Recognizing the Breaking Points of Management Structure - <AUTHOR> http://tomtunguz.com/breaking-points-of-management/ <comment><USER2> I'd be willing to wager that tighter or more hierarchical management structures are correlated with lower levels of engagement for the employees at the bottom. In other words- there are two ways to get people to cooperate: to use secrecy and threats as a lever, or to have a common myth or vision that everyone believes in. Increasing secrecy and mistrust might be a signal that the common vision has deteriorated. Of course it depends on the size of the organization too. I'd like to see a study confirming or disproving that idea.

</comment><comment><USER3> "When startups approach those employee counts, communication within the company breaks down and the startup can't effectively coordinate its people. The telltale signs include confusion in the organization, uncoordinated efforts across teams and frustrated employees."

Can anyone who has quickly scaled headcount at a startup elaborate on some of the challenges in scaling communication + coordination and what you did to solve the issues?

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't even know what to say about this article, except that it perpetuates this ridiculous idea that there are laborers at the bottom and people above those laborers who know how to communicate and effectively distribute knowledge across all other groups.

If people were computers, then what's being described is a tree of systems, and each node in the tree has full connection to its siblings and its children. But anyone who's designed large scale networks knows that this is horrible for data, because it doesn't allow for failure, and creates bottlenecks. This is why spine leaf architecture is so important.

But people are not computers. Communication is way more lossy than that. What this article fails to point out is that you actually have multiple decision trees in organizations, the architects and technical leads in a software group, vs the people managers. And combining those two roles creates horrible inefficiencies in descision making. Similarly, empowering people closest to the problem to make decisions means that the organization is much more nimble and increases agility.

I don't know what this article's point is, because it does help understand what effective leadership is.

<comment><USER5> The article is talking about the numerical scaling laws that you understand intimately from your day job but that most people who don't think about node- based communication structures on a daily basis are surprised by. Specifically, the article is pointing out that the cognitive loading placed on managers grows much faster than linearly in the number of reports.

Have you thought about how to translate spine-leaf into an organizational design and/or what sort of organizations it might be optimal for?

<comment><USER4> I'd like to think that modern network design actually could inform organizations, especially large ones, of better methods of communication.

The goal IMO is to increase collaboration between as many groups as possible. Where scrum teams, or similar, are autonomous in making decisions and the scrum masters (or managers) are responsible for inter-team communication and collaboration, but that shouldn't be the only channel. There should be other people from the scrum team responsible for interdisciplinary collaboration.

Basically, as an organization grows, I believe it becomes more important to have redundant communication channels into the scrum team. Like network design, this would be akin to have multiple uplinks from the ToR leading the the spine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Has anyone found a derivation for the formula in the article? The n(n-1) terms are clearly the cost of managing the relationships between subordinates, but I'm not understanding the motivation for the n(2^(n-1)) term.

</comment><comment><USER6> >>> n(2^(n-1) + n-1); n = # of reports

The same formula could be applied to the people _above you_ in the management structure, or the number of stakeholders in a project.

<comment><USER5> If you mean the equation measures your boss's cognitive load, then yes. If you mean that it measures your cognitive load resulting from the organization above you, I don't think that's correct except in the most pathologically dysfunctional of organizations.

As a manager looking down in the organization, you are responsible for the relationships between your reports. As an individual looking up the organization, you are responsible for your own relationships with people but you aren't responsible for their relationships with others (and even in a mildly dysfunctional organization where you need to worry about your boss's relationship with their peers, that still only adds an O(n) term because you only care about your boss's relationships not each of your boss's peer's relationships).</comment></comment>


Amazon Deforestation, Once Tamed, Comes Roaring Back - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/business/energy-environment/deforestation-brazil-bolivia-south-america.html <comment><USER2> I'm running a Kickstarter for a wood product right now and so I've learned a thing or two about how to encourage reforestation. The answer is get economics to drive reforestation.

Cats, cows, turkeys, dogs, and horses, among many other animals, will always be around as long as humans are, simply because we'll ensure that they always have a healthy habitat. The same goes for trees, especially tropical trees.

Reforestation is a huge opportunity if we invest in plantations that have managed cutting, allowing tropical trees to grow up to 40 years before being turned into beautiful products like furniture.

In order to produce high quality lumber that's useful for furniture making, like mahogany for example, loggers have to be selective about the trees they fell. Can't just chop down every one of them because not all will generate productive wood.

Maple is similar in that it's plantation grown right here in the U.S. What that actually means in terms of wood quality is that it suffers a bit from uniformity.

The reason I know this is because I'm running a Kickstarter for a remote control[1]. It's made out of mahogany and maple, but its impact is offset a bit by the small size of the remote, which also makes small features much more distinguishable.

This is also one of the reasons why I'm a vegetarian, as much deforestation is caused by burning forests for raising livestock.

[1]: Turn Touch: [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/samuelclay/turn- touch-b...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/samuelclay/turn-touch- beautiful-control)

<comment><USER3> I'll probably be downvoted but I think it's in bad taste to use this kind of (bad) news as another way to market your product. I'll surely won't be buying your product nor recommending it. /rant

What you've said about making economics drive reforestation is true, but that's like saying that to end hunger you just have to give people food.

So you suggest planting trees that take 40 years to grow when the people doing the deflorestation are doing it because of profits that they'd never get via that method. (Economics)

It's the same with the plague that is eucalyptus, you know what drove its plantation and override of all other natural trees and plants in many places of the world? Economics! So you see that just economics might not be a very good way to solve the problem at hand.

So what do you propose to make the economics work? Highly tax meat? Or other products that are indirectly causing deflorestation?

<comment><USER2> I simply have experience in the subject because I've spent the last three years researching ways to make woodworking more sustainable. And driving up demand will in turn drive up supply, and as I explained above increased supply does indeed increase forests, as they have to be sustainably managed to come into the U.S. due to import restrictions.

<comment><USER4> > driving up demand will in turn drive up supply [and] increase forests

I'm not sure this follows. Increasing the demand will merely incentivize deforestation at an increasing rate. If you start putting controls on it, the black market will just work around it just like with exotic parts from animals like horns. Let's assume you yourself are a woodcutter who believes in sustainability. The problem is that everyone else will just be thinking about short-term profits, _especially_ when demand is so high. (see: the tragedy of the commons) If trees could be grown fast in farms like other animals or artificially like diamonds, you might have a point, but trees take so long to grow and if the demand is high, it will only encourage fast growing and killing of trees. You mention that optimizing for quality requires longer growth, and that assumes that quality wood is in demand which would also fetch higher prices, but that's debatable around the type of tree and its use. (you yourself say you have a market that require an "artisan" type of wood, but the majority of the world will be happy with whatever wood it can get, especially considering we use mixes in stuff like paper) Due to the limiting factor (time), demand will outdrive supply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A global economy built on minimally controlled capitalism will be the downfall of our natural environment and ultimately the species. There is continued proof all around us that this is the direction we're heading. We have the foresight to recognize this now, but sadly not the motivation to correct it.

Read 'Half Earth' by Edward Wilson to see his arguments for setting aside 50% of the surface land as pure wild nature, to preserve biodiveristy and, ultimately, us. I agree with many comments here that many established powerful nations spent much of the last few hundred years destroying parts of their own ecosystem to get where they are. The past is the past, though, and we face an uncertain future unless we band together to change this behavior now, regardless of borders or economies.

<comment><USER6> There are so many humans on the planet now, and they all want a piece of the pie. Billions of them dream of riches, or to put it more precisely, they dream of being richer than most of their fellow humans. Yes, greed. The greedy will always win, because they are better at hoarding than the rest of the humans are at protecting resources from hoarding. Look how easily we in the US were duped into electing a POTUS that is the knife edge of greed and corruption. It's depressing.

<comment><USER7> Yes, greed is insane. It really is insane. I personally try to live as simply as I can not because I want to win virtue points, I almost never mention it, but because I think it's the right thing to do. Greed is a pathology. It feels very sick to me whenever I encounter it. I want to purge when I feel its presence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Nyughh. Sad. This hits me right in the heart. I have been to the Amazon and it is lush, beautiful paradise. It changed my perspective on how valuable natural life is on our planet.

It is not just the net loss of plant matter. The indigenous are under constant duress and we risk losing a unique part of our world; medicinal plants and esoterica, wild-life, and access to limited resources, to boot.

There are groups working with those impacted by this. I am contributing to an NGO called the Alianza Arkana which is doing some work to aid the indigenous and the rainforest.

Contextual plug: [http://alianzaarkana.org](http://alianzaarkana.org) .

I left a grand paying, comfortable tech job to try to make even-a-small difference. I hope this devastation is not a part of my generation's legacy.

<comment><USER9> "Nature with a capital 'N' is my Religion" \- Frank Lloyd Wright

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wow,we need to bring back the "Save The Rainforest" awareness full force. I see people talking reforestation and that's good and all.. But the tragedy of the rainforest isn't so much that "now there are no trees here". It's the loss of the biodiversity and ecosystem. You can replant a forest, but you can't replant The Rainforest.

Man, I love the rainforest. Why don't we hear about it as much? It's been a dream of mine to visit the Amazon. Now that I have the means I really need to get down there.

<comment><USER11> Ultimately the problem is money. Amazon based countries have this resource which can enrich the population / provide a means to generate income.

Basically telling these countries "no you cannot use your natural resources because it benefits the whole world" is not going to work.

Europe pretty much cut down all their forests during the industrial revolution and is now a developed and powerful world wide force. Arab countries with oil / gas reserves. Similarly the US etc etc.

If the world does not want the Amazon forests cut down, these countries need to be compensated for not doing so. Ecuador tried something a few years back regarding not drilling in the Amazon basis, along the lines of asking the international community to pay them to not drill. It failed and the deforestation continues. When an oil road is built, or logging road or any road, then the deforestation happens along the road, over dirt roads are built inland and more trees come down.

At the end of the day, none of us are prepared to dip into our pockets to not cut down the Amazon and this will be it's downfall

</comment></comment><comment> entrance-right Bolivia has more forest than Western Europe, Southern Europe and Central Europe together. I had a look at Google Maps; Brasilia is frightening. The rainforest gets divided into smaller parts. The South American rainforest is still larger than the African rainforest, but looks like an organism becoming devoured by bacteria.

The problem is that there are too many people on Earth. Our impact on Earth is much too high. We would already need 2 Earths. Overpopulation causes a lot of problems, not just deforestation, mass extinction of animals and climate change, but also lack of food, human mass migrations, elevating crime rates, and so on. However if we could reduce the world population to 3 or 4 billion people, than all mentioned problems should be solved and Earth should be able to re-establish a natural balance.

I am ready to help.

<comment><USER12> "Too many humans" is a lazy, negligent argument by those who don't want to make any changes in how we conduct business.

Deforestation in Brazil is happening not because humanity really needs that lumber. It doesn't. Deforestation is happening because people in Brazil see those trees in their country's backyard as essentially free money lying around, and they do not give a second thought to chopping them down.

Nothing to do with overpopulation of Earth.

<comment><USER13> > Nothing to do with overpopulation of Earth.

I wouldn't say so. The forest is being cut down because there's profit in farming it. Why is there profit?

Because people are paying for higher priced food, and more people exist.

Resource demand per capita * number of people = Total resource demand

Overpopulation isn't the _entire_ cause, but it's certainly a factor.

(Yes, yes, some people consume much more than others. But there's also a baseline minimum in food required, and also as we've eliminated the worst poverty over the past 20 years, that raises the baseline)

So since 2000, we've added 1.5 billion people _and_ dramatically increased the size of the middle class _and_ also cut the worst poverty. Which means more resource consumption at all levels, multiplied by a greater number.

I should note that more efficient global transport and supply chains is also a cause. It's now a lot easier to take resources from the amazon and sell them to north america, europe, asia, etc. When trade and transport were less efficient, there was less incentive to use all resources to their pure maximum.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> >A decade after the "Save the Rainforest" movement forced changes that dramatically slowed deforestation across the Amazon basin .... That resurgence, driven by the world's growing appetite for soy and other agricultural crops

The article doesn't get into it, but what is driving this growing appetite? Is it a natural effect of population growth?

<comment><USER15> This and more people climbing out of the "miserably poor" hole and affording to eat better stuff (like stuff based on soy and other agricultural crops).

<comment><USER16> And it's important to note that most soy is used to feed cattle etc: [http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/co...](http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/consumers/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Who actually owns the rain forest land? It seems odd to me that this article does not really get into that. The simplest way to save the rain forest would be for some entity, private or public, to buy it up and turn it into a park. That seems way more effective than trying to convince companies to not use it for farming, since there is no limit to the supply of companies that are capable of operating a farm.

<comment><USER18> People are burning it down for farmland and palm oil even after someone else tells them they own it. Enforcement doesn't always work since nobody is that motivated to guard it - you have to actively involve locals in using all the trees for something.

<comment><USER19> Would it make sense to pay locals to be stewards/guards of the forest? I imagine it would cost a pittance compared to the cost of buying the land.

<comment><USER15> > I imagine it would cost a pittance compared to the cost of buying the land.

In my parts of the world (Eastern Europe) most of the locals themselves are the one tearing the forests down, because high in the mountains where they live this is one of the only income sources they have. In order to convince them not to cut down trees anymore you'd basically have to implement a guaranteed minimum income across all those areas, which should be big enough to buy its beneficiaries 4x4 vehicles and build big houses (that's what cutting trees affords those people to buy right now).

The anti-deforestation discourse comes mostly from people living in urban areas, who do not economically depend on cutting forests down. Ours is a complicated species.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Humans are the ultimate invasive species. We complain about fungus and other pests moving their range and causing havoc because of global warming, is it not the case that we do the exact same thing all the time, and that's considered a good thing. And it's not the locals doing it, it's global corporations, many with HQ in developed countries, so it's not as if they don't know any better. I doubt we will ever be controlled until we welcome our new AI masters.

<comment><USER21> You know who creates the "ai masters"? Corporations

You know what coorperations view as a "win condition"? Monopoly and profits

You know what nature is? An obstacle or opportunity along the way towards such goals.

At no point is preservation of an "outdated" and "inefficient" system complimenting such goals.

If you can make an ai view life as more than a number and make ai into "eco system tenders" rather than judge jury and executioner, then it's possible that the ai master would work consider nature worth saving

<comment><USER20> I agree. But just like Stallman saw open source, correction free software, as a possibility for liberation, which was subverted by corporations for massive profits. I see AI in the same way. I am a naive idealist in that sense. But maybe one day it will work out the way it's supposed to. If it does not we as a species are doomed. Also I think pointing the finger at corporations is a bit naive, they simply follow certain set of normalized rules that have the ascent of the masses. In that they provide the masses with employment and cheap bread and circuses. So the underlying problem with corporations is people as a whole. That masses which don't care, compared to the few people, usually idealists, who do.

<comment><USER22> s/open\ source/free\ software/

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> "(...) deforestation rose in 2015 for the first time in nearly a decade, to nearly two million acres from August 2015 to July 2016. That is a jump from about 1.5 million acres a year earlier and just over 1.2 million acres the year before that (...)"

...so really it did rise in 2014, from 1.2 to 1.5 so the first statement is false, isn't it?

<comment><USER24> end winter 2014 1.2M, end winter 2015 1.5M, end winter 2016 2.0M. 'rose for the first time in 2015' fits those numbers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Where there are problems this massive, there is opportunity; reforestation, biodiversity, businesses that utilize existing ecosystems without devastating them. Forty years ago environmental protection was seen as being at odds with economic progress. This perception is changing because it must. Tesla/Solar City I hope are only the beginning of aligning great technical achievement, economic viability, and environmental sustainability.

</comment><comment><USER26> The thing that kills me about this is that we're basically saying: "Sorry we cut down too many of our trees to build a powerful economy from nothing in under 300 years, but you can't cut down yours to do the same because we need those trees to offset our CO2 production"

<comment><USER27> I eared a lot this argument in Brazil. It is wrong in a thousand ways. Cutting trees is not a necessary condition for powerful economies, we are in the 21st century. Canada and Scandinavian countries have lots of trees and also powerful economies. Europe is actually increasing their forested area.

The only industries that benefit with deforestation are logging and raising cattle in extensive pastures. Brazil needs manufacturing and services, they generate a lot more income and jobs.

<comment><USER26> Doesn't agriculture, specifically cereal grains, require a lot of arable land?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> There is a bit of hypocrisy in the discussion about cutting out rain forests. Western nations paid no mind to destroying their local ecosystems when they were getting rich over a span of the last couple of centuries, and only started to care about the environment when they reached comfy living for their citizens. It's unfair to demand something else from developing countries now.

<comment><USER29> The fact that so much rainforest is gone just makes it more important to save what's left. "They must be allowed because we did it" is a short sighted argument with these stakes.

<comment><USER28> I agree that, on a planetary scale, it's short-sighted.

I think it would be fair for the nations who profited from destroying their natural environment to pay some cash equivalent to those haven't yet. Otherwise it's pulling the ladder after you already got in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> What a shame. Unfortunately, the incentives seem to be aligned such that I fear this will be a difficult trend to slow or ultimately reverse.

<comment><USER31> A shame? Loss of the rain forest means a loss of one of the biggest oxygen generators on the planet. We literally will not be able to breath without it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is an absolute tragedy. I'd say that it's near the top of the list of the worst things human beings are doing I'd say that if we weren't in denial, five alarm fire alarms would be going off. I wish I knew what I could do to help stop this horror but I feel powerless. :-(

By the time my 5-year-old son is an adult, I think I'm going to have to explain to him what happened. That is, if things aren't so fucked up by unintended and intended consequences that this conversation never can happen. What a fucking delightful world that we are just destroying it with no more honor and respect than we'd give an ant on the kitchen floor.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is sad. Anything that we can do?

There's this site, tree-nation.com that helps with reforestation projects. Any others out there?

<comment><USER18> [https://carbonfund.org/forestry/](https://carbonfund.org/forestry/) [http://www.edenprojects.org](http://www.edenprojects.org)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> THIS IS WHAT YOU CAN DO: [https://eowilsonfoundation.org/half-earth-our- planet-s-fight...](https://eowilsonfoundation.org/half-earth-our-planet-s- fight-for-life/)

</comment><comment><USER31> Hurry up with the vat meat!

</comment><comment><USER33> Don't worry everybody. There is always Mars!

</comment><comment><USER34> Don't worry, they have collected enough little trees during the Olympic games opening ceremony.

</comment><comment><USER35> "we'll do something about it," Mr. MacLennan said. "If that's accurate, it's not acceptable.

It is absolutely not acceptable and I'm optimistic that we will see the day when MacLennan, Trump and similar will be imprisoned by the people. It is our right and duty to imprison them.</comment>


Ask HN: Essential MacOS apps/tools/workflows? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I simply cannot stand working on a macbook without at least:

\- Spectacle, to have a real UI window manager system \- Path Finder, to have a real file explorer \- ITerm

This list could also interest you [https://github.com/serhii-londar/open- source-mac-os-apps](https://github.com/serhii-londar/open-source-mac-os-apps)

</comment><comment><USER3> For doing what kind of work?

Off hand I'd say anyone on HN would benefit from Hazel and homebrew.</comment>


Ask HN: Best resources to give to someone who needs to learn HTML+CSS? - <AUTHOR>

A friend of mine (very smart and computer savvy) wants to learn the front-end part of making websites.
I would like her to be table to use a simple VCS e.g. Bazaar on her Macbook and code HTML+CSS in Textmate. I don't think she needs to understand the terminal.
Bonus points if she can go to Haml+Compass after she grokked HTML and CSS.
I've learnt this stuff gradually over a few years, but now I'm trying to find the best resources that could give her a solid understanding of how it all works. Here is what I have so far:
- HTML 4.01 & 5 spec - CSS 2.1 spec & supported CSS 3 - Textmate's built-in references - Quirskmode for cross-browser stuff - Me being around and answering questions
I am still looking for something that explains the underlying logic of CSS visual formatting less dryly than the W3C's spec does. I wish she doesn't have to struggle with having her mental model of CSS constantly re-adjust until it is finally in tune with reality (that's what happened to me).
Note : She does have a project to work on. She's not learning for learning's sake. <comment><USER2> You don't need to hit quirks mode for cross-browser CSS. Stick to standards mode wherever possible.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, I meant <http://www.quirksmode.org></comment></comment>


Skill of the Week: Be Specific - <AUTHOR> http://lesswrong.com/lw/bc3/sotw_be_specific/

<comment><USER2> What a herd of cats!</comment>


Tell HN: Apple Store wifi attempts https MITM - <AUTHOR> I was at an Apple Store today, where I browsed an https-only website in Chrome, with which I've been interacting in recent weeks from various access points.  No issues in Chrome with the cert up until today.  Doing so at the Apple Store today, however, invoked a red 'cert invalid'.
I've just checked the site again in Chrome just now, after leaving the Apple Store, and https is back to green.
Based on the facts, it seems that the Apple Store was trying to MITM the connection which Chrome blocked.  Does anyone have any info about this?
If someone at Apple can confirm they do not do this, perhaps someone is running a pineapple-type device at that location, or some Apple Store technician has gone off the reservation, or something else? <comment><USER2> Without details of the certificate or why it was "invalid" your report is pretty much useless.

<comment><AUTHOR> Might I suggest another approach, friend?

"Thanks for reporting. However, without details of the certificate or why it was "invalid", it will be difficult to investigate this issue further. Could you return to the Apple Store and get a copy of the invalid certificate and any other details you can gather?"

Otherwise, you come across as abrasive, at a minimum.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, it probably does come across that way.

It's because I'm used to receiving reports of issues with no (or very little) information that is helpful in actually determining what the real problem is: "The network is slow", "so-and-so can't send e-mail", "Extremely high packet loss" from people who don't understand traceroute, and so on. When I get these nowadays I simply close them out unless the reporter can provide any useful details (which usually has to be pried out of them) so I guess it has just become natural for me to respond that way.

It would be like walking up to an auto mechanic and saying "My car won't start. What's wrong with it?". There are 1,000 reasons why and without some more information it's going to be impossible what the actual cause is.

<comment><AUTHOR> Based on your description, it seems your approach has a number of flaws, which would lead to "closing out" the report of a security hole, which is a catastrophic failure in your approach.

Someone would have to go to the store in question to investigate further, in any case. Whether I offered the cert here publicly or not won't change that. I've given enough indication of a serious security problem that it merits investigation. Someone is trying to insert their own cert on a particular URL I was visiting when using the Apple Store Kahala Mall wifi.

Whoever performs the investigation can easily look into the specifics of the cert itself. Your response was detrimental to the process in addition to coming across as abrasive, and your follow-up simile related to the mechanic is further insulting. I recognize you are an expert in your field but it's not a way to work with colleagues. I offer this criticism with only the best of intentions, as someone who can well-relate to your line of thinking on such matters.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Big Bounce – communications satellite project (1960) [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNGVAHGK2xg <comment><USER2> "But this high-orbit, 22,000 mile system is, at best, far in the future". Wikipedia[1] says the first geostationary satellite was launched in 1964, just four years after this film was made. Just goes to show how bad we are at predicting the course of technology.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncom#Syncom_3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncom#Syncom_3)

</comment><comment><USER3> The horn antenna shown in the opening scenes is the one used later in the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background. The discovery led to the acceptance of the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmdel_Horn_Antenna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmdel_Horn_Antenna)</comment>


Show HN: Cosflowy – A Planner for Cosplayers Made with Meteor JS - <AUTHOR> My fiancee is a talented cosplayer (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosplay), but she is also one of the most disorganised persons I know.  I decided to try and develop a SaaS web application that would be useful to her and other cosplayers - as well as giving a shot at developing something more ambitious than my usual side projects.
You can find the result at https://cosflowy.com/
I used the Meteor JS framework (https://www.meteor.com/) - I had a great experience with it and I don't think it gets enough love - I know it might not scale as well as other, lower-level solutions but it got a beginner web developer like me to put together and ship a usable product, which I think is no small feat.
I used Meteor's proprietary hosting service, Galaxy, which is pricier than something like Digital Ocean with the same specs but I didn't want to spend too much time on devops, so I'm willing to pay the extra for one-click deployment out of the box. I also used Mlab to host the mongo database, Google Cloud to host user-uploaded files, and Stripe to process the subscription flow. <comment><USER2> I like the idea. Isn't there a "software product line" around this concept, that is, other people who might have to buy and make a lot of stuff, register for and attend events, etc?</comment>


Databound: a simple Javascript API to the Ruby on Rails CRUD - <AUTHOR> http://databound.me

<comment><USER2> I see some benefits to the tight coupling between a JS client and the backend (eg: DSL fields), but are those benefits worth having such a tight coupling compared to REST (I realize this isn't called REST, but rather just CRUD).

</comment><comment><USER3> A basic javascript library for doing crud operations against a Rails backend should come as standard with Rails. It's better than angular's services and similar libraries.

<comment><AUTHOR> I never tried myself Angular and friends, only read guides and tutorials to get an idea of how they work and for sure compared to those this looks much simpler to implement. Nice one.</comment></comment>


WebStorm Tricks and Tips: Live webinar Thursday, October 24th - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jetbrains.com/blog/2013/10/08/live-webinar-webstorm-tricks-and-tips-october-24th/

<comment><USER3> John Linquist's videos give a simple direct introduction to AngularJS and showcase the capabilities of WebStorm:

[https://www.youtube.com/user/johnlindquist](https://www.youtube.com/user/johnlindquist)

They were helpful to me as demonstrations of building simple Angular Apps from the ground up and compelling enough that I bothered to shell out a few bucks for the IDE (the first one I purchased in years).

<comment><USER4> I bought PhpStorm on their End of the world sale. Best spent money in my life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've been using PHPstorm for a few weeks now. It's Webstorm with PHP support and I think it rocks. By far my favorite IDE so far.

<comment><USER6> I'm thinking of switching over to PHPStorm from Netbeans for my PHP programming. Any reason I should not? How is the SVN integration and are you able to cmd+click a function name to jump to it (PHP and JS)? How is the XDebug support?

<comment><USER4> Kire, everything works flawlessly. There is the cmd+click and better - <USER2> is framework integration witch makes the code analysis even more powerful. XDebug support works without configuration.</comment></comment></comment>


Netflix attacks VPNs - <AUTHOR> http://teaz.me/netflix-attacks-vpns/ <comment><USER2> How is Netflix detecting VPNs, just by IP whois details of popular VPN providers and non-residential ISPs? or special client-side latency detection from the origin to the browser?</comment>


We Need to Have Sympathy for Those With Depression. It is an Illness - <AUTHOR> http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2013/01/30/we-need-to-have-sympathy-for-those-with-depression-it-is-an-illness/ <comment><USER4> Thank you, Mark, for writing this.

I have lost three close friends in the past three months to depression. Their deaths were so similar it was shocking; they were all among the most brilliant people I had known, and all had been suffering from depression almost their entire lives.

At the funeral of the one who was closest to me, another girl told a story of how on one day when his depression was particularly bad, he boasted in his great success for the day: Getting out of bed to brush his teeth.

Bear in mind this was a kid who spoke Russian and Arabic fluently, who loved the arts, was incredible at chess, was a great musician, and took Calculus BC in 9th grade. Absolutely brilliant. He was a fighter, he was stubborn, he was young, and some say he took his own life. I prefer to say that depression took his life.

Sorry for getting so personal, but I simply can't take any of the comments that say "just get over it." Depression is as real and as disabling as being paralyzed; it may not happen to everyone, but to say things like, "You need to be stronger" are no more appropriate to the depressed than they are to the paralyzed.

But most of all, if any of you are reading this who have depression, keep fighting. Recognize your brain lies to you, and no matter what it says there are many people who love you and it will get better.

<comment><USER5> > your brain lies to you

Indeed, I've been saying this to myself in dozens of situations, not just depressive moods. If you actually _believe it_ when you say it, it's like a sort of mantra that can replace any pill! ...but unfortunately people suffering from clinical depression can't get themselves into the "saying it and believing it mode".

<comment><USER6> Perhaps a digested, weighted, real-world-mapped version of Wikipedia's list of cognitive biases [1] would be useful as mantra.

Just the kind of thing that xkcd does with posters, actually.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biases_in_judgment_and_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biases_in_judgment_and_decision_making)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Fuck this shit.

We need to have sympathy. Not because we've diagnosed someone with a disease, but because they're a person.

Rates of depression are skyrocketing all over the developed world and whatever we're doing clearly isn't working. Personally, I think the most obvious issue is that a group of intelligent people have simply accepted the notion that what's relevant isn't someone's life circumstances, but some vague and baseless notion of "abnormal brain chemistry".

The idea of depression is a miserable cop-out, it's simply victim-blaming. We say that there is something wrong with their brains, rather than saying that there is something wrong with society. If someone is unhappy, we need to support them. It is a dismal failure of our humanity if we require the justification of medical necessity to show basic compassion.

Swartz had obvious reasons to be miserable and obvious reasons to want to kill himself. We failed him, we fucked up. He didn't die of a disease, he killed himself because he quite justifiably felt that the circumstances of his life were intolerable. We didn't do enough as a community to support him and protect him. He was a young and vulnerable man, bearing the wrath of a spiteful government. It's shameful for us to even consider for a moment that there might be something wrong with Swartz's brain, when our failures to care for him are so obvious.

If we need a scientific explanation for why we should care about each other, that's our problem. If we require a doctor's say-so to provide support for someone in difficulty, that's our disease.

<comment><USER8> > Personally, I think the most obvious issue is that a group of intelligent > people have simply accepted the notion that what's relevant isn't someone's > life circumstances, but some vague and baseless notion of "abnormal brain > chemistry".

How about people who lead objectively wonderful lives, with good jobs and happy families, but still suffer from deep depression? The problem, if any, seems to be the other way round: that some people think only people will "bad" lives can suffer from depression, and everyone else should just "get over it." That's what seems wrong to me--and if identifying "abnormal brain chemistry" as a cause of depression helps people realise that _anyone_ can be a victim then so be it.

Clearly if someone is suffering then external factors can make it so much worse, but that doesn't mean depression needs an external cause. Sometimes it just _is_.

<comment><USER9> Maybe good job and family isn't the only factors in leading a happy life?

Not that I agree fully that brain chemistry isn't a factor. That said, the fact that wealthier countries have higher depression rates (according to WHO) does make me think there is something non-biological involved.

<comment><USER10> Speaking from both experience and anthropological theory, I would hypothesize that wealthier countries have more depression because they are more mobile.

To start with the anthropological theory, let's take David Graeber's notion from _Debt_ about the trauma of slavery. It's not merely being made to work by force that makes a slave. On a personal level, what traumatizes and dehumanizes a slave is that they have been _ripped from their context_. Everything that tied the free person to their family, their friends, their tribe/nation, their home, their religion, their culture, even their _enemies_ , _it has all been taken away_.

I think whenever you take someone entirely out of their context and put them in an entirely new context, there is a chance for depression, because I think that on a deep level, depression is a phenomenon of a person being _out-of- context_ , or at least, out of any context that can physically and mentally nourish them in the right way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Right now I am depressed. I feel terrible, and very, very guilty that I feel the way I do. I don't want to do anything, but I do want to do something to distract me away from my awful feeling of numbness. I worry about the future at times, and feel I'm at a dead end. I worry about my kids, and my wife, and my ageing parents. I'm sleeping constantly, but when I sleep my dreams are too vivid.

Despite it all, I'm a functioning human being. I function at work so I use this to distract myself. It's a fairly dull job at the moment while I try to do a Computer Science degree. But I've had to defer it due to family pressures and because of this blasted funk. I intended to study in my own time, especially mathematics, but I just can't get enough motivation to do it now. I was teaching myself JPA from scratch, and was making headway, that's gone out the window. I had some ideas for an ITSM app, but that's gone too. I feel like I haven't fulfilled my goals, and a failure.

I'm not a raging depressive, but a few weeks ago I couldn't stop crying. I feel like a burden so I'm trying to hide it all. It leaks out. So I sleep, and this reduces my ability to socialise. I then feel guilty, but nobody is judging me.

It's life I guess. I don't write this to ask for pity, but to explain what it's like, while it's happening. If I had to summarise my mental state, it's like a piece of me has died inside. Knowing that it will go away doesn't really help the feeling, but it gives me fortitude to get to the next day.

I hope this might give some insight to those who haven't felt this way before.

<comment><USER12> I recognise some of the symptoms you describe; feeling guilty and feeling shame for my shortcomings. When asked what I would like to do, like you I didn't want to do anything.

I used to be depressed. Here is my experience. My depression ended about 6 months ago and lasted for about 4 years. Before then I've been depressed on and off most of my life, sometimes as severely as this time, other times just as nearly constant anxiety and a general resignation to the feeling that my character is depressive.

After some time and a big change in my life, I tried to get help. At the start I was helped by seeing a psychologist (who practiced CBT) and by taking medication. Later I couldn't have therapy any more but remained on medication.

I slowly recovered, and I think it was because I was lucky to get on the right track. That track was to be honest about all, and not try to hide any, aspects about myself, to everybody. Also those aspects that may not be perceived as positive in the norms of society. This turned out to be quite a relief. I had decided that I'd do that no matter how much social pressure I would feel from thinking I'd be perceived as different or unaccepted. This had been a fear all my life, and still is. Situations come up quite frequently when I do this fearing total rejection, but I still do it. There's fear but no anxiety. I've come to realise that honesty is much more valuable, and perhaps the most valuable thing of all. Not only to me, but to others too.

Recently I got a tremendous boost and confirmation when I heard about some of the reasoning behind the development of something called Non-violent Communication, in which it is also touched upon depression. I can't say that NC would help others or even myself at the outset, but it made a lot of sense to me.

<comment><USER11> I should, perhaps, clarify that I'm remarkably open about my depression when I'm not in the midst of it and feeling like I'm a burden on everyone. When I'm feeling as I am at the moment, that's when my tendency to feel guilty comes to the fore.

Very odd, and not helpful. It's very, very hard to get perspective when in this sort of state. Ironically, on HN I seem to be able to express myself. Perhaps putting down the words on the page (or textbox) gives some perspective. I'm sure I can't be the only one who experiences this...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Already this thread has replies that are trotting out the usual "depression is just sadness" or "CBT is nonsense".

The UK NHS National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (<http://www.nice.org.uk/>) gathers evidence of cost effectiveness (using quality adjusted life years) for various treatments.

They are pretty clear - CBT is excellent for mild depression; CBT and medication combined is more effective than either treatment alone for moderate to severe depression.

The Cochrane Collaboration (<http://www.cochrane.org/>) carefully investigates all the research, judges its quality, and publishes a meta analysis. They're pretty clear that CBT is effective.

<comment><USER14> I think if you go along that line of argumentation, it would be nice to link to actual articles and studies, rather than the homepage of some organization. Otherwise it is just a "call to authority", and we know those were never wrong in the course of history, right?

For starters, what do they even measure to estimate effectiveness? Suicide rates? Happyness induced from a questionaire? Brainwaves? Hormone levels?

What does effective even mean? Does it mean the patient did not induce further costs for the health industry? It could mean all sorts of things. For example chaining a patient to a bed could also be very effective in preventing suicide. So if you measure "suicides prevented", perhaps chaining people to beds is the best course of action?

<comment><USER13> > it would be nice to link to actual articles and studies, rather than the > homepage of some organization.

These organisations link to their papers, and to the original studies.

> What does effective even mean? Does it mean the patient did not induce > further costs for the health industry? It could mean all sorts of things. > For example chaining a patient to a bed could also be very effective in > preventing suicide. So if you measure "suicides prevented", perhaps chaining > people to beds is the best course of action?

I knew many questions would be asked, but I didn't know what those questions would be. Rather than try to predict which questions would be asked I just link to the home pages so that you can do your own research.

After all, if you're sceptical (not a bad thing) of me you should assume that I'll cherry pick the research that I show you.

<comment><USER14> Why bother even linking to the homepage, why not just link to Google? Why even discuss at all? Everything can be proved with Google...

As for my question about which aspects they even measured: interesting would be of course YOUR aspects, which led you to your conclusion. Otherwise, the same holds: perhaps I believe you that method X is very successful, but really you only said "chaining people to beds is very successful in preventing suicides".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> A lot of uniformed people in this thread. You can't generalise as much as you all do.

You have to understand that people experience life in very different ways. I have experienced depression [0] but I can't speak for anybody else other than to say I know it's hard and _keep on_.

The real problem with depression is that everybody wants to wash their hands of it. "There are doctors that we can pass these sick people to. The system will sort everything out. That guy's a real downer, I hope he get's help... from somebody else..." I understand that it can be a mood-ruiner and people feel ashamed of it even by association but where is the strength in ignoring things? Compassion would truly be helpful and if you can give it, give it.

Go for CBT and you'll find it largely amounts to filling out forms on your mental state with tickboxes that don't really apply to you, while somebody tries to find out ways that your thinking is twisted. But you can be rational, successful, positive and still feel awful. Do you want to medicate the hell out of the high-functioning, positive guy that wants to change the world [1]? The term 'chemical imbalance' sometimes gets thrown around, and honestly it's probably wrong but there is a truth to it -- often the people that say they have a chemical imbalance are thinking quite rationally but facing terrible emotions that they know they shouldn't have to (from trauma, or an unhealthy subconscious.)

[0] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5096568>

[1] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgh2dFngFsg>

edit; If you're going to downvote me it would be nice if you would mention why. Do you actually have experience of any of this? I'm trying to give my honest experience on this, and I'm trying to point out that a guy like Aaron Swartz doesn't really fit the neat definitions required by most treatments; and that compassion beyond telling others to 'go to a doctor' is worthwhile.

<comment><USER13> I didn't downvote you.

> _Go for CBT and you'll find it largely amounts to filling out forms on your > mental state with tickboxes that don't really apply to you, while somebody > tries to find out ways that your thinking is twisted._

This is a poor version of CBT. Any practitioner providing CBT like this is doing it wrong.

CBT is not about telling you that you are wrong or that your thinking is twisted. CBT is about exploring with you what your thinking is; what's happening to you with those thoughts; how strongly you feel those thoughts and emotions. CBT is about helping you understand why you feel the things that you feel, and why you think the things you think.

There can be a bit of writing when you begin - some people find it useful to have the process down in a concrete form. There doesn't have to be writing. And checking boxes is not a good approach.

Medication works for some people. But the serotonin hypothesis is controversial.

> Do you want to medicate the hell out of the high-functioning, positive guy > that wants to change the world

(I didn't view the YouTube)

Medication can have side effects, and sometimes they're not very nice. But most SSRIs don't have the kind of effects that people would describe as "medicate the hell out of".

<comment><USER16> Unfortunately, as it is practiced, this IS what CBT ends up being a good deal of the time. CBT has an implicit, and sometimes explicit, mechanistic view of human nature. This can come off as extremely judgmental to vulnerable and intelligent clients. Other approaches, like Motivational Interviewing, adopt a neutral stance that offers the potential for clients to actually explore their feelings instead of just getting rid of them.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivational_interviewing>

Edit: re-reading my comment, I think I am coming off too hard on CBT. There are real reasons why clients can come out of CBT thinking the therapist is trying to find what is twisted with them or having them fill out pointless booklets - this does not completely undercut what CBT is about. There is good working going on to combine CBT with Motivational Interviewing to improve treatment of depression and suicidality.

[http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2011_Br...](http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2011_BrittonPatricketal_CBP.pdf)

<comment><USER17> i am doing CBT (not often though, busy travelling work schedule). I suffer from bipolar I, and while the medication was the one thing that just completely changed my life, CBT is there to help me to:

\- figure out my mood. this is about keeping checklists on how long i sleep, how i feel, if i took my medication, if i ate correctly. this sounds terribly stupid, but it is very hard for me to even understand what i am feeling. seeing a little graph that tells me "you have been sleeping 16 hours a day for the last 2 weeks, and now you are barely able to sleep for 3 hours, something is going on" is very helpful.

\- figure out what i need to do when certain patterns have been recognized. this is for example upping up on sports, being careful about diet, going out to see people when i'm in the down phase. and conversely cutting down on sports, going out, meditation (which makes me way too energetic and stimulated), stimulants when being too far up.

\- figuring out my own personal triggers and signs for depression. this is starting to come along, and these are kind of "personal" things. if i want a new tatoo, or learn a new skill or programming language, i should be careful because this is what usually accompanies mania.

it also involves meeting with other people with the same illness, and just for a few hours every year feeling that you are not the only one in that mess.

an interesting thing about the mood graphs is suddenly realizing that a lot of these mood swings actually come out of the blue, or are more related to seasonal effects. it is my brain tricking me into finding causes and patterns and reasons. i don't want to commit suicide because nobody loves me, it's more i think nobody loves me because i am depressed because i haven't gone out for 2 weeks and missed out on my medication 3 days in a row. or because it is december.

i find CBT (at least with the practictioner i have) to be a very no-bullshit pragmatic approach to handling the psychological side of the illness.

but seriously (and in a way, thank god i have bipolar), medication works extremely well, and the one i take (lamictal) has almost no side effect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> jay-pinkman not all cases of depression can be attributed to unbalanced brain chemistry. sometimes the chemistry is ok, it's just your life is fucked. in this case depression is a normal reaction. you just can't remain all cheerful when you're drowning in shit. i don't think taking up meds or doing other things to cover it up is a good answer to such situations. with all its negative aspects depression is also a big reminder that something is off and must be fixed, it pushes you to make drastic changes because your regular routine doesn't quite help. sometimes it pushes you to a suicide which is sad but notice how many successful people with stellar careers and shiny popular products or art had been struggling with depression when they were failing at their job, when their dreams were crumbling, and no end to this horror was in sight. maybe it's a stretch but i'd say suffering from depression at some point in life is a normal thing for a maker. sometimes difficulties that you prepared yourself to are just greatly overshadowed by the actual state of affairs. that's to say marking all cases of depression as illness that needs to be treated is a wrong way to look at the problem. in my opinion at least. what helps is support and understanding, phrases like "pull your socks up" or "go get some pills" don't.

<comment><USER18> Why is this voted down? It's a valid opinion.

Please tell me we don't have depression Nazis who can only accept one narrow definition of depression. What I see described here is possible how most people experience depression. Or does only extreme depression count?

<comment><USER13> Depression is a jargon term with a specific meaning, as well as an everyday word with a fuzzy less specific meaning. That causes some confusion in discussions like this.

Depression covers a range of different illnesses, with different severities.

Depression is not a normal reaction to a life event.

When someone dies you feel grief. That grief may be severe. But grief is a normal reaction to death. If, however, the grief is overwhelming and lasts for years, and interferes with your life then it has developed into depression. Depression is an abnormal reaction to life events.

There is a form of depression termed "reactive depression". Something happens, and a person doesn't have a normal negative reaction but has an abnormal extreme negative reaction and falls into depression. The main treatment for that would be to correct the thing that caused the reaction, with some CBT, and medication if needed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This essay is making a logical fallacy. The implicit assumption is that if a person is in a state which falls under the category "illness" they deserve sympathy, while they might otherwise not.

Unfortunately, the essay does not define it's terms, nor does address why depression specifically deserves sympathy. Near as I can tell, it's just an application of the noncentral fallacy.

Overall, a pretty terrible essay.

More on the noncentral fallacy: <http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_worst_argument_in_the_world>

Noncentral fallacy specifically applied to medical conditions: [http://lesswrong.com/domain/lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_th...](http://lesswrong.com/domain/lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_questions_about/)

<comment><USER11> All I have to say is actually in the lead paragraph of the Wikipedia article:

"Sympathy is an extension of empathic concern, or the perception, understanding, and reaction to the distress or need of another human being. This empathic concern is driven by a switch in viewpoint, from a personal perspective to the perspective of another group or individual who is in need. Empathy and sympathy are often used interchangeably, but the two terms have distinct origins and meanings. Empathy refers to the understanding and sharing of a specific emotional state with another person. Sympathy does not require the sharing of the same emotional state. Instead, sympathy is a concern for the well-being of another. Although sympathy may begin with empathizing with the same emotion another person is feeling, sympathy can be extended to other emotional states."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sympathy&oldid...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sympathy&oldid=534731942)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The problem with depression is that it is hard to diagnose. If anything we are still in the dark ages of mental illness. If you have an infection we have a way to tell you what infection. Right now there is no way to test for depression.

More scientific research is definitely needed.

<comment><USER21> We are no more in the "dark ages of mental illness". You must be kidding. Before we used to burn people who were mentally deficient and heard voices or had hallucinations as they were thought to be possessed by the Devil. That was the "dark ages of mental illness" you are talking about. There is now information, testing, diagnostic methods everywhere available, and efficient medication. Keep yourself up to date.

<comment><USER20> How do you definitively test for depression?

Are the diagnostic methods pretty good? Both accurate and precise with very low false positive rates?

Is the medication proven to work for depression?

Sorry but I think a lot of that can be argued that we are still shooting in the dark. I want a test for depression like I test for strep throat. AND I want the "cure" to be repeatable.

Yes we are still in the dark ages.

<comment><USER22> _Are the diagnostic methods pretty good? Both accurate and precise with very low false positive rates?_

Yes: "Overall sensitivity was 84% (95% CI, 79% to 89%); overall specificity was 72% (CI, 67% to 77%)" (<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7755226>)

 _Is the medication proven to work for depression?_

There's no such thing as proof in science. A recent meta-analysis: "Most patients treated with serotonergic antidepressants showed a clinical trajectory over time that is superior to that of placebo-treated patients. However, some patients receiving these medications did more poorly than patients receiving placebo. These data highlight the importance of ongoing monitoring of medication risks and benefits during serotonergic antidepressant treatment" ([http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=11074...](http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1107437))

<comment><USER20> Interesting...do you have the full article?

<comment><USER23> I'll Swartz it for you.

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/3uz18obebxavgff/Gueorguieva-et- al....](https://www.dropbox.com/s/3uz18obebxavgff/Gueorguieva-et-al.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Depression has different stages. Sometimes it's easy to get out of depression. I'm sure we all experience it at our "low" points during different stages of our lives. From failing a startup or death of a family member.

The depression that we can't get out of alone -- when we lose all hope for everyone -- that's the hardest to fight. Losing your will to live can quickly lead to suicide. And it's hard to tell from someone else's perspective that you're suicidal because you've pushed everyone away.

I think the only cure to the second form of depression is to practice a healthy state of mind everyday. Enjoy life and friends that are close to someone. Always share your problems with a close person (someone you truly trust). You must have the will to live. Giving up isn't the answer to all your problems because someone else will have to inherit your problems. Which isn't fair for that someone!

<comment><USER13> Grief is normal. Grief is an appropriate reaction to a lifetime event. Grief normally subsides after a time; it's still there, but not overwhelming.

Depression is not normal. When you still feel overwhelming grief years after the event, and it's affecting your everyday life and preventing you from functioning, then it's depression.

> _I think the only cure to the second form of depression is to practice a > healthy state of mind everyday._

I sort of agree - mindfulness and CBT techniques can be used everyday to help prevent depressive thinking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> We need more compassion in general - not just for the outlier cases - <USER2> society in general can be a pretty mean entity.

I've been thinking lately how sad it is that so many of the younger hackers in my local scene (metalab.at) are not as familiar with John Lennons' World Peace movement as they should be. That light was snuffed out, but John (and Yoko, and many, many others) were really trying hard to get a world peace movement established, that would bring more love to the world.

If you turn on the TV today, you don't see much love. Most "comedies" are little more than 30-minutes-ridicule+laughtrack. In fact, remove the laugh- track from most TV shows and you have a banal hate festival.

I think depression being treated poorly, in general, by society is symptomatic of a larger maladay - which is that we humans simply don't trust our neighbors. We don't communicate freely and honestly with each other. You can't smile at a stranger in Vienna, for instance, just for the sake of the happiness - there _always_ has to be the inference of an alternative, sinister, motive. Why is that?

Its because, fundamentally our cultural veigns - the mass communications networks of PR, Advertising, News, TV - don't profit from happiness and good times. They profit from the "black blood cell" of intrigue, controversy, synthesis/anti-synthesis. All we really see on TV is conflict this and that, and if there is some sort of consolation, its usually couched as "irony" or some such emotion.

But what of true Peace, where people are getting along great? There is a lot of that in the world, and it goes under-reported, and just not noticed by the majority. Its possible that depression is a social disease, and is contagious.

But, so is happiness.

We need more overt acknolwedgement of the good times, too, in my opinion - <USER3> truly good times, real progress. The aversion of the average citizen towards sharing good news and good times needs to be overcome.

We miss you, John Lennon.

<comment><USER26> Funny. For me, I get depressed and turned off when I see too much peace, happiness, and love crap in media. Maybe it's because I'm part of the generation who's grown skeptical of everything in media, but I definitely prefer the darker, sarcastic side of content. A John Lennon style love/peace- fest sounds like an absolute nightmare to me. No thanks.

<comment><USER27> _Funny. For me, I get depressed and turned off when I see too much peace, happiness, and love crap in media._

I tend to be the same way. If I was as depressed as I as a few years I would be actively hostile toward the vast majority of the otherwise well-intentioned posts on this submission.

<comment><USER26> Yeah, but I'm not depressed. It's just that I can only take saccharin in small doses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Professor Sapolsky at Stanford gave an interesting lecture about depression a few years ago... highly recommended:

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

<comment><USER29> There's also this, "How To Be Alone": <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7X7sZzSXYs> . It did help me a couple of times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> While I agree that we need to be more sympathetic to those with depression, but I think it needs to extend way past just depression and on to all mental illness. Mental illnesses cause distorted thought patterns and it isn't the fault of the individual who has that mental illness, just as it isn't the fault of the Type 1 Diabetic that they have their illness.

Speaking from first hand experience, it can be overwhelming and lonely to suffer from mental illness. I have to hide my thoughts from others (including my own wife) because of fear that they won't understand and that they may think of me as a monster.

We have come a long way from where we used to be regarding mental illness (such as blaming poor parenting), but we still have a long ways to go.

</comment><comment><USER31> A few years back when I quit smoking I spent two weeks with withdrawal symptoms the biggest one been depression. It hit me so harsh that I felt like I lost the earth under my feet. I've never felt anything similar and I can honestly say it was by far the worst period of my life. You wake up and you just don't have the courage to do anything. Every single insecurity I had surfaced during those two weeks multiplied by ten.

The odd thing is that those two weeks were the most socializing ones I've ever spent. I felt like I wanted to be with other people 24/7 although it didn't make any difference to my condition. And this imho is the biggest problem with depression, there are no visible signs that someone suffers from it. So if you don't know if someone has it how can you help them.

Fortunately for me this hell lasted only a couple of weeks, until my body cope up with the lack of nicotine. I don't know how I would manage to live with something like that for years or even decades. I have the outmost respect and sympathy for the ones living with depression.

Without trying to be smart ass I have the feeling that depression is a fundamental problem of lifestyle standards. The majority of our insecurities are imposed on us by some wicked version of how life should be. So instead of enjoying the little moments of happiness we tend to believe that happiness is a constant situation which happens to be out of our grasp and thus we hammer ourselves with the inability to get there. And then you end up with a dozen insecurities and everything seems so vain.

</comment><comment><USER32> Part of the problem is how doctors, and especially psychiatrists, have approached treating depression. There are many people who simply get down once in a while, in response to a particular event or series of events, the way most of us do at some point in our lives. If these people come across a psychiatrist, there's a decent chance they will end up on anti depressants when they likely just need some counseling and time. They should not be classified as depressed, maybe a transient mood disorder, but who knows if insurance would pay for that. That takes away from people who truly suffer from clinical depression, a real medical condition which should be separately classified as such. If you throw them into the basket of people who are just down once in a while, you do them a great disservice, because society then looks at them as someone who just can't deal with issues and need a crutch in the form of medications. The people with real clinical depression are the ones who are at risk of committing suicide. Psychiatrists can figure out which is which usually, not always, but instead they treat everyone the same, and as a result less time is spent on those who need it the most (unless they end up getting hospitalized)

</comment><comment><USER33> I agree that depression is an illness. I also agree that we need more sympathy and help for those who suffer it, and there needs to be less stigma surrounding it.

Having said that, we should not forget the victim's loved ones left behind, after his/her suicide to grieve and bury the victim. These people are victims too. Sometimes other lives are destroyed by an act of suicide. A young wife left to raise the kids alone. A mother forced to bury an only child; perhaps committed to a life of depression herself.

For the record, I have had my own battles with depression. I have had days I was unable to get out of bed. I have also had suicidal thoughts. But the thought of the pain I would inflict on my family, particularly my mom, would never allow me to truly consider it an option. I don't pretend to have felt the pain that would drive one to suicide, because there are degrees and experiences differ. But it helps to know where I'm coming from.

I think there needs to be more of a stigma surrounding suicide and more awareness for the pain of those that are left to grieve. If you're considering ending it all, please try to get help, and please think of the pain you will be inflicting on those you leave behind.

</comment><comment><USER18> I am said to suffer depression myself, which BTW I would deny as I would say its "realism", but I really have an issue with it being described as an "illness".

It seems to be that this definition is more about giving depression PR parity with actual illnesses, rather than a correct label. Its like the public will accept an "illness" as real, but a psychological issues as not real. There for making the public see depression as "illness" helps get support. See what I mean?

From what I can make out, depression is a state of mind. Its a psychological thing. Ie, its a sort of loop people get themselves in to. That, to me, is not an illness. Not more so than arrogance, confidence or anger. Its an emotion. Is love an illness too? I realise that can be debated, but I don't think its helpful to redefine things for PR reasons. To me that cheapens it.

I'm not saying depression is there for less valid, clearly its as debilitating as what I would think of as real "illness", if not more so, but I do roll my eyes and switch off every time I hear the word "illness" appropriated for things that aren't really "illnesses". As I say, the lack of the word illness doesn't, to me, make it less serious. To me, using that word is not necessary, it just blurs the lines and can put people off caring. It make it sound exaggerated or a bit "me too".

Should add that I do understand that there are different types of depression. Perhaps using the single word depression to cover all cases is more the problem that the word "illness".

I'm by no means unsympathetic, I know how it can effect people. I've seen the results of suicide. Hell, my mum's other half had to cut the bloke down while the wife screamed in the street. But I worry that re-defining things puts the general population off.

No idea if these definitions are different each side of the Atlantic. Heh, no idea if its just me who thinks this either!!!

<comment><USER34> This is wrong, wrong, wrong. Sometimes people get down or get "the blues" but this is something very much different from major clinical depression. Depression has many aspects but one of the most important is a chemical imbalance in the brain. It's not just a feeling or an emotion, it's a fundamental change to the way your brain works. And episodes of major depression can last for years, even decades.

<comment><USER19> _Depression has many aspects but one of the most important is a chemical imbalance in the brain._

If this is the case, there should be a chemical test to determine whether a person suffers from it. Does such a test exist? I'm unaware of it, but I'd love to read more.

(I'm not asking if it's clinically usable, but merely whether the specific chemicals and levels are known. If they are not known, then "chemical imbalance" is merely a hypothesis.)

<comment><USER17> how about just doing a tiny bit of research: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_of_depression> ??

<comment><USER19> You could have simply said "no".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> "We Need to Have Sympathy." Period. There, I fixed it for you.

</comment><comment><USER36> Let me preface this with: I have first hand experience of depression, I don't think it's just sadness and I'm absolutely sympathetic toward those who with depression.

But...

My thinking about mental illness changed a lot after reading a book called Crazy Like Us [1]. It doesn't talk about depression specifically - it's a collection of case studies on how different mental illnesses have been experienced/handled/treated by different societies around the world, and how western understandings of mental illness have generally displaced existing cultural understandings, not always for the better.

The major argument of the book is that the Western view of conditions such as depression as 'mental illness' has been counter-productive to attempts to de- stigmatize such conditions. The author also makes a convincing argument that it's also made recovery less likely for a lot of sufferers.

And to me that makes a lot of sense. Many other cultures view emotional suffering as a normal part of human life. In the West we view it as an unnatural state. We think that by detaching the condition from the sufferer, we're de-stigmatizing it, but the sufferer ends up more stigmatized because... now they are considered mentally ill. And they have less hope of their situation improving, because we're telling them that there is something biologically wrong with them.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Crazy-Like-Us-Globalization- American/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Crazy-Like-Us-Globalization- American/dp/1416587098/)

</comment><comment><USER20> If there is one thing I've learned about depression is that we suck at identifying it and we suck even more at "curing" it.

I'm not a doctor. But there is a huge difference between being sad and killing yourself. There are some people who think it is just "in their head" and to "shake it off". There have been lots of diseases in our history that people thought were normal until we made some crazy discovery that what was really causing it was some previously unknown agent.

</comment><comment><USER37> Having experienced a couple major depressive episodes, I have no desire to ever go back, and I've built myself a sort of mental fortress to hopefully withstand whatever shocks I'll experience as I keep on living. I'm fortunate in that in both of my cases, I was able to emerge and put the depression behind me. I can't imagine chronically feeling the way I did.

Imagine being so emotionally hurt that it feels like physical pain, long after you were able to mentally process what initially upset you. Like a pain so chronic and awful that you're willing to do just about anything to make it stop. Imagine how frustrating it is to want to be over something and to think you are mentally past it, but the emotional side of your brain (i.e. most of it) just won't budge. And then on top of it, you feel guilty for being such a drag on people around you. And you also feel paranoid that even when you're not dumping on them, you're alienating them in some way. So you mostly just suffer in silence. It's terribly debilitating.

A friend of mine who undoubtedly would be reading HN today if he were still around evidently felt this way pretty much his entire life. I don't think I would have been able to take it either.

</comment><comment><USER38> I live with someone who suffers from depression. The idea that it is a disease is somewhat welcoming in that it allows people to rationalize that their actions are not entirely their fault, but at the same time it almost hurts those suffering because of the complacent attitudes it breeds.

Often times, before a person is known to suffer from depression people will comment on their behaviors/mannerisms as if they're abnormal. Once they realize the issue they are sympathetic but change to "they can't help it, they're depressed." In many ways this can be true, its uncontrollable at times, but for other times they need support, not sympathy.

Support means helping them feel better about what ails them. It means distracting them from their worries with things you know will lift their spirits and help them see the lighter sides of things. When you can't lift their spirits you need to be there until they can move on naturally. A person suffering from depression can focus on a negative aspect of life so intently that it is damaging but as a supportive role in their life you need to look past that.

Don't sympathize, be active in supporting them or get out of the way so someone willing to can.

</comment><comment><USER39> As part of self observation I noticed that depression starts with negative thinking. The thought can be qualified as "negative" or "positive" by the physical bodily sensation it produces. Negative thought essentially produces self-inflicted pain within the body. Consistent negative thinking produces more inner pain and at more intense levels. This inner pain in turns fuels negative thoughts pattern that continues to inflict more "emotional" pain. Then it becomes vicious cycle of "beating yourself up".

At deeply depressed stages thought control no longer works and any attempts to "think yourself" out of depression are becoming futile. At these stages depression is fueled by constant intense physical/emotional pain that is constantly present seemingly without any thinking processed. The more intense the pain - the more unbearable it is - and this drives person to suicide as the last resort to stop suffering.

The actual solution in this case it to guide person to look at the pain directly instead of escaping, avoiding or suppressing it with painkillers. Painkillers may be necessary to maintain sanity though through the practice. This is ancient practice talked about by pretty much every spiritual teacher - yet widely ignored. When you feel depressed - locate exact area of painful physical sensations within the body and start observing it. Watch your sensations, watch your feelings, watch them exactly where they are. Do not try to change them, do not try to kill them, just observe them. At the same time breathe and follow your breathing as well. Conscious breathing slows down incessant thinking. Direct observation of painful emotions will start dissolving them.

This is very efficient practice that I personally benefited from during very intense emotional downturns and depressive states.

</comment><comment><USER40> Depression happens for many reasons. We do need to have sympathy because the depth of depression varies from person to person.

Some of it can be genetic and I think it can also be copied from other people or passed on. That is why if you hang around with happy people you have a tendency to be happier.

One of the things I noticed in my successful peers is that they go through a period of depression before great periods of productivity or creativity. The depths of depressions or "pullbacks" vary from person to person but most of them show that trait before periods of greatness.

IMO, depression is increasing because pressure is increasing on the average individual in general. From society, to our peers, from the media, from our own competitive nature we are putting more pressure on ourselves to perform or not perform via rebelling.

I am not a doctor, but I know when one of my friends or peers say they are depressed, it is taken very seriously. We all go out of our way to support that person.

Life does go on. Life does change. Sometimes it is darkest before the dawn. Never give up.

</comment><comment><USER41> How common is it to find people who _don't_ sympathize with depressed people? I don't care about anonymous trolls on the internet. I mean in real life?

In my experience with depression, everyone sympathizes and worries and wants help the depressed person. But being a vicious brain disease, depression will make you think the people who love you actually hate you and lough at you behind your back, when at work, or even while sleeping.

I have been accused of laughing at the person I love while sleeping, by her. No, it did not make me upset. I know it was the demons in hear head making her say that. I had been with her as she descended deeper and deeper and her self- hatred got worse and worse.

So when I hear that we need to sympathize with depression, I think you either have no experience with depressed people, or you're trying to convince anonymous internet trolls. The later is as futile and pointless task as can be. It is better to teach and train people on ignoring the trolls.

</comment><comment><USER42> I have suffered from severe depression since I was young. I (think) I'm pretty smart, but have definitely held myself back from achieving things that I could have because of it.

I have found this to be nearly crippling when accompanied with the rejection and difficulty of being an entrepreneur. Professionally, I have done a lot of freelance work as a result.

I've held pretty good jobs for ~ 1 year, but eventually have some problem due to workload stress combined with my depression. Regrettably this has made me leave jobs in non-ideal ways.

I'm looking for my next great position now, and it's tough to answer the "why did you leave this position and then go freelance last year" with "I let my depression get ahead of me and tried to kill myself."

I know that it's an incredible liability to a potential employer to hire someone that might do great work for a year and then abruptly leave.

I just needed to get that off my chest.

</comment><comment><USER43> In addition to sympathy, I wish we were better at telling people close to us to go see a doctor about their depression, or mental health in general. In particular, I wish someone had told me to do so ~7 years ago; would have saved a lot of misery.

</comment><comment><USER44> I really disagree with the classification of depression as a mental illness... it's such a crude way to talk about what is really a spiritual and intellectual problem.

</comment><comment><USER45> I don't know that depression is really that stigmatized these days. It's poorly understood, even by the people studying it. But though we might argue about the merits of chemicals vs therapy, I think most people recognize it as a genuine illness that needs to be treated.

Having previously been married to someone with depression issues (suicidal thoughts included) I can say it's a bitch. It's hard to know someone like that and not think of them as ill.

</comment><comment><USER46> For anyone affected by depression or other mental health issues, like stress and anxiety, I recommend the work of John Kabat Zinn and his teachings on mindfulness. This was offered when I was still an in patient at a psychiatric unit and has had numerous beneficial effects on people I know who have struggled with serious depression and mental illness (including myself). There are mindfulness courses all over the world these days :)

</comment><comment><USER8> The trouble with so many mental illnesses is that there's no good diagnostic test to help identify sufferers, and many go undetected or untreated until it's too late. There must be something that can be done about this. It might help those not personally affected by depression to understand its true nature better too.

</comment><comment><USER47> Great talk about mental illness on TED [http://www.ted.com/talks/ruby_wax_what_s_so_funny_about_ment...](http://www.ted.com/talks/ruby_wax_what_s_so_funny_about_mental_illness.html)

</comment><comment><USER48> What if depression is the evolutionary solution to overpopulation?

</comment><comment><USER49> Depression is partly biological-- the tendency that way surely is-- but it's also a natural outgrowth of a society that doesn't forgive mistakes and that tests people not based on peak capability or creativity, but on breaking point.

Somehow, we've conflated character and loyalty (which _are_ important) with the willingness to suffer needlessly in the name of subordination and whatever the fuck "team player" means.

The brogrammer culture and unnecessary long hours of Corporate America are all about testing people based on their decline curves, not peak performance. It's competing to suffer rather than competing to excel. Who is the first to crack? Fire him. Who is the last to break? Promote him. It's ridiculous and of course it's going to lead to an "epidemic" of mental illness.

In the corporate world, we promote based on participation in shared suffering (i.e. who stays until 1:30am to meet an arbitrary deadline) rather than talent, and we kick people when they're down, which is why it's impossible for someone to get back into the career game after even a short time outside of it (maternity, illness, depression). Of course we're going to have our best people dropping like flies.

Depression and anxiety disorders have always existed, but they don't need to be this common. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that at least half of the problem is caused by social and economic forces. These problems are biological at root, but social factors tend to modulate the severity that people experience.

Mark Suster deserves major props for speaking out about this. I've criticized him in the past, but I'm starting to like the guy.

</comment><comment><USER50> If you took a survey, asking if they felt sympathy for those diagnosed with the mental illness of clinical depression, I am pretty sure that most would answer yes.

My point is that this article is sort of worthless and whats more, the title is really irritating (because most people already have sympathy for those with depression). How about an article titled - we need to seek shelter to survive winter (most people already do).

What we need to do is a lot more than feel sorry for these people. We need to take action to help them.

</comment><comment><USER51> Without death of loved one, without death of friends. Without these a lot of revelations and emotions would be locked in you forever.

They spark humanity, they unite, they bring forward topics that usually no one would want to discuss.

And when all your fears will be dealt with, maybe death will stop be so scary.

</comment><comment><USER52> It seems to be culturally dependent too and related to education as well. There seems to be less of an epidemic in the part of Asia where I live.

<comment><USER21> I am not sure which part of Asia you are referring to, but in Japan there is "depression boom", at least judging by the increased amount of anti- depressants being sold.

<comment><USER53> I lived in India and the conditions could be described to be bleak enough to make the most optimistic person sad. Suicide rates there were 10x what they are in the west. I am not even sure there is enough cultural understanding and sensitivity about depression: There used to be an uproar and attempts to treat the symptoms when high school kids used to commit suicide by the dozen (typically after poor exam results).

(To the other poster, depression is not the same as "being sad" and having a bunch of people around you all the time asking you whether there is something wrong is not necessarily conducive to mental health. (Just to offer a flip side to your oh, there is so much community which is why there is a lack of mental illness anecdote.))

<comment><USER54> Depression is having a negative outlook on life over an extended period of time that starts effecting your everyday decisions and causing you to withdraw from social situations. It's an extension of being sad. Turn it around. If you're happy most of the time, it will be difficult for a psychiatrist to classify you as being depressed.

<comment><USER53> Sorry no offense, but you don't get depression. There are people who may have a "positive outlook" on life, appear to be happy go lucky and one fine day not be able to get out of bed due a to crippling overwhelming feeling of despair. This is not just an "extension of being sad.". You can't just shake a person who is depressed or throw a bunch of balloons or bring a bunch of relatives around this person and make them feel happy. Sometimes, a person who is depressed can't even explain why they are being depressed. Sadness doesn't work like that.

<comment><USER54> There's despair and there's sadness. Can you highlight the difference?

<comment><USER11> I haven't withdrawn from life (except when I get very tired and need sleep), and I don't feel sad. I feel flat and empty. Others feel sadness, but it's not always that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> BS. Everything that could be lifted by CBT is just ignorance and lack of determination.

Medication without changing of habits is the same as drinking - it only masks the symptoms temporarily.

<comment><USER56> That is a highly uninformed opinion.

<comment><USER57> I think it's actually highly well informed, Psychiatrists themselves admit there's nothing scientific about the whole "brain chemistry imbalance" bullshit. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzdu3WQyIZg&list=PLFD5944...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzdu3WQyIZg&list=PLFD59441E8A23F04C&index=1)

<comment><USER58> He isn't talking about medication, he is talking about CBT. CBT on it's own has been shown to be effective for low to moderate depression.

<comment><USER13> You are speaking to someone who claims that psychiatrists are responsible for the holocaust, pearl harbour, etc etc.

<comment><USER59> straw-man, ad hominem

One thing is clear to me, discussing psychiatry is already a MAJOR TABOO... e.g.: in the article the dude says how he "thinks it has something to do with chemistry... and stuff" clearly in a not-so-scientific reasoning(not that all must be) but just pointing out this sort of questionings leads to major downvoting

<comment><USER13> Can you not see that there is a huge difference between "questioning the effectiveness of psychiatry" and "blaming psychiatry for the holocaust"?

I'm more than happy to ignore people who use the propaganda from a cult where _anything_ from psychiatry is ignored.

<comment><USER59> k, agree, I don't want nothing to do with Scientology also, but it's still straw-man to picture everyone who is questioning as a scientologist

<comment><USER13> > but it's still straw-man to picture everyone who is questioning as a > scientologist

But that's not what I did. I responded to someone who posted scientology propaganda.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Where are the clinical tests for depression? The diagnosis is solely based on the opinion of the practitioner, there is no brain scan or chemical test that can conclusively prove that someone is suffering from depression. The so called "drugs" used to treat depression are no better, they "are thought to work" (big pharma phrases it this way in their own TV ads) by re-balancing the brain's chemistry, but in actual fact they have never been able to prove this with scientific TESTS.

So yes, people get sad sometimes, it's a fact of life, but maybe if we stopped prescribing them powerful mind altering narcotics that have FDA black warning label that say right on the box that they increase the risk of suicide, maybe they wouldn't take their own lives in such huge numbers.

EDIT: Relevant link, please get ALL the facts before you go see a shrink about your "depression": <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHu7Ik36128>

<comment><USER60> Note: The video linked to by parent is by CCHR, a known Scientology front group[1]. Doesn't mean they're necessarily right or wrong, just thought people should know.

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

<comment><USER61> Actually, it's no secret that CCHR is related to the Church of Scientology. It says so on www.scientology.org:

As part of their religious Code, Scientologists pledge "to expose and help abolish any and all physically damaging practices in the field of mental health," and thereby bring about an atmosphere of safety and security to mental healing. Accordingly, in 1969 Scientologists established the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), a watchdog group that investigates and exposes psychiatric violations of human rights.

[http://www.scientology.org/activity/citizens-commission- on-h...](http://www.scientology.org/activity/citizens-commission-on-human- rights/citizens-commission-on-human-rights.html)

What's an example of a physically damaging practice? How about involuntary commitment? How about psychosurgery? Forced electroshock? How about being drugged against your will? How about raped in a psych hospital?

Here is what CCHR does about it:

<http://www.cchr.org/about-us/cchr-accomplishments.html>

I'd call CCHR a social reform group.

<comment><USER11> I'd like to see external citations for the list of claimed achievements on that second page.

To balance out your links and snippets, here's the Wikipedia article:

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

<comment><USER61> Here is one for you:

"In 1995 CCHR published the acclaimed book Psychiatrists: The Men Behind Hitler."

[http://www.amazon.com/Psychiatrists-Behind-Hitler-Thomas- Rod...](http://www.amazon.com/Psychiatrists-Behind-Hitler-Thomas- Roder/dp/0964890917)

And another one:

"In 1999, members of the Council of Europe issued a resolution that recognized psychiatrists as the architects of the ethnic cleansing and encouraged Council members to 'study the material that has been put together and researched by the French chapter of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights.'"

[http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=8785...](http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=8785&Language=EN)

<comment><USER11> Actually, the second citation you reference asserts that two psychiatrists participated in and coordinated ethnic cleansing, implying that psychiatry was the root cause. It states that eugenics is particularly stupid and unjust (note that this is not a theory recognized in psychiatry) and it was issued as a resolution made by merely three members. In other words, they lobbied a few European politicians into making a statement about facts not necessarily in evidence, in a very limited form to show tenuous conclusions not backed up by any research whatsoever.

Awesome.

As for the book, you're using the peacock term "acclaimed" and cited an Amazon product page. Not what I'd call a great citation.

This is the problem, of course, with citations. It exposes the hollowness of ridiculous arguments by allowing all to see exactly the underpinning assumptions behind statements and assertions.

This is why I invented [citation needed]. I appreciate you reminding me why I did so.

<comment><USER61> Thank you. This is quite instructive.

What makes a great citation? The claim was that a book was published, and I showed the book. Another claim was that a resolution was passed and I showed the resolution. I thought I was doing well until I read chris's reply. :)

I will address chris's point that eugenics is not a theory recognized in psychiatry.

1\. Forced sterilization of mental patients was done by social psychiatrists, to improve society by removing the genetic material of mentally feeble and insane.

Reference: Keeping America Sane: Psychiatry and Eugenics in the United States and Canada, 1880-1940. Ian Robert Dowbiggin. 245 pp. Cornell University Press, 1997.

[http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/how- psychiatr...](http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/how-psychiatry- sought-asylum-from-the-insanity-of-eugenics)

[http://www.amazon.com/Keeping-America-Sane- Psychiatry-1880-1...](http://www.amazon.com/Keeping-America-Sane- Psychiatry-1880-1940/dp/0801483980)

2\. The following paper offers historical case studies of "psychiatric genetics" and urges reflection on social psychiatry.

The Eugenic Legacy in Psychology and Psychiatry by David Pilgrim of Mental Health Policy, University of Central Lancashire, UK

<http://isp.sagepub.com/content/54/3/272.abstract>

3\. What about "On human self-domestication, psychiatry, and eugenics" by Martin Brüne in Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2007; 2: 21. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2082022/>

Am I doing better?

I want to thank chris for challenging me to contribute higher quality content.

<comment><USER11> I'm not denying awful things were one in the name f psychiatry, but these ate the current state of the field/profession.

<comment><USER61> The current state of the "mental health" profession/field includes suffocating patients in attachment therapy (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Newmaker>), fraud ([http://www.justice.gov/usao/lae/news/2010/2010_08_19_maria_c...](http://www.justice.gov/usao/lae/news/2010/2010_08_19_maria_carmen_palazzo_plea.html)), and rape ([http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/30/doctor-shock- anti-g...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/30/doctor-shock-anti-gay- doc_n_517663.html)).

Electric shock is still considered a valid form of therapy in the profession ([http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/electroconvulsive- therapy/M...](http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/electroconvulsive- therapy/MY00129)).

<comment><USER11> Extreme cases in a large profession does not mean the entire profession is like the cases you cite. ECT is still considered a valid form of therapy because it _is_ a valid form of therapy.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>