites to be a very good alternative to jogging/cycling. At least you are doing something.

Since I started doing to tibetan rites I manage to work longer without needing a break, and manage to keep to deadlines more (but yea, still miss them). Apparently helps getting the entire energy system flowing which in turn leaves you energised and refreshed.

More info here:

[http://www.lifeevents.org/5-tibetans-energy-rejuvenation- exe...](http://www.lifeevents.org/5-tibetans-energy-rejuvenation- exercises.htm)

</comment><comment><USER22> i go outside everyday to at least play keep away from my dog with my husband. sometimes we play tennis, or variations on tennis, rather.

sometimes i run to a pool and then swim. on weekends i tend to do longer runs, or else long bike rides to ponds for swimming. this is now that it's warm. during winter i swim indoors after work most days.

i'm trying to start up weekly roller hockey (thurs, 6pm, ahern, cambridge). all you need are skates/blades and whatever protective gear you want. i can bring sticks if you let me know.

i also enjoy roller tennis and roller frisbee. hmm, i guess that's it. i tried indoor soccer this winter, which was prett good. i used to fence. sometimes i spar outside, but i miss the precision of electronics.

i love moving outside. i think people interact with such freedom and joy when outside, especially in nice weather (though all sorts of weather can be interesting). just shooting hoops with someone can make for a more easy going conversation.

recently i've learn yoga, which again is especially awesome when done outside, say after running to a nice field or creek.

i pretty much work constantly at my computer, though i try to read at night before sleep (rather than working until my eyeballs literally need massaging). i try to tear myself away from work with things like piano and sewing, but exercise is the most consistent and best feeling.

oh yeah! pickup ultimate frisbee at least once a wee!! winter pond skating and ice hockey this year was also sweet!!

</comment><comment><USER23> I do CrossFit (crossfit.com) 2-4 days a week, its really hard, has good results, and is time efficient. I also swim occasionally.

</comment><comment><USER24> I run with a group two to three times a week. If I were not running with a group, I don't think I would run at all. The social aspects and accountability of exercising with other peers cannot be underestimated.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm an outlier. I could never stick to running or lifting weights. Too lonely, too boring. On the other hand, a team sport that met once a week was too easy to skip.

So I fight. I admire fighters, and I figure it is right for a young man to try to earn himself some glory.

It's the hardest thing I've ever done. I lost 20 pounds. I did things I never thought I could do. I've cried after practice.

On the downside, my schedule is packed between grad school and Muay Thai/ Jiu Jitsu practice. Also, I'm not sure that getting punched in the face is the best way to stay healthy.

But you know what they say: it's better to burn out than to fade away.

Plus, there's no better cure for the ennui, the malaise of the modern world, the lack of purpose, the depression of your savanna mind sitting behind a desk all day than to experience your body as it was meant to be, in all its glory, in the world's most honest and objective form of competition.

</comment><comment><USER26> I run 6 days a week and ice skate 2-3 nights a week. Running allows me to both stay in good shape and do a lot of thinking; I've caught quite a few bugs during those morning runs. I played ice hockey in middle school and have loved skating ever since, so it's more for fun than health.

<comment><USER22> so true! walking or running or biking or swimming make for excellent designing or problem solving time.

doesn't replace solitude with a whiteboard, or other parts of the process, but definitely helps with getting one's thoughts in order and seeing around assumptions. i feel more creative when my blood is flowing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> When I was in school, I learned the real value of exercise. When I had time to do them and still get 6 hours of sleep, I stayed healthy. When I didn't, I'd start to feel sluggish after a week and I was prone to sickness.

Doing a startup can be particularly difficult because there's nothing to force you to go out. But the toll it will take on your mental agility will compound.

You don't need an enormous amount of exercise. I'd advocate going out and taking a walk whenever you're stuck on something. It usually clears my head and I'll have an answer for what I was working on when I get back.

</comment><comment><USER28> p90x. But I dont strictly follow their schedule, I usually do it 3-4 times a week. You can do half of their workouts anywhere, and the other half with a pullup bar and some free weights.

<comment><USER29> I've been doing P90X for about 2 months now (entering phase 3 this week). Before P90X, I did almost zero physical activity - I didn't play sports in high school and in college the best I did was ultimate frisbee maybe once a month. I haven't been following the diet plan which is probably a mistake but I've seen fairly steady weight loss and muscle gain - for the first time in my life I can do pullups (I'm up to 2!) and pushups! It's an intense program and will (absolutely will) wear you out if you're out of shape but my fitness is soaring and being able to keep up with a game of bball or frisbee is extraordinarily gratifying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm not someone who can exercise for its own sake. I'm no good at creating a structured routine for myself, and I'm terrible at following schedules. I get around this by living a bikeable distance from work and the grocery store. I've been able to cram in around 30 miles of bike riding per week simply by forsaking the car in my daily activities. If you can't keep yourself sticking to an exercise schedule, try piggybacking it on to your existing routine.

<comment><USER31> I can't recommend this enough. I'd lost weight before, but could never keep it off. Biking helped me sustainably lose 30 pounds. I also get to be even more smug than Prius owners.

The downside is that my car doesn't start anymore because I never use it.

<comment><USER32> Watchout biking. It may cause impotence. Not joking.

<http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1023994375.html>

That was the first link from google. There are others more informative. Make a few searches if interested.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I've been trying so hard to get in the habit of exercising for any amount of time on a regular basis, but every time something's managed to break it, something usually involving massive amounts of pain in my legs or chest that make me not do anything for like 3-4 days when it becomes impossible to get motivated to pick up the routine anymore. (My doctor is pretty convinced I'm just accident prone.)

So far the list's included p90 (gave up first day), two different gyms (smelly and old vs. new and clean?), wii fit (this gets boring fast), pilates, walking around, snowboarding (live in LA, don't get much of a chance to go see snow...), swimming, or (really) sex. The last of which is the only thing that happens regularly but isn't enough exercise. Oh well.

I'd love to do something I could actually stick with, but I don't have a huge motivation to do so when clothes still fit (even my teeny weeny not yellow or polka dotted bikini) and I can go up a couple flights of stairs without a problem. I'm pretty surprised to see so many people here are exercising regularly (or maybe they're the only ones answering...:P), maybe I can pick up a few good tips from here :D

</comment><comment><USER34> I do about 40 minutes of biking a day (commute to train station) and try to get to the gym twice a week for about 30 to 45 minutes. Since biking is enough cardiovascular exercise for anybody I mostly do weights at the gym, and typically (when I have an extra 15 minutes free) some yoga for stretching.

I recommend the chalice lift for a good all-purpose hacker exercise. Go over to that big set o' one-hand weights the folks are always using for bicep curls. Find the largest one you can comfortably lift with both hands. Hold it with both hands supporting the top, braced against your chest. Pick a point on the wall at forehead level -- your eyes never move from that point for the duration of the exercise. (This is a hack to avoid back damage.) From a standing position, pretend you are sitting down on a bench directly behind you. Then, from the sitting position, stand to return to your original position. You can actually use a bench the first few times to get a hang out of it. Sitting to standing is one rep. Do five sets of five reps or 3 sets of 10 reps. I like to vary the weight I use -- first work with one I know I can do easily, then with one I know is a stretch, then back to easy.

Works your legs, torso, and a bit of your upper body like you would not believe, scales trivially until you reach the limits of your upper body strength (but even for out of shape hackers you can get a lot of benefit at the final point for your arms -- I'm at about 30 lbs right now, which is really not that much, and it feels like a real workout and has been empirically effective since a few months ago 15 lbs was similarly tiring), requires minimal time, equipment, and skill. Biggest downside: you'll look like an absolute doofus doing it.

Bonus points: keep a journal. Things that get measured get improved, etc.

<comment><USER35> That lift looks far too complicated and awkward for a noob to weightlifting.

If you want to start weight lifting go really simple to avoid any problems early on.

Squat, deadlift, overhead press, bench press. Do everything with barbells to start if possible, if not go with dumbbells.

I do agree 5x5 or so is the way to go - especially starting out as this will allow you to go with heavier weights.

Don't go to failure, keep well below that and stay consistent a few times a week. It is by far the best way to gain overall strength. Lookup 'riptoes workout' as a good guide to that basic plan if you want the generally accepted best way to gain strength from scratch.

<comment><USER29> Lunges are also a really good choice starting out - you can modulate the intensity with super easily - change how low you go, add weights, put your arms in the air, do intense rep sets, add kicks, etc. Lunges are a great exercise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Mostly I just walk places. I willingly walk over an hour into town to avoid catching a bus. If I'm late, I'll run part of the way.

I'm currently living on campus and have far less walking to do, but I play airsoft every few weeks. I also go to clubs and spend hours at a time dancing.

I have no idea if this really constitutes effective exercise, but I've never had health problems.

</comment><comment><USER37> I try to get on my treadmill for at least 30 minutes three times/week. If I have the time I do more and I also do weights, but that's my desired minimum and I can usually make it. Now that it's finally warming up (can't believe it snowed yesterday!), I'll probably be taking the running outside.

But IMHO, the biggest bang for the buck is simply to _move around_ Don't be one of those people who drives around the parking lot for half an hour looking for a closer spot to avoid walking an extra 20 feet to the door. I get in the parking lot and PARK. If I have to walk 200 yards to get in the store, it won't kill me and the exercise is good for me. The only exceptions are heavy rain, subzero temperatures, or carrying a baby or toddler (which I haven't had to do for years).

Just get off the couch and _do something_ and your health will automatically improve. Humans are built to walk, we just don't do enough of it.

</comment><comment><USER38> I cycle around 30 min everyday to get around town and on nice days or weekends I'll go for longer trips on my mountainbike. Used to do long distance running and martial arts 3 times a week. Don't care to pick up running again, which can be perfectly substituted with cycling, but I'll get back into martial arts.

I'd really like to spend some time hiking again in the Rockies or back in Germany in the Austrian Alps :)

As mentioned on here - you have to get in the habit of exercising like 2-3 times a week. Usually you'll get that in any team sport through high school, such as basketball, soccer, football, hockey etc. After high school you just got ta keep up that rhythm. However, it will more difficult to get into the habit if you haven't started it earlier in high school already.

AND: NO JUNKFOOD/ NO POP/ NO FRIES... VEGETABLES/ FRUIT/ WATER etc. instead; DON'T EVER EAT AT MCDONALD'S (THAT WILL F*CK YOU UP INSTANTLY)

<comment><USER39> This. THIS X 10!!

I find that my ability to exercise is very heavily impacted by even the most small amount of junk food. Anything with flour or sugar is pretty much out. Even diet soda gives me a headache now. :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I've been trying to make a point of walking every day, though it works out more to every 2nd or 3rd day.

I used to listen to music, but found it too easy/tempting to skip around to find a better piece, and my mind kept focusing on all sorts of "must do" shit that made me want to go back in and work.

So I started listening to audio books. It makes up for the reading I used to do when I lived in NYC and traveled on buses and trains (now it's walk or drive, so less reading :( )

I prefer short stories; more immediate sense of satisfaction and completion, and greater variety. Right now I'm going through Tobias Wolff's Our Story Begins. Great stuff, and I find that I make myself walk longer if I think I can get to the end of the current story.

</comment><comment><USER41> Last year after trying a bunch of different things fitness options, I got into cycling. I now commute by bike whenever I can and participate in long (50+ mile) weekend rides. In the summer I am riding on average 10 miles a day, but that drops to maybe 10 miles a week for the winter months.

One great thing about cycling is that the community is very hacker-esque. Once you learn the talk, you'll feel right at home.

Another wonderful thing about cycling is that a stressful 15 minute car ride can turn into a peaceful 30 minute bike ride, giving your mind a rest. I find that after a quick ride I am more likely to come up with good ideas and be productive/creative.

</comment><comment><USER42> What is this "exercise" about which you speak?

</comment><comment><USER43> Mostly every day. I go climbing two to three times a week, two to three hours each time. I try to run every other day, 3-4 miles, and I try to make it out to the gym twice or so a week. Nothing's that consistent except the climbing, so I hope to make it into a proper regimen. Last half year or so I've been going to the gym/running about twice a week but nothing on a schedule.

However, I have set definite goals for climbing and have a 5K and a 10K in May, so that's something specific to train for.

<comment><USER44> heeeeyy.. I'm a climber as well :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> An average of half an hour a day.

Weights a few times a week, running a few times a week. I play hockey during the winter twice a week.

I am hoping to get back into good shape soon...it gets harder as you get older.

</comment><comment><USER45> Seven hours a week, assuming golf doesn't count as exercise.

My commitment to myself is to spend at least a half hour a day on average doing _something_. This is an antidote to being a professional sitter. The doing _something_ was a response to having trouble with sticking with other plans.

For the last several months I have been doing. Four hours - weights and biking/running/swimming. Three hours - stretching and body weight exercises.

Before that it was almost entirely rock climbing at a gym.

</comment><comment><USER46> I play ultimate here at school, which entails three practices a week. I find that if I don't exercise on a weekly basis, I become easily irritable.

</comment><comment><USER47> First 30 minutes is machines/free weights then 45 minutes on the treadmill jogging.

Mon/Tue and Thu/Fri 6:30AM -> 7:45AM before I go into the office. I have to do it before I go to work, so that I never miss any days due to working late. I don't allow myself to ever miss even one day, to keep the habit in tact.

I forgot how much more alive I feel when I exercise until I started again after a long break.

</comment><comment><USER48> I run about 3 miles every morning and then a longer run on Saturday or Sunday. I've found that I really need to exercise every day, or during the day I can't get into that deep zone of concentration where I'm the most productive. Running more than 3 miles, and too tired and sore, and end up napping during the day.

It's also fun and feels good :)

</comment><comment><USER49> 5-7, usually closer to 7, I take a day off only if I'm extremely sore, and two days if I'm sick. Last summer I did about 10-14 sessions a week (morning and evening) but that was just wrong and I was constantly depressed and overtrained. Now I'm just running every day for fun :)

Oh yeah, I'm a runner.

</comment><comment><USER50> I run. 5-12 miles a day depending on speed (5 being the shortest, fastest, and 12 being long and moderate with a pickup at the end) -- quit track to do programming and startup stuff seeing as I'm in high school, but I keep discipline cause it helps me stay focused academically too.

</comment><comment><USER51> I've recently taken to exercising several hours a day; mostly weights and taking decently long walks.

What I've noticed is that this actually gives me somewhat _more_ time to code, as I spend much less of the day feeling tired and don't need quite as much sleep.

</comment><comment><USER52> 4 times a week for certain, sometimes 5.

Run a 5k, then abs and 24 sets of lifting.

Can't stand treadmills, so usually run outdoors.

I usually get insanely focused and clear my head while working out, so it's equally as beneficial from a mental health standpoint as a physical health standpoint.

</comment><comment><USER53> Try to run 3-6 miles at least 3 times a week + <http://hundredpushups.com/> Also try to stretch, but that doesn't always go so well. Yoga makes me crack up laughing.

</comment><comment><USER54> This guy's blog is great. He talks about exercise and eating in an intelligent manner, and is living proof of the results

<http://theorytopractice.wordpress.com/>

</comment><comment><USER44> I go indoors-climbing about 1-5 times a week. Gymnastics 1-2 times a week (even though I haven't been showing up for some while now) In the summertime I also go jogging maybe once every one or two weeks

</comment><comment><USER55> I cycle to work every day, which is about 4.5 miles each way. This adds up to about 40-45 minutes of exercise per day, which is awesome as it's both quicker than public transport and also keeps me fit.

</comment><comment><USER56> I play ultimate frisbee for my university. We play for three hours three days a week. That's enough exercise for me.

When it's the summertime, and, thus, when I have more time, I work out with the powerlifting team.

</comment><comment><USER57> martial arts training twice a week and calisthenics in between for core training.

the martial arts training is about an hr of warmup and basics and half and hr of running forms (standardized routines).

between the martial arts, I try to do core workouts at home which include exercises with the chinup bar, gymnastics style static exercies, like handstands, planches

i think consistency is key. even if you dont have time, try to do something, anything. i find that i feel really crappy if i miss my workout or training. it definitely keeps me energized.

</comment><comment><USER58> 5 days a week Monday to Friday with each weekend off to rest. I eat healthier foods by making sure I have home-made food with me, in my office, every day during the week.

</comment><comment><USER59> Never. But, living in NYC, I walk around a mile in 15 minutes, each way to and from work, every day. I also walk or bike any time I need to run errands.

</comment><comment><USER60> I play ice hockey 2 to 3 times a week depending on the league's schedule. I would like to do more exercising like weight lifting and maybe some biking...

</comment><comment><USER61> I play 2 outdoor soccer games a week + 1 indoor game. That's about all I do these days. In the offseason, I try to go to the Gym once or twice a week.

</comment><comment><USER62> Earlier this year, I started taking a 7km walk everyday. 210km a month. I never stopped. My health and overall physical aptitude has been awesome.

</comment><comment><USER63> 3 to 4 times a week. Running, weights and occasional team sport (footy, basketball). I try to mix it up a bit to keep me challenged and motivated.

</comment><comment><USER64> I used to do from 1-3 hours of trail riding on my mountain bike every day. Lost 70lbs of fat doing so.

The benefits to my physical and mental health were huge.

</comment><comment><USER65> I exercise thrice a week, on average. Twice are chin-ups, sit-ups and push-ups followed by a run. The other is basketball.

</comment><comment><USER66> For an hour 3 times a week most weeks. It's tough, especially when it conflicts with coding time but it's worth it.

</comment><comment><USER67> I bike to work. I ride my bike every weekend. I am thinking of running.. I lift wieghts 4 times a week

</comment><comment><USER68> I'm a fencer. I fence three times per week for about two hours.

</comment><comment><USER69> i dribble a soccer ball in the backyard every time i go out for a smoke, plus the occasional skateboard (yeah, i picked up skating when i was 27!)

</comment><comment><USER70> for minimal time commitment i would definitely recommend running. i recently started running to train for the nyc triathlon. running is easy to pick up and offers serious physical challenges. time wise, you can adjust the challenge to your fitness level by increasing the speed without increasing the time. as noted elsewhere, you dont even need a gym membership, all you need are a pair of sneaks you feel comfortable running in.

as for things you can do at home i would recommend the basics, ie. pull ups, push ups and the plank instead of sit ups. mix in various twisting efforts into the standard pull ups / push ups/ plank and you will start to notice the difference in just a few weeks. add a medicine ball to your routine to mix things up and confuse your muscles. these kind of exercises can be done without leaving your house and for a few minutes at a time.

if you feel comfortable exercising outside the house i would seriously consider exercising with other people. friends, strangers, people who are at your level or a bit beyond to help motivate you and get you past your current plateau. get social. you will find that fitness is an infinite challenge with no level cap. whereas your mage in wow can only get to level 80 (currently) you can keep going indefinitely. but beware! you can also regress.

doing the aforementioned will bring you a long way to getting in shape in just a few weeks. after that you will start to plateau if you do not ratchet up the intensity/time/difficulty or mix up your routine.

something i would definitely not recommend and specifically argue against would be any sort or weight training. weight training, imho, should only be done by those who already consider themselves in shape at a certain threshold. weight training works to isolate specific muscle areas and does not on its own encourage an overall health level.

personally, i had been a swimmer in my high school years and then did some club water polo. i always biked but never ran. so last year i decided to get into the triathlon scene at the sprint level and did my first last october. the tri concept is appealing to me because of the multidisciplinary nature and multiple entry points for the novice. i would wholeheartedly recommend sprint distance triathlons to those in moderate shape looking for a physical challenge.

lastly, but perhaps most importantly: stop drinking soda excessively. some might even say completely. just this one act will go a long way to slimming you down and greatly adding to your overall health. follow this up by cutting out sweets/chocolate/popcorn/insert favorite junk food here. it can not be overstated how much a healthier diet will help you reach a greater level of fitness than exercise can alone.

</comment><comment><USER71> One hour brisk walk between 5AM to 6AM.

<comment><USER40> Right before sleep?

:)

<comment><USER71> Wish I could.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> I am doing around 2 hours per week total, and it has positively changed my life in many ways.

I bought a crosstrainer a few months back, and it is the very best $200 USD I have ever spent, I highly recommend it to everyone.

I do 20 minutes or so on it, at a decent pace, and as many pushups as I can handle, every other day . . . my body must react real well to exercise, because I now get looks from the ladies!

A well shaped geek I am, if you can all believe it :)

Seriously however, exercising has improved my life in a myriad of ways.

</comment><comment><USER73> I usually exercise 3 times a week -- about 45 minutes of running/jogging each time.</comment>


Congress finally showed it's willing to fight the FBI on encryption - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/01/congress-showed-willing-fight-fbi-encryption-finally <comment><USER2> I watched most of the hearing (can be viewed here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw)), this article seems like a pretty accurate characterization. Comey's parsing of words in his response to the question of whether any gov't agency can access the phone reminded me of Clapper's "least untruthful" answer (ie his lie about NSA data collection).

<comment><USER3> I also watched most of the hearing[1], and Comey was very practiced at sticking to his story. However, one bit in particular stood out as something I haven't heard before: he seemed to criticize Apple for trying to protect people. He went off on a brief tangent at one point where he said things like[2]:

"It's not Apple's job to protect the American people."

"They sell phones, they don't sell public safety. That's our business to worry about."

He spent a minute or two saying things like that. This almost sounds like Comey sees this as some sort of turf war, with Apple infringing on his responsibilities. I'm not sure how to interpret that - isn't it the job of _any_ manufacturer to make sure their product is safe? Wouldn't any kind of courier have a duty to protect what that which they carry?

[1] side note: I'm actually very impressed by most of Representatives understanding of the issue and the fairness of their questions.

[2] These may not be exact quotes! This is what I remember, I'll see if I can find the spot in the video later.

<comment><USER4> I'm delighted to see Congress taking a stand for's right here, and I hope politicians finally realised they do have a personal stake in the matter.

They do have secrets, like most of us and effects of revealing these secrets would have far worse consequences for them and their careers than for most "ordinary citizens", which makes them high-profile targets. Easy targets, too, if (or when) FBI/NSA/CIA allies with some party in domestic political struggle.

Given surveillance powers these guys want, it won't be too long before they decide that next order of business is to find more effective ways to steer political discourse in the favourable direction.

I can see how "ordinary people" would think they "aren't important enough" when it comes to surveillance, but it amazes me that ambitious politicians wouldn't see themselves as "important enough".

<comment><USER5> _Given surveillance powers these guys want, it won 't be too long before they decide that next order of business is to find more effective ways to steer political discourse in the favourable direction._

This has likely happened already with NSA. FBI are jealous because NSA don't share. Congress already know what a pain it is to deal with NSA; they're not eager to create another effectively ungovernable agency.

<comment><USER6> If you want to go all the way down that rabbit hole, the NSA could be leveraging its power over politicians to prevent the FBI from gaining power, since power of this sort is relative, not absolute (the FBI's gain would be the NSA's loss).

To be clear, I don't really subscribe to that narrative.

<comment><USER7> It's very well known historically that these agencies have been fighting with each other since their originations. They fight each other over intel, budgets, turf, governance, talent, technology, etc.

I don't think there's anything to subscribe to or not. It's established fact, widely written about for decades.

<comment><USER6> I was more referring to the NSA leveraging power over our congressmen and senators due to their knowledge of secrets those politicians may not want exposed. That's a very dangerous game to play, and all it takes is one person not willing to play for it to all come tumbling down for the NSA. So, I don't really subscribe to _that_ narrative.

<comment><USER8> I'm skeptical that the NSA would do that so explicitly (although given that Snowden's entire set of revelations consisted of "they wouldn't do that ..... oh they did" perhaps I should have less confidence).

I think a far more plausible and subtle form of mental pressure is simply manipulating secrecy and technical bullshit. You don't have to know a Congressman's porn preference to manipulate him if you can instead say, "we are tracking dangerous terrorists and if you don't do exactly what we want, they will win and it'd be an awful shame if an angry analyst leaked to the press the fact that YOU, CONGRESSMAN JONES, prevented us from doing our jobs".

Whether the terrorists really exist or not doesn't matter when you are effectively unauditable, and can easily imply that anyone who gets in your way is directly responsible for the deaths of innocents.

<comment><USER3> That's exactly it, but it's even simpler than that; when you control the reports that the political leaders are relying on for information, you control the set of options they can select from. Some things never get reported, others get reported such that there is an "obvious correct" choice. Coercive measures are possible, but they shouldn't be necessary in most cases.

Jacob Appelbaum describes this process very well in an interview[1] where talks about the time the CSE[2] tried to recruit him. It's hilarious... and scary for several reasons, including the suggestion that the CSE has to get NSA approval for the people they hire.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt7XloDNcm4#t=805](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt7XloDNcm4#t=805)

[2] Communications Security Establishment (Canadian SIGINT agency)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'll open the champagne when Congress actually _votes_ on some legislation to prevent the FBI's request from happening. The congressional committee does not represent all of congress, and I don't know how many congressmen would still rally behind the "No privacy ever because TERRORISM" cry if it came to a vote. This is, unfortunately, not a clear-cut partisan issue, and it's difficult to predict how a vote would go.

<comment><USER10> This will probably be decided, like most constitutional issues, by a Judge that will be forced to interpret the 4th/5th amendment, in the ever changing light of 'reasonableness', as it applies to the case at hand.

It will then become precedent, adding to the long list of very important judicial decisions that must decide how to apply a law with very loosely defined vocabulary. How a normal citizen is expected to remain apprised of every single law, every interpretation of the law, and every precedent set by a judge ruling on the law, is beyond me.

If the original laws (in this case, the Bill of Rights) were defined as well as many judicial rulings are, we likely wouldn't be arguing if what is being asked of Apple is 'reasonable' \-- as what constitutes 'reasonable' would be defined by the law itself.

<comment><USER11> This doesn't need to become a constitutional argument. Congress can pass a law forbidding the government from forcing a manufacturer to build a back door. Simple as that.

<comment><USER12> Apple argues (correctly IMO) that Congress _already did that_ in the language of CALEA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Isn't it amazing when corporate interests actually align with American peoples' interests?

<comment><USER14> What's more interesting in the Apple case is that protecting citizens' 4th amendment rights is contingent on protecting corporation's 1st amendment rights. Apple claimed that since code is speech, being forced to create and digitally sign the backdoor code is forced speech.

The Citizens United decision from 2010 guarantees a corporation's 1st amendment rights, but I wonder if Apple could still use this defense if that decision was overturned.

<comment><USER12> Citizens United depends on the concept that corporations have 1st Amendment rights. But it did not create that concept.

That has actually been settled law for a long time; it is how newspapers (which are corporations) are able to enjoy freedom of the press--not just the reporters individually.

So Citizens United could be overturned and it would not hurt Apple's case at all.

<comment><USER15> Umm, newspapers enjoy freedom of the press because the 1st amendment explicitly guarantees freedom of the press.

> Congress shall make no law [...] or abridging the freedom of speech, or of > the press

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I wonder if most members of congress owning locked/encrypted iPhones with personal information made this issue feel a little closer to home.

</comment><comment><USER17> > "You have had apparently 70 prior instances where you have not taken the > steps available to you," Judge Orenstein said to Apple's lawyers during a > hearing.

From [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/technology/apple-wins- ruli...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/technology/apple-wins-ruling-in- new-york-iphone-hacking-order.html?_r=0)

<comment><USER18> Apple apparently grew a pair.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Except for Trey Gowdy, who continued to display himself as a complete and total idiot.

<comment><USER20> My first impression of him was recently during Martin Shkreli's hearing and he left a similarly bad taste in my mouth after this one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Agreed except for Sensenbrenner and Gowdy.

Sensenbrenner - [https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h59m30s](https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h59m30s)

Gowdy - [https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=4h36m35s](https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=4h36m35s)

Both of these characters basically bullied and badgered Apple's legal counsel, Mr. Sewell, to write and lobby for legislation with which Apple would agree. Neither would consider that perhaps no additional legislation is necessary to protect Apple's rights.

Gowdy also mentioned names of a few of his friends at the end of his questioning who probably think along the same lines he does.

<comment><USER21> What does Sensenbrenner even mean by "you aren't going to like what we come up with". It sounds like he was pissed off that Apple didn't come with a bill to hand him to do his job for him. And his last part sounds quite like a threat.

<comment><USER18> It does sound like a threat at the end. He's basically saying, _" you don't want to give us a new bill? Okay, we'll write a one-sided one, and you're going to hate it, but too bad because all you wanted to do was debate and discuss the issue"._

He sounds like he has already made up his mind, is in a rush, and does not want to engage in debate. He already agrees with the DOJ and nothing is going to change his mind.

It is unreasonable for him to expect Apple to propose legislation before even one congressional hearing on the issue is complete.

Even after one hearing we can't expect the public and Congress expect to be so informed on the implications of curtailing encryption that they should be prepared to legislate on the issue.

Sensenbrenner claims Apple is saying "No no no" but in reality he is the one doing the censure. Apple has repeatedly said they're willing to discuss the issue in public.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Does the NSA have some new found powers?

FTA: "For example, why hasn't the FBI attempted to get the NSA's help to get into the phone, since hacking is their job?"

 _Is_ it in fact their job? I'd assume there are some ground rules for operations among the executive branch of government but apparently congress thinks this is their charge?

<comment><USER12> The allegation in the San Bernadino case is that it was international terrorism, so the NSA would reasonably have jurisdiction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Am I mishearing, or did Comey whisper "god damn it" after the oath @ [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw&t=51m0s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw&t=51m0s) ?

</comment><comment><USER24> Only because major U.S. corporations complained, which tells you who owns congress.

<comment><USER7> It is in fact the other way around. The US Government completely and entirely dominates the private sector economy, controlling nearly every aspect top to bottom. The US is one of the most regulated economies in the G20, with economic regulations continuing to expand rapidly, the government adds thousands of new regulations annually.

That blatant government control is why the NSA (US military, executive branch) was able to force Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, et al. to comply against their will, and often against their attempts to defend themselves. It's also why this is even an issue at all. If Congress were owned by corporations, none of this would be happening, Apple would have dismissed them with a swipe of its hand, given it's the world's richest private corporation.

If corporations owned Congress, the US wouldn't have one of the highest effective corporate tax rates on earth.

<comment><USER25> What?

"If Congress were owned by corporations, none of this would be happening"\--it's almost as if there can be multiple interests influencing / lobbying for power somehow, and not a single corporation owns all of congress...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Why? Has the FBI found a fast way to factor any product of two large prime numbers? Until they do, what the FBI wants is not always what the FBI can get, Congress or not.

<comment><USER27> You need to break the encryption _or_ find the key. In this case the key has 4^9 bits of entropy (262144) which can be cracked in a matter of minutes if they get a copy of iOS that doesn't have a timeout.

<comment><USER28> Your math is a little off.

Presumably you are assuming a 4-digit numeric PIN, which means log_2(10^4) bits of entropy (13.3).

<comment><USER26> No. I'm not really talking about, thinking about the current FBI/Apple issue and, instead, am trying to be more fundamental and look ahead one step, say, the next step after the FBI/Apple, uh, maybe call it a pissing match.

So, IMHO, here's where we are, whatever FBI/Apple do: People, and Apple, will want encryption no one knows how to break. Indeed, IIRC, Apple has already announced that they intend to make an iPhone Apple can claim they can't break.

And I suspect that quite broadly and commonly people will just roll back to basic RSA, etc. encryption, say, from little command line programs they can run on an old, not hacked, computer never connected to a network.

Then the issue in practice will be the same one that is fundamental in theory: To break the encryption, need to a fast way to factor a product of two, large prime numbers.

Pass code, 4-digit PINs, etc. -- I just passed over those as by now trivial and irrelevant.

<comment><USER29> > And I suspect that quite broadly and commonly people will just roll back to > basic RSA, etc. encryption, say, from little command line programs they can > run on an old, not hacked, computer never connected to a network.

Never gonna happen. I am willing to bet.

<comment><USER26> Some people, maybe a lot of people want to take encryption seriously.

So, get some little open source, command line programs that run and just squirt out dirt simple flat ASCII files in base 64 encoding. Run the software on some old computer where are fairly sure there are no back doors. Never connect to computer to a network. Move the data from that computer on, say, just old diskettes.

Then somehow have an iPhone read the base 64 and send it.

If the FBI gets the base 64 code, lots of luck making any sense out of it.

Some people will be impressed by that scenario and possibility.

<comment><USER29> How many is `some'?

<comment><USER26> Should be everyone with first level programming skills and very interested in solid data security. That's a lot of people, millions.

Maybe they just need to be reminded that they can do it themselves, easily, with no dependence on Apple, Microsoft, the Internet standards and no risk of backdoors, etc.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How can we help you? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.messagehandler.net/how-can-we-help-you/

<comment><USER2> That's a cool approach for working on an MVP (minimum viable product). Instead of pushing something out there and hoping to get feedback, these guys are using the inverse approach and asking people what to build.

Looking forward to reading a follow-up on this with details on how many reactions came aboit and how they handled all that.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're looking forward to build things that people can actually use, and I noted down to write a follow up on the experience, stay tuned!

<comment><USER2> I'm a startup owner myself so really like this type of stories and experiences.</comment></comment></comment>


Visual Studio "14" CTP 3 Released - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/visualstudio/archive/2014/08/18/visual-studio-14-ctp-3-released.aspx

<comment><USER2> In other C++ news

codeblocks: "The 06 August 2014 build (9855) is out."</comment>


Tulipmania: More Boring Than You Thought - <AUTHOR> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/there-never-was-real-tulip-fever-180964915/#cZtyAgAvv2FlrssY.99?no-ist <comment><USER2> The title is a little misleading. The article itself acknowledges that there _was_ a tulip fever:

> _That's not to say that everything about the story is wrong; merchants > really did engage in a frantic tulip trade, and they paid incredibly high > prices for some bulbs. And when a number of buyers announced they couldn't > pay the high price previously agreed upon, the market did fall apart and > cause a small crisis—but only because it undermined social expectations._

But it implies that it's not all that notable because it didn't collapse the entire economy:

> _But the trade didn't affect all levels of society, and it didn't cause the > collapse of industry in Amsterdam and elsewhere._

Personally, I don't think I'd ever made the assumption that it had. Likewise, if Bitcoin were to implode, it would be similar — some people would suffer, but it wouldn't be all that widespread of an effect.

Tulipmania still makes a great historical anecdote on speculation, and I for one, will keep using it as one.

<comment><USER3> The title is now changed but it reminds me of a tangentially related pet peeve.

I really dislike titles like this. Why do they presume to know what I think? An example from yesterday was that consciousness goes deeper than I thought. On reading the article, it did no such thing. Again, why would they presume to know what I think?

I'm not sure why it rubs me wrong. It certainly biases my perception of the article before I've even read it. I even know that it is prejudicing my reading but I can't seem to get over it.

To me, they seem like click-bait. No, the answer may not surprise me and no, the author actually had no idea what I was thinking. It really does bias me against the article. It's just a small thing but I can see my own biases when I see headlines that include similar statements.

No big deal, just a pet peeve.

<comment><USER4> My problem is that it's a cliche, first time it was fine, Nth time it's utterly, irredeemably trite. If they can't bother to come up with a less tired headline, it's probably not good enough for me to bother to read it.

Same with "X considered harmful", just give me a break.

<comment><USER5> Maybe it's akin to nigerian scams. They don't want to waste their bandwidth on someone who's not going to click on their numerous articles with similar title and generate more ad revenue.

However if you are gullible enough to click on "7 awesome things Miley Cirus did, number 4 will shock you!", you are ripe to click on all the click bait they will show you.

The problem arises when good quality content uses clickbait. It's the same as naming your bank "The Nigerian Prince Bank of America".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As someone on HN pointed out recently, there's a much better explanation for the tulip bubble than "speculators went crazy all of the sudden".

In a 2007 paper, Earl Thompson argues that the extreme tulip bubble was formed because the Dutch government, in coalition with insolvent tulip speculators, allowed speculators to nullify tulip futures contracts, thus inadvertently enabling close-to-risk-free speculation in tulip futures (which, after the regulation, resembled options contracts to a much higher degree).

Here's an Economist article on the subject: [https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/10/economi...](https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/10/economic- history)

And Wikipedia has a summary here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania#Legal_changes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania#Legal_changes)

<comment><USER7> I just posted about this without checking to see if anyone else had said anything...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I guess the paper is trying to help with the misconception that a lot of what occurred in Tulipmania is relatable to modern-day financial bubble crashes where a lot of the general public suddenly lose jobs and money or how a lot of perception was influenced by Calvinists condemning materialistic pursuits, whereas in the actual event of the Tulip fever, it likely only affected the rich and not your ordinary 1600s general public.

<comment><USER9> So if anything, what we faced in the 2008 crisis and what many are experience now is on orders of magnitude worse than Tulipmania...

<comment><USER10> Absolutely. Also an example of how the financial system has evolved to tie the fates of some of the large, institutional (too big to fail) speculative investors to that of the common working man in the most unjust way possible. It is impressive how remarkarble they've evolved the finacial sector (for themselves).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is an advertisement for the movie Tulip Fever that just came out. I noticed a lot of similar posts on other social media sites in the last six months.

<comment><USER12> Arguably it's more criticism than advertising.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> My first thought was "It couldn't possibly be more boring than I think", then in the article I see it's the more accurate title for the book I read that convinced me of that.

tl;dr. Even though Tulipmania might have been an exciting and fascinating event, the actual details of what/why it happened have been lost to history. There are ledgers and letters mentioning tulip prices and do definitely show a bubble. But there's not really any information on why people thought tulips were worth the price they were promising. As with investors today, they generally don't make their motives public, and when they do, you can't necessarily trust them to be honest.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is a frustrating article, but perhaps the book is better.

The key work here is really Earl Thompson's "The tulipmania: Fact or artifact?" in Public Choice. The article at least does not make any mention of Thompson or his argument. In particular, his argument is that there was a legal change in how the tulip contracts worked and so it didn't make sense to compare the previous price history with the history after that change.

</comment><comment><USER14> If the environment is stable enough, a bubble doesn't necessarily have to pop.

I think that chronic sustained wealth inequality can create lasting economic bubbles that never pop.

If we lived in a world where everyone had near infinite resources, everything would be a bubble because markets would be driven entirely by status value.

If you think about it, the rich today have practically unlimited wealth thanks to dividends, rent payments and/or interest; they can afford to lose large portions of their income and still become richer.

Now thanks in part to social media, the rich live in a separate world from others; one which has near unlimited resources. So long as money flows into their world faster than it leaks out, bubbles are completely sustainable.

<comment><USER15> Isn't a bubble defined as a price increase that at some point pops?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Here's a perspective from the Austrian school: [https://mises.org/library/truth-about- tulipmania](https://mises.org/library/truth-about-tulipmania)

<comment><USER17> You learn quickly not to mention favorably certain taboo subjects here on HN, like Austrian economics or free markets being better than regulated one. (I'll refrain from pointing out others, I want to limit the number of downvotes I get. Self-censorship or, in other words, learned helplessness.)

<comment><USER18> Look, as much as I dislike the Austrian school (it all hangs on certain premises that I don't believe are necessarily true, so I don't think it contributes much to being able to understand the economy), the main problem with the comment above was that it wasn't very useful in just dropping a link with little context... With a bit of commentary or a brief summary of the article, people would have engaged with it instead of just downvoting.

<comment><USER19> So does mainstream economics. They are both wrong.

At least the Austrian school admits they made the whole thing up in a religious fashion and never submit their ideas to actual science.

Mainstream economics just pretends it's scientific when really the whole belief structure is a house of cards in the same way

<comment><USER18> I don't disagree, I think that certain ideas from the post-Keynesian and modern monetary theory are probably the closest to actual evidence based Economics at the moment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Click bait pattern 101: Claim something is completely different than everybody thought then write that it mainly was as everyone thought with some minor variations.

</comment><comment><USER21> The real bubble comes when you watch Smithsonian's webpage use close to two gigabytes of RAM in a very short time.

<comment><USER22> Hey, didn't you know? It's 2017, and we can't display pictures and text without a sandboxed virtual machine running thousands of dynamics queries.

<comment><USER23> I feel so glad that we finally live in the future. Such a shame how terrible it is, though.

<comment><USER9> Do you remember the Palm Treo? I remember the Palm Treo. I had the SDK. Every app had direct memory access, no threads and it was easy to crash the phone.

I mean, they didn't serve us tons of ads either but...things aren't _that_ bad...

<comment><USER24> You make it sound as if it were bad back then? Was it on the Treo? Because I had the previous non smartphone Palms and there that was not an issue.

It was even an advantage IMHO. Apps were fast and good easily exchange data or even better you good use a better app than the standard app for a given data collection. You didn't have the walled data containers we have today.

Granted, with an internet capable device this opens up lots of security problems but I also feel that I was more productive with my handheld back then than I am now with my iPhone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> At some stage it'd be interesting to collate 'dumb things HN believes'

TulipMania would join Split Sleep, Drones hitting/near misses planes, X just discovered Y happened Z years previous to what was thought. This Voynich manuscript article adds to the discussion. The Valley has a unique problem with Y.

<comment><USER26> 'HN' is a statistical distribution; it doesn't believe anything. Some people here might believe some of those things but I doubt they're the same people, or close to a majority.

It's popular to diss one's fellow community members, but kind of in bad taste. If you're commenting here, you're as much 'HN' as the next person.

<comment><USER25> HN has emergent behaviour.

Like an ants nest or a physical human community or a corporation the behaviour doesn't reflex individuals or even necessarily the majority of individuals.

Shrug, I wasn't even saying the dumb things were common.

But I do think these emergent memes bleed across to real world issues.

While people think it's ok to think hundreds of years ago people were stupid and paid 'really' ridiculous amounts of money for tulips, they will also be susceptible to allow war propaganda like what's coming out of North Korea or Iraq. People are people, do we really think the North Korean's are that dumb they think their leader doesn't poop or see the whole Iraq 'Latif Yahia' saga.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > _For decades, economists have pointed to 17th-century tulipmania as a > warning about the perils of the free market. Writers and historians have > reveled in the absurdity of the event. The incident even provides the > backdrop for the new film Tulip Fever, based on a novel of the same name by > Deborah Moggach. The only problem: none of these stories are true._

Well, speaking of economists' historical-based arguments that weren't, there never was much truth about the keyboard wars either: [https://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html](https://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html)</comment>


Visa Patent Allows Banks to Mint Digital Fiat Currencies Using Blockchain - <AUTHOR> https://www.coindesk.com/visa-digital-fiat-currency <comment><USER2> I'm really excited about digital currencies but digital currencies do not need blockchain. They're centralized currencies and technology is used to facilitate and streamline transactions. A central bank does not need blockchain or distributed cryptocurrencies.

</comment><comment><USER3> Government and advertising bodied have free reign over our transaction data - why not the public?</comment>


With iOS 7, my concern is beyond the icons - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/design-ux/95e24295c95e

<comment><USER2> Using WhatsApp is a strange example. "Crappy app look crappy". Why not use a couple more cross-platform apps (Twitter, Instagram, Facebook) that have taken more time to build a consistent UI and UX across their major platforms?</comment>