People who tend to be optimistic are likelier to live to 85 or more: study - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/09/01/755185560/optimists-for-the-win-finding-the-bright-side-might-help-you-live-longer <comment><USER4> More likely: "People who live 85 or more have more of the good things like health and safe environment which also makes them optimistic."

<comment><USER5> It is possible to imagine a potential casual process that leads to earlier death. What if pessimism creates a constant presence of key stress hormones (Adrenaline, Cortisol and Norepinephrine) and these are already linked to higher likelihoods of heart disease, cancer, ...

<comment><USER6> What if the constant presence of stress hormones makes people more prone to pessimism?

<comment><USER7> Anecdotally, Ive been very fortunate to have a positive brain chemistry. When bad things have happened, my brain pretty much doesn't worry on them. Eventually things work out (or something good eventually happens) and I get through the bad times.

There is no way to explain or describe this positive brain chemistry in a way that anyone can believe. But since I was a kid, my parents have been worried that Im too happy as they know dissatisfaction is what drives people to achieve. They would say things like "your only problem is you are too happy".

I havent lived to 85 yet though, so who knows.

<comment><USER8> Does it ever bother you when people find that youre "too happy" which people might take it to mean that no outcome to any given event, can really displease you?

Have you read up on what such a "condition" \- if it can be called that - <USER2> called medically? Do others share it as well?

<comment><USER7> the way people see it is that I dont react to bad situations. I have been called "stone cold". I have sometimes wondered if it is related to sociopathy. I am a giving person and would rather give than receive, so am not very selfish. However, bad things just dont bother me because there is always something positive that comes out of everything.

When my wife had an aortic dissection and had a high chance of dying, people had a hard time understanding how I could be so calm and not be stressed. It wasnt that I was sure she was going to make it, just that no matter the outcome I would still find happiness.

<comment><USER9> Sincere question here: what makes you certain that you would have found happiness? I guess the fundamental difference between your way of thinking and most peoples' is that you seem to be absolutely convinced that happiness exists and is continuously experienced regardless of the state of reality. Therefore, regardless of what happens, there will be some form of happiness and you will experience it.

I'm in awe of this, because my personal view is that happiness is a fleeting chaotic state that mostly has no easily measurable probability of emerging, despite my attempts to grasp the shape of the distribution and its evolution in response to my actions. While I would consider myself not to be pessimistic, I definitely tend to have extremely rare encounters with what one would call happiness, which seems to be so starkly different from your life experience.

<comment><USER10> There's a book by Tony Hsieh (Zappos founder) called Delivering Happiness.

Near the end, he talks about three types of "happiness."

The first is pleasure. It's from food, fun, or other external experiences. While it can bring temporary happiness, you will always be looking for the next fix.

The second is happiness from passion, such as a hobby or working at your startup. You can go for years without success and still feel happy. However eventually you'll need some type of progress to keep going.

The third type is happiness from purpose. Think of it as working towards something bigger than yourself. This type of happiness can last a lifetime, even if all you do is sacrifice for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Yesterday, my wife stumbled upon a "20 pieces of good news" article and read it to me. Things like initiatives being taken to save the bees etc. At first I thought it was a bit silly but I realized that hearing all those good things did something wonderful: it made me feel quite optimistic on behalf of the world, which I can't say I have in a while (in spite of my own life going quite well).

Keeping informed is the duty of a citizen in a democracy and I don't want to live in a rose colored bubble but I do think I am going to try and curate my news harder. For now, I started following The Good News Network and The Constructive Institute on Twitter and I will try and look for other similar sources.

<comment><USER12> You should read "factfulness". It annoys me when people talk of the current world and time in negative tones when it is best we have ever had by many measurements. Not that we are having a terrible time, but it is cool to think negatively of the world it seems to me.

<comment><USER13> "when it is best we have ever had by many measurements"

Not really. By an ecologist measuring it is the worst world we have since the last ice age and getting worse every day.

So sure, when you don't give a sh*t about nature, you can have your happy bubble of constant happy developement and improvement, but otherwise not. Oh and of course you also have to have a good air filter installed, as air pollution is a real thing too and not linked to good health. And streets and cars and noise is something new, too and also not considered healthy. Burn out and other civilisation diseases exist as well ...

Do not misunderstodd, I love technology and I don't like the "back to the trees" solution, as most who propose it, have never spend a full day without running water and emergency phone 24/7, but I also don't like getting blinded by only half of the facts.

Yes, thanks to technology we did improve amazingly, but there are many dark sides to it, we have to deal with now.

<comment><USER14> "it is the worst world we have since the last ice age"

It isn't.

We have more forests now than 35 years ago [1] Ecological footprint is decreasing in Europe [2] Death rates from air pollution are dropping [3]

Thanks to technology we can have an amazing quality of life that not even nobility could dream of a hundred years ago, but we are also doing it in a more sustainable way.

[1] [https://psmag.com/environment/the-planet-now-has-more- trees-...](https://psmag.com/environment/the-planet-now-has-more-trees-than- it-did-35-years-ago) [2] [https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and- maps/indicators/ecologica...](https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and- maps/indicators/ecological-footprint-of-european-countries-1/assessment) [3] [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-air- poll...](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-air-pollution)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Optimism Bias" improves our mental and physical well-being. Biases are irrational, by definition. Our mind is supposedly rational...and rationality is not always to our benefit.

This kinda blew my mind when I was reading up some philosophy. My key takeaway was that rationality and logic is not always helpful to make decisions, esp. when it comes to complex systems such as people (i.e. relationships). As an engineer, it's tough to get past this mindset. On a daily basis I am striving to disconnect everything as much as possible because of scale and performance, but the human brain is nothing like that.

<comment><USER16> >Biases are irrational, by definition.

Not all biases are irrational...in fact most biases are in rational predispositions based on knowledge and/or first hand experience. Basically its an attempt to apply logic/rationality to unknown situations.

Bias is always framed as a negative word/trait, and it certainly can be (like racial prejudice), but bias should also be looked at as an evolutionary tool humans can use to apply past learned experiences to similar situations in the future.

Just as an example, motorcycle riders may have a bias against certain types of vehicles because of their training/experience, and they apply this bias when making decisions that impact their safety on the road, even though the specific vehicle/situation may not pose a danger. In an evolutionary context, maybe you saw a fury 4 legged animal kill one of the members of your tribe, so you apply a bias against all 4 legged fury animals. Now you don't know if all fury 4 legged animals are dangerous, or pose a threat, but at the same time its no irrational to apply the bias because in potentially life/death situations it may be better safe than sorry. Obviously its good to keep and open mind, maybe you can train such an animal and it may even turn out to be your best friend, but nothing wrong with approaching the situation with your bias either.

<comment><USER17> Two types of rationality are being conflated here, namely "close to the truth" and "increases my odds of surviving".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> About three years ago I read someone on here recommend the book, "Learned Optimism". They said it was life changing.

I read it, did the work, and it is life changing. People with a pessimistic outlook are much less happy than people with an optimistic outlook. The book teaches you how each type thinks (for example, optimists think everything good that happens to them is personal and permanent and every bad thing that happens is impersonal and temporary. Pessimists are the opposite). The book then teaches you essentially a cognitive behavioral therapy technique to retrain your brain to think more like an optimist. It's work but so worth it especially if you ever experience anxiety.

<comment><USER19> Weren't you troubled by the fact that he admits optimists are factually wrong compared to pessimists, blame others, don't admit fault, and just seem like generally unpleasant people (insurance salesmen and the type of person who talks on planes, for example)? Yeah, okay, they are happier, live longer, are more successful, get elected... but at what cost to the world? I came away thinking we should train the optimists to listen to pessimists more, not the opposite...

<comment><USER18> The book is not for everyone. By that I mean that there are people in the world that think everything they do will fail. That obsess on every interaction with friends and significant others trying to look for signs that they don't like them anymore. People that are riddled with anxiety on a daily basis because they always expect bad things to happen. That catastrophize every minor negative thing that happens in their lives.

Those people will have their lives changed significantly for the better by following the program in the book.

I am not troubled that reading a book will give you Narcissist Personality Disorder or as you said turn you into an insurance salesman.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I can't think of a more literal example of survivorship bias.

<comment><USER21> there is no way I'm making it to 85

<comment><USER22> Not with that attitude

<comment><USER23> Q.E.D.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "The study included 69,744 women and 1,429 men."

Does this mean it's much easier to find optimistic women than men?

<comment><USER25> Probably easier to find women still alive at that age. (Here in the U.S. at least, women tend to outlive men by ~5 years)

<comment><USER26> If women are more optimistic than men, then that alone could be sufficient to yield the results of the study (correlation).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> A lot of cynicism in the comments here, but having an optimistic outlook has been a boon throughout history in almost all accounts. It's definitely harder today with all of the mass media and the constant negativity, but in my opinion it's hard to argue with the logic.. positive energy yields positive results.. at least more so than negative energy

<comment><USER28> Every day you can get up out of bed, enjoy a cup of coffee, and go outside and see the trees and smell the air, it's a great freakin' day.

<comment><USER29> Yep, so many things to be grateful of, but most of the people are just too "blind" to see them and acknowledge it. A gratitude journal is a really powerful tool.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is a hidden case of confounding. In particular, you would expect a question such as "in uncertain times I usually expect the best" to be very heavily confounded with your chance of making it through uncertain times (in the past and in the future).

Yes, they controlled for basic things like some generic concept of health, diet and smoking, but there's so many things that are hard to control for.

As a simple example: what if you have some rare genetic disease that's not controlled for but will likely kill you?

</comment><comment><USER31> Met a 91 year old guy during my travels in China. He was walking around and talking to people when I was there without help.

His family said he drinks a beer for breakfast every day. He drank Boju (instead of beer) before his wife died several years ago.

Maybe the secret to a long life is 40% alcohol, a happy marriage, and good genetics.

He looked very happy.

</comment><comment><USER32> For such studies, a randomized control trial should be done. For half the group, present the research on optimism and encourage them to be optimistic. For the other half, do nothing. I predict that telling people to be optimistic will not be effective.

<comment><USER33> I'd love to see a different question answered: is there an inverse correlation to be drawn between optimism and stress levels. From my experience significant stress can be just as debilitating as physical ailments and I find that optimists seem to handle stressful situations with more apparent ease than others.

<comment><USER34> That's where my train of thought was going.

Less optimistic, more stress, lower life expectancy.

<comment><USER35> I would guess causality runs the other way: people with high stress in life have lower life expectancy and also tend to be less optimistic because it's easier to be optimistic if things are going well for you

<comment><USER36> I'd say there's even a third option, the causality runs back AND forth (both good thoughts can lead to good outcomes as well as bad outcomes can lead to bad thoughts and vice a versa)

Even in this third option there exist an infinite number of sub options on a gradient (where each direction carries more or less weight).

Of course, any meaningful conversation can only happen after definitions (like what is pessimistic) are agreed upon. I for one don't agree with the definition of pessimism as defined by the study.

<comment><USER34> It probably goes both ways?

It's well known that two people can have the exact same experience (e.g. fighting in a war, experience a natural disaster) and have vastly different psychological outcomes from it. Some can deal with it easily, while others are crippled by it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> But are people who live to 85 or more likely to have been optimistic?

</comment><comment><USER38> Reminds me of that joke that pessimist is just an optimist with a real life experience.

<comment><USER28> My dad survived flying 30 missions over Germany when his group had 80% casualties. He had accepted that he wouldn't survive.

He was always an optimist. I'd ask him why, and he'd say he survived the war when so many of his buddies didn't, and was going to enjoy every day of it. (He lived to 93.)

<comment><USER39> Just wondering, do you often tell this anecdote ? Feels like I've read it a few times around here already.

<comment><USER28> Yes, I do. I thought it was an entirely appropriate response to the parent's comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> The "Optimism" \+ "Placebo" \- theory is also interesting.

(2007)

 _" A prior investigation found that individuals low in optimism are more likely to follow a negative placebo (nocebo) expectation. The present study tested the hypothesis that individuals high in optimism are more likely to follow a positive placebo expectation."_

 _" Results Optimism was positively associated with better sleep quality in the placebo expectation condition (r=.48, P<.05). Optimism scores were not associated with better sleep quality in either the treatment control condition (r=−.17, P=.46) or the no-placebo control condition (r=−.24, P=.35)."_

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00223...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022399906005319)

<comment><USER40> Your doctor optimism is more important!

"The placebo effect works and you can catch it from your doctor" (October 22, 2019 )

 _" If there's one thing you do want to catch from a trip to your doctor, it's her optimism."_

 _" The new study both demonstrates that the placebo effect is transmitted from doctor to patient, and shows how it might work. Researchers randomly assigned undergraduate students to play the role of a patient or a doctor. The "patients" were given a controlled heat stimulus to the forearm, after receiving one of two types of cream from the "doctor.""_

[https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/10/21/npr-the-placebo- eff...](https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/10/21/npr-the-placebo-effect-works- and-you-can-catch-it-from-your-doctor)

<comment><USER41> So pessimists can't be doctors?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Seriously Who the hell do and fund these "being optimist makes you live longer, eating healthy makes you longer, water found to be wet" researches? Is this because of the so much supply in graduate schools or researchers/schools want to see their names in the press?

<comment><USER43> It is completely valid to study. There are plenty of "every knows that" bits of wisdom that are wrong. Or the degree of the effect is unknown. Or the mechanism of effect is unknown.

Let me be concrete. Everyone knows that it is better to eat more fruits and vegetables and less processed food. Off the top of your head, how much must one eat to make a difference? Does it help people live longer, or just reduce sickness? Does it help by 1%, 5%, 20%?

If you just read the title of the report it is easy to be cynical and say, "duh, I knew that", but if you read the actual study it surely will give insights that you were not aware of.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> When I read the tile and skimmed through the article, I thought: define pessimism.

I mean, I consider myself pessimistic, but what do THEY who designed the study consider pessimistic. I tend to find the fault in things, see how they are wrong, or in general anticipate some negativity that most people will overlook. It's literally what makes me good at my job.

So I clicked through to the study. Which mentioned it used the Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R) to test for pessimism.

So I looked up the Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R) and found what questions and answers they consider pessimistic.

These are questions a 'pessimist' is supposed to answer as being 'very true':

3\. If something can go wrong for me, it will. (R)

7\. I hardly ever expect things to go my way. (R)

Welp I can't say these are views of pessimists. More of someone depressed or someone who has been beaten down in life.

I admire what they are trying to do, but I'm not sure this study really is proving anything until there is a clear measure of someone's pessimism. And for that we need I think better testing for someone's natural inclinations toward belief and skepticism. I've always associated skepticism as highly correlated to pessimism (seeing why not) and a tendency to believe in something at first sight as highly correlated with 'positivism' (seeing why yes).

Objectively speaking, of the 7,000,000,000 people in the world, some percentage will have objectively way less things 'go their way' then for others. It's simply how distributions work. So for someone like that to answer question 7 affirmatively, they might not be pessimistic, just someone who has objectively had a shitty life. And for someone like that, well, less life expectancy should be expected. I know I've been lucky in life and would answer 7 and 3 as absolutely no despite myself considering myself a pessimist (and I've been called that enough to suspect others view me as such too)

<comment><USER44> I feel like usually the pessimistic complaining posts like this in hackernews are much more negative. It feels like there's a lot of hesitancy in this one and it's much more accepting/positive because you're afraid of being pessimistic because of the article :P

(Mostly just being cheeky. It's not fair to judge people on the internet when you don't know them)

<comment><USER36> I'm not afraid of being pessimistic.

I read the article title and wanted to see how accurate it was.

If it was accurate, it would cause me, like a rational creature, to question my tendencies. I have list of pros and cons for all my proclivities and try to use/taper my tendencies accordingly. It's not like I'd abandon my tendency toward pessimism all together, but adding something to the list of cons would put it's utility into greater question. I'm always questioning my beliefs and the utility of my tendencies, it's how I constantly improve and progress in life.

But I also question other peoples assertions. It's the natural thing to do for me. I think to question how they define pessimism is also quite logical when trying to objectively measure something.

I'm curious though, can you please tell me how I was complaining? I'm genuinely interesting in knowing why you perceive that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Correlation does not imply causation. The paragraph stating that the "finding was independent of other factors" doesn't really inspire confidence, there are countless factors that might impact the results.

<comment><USER46> Cohort studies cannot show causation, indeed, but that's not very relevant for what's being claimed.

And what they are saying with " _finding was independent of other factors_ " is that they adjusted for demographics and health conditions.

Yes, there are countless factors that could impact the results, the adjustments are not perfect, but cohorts are useful clues and in the large scheme of things, if you are optimistic, this shows you have a higher likelihood to live longer.

<comment><USER45> I might have read too much into it, but it's easy for readers to extrapolate to "if you become more optimistic you'll live longer". A parallel would be to read "people who wear XXL are more likely to be fat", where forcing to wear a smaller size won't make them thinner.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> relevant kurzgesagt [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPPFqsECz0&t=248s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPPFqsECz0&t=248s)

</comment><comment><USER48> Maybe the people who are pessimistic are right?

<comment><USER49> Doesn't matter. You can be optimistic or pessimist in the same exact situation. E.g. when in dire economic situation. The pessimist is "right" sure.

But being right doesn't make you stronger.

If you give up hope, you lose all kinds of benefits of the hopeful - <USER3> fighting till the last minute, and perhaps reversing the situation.

Not to mention that whether you're right or wrong to be hopeful, some situations just reverse themselves, or something good happens out of nowhere, in which case the pessimist just got a more expended period of internal suffering for no good reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> The last couple years I've become interested in gut bacteria, especially as it relates to health. Long to short, I'd like to offer this theory:

People who are optimistic have more friends. People with more friends have more robust and more diverse gut bacteria. That (i.e., gut bacteria) help the optimistic live longer.

</comment><comment><USER51> Maybe optimism is profitable on an individual basis. But at the collective level, I am not sure it is such a good idea. Anyway, not being optimistic does not mean you must be pessimistic : We just have to be realistic. That mean, accepting the world for what it is, and not what we want it to be.

<comment><USER52> I haven't read the article yet but I've heard stats like this before. Is it simply the effect of a positive emotional state? When my friend and I were talking about this I said:

'Be happy. Or else.'

<comment><USER53> Or else we'll put the happy helmet on you.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVM1nUmDHHc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVM1nUmDHHc) (Ren & Stimpy Happy Happy Joy Joy Song)

<comment><USER52> I told you I'd shoot, but you didn't believe me. Why didn't you believe me!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Alright. I should be out by 50 then.

<comment><USER55> I'm gonna live forever, or die trying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I wish to be optimistic. My wife says that my pessimism and low energy is negatively impacting our kids. The article does not go into detail about what methods one can train on to become more optimistic. Does anyone know of some methods?

<comment><USER57> As someone else has mentioned in the thread, the book Learned Optimism is all about this. I have also found learning meditation from the book The Mind Illuminated to be helpful. You could also check out CBT, and/or the writings of Albert Ellis.

Fundamentally, you will need to learn to let go of your negative perspective. One thing that helped me with this is realizing that the facts of reality are one thing, and how I feel about them are another. These are entirely orthogonal, and rewiring yourself to react differently to things is very doable, especially if you realize that your negative reactions are not helpful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Share of males who survive to the age of 65. [https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/120860558189372621...](https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1208605581893726210)

</comment><comment><USER59> Pessimists write more reliable code. Optimists assume users won't do funny stuff. Society owes the early croakers gratitude for their dedicated pessimism. Oh, and git off my lawn!

</comment><comment><USER60> Maybe because One of the the side effect of being a pessimist is giving up and just letting it go. That should nudge the data points to support this study

<comment><USER60> The the.. do I sound like I stutter mf?

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> It could be that people who are pessimistic don't want to live or even want to die, leading them to engage in reckless or dangerous behavior.

</comment><comment><USER62> How many optimists got slapped by the fate off the face of the Earth before they had a chance to participate in the study?

</comment><comment><USER53> Optimism is more compelling as an ethic than a philosophy.

Even if pessimism more accurately represents reality, adopting optimism leads to statistically improved outcomes.

So lie to yourself! Or do whatever it takes to fool yourself into adopting an optimistic mindset. Pessimism is for losers.

[inb4 zealous optimists claiming that optimism is actually more realistic.]

<comment><USER63> If you lie to yourself you'll know you're lying... Also that's a great way to keep yourself in a bad job or relationship when you could leave and get a better one.

<comment><USER64> > If you lie to yourself you'll know you're lying.

You either haven't done it enough or are doing it too much

<comment><USER53> Star Trek scene about a robot who cannot handle the Liar's Paradox:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqCiw0wD44U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqCiw0wD44U)

Humans are gifted, sophisticated liars. Don't think you can lie to yourself? I BELIEVE IN YOU! You can do it!

<comment><USER65> I think self lie is a defining characteristic of humans. We also use our big brains to rationalize the decisions we have already made, not using our capacity for rationalism to make the best decisions.

When we are truly rational, it is highly damaging to our egos.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> I really wish articles written about studies like this, where all they found was a association between stuff, and not a causal relationship, would explicitly say so. Perhaps through a little box near the end of the article stating, in simple terms, "the authors found that X and Y are associated. This does not necessarily mean that doing X will cause Y"

I know the people who read the actual study in journal, entitled "Optimism is _associated_ with ...", will notice the word "associated" and know what to make of the results. But Im pretty sure a good number of people who read pop- science articles like this dont know that "correlation doesnt imply causation". They will come to the wrong conclusion, and we cant blame them! Ive found this to be true in friends and family.

<comment><USER67> And in this case, you could easily imagine the arrow of causation pointing in the other way. If you have the good fortune of being generally healthy, and make enough income to have access to good healthcare, it's likely that you will live to 85. But these same factors also make you a likely optimist.

<comment><USER68> Just copy-pasting neonate's quote from the article, responding to a similar comment:

_That finding was independent of other factors thought to influence life's length — such as "socioeconomic status, health conditions, depression, social integration, and health behaviors"_

Literally the second paragraph on the article.

Read the article before posting comments, folks! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> No absolutely no chance, it won't happen. Oh wait...

</comment><comment><USER70> I'm so f __cked.

</comment><comment><USER71> Pessimists' outlook: pessimistic

</comment><comment><USER72> Aren't people that are richer, with the exception of those who achieve existential angst through lack of meaning, more optimistic? :P

If you can't get medical care, I imagine you're both more likely to die and pretty pessimistic about the state of the world.

It's easy to be optimistic when you have a feeling of control over your circumstances.

<comment><USER73> _That finding was independent of other factors thought to influence life 's length — such as "socioeconomic status, health conditions, depression, social integration, and health behaviors"_

<comment><USER74> It's a little weird to see a study about the effects of optimism control for depression...

<comment><USER75> Only if you think that depression is a lack of optimism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> For those repeating the "correlation isn't causation" mantra: if you click through to the original article ([https://www.pnas.org/content/116/37/18357](https://www.pnas.org/content/116/37/18357)), you'll find its title is "Optimism is associated with exceptional longevity in 2 epidemiologic cohorts of men and women", so the authors of the paper are aware of that.

They tried hard to adjust for demographics and health conditions.

So, any critique should be on where those adjustments fail. The article is paywalled, so, even if I were knowledgeable about how that can be done, I can't tell whether they are valid.

<comment><USER49> > _so the authors of the paper are aware of that._

The authors of every paper are aware of that. It's a thing that's being hammered on to them from early days at the university, and they are either studying for their PhDs or seasoned researchers when they create a paper.

It's mostly geek arrogance and facile dismissal from HN crowd to put this tired cliche mantra up.

When papers seem to ignore this, it's willingfully so (to get grants, pad their publications, etc with a nice result), not because they don't know this.</comment></comment>


Luck is a dividend of sweat. The more you sweat, the luckier you get - <AUTHOR>

Do you agree? How does this apply to your life? <comment><USER2> The best explanation I've ever heard of it is the concept of "luck surface area", which I was first introduced to on the TechZing podcast. It's the product of "work you do" and "people you touch with it."

There are hotel maids that work harder than any of us ever will. Nobody knows their name. This does not result in them getting appreciable amounts of career-enhancing luck.

There are people who achieve a brief bit of Internet stardom, on the basis of a shallow connection, such as e.g. being the person a photo a meme was based on. You will probably not retire on being a meme.

However, if you've written OSS that is key to 100 companies or if you have a blog read that 5k developers would cite as one of their top five or if you got two dozen people their jobs or yadda yadda, you'll be freaking amazed how many lucky opportunities come your way.

</comment><comment><USER3> The phrase "The harder I work, the luckier I get." is often spoken by those who believe in the "Just World" theory. It allows them to believe that their success is due to their own "goodness" and conversely, that others who aren't as successful must not be as "good".

In reality, luck plays a huge part. When you see the hard working landscapers around your building some morning, you should be thinking "That could be me if I hadn't won the ovarian lottery."

<comment><USER4> That's tautological. He's lucky because he's lucky. But if you meant that genetic inheritance plays a large role in success, then obviously I agree.

<comment><USER3> Winning the "ovarian lottery" means you were born with advantages that you didn't earn. Someone born in the US, has a huge advantage over someone born in a 3rd world country. Luck probably plays a bigger role than hard work (in success) due to these non-earned advantages. Many successful people would rather believe that their hard work was the reason for the success than admit their good fortune.

For example: I don't doubt the the Winklevoss twins are hard workers [you don't get into the Olympics without hard work] but I think it would be reaching to ascribe their current station in life to _just_ hard work.

<comment><USER4> Working hard is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success. Like Patrick said, working very hard at digging ditches is not going to land you in a C-suite, obviously, but very few people end up successful WITHOUT working hard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Probably an adage invented by a humorist named Coleman Cox in the 1920s:

[http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/07/21/luck-hard- work/](http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/07/21/luck-hard-work/)

</comment><comment><USER6> _Do you agree?_

Personally, I could not agree more. And five years ago, I think if you'd asked that question on this site, and overwhelming majority of respondents would have said that this is a no-brainer, where the answer is clearly "yes".

Now? The dominant clique here now will laugh at you for saying this, and accuse you of believing in Horatio Alger stories, and will tell you that all success is good luck, and that you can claim no credit for your work and any resulting success. Work ethic, dedication, passion, sacrifice - these things are verboten now. Now everything is luck, "white privilege", "male privilege", "western privilege", or some other excuse to disparage the individual and encourage a feeling of helplessness.

As for me? I say "you make your own luck".

An interesting thread on this topic from a few years back is here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6083826](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6083826)

My comment (well one of them) is here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6086079](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6086079)

And just for encouragement:

[http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search/?query=Horatio+Alger](http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search/?query=Horatio+Alger)</comment>


Analysis Of Apple's A5 - <AUTHOR> http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/04/13/analysis-of-apples-a5-its-not-what-we-know-its-what-we-dont-know/ <comment><USER2> This is blog spam. The interesting stuff is here:

[http://www.eetimes.com/General/DisplayPrintViewContent?conte...](http://www.eetimes.com/General/DisplayPrintViewContent?contentItemId=4215094)

<comment><USER3> The correct link is this:

[http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4215094/A5--All- Appl...](http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4215094/A5--All-Apple--part- mystery?pageNumber=0)

Links to the print version of an article are annoying. First, they are usually formatted badly for reading on the screen (most people are not going to actually print the article).

Second, sometimes they actually bring up a print dialog that needs to be dismissed.

Third, those who want the print version can easily click on the "print" item at the site. There often (such as in this case) no link that goes the other way, so when you send someone straight to the print link, it is hard for them to get to the regular, well formatted, page.

<comment><USER2> If by well-formatted, you mean chopped up into five pages, I guess you got me. I'll take the single page version (which for the record, does not trigger the print dialog).

<comment><USER3> By "well-formatted" I mean reasonable line length. It is generally much easier to read columns that are maybe 60 or so characters than to read columns that are a couple hundred characters. The print page wraps to window size.

The main point, though, is that those who prefer the print version can simply click the print link on the page. The print version does not provide a simple way to go back.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Would it be possible to remove selected functionality or routines from > software and implement them as hardwired circuits on the A5, going beyond > selected IP blocks and designing circuits specific to the software?

Awesome, and Apple is in a position to do it. Imagine pushing down bits of the OS (or even common app functionality) to silicon! But to voice a heresy: is more performance needed?

I played with an iPad 2 last week, and it doesn't feel any faster than an iPad 1 (apart from occasional pauses disappearing). Now, this isn't a fair test, because there wasn't any new software on it that took advantage of the greater performance.

Will that software appear over time? Games will certainly find a way to use it; but it's very striking to me that the iPad 1 was so well engineered that it didn't seem to suffer from any performance problems. And the software didn't seem to be lacking. Of course it's a truism that people will always find a use for more processing power - but it doesn't seem to be true any more. Computers are now fast enough for most people. Even new game console generations are coming less slowly; the wii has less power; people are preferring laptops, netbook, iPhones, even though they have less power than desktops. That means that the extra performance isn't of absolutely _crucial_ importance. Maybe it's nice to have - but once something is fast enough, you don't really notice if it's even faster.

Is it really possible that the iPad has _already_ overshot the performance that the market requires? Is there an iPad app that makes you think "this thing is so _slow_ , it's really irritating to use! If only it was a bit faster..."

<comment><USER5> Dedicated logic can also be more energy-efficient than software, possibly giving the same performance but longer battery life.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to benefit from big corporate policies? - <AUTHOR>

Since five years, we created an increasingly complex IT system for internal use in the start-up I work for. A very big corporation entered in the game recently, and at the same time one of our clients required us to get certifications. So we got this big corp's kind help and received a huge set of policies we should comply with.
The problem is that all these policies imply a traditional IT set-up, with a local network having servers serving files, database, accounts, group policies, etc., all behind a expensive hardware firewall, and with a DMZ for the web-apps (if any). Our architecture is the exact opposite: we have nothing, no sensitive data of any sort locally, everything is in a web-app, in the cloud. We have no real "local servers", just a few single tasked Linux boxes for router, NVR, etc.
The single concept of a DMZ don't apply for us, but still they tell us we should "move the database machine outside the DMZ, into the local network, for increased security". Our PostgreSQL rack is far away in the cloud, behind it's own firewall and hardened config like any other other of our web-app machines.
These big corp security policies not only tell us which format is to be used for our visitor badges, they also require us to use some MS stuff we really would prefer to avoid, both because we expect MS blobs to spread virally due to their closed formats and protocols, and also just for obvious security reasons I don't even have to mention.
Not everything is negative though, we have a lot to learn from a more formal security process in many respects, and anyway we have to get this fabulous certification, but we fear if we are not careful enough we could lose a great part of our agility, which helped us building something better and faster than our competitors, with a much smaller team.
Did anyone here got into the fabulous process of the integration in a big corp, or security certification, and have some advice on how to keep the daily job enjoyable for both tech team and tool's users?
By the way, do someone have guidelines on how to install MS servers in a Linux environment in a sane way? <comment><USER2> Assuming certification is not viable, adopt those policies you can implement, and create policies which address the issues behind the policies you cannot meet.

Then sit down with your client and sell them security.

Certification is CYA on paper. Security protects value.

The advantage you have is trust.

 _Edit:_ Is there a security certification that you can obtain more readily?

 _Edit:_ Is the client's request for certification based on a change in their business?

<comment><AUTHOR> Our client required ISO 27001 certification, we have to give them that one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> You might get more bite with a title about ISO27000 compliance.</comment>


Show HN: I love Essential Mixes. So I made this.  - <AUTHOR> http://mixture.fm <comment><USER2> For people who are new to the genre, Essential Mixes are one of the best ways to get to really know EDM artists. While artists typically get popular through hit singles, in full sets artists make a lot of experimental tweaks and changes to make it a unique experience. In the same way that CD's killed the full-album experience, live sets are bringing that "full" artist experience back.

I've compiled a short list of well respected DJs in case you want to use this site to explore other big names in this type of music beyond the usual suspects (Deadmau5.) There are many, many more and this is just a sampling of different sounds from the most recent mixes only.

Above & Beyond, Kaskade, Nero, Cosmic Gate, Flux Pavilion (dubstep), Jamie XX

<comment><USER3> Those are definitely some good names today; but if you want a bit of a history lesson I'd check out Sasha in the late 90's and early 00's.

Also Oakenfold, Paul Van Dyk, John Digweed, and Carl Cox were all in their prime during those days.

<comment><USER4> If you dig that stuff, you should definitely check out what John 'OO' Fleming is putting out these days. His Essential Mixes are absolute quality, and he's also got a monthly podcast that you can get on iTunes that is very addictive.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the tip; I'll give it a listen. OO has been at it a LONG time as well--definitely listened to him back in the day as well.

Sasha, Oakenfold, and Ferry Corsten around the 1999 - 2002 timeframe were my soundtrack. Some really great anthems from those days!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This looks and functions really well and you have a good selection of mixes.

For those like me who want to listen to a particular Essential Mix from 1993 till mid 2011, someone has uploaded 910 Essential Mix episodes into a Soundcloud Folder which can be found at <http://soundcloud.com/das- boy/sets/essential-mix/>. There are some real gems in here and it's pretty much a permanent tab for me.

Enjoy!

<comment><USER6> That is some impressive upload! Cheers for this!

<comment><USER7> Also, if you prefer to download them all as a torrent, check out <http://themixingbowl.org/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is awesome! You should add track lists and scrubbing without having to download the entire set.

Remind me of the days when I used to work on Mugasha. My main problem was that it was a pain for me to find good stuff to listen to while listening.

Check out bunch of old essential mixes on there. <http://mugasha.com/essential-mix>

So I built Mugasha and solved that problem. You can listen to a ton of essential mixes on there and other sets. Including track lists and scrubbing ahead.

What's really sad is that I don't work on Mugasha anymore and I have the exact same problem again.

\- I cant easily listen to new DJ sets like I used to.

\- I have to resort to listening to Itunes podcasts again and have NO idea what I am listening (track list problem)

\- Maybe I can find a new owner for Mugasha so I don't have these problems anymore.

<comment><USER9> That's well done, hope you find a way to keep it alive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> For those who aren't aware, getting offered to play an essential mix is a huge honor in the electronic music world. Most of the mixes on this site are from artists giving it their very best.

Cracking good work! This looks incredibly polished for a side project; are you planning on building it up?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the kind words! Yes, we are planning on building it up. Just wanted to get it out and get some feedback.

<comment><USER11> I hope you're going with this where i think you're going with this.

This is way beyond essential mixes . . . I haven't come across one good dj mix sharing website out there.

Linking to already hosted content is 100% the way to go.

Please keep it going.

<comment><USER12> Yep, right now I'm using Soundcloud and following a user on there who frequently posts new sets from popular artists. But it's just one user; I'd love to see that concept expanded upon and taken to a new site entirely. This site has been bookmarked; I'll be tracking to see where this goes!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Love it. Netsky's Essential Mix is amazing to listen to while programming: <http://mixture.fm/search/netsky> :)

<comment><USER14> Pandora plays the crap out of Netsky if you make a station of Ed Rush (and that's a good thing!). I actually like the occasional break in play from Pandora as it reminds me to get up and walk around a bit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Hey Eric, your site is awesome. I love how easy it is to play music. I had some thoughts from a UX perspective of things I didn't like about it.

Dislike: There's no sign up, only a Login with Facebook button (which is annoying personally because I don't like logging in with Facebook <http://screencast.com/t/hsKqMkyuR.>)

There's a bunch of white space to the right hand side of the page (<http://screencast.com/t/2swhK5EPb2i>), which makes the page unsymmetrical and doesn't feel right.

I don't like how most of the things on the page don't have any description beyond an icon. I know most frequent internet users can probably figure it out, but it still requires me to think for a second to make the associations (<http://screencast.com/t/6E2ydk3kh>) and some older users and perhaps not as savvy internet users may not understand it at all (albeit the site might not be aimed towards them.)

I know this site is for people who like Essential Mixes, but I have no idea what a collection, Essential Mix collection or FACT collection is. Adding a description could add an unnecessary element while removing a confusing aspect, so its up to you to make the choice. I think a description can be made (without hurting user experience) by adding a disposable box next to the collections briefly explaining what they are.

Some specific aspects of the design I don't like (misalignment, pixels off center, etc.): <http://screencast.com/t/1Tg9Fo75xo3>

Hope you don't take my thoughts negatively, just trying to help. Overall I like the site, its is simple and has no truly unnecessary elements, that's good. Also, I like this touch <http://screencast.com/t/oWFv5kkU2>), adds to the user experience. And I like how easy it is to play songs (just click and it starts playing <http://screencast.com/t/MwkkU8musZ>).

</comment><comment><USER16> You sir, are my new hero. Fantastic work. One added bonus here would be to include the track-list for each one. A simple contribution feature here I think would be a big hit so others can do the work to find them.

For example, a few results down on: <http://track-list.com/page/2/?s=deadmau5> will give the track-list for item #3 in your list.

<comment><USER7> Or checkout <http://www.mixesdb.com/db/index.php/Category:Essential_Mix> for a bunch of CC licensed set list info

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Looks like I'll be spending a lot of time on here...

First impression feedback: while quickly looking at a bunch of the Essential Mixes, many of them don't have the location where it took place. Personally, I've mentally sorted a lot of these by location && artist, so might find it hard to find something specific I'm looking for.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback man! We are trying to keep it as complete and organized as possible. We tried to get the location of the majority of the ones that are live or recorded at clubs. If you find anything that is off please don't hesitate to let us know.

<comment><USER17> No problem. Now that I've played around with it a little, a couple more points: \- on the search results page the term 'essential mix' is set as a link, but when I click on it I'm taken to the entire collection of essential mixes - I'd expect the chosen essential mix to start playing. I see why you've done this, but I found it confusing as a first-time user. \- I really like how clicking nearly anywhere on the search result starts playing the chosen mix

<comment><USER9> Agreed, I had the same issue when I first hit the site.

Also: ability to seek would be nice, these are single tracks that are an hour or two long... not like you can just skip to the next song :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Thanks for putting this together... Looks good:) reminds me of console.fm.

Is there any way to skip through the selected mix?

</comment><comment><USER18> Very nice work! Essential Mixes are what really got me into trance music way back around Y2K (particularly Paul Oakenfold's... don't much care for his work nowadays though). So thanks for the trip down memory lane, and thanks to the BBC for creating the program.

<comment><USER19> Oakies Essential Mix world tour? Absolutely incredible! Although I do agree his work nowadays is crap.

<comment><USER18> Yes, the world tour! My favorite one is Home @ Space in Ibiza[1].

[1]: [http://soundcloud.com/djmixes/paul- oakenfold-1999-07-25-esse...](http://soundcloud.com/djmixes/paul- oakenfold-1999-07-25-essential-mix-world-tour-live-at-home-space-ibiza)

<comment><USER19> This. Absolutely transcending!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There was a Soundcloud account with a like every essential mix ever on it the other week, but shortly after it disappeared - I think due to licensing issues with BBC content outside of the UK. Did you look into that for your player?

<comment><USER21> I'm still seeing it:

<http://soundcloud.com/das-boy/sets/essential-mix>

<comment><USER20> Oh weird. Less than 24 hours after I first saw it from Twitter, the account was no longer active. Nice to see it's back!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> edit: this site is awesome here are some my favorite essential mixes you may have missed

mr scruff <http://mxtr.fm/KBmUTW>

Essential Mix with Audio Bullys <http://mxtr.fm/IDmIIU>

the goa mix ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Mix> ) <http://mxtr.fm/K4Yian>

some other good sites to download dj mixes are <http://www.livesets.us/> and <http://themixingbowl.org/> both great.

<comment><USER23> love mr scruff thanks for the link

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is fantastic. I love the EM's but I hate the BBC player so I am always trying to find the mixes on SoundCloud or the other shady download sites. Now they are all neatly packaged in one place.

Well done, dude!

<comment><USER25> <http://soundcloud.com/das-boy/sets/essential-mix>

has a massive collection going back many years available in FLAC too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Maybe I'm missing something obvious - is there a volume control?

<comment><USER27> Love the site, just wish I could have this at a different volume than Mumble/Skype.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Really like the UI and am already a big fan. Well done.

Any chance you could integrate track listings (perhaps with the start/end times within the mix so you can identify the active song?)

<comment><AUTHOR> That's our vision! Turns out to be a pretty giant task though. Stay tuned:)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Wow. Was about to go find the Nero Essential Mix and write a new feature, but this site takes care of the first part for me :). Great work!

<comment><USER2> Nero's Essential Mix really impressed me when it first came out. The long instrumental around 1h:16m was really unique for one of these mixes, probably a more artistic flair than they would even inject in a live set. The dramatic bpm flux around 1h:28m is also a really experimental, unique climax which could only work near the end of a long two hour set like this one.

/ChristianBale

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> A huge thumbs up for this! May I suggest the Resident Advisor and XLR8R podcasts to be added too? Again: Thanks for creating this site.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks man! Those two are definitely in the works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Blow me down - you have the best EM ever, props

<http://mixture.fm/search/psychonauts>

<comment><USER32> We have them all! Thanks for the props.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Great work! Good use of soundmanager2 (<http://www.schillmania.com/projects/soundmanager2/>) would love to see if it works on an iPad/iPhone and takes advantage of HTML5 audio capabilities. Please post of you've tried it with either.

</comment><comment><USER33> I absolutely love this.

Couple of things:

\- It would be nice to be able to skip to an arbitrary part of the mix.

\- Sound didn't work for me until I reloaded the page.

<comment><AUTHOR> | It would be nice to be able to skip to an arbitrary part of the mix. This is in the works. Just wanted to get the bare minimum out the door.

| Sound didn't work for me until I reloaded the page. Looking into this right now.

Thanks for the feedback:)

<comment><USER34> Yep, skipping the - sometimes longish - intro talks would be a plus.

That said... awesome! Already sharing stuff on my Facebook :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Love it, and loving your selection I'm seeing in there.

You might like the "mix youtube music videos" website I made. You can load any youtube user's video playlists as "crates" and then mix from track to track:

<http://burnsmod.com/fun/mixtube/mixtube.html>

<comment><USER36> That looks fun. Would be really useful if each list had a field to "cue" a youtube url that was not in the crate already. That way you can browse youtube in a separate tab to find a video, then cue it up and start the crossfade.

<comment><USER35> Good idea, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Does this use Flash? I don't have it and clicking play does not play, but it also does not show any error.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, unfortunately it does use flash:( SoundManger should fallback to HTML5 though... I'll look into it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Knife Party (formed by two Pendulum guys) released an amazing mix two weeks ago: <http://knifeparty.com/news/ukf-live-stream>

You'll like if you're into Skrillex, Kill the Noise, Nero, Zedd, Swedish House Mafia, etc...

</comment><comment><USER39> This is the greatest revolution in music listening for me in my entire life. I love electronic music and when I'm coding I want my music to flow non-stop. You can't get that with individual tracks.

I can't thank you enough! Props to helping people discover Essential Mixes.

</comment><comment><USER2> Can't believe I'm seeing this here. Well done!

I highly recommend <http://core.thomaslaupstad.com/>

The owner has been diligently putting out downloads of Essential Mixes and other top UK radio shows of the genre as soon as they come out.

Cheers!

</comment><comment><USER40> Wow, looks (and sounds) great, listening to the Four Tet one as we speak :) It looks like all the sounds are hosted on SoundCloud, is this in your own pro+ account? I'm guessing this was the most economical way to host the files?

</comment><comment><USER41> _sigh_ Essential mix sites pop up every year or so and get shut down pretty quickly.

The best one (~2010) used really simple code to store the files and my bud managed to auto-download the whole library, even after the site was "shut down".

</comment><comment><USER3> Right around the turn of the millenium, I downloaded a couple dozen Essential Mixes while I was on the GT campus. This just made my day--I really hope any legal issues can be avoided and this can stay online. :)

<comment><USER3> I really can't describe how much I'm enjoying going back and finding mixes from that era. Not only is the music great; but I feel like I just stepped into a time machine!

<comment><USER9> love that you posted here when you first saw it, then posted again after listening to a bunch that brought back memories... i did the exact same thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This is awesome.

One thing I'd like to request would be the ability to skip around the mixes. I was 45 minutes into the Above and Beyond Mix and I accidentally clicked on another mix, losing my place.

Otherwise, everything seems to work great!

</comment><comment><USER43> I just got home from seeing Steve Lawler and I saw this. Lawler's got mixes in the mixture.fm results: <http://mixture.fm/search/lawler>

<comment><USER32> Looks like you have a long night ahead of you. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Doesn't seem to work for me. I just get the following error in the console:

        soundManager.createSound(): Audio support is not available.

;_;

Edit: Reloaded and it seems to be working now. YES.

<comment><USER45> I'm still getting this error. OP, if it helps, I have click-to-play on for Flash.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Not bad. I wish someone would create the same, but instead use Fabric mixes. A more well rounded mix series. Nothing against Essential. I just prefer Fabric and Fabriclive stuff.

<comment><AUTHOR> Don't you worry. They're coming;)

<comment><USER46> Keep us posted. Keep up the good work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Wow I've been looking for some of the older sets for a while. Thanks!

p.s. shameless self promotion of my music site: <http://trance-mixes.com>

</comment><comment><USER7> For those wanting a torrent download instead, checkout <http://themixingbowl.org/>

</comment><comment><USER48> So you made... a splash screen?

I've been listening to EMs since 1999 - Oakey's world tour. Looking forward to whatever you're building.

<comment><USER32> Splash screen? You might of hit it on mobile. Check it out on your desktop computer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> This is great! Immensely useful for browsing essential mixes.

Would be awesome to see more BBC radio shows added in the future.

</comment><comment><USER50> Pretty awesome. I love essential mixes too, so I suspect that I will be using this while I work.

</comment><comment><USER51> Bookmarked, about to start furiously tweeting, this is excellent and kudos to you for doing it!

</comment><comment><USER52> From someone that runs a music streaming app, I love this, good job keeping it simple man.

</comment><comment><USER53> What hover effect is going on here? Might someone point to the pertinent CSS?

Is it just a glow effect?

</comment><comment><USER54> Ah, I wish you could scroll through them. I really want to hear the end of Nero's.

<comment><USER9> Yes, after starting a few that bring back some major memories, I really want to skip ahead and hear stuff from later. It's definitely possible with soundmanager2, which he's using (<http://www.schillmania.com/projects/soundmanager2/>). Hope he adds that. Don't get me wrong, I love the site!

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Brilliant site. One suggestion - can you add a 'Random' or 'Shuffle' button?

</comment><comment><USER56> Any chance of adding some Solid Steel mixes to the collections?

</comment><comment><USER57> love the site design, can I ask what you are using to build the front/backend? Love the colours and the gradient used in the background, how is this generated? Thanks

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure thing man! Frontend is all Backbone.js hooked up to a Rails API for the backend. We use MongoDB with Mongoid and LESS for CSS with the old bootstrap.less (which later became Twitter Bootstrap). As for the background I could of used a gradient but its just an image made with photoshop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> dude, this is effing awesome, there's some classic mixes here that I thought I'd never hear again... thank you!

</comment><comment><USER7> Is the login with facebook button broken?

<comment><USER23> worked on chrome for me

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I'd like to see an About page on this.

</comment><comment><USER59> How can I upload my own mixes?

<comment><USER60> This appears to only contain mixes from BBC's radio 1 essential mix, and FACT magazine guest mixes. So you'll need to become a world-famous DJ/producer to get your own mix uploaded.

<comment><USER59> Wow. This is very elite Web 1.0

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> I love the design and layout!

</comment><comment><USER62> Rad! This is great.

</comment><comment><USER63> it's 2012.. can we get some seek controls?

</comment><comment><USER64> I. Love. You.

</comment><comment><USER65> Love this!!</comment>


The Write Stuff for the Commodore 128 - <AUTHOR> https://amigalove.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1387 <comment><USER2> To the author (if you're reading this): please image those disks ASAP and take scans of the manuals, and upload the whole thing to Internet Archive Software Collections, C64 and C128 sections. IA is literally an _archive_ , so they are expressly allowed to store this content for the benefit of allowed users, even when copyright law would prevent most people from doing this on their own.

<comment><USER3> Can you explain how an organization that calls itself an archive gets treated differently than another organization under US law? I'm not aware of any exemptions for archival.

<comment><USER4> they don't, per [https://help.archive.org/hc/en- us/articles/360014759692-Righ...](https://help.archive.org/hc/en- us/articles/360014759692-Rights)

what they will do though is keep it in their archive and a) put it online waiting for some entites to complain. b) if someone does complain and it's a valid complain, the content will be 'offlined', but still avail in their archive. The day it becomes 'legal', they'll put it back online.

for old software, cf what they are doing for the Apple 2, where flux images of the disks are archived [https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_apple_woz](https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_apple_woz)

Old manuals are scanned too [https://archive.org/details/savetz_stacks](https://archive.org/details/savetz_stacks)

<comment><USER5> The savetz_stacks are by Kevin Savetz, one of the hosts of the ANTIC Atari 8-bit podcast, which has had hundreds of incredible interviews with people from across the 8-bit computing industry. Totally worth listening to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I found a manual for one similar for the C64 in the garage, as I looked at the feature list, I thought, pretty much everything you use for Msft Word and similar - all on a 1 MB floppy right? It's amazing what could be done back in the day, and how much money and time and disk space is used these days to do just a bit more.

<comment><USER7> > pretty much everything you use for Msft Word and similar - all on a 1 MB > floppy

Somewhere in my pile of not-quite-abandonware I have a copy of the install floppies for Microsoft Word 5.1a for Macintosh, circa 1988/89\. _All three of them_ \-- and the last one held the spelling checker dictionaries.

IIRC you could run Word off floppy, although ideally it wanted 2-4Mb of disk space. And it had most of the features we associate with Word today, including full WYSIWYG -- the only significant omission was Word BASIC. which showed up in Word 6. (Word 6 was a bit of a mess -- bloated from 3 floppies to 20, ran sluggishly, broke all sorts of UI guidelines -- because MS's Mac developers got downsized and in the end Word 6 on the Mac was Word 6 for Windows with some sort of Windows-to-Mac compatibility shim that didn't work terribly well.)

(I wrote my first published -- non-fiction -- book with Word 5.1 for MacOS.)

<comment><USER8> I had Word on three disks for the Amiga, yes the disks were 880K each, but Microsoft figured out how to use it all. I design and built a three drive enclosure to add to my Amiga (The Amigas could support 4 drives) and not having to swap disks while you worked or printed made a big different in ease of use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Ahh, Maverick! Brings the memories back. The joy when I discovered that you could use it to alter specific disk contents! So, I used it to find text, alter it, then copy for friends. Eg. "Turn the disk over and press space" became "turn the shit over and press space". You could write yourself in the game credits too, and so on. (Just make sure that the new text fits in the chunk you're overwriting) It was also the go-to copy program for that early p2p file sharing network we had :-)

</comment><comment><USER10> What else did Busy Bee Software do?

What became of them?

<comment><USER11> [https://cbm-products.fandom.com/wiki/Busy_Bee_Software](https://cbm- products.fandom.com/wiki/Busy_Bee_Software)

can't find too much more.

<comment><USER10> Thank you.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Awless, a Powerful CLI for AWS in Go - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/wallix/awless <comment><USER2> Awesome folks. Are using it on your side to monitor your production instances? What should we expect of this tool in the future?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! We use it internally to manage our own AWS instances. In particular, we needed to create a lot of short-lived demos for our prospects and awless is handy for that.

For the future, we want to support more AWS services to start with and extend the templating system. If you have any suggestion, feel free to tell us.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice client, I like it more than the Python one</comment>


BinaryPig: Malware analysis with Hadoop, Django and Elasticsearch - <AUTHOR> http://blog.cloudera.com/blog/2013/11/binarypig-scalable-static-binary-analysis-over-hadoop/

<comment><USER2> I'm curious if there is an application for these types of large scale malware analysis systems combined with a near real-time data feed. Maybe it could ultimately lead to automated protections systems that react quickly to new threats.

Similar to DARPAs "Cyber Grand Challenge" to create "fully automatic network defense systems":

[http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2013/10/22.aspx](http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2013/10/22.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER3> Kind of off-topic, but I've been wondering whether one could use big data processing and machine learning to implement better decompilers. I feel like it could theoretically be possible to get an output much better than any of the current decompilers by taking a bunch of open source projects, compiling them with different compilers using different settings and then using this as training data. But it's debatable whether having better decompilers is something really worth sinking all this effort into.</comment>


Talking about a previous company - <AUTHOR>

I left my job at a small startup last month.  I got an introduction to someone that startup is trying to hire from my network.  This new contact wants to know what I think about the company before he makes a decision.<p>As part of my leaving the startup, I signed papers agreeing to not talk negatively about the company.  How bad of an idea is to tell this new contact about my experiences?  If I were to decide to talk with him, do you have any tips to minimize the chances of negative repercussions for me? <comment><USER2> Just be honest and say "I'm sorry but I signed separation papers that mean that I"m not allowed to say anything negative about the company."

:-)</comment>


Show HN: Nimiq Funder - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/rlafranchi/nimiq-funder <comment><AUTHOR> Nimiq (nimiq.com) is browser-based blockchain, which makes integration into any website or application really simple.

Nimiq Funder is one such application, an embeddable JavaScript widget that allows your visitors to support your website/blog by mining Nimiq.</comment>


Startups, apps, projects built in Perl - <AUTHOR> http://www.builtinperl.com/

<comment><USER2> Here's a nitpick in your UI:

In the upper-right, you have a button labeled, "Submit your Startup". When clicked, you go to the form to fill in all the details of whatever.

The bar that that button is on continues to float above the rest of the layout. When I was done filling everything out, THAT's the button I pressed to Submit my Startup. Instead of submitting, the page was simply refreshed, and I lost everything that I filled in.

</comment><comment><USER2> Adding Dada Mail right now!

[http://dadamailproject.com](http://dadamailproject.com)

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks nice. Good luck with the project!

</comment><comment><USER4> Go Perl go!</comment>


DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/business/marketplace-chicken-fast-food-1.3993967 <comment><USER3> > The majority of the remaining DNA? Soy.

The headline got me sorta terrified, imagining what sort of repugnant, monstrous creature was being grinded and mixed into my Subway sandwich. Good to know at least it's just soy.

<comment><USER4> Not good for low-carb/keto eaters. Soy has carbs, chicken doesn't.

There has been some discussion regarding subway and carbs in the chicken, because their nutrition shows far fewer than some app trackers do. If it's 50%, that's a serious level of carbs, and makes Subway not an option.

<comment><USER5> Who on a low carb / keto died eats a _sandwich_?

<comment><USER6> I will often order a hamburger and leave the bun aside. The bun is just filler. I've done the same with other kinds of sandwiches.

<comment><USER7> Who eats your bun?

<comment><USER6> I order the burger as is, because I don't want to annoy the waiter or the cook, or me. I also don't eat the lettuce or the pickle, if they happen to come with. I'm not going to go down the list of what I will or won't accept for a burger and a 30 minute relationship.

I don't know what you're getting at.

<comment><USER8> That you are incredibly wasteful if you throw away 50% of the calories you buy. Go to a place that sells a naked burger without lettuce if that's what you want.

<comment><USER9> The bun is neither 50% of the value nor 50% of the cost of a hamburger.

<comment><USER8> I said none of things

<comment><USER9> You said it is "incredibly wasteful" to throw away 50% of the calories. The value is relevant to the question of waste, yes?

<comment><USER8> Are you asking me if the 50% figure is accurate? Because it is.

<comment><USER9> No. I'll try again.

If you order a salad and eat the greens, but not the dressing served on the side, you just wasted 90% of the calories. See the point?

<comment><USER8> It's not trying again if you keep changing the point.

Is your problem that I used calories as a way to measure the value of the food?

Should I have used price? That's not valid in my opinion. Wasting a spoonful of expensive caviar is not as bad as wasting 10 kg of rice. And I have no problem people wasting their money.

I just don't get your point. Is there a way to look at this situation (deliberately ordering something you know your gonna throw away to not inconvenient the staff) and not consider it wasteful?

PS: If your salad's calories is 90% from oil, you're using too much oil.

<comment><USER9> > Should I have used price?

Yes.

> Is there a way to look at this situation (deliberately ordering something > you know your gonna throw away to not inconvenient the staff) and not > consider it wasteful?

Obviously, the OP who explained that they do it that way doesn't see it as wasteful. Neither do I.

The _cost_ of a hamburger is about 1/3 cost of ingredients and 2/3 everything else, including labor to serve it to you. Of the ingredients, it's the beef, then the tomato, lettuce, etc, and the bun is basically free.

Most restaurants that serve hamburgers have an ordering system that is streamlined for the kind of burgers people order. By the way, a burger is a kind of sandwich and by definition includes the bun. Try ordering a burger with no bun at a McDonald's and see how much extra time it takes, and what kind of looks you get from the people serving you and the people in line behind you.

If you think that throwing away 100 calories and $0.05 worth of bread is wasteful, it's only because you're ignoring the time and energy of the people that are being saved.

<comment><USER8> Well I'm glad I understood where we disagree.

I think nutritional waste is worse than wasting money, you obviously think the opposite. I also think it's worse to order something to throw it away deliberately.

I guess the old saying "agree to disagree" applies.

<comment><USER9> > you obviously think the opposite

If you set a dollar bill on fire that's wasting money.

If you throw away a dollar's worth of rice, for no reason, that's about the same.

However, there are plenty of ways to donate the dollar and not so many ways to usefully donate the rice, so yes, wasting the money is worse, but that's not really what I am getting at here.

What we're talking about is whether you will inconvenience others to save some trivial amount of food. My position is that saving a hamburger bun is not worth making someone's day worse who works in a hamburger shop. The money is just one way of measuring it.

<comment><USER8> >>> If you set a dollar bill on fire that's wasting money.

As I said, I don't care about wasting money. Do so as you wish.

>>> If you throw away a dollar's worth of rice, for no reason, that's about the same.

Yeah, economically speaking. But you are literally wasting more food in this case, and for no good reason other than people literally having to do their job.

>>> However, there are plenty of ways to donate the dollar and not so many ways to usefully donate the rice

You are not donating anything in this conversation! It's not like he's donating the bun to anyone. You are comparing wasting a bun vs wasting rice. It's still a waste, and one is worse than the other, for the same price. You don't feel that wasting 100g of kobe beef is less worse than wasting 100 kg of generic beef?

>>> My position is that saving a hamburger bun is not worth making someone's day worse who works in a hamburger shop.

They literally have to do less work.

Finally, what is your point?!?! That is ok to waste food intentionally? Seriously?! Even if it's a trivial amount in money, you realise it adds up, right? It's a real problem, and it's not a financial problem. Are you just being a contrarian for no good reason? Is "agree to disagree" not good enough for you?

<comment><USER9> You seemed a bit morally outraged that someone would waste a hamburger bun rather than the alternative which is to waste people's time.

My point? Instead of just applying a rule (wasting food is bad) you should holistically consider the results before judging someone else's choice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Subway has become the supplier of subs at the lowest cost. What this means is that bean counters dictate what the subs contain. It's never top line products and they add fillers where ever they can without killing the flavor 100%.

It's not a surprise that they use soy. It's just unfortunate that they have to get to this point.

I don't know if it's universal but my local subway has reduced the diameter of the bread rolls. Yes, they are 12 inches in length but they are smaller over all. Another cost cutting step that will eventually hurt them.

<comment><USER11> It's not unfortunate when you think of all the chickens that are needlessly slaughtered to appeal to people's unhealthy dietary laziness ^.^

<comment><USER12> If you are gonna complain, you should complain that they are needlessly hatched, caged and slaughtered.

If we weren't eating them, we'd also stop growing them.

<comment><USER13> I feel like you have a point in there somewhere. Would you like to share it?

<comment><USER12> Zing!

I personally don't care about chickens, they are basically a moving vegetable to me. But we don't pull chickens out of a magic chicken tube, we grow them in huge barns, with a great deal of intention.

<comment><USER13> I guess my comment came across as rude, I didn't mean it that way.

I originally wrote a reply something along the lines of "I hear that argument a lot: if we didn't raise animals for food they wouldn't even be born!"

But I thought it would be better to ask you to clarify rather than respond based on an assumption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> As someone who eats these fake chicken sandwiches occasionally, cant say I'm surprised. I always assumed these things were the equivalent of chicken hot dog patties or something. Don't know why people eat these things... oh ya -- it's the only food place open in SF SOMA late night.

<comment><USER15> > it's the only food place open in SF SOMA late night

Wow that surprises me. I would have though SOMA would have been one of the best places in the world for people with disposable income leaving startups late and wanting to buy food on the way home.

<comment><USER16> The SF food scene is falling apart and it's somewhat caused by tech workers eating all their meals at their office.

<comment><USER17> "Eating their meals"

Well, the ones who are still eating their food rather than drinking Soylent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What exactly are people expecting when they order these things ? Are they unable to tell the texture is plasticky and highly processed, unlike normal "stringy" chicken meat you prepare at home ?

<comment><USER19> they expect what the label says.

And you can process chicken and still have 100% chicken.

<comment><USER20> Then what's the point of processing it?

<comment><USER21> Having it be entirely chicken. Google how they make chicken nuggets for McDonald's.

<comment><USER12> Doesn't seem that bad:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/how-chicken-mcnuggets-are- mad...](http://www.businessinsider.com/how-chicken-mcnuggets-are- made-2016-5/#check-out-the-full-video-below-23)

The "chicken skin for flavoring" part isn't especially appealing, but chicken skin is fat+protein, just like the rest of the nuggets.

<comment><USER22> So long as you're eating chicken, adding in the skin isn't too unreasonable. You eat the skin with chicken wings and fried chicken anyway. And it's not like they're using chicken skins in vegan foods, where you otherwise wouldn't expect the involvement of chicken.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> i'm certainly not surprised, i dont have an issue with them putting soy in the chicken, the only issue i have is them advertising as just "chicken", if they instead advertised it as chicken + soy, then i'd be totally fine with it.

</comment><comment><USER24> Well, soy is not the worst it could be. If it doesn't affect the taste too much, I wouldn't actually mind it. OTOH, I've eaten in some vegetarian places which make faux chicken, faux beef, faux shrimp etc. which taste pretty much like (at least some variations of) the real thing. As a meat lover, I was surprised how close they are to the real thing, I now believe with some effort at least most of the common meat usage can be substituted away. Of course, there's still a difference - they are not as good as a real quality juicy steak - but they are closer than I thought they could be.

Another thing - I'm not sure I understand what "50 percent chicken DNA" means. It can't be literally DNA - specifically DNA is a minuscule percentage of the overall cell mass. Do they mean of all DNA samples 50% are chicken DNA and another 50% is other DNA? That'd ignore all ingredients that don't have DNA at all. Or do they mean 50% of the whole piece is chicken cells which are identified by their DNA, and another 50% of the mass is something else? I'd very much like to know what exactly they tested and how.

<comment><USER25> > soy is not the worst it could be

If you're only eating one chicken sandwich. However, if consumers turn a blind eye to this, it sets an unhealthy precedent.

As a large consumption of soy has been associated with decreased testosterone. If more and more business start toeing the regulation lines and only putting in as much real meat as legally needed, filling the rest in with soy, it might start an epidemic.

<comment><USER24> > large consumption of soy has been associated with decreased testosterone.

From what I was reading, some studies did find it, but these studies used massive amounts of soy not likely to be encountered in every day diet. And also there's this: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028209...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028209009662)

Clinical studies show no effects of soy protein or isoflavones on reproductive hormones in men: results of a meta-analysis

So I would say talking about epidemic is premature.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > only about half chicken DNA.

Maybe I'm a little dense here, but that reads very strange to me and does not seem to make any sense. A burger made of 50g chicken and 50g poly styrene would still contain 100% chicken DNA.

How much DNA (in what metrics?) does a gram of chicken contain compared to a gram of soy?

<comment><USER27> This is a strange question. A plant is made out of cells containing DNA, an animal is made out of cells containing a different DNA. Polystyrene isn't made out of cells so it does not contain any DNA. So basically of all cells found it was 50% soy, 50% chicken.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Subway chicken is absolute garbage. When my Gardein Vegan mock-chicken (made of mostly soy, no less!) tastes better than their "actual chicken", there's a problem.

</comment><comment><USER29> In the UK, the chickens contain 84% chicken wth starch fillers: [http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/subway-employee- reve...](http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/subway-employee-reveals- sandwiches-you-8739588)

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm amazed so many people are fine with the other ingredient being soy; I could go on for hours as to why that's among the worst things to be substituted with.

-95% of soy in the US is GMO, lacking any genetic variance and little make-up of microorganisms (good bacteria.)

-It's also a horrible source of fats, and more in particular the omega-6 to 3 ratio is incredibly hostile to basic function on the cellular level. There's also next to zero amino acids. (Think cancer risk, immune diseases, hormone disruption.)

-It's basically a carbohydrate. Considering a significant number of most of these soy-containing foods are carbs to begin with, it's just another contributor to our diabetes/obesity, cancer and most importantly, MENTAL HEALTH health epidemics. (Mental health pertaining too the poorly balanced diets, poor fats and lack of good gut microflora.)

It's alright to look at these foods as an once-in-a-while treat, but when you consider that nearly _every_ processed food item is 'enhanced' with soy to make it cheaper and still some-what satiating is a concerning thought to just have these every so often. Rice's from Uncle Ben's, Kraft peanut butter, margerines and nearly all processed meats and cheeses contain significant amounts of soy("Vegetable Oils."

This is the current state of food created by the lobbyist-run FDA and various companies like Monsanto controlling the market for their own greed under the excuse of 'feeding the growing population.'

<comment><USER24> Smacks of conspirology and pseudo-science. Who cares if it's GMO? All food we eat is GMO. Non-GMO animals and plants hate to be eaten (well, most of them, some use being eaten as distribution strategy, but even those aren't targeting humans), and take measures to avoid it. That's why thousands of years ago humans started the project of genetically modifying them to make them more eatable. And we were spectacularly successful.

Not sure what genetic variance of the soy I'd eat would make for me - <USER2> genetic material would be destroyed anyway once I eat it.

Also not sure what it has to do with micro-organisms.

Phrases like "incredibly hostile to basic function on the cellular level" again sound like pseudo-science - what it actually means? Which function? How hostile?

Soy certainly contains amino-acids - e.g. see here: [http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516...](http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-635X2006000200006)

The total content of the following amino acids were quantified in the soybean samples using NIRS: Glutamic Acid (Glu), Aspartic Acid (Asp), Alanine (Ala), Arginine (Arg), Phenylalanine (Phe), Glycine (Gly), Histidine (His), Isoleucine (Ile), Leucine (Leu), Lysine (Lys), Methionine (Met), Methionine and Cystine, Proline (Pro), Serine (Ser), Tyrosine (Tyr), Threonine (Thr) and Valine (Val).

Etc, etc. - in short, I'm not sure what you're talking about here except for evil Monsanto capitalists being out to kill us all.

<comment><USER31> _Who cares if it 's GMO? All food we eat is GMO._

Sorry to break it to you, dude, but some people do care. And if all "food we eat is GMO", why are some labelled non-GMO and other, GMO?

<comment><USER32> > And if all "food we eat is GMO", why are some labelled non-GMO and other, > GMO?

Because enough people believe - without compelling evidence - that foods which have had their genomes modified using modern methodologies are somehow more hazardous than foods which have had their genomes modified through millennia of selective breeding.

<comment><USER31> But what they're really saying, though, is we don't know enough about the GMO foods to introduce them into our diets. That using us as guinea pigs is not a good idea.

<comment><USER24> As if you "know enough" about other things you eat or drink. When was the last time a craft beer got FDA approval after 20 years of careful safety testing? When people stopped drinking sugary soda because that _is_ poison fir you? When you had your steak dinner rigorously scientifically tested?

But no, you choose one thing that you can attach scary label to, and declare that because you didn't apply levels of scrutiny to it that you never ever had applied to your food, it is unsafe despite now decades of usage without any evidence of any trouble.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Before I had a heart attack, finding out the rest soy gave me a little more sanity. I'd hate to find out it was something more sinister. Not that false advertising isn't bad.

</comment><comment><USER34> Ack just a few months back I started getting IBS symptoms and figured out I'm intolerant to soy, dairy and some spicy stuff. I end up having make a lot of stuff myself because I can't trust what is made in restaurants.

<comment><USER35> I'm having similar issues. How did you figure it out? Is there a test, or just elimination?

<comment><USER34> Sadly elimination is the only way. I started having bowel issues and my kidney health started plummeting (I have kidney problems due to autoimmune condition but that is another story.) so I eliminated everything but the basic stuff from my diet till my bowel movements are normal. Next I added things one by one and waited a few days to see if any change. It is tricky because sometimes there is a lag from when you take something to when the effects are felt. The funny thing is an year ago I didn't have sensitivity to any of these items. I've also paid hundreds of dollars for various tests to see if I can identify these intolerances but none are any good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> 50% of the DNA is soy doesn't mean 50% of the mass of food is soy or 50% of the volume is soy. It could be that the DNA is the major part of the soy that's included while the chicken has all sorts of non-DNA components like the rest of the cells and fat.

This story is quite inconclusive and that result could mean anything.

</comment><comment><USER37> Does 50% chicken DNA means it's proportionally made of 50% chicken? I would be very surprised if DNA concentration was in any way proportional to actual volume or weight concentration, especially if you compare plant DNA to animal DNA.

<comment><USER38> Most plants have duplicated sets of chromosomes. Wheat has five times as many genes as humans, for example. Also, meat is made of striated muscle cells and those are huge. Though they are multinucleated so I don't know which ends up being more dense in DNA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> This is actually excellent news. If you're vegan, just eat half the sandwich and you're still OK!

</comment><comment><USER40> Its interesting that corporate had a different notion. So perhaps down on the line somewhere, someone is mixing in big bags of tofu into the chicken parts grinder and boosting their profit by selling it as 100% chicken. At least one of the Parmesan/sawdust suppliers was the culprit (that and lax oversight by the buyer).

Always a challenge when the fitness test becomes 'cost' rather than 'quality' how many things can be snuck in there.

</comment><comment><USER41> I've only been to a Subway outlet once and was amazed by how much of it was processed meat - a relative said the same recently. Go into a good independent sandwich shop and all the meat will be unprocessed (except where expected) and you get more options like unusual cheeses. Subway has taken what was already a fast food (the sandwich) and made it even more generic.

<comment><USER42> In a good independent sandwich shop, you'll get a much better sandwich, with higher quality bread, and meat, but the meat is still going to be processed. Salami, ham, prosciutto, bacon, mortadella, pastrami, sausage, are all processed meats by definition. Most chicken and turkey will be processed/cured/flavored as well. You might occasionally find a sandwich shop that has a whole roast turkey or pig they'll slice, but it is uncommon.

<comment><USER41> When I say 'processed', I mean meat like ham or beef - stuff that I would expect to be real meat, but instead it's sliced from what I guess you could call a mold of reformed scraps. I have no real problem with it but it struck me as unusual given how much sandwich shops charge for their food.

<comment><USER42> Processing meat means curing, salting, smoking, etc. Everything except molding from scraps. A lot of processed meat is also molded from scraps, but that's not what makes it processed.

Molding reformed scraps sounds gross, and Subway chicken is gross, but molding reformed scraps is also what makes a beautiful salami or sausage. Anyway, I guess I'm trying to separate the category of food (processed), which can have merit, from Subway's abuse of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> When I do go to Subway I get the roasted chicken sandwich. Doubt I'll be doing that anymore.

I wish they had tested Chick-Fil-A.

</comment><comment><USER44> Reminds me when Taco bell had to call their meat "b33f" until they added more meat to their meat.

</comment><comment><USER45> Well at least they got rid of the yoga-mat compound azodicarbonamide in the bread

<comment><USER46> They also use the industrial solvent h2o!

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Reminds me of Chris Porter's routine about Taco Bell: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuBGPylPVIU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuBGPylPVIU)

</comment><comment><USER48> When I used to eat at Subway, I liked that the meat was mostly soy. It is very obvious.

But then I got bad food poisoning at a Subway, and the weird Subway "bread" smell makes me gag still to this day.

</comment><comment><USER49> Would rather have my chicken vat grown. Will try any cloned meat up to by not including "Wendy Meat" (as per Rudy Rucker's novel Freeware)

</comment><comment><USER50> And you need a DNA test to know this, just by how it looks isn't comparable with a real piece of chicken meat.

</comment><comment><USER51> Think about it. If this tastes ok it might be a really easy way for everyone to become 50% vegetarian with no effort.

<comment><USER52> Implying that meat eaters eat a diet composed 100% of meat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I've stopped buying their chicken. Now I know why.

Instead, I'll buy a veggie sandwich and bake a chicken breast myself.

</comment><comment><USER54> Just an anecdote. I used to love chicken as a kid but lived in the countryside and my parents used to buy free range chicken at the next door farmer.

I then came to the US to study 10 years ago, ate a chicken sandwich in a subway, got sick and since then I can't eat any kind of chicken without being disgusted. So, yes, it doesn't surprise me.

</comment><comment><USER55> One is reminded of the "The Wing or the Thigh" scene in the food factory.

</comment><comment><USER56> The title reminds me the scene in Demolition Man.

</comment><comment><USER57> Recipe inspired by Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Lots of hinting that fast food demons were eating people, but the eldritch secret of the Doublemeat Palace episode (2001) was that the Doublemeat Medley sandwich contained no meat whatsoever.

</comment><comment><USER58> Why would you mislead me Jared? I trusted you!</comment>