Show HN: Things that help with depression and anxiety - <AUTHOR> As there seem to be many here that suffer with depressive symptoms and/or anxiety, maybe you'll get some benefit from looking into the following stacks:
https://trackmystack.com/users/baccheion
You can also join the following subreddit, as the users there regularly talk about and consume many of these supplements/nootropics: https://www.reddit.com/r/nootropics .
Other sites that may be helpful:
- https://examine.com
- http://www.longecity.org/forum/
These supplements come into play after you've ensured you don't have any vitamin or mineral deficiencies (it's common to not be getting enough vitamin D & K, magnesium, and calcium).
If supplementing with vitamin D, then it's important to supplement with vitamin K as well (to direct calcium away from soft tissues to where it needs to go), and to avoid extra/unnecessary calcium supplementation (as vitamin D increases the amount of calcium absorbed through the intestines). Life Extension has a vitamin D & K product which shows a good ratio of vitamin D to vitamin K MK-4 to vitamin K MK-7.
If you have a magnesium deficiency (or want to ensure you don't), the best approach to resolving it is to get one of the magnesium oil sprays (Life-Flo brand if you're not sure), then to apply it all over like lotion (avoiding the "sensitive" areas, as it can sting/burn) while orally supplementing (the glycinate/lysine chelated form is a good one) the RDA. That is, oral supplementation of the amounts required to clear a deficiency tend to be distressing to the digestive system, and it's highly likely enough won't be absorbed. Going the topical route avoids the digestive system, while also creating a signal that you have enough magnesium (the body won't really absorb magnesium through the skin if it doesn't need more, which will result in a white film (dried salt) forming).
As each 8oz magnesium oil spray bottle contains 26g elemental Mg (the body has about 28g all throughout), once a bottle is finished (or a white film begins forming on the skin, implying the body isn't absorbing any more), you can be fairly certain you no longer have a magnesium deficiency.
You can also get a blood test done (RBC magnesium levels or the ExaTest, however, not serum levels, as serum levels can be misleading (the body takes magnesium from the red blood cells to keep serum levels high, so OK serum levels may lead one to believe there isn't a problem, when in fact the body desperately needs more magnesium)).
Many of the recommendations (on the Track My Stack page) work well, but you can also become addicted to them (or develop a tolerance, or have nasty side effects) if not taken properly (frequency and dosage). Therefore, it's strongly recommended that one first properly research each thing (and also discuss with whoever's relevant (Doctor?)).
In any event, safety issues aside, when these supplements/nootropics work, they work well, and can often significantly alleviate or completely eliminate symptoms/issues.
You can also search PubMed ("site:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed INSERT_SUPP_NAME_HERE") to read through the abstracts of whatever clinical studies exist.
Tianeptine Sulfate is effective for many people with symptoms of depression (not sure about clinical depression), especially when they've failed to respond to SSRIs (while having less potential side effects/issues).
Phenibut is effective for many with anxiety, but one can become addicted and/or tolerance can form, so it's recommended you only take 1-2g (split across 2 servings) 1-2x/week (and that you also take fasoracetam each day).
Memantine is effective for OCD, but it can cause debilitating brain fog (or dissociation), so it's recommended that you start at 2.5mg (or 5mg), then taper up in 2.5mg increments every 3-4 days until it begins working (which usually happens at around 10mg (which then sometimes needs an additional 5mg at night), but one can go as high as 20mg 2x/day).
N-Acetyl Selank (or regular Selank, if you want the version that's been around longer and has more studies implying its safety) can also help with anxiety and OCD symptoms, but you can read more about that on the Track My Stack page I linked to above.
You can add N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine to the fluidity/creativity stack, but some won't want to do that, as it mainly enhances convergent forms of thinking/creativity (Math or problem solving of the linear, logical kind), rather than divergent thinking/creativity.
There are also things like meditation, brainwave entrainment (Neuro-Programmer 3), CBT, etc. <comment><USER2> I applaud the idea of helping people with depression, anxiety, mood disorders, and that cluster of symptoms and illnesses. We talk a lot about how it's prevalent, but we don't talk a lot about what to do about it.

That said, I don't agree with the advice of the original poster. Self- medicating, /especially/ when you're in the thick of depression, is dangerous; there really isn't a whole lot of data around with regards to either safety /or/ efficacy in patients with depression. It's important that you have a support system around you.

So the paragraph that's buried in the middle -- "discuss with whoever's relevant" \-- I think is the crux of it. And beyond that, the most important thing is to begin. Talk to your primary care physician; if you don't trust them, talk to a close friend; find a referral to either a psychiatrist or a psychologist. There are forms of therapy these days that are grounded in evidence, and once you have a support system in place, you might well find that experimenting with pharmacological therapies that are outside the gamut of institutional medicine is something that you want to try.

But if you have pain every day, the most significant bit is that it doesn't have to be that way, and there are ways to treat it; and beyond that, there are tested ways, and it's probably worth going with those first, so that you have the highest probability of feeling better faster, with the lowest risk of feeling even worse or compounding your problems with other side effects.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, as I said in the other comment, I'm not suggesting all out self medication (or not involving a doctor), I'm trying to present a set of supplements and nootropics that many with these issues may have not heard about before. Maybe they can research each thing and/or talk about them with their doctor to see if they will help.

Also, I'm especially making these recommendations, as standard medications and advice from doctors didn't really help me, but when I tried these alternatives I had better success. That is, these are good things to keep in mind should traditional routes not work out well, or if the side effects from antidepressants or anti-anxiety meds grow unbearable.

<comment><USER3> I can understand your viewpoint having gone through similar and fixed it on my own. If people want to cure their depression and anxiety through self help, my advice is to try adjusting your mindset before thinking about nutrients.

My theory is that having the wrong mindset for long enough sets in motion a process that ends up in physical illness, inflammation and nutrient problems - which make the mental illness worse. So people should try learning mindfulness, stoicism, CBT and giving them at least a few months (with a good diet/exercise) before trying this route.

Nutrient deficiencies can cause all sorts of problems - I read about it extensively when I was ill. At one point I was convinced I might have a magnesium deficiency but when I got a proper test done (not the standard one) it showed high levels of magnesium. So, it's not always the miracle that it appears.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, there are also other things like meditation and brainwave entrainment (Neuro-Programmer 3). Blood tests, urine tests, hair sample analysis, and assessing gene data are readily accessible (unless too expensive or not covered by insurance), so there shouldn't be anything standing in the way of at least getting those tests done to see if there are any immediately identifiable/addressable issues, deficiencies, or excesses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > [https://www.reddit.com/r/nootropics](https://www.reddit.com/r/nootropics)

Yikes. Please no.

Don't get me wrong. I like /r/nootropics, and I'm glad it exists. I think it's neat that people are willing to risk frying their brain looking for cognitive enhancers, and sometimes I wish I was as cool as gwern and willing to do blind LSD experiments on myself. Very cyberpunk. But telling people with serious conditions to go there for medical advice is dangerous and irresponsible. If you have depression or anxiety, please see a professional.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not telling them to go there for medical advice (and I'm not sure how well these things work when it's clinical depression that's the problem), I'm saying that's another potential resource for information and anecdotes.

Also, I'm not suggesting one ignore a doctor's advice or take them out of the loop altogether. Rather, I'm presenting other options (that will likely help many) such that everyone can become more aware of other alternatives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I spent years on the self-medication supplement train. I still take Vitamin D and a few other modest supplements, but I finally got REAL relief after just biting the bullet and trying nearly every anti-depressant under the sun. After a few, my doctor did a DNA test to determine gene-drug interaction because of the wild results I was having. Thankfully, this was covered under my insurance. It shed a lot of light on why many of the pills I had taken failed -- the test showed they're likely to have bad reactions based on my genes.

We used the information to choose Viibyrd, a fairly new anti-depressant (2011). I've kind of become an evangelist for it since.

It works like a traditional SSRI but also affects the 5-HT1A receptors. Another great feature of the medication is that it usually takes less than a week to notice results -- and results I noticed.

I've been plagued with anxiety since age 18 and depression since I was a kid. For the first time in 11 years, I'm anxiety free. For the first time in a long time, I'm nearly depression free.

The best part? I'm myself. I'm not dull. I'm not a zombie. Some of my other impulsivity and ADHD symptoms vanished. I'm way more productive, social, and less afraid to take on life.

It was fun and interesting to do the whole supplement stack, but ultimately a huge time and money waster. I spent far less time going to my Psychiatrist and trying different options to get REAL results.

I feel like in many ways Nootropic supplements are the Homeopathy for Nerds -- we're using cutting edge research to anecdotally try to fix our issues, and ignoring that even we're just as susceptible to the placebo effect as the rest of the population.

Here's a good read that's sort of on topic about the stigma of medication and mental illness:

[https://themighty.com/2016/02/myths-about-mental-illness- med...](https://themighty.com/2016/02/myths-about-mental-illness-medication)

<comment><AUTHOR> What you should become an evangelist for is doing the gene testing (to get further insight/clarity into potential interactions and issues) you mention.

In my case, I was forced to seek traditional help, but that didn't work for me, which lead me to looking into alternatives. I researched for a long time, then came across (and had better luck with) many of the supplements and nootropics in the stacks I link to.

That is, I'm not saying to use this as an excuse to avoid traditional routes; it's more that many either have tried such routes only to see no real improvement, or want to quickly give off-the-shelf options a try before becoming "a part of the system." Not everyone is a fan of prescription anti- anxiety, antidepressant, or antipsychotic medication (or their side effects, especially).

<comment><USER6> > Not everyone is a fan of prescription anti-anxiety, antidepressant, or > antipsychotic medication (or their side effects, especially).

Lots of people go along with the "professional's" prescription, not knowing that these drugs are known to not work very well. They're only used because the professionals think that "they're the best we have at present time," (paraphrasing Harriet Hall MD's quote from skeptic magazine). The thinking is that if the first drugs don't work, they can always "try, try again".

Benzodiazepines are great for anxiety, until they stop working after about 4 weeks. Then you're just addicted to them to keep from spiraling down into an anxious hell.

SSRI's are the epitome of corporate science. Someone came up with the serotonin-deficiency theory of depression, Wall Street came up with a drug to sell, _poof_ everyone got switched from anti-serotonin antidepressants to the new pro-serotonin patent drugs. There are some negative articles about Prozac in the Boston Globe's archives circa-2000, but their exposé wasn't enough to stop the juggernaut. There is now a page somewhere on Wikipedia that talks about why the SSRI's actually work for a small percentage of the people who take it... More often than not, SSRI's have a tendency to ruin people. Lexapro helped my girlfriend relapse, years ago.

"Anti-psychotics" were originally sold as tranquilizers. These drugs are given to difficult patients so that the system can pretend it's helping people, but really these bad drugs make the patient more psychotic over time. Most psychotic patients recover with time and/or sobriety.

See my comment history for references.

<comment><AUTHOR> Many studies have shown 5-HTP is about as effective as SSRIs for depression and OCD. Memantine has also been shown in studies to work well for OCD (and sometimes even depression or anxiety), and that's mainly because it's an uncompetitive NMDA antagonist first, then an Alzheimer's treatment option (as it has been pigeonholed into being).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Something that has worked for me is 5000 IU of Vitamin D. I do not seem to suffer from any Vitamin D absorption issues, nor am I (any longer) overweight, and I try to get sufficient sunlight (although I live in the north).

On top of that, walking about 5 miles a day also has its own benefits that stack well with Vitamin D usage.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you supplement with proper amounts of vitamin K as well? Life Extension has a good vitamin D and K product which shows proper ratios and the forms of vitamin K required. If you only supplement with vitamin D, then you run the risk of (excess) calcium being directed toward soft tissue and other places, rather than where it should actually go.

Another sign you may have a magnesium deficiency is supplementation with vitamin D and K resulting in anxiety or difficulty sleeping. That is, you should be able to take D & K before bed without any issues.

<comment><USER7> To be fair, I eat a rather natural diet that includes Vitamin K1 and K2 in it. _Anything_ discussed in this thread should be prefixed with "don't eat junk" as the first step of things to do.

[http://www.lifeextension.com/vitamins- supplements/item01840/...](http://www.lifeextension.com/vitamins- supplements/item01840/vitamins-d-and-k-with-sea-iodine)

I think you meant this product. 1100 mcg of K2 seems a bit high.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, that's the vitamin D & K supplement I use. Natural sources may not always include enough of the MK-7 form of vitamin K2. As for dosage, I think those are good. Some could cut the K2 amount by 50%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you are looking for ideas to protect yourself from depression [http://examine.com](http://examine.com) is amazing. They back their articles with actual scientific studies on whether or not supplements work. Their articles on omega 3(e.g. fish oil), zinc, rhodiola rosea, and creatine are a great place to start for ideas to help deal with depression. I use all of these on a daily basis, and I found out why and how thanks to their suggestions. These are supplements that are safe and your doctor will likely support their usage as well when you ask them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, Examine has a lot of good information. I've added a mention of it to the OP.

<comment><USER8> Thanks for being open to feedback, I know some people here are quite critical when it comes to supplementation suggestions and really anything medical. You clearly take the time to think and test this stuff out and improve your post, so I think this is something we could use more of!

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea, I was already familiar with that site, I just didn't think to include the link. I used it a lot as I researched various supplements. The FAQ section of the /r/Nootropics subreddit has links to other useful resources. Also, the owner of Examine.com is an active member of /r/Nootropics.

I'm annoyed by the critical reaction to supplement suggestions (mainly because no one is being forced to get anything), but on the other hand, I understand the reason for skepticism or lack of confidence. What would be great, however, is a bias toward first looking into what's recommended, rather than just settling into blind blanket dismissal/rejection.

<comment><USER8> People expect the sources to have some sort of marketing scheme behind them. Examine.com is the exception by having well researched suggestions backed with actual studies and a status of being a reliable third party. I understand their skepticism, because of how much learning it takes to actually do supplementation safely and effectively. Most supplements just help based on placebo effect anyway, I aggregated the supplement effects studied on examine.com and 50% of studied effects were neutral. Only 8% of the supplement effects they investigated were more than minor, the numbers can only get worse when you consider publication and selection bias! So there is good reason to be critical, because the odds are against supplements helping enough to be noticeable beyond what a sugar pill can do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This seems like a lazy attempt to market your affiliate links.

<comment><AUTHOR> Where are my affiliate links? I don't own the site I linked to and I haven't provided any links that include an affiliate code.

If Track My Stack is adding affiliate links, then you can avoid them by directly entering each supplement or nootropic into a search engine. You'll probably be able to get better vendors, prices, and quality that way. I'm mainly using that site to hold the actual stacks, not to suggest where to buy each supplement/nootropic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Ive been working on this exact problem, and have been for about a year and a half now.

The idea is to mail a user an EEG, which they rent, then provide real-time feedback to the user. This is called neurofeedback[1] helps the user learn how it feels prior and during various moods and mental states. Overall, this has been around for 30 years, our improvement is that it is doable in the home at 1/10 the price.

We are launching a beta in the bay area soon if anyone is interested.

[1] [http://synaptitude.me/blog/neurofeedback- in-200-words/](http://synaptitude.me/blog/neurofeedback-in-200-words/)

</comment><comment><USER11> Kratom worked like a charm for me and relieved my depression and anxiety. I was happy, cheerful and working (programming) effectively for the 5 months I took it. But I didn't know it was an analog of opiates (works on same receptors) and addictive. I quit cold-turkey to save some money and was amazed to find myself in the midst of a terrible opiate withdrawal (I had experienced it before on pain meds) Yech. I was doing 30 gm a day. Check out reddit.com/r/quittingkratom if you find yourself in a similar situation and need support. *edit (sp)

<comment><AUTHOR> N-Acetyl Selank (or regular Selank to be using the older more tested version) and Tianeptine Sulfate may be good alternatives (one can become addicted to Tianeptine Sulfate, but it's not as likely).

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> In hindsight, maybe I should've posted this in the morning, as then more would've been likely to see it before it disappears into the ether.

Also, if you don't know where to buy some of these supplements, Ceretropic is a good vendor: [http://www.ceretropic.com/categories?sort=bestselling](http://www.ceretropic.com/categories?sort=bestselling) . PowderCity as well: [http://www.powdercity.com](http://www.powdercity.com) .

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Also, [https://labdoor.com/](https://labdoor.com/) is a potentially good place to check for product/brand recommendations, as they've tested the major brands to check label accuracy, product purity, estimated efficacy, etc.

They've mainly tested more common supplements (vitamins, minerals, probiotics, fish oil, etc), but it's still a good site to keep in mind.

</comment><comment><USER12> Exercise. Seems like a lame answer but helps me. Doesn't have to be obsessive to work wonders - a bit done regularly goes a long way.

<comment><USER13> I'd echo this, despite recent studies suggesting exercise does nothing for depression. Personally, I suspect there responders and non-responders when it comes to long term relief. However, short-term I suspect it's extremely effective, i.e. in the hours range. It's hard to feel too miserable while lifting heavy weights or smashing a boxing bag.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, it has good effects (at least short-term). High-intensity interval training (avoids burning muscle) or weight lifting are especially good. It also enhances the effects of things like Piracetam and Acetyl L-Carnitine, which in turn enhance capability/capacity during exercise (piracetam helps with oxygen usage, in addition to being a nootropic, and Acetyl L-Carnitine helps with endurance-- so much so that many bodybuilders use the PLCAR form before workouts and the LCLT form after workouts (to speed recovery and minimize the odds of DOMS)).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, and major depressive disorder about 5 years ago.

Today I only have an anxiety thing. The thing that helped? DBT: dialectical behavioural therapy.

So, I am extremely disappointed that it only got (barely) mentioned in passing at the end:

> There are also things like meditation, brainwave entrainment (Neuro- > Programmer 3), CBT, etc.

</comment><comment><USER15> This doesn't seem like an appropriate place for this type of... 'content'.

<comment><USER16> Maybe you're new, but anxiety and depression is a topic that has gotten a lot of discussion on hacker news in the past.

<comment><USER15> My issue isn't with the topic. It's with the psuedo-science masquerading as medical advice, and with the poster who is wantonly throwing out unsubstantiated advice for taking compounds that he almost certainly knows nothing about-- except where to buy them... his fantastic affiliate site!

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't own Track My Stack, or any other site. As for science vs. pseudoscience, if you look into the supplements and nootropics mentioned, then maybe you'll find anecdotes and clinical studies that clarify what they do, how they work, how well they work, and how likely they are to work.

What exactly (of what I mentioned above) do you consider pseudoscience? It seems you just like throwing out (as is common with many on this site) "cliche" terms and using them to feel almighty and important. Perhaps you can do as you imply wasn't done (to arrive at what was said above), and provide some evidence or data to back up the accusations you are pointing in my direction.

This is my main problem with sites dominated primarily by Te users (INTJs, ISTJs, ENTJs, and ESTJs): stupid, ignorant, judgmental, and dismissive is often put into play with the belief it's actually astute insight or perceptiveness.

In the future, it would be better if you know (and provide support for) what you're talking about, rather than just throwing out blind blanket BS accusations.

<comment><USER15> You know what, you are right. My comment was a drive-by.

I'm glad these things worked for you. For me I'll see my doctor and dentist yearly, eat 'right', exercise regularly and rigorously, and enjoy and cultivate fulfilling relationships with friends and family.

Drugs can be a great tool for healing and recovery. I remain unconvinced that what you claim is helpful for even a small number of the population.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> From a purely subjective sample set of one (me) - lightboxes help with the winter blues and the worst thing possible is to reach for an evening cocktail which just makes things worse the next day.

<comment><AUTHOR> Lightboxes helping strongly suggest you have serotonin or vitamin D issues. You can try an adjustment in diet or can look into some of the supplements mentioned above to help with those issues.

It's great if it's working out for you, but you should consider blood work (or genetic testing) to see if you have any vitamin, mineral, etc deficiencies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Vitamin D can be obtained naturally, how it was intended.

1 hour in the mid-day sun (shorts + t-shirt) will yield you 10,000 IU in most cases, depending on location. Ideally, go shirtless. Bright sunlight hitting the retina has clinical studies backing its effectiveness in regulating hormones and potentially improving mental illness.

PS: Northern Hemisphere - Need to supplement during winter.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure, however, if you do this, then maybe you can also supplement with Astaxanthin (2mg-4mg?) to help protect the body against sunburn (and other sun exposure related issues). Also, if you go this route, you should definitely get blood tests to verify that sun exposure has in fact increased vitamin D levels to the desired range (40-60 ng/ml, with 50 often being mentioned as an "ideal").

<comment><USER17> Astaxanthin can be obtained naturally as well. Wild salmon. Emphasis on wild, not farmed. One of the reasons wild salmon have a bright red pigment is because of the astaxanthin.

While we're on subject, wild salmon has one of the highest VitaminD counts of all food. One 3oz serving = 500IU. Probably in the top-three healthiest foods on Planet Earth (if you can even make such a criteria)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, but it's not likely one will be able to get sufficient amounts from natural sources each day. That is, the typical approach is to supplement with 8mg, 12mg, or even 16mg/day for 12 weeks (to saturate the body), then with 2mg or 4mg/day thereafter.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Federal judge rejects Google book monopoly - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/judge-rejects-google-book-monopoly.ars

<comment><USER3> The FSF brought up some real concerns about Google having a lockhold on the intellectual property rights of all these materials (though they never convinced me why a Company like Microsoft, or Yahoo couldn't just negotiate the same deal with the Authors Guild and AAP).

The idea of this being okay under an "Opt-In" basis is idiotic. The entire rationale behind the "Opt-Out" approach was _the only people who cared_ would be the ones most capable and likely to opt out. The 99% of abandoned or orphaned works that have nobody to speak to, or nobody to find - <USER2> automatically return to the public domain where they belong.

For those Naysayers - how do you propose we prevent losing all those orphaned works to decay, and, just as importantly, make them accessible to the entire world - that's what Google was offering. In an ideal world, we'd have a sane copyright system which would terminate author's copyrights after some reasonable period of time unless they (or their estate) renewed their copy rights. That way, give an author, say, 20 years of exclusive rights, renewable for up to 40 more years (in 20 year increments) or 20 after their death, whichever is longer.

In that world - You could copy all the books, and, when the ISBN indicated it's copyright was expired - it would become searchable.

That _certainly_ will inspire authors to create new works - An author creating a material would be guaranteed income for them and their estate for a minimum of 60 years (presuming they die the very next day), or potentially more than 100 years - but, at the same time, means that works return to the public domain once nobody cares, creating a richer creative commons.

The problem with _this_ world is that copyrights continue for insane periods of time because a few content owners (of the hundreds of thousands who have created content) - have successfully lobbied for stretching out the copyright windows on ALL WORKS - not just the ones that people care about and are extracting economic value from, without thinking of the negative impacts on the creative commons. Thanks Disney. (Ironically one who very effectively mines the creative commons for their own works)

Remember, the purpose of copyrights and patents is not to create some monopolistic/locked-in intellectual property blackhole, rather, in the United States at least, it is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Emphasis on "promote the progress" and "securing for limited time"

Hopefully today's decision was a not big step backwards - in an ideal world, this settlement is modified such that it's available to all content archivers/searchers, such that they will have access to the same terms as Google, and we'll be able to truly "Promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts."

</comment><comment><USER4> Glad it's been rejected. Google is wanting to circumvent US copyright law by creating law through the civil courts. The civil courts are not the appropriate venue to change copyright law.

In addition, the idea of seizure of out of print or allegedly orphaned works, which has been promoted as a cause in conjunction with articles about this case, disturbs me. Someone can start selling my out of print publications just because I choose not to publish them for any reason? Well then, why shouldn't I also be able to stroll on into Google then and take home any orphan computers they have that they aren't currently using. Or head into my neighbor's garage and collect the orphan tools there that he has forgotten about.

If someone wants to publish an in-copyright work, they need the explicit permission of the copyright holder. The issue of "can't be found" is not relevant because they are not even trying. Instead they set up a clearing house that collects money and which the author then has to take-or-leave regarding royalties, with no negotiation possible, and if they don't fill out all the right paperwork they get nothing. Why should I be forced to submit to a bureaucracy of some organization I don't like and don't want anything to do with because some judge has decreed them my agent for working with Google Book sales? Glad the judge said no to that nonsense.

<comment><USER5> Google already has advocated for orphan works legislation. You can search for David Drummond's arguments on Google. The settlement was entirely consistent with Google's previous statements regarding legislation.

As for your "orphan computer" analogy, in fact, there _are_ abandoned property laws that give the owner a reasonable opportunity to make claims to the property. In my state, you're supposed to bring property to the police station, and if no one claims it for a few months, it's yours. The proposed nonprofit registry was supposed to be similar for intellectual property.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Although I personally can appreciate what Google was trying to do here, even if it was self serving, I have to say that I agree with the judge. Hopefully, this setback will make Google come up with a better plan.

</comment><comment><USER7> I understand that people want access to information, but what Google is trying to do is completely against copyright law. Copyright, as the name says, is a right given to someone over a property (an intellectual property). You cannot remove that right by just advertising that you should opt out if you don't want that to happen. The debate has to be much bigger than this, and if necessary copyright law needs to be changed so that other uses are possible by anyone (not just Google).

<comment><USER3> I fail to understand (conceptually) how this is any different than what ASCAP has already negotiated with songwriters, composers, lyricists and music publishers .

Do you oppose what Pandora does?

See: <http://www.ascap.com/licensing/about.html>

A brief excerpt:

"It is impossible for individual composers and publishers to monitor the hundreds of thousands of businesses that use music. It would be equally difficult, time consuming and expensive for business owners to locate and negotiate with all the owners of the music that might be used. There is a simple, fast and reasonably priced alternative. Through ASCAP, in one simple transaction, businesses can obtain the right to perform the millions of songs created or owned by more than 400,000 of America's and hundreds of thousands of the world's best songwriters, composers, lyricists and publishers. Founded in 1914, and still owned by and managed for its writer and publisher members, ASCAP grants businesses the permission they need to perform music publicly. The money collected is distributed, after deducting operating costs (currently 11.3%), directly to ASCAP members and to affiliated foreign performing rights organizations for their members. "

<comment><USER4> "what ASCAP has already negotiated with songwriters, composers, lyricists and music publishers"

There is a huge difference. ASCAP represents ASCAP members, who choose to join the organization. ASCAP then becomes a legal agent regarding collecting royalties for the musician. Many musicians join BMI instead. But crucially, many do not join either organization. Neither organization is a publisher, they are a music licensing organization that works for its members.

For this to be comparable, ASCAP would become the representative of musicians whether they want that or not, and would be able to publish musician's works without permission. That is certainly not what ASCAP does now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think this illustrates how screwed up copyright has become.

I dream of a world where copyright lasts for 14 years or the copyright holder dies, which ever comes last. Thus an individual can retain copyright for life. If he or she dies before 14 years have passed the heirs will benefit for however much of the 14 years are left. Corporations would never hold a copyright for longer than 14 years.

I'm convinced that this would be a fair system for everyone and would return copyright to its original intention; to promote creativity and writing rather than being a corporate cash machine that screwes everybody other than the large corporations.

<comment><USER9> In your system could corporations own copyrights? In that case how long would the copyright last? What about works by many authors? (Mostly agree with you, but the devil is in the details.)

<comment><USER8> No problem with many authors, simply expire when the last author dies.

Corporations I sort of already said something about. However I must admit I like how things work in the Norwegian equivalent of copyright: You can transfer "copyright" to corporations, but if, and only if there is an employee relationship (either you are employed or working as an independent contractor). This for example means that as a student you retain full "copyright" to all of your work (master thesis etc.), but as a professor it can be transfered to the university.

In addition you always retain your "ideal rights" no matter what, even if the rest of the "copyright" is transfered to your employee. I don't think american copyright has an equivalent to this. Basically it means that no matter what you have 1) the right to be identified as the creator and 2) the right to deny derivative works to be associated to you.

This means that if somebody makes a movie based on your book you can say "Hey, this movie completely misses the point, I don't want to be associated to it in any shape or form" and the creator of the movie cannot use your name at all.

This does however mean that there is no such thing as public domain in Norway, since there is no way of giving up your "ideal rights". Even if you put something out there under terms that in the US would be public domain, you cannot give up your right to be identified as the creator or your right to not be associated with derivative works.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "In his ruling, Chin hinted that he would look more favorably on an "opt-in" settlement—e.g. one that applied only to those authors and publishers who explicitly chose to accept it."

Seems reasonable. The whole opt-out design gave too much power to google, and everybody already knows what a massive pain it is to get in touch with google if a problem arises.

<comment><USER3> The problem, of course, is that the works most likely to benefit from the settlement, those that are orphaned or abandoned, will have no-one to opt-in for them.

Works that aren't orphaned have already opted in - just go to amazon.com. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> What would be awesome would be if Google fights these guys in court and wins, getting a decision that what they do to web pages is legal to do to books, too.

<comment><USER12> Indeed! Google started by arguing that scanning/indexing/showing-snippets was legal, then switched to 'settle in a way that gives us the pole position and lays mines for everyone behind us'. They should get back to arguing the fair- use principle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The photo leading this article is really gratuitous. Do we really need to look at a cute librarianish book stamper to get us interested in serious issues?

</comment><comment><USER14> Just to balance this article a bit; here is an excerpt from the judgment pointing to the many potential benefits to this deal:

 _The benefits of Google's book project are many. Books will become more accessible. Libraries, schools, researchers, and disadvantaged populations will gain access to far more books. Digitization will facilitate the conversion of books to Braille and audio formats, increasing access for individuals with disabilities. Authors and publishers will benefit as well, as new audiences will be generated and new sources of income created. Older books -- particularly out-of-print books, many of which are falling apart buried in library stacks -- will be preserved and given new life._</comment>


Sam Altman lost a bold bubble bet made in 2015. Now he must pay $100k - <AUTHOR> https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2020/01/08/former-yc-chief-sam-altman-lost-abold-bubble-bet.html <comment><AUTHOR> _" I'm not as sure this time," Altman said. "The thing that made me want to do that last time around was this feeling that everyone was saying we were in a bubble, and I thought that was wrong and disingenuous for a couple of reasons. This time I don't feel that way."_

Interesting.

On the bet: to be fair, he was very, very close to winning (for those who didn't read, he was correct on 2/3 predictions, and the third was a $200B collective valuation for several companies that are instead currently valued at $167B).

edit: just realized this duplicates several other submissions that in some cases are better [https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastMonth&page=0&prefix=fa...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastMonth&page=0&prefix=false&query=altman&sort=byPopularity&type=story)

</comment><comment><USER2> What exactly was Sam Altman's motivation for making this bet? Seems foolish to me. I'd rather gamble in the stock market.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think badly of him. I think it was just to make a point, and the money was going to charity of the winner's choice. I don't know Sam personally but he's been very successful with his career so I don't think it was about the money.

He actually explained it where I quoted him in my other comment, from this article.</comment></comment>


A Flurry of Copycats on PubMed - <AUTHOR> http://blog.thegrandlocus.com/2014/10/a-flurry-of-copycats-on-pubmed

<comment><USER2> A friend of mine reached out to me via LinkedIn several months ago, stating he could probably use Tableau and some public datasets to DDoS the medical peer review system and earn tenure at the same time: low impact factor * a million is still going to be a lot better than the alternative. Sadly, I didn't hear anything terribly insightful when I asked him about spurious correlations and data mining as a perjorative term, so I left that one alone, and I assume he doesn't have the balls to go through with it since you know, there are actual people in the tenure committee who have to review your CV.

One angle that isn't quite clear to me from the article; if you build a system to harvest datasets, find correlations, and push them through a set of templates with conditional subtemplates based on saliency, with correct citations of source data to produce a single article, is it wrong to put your name on it? And if you do 30 of them?

Obviously selling your naming rights to papers harms both the community who might wish follow up with the authors on scholarship, and those who use peer reviewed publications as a filter. But I think the real lesson here might just be that abusing the university administration's institutional data analysis platform to game your tenure case seems like a waste of time in comparison to selling one weak article a day for 10,000 bucks.

</comment><comment><USER3> Good example of Cambell's law.

Doesn't seem much worse than the senior professor in western departments who automatically gets co-authorship on everything his department produces.

Publication indexes are just very sick metrics.

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

</comment><comment><USER4> Though I use PubMed frequently, can't say I've encountered "copycat" articles. It's disheartening to find out what has been happening, but perhaps not a huge surprise to the extent publication becomes merely a commodity to accumulate in order to further an academic career.

It does prompt me to keep an eye out for such occurrence. But I'm pretty sure not every researcher goes about things that way. Maybe it depends on the field of research. The topics of interest to me could simply be too obscure to attract that kind of attention.

Sure seems if anything can be done with computing technology, it will be done. What sort of future awaits us? We humans always seem to do until we overdo then redo it all over again, it doesn't ever end.</comment>


Linux on an 8-Bit Micro? - <AUTHOR> https://dmitry.gr/index.php?r=05.Projects&proj=07.%20Linux%20on%208bit <comment><USER2> Somebody did this with normal 8-bit hardware about 5-10 years ago. Like the current instance, that one also took several hours to get to a commandline prompt.

It's the age-old trade-off, power versus speed. The more powerful your CPU and peripherals, the less time and/or number of instructions required taken to do each particular job along the way to get to that prompt.

I remember looking at the number of instructions required to do 32-bit additions on a 4MHz 8-bit Z80 once. All of those instructions were replaced by one single (and much faster!) instruction on a 33MHz 80386 CPU.

</comment><comment><USER3> (2012)

\---

My favorite line from the article:

> To conquer this obstacle, I wrote an ARM emulator.. Why write one instead of > porting one? Well, porting someone else's code is no fun, plus none of the > emulators I saw out there were written in a way that would make them easy to > port to an 8-bit device.</comment>


Thug mentality: How two dick jokes exploded into DDoS and death threats - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4132752/thug-mentality-how-two-dick-jokes-exploded-into-ddos-and-death-threats

<comment><USER2> I really just don't even know how to respond to this. I can't wrap my head around how ridiculous it is.</comment>


How Reddit and Google searches influence crypto prices - <AUTHOR> https://dashee87.github.io/data%20science/python/analysing-the-factors-that-influence-cryptocurrency-prices-with-cryptory/ <comment><USER2> amazing analysis, thanks for sharing it!

"What's not so apparent is whether google search drives or follows the price. That chicken and egg question question will be addressed in my next deep learning post."

I was not aware that you can solve that with deep learning, waiting for your next post!.</comment>


How to make breaking changes and not break all the things - <AUTHOR> http://matthew.mceachen.us/blog/how-to-make-breaking-changes-and-not-break-all-the-things-1315.html

<comment><USER2> Previous discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7936056](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7936056)</comment>


Best Kept Secrets of Peer Code Review [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://smartbear.com/SmartBear/media/pdfs/best-kept-secrets-of-peer-code-review.pdf

<comment><AUTHOR> Disclaimer: I have no financial or other interest in the company that produced this. I think it contains many good insights, and so I'm sharing a link to it here.</comment>


MakeGamesWithUs gives young developers a home - <AUTHOR> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.sfchronicle.com/technology/article/MakeGamesWithUs-gives-young-developers-a-home-4692431.php

<comment><USER2> Hmm that's a little weird cause they imply that, "Young men and teenage boys" are the only ones at the internship.... I'm an intern, and they interviewed me as well... and the last time I checked I am a girl... The computer with the pink case and orange juice on the right side of the last picture is mine.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've never liked the premise of MakeGamesWithUs. I feel like they're exploiting young developers for the cash. Not paying them and keeping half of their revenue (and using their age for marketing) leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

<comment><USER4> What is stopping any of these kids from, I don't know, just staying home like a normal person and working on the game in their spare time as a hobby? Nothing indicates any of these children are homeless, fosters, or abused in any way, so one has to assume they're (presumably) regular kids.

Are we (and by we, I partly just mean the tech community, or whatever you wish to call it any more) seriously so introverted as a society any more that we have to encourage 13-year-old boys to sit with their headphones on, near- silent in a house with a bunch of developers potentially ten years their senior instead of going out and acting like a normal person?

There's nothing wrong with wanting to develop something, but come on. Why can't people simply engage like regular human beings any more?

<comment><USER5> We invite cool guest speakers and make sure they all interact with each other. The best games aren't built in isolation, feedback from peers is extremely important.

Here are some pictures from the location covered in the article, as you'll see it's not like everyone is silent and asocial: [https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.262781033863020.10...](https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.262781033863020.1073741828.130007087140416&type=1)

I'm sitting in the middle of the internship as I write and there are at least 3 collaborative discussions going on around me right now.</comment></comment></comment>


Why Europe needs to get over its Silicon Valley envy - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2014/feb/17/europe-silicon-valley-tech-startups-funding <comment><USER3> I don't understand the trend from these last years of trying to copy successful model by importing just the emergent part and ignoring all which is hidden.

We have the example of the attempt of a French Silicon Valley [1] while there is no incentive for entrepreneurs to build a company (sure, after some hassle, you can still set up your start-up, but if your idea gets success, your best hope is to be bought by an American company like Google). Another more recent example is the "cloud à la Française" where the government catch the buzzword for cloud-computing and wanted to have its own Amazon super-star company. Basically, what they did is try to make a big company out of thin air [2] while just ignoring all that already existed in the domain.

The current party detaining majority is the Socialist Party (PS) so the idea that innovation comes from the state and individual action is just a burden might be due to this situation, but I doubt it would have been a lot better with the other major party (UMP, more right-wing oriented), who has been in majority most of the time without improving the administrative maze of entrepreneurship.

I don't know about much the other countries of Europe (although I have heard that it was not so much better) but the situation of France is very frustrating.

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

[2] [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudwatt](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudwatt) (fr)

<comment><USER4> I am not sure why you're saying that the Sophia Antipolis tech area is an attempt to build a "Silicon Valley" \- It's mostly big companies there and there's no incentive to build your startup there.

It's quite huge - around 1500 companies with a lot of R&D labs.

It was not built to mimic SV. And no one claims that except maybe some rare schools/companies brochures that want to sell the place to students/young engineers.

> The current party detaining majority is the Socialist Party (PS) so the idea > that innovation comes from the state and individual action is just a burden

That's completely inaccurate... There's a huge effort right now to boost innovation in France by the current government - by Fleur Pellerin, through grants for private companies in tech and many other things.

Look at all those individuals the french government promotes at the CES ... [http://blogs.afii.fr/en/2014/01/france-makes-waves-at- ces-20...](http://blogs.afii.fr/en/2014/01/france-makes-waves-at-ces-2014-in- las-vegas) \- it does not look like a burden to the government :)

<comment><USER5> > It's mostly big companies there and there's no incentive to build your > startup there.

SV started around the large military research facilities, and the semiconductor companies. Some startups (e.g. HP) came fairly early, but the large startup boom in the area happened _after_ there was an established large concentration of technology people working for large stablished companies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Europe, China, and whoever else who would like to one-up Silicon Valley needs to analyze SV's success _and weaknesses_ from first principles. I stress: And Weaknesses!

If you don't take this two-sided approach to re-creating Silicon Valley's success, then you run the risk of blindly imitating the wrong things. Also, if you want to not only match but surpass SV, you need to be mindful of such weaknesses.

I have to admit that my sample size is too small to be scientific, but I am starting to suspect that SV startups actually have a _rationality problem_. Startup founders often have blind faith in aphorisms that have been adopted by the startup community and make decisions on the basis of these "old sayings" and programmer-lore biases while ignoring quantitative reasoning. I recently had an exchange like so:

"We need X so we can scale." (X doesn't run stably and they want me to fix it, but this will be very expensive. Y runs stably, but they don't like it.)

"What does scaling mean quantitatively for your business? Have you worked out those numbers and cranked that through Little's Law and figured out how much it will cost you to support n users?"

"No, we haven't done that yet, but we know we need X because Y would take too much RAM." (But when pressed, they can't quantify what "too much RAM" means with respect to business models.)

Well, I did the numbers myself, and it turns out that Y would just add about 40% to their equipment cost and get them up and running quickly while they're waiting for X to be fixed.

What shocks me even more: None of their investors or advisors had even asked them the question!

<comment><USER7> Good points. I think the number one Silicon Valley weakness is very high cost of living. I worked in Mountain View last fall and was shocked at the cost of living. I would guess that living costs in my town in Arizona is about 40% of the cost of living in SV. At work, I heard horror stories from co-workers about very long commute times - no way to live.

<comment><USER8> Other than cost of housing are there very big differences with Sedona in say, grocery or {furnishings, restaurants, car, gas} prices?

<comment><USER7> It is amazing how much less expensive it is in the mountains of Central Arizona: real estate prices are probably 50% less expensive, food perhaps 20%, gas is usually about $0.40 cheaper per gallon, movies less expensive. Also, my wife and I entertain ourselves hiking, kayaking, and hanging out with friends. In Silicon Valley, getting together with people seemed to involve going out to expensive restaurants.

That said, we had a lot of fun in Silicon Valley - a really nice experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> While I agree with the sentiment of the article, depending on where you are in Europe it can be very hard to sell your big ambition vision to conservative angels who have grown their wealth in traditional industries - sometimes you raise £250,000 because that's all you can raise - especially when you are pre- revenue, convertibles on £150K with a 45% preset conversion is not uncommon.

The mindset needs to change from both sides, investors and entrepreneurs.

Also, the exit path is less obvious in Europe, you're basically praying that the same tech gods that do tech M&As in the US will want to in Europe

<comment><USER10> Yes exactly. The end of the article summed it up nicely, the seed funding sometimes feels impossible over here. It's very difficult to find an investor who will give a decent SV-comparable valuation when you are pre-revenue.

It's even worse when you actually have a small cashflow coming in, then they'll just value your company based on revenue x5 - if you're lucky!

<comment><USER9> x5 valuation?! They must have been really impressed with you to give you that. Generally we've found that small VCs are better than angels, but breaking the link between revenue and valuation is tough.

<comment><USER10> Just an example, not me personally. Yeah it's depressing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I speak as someone who's done - and failed with - a startup in Europe. Several aspects of the US, and specifically Silicon Valley, are certainly an appropriate target for envy and they're not easy to replicate in Europe for different reasons.

Easy access to funding, a _funding culture_ , a bootstrap entrepreneurial culture, a big tech-savvy audience, a spirit of creativity and experimentalism, a socially and economically mobile milieu... there are so many things that we just don't have in Europe.

It's no accident that (what feels like) most German web startups are copycats of successful American products, sometimes down to the look and feel of the product. Building new stuff is actively discouraged here, nobody likes doing bold experiments: not customers, not investors, not even developers.

Looking at seed funding behavior is a very shallow thing to do in the face of these big hulking cultural differences. Playing around with money, having an exploratory approach to your career, risking failure - those things are just not done in Europe.

<comment><USER12> Yes, I'm an American who worked on a startup in Berlin, with a similar and sad evaluation.

re: Easy access to funding \-- absolutely, I think it is the risk adversity that kills everything, esp. at the angel stage.

re: a bootstrap entrepreneurial culture \-- Most Europeans don't want to work long hours either and it's legally questionable to ask them to. that's a show stopper.

re: Building new stuff is actively discouraged here, nobody likes doing bold experiments: not customers, not investors, not even developers. \-- Sadly have to agree with you based on my experience in Berlin. Even downloading a new app on a phone is regarded with a good deal of suspicion.

re: spirit of creativity and experimentalism \-- I have a hard time knowing why this is, but I've written on it before. May interest you:

[http://fractastical.com/2013/06/05/a-developers- introduction...](http://fractastical.com/2013/06/05/a-developers-introduction- to-germany/)

Overall, I also find that Europeans for the most part don't want to do billion dollar startups. They seem to think that there is something wrong with the large amounts of money involved, and saying that this is your goal is more likely to meet (in my experience) with criticism than encouragement.

This seems true across central Europe (France & Germany) while the big successes mostly come from foreigners (i.e. Skype, SAP).

But on the other hand, billion dollar startups create lots of fairly wealthy people that can then be angel investors and pump up the ecosystem. I don't see any other way for the system to evolve, but I was amazed by the degree to which there was a mental barrier against any sort of large scale success.

<comment><USER13> Are you citing Skype and SAP as _exceptions_ to your rule?

As far as I know, Skype was started by Europeans in Europe. And so was SAP. The SAP founders appear to be about as German as you can get.

<comment><USER11> There are always exceptions and outliers, and Skype is a good example. However, SAP? Never. It's a massively connected consulting shop, and they have always been. Their software is just incidental. There's no innovation there, it's _Office Space_ meets _House of Lies_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> We're just envious of the money; we don't actually think making cute web apps is a sustainable billion dollar business (or rather, it is, but in the true spirit of classic Ponzi schemes).

<comment><USER15> I'm not sure I'd consider Apple, Google, Genentech, and Oracle "cute apps". I think for every Apple you're going to have 100 maybe 1000 companies that are near worthless. It's just part of the chaotic process that must be accepted if you want the good parts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> You don't want to copy Silicon Valley, since there are many things about the Valley that suck. What you want is to become something different, and perhaps excel in slightly different niches.

Take a look at other places with booming tech sectors, like these two:

Los Angeles and Orange County have a lot of tech around aerospace, manufacturing, health care, and entertainment (e.g. Oculus, Red Digital Cinema, etc.). Boston taps its deep academic wealth to yield top-notch companies in fields that involve massive eggheads doing scary things with math.

They're not as big as the Valley on web brands, PCs, or mobile, but they're as big or bigger in other areas.

<comment><USER17> _They 're not as big as the Valley on web brands, PCs, or mobile, but they're as big or bigger in other areas_

I think a lot of people don't realize that Silicon Valley doesn't just dominate in a couple tech niches. It dominates software (46% of investments), biotech (32%) cleantech, IT services (43%) and (shockingly) media and entertainment (40% according to PwC, but even I don't understand this one). There is an entire ecosystem of companies outside of tech that tech people don't even know exists (I know multiple friends starting biotech and cleantech startups that basically don't interact with the rest of the tech world).

More venture capital goes to Silicon Valley every year than the rest of the nation combined and VCs are quickly diversifying into other areas simply because tech startups are becoming so cheap and they have money burning a hole in their collective pockets. And it is only getting worse - SV investing is growing faster than the market as a whole - up nearly a $1 billion this year alone.

If the money keeps pouring in, we may come to see SV (or rather, the Bay Area) quickly extend its domination into other areas like say, automotive (well, if Tesla ever gets off the ground).

<comment><USER16> I know lots of people ask this question but: what, in your opinion, drives this and why don't we see more of it in other places?

<comment><USER17> There isn't one reason.

I think a lot of people really underestimate the power of the Silicon Valley brand. Silicon Valley has over 60 years of history as being a place where tech companies come from. It has had nearly the same amount of history of venture capital investment. Just like the United States was branded as the place where roads were paved of gold, Silicon Valley is branded as the place where dreams become reality.

This is powerful. It means we draw in the young, the dreamers, the motivated, the intelligent, the networkers and (generally) the doers. We drain other areas of their talent. We drain entire countries of talent. Plus we have three world class universities with stringent entrance requirements that put out huge numbers of people that were literally surrounded by peers starting companies in fields that have easy financing (berkeley - tech/cleantech/biotech, ucsf - biotech, stanford - tech/cleantech). A few National Labs (Berkeley, Livermore and SLAC) and the NASA Ames research center didn't hurt either.

On top of that, we have an area where nearly everyone is a potential beta tester. We're talking about a population of 7 million people who all know someone in tech or related to tech that are willing to try out your random product. Who will talk about it in the coffee shop. There is a large enough initial user base in the bay area alone to get you over the network effects threshold which is important to a whole host of companies (not all of course).

The reason you don't see this in other places is because it took _decades and decades_ to happen and several cultural anomalies were instrumental in it continuing. A big one was that startup founders who got lucky in the early days also didn't hoard their money. They reinvested it in the next generation of companies which really helped keep SV strong. They also tended not to move. Once you come here, you stay (your kids on the other hand are a different matter).

<comment><USER18> "A big one was that startup founders who got lucky in the early days also didn't hoard their money. They reinvested it in the next generation of companies which really helped keep SV strong."

Nor was their money taxed away. It was theirs to reinvest. Does this hold true in Europe?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> >>Take London as an example: 27% of job growth in London last year came from the tech sector, with the number of tech startups growing by 76%

These two numbers say nothing at all about how valuable startups are to the economy or to people. The source pdf mentions startups a lot and then mentions established companies with years of history behind them.

I'm not sure about SV envy, or if investors here are just less likely to throw heaps of money at young companies trying to be the next flash-in-the-pan web thing because the SV valuations are utterly unrealistic and are only predicated on equally insane 'exit' values.

<comment><USER20> Agreed. SV is driven more by gambling and outrageous risk-taking. That paid off when the market for technology companies was young, but now it is maturing and there are more entrants from around the world, i.e. more competition. So Europe's lower investment amounts really amount to putting more players into the game to compete against SV. It's a reasonable strategy to try.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I found this article rather superficial. It touched on a few (very few) points of comparison and ignored a huge number of factors affecting entrepreneurship in Europe.

Rather than waste time expanding on that though, I have a question. In this statement " If we truly believe the next global superstar in tech will hail from Europe, why would we only fund them at one-fifth the amount of their future US competitors?" Who the hell is "we"?

Of course, this question begs the question of whether "we" believe any such thing, because no such idea follows at all from the preceding disquisition. We have several arguments, weak arguments, trying to prop up the idea of a healthy startup ecosystem, and then suddenly we are defining success by the measure of outliers.

But in any event, who is we? The would-be pundits? The startup people in Europe? VC's? The people who give VC's money? Only the last two have any real say in where the money is invested, the VC's much more than the funders.

Do VC's generally believe this? If not, why? Is the claim that they are benighted and too envious. I would find that surprising, given that all the San Hill people I know are hyper-capitalists, to put it mildly, and crunch numbers as readily as most people blink on a windy day.

It's commonplace for VC's to get article and interviews published, given that half of their job is self-marketing, but to be blunt, the attempt to sound like a pundit/prophet is usually much better than this.

</comment><comment><USER22>
      King is now the largest social gaming company in the world
      in terms of users

King is hardly the gaming company you'd want to shower praises on or use as an example of Europe's startup success stories. [1]

That would be a bad precedent. Surely there are much more upstanding companies.

Supercell, perhaps.

[1]

King.com, makers of Candy Crush Saga – Trademark Trolls with a Double Standard? ([http://junkyardsam.com/kingcopied/#](http://junkyardsam.com/kingcopied/#))

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7114291](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7114291)

CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark ([http://www.candyswipe.com/king.html](http://www.candyswipe.com/king.html))

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7225945](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7225945)

King Candy Crushes Developers, The Saga ([http://www.gemfruit.com/articles/king-candy-crushes- develope...](http://www.gemfruit.com/articles/king-candy-crushes-developers- saga/#))

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7129708](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7129708)

</comment><comment><USER23> We always hear about Israeli tech startup successes. What have they done differently from the Europeans that has allowed them to succeed?

<comment><USER24> Start-up nation is a pretty good book that tries to answer that exact question: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Start- up_Nation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Start-up_Nation) (I'm not affiliated in any way)

 _The authors argue that a major factor for Israel 's economic growth can be found in the culture of the Israel Defense Forces, in which service is mandatory for most young Israelis. The authors believe that IDF service provides potential entrepreneurs with the opportunities to develop a wide array of skills and contacts. They also believe that IDF service provides experience exerting responsibility in a relatively unhierarchical environment where creativity and intelligence are highly valued.[6] IDF soldiers "have minimal guidance from the top, and are expected to improvise, even if this means breaking some rules. If you're a junior officer, you call your higher- ups by their first names, and if you see them doing something wrong, you say so."[1] Neither ranks nor ages matter much "when taxi drivers can command millionaires and 23-year-olds can train their uncles," and "Israeli forces regularly vote to oust their unit leaders."_

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Honest question. Seriously. For Britons only--

What's with the Guardian and "From my perspective, America's not so great!" articles? Not, like, "how could anyone think that?" but why does it seem to be such a regular feature? I admit upfront my being American may cause me to imagine/over-remember this phenomenon.

<comment><USER26> If it is a phenomenon it's only because of a different phenomenon you may not perceive: the incessant portrayal as US=Gods Country. This is pushed so much that many may see it worthwhile to counter and put it in check with "Come on, it's not that great... see XYZ"

<comment><USER25> Fair; I was under the impression most of that talk stayed in-house, so to speak. Are you referring to portrayals just by Americans which reach British shores, or portrayals by Britons as well?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This article is very shortsighted. Ambition is not the problem;

1.) Subsidies are broken; The company with the biggest mouth gets the money instead of the best idea. I've seen it dozens of times with the weirdest legal constructions; Companies create holdings with different companies under them and those companies "hire" each other instead of hiring other parties outside of the holding, so they get all the hours and money.(Lots of tax money is evaded that way)

I know a company that got !3 million Euros! in EU-funding in the last 6 years and no one knows what they do. Now nobody wants to do business with them.

2.) Startup hubs DO need help; As much as I love the passionate startup hubs, they are not going to get traction without help from a bigger company. I think that the startup scene of London wouldn't be so vibrant if it wasn't for the Google Campus. Companies would be funded more/easier if your being backed by a worldwide-known brand like Google (even if its only the desk your sitting at).

Please see [http://www.larrypage.nl](http://www.larrypage.nl) for my quest to bring Google to The Netherlands and start a Startup Campus here. P.S: The United Kingdom is NOT Europe.

<comment><USER28> Google has been in The Netherlands for a while FWIW. That doesn't mean a startup campus isn't a good idea though!

Google Amsterdam Claude Debussylaan 34 Vinoly Mahler 4 Toren B, 15th Floor Amsterdam, Netherlands

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Hi all, I'm the author of the article which was a 750-word cut down version of the presentation I did at Slush and the subsequent blog post I wrote:

[http://christianhern.tumblr.com/post/67066816410/why-i-am- lo...](http://christianhern.tumblr.com/post/67066816410/why-i-am-long-on- europe-madeineu)

Agree with some of the comments below that it was short, generic and "mass market". The thread below was (and is) the only intent of the presentation, blog post and subsequent article... to make this a topic for debate.

-Do I believe a European startup can compete with an American startup Day 1: YES -Do we have the same level of ambition: Sometimes -Do "we" (VCs, Angels): take as risky bets?: NO -Is entrepreneurship the best way for Europe to grow and Europeans to thrive: YES!

Judge me on my actions not my words (which, fair enough will take some time to prove).

(and the role of government and hubs is for another time... different mutator which varies greatly across Europe)

</comment><comment><USER30> Anecdote: the head of a 3000 person tech company that I chatted with for over an hour thinks of Europe as a flyover continent because most of the disruptive change is happening in Asia and America.

</comment><comment><USER31> Okay, I guess I should speak about this..

I am in the USA, state of Indiana, and the state government got together with a non-profit to set aside some $40 million of tax money to grow the Indiana startup community.

Only problem, or one of them, is their ignoring the out-flows in that at least for Indiana we have a large outflow of graduating STEM. And of course those that do not leave are saddled with debts.

Of course you can get around these obstacles by analyzing what 'small' startups can be done via hackathons etc by creating a communit/workspace environment where those things are exchanged.

Compared to say Chicago:

Chicago $1 Billion invested in new startups 2013 $2 billion in M&A in startups 2013

Indiana Not even $100 Million in either category

In other years Indiana was spearheading biomedical startups centered around IU and Purdue ot keep their Medical grads with STEM home based.

Can anyplace really do the duplication of Silicon Valley as piecemeal?

<comment><USER32> > _Can anyplace really do the duplication of Silicon Valley as piecemeal?_

Categorically the answer is a simple "no". Most of these government sponsored programs are attempts to "inject" life into a system that has basically nothing. AFAIK, there isn't anywhere in the world where this has successfully worked. SV is SV purely because of capitalism.

Interesting discussion on this: [http://steveblank.com/2014/01/20/bigger-in- bend-building-a-r...](http://steveblank.com/2014/01/20/bigger-in-bend- building-a-regional-startup-cluster-part-1-of-3/)

</comment></comment><comment> workhere-io Discussions like this on HN always tend to bring about anecdotal evidence from people who only have experience from a single European country and extrapolate from that. So let me just take this opportunity to remind HN'ers that conditions (be they cultural, legal or otherwise) vary to an extreme degree between European countries.

In other words, don't be scared to start a business in e.g. Germany just because someone on HN says that starting a business in France is problematic. They are completely different countries with different laws and mindsets: [http://soimovedhere.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/stop- generalizi...](http://soimovedhere.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/stop-generalizing- about-europe/)

</comment><comment><USER33> It's not the funding that is the problem.

Europeans have no need for Silicon Valley. Most of Europe is technologically conservative and averse to trying out new stuff, in a way that other audiences are not. Governments will go at great lengths to make sure that the law forbids any entrepreneurial action that threatens the status quo in just about anything. In other words, severe and chronic risk aversion from both the entrepreneurs, their audience and the regulatory environment.

Would companies like Airbnb, Uber, Facebook, Snapchat be ever able to grow if they had targeted Europeans?

How many of you european entrepreneurs here actually target primarily the European market or expect to grow in it?

<comment><USER34> Absolute nonsense.

<comment><USER35> France has been hurting entrepreneurs in various ways. E.g. [http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/global-observer/is-france- ab...](http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/global-observer/is-france-about-to- hinder-its-entrepreneurs/)

I'm not sure risk aversion is always the core reason, but there is often a lack of understanding from gov & people. In Europe, you also need to market your products to a very diverse market (dozens of European languages, different social standards in different countries, etc.). In USA, the market is more homogenous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> What we need in Europe is a larger risk appetite. This is something we lack and SV has built-in. However, the systemic tolerance for risk comes not from SV, but from foundation and role of capital markets in US and old UK/Europe economies. In US capital markets were used to sponsor large investment projects on a regular basis, whereas in Europe it was rare.

I'm not talking about fancy CDOs, etc. but enterprises before that, which helped shape the societies' attitudes toward risk in general. This difference is explained in Perry Mehrling's videos available on Coursera if you want to learn about it in greater detail.

</comment><comment><USER37> Many sides to it. Fully agree on what Christian says about European startups raising too little and not being able to execute on their vision because of that.

At the same time agree with entrepreneurs raising this little, as the valuations often are much lower than in the US and there is less investor selection available.

Then coming back to investors, the low valuations are often correct, just because there are much fewer exit opportunities available. Just count how many European exits there were last year. No exit opportunities means no sense to exit into startups as an investor, because your chance to get the money back is much less.

For Estonian (nation of 1.3m in Europe and one of the poorest in EU, extrapolate from that) related startups, 2013 was the best year ever, with 32mEUR raised by 40 teams. 20% of that money came from Estonia, 80% from Europe and US. There has been almost double growth between 2011-12 and 2012-13. So the growth in European tech and investment ecosystem is definitely there.

</comment><comment><USER38> Europe shouldn't try to beat Silicon Valley by becoming Silicon Valley. If they want to be superior to Silicon Valley they should develop business models, industries and technology that is superior to anything in the world. Silicon Valley is pretty old and their practices are dated. Getting over Silicon Valley is a matter of development.

</comment><comment><USER39> Yes, Facebook is distraught by the fact that European startups are offering themselves up for aquisition on the cheap. It's apparently their own fault for not asking for more money.

Don't worry about the money you could be making in SV, you're fine where you are! We'll come to you.

</comment><comment><USER40> I think the problem is much deeper, and has very little to do with attempts to foster tech success. Europe as a whole is broken: depressed, angry and locked- up, largely as a result of the colossal fuck-up that was World War 2. They think they know better now, but really they're still completely mind-fucked over it. They don't believe in themselves - they don't even trust their own emotions (look how wrong things went every time Europeans have been excited about Big Ideas.) The older generations are seething. And the young Europeans I meet are all in one way or another trying to escape this anguish - <USER2> "living the dream" overseas (South America! Australia!) or partying themselves into oblivion, or running headlong into the tight, blinkered embrace of an anonymous middle-class life and career. Sure, Europe has it's large, successful industries - but often this is another form of escape - easier to pour your life's energy into building a more perfect car engine than face up to the devastating emotional history of your country.

Ultimately what you want in a country is happy, confident, well-adjusted people. Until someone finds a way to heal Europe's soul, arguments about impediments to the European Silicon Valley are academic.

<comment><USER20> This does not sound like the Europe I lived in for 11 years. You have a typical America-centric view of the Europe that is totally out of touch with reality.

Europe is not a simple place because it has many cultures and a huge population, but it is far from broken. America on the other hand, appears to be an empire in decline.

Also, be wary of defining Europe based on its history. Europe is going through great change. In particular, the younger generation of Europe has a lot more in common across cultures than the previous over-30 generations. And they are every bit as driven to succeed as the folks in Silicon Valley. In fact, I would say that if you look at the whole under 30 age group in America and compare it to the same age group in Europe, you will find a lot more pessimism and self-destructive behaviors among the American group.

<comment><USER40> Thanks for the reply. Just noting that I'm not American (don't assume every ignorant-sounding person you meet on the internet is American!)

I have visited several European countries and met and interacted with many young and old Europeans, and I hope to live there permanently in the future, and so find add more depth to my admittedly incomplete data. I do know that every part of Europe is different - some parts are in my experience much worse than even than the picture I painted (Hungary for instance). I guess I was exaggerating for dramatic effect. Still, I think there are serious emotional problems in modern Europe, and I'm not satisfied that people are really acknowledging or facing up to them.

I really do have a lot of love and hope for Europe. It just frustrates me I suppose. Perhaps a corollary of meeting primarily younger, party-oriented Europeans?

Hope this explains my views a little better.</comment></comment></comment>


Zynga in Hot Water with San Francisco City Attorney Over 'Mafia Wars' Marketing - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/08/zynga_guerilla_marketing.php <comment><USER2> Reminds me of when some cities (I think at least Chicago) fined IBM for their chalk-based painting of the side walk "Peace, Love, Linux" campaign. IBM said it was supposed to wash off, but it didn't.

</comment><comment><USER3> This reminds me of about 10 years ago when IBM spray painted "Peace Love Linux" on the sidewalks in SF. They didn't get away with their vandalism either.

[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/industry/04/19/ibm.guerill...](http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/industry/04/19/ibm.guerilla.idg/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> I thought these were terrible - just grafitti / vandalism. Acting macho on some of the ads and declaring "hey, we killed trees, definitely not recycled!" wasn't really warming my heart to Mafia Wars either, whether true or not. The glued-to-the-sidewalk effect was just lame, though!

</comment><comment><USER5> I've seen this on my street - I wondered how they got away with it. Guess they didn't.

</comment><comment><USER6> <http://www.google.com/search?q=reverse+graffiti>

It's always interesting to see how municipalities handle "reverse graffiti" as an advertising campaign.

</comment><comment><USER7> There was a Brinks-style truck in Manhattan last week, with some slogan like "Blow up this truck in Mafia Wars".

Seems like pretty poor taste, and are folks on Wall Street _really_ playing Mafia Wars?

</comment><comment><USER8> Getting onto the front page of Hacker News, Reddit, Digg, Forbes, SFGate, Cnet, Wall Street Journal, and every major paper in the country thanks to AP release?

Charge is "documented acts of sidewalk vandalism"?

Zynga marketing team super win.

<comment><USER9> I don't know, this one might bite back. And, it just made Zynga sound more "douchy" (couldn't find a better word). Vandalism is never cool unless it's cool art (Good graffiti artist)

<comment><USER10> > Vandalism is never cool unless it's cool art (Good graffiti artist)

True story: I'm in Vietnam right now, and I was walking back from a bar a little after midnight with an American friend of mine. He's a very very cut and dry, straight and narrow, ultra-law abiding, patriotic type fellow.

We see a guy tagging up a wall with spray paint - not artistically, just vandalism. I say to my friend, "Should I go stop him?" See, I hate seeing stuff get destroyed. I usually stand up to bullies, thieves, vandals if I catch them. I'm a little bit trained in martial arts, enough that I feel safe, and I figure someone's got to look out for society.

My friend, very straight and narrow, he says, "Nah, nobody stands up to the government here. Let him have his civil disobedience." What a shocker for me! But then he tells me the government has been somewhat bad to the people, and only now are people feeling safe to push back a little. So we walked on, leaving him to tag the wall unhindered.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> No such thing as bad press?

<comment><USER12> There's such a thing as overly-expensive press. I hope that there's a sufficiently large fine levied against Zynga for this ad campaign to discourage others from following suit.

There's enough advertising in the world already. I don't want it showing up illegally on walls and pavement as well.</comment></comment>


Everybody loves a good snog – Finding sentiment in the UK via Twitter - <AUTHOR> http://rawkes.com/blog/2011/04/30/royal-wedding-twitter-sentiment

<comment><USER2> As a commenter on the article has already asked, it'd be nice to have an explanation on how the sentiment is actually determined.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll be writing this up in more detail soon, but the sentiment is basically derived through the ANEW dataset. This dataset scores a few thousand English words with sentiment values from 1 (very unhappy) to 9 (very happy). I find the sentiment value for each word in a tweet and then average that value by the amount of words in a tweet to get the sentiment value for each tweet.

<comment><USER3> This seems a rather simplistic approach when analysing sentiment in a country known the world over for truly impenetrable sarcasm, and the application of irony so blunt that it often boils down to simply stating the exact opposite to what you actually mean, often with a total absence of syntactic cues that this is happening.

The humour that brits derive from this often seems like it is _defined_ by fact that these cues aren't there _at all_. In short, I think you'd have to do a lot of quite complex higher order link analysis to determine people's true opinions.

In this example, the royal wedding, imagine the following tweet: "This is a fantastic and important day for britain, a fabulous use of public money, I feel so proud to celebrate such a deserving couple!!"

Put it like this, I wouldn't bet money on a simple word scoring algorithm getting the intended sentiment correct here.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your input Jonnie, you've highlighted one of the main limitations of text-based sentiment analysis. I've never always asserted that the sentiment derived from this study is not indicitive of "true" sentiment of an individual person. Rather, the sentiment derived here is simply saying that people on Twitter are using particular words that connotate happiness or sadness.

This is the same limitation that most other studies have found, but it doesn't make the results any less interesting.

Another way to look at it is as signal-to-noise. Whatever stereotypes of the UK exists, we don't all talk sarcastically (at least not all the time). Because of this the majority of tweets, which are probably not sarcastic, average out the hard to read tweets. Again, this is something that other studies have found as well.

My aim here isn't to fault the method of sentiment analysis. I'll leave that to the guys at Florida University who created it. :)

<comment><USER3> Oh I didn't mean to criticise anything you're doing. There's no such thing as bad data mining, only bad analysis of the results :)

I just worry that people in our governments and security services will sieze on work like this which is largely being carried out for the amusement and satisfaction of academics and general geeks, and decide that it is appropriate to make specific judgements about specific people based on the data.

It doesn't help that I read this article just after I woke up this morning:

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/03/protester-sue- polic...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/03/protester-sue-police- secret-surveillance)

Combine it with this recent episode: (the guy was eventually convicted and fined)

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/18/robin-hood- airpo...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/18/robin-hood-airport- twitter-arrest)

...and with all the recent hype over 'cyberwar,' I start feeling a bit chilly.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree completely. These results shouldn't be simply taken at face value if they're to be used for further analysis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Really interesting Rob! Well done.

</comment><comment><USER5> This information would be much more valuble with data for a "normal" day. For example, Is the main bump around noon just a regular lunch high?

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right. I haven't been able to run every type of comparison yet, but in the meantime you could check out the other graphs that I've made that cover normal days: [http://www.flickr.com/photos/robhawkes/sets/7215762573356079...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/robhawkes/sets/72157625733560795/)</comment></comment>


Just posted 16 new projects to GitHub - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/WayneRyan?tab=repositories <comment><USER2> For HN it's usually better to post one project to get a deep discussion. Which one is the better?</comment>