Ruby adds experimental support for Rightward assignments - <AUTHOR> https://blog.saeloun.com/2020/08/31/ruby-adds-experimental-rightward-assignment.html <comment><USER2> To me this seems like a clear loss. The syntax is (as far as I can tell) strictly more verbose than the existing assignment syntax. Ruby is already plagued by a million-and-one ways to do everything, but at least in other cases simplicity (à la zen of Python) trades off for brevity.

<comment><USER3> I don't particularly like the idea of rightward assignment (although the syntax itself seems fine to me), but the "million-and-one ways to do everything" is the biggest reason I strongly prefer the language over more "constrained/limited" languages like Python. In those terms, this seems like a definite win for the language (and those who choose to use it) for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Another language that supported this was Northern Telecom's PROTEL ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protel)) from the 1980s.

The operator is written "->" and is informally called a "gazinta" ("goes into").

</comment><comment><USER5> A better example IMO is...

Before:

      result = case value
        when 5
          ...
        when 4
          ...
        end

After:

      case value
      when 5
        ...
      when 4
        ...
      end => result

The latter allows for some nicer formatting I think.

<comment><USER6> At the expense of increasing the complexity to read code.

<comment> amw-zero How is the complexity increased?

<comment><USER7> Complexity increase from reading it has.

<comment><USER6> Laughed at this I did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Does sort of make a hash in Ruby more confusing to the untrained eye (unless the hash rocket is totally dead, I haven't written Ruby since like the 2.3 days):

{ "age" => age, "name" => name }

I like the _idea_ a lot. It'd probably allow for some nice functional _looking_ code, but that's also the problem... it'd only _look_ functional. And I think without VM/compiler/runtime support of functional programming it's pretty much a big waste of time.

I can use piece shit for a shoehorn; doesn't mean I should.

<comment><USER9> No, the hash rocket still exists. However, if you use symbols as keys, you can replace ":foo => bar" with "foo: bar". Many people, of course, use hashes with symbols as keys, but whenever you don't, you still need to use the hashrocket syntax.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Rightward assignment with a hash rocket?

I've been using ruby for a decade and I don't get why this is necessary (or even good).

</comment><comment><USER11> Doesn't this introduce an ambiguity?

        def foo(*arg, **kwarg)
          puts "#{arg}/#{kwarg}"
        end
        b = 'meh'
        foo(:a => b)

Now this produces

        []/{:a=>"meh"}

But with right-assign

        [:a]/{}

    ?

<comment><USER12> Oh. The bugs that this would produce. And spotting it visually would be killer

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I get why you'd want it, but I'm not sure they should be reusing => for it, since that already means something in Ruby.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, I also start getting confused by reusing of the syntax. Now there's also a proposal to use { 1, 2, 3 } to represent sets - but {} is already used for blocks of code and for maps, so now that will be essentially a 3rd use case for curly braces.

On the other hand Ruby has already such a extensive syntax that it's hard to come up with something else that would not already be taken. -> represents lambda, >> is a valid method name, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> For simple one-line expressions, this doesn't seem to offer much. However, looking at multiline statements with FP-style or conditional logic, this can definitely improve the flow and visual rhythm of the code.

</comment><comment><USER16> Could this be an initial step towards elixir-like chaining?

"foobar" => upcase() => x

</comment><comment><USER17> Why do most languages use right-to-left assignments? Is it purely a matter of path dependence? I guess also that binding a value to a name usually indicates that you'll use the name later on, and having the name on the LHS makes for a better UI for looking up the value the name is bound to.

On an unrelated side note, I've always thought "=" was a huge mistake in language design, confusing countless people who are coming into programming who reasonably mistake it for equality. I don't know why it won over ALGOL- style ":=".

<comment><USER18> > On an unrelated side note, I've always thought "=" was a huge mistake in > language design, confusing countless people who are coming into programming > who reasonably mistake it for equality. I don't know why it won over ALGOL- > style ":=".

Probably because adding a colon to an equality sign doesn't clarify the meaning at all.

Had Algol (as some less widely influential for other reasons languages have) adopted something that more clearly represented movement into the variable being assigned like:

      a <- 25

Maybe it would have won out over "=" for assignment.

<comment><USER19> I considered such an assignment operator for a little language I was developing, but there was an ambiguity between this:

      a <- 25

and this:

      a < -25

Since everything was an expression in the language, the latter would evaluate to a boolean. In the end I just went with "=" for assignment, and "==" for equality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is so ugly. Already we have things like AND vs && or tailing if's that don't quite work like three line if's or how scoping do..end vs {} is ever so slightly different.

I'd wonder how the right assignment would work differently. What small gotcha would it create.

I also wonder how my co-workers would take it, if I started using it.. Or if I figured out how it was different and used it for the once case that it worked.

For me. having a million ways to do something leads to slower dev time. More context I'd need to load.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'd rather have changes to type safety, performance, or even a compiled binary. Or a merger between crystal and interpreted mode

</comment><comment><USER19> In a totally different context (but with same semantics), it's known as the ChucK operator, or "chucking".

[https://chuck.cs.princeton.edu/doc/language/oper.html](https://chuck.cs.princeton.edu/doc/language/oper.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> Is there a place we can voice our concerns over this move.

I was just teaching Ruby to someone learning to code. I have to admit because all popular languages use leftward assignment it was one less thing to teach.

=> is pretty loaded as it is

<comment><USER12> Agreed. And it doesn't really improve anything. The argument that it makes code easier to read is bogus. Perhaps for people who only work in ruby. I suspect rubo-cop would have a rule against this a week after it was added.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> why is this even needed? why introduce something to fix something that isn't a problem?

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm a fan.

In my limited experience, leftward assignment breaks the "flow" explaining a program to a novice.

<comment><USER12> The problem is.. most popular languages use leftward assignment. Teaching a noob this would make other languages harder to read. I can switch from Java, to c++ to ruby.. My 9 year old figured out the leftward assignment. It feels like a change for change sake.</comment></comment>


Multiple Vulnerabilities in the CPP and Parity Ethereum Client - <AUTHOR> http://blog.talosintelligence.com/2018/01/vulnerability-spotlight-multiple.html <comment><USER2> This is quite damaging for Parity[1]. This combined with the Multi-Sig Wallet debacle[2] will require a lot of effort from Parity to rebuild their reputation.

As the valuation of crypto-currencies such as Ethereum increases the ability to target such vulnerabilities goes from simple malicious or destructive hacks to security compromises that have material costs beyond a reputation for both the developers and users of these platforms.

These exploits will also slow the wider adoption of particular platforms, the Blockchain space is right now quite competitive and market value is very closely linked to attention and interest in a platform's blockchain competency.

[1] [https://www.parity.io/](https://www.parity.io/) [2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14807779](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14807779)</comment>


Ask HN: Are there bots on GitHub too? - <AUTHOR> Someone starred/forked a repository a public repo of mine. Upon checking, https://github.com/isgasho seems to be forking primarily Go and Rust code repos, and has done so for 5K+ repos. Is that a bot? <comment><USER2> Leak AWS credentials onto a public repo and you'll get a fast, and expensive, answer to that question.

<comment><USER3> Any credentials that are pushed to GitHub are as good as immediately compromised.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Always has been.

Whenever there's a public developer API for a service, there's a high chance you'll encounter a 'bot'.</comment>


Cisco cuts ties to China's ZTE after Iran probe - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/08/us-cisco-zte-iran-idUSBRE89709N20121008

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm wondering how this will effect Mozilla since they are planning on releasing a phone with ZTE. Not going to be good to market to corporate users if this is true.</comment>


Has 'Diversity' Lost Its Meaning? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/magazine/has-diversity-lost-its-meaning.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0 <comment><AUTHOR> It's trite . Just like "work life balance", "equity". Another buzzword to throw at college candidates.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you deliver difficult messages? - <AUTHOR>

To your bosses, clients..  Even loved ones, but especially at work, delivering difficult messages effectively, even the courage to have difficult conversations, is a very valuable skill.  How do you approach it? <comment><USER2> I do it through the way I was taught in my communications class and in many of the instructor classes: make it like a good, bad , good "sandwich"

For most people I deal wth, especially those who are do not prefer bluntness, he sandwich method really works the best. In your email you start out by saying something hat they did well or something that went well. You then carefully transition to he bad news (whether that he they are to be fired, you couldn't get the job done, etc) and then you wrap it up with some good news, so that when they are finished reading they aren't left with a bad taste in their mouth.

However this approach doesn't work for everyone, and for some it may even prove to make matters worse between you and the recipient. For those who appreciate bluntness (you should make sure hey are this type!) sometimes breaking the bad news at the start of he conversation/email works best. However even when I do it this way, I always recommend that you finish off with something positive/constructive to lessen the blow.

As always, when discuss these sorts of matters, it is always best to be communicate face-to-face with the person, of possible, as sometimes things in email/text/phone can get misconstrued and taken out of hand. In fact meetin IRL is probably better than Skype too, as you guarantee that the person can't just abruptly stop communication and you can leverage your body communication skills to lessen the blow.

TLDR: Use the good, bad, good "sandwich" for most people, use the upfront "bad news first" method for those who like it straight and blunt. Oh and try to meet IRL to break the news.

<comment><USER3> To announce to someone that he or she got fired, would you do it this way?

We think you are a very competent person within our group and were impressed how you did X. However while doing it you somehow neglected Y and it had bad consequences Z, and therefore we need to terminate your contract with us. Having said that, I would like to remind you how awesome you are in so many ways and I am confident you will find very soon opportunities that are matching your skill set better than we could.

I find it pretty hypocrite, but I must be of the blunt type.

<comment><USER4> First of all, if at all possible, don't fire someone in an email. Second, I'm not a particularly blunt person, but I'm not sure the sandwich approach works here. It's great if you have the opportunity to help the person being let go find new employment. However, it's important to ensure the person is clear that it's not working out and there's no room for negotiation. (And there shouldn't be by the time you've made the decision to fire someone.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It really depends on the message. e.g., this morning I had to tell my wife that her dog died; there's no easy way to do that. About all I can say about that kind of bad news is that it should be delivered in person.

OTOH, when terminating a contract (the only kind of "firing" I've ever had to do), I point out to the contractor that they did great work, and was well appreciated and they have completed their services well and the skills are no longer needed. Follow up by mentioning that I would recommend them for a new position and they can finish out the week.

Crappy contractor: you're not working out. We have to terminate now.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is one of the best books ever written about this exact subject:

"Crucial Conversations Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High, Second Edition"

[http://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking- Stakes-E...](http://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes- Edition/dp/0071771328/ref=pd_sim_b_5?ie=UTF8&refRID=0A527QDWWHZY4PTH334R)

</comment><comment><USER7> Do it professional and straight up. See this clip from Moneyball: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXEtOPMW2hM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXEtOPMW2hM)</comment>


Ask HN: How do you trust people? - <AUTHOR> About four years ago I started working on a startup and got some investment from relatives. After we hit our first milestone, the relatives reneged on their handshake commitment, and demanded more control, coupled with less outlay on their part. I didn't comply and it took me along time to process what happened. The most shocking thing for me was that I considered these people family, yet they behaved so treacherously. I couldn't accept it and lived in denial for a while, until I finally saw the truth that I couldn't even trust my own family.<p>Description Continued in comment.... <comment><AUTHOR> ... A year or so later, I had developed a good relationship with some important operations people in this space, and while there were no commitments there was a custom of quid pro quo. I felt I could trust these people, since they had helped me out so many times. Then my business started to eat into the profits of a competitor, who, unbeknown to me, also had some sort of agreement with these folks. It was clear to me that there was a win win where we could all resolve to get what we wanted and I proposed we reach consensus. Instead of engaging on that, my former partners stonewalled and hired private investigators to try to pressure me into accepting a bad deal. I didn't comply and eventually prevailed, and it took me a long time to process what happened. The most shocking thing for me was that these people who I had built up such a good relationship with tried to betray and hurt me. I couldn't accept it had happened, and I lived in denial, continuing to extend them an olive branch, much longer than it probably worked for me to do so.

Around the same time, it was revealed that my partner who I had a formal agreement with, had known for years, trusted and considered family, had actually gone behind my back, while lying to my face, and began working with the former partners above, to make a deal for herself, to undermine my position from the inside.

Three big betrayals in as many years. By people who I had considered family and the ones I could actually trust. It has been very hard to deal with. Particularly hard was I remembered a time when I actually trusted people and I felt strong and life was good. But as soon as I showed some signs of weakness, it was like everyone I had been close to suddenly piled on to take advantage of it. It really felt like kicking me while I was down, by those whom I considered I could trust with everything.

But I still think of trust as something important, so my question is how do you handle betrayal by your inner circle, and how do you trust people, any people, not necessarily the betrayers, after you've known it?

<comment><USER2> 1\. Never mix business with family or friendship. Ever.

2\. Get a good lawyer and sign airtight contracts. Leave nothing to trust.

<comment><USER3> 1\. PG specifically writes this in his Startup FAQ (www.paulgraham.com/startupfaq.html) "Most successful startups have more than one founder, and usually the founders seem to have been friends for at least a year before starting the company."

2\. Yes.

<comment><USER4> Friend that you know for a year is not your brother/sister/uncle etc..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You put yourself in a position to be bilked, and you got bilked. You need to not work on "handshake commitments" or "no commitments".

On a personal level, I find that simply accepting that people will hurt you, and deciding whether or not being an open, trusting person is worth the harm that might occur (I happen to think it is).

Limit the amount and degree of 'credit' you give people to what you can equanimously accept as a loss, expect people to occasionally violate that trust, plan for it, and understand that it is simply one of the costs of being a decent human being.

I never loan a book, I only give them away. If people later give them back, that's wonderful but not required. I don't ever let someone borrow something I wouldn't give them as a gift on the spot. In business, you either have full control, a negotiated agreement (which should cover things like how to make decisions when you disagree), or you're just a passenger along for the ride.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, paragraphs 2 & 3 are useful

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> You can't.

People minds are dynamic systems. Even if you trust a human now, you can never be sure what changes will occur in the future to make that human choose differently then expected based on previous experience - child sickness, family troubles, hormonal disturbances, environmental toxicity, parasites, whatever really ... anything can influence human behavior in radical manner.

Notice that time here is relevant. Given small enough time scale, you can definitely trust people. And vice-versa.

So, the question is not how to trust people, because you can't trust anybody given enough time, the question is how to plan things in your life so that broken trust isn't detrimental for your status.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, this is useful

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Let me suggest you read some good negotiating books. "Getting to Yes" is research-based and a quick read. "The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator" is also research-based, but meatier.

There was an episode of some kid's show where there were two women who saw the future. The one who saw only bad outcomes was very happy because any time things went better than that, it was a pleasant surprise. The one who saw only good outcomes was miserable. She was constantly disappointed by life. It never lived up to her expectations.

So, I basically try to be the person who sees the bad outcomes in advance and then gets to be pleasantly surprised when it goes better than that. That isn't entirely accurate. I don't mean that I assume that all people are dreadful, but I do assume that people will tend to act in their own self interest, even if that means hurting me.

But I do try allow for the possibility of being pleasantly surprised. There are ways you can ruin the whole thing by hanging your crap on other people and signaling to them what rat bastards you assume them to be. So, don't go around TELLING everyone you expect them to be awful, but do be aware it is a possible outcome and account for it, to the best of your ability.

Also, trust is earned. People need to prove their trustworthiness. That is nothing you should give away too cheaply. You can observe how they act and make some inferences about how they are likely to act in the future based on past behavior. You can also "test" people by entrusting smaller things to them and see what they do with that before putting larger things on the table. It needs to be something genuine. You need to have some real skin in the game. But make sure to limit how much of your hide they can take if it goes south, until their actions show you they will protect your hide, even under difficult circumstances.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, this is useful

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I do very long trips across multiple borders on a motorcycle, and on my way I try to meet as many people as I can. Counterintuitively, something about that really teaches you to trust people in a profound way. It may be that the motorcycle is making you come across less threatening, since you're obviously much less comfortable and in a more dangerous position than others, so perhaps it brings out the instinct to be kind and compassionate where normally people are cautious, competitive, and defensive. But it's a good exercise of experiencing how good the vast majority of humans are deep inside.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've been lucky enough to only be burned financially once, and the lesson I took away was simply, require a written contract.

You can find a lot of similar stories and advice on stackexchange: [https://money.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes](https://money.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes)

</comment><comment><USER10> If you want a friend, get a dog. It's a cliche at this point, but don't rely on business partners to be "friends". It sounds cynical, but it actually makes life smoother for all parties involved.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, useful

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think you're expecting too much of people.

I don't trust anyone but my parents to put me before their financial self interest. I don't even trust my siblings to do the same, and we aren't on bad terms, either.

The only reason they wouldn't "betray" you is if they saw more long term value in being in your good graces. It's not that they hate you. It's that they love themselves more than they care about you.

A close family friend is a notary dealing in family estates. From what I can tell about human nature, whenever there is money involved, people fight. Fighting between siblings over inheritance is basically the norm, something to be expected. Same goes for business partnerships where two friends decide they will own a restaurant together. And if they manage to not end up fighting, their families will when one of them dies. Something else to keep in mind.

</comment><comment><USER12> Start small, not with a mission-critical investment or commitment. Build as you go. Go with someone with roots in the community and something to lose

I recently got fucked over by an ex-GF then long-time friend. Good Canadian girl. Daughter of a preacher. It can be hard to judge someone's character

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Trust is earned, so at the beginning you give people the benefit of the doubt and you have 'faith' that they are trustworthy. But don't call it trust. Trust takes time.

And regarding your 3 unfortunate betrayals, just remember: people can justify anything.

</comment><comment><USER14> Money can change people. Especially when it's a life changing amount.

</comment><comment><USER15> From my POV:

\- Friends and family don't mix with business. Their perception of what happens will be different than yours.

\- Handshakes are only as valuable as mutual self-interest. If you're doing business and need to hold people accountable, you need written contracts.

A friend is someone whom you have a mutual emotional attachment with. That connection is between you as individuals, not your business. To be successful in business relationships means that you need to be willing to walk away.

</comment><comment><USER16> "If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."

On a site like this most replies will take you at face value and try to comfort you. Alternative take: you are the common factor in all these supposed betrayals. If we asked the others, do you think we'd get different perspectives on what happened?

<comment><USER17> I had the exact same response after reading OPs post. I'd love to hear the other parties perspectives.

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't come here to out anyone, just to get some advice on how I recover from this emotionally and on strategies for protecting myself in future.

I've paraphrased the descriptions of the other people involved to protect their exact identities and relationships with me. The exact details reveal the worser extent of the betrayals.

I'm not going to out them here because it's not considerate of me to make the choice on their behalf, to expose who they are on HN.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I sympathize with the situation in general, but I'm not getting why you feel your relatives were treacherous.

It sounds like they regretted the verbal only, "handshake" investment, and wanted something in writing. That actually seems prudent. Is there more to that part of the story?</comment>


Rock Garden programming: Programming in the physical world (2014) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://researchspace.csir.co.za/dspace/bitstream/10204/7552/3/Smith_2014.pdf <comment><USER2> IoT now suddenly means everything _and_ the kitchen sink. But the approach is somewhat interesting as introduction to programming for pre-schoolers.

Anyway, the whole tangible angle of IoT reminded me of an idea floating around my mind. Those of you who've seen dataflow programming, or at least played Minecraft or Starbound, probably recognize the concept of programming by wiring stuff together. I mention Minecraft and Starbound for the reason - especially the latter, in which wiring is more convenient and involves just drawing lines between devices[0]. It's an easy way people automate their environment - from doors opening when you're near them, through traps up to complex "starship automation" systems. People understand that and find it fun.

So I wonder, maybe this kind of interface would work for IoT and less tech- savvy people? A bunch of sensors, buttons and actuators, and you use your smartphone to wire them together (and rewire, as needed), dataflow-style. Just like in a video game. Bonus fitness point for requiring one to actually point their phone at the device they want to connect.

[0] - [http://abload.de/img/wiringbeforey8ewt.png](http://abload.de/img/wiringbeforey8ewt.png)

</comment><comment><USER3> I suspect the paper was written by SCIgen.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's not April 1 - at least on planet earth. So, WTF?

<comment><USER5> TIA.

You could advocate teaching the kids to read, but fuck that. Keep them illiterate. Surely the ANC won't complain.

(And before someone says this 'research' has other uses, I'm referring to part of his abstract:

"The developed world dominates the design of programming environments, assuming letteracy and computer literacy on the part of the programmer. In developing areas, this assumption raises the bar for novice programmers and especially pre-school children from differing socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds. In general, our research aims at developing a programming environment that does not require either computer literacy or letteracy from the programmer, thereby affording the novice user the opportunity to control appliances connected to the IoT." )</comment></comment>


On Speaking - <AUTHOR> http://simplebits.com/notebook/2010/12/13/on-speaking/ <comment><USER2> Can't agree more to the "Say Yes" principle. A few weeks ago I posted a slightly panicky post about having to speak in front of a lot of people. YC support was great, I said yes, prepared well & ended up talking onstage at LeWeb. I even had a good time doing it & learned a couple of things _not_ to do again in the future. If you prepare well there is actually nothing to fear.</comment>


Ask HN: Saving time in sysadmin - <AUTHOR>

Lately I've found myself too much involved in sysadmin, editing configuration files, monitoring certain things and writing scripts by hand.
My stack is Ubuntu 8.04, MySQL, Apache and Django.
I have used webmin. I was wondering if there are any other good tools out there which can save my time. I have used webmin which I've found really helpful but any other stuff? What do you use for sys admin related stuff? <comment><USER2> Check out puppet: <http://reductivelabs.com/projects/puppet/>

I sort of want to build a startup around making a distro that maintains itself.

</comment><comment><USER3> Try and automate the repetitive bits. Python is a great language for that kind of thing.

</comment><comment><USER4> I use virtualmin instead</comment>


Soda Ad Wars Take Over NYC - <AUTHOR> http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/05/new-york-city-soda-ad-wars/

<comment><USER2> > Transportation Nation reports that the newly formed association began the > campaign with a "huge mass transit ad buy." The ads will be on 570 subway > cars, 75 buses and 120 subway platforms.

The paranoid in me believes that the city did this intentionally to boost ad sales.</comment>


Killing a Patient to Save His Life - <AUTHOR> http://nytimes.com/2014/06/10/health/a-chilling-medical-trial.html <comment><USER2> I'm annoyed by the headline. I know it's meant to grab attention by seeming counter-intuitive, but as it is, the headline is simply wrong. This medical procedure does not involve "killing" the patient. It involves cooling the patient down internally to essentially suspend them, so the doctors have a greater window of time to perform the necessary procedures. The best way of doing this happens to be to _temporarily_ replace the patient's blood with a saline fluid, and if you think that's "killing" the patient, then I suggest you grab the nearest dictionary and smack yourself with it.

<comment><USER3> > happens to be to _temporarily_ replace the patient's blood with a saline > fluid

Which, according to the article, has the effect of stopping the heart as well as brain activity. This seems pretty close to "death." If someone decided to stop the operation halfway through without replacing the saline solution or reviving the patient, it would make sense to me to claim that the "time of death" was the time at which brain activity ceased.

<comment><USER4> General anesthesia also stops brain activity, and you can die during open heart surgery. The time of death won't be the time of loss of consciousness.

It is about conserving information. As long as your brain can be turned back on you're still alive.

<comment><USER5> Do you have a source for that? Obviously it suspends consciousness, in a more dramatic way than even falling asleep, but I find it difficult to believe that _all_ brain functions are suspended. At the very least, with some varieties of general anesthesia, the brain stem keeps vital functions working.

Edit: Looking at wikipedia a bit, it looks like "brain death" is currently defined as including a dead brain stem. Kind of seems like an ethical gray area when the cerebrum really is dead (non-recoverable), not merely suspended. Still, I'm not convinced that general anesthesia fully suspends the cerebrum. I believe at least some forms merely suspend the ability to form memories.

<comment><USER4> The brainstem is not needed to sustain the heart beat and blood pressure. It participates in its regulation, but both parameters have "sane defaults" without any input.

Furthermore, while necessary, the brainstem is not sufficient to sustain consciousness.

Third, phenobarbital at a sufficient dose completely wipes electric brain activity (metabloism goes on, at a lower pace).

Fourth, even if you suspend someone using the procedure described in the article, there is still residual biologic activity in the cells. Chemical reactions are slowed down, but not stopped.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think I've seen this House episode before. Spoiler alert: The chick dies in the end.

Seriously though, with these new types of procedures I feel like we need another checkbox next to the organ donor one that says: "Try risky medical procedures if the attending doctor honestly thinks it gives me a better chance of living with no permanent brain damage when compared to conventional treatment." Or probably something a little more succinct.

<comment><USER7> How about: "I reserve the right to have my life terminated if I come out of a procedure with no brain activity"? Edit: From the older discussion on HN: "Assuming they (patients) have been getting 'good' CPR for the 10-15 minutes the ER team spent attempting to resuscitate them, there is still a good chance that their brain was not being perfused."

<comment><USER8> CPR is nearly worthless, but not always.

<comment><USER9> A 2+% chance to either save a life or reduce the chances of brain damage is worth ~20 minutes. And that's for a full recovery the odds of a partial recovery can be as high as 50%. [http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/10/health/cpr- lifesaving-stats/](http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/10/health/cpr-lifesaving-stats/)

With current thinking you don't even need to do mouth to mouth disease transmission is a vary low risk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Reported on and discussed here a few months ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7477801](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7477801)

</comment><comment><USER11> They are not dead until they are warm and dead.

There are enough cases known to science where cold has done wonders. And the technology seems viable. I say go for it. At worst we will be getting valuable knowledge.

<comment><USER12> Yep.

If your odds are already very low taking a risk for better odds seems like a good deal to me.

You're most likely dead anyway why not try something new to give you a better chance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "But researchers at a number of institutions say they have perfected the technique, known as Emergency Preservation and Resuscitation, or E.P.R., in experimental surgeries on hundreds of dogs and pigs over the last decade."

Did they actually do dry runs of the surgery from shooting to triage to finish? I wonder whose job it was to shoot the dog with a .45

<comment><USER14> [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ministry- of-d...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ministry-of-defence- defends-practice-of-shooting-and-injuring-pigs-for-army-medic- training-8328148.html)

<comment><USER13> Huh. More medical organizations should do this sort of training.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I like the 'out-of-the-box' thinking. The 'opt out' if you don't want to, in combination with a high change of poor black males being the guinea pig... Not so much.

<comment><USER15> "The 'opt out' if you don't want to, in combination with a high change of poor black males being the guinea pig... Not so much."

My understanding is that they only use this procedure if your chances of otherwise surviving without this are very slim, per the article the injuries are the kind where "Less than 1 in 10 survive". As for the opt-out/opt-in, you cannot really opt-in to any procedure if you're undergoing cardiac arrest, so perhaps we should let anyone in this scenario die since they cannot truly consent?

<comment><USER16> -1 for the strawman: The alternative to "opt-out before" is "opt-in before", not "opt-in afterwards".

<comment><USER17> Most people won't opt in before, so I think his question is entirely legitimate: in an emergency situation, the patient often can't give consent, and most of them won't have the foresight to give it in advance, so are we to simply let them die?

<comment><USER16> That depends a lot on the quality of the treatment. If it is a good treatment with some risks, that makes sense. However, if you don't enforce any minimum quality for the treatment, this is nothing more than misusing the patient's situation for scientific experiments.

Rephrased with some exaggeration: "Our patient will die anyway, so let's run the experiments. Maybe one of our experiments is successful. If not, who cares?"

I believe the main dissent here is whether to think of this as a medical treatment with minor risks, or as an experiment done on defenseless victims.

<comment><USER18> I believe this is a case for Dr. Jay Freireich who was considered a barbarian and labeled as a pariah in the medical community because he gave out experimental treatments on childhood leukemia patients who had no chance of survival outside of a few months. Mind you this treatment is literally poisoning the patient and hoping the cancer dies while the patient still has a thread of life remaining. There was also a very good chance that the chemicals would end up doing the job the cancer was already doing.

He was able to save very few of his patients from the same end, as well as developing what would become modern chemotherapy that's saving countless more cancer patients today.

So a better question is: is the situation we're presented with so grim that we're willing to use a method that's just as deadly as the disease/injury but has a glimmer of hope for survival?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Covid-19 and Healthcare Resources, Lets talk math. - <AUTHOR> https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1236095180459003909.html <comment><USER2> US has less hospital beds than China or Italy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_hosp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_hospital_beds)

The smartest move that US could do is start building new field hospitals right NOW.

Next thing they have to do is put all their economic strength to start producing all necessary medical supplies.

If the US government does not realize this emergency, they have failed. This is going to be a national emergency quicker than any market force can react.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> ( [https://twitter.com/LizSpecht/status/1236095180459003909?s=1...](https://twitter.com/LizSpecht/status/1236095180459003909?s=19) )</comment>


NeoDNS: A new DNS like the one we know - <AUTHOR> https://rot256.io/post/neodns/ <comment><USER2> So, biggest question... how is this different from Namecoin [1], and how does it improve upon it? Both are in the same 'decentralized identity/DNS' space.

Also, from a cursory glance, how does this prevent spam? There seems to be no cost to register a new name. What prevents someone from taking every possible name?

[1] [https://www.namecoin.org/](https://www.namecoin.org/)

<comment><USER3> In this scheme, there is still a central registrar with full control over the TLD. For example to register a .com domain you would still go through verisign (and pay them). This proposal would just mean that verisign would provide a public, blockchain-verified history of their DNS zone file.

That's fundamentally different from namecoin which wants to cut the registrar (verisign, etc.) of the equation.

<comment><USER4> Seems somewhat similar to Certificate Transparency project, where issued certificates are recorded in a public (merkle tree) log.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The site doesn't specify directly, but would the communication between Bob (the end-user) and Trent (the trusted entity) be encrypted? If not, why not?

It's always annoyed me how much of a mess DNS is when it comes to confidentiality. Why should my ISP or employer be able to deduce which sites I'm visiting by simply inspecting my UDP datagrams (filtering to port 53) and looking at the plaintext queries? Why was this thought to be a good idea?

In the wider scheme of things, there's far too much trust with many internet services/protocols. I like that NeoDNS provides a public key for the queried service - maybe with a scheme like this we can stop sending hostnames for SNI in plaintext as part of the TLS handshake too. We shouldn't accept these sorts of information leaks anymore, it's been demonstrated too many times in the past that sending things in plaintext is a bad idea.

<comment><USER6> (1) Your ISP and employer know which sites you're visting (modulo virtual hosting) by inspecting your IP packets and doing a reverse DNS lookup. It's the price you pay for someone routing your traffic: they have to know where to send it.

(You can use a proxy/VPN tunnel. Your ISP knows knows you're sending traffic to the proxy, and your proxy knows where you're sending traffic.)

(2) DNS encryption is certainly possible. DNSCurve and DNSCrypt are the ones I know of. But there's just not a lot of motivation. IP packets have an address on them already; the only additional thing DNS or SNI reveals is which of several (usually enumerable) hostnames they are interested at that IP. So...interesting, but generally not compelling.

<comment><USER5> > (1) Your ISP and employer know which sites you're visting (modulo virtual > hosting) by inspecting your IP packets and doing a reverse DNS lookup. It's > the price you pay for someone routing your traffic: they have to know where > to send it.

You have a point, but as a webmaster there's surely no requirement for me to create a PTR record, right? As long as there's an A record somewhere, surely things will work? This is perhaps what you were getting at with "(modulo virtual hosting)" I guess (though to me that would suggest SNI-based certificate serving from one IP)?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Well great, now could someone come up with DNS improved by Machine Learning trough Deep Convolutional Neural Networks? That's the only missing thing for a BS-Bingo on my card.

</comment><comment><USER8> Is this resistant to domains being taken down for "copyright" reasons, which has shown that one does not really own the domain and is at a whim of a registrar.

<comment><USER3> Old dns entries would be recorded in the ledger forever. You would just have to write a client that ignores revocations/reassignments/updates for a chosen domain.

But in principle the registrar can still do with its domain whatever it likes for any or no reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This seem to bring up the zone enumeration issue. Except for now, approaches like used in NSEC3 won't help at all.

"Private" DNS entries matter, when one wouldn't want to remember IPs (one'd rather remember "correct-horse-battery-staple.int.example.org"), but also wouldn't want to disclose the addresses used internally and aren't exposed to the end-users (because DDoS).

</comment><comment><USER10> Will this scale to the pending explosion of DNS as IPv6 is deployed? The existing DNS infrastructure is already experiencing growing pains, especially wrt PTR records.

</comment><comment><USER11> Is anyone more familiar with it able to discuss how the identity part of this compares and contrasts with DANE?</comment>


Show your professors that you're worth the investment - <AUTHOR> http://jseliger.com/2010/10/02/how-to-get-your-professors%e2%80%99-attention-or-how-to-get-the-coaching-and-mentorship-you-need/ <comment><USER2> I don't like the focus of this article. I think it sidesteps the real issue - which is 'develop a passion for your subject' - and suggests that success would be very achievable for a student, if only the student managed to 'court' their professor/s in the correct way.

I might be wrong, but I don't believe this is true.

Develop (and progress) a passion for your subject, and everything will fall into place.

<comment><USER3> I partially disagree. I think in a graduate program at least (esp. one that requires close relationships with faculty, like a PhD), it is reasonable to assume that most of the student are passionate about their subject. But professors have limited time, and the article is correct that the approach matters when trying to get attention from faculty. As the article argues, proving that you are not wasting their time is key for professors to decide how to allocate their time spent working with students.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> To be honest I can't really relate to this whole extra-help from professors/lecturers business. Nobody's going to magically make you understand something. Your best option is to come up with some specific questions which you figure are key to advancing your comprehension - but actually there's many places to go for those answers. If I was looking for feedback on a large (extra-curricular) project I would at least prototype it or draft it before asking for an appointment. I guess I'd just feel sort of embarrassed asking something to the effect of "i've got no idea where to start, I _need_ your guidance." On the other hand, maybe that's been a hinderance to my (academic) career. Shrug.

</comment><comment><USER5> This goes for pretty much anything too - to get people to use your website, show them that it is worth their investment. To get people to join you in cause X show them that it is worth it for them.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there a start-up detox? - <AUTHOR>

This is a throw away account, as I have no intentions of mentioning my start-up.  I think I am addicted or way too emotionally attached to my start-up to truly realize I need to stop and move on with life & a new project; stop dreaming that something amazing is going to happen after 4 years.
I have tried many times to move on, but I always see something that I think is telling me I should continue.  It's never growth in traffic or user base (it's a consumer social product).
Overall the concept we created was a unique one and now after four years we are seeing a handful of developers and companies spend their time & money executing on the concept, even trying to use our IP.  Yet none of the handful that have copied our concept have seen success.
I keep thinking well if others are copying us it has to be worth something and I should continue.  I do continue working, but we do not see any growth, as neither do our competitors.
So I ask how did you finally stop working on your start-up and just move on? Did you try and sell it on Ebay or Flippa and or just completely delete it off the web? <comment><USER2> Startup detox = 9 to 5 at some large corporation.

Not sure it helps with what amounts to an inability to move from your idea on to greener / greater pastures.

Maybe set one last goal to try and achieve and if you can't reach it make it a priority to let go and move on.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah i have had two jobs so far in the past 20 months. Hard keeping a job when I think i should be doing start-up and oh other people and companies are spending resources on it I shouldnt have to be working this 9 to 5 job. As well I think the pot of gold(success) is around the corner. Note I was never in it for the money, but now after 4 years Im looking to break even and or make a profit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It's a really tough thing to gauge, when to stop. It seems that a lot of a startups success isn't necessarily all about the product (although it certainly helps, a lot), but the timing. Perhaps your startup is ahead of it's time?

Fundamentally, when to stop depends entirely on the depth of your wallet and the level of your determination.</comment>


Pathetic: Google Finance Dies at night - <AUTHOR>

I am a big fan of Google Finance. When the markets are closed, Google finance closes and it basically just times out. No Downtime message, just " Problem loading Page". I think it's pathetic coming from a Internet company like Google.<p>Has anyone else noticed it? <comment><USER2> <http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/finance.google.com>

its up for me, with no timeout errors, and i've never had a problem with it at night which is where i have the most time to do my research.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do my research at night to. It's weird though. I can only access it when the markets are open. I am in Canada though...</comment></comment>


Electric cars may hold solution for power storage - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-electric-cars-20131229,0,7309111,full.story <comment><USER2> My first impression:

This idea sounds great ... until you need to hop in your car and drive somewhere midday and learn that the battery is mostly drained because it's a hot day and everyone's turned their A/C on full blast.

I'm sure the engineers have thought about that scenario and maybe only allow 20% of the battery to be used for the purpose of grid maintenance, but I imagine it will be difficult to sell the average car owner on the idea, because people are always thinking about worst cases.

I mean, think of it in terms of a conventional car. How would you like to never know with certainty whether you have a full tank or not when you get in your car?

<comment><USER3> The other problem: Constant activity (charging/discharging) is going to murder battery longevity. Murder with a rusty spoon.

<comment><USER4> The car batteries are really only stop-gap measures to allow the utilities to better match their plants with demands. It's for synchronization only.

A coal power plant might take several days to reach a "set point" and to generate a certain amount of power.

A natural gas plant might take as little as 5 minutes or as long as an hour to get operational.

A diesel generator might turn on and make power in as little as 30 seconds.

A hydro plant might be able to go from 0% to 100% in just a few seconds.

Given that the utility companies can't KNOW for sure EXACTLY how much power people will demand in the future they've always got excess capacity ready and waiting. But these idling plants aren't free and that drives the price of electricity up.

The idea behind V2G is that the utility companies can get some of their demand power from the cars whilst they fire up diesel generators or natural gas plants or whatever, thus saving them from having to keep those plants idling until they're definitely needed.

EDIT: The idea isn't that you constantly charge/discharge car batteries it's that you charge them in the morning after the drive to work so they're full by noon. Then as the day heats up you can pull small amounts of power from large amounts of cars until the demand is high enough that you fire up a peaker plant. Use that to charge the cars back up and provide the afternoon A/C electricity and shut it down as everyone starts to go home.

Instead of having the peaker plant be at ~20% capacity from 12-2, ~60% capacity from 2-5 and ~30% capacity from 5-7 you get to run 0% from 12-2, 80-100% from 2-5 and 30% from 5-7. Two hours of runtime saved per day is 600 hours per year. Turbine rebuilds aren't cheap; a buddy of mine is a private jet pilot and they have to put away between $500 and $2500 per hour that engines are running for overhaul at either 1000 or 2000 hour intervals. And that's for the kind of small engines in a 6-12 seater business jet. I'd wager that 20MW (~20,000 HP) natural gas turbines are substantially more.

<comment><USER3> You wrote a very long post about the benefits. Thank you, but I already understand that. This _really_ doesn't address my post in the slightest! Unless I'm just thick as a brick here.

<comment><USER5> I think msandford is thinking that you think that this system would charge- cycle a car more than once per day, and if you do think this, he's addressing it by pointing out that the car would be charge-cycled only once per day, or less given that the system wouldn't need to utilize every car on a given day. So this extra <= 1 charge cycle per day shouldn't "murder" the battery longevity (or at least murder is way too strong of a word) compared to normal daily driving.

<comment><USER4> Yes I was getting to that in a roundabout way. It wasn't very clear. You're going to have two charge cycles per day driving to and from work probably, and one or less for the V2G scenario. So it doesn't seem terribly murderful on battery life to me. Should have made that a lot more clear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The biggest obstacle, in my opinion, to vehicle-to-grid (V2G) applications is distribution utilities. All utilities have comprehensive procedures for studying and approving connection of distribution generation resources to their networks (rooftop PV, small CCGT, etc.). These take in account the maximum possible output of the generation asset as well as how they will behave under fault conditions.

They're already quite stingy about approving customer-owned DGs (because there is little or no financial benefit to the utility) - I can only imagine how they'll feel about people connecting a generator they don't control, at locations and times they can't predict, with the ability to disconnect them arbitrarily and drive away.

In order for V2G to become a reality, utilities will need far more advanced software and metering infrastructure to perform real-time load-flow analysis of their systems and determine if/how to dispatch connected EVs. At present few utilities even have the metering infrastructure to enable that kind of intelligent control, let alone the supervisory control software.

<comment><AUTHOR> >[eigenvector]... utilities will need far more advanced software and metering infrastructure

...and as I take it from other discussion, re-design, -engineering and replacement of some distribution station equipment and software to allow net power flow upstream when a substation's downstream DG exceeds downstream load, presently taken to be a fault condition.

A DG participation fee payable to the utility for infrastructure development and upgrades seems reasonable to me in light of these considerations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Do they factor in the fact that battery capacity diminishes with each discharge/charge cycle?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This "Vehicle to Grid" idea has been around for a while. The article cites some progress (a trial program in SoCal).

It's noted that using one's car to contribute to grid stability may void current battery warranties, about which the article notes:

"Innovators in the field are gradually convincing car manufacturers of the potential to create a "value proposition for the car owner" and thus boost sales, Gage said. Ultimately, however, carmakers may be put at ease by experiments being conducted by the military."

</comment><comment><USER8> Recently there have been quite a few debates on the subject of solar/alternative-energy users feeding power back onto the grid .. and the latest story seems to be that power companies are attempting to fight off the impending doom of self-powered individuals by stating that 'it costs too much to update the grid to allow everyone to push to it, so these alternative- energy users should pay a hefty fee to upgrade the grid'.

Well, this story seems to point to the solution: put batteries in all the things! If its going to cost more to feed power back to the grid, then why not just make everything in your home store its own local power supply ..

To some extent, I'm already doing this - pretty much every electronic device in my house uses rechargeable batteries. So maybe the campaign by the utilities against feeding power to the grid is going to have the effect of pushing everyone to localise their power needs even further, and instead of pushing excess to an ageing, antiquated monopoly, us alternative-energy freaks are instead going to foster the creation of a heftier market for battery- protected devices. (I'd be quite happy to run my TV on battery power, if it only had one in it, like my laptops and cell phones and toothbrushes do ..)

</comment><comment><USER9> I would imagine that the best batteries would be reservoirs. Take two spaces that hold water. One at high ground and one at low ground. Pump the water from low ground to high ground when energy is plentiful and let it run through generators when you need energy. Yeah, there is going to be energy loss, but this approach should scale to the quantity of energy necessary to provide the same amount of energy as a power plant for 12-24 hours.

<comment><USER10> Dinorwig power station in North Wales does this. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station).

For a consumer though, a single KW (3.6MJ) of power would be generated by moving 10m^3 (i.e. 10KL) of water 36m (approximating gravity at 10ms^-2). You can tweak those numbers but you end up needing two sizable water tanks quite far apart. Great if you have loads of land but not much use for consumer storage.

Feel free to correct any flaws in the calculations, I'd be much happier if I were off by an order of 10 or more.

<comment><USER9> There's a second benefit to this approach in that you could use potable water tanks and fully sealed piping. This would provide many people with water to use in the event of an emergency. Obviously they would need to balance the needs of water with its utility as a way to store energy, but so long as you conserve both in the event of a disaster, you should be able to replenish what you've used via rainwater if the system is set up to collect rainwater and filter it (except in dry areas or during a drought of course).

How long would 1 KW last for the average household, and, if 1 KW is not enough, how many cubic meters of water would the average household have to store?

<comment><USER10> How long 1 kilowatt hour would last is a difficult question - depends on how efficient the home is and what tasks need to use that energy (for example, AC is very expensive but tends to be needed most when solar energy is available). Heating and cooling are most expensive.

Our energy usage in a not particularly well insulated home but in a subtropical Spring averaged about 9kWh/day - so 1kWh (3.6MJ) wouldn't get us far - it probably barely powers the fridge! However, you'd only need the storage overnight, and use solar energy the rest of the time. In sunny climes, at least.

Again, how much water depends on how much vertical drop, but it would likely be a lot of water (if you sat one cubic tank with 4.4m sides on top of another then emptying the top into the bottom would theoretically generate 1kWh)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It'll be interesting how the energy landscape gets defined in the near future. Of note, there's a funded kickstarter that stores energy in residential flywheels that appears to be another promising solution: [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1340066560/velkess- energ...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1340066560/velkess-energy- storage/posts)

</comment><comment><USER12> One concern is that: Can they perform well like the fuel-powered cars?</comment>


Blockchains Are Poised to End the Password Era - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609583/why-blockchains-are-poised-to-end-the-password-era/ <comment><USER2> (from the linked article about Illinois & Evernym)

        Businesses and governments will be able to verify and
        authenticate citizens by requesting encrypted access to
        these verifiable claims.

"Requesting access" from whom, exactly? The idea that a person would control their own identity information is compelling, but I don't see how they work around "who holds the private key":

* if the person holds it, there will need to be an analog recovery procedure for when the key is inevitably lost. The "digital ID" isn't a _replacement_ for the other documentation in that case, just a way to carry the data in those documents more efficiently.

* if the issuing agency holds it, the above but MOAR.</comment>


How to raise money with no lead - <AUTHOR> http://venturehacks.com/articles/no-lead

<comment><USER2> The big concern with what I read is that you need to set your own proposed term-sheet slightly below market.

I'm not sure why a startup would want to do that.

There was also no real explanation as to why you wouldn't want a lead investor, or what is wrong with having one.

It feels like this is doing something different for the sake of it, and fund- raising seems to be a prime time when you don't want to do anything unusual or different to the norm as it could spook investors and close doors.

<comment><USER3> The message from both PG and the VH guys seems to be this style is on the rise, especially among the best startups -- so there shouldn't be a "this is different and spooky" effect.

In the article Nivi rephrases "below market" as "priced to move" -- to create excitement and eliminate the need for lengthy due diligence. Leaving a little on the table could make sense for a faster, more-likely-to-finish-without-a- hitch round.

<comment><USER2> _The message from both PG and the VH guys seems to be this style is on the rise_

Is it though? I'm a fan of PG and VH.com but I wonder if the tail is actually wagging the dog here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Question about slide 16: Why is selling preferred shares is more beneficial to founders than convertible debt?

<comment><USER5> Convertible debt, being debt, has an expiry date where it must be repaid (if it isn't converted). This could result in founders forfeiting their entire company if they can't repay the debt.

Preferred stock, in contrast, acts like convertible debt with an infinite expiry date -- presuming, of course, that there aren't terms allowing the investor to force an exit at some point.

<comment><USER6> Convertible notes can have a clause that they turn into preferred at a specific valuation after a set amount of time. So this is not correct.

I'm really not sure how preferred acts "like" convertible debt. They are radically different things. The main value of a convert is a) nobody really needs to lead, as it is usually drafted by the startup, b) it is cheaper and easier on the leg a side, and c) it doesn't set a valuation on the company.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> well, if you have no lead, you certainly can't turn it into gold, so that option's right out.</comment>


Addressing Founder Depression – YC Hackathon project - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Sn82CL2YjFMgZdu2o2sWKFBoGH2VGihQ7LfnD6-kGv0/viewform <comment><USER2> I've been reading about founder's depression. Why do we have to label it as if this is something that is affecting founders. Depression affects everyone, from a single mother who works hard to support her family and has no time for herself. From the dad that works hard and has to put kids through school, put food on the table, the person who works behind the counter at your favorite burger place who works hard and can't pay for his/her school because they don't make enough money.

I suffer from depression and I am not a founder we all have issues so why do we have to label this depression and founder's depression. These people are no different that anyone else just different problems.

seems like we should actually be doing something to help people with depression and not just a certain group just because they are founders. After all depression is the same regardless if you are a founder, a manager, a business owner, a student.

<comment><USER3> I wholeheartedly see your point, but I believe the well-intentioned objective is to gain perspective from like-minded individuals who can empathize. Much like a support group. Depressed alcoholics share a common bond not only around depression, but the specific problems associated with alcohol. Founders often find themselves lonely with their problems and want to connect with others with similar experiences.

<comment><USER4> This answer encapsulates what we want to do really well!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's hard to criticize well-intentioned efforts, but I think it's worth noting that there are a lot of assumptions being made about "founder depression."

Depression is often confused with anxiety disorders, and complicating matters, it's not uncommon for these to be co-occurring. A lot of the symptoms described in the recent posts by Sam Altman and TechCrunch on "founder depression" actually sound more like symptoms of anxiety disorders than they do symptoms of clinical depression.

Before an individual jumps to the conclusion that he or she is suffering from depression, it would be wise to seek help from a mental health professional who can make a proper diagnosis.

<comment><USER4> Hi there, I'm on the YC Hacks team working on this. I agree that "founder depression" is somewhat vague and potentially confusing in describing what we're doing. The intent is simply to anonymously connect people who are going through similar situations, whether positive or negative, in order to edify and support one another.

Based on both anecdotal evidence and recent articles, it seems as though people in the startup community often don't have many compassionate outlets they can leverage to talk to others who are either going through something similar or have gone through something similar before. By finding someone relatable to share experiences or learnings, they can release some of the pent-up emotion or frustration that they have and be able to move forward.

Furthermore, this is not designed to replace working with a mental health professional--not in the slightest! This is more purpose-built around finding peers who have the right context to really understand or comment on what you're going through and empathize. This isn't meant to be a counseling service.

<comment><USER5> > Based on both anecdotal evidence and recent articles, it seems as though > people in the startup community often don't have many compassionate outlets > they can leverage to talk to others who are either going through something > similar or have gone through something similar before.

There's a huge difference between providing an outlet for startup founders to commiserate with each other and providing an outlet for individuals who believe they're suffering from depression to obtain support. Again, it's hard to criticize well-intentioned efforts, but my (hopefully) constructive criticism is that you seem to be blurring the lines. You _can_ build a useful founder support network without focusing on depression.

Clinical depression is a disorder that has a variety of causes. Some of them are social or psychological, but there may also be biochemical causes. A startup founder's depression may have less to do with his or her startup experience than one might think, in which case focusing on this part of the person's life could be more harmful than helpful.

An individual who may be suffering from clinical depression (or an anxiety disorder) should be encouraged to obtain a professional diagnosis, and treatment should be guided by a professional whom that individual trusts.

> This isn't meant to be a counseling service.

Easily said, but harder to enforce. Case in point: one of the services you're considering using, 7 Cups of Tea, is positioned as an online counseling/therapy portal.

<comment><USER4> > There's a huge difference between providing an outlet for startup founders > to commiserate with each other and providing an outlet for individuals who > believe they're suffering from depression to obtain support. Again, it's > hard to criticize well-intentioned efforts, but my (hopefully) constructive > criticism is that you seem to be blurring the lines. You can build a useful > founder support network without focusing on depression.

We're definitely on the same page and our goal is to do the former rather than the latter. Describing it as a founder depression product was ultimately incorrect and we're moving away from that description here at YC Hacks. I definitely appreciate the distinction and your constructive criticism.

> Easily said, but harder to enforce. Case in point: one of the services > you're considering using, 7 Cups of Tea, is positioned as an online > counseling/therapy portal.

Also a great observation -- with regard to 7 Cups of Tea, the company is an inspiration point but we are not using them and we don't believe our service is competitive to their offering.

<comment><USER6> Would love to work with you on this :). If interested, shoot me an email at email@example.com.

<comment><USER4> Will do! We're hard at work right now but will reach out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think a serious contribution to Founder Depression is that we're always expected to be _on_. If anyone asks about your startup you're _supposed_ to be super-motivated, encouraged to give off the appearance that everythings a-ok in case word might get out to investors/competitors/etc.

The reality is that some weeks/months really, really suck. If more of us recognised and accepted this fact then I think it'd go a long way to combatting FD.

</comment><comment><USER8> I would like to introduce myself to this group as a former founder and CEO, psychiatrist, and mentor at the UCSF accelerator. My team includes a psychology professor at UC Berkeley and a research assistant. After the suicides of several inspiring entrepreneurs we decided to study the relationship between human factors - including mood - and a variety of outcomes including success/failure, and mental health issues. Over 400 entrepreneurs responded to our recent survey and we are now analyzing the data. We are finding meaningful results that we hope to use to educate entrepreneurs and to develop effective mental health risk reduction / performance enhancement resources for our community. Many of the questions raised in this conversation should be pretty well addressed by this research, and I will be happy to keep this community posted. Michael A. Freeman, MD, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, UCSF and Mentor, The Entrepreneurship Center at UCSF.

</comment><comment><USER8> Contact information for the following post: email@example.com; www.MichaelAFreemanMD.com Our research is suggesting that there are actually some significant differences between the way mood spectrum conditions manifest in entrepreneurs vs. a more general population. Will have much more to report about this later. Regarding the relentlessly upbeat stereotype of founders, this image is in denial about "the downside of being up."

I would like to introduce myself to this group as a former founder and CEO, psychiatrist, and mentor at the UCSF accelerator. My team includes a psychology professor at UC Berkeley and a research assistant. Michael A. Freeman, MD, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, UCSF and Mentor, The Entrepreneurship Center at UCSF.

</comment><comment><USER9> > We want to create a safe place for founders to share their specific issues > and solicit support and advice from fellow founders or those who can > empathize.

Sounds similar to [https://startupsanonymous.com](https://startupsanonymous.com)

<comment><USER10> Have you guys checked out Dev Pressed ([http://devpressed.com/](http://devpressed.com/))?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Contact me asap. I explored the same idea last year including an interview series with prominent entrepreneurs experiencing depression.

email@example.com</comment>


3D printing titanium and the bin of broken dreams - <AUTHOR> http://pencerw.com/feed/2015/3/15/3d-printing-titanium-and-the-bin-of-broken-dreams <comment><USER3> The issues with part flex during the build process seem inherent to the "printing" technology. I wonder if the best way around this for metal might be to print a wax (or similar material) part, and then cast. Lost-wax casting would be difficult for the consumer, and if I'm to believe "How It's Made" is largely handwork even in industry. However, it might also be a process that could be improved by new, programmable tools.

<comment><USER4> Casting has similar entertaining issues with shrinkage and voids and embedded stresses. The thin parts and edges will cool much quicker than the edges.

You could anneal a block, and EDM the whole thing. Probably cheaper than the powder processes at this time and certainly the end result will either be lighter or stronger.

What does work w/ 3d printing and casting is printing your model in PLA or whatever, then sand casting around it, at least if its small. If its big you still win on time (and probably cost) using traditional woodworking to make the model.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This company will 3d print a wax, then lost-wax cast that out of titanium. I don't know the price. They make PING golf clubs among other things.

[http://www.dolphincasting.com/about.htm](http://www.dolphincasting.com/about.htm)

A friend was quoted $14 per pound for steel, use that as a reference - <USER2> 25x the cost of raw steel.

<comment><USER6> The company I work for does Titanium DMLS. Can get a free automated quote too. [http://www.protolabs.com/fineline](http://www.protolabs.com/fineline)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> These guys have some Ti-capable technology currently flying under the radar, and are worth watching if you're in the market for an affordable, cost- effective solution to 3d printing metals:

[http://shop.auroralabs3d.com/pages/about- us](http://shop.auroralabs3d.com/pages/about-us)

<comment><USER8> The surface finish on the parts on their web site looks very, very rough - like coral.</comment></comment>


CIA Guide to Business Sabotage - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/cia-manual-sabotage-productivity-2016-6 <comment><USER2> Enterprise handbook :) There are so many parallels inside.</comment>


Legal Suicide for Web start-ups: A beginner's guide - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-9782365-2.html <comment><USER2> 7: Ignoring the bribes you have to pay

This sort of activity riles me up more than almost anything. Patent trolls, bogus copyright claims, and the advice to settle quickly to just be done with them seems so fundamentally _evil_ that I can never get used to the idea.

<comment><USER3> My guess is that whatever system you set up there is going to be a parasitic element. I'm kind of thankful that they no longer burn your village and take your women.

These people still suck. They are big fat minus signs on the tally sheet of humanity. It really is a shame that they are born (from an economic standpoint).

If it makes you feel better. Keep a careful list of those who extort this kind of money from you during your ascent. When you get to be Google, hire a staff attorney who does nothing but file nuisance suits against them for the rest of their lives. (Hint: By that time you won't actually care, but it does make you feel better about the extortion in the short run).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> AskHN: I'm inspired by the existence of organizations like the EFF, FSF, and SFLC. Do any HN readers or their acquaintances practice law in this field? Is it possible to make a decent living working in favor of "ethically sound" organizations like the above?

<comment><USER5> I have a friend who is a lawyer who does "ethically sound" work - he primarily works with people who get treated horribly during peaceful protests.

He lives fine. He definitely doesn't make "lawyer money", but he doesn't live like a pauper either.

I don't know how software lawyers fare, or how people employed by organizations that primarily deal with software ethics (I guess that's the right term) fare, but I'd guess there's a living to be made. While I'm guessing, I'd guess that it's going to get progressively easier for people to make a living in such fields for the next year or five.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This stuff is really scary. Is there any insurance you buy that protects you if a patent troll sues you personally, etc?

<comment><USER7> Isn't limiting this liability this one of the primary reasons for incorporating?

<comment><USER6> Is that enough though? I recall all those people being hit by that storing-a- wishlist-in-a-database patent troll felt really screwed. Shouldn't they have been less worried if just had to shut down their LLC?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Video interview with Fred von Lohmann (author of the guide)

The Legal Campaign Against Software Developers and Users

[http://footage.stealthisfilm.com/video/1?t=00:00:00,000&...](http://footage.stealthisfilm.com/video/1?t=00:00:00,000&q=lohmann)

<comment><USER9> It's pretty cool how you can jump directly to a point in the video by hacking the URL.

<comment><USER10> Off-topic, but Youtube has that feature too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The problem with law firms, is that they charge you out of the ass. Look at Kawasaki...his crappy truemors site paid something like 5K in lawyer fees. To do what?

What the web needs is more online legal solutions with cheaper prices.</comment>


Show HN: Chromely – Lightweight Alternative to Electron for .NET and .NET Core - <AUTHOR> This is introducing Chromely.
Chromely is a lightweight .NET/.NET Core HTML5 Chromium desktop framework alternative to Electron.NET, Electron for .NET/.NET Core developers.
Chromely builds HTML5 desktops without WinForms or WPF. Chromely is based on CEF's Xilium.CefGlue and CefSharp using thin Windows and Linux native GUI API as chromium hosts.
With Chromely, you can build SPA's HTML5 desktop apps- using Angular, React, Vue or similar - without Node/NPM.
For more info please go to - https://github.com/mattkol/Chromely <comment><USER2> Someone was just asking for something like this today.

Happy to see people caring about performance</comment>


Yahoo + Google= Collusion...Antitrust? - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/04/24/does-the-google-yahoo-advertising-test-amount-to-collusion/

<comment><AUTHOR> heres a link to a reuters article explaining the investigation more:

<http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWBT00884320080423>

</comment><comment><USER2> What a farce.

If the feds won't do anything about Microsoft or ExxonMobil, then why even have antitrust legislation?

This has nothing to do with justice or fair play, just whose lobbyists have the most money, er I mean clout.

<comment><USER3> Granted, but then at least they are going after companies that can defend themself - had they gone after a startup it would have been all over.

Thing is, it doesn't matter where google is located so it push comes to show they could more to another country they buy the officials of. Maybe they should.</comment></comment>


How did we get into this [DevOps] mess? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.flatironschool.com/post/79482365448/how-did-we-get-into-this-mess

<comment><USER2> When the suggestion for "noobs" on this is:

        Make your editor clean trailing whitespace on save
        Create a .dotfiles repo
        Use Puppet or Chef to automate the configuration of your developer machine
        Use Vagrant or Docker to simulate your production env on your local machine

I have to have a little bit of a facepalm. Trim your trailing whitespace? Set up a dotfiles repo? Learn puppet? Caveat: I'm not a developer. I'm a sysadmin. Albeit a sysadmin who writes code and knows _how to interact with developers_. After 15 years in the trade professionally I think the bigger issue is claiming that a 12 week program will make you a developer. It may teach you _development_, but that's no more accurate than saying 12 weeks administering an Apache server makes you understand Linux.

<comment><USER2> Additionally the statement:

Our healing comes in two forms: Culture, and Tools.

Speaks to the second half of those bullet points above. Learning more tools isn't going to "heal" anything. Tools (often) obfuscate process in order to make said process executable by an "operator" not an "admin."</comment></comment>


There's so much to hate in Romney - <AUTHOR> http://scripting.com/stories/2012/08/31/muchToHateInRomney.html <comment><USER2> Why is this on the front page? It's not only horribly written, but not really full of any useful information if you want to look at actual politics. Don't disagree with the conclusion, but it does not belong here.</comment>


Where Worker Productivity Really Comes From - <AUTHOR> http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2018/04/where_worker_pr.html <comment><USER2> TL;DR: productivity results from an unbroken chain of necessary prerequisites. The author chooses two in the chain and claims they are the 'real source' of productivity.</comment>


The Design and Implementation of the Anykernel and Rump Kernels (2012) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2012/isbn9789526049175/isbn9789526049175.pdf

<comment><USER2> There is more on github [1] and the wiki [2] including videos and articles [3]

[1] [https://github.com/rumpkernel](https://github.com/rumpkernel)

[2] [https://github.com/rumpkernel/wiki](https://github.com/rumpkernel/wiki)

[3] [https://github.com/rumpkernel/wiki/wiki/Info%3A-Publications...](https://github.com/rumpkernel/wiki/wiki/Info%3A-Publications- and-Talks)

</comment><comment><USER3> anyone here on HN using rumpkernel? if so, care to share how?

<comment><USER2> I am working on it, got quite a lot of plans but there is also quite a bit of general usability work to do... will announce some stuff in a bit...</comment></comment>


Blowing up HTML5 video and mapping it into 3D space (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://www.craftymind.com/blowing-up-html5-video-and-mapping-it-into-3d-space/ <comment><USER2> This article was written 6 years ago. Does anyone else think the span of 2010-2016 web development has seen slower innovation than 2004-2010? Or 1998-2004?

Maybe I'm spoiled, but it feels like things aren't moving that fast anymore, and it might be a good thing. More time to focus on actually making products.

</comment><comment><USER3> Stupid HTML5 tricks! Pretty impressive stuff, and it drives home for me at least that I shouldn't try to write my own UI platform, web browsers really can do it all these days, eh?

</comment><comment><USER4> Anyone else not having much luck on mobile?

<comment><USER5> The two first demos worked for a while in Firefox on Android. But when I let the second one keep running for a little while, Firefox crashed.</comment></comment>


We are listening - <AUTHOR> http://blog.codeable.io/2013/02/15/we-re-listening.html

<comment><USER2> This blog post and website in general are both guilty of something that I see a lot and that drives me crazy: I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS IS. You got me to click on the link – now what? I don't know what the app in question is. I don't know what codeable.io is. Even after clicking through to the home page, I still don't really know what codeable.io is. Something about WordPress and contractors, maybe? The first thing on a site should SAY WHAT IT IS. The first line of the blog post should include something like "A little over a month ago, we released our app to do X" – with a link to the app. You know, so I know what the hell you're talking about and where I can get it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I guess we'll have to increase the header font even more :)

Joke aside, it's an outsourcing portal for WordPress. That would be the shortest version.

<comment><USER3> Maybe instead of "Get help developing your Wordpress site" you should have your subtitle as title?

Blog has neither and would benefit from either.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the suggestion, I'll put it in

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Link bait</comment>


Camera+ reaches 6 million sales milestone (sales figures charts 'n' graphs) - <AUTHOR> http://taptaptap.com/blog/cameraplus-reaches-6-million-sales-milestone/ <comment><USER2> For anyone that's still using the iPhone's default Camera app, Please go buy Camera+!! I'll Paypal you the dollar if you need it. Aside from being better in almost every way, you get the bonus of filtering pictures before they go to you PhotoStream. My PhotoStream hasn't had a single out of focus, poorly cropped, or accidental photo since I bought C+.

</comment><comment><USER3> My theory is that increase in sales of camera effect applications is directly correlated with increased popularity of instagram.

Atleast in my household our iTunes bill has included much more camera apps after my wife signed up for instagram.

Any other takers for this theory?

</comment><comment><USER4> What happened with the whole "volume button as a shutter button" rejection issue? Especially now that Apple does it in the stock Camera app. Is it allowed on the App Store?

</comment><comment><USER5> Let's be real here, who the hell cares except whoever's bank account Apple's paying?

<comment><USER6> You're on news.ycombinator.com, a site emphasizing on startups, app development, and dare I say, generating revenue. I'd say the answer is 'pretty much everyone here'.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why does this app cost $92M to build and $93M/year to maintain? - <AUTHOR> http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2016/09/02/google-and-amazon-vie-for-big-inroad-into-wall-street-data-trove/? <comment><USER2> Curating and adding to the collection, updates for evolving platforms, operating expenses, customer support?

Haven't looked at museum budgets, but it may be similar.</comment>


Accidental Find May Lead to a Cure For Baldness - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2011/04/02/accidental-find-may-lead-to-a-cure-for-baldness-2/ <comment><USER2> I notice this was the result of testing stress relievers on [stressed] mice. It occurs to me, it's very likely that this "cure" would only work on stress related baldness, not necessarily genetic baldness.

PS. I also feel compelled to mention previous experience with stress related baldness in animals. A few years back, I adopted a ferret from a friend who was heading off to the marines and wouldn't be able to take care of it. The ferret in question was bald along it's tail due to stress (my friend also owned two dogs that would harass the ferret). In only a few weeks of taking ownership of the ferret the hair had returned to his tail. In other words, it would appear that stress related baldness cures itself in when stress is relieved. So again, I don't really see this medication as any actual direct benefit for balding men. It may perhaps work wonders in relieving stress but the hair regrowth is not a result of the drug its a result of stress relief. A subtle but important difference.

<comment><USER3> The same thing occured to me. The same thing probably occured to everyone that read the article, because that's exactly what the article says:

"The findings in the current study are limited in their application as this study models hair loss related to stress and thus may not be relevant to hair loss brought on by factors other than stress."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Related article that appeared a while back (focusing on growing hair follicles from stem cells).

[http://news.bioscholar.com/2010/12/a-cure-for-baldness- could...](http://news.bioscholar.com/2010/12/a-cure-for-baldness-could-be- available-in-5-years.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> I can't help but not care about this. Sure it's a fun finding, but WHY is baldness considered something that is so badly in need of a 'cure'?

Of course I do understand it from a purely capitalistic viewpoint in that a 'cure' would no doubt be worth a ton of money but seriously. What's so bad about baldness?

Sometimes you really piss me off Humanity!

<comment><USER6> Being bald is a huge stigma. Simply put (if overly generalized): most women find bald men very unappealing. I started losing my hair in my mid-twenties, and incidentally this was the last time when a woman was interested in me. Of course, some people can compensate for this, but apparently I can't. I probably shouldn't write this publicly, but I had some success going to parties with a wig. Really! So yeah, baldness needs a cure.

It's debatable whether it's an illness, however there are some findings that suggest the underlying condition not only affects follicle cells but also prostate tissue, leading to a higher chance of developing cancer. But even if there were no ill effects, a cure would still enable bald people to lead a normal life.

That being said, I don't believe this cure exists. There are good preventative drugs, but it's highly doubtful any medication could actually restore dead follicles in humans. Those effects on mice are very likely not transferrable.

<comment><USER7> Hear me out, my chrome-domed friend.

This man, the women would not find appealing. His appearance reduces his status: [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VlmHNP9So5Y/Sm86i7qHqLI/AAAAAAAACe...](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VlmHNP9So5Y/Sm86i7qHqLI/AAAAAAAACeI/n31ynhFM2Lw/s400/patrick_stewart.jpg)

In holding on to the effectiveness of his remaining fertile follicles, he fails to display the very might and youthful vigor he seeks.

This man, on the other hand, the women love: [http://filmpopper.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/12/Patrick-Ste...](http://filmpopper.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/12/Patrick-Stewart.jpg)

This is not only because men improve with age (to a certain point), but also because he cuts his remaining hair very short. He is, as Stephen King once described a character, "unabashadly bald." His confidence is such that he does not cling to the ghost of locks he lacks.

Another example: <http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/images/alain-de- botton1.jpg> as opposed to <http://metkere.com/images/alain-de-botton- thumb-500x356.jpg>

Now, I would encourage De Botton to cut his hair even shorter than in the second picture. But by cutting it as short as he has, and shaving the straggly portions up top, he has improved his appeal by indicating his comfortability with the situation.

You might also note a certain Mr. Jason Statham and that fellow who used to be called The Rock.

<comment><USER6> > _Hear me out, my chrome-domed friend._

Thanks for making me laugh :-)

Yes, I do shave my head as well. Sadly, I still don't have the charisma, the fame or the good looks of Patrick Steward. Like I said, some people can pull it off, but not that many. And what if Patrick Steward had the choice? Chances are, he'd opt for a full head of hair and probably even more women would find him sexy because of it.

Also, I thought Sinéad O'Connor was quite attractive without the hair. That doesn't mean I would recommend it for 99% of the women either.

On a personal note, two women told me point blank they'd be attracted to me if I had hair and others have made remarks about how important nice hair is for a man. Sure, it would be great to have other qualities to compensate for this, but since I don't it apparently comes down to hair over baldness.

<comment><USER8> There is a (possibly apocryphal) story that, when ST:TNG was to begin filming, Stewart was being encouraged to use a wig "because baldness would have been cured by the 25th century"; his response was that baldness shouldn't be a social stigma in the 25th century.

I couldn't quickly verify the story, but, as someone whose gradual pattern baldness can be most gently described as "hilarious", I appreciate it even if it's not true.

I also think -- and I'm about to be a lot crude here -- that male baldness is a little like breast size for women. Sure, guys will notice average-to-larger sized breasts, but there's a lot more to how attractive they think a woman is: posture, attitude, a smile, for example. Is baldness a disadvantage? Sure. Does it, by itself, make you unattractive? Nah.

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure it compares to breast size. For instance, I really _like_ women with smaller breasts, the larger ones just don't seem very aesthetic to me (especially with no clothes on).

Compared to that, baldness is a style that may look good on a few men; it may look neutral on a few more. But the overwhelming majority of men would be better off (dating-wise) with a full head of hair. All other things being equal, having hair is a plus.

Many people are surprised to hear this, but huge breasts can actually be a turn-off to many men. However I never heard a woman say: " _I'd find him attractive if only he was bald, that full lustrous head of hair just doesn't do it for me_ ".

<comment><USER9> _Many people are surprised to hear this, but huge breasts can actually be a turn-off to many men. However I never heard a woman say: "I'd find him attractive if only he was bald, that full lustrous head of hair just doesn't do it for me"._

Many people are surprised to hear it because it rarely gets said. I believe you are the first man I have heard state that he _prefers_ smaller breasts. Just because you don't hear women _say_ "If only he were bald..." doesn't mean there are no women thinking it.

I will also note that women tend to talk less about men and their physical attributes than men do about women and their physical attributes. Women are generally not in a good position to pursue sex for mere fun and typically need to consider the possibility that, oops, she might wind up pregnant and then it will matter a good deal more if he is decent, loyal, has a reasonable income and so on. I will also note that lots of women like older men and older men are often losing their hair. So I think that is indirect evidence that some women are perfectly happy to get with a man with less hair.

I'm sorry this is such a huge issue for you. But I don't think your argument really holds water.

<comment><USER6> > _I will also note that women tend to talk less about men and their physical > attributes than men do about women and their physical attributes_

This has not been my experience.

> _I'm sorry this is such a huge issue for you._

It's not, actually. Mainly I just enjoy the discussion.

Actually, you make an interesting point. I believe there is a social norm involved that tells men they have to like large breasts or else they're gay/weak/whatever. I _do_ know a few men who are really and credibly into huge pendulous breasts, but I also know some who just try to conform to the "standard" outwardly and privately they prefer them smaller.

So your point is that women prefer hair _because_ being bald is a social stigma, being an analogous process to the stigmatization of preferring small breasts? I'm not convinced, but it's an interesting thought.

<comment><USER8> I didn't really want to derail this into a conversation about boobs; the takeaway should have been that, while certain physical attributes are more or less appealing to _most_ people, the particulars matter a lot less than the attractiveness of the person as a whole.

<comment><USER6> I think the boob analogy was interesting, so why not talk about it.

But to bring this back together: my main hypothesis really comes down to the point that "hair" trumps "no hair" if all other factors are eliminated. Sure some people may look awesome without hair, and most men can make up for this and other shortcomings in many ways.

I agree, the whole person counts. But I assert that even an attractive and successful bald man would be more desirable if he had hair. And for the not so attractive and successful, the difference of having hair can be the whole bowl of wax.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Awesome, long flowing hair... On your back!</comment>