Why do people resist the idea that carbs are worse than fat? - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=mummy-says-john-horgan-is-wrong-abo-2011-05-19 <comment><USER2> I think there are a number of issues:

1 - People relate fat the nutrient to fat the body type because they share the word "fat". Not much to do there. In high school I was taught that carbohydrates were "energy" and fat was "waste". People should probably be taught the right way our biological systems operate.

2 - Medical authorities have worked with the best science they had available at the time, and are almost always managed by bureaucrats, not physicians. This isn't limited to the governmental level; hospitals, medical organizations, medical schools... the people in charge often have administrative training, not medical training. As a subpoint; sure, medical authorities have led us astray with nutrition information, but let's not jump to the conclusion that they have done something intentionally evil here.

3 - It's hard to prove any one way is the right way because of so many variables, including genetics, activity level, co-morbidities, and so on. More importantly, when something is right for 95% of people, that also means it is wrong for 5% of people. In the absence of easily testable datum, those anecdotes get a lot of attention. And even if it were easily testable, 5% of the time it would be wrong.

To me, the key is two-fold:

1 - People need to be educated about the facts of how their biological systems function. They need to know how calories work, insulin and blood sugar regulate, and gain a general appreciation of the science of their bodies.

2 - People need to be willing to "listen to their bodies" and experiment. That's the only way to know what really works for you, because you ARE different than everyone else. A healthy diet isn't just about finding mathematically optimal foods, it's about finding stuff you like to eat, that fills you up, that you can eat in moderation, that is easy to make. You need to be willing to mix health and convenience, taste and availability, etc... and that takes a bit of time to figure out.

<comment><USER3> Related to your key #1, this[1] talk by Robert Lustig (who's work has seen some exposure on HN in the past) has a pretty good run-down of how some of the carbohydrates are metabolized. Specifically, he points to fructose as the culprit when it comes to obesity.

I recommend watching the whole thing, but skip to about 36:00 to see the biochemistry.

[1] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM>

<comment><USER4> Sigh. A good criticism of Lustigs demonizing fructose:

[http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth- ab...](http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about- fructose-alarmism/)

Key takeaway that Lustig ignores - USDA numbers by the way:

 _Total energy intake in 1970 averaged 2172 kcal. By 2007 this hiked up to 2775 kcal, a 603 kcal increase._

<comment><USER5> And Lustig responds to those criticisms here:

<http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201104211000>

Key takeaway is that Lustig doesn't make any claim that you can't get fat by eating too many calories, regardless of the source. Lustig's research is on the metabolic pathways for fructose and glucose, and they are substantially different.

<comment><USER4> I'll listen when I have some time later. Does he also address the dose dependent problem in his cited studies? Of course if I'm drinking 6-7 sodas a day that's generally going to be a problem, but it doesn't mean sugar is evil. Too much water can kill me also, but I don't see people saying water is evil.

<comment><USER5> Like I said, he talks about metabolic pathways, which are independent of dose, though not your body's current state of glycogen deficiency.

He also speaks to the effect of insulin resistance, and how the very rapid metabolism of fructose in the liver (7x faster than glucose) can lead to insulin resistance. Insulin spikes redirect calories eaten directly to fat, without them ever being metabolized into energy. As a result you gain fat and have less energy available, leaving you both fatter and hungrier.

<comment><USER6> Thanks for giving such a great summation. This was the key point for me from Lustig's presentation.

Essentially, if you treat sucrose and fructose as a condiment, rather than as a key source of kCal, you will be consuming simple sugars, protein and fat, food that actually nourishes and sates you directly, versus sucrose and fructose that in high doses simply transform to fat.

Per Lustig, it's important to differentiate between starches found in bread, potatoes etc., that break down to simple sugars like glucose that are metabolized directly by the body, and added sucrose and fructose that are metabolized in the liver to fat. For people saying that our carb consumption was the same back in early 20th Century, take a look at how much of that was likely breads and the like, versus the highly sweetened cereals of today.

edit: added a para on why looking at 'carbs', misses Lustig's point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm always surprised at the theories people are willing to believe about obesity, particularly people on hn. It really sounds reasonable to so many of you that the cause of the obesity epidemic is people actually listening to nutrition advice from the medical establishment and following the food pyramid?

My view of what has happened is this: technologies and ingredients were invented by food manufacturers over the past half century. Foods manufactured using these technologies have the following advantages: cheap, high mouth appeal, non-perishable, convenient. They also have the following disadvantages: calorie dense, difficult to metabolize, addictive for some people.

For most peopele not explicitly making food decisions with a mind to control their weight, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

At the same time as this was happening, most of the reasons for people to expend calories vanished. As far as I can think of, the only reasons left to burn calories are pleasure and weight control.

In this sort of context most normal, perfectly rational people will end up getting fat. The only people who won't are: athletes, people with strong metabolism (this usually goes away with age), and people who dedicate themselves to not being fat.

<comment><USER8> While I have to agree with you, your theory fails to explain why people in Europe (who have the same access to calorie dense and convenient food) are less obese (in proportion) than North Americans.

I believe that culinary customs AND some additives used in industrial food play an important role.

Just check out High Fructose Corn Syrup : this is in very product in the USA and is (almost) never used in Europe.

<comment><USER9> Your portions are bigger. (Seriously.)

<comment><USER10> This is the absolute _core_ of the problem.

I'm a Canadian currently living in the US; our two countries are culturally very similar, and diet-wise practically identical (save poutine, sweet sweet poutine). But the obesity epidemic hasn't swept Canada nearly the same way it is commonly seen in the US.

I just got back from a trip to Canada, and I can say with absolute confidence that the typical restaurant dish in the US is _more than twice_ the size it is up north.

It's this way in Asia too, and probably Europe (though I haven't been, shame).

It doesn't matter how much you exercise (or don't), nor does it matter if you're eating steaks vs. granola bars. If you're eating _twice as much_ as the rest of the world, you've got big problems.

The US needs to _halve_ their serving sizes in restaurants, and reduce the appetite of the general population. You can improve what you're eating, and you can exercise more, but none of that will do diddly squat until you cut down on intake.

<comment><USER11> See: [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-620-m/2005001/c-g/adults- adu...](http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-620-m/2005001/c-g/adults- adutles/4053577-eng.htm)

From: [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-620-m/2005001/article/adults...](http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-620-m/2005001/article/adults- adultes/8060-eng.htm)

"The racial make-up of the two countries might explain some of the differences, as research has shown that obesity rates vary by ethnic origin. Nonetheless, when obesity rates of White Americans and Canadians are compared, White women in the United States were significantly more likely than those in Canada to be obese: 30.3% versus 24.8%. However, the percentages of White American and Canadian men who were obese did not differ."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The "fat is evil" thing that happened in the latter half of the 20th century is going to go down as the biggest scientific fuck up ever.

The very people who were given all the authority and trust, and who were supposed to protect human life, actively killed people by pushing carbs as healthy and fats as unhealthy.

They directly caused spiking obesity, the #1 medical issue in our society.

Repeat after me: The biggest health issue in our society was directly caused by the health authorities. This means doctors, medical researchers, and governments.

Heart disease, cancer, and obesity are all linked to carbs now. Millions and millions of people have died because they followed the advice of the scientific authorities.

When the general public figures out how wrong the scientific and medical authorities were for SO LONG and SO LOUDLY... public trust in science is going to be maimed for generations.

If you can't trust them on the #1 public health issue - the #1 killer of humans - what can you trust them on?

<comment><USER13> You can trust them to continue diving into the science of nutrition. The interesting thing about this whole episode is that it serves as a wonderful illustration of the self-correcting nature of the scientific method.

Consider what's happened: First, health authorities made observations about diets and various diseases, creating hypotheses along the way. Next, they gathered some data and analyzed it. They drew conclusions from that data and made recommendations based on those conclusions.

Over time, more observations were made. More hypotheses were developed, more data was collected and analyzed, and the conclusions changed. This is the nature of science. We make decisions based on what we know at the time. If new evidence is found, we revise our theories and make different recommendations.

I think there is a problem, but it doesn't lie with the health authorities themselves. (Not that there aren't problems in the health field, but that's for another discussion.) Instead, the problem lies in how various other authorities use the information provided by the health professionals.

As the information and recommendations make their way through government, the issue becomes politicized, and politics frequently wins out over science. As the information is reported by the mainstream press, it is also sensationalized and frequently blown out of proportion. Going by the headlines in many publications, everything that is bad for you becomes good for you and vice versa every few years.

Rarely, if ever, do you see an attempt at understanding nutrition, the nature of the scientific process behind the recommendations, or a call for simple moderation. Yet that's what we need. We need government officials who are willing to listen carefully to the health professionals without allowing lobbyists to influence their decisions. (Corn sugar? Really?) We also need a press that is willing to educate the public rather than simply splash attention-getting headlines and content-free articles everywhere.

I doubt we'll see either of these things happen in our lifetimes, so it's up to us to educate ourselves, our families, and each other. Then, maybe, we'll start eating right and enjoy a healthy life.

<comment><USER14> >The interesting thing about this whole episode is that it serves as a wonderful illustration of the self-correcting nature of the scientific method.

This is actually not very good PR for science. The wonderful illustration here is that after billions of dollars and millions of lives we realized we were wrong? What system _couldn't_ do that?

To me, what this actually illustrates is the mistaken way we use science today:

Today: "Ok, it looks like it's probably fat that's bad. Ok, everyone! No more fat"

And everyone laughs and points at all the stupid uneducated fundies still eating fat.

Tomorrow: "Oh, we were totally wrong about everything we said. Ok, everyone! Stop what ever you're doing!"

And now we get to laugh at all the stupid people who don't eat fat anymore.

Scientific method never _proves_ anything, it's only good for disproving things. If a (valid, i.e. falsifiable) theory doesn't get proven wrong we develop more and more confidence. That still doesn't mean it's right though.

<comment><USER15> The problem isn't science or the scientific method. It's marketers and salesmen (laypersons) that take one scientific study and go crazy with it. The studies themselves are probably littered with probabilities, statistics and caution conclusions. That doesn't work when you're trying to sell snake oil.

Just look at the whole anti-oxidant craze with cranberries, pomegranate and acai berries. Suddenly people are buying gallons of juice. The scientists didn't do that.

<comment><USER12> You haven't looked into the scientific bungling behind this particular issue.

It was not a political failure, it was a flat out scientific failure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> People resist the idea because the answer is too simple. "Fats" are better than "Carbs". So lard is better than a banana? Ugh.

It's not the broad category of "Fats" vs "Carbs". It's the TYPE of food. Eat good food. Period. Not something made in a factory. Twinkies: out. Soda: out. Standard pizza with refined grains and loads of cheese: out.

Eat healthy food: the right meats, fruits, vegetables, whole grains and lots of water. Don't eat crap. Exercise.

It really isn't rocket science, but when we make one food group "bad" and the other one "good" just so we have another excuse to eat junk, we lose.

<comment><USER4> I totally agree, the problem is that it's harder for people to eat healthy than simply pick a single thing and demonize it. Plus, telling people to eat healthy doesn't sell a lot of books.

<comment><USER17> I'm pretty sure Michael Pollan's bank account disagrees with your second sentence.

<comment><USER16> True, but I think the sentiment is correct at least in selling food. It's hard to get rich selling spinach, but it's easy to get rich selling Sugar-Frosted Excitement Pops - now made with whole grain-like substances!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> God I remember when everywhere (even in school) was hooked on the "you are killing your kids with butter, eat margarine" line.

Of course, then they banned it most sensible places because of the hydrogenated/trans fats. Shocking that something made by chemical process by companies with large sums of money will be heavily advertised and pushed to people over, say, something that can't be patented by any one body.

Similarly, carb laden foods are cheap to produce and will last even if stored badly, you just have to try going out to dinner to an "average place" and try not to eat something where the dish is not mostly potato, noodles, rice, or flour based (pasta, bread, pizza base) to see why industry wouldn't think it was great if carbs came with health warnings.

Having said that, It strikes me from experiences in the past that everyone reacts differently to the mix of carbs and fats in their diet, but everyone seems to react to good amounts of protein, so while I'm not sure either should be demonised, clean sources of protein should be made more important.

<comment><USER19> You just used the words "potato", "noodles", "rice", and "flour" in a distinctly negative tone. Those are some of my favorite foods, preferable doused in butter.

And I'm 6'1", 170 lbs.

<comment><USER20> The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

<comment><USER21> Though "carbs are evil" implies that it affects everyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I resist the idea that carbs (and HFCS for matter) need to be demonized. The article mentions peoples tendencies, but one tendency the anti-carb crowd relies on is how people want to find a smoking gun or silver bullet solution.

The article doesn't really do much to prove anything since rarely did the elite eat the same thing as the peasants. Throughout history kings and queens usually ate much better than the peasants. This would include more meat, alcohol, spices, sugar, etc...

<comment><USER22> "Throughout history kings and queens usually ate much better than the peasants."

Those terms post date this by thousands of years. Please cite research that supports this statement.

<comment><USER4> The article says "Mummy Says _Princess_ Had Coronary Disease." This leads me to believe they are talking about Egyptian royalty, even if they were not called kings and queens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> What's more radically different between people who are healthy and people who are not is how much they exercise rather than what they eat. There is much more worldwide cultural variation in what people eat, and much more individual variation within each culture, among healthy people than there is variation in the exercise level of healthy people. But seeking to change diet to change health sounds easier than getting more exercise, so that's what gets in the news (and on HN, over and over and over).

Doing serious scientific research

<http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html>

with controlled experiments and careful observation and follow-up on human nutrition is extremely hard. I recall a local television news documentary about a dietary study from the 1970s in which experimental subjects were confined 24/7 in a lab for many weeks (they must have been compensated handsomely to agree to participate in this experiment) and fed EXACT portions of food that were weighed with extreme precision. Oddly, I don't recall particularly what hypothesis that study was set up to test, but I do recall that it was described as the first experiment that relied on feeding subjects exactly measured portions of known foods (and excluding subjects from access to foods they chose for themselves) while involving lengthy (weeks of time) follow-up. It's still exceedingly rare for studies of human nutrition to have careful experimental designs. (And even at that, I suppose most of the subjects of that experiment are still alive, but I don't know if anyone is doing follow-up observations of those subjects in any manner.) Instead, we get inferences from Egyptian mummies (as in the submitted article) or from other uncontrolled case studies that never even had careful observation to begin with. That really isn't science;

<http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html>

that is trading anecdotes, and third- or fourth-hand anecdotes at that.

<comment><USER24> What compounds this is that 'healthy' is a particularly ill-defined catchall term. If you are, for example, morbidly obese or horribly malnourished, you probably do need to change your diet. If you get winded going up a flight of stairs, or maybe worried about general physical fitness, you probably want exercise.

What is our ideal for a healthy person? An underwear model? someone who lives to 93?

I don't know.

<comment><USER23> _What compounds this is that 'healthy' is a particularly ill-defined catchall term._

Thanks for asking an important follow-up question implicitly by commenting on what the term "healthy" (used in my first post here) might mean. To make that explicit, when I refer to "healthy" people in the context of a human nutrition study, I refer to people who have longer lifespan (less mortality) and fewer documented diseases and disabilities (less morbidity) than the general than the general population baseline. (By symmetry, unhealthy people have more mortality and more morbidity than the population baseline.) Ideally, a hypothesis on nutrition and its relationship to health would be backed up by EXPERIMENTALLY OBTAINED data on both the central tendencies of groups given one treatment or another, and by similarly obtained data on individual outcomes before and after differing treatments. We have a long way to go to get data of this quality. And it may be that eventually (although this promised future seems farther away now than it did a decade ago) individuals will be able to obtain testing to allow them to receive individualized advice on diet, adapted to their individual peculiarities. Right now we are still trying to figure out very general patterns of advice, which surely won't fit all individuals equally well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I've found the fat hypothesis - 'fat makes you fat' - to be false, or at least not to apply to me. I am not exactly anti-carb - I eat potatoes, and a little rice - but I have been eating a diet that I guess you could call 'Paleo 2.0' for the last 7 months or so. The basic goal is to minimize my intake of grains, fructose, and legumes, and maximize that of saturated fats. I also happen to be vegetarian, so for me this means a diet of mostly dairy and vegetables (and limited fruit). I eat a lot of full fat Greek yogurt (Fage brand, typically), butter, cheese, eggs, very dark chocolate (85+%), potatoes, etc. I eat until I'm full and I never count calories. I probably cheat 1-2 times a week on average, usually by eating something rice- or corn-based (Chipotle, corn chips, an Indian meal with rice, etc.).

I didn't do this to lose weight - I wasn't exactly a big guy - but there were some surprisingly quick effects. After about 5-6 months I'd dropped from around 155 lbs to 135 (+/-2), and I've been stable there for a couple months. My waist went from 33" to 30" and my body fat went from around 21% to 12%. Had a checkup a few weeks ago and, other than very low vitamin D, the doc said I was pretty much in perfect health.

<http://archevore.com> is probably a good resource, if you want to know more about the diet itself.

<comment><USER26> Fage, butter, cheese, eggs, chocolate. Sounds yummy! Not exactly cheap, though.

<comment><USER21> I somehow don't think that 'cavemen' were eating cheese. :P

<comment><USER25> The point isn't to eat what cavemen ate, it's to look at what their bodies were optimized for and eat things with similar components. Dairy is a very good source of saturated fat, especially for a vegetarian like me.

<comment><USER27> And the average life expectancy of a caveman was what, maybe 20 years? Cavemen perished too soon to have to worry about the diet-related health problems that we deal with today.

<comment><USER25> Ancient life expectancy numbers are misleading because of very high infant mortality. And even if that weren't the case, your reasoning is faulty. I have more or less the same gut as a caveman, so it makes sense to eat what they were optimized for. The fact that we have surgery and antibiotics and aren't at significant risk of being eaten by saber-toothed tigers isn't relevant to diet.

<comment><USER27> The human digestive system evolved over millions of years, and there is not much that is known with certainty about the human diet over that span of time - however, it is known that humans have a better ability to process starchy foods than other primates. So the assumption that a 'paleo' diet wouldn't include lots of starch is not based on science. Take a look at this article: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6983330.stm>

<comment><USER25> If you read my comment a little more carefully, you'd know I'm not anti- starch. I avoid anti-nutritious and harmful grains like wheat, but I eat potatoes with zeal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Well, my guess would be: Because "evangelists" on both sides use words like "worse" to reduce complex issues to sound bites.

<comment><USER29> I just wish the "evangelists" would stress "for some people" when they talk about these diets.

Some people stay healthy and trim on a low-fat diet. Some people do much better on a low-carb diet. Some people are physically harmed by eating meat (<http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/gout-diet/MY01137>).

Unfortunately we just need to experiment a little as individuals to find what works best - and hope for a day when we doctors/scientists can recommend diets based on genetic traits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> A more subtle reason for the pro-carb bias is it provides justification for vegetarianism since most vegetarian diets are much higher in carbs than fat. Vegetarians, animal rights advocates, and people who may eat meat but nevertheless are against promoting it because of their concern for the environment want to believe that their more moral diet is also healthier. The easy way to do that is by lending their confirmation bias to any scientific study that maligns high fat diets and thus meat eating and to ignore contrary research findings that does not confirm their bias.

<comment><USER31> I'm afraid this might be true, and I say this as someone who was a vegetarian for almost 3 years partly for environmental and moral reasons. I started eating meat again after reading Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories".

I still agree that it's better for the environment and for the animals to have a vegetarian diet, but I couldn't find a way to stick to it without eating way more carbs than I felt was good for me.

I'll be the first in line when 'grown' meat that doesn't come from an animal with a central nervous system that can feel pain/stress/anguish/etc comes on the market, though...

<comment><USER32> How did you reintroduce meat into your vegetarian diet? Was it a gradual process? Do you eat the same meat diet (dishes and frequency) as before you were a vegetarian?

I've been a (ovo-lacto) vegetarian for 12 years for the reasons you describe. After reading Gary Taubes, I am conflicted. Taubes has little advice for vegetarians or vegans except "eat some cheese and eggs".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I think the real answer is because it is more systematically profitable to sell carb products and (food) companies are really really good at selling things to people.

It is interesting to see comments on this forum that involve the strategy of reasoning with the public to get them to accept their idea.

Next time you see somebody drinking a soda explain to them what fructose does metabolically to their bodies. Your message is a lot less effective than seeing a polar bear mommy drinking a coke on a wintery day or seeing kobe bryant dunk a basketball and popping open a bottle of sprite.

<comment><USER34> I think, first, one should differentiate between the part of the food industry that is actually the sugar industry - products like Coke and Gatorade and Snickers - and the part that is packaged convenience food that also contains a lot of sugar. (High-fructose corn syrup is just another sugar with 5-10% more fructose.)

The convenience food industry is highly motivated to sell what the public wants to buy. They follow food fads assiduously. When fiber was in, suddenly all products had added fiber. When that fad (which was actually a mildly good thing) passed, the fiber went away. Now that partially hydrogenated vegetable oil is out of fashion, packaged foods remove it and advertise "0% Trans Fat!"

There was a time when carbs were bad and there were plenty of packaged foods that upped the fat and protein and advertised "Low Carb!" When Dr. Atkins died of heart failure and overweight, the steam went out of low-carb. Now low-fat is ascendant, and packaged foods trumpet "Low Fat!"

The problem with this latest fad is fat makes food taste good. When you take it out, recipes taste like crap. Try a spoonful of fat-free cream cheese and tell me what you think. So the packaged food industry has to add something else that makes the low-fat garbage palatable: sugar!

It's evil, but it's not a conspiracy. People buy packaged foods because they're convenient and taste ok. They do this in preference to cooking, which may or may not taste better, because they're lazy or too busy. That's human nature. The problem is the low-fat food fad.

If the culture turned a corner and demanded low-sugar food, the food industry would fall all over itself taking sugar and corn syrup out and adding back in fat and protein to make the stuff taste better. They did it in the low-carb era and they'd do it again in a heartbeat.

<comment><USER33> I don't really think its a conspiracy unless you consider advertising to the public to be very secretive and back-room.

I agree mostly with what is said above but I think it is important to emphasize that what the public wants to buy is heavily influenced by what they see on TV.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Because people say, "I am getting so fat!", not, "I am getting so carbed!" So they equate calories from fat being converted directly to adipose tissue.

</comment><comment><USER36> There's money in carbs and not in fat.

This answer may sound glib, but not if we consider the facts surrounding the issue.

\- The propaganda for carbs and against fat has been overwhelming over the years. Most people are not likely to believe anything other than what they've been taught.

\- Our economy relies heavily on what we can generally call "the carb industry." If people are being harmed by too many carbs, they'll take medicine (like they're trained to) and that builds another industry. Why would anybody (politicians, industry leaders, corporate science) want to change that?

\- Besides, carbs are beautifully packaged, cheap, and readily available. Why would anyone want to re-think that?

</comment><comment><USER37> "Fat is worse than carbs" is a very successful meme because it passes a superficial "evidence-checking": it's fat, so it's gotta make me more fat, right? A mechanistic, false-newtonian, 17th century understanding of biology. A fallacy of common sense.

Plus, it's been touted all over the place for decades. Of course it catches on.

Keep calories in general low, paying special attention to carbs. Don't forget to lift some weights. Feel free to do other types of exercise if you wish. Voila, instant fat management.

</comment><comment><USER38> Correlation != causation.

Let me guess the root cause of this "fat is evil" meme. People who love fat are often gluttons. They eat what they want, in large quantities, and don't care about the consequences. They also consume huge quantities of processed sugar, which is now found to be "bad", and don't eat their greens.

Health freaks avoid fats and sugar, living on lean meat, veggies, and grains. This may not be optimal, but it's better than Big Macs, Cola, and fries.

</comment><comment><USER39> I guess I haven't been paying attention but I thought the Atkins diet from a few years ago had been discounted as an unhealthy fad diet. But now I'm reading that it has been scientifically proven to be the healthiest diet. Is that right? Are carb-filled fruits and vegetables supposed to be less healthy than for example fried bacon?

<comment><USER15> Wrong. The problem is that people think low-carb equals bacon grease and no vegetables. It really just means little to no bread, grains, rice or potatoes. A low carb diet is predominantly fruits and vegetables, but for some reason, people really like to focus on the meat and fat aspect.

<comment><USER40> Speak for yourself. :)

I've been on a high-fat, moderate protein diet for almost a year now. I eat occasional small servings of vegetables because it's easier than arguing with my wife, but my diet is probably 95-98% meat/eggs/(dairy). "Low-carb" means 'low carb'. There are lots of ways of doing it, and frankly, we have no idea which way is right for most people (let alone for outliers).

Meta point on this whole discussion (and I don't mean to single you out). There are a lot of posts of the sort "come on people, this is easy"+(some simple dietary advice). But it isn't easy, and nobody really has a clue right now. The evidence is contradictory and poor. What we need is more individuals engaged in personal experimentation, and more methodologically sound research. It's a hard, complex problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that studies and/or those who do them are not very trustworthy? I have watched studies conclusively prove that eating chicken eggs will:

kill you sooner, make you live longer, have no measurable effect, cure cancer, cause cancer, and defeat communisms (joke)

Similar cycles for other types of food. Similar cycles various types of activity.

Having watched this for so long, am I really going to suddenly believe that carbs are evil, that I should found a new moral system (and a new diet) on the latest studies which, in my experience are going to be shown wrong in a few years anyway. Or should I just go ahead an eat the way I've observed the people who live to be old eat?

Related: look up the story of the boy who cried wolf.

</comment><comment><USER42> My beef is that nutritional "experts" tend to reverse their "advice" every 5-10 years.

\- X is bad \- No, actually X is good. \- No, it turns out X is actually bad after all. \- No, actually it's Y that's causing all our problems. \- Wait, no, it's Z.

And then along comes the marketing blitz.

"No salt", "Sugar free" "glucose free" "gluten free" "made with cane syrup" "cholesterol free" "fat free" "no saturated fat" "no trans fat" and now "carb free", no doubt.

And then the vitamin supplement and herbal crowd come out to flog their latest crackpot diets and exercise regimens and trans-yogic-meta-druidic-ninjutsu- meditation.

Yes, I rage much :P

</comment><comment><USER43> So many of these articles do not distinguish between simple and complex carbs and lump them all together. There is a difference between 20g of carbs from a piece of fruit vs 20g carbs from, say, pasta.

<comment><USER44> I'm not sure the difference is that big. Amylase in your saliva starts breaking down starches to glucose even before you swallow. Non-digestible carbs (fiber), protein and fat can slow down the process, however.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Neither should be demonized.

<comment><AUTHOR> Of course. If it wasn't for wheat, potato, rice, and other grains and tubercles, most of humanity would starve. Simple carbs are cheap.

<comment><USER46> The point of the article wasn't to discuss the opportunity cost of keeping or eliminating carbs. It was a discussion of what is optimal for our health.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> There are many reasons why people resist the idea that carbs are worse that fat. For one thing, no one has proved that "carbs are worse than fat." It's a silly, over-simplified assertion.

Also, fats are the most calorie-dense macro-nutrient. If your calorie intake is greater than your calorie expenditure you will gain weight. You could easily supplement your diet with a 300 calorie bar of chocolate twice a day and your daily calorie intake skyrockets from 2,000 to 2,600. Over time this will lead to obesity if your activity level doesn't rise or if muscles don't grow.

Each tablespoon of oil adds 100+ calories a the dish.

2 slices of bread: 160 calories, 60g of peanut butter: 350 calories.

Carbs are good. You need carbs. Without carbs, your body overuses ketogenesis for energy, releasing toxic byproducts into the blood that cause kidney and liver damage.

Too many carbs at once leads to unstable blood sugar and insulin levels. The consequences of this are poorly understood, especially in healthy, active people. But intuitively, daily large spikes in blood sugar and insulin response are probably not a good thing. The good news is that eating high GI carbs with fiber, protein, fats, and sugars mitigates the spikes.

While not as calorie-dense as fatty foods, lots of high carb foods are low fiber, low protein, and low moisture with minimal micronutrients and still have very high calorie/weight ratios.

(Calories-in > Calories-out) in a sedentary lifestyle leads to increased body fat and weight gain which leads to cellular stress inflammation causing insulin resistance, which leads to more weight gain and more severe metabolic problems.

The whole carb vs. fat debate is a waste of time.

<comment><USER48> It is possible for a person who is unaware that insulin promotes glycogenesis and lipogenesis to write what you just did. However, I'm not convinced that a person who IS aware could do so. Can you help me out?

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> _My reading led me to believe that sugars and grains in my diet were the culprit and, sure enough, once I cut those out and increased the amount of animal fats in my diet, I lost 50 pounds. (I always had and continued to eat a lot of vegetables, too.) I have never felt more energetic or clear-headed.

So, yes, my personal experience tells me Taubes is correct, just as Horgan's experience tells him Taubes is incorrect. But, importantly, I would not have had my experience if I had not read the nutrition literature with an open mind._

The last sentence is unjustified and probably incorrect. A lot of people get fed up with their weight, resolve to make a change, and then lose a bunch. Adopting an exciting new idea and making a change is the crucial part, not the validity of the idea. I lost a lot of weight as a vegan (over thirty pounds), got into the best shape of my life, relaxed my rules, and gained a little bit back. Did I gain that little bit back because veganism was the answer and I failed to be faithful to it? No, it was because the initial novelty and enthusiasm wore off. It's the same pattern no matter what the actual composition of the diet is. Low-carb diets' biggest contribution to weight loss has been to provide a psychologically viable option for meat-and-potatoes people who felt unsatisfied or alienated by the "hippie" food that low-fat diets would have had them eating.

 _the health effects of a high-carbohydrate diet often are not visible as weight gain—that Egyptian princess, no doubt thin as a rail (have you ever seen a fat mummy?), had a level of atherosclerosis that today would have doctors scrambling for a bypass operation_

Now, this part is actually interesting and I await more information concerning the heart health of people who exercise and maintain a healthy weight on different kinds of diets.

</comment><comment><USER50> Since moving to only /expressly/ eating carbs once a week (as in the 4 hour body book) I've lost a stone and gone from 24% body fat to 17% - all in about 8 weeks.

Plus my /gut/ feels a hell of a lot better now I'm not eating bread, and when/if I do I get a pretty rough stomach.

People don't realise just how bad processed carbs are. We didn't them for centuries and only do now as they are sold to us cheaply.

</comment><comment><USER51> These anecdotal arguments back and forth are interesting, but they're not science. I mean, where's the details on the methodology? Where are the data? Why do we listen to/argue about the various experts, instead of digging into the actual research that's been done?

If you're looking for studies on the topic, check out these two videos:

<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-847196066367535747>

<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1719204869171202407>

It's basically a survey paper in video form, presented by one of the researchers. It has actual graphs! With error bars!

The corresponding book is pretty good too, it's called the China study.

Personally, I trust statisticians on health much more than biologists. It's nice that there's a biological basis for the conclusion, but trying to argue diet based on the metabolic process seems like a stretch, especially when it conflicts with what's observed.

</comment><comment><USER52> Over-consumption of everything is bad. Cake is great, cake is fun, but if you eat it everyday you'll probably get fat because it has a lot of calories. And hey, a lot of calories isn't bad, it's just if you eat more calories than burn you'll gain fat. And that's OK, until you start to get so fat that it decreases your quality of life. Body like a loosely tied ballon, if push air into it -- it'll get big, but on itself it'll lose weight.

On another topic, I'm usually pro-legalization of every drug that's out there. But there's a lot of people out there who just put random shit into their bodies in unreasonable quantities without understanding of what they are doing, making stupid excuses. AND IT'S JUST FUCKING FOOD. If heroin or coke become legal, we'll probably see a lot of people overdose. Which I'm fine with, technically. I just now start to understand why some drugs are illegal.

</comment><comment><USER53> We are predisposed by our Victorian ancestors to assume that anything which gives us great pleasure must also be bad for us. Hence fat is believed to be worse than carbs.

<comment><AUTHOR> Following that logic, people with different tastes would conclude that carbs are worse than fat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Blame the media, they portray fat for the reason people are fat, the do not educate these people with the truth behind complex carbs and simple carbs and how the body responses to these. Some fats are good for you such as olive oils contain mono saturated fats which is great for your body and those can be found naturally in meats. But trans and saturated fats are hard for the body to respond to. It comes down to educating people of what they are eating.

</comment><comment><USER55> I eat lots and lots of bread (what you would call "carbs") but basically no meat, and I'm quite skinny nevertheless. I do no sports (I've only recently started to ride my bicycle after a 10-year pause), nor am I on any diet or anything similar. So, yeah, I don't see how carbs are worse than fat.

</comment><comment><USER56> They are not worse, just different. People are desperate for a single villain to blame for their fat asses.

Maintain a balanced diet, keep the total calories down, stay away from cheap processed food, get exercise. It's very simple, but unfortunately there is not a single villain, so people resist.

</comment><comment><USER57> Argh. This is what I don't like about non-tech, -IT, and -CS articles posted on HN: people go off on tangents with so little (useless) information. I'm sorry to say this article is poor on information.

Let's stick to the facts. Complex carbs (brown rice, whole wheat bread, bagels, whole wheat pasta, beans - the list of delicious, healthy complex carbs is long) in moderation does not hinder your health. In fact, your body needs them because it is stored energy. Other sources of energy are used up quicker, such as protein. That's not to say carbs are better than protein. Your body needs both!

Now, refined SIMPLE carbs (table sugar, fruit juice, "packaged" cereals, chocolate bars, etc.) are not good for you, and only certain types of bodies with certain physical activity should consume them (e.g., if you are a bodybuilder or if you lift weights a few times a week, etc.). It is still absolutely tantamount that you consume unrefined simple carbs such as strawberries, raspberries, oranges, apples, plum, pear, a long etc., and the number one fruit because of its flavanoid content: blueberries!).

Put simply, fruits and complex carbs help you convert what you eat in slow- releasing energy that has less content that is turned into fat (as opposed to refined simple carbs). This steady release of energy is part of "moderation is key". If you have your body working too hard, your heart fluttering/palpitations and overworking it are not healthy, neither is when your body processes everything too slow.

The biggest factor when consuming carbs (both simple and complex) is the glycemic levels in your blood. You can't have this fluctuate so much, especially if you're pre-disposed to it, otherwise you throw it out of kilter and it may cause diabetes.

I'll keep the fat part short. We need fat, too! Let me be less "headliney". We need polyunsaturated fatty acids; in part, to keep our metabolism going. Foods like avocado, fish, flax seed, leafy vegetables, soybeans, walnuts (nuts), and shellfish. Sure, saturated fats may not be the major cause of heart disease, but lessening it while consuming a healthy amount of polyunsaturated fat and complex carbs might. You can read an article on that here (it's better than the OP's article, but still has its flaws): [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/rethinking- satura...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/rethinking-saturated- fat-its-not-your-hearts-enemy/article1462757/) (By the way, this article was published over a year ago.)

Having said all that, each body is different. You should tailor your diet to what your body reacts positively to. For example, flax seed is healthy for you, but I know people who get diarrhea from it. Obviously, don't force yourself to eat something your body doesn't like. Listen to your body, because, unfortunately, the science doesn't fully understand all body types.

I'm not a fan of fallacies from defective induction, so I shall refrain from an argumentum ad verecundiam on this, but on a separate note, I will say my friend studied nutrition and she has expressed a keen dislike toward the "Food guide pyramid".

</comment><comment><USER58> On a relevant note, I think Gluten is the main culprit in carbohydrate related health problems. [http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2010/09/19/paleo- diet-s...](http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2010/09/19/paleo-diet- solution/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Although grains don't seem to be very healthy, don't forget about sugar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Because you told them fat was the source of all evil for at least twenty years?

</comment><comment><USER60> Better question - Why are people always trying to subtract something from they're diet? Wouldn't it be better to just eat a well balanced plate?

</comment><comment><USER61> why is everyone suddenly a nutrition expert?

I know a lot of people who have opinions on what is good for you and what isn't in terms of food. none of them are doctors, of course. in fact, most of them have never taken any science subjects at all, and wouldn't know their ass from a redox equation even if you threw a shelf-full of chemistry books at them.

</comment><comment><USER62> Simple advise - don't over-eat

<comment><USER63> That's simplistic advice. Food additives like High Fructose Corn Syrup cause you to crave more food even though you're calorically fine. If you listen to what your body says while eating poorly, you will over eat.

[http://www.wellnessresources.com/weight/articles/high_fructo...](http://www.wellnessresources.com/weight/articles/high_fructose_corn_syrup_makes_your_brain_crave_food/)

<comment><USER64> Did you implicitly define overeating as eating past the point where you stop being hungry? Because that's not necessarily what the parent comment meant. They could have meant eating too much for your activity level.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Because they are so dang delicious...mmmMMMmmm donuts.

</comment><comment><USER66> That's funny. There are many studies showing that vegetarians live longer, more healthy lives than omnivores.

<comment><AUTHOR> Many vegetarians eat some food from animal sources, like eggs, milk, yogurt, etc. On the other hand, I have heard cases of people that tried to be pure vegan and had serious health problems.

<comment><USER15> Veganism isn't a diet. It's a lifestyle. And a poor one at that. It's the anti-paleo diet, because you can't be vegan without modern technology and supplements. There are just too many gaps in nutrition.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> The agriculture industrial complex is invested deeply in corn/soy/wheat processed foods and chemicals. Mega billions are at stake. The options for "low effort" and "low price" food are virtually all unhealthy from a diet standpoint. Yet, these foods have been engineered to be nearly addictive. That is why there is rampant obesity. Any diet that largely avoids these foods and maintains reasonable variety is going to be vastly more healthy.

</comment><comment><USER68> I did quite a bit of research into carbs after being diagnosed Type One diabetic and I wholeheartedly agree with this article. Turns out, carbs weren't a staple part of our diet until the agricultural revolution (17th century?) and then only really caught on because it was cheap and easy to farm, compared to fruit and meat. So there you go. Capitalism has been fucking us for centuries.</comment>


The Ultimate Guide to Cold Calling Part II - <AUTHOR> https://persistiq.com/blog/the-ultimate-guide-to-cold-calling-part-ii/ <comment><USER2> As an engineer I actually appreciated this post. HN is meant to cover all things in tech entrepreneurship, and one thing we engineers tend to neglect are the sales skills needed when you jump from being just an engineer to a CEO/founder role. As someone who wants to do that some day, this was a nice first step of a blog post.</comment>


Ask HN: What macro-processing language am I looking for - <AUTHOR> I have a project that I want to document and one thing I'd like to do is to highlight that the application code is decomposed in a way that maps essentially 1-to-1 to the theoretical framework and the way I'd like to do this is to run `tree` inside of the markup that should be outputted as Markdown in the end.
E.g., passing the following input.some_fileextension file to the processor should evaluate the tree command and put the results there
bla bla bla
$ tree dir
bla bla blah
Is this a task for pandoc? M4? Something else? I want something close to Jupyter notebooks without needing that _entire_ framework at hand.
Or is there some lispy type of thing that I can use? <comment><USER2> What application code language are you using that doesn't already have one or more source doc-generators? Can you just tweak or post process the output from them?

</comment><comment><USER3> shell? Something like this (definitely buggy; you'll have to remove the '$' from the line before you evaluate it. I also didn't check how to match that dollar sign at the start of a line. I think you can solve both problems by using a semicolon, not a dollar sign as indicator for 'evaluate this line'. You also _may_ want to allow multi-line commands and there maybe more bugs):

      while read line ; do
        case "$line" in
          \$*) `$line`
          *)  echo $line
          ;;
        esac
      done</comment>


Writing Robust Bash Shell Scripts - <AUTHOR> http://www.davidpashley.com/articles/writing-robust-shell-scripts/

<comment><USER2> This article was very relevant to me. I've been writing bash script for so many years, yet I didn't know you could just "set -u" to make bash stop when I accidentally use an uninitialized variable. "set -e" is also incredible useful (bash quits if any statement fails).</comment>


SurfingAttack: attack on voice assistants using ultrasonic guided wave - <AUTHOR> https://surfingattack.github.io/ <comment><USER2> Disable your locked phone from always listening for "OK Google" or "Hey Siri". Protected, no? Their list of five ways to "defend against SurfingAttack" doesn't include this obvious one. i.e. If you want to give a voice command, pick up your phone and press a button to speak. Protected and still pretty darn convenient IMO.

Otherwise, great project and succinct video proof of how clever conveniences often conflict with security.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the comment. This defense works: but you have to remember to lock your phone when you put it down.

<comment><USER3> Siri can be used for many things when the device is locked.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Reminds me of the smarter every day video where Destin used lightwaves against smart homes

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozIKwGt38LQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozIKwGt38LQ)

</comment><comment><USER5> Was thinking about this the other day, when I heard the assistant trigger when there was _zero_ sound to prompt it. And was thinking of an attack where someone can literrally trigger a listen from outside your house. Especially dangerous because the default on a new Google Home (max hub nest truck whatever they call it) is to not have an audible prompt on a trigger.

So an attacker can literally just listen in with a press of a button. Probably gonna have to turn off this feature altogether for the immediate future.

<comment><USER6> How exactly are they going to listen in? Are they on the other end of the line?

<comment><USER7> If they can get it to listen, they can theoretically have it dial a number

<comment><USER8> Or call for a fake SWAT raid to the same house, so that the owner is either being shot or imprisoned. If that can really be triggered from distance without breaking in, it would make it the perfect revenge weapon.

<comment><USER9> Why would you need this hack to Swat someone?

<comment><USER8> I surely don't want to swat anyone. My concern is that someone with the right technology might use (1) this vulnerability to call a raid to an "enemy" from its own assistant without breaking in or leaving digital traces: no fingerprints, no malware installed, essentially no smoking gun, therefore creating a scenario in which the home owner might either be shot during the raid or prosecuted for calling a false alarm.

(1) - and if successful then sell the "service"

<comment><USER9> My point is, you can swat someone by just calling the police pretending to be someone else. That's how everyone is doing it already. No need to do it from within the home.

<comment><USER8> Yes, but using that technology will make it appear the call originating from the victims home.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There is another very similar attack that uses laser beans instead of sound waves but this looks less efficient because of the distance limitation.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21453554](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21453554)

<comment><USER11> There's also the big difficulty to harvest laser beans...

But seriously, I wouldn't say this one is less efficient, both attacks are quite different in scope. The laser-based attack requires line-of-sight to the device and apparently works only on stationary home-assistants (i.e. your Google Home), while this ultrasonic method explicitly targets Smartphones and has potential for wide unfocused attacks at public spaces (i.e. by rigging a table in a coffee-shop).

<comment><USER12> > There's also the big difficulty to harvest laser beans...

Especially considering it's lost or perhaps extinct. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium)

HN Discusson from a few days ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22229666](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22229666)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interesting attack. Reminds me of the DolphinAttack ([https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.09537](https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.09537))

<comment><USER14> Also there's the 'Audio Hotspot Attack' \- [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8906174](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8906174)

Which uses a parametric speaker, which uses a number of ultrasonic transducers which "emit amplitude-modulated ultrasounds that will be self-demodulated in the air"

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This requires the phone to be unlocked to do most of this, doesn't it? What is the attack vector here, someone leaving their phone unlocked on a table and not paying attention to the screen?

<comment><USER16> I know lots of people that have their phones set to not lock automatically. Some of these include not locking them when they throw the phone in their purse, or put it in their back pocket. "I can't be bothered to type in my password every time I pick it up" or "My kids bother me too often to unlock the phone." It's absolutely mind boggling

<comment><USER17> Password? I've never met someone else irl who sets a password on their phone. Best I've ever seen is a PIN.

<comment><USER18> They obviously mean the same thing in this context.

<comment><USER17> If you open the Android security settings you'll be asked if you want to set a password or pin. A password is longer and can contain arbitrary characters. I've never heard a person refer to a short series of numbers used to protect something as a password and not a pin.

<comment><USER19> > I've never heard a person refer to a short series of numbers used to protect > something as a password and not a pin.

Until today... Screenshot from Android phone - [https://ibb.co/KD27YGL](https://ibb.co/KD27YGL)

<comment><USER20> Eh, you should clarify that this is not an AOSP lockscreen. It looks like Huawei's EMUI, which is quite heavily modified and might simply be a translation error.

<comment><USER19> Meizu phone, Flyme UI. Equally as Chinese as the Huawei you mentioned, so your point stands. Whether or not a tranlation error though, the GP had never heard of anyone using 'password' in the context of a numeric pincode, but it does happen. Who knows, I could be biased through my repeated exposures to the Meizu lock-screen, but as a native English speaker I don't have a hard time imagining a numeric-only pin being referred to as a password.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Really great demo videos on the webpage, fwiw.

</comment><comment><USER21> Now I am thinking I could use this to automatically turn everyone's phone to "silent mode" when they put their phones on the conference room table...

</comment><comment><USER22> Well this is why you disable the "Ok Google" / "Hey Google" hotword or "Listen for Hey Siri" or always listening features and congrats you are immune to this attack. Job done for your phones.

Perhaps a more interesting experiment would be to try this on Alexa, HomePods and Google Home devices.

</comment><comment><USER23> Coming soon to a Starbucks near you.

<comment><USER24> It worked well at the Cuban embassy [https://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/how-we- reve...](https://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/how-we-reverse- engineered-the-cuban-sonic-weapon-attack)

<comment><USER25> "Cuban "Sonic Weapon" Attack" \--> "Jamaican field cricket or maybe cicadas" [0]

[0] [https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/01/the-real-story- behin...](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/01/the-real-story-behind-the- havana-embassy-mystery)?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> SurfingAttack exploits ultrasonic guided wave propagating through solid- material tables to attack voice control systems. Interesting!</comment>


Email Is Broken. Can Anyone Fix It? - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/email-is-broken-can-anyone-fix-it/ <comment><USER2> Email is the greatest tool for external<>external communication ever. I hope it never goes away. The "Broken" part is usually the dread you feel when you have it on your phone and check it 300 times a day, or when you use a non- major client and get tons of spam. Using Google Inbox on a PC and nothing on your phone? Pure communication bliss.</comment>


What we learnt from Yo ... by copying it - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/harryf/thoughts/blob/master/hoi-and-yo.md

<comment><USER2> What Yo has taught us is that social media is dead. Nanosocial is the future. It's not about sharing content any more. It's about sharing context. Snapchat, Hoi... This new wave of apps are shaping new ways in how we interact with each other.</comment>


Want People to Behave Better? Give Them More Privacy - <AUTHOR> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-outsourced-mind/201604/want-people-behave-better-give-them-more-privacy <comment><USER2> Interesting article. Though, of the four examples of privacy, I think three are better described as autonomy or self-direction.

* "privacy within team boundaries" \-- given a problem, allowing teams to independently arrive at a solution without oversight by management

* "privacy in decision-making" \-- seems effectively equivalent to "privacy within team boundaries"

* "privacy about time" \-- allowing teams to manage their own work schedules

The one that appears more related to privacy to me is "privacy limits on employee data", where some employee performance measurements are provided to teams to help employees to improve but not to management, those who evaluate employee performance for salary or position changes.</comment>


Big Brother Is Watching as Stores Seek Data - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-14/big-brother-is-watching-you-as-stores-seek-better-data-retail.html

<comment><USER2> I've worked on similar systems as described in this article. If you ever watched "Lie To Me", the Fox TV show, that show is based on a real person and one of my long term business partners is a real life R&D firm working with the real life person "Lie to Me" is based. We have neural nets that "correct poor quality images" of a person, identify their emotional state, and can do so much more that is too scary to relate without violating trusts.

The biggest customers for the system are casinos and the interstate highway patrol. After that is organizations the help find missing children.

<comment><USER3>
      So... you worked with Paul Ekman?

<comment><USER2> yes.</comment></comment></comment>


Engadget to Change Name to AOL Tech Guru? - <AUTHOR> http://www.billhartzer.com/pages/engadget-to-change-name-to-aol-tech-guru/ Is AOL about to change the popular tech site Engadget into the AOL Tech Guru? Based on domain purchases today, it looks like there is a new AOL Tech Guru 'in the house' (coming soon). <comment><USER2> No, its a re-branding of their Premium Remote Tech Support services.</comment>


Imperfect Forward Secrecy: How Diffie-Hellman Fails in Practice - <AUTHOR> https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/weakdh-cacm19.pdf <comment><USER2> Strange that they recommend an elliptic-curve based implementation considering it's not quantum resistant.

<comment><USER3> There likely will not be a cryptanalytic capable quantum computer for over a few decades.

<comment><USER4> I bet that's the NSA's (public) company line

<comment><USER5> Actually wasn't the latest gov standard pushing for quantum-resistant algos? I vaguely remember some controversy over it on HN, because the switched recommendation was sudden and came out of nowhere (with at least one suggestion that they must be nearing it, or someone else is). Dont follow this topic normally, which is why I'm so vague on this, and possibly wrong.

<comment><USER6> If you're talking about NIST, they've initiated the process to standardise post-quantum public key crypto: [https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/Post-Quantum- Cryptography/Pos...](https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/Post-Quantum- Cryptography/Post-Quantum-Cryptography-Standardization)

Round 1 submissions were received by November 2017: [https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/Post-Quantum- Cryptography/Rou...](https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/Post-Quantum- Cryptography/Round-1-Submissions)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wow, people using 512 bit keysizes in 2018??

Back in 2014 I got the recommendation to ditch 2048 in favor of 4096.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is relevant to my interests. Thank God we're already using ECC for everything.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm confused... Wasn't all that published in 2015 already?

Edit: ah it says it right there on this article: The full version of this paper was published in Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), October 2015, ACM

Mods, maybe add a "2015" to the title?

<comment><USER10> Added, thanks.

<comment><USER11> Un-added, since we've changed the URL to an updated version of the paper.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Working link [http://sci- firstname.lastname@example.com](http://sci- email@example.com)

</comment><comment><USER13> [https://weakdh.org/imperfect-forward- secrecy.pdf](https://weakdh.org/imperfect-forward-secrecy.pdf)

<comment><USER11> Changed from [https://sci-hub.tw/10.1145/3292035](https://sci- hub.tw/10.1145/3292035). Thanks!

<comment><USER13> There's an updated version of the paper that was published today, so here's an even better link: [https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/weakdh- cacm19.pdf](https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/weakdh-cacm19.pdf)

Source: I'm an author.

<comment><USER11> Thanks! Changed from [https://weakdh.org/imperfect-forward-secrecy- ccs15.pdf](https://weakdh.org/imperfect-forward-secrecy-ccs15.pdf).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2810103.2813707](https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2810103.2813707)

<comment><USER15> It's open access, should change to this link

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> localhost? wrong redirect?

<comment><USER12> I'm also receiving a locahost redirect over Verizon Wireless in the US when using Chrome for iOS.

DNS resolves to 18.104.22.168 and .84. When I surf directly to that IP I am redirected to [https://sci-hub.se](https://sci-hub.se) which seems to load correctly. That implies this is the correct server and not a MITM.

When using CloudFlare's DNS VPN I get the same IPs, so this is not a VZW injected IP.

It seems the Sci Hub site itself is doing the local host redirect...?

<comment><USER12> Working link: [http://sci- email@example.com](http://sci- firstname.lastname@example.com)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So that thing I learned last semester is useless?

<comment><USER18> You should have learned this paper last semester, as the paper is from 2015 and is relevant if you study DH.

Anyway, for an application developer (as opposed to a crypto engineer), just use libsodium when you control both sides.

If you need to interop with someone else, use TLS 1.3 if you can, or TLS 1.2 but only with ciphers that support PFS and AEAD, i.e. in practice x25519 and P-256 ECDHE with RSA signatures with AES GCM or ChaCha20Poly1305.

Same primitives are available in SSH.

If you can, don't use IPSec, use wireguard.

Don't use pgp/openpgp/gpg email, use signal. You can use gpg to sign packages and encrypt backups, but the email integration and UX will kill you.

<comment><USER19> > Don't use pgp/openpgp/gpg email, use signal. You can use gpg to sign > packages and encrypt backups, but the email integration and UX will kill > you.

Is there any problem with the crypto that gpg uses, or is it just a matter of the UX?

<comment><USER18> You can configure it to use crypto that is ok (and then use it to sign software packages or encrypt backups, like I wrote above, especially when interaction with gpg is done by scripts, not manually by humans, and key distribution is out of band and PFS is not needed).

For back and forth messages between two or more people, lack of forward secrecy is a problem, integration with the email program is a problem, email metadata is a problem (not just to and from but also the subject line), teaching your confederates to not reply in the clear quoting the entire decrypted message you sent is a problem, etc.

Security practitioners basically believe email cannot be saved, it cannot be used securely by regular people and its only use is to bootstrap something else.

<comment><USER20> > not just to and from but also the subject line

Subject is hidden in newer software e.g. Enigmail and K9 (it's moved to encrypted part and replaced with a placeholder see [https://github.com/autocrypt/memoryhole](https://github.com/autocrypt/memoryhole)).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Moving to India: 12 Ridiculous things that make no sense - <AUTHOR> http://neeharc.tumblr.com/post/49660610750/moving-to-india-12-ridiculous-things-that-make-no

<comment><USER2> Your line about only one mirror. The other mirror is optional. I bought a Maruti about fifteen years back when i returned from the US. Was shocked that there was no second mirror.

Seems no one here uses the second mirror so it is an added cost. When I asked them about "blind-spot" they were puzzled. No one here has heard of it.

I think some of the other points are just for fun. The two showers in a bathroom, and the shower facing the pot. I've never seen such. Must be a rare case. Or someone hastily put together a bathroom so he could rent a place :).

Actually, I am surprised you did not mention anything about there being no water considering there are severe water shortages in summer. Then there are lanes on the road, but no one does "lane driving". "One Way" and "No Entry" are quite a joke. Signs in English but very few people can read (in Delhi).</comment>


Todoman: A simple CalDav-based todo manager - <AUTHOR> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/todoman/1.4.0 <comment><USER2> This looks good - I'm always happy when I see tools that allow offline operation and integration with open standards for data formats/sync protocols.

This, gollum style wikis, bugs everywhere issue tracker, etc can make a great working environment that provides offline capability without vendor lock-in to a saas platform

<comment><USER3> It's sad how Google, Apple et al. have mostly abandoned the use of open standards in favor of locking users to their own closed, craptastic, proprietary services. Lack of interoperability severely limits the usability of cloud based services. Sadly these vendors seem unable to produce decent tools that work well together, so users are left with their data scattered across crappy services (e.g. Google Apps/Drive/Docs/Calendar etc.).

Lack of interoperability, vendor lock-in, poor usability of many web based apps and crappy touch based UIs makes me feel like we are living in the dark ages of the information society. It's almost as if people have forgotten how powerful tools we had 20 years ago compared to the current web app bloatware and how efficient keyboard + mouse is compared to most touch based UIs.

<comment><USER2> I have no love for Google, but I'm not sure how you somehow group "touch based UIs" into "proprietary services".

There are plenty of great apps on mobile devices that support open standards. The whole point of an open standard is that you have the freedom to choose how you consume the data - be it a terminal/shell client, a desktop GUI client, a mobile 'touch' client, a web client, whatever.</comment></comment></comment>


SEC halts AriseBank ICO - <AUTHOR> https://www.americanbanker.com/news/arisebank-raises-questions-about-ico-fraud-decentralized-banking <comment><USER2> For all those still unsure about running an ICO in the US:

> "The ICO is an illegal offering of securities because there is no > registration filed or in effect with the SEC, nor is there an applicable > exemption from registration," the complaint said.

The complaint was filed by the SEC in Dallas and the court ordered an emergency asset freeze of the company and it's two co-founders.

If you're considering an ICO, please attempt to understand your legal obligations and risks. The window of ICO free for alls looks like it's ending.

<comment><USER3> It's the SEC, there was never a window, and they'll claw back anything and everything they feel is out of bounds. People seem to sometimes confuse the slow pace of government with a lack of inevitability, and assume there's an opportunity. It's not an opportunity, it's a trap.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of, or all of the "legit" ICO's are similarly removed from play.

<comment><USER4> Not sure if they can or will claw back anything. There are simply too many offenders to individually track down, prosecute, etc. Not saying they shouldn't be punished, but there simply are too many offenders. The small time offenders will probably be let off.

<comment><USER5> Oh yes the SEC can absolutely claw back by applying laws in retrospective. Having too many offenders was never a problem for SEC.

Just because you ICO'd before today doesn't mean you are safe at all, in fact I'd argue the opposite-you've opened up yourself to unknown regulatory liabilities.

<comment><USER6> The SEC probably has about 5 employees working on ICOs, if that.

<comment><USER7> SEC's forays into ICO world caught public attention; it wouldn't surprise me if that number suddenly increased, very soon.

<comment><USER3> I have to agree, and it's hard to imagine the SEC turning down a bunch of easy wins. The SEC is has internal politics just like any large group.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > AriseBank announced Thursday it was correcting an announcement made the > prior week about the acquisition of an FDIC-insured bank.

Wow, I checked the links to find this. First [1] they claimed:

> AriseBank now holds 100 percent of the equity in both KFMC Bank Holding > Company, a 100 year-old commercial bank, and TPBG, a 25 year-old investment > banking and management firm.

> As part of this acquisition, AriseBank can now offer its customers FDIC- > insured accounts and transactions, and gain a strong backing for crypto > aTMs™ which will grant consumers to easily convert and withdraw > cryptocurrencies in U.S. Dollars.

Then a week later they "corrected" [2] the announcement:

> Because of the decentralized nature of the AriseBank software, it is wholly > unnecessary for the platform to be FDIC regulated or insured as the > individual users maintain full control of their funds. The company is > currently in the process of acquiring two U.S.-based companies, KFMC Bank > Holding Company and TPMG. KFMC Bank Holding Company is the owner of a > 100-year old US commercial bank and TPMG is a 25-year old investment bank. > The name of the actual FDIC-insured bank being acquired will be announced > once all paperwork has been filed with the FDIC and regulators have approved > its status.

This really getting out of hand.

[1][https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/arisebank- announces...](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/arisebank-announces- first-ever-acquisition-of-traditional-banks-by-a-crypto-platform-expects-ico- to-exceed-1b-due-to-popular-demand-300584461.html)

[2][https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/arisebank- announces...](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/arisebank-announces- correction-on-recent-company-news-citing-fdic-status-and- acquisitions-300588303.html)

<comment><USER9> Yes! AriseBank blatantly lies in the first statement about FDIC-insured accounts. Here is another quote from the "correction":

> This entity is totally separate from AriseBank and will operate separately > from AriseBank. AriseBank will never offer FDIC-insured accounts to our > users, as this is not possible with a decentralized software.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Much longer article: [https://www.americanbanker.com/news/arisebank-raises- questio...](https://www.americanbanker.com/news/arisebank-raises-questions- about-ico-fraud-decentralized-banking)

<comment><USER11> Founder of AriseBank: "We're just a bunch of genius programmers who are trying to change the world."

ICO founders all seem to be a mix of greed and hubris.

<comment><USER12> The SEC further said in its complaint that AriseBank "omitted to disclose the criminal background of key executives — most notably, Rice, who is currently on probation for felony theft and tampering with government records."

Seems there is something extra that the founder is forgetting to mention - something that makes him not eligible to found anything bank-related.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13>
       Rice responded through a letter
       Posted on Steemit that AriseBank
       Refuses to comply with the Texas
       Commissioner's order and will
       not remove the word "bank"
       from its name. He argues that
       the AriseBank software is
       decentralized, not under the
       Control of AriseBank, and
       Therefore not subject to bank
       regulation.

In Russia parents teach kids that you can never play "find the clever technicality" with the government, because you will always lose. I guess in America they don't teach kids that lesson?

<comment><USER7> I guess that's a testament to the faith of US citizens in the rule of law / their government following the rules they themselves set up. Being able to have such faith is a good thing in general, but it doesn't excuse stupidity. As for Russia, their government is a bit more "move fast and break things", I would guess.

<comment><USER13> I think it is more that in the rest of the world people understand the purpose of the law, and do not get hung up on the words, whereas in the USA people look at the words very carefully and try to find some way around the specific wording of the laws.

A law stating, for example, "no man shall shoot a gun at another" will clearly mean "you cannot shoot anyone" in the rest of the world, whereas in USA you can expect lawsuits seeking the court's definition of "shoot", "gun" and "man". Why? Because it does work that way often in USA.

Same in this case. I imagine a good lawyer might be able to find a way in which AriseBank really was "not really _IN_ texas" and in fact was "not _REALLY_ a bank"

<comment><USER7> That sounds about right, too. I guess I was describing the "how one expects the government will behave" angle. My personal impression is that USGOV would happily take the bait and end up tied in court over the definitions of "shoot", "gun" and "man", _most of the time_. This is not one of those times, though.

(And to be clear, with Russians, I meant a quick "yup, we didn't word this precisely enough, but both of us know what we meant there", followed by jail time.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Can anyone access their website [1] or whitepaper [2]?

It is incredibly scary that such a huge ICO can disappear from the internet. Imagine if another company that was raising $600 million just disappears from the web.

[1] [http://arisebank.com/](http://arisebank.com/)

[2] [https://www.arisebank.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/12/elevato...](https://www.arisebank.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/12/elevator-whitepaper.pdf)

<comment><USER14> The 100-page developer whitepaper is still available in Google's cache.

[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:F7TfYD...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:F7TfYD-G9ksJ:https://www.arisebank.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/12/developer-whitepaper.pdf)

<comment><USER15> > [https://file.io/kQ2cqm](https://file.io/kQ2cqm)

{"success":false,"error":404,"message":"Not Found"}

<comment><USER14> Looks like file.io deletes the file after it's downloaded once.

Here's a link good for 24 hours [https://dropfile.to/JBt2vu7](https://dropfile.to/JBt2vu7)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The assets include Dogecoin.

We all died in 2000 when the end of the world came. This is a parody timeline, sort of like when shows go on for too many seasons and hack writers take over.

<comment><USER17> It's like someone did this on purpose to surprise Robert Frost (he favors fire).

<comment><USER18> "Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ICO." ?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> and the never ending long list of ICOs [https://www.coingecko.com/en/ico](https://www.coingecko.com/en/ico)

</comment><comment><USER20> Good to see the separating of low quality scam ICOs from legitimate ones.

<comment><USER21> I'm not trying to start anything here. What are some examples of clearly legitimate ICOs?

<comment><USER22> One of the first ICOs, Ethereum, run by the Ethereum Foundation in Switzerland, has successfully created a platform to run ICOs. It is legitimate so long as there is at least 1 Ethereum-based ICO that leads to a useful product.

<comment><USER21> And if there aren't any, it's like a meta ponzi scheme.

I'm optimistic that there's surely something practical out there.

<comment><USER22> For something practical, I'd look at Bitcoin. It seems to be somewhat useful for routing payments around regulation. Even at that, though, it currently isn't very good due to how inefficient the blockchain is. Maybe non-blockchain technologies like the Lightning Network will help... but if you can't even create a successful payment network with a blockchain, I don't see any reason to be optimistic, given that no other use cases have shown any hint of success.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> FLUX-YOU >The SEC said that for the first time in connection to an ICO fraud, it has appointed a third-party custodian, or receiver, to secure the firm's cryptocurrency holdings. Those assets include bitcoin, litecoin, bitshares, dogecoin and bitUSD.

How exactly do they plan to do that? Are they raiding machines for passwords/private keys as a part of asset freezing?

<comment><USER3> Most people aren't crazy, stupid, or brave enough to defy court orders indefinitely.

<comment> FLUX-YOU They can move the cryptocurrencies out and claim they got hacked. How do you prove they know the password/private key to a new wallet address that isn't tied to any exchange identity/background check?

<comment><USER3> Subpeana _everything_. The government has a lot of power and a long arm, and a few centuries of experience hunting down money trails.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


14 free tools that reveal why people abandon your website - <AUTHOR> http://www.conversion-rate-experts.com/articles/understanding-your-visitors/

<comment><USER2> #1 free tool that causes people to abandon your website: porn.</comment>


Slack Harms Projects - <AUTHOR> https://www.silasreinagel.com/blog/2019/08/12/how-slack-harms-projects/ <comment><USER2> I disagree for many reasons, but chief among them is that Slack is a tool, like email or JIRA are tools, to communicate between members of a team. The culture around that communication is what makes these tools useful. If a company bases their culture around real time communication and organizes both their communication tool and company accordingly, a lot of these problems disappear. Multiple channels and project channels can ensure that only relevant people get notifications. And 10 years ago, people were complaining about the constant pinging of email as a distraction from work. You can close or mute Slack!

One thing you don't mention here is the usefulness of RTC tools for remote work. I work remotely, and I can't imagine only interacting with my co-workers through email or a ticket interface. It is, for me and my company, not at all conducive to the type of innovation that makes our work successful. I think RTC tools are the closest remote employees can get to "Hey X, can I grab you for a second?" Emails are too formal, tickets are even more so. Slack is perfect for this kind of communication.

Side note: at my co., big tickets or ideas get sent in emails. You don't have to use just one tool!

<comment><USER3> Many ticket systems are awful for reasons other than being ticket systems.

For instance there are all the JIRA installations that have more options to make a ticket than there are dials at the flight engineer's station on a 747 in the 1970s. There are the issue trackers that run on a server that has too little RAM so it takes 30 seconds to load that bloated "create ticket" page.

I think making something more fluent than the typical issue tracker but more structured than slack would be the way to go.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree with this completely.

Having a good ticket system makes a world of difference.

If it's slow, or clunky, or buggy, or cumbersome, then the ticket system itself harms the projects and prevents progress.

At lot of usage of Jira falls precisely in this category.</comment></comment></comment>


Nanodegrees: A New Kind Of Credential For Jobs in Technology - <AUTHOR> https://www.udacity.com/nanodegrees

<comment><USER2> As a statistician working for a bank, this is good news. I was doing some self-study to become proficient in JavaScript (I already know a bit of programming in C, Haskell, Java and JavaScript) - and this looks like it could lend some stamp of credibility to a prospective employer or client. While I am sure this is not enough, and should be backed up with open source contributions, this is definitely a good start.

</comment><comment><USER3> So, we are just calling certifications by different names now?

I opened the iOS nanodegree page:

\--

The core courses will bring you from zero to hero in developing industry- quality iOS apps using Apple's innovative programming language, Swift

. . .

* 7-8 months if you can commit 10 hours per week * 3-4 months if you can commit 20 hours per week

\--

So assuming one spends 40 hours a week (normal work week) in 1.5-2.0 months you will be a 'accredited' iOS developer.

Sorry, I wouldn't hire you, and I can't remember a place I worked at that would.

They will just be like the MCTS or whatever from Microsoft, but without at least a 'governing' body that issues the requirements. Just something to add to your resume to work at a place that doesn't know how to do hiring.

<comment><AUTHOR> I wouldn't vote to hire a candidate solely because of a nanodegree from Udacity but I would consider it a positive signal; not as strong as an MS in CS from Stanford or a long list of published apps, but evidence of a desire for self-improvement and the discipline to act on that.

<comment><USER2> Even an online CS degree from Stanford (if one existed) could not compete with their regular CS degree. I think this is more appropriate for "average" developers to put a stamp on their resume, and demonstrate to a prospective employer that they have taken the time and effort to complete a course. It is possible that you do not hire average developers, but then you are a minority.

<comment><AUTHOR> Stanford does offer certificates and degrees delivered either partially or entirely online: [http://scpd.stanford.edu/publicViewHome.do?method=load](http://scpd.stanford.edu/publicViewHome.do?method=load)

I've taken CS courses at Stanford both through SCPD and on-campus. They're literally the same classes. Lectures are videorecorded and online. Tests and assignments are exactly the same.

There are minor advantages to being on campus: asking questions after class; sitting around your TA's office in Palantir bean-bag chairs while someone sketches sparse autoencoder on the dry-erase board; Axe burgers; but really, remote is okay too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> They have reinvented "certification"?

MCSE and Cisco might want a word with them about their "new kind" of credential.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think that's a little harsh. Vendor-specific certifications have earned a bad rep, some more than others, but that doesn't mean there's no advantage in _any_ educational recognition short of a degree from an accredited university.

I wonder if the Udacity, in a few years, will _be_ an accredited university capable of granting degrees?</comment></comment>