Please read the paper before you comment - <AUTHOR> https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/please-read-the-paper-before-you-comment/ <comment><USER3> Some years ago, Ars Technica ran a story on guns. [https://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home- lot...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk- ambiguity)

About halfway through a one-page article was this quote.

"If you have read this far, please mention Bananas in your comment below. We're pretty sure 90% of the respondants to this story won't even read it first."

Sure enough, there were about 3 pages of comments before someone mentioned bananas.

Read the paper? You're lucky if they read _the article_

<comment><USER4> I have done several experiments in Reddit. I post a link with a plausible title and credible looking 404 to credible domain with made up url.

In a big subreddit you easily get 30 top level comments before first comment says that link does not work or is fake. Discussion goes on and on without pause. People treat the title as a writing prompt. One of the best writing prompts is pseudo-philosophical techno-bro life or business advice. Anything with quantum physics in the title works too.

<comment><USER5> Readers think of Reddit title as discussion prompts. The combination of subreddit theme and post title can easily start a discussion on "close enough" topic. One of the suggestion for increasing engagement is to disable link posts and only allow text posts.

<comment><USER6> I see HN in the same way. It happens so often that HN discussion is much better that article itself that I go there first, and RTFA only if the discussion makes me want to read it.

For this article, I tried to read it after reading a few comments, but got bored.

<comment><USER5> The readability of lot of web articles tend to be quite poor as they are written from viewpoint of SEO rather than readability. I rarely can read complete web article unless it was published in a paper magazine or newspaper.

HN used to be good. Recently, I have seen groupthink taking hold, hostility toward dissension, and opinions are not that knowledgable and educated on controversial topics. The HN quality of discussion is not that different from themed serious subreddits.

Give Reddit a chance, find subreddits in your area of interest.

<comment><USER7> I would have given Reddit a chance if they were not constantly screwing around with the UI. The new UI is sluggish and really affects the reading experience negatively.

I love that HN has not made any changes to its UI for a long time and a fast and convenient reading experience remains top priority on HN. If there are more HN-like forums, that would be something I would be interested in.

<comment><USER8> It's frustrating, but utilizing old.reddit.com / Reddit Enhancement Suite ([https://redditenhancementsuite.com/](https://redditenhancementsuite.com/)) goes a long way in making it a more enjoyable experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The key to cleaning up my Twitter feed was to unfollow people who were too good at Twitter. That is: People who are working to maximize engagement, follower count, retweets, and likes.

In my feed, the highest signal to noise ratio comes from people who aren't commenting on any and every trending topic. Instead, they're busy doing real work, away from Twitter, only occasionally checking in to share something. Likewise, that's how I try to structure my own engagement.

When people have 50 Tweets per day or more, it's unlikely that they're taking time to really think and engage. It's more about rapid fire comments designed to get the most engagement.

<comment><USER10> So you're saying we need a platform with both characters/post and post/day limits?!

I mean... that's beautiful, because I created a second twitter account just so I can follow a select few people for the pretty much the same reason you gave without having to worry they're getting lost to the noise.

<comment><USER11> The social network I honestly want is something akin to the tradition of Christmas cards: a rare update (at most once a quarter) about how life is going with the option of attaching a few photos.

No comments section, but instead a "I'd like to get in touch and chat sometime" button which helps schedule a video chat.

No retweets, shares, engagement metrics.

<comment><USER12> I like the idea, but how is that different from a personal website/blog with private access?

<comment><USER13> The ability to have people on it who don't have the time or background to read tutorials on Digital Ocean?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Recently there was a brouhaha on the Twitters about 2+2=5 that went viral and, unfortunately, political. The argument is that post-modernists are trying to tear down mathematics as a "white supremacist social construct" and trying to say that "2+2=5" is as valid an answer as "2+2=4". Which sounds pretty bad, so I looked into it.

The original Tweet thread was a math nerd who jokingly, and not incorrectly, illustrated how it was _mathematically_ possible for 2+2 to sometimes be 5. The argument may have been weak, and some people may not have found it convincing, but it was a mathematical argument, meant as a joke for a small Twitter audience.

Through the Twitter telephone, many retweets and steps later, the original argument - considered, funny, valid, perhaps weak - somehow transformed into "2+2=4 is a mere social construct, and 5 is a valid answer" \- which, yes, _would_ be a disturbing trend if that were actually the argument. Thus the unduly passionate took up "2+2 is 4 not 5" as a political rallying cry. People I otherwise respect as rational began tweeting this.

It became complicated because there are always people who believe dumb things, like "mathematics is merely a white supremacist social construct", and as always with the unduly passionate, extreme opinions are held up as examples of dangerously typical. The author of the original thread was bullied by a mob.

It's complicated even further by the existence of an actual replication crisis in academe, in part driven by post-modern ideological pressures; there is actual loss of academic freedom even for the tenured.

But the lesson at the end of the day, to my mind, is that articles about whatever goes on over at Twitter, such as this one, such as this my post here, are always going to involve mobs of people being shitty, because the nature of the medium. Maybe they are as inevitable as "mobs of people are gambling in Las Vegas"

<comment><USER15> Twitter is poison.

It amplifies meaningless shit into the stratosphere with its trending algorithms, aided by the fact that the largest userbase on twitter seems to be political extremists of both left & right. It's created an environment where making a comment like "mathematics is merely a white supremacist social construct" is now somehow acceptable to the left.

The platform literally exists to make things look like they're a bigger deal worldwide than they really are. It's dangerous.

I quit twitter a while back - when I was on the platform, all my news consumption revolved around it. I was deeply concerned about the state of the UK and the US because of the constant stream of political propaganda from both sides.

Since I quit my brain feels like it's been completely freed of political dogma and I'm in a significantly better mood generally. I've not missed the trending page, that's for certain.

The biggest issue is the loss of academic freedom you alluded too, mainly & ironically being pushed heavily by the 'Twitter Left'. Twitter is like a heavily left leaning version of /pol/ these days.

I'd like to be clear that I would consider myself on 'the left', to be a progressive person & I am absolutely aware that the extremist cesspit that is twitter does not represent the genuine left, much as it doesn't represent genuine moderates or genuine conservatives.

It's the most extreme weaponized propaganda & rent-a-mob tool thats ever existed in human history.

<comment><USER16> _> [Twitter] amplifies meaningless shit into the stratosphere with its trending algorithms_

Doubtful, given how popular it is among people and ogranisations that _carefully_ measure the RoI of their marketing & outreach operations, and constantly adjust balance of their efforts among 2, 3, 4 different communication channels (YT, Insta, mail, in-person events, topical forums, old style media, etc.).

A more fitting hypothesis would be, "Twitter opened up a couple new paradigms of influencing people". The paradigms are complex, opaque, and subtly inter- related; quite hard to grasp for people that aren't fully "in the loop". That's why there appearance of chaos and, at the same time, we see highly organized action _emerges_ from this chaos.

<comment><USER17> _> >[Twitter] amplifies meaningless shit into the stratosphere with its trending algorithms_

 _> Doubtful, given how popular it is among people and ogranisations that carefully measure the RoI of their marketing & outreach operations, and constantly adjust balance of their efforts among 2, 3, 4 different communication channels (YT, Insta, mail, in-person events, topical forums, old style media, etc.)._

I'm not sure why you think that the two are incompatible, or opposed.

I don't mean to suggest that marketing is entirely meaningless, but surely the ROI of any particular marketing effort is largely _independent_ of its meaningfulness?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> As a rule of thumb, I try not to quote from media unless I have seen the whole book/story/article/movie myself and am sure I understand the quotation in context.

Part of that comes from the kind of frustration Hillel Wayne voices here:

> People will offhand use famous quotes to support their arguments, when the > context the quote was given in has nothing to do with it.

I spent a lot of hours in high school debate listening to people misattribute quotes or misconstrue them to mean the opposite. This was frustrating at the time but in retrospect this was a valuable lesson -- if EVERYONE is gonna say that Voltaire said that thing about disagreeing with what you say, what else is everyone wrong about?

I'm also pretty sure I had this idea reinforced by an Asimov book where he argues that intellectual societies decay as they begin to rely on secondary- source research (going to the library and reading what people have written about others' experiences, instead of going out there yourself and looking at stuff). But I can't find the source now, ha ha.

<comment><USER19> This is a thing I've been pondering recently, and I don't have the same takeaway as you. My thought is: The context doesn't always matter, and a quotation can mean different things in different contexts, and that's not a bad thing.

For example, with the Knuth quote, both interpretations can be valuable? There are people who need to be told "don't optimise yet", and there are people who need to be told "there are critical times and places to optimise, and you probably shouldn't just breeze past a 12% execution time improvement".

Neither of these lessons are "wrong". The main wrong thing is probably attributing the intent of the first to Knuth, which uses his status as an expert to (falsely) back it.

I think Scott Alexander from SSC wrote something about opposite pieces of advice (eg. telling college nerds to "get out more" and telling college partygoers to "buckle down and study more", because neither of those can be universal pieces of advice), but I don't feel like searching for it rn. It's a good read though.

<comment><USER20> I guess it depends on the purpose of using a quotation. My belief is that most people cite a quotation when arguing something as an appeal to authority. "Knuth says don't optimize at all, so we shouldn't do it either." In that case, I think understanding the context is key: if you use someone's words to back up your point, but that's not actually what they meant, then context _does_ matter.

Yes, it's true that different people might need to hear different things at different times. If you're trying to tell someone not to micro-optimize ahead of time before profiling, then quoting Knuth is appropriate. If you're trying to tell someone not to optimize at all (let's say you have a valid reason for not optimizing at all), then its disingenuous (or at best ignorant) to use the Knuth quote.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> When I first learnt to program the thing that I really enjoyed was learning to make a terminal app that took in the users input and used it as a conditional.

I'd make all these little toy apps where my family had to type in the right word to continue. Eg "Who is the leader of the autobots?" => "Well done. Transform and roll out!!"

It strikes me we could encourage better discourse with one word locked comments that the writer of the post draws from the article.

"New research and on the impact of race on tenure"

Per the article, what % of tenured professors identify as people of color in 2019?

What do you think of something like this?

Micro quiz questions, one up on 'are you human' to 'prove you read one key thing'

<comment><USER22> It's a reasonable suggestion, but I would predict comment participation to plunge. Maybe that's just fine?

<comment><USER23> It doesn't need to be one or the other. The quiz could be optional, and answering correctly would simply give your comments a rating boost - <USER2> inversely, you could put a badge of shame on any comments from people who hadn't passed the quiz. Then you just let the natural human dynamics play out.

<comment><USER24> Does it even need to be judgemental? Sometimes I see great comments in which the author admits they only read the title (and really, are just sharing some related insight, not responding to the article. I'd be up for just having two comments sections. The hard part would be getting people to use it correctly; I'm not sure exactly what incentives would accomplish that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> > I have about as much ignorance of these domains as all the people mocking > the paper on Twitter. But there's one big difference between me and them: I > actually read the paper. All of this information is on the first page. Even > if you don't know about sci-hub, you could still read the abstract and check > out the researcher bios! Nobody read the paper before dunking on it. Nobody > read the abstract either. About half the people yelling at this paper had > only read the press release. The other half hadn't even done that. They had > only read tweets about the press release.

This is a real problem. I'm guilty of not bothering to read the paper many times. I instantly look for the easily digestible reviews or comments that other people made. I'm part of the problem. Damn.

<comment><USER26> Without wishing to downplay the fact that this is a major issue, it's hard to read scientific literature from a field you haven't previously studied. Layman summaries are a great way to get a sense of what the paper is actually saying, though summaries made by random commenters are unreliable.

<comment><USER27> Many papers in general are just not well written, even if the subject is interesting. I wish it were seen as a social requirement that if you publish a paper, then you accompany it with a blog post—even if it's the only thing on your blog. With multiple authors, each author would write their own blog post. I'd rather read three different takes on the same subject, generally, than to slog through any given paper even once. Sprinkle in the not-minor accessibility problems around the tendency to publish exclusively in PDF, and there are good reasons to seek out a digest instead of looking through the real thing. Heck, most abstracts verge on being almost unreadable, for that matter.

<comment><USER28> While there are reasonably good reasons that most scientific articles are in PDF format (way too much work to change), I heartily agree with writing blog posts on articles. I started doing this: the effort (once you have somewhere to publish it) is negligible compared with the amount of effort of writing a paper, and it is also quite fun to be able to write more free-form text on the subject.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I feel sorry for the postdoc here. You have a seemingly decent paper, but the press release really doesn't do it justice. For reference, the Tweet about the press release [https://twitter.com/princeton/status/1296779082663964673?s=2...](https://twitter.com/princeton/status/1296779082663964673?s=21) vs the paper [https://sci- hub.tw/downloads/2020-08-10/f1/10.1038@s41562-02...](https://sci- firstname.lastname@example.com)

The press release DOES have a very "machine learning 'discovers' trivial thing people already knew" vibe. The actual paper doesn't - it's not trying to "rediscover" anything, it's just building on existing work, there's none of the arrogance in the press release that's triggering everyone on Twitter. The press release taints the actual research, which is a sadly common pattern, and I think a fair bit of that lies with the writers of press releases, not just the readers.

</comment><comment><USER30> I've thought about this with respect to sources. I was reading a book which mentioned Emile Durkheim's work. I have never read any Durkheim. I cannot speak to Durkheim's points nor whether the author accurately represented them. What's even worse is that if I did read Durkheim, he'd probably discuss someone before him. And I wouldn't know if he accurately represented that person's points. I'm not sure if the author who referenced Durkheim has read the people who Durkheim cites^[1], so I'm not sure if they know either. We have this game of telephone where we all cite these sources and people rarely, if ever check. And this is in academic literature where publishing happens pretty slowly! In Twitter it's easy to reach a source chain of 5-6 deep in days, let alone months.

[1]: They probably have but I can't say.

</comment><comment><USER31> I mean, this applies to many of the discussions on HN too. I've noticed that there's so many people getting the facts around the topic completely wrong, and quite a few will push some simplistic narrative or long-standing grievances, instead of the relevant point which often is subtle and nuanced. I suppose that's just being human.

<comment><USER32> It's not just getting the facts wrong, it's often about them misunderstanding the topic entirely because they didn't bother to read.

I don't think it's about being human, I think it's because HN is a BBS where people can get points by chatting, which also happens to link to articles which you can read if you feel like it. Of course this is how it ends up.

<comment><USER33> People play the game according to the rules they're given. In the early days when HN was more caustic, you got more points by reading the articles and posting accurate facts. But in the dang era where comments are required to be nice and calling people out is discouraged, you get more points by rushing to post something plausible-sounding and vaguely related to the headline. So people do that instead, unsurprisingly.

<comment><USER34> Indeed, the rules are slanted to give bad-faith word-salad as much of an advantage as possible. Even the site's layout is hostile to correcting those posts; in addition to the rules prohibiting us pointing out that the article doesn't say what they claim (because we cannot directly imply that they did not read), the formatting of quoted text is messed up and ugly and distracting.

On this current account, I don't really care about overall karma, just per- post karma. I try to post simple but defensible points when I get early top- level timing, and I put effort into upvoting people that I agree with rather than adding on yeah-me-too posts for more karma. But I'm punished for not playing by the rules of the game; I can't downvote or vouch or any other useful features, so (-1, flagged) is a common fate.

In the design circles that I frequent, we often consider Conway's Law for social communities. The API of HN, including the rules, generates the shape of the conversations. The shittiness of discourse here is inherently due to the low-quality rules just as much as the lack of meta-moderation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> _Each day on twitter there is one main character. The goal is to never be it_

Once upon a time, there were two main characters on Twitter in a single day: two escaped Llamas and a dress.

And it was actually not a bad thing.

Maybe we could try repeating that occasionally instead of accepting that it's a lousy world full of lousy people and that's all it will ever be.

</comment><comment><USER36> This points a difference between Internet public discussions an private interactions discussions.

In private interactions, either chatting or RL, I quote "facts" without references, discuss papers I never read, and in general do things just for the act of communication, knowing I'm often wrong, and knowing the other side knows to take me with a grain of salt.

However, in public discussions you can't afford this liberty. Stating a wrong fact in a public discussion may cause a diffusion of false information which is almost impossible to undo.

I think most people are aware of this difference, and even in the academy the accuracy required in private conversation is not as harsh as the accuracy required in a public forum.

The problem is that for many people, Internet discussions feel like a private conversation. Hence I see even people I highly appreciate throwing the accuracy standard out of the window, and making public Internet comments as if it was a pub conversation over a drink with some friends.

</comment><comment><USER37> > Rule of thumb: the more steps you get away from the primary source the more > corrupted everything gets.

I had to have a conversation with my wife over this yesterday. She ran into the office in tears because opposing protestors were standing off with guns as if it was the American revolution.

The reality of the situation is a couple people had paintball guns but that's not what she saw.

What she had seen was a tweet about a tweet referencing another tweet that in turn referenced a video.

While I know this example is extreme, it really opened my eyes to just how far we have come.

</comment><comment><USER38> People read the headline. The small words beneath it are there for the headline to rest upon. Sometimes a picture also rests on the small text. That small text is pretty useful.

When I worked at a newspaper a lot of work went into headlines and pictures, in relation to the rest of the copy. We knew what we were doing, and we also knew what are readers weren't doing.

</comment><comment><USER39> I appreciate the author's rant. It touches on the larger problem of the 'telephone game'[0] in media, news, youtube, twitter. Syndication of syndications of summaries of abstracts of research.

Any abstraction or simplification runs into the risk of having its underlying meaning changed. It is our duty as humans to be willing to chase the core of truths or to change our minds given new evidence pointing to truths.

It was said well in Hamilton - "Who lives, who dies, who tells your story".

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

Also, i hate that it's called Chinese Whispers... I digress.

<comment><USER40> > Also, i hate that it's called Chinese Whispers... I digress.

Small detail: We call it "téléphone arabe" in French, which means Arabic phone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Good luck with that.

For the record, I did read the article, but my life is not significantly richer (or poorer) for having done so.

A classic technique for reading scientific papers, is to read the abstract, then the conclusion. If they motivate us to read the rest, then we do so.

What I often do here, is first check the comments, and see if I want to go and read the OP. If I do that, I'll generally read it all; unless it's _really_ painful.

As a prolix author[0] (and commenter[1]), I'm fairly familiar with low reader engagement, and I've learned to do good abstracts/intro sentences that hook the reader.

I've also learned not to lose too much sleep over whether or not people read my stuff _(spoiler: they don't)_.

I write for my own satisfaction. It would be nice if others enjoyed it, but I won't live or die by the opinions of others.

Don't get me wrong; I do care what others think of me, but it isn't a principal driver of my life.

I have great respect for good tech writers. The world needs more of them.

A lot of what I write is basic information. It needs to be complete, clear and concise; not great literature. A simple ToC is useful in these cases, and good information architecture is important.

If I _really_ want others to read my stuff, it's incumbent upon me to write short, brutally-edited, articles, with clear, succinct, paragraphs, "hooky" abstracts, and conclusions that encourage people to go back, and read what they missed.

Basically, my experience is that it's _my_ job to write stuff in a way that encourages reader engagement, and to lead them to the important components of the document.

[0] [https://littlegreenviper.com/miscellany/](https://littlegreenviper.com/miscellany/)

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=ChrisMarshallNY](https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=ChrisMarshallNY)

<comment><USER42> Abstract and conclusion are useful for quickly determining what the authors _want_ the takeaway to be, so they're better than journalism which can misconstrue even that. But the problem with reading just the abstract and conclusion is that you don't learn the methods the scientists used. Lots of science is junk due to bad methodology. Of course laypersons are not likely able to determine that even if they read the whole thing, which leaves me to conclude that you should never modify your world view in response to a scientific publication until many credible sources all say the same thing.

<comment><USER41> _> you should never modify your world view in response to a scientific publication until many credible sources all say the same thing._

I'd say that should be a basic LifeHacker rule; regardless of whether or not it's scientific.

Completely agree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I used to be upset about this. But now I just use a chrome extension to ban people who have clearly not read the article. It just kills any comment thread they start. My HN is much more useful now.

My Twitter is fine because I only follow people who don't do this.

<comment><USER44> This does not seem possible technically unless you own facebook's ad network.

<comment><USER45> Perhaps they just find people who don't read articles and marks them permanently.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> This also goes the other way. Someone who people think of as a thought leader or a science communicator says something that seems reasonable, but is not actually based on any science gets amplified and soon if you even dare to ask for evidence you are painted as "the enemy" and "russian bot" for daring to think on your own and actually request papers on the matter.

Then people will start linking you papers that are only tangentially related to the question at hand and get offended when you actually go and read the paper and point out that the paper has (almost) nothing to do with the actual question at hand.

</comment><comment><USER47> You get the same when people cry "peer-review" without actually understanding what peer-review actually means.

Once you dig into it, you find it is far from the last word in validation in a modern world and very often an argumentum ad verecundiam

As explained, in depth, in "Why I don't publish in Peer-Reviewed Journals".

[https://risk-monger.com/2020/07/31/why-i-dont-publish-in- pee...](https://risk-monger.com/2020/07/31/why-i-dont-publish-in-peer- reviewed-journals/)

Please read the article before commenting....

<comment><USER48> Read it. And read more from the blog. Certainly some truth to this, but the blog is a great example why peer review actually matters.

The article itself is a bit of a straw man: one example of a bad peer review dismisses the whole process.

Other articles are similar. For example one talks about how "green parties want 100% safety", which simply isn't true.

Some are click bait like "if there is no Corona vaccine, how about we ask anti-vaxxers how to deal with this?" And gives some generic advice that every doctor also says while neglecting that the core argument of anti-vaxxers often goes like "vaccine is bad for you and you actually should contract a virus because it makes you stronger in a natural way".

Stopped reading after having found too many of these fake arguments in several posts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> You don't need to read anything. Just parse the headline and comment with some tangential personal anecdote or a vaguely provocative statement about the likely conclusion of the text.

</comment><comment><USER50> For anyone who wants to see this in action, refer to this front page post from a few weeks ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23885684](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23885684)

First read the article, then read the comments, and spot who didn't read the article. You may have to scroll down / go to the more section, as the people who are way off base didn't get upvoted as much as the ones who actually read it.

</comment><comment><USER51> The problem is people want their internet points. If you take the time to read, and then comment, your comment won't get enough visibility on all social media platforms, especially if dozens or hundreds of other comments quickly begin appearing. You have to 'show up early' to get visibility. Optimizing for that dopamine hit, users choose to maximize points over thoughtful discussion.

<comment><USER52> Yes they do that, however sometimes I feel like nobody will read your comment (opinion) if you post too late. And the competitive thing to do in that case is to try to be first to comment if possible, and when people who don't read the article are always first you are kind of forced to comment without reading the article too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> It's amazing how much the author lacks self-reflection.

If there was no misunderstanding, would he have even bothered to read or even know about the paper at all? The bad use of the paper was probably his primary driver of engagement. Otherwise at best you would see the source or original tweet, think "Oh that's nice" unless you have a serious interest in linguistics, and move on.

The darkly cynical thing is that as the flood of information grows, the value of that information lessens as opposed to its ability to create a happening and drive engagement. You can say the sky is blue all you want, and it's true, but people will mill about the person who says the sky is green because they can interact with it, if just to disprove or mock the person and use it as a "gathering place" like the author himself did.

I mean, this is how flat earthers exist. The idea is rubbish but it creates a space that people inhabit.

</comment><comment><USER54> > Every time a press release gets popular on Twitter or Hacker News or Reddit > or whatever, nobody actually reads the primary source.

First question are we commenting on the media article or the research paper?

It'd be interesting to have a site were to comment or vote you have to mark if you read the article and separately if you read the paper.

</comment><comment><USER55> Twitter is much worse than HN or Reddit about this. The author hits the nail on the head that Twitter in any news- or article-sharing context is about dunking on headlines. Read the headline, tweet a one-liner reply or quote.

I don't think users are entirely to blame; this is what the app incentivizes. So for Twitter I don't think there's much hope in asking people to read articles. It's like wondering why people aren't reading your 8 paragraph Instagram caption- that's not why people use the app, and the app does not encourage using it in that way.

However I do empathize with authors who dedicate years of their life on academic work, only to have someone post it to Twitter with a 1 sentence jab and that be the most common level of familiarity with the work their "readers" have.

</comment><comment><USER56> This is a good article and it would be great if people felt an obligation read the source papers more, but the nature of sensationalist journalism and gamified social media means in all practicality they never will. The journalist gets views by writing stories that fit into an emotional narrative regardless of the actual facts. Social media gives users reinforcement for telling people what they want to hear. That echo chamber drowns out everything else. There is almost no room for nuance anymore.

</comment><comment><USER57> > Rule of thumb: the more steps you get away from the primary source the more > corrupted everything gets. The article is good. The press release is bad. > The tweet about the press release is worse. The tweets dunking on the tweet > about the press release are terrible. Each one loses more of the critical > context we need to actually understand what's going on. Only the paper > itself is a primary source. If you want to know what the paper's about, you > gotta read the paper!

This a 100%. Applies the same for code.

</comment><comment><USER58> Expecting people to make meaningful even informed comments in an arena that is in no way suitable to the information your sending is not a failure of the receivers or the commenters. It is a failure of the sender.

Asking people to invest their time to actually read extensive information about what your try to say, with no perceived additional benefits to them is just hubris.

Pick your audience or tailor your message to your audience. Don't blame the receiver.

</comment><comment><USER59> Whilst I sympathize with why this person is ranting, I find it kind of funny. People act the way they do on social media due to a mix of the design of social media, and human nature. It's not complete chance that twitter has an entire underclass of people who just yell vitriol at the blue checkmark brigade. It's not chance that reddit divides itself into lots of echo-chambers that are essentially repeating the same handful of opinions in various different colours (in reddit's defence this can be avoided using extremely hands-on moderation).

Fundamentally, there aren't too many people who can meaningfully comment on most papers. The alternative to commenting before reading the paper is almost certainly reading the paper and then not commenting because you don't really have much to add. So let's assume some people do start reading the articles? Well, they're just going to say less. There's a thousand ways to have an easy and wrong take on a paper. If you want good reasoned discussion about papers you're better off looking elsewhere - for example, The Weeds podcast from Vox, where they actually take a white paper, read it, think about it and discuss its implications. You can disagree with them and talk about how effective they are at engaging with the topic (or as is often the case you can get irrationally angry because you don't like their politics), but fundamentally it's a much better venue for having that sort of nuanced and informed discussion than 140 characters at a time mixed in with the sewer that is twitter.

</comment><comment><USER60> Here is an example by a professor of history at Harvard misinterpreting 0.1% of ER visits for young adults as 61%.

[https://copinthehood.com/2020/07/26/history-isnt-bunk- part-1...](https://copinthehood.com/2020/07/26/history-isnt-bunk-part-1/)

</comment><comment><USER61> I think a better exercise is to ignore (it's hard, _I_ know) those who haven't obviously read the paper/article: it's not like they'll read your reply either.

And sometimes (usually?), people will truly not understand what a paper is about, and that makes it even harder to figure out which comment is which.

</comment><comment><USER62> The article's page had a terrible viewing experience. With js turned off, visiting the page shows content split across 12 columns with a single row that took up just a quarter of the screen's real estate. Given all this, and the nondescriptive title, I was not about to turn on js.

</comment><comment><USER63> Tangential I know, but how is the Knuth quote misunderstood? I have only ever seen it interpreted as you should only optimize for performance when you _know_ a section of code is performance critical. Which is typically only the case for small parts of the code (3% according to Knuth).

</comment><comment><USER64> Does it make sense to have a service that checks whether people have read the article before talking about it in the comments section? Could be done by some js, I presume.

I mean, it obviously won't work in case people share it on twitter, but could reduce people from talking bullshit in the comments section.

</comment><comment><USER65> Is there a way I can see Hacker News comments alongside the article with a chrome extension or something? I normally click to the comments here first for tab management purposes (comments contain a link to the article but reverse is not true) but I know that's a bad pattern.

</comment><comment><USER66> This is true of most news. Headlines claim something crazy, the article has some nuances and clears up the click bait confusion. Then people read the headline without reading the article. Then they form a world view accordingly.

</comment><comment><USER67> Most people just want to express their opinions and not really learn anything or truly discuss it. I accepted that life is a lot easier that way

</comment><comment><USER68> Didn't read the paper, but I agree completely.

</comment><comment><USER69> This is everywhere. I have to deal with lots of jokers at work, who just suggest to use GPT-3 without understanding what it is :)

</comment><comment><USER70> I wonder how many of the comments here right now have been written/discussed without having read the article.

</comment><comment><USER71> Folks are accustomed to arguing off twitter tweets, why should we expect them to read articles?

</comment><comment><USER72> One of the HN rules, though, is to not accuse someone of not having read the article. Of course, few people read the articles here. (A lot of the posts are people complaining that a linked source is subscription only, then going on to comment based on the title!)

</comment><comment><USER73> From what I hear twitter has become one of the more 'basic' social networks. the 140 characters force you to write quick sound-bite opinions without any nuance. Anonymity makes sure your opinions do not follow you around. I quit a long time ago.

</comment><comment><USER74> Twitter is a machine for removing intelligence from communication

</comment><comment><USER75> Perhaps they should check the grammar on their article before they post it:

"They also do a literature review of existing work in word meanings, making _in_ very clear they were building on the existing work in anthropology and linguistics. "

:)

</comment><comment><USER76> People are lazy. Our entire economy if based on this fact.

</comment><comment><USER77> This sounds like mainstream media vs James Damore

</comment><comment><USER78> RTFD, 'nuff said.

[https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=RTFD](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=RTFD)

</comment><comment><USER79> sci-hub? are there any other legal way? open access or bust for me.

</comment><comment><USER80> Yeah I'm gonna go subscribe to the journal for €100 a year before I comment... Right.

<comment><USER15> It's actually kind of beautiful to see an organic example of the behavior that the article quite rightly criticizes happening on the sharing of said article.

Out of interest, how many lines even of the article did you read before you decided to post this? Because it can't be many.

<comment><USER80> Oyeah, didn't see the sci-hub reference.

It says something about the sad state of affairs that the universally agreed answer here seems to be "yeah just pirate it, nobody cares, everyone does it."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> From the title this seems to be a violation of HN guidelines. "Please don't comment on whether someone read an article."

<comment><USER82> I wish the addendum to that rule was "because we will just delete their post anyway."

The lowest value contributions on HN are inevitably those that use a headline to air personal grievances vaguely related to the subject of the post ("Apple releases new cure for diabetes", top comment: "Let me tell you why I hate the touchbar.") the second lowest are those that clearly read the headline and ran with it, without reading the content that utterly contradicts what they imagine the article would contain.

Not having read the article / not discussing anything in the darn article should absolutely be grounds for criticism.

<comment><USER45> Hey, can I tell you about how Firefox uses too much of my battery and is made by Mozilla _Foundation_ who I will never donate to in a million years and why the person who gave me my last whiteboard interview probably clubs seals? Oh, you're telling me the article was about performance improvements in IonMonkey and how in-person interviews overwhelmingly fail to pick African American applicants?

Drives me mad. Any Hacker News discussion has an extremely strong push towards the same couple dozen topics that anyone can relate to, and commenters who drag the conversation in that direction for no good reason are doing the thread a disservice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> > Rule of thumb: the more steps you get away from the primary source the more > corrupted everything gets. The article is good. The press release is bad. > The tweet about the press release is worse. The tweets dunking on the tweet > about the press release are terrible. Each one loses more of the critical > context we need to actually understand what's going on. Only the paper > itself is a primary source. If you want to know what the paper's about, you > gotta read the paper!

And what about this article, which is about the tweets dunking on the tweet about the press release?

<comment><USER84> It's about discourse, not the paper, so it would likely tell you to _read the paper_.</comment></comment>


India's power grid collapses completely - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444405804577560413178678898.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories#articleTabs%3Darticle

<comment><USER2> Maybe they could outsource the running of it as for this to happen on the scale it did is clearly poor managment. Overloading is one thing but to allow that to propergate across regions is just unbelievable and for it to happen more than once is not good.</comment>


Snapchat will sell its new video-capturing glasses via vending machines - <AUTHOR> http://www.recode.net/2016/11/10/13584462/snapchat-spectacles-how-to-buy-snapbots <comment><AUTHOR> This seems to be a great way do distribute them. Moving the vending machines leads to a fun hunt and if they don't sell Snap haven't tied up a lot of stock.</comment>


Bogus Research: The best programmers are 10x better than average programmers. - <AUTHOR> http://sco.lt/81iLMf

<comment><AUTHOR> Money quote: "Nearly all the statistical variation in performance is accounted for by literally one single programmer in a 46 year old study (n=12). This study was actually conducted to see if giving people access to computers that ran their programs immediately instead of waiting days for their code to be run on shared systems improved performance (News flash: It did)."</comment>


A music-lover's guide to tinnitus - <AUTHOR> https://www.residentadvisor.net/features/2985 <comment><USER3> The article repeats points like this quite a few times:

> I like hearing my music at loud volumes, as everyone does.

I don't think this is true. A lot of people like going to the kinds of events that have loud music, but I've seen a _lot_ of people who don't like the volume. One obvious example: most of the weddings I've been to recently turn into dance parties, and the volume creeps its way up and up. As this happens, a lot of the guests start moving farther from the speakers, off the dance floor, and eventually out of the room. Dancing: lots of fun. Ear-splitting volume: not necessarily.

At my wedding, we picked a great band and kept the music at a comfortable level, and most of the guests danced the whole time and even the non-dancing guests clustered around the dance floor. I can't prove causation, but I bet the tolerable volume had a lot to do with it.

So maybe the real solution is for people to start trying to figure out why the norm for concerts is to have the volume painfully loud. It's possible that guests just might enjoy them more with quieter music.

<comment><USER4> Our perception of loudness is highly subjective and we quickly acclimatise to loud music. Music sounds superficially better at louder volumes, hence the notorious loudness war in music production [1]. This is one of the big risks of using headphones - it's easy for the volume to creep up to dangerous levels if you're not worried about disturbing the neighbours.

Sound engineers often suffer from a significant degree of noise-induced hearing loss. Hearing loss is highly dose-dependent, so working with live sound equipment on a daily basis is far more damaging than going to the occasional loud concert. As a result, they tend to set the house volume too loud. Noise-induced hearing loss affects the high frequencies first, so live sound is often extremely shrill and trebly to compensate. Those engineers who don't have noise-induced hearing loss have made a habit of wearing ear protection, which has basically the same effect.

The unfortunate solution is to wear ear protection to any amplified live music event. I recommend the Etymotic ER-20xs [2]. You'll hear a better, more balanced sound at a much safer volume level.

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

[2][https://www.etymotic.com/consumer/hearing- protection/er20xs....](https://www.etymotic.com/consumer/hearing- protection/er20xs.html)

<comment><USER5> Is there any reason not to use a decibel meter to set up volumes. And perhaps to use computer assistance to balance instrument volumes and profile the sound. Seems like a couple of mics around a room and you could adjust to get the best sound for the whole room rather than [just] the sound desk? I'd guess they're doing that already at big concerts.

It seems very like colour profiling to me. Graphic designers seem to match to objective standards though, whilst sound techs seem instead to use their own perception at the time?

<comment><USER4> Here in the UK, it's common for venues to have automatic sound limiting devices - exceed a certain threshold and power to the PA system is disconnected [1]. These systems are a source of constant frustration for engineers, performers and clients.

The problem is that good live sound is highly dynamic. If you ran the PA at exactly 85dBa all night, it would sound very flat and unengaging. You want to push the volume during lively upbeat songs and bring it back down for an intimate ballad, you want a bit of a lift during the chorus, you want natural crescendos and diminuendos. Really good engineers can maintain this sense of dynamism while keeping the overall levels under control by using time-averaged metering, but systems capable of that are quite costly.

Achieving a consistent volume level throughout the venue is much easier said than done. Normal loudspeakers follow the inverse square law, so the sound will be much louder close to the PA system. You can't just put a bunch of speakers all over the room, because you'll get weird phase effects - <USER2> moves at about one foot per millisecond, so additional speakers tend to cause very unpleasant delay and comb filtering effects [2]. This can be mitigated by the use of electronic delay compensation for the additional relay speakers, but not eliminated entirely.

The inverse square law can be evaded by using a line array loudspeaker system [3]. Theses systems use multiple loudspeakers in a phased array, which produces a cylindrical rather than spherical wavefront. Line arrays give a much more even distribution of sound and also reduce the amount of energy that is reflected from the ceiling and floor, providing a much clearer sound with more accurate transient response. Historically, line arrays have been expensive and difficult to configure, so they have been confined to large venues and high-end touring systems. Compact integrated line array systems are now available from many manufacturers, so hopefully we should see an improvement in the general standard of live sound over the coming years.

[1] [https://noiselimiters.co.uk/scx-noise-limiter-and- contactor-...](https://noiselimiters.co.uk/scx-noise-limiter-and- contactor-p-79.html?osCsid=fc0a2fa66d393ae79ff236ae5b6723dc)

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

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

<comment><USER5> > If you ran the PA at exactly 85dBa all night, it would sound very flat and > unengaging. //

I was thinking more having an RMS max target dBA/dB(SPL) and a cut-off above that to limit instantaneous volume rather than requiring a particular level for the night.

I'm in the UK; I know a little about phase effects having set up a few room level PAs (5 instruments, 3 mics, 6 speakers, single board; that sort of size). However, I'm not familiar with large set-ups as I've only attended smaller concerts of the order of 100s-1000s of people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> as a metalhead and frequent concert-goer, this is something I am INCREDIBLY careful about. I'm one of those people that already has a hard time hearing in environments with background noise for some reason.

1\. earplugs at shows or anywhere with sustained loud sound are critical. Disposable foam earplugs are a last resort. If you are a frequent concert- goer, do yourself a favor and AT LEAST get a pair of Eymotic ETY-Plugs or something similar ($13, [https://www.amazon.com/ETY-Plugs-Fidelity-Earplugs- Standard-...](https://www.amazon.com/ETY-Plugs-Fidelity-Earplugs-Standard- Frost/dp/B0015WJQ7A)). They will fit way better, isolate more sound, and sound a TON better; you will still be able to enjoy the show, I promise.

2\. If you go to shows a lot, get custom plugs made; just do it. Price will be $80-$200, including getting professional molds made by an audiologist, but it is worth it. I can not even feel mine when they are in my ears, the fit is that good (mine are from 64 Audio, they have a 20% off sale a few times a year).

3\. If you spend a lot of time with headphones, be really careful about keeping the volume low. If something sounds too faint, just leave it for a few minutes; a lot of they time your ears adjust and that lower volume you thought was too faint is actually just fine or maybe even still too loud.

4\. I acknowledge how ridiculous of a suggestion this is price wise, but if you spend hours a day with headphones on, consider custom molded IEMs. Yes, they are expensive as shit (anywhere from ~$250 to infinity dollars), but they will seal in your ears perfectly. This gives you much better isolation from ambient sound in your environment, so you can listen to music at MUCH lower volumes comfortably. On average, sound quality is MUCH better than the headphones/earbuds you were using before too.

Do not fuck about with your hearing.

<comment><USER7> I've tried a few different attenuator earplugs, and the most compelling I've found are the Earasers. ($40 [https://www.amazon.com/Earasers- HEM001-Musicians-Plugs-Mediu...](https://www.amazon.com/Earasers- HEM001-Musicians-Plugs-Medium/dp/B00E2D9HAA/?th=1) ). They're very comfortable and low-profile. If you're the kind of person who prefers not to advertise that they're using earplugs (silly I know, but a consideration for a lot of people), these are great, because they're basically invisible when in use.

And +1 on the custom earmold. I use mine routinely. I do use the earasers when attending shows with a moshpit, as it's possible to have the filters get dislodged and lost in the fray.

<comment><USER6> How do they attenuate lower bass frequencies? Granted, its pretty tough/impossible for an earplug to do at concert volumes, but my only complaint about most plugs is the lows aren't attenuated as much as everything else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > As one RA employee puts it, dance music is "not made to be played to people > wearing earplugs. When you put them in it's never going to sound the same."

This seems to me very similar to the reasons people give to avoid using condoms. And helmets. And smoking.

I think putting hundreds of young people in a room guaranteed to give you hearing loss is madness. But then again, I was always boring.

<comment><USER9> A good club sound system doesn't actually need to be very loud. It will still be loud enough that long-term exposure will cause hearing loss, but not loud enough that you would be shocked when you walk in the room.

Unfortunately, a sound system of that quality is extremely expensive and requires skilled workers to operate each night, so only clubs in places that allow clubs to operate openly and make money can afford it.

If a city doesn't allow clubs to stay open all night, or if the police crack down on drug use, the clubs go underground and don't make any money (or won't invest it in equipment that may be confiscated). Then, they use lower-quality equipment that must be played too loud in order to fill the space, and don't hire sound engineers to operate the system properly and safely.

<comment><USER10> >operate

How do the accoustcs change from one day to the next?

<comment><USER11> Also it changes from one track to the next. These days it's normally not that big of a deal because we have hit some kind of concensus about a good mix in most genres. But it will still change between genres. What's best for one isn't for another.

The technitian might also be key to keep the DJ in check. Nothing is worse than the sound of a clipping mixer because the DJ is inexperienced and thinks louder is better.

<comment><USER12> It's not always lack of experience: there's a mantra among some DJs that if you "aren't redlining you aren't headlining". I'm not a proponent of it, but I've heard the expression used more than a few times in the past couple years.

One of the most respected DJs in the Chicago footwork/juke scene always clips, at all times. It's apparently a thing.

<comment><USER11> You're right I could definitely see it working for juke and as a style for some other genres.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a drummer && music-lover && audiophile myself, I always stress out to other people the importance to protect ones' hearing. For me, hearing is an even more important sense than vision and I think good old Ludwig van Beethoven would agree with me (and Stevie Wonder -an idol of mine- too.)

I really can't understand how loud people can put the music on social gatherings like parties, weddings, etc. I _do_ like loud (circa 90-96 dB A-weighted) music, but only if the following conditions are met:

\- The sound system reproduces the music with good tonal balance and very loud distortion

\- _This loud level won 't last more than 15 minutes_

\- The music is good :)

There is, at least in my country, some sort of obsession with adding music at all places. Like if music was necessary for any container with more than one human being...

Wear earplugs, friends!! I use the cheap orange 3M ones, made of foam, and, while they do change the freq response of your ear, it doesn't do it on a too obnoxious way.

From the article i found this:

> Finally, custom-moulded "musicians'" earplugs offer high sonic precision > suitable for professional use.

I didn't know about this. This is great advice.

<comment><USER14> Have you tried the middle ground, like the ER-20xs recommended elsewhere in this thread? I like the Ear Peace HD's, but Alpine MusicSafe Pros are great too. They're so much better than the cheap foam ones, but aren't anywhere near as expensive as the moulded professional ones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'd like to point out that, sadly, not all tinnitus is caused by hearing loss.

My tinnitus started despite being young and having subjected myself to far fewer loud noises, including concerts, than the average person. My doctor believes that mine is likely due to a neurological issue, but that we will never know the true cause. To satisfy our own curiosity (and determine if we could attempt to treat it with steroids, which is possible during the few weeks after the onset of tinnitus induced by hearing loss), we had my hearing tested. As expected, absolutely no hearing loss.

As others have said, I felt suicidal during those first few weeks. Thankfully, I've since learned to live with it.

<comment><USER16> Mine was came after attempting to pop my ears during a very bad ear infection. I was trying to relieve the pressure, as I have done a lot, but because of the bad ear infection it was actually making it worse. The pain was so bad and it felt like my ear was never going to pop. Eventually, the pain subsided but at that exact same time, in place of the pain, was a ringing.

My ENT said the tinnitus was most likely caused by the bad ear infection and tried to assure me that me trying to pop my ears didn't have anything to do with it, but I can't help but feel like that wasn't the case, as I made the pain so much worse.

Anyways, agreed with others here that the first few months were the worst, and now it's mostly unnoticeable unless I actively think about it, drink a lot, or leave a loud environment.

<comment><USER5> "pop ears" = equalise pressure, like you do on an aeroplane flight.

Just in case people aren't familiar with the idiom.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> My first year of music school, I was fortunate enough to be exposed to the research of Dr. Marshall Chasin - an audiologist in Toronto.

His research on hearing loss, in particular hearing loss of musicians, deserves wide exposure for anyone considering making a career out of using their ears.

From one of his publications I use the following as a rule of thumb:

80db * 40hrs/week = permanent hearing damage

83db * 20hrs/week = permanent hearing damage

86db * 10hrs/week = permanent hearing damage

91db * 5hrs/week = permanent hearing damage

94db * 2.5hrs/week = permanent hearing damage

Further reading from Dr. Chasin: [http://www.marshallchasinassociates.ca/hearing_articles.htm](http://www.marshallchasinassociates.ca/hearing_articles.htm)

<comment> alok-g How to I map db to the volume on a smartphone?

<comment><USER18> There are apps. I just tried "Decibel Meter" by Xiangyi Liu on my iphone. Free. Seems to work.

Update - just tried it. 90-100db on the tube (Victoria line), 102 when they make announcements, 60db in the park, 25 in my room.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Anecdata time - my tinnitus is way worse when my shoulders/upper back are tensed up. If I can get those to calm down, so does the tinnitus. The normal level is simply drowned out most of the time, but when I'm tense, I can "hear" it quite clearly and loudly.

The "head thumping" thing from a few months back also grants a short reprieve from normal levels of tinnitus, but it's definitely a temporary thing. It also appears to have no triggers that relate to sound, and is not associated with abnormal hearing loss so far (I've lost more high frequencies than average for my age, but nothing between that threshold and ~25hz).

<comment><USER20> In some cases tinnitus is also linked to TMJ syndrome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've posted this before, but it's worth mentioning as often as the topic comes up.

My wife has meniere's disease, so we need to protect her hearing in all moderately loud situations, (bars, music venues, movies). In advance of SXSW one year, I bought her a pair of these: [http://amzn.to/2gK8qZv](http://amzn.to/2gK8qZv)

"Musician's earplugs", so-to-speak, they attenuate all frequencies more evenly than standard foam plugs would. In effect just turning down the volume of the world a bit, not muffling it.

I don't have meniere's, but do get drained by bars and loud music. I hate to seem lame by wanting to leave a party/bar early, so I bought a pair for myself recently. They're just fantastic. Highly recommend.

<comment><USER22> I was diagnosed with MD and I figured out what was causing it. I know that MD is a giant umbrella of different causes, but there's a small chance that my story could help her. Have her check it out, along with this study.

My story: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Menieres/comments/5ip7eq/i_was_diag...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Menieres/comments/5ip7eq/i_was_diagnosed_with_menieres_disease_and_later)

An interesting study: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22253033](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22253033)

<comment><USER21> Thank you very much. I'll show this to her.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've started getting the ringing in the ears a few years ago. However, it gets more pronounced when I twist my neck certain ways -- and it seems to let up a bit by stretching my neck in a different direction. Seeing as how I also have periodic neck pain, I wonder if pinched nerves there are contributing to the tinnitus symptoms? Also, there are some days on the drive home from work where the tinnitus is completely gone -- but it comes back strong the next morning, especially if it feels that I didn't have a good sleeping position.

<comment><USER24> Tight muscles in the face, jaw, and neck, and shoulders are the most likely culprit. It's almost certainly not nerves. For me it was "forward head" posture which needed to be corrected through strengthening exercises and a careful reassessment of my desk work and driving positions. I'd highly recommend visiting a good upper cervical chiropractor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> >Remember: the tinnitus might have started in the ear, but it lives in the brain.

I'm not sure that's true in most cases. There's a NIH paper where they looked at 151 cases where the auditory nerve was cut and "Complete relief of tinnitus was achieved in 101 patients." [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7671835](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7671835)

Not that you'd really want that as a treatment.

</comment><comment><USER25> Somewhat ironically, tests are being conducted to use MDMA/Ecstasy as a possible cure for tinnitus.

[1] [http://mixmag.net/read/scientists-have-completed-trials- atte...](http://mixmag.net/read/scientists-have-completed-trials-attempting- to-cure-tinnitus-with-mdma-news)

</comment><comment><USER18> You know one of the smartphone makers could prevent a lot of tinnitus by having software that detects if you've been exposed to a lot of 100db+ and pops up a warning suggesting taking it easy or using earplugs. People often don't figure there's a problem until it's too late and you've got tinnitus which you can't really fix.

</comment><comment><USER26> The article links to [http://www.notchtherapy.com/](http://www.notchtherapy.com/) which looks very interesting. I plan on following the steps outlined there to create a custom notch filter for my tinnitus frequency.

Has anyone here played with this technique before?

<comment><USER27> Check out [http://www.audionotch.com/](http://www.audionotch.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I've had severe Tinnitus for over a year due to a degenerative disease damaging my hearing and causing hearing loss. It's been hell, and it still is. It's unlikely to get better with time since the disease is known to make progress and worsen things. No wonder suicide ideation is so high among T sufferers: [http://journals.lww.com/thehearingjournal/Fulltext/2016/0700...](http://journals.lww.com/thehearingjournal/Fulltext/2016/07000/Suicidal_Ideation_Among_Patients_with_Chronic.6.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER29> "I suddenly lost the hearing on one ear and it got replaced by a strong and permanent tinnitus. I quantify it as strong based on my talks with others with tinnitus. What worked for me was stop fighting and start loving it. Now it's a perma mantra. Some somatic malfunction that enables me to ear the hum inside of me or whatever poetry works for you. Try it maybe."

Related re-post from here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13140256](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13140256)

<comment><USER30> Yeah, I've got it bad. 25 years of techno/D&B with 1MW (really) sound systems in enclosed spaces. Ear protection sometimes. Ruptured an eardrum once. I was surprised to read about some of the _really_ negative reactions to it. Mostly, it's like white noise to me and I'm able to ignore it, but whenever it's bothering me, I think back to some of the good times I had getting it :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> One thing to remember about earplugs is to not overuse them. Earplugs lock moisture inside the ear and that in turn can cause infections and/or highly increased earwax discharge.

<comment><USER32> your mileage may vary, my brother will get an ear infection after a half a day with earplugs. I can wear earplugs 4+ hours a day every day a year no problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I've always had tinnitus since I was a child and just thought the world was like that. A trick popped up on Reddit to temporarily, and perhaps for some with regular application, cures it for a short time.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yDCox- qKbk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yDCox-qKbk)

Thump the back of your head like that with your ears covered well about 40 times and enjoy the silence.

<comment><USER34> I've had ringing as long as i can remember. My mother's description, she has it too, when a doctor told her it wasn't normal always stuck with me 'oh i just liked hearing the pretty music'

Thankfully that's what it's always been to me. The ringing is the meaning of silence and the notes are not at odds with each other.

When I realised that other people didn't hear the ringing when it was silent, I was a fair bit shocked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Additional reading that provided much needed (for me, at least) scientific context around the condition: [http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/high-tech- hope-...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/high-tech-hope-for-the- hard-of-hearing)

</comment><comment><USER36> Does anybody know what the dB level of macbook speakers playing at max volume is? I am curious to know if playing music at max volume through them while sitting about 2-3 feet away from them can damage hearing.

<comment><USER18> Probably depends on the model. Maybe try downloading a phone app and testing it. I don't think my 11.6" Air makes enough sound to do damage at 2'. Using the Earpods at max I notice some increased tinnitus though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Buy earplugs with a small case you keep on your keychain and take everywhere.

The best earplugs are the ones you use!</comment>


Happy New Year - <AUTHOR> That is all. <comment><USER2> Thanks, you too.

</comment><comment><USER3> A healthy, happy, and prosperous 2019 to all my Hacker News friends (including those I've yet to meet.)

</comment><comment><USER4> Make it a good one!

</comment><comment><USER5> Thanks.</comment>


One unit test should have prevented Google from categorizing the entire internet as malware - <AUTHOR> http://jawspeak.com/2009/01/31/one-unit-test-should-have-prevented-google-from-categorizing-the-entire-internet-as-malware/

<comment><USER2> That's easy to say after the fact. If Google didn't have a comprehensive testing infrastructure, they'd have already made many worse mistakes than this.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. I think this kind of attitude stems from thinking that unit tests are for TDD, instead of for regression testing.

This post seems more reasonable if re-stated as, "Here's the unit test that will keep that from ever happening again".

<comment><USER4> Yeah, the problem seems to be incorrect validation rules in the code (assuming this "/" input was the real issue).

Both "TDD would catch this during coding" and "tests would catch this in regression testing" only hold if there is actually a specification of functionality with the correct input validation rules in the first place.

It seems more likely to me this is the more mundane situation that no one was paranoid enough about inputs in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This seems unlikely given that it was a data problem, not a coding problem, which caused the issue. Do you routinely run unit tests after hitting the Upload Content button on the website? I'm guessing that is a no. (Now the act of writing a unit test for "/" as input might have caused a programmer to say "Hey, the specification says that if we upload "/" in this file, then the entire Internet gets turned off. The specification is insane. Can we fix it?" But ordinarily you probably wouldn't run unit tests after upload just like you don't run a test suite after hitting Publish on your blog.)

<comment><USER6> Google spends far more time manipulating data than code. You CAN unit test data.

This one slipped by. I guarantee you that a new test has been written and this one won't happen again. Save a different problem for a different day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The article doesn't really say what the test case should be.

I would probably write:

        (is (not (malicious-site-p "http://www.google.com/")))

Since hopefully Google never blocks itself.

<comment><USER8> I don't think Google codes in CL ;)

<comment><USER7> Their loss. :)

I know they like Python, Java, and C++; but I don't really know any of those languages.</comment></comment></comment>


Girls dominate Canada science fair; boys don't show up - <AUTHOR> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090515.wlfair15/BNStory/lifeMain/home

<comment><USER2> This can be a really difficult issue to discuss. I have a theory as to why this is happening, but I think it would inevitably be misinterpreted as being sexist (against females).

I'd also guess I'm not the only one thinking along these lines.

Edit: Well, OK, here goes...I am not at all 100% sure of all this, but it appears females, on average, have more respect for societal measures of prestige than males do. Now that females are more empowered to do what they want (which is great) they're chasing after the generally accepted indicators of prestige of the past and present. School awards, doctors, lawyers, college degrees in general, and in fact credentials of virtually any type are all seeing a dramatically increased female presence; in same cases females are starting to outnumber males entirely. Since credentialism was a mistake to begin with, as it slowly erodes (both _because of_ males starting to choose not to go down the path of credential-seeking and thanks to the later results of that - i.e., as more and more people without credentials do well, credentials become less important) people are going to notice that females are "overrepresented" in many areas where credentials are emphasized. Credentialists[1] (who are usually the ones quoted in the media) will see this as a problem, when it's really a sign of the decline of credentialism.

This is a trend that will probably take decades to play out. But you can already see the signs. There was an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education recently about how going to grad school to study the humanities is a disastrous choice today, and it is now overwhelmingly women who are making that choice. That's just one of the more obvious examples.

Who knows, maybe this is a one-time phenomenon that has resulted from female empowerment, and it won't happen again?

I don't think I did a very good job of explaining myself here, but I'm a little rushed so I'll try to elaborate on it in the future.

[1] People who tend to believe in or support credentials.

<comment><USER3> Go for it. A thoughtful comment is welcome. I dont think it is as simple as girls trying to please teachers. These kids are putting in far too much effort for that to be the motivating factor. Or is it that fairs are biased towards bio rather than physical sciences and math? I wonder how a mathematical proof would even be evaluated.

<comment><USER2> oz and russell, I took your advice and updated the original comment. I agree that it's not as simple as girls trying to please teachers - it goes beyond that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can "the differences between men and women in tech" be added to the things that aren't useful to discuss/post?

It's becoming the 'politics' of HN.

<comment><USER5> I think it's a somewhat interesting topic, but this article was full of unfounded speculation, and very light on real content unfortunately.

<comment><USER4> Sure. I'd be interested in scientific studies, analysis of male/female brain differences etc - real data - hard facts. Having said that, I still think it's a bit of a toxic subject.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why would you ask Person A why Person B is not interested in a particular subject matter? Why not just go ask Person B?

Is there a good reason for this approach that I have missed? It seems to be a popular approach, but I don see the value in it. Anyone able to enlighten me?

</comment><comment><USER7> OH MY GOD the ratio shifted from 55/45 to 44/56. IT'S SO UNEVEN!!

</comment><comment><USER8> 'Cause the boys are on the computer.

<comment><USER5> Would a computing project not be accepted as a submission in a science fair?

<comment><USER9> Except that they may be shooting virtual martians with their plasma guns instead of doing anything "productive" ;-)</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Traquer, testing made easy - <AUTHOR> http://lessgeneric.com/testing/traquer-testing-made-easy/ <comment><AUTHOR> This tool is made to make tesing complex web apps easier.

You can record/playback, create heatmap of tested sections, group cases together, and hopefully automate tests using Selenium and Jasmine (any ideas for something better?).

Basically, it records events you make while on page, and then reproduces it as case.

This is big giant Work in Progress, so please be polite. Also, any contribution is welcome!</comment>


The FBI has asked Apple to help unlock the Florida gunman's iPhones - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/f/615017/the-fbi-has-asked-apple-to-help-unlock-the-florida-gunmans-iphones/ <comment><USER2> Awesome, I've been thinking about getting an iPhone. William Barr can go soak his head.</comment>


Show HN: NoKey, a Distributed Password Manager Without a Master Password - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Zinggi/NoKey <comment><AUTHOR> Hi all!

This is my first time posting something to HN, so please be kind.

I wanted to show what I've been working on for the last 6 months:

NoKey, a password manager without a master password. Instead, you can unlock your passwords by confirming from another device. E.g. if you need a password on your PC, you only have to confirm this on your phone. No need to remember any passwords!

The vast majority of the code is written in Elm and it's fully open source.

There is a browser extension for Chrome and Firefox and an Android app. The application is only useful with at least two devices, so to really test it out, you'll have to install it on two devices. There is no iOS version and the web app doesn't work on Safari either (it's missing some stuff from the Web Crypto API), sorry!

Any feedback or questions are greatly appreciated!

<comment><USER2> I love the Idea, and I think it's pretty smart. When I'm doing work on my laptop, I always have my phone nearby. I think it's unlikely that both of them are compromised or stolen simultaneously.

Also, the Android app requires no device permissions, haven't seen that in a while.

<comment><AUTHOR> > the Android app requires no device permissions

That's not true, it just uses the new way to ask for permissions. E.g. when you want to scan a QR code it requires the camera permission. But it only asks at that moment, not upfront as older android apps used to do

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is a great idea and a great example of distributed "consumer" app.

</comment><comment><USER4> I like the Correct Horse Battery Staple approach to the pairing mechanism ;-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I was always wondering why others don't do this more often. I find it much easier to remember and type in a few words compared to a long number.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Even though it's different, but in terms of usage, I think it's like a decentralized 2FA (or MFA) solution?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, from a user perspective it definitely looks like 2FA.

In terms of technology it's of course completely different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Seems like a good idea. What happens when I lose both my devices?

<comment><AUTHOR> You lose access to your passwords, that's the consequence of that approach.

That's why it's a very good idea to pair as many devices as you can, e.g. an old phone, your work PC, etc.

This way you're pretty save from any loss.

In general, if you save your passwords with security level N (meaning you need N devices to unlock), if you lose all but N-1 devices, you lose access. You can also add a "key box", which gives you one more "device", but requires you to remember a password.

<comment><USER7> > That's why it's a very good idea to pair as many devices as you can

Doesn't this increase your attack surface greatly though? The more devices you have this on, the greater chances that one or more of them could be compromised and used to access your passwords. Since there's no master key, one has to only compromise the OS to get at everything. Given that so many devices do not receive regular security updates, this seems like it would be a concern..

<comment><AUTHOR> > Doesn't this increase your attack surface greatly though?

That's true. I suppose it's a trade off between protection against lost vs. smaller attack surface.

> Since there's no master key, one has to only compromise the OS to get at > everything

That's wrong, compromising one device doesn't give an attacker anything useful. Only if two or more devices have been compromised can passwords be decrypted. But in any case, I think if your device is compromised you might be in bigger troubles anyway. E.g. if an attacker controls your device, ransomeware might be easier and more lucrative to them than going after more devices to hunt for passwords.

<comment><USER7> > That's wrong, compromising one device doesn't give an attacker anything > useful

Yea I understand that, but by having a large number of devices with this on it, you increase the chances that any two of them could be compromised. That was my point, I just didn't articulate it well enough.

<comment><USER8> Does anyone use a password manager for critical accounts?

I use them to generate random passwords for sites like yahoo or neopets (or whatever).

<comment><USER9> My GitHub.com password is >100 characters long and I deem it a critical account (hence the password length), so yes, I do use a password manager for it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Search up to 10K addresses with free holiday batch geocoding service - <AUTHOR> http://holidaysearch.mapzen.com <comment><USER2> How is MapZen's international geocoding? I couldn't find info on their website saying how good their coverage is of different countries and languages.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's built on open data sets, including OpenStreetMap and OpenAddresses. In populated areas coverage is really good. Thanks to OpenAddresses, several countries have full address coverage. You can see the coverage map on openaddresses.io. New data gets added as these open data sources grow.

<comment><USER3> Why does OpenAddress need to exist separately from OSM? Can address geocoding data not be properly represented in OSM?

<comment><USER4> OpenAddresses is a directory of publicly available address lists provided by government agencies at various levels. It's designed to be bulk imported by machine.

Many addresses exist in OSM. But there's a preference from the OSM community that data be entered by users familiar with their areas, that they can verify on the ground. Imports have happened in OSM, such as the controversial TIGER import in the US years ago, and the NYC building dataset more recently. But these require a lot of effort and attention to manage well.

<comment><USER3> So could OpenAddresses be merged into OSM at some point? Would that make sense?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not out of the question, however there are many obstacles to overcome, such as licensing, validation, and the fact that the OSM community generally insists on manually entered data.

I've heard many folks push for consolidation of various open data projects, so they aren't "competing" for contributions. However the reality is that they are currently very different and each serves to bridge a very specific gap.

In the meantime, it makes a lot of sense for projects relying on open data to pull all of these sources in, as Mapzen Search is doing, to ensure the best possible coverage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Never heard of mapzen until this post. Looks pretty cool. I am always skeptical of the lifetime of these service providers. I've seen quite a few come and go...and spent countless hours adopting replacement.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great point! As developers, we've all been there. Mapzen's mission is to create services that outlive the brand/company. Everything we do is open source and easy to stand up on your own.

Pelias, the project powering our Search service is written entirely in node.js + Elasticsearch, to make it accessible to the largest number of developers, because JavaScript.

We also host an instance of Pelias to make the service accessible for those that can't/won't run their own.

More details [here]([https://mapzen.com/projects/search](https://mapzen.com/projects/search)).</comment></comment>


How the American Worker Got Fleeced - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-the-fleecing-of-the-american-worker/ <comment><USER2> The case for a Job Guarantee [1] argues that the way to deal with this is to ensure everybody always has an alternative living wage job to go to.

Then competition for scare labour does the rest.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/dp/1509542108/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_...](https://www.amazon.com/dp/1509542108/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_T- AaFb1PG8F2X)

</comment><comment><USER3> Absolutely terrible. Corporate abuse doesn't just stop at lower-tiered jobs, it affects all levels of industry, including knowledge workers, like the article explains. I had no idea that workers at MS had unionized, only to be stomped out like they were nothing. I feel all those efforts described in the article are too localized, I wish there was a way to build a union of different professions that can back each other up.

<comment><USER4> I know very little about unions but I feel like it is a dirty word. A very "us versus them" type of idea.

Companies don't start out wanting to mistreat people. Companies grow in the market they are in, and the conditions are set by their competitors.

Standing up for "I want to work less, make more, get better benefits" just isn't competitive if your competitor isn't doing it.

Strong-arming your employer almost never seems like a good idea.

<comment><USER5> You say "us vs them" like it's at all inaccurate. Owners have every incentive to make their employees work more for less. Unions just balance that power dynamic.

<comment> em-bee it is very unfortunate that owners have such an incentive. they shoudn't. in germany for example, much of what the unions have fought for eventually became law, giving the same benefits to everyone, and not just union members, making the unions less important.

the problem really is the adverserial nature of the relationship. a cooperative relationship between employees (with or without unions) and employers would be beneficial to every one.</comment></comment></comment></comment>