All the things task apps aren't getting right vs. paper - <AUTHOR> http://michaeldhopkins.posterous.com/what-digital-task-apps-are-lacking

<comment><USER2> Apart from those "psycho-tactile" arguments, the biggest problems of those GTD apps is their ridiculous overhead. Projects, sub-projects, sub-sub-projects, tags, folders, due dates, scheduling, etc. I'm sure many find those things useful, otherwise there wouldn't be such a market for these apps, but I inevitably get lost in all the organizing.

The only GTD app I've ever found useful is TaskPaper [1], and that's because it pretty much "just" a piece of paper, taking just enough advantage of the possiblities of software to make it truly powerful.

[1] <http://www.hogbaysoftware.com/products/taskpaper>

<comment><USER3> Why are these simple apps native although they would perfectly work as a web app. I don't want to download something to test it. And I don't want to sign up, regardless of how simple the sign up process is, we have the power to build things were you can get started right away.

Just use Local Storage to get the user started right away. When he decides to sign up you can copy the local data to the server side storage.

<comment><USER4> Having to download a native app and having to create an account are two entirely separate matters.

And FTR, part of the advantage of native apps is that they'll never be relegated to "just another browser tab" or lost in a sea of favicons. When I'm going to invest time in a workflow / application / product, I almost always prefer the native app to web app for this particular reason.

<comment><USER3> _Having to download a native app and having to create an account are two entirely separate matters._

Yes they are two seperate matters. But they still have a problem in common: They introduce barriers you have to overcome until you can use / test the app. I guess an app without such a barrier is doing a lot better.

 _And FTR, part of the advantage of native apps is that they'll never be relegated to "just another browser tab" or lost in a sea of favicons. When I'm going to invest time in a workflow / application / product, I almost always prefer the native app to web app for this particular reason._

Valid point, this is one of the downsides when you focus on non-native apps. It will be interesting to see if this changes when web apps get more traction. If they ever do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm surprised the fact that it always works wasn't mentioned.

Paper is not dependent on:

-Having an internet connection

-Being booted into your OS

-Not in a full screen application

-Having enough battery

-Amazon's servers being up

-The code breaking in some weird corner case

-The company that's running the site declaring bankruptcy and packing up

While none of these things are especially high probability events, the fact such apps are dependent on so much infrastructure adds up.

<comment><USER6> Paper is dependant on:

      - Having paper near your computer.
      - Having a pen that works,
      - or a pencil ...
      - of which the point doesn't break off.
      - etc.

I use taskwarrior. It's CL and kicks ass. <http://taskwarrior.org>

<comment><USER7> You can make yourself a HipsterPDA. Or just have a plain notepad. Having that with yourself is also beneficial for capturing ideas. The only thing that beats paper here, for me, is a one-or-two-clicks voice note recorder in your phone.

Or if you go everywhere with a backpack, you can carry a thin paper binder with your task list with you. I've once used to do both binder and HipsterPDA at the same time.

//EDIT

> I use taskwarrior. It's CL and kicks ass. <http://taskwarrior.org>

I thought by 'CL' you mean 'Common Lisp' and went straight to downloading the application source. It's not Lisp, it's 'Command Line' :(. Anyway, the app looks really nice.

<comment><USER8> Command Line = CLI, Common Lisp = CL. I was wondering why being written in Common Lisp made it good.

<comment><USER7> For me it was more a matter of personal curiosity, since you don't really see much Lisp applications around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For me it's to do with spatial organisation. If I'm working on something I normally have a large sheet of paper with all my tiny notes, and I know once I've written something down where it is - so I know that I scribbled down the background color over here, and the dimensions for that div over there...

The lack of any rigidity or standard form for input is also liberating. I can scribble down copy, lists, diagrams, flow charts, all with a single intuitive interface. Name an app that can claim that!

<comment><USER10> I can't stand the rigidity on paper. Need my rearranging.

<comment><USER9> That's one thing I do miss, although using a bigger piece of paper makes the need to rearrange less frequent. I generally make notes like this only for transitory stuff, if I am sticking with paper notes for a big system then different bits will be on different pieces of paper, which allows easy rearranging.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Task apps impose unnecessary structure and interface on the tasks themselves, even to the point of classifying them as tasks. The moment something calls itself a "Task App" it's lost against TextEdit, which is useful for tasks/ideas/lists. So a good task app would not be a dedicated task app, but rather a free-form plain-text interface and these already exist.

<comment><USER12> I agree. I don't understand how so many apps can be springing up with the same flaws. They all seem to classify themselves as a tool specifically for the listing of things a person needs to do. To me, this would be similar to buying paper that is only to be used for to-do lists. While I"m sure that type of paper exists, it doesn't beat good ole' fashioned white paper for me. Also - an interesting note - I find myself constantly sending myself emails with reminders, links, ideas, etc. And I use gmail which has a built-in task- listing app. So apparently I find the gmail task list to be such a pain that I'm willing to misuse my email service just to avoid it. I think it's time to look at this problem from a new angle. If I am to adopt a new list-making technology, I need to be making lists before I ever realized I had started. Maybe gmail could detect when I send emails to myself and start a list for me and automatically archive the message. Just a thought. Maybe in the right direction?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've recently ditched paper in favor of org-mode. It took about 3 months of using org-mode before I was comfortable enough to consider using it for my task items. Even then I needed to wait until org-mode was more embedded in my daily workflow than going through my stack of paper notes.

I think part of the problem with other task apps is that they try to be really good at one thing; organizing tasks. The problem with this is that you want to spend as little time as possible organizing tasks, which means the apps marginalize themselves by nature. You don't get enough time to learn how to use them, you forget to check in, you keep stuff in your head, etc.

For me, org-mode worked because I spend a lot of time organizing things other than tasks in it. But if I wasn't already familiar with it, I'd be spending too much time trying to figure out how to use it and I'd probably forget to check it.

The problem generalizes to this: organizing tasks is not a generic problem. The problem is highly informed by your life. Paper works because you can do whatever you want with it. It only looks like people using paper are using the same system. They're probably not.

</comment><comment><USER4> The #1 reason I still use post-its on my laptop and monitor (and... sometimes physically on my phone, in extreme cases): there's a real-world reminder that sticks around when you're powered off, disconnected, etc.

They're brightly colored, often aren't stuck on at right angles, and frankly refuse to be ignored. They're just the right amount of annoying, and I'll be interested to see how digital GTD applications manage to toe that line.

</comment><comment><USER14> After years of frustration with task apps, I tried to migrate my system to pen and paper and... back to a task app in 2 days! The biggest pluses of an app (as opposed to paper) are quick text search and copy & paste, especially for URLs. After this experience I realized how much I depend on URLs for my daily activities: For example, to reference GMail emails, follow-ups, search results, things to read, etc... Maybe pen & paper is perfectly fine for most professions, but for techies unfortunately we are stuck with (bad) task apps for now.

Side-note: I have used so many task apps that I am embarrassed to list them here, and right now I am settled with Toodledo for the main task db and Tomboy for daily tasks and general notes. I am not totally happy with it, but at least it does not get on my way. My "system" is a combination of GTD and Covey's 7-habits that I use for almost a decade.

<comment><USER15> The ability to copy/paste from/to emails, source code, and documents does keep me using task apps instead of paper.

Also, I find it very hard to keep large amounts of paper organized in a useful way over longer times, and you need to carry it around. When you keep it online, you can access it from everywhere.

Search function is very useful and more efficient than rooting through stacks of old paper. If you have a lot of notes, you'll always lose exactly that sheet of paper that was most important.

Good old paper does have some advantages, but it doesn't cut it for me anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Many of the GTD guys do use paper, for the same reasons. I sell a GTD app [1] but used paper (moleskine booklet) when I was at b school and working a full day and also writing Tudumo when I had spare minutes. Paper is easier than a phone, tangible, makes you think about what you're putting down. The GTD guys call this your 'ubiquitous capture' device - something that's with you always, not back in the office, so when you think of something you need to do, it's right there. I have an iPhone with various todo apps, but still keep the moleskine in my notebook bag.

[1] <http://www.tudumo.com>

<comment><USER17> Of course, other brands of notebook will also work.

<comment><USER16> Totally. In fact despite my using the name (which GTD'ers would recognise), I don't get the brand aspect of it at all. I bought it just to see why the paper-users fawned over it, and I've found a 20c ring-bound notebook worked better since I could easily tear pages out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > _4\. Writing on paper aids with memory retention._

This, definitely. Nothing helps retain information better than writing it down.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think the biggest problem with task apps are that they are overly complex given their sole purpose is such a simple action. I decided to tackle this problem myself, and here's what I ended up with: <http://letspocket.com> \- not perfect by any means, but I use it every day and love it.

</comment><comment><USER20> Handwriting a to do list is also way faster since you don't have to worry about app switching, typos getting corrected to the wrong word, and random occasional slowdowns that always seem to happen right when I really need my phone to work. Also it's hard to make a to do list on your phone while you're talking on the phone - yes there are headphones but then you have to untangle those, plug them in etc, even if you just need them for a minute (another ongoing issue!).

</comment><comment><USER21> _> 2\. Task-keepers using pen and paper are not adding a new system to their workflow since they already need to use pen and paper for something_

Am i the only one, who doesn't have a paper and pen at all? The only pen i own, is a small one from Victorinox swiss card ([http://www.swissarmy.com/MultiTools/Pages/Product.aspx?categ...](http://www.swissarmy.com/MultiTools/Pages/Product.aspx?category=swisscard&product=53927&))

</comment><comment><USER22> This is exactly why I think that technologies like SmartPen[1] are likely to really become a huge success: it combines the best of both world. There is also the LogiPen[2] but it seems a bit less awesome.

[1] <http://www.livescribe.com/smartpen/echo/>

[2] <http://www.logipen.com/>

<comment><USER23> So why haven't these technologies been a success for the past 5 years?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> These seem to be contradictory:

 _5\. ... One knows a handwritten task takes a few moments to write, so one considers whether it should be done immediately more readily. Also, handwriting a task gives one time to decide to stop writing it down and do it/forget it. Task apps accept tasks as quickly as people type, so users might enter too many trivial tasks that should be completed immediately or dropped, and there is hardly any time to reconsider before the task is completely entered._

 _8\. Assuming the task-keeper has good handwriting, the basics of an action item can be jotted down more quickly than entered in a computer or mobile device, to be revised later._

Author doesn't seem to be able to decide which is faster.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is contradictory as written. I meant that paper is slower for writing the full task and faster for writing a brief word or symbol to jog the memory later. This depends on one's typing speed as well as one's ability to decipher cryptic notes, of course...

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> For collecting (which I later enter into my tasks software or Evernote) I end up using cheapo index cards from the office stockroom, and I have a mini-pen on my key ring.

The main ding against using paper for me is that I'm seriously out of practice when it comes to handwriting. My writing is often illegible even to me and my hand cramps up quickly after only a few lines of sustained writing.

I can "follow along" much more easily at a keyboard. The big problem with going all digital though is that even whipping out the iPad and jotting something down is "too much" time, in that I often say "screw it, I'll just try to remember it".

</comment><comment><USER26> I know I am not the only one who just uses the memo application on android.

</comment><comment><USER27> Most calendar and todo apps display time in complicated ways requiring the user to click through useless dialogs and screens.

If you want an intuitive task app that doesn't require you to register and feels like simple paper try: <http://fourtimesdaily.com>

it saves your tasks just on your computer (LocalStorage)

</comment><comment><USER28> Self promotion, but try our App <http://bit.ly/todoApp> \- it's a dead simple way to keep track of tasks.

Here is a boingboing article on it <http://boingboing.net/2011/03/08/of-the- many-many-fac.html>

</comment><comment><USER29> <http://73primenumbers.com> is getting some real traction, what with people going to bat for them like that.

</comment><comment><USER30> for me my handwriting is so bad to the level that i can't read it some times so i have to use todo apps</comment>


Ask HN: Would you pay monthly to work from coffee shops, with free coffee? - <AUTHOR> I'm thinking of a flat fee per month, giving you all-day access to any coffee shop within a network, including free coffee and dedicated tables.
Working from a coffee shop has been shown to boost productivity:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/06/study-of-the-day-why-crowded-coffee-shops-fire-up-your-creativity/258742/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/technology/techs-frightful-5-will-dominate-digital-life-for-foreseeable-future.html?ref=business&_r=0 <comment><USER2> I live in Seattle. I spend a _lot_ of time in coffee shops. Unless you're offering espresso-based drinks (americanos & lattes), I'm not going to be interested.

</comment><comment><USER3> Good coffee is where you would get me. If you just place some Nespresso machines or think Starbucks beans are worth leaving my home, you are wrong.

</comment><comment><USER4> Perhaps, if the free coffee included coffee drinks besides drip (like cappuccino). Otherwise I'd probably stay home and make my own cheap coffee. So then the flat fee would have to be cheaper than cost of having a huge cheap jug of ground coffee at home and cover for the number of days that would last.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are also getting the productivity boost that comes from working in a coffee shop

[http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/how-the-hum-of-a- co...](http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/how-the-hum-of-a-coffee-shop- can-boost-creativity/)</comment></comment>


Google open sources Liquid Galaxy code - <AUTHOR> http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2010/09/galaxy-of-your-own.html

<comment><USER2> I remember when I first visited Google a friend of mine who worked there very excitedly showed this to me. I was terribly unimpressed because at the time I was interning at the Jet Propulsion Lab and I had already seen their version of this:

<http://lucyabramyan.com/Site/Stage.html>

One of my co-workers had built this awesome immersive environment using back- projection, so you didn't have any of the frame boundaries like the Google version did. It was particularly well-suited to viewing the panoramas sent back from the Mars rovers.

<comment><USER3> At Virginia Tech, we did something similar with back projection called the CAVE. It was a cube (4 sides at least) of back projections large enough that you could walk into it. One of the sides was the floor, which was particularly challenging to set up. All of the projections were also 3D using glasses that used quick on/off flipping (better IMHO than the polarized things at movie theaters) and the system had physical devices (we called them wands) that new their 3d location inside the cube. Essentially, we had what seemed like a first generation "holodeck" (trademarked term unfortunately). Someone somewhere had even modified quake to work in this environment with the wands controlling the location of your gun in 3d space. It was pretty interesting.

Of course, I'm not sure how practical something like this is, and it's very expensive to build.

<comment><USER4> Oh yeah, I'd totally forgotten about the CAVE! I got to go in there once to play around. You forgot to mention another important part, which was that one of the "wands" was actually a headset that would track the user and change the perspective based on their head movements.

At least some applications worked that way. I'm not sure why, but the one I tried had a teapot rendered over my head and I could see the snout sticking out in front of my face wherever I went.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've deleted my submission as it was a dupe. It was a link directly to the source code page.

<http://code.google.com/p/liquid-galaxy/></comment>


Creationism and conspiracism share a common teleological bias - <AUTHOR> https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(18)30863-7 <comment><USER2> My brother-in-law is a fundamentalist Christian. My sister homeschooled all 8 kids from kindergarten through 12th grade. His view is that since God made Adam as a full grown man then it's possible that God created the world "with age" in his parlance. The point is that people who want something to be true will engage in the nececcsry mental gymnastics to justify their belief. It's not unique to firinge ideas but it is easier to spot in people with fringe ideas.

EDIT: The fringe idea I referenced above is the notion that God created the world to look like it's really old even though it isn't old. I've not encountered this rationale before. My comment is in no way diminishing religion.

<comment><USER3> It's hardly a fringe idea. It's actually pretty mainstream.

It even has a dismissive name: Last Tuesdayism.

You have to be careful to keep the idea separate from Young Earth Creationism!

Young Earth Creationism directly contradicts observation. In contrast believing the universe was created already old does not conflict with science (you just can't prove it one way or another).

<comment><USER4> So basically you're saying that this "God" thingy created the world to look like it evolved and changed but this is the way it always was? Such that he planted fossils and false carbon 14 decay just to fool scientists?

Do you really believe this idea? Do you think it is worth intellectual respect?

Edit: for perspective: there was a time the Catholic church rejected reason. It ended badly to Galileo and Copernicus and had very bad repercussions on the church credibility, from Spinoza to Voltaire. American Pentecostals and fundamentalist Jews and Muslims should learn that lesson: on the long run reason wins.

<comment><USER5> > So basically you're saying that this "God" thingy created the world to look > like it evolved and changed but this is the way it always was? Such that he > planted fossils and false carbon 14 decay just to fool scientists?

There's a large number of people who believe this.

Its a bit weird, because it implies that God is above lying to his followers. So as a Christian myself, who believes in Omnipotence (all powerful), Omniscient (all knowing), and Benevolence (all-loving), the viewpoint that God would explicitly lie to us is almost certainly against the 3rd peg: its anti- benevolence.

Anyway, different Christians obviously have different beliefs on the matter. I am in agreement with the poster you responded to: it is an... unfortunately... mainstream belief in some Christian communities.

I'm sure there are holes people can poke at my specific denomination of course. So it'd be hypocritical for me to push too much against the belief that "God is tricking us to see the true believers vs the evolutionists". But... yeah, its just not a belief I can get behind.

> Such that he planted fossils and false carbon 14 decay just to fool > scientists?

Generally speaking, the argument goes to look at the Old Testament, specifically the Book of Job. In the Old Testament, God tested some of his prophets with incredible tests (ie: letting the Devil kill his kids, take all of his wealth away, etc. etc). So the idea of "God is just testing us" is generally the argument that comes forth.

I guess the general idea is that God can cause issues that seem big to us, but are small in the great scheme of His plans. If you want the religious background on this particular school of thought. The Book of Job has the prophet lose everything, but eventually gains greater prosperity in the end. In particular, Job deserves prosperity because even when all hope was lost, he kept his faith.

Still, that fundamentally doesn't quite explain why God would particularly lie to us humans about the "evolution" issue. So I've never personally liked this particular religious argument. I find it far more likely that God would prefer us Humans to discover science and properly make discoveries and advance our culture for the good of all mankind.

\</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>

It comes down to Biblical Literalism. Some people believe that the Bible is literally true. That there were exactly 7 days of creation, that Methusala lived over 900 years old... that a dude named "Samson" had magical hair, etc. etc. And since Biblical Literalism is a foundational peg to those denominations, they go through great pains to prove it.

Alternatively, if you're in my camp, you are open to interpreting the Bible. My denomination believes that the Bible is a collection of stories that God wants us to know about. Not necessarily that the word is literally true.

<comment><USER4> I am very sorry, you talk like a sensible person. But the more you explain it the less respect I have for religion.

American Pentecostalism sounds like a very stupid tribal superstition to me.

I come from an European and Catholic background. Catholicism and the Protestant mainstream that adopted most of their Theology (e.g.: Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism) do have a deep respect for science. They learned that lesson painfully, after what they did to Copernicus and Galileo.

Pentecostals are headed to serious mistakes if they think anti-reason can take them anywhere.

<comment><USER6> You might be surprised by the official catholic position on evolution. There take on evolution for instance is:

> Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official > position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. > However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the > impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to > him.

That isn't evolution via natural selection, that's evolution via gods hex editor altering the genome, they explicitly reject natural evolution:

> While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental > creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in > atheistic evolution.

They also believe in a literal Adam and Eve:

> The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written > entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The > account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a > primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of > man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human > history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first > parents"

Catholics are creationists, just not of they young earth variety.

Edit - Source: [https://www.catholic.com/tract/adam-eve-and- evolution](https://www.catholic.com/tract/adam-eve-and-evolution)

<comment><USER7> That is not the official catholic position. That is just a random webpage written by a self-proclaming catholic editor to promote their books. Do not try too hard to harvest for official catholic positions on matters that are not the core faith ones (and history of the Universe most certainly is not): there are more than a billion catholics around the world, coming from any social status and literary level. There cannot possibly be a position common to all of them on nearly anything, except maybe core faith matters.

That said, you are right in your conclusion, because it is true that (nearly all) catholics are "creationist", in that they believe that God created the universe and everything in there. But many of them also believe in evolution via natural selection, in the very same way you believe it and as shown by the proofs and scientific thinking that our society has accumulated. There is no hex editing by God: it is still true that evolution happens under the guidance of God, because it happens under the laws he created. But (actually, just because of that) without the need of touching anything. On the other hand, it is also true that he may do some hex editing if he wished to, but many catholics agree that there is no need to believe that this has actually happened.

<comment><USER8> You can use the Canonical Law Codex and papal bulls if you're so inclined to check the official statements of the Catholic Church. These are very interesting and nuanced positions on many weirdnesses accumulated over centuries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Ok, so right off the bat I have issues with this paper.

* A topic like this, especially with the stated result, seems super likely to be subject to confirmation bias so we need to be careful not to fall prey to that. The paper title seems geared to produce that.

* Study 1 (the college student study) had N=157, and as is the nature of such quizzes seems way too biased to be meaningful given the claims being presented. All were from one university, they received course credit for participating, 135 were psychology students, etc. This is ignoring potential bias in the results (I recall studies discussing the desire of study participants to "help" studies). So I don't believe anything super meaningful should be taken study 1.

* Study 2, French population analysis had a larger sample, but I'd still be reticent to make huge statements. The supplementary material doesn't include the actual quiz questions, but seems to be a 1-4 scale of agreement with a list of conspiracies + horoscope + creationism. The creationist question conflates young earth and creation theories which are obviously correlated but aren't strictly the same (I've known creationists who still realize actual age of earth)

* Study 3 is also super biased, N=513 French and 220 Swiss, 72% of the French participants were students at the host university. Again the Swiss students (but not the French) received course credit for participating. Participants were also informed of the goal of the study ahead of participating which could reasonably be expected to skew data.

Honestly it irks me that a paper like this has got into something like Cell as given the claims being made I would expect/requirer a larger and less biased sample and more information about the actual quiz contents.

<comment><USER10> Thank you for articulating what I was thinking as well. Seems like poor science from my quick reading of it for the same reasons you state.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Creationism inherently incorporates a conspiracy theory - that evidence of a young earth exists, but is dismissed or even hidden by scientists because of their "faith" in secularism.

E.g., the Grand Canyon totally proves a global flood, but scientists refuse to accept that because of their "faith" in the earth being billions of years old.

<comment><USER12> You could probably find a correlation between any two things that involve rejecting mainstream beliefs, right or not. I'm suspicious of any theory that tries to divide everyone up in to the "enlightened ones" and "the dumb ones," on the grounds that you could minimize friction with the public by accepting _every_ mainstream belief, whereas trying to be as right as possible would mean both disagreeing where society is wrong _and sometimes when society is right,_ because if you're in the business of trusting yourself at all you will make at least a few mistakes.

To make it personal, think about it like this: if you start by saying to yourself "this thing society thinks is acceptable is wrong," and if you then go on and apply that mindset to everything else, there is a nonzero chance that your honest first-principles evaluation of, say, young-earth creationism would come out positive. Unless you think your inner compass has a zero false positive rate, spin that wheel again for every single commonly accepted belief and you're essentially guaranteed to end up believing at least one think that might appear in a study like this.

<comment><USER13> This article talks about cognitive bias, not dumbness or enlightenment:

"which was partly independent from religion, politics, age, education, agency detection, analytical thinking and perception of randomness."

Plenty of smart people suffer from cognitive bias, I'd bet most do to some degree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> All: if you comment here, please keep it substantive and avoid shallow dismissals, religious smiting (for or against) and whatnot.

</comment><comment><USER15> Good work here on the teleological bias.

The question is what's behind it? My working conjecture is that it is some people that cannot tolerate the ambiguity of many events being essentially random, chaotic, or stochastic. They'd rather have an evil cabal deliberately executing the 9/11 attacks, or school shootings, or faking the school shootings, than to accept that sometimes things just get very far out of hand.

But, other than rough observation (and likely confirmation bias), I've not done much to substantiate this conjecture. Comments?

<comment><USER16> First Google I came up with the psychological profile of a conspiracy theorist is here: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724570/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724570/)

Lots of interesting points IMHO. It is mentioned that those who "habitually seek meaning and patterns in the environment" and cannot tolerate mundane or unclear explanations for big world events are more prone to conspiracy theories. So on one hand, on this, I think you are right.

On the other hand, a lot of the article is devoted to the notion that conspiracy theories are a social defense mechanism among the more vulnerable, threatened, and/or powerless population.

Narcissism -- both of the self, and tribal narcissism, is also mentioned as a factor.

(Ironically, as the article mentions, conspiracy theories tend to make it less likely that individuals will take actions that, in the long run, might boost their autonomy and control. Thus the article calls conspiracy theories a "self-defeating form of motivated social cognition".)

I'll buy that it is a messy combination of any or all of the above factors that lead to a belief in conspiracy theories -- such make sense from my small sample of people I know who are more prone to conspiracy theories.

(They do note that "vulnerable and disadvantaged populations that have been identified as most likely to benefit from [conspiracy theories]" have not been as extensively studied as they would like to see. Interesting conclusions so far though.)

<comment><USER17> There's a good chunk of literature that demonstrates conpiracists have different brain structures. This is why people who believe in one conspiracy theory are more likely to also believe in other (conflicting) conspiracy theories and, on an individual level, what you're dealing with is a paranoid cognitive style [1].

The other part of this is that there seems to be a strong element of social contagion. The research here is still new but it's becoming more and more clear that social media can virally amplify paranoia within a population [2].

So there's probably a good chunk of people who might exhibit excessive paranoia (some studies put this at 10% [3] but I recall numbers as high as 30% after 9/11) but then it may be possible to technologically amplify this.

[1] [https://qz.com/1286982/why-do-people-believe-in- conspiracy-t...](https://qz.com/1286982/why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy- theories-because-they-want-to-feel-unique/)

[2] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/world/europe/facebook- ref...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/world/europe/facebook-refugee- attacks-germany.html)

[3] [https://www.livescience.com/37419-paranoid-beliefs- common.ht...](https://www.livescience.com/37419-paranoid-beliefs-common.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> My all time favorite is conspiracy theory is that the positions and angles of street inspection stickers on the backs of road signs are secretly driving directions to concentration camps for foreign UN soldiers to take people to.

I've known plenty of conspiracy theorists, on both sides of the political spectrum - black helicopters, chemtrails, faked moon landings, flat-earthers, NSA-records-your-phone calls-and-emails, white people were bred on an island by a professor named Jacob and are inherently evil as a result of the process, US government did OKC, US government did 9/11, Mossad did 9/11, JFK...

But I don't think the defining characteristic of these "believers" is not belief, but rather unbelief - a feeling that someone is lying to them. A lot of times they'll argue in the same evening for mutually contradictory conspiracy theories. Or will happily switch to a different theories about the moon landing as soon as I show some evidence against their first one. It's not at all about any one particular theory being true.

In end, perhaps it's a good thing to have a some percentage of the population be disposed to a little skepticism about those in power.

<comment><USER19> NSA-records-your-phone-calls is a bit unlike the other entries in your conspiracy list, n'est-ce pas?

<comment><USER18> Funnily enough, I heard both that and the road sign one from the same person in the early nineties.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is interesting and IMO generally true. But, not everything that is called a conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory. Asking "who benefits from this policy, and are they in a position to have influence in creating or maintaining it?" is not inherently a conspiracy theory. But anyone who's doing something different from what they're saying would prefer you didn't notice. And if people are noticing, they'd probably want to dismiss their critics with whatever means they could. Including dismissing legitimate criticism and skepticism as paranoid conspiracy theories. This is especially confusing because there is overlap between actual conspiracies or at the very least dishonest politics/leadership and what people prone to paranoia and conspiracism would be more likely to think about. I just don't like the idea of people allowing the charicture of a conspiracy theorist to stop them from thinking critically about the information they are being presented.

<comment><USER21> I would argue that a true conspiracy theorist doesn't just believe that a single event was the result of a single group of people, but that the conspiracy is near omnipotent and responsible for many unrelated terrible things.

It's one thing, for example, to believe that some aspect of the 9/11 story doesn't hold up — perhaps that you believe the government covered up for Saudi involvement. That may be right or wrong, but it's at least something that's plausible.

A true conspiracy theorist would believe that the whole thing was made up and never happened, or that the whole thing was planned and executed by the Illuminati, who have been working together for centuries to control the masses through mind control.

<comment><USER22> I don't disagree with this comment, but unfortunately the label is also used against the people described in your 2nd paragraph.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I couldn't find the distribution of religious affiliations in the supplemental material. Did anyone find it?

Surely, if you are going to do a study as such, you need to disclose the numbers on religious affiliations of the participants. It would be fun to see the correlations of analytical ability and affiliation to a particular religion. Or if you want to brush all religions under the same rug, then it doesn't matter.

</comment><comment><USER24> I am not at all used to academic writing and am finding it difficult to find the questions they asked participants.

Could anyone point me in the right direction? I can't really think anything of this study without them.

</comment><comment><USER21> I've always believed that conspiracy theories are fundamentally motivated by a belief that things happen for a reason.

If a bad thing happened, seemingly undeserved, there must have been some dark force behind it — if not Satan or witches, then Jews or communists or Muslims or globalists or gays or whatever. The alternative — that people suffer for no reason at all, is intolerable for some people.

<comment><USER13> Interestingly that is what the article implies - though they use the term teleological thinking to refer to the belief things happen for a reason.

<comment><USER25> Actually that's not what the study implies. They found "rejection of science and animism" to be a stronger predictor of conspiracism. Although "finalism" was found to be second best so it is certainly part of the mix but going off this study you could not say it is the fundamental cause. In fact the researchers are careful to point out that they have established correlation and not cause.

<comment><USER13> Thanks for clarifying. This is clearly out of my league :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> To me, the most interesting about this belief that "everything is part of a master plan and a big conspiracy" are:

1) There is always some kind of political undertone on it.

2) The ones most prone to believe in it are the ones most gullible to accept authoritarian rule. No wonder that every dictator, from Maduro to Erdogan to Putin and Jiping love so much this argument.

</comment><comment><USER26> Don't 100% of these "findings" also apply to anyone that believes in evolution?

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure what you're saying here -- evolution is a theory, specifically it has a huge amount of accumulated evidence that indicates that the theory is correct, and makes meaningful falsifiable predictions which have also been validated, and numerous long term experiments that agree entirely with the theory.

Religion is defined by faith in something/anything explicitly in the absence of evidence, hence "faith".

Conspiracy "theories" often use the absence of evidence as de facto evidence. Which is not remotely logically sound.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Not really. No one needs a label for things that are false.

Conspiracy theories are things that could actually be true but are designated as ridiculous by someone who perceives discussion as a threat. But lo and behold, "conspiracy theories" sometimes are true despite our efforts to write them off as quackery.

My favorite example is Mark Klein

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

who was derided and written off as a conspiracy nutjob until his allegations surrounding the diversion of telecommunications traffic ended up being true.

We see it and participate in this every day. If you suggest there is life somewhere across the galaxy, they call you an astronomer. If you say you say a flying saucer in a photo of our own solar system, you are a nutjob. What is the fundamental difference?

<comment><USER28> >If you suggest there is life somewhere across the galaxy, they call you an astronomer.

No, that has nothing to do with being an astronomer.

>If you say you say a flying saucer in a photo of our own solar system, you are a nutjob. What is the fundamental difference?

The "astronomer" claims there is _likely_ life somewhere across the galaxy, but doesn't state with absolute certainty that it exists, where it exists, what it looks like, etc.

Whereas "you" claim, explicitly, to have seen it in a photo, and that it is a flying saucer, and that anyone who says otherwise "perceives discussion as a threat."

Given the size of the known universe, the laws of physics forbidding, so far as we know, any form of FTL travel, the lack of any widespread corroborating evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial life or technology in our solar system, and the tendency of the human brain to see things that aren't there (paredolia, false memories, etc.) the likelihood of what "you" believe to be a flying saucer _being_ a flying saucer which just happened to be in the right place at the right time to be caught on camera is very, very, very low.

The fundamental difference between "nutjob" and "not a nutjob" is that the "nutjob" refuses to believe it _can 't_ be a flying saucer, regardless of the statistics or evidence to the contrary, whereas "not a nutjob" accepts that it almost certainly isn't.

The axiom that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" exists for a reason - not because the people requiring proof can't handle discussion, but because those claims inevitably require revising known science to be true, and "ordinary proof" is never sufficient to prove their case.</comment></comment>


What's wrong with Android kernels? - <AUTHOR> https://leste.maemo.org/Leste_FAQ#What.27s_wrong_with_Android_.28vendor.29_kernels.3F <comment><USER2> Android Linux has long stopped being just a fork, plenty of features would never land on upstream.

[https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/modular- syst...](https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/modular-system)

[https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/hal](https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/hal)

[https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/configstore](https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/configstore)</comment>


Ask HN: what do you think are the interesting alternative web frameworks? - <AUTHOR>

They don't have to be production ready, I'm just looking for lesser-known frameworks that make you think "Huh, I wish this were the way Rails worked" or "This is an interesting way to do things, I wonder how far they'll take it". What makes them interesting? <comment><USER2> Erlang: riak/ nitrogen combo

Scala: lift

Clojure: compojure, enlive.

Smalltalk, seaside

haskell happstack (i think that's the one that's not dead

</comment><comment><USER3> I wonder what people think of my PHP framework Swiftlet. The latest stable release is still missing some features but it works very well for simple sites.

<http://swiftlet.org></comment>


A new way to measure nearly nothing: Ultracold trapped atoms to measure pressure - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2018-10-ultracold-atoms-pressure.html <comment><USER2> Is there anything lasers can't do

<comment><USER3> Diffract.

<comment><USER4> They have that covered too.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFbs- sXF7Ss](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFbs-sXF7Ss)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask PG: Is there any significance of the thick line on top of Hacker News? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> It is a black memorial. Doug Engelbart has died.

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5986307](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5986307)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your reply. I haven't seen this before so I'm guessing it's a new practice.

<comment><USER4> I believe it was originally a one-time tribute for Robert Morris [1], but it has (partly due to user requests) been used a few subsequent times when people well-known in the hacker community have died.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2712469](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2712469). Besides being well-known in the hacker community generally, Morris also had a more local connection, as he was the father of Robert T. Morris, one of Y Combinator's cofounders.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Tool for scheduling a live work focus session with a random person? - <AUTHOR> I'm not sure a post like this is legal, but I'm really looking for a tool I came across here that lets you schedule a live webcam session with a random person and make sure each other are working on something. Does anyone happen to know the name of it? <comment><USER2> Focusmate. Nothing beats it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Focusmate</comment>


Norway–European Union relations - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway%E2%80%93European_Union_relations <comment><USER2> Let's just say that Norway did not leave the EU slamming the door after decades of being the difficult child. I'm not sure this kind of agreement will be extended to the UK.

<comment><USER3> My impression is that the UK will have to face some border problems before negotiating anything with the EU. Scotland may want to secede, Northern Ireland may want to join R. o. Ireland, Gibraltar may want to move into Spain. And then the situation for many overseas territories of the UK will change, as they did gode some privileges from the EU.

<comment><USER4> I'm afraid to say, that your impressions are incorrect.

Northern Ireland will not be joining Southern Ireland. They still see themselves as British first. Go over there, like I have and you'll see British Flags everywhere.

Also, have you see the situation in Spain lately? Gibraltar is staying put.

I do love hearing these fantasists hoping that the UK crumbles because it left the UK.

You do realise there are whispers within the STRONGER countries in the EU who are now thinking of having their own referendums?

The EU better be be careful as otherwise it's just France, Germany and a whole lot of smaller poorer southern countries and Germany goes bankrupt trying to bail them out!

Lets see what happens when Greece finally explodes!

<comment><USER5> If the UK leaves, Scotland is probably out.

The economy prospects are not looking good. Capital is flowing out of the UK, and plans for new investment's are being cancelled all over the place.

Why invest in country that might be behind a trade barrier at any point?

A country that is being consumed by a strong populist movement that is convinced that the EU is worse than the USSR?

Sorry, we have had 70 years of peace and prosperity, and I don't believe that that would be possible if the EU was the monster that the Brexit camp portrays.

The dislocations in the city have begun.[1]

Keep mind that there are 49%+ Britons aghast at what is happening. They didn't vote for this, and don't deserve this.

[1] - FT's pay-wall, just search for "Banks begin moving some operations out of Britain"

<comment><USER6> No still leads the polls in post-Brexit Scotland [1]. The economic arguments are not there since the collapse in the oil price.

[1] - [http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/if-a-majority-of- peo...](http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/if-a-majority-of-people-in- the-uk-voted-for-the-uk-to-leave-the-eu-how-would-yo#line)

<comment><USER7> and oil dropped in price on the Brexit vote giving some of my fellow North Dakotans a bit of a poor view on the vote as oil was finally back to the "good" range.

[edit: too soon]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I found this article to be quite good for showing what the EU-Norway relationship entails: [http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/what-would-a- norway-styl...](http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/what-would-a-norway-style- relationship-with-the-eu-entail/)

<comment><USER9> One thing to keep in mind is that Norway do have the option to not implement various EU Directives. But the politicians are skittish about doing so, fearing EU sanctions.

The most hotly debated directive in recent history was the postal directive.

Norway could also have remained outside Shengen, except that there was an existing agreement with Denmark and Sweden (dunno about finland) allowing citizens of either to visit without passports. This agreement would have been ended had Norway not joined Shengen.

<comment><USER10> AFAIK travel without passport in Scandinavia ended with the current refugee crisis.

<comment><USER11> Generally, no, it did not. Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden have had travel without passport since 1952, and Iceland joined 1955, Faroe Islands in 1966. Svalbard (that belongs to Norway) is still excluded.

(In Schengen, you still need to have a passport or identity card, even if there are usually no checks; within the Nordic passport union area, that is not necessary for citizens.)

There are some checks in the ferries/trains between Denmark and Sweden. But I can step in my car and drive from here to Haparanda to Narvik and no one will stop me to ask for a passport.

<comment><USER12> Exactly this. Or take a plane. The checks aren't even run by official government agents, it's the railroad that does the checks for fear of fines.

<comment><USER13> There is also an internal check by the Swedish police at Hyllie station on the Swedish side, which is done by government officials.[1] (They said in the long term, they hope to replace this system to instead have Swedish border police on the Danish side, in order to have one check instead of two [2]). But yeah, you can still avoid the ID controls by taking a car across the border instead of the train.

[1] [http://www.oresundsinstituttet.org/fakta-id-kontrollerna- ove...](http://www.oresundsinstituttet.org/fakta-id-kontrollerna-over-oresund- forlanger-restiden-med-tag-till-sverige-med-mellan-10-och-50-minuter/) [2] [http://www.sydsvenskan.se/2016-01-12/sa-ska-id- kontrollerna-...](http://www.sydsvenskan.se/2016-01-12/sa-ska-id-kontrollerna- forandras)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Norway still allows free movement of EU citizens to their country, which was one of the primary reasons for the Leave vote.

There are a few details which differ slightly (you have to leave Norway after several months without finding a job, whereas the UK will merely pull your benefits), but I don't think that's nearly enough to satisfy the demands of those who wish to drastically cut immigration.

<comment><USER5> Yes, for the UK case it would be an exit in name only.

But some in the leave side are for this (e.g. Hannan), with free movement and fees. They are openly conceding that having a tight control over EU migration is not feasible, and that it was an empty campaign promise (and keep in mind that UK does not have all that many migrants, Switzerland, Ireland, Austria, and others have more).

Anyway, maybe we will get deadlock. Britain will refuse to invoke article 50 without a deal. And the EU will refuse to negotiate before Britain invokes article 50.

<comment><USER15> > Britain will refuse to invoke article 50 without a deal. And the EU will > refuse to negotiate before Britain invokes article 50.

Article 50 invocation marks the start of _formal_ negotiations. They can negotiate behind the scenes for as long as they can before political pressure compels them to pull the trigger.

<comment><USER5> But the EU can simply refuse to negotiate.

I think the EU does want to give the voters what they asked for. And that is Brexit. Out is out. Not EEA.

<comment><USER6> The language of the article suggests otherwise:

> 2\. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European > Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the > European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with > that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account > of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement > shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the > Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the > Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the > consent of the European Parliament.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Norwegians pay for access to the common market (I think even more per capita than other EU countries), still participate in Schengen, and have no say in the EU.

Hardly seems like what the Brexiters wanted. But an arrangement like that might allow UK to be more free to negotiate trade deals with Asia and other parts of the world and have a bit more flexibility in their immigration policy than they had under the EU.

</comment><comment><USER17> At least GCHQ will be outside the EU. Not that it matters and NATO collabortion won't continue.

<comment><USER18> That's ok, Germany are desperate to join FIVEEYES.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I do not understand how British elderly doesn't see the damage they are doing to their younger population... It seems pretty obvious that even if you haven't been able to adapt to globalisation you should at least not interfere in the way of the newcomers

<comment><USER20> Globalization is orthogonal to what the EU has become, and whatever it intends to become.</comment></comment>


Decentralized Bitcoin Prediction Markets - <AUTHOR> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=475054.0;all

<comment><AUTHOR> This post contains some strong arguments for the benefits of prediction markets. Since Intrade was shut down due to legal reasons:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrade](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrade)

it seems like the market is wide open for a decentralized alternative.</comment>


Ask HN: What are you reading? What've you read lately? - <AUTHOR> The last two truly great books I read were:<p>- James Gleick's _The Information: A History, a Theory, A Flood_ (http://www.amazon.com/Information-History-Theory-Flood/dp/0375423729/), an interdisciplinary overview of the human history of the creation, understanding and exchange of information.<p>- Manuel de Landa's _Philosophy and Simulation: The Emergence of Synthetic Reason_ (http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Simulation-Emergence-Synthetic-Reason/dp/1441170286/), about how computer simulations have allowed humans to begin to truly understand emergentism and to advance science at a level between theory and experimentalism.<p>EDIT: I'm asking about books -- not necessarily dead trees, of course, but long-form non-fiction or fiction. <comment><USER2> The Unheavenly City by Edward Banfield: PDF: [http://www.kevinrkosar.com/Edward-C-Banfield/Edward-C- Banfie...](http://www.kevinrkosar.com/Edward-C-Banfield/Edward-C-Banfield-The- Unheavenly-City-Revisited.pdf)

Review: <http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/92789.html>

His time preference classes explains so much of people regardless of race, religion, nationality, etc.

Rise of the Fourth Reich: [http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fourth-Reich-Societies- Threaten/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fourth-Reich-Societies- Threaten/dp/0061245593/)

This is where I learned about Konrad Zuse creating a digital computer and programming language miles away from Bletchley Park in the early 40s.

Dealers of Lightning: [http://www.amazon.com/Dealers-Lightning-Xerox-PARC- Computer/...](http://www.amazon.com/Dealers-Lightning-Xerox-PARC- Computer/dp/0887309895)

It's about XEROX PARC. Unfortunately, they did not talk about how PARC made the OS and apps obsolete by using objects communicating over a network. I had to learn about that from an Alan Kay video. It did show how PARC contributed to the Internet by creating an internet before ARPANET.

Last and best of all: <http://vpri.org/html/writings.php>

The latest report, "Steps Toward Expressive Programming Systems", describes a computer system without an OS. They seem to be refining what PARC did back in the late 1970s.

</comment><comment><USER3> Reading or recently finished:

The Book of the New Sun: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_the_New_Sun>

Influence: Science and Practice: [http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Practice- Robert-B-Cialdini/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Practice-Robert-B- Cialdini/dp/0205609996)

Self-Editing for Fiction Writers: [http://www.amazon.com/Self-Editing-Fiction- Writers-Second-Yo...](http://www.amazon.com/Self-Editing-Fiction-Writers- Second- Yourself/dp/0060545690/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323492182&sr=1-1)

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality: [http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_M...](http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality)

Wraeththu: [http://www.amazon.com/Wraeththu-Storm- Constantine/dp/0312890...](http://www.amazon.com/Wraeththu-Storm- Constantine/dp/0312890001)

<comment><USER4> Cialdini is classic. It's the only science book I've stayed up all night to finish, it's such a page turner. Plus I remember astonishingly more of it than I do of most books. His anecdotes really help with that.

(It was a different edition though.)

<comment><USER5> I read Cialdini years ago because Joel Spolsky recommended it here:

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/navLinks/fog0000000262.html>

From that list, I also highly recommend:

* Peopleware (get your cofounders to read it too)

* Godel Escher Bach

* A Pattern Language (but don't bother reading it straight through)

* Growing A Business

<comment><USER4> I love _Pattern Language_ and use ideas from it all the time. It, and Alexander, are much more interesting than the mechanistic stuff that software people reduced him to. I think Chris Alexander is one of those rare cases where it's possible to see that an individual is right and an entire field is wrong.

 _Growing a Business_ I read because you recommended it on HN a few years ago!

 _Peopleware_ I remember as being pretty enlightened in spirit and ahead of its time for software projects, but one of those once-you-get-it-you-get-it things. Also, they totally made shit up in that book (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=333694>).

 _GEB_ , meh. Hofstadter always struck me as the pseudo-profound type. Perhaps I am unfair.

<comment><USER5> I'm not as rigorous as you are; the idea that Demarco and Lister made up historical anecdotes in the book doesn't perturb me too much, because the value of the book isn't so much prescriptive ("break your company into tiny teams and let them each pick a far-flung cool-looking skunkworks office") --- it's more that it provides a new way of looking at how your company is organized.

On the other hand, I didn't "get" Surfer Rosa for like a year after I bought it, because by the time I had (in the early 90's) almost all the music I listened to was more or less cribbed from Pixies songs. Maybe the same thing happened with Peopleware, where pretty much every blog post we read about dev teams expresses a sentiment traceable to some part of Peopleware.

In my defense with GEB: I didn't read it because Joel Spolsky told me to, I read it because a girlfriend did. A similar logic had me pretending to enjoy Faulkner. My take on Hofstadter may be oddly colored. Also: I haven't read any of his other books and am not a Lisper, so he's had fewer opportunities to annoy me.

<comment><USER4> Oh, the making shit up part doesn't perturb me (well, maybe a little) - I just think it's worth mentioning. Your Pixies analogy is very clever. If Peopleware is the Pixies then maybe Jerry Weinberg would be the Velvets? Maybe not. The Velvets kind of stand on their own pretty well. Maybe the MC5. There's a band I never got, though they were pretty influential pre-punk. (My point is that Weinberg's early stuff on human factors in software -- Psychology of Computer Programming -- was seminal, but not particularly readable now.)

<comment><USER6> I wish I could grok these references :/ I didn't grow up in the US, so my musical knowledge ends with classical rock (and even that's not very deep).

<comment><USER5> The Velvets are The Velvet Underground, a New York band best known for songs like "Who Loves The Sun", "Sweet Jane", and "Heroin". They're one of the precursors to punk music.

Listen:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xcwt9mSbYE>

The joke is, almost nobody bought the first Velvets album, but everyone who did started a band. Which brings us to the Pixies, which is a Boston band from the late eighties that combined sounds from the Velvets, surf rock, punk, and "college rock" indie like Husker Du and is more or less the greatest band of all time sorry Daniel but it's true.

Listen:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdzoK5jwESM>

All this is just to build an elaborate and overwrought metaphor; Kurt Cobain from Nirvana famously claimed that everything on Nevermind, their best-known album, was more or less lifted directly from the Pixies. The Pixies are another band notorious for being more influential than commercially successful.

So the point being, Peopleware, decades old, blog posts today, &c, you get it.

<comment><USER4> The line about everyone who bought the first VU album started a band is usually attributed to Brian Eno. I wouldn't say they were a precursor to punk so much as to all things indie. The Stooges were the biggest precursor to punk. John Cale, the avant-garde genius from the Velvets, did produce the Stooges, but that was after Lou Reed had kicked him out. I've never been a huge VU fan musically though I like them fine, but there's no denying they were sui generis and everything art-cool in rock music since can be traced back to them. (I was a huge fan of Cale's 1970s solo albums though. Do you know them? Equal parts exquisite and menacing.)

Pixies... why sorry? I admit I never got them though - not then and not since. I need more melody and song structure than that, and the ironic-detached thing only gets me so far.

Re Cobain, he may have said that, but it isn't true. Nevermind is classic because he pulled off what no one else had and blended the indie-noise thing with classic pop songwriting. I think that was genius and his tragedy was being embedded in a subculture that didn't respect that. There's a documentary floating around online (edit: at [http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/kurt_cobain_about_a_s...](http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/kurt_cobain_about_a_son)) in which he says that his original idea for a band was Black Sabbath crossed with bubblegum and that no one else got it. In that subculture (which I remember well, and the pretentious twattage that went with it) it was de rigeur to piss all over the pop side; that was how you established your cred. It was also a limiting move: it's why the music from that period isn't anywhere close to the level of the Ramones or Pistols or many others. (I suppose we disagree here.) Anyway, Cobain put them together and millions of people loved it and he never lived that down. Nor alas did he ever do it again.

Re the Pixies - have you seen [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEPi5EQjEpw](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEPi5EQjEpw)? David Sanborn, yuppy purveyor of intolerable smooth-jazz, somehow had the coolest musical thing going on TV in the late 80s. It was canceled after he had the Residents perform with Conway Twitty!

<comment><USER5> I think Nirvana picked up a thread that had already been running through REM and the Replacements and that started with Big Star; I'm hesitant to give him too much credit for the an idea as big as "revitalizing serious pop music", but it's hard to put a finger on why I listen to Nirvana so much more than I listen to The Replacements.

Love John Cale. Not so much a Lou Reed fan.

Night Music! Had no idea! That hair! How could this not be great? Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The Confusion - Neal Stephenson (I'm starting to tire a little of the female hero character who's in all his books, but on the whole, The Baroque Cycle, which this is the second volume of, has been very educational and always entertaining)

The Visual Display of Quantative Information, Envisioning Information, Visual Explanations, and Beautiful Evidence (I picked up all four books by Edward Tufte at his one day training course. At the 2011 SVG Open, I was blown away by Mike Bostock's D3 demo, and Niel Fraser told me to read all of Tuftes books to see where these revolutionary ways of displaying information came from)

ESV Bible, actually hoping to find time to get my Python script running so I can download the audio, chapter by chapter, because the audio version I bought is nigh impossible to navigate.

<comment><USER5> Is Beautiful Evidence good?

VDQA is an all-time favorite of mine, and I've even paid to see him talk live about this stuff, but I've found his books got fuzzier and increasingly subjective over time, so that I really don't even remember what Visual Explanations was trying to say anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Visible Learning, by John Hattie

[http://www.amazon.com/Visible-Learning-Synthesis-Meta- Analys...](http://www.amazon.com/Visible-Learning-Synthesis-Meta-Analyses- Achievement/dp/0415476186/)

Teaching as Leadership, by Teach for America

<http://www.teachingasleadership.org/>

[http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-As-Leadership-Effective- Achie...](http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-As-Leadership-Effective- Achievement/dp/0470432861/)

Understanding Numbers in Elementary School Mathematics by Hung-hsi Wu

[http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Numbers-Elementary- Schoo...](http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Numbers-Elementary-School- Mathematics/dp/0821852604/)

</comment><comment><USER9> I've noticed too that when people recommend books or say what they're reading, it's almost never novels. It's either technical, or memoirs.

Here's one novel I just finished rereading that's almost like an anti-Oprah book in that you won't identify with any of the characters, it doesn't build to sweet resolution, it doesn't say great things about the human spirit, yet at the end you feel enobled for having spent time with such a true work of art: Michel Faber's Under the Skin. [http://www.amazon.com/Under-Skin-Novel- Michel-Faber/dp/01560...](http://www.amazon.com/Under-Skin-Novel-Michel- Faber/dp/0156011603)

</comment><comment><USER10> Ready Player One [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/030788743X/ref=as_li_qf_sp_...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/030788743X/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=hapricpin-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=030788743X)

The Wise Man's Fear [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0756404738/ref=as_li_qf_sp_...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0756404738/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=hapricpin-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0756404738)

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm almost at the end of _Vanity Fair_. It is long, surprisingly light, and psychologically astute. There's one passage where Thackeray nails the concept of cognitive dissonance so strikingly (100 years before Festinger) that it ought to be in textbooks. Many of his observations have made me laugh with their classic English wit. He also has one hell of an anti-heroine. This book reminded me why I used to love literature.

Also, _Strangers to Ourselves_ by Timothy Wilson - a good book on research into unconscious thought processes.

</comment><comment><USER11> Right now I'm reading:

Fiction- \- Reamde (Bought it when it came out, but had to wait to start until I finished some other stuff on my list)

\- The Big Blowdown by George Pelecanos

Nonfiction- \- Russian Criminal Tattoo Encyclopedia (Volume 1) -- primarily for research, but it's fascinating.

\- Dark Markets by Misha Glenny

\- How to Live on Mars by robert Zubrin

\- The Lightness of Being by Frank Wilczek

\- This is Your Brain on Music by Daniel Levitin

\- Towards a New Architecture by Le Corbusier

\- and Strange Things Happen by Stewart Copeland

Technical- \- Tangled Web (I saw someone else mention it, and it's really really good so far)

\- Skiena's Algorithms book (making slower progress than I'd like).

<comment><USER5> I read Misha Glenny's _McMafia_ and it kind of left a bad taste, even before they got to the cybercrime stuff where I knew some of his sources were just making things up. How's _Dark Markets_?

Love that Skiena book.

<comment><USER11> So far, Dark Market is a little too "Dateline expose" for my taste, but I'm only about a third of the way in (maybe it gets better).

I actually picked up Skiena purely from your recommendation of it on here. I wanted to go back to algo fundamentals, and I was irrationally opposed to buying CLRS for the second time (having bought and then sold it back in college), so I figured I'd give it a try. I like the presentation of material a lot better, but I've just been a lazy git about plowing through it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Dive Into Python (<http://www.diveintopython.net/>)

The Facebook Effect ([http://www.amazon.com/Facebook-Effect-Inside-Company- Connect...](http://www.amazon.com/Facebook-Effect-Inside-Company- Connecting/dp/B005DI7YAS))

The Name of the Wind ([http://www.amazon.com/Name-Wind-Kingkiller-Chronicles- Day/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Name-Wind-Kingkiller-Chronicles- Day/dp/075640407X))

</comment><comment><USER13> The Tangled Web: A Guide to Securing Modern Web Applications: <http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/tangled/>

<comment><USER5> Have heard absolutely nothing but great things about this book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just bought a (physical) Kindle; it has:

_Wolf Hall_ ([http://www.amazon.com/Wolf-Hall-Novel-Booker- Prize/dp/080508...](http://www.amazon.com/Wolf-Hall-Novel-Booker- Prize/dp/0805080686))

_Tree of Smoke_ ([http://www.amazon.com/Tree-Smoke-Novel-Denis- Johnson/dp/0374...](http://www.amazon.com/Tree-Smoke-Novel-Denis- Johnson/dp/0374279128))

(I'm about halfway through both; I'm trying to get better about reading fiction).

_The Lean Startup_ ([http://www.amazon.com/Lean-Startup-Entrepreneurs- Continuous-...](http://www.amazon.com/Lean-Startup-Entrepreneurs-Continuous- Innovation/dp/0307887898/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323540517&sr=1-1))

(Having trouble getting myself propelled into this one)

_Imbibe!_ ([http://www.amazon.com/Imbibe-Absinthe-Cocktail-Professor- Fea...](http://www.amazon.com/Imbibe-Absinthe-Cocktail-Professor- Featuringthe/dp/0399532870/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323540560&sr=1-1))

(Probably the best book on booze ever written, my favorite thing I've read all year)

_Bitters_ ([http://www.amazon.com/Bitters-Spirited-Cure-All-Cocktails- Fo...](http://www.amazon.com/Bitters-Spirited-Cure-All-Cocktails- Formulas/dp/1580083595/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323540592&sr=1-1))

(The Atlantic liked this book, but I found it slight --- although we're going to make bitters from this book in our office, so maybe I'll appreciate it more later)

Finally, I didn't read this "recently", but I'll take the opportunity to STRONGLY RECOMMEND IT TO EVERYONE:

_Ideas in Food_ ([http://www.amazon.com/Ideas-Food-Great-Recipes- They/dp/03077...](http://www.amazon.com/Ideas-Food-Great-Recipes- They/dp/0307717402/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323540682&sr=1-1))

This book blew my freaking head off. The authors are modernist ("molecular", gag) consultant/chefs with a very popular blog; the book adapts the stuff on their blog to home and professional cooking.

What's amazing about it is that they did such a great job translating modernist techniques not just to home kitchens but to home cooking, so that the same concepts that give you wanking spherification and foam dishes in restaurants give you hands-free bulletproof risotto at home. I could go on and on about this thing. It is simultaneously the geekiest and most useful food book I've ever bought. Own it immediately.

(Do audiobooks count? If so, add to the list _Thinking Fast And Slow_ by Daniel Kahneman, _Blood, Bones & Butter_ by Gabrielle Hamilton, and Caro's _Power Broker_).

<comment><USER14> > (Probably the best book on booze ever written, my favorite thing I've read > all year

Highly recommend:

<http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0971958769>

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The End of Faith by Sam Harris - [http://www.amazon.com/End-Faith-Religion- Terror-Future/dp/03...](http://www.amazon.com/End-Faith-Religion-Terror- Future/dp/0393327655/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323544076&sr=1-1)

It's the first non-technical book I've read in a while, and I am loving it.

</comment><comment><USER16> Philip Roth's 'Indignation. Julian Barnes 'The sense of an ending'. And a few other novels. Plus I'm reading 'The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity by Jeffrey Sachs. I would recommend one and all.

</comment><comment><USER17> You should probably clarify if you want to know the last X we read in general, fiction/non-fiction/both/specific topics, the last X great books, whether books or else (e.g. graphic novels, comics).

</comment><comment><USER18> The System of the World by Neal Stephenson - for pleasure

Hadoop: The Definitive Guide - for fun

Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software - for work

Effective C++ by Scott Meyers - for work

More Effective C++ by Scott Meyers - for work

</comment><comment><USER9> And before that I read, back-to-back, George W. Bush's and Keith Richards' autobiographies - both great reads though odd shelf-fellows.

</comment><comment><USER19> The Baroque Cycle. It's absolutely brilliant, I recommend it to anyone with an interest in security or economics.

</comment><comment><USER20> Currently reading:

iOS Programming - Big Nerd Ranch - 2nd Edition

Agile Web Dev with Rails - Pragmatic Programmers - 4th Edition

A Clash of Kings - GRR Martin

</comment><comment><USER21> Fiction: Carl Sagan - Contact Non-fiction: Uresh Vahalia - Unix Internals

</comment><comment><USER22> I am reading 'Facebook App development for Dummies'

</comment><comment><USER23> The Lean Startup and Crossing The Chasm</comment>


Ask HN: I am at a startup for 7 years. What's next for me? - <AUTHOR> I was the first employee hired as developer for my current startup. I have been working with them for 7 years now.
We have had multiple funding rounds. We grew and downsized multiple times. Had big quarters and some really shitty ones. I have survived all the ups and down. Currently I am leading the engineering team. I do have some shares but there is little chance of a big exit so I am not expecting a huge payout in the end.
Like any first employee I've wore multiple hats. From fixing stupid little bugs at midnight to setting up processes for dev, hiring, code reviews, qa etc.
My biggest concern here is that due to my role I am neither an expert engineer nor a good manager. I am just sitting in between focusing on whatever the company needs at the time. I feel I could be a really good resource for another startup but I don't want to go through this grind again. And for big companies I don't have the expertise to either pursue an engineering role or managerial role.
Did anyone go through a similar experience? What do you suggest my next steps should be? <comment><USER2> I have a very similar story to yours, and haven't been able to get excited again about a role.

I also was the first engineer of a startup, grew to technical leadership and jack of all trades (infrastructure, developer, manager, architecture, hiring, technical sale, technical support, product, public speaking at conferences, ...), and moved on after 7 years.

The next two companies have been a disaster, I took a role as IC and then as manager, but was miserable in both positions. Too structured. And my experience was too wide. I like to tinker with everything, I don't have the desire to study the minutiae required to perfectly code a complicated C++ template, and to iterate over a code review until it's the most esthetically pleasing piece of code. I like to think about the entire system and the business impact.

I'm thinking about trying a PM role, or also a customer facing technical role as sales engineer, since I have played all those in my past.

Like you, I don't want to work at another startup because I basically burned out, startup life is hard at 70+ hours a week.

I was lucky that my equity turned out to be slightly valuable (slightly more than $1M USD before taxes, so nothing too crazy but better than a punch in the face) so that affords me some freedom since I already had a high savings rate and frugal lifestyle. It's been much easier to have enough savings to be able to leave when you are unhappy.

<comment><USER3> > I like to tinker with everything,... I like to think about the entire system > and the business impact.

This sounds like me. I am still at a startup since early on and now I mostly focus on one thing. I now get extra time to devote to my passions and doing things "my way".

There should really be a group chat for first/early folks. I feel we take on significant risks that don't come with the correctly adjusted rewards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So you've led an engineering team and been involved in every part of the development process. You built a product/service from scratch and grew an engineering team from the ground up. You defined development processes to help the team deliver high quality software. You focus your energy on whatever the highest priority is for the company and likely spend a lot of time helping your team members move past obstacles. You probably don't do as much coding anymore, because that is the least useful way to spend your time and expertise when you're juggling these other responsibilities. This lack of coding might feel a little weird if you still consider yourself a developer, but your work has a force multiplying effect across the entire team. You described this as sitting in between an engineer and a manager.

If I got that right, you have just described a "tech lead" role, and your experience is far more valuable than a standard developer role. You can find those roles at companies big and small, depending on your preference. They're easier to find through your network than through job postings. They carry a lot of responsibility, but they can also be highly rewarding.

You're the only one who can decide what you WANT to do with that experience though. Do you want to find another tech lead role? Update your resume to emphasize your leadership experience and technical background. Development role? Emphasize those aspects of your job and start grinding on leetcode. Manager role? Emphasize your leadership experience and how you helped grow the team. You're well positioned to move into any of these roles, depending on what you want from your next job.

</comment><comment><USER5> Don't undersell yourself. You are leading the engineering team. To be clear management is not rocket science

<comment><USER6> This.

And I hate this term, but the concept is real - "Fake it until you make it".

<comment><USER7> Ant don't grow bitter in your current situation. Make a decision

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It sounds like you're in a good position. Maybe you should try to be either an expert engineer or manager. These things take effort. If your company won't sponsor training, you might have to pick it up yourself.

The question arises why it's still a startup. Is it lacking leadership? Poor luck? Weak market? Since you've already put on so many hats, maybe take on another and try to fix that.

</comment><comment><USER7> My guess is you are totally fine with your experience, to pursue an engineering role.

You have worn many hats. Therefore in a big organization you have the ability to develop yourself in many directions.

</comment><comment><USER9> It sounds like we're in similar age ranges. I've done the startup game (employee 11 at a per-series A sleeping on the floor next to the CTO) and I've done the big company life (more stable, but can be slow at times).

What do you want to do?

If you want to code, deal with an average amount of politics, and focus on a more predictable cash flow and career path, start drilling leetcode.com, set up 10 interviews with the top 10 tech companies, fail 7 and get 3 offers. It'll take about 6 months. There's plenty of "normal" work at FAANGs, not everyone is Machine Learning things together there. With seven years of experience getting the interviews will be very doable, passing them will be a bit tricky but doable after you get into the groove of things.

If you want to focus more on managing you're already doing great. If you want to increase your income start applying to other manager/director roles and get a competing offer. The formula of "Do 10 interviews and fail 7" works great here too.

Do you want to start your own company? Teaming up with a friend who has sales relationships or strong marketing experience to get users could be fun.

Not sure what to do? Take some night school classes. I took an eight week product management course just to see what it was like. Turns out it wasn't really for me. I took an online software engineering prep course too to prepare for the bigger company interviews, I wasn't a huge fan either.

For me personally, I realized I wanted to be more customer facing so I'm working on switching to a more sales focused path. Once I figured out my destination I've worked backwards and figured out a path to get there.

You can't lose. You're doing great now, just figure out what you want to do and work your way backwards :)

</comment><comment><USER10> You have the exact same history I do, except I am working in the startup for 5 years, not 7. I will found my own thing in 2 months with 2 really talented people with sales and marketing background. I look so forward to do my own thing, making my own decisions etc. Good luck to you.

</comment><comment><USER11> My first suggestion would be for you to dust off your LinkedIn profile, make sure its thorough in your responsibilities (and how many hats/experience you have).

You should find some (more) recruiters start to knock and that may start to bring you some new opportunities for perspective.

</comment><comment><USER12> Bootstrap something you want to exist?

Being your own boss brings a lot of freedom of choice.

</comment><comment><USER13> You sound like a solid CTO for a scale up - you've seen it all, writing good python is a lot less important in the long run

</comment><comment><USER14> Why dont you try to be an entrepreneur ?

<comment><USER15> Well he worked for 7 years at a startup and it didnt workout That well. Founding somthing is hard and most likely you will fail. There is that.

<comment><USER14> May be he can try to bootstrap it himself. Something like an indiehacker.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Product manager?

</comment><comment><USER17> > I was the first employee

Remember that you are an employee unless you have any equity or something more than a normal employee. If you dont just dont sweat, focus on building skillset and move on. IF you don't have the time in your current organization just quit and focus on building your skill. I can't stress this enough.

<comment><USER18> > I do have some shares

Please read the full post before commenting.

<comment><USER19> Supposedly this equity hardly matters to OP at this point</comment></comment></comment>


Atomic clock measures time on the basis of an atom's mass - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/the-time-about-a-quarter-past-a-kilogram-1.12191

<comment><USER2> Summary: Everything is both a particle and a wave. For larger particles the frequency of the wave is very very high. (This is called the de Broglie wavelength if you want to learn more about it.)

The clock attempts to measure this frequency and use it to track time.

As of right not the clock isn't as accurate as modern atomic clocks, but because the item it measures - mass - is so fundamental and unchanging it holds great potential.

Criticism: This clock does not appear to actually measure the de Broglie wavelength directly. The oscillation frequency of the clock is much lower.

</comment><comment><USER3> This reminds of the Phase Locked Loop/VCO setup you find in synthesized radio's but not. I wonder what impact the accuracy of their laser source has on the accuracy of the clock ...

Anyone have a reasonably simplistic explanation of how the laser 'kicks' would impact Compton cycles? I. E. what aspects of the laser affect Compton cycles?

</comment><comment><USER4> what about half-life decay? i guess if it's Cs133, then we don't have to worry about that...

<comment><USER2> Cesium 133 is stable. Cesium only has one stable isotope - which is a very good thing, because it means all the atoms have the same mass.

If it had multiple stable isotopes they would have to separate them, which would make things more complicated.</comment></comment>