U.S. Surgeon General's Advisory: Marijuana Use and the Developing Brain - <AUTHOR> https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/addiction-and-substance-misuse/advisory-on-marijuana-use-and-developing-brain/index.html <comment><USER3> I smoked weed heavily from my ~16 to ~18.

And I stopped because it was so overwhelming experience that I could not stand any more. I couldn't function normally and had really tough trips, thinking about so many end results in the same time. Minutes took hours and basically it was an agony, while everybody had pretty joyful time laughing.

Now, I'm 38. I'm functional (so far), I have family with kids. I haven't developed schizophrenia, but I have (had ever since my 18) the problem focusing on (for example) - dates, lists (for when I have to go to buy something), simple calculations etc. similar trivials, but I have no problems working on abstract stuff - I work as software engineer.

I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, based on my experiences, but it seems that majority of others had quite the opposite experiences than me.

<comment><USER4> Being in the bay area, I have witnessed what you expressed happen to many engineers since the legalization. They burn out quickly as well. They swear it's not weed since everyone else tells them that's all tinfoil hat stuff.

It's very unfortunate.

<comment><USER5> That's profoundly sad. But I don't blame the drug, people need to figure out boundaries.

<comment><USER6> That requires clear and honest guidance as to where those boundaries might lie, though.

Broadly speaking, I am pro-legalization of Pretty Much Everything, on the basis that proper education and appropriate treatment programs for heroin users are better for society than jail time.

But that comes with the need to implement pragmatic, evidence-based policies for how we approach drug use as a society.

A lot of neural development happens before your mid-20s, with a very large chunk happening during your adolescent years. Recreational drug use before your mid-20s, which includes alcohol and nicotine, really has a massive impact on your entire life.

I would argue that "soft" drugs, like low-percentage alcohol (beer and wine), maybe cocoa tea (not purified cocaine), and possibly low-percentage CBD should be relatively safe for adolescents from sixteen onwards.

Medical professionals, feel free to chime in if I'm wrong here. :)

Hard alcohol, nicotine, cocaine, and such, on the other hand, should have some access barrier for those under the age of twenty-five (90th percentile for complete neural development).

I wouldn't advocate an outright ban or criminalization -- if a teenager wants some weed and vodka, they're going to get it -- but putting some barriers in place to discourage consumption for the under-aged would be wise.

All of this, of course, needs to be coupled with comprehensive education.

The abstinence-only approach of "Just Say No" doesn't equip kids to really understand the full impact of the drugs they choose to use, and because of that, there's a lot of misinformation out there, ranging from "weed will make you crazy" to "it's completely safe for kids".

Neither of those things is true, and if we want to empower people to make good decisions, we must first be honest with them about the impact and trade-offs of the options on the table.

<comment><USER5> That's the libertarian approach, which says legalize everything, tax everything. Am with you on it, although am not sure, how that would work with hard drugs ( cocaine,mushrooms,LSD, ecstasy,heroin). Again within hard drugs - cocaine is vastly different from doing LSD. A single dose of LSD in a bad setting could mess your psyche up for life. What you are doing is choosing the better of two evils.I would rather buy a pure form of LSD from Pfizer that one from a street dealer with a nefarious source and containing crap knows what!

<comment><USER6> I'd say more pragmatic than purely libertarian. :)

You still need a regulatory framework, and I would strongly argue for compulsory education on drug use, not to mention treatment programs, all of which should be funded through use taxes.

Otherwise, though, I agree very much with the libertarians that that empowering individuals to make their own life-choices is far more beneficial to society than criminalization and prohibition.

<comment><USER5> I think when you give people the facts and remove the stigma and the "mystery" surrounding drugs, you will get people to start making wise choices - <USER2> counteract it you need a sound education policy, not the fear-mongering that goes in the name of education now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The national academy has a very nice writeup on "The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research (2017)" which is by far the most comprehensive guide I'm aware of.

[http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/reports/2017/health- effects...](http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/reports/2017/health-effects-of- cannabis-and-cannabinoids.aspx)

The conclusions summary PDF has the highlights: [http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Report%20File...](http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2017/Cannabis- Health-Effects/Cannabis-conclusions.pdf)

Personally, i first used weed when i was 22 and figure that's about right. I continue to use it in moderation. I would not be comfortable with its use by a minor child or a pregnant mother.

<comment><USER8> In ever US state where it is legal (Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Alaska, Mass., and 2020 Illinois and Michigan) I think the minimum age is 21. Sure people underage can get it, but there is an attempt being made to limit it to people at least 21.

I knew parents who let their teenagers know they used it, but also told them they didn't want their kids using it until they were at least 18 (but if they wanted to try it; to ask them and not do it at a party or anything).

I generally agree.

<comment><USER9> > In ever US state where it is legal

I'm assuming you know that marijuana remains illegal due to (a) federal law and (b) the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

I mean this with complete sincerity and genuine curiosity: Why did you choose wording that suggests the activity is wholly legal in those states?

<comment><USER10> Unless the federal government wants to get into a serious fight over state's rights, weed is effectively/wholly legal in states like California (I don't know the specific laws outside of CA)

If you'd like to argue that the federal government - through the supremacy clause - has the power to override States that legalize marijuana, perhaps you're right in theory.

But I think it's a fantasy that the federal government will want to die on that hill. There are politically valuable reasons to avoid addressing the tension between state's rights and the federal government's power.

<comment><USER9> It sounds like we're using different definitions of the word "illegal". It's unfortunate that English makes it cumbersome to draw the necessary distinction.

<comment><USER11> Given that the federal government has consistently grabbed more power than our founding documents actually gave them, forgive me for not really giving a shit what the federal government's opinion is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I smoke heavily for 10 years and if I could say something about the cognitive changes, it was for better. I learnt two foreign languages, more programming languages that I can count with one hand and got out of depression by means of self-awareness and meditation after a joint. Weed+Youtube surely is harmful, but so it is only Youtube (with less fun).

<comment><USER13> You didn't say anything about your age, which would be important given that the article is about the _developing_ brain. It's already pretty understood that the negative impact is significantly less in the adult brain.

The majority of people I went to HS with that were potheads are in exactly the types of jobs and whatnot that the Surgeon General suggests is most likely. Of course there are a lot of outliers. Nobody said this was 100%. The musicians are still pumping out great music. The artists are still doing artistic things.

<comment><USER14> Correlation, not causation

<comment><USER13> That doesn't apply in this case, because the causation is well documented. The developing brain _can_ suffer various types of delays when thc or just about any other intoxicant is distracting said developing brain's ability to actually develop.

Problems occur when the brain is too preoccupied in La La Land to develop optimally for the real world. There's a huge difference between the "thinker" and the "space cadet" when it comes to how one's brain handles thc in their youth.

Space cadets tend to stay space cadets. Thinkers tend to stay thinkers. The space cadet is who the Surgeon General is concerned about, because thc pretty much obliterates their chances of getting out of La La Land mentality.

Nobody says pot _stops_ the brain from developing. You're going to get a notable Bell Curve. Some potheads go total 70's/80's movie revival mode. Others become Carl Sagan. Almost everyone around these people can identify which one is the Carl Sagan and which is the Tommy Chong (character) pretty early on. That's half of the pot humour in those movies, so it's not like only non-users notice this.

<comment><USER12> Funny point: I do think that we have a better ratio of Carl Sagans/Tommy Chong in the universe of pot smokers than in the non-smokers universe. Maybe the tommy chongs that don't smoke are a little bit smarter, but they probably are more sad/depressed.

<comment><USER13> That's actually why I suggested Tommy Chong's character. In real life, he's a smart guy - which you can tell when he's interviewing, versus when he is in character.

He definitely understands the dichotomy, and as an ironic twist, has become one of the most successful professional potheads in the world. He's a thinker who is very good at emulating the opposite side of the Bell Curve.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If we compare the effects of Marijuana on people to those of alcohol and or Oxycodone, I think it is clear to most that the latter two are more destructive.

I agree more research is needed on the effects of Marijuana use on people in general.

And we need to keep the risk factors in perspective. Many more people will die, hurt others and become addicted to alcohol and or Oxycodone than marijuana.

So put that beer down before the bong.

<comment><USER16> You would think this to be universally good advice based on the risks related to alcohol intoxication and alcoholism, but it's not. Some people would do better to not smoke weed and instead drink moderately and socially.

<comment><USER11> It's almost like instead of outright banning all of these substances, there needs to be heavy research into them, with a goal of harm reduction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Reading the comments here is a bit disappointing. There are a lot of legalization advocates seeming to take the position that because weed is mostly fine for most people it's always fine for everyone. It's not.

Anyone here who has a friend who smoked too much when they were young (and we all have that friend) knows that weed, like so many things in life, can be dangerous when you use it too much or when you shouldn't be using it.

Yes it should be legal. Yes adults should be able to buy it. We should also watch, very carefully, how our children use it.

<comment><USER14> That friend was already a deadbeat, with or without the weed. The weed didn't make them that way. Deadbeats are often attracted to weed, as are many others who want to self-medicate.

The deadbeat examples are just more readily available, because the upstanding successful folks are aware of this misconception and the stigma. They tend to keep quiet about it, except among their own.

As I get older, I keep discovering "addicts" in my social circle that I've known for years, or in some cases decades, who I'd have never guessed have a habit. I don't have any deadbeats in my social circle. These people all range from moderately successful to wildly successful. A lot of the daily users I can think of are _far_ more productive than I am. At least two of them have founded and sold companies and no longer need to work. But they loathe feeling unproductive, so they still do, and they're the first ones in the office every morning.

Personally, I have tried working under the influence, but it doesn't work that way for me. It's not addictive though, so I simply stopped using it.

Just like owning a bed doesn't make you lazy and tired, and it doesn't cause you to develop an excessive sleeping habit. Just because some people choose to remain in bed to avoid responsibility, doesn't mean there is a causal relationship.

<comment><USER18> You're characterization of these people simply as deadbeats trying to avoid responsibility is both extremely insensitive and simple minded. How deep a person can gets caught up in addiction is usually a reflection of their emotional health. They're not trying to escape responsibility, they're trying to escape being alive.

<comment><USER14> We're saying the same thing. I am not concerned with being sensitive, sorry. Facts don't care about feelings. I think this mentality that we can't speak the truth out of fear that we'll hurt their feelings, and encouraging a victim mentality only makes things worse.

Recognizing that you are a deadbeat, and deciding that you don't want to be is the _only_ way to even begin recovery. I've seen this up close. Anyone who has any experience helping addicts will tell you the same thing. That's why forced treatment doesn't work and will never work.

Trust me, you'll look at this differently after you have pulled family members out of crack houses that you thought only existed like that in the movies, had them steal your motorcycle and sell it for drugs, had them give your address to their crackhead friends where your wife and kids sleep, etc. Some of us are way past worrying about hurt feelings.

And this isn't something that happens with weed users at all, which is why I don't think people really understand what it means to be a drug addict when they mention weed. There is just no comparison.

<comment><USER19> I agree with what you're saying, factually. I completely disagree with the way you're saying it unfortunately.

The important point to remember is that addicts already punish themselves waaaaaaaaay more than anyone in the real world ever could.

Like, in my own experience, it's like having a spade in my head that constantly smashes me in my face me every few minutes. It's absolutely punishing.

I genuinely thought I was one of the worst human beings alive.

Referring to them as deadbeats is not the right way to go because it:

a) reinforces those punishing beliefs even more

b) reinforces the isolation and separation, which is a key element in the problem

c) provides an excuse to keep going through stereotypes and stigma ("once an addict, always an addict" etc.)

d) addicts, by our very nature, fight. Pushing an addict is like poking an angry snake. It doesn't help anyone. Playing the snake calming music does though (ie being nice).

Edit:

One of the reasons I'm still clean is because of the guilt and shame I felt about how badly I treated people. People who were genuinely very nice to me. It takes time to see it, but it's very important to be kind and to not judge. It's tough, especially when an addict hurts someone so much and so often.

Of course what you've been through sounds like hell. And Addiction doesn't just affect the individual. It affects _everyone_ around them, unfortunately.

<comment><USER14> To be clear, are you saying _nobody_ is a deadbeat? And anyone avoiding responsibility is a victim of something? Some might be, but _100%_ are? I find this view of the world very naive.

Weed isn't the reason that someone isn't taking care of their wife and kids. There could be many reasons, perhaps some legitimate and some not so legitimate. But the reason is never that the weed got a hold of them like people unfamiliar with it seem to think. It just doesn't have that effect. Some drugs do, though.

Edit:

BTW, although my connection to the situation was quite stressful, I would not call what I went through hell compared to what his (now ex) wife and kids went through. But yes, the blast radius is large there. And the people who got the worst of it were the compassionate ones. They're so easily manipulated, and the addicts know that.

Now that I think about it, the individual who helped him and his family the most (and who is currently not speaking to him) is actually one of the biggest weed users I alluded to earlier. That guy gets more done in a day before most people even get out of bed.

So yeah, I just can't take people seriously when they talk about victims of weed addiction, especially when their opinions are formed based on that pothead from high school that didn't go anywhere. It's comical sounding if you have any real experience or understanding of these issues.

<comment><USER19> Not at all. I was well on my way as a deadbeat before this recovery I'm now in. My point was that being _referred to as a deadbeat_ would incite those 4 points above in varying forms and make me much less willing to seek help.

And no. I'm not a victim of any massive trauma (I'm guessing that's what you mean), came from a decent enough middle class family. So not all addicts are a victim of anything - except the disease.

And, to be clear, whilst I was avoiding responsibility throughout active addiction, I was avoiding _reality_ far more. That is by far the bigger problem.

Weed can totally be the reason why someone doesn't look after their wife and kids. I've caused the exact same problems in my own life! Just because _most_ people can smoke weed fine, doesn't mean some people don't completely screw up their lives with it.

Weed is like the beer of the drugs world. An alcoholic will still ruin lives even if they can only drink beer. It's what I've done!

FYI, hash was one of my main drugs of choice (alongside cocaine and alcohol).

...

So this is probably most important thing for anyone related/involved to/with an addict to understand. And I actually came back to add this to the above when I started rethinking about what you said:

 _SET BOUNDARIES /LIMITS, DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DRAMA AND DO NOT WAIVER._

Protect yourself first. Then be compassionate/helpful (not overflowing with sympathy, that's not compassion) when it is appropriate.

Getting involved in my drama is like crack for me. "Attention from other people, yeeesssssss!!!"

An addict rarely asks for help honestly. When it happens (honestly), there's always something different about how I would be asking. It's at those moments when I was totally desperate that the magic could happen.

It doesn't always work out, unfortunately. But they are the only opportunities where I'd be willing listen to other people and maybe, just maybe, be willing to change.

And those moments are where the compassion pays absolute dividends.

At least that's my experience.

Patience, firm and consistent boundaries, and then compassion as and when applicable.

...

On a personal note, the whole thing sounds super rough. Maybe not hell, but still rough.

It's a horrible disease to live with - as an addict and as someone who cares about an addict.

My thoughts are with yourself, your extended family and the husband.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) activates cannabinol receptors in one's brain whenever they smoke cannabis. These receptors are responsible to stimulating hunger (why you get munchies) but they also stimulate something called long term depression, which is the process by which your brain forgets memories. The effects take years to decades for anything significant enough to precipitate.

Now, I'm not against smoking cannabis just like I'm not against drinking alcohol. I'm for people understanding the risk factors and being fully informed before they make a decision.

<comment><USER21> Source? I would love to be fully informed but I don't think the science is nearly as settled as you are making it out to be

<comment><USER20> I was going off my undergraduate neuroscience course when I asked my professor who has his doctorate in neurophysiology about long term cannabis use. Looking at Wikipedia ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long- term_effects_of_cannabis#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long- term_effects_of_cannabis#Memory_and_intelligence)) you're right that it's fairly inconclusive and there may be some cofounding variables at play which are preventing us from assigning a firm sequela. Active cannabis users will have memory deficits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> My brother smoked heavily during his teens and as a result developed schizophrenia / substance induced psychosis. It was generally terrifying to see him unable to complete thoughts and lose his train of thought. He's fine now but I definitely wouldn't be surprised if you told me those years knocked a couple of points off his IQ.

I'm for decriminalization and legalization but at the core we need funding for long term studies to better understand marijuana's effects. Unfortunately the politicization of marijuana has led it, similar to guns, to be woefully understudied as a topic of public health in the US.

<comment><USER8> > as a result developed schizophrenia

I'm sorry about your brother, but I want to point out this is anecdotal. Can cannibals lead to psychosis in people who are prone to it genetically, or are people who start experiencing delusions, bipolar and schizo-effective conditions just likely to escape using alcohol and marijuana? The exact cause/effect conditions here are a big unknown.

<comment><USER23> Not the OP, but this is not anecdotal. Weed can develop schizophrenia in 4-5% of the population that carries a specific gene. Ref: [https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research- reports/mari...](https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research- reports/marijuana/there-link-between-marijuana-use-psychiatric-disorders)

<comment><USER24> Do you really think a publication from a place with a URL 'drugabuse.gov' is going to be a reliable source of unbiased information?

<comment><USER25> Which of their cited sources are wrong?

[https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research- reports/mari...](https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research- reports/marijuana/references)

Specifically, these peer reviewed science articles:

* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22831980](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22831980)

* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26886046](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26886046)

* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15866551](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15866551)

<comment><USER24> Citing a source doesn't make your message unbiased.

There is a saying "even the devil can quote scripture."

<comment><USER25> And then even the devil gets pointed out how they used the scripture wrong. The point being that the data itself is addressed, rather than just ad hom'ing the devil.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> For me, teenage recreational cannabis use helped to cure another severe disease I was struggling with. Unfortunately, since I've gotten older I've had to slow down a bit. Since then, there's been a gradual progression to the point where my Dorkinson's has almost fully returned.

<comment><USER27> Unfortunately Dorkinson's comes for us all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> In general it seems like a great idea not to use drugs when your brain is developing. I wish this signal was louder in the zeitgeist. Drugs are just as much fun at age 25.

</comment><comment><USER29> I have a very close friends who has been smoking cannabis daily since he was 15 years old. We are both in our 40s now. I have the feeling he is quite fast thinking and that he has better memory than me. That being said, he isn't a happy person, his whole life revolves around cannabis and it seems he missed so many things in his life because of that. It's pretty sad actually. He's aware of it, but it's such a central part of his life that he just can't stop.

It's always difficult to say if the substance ruined his life, or if he uses it because he has other problems. Probably both.

I'm all for legalization, as long as people are well informed of the negative effects of chronic use.

<comment><USER30> It's a subculture. Being a pothead is culturally very similar to being a gun nut. If you take a restricted or poorly understood item that provides enjoyment but is a bit taboo, and give people space to modify/grow/experiment/etc with it, it's spawns a subculture and people associate their identity with it.

It happens with hackers too, and porn, and weird nicotine vape culture, and I'm sure many other things.

<comment><USER31> People identify with their hobbies and their consumption habits (music, movie tastes), or the things they own (car, house, electronics).

I'm not seeing how the pot culture is especially destructive compared to say, binge watching Netflix.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> > Edible marijuana takes time to absorb and to produce its effects, increasing > the risk of unintentional overdose

No citation for this. Do they mean a larger than intended dose or a dose that results in a serious toxic reaction or death?

Better source:

Median lethal THC dose for a 70kg human estimated to be 4g [0], which is slightly over 1300 full joints (at 3mg per joint) [0]. I won't link them here, but a cursory web search showed me stores claiming to sell edibles with up to 1000mg of THC.

Also a good read [1] [2]

0\. [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/0095299930900161...](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/00952999309001618)

1\. [https://www.nature.com/articles/srep08126](https://www.nature.com/articles/srep08126)

3\. [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/cannabis-overdose- tox...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/cannabis-overdose-toxicity- marijuana-1.4816654)

<comment><USER8> Is there a listed Median Lethal Dose (LD50) for THC or CBD?

It is possible to overdose on nicotine if it's ingested (50mg ~60mg for a 150lbs adult, according to the CDC's website), but I'm not sure if there is such an amount defined for THC ingestion.

<comment><USER33> It's a comically large amount of THC to reach the LD50. 192mg/kg.

<comment><USER34> 192mg/kg is on the higher end of estimates, which do range widely because they are based on animal studies. However, it's not comically large. Do the math, and it comes to just over 14 grams for a 75 kg (165 lb) adult. That's more than most people would ever consume in a day, but it's far less than the 600 gram lethal dose of alcohol for that same person. Alcohol kills far more people because it takes 100 - 250 grams of alcohol for a 75 kg adult to get drunk, so the lethal dose of alcohol is only about 5X the intoxicating dose vs. 100X the intoxicating dose for THC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> One of the implications of this report is absurd. Why does the Surgeon General feel the need to clarify that one particular aspect of cannabis is deleterious, when their stance is that the substance is Schedule 1?

<comment><USER36> Ultimately because of the CSA the attorney general is responsible for all decisions on scheduling substances. By the letter of the law, they're supposed to consult with HHS and by extension the surgeon general, but in reality, it's a rubberstamped process largely controlled by the DEA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Talking about Marijuana as this singular substance is demeaning the details. Different types, strains, turpen profiles, cbd levels, cbn levels all change the effects.

Does a higher cbd amount change the data? What about changing the levels of thc. Does hindu kush provide less anxiety vs purple haze over time?

It feels like it's way to early to draw grand conclusions.

</comment><comment><USER38> Ive smoked for about 15 years now. Started heavy through highschool and college and after college usually just a rip before bedtime. I cant say I've experienced anything negative. No issues focusing or memory problems, or dealing with stress/anxiety. I've quit for months at a time cold turkey with no issues. I'll probably never fully quit but I am doing it less just cause I worry about the effects on my lungs more than anything.

<comment><USER39> Anecdote like this is bad for two reasons:

1) How do you know you wouldn't have done _better_ had you not smoked starting in high school? You can't go back in time and A/B test yourself

2) Your personal physiology may be fine with marijuana use, but that's not a guarantee that the same applies to everyone else. I'm sure plenty of HN readers (myself included) knew people in high school who _did_ suffer from marijuana-related focus, effort, and studying problems

<comment><USER40> > 1) How do you know you wouldn't have done better had you not smoked starting > in high school? You can't go back in time and A/B test yourself

It's just high school :) if GP passed and moved on, who cares? High school success becomes more and more of a boolean outcome as you get further away from it imo. And tbh even boolean is generous.

"I wish in the past I had tried more things 'cause now I know that being in trouble is a fake idea."

<comment><USER41> > It's just high school :)

What? The parent comment is asking: how do they know they wouldn't have done better _for the past fifteen_ years if they hadn't started in high school.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This sounds weird. It is linked with suicides and decreased life satisfaction... I wonder how all the other drugs fare, even alcohol and smoking. How did they factor in the bias that is obviously at play here?

If I am super happy with my life, I will likely not take an excessive amount of drugs. I would say I am reasonably happy with my life and I like taking drugs every now and then just for fun and because it feels nice.

The story goes totally different for people with shit lives (which is the majority of the population unfortunately). If I am already in some sort of depression, drugs will aggravate these problems. They will show how nice you can actually feel, just to go back into your sucking life afterwards. Who wouldn't want to take drugs all day in this scenario?

But that doesn't mean that drugs themselves cause these problems. Same as meat itself is not unhealthy. The link by statistics is very much against "Correlation does not imply Causation".

</comment><comment><USER43> These results are, for better or for worse, almost right in line with the stereotypes.

I smoked occasionally when I was younger, but many of those friends of mine I'd classify as stoners are noticeably unmotivated and have short attention spans.

</comment><comment><USER44> As a teenager- I decided I would wait till I was 22 before I tried Marijuana. All of my friends were heavy users- and while that made me feel like a bit of an outsider, I had come to the conclusion that it was better to wait and see how using turned out for them before I joined in.

That decision was profoundly informative. My high school friends personal and professional trajectories have been severely hobbled. I don't believe that weed is the sole factor, but it certainly didn't help them become more ambitious or contribute to their fortitude.

<comment><USER16> Indeed, I succumbed to the habit as a teenager, when I was indoctrinated by full time users who were also my peers who abused my physically in pre teen years. Upon starting marijuana usage with these peers, they saw that I reacted to the substance and proceeded to abuse me psychologically. This planted the seeds necessary to catalyze a lifetime of delusion and exploration of waste and dipping my toes into counter culture. Now almost entirely alone and disconnected from any meaningful social roots, and suicidal much of the way, I've long since disconnected from such malicious people.

The group of friends from high school who didn't use marijuana ostracized me by 18 and I stopped being alive since then. Now I'm in my 40's and have been preparing for suicide with increasing inevitability since starting weed. I "gave up" on a fulfilled life as a teenager and have coasted my way to an inevitable suicide as a "stoner".

<comment><USER45> You'd feel a kinship with the author of Psalm 13.

For every time I've been caught in the place described in the first four verses, Christ has gifted me to see the other side in the last ones.

There's only one way to be sure you'll never have a chance to rejoice like that, and I pray both that you'll seek help before it comes to that, and that you'll be granted the same joy it describes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I'm glad this came out. It's easy to forget that weed causes harm. Just from my own experience, when I'm on it I can't think straight, can't track a sentence from beginning to end. I can't imagine where I'd be if those effects had applied long term as my brain was developing. Actually I can imagine. I'd be incapable of doing the high-paid, satisfying work I do now. I'd be stuck doing toilsome work with nowhere to go and a feeling that there's more but I can't quite grasp it.

<comment><USER47> I sometimes I have a feeling this is the case, as a regular user. But to clarify, I'm struggling with understanding differential geometry, and work as an se. Not trying to humblebrag but just trying to establish context. Should I be worried? I ask because I experience some of the same symptoms you do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> > Marijuana is also commonly used by adolescents, second only to alcohol

I wonder if nicotine has exceeded this since the cited study (due to e-cigarettes)

<comment><USER49> Nicotine has never been considered an intoxicant, thus not relatable here.

This advisory isn't about telling people drugs are bad, it's about our society still frowning upon recreational intoxication and trying to scare people out of even seeing if cannabis or other substances can be beneficial to them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'm curious, has there been any related deaths to cannabis usage? Why is this plant illegal when Alcohol has killed millions?

<comment><USER51> Alcohol is legal because it's impossible to ban it seeing as you can make it from anything that has sugar in it, which is basically all foods.

If cannibis were used as much as alcohol in driving settings, I'm certain there would be thousands of annual DUI deaths.

<comment><USER52> I'd be willing to bet there's overall more miles of people driving stoned then drunk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I decided to share a bit. Some of you already shared about differents effects of THC in different people. This is an example. We need this drug intensively tested, without any political or cultural bias.

Well, I'm the mother of a 5+ years old kid, and we are using THC oil with him, under medical control. My kid had been early diagnosed with a case of extreme anxiety at the age of 2-3 years old (you can't precisely diagnose this), imagine it as a case of autism without several syntoms; he was already well into the second year being medicated with risperidone + carbamazepine which allowed him to have a more or less standard life.

But, starting at 4 years old the stress related to extra requirements in school began to be highly crippling for him again. Then we asked our neurologist about THC.

We were advised by him, and then contacted a parent of an autistic adult who regularly use THC to be able to function (preventing extremely violent reactions).

So we tried it, precisely dosifying the oil, without leaving the other drugs. THC works in my kid allowing him to remain calm under extreme stress.

It is really a process but the main - under the table, because is illegal here to use THC, not talking about giving it to kids - medical advise is to use THC like ibuprofen. If you see the kid is having a bad time trying to control himself, you give him a dose of oil. If the kid is going to have a stressful day in school, you give him a stronger dose.

I have personally never consumed drugs previous to THC. That was because when I buyed the oil, I tried it to know exactly what effects would be going through my kid. With new batches of oil we use to test it in minimal doses (this is a requirement from the neurologist: we buy oil specifically made for medical purposes - more expensive - but the process is handmade, and different batches could be slightly more soft or stronger in its effects).

If you have a medical issue with a kid, and you're out of solutions, then you usually get to this point. That was my case, and the cases of several parents with I have contacted since we started this path.

THC as you could probably read in many sites in the internet could have a lot more effects in people than causing anxiety and delusional states of mind.

What the article says could be just true, but as with many legal drugs, for example diazepam, the effects are REALLY different if "standard" person consumes it, than when a person with extreme anxiety uses it.

</comment><comment><USER54> I'm surprised nobody caught that the Surgeon General's advisory text mentions "physical dependence", a term that is not used once in the referenced source. I'm no doctor, but physical and psychological difference seem quite different.

<comment><USER55> When you quit smoking weed users will frequently experience insomnia, depression, anxiety, etc

It's not a death sentence, but it's definitely incentive for people to keep smoking to avoid those effects

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> People complain about the bad sides of it. - memory dysfunction is the root of all effects.

If you loose memory why do you care. Did you worry about memory when you were kid?

Practice learning by self experience not by reading other researchers work. It works only for them.so discard it.

It's a holy herb and cleans your mind.

If you had memory issues it probably removed things that you don't like.

Now start looking what else you are. You can't. Because you wasted your time with social influences.

Instead practice meditation.

Worship your mind. Keep it disciplined.

One man's took another man's weapons.

If you are a fool, you will remain a fool.

Stay cool, and think what you can do.

It changes perspection. If you don't embrace it, you will see it's a loose shoe lace.

Be original, learn to be good and right. Expand your knowledge from there.

Memory is killed because it kills unhealthy influence you had and you forced yourself to be that.

Be grateful that it gave you memory issue.

Rebuild yourself from cleaned mind.

Being Grateful comes from meditation.

Once weed kills bad memories, being grateful helps you grow knowledge from the pure memory.

</comment><comment><USER57> When I was 16 I started smoking weed almost everyday until I was 20, I took a break until I was 22, and now I live in a legal state and I enjoy a joint or two on the weekends. I haven't had any problems whatsoever. I work as a software engineer and I got all As throughout school.

I realize this might not be the case for everyone, but that has been my experience.

<comment><USER58> So sounds like its Russian Roulette, some adolescents may not suffer many ill effects, and for others it will be really bad.

So probably better not to take that chance.

<comment><USER59> well i mean you can frame any question of probability as russian roulette if you were determined to. the difference is, you go into russian roulette where absolutely dying is a guaranteed possible outcome, whereas what you were responding to exists more on a spectrum of possibilities, all subject to different risk factors external to this metaphorical game of russian roulette. im js that in terms of the game parameters, i think it's difficult to map something with so few to something with so many effectively.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> These are all reasonable things. Legalizing it will drastically mitigate the ability for minors to get a hold of any just as was done with the much more dangerous and deadly drug, alcohol.

<comment><USER51> > Legalizing it will drastically mitigate the ability for minors to get a hold > of any

I can't tell if you are joking or not (sorry). But I simply don't believe this. Why would legalizing it make it _harder_ for minors to get ahold of it?

<comment><USER61> When one is underage, it is easier to get illegal drugs than legal ones. The legality makes different sorts of barriers and different sorts of penalties for selling to a minor. I'm not sure it mattered if you were (are) selling pot to a 18 year old rather than a 30 year old - you were still selling pot. You would get in trouble for giving an 18 year old alcohol, though, but not the 30 year old. And a bunch of things like this.

<comment><USER51> On the other hand if you were a minor that wanted to use illegal drugs, you had to have the right friends/contacts to know _where_ make illegal purchases.

Legality makes it so that now _everyone_ knows where to buy it (at any store) and now minors just experiment a few times until they find a lax vendor just like they do with Juuls. After all, minors are not penalized for merely _attempting_ to buy something.

And, like I put in my other comment, it doesn't really matter if the barrier for minors buying drugs is higher if the act of legalization increases the number of minors attempting to buy the drug by an astronomical factor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Smoking weed for me, at least in my early years (16-18, I'm 29 now) yielded a ton of anxiety. At the time I didn't know, but I would get full-blown anxiety attacks when I'd smoke weed.

I've since heard that it depends on the strain, sativa vs indica. Indica == 'in da couch'; anxiety attacks. Sativa is supposed to be a more mellow high.

While I don't smoke often now, I do on occasion. I've found that I tend to get anxiety in the beginning, but I've learned to sort of brush it off/ignore it and enjoy my trip.

Food for thought.

</comment><comment><USER63> Been around for thousands of years for 1. No one has died from an OD of it. Also, Patent No. 6,630,507

</comment><comment><USER64> another risk factor for cannabis users is contamination by pesticides. many of the illegal grow sites in California national forests have been contaminated by Carbofuran, a banned pesticide. this chemical is applied to the plants. these operations still supply a large fraction of consumer marijuana demand. if you're gonna toke, know your weed supply chain.</comment>


The App Stores are not "long tail" - <AUTHOR> http://www.rudebaguette.com/2014/02/25/app-stores-long-tail/ <comment><USER2> I'm not sure that the author of the article understands how ecommerce or search engine marketing work because it is almost exactly the same problem. The top 5 listings matter the most, the next 5 are much, much smaller, and everything past that almost completely doesn't matter. That is life on Google.

Pretty much the same reality exists on app stores. The biggest difference is the relative cost to rank on another keyword or the long term marketing halo effect that you get in traditional search engines like Google. It costs a lot more to build an app and rank on a dozen or so keywords.

There absolutely is a long tail, it's just a different distribution curve.

<comment><USER3> No, the problem is I can't get _AT_ the long tail.

Here's an example: what are the top 500 games on the Apple App Store? What are the top 500-1000 games? What about 1000-1500? What about 10,000-10,500?

I can't find those. So, not only is there no long tail, there is _NO TAIL AT ALL_.

Sure, if I specifically know the app I want, I can go get it, but I have no effective search outside that.

<comment><USER2> You have the search built in to the app store. A lot of people use that. It's how a lot of apps get found. Otherwise, there would be only 100 apps downloaded ever.

Also, Google doesn't show you the top 500 websites on Google per se. They show you the top for a particular keyword in whatever order they want. People navigate by both top lists and search.

It's not like app stores are missing a search engine.

<comment><USER3> But you have to know the keyword. Which means that you had to find out about it from somewhere other than the app store.

For example, once Flappy Bird hit GooTube, yeah, everybody in the universe was searching for "flappy".

 _Prior_ to that, how do you find Flappy Bird? You don't. That's why a lot of people were speculating that the Flappy Bird author used several different methods to spam the review system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's another problem with the app stores ... they're crowded with applications that should have stayed web-sites. I think the problem in the app stores are more related to the prominence of the front-runners. Nobody goes looking for an app that's the 100th in a category. So the work of marketing is still up to you.

If there's truly no long tail, perhaps people will stop creating software to feed these stores (economics says they won't continue to perform tasks that have no benefits) but will that solve the problem or create worse ones?</comment>


Show HN: Sketchfab is 3 years old - <AUTHOR> https://sketchfab.com/3yearsold

<comment><USER2> Anyone know what they used to make the timeline?</comment>


Pointer Free Programming and the Future of Nim - <AUTHOR> https://nim-lang.org/araq/destructors.html <comment><USER2> Hello guys. I'm one of the core Nim developers, together with Araq (the creator of Nim) who should also be hanging around this thread. Feel free to ask us anything.

This submission is likely the result of the recent livestreams that myself and Araq have been making. You can check out my past livestreams[1] and Araq's[2] at the links below. If you're into watching us live the next time we create a livestream then follow d0m96 ([https://go.twitch.tv/d0m96](https://go.twitch.tv/d0m96)) and araq4k ([https://go.twitch.tv/araq4k](https://go.twitch.tv/araq4k)) on Twitch.

1 - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ4RvUlXIDI&index=3&list=PLm...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ4RvUlXIDI&index=3&list=PLm- fq5xBdPkrMuVkPWuho7XzszB6kJ2My)

2 - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2qlDKm_WzE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2qlDKm_WzE), [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV38gQfcb9c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV38gQfcb9c)

<comment><USER3> You guys are doing amazing work! Found Nim through a mention on HN recently and having a ton of fun learning and playing with it!

<comment><USER4> Same here. Nim has this elegance that is hard to qualify and impossibe to quantify, but it makes it a real pleasure to write code in it. Can't wait to get deeper into it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not a huge fan of the modern C++ style that obsessively avoids null pointers and instead uses object references that are created in an invalid/empty state. With a pointer there is a single way to represent "nothing", regardless of what the object represents. With a reference I have to go read the API to understand the "nothingness" states.

Also, when you're thinking in pointers, it's easy to add levels of indirection with the same mental tools (pointers to pointers, etc.) Personally I find it's easier to solve problems with a limited orthogonal toolset than a sprawling array of marginally differently balanced optimizations, which is what most of C++ has become.

<comment><USER6> I don't get the buzz about null pointers. They are not a problem. They become a problem when you start checking for null where null is not acceptable (most of the places null can't be a meaningful input), which is where is where the original intent starts to become unclear.

Let it go. Let it crash. Just assume inputs are non-null (except where null makes sense). Even C crashes safely on null pointer dereference.

<comment><USER7> The problem is that the type system doesn't encode whether a point _can_ be null or not, so unless your documentation is amazing (I doubt it) you'll eventually end up getting passed a pointer from someone else, or giving a pointer to someone else who has a different assumption about whether null is allowed. Boom segfault.

There are several solutions in C++.

1\. Always check for null. Kind of annoying and lots of people don't for whatever reason.

2\. Use references. As you say, annoying because then you _can 't_ have null (sensibly) even when it would be really useful.

3\. Use std::optional<int&> or something like that. I only just thought of this and don't know if it would work, but I bet it's a pain.

So no great solution. Personally I would use a smart pointer type, document it as well as I can, and always check for null.

<comment><USER6> > so unless your documentation is amazing

As I pointed out I usually don't have null pointers at all. There might be a few places where a value can very obviously be null, but they are far and far between. No need for documentation.

> Boom segfault.

Which is exactly the right thing to happen (it's the C version of Exceptions in dynamic languages) since the code was incorrect.

> Always check for null. Kind of annoying and lots of people don't for > whatever reason.

And now what do you do if you detected null but it was not allowed? Throw an exception? You can have that for free by just not checking.

> Use references. As you say, annoying because then you can't have null > (sensibly) even when it would be really useful.

C++ references don't really protect you from NULL. It's just a different syntax for the same thing.

> Use std::optional<int&> or something like that. I only just thought of this > and don't know if it would work, but I bet it's a pain.

Yes, pain, big pain. So much line noise and typing (in both senses) around what is essentially an int.

Just don't check. I don't get why there's so many places for null pointers. (As I said elsewhere, I don't have a solution for JSON style microscopic programming, and I don't care about that.).

<comment><USER8> How do C++ references not protect you from NULL ?

From the standard:

> A reference shall be initialized to refer to a valid object or function. > [Note: in particular, a null reference cannot exist in a well-defined > program, because the only way to create such a reference would be to bind it > to the "object" obtained by dereferencing a null pointer, which causes > undefined behavior. As described in 9.6, a reference cannot be bound > directly to a bit-field. ]

<comment><USER6> Better try instead of reading standards (and inevitably misreading, or reading differently than compiler authors)...

        #include <stdio.h>
        void test(int& x)
        {
            printf("Hello, world\n"); fflush(stdout);
            printf("and the number is: %d\n", x);
        }
        int main(void)
        {
            int *x = NULL;
            test(*x);
            return 0;
        }

It's just a syntactic discipline. Null references are undefined in C++, just as NULL dereferences are undefined in C.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Completely off-topic, bit I feel compelled to mention this: The timestamping of this article is exemplary.

Even if it only showed a date, and no time, the time zone is relevant. The Internet is supposed to be for the whole world, not just one time zone.

</comment><comment><USER10> Does this mean that Nim 1.0 will be postponed even further?

That's OK, it's better to get it right, and it's still useful for small projects in the meantime. But Nim seems like a language that is never truly finished.

I like this direction. I tried to avoid "ref" in my last Nim project, but it's too hard to do that for every type the way the language is currently designed.

<comment><USER11> It won't be postponed AFAIK

<comment><USER2> Indeed, Araq's plan is to release v1 ASAP (he said by the end of this year on IRC) and implement the ideas described in this article afterwards for a Nim v2.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm a C++ dev and this sounds extremely interesting. I have nim a spin a year ago and really liked what I saw, but GC was a real issue because I'm doing audio development where you end up having to circumvent the GC anyway. I would love to allow my users to create MIDI plugins with nim and this is a key step towards that.

<comment><USER13> I'd like to add that "circumventing the GC" is supported by default. There are 3 object types in Nim

\- `type Foo = object` --> Value type, on the stack

\- `type Foo = ref object` --> Reference type, managed by GC

\- `type Foo = ptr object` --> Pointer type, manual memory management (with Nim's equivalent for malloc, free and memcopy)

Also Nim does not have 1 GC but several:

\- Default Deferred Reference Counting - Not stop the world

\- Boehm GC

\- Mark and Sweep

\- Memory Regions

\- Real-time GC (with tunable max-pause)

\- GC disabled

GC can also be deactivated per thread (setupForeignThreadGc) or for a section of the code (GC_ref, GC_unref) even on Ref types to improve interoperability with other languages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The syntax and title reminds me of standard Pascal, which has very constrained pointers that, among other things, you can't do arithmetic with --- eventually leading to code that basically reinvents memory itself by using a large array and lots of indexing operations.

(Look at Donald Knuth's TeX for an example of this style.)

<comment><USER13> Nim was written in Pascal at the very beginning.

But you can't do pointer arithmetics in Nim.

Either

\- `type Foo = object` -> Value type, on the stack

\- `type Foo = ref object` -> Ref type, managed by GC

\- `type Foo = ptr object` -> Pointer type, manual memory management (malloc, free, memcopy ...)

<comment><USER2> > But you can't do pointer arithmetics in Nim.

Actually you can, by using casts.

<comment><USER13> Oops, I obviously meant "you can" but I probably typed too fast :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> First let me say that I'm not familiar with Nim. But I understand that it compiles/transpiles to C/C++. And it sounds like they're now trying to move away from dependency on the GC. In that case, might I suggest they consider switching the transpile target to SaferCPlusPlus[1]. It might make things easier as it already addresses the "efficient memory-safety via scope lifetimes without a borrow-checker" issue. And also the (data race) safe sharing of objects between threads. (Note that the documentation is currently rather out-of-date, and a major update is coming.)

[1] shameles plug: [https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus](https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus)

<comment><USER13> Nim compiles to C/C++/Objective-C and Javascript and all memory safety is handled on the Nim side.

The C/C++ code generated by the Nim compiler is then free to use unsafe constructs including the dreaded goto.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The other year I tried to implement a GC on top of an existing scripting language to handle circular dependency cases. A big problem however was the existing system for referencing objects wasn't particularly well designed for this particular case (e.g. no roots, no thread safety), and I couldn't come up with a solution I found satisfactory and fool-proof.

The fact the author had so many problems with GC bugs is somewhat reassuring. Would be interesting to see a GC-less Nim in a production use-case.

</comment><comment><USER17> That sink concept sounds _really_ cool. I would really want that semantic in my C and C++ code.

<comment><USER18> Pretty sure that's the semantics of an `auto_ptr`: [http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/memory/auto_ptr/](http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/memory/auto_ptr/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Suggestion: Add a date, the author, and possibly some version number that indicate what iteration of Nim this refers to.</comment>


Robotic Mall Cop Unveiled in Japan - <AUTHOR> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,482084,00.html <comment><USER2> The worst part of this is that it'll probably throw the net on you in front of your friends.

A 2 ft tall robot at 6mph catches you with a cheezy net, and you're down for the count. With witnesses, that's punishment nobody wants.

</comment><comment><USER3> I saw this and the first thing I was hoping for was either a Robocop ripoff or, what would have been much cooler would be an ED-209.

Seriously, Even though I'm a law abiding citizen, if I saw an 18 foot tall, machine gun toting, rocket launcher wielding law enforcement death-bot... I'd think twice before doing anything against the law.

</comment><comment><USER4> If they could figure out a way to call it SkyNet, they would probably get a lot of attention.

</comment><comment><USER5> "We have basically designed the robot for corporate use" I could just see it now. You arrive at work on layoff day and there's one of these standing next to your cube.

</comment><comment><USER6> More Japanese robo-future gimickry. A top speed of 6MPH? Maybe it can put an end to those early morning geriatric mall walkers causing mayhem :)

</comment><comment><USER7> Is it autonomous? If not, is it really a robot or just a remote-controlled car with Spiderman aspirations?

<comment><USER8> Following the article to the youtube video and then following the link there leads you to this site: [http://robot.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/news/2009/01/23/1567.ht...](http://robot.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/news/2009/01/23/1567.html)

Translation: [http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&...](http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Frobot.watch.impress.co.jp%2Fcda%2Fnews%2F2009%2F01%2F23%2F1567.html&sl=ja&tl=en)

The opening paragraph includes the following, "announced it had jointly developed a remote-controlled robot that can be secured in the new phone"

Seems to be entirely remote controlled.</comment></comment>


Non-Developer's iPhone App: From Idea to App Store - <AUTHOR> http://www.iamdann.com/2012/01/27/non-developers-iphone-app-from-idea-to-app-store

<comment><USER2> It's great to see people picking up development, but in all honesty, it does make me a little sad to see people heading directly to Objective-C. Obviously I understand the reasons why (an iPhone app is definitely top on the "awesome" factor right now) but it seems so limiting.

I wish something like Appcelerator was a little better than it is, allowing people to make native apps across platforms using JavaScript. It's a fantastic idea, but I'm not a huge fan of the Appcelerator implementation.

<comment><USER3> I think abstract tools like App Titanium are definitely the future too.

I've been coding for about 4 years and struggle to grasp Obj-C.

What do you have against App Titanium as a matter of interest?

<comment><USER2> In earlier versions it was just a lack of polish- I looked maybe a year ago, and their include function required you to use different paths depending on whether you were on iOS or Android, tableviews had memory leaks- that sort of thing.

It seems like they have a lot of that sorted now, but after buying Aptana are now mandating Eclipse as the only environment for developing and debugging apps, which I find disappointing. And Eclipse isn't exactly newbie-friendly, either.

<comment><USER4> No they don't, you can still use your favorite text editor and use the command line to build, or use Titanium Developer which still works.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Amazing how a person with no experience in creating apps can design an app and launch page that looks better than about 50% of the apps out there. Well done!

You should put the price of your app on your app's site by the way - I like to know the price before going off to the apple store.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! And I'll take your advice about displaying the price on the landing page once I get home this evening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Very cool and inspiring story. I am currently neck deep in Python as my first programming language. It's tough, but I am enjoying the learning process. Good luck with your app!

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I've been meaning to learn Python for a while now, and the sudden surge of posts here about Python have only re-enforced my desire to learn Python. That's next on the list (with the plans to learn enough to be "dangerous").</comment></comment>


Distrusting New WoSign and StartCom Certificates - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2016/10/24/distrusting-new-wosign-and-startcom-certificates/ <comment><USER2> "Although Mozilla's sanctions are too severe..."

These guys must be joking. Trust has been lost, the roots should be permanently revoked.

If anything, I think Mozilla's actions are not severe enough. How likely is it that Mozilla doesn't know the full story? There may be additional violations that have been missed.

<comment><USER3> Mozilla has revoked the CA certificate moving forward. Already-issued certificates are unaffected, to allow current customers time to migrate to a more reputable CA. If they were to immediately revoke the current roots, then thousands of sites would suddenly report certificate errors--which would train users to click through them, helping nobody.

The axe Mozilla is holding over WoSign is the threat of immediate full revocation if WoSign is caught doing backdating again. Given that WoSign has been coerced into cooperating with publishing all CSRs via Certificate Transparency, and that there is likely to be a much larger group of people watching carefully for violations, I don't expect it to take very long for future backdated certificates to be caught if WoSign does try it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am kind of thankful for this. It gave us immediate time budget to switch our certificate process over to Letsencrypt.

I'm also glad it does not affect existing certs, since we need some weeks to ramp up the LE certs because of the 20 new certs per week limit (we can continue to only bundle subdomains per cert that are actually used on the same host/loadbalancer).

<comment><USER5> Do you have multiple hosts serving the same domain by any chance?

I'm wondering if there's been any progress in finding an easy solution for this use-case.

<comment><USER6> Many if not all of the acme clients out there store the key and certificate as a file. Just copy that to the various machines terminating the SSL connection.

In our case, there's a script on the frontend machine running HAProxy that's fetching the certificates and putting them on a shared file system so the backup machine also has access to them.

The traffic between frontend host and application servers is unencrypted in our case as it's all one rack under our control. If it wasn't, we'd be using a self-signed certificate for that connection.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't like this at all. The only value left in WoSign root certificates is in issuing backdated certificates that wouldn't be widely distributed. So basically the only way to extract any money out of their current root keys is to sell rogue certificates for targeted attacks.

<comment><USER8> Mozilla has explicitly stated that if they find any evidence of this happening, both WoSign and StartCom will be completely revoked - both for old and new certificates.

> If additional back-dating is discovered (by any means) to circumvent this > control, then Mozilla will immediately and permanently revoke trust in the > affected roots.

<comment><USER9> > if they find any evidence of this happening

There's already evidence of this happening. It happened. Why does it have to happen again. Just revoke em.

<comment><USER10> The point of doing it this way is that it puts the CA out of business but doesn't break the Web, which makes it the only really practical way for browsers to exert leverage over too big to fail CA's.

<comment><USER11> more accurately, this way all the existing issued certificates are not invalidated. the idea is not to punish the customers of wosign, startcom who already paid for a certificate and have it in use.

if they removed it entirely, those would all break which would be inconvenient to the otherwise innocent customers.

<comment><USER9> Yes, of course what you are saying is true, but I feel that this is underestimating the risk of keeping them in the system.

Wosign/startcom are known bad actors and put the entire ecosystem at risk because _browsers trust all CA 's equally_.

Certificates are ultimately fungible with redundant CA's globally. One certificate is essentially as good as another, from the browser perspective (and nearly all site visitors).

This interchangeability:

Reduces the risk for 'otherwise innocent customers' in terms of cost (especially now with letsencrypt) so it's "easy" (or at least possible) for customers to replace their existing certificates when they had put trust in an untrustworthy vendor, and

Increases the risk that Wosign/startcom will sign bad certificates by backdating them (especially because signing certs is, in fact, their business model and now they have no incentive to _not_ sign bad certs by backdating, since their business is basically dead now anyway.)

The risk is too high to NOT revoke all of their certificates, unless the current certs were able to all be enumerated and pinned. Letsencrypt only issues certificates for 3 months in order to provide some semblance of control.

If they wanted to have their cake and eat it too, Mozilla could give a thirty or 60 day warning period saying 'upgrade your certs NOW' or change them to 'untrusted' (grey) for that period of time and then completely remove (red) the way Chrome has done in the past with legitimate but no-longer-secure certs.

<comment><USER10> They have a pretty strong incentive to not backdate certs after all the attention this has gotten.

Distrusting future certs punishes the company, distrusting all of them punishes all past customers and their users, and encourages people to just switch browsers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > _No longer accept audits carried out by Ernst & Young Hong Kong_

This is...a big deal? If Mozilla believes E&Y HK was negligent or complicit in WoSign's lies, then that newfound scepticism should extend to the office's financial audits.

<comment><USER13> Seems weird to tie it just to the Hong Kong office though. These guys are trading on the Ernst & Young name to get the positive reputation associated with it, why should the negative publicity not flow the other way?

They still have the name, so one can only surmise that Ernst & Young stands behind their actions.

<comment><USER14> at a minimum, this seems like something the HK gov should get involved in......

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Interestingly, over at the Google Certificate Transparency group, it looks like both StartCom's and WoSign's CT log servers were recently included into Chrome.

[https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/ct- po...](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/ct-policy/4BNen- sogf8)

<comment><USER16> Luckily CT logs are designed to be mostly trustless.

<comment><USER15> Yet the Izenpe CT log managed to be untrustworthy enough to be de-listed! [https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/ct- po...](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/ct- policy/g0WWgUodpOk)

<comment><USER16> Indeed. For those curious, CT is designed to "discover" SCTs that were not publicly shown by the log, so that the log can operate without a lot of trust, though this did not happen here (someone just found them operating two logs...)

I guess I'm not the best person to criticize other logs, though. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> WoSign's response[1] might also be of interest in this context.

They seem to take, at least partially, ownership of the issues. Am I also correct in that this only affects intermediate certificates? I see they say that they will have a workaround in place in about a months time.

[1]: [https://www.wosign.com/English/News/announcement_about_Mozil...](https://www.wosign.com/English/News/announcement_about_Mozilla_Action_20161024.htm)

<comment><USER18> > _Am I also correct in that this only affects intermediate certificates?_

No. As the article states, it will affect any certificates that chain up to the specified root certificates (including and intermediate and end-entity certificates).

> _I see they say that they will have a workaround in place ..._

From previous statements, I believe WoSign's plan is to resell another CA's certificates during the period that they don't have a root of their own in the trust store.

<comment><USER6> _> From previous statements, I believe WoSign's plan is to resell another CA's certificates during the period that they don't have a root of their own in the trust store._

or find/buy another currently trusted CA that cross-signs their new root. I'm sure they can find somebody.

edit: yes. that's what they are going to do according to [https://www.wosign.com/English/News/announcement_about_Mozil...](https://www.wosign.com/English/News/announcement_about_Mozilla_Action_20161024.htm):

 _> There will be new SSL certificates issued by a new WoSign intermediate CA which is signed by the one of global trusted root CA, it supports all the browsers (including Firefox). This will be done within one months._

I wonder who's going to be stupid/reckless enough to sign that intermediate.

<comment><USER19> It remains to be seen whether they will actually hold the private key for that intermediate certificate and issue end-entity certificates from it, or if this is just some sort of reselling deal where a different, trusted CA holds the key, performs domain validation, etc (which is a fairly common practice).

I have my doubts about whether Mozilla will accept them continuing to operate an actual CA with a new cross-signed certificate prior to them completing the inclusion process. CAs need to disclose these intermediate certificates, and I expect it would end up being revoked, with possible sanctions for whoever cross-signs them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It'd be nice if we could distrust the whole CA system and start from scratch. (of course, to everyone who is saying to themselves that this is absurd and unrealistic.. yes, of course you're right.. for the moment.)

It seems pretty clear that the future lies in the blockchain.

<comment><USER20> How does the blockchain solve the problems with CAs?

<comment><USER19> Haven't you heard, you can solve any problem by throwing a blockchain at it! ;-)

On a more serious note, Certificate Transparency, which will become mandatory in Chrome in about a year, uses technology that is strongly related to blockchains, so we're really not too far from a blockchain-like solution for the Web PKI.

<comment><USER21> I agree that CT uses a technology related to blockchains, but as I noted above, Ben Laurie has been pretty vocal in saying that the Bitcoin-style PoW blockchain isn't a technology that he favors, and I think he thinks CT is importantly different in some respects (for example in accepting more centralization in the operation of logs: an uninvolved anonymous party can't show up and "mine" a CT log event).

[http://www.links.org/files/decentralised- currencies.pdf](http://www.links.org/files/decentralised-currencies.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but doesn't this mean that the actual, found-in- the-wild backdated certs will still be trusted?

At any rate, this gets to the crux of PKI's problem. This was a backdating of certificates because of a change in policy about the cryptographic strength of hashes. But the weak point in PKI _isn 't_ the cryptography, it's the agents.

<comment><USER3> The backdated certificates that have already been found are explicitly being added to OneCRL, which is to say that they are explicitly distrusted independent of what the CRL/OSCP responder of WoSign and StartCom say.

<comment><USER22> So some portion of Firefox users will be protected from them. Better than nothing I guess.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Can someone explain what the business reason for backdating certs is? I understand it was to get around the notAfter but I don't understand who gains from this? Is it just old code they are too cheap/lazy to update?

<comment><USER11> To create SHA-1 certificates for compatibility with older software. SHA-1 certificates may not be issued after December 31, 2015 and in any case browsers will not trust them. They created new certificates in 2016, with a "Start Date" in 2015 so that they satisfied this rule. This is forbidden for two reasons, first you cannot "back date" certificates and second you are no longer allowed to issue SHA-1 certificates, so they back dated to work around this.</comment></comment>


Reproducing Japanese Anime Styles with CartoonGAN AI - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/syncedreview/reproducing-japanese-anime-styles-with-cartoongan-ai-cf30d583736e <comment><USER3> Gah, I hate posting such low-info, high-noise comments but... I can't wait for the day where I can finally claim to walk around "an anime world" with a AR/VR headset. They told me anime isn't real - and someone out there is doing their best to make it real.

This work is really awesome, it only saddens me that CartoonGAN, or anything like it, will probably be outside of public reach for a while and I don't think I could reimplement it from the research paper - I also had never heard of many of the competing/comparison software which also had some good results for certain images (though CartoonGAN seemed consistently the best out of the example images, but those may have been cherrypicked because they were the best of course)

I'd love to run photos I've taken of Japan through such a filter - <USER2> areas of Japan that, already, were "anime-ized" that I've taken pictures of. Like "the lab" building from Steins;Gate or the turtle stepping stones in Kamo river in Kyoto.

This is really cool - thanks for sharing it!</comment>


Single Geeky Male, 30 Seeking Same - <AUTHOR>

I'm an old man 30 years old non-programmer with a wife and 3 kids.
I know most of the people YC fund are programmers still in school, and they don't like to take on singles.
My question is how do I find someone who I can work with on my ideas? I have many IRL friends but none of them really understand tech/computers/geek like I do.  Where are you my secret geek friend ? :( <comment><USER2> Well, posting on YC is a good place to start. There are also a lot of events tailored towards geeks, startups, programmers which you can attend and try to make some friends.

Also, Instead of emphasizing on your personal stats ( 30 year old, wife, kids ), why not talk about your vision and ideas, if people find them interesting, they'll probably be more willing to talk to you about them.

Good luck on your search.

</comment><comment><USER3> Actually only a small minority of people we fund are still in school. In fact we probably fund more people who are over 30 than who are still in school. It is good to have at least one person in the startup who can program though.

</comment><comment><USER4> 30 isn't old.

<comment><USER5> Thank god there's another of us :)

Also, you don't have to go straight to YC -- pick an alumnus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm in Vancouver, Canada and on the advice of my accelerator / VC partner in the SF Bay area, decided to try to find a developer who could become a co- founder in my venture on a part-time basis. I used Craigslist and ended up moving forward with the first person to reply that fulfilled all of my criteria. He's a hacker (I'm not), but he liked the opportunity I presented, and both of us are over 30 and really not able to quit our jobs to pursue the project full-time - yet.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think one thing that you'll have to establish to bring on any technical person is a strong case for what you bring to the table. "I had the idea" isn't enough.

Being 30 isn't a problem, but starting a startup will put stress on your family life. Make sure that they and you are prepared to not see each other a lot of days and for you to be very one-tracked for a long while, probably combined with little or no income for the first many months.

</comment><comment><USER8> Post your idea. Some people are willing to work on ideas they find interesting (myself included).

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, lately I have been working on a "next-gen" social news website. I have done a lot of research over the last year or so into what is wrong with social news and what can be done about it.

I started out saying to myself "I wish Reddit had this, or I wish Digg could do this... I wish, I wish, I wish" until I decided that I would fix it myself. "Digg is like so last year"

If there are two things I can't live without in my life it's my RSS reader and my social news sites (Reddit primarily, but only because it uses direct links in Google Reader.I used to love the community as well but it seems to have gone down hill lately (IMHO), I rarely ever visit the actual site anymore.)

So, like I said I started doing research, reading what other thought about social news and its strengths and weaknesses and I set out to try and fix it as well as implementing a lot of my own unique ideas as well. I'm still working on it it's a constant work in progress I always getting new ideas.

Since I'm not a programmer, and i'm pretty good with Photoshop I decided to do a pretty detailed mockup of what I want my site to look like, how I want it to behave and what features I want in hopes that I can find a hacker or someone with some skills that would be willing help me take my ideas further. One of my biggest problems is I don't have someone to chat with to improve on my ideas or to offer their own to make a good idea really kick ass.

Anyhow, if anyone is interested in this kinda thing send me an email and maybe we can get these YC guys to give us some loot! :D</comment></comment>


Secrets of the Creative Brain - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/06/secrets-of-the-creative-brain/372299/

<comment><USER2> "One finding that emerged quickly was that being the youngest student in a grade was an excellent predictor of having a high IQ. (This is worth bearing in mind today, when parents sometimes choose to hold back their children precisely so they will not be the youngest in their grades.)"

That's a very questionable inference (that it is being the youngest that results in a high IQ). It seems much more likely that, for kids near the cutoff point, smart ones get promoted to the higher grade, and dumber kids don't. Selection effect, voila.

I am not impressed by the rest of the article. George Lucas is interested in interior design? So are a huge fraction of the non-famous population. It doesn't count towards being a polymath, let alone a genius, in my book.</comment>


Ask HN: Chargify, Recurly and others for a UK Startup - <AUTHOR>

I know this question has been asked before but I would like to know if anyone has any advice as to the best system for taking monthly recurring payments for a SaaS site. In particular though I'd like to know if there's anything specific to the UK market even though we still intend to charge in Dollars. Thanks! <comment><USER2> So this is quite complex....

You need:

1\. Merchant Account 2\. Payment service provider 3\. Billing software (your own or someone else)

Like you, we are UK based business, who wants to charge in dollars. Wanting the flexibility of having our own merchant account, the better rates that should give, and the portability of your customers (and their card details) I first of all spoke to the banks. But some won't deal with startups without 2 years trading history (HSBC and LTSB for example). Some don't charge in anything other than GBP yet (Clydesdale). And some, such as Barclays, although they will charge in both USD and GBP want to charge exorbitant rates for USD transactions. (2 or 3 times typical GBP rates).

You also need to make sure your merchant bank support recurring transactions; not all do!

Setting up a merchant account can take weeks and a lot of paperwork and hassle. In the end, for competitive multi currency rates and simplicity we opened an account with PayPal Website Payments Pro. This took around 48 hours!

It also killed the requirement for a payment gateway, which reduces the cost and complexity again. The downside with PayPal is, I believe, that if we wanted to move in the future, our customers would have to re-key their payment details with our new provider.

Regardless of whether you are with PayPal, or a bank+PSP the next step is the recurring billing.

Putting together these three separate providers together can be a bit of a nightmare. Although most banks support most payment gateways, most recurring billing providers only support a minimal number of gateways.

If you are in the UK and want to use Chargify you have no choice but to use DPS Payment Express (an Australian company) and they in turn only work with HSBC or Barclays.

Recurly support (for the UK) Cybersource, SagePay and PayPal Website Payments Pro.

Spreedly supports more, but for some reason that I now can't remember I counted them out.

The thing about billing is that it quickly becomes pretty complex and the smaller providers have all got limitations which could, depending on your business model, cause problems. You can imagine that with however many customers they all have, there will be a lot of requests to them along the lines of "can you just add this... that would be great". It must be hard for these guys to keep up with such requests.

When you look at the recurring billing providers you may also need to look at whether they support multi currencies, and VAT.

That's all I can think of for now. Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Scott this is really useful. I also didn't realise that Chargify didn't support UK Payments Pro.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> We've been providing SaaS for about 5 years now and currently bill by invoice, from the UK too. I've been looking at credit card billing for a few months now and initially thought I'd use Chargify however now we've pretty much decided on using Recurly.

Most likely for us we'll use Recurly + SagePay + Elavon. Will end up costing about £60/mo in costs for our first few customers to pay by credit card but then its all worthwhile.

Why Recurly and not Chargify? Recurly stores CC data so if we want to change payment gateway we can. Recurly features VAT support and has a panel where customers can log in. Yes it doesn't look good when customers log into yourname.recurly.com. But what we plan to do is put this in an iframe, add an SSL cert to our site and using the auto login token from the Recurly API so a customer clicks on account and it looks like they're on our site. Custom CSS is all thats needed to make it blend in.

I would be very interested to hear what billing solutions other UK companies use that provide SaaS!

</comment><comment><USER4> Quick note about us (Chargify): we now support <http://quickpay.net> as our newest payment gateway. They are in Denmark and they support most UK & EU merchants.

Thanks for considering us.

<comment><USER2> You really need to put that on this page! <http://chargify.com/payment- gateways/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think there's a business opportunity here. I too have been looking for a recurring billing service for a SAAS application I'm working on. As a small, Australian-based operation boot-strapping though, I'm really looking for a one-stop shop - something that offers the convenience of setup and payment of PayPal (no merchant account needed, reasonable rates, etc.) with the ease of integration and flexibility of Spreedly or Recurly and the ability to keep the customer on my site at all times.

Anyone know of one?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I should also highlight that I was referred to this site <http://feefighters.com/> which looks pretty good but is for US customers only.</comment>


Ask HN: How to let clients comfortable sharing confidential information with you - <AUTHOR> What would you tell to prospective clients to let them comfortable sharing confidential information (like source code) with you, specially when beginning a new employment relationship? When I faced that problem once, I couldn't come up with more than an NDA suggestion. <comment><USER2> My basic advice from practicing architecture is to consider behaviors indicating a lack of trust a red flag when talking to _potential_ clients.

At best, it's a sign that the _potential_ client is out of their depth in terms of experience dealing with professional services. That is to say that _good_ potential clients for professional services tend to have used similar services before. Potential clients with unrealistic expectations who become actual clients make their unrealistic expectations your problem.

At worst, and perhaps more typically, people tend to project their character onto other people. People with less inhibition to not pay/deliver tend to act as if I am going to rip them off. A person who fundamentally views business as the process of extracting as much as possible from everyone is going to approach me as if I held the same view of misaligned interests.

After many years I developed a simple test. I require a retainer paid upfront and applied against _final_ invoice. Logically, a willingness to write checks to me is a premise of the agreement for services. The ability to write a non- bouncing check for my services is also part of the deal. And a _potential_ client who balks at writing a check upfront indicates a lack of trust that over the long haul may not be worth trying to overcome.

Good luck.</comment>


Raspberry Pi 2 in a Micro Data Centre for Big Data and Video Streaming [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://eprints.eemcs.utwente.nl/26954/01/20160408_capabilities-raspberry-pi-eprintsversion.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> Do micro data centres have any future potential?

<comment><USER2> Absent an economic analysis anchored in the requirements of an actual data center, it's hard to know. I'd like to see one comparing this horizontal approach to scaling to a more vertical one. The paper seems more along the lines of possible rather than practical.</comment></comment>


U.S. Appeals Court Holds Up Net Neutrality Rules in Full - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/14/471286113/u-s-appeals-court-holds-up-net-neutrality-rules-in-full?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160614 <comment><USER2> Awesome news of course! (There's going to be SC appeals but I doubt it will change much given the current makeup of the SC.) At least now the cable industry should give up on their wrong headed ways and find other, better and fair ways to make more profits.</comment>


Father builds a mini-drone to track his kid via GPS - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/hands-on/the-diy-kidtracking-drone

<comment><AUTHOR> Helicopter-parenting taken a little too literally?</comment>


Chickens 'gang up' to kill intruder fox on French farm - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47551786 <comment><USER2> The community I live in has a chicken coop - our first small batch was decimated by a single fox, one a single night, when the door was left open. It took only one chicken back to eat but it killed 6 others - 6 docile, happy chickens. That's what foxes (normally) do to chicken coops.

<comment><USER3> Standard frenzy behaviour for a fox. It's pointless to anthropomorphize them, as it's just natural for them to kill now with the intent of coming back to collect the bodies for later consumption.

Just like your average labrador will inhale food until it's too large to walk. Binging is a natural instinct in feast or famine capable animals.

<comment><USER4> Based on my experience cats tend to overeat a lot more than dogs.

<comment><USER5> It really depends on the specific animal, but common wisdom is that you can't just leave a bowl of food out for a dog. Cats on the other hand often are free-feeders (leave out a big bowl of food and refill it on a schedule). Of our 2 cats, one will eat until she vomits and one will barely touch food if it's out at the wrong time.

<comment><USER6> It depends a lot on the dog— what I've seen with dogs is similar to what you describe with your cats.

There are 4 dogs in my house, one belonging to me and three belonging to my roommate.

Mine won't really overeat unless she's offered a lot of something extremely appealing (like human food). At least 2 of my roommate's dogs will eat until they make themselves sick, though. The last one, I'm not sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is called mobbing and birds are most famously known to do it, I'm kind of surprised they don't mention the behavior by name.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobbing_(animal_behavior)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobbing_\(animal_behavior\))

<comment> frosted-flakes Anyone who's attacked a chicken in The Legend of Zelda can attest to this behaviour.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> After reading many of the comments here, I sort of understand the need to make chickens seem like monsters. Sometimes they can be quite mean. However, I've known many chickens and their personalities are really quite diverse. Most chickens, when raised humanely, as pets, are quite docile and friendly, even some of the roosters I've known.

<comment><USER9> In my mind I replaced "chicken" with "developer" and had a good chuckle.

<comment><USER8> Reminds me of this developer we were interviewing once. He asked if we treat our developers like mushrooms. I asked what he meant by that. He said do you keep them in the dark and feed them sh*t?

He didn't get the job.

<comment><USER10> Funny enough, that statement would have won points with me. The first time I heard that phrase was in "Soul of a New Machine", and it would have been a good ice breaker :). That being said... definitely not something I would personally drop in an interview.

Edit: also, there's a final piece of that that's critical:

> Tom West practices the "Mushroom Theory of Management" – "keeping them in > the dark, feeding them shit, and watch them grow."

Many companies stop after the first two parts and miss the third.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Yeah....chickens are assholes. They'll come at you. They'll tear each other up pretty good too. I've seen them go after dogs before. They really are like watching little dinosaurs.

<comment><USER12> My first thought was that they had no idea it was a fox and were just trying to kill something. The reason poultry feed has to be scattered over a wide area is that they will peck through other chickens, killing them in the process, before turning and eating from an open spot if they feel they need to compete for food. Turkeys are worse than chickens. An amish turkey farmer once told me that if you leave a bucket of feed with the turkeys you'll end up with a bucket of dead, half-eaten turkeys and all of the feed you started with.

<comment><USER13> I understand that they'd kill each other, but why would they _all_ kill each other, who eats them, and who puts the carcasses in the bucket?

So many questions this raises...

<comment><USER12> They get into the bucket to get the food and are pecked to death by the one that climbs in on top of them, and so on.

<comment><USER13> Oh wow, that's brutal. Thanks for explaining.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> To be clear, this was one young fox vs. 3,000 chickens, trapped with them in a coop due to an auto-closing door. There was no way that fox was getting out alive.

</comment><comment><USER15> I always find it interesting that a lot of prey animals sometimes fight back with success but they don't seem to repeat that behavior next time. I have seen videos of zebras going after a lion without problem but next time they will just run away again and the slowest will get killed.

<comment><USER16> For social animals like chicken, sheep, even humans the action of the group is often determined by a few - the leaders or the first to act.

If the first chicken panicked and ran, the rest would. I'm guessing the fox ran into the aggressive ones first.

To put humans into context here. Once, a couple of bombs went off in an Amory. People panicked and ran. Everyone ran in the direction of those who ran first.

Long story short, a few died from the blast. But, hundreds died from falling off a cliff and drowning in a canal.

<comment><USER17> All those people didn't know how to swim? Or was the fall too high?

<comment><USER18> Drowning humans latch on to whatever's near out of instinct. Some portion of 100+ doing that will get a lot of good swimmers killed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> 3000 chickens vs a not full grown fox.

Sounds like a zombie movie type of fight.

<comment><USER20> An Aardman zombie movie.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Someone invented red colored chicken tinted to stop chickens from killing other chickens who happen to be bleeding.

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

</comment><comment><USER22> Chickens are omnivores and will kill and happily eat other animals when they can. A fact that is very clear in regard to rodents that like to steal chicken feed.

That they managed to kill a juvenile fox is a bit impressive however.

<comment><USER23> This is exactly why commercials that claim "we feed our chickens a 100% vegetarian diet" irritate the crap out of me. Chickens will eat anything that fits into their beak and sometimes things that won't. e.g., young frogs, small snakes, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This reminds me of the cat that saved the boy from the dog. [https://youtu.be/ftIRIPcsqxo](https://youtu.be/ftIRIPcsqxo)

<comment><USER17> I love that video. The comments are great too, and they're right: cats are much better pets than dogs. When was the last time you heard of a cat attacking and killing someone (especially a child)? It happens with dogs all the time. Dog apologists will always spout some BS about "those dogs weren't raised right", but it just doesn't happen with cats.

<comment><USER25> I'm a cats-over-dogs person, but cats can definitively attack people. Killing is probably quite rare, but then again they don't have the size and strength of a pit bull or rottweiler. Yorkshire terriers probably haven't killed many persons either.

<comment><USER17> I can't say I've ever heard of a cat attacking a person without some kind of reason. Cats, even the most ill-mannered ones, just aren't known to be aggressive towards humans the way dogs are. The only times I've heard of cats attacking people is when they've been tormented, such as by children.

<comment><USER24> I'm so cat positive, I'm like a cat lady. But sometimes cats get aggressive and attack people for sure. Even non-tormented ones. It does matter how you treat them and how much you play with them but make no mistake cats will attack, sometimes viscously.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'd heard you weren't supposed to let the fox into the henhouse, but I had envisioned a different outcome.

</comment><comment><USER27> They have nothing on Japanese bees though:

[https://www.newscientist.com/article/2174097-honeybees- gang-...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2174097-honeybees-gang-up-to- roast-invading-hornets-alive-at-a-terrible-cost/)

<comment><USER28> European honeybees do this too (source: am beekeeper)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Someone didn't play enough Zelda

</comment><comment><USER30> I support this haha. I once lost 6 chickens and a turkey to either a bobcat or a coyote. All in one night.

I support research into re-activating latent dinosaur genes in chickens.

</comment><comment><USER31> Am I the only one who thought of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Run](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Run) when they read this article?

</comment><comment><USER32> Their species murder rate is 100%. Can you blame them.

</comment><comment><USER33> Some say chickens are one of the most abundant vertebrate on the planet (20B+). Let's just hope they don't gang up on us!

</comment><comment><USER34> I read chicken coop and chicken coup automagically until reading the comments! How much context guessing happens in our brains!

</comment><comment><USER35> Power to the (chicken) people.

</comment><comment><USER36> As Link has discovered time and time again, _never piss off the chickens._

</comment><comment><USER37> this reminds me out using all my SCVs to defend against Zealots in early game.

<comment><USER37> I see we have some Protoss among us here on HN :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Sounds like a new torture method: Death by a Thousand Chickens.

</comment><comment><USER39> A new idea for a Hitchcock film...

<comment><USER20> Aardman Animation will probably do it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> The fox should have used the master sword.</comment>


Fortnite black hole numbers potentially decoded as Visitor message - <AUTHOR> https://fortniteintel.com/fortnite-black-hole-numbers-potentially-decoded-as-visitor-message/26438/ <comment><AUTHOR> Apparently the numbers correspond to word positions in an audio recording of the Visitor. So, a self-referential book cipher ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_cipher](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_cipher)).

"I WAS NOT ALONE. OTHERS ARE OUTSIDE THE LOOP THIS WAS NOT CALCULATED. THE ZERO POINT IS NOW INEVITABLE."

Smart reporting scoop by Fortnite Intel, who could be a bit more confident on just how unlikely this is to be a coincidence: _Of course, all of this is just speculation, but it's a huge coincidence that picking these words from the tapes forms a coherent thought if this isn't the case._</comment>