Ask HN: Why is "fake news" Facebook's problem? - <AUTHOR> We have had this way before Facebook and we will always have it beyond Facebook. Why does Facebook have to carry the burden? I don't think they are the ones generating the news. Everyone is free to share what they want, so why put the blame on Facebook? Unless we want them to police everything we share... <comment><USER2> Facebook experimented with a satire tag [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/18/facebook_experiments...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/18/facebook_experiments_with_satire_tag/)

If an article is posted from a known satire site then it's flagged as 'fake/satire', then if that's reblogged by a 'legit' site it'll pick up on the similarity in the title and flag it again.

I had this functionality on my social site a few years ago (before FB) and the tech side of it works beautifully but the people side of it, not so much.

I implemented it after seeing people spending hours arguing over posts from The Onion and similar sites, but it doesn't work because you get accused of censorship. Who are you to say it's fake? Why are you censoring me? That's what _they_ want you to believe! etc etc

People are their own worst enemy, and there's no technological fix for that, people are jumping on the bandwagon and trying to 'fix' it now ( [http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/heres-a-browser- extension...](http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/heres-a-browser-extension- that-will-flag-fake-news-sites.html?mid=fb-share-selectall) ) but they're ignorant that all this has been tried and failed before.

</comment><comment><USER3> The problem is not fb "generating" news. Nor of "policing everythung". The problem is the algorithm of fb, which determines what you see, how often you see it and how important it appears to you. And this algorithm is intransparent and manipulative. And for this algorithn the responsibility is solely with fb.</comment>


Understanding ANOVA the APL way (1993) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/170000/166234/p295-thomson.pdf <comment><USER2> link is broken

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry. It was working earlier... I can't seem to find a working link.</comment></comment>


Why "Star Wars" Created a Fanatical Subculture and "American Pie" Didn't - <AUTHOR> http://sfard.posterous.com/why-star-wars-created-a-fanatical-subculture

<comment><USER2> Reading the abruptly truncated article, it looks like he's going for the idea that Star Trek evokes a mythological reaction that causes people to be religiously obsessed with it.

Personally, I think he's overstating things. Everything has a fanatical fanbase somewhere. I'm sure there's people who watch American Pie repeatedly, marveling at this amazing piece of cinematography and wondering why other people aren't doing the same.

However, combine that with the following:

1\. There is a certain mindset that seems to come out more in the geeks of the world. The obsessive, driving force that makes us dedicate days and hours of our time to a single project, instead of passively consuming, say, romantic comedies. There are people who watch Star Trek and say "Mmm, Star Trek.", and there are people who watch Star Trek, write out technical plans and compare the sizes of all the ships in the series, and recreate scale models of them. There are people who calculate how fast the ship is actually going, how hot a phaser would have to be based on the length of time it takes to burn through material X in episode 1, material Y in episode 2, and call out the writers when it burns through material Z in episode 3 too slowly.

2\. In the 70s, there wasn't an internet. There was no real form of escapism for the bullied geeks, no way for them to gather together from across the country in forums based on shared interest. There was just the hope that someday, the brains would win out over the bullying brawn, and Sci-Fi in general, and Star Trek in particular, was the crowning jewel of that time.

3\. To that end, the sense of awe you had when you first saw the Enterprise swoop out over the screen, the gasps when Kirk was about to get pummeled by the Gorn, the cheering when he turned the fight the other way-- those feelings are the reason Star Trek was popular back in the '70s. Too, possibly, The Next Generation in the 80s/90s. But after that...well, the honeymoon was over. And it's not really that surprising. As an adult, you can never completely recapture the feeling of nostalgia you had when watching the series for the first time. And instead of realizing that, fans lashed out at the followup series- DS9, Voyager, Enterprise...is it any surprise the franchise had a reboot? But it's too late. The future is literally more fantastic than they could have guessed when Star Trek first came out, and kids are too used to seeing personal communicators with more functionality than Star Trek's from the age of five.

Anyways. The upshot of all of this is that Star Trek managed to hit a sweet spot of mindset, escapism, and time period (pretty much the same as Star Wars did), and that sweet spot is now taken up by other, more interactive media of varying types. It was more a matter of luck than any real sense of the "mythological", and the only reason anyone would think that would be because of their attempt to recapture the nostalgia of their youth, the first time they saw the series.

Edit: I realize that anecdote is not the plural of data, but for me personally, I don't know a single person my age (22) that is a Star Trek geek. The only people I know that collect Star Trek memorabilia, watch and debate the shows, etc. are people who were teenagers when The Original Series came out.

<comment><USER3> Voyager and Enterprise got (and deserve) a lot of criticism, but DS9, at least while it was airing, was very widely respected as possibly the best Star Trek series ever produced. And that's because the writers realized that, at the time, the premise of space travel to strange alien worlds was not fantastic enough to hold viewer attention. Where TNG and especially TOS featured some new, strange thing each week (be it a fantastically powerful noncorporeal entity or a planet killer or a Dyson sphere), DS9 mostly took its world as a given and built a compelling, continuous drama out of those elements. It's quite similar to how the new Battlestar Galactica was constructed, and BSG developed a small, passionate fanbase during its run. (Not coincidentally, BSG had a number of DS9 writers on its staff.)

I also disagree that it's too late for a reboot. The reboot was the single most successful Star Trek movie ever produced.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Assuming "romantic comedy" was just an arbitrary dichotomy to serve as linkbait, I think you can find other genres that penetrate just as deeply as sci-fi that might make the point more clear.

If you look at jane austin, I think you'll find her influence on the generic female psyche is at least on par, but probably far stronger than the impact of lucas on the generic geek psyche.

The difference is the geeks make it visible so that they can share in the "mythology of exploration" together, whereas the femmes just make it implicit as a more natural "understanding of how the world should be". (I acknowledge i'm making some grand assumptions here, this is a sunday morning thought experiment)

Now, obviously its far easier to believe that "you'll find a perfect man who'll do everything for you" than it is to believe that "you'll run around in spaceships blowing up deathstars", simply as a consequence of the latter being a very explicit detachment from reality (and while the former is much more implicit, at the same time, I might add, it may quite possibly be just as detached and with its own set of moral consequences, but I digress). But I think that's where the real difference is: science-fiction is an explicitly unrealistic escape from the way things are, whereas most other genres are intended to blend in with out existing perceptions of the world around us to convince us of the realistic possibilities of an achievable fantasy.

Space in particular is coded very deeply in our cultural sense of the unknown and journey, and its often frightening to make journeys alone. So we bring companions: we build subcultures.

<comment><USER5> I'm not really convinced that Jane Austen inspires the same level of fandom that Star Wars does.

There is, of course, one genre that inspires the same sort of crazed-geek fandom as science fiction, and that's "fantasy". Both genres, of course, are based in worlds very different from our own, though not too different (there are always humans or human-analogues, at least in popular examples of the genre). What's more, what these worlds have in common is that they allow people whom the reader considers analogous to themselves to become ridiculously powerful and important in a way that they just don't in the real world. An entire universe is provided for readers to escape into, and this becomes particularly addictive for those who aren't finding much success in the real world.

Now I guess Jane Austen is interesting in that it _wasn't_ originally set in a world all that different from Jane Austen's own, but with the passage of time the world of Regency England has become almost as foreign as Middle Earth. I can see how someone tired of a world where wooing is conducted by misspelled text message might prefer to escape into a world where every girl seems to wind up with a handsome millionaire without trying too hard.

Maybe in two hundred years, American Pie will be escapist fantasy as well. "Man, I wish I lived back in the days where you could have sex (or eat a pie) without having to get a license from the government..."

<comment><USER6> Jane Austen's uber-fans are called _Janeites_ , complete with conventions and "re-enactments".

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

From the Wikipedia entry:

 _Lynch has described committed Janeites as members of a cult..._

<comment><USER7> Rudyard Kipling wrote an entertaining story, "The Janeites." The characters in the story, for what it's worth, are not girls but rather officers and men of British battery at the front in 1917 or so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> American Pie ostensibly takes place in the real world. That's no use to a geeky personality--if a geek wants to get into the real world, he does programming or learns about science or gets into trainspotting or something. But a _fictional_ world means you get to speculate about physics and categorize all the different alien races and starship types you see and so forth, and build vast databases and just lose yourself in what is ostensibly an entire world. This is the type of person who watches Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and makes a mental note of each time they see an Akira-class starship, and then complains when Enterprise comes out because they anachronistically made the Enterprise look like an Akira-class starship. American Pie doesn't have anywhere near this kind of depth of subject--it's just a bunch of dumb teenagers in the real world. (Which is exactly the kind of setting geeks are escaping _from_ in the first place!)

(There's another, largely unrelated appeal to Star Trek and Star Wars: they have genuine heroes. It's very hard to find a TV show or movie today that has genuinely heroic people, it being considered "more realistic" to have flawed heroes.)

<comment><USER5> Right. American Pie is a movie, Star Wars is a universe. Just about every movie or book with an obsessive fanbase is actually an entire universe.

The only obvious exception I can think of is Rocky Horror, and I don't claim to understand that fandom at all (I've never actually seen the movie). I guess it's still much more divorced from the real world than American Pie is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think Star Wars has been exceptional at pulling in young boys. The story line and characters are part of it, but I think the light saber has had an outsized impact on its popularity.

As an eight-year-old in 1977, I liked Star Wars but wasn't a true fanatic (I liked reading sci-fi more, and when I was a teen became hooked on Blade Runner).

However, my best friend who was just a year younger went crazy for 1977 Star Wars. He saw the movie dozens of times and bought every piece of merchandising he could convince his parents to buy.

When I introduced my own son to the original movie at age five, he was similarly hooked. I noticed that the light saber concept seemed to be especially attractive to him. I didn't indulge him on the merchandise, but did spend $20 on Lego Star Wars for the Wii and have rented or borrowed the remaining movies and Clone Wars discs, which he also likes. We also discovered what seems like hundred of YouTube videos showing boys and teenagers acting out lightsaber fight scenes:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4_qTO5Q1do&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4_qTO5Q1do&feature=related)

A few months ago I showed my son the 2009 Star Trek movie, which he liked but not nearly as much as Star Wars. The sword scene on the Romulan drill bit did not really register with him. I wonder if Kirk and Sulu had been carrying light sabers if it would have been different?

</comment><comment><USER9> Science Fiction appeals to the male brain's obsession with structure, order, pattern recognition, and penchant for legalism. You can see a sci-fi movie and then spend hours pondering how to fill in the rest of the blanks in the galaxy that the movie introduced.

Romantic comedies, on the other hand, don't ping those same pleasure sensors.

I think this was one reason why Firefly, though definitely beloved by many, remained a cult show and failed as a movie, it was half story and half mythology, so neither the nerds nor the mainstream could ever totally embrace it.

<comment><USER10> And not the ass-backwards way Fox played it? It seems Fox kills shows for kicks, sometimes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I agree with the other posters who said science fiction creates a 'universe' for the imagination to dwell upon, whereas other entertainments might just create some _characters_ to remember. Also in creating a universe the author can leave many details out, creating the opportunity for debate amongst the fans. People still debate character motivations in normal entertainment etc. but they don't involve the same interconnectednesss and logicality usually (those things are apparent in Shakespeare though, which of course is endlessly discussed).

Anyway what's eveyone's favourite universe? Mine's probably Frank Herbert's Dune novels. I've been looking at them again recently and realised how much of he writing, especially the epigraphs before each chapter, went over my head. He's writing about the deepest trends in human history and behaviour. I thought it was just a bunch of cool scifi ideas. I also love the _Marathon_ universe for its AI characterization though.

</comment><comment><USER12> The underlying answer is that SW, also Dune, LoTR, even Harry Potter, create sophisticated alternate universes.

Those universes have self-consistent rules that are quite elaborate, languages, but also, of course, touch and evoke common mythological motifs:

      * good vs evil
      * father vs son
      * sacrifice of self for the good of others
      * romantic love
      * coming of age
      * the journey of the hero
      * the faithful friend
      * revenge
      * supernatural adversaries

In other words it combines good, well established literary motifs with an intricate, self-consistent universe. It lets geeks and nerds with their well developed imagination completely escape the reality into this universe.

</comment><comment><USER13> I disagree with the idea that "the second and third functions are no longer relevant".

"The second function is to explain the phenomenon like the seasons and functioning of the cosmos. The third function is to ordain and maintain some kind of sociological order."

The second function is constantly being refined as we discover more and challenge existing ideas. The third function is the basis for any civilization. One might be tempted to mark the end of Western Civilization in the 20th century. Hence, the third function must, once again, function.

</comment><comment><USER10> Two things:

Merchandising, and who says it didn't? I encounter _loads_ of cases where American Pie is injected whether it makes sense or not. It's _way_ beyond cult status from how often I see it around.

</comment><comment><USER14> American Pie didn't take off like Star Wars because it didn't make the jump to hyperspace even once.

And let's face it: pie crust is just not built to withstand those kinds of shearing forces.

</comment><comment><USER15> Why weren't there American Pie action figures?

<comment><USER16> I haven't seen American Pie action figures, but it is interesting to note that there are action figures for some decidedly non-SF/fantasy/horror movies. There are Reservoir Dogs action figures, for instance, covering all the major characters, and including sets for scenes like the ear scene (including removable bloody ear).

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Twilight, anyone?</comment>


Facebook Begins Merkel led banning on hate speech and xenophobic comments - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-facebook-idUSKCN0UW25C <comment><USER2> Editorialized title, flagged.

<comment><USER3> It may be A/B tested by the news service. It happens. If you search on google, there are other services reporting this link with the same topic.</comment></comment>


Apple's Watch to Lose - <AUTHOR> http://sandoratthezoo.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/apples-watch-to-lose/

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, I submitted this article earlier with the wrong link.</comment>


Macros in JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://fitzgeraldnick.com/weblog/3/

<comment><USER2> Parenscript already provides macros. You can write in parenscript and output a .js file.

Example usage (taken from the mailing list):

1\. standard with-foo macro

(with-elements-by-ids (mydiv (other "otherdiv")) (setf mydiv.inner-h-t-m-l other.inner-h-t-m-l))

2\. multiple-value return in javascript

(defun divmod (a b) (return (values (/ a b) (% a b))))

(receive (div mod) (divmod 10 3) (debug (+ "div: " div ", mod: " mod)))

Since JS has true closures and a flexible object model (someone wrote a CLOS-y layer for it recently) there is no need to take the JSR way and try and push for a community-accepted broken macro system. Besides, as someone (Jason Dominus?) posted to the perl list, lisp macro's are regular and do not break, unlike every other proposal that uses infix syntax.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, if you really want the power of macros inside a browser ParenScript is the only real choice. I mentioned ParenScript at the end of the post. A ParenScript and Hunchentoot project is definitely on my TODO list for whenever I next have time off of school and work.

I'm sure Douglas Crockford would agree with you and say that JavaScript already has too many nasty and broken features (ie the DOM and "with") but I was just having some fun on my day off from work.

As others have pointed out, the expander can't even survive expansion, and using regexes for code parsing is a poor choice. Maybe, I haven't emphasized it enough, but I was just having some fun and imagining what it would be like to code with real macros in JS. I'm not advocating anyone actually use this code in any of their projects, nor that ECMAscript include simple template style macros in the spec.

That said, I wouldn't mind if someone built real lispy macros into a JavaScript implementation by forking Rhino or Spider Monkey. I'm convinced that this is possible despite the verbose syntax. Check this out: <http://javascript.crockford.com/tdop/tdop.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Proposals for how to support macros in JavaScript are very interesting. I am working on Mascara (<http://www.mascaraengine.com/>) which is basically a type-verification engine and macro expander for JavaScript. However it only supports "hardcoded"-macros in the form of transformations from ECMAScript Harmony (or whatever the next version of ECMAScript is going to be called) into plain old JavaScript.

I would love the hear ideas about how to support user-defined macros.

I notice that the submitted article uses simple string-substitution macros (like the C preprocessor). I think that is too limited and have too many pitfalls. I would prefer lisp-style macros (macros operating on the syntax tree), although I realize it is more complex in a language like JavaScript with a larger grammar.

The most powerful approach would be to allow the user to extend the language grammar however they like. But that is also complicated for the user, because you has to know the grammar of the language pretty well to avoid introducing ambiguities.

A more limited approach would be to allow macro-invocation with a predefined syntax, e.g. _macroname ( arguments ) { statements }_ \- the macro could then define transformations for the arguments and statements. This could support much of what you could want without having to mess with the actual language grammar. It would not be able to support the _- >_ and _~ >_ ideas in the post though, so perhaps this is to limited.

</comment><comment><USER4> These are C-style "#define" macros, not lisp-style macros. More here: [ <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=644956> ].

</comment><comment><USER5> Incidentally, running his macro processor on his macro processing code breaks it. Parsing code with regexps is very, very flaky.

</comment><comment><USER6> Consider <http://code.google.com/p/google-jstemplate/>

"Simple and robust browser side template processing for Ajax based web applications"

While this isn't a macro processor, it actually solves a related problem of management and separation between data (javascript, json) and presentation (html)

Here are the slides: [http://google- jstemplate.googlecode.com/svn/slides/jstemplat...](http://google- jstemplate.googlecode.com/svn/slides/jstemplate.html)</comment>


Standing while you code: The biggest new trend in software development - <AUTHOR> http://sdt.bz/content/article.aspx?ArticleID=60799

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm really skeptical about this idea of standing while coding (even more: walking on a treadmill while coding). Is anyone really doing this and actually producing decent code ?</comment>


Erich Bloch, Who Helped Develop IBM Mainframe, Has Died - <AUTHOR> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/technology/erich-bloch-who-helped-develop-ibm-mainframe-dies-at-91.html <comment><AUTHOR> Great quote about computers: "You have to make sure your technology doesn't take more time to keep up with than to actually use."

<comment><USER2> Desktop Linux in a nutshell.

<comment><USER3> That's not true and it's a disservice to Linux. Ubuntu will work out of the box. So will it variants. Probably applies to current Fedora variants as well.

<comment><USER4> Ubuntu have done really well with 'it just works'; it's the only distro that installs out of the box with the correct Broadcom driver for my Mac Mini. While I could of gone for Arch like I normally do, it was nice for a change to have an installer I can walk away from and let it do its thing and come back to a working machine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My grandfather almost certainly would have known him. He worked in the Poughkeepsie lab in the 50's and into the mid 60s. He led the development team for the IBM 1620. I wish he was still around to ask.

</comment><comment><USER6> What a loss!

</comment><comment><USER7> fuck 2016.

<comment><USER8> reference to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhnUjf2gDWw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhnUjf2gDWw) ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why does 2016 seem so much shittier than previous years?

<comment><USER10> Nostalgia is funny that way. D'you remember how crappy 1988 was? Of course not. Maybe, _maybe_ you remember some good stuff, but anything lousy probably either gets forgotten or attributed to something else.

In 20 years, you'll be looking back fondly.

<comment><USER11> It's been a running joke for 2016 in particular though. I see it all over the place. Every time some musician or actor dies, people personify 2016 in particular as a murderer or such.

<comment><USER12> I wonder if this is just due to the contentz of this year's zeitgeist, rather than to the particular events of this year.

<comment><USER13> I think it started with a lot famous, beloved people dying and we are way more sensitive to it now.

<comment><USER14> but it's so weird, why 2016, and why so many famous ppl dying this year.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Subprime Auto Defaults Are Soaring, and PE Firms Have No Way Out - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-21/subprime-auto-defaults-are-soaring-and-pe-firms-have-no-way-out <comment><USER2> The way out is to stop scamming people.

<comment><USER3> Thing is the people selling the loans aren't the ones who will have to be repaid, so they'll do anything for that commission.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Those of you interested in the gory details of just how shady subprime auto lenders are getting should read this recent report on one of the big lenders: [https://www.plainsite.org/realitycheck/creditacceptance.html](https://www.plainsite.org/realitycheck/creditacceptance.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> That is what you get for giving out risky loans to marginally qualified applicants just because you could charge high rates.

Same applies to the current student loan crisis too.

</comment><comment><USER6> Central banks flooding banks with cheap credit. It is bound to end up somewhere where there is profit from higher interests and then go bust. Why do we keep saving the banks bad loans?

Is there also subprime credit card debt?

</comment><comment><USER7> who knew bad loans to folks with no means to pay for them would ever backfire?

<comment><USER8> No problem, we'll just make more of them and once the economies of scale kick- in we'll be rich!

<comment><USER9> Don't forget to repackage them! I've heard that doing so, and partitioning the resulting basket up dilutes the risk and makes them higher quality!

<comment><USER10> This seems like an excellent asset to insure. You're guaranteed profit unless the entire underlying market collapses!

<comment><USER11> I recall reading an article by someone or other which argued that auto loans cannot be a bubble in the way that stocks or houses have been, because generally there is not demand for cars by people who simply want to flip them for a higher price. Everybody who buys a car is buying a depreciating asset because they actually want to use it, so demand cannot get too out of control.

<comment><USER12> Interesting argument. Isn't the product being "flipped" the loans, and not the autos themselves?

<comment><USER7> Yes, but I can see the argument where its harder to loan out the same vehicle multiple times for ever-higher valuations given that autos depreciate pretty rapidly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Impressive and intricate write up.</comment>


Show HN: MiniHack - Hacker News for iOS (my first app) - <AUTHOR> http://42mini.co/minihack

<comment><USER2> I'm using it and really like so far.

3 requests: Save my searches in the primary nav Post to Wordpress blog. Provide a way to add my blog to post Add bufferapp.com sharing

Keep up great work!</comment>


Ask HN: Complex modulo is a division ring? Can you prove it? - <AUTHOR> The integers mod n form a mathematical ring.  If n is prime, they form a division ring (a ring in which every number has a multiplicative inverse).
The complex integers modulo nr (real) and ni (imaginary) also form a ring.  They appear to form a division ring iff 1) nr = ni, and 2) nr is a Mersenne prime.
Does anyone know how to prove that this is in fact a division ring (other than exhaustively)?  Can anyone ELI5 (or even ELI20) why it has to be modulo a Mersenne prime? <comment><USER2> (Not an expert!) Am a bit confused what you mean "modulo nr and ni" \- modulo Gaussian integers? Then I think "they form a division ring" means the same as "The residue class ring modulo a Gaussian integer z is a field"? as in

"The residue class ring modulo a Gaussian integer z is a field if and only if z is a Gaussian prime."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_integer#Residue_class...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_integer#Residue_class_fields)

There's a nice picture of the situation, just above that section.

<comment><AUTHOR> nr and ni meant that the real part and the imaginary part could be modulo different numbers. For example, the real part could be modulo 7, and the imaginary part modulo 3. If those two numbers are not the same, it turns out not to be a division ring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Can this be constructed as a quotient ring of the complex numbers by some ideal?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't really understand ideals, so... I don't know. I _think_ so, but I think that a quotient ring isn't quite the same as a division ring.

For a division ring, there has to be a multiplicative identity, and for every non-zero element of the ring, there has to be a unique reciprocal.</comment></comment>


Campaign in Oakland pushing for greater control of police surveillance - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37411250 <comment><USER2> "Instead of trying to repair these relationships we are just throwing more surveillance equipment at the problem. We are smart people here in Oakland. We have Silicon Valley right up the road and we just think all these new tools are going to solve our problems but it just doesn't work."

This is a really excellent quote. Technology does not solve human problems. Humans solve human problems - sometimes with the help of technology. Improving safety involves convincing citizens to trust police. Accepting distrust and working around it is not a viable solution.

<comment><USER3> This is at the heart of the principle of Genchi Genbutsu[0], from the Toyota Production System. "If the problem exists on the shop floor then it needs to be understood and solved at the shop floor"

And of course, the more general intuition that people should aim to fix problems not just symptoms.

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

<comment><USER4> I interact a lot with legacy businesses and processes in my job. I think the Genba-based approach is absolutely more effective than others... with a caveat.

After actual process has been observed, understood, and solutions designed on the floor, those still need to be taken back up to be verified with management. In today's tall organizations, what's happening on the floor often doesn't reflect what _should_ be happening. If there's a discrepancy, the reasons need to be understood and worked through. Otherwise you run the risk of overspecialization given the narrow focus of the worker on the floor (in the same way that you might with training data).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I live in Oakland and I would love it if the police had more surveillance tools at their disposal. Of course oversight is important, but the current political climate is far too wary of surveillance in public areas. Many parts of Oakland have issues with violent crime, vandalism, and theft. Often, criminals get away because the police don't have the resources to track them.

For example: Just two nights ago, a crazy homeless man tried to assault me with cinder blocks. Had I not been able to outrun him, I'd certainly be in the hospital. I called the cops, but by the time they arrived, the man had taken off on bicycle. The police couldn't find him. He'll likely victimize quite a few more people before he's caught.

Last week, an intoxicated driver hit a parked car in front of my home and drove off. Cops couldn't track the car. The driver is still out there and still a danger to others.

On a bike ride a couple months ago, a driver got behind me in the bike lane and yelled that he would run me over. Again, no arrest.

The likelihood of being caught is incredibly low, and antisocial people know this. Better surveillance of public areas would increase the chance of arrest and discourage such psychopathic behavior. I'm having a really hard time imagining a scenario in which this cure is worse than the disease. It is other civilians who endanger my life on a monthly basis, not police.

<comment><USER6> I'm not convinced that survrillance tools will cure what appears to be a lack of effort from police. They probably have things they consider more important to investigate than your encounters in Oakland or the thousands of dollars of equipment I had stolen from myself and my startup a couple years ago. I'm confident that all of these things could be solved with data already available to the police, with a bit of investigative effort. I don't think more surveillance in their direct control would help.

<comment><USER7> I live in Oakland as well. The police here are not very good. They been under Federal oversight. There's a current sex scandal (involving a bunch of East Bay departments). We've run through several chiefs in short order. They were completely out of control during Occupy.

Surveillance hardware is just more toys. It's the culture that needs to be fixed. I'd like to see a bachelors degree (currently a GED) and Oakland residency required.

<comment><USER8> As I understand it, police often don't want to live and work in the same city. There's the risk of running into the guy they busted for slinging drugs while grocery shopping with spouse and kids, and avoiding that by living the next town over is an attractive proposition.

Requiring a degree is likely going to skew the racial mix of OPD more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's strange that the Port of Oakland was the driver behind this. Port surveillance for a container port is completely different from policing a city. Nobody lives at the port. Only authorized people, and not that many of them, are supposed to be there. Surveillance is mostly about containers, not people.

There's something missing in this story.

<comment><USER10> The Port of Oakland was the driver for this because it is critical infrastructure and was awarded funds by the federal government to secure itself. I'm not sure that's controversial. I'm also reminded of the sniper that fired on the PG&E power distribution apparatus south of San Jose and the investment that followed.

Monitoring the movements of people in an area as large as the Port of Oakland is actually correct surveillance. Think about it. If you were going to destroy the port or use it to further other goals, the first thing you'd do is turn or plant an authorized person. Literally step 1. You also need to watch merchant crews and activity near the port; surveillance is actually really hard, from experience, and I don't like seeing people think they know what's best like this and opining accordingly. There are valid uses for very strong surveillance even beyond containers here.

That it grew to the city is indeed interesting and concerning and worthy of discussion, but casino surveillance would absolutely blow your mind if you think you have a handle on infrastructure security. The type of stuff people are (probably correctly) resisting in broader Oakland are actually exactly what you want for securing a port, datacenter, military base, and so on.

Bringing the point back to the Hacker News crowd: if it's easy for you to enter your datacenter, shop for a new datacenter. I appreciate vehicle barricades having to be lowered once I present biometrics to enter a datacenter, and you should too. Facial recognition to go on the floor is not unheard of. You should want that. Same reason you should want strong surveillance on a port.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> _The city said it needed an early warning system to give "first responders" a head start when dealing with emergencies like chemical spills and earthquakes, as well as major crime and terrorist incidents._

Ok, then only allow Fire and EMT folks to monitor the cameras and ban all other uses or reporting of the footage. In fact, it probably shouldn't be kept unless there is an active safety (e.g. Fire, NTSB, etc) investigation using it.

Then I might, possibly believe this statement.

<comment><USER12> I doesn't seem to me that having what I consider a reasonable retention period would be too bad, where "reasonable" is on the order of 7-30 days. If a person hasn't reported a crime within that time, then the tapes (or drives or whatever) are wiped. Any shorter than 7 days, and you risk the person being in a state of shock/in a period of "I should report this - no, wait, I don't want any trouble - no wait, it could happen to other people," etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I like the idea of a TEMPORARY city wide footage, say everything not part of an active investigation expunged after a month. It should in no way by indexed by the individuals or objects within it, but instead just the location and time.

If you are solving a crime, a human finding the suspects from the area, and tracking them out through the footage should be worth the results. If you aren't willing to spend that effort than it surely isn't a truly important thing you wanted to get from that data.

<comment><USER14> What keeps foreign intelligence, whether under the direction of U.S. intelligence or not, from infiltrating the system and exfiltrating the goodies?

<comment><USER13> The same thing that keeps the users of the system on the level in the first place.

A good design with rigorous publicly validated (published) oversight.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Very interesting article but the title is clickbait at best and Big Brother propaganda at worst. The NSA is still as strong as ever in Oakland. Corporations are still selling spy cameras and microphones disguised as cell phones or entertainment centres. The population is still distracted by the lottery and by sports and by politics. Big Brother plays tricks where it makes you think you're not being surveilled by 'losing' public battles. But it does not lose. Articles written to make the citizens feel good about the current state of increasing surveillance are likely written by friends of Big Brother.

Neither Oakland nor any other US city has, or ever will, "beat" Big Brother. Not unless there is global systemic change and current surveillance powers are ended.

<comment><USER16> There's literally nothing other than angry Twitter accounts for a three letter agency to monitor in Oakland. I'm sure the NSA cares about the plight of CVS managers whose stores get vandalized in the inevitable riots.

Now, I can see the NSA much more concerned about spying about 35 miles southwest of Oakland.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Over all, I am actually in favor of surveillance in public spaces. If you're in public, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy—I, as a private citizen, could also easily track and follow your public movements throughout the day.

From the equipment catalogue, this seems very alarming though:

> These use radar to peer through the walls of buildings - currently precise > enough to show how many people are in a particular room.

How is that not blatantly unconstitutional? The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed a right to privacy in your own home and that the police cannot use technology to circumvent that right without a warrant.

</comment><comment><USER7> A good article. As a resident of Oakland, I can say that it is well reported+sourced, especially for something from the other side of the globe.

A couple of things about Oakland. The OPD has been under Federal oversight for more than a decade stemming from the Riders cases in 2000. The Port of Oakland is 5th in the US with about 2.2M TEUs of shipping. The local economy has really taken off post-recession. I liked Quan and I really like Schaaf but Dellums was less than a nothing; he actually stopped going in to work.

</comment><comment><USER18> Surveillance can solve a lot of problems. If you have a drone following everyone and rapid response teams you can literally stop crime. You can then start working on analysing all the data and working on pre-crime, ml and smart prediction.

Millions of freedom loving software developers can be gainfully employed working on this.

Let's get real, the average person does not commit crime, nor do they have any real need for privacy or freedom of speech. Are they activists, or protestors? So what use privacy or free speech fo the general person going about life? Why not trade it for the posssibility of improving safety and quality of life for everyone?

It's of course not compatible with a modern democratic state but that's just idealogy. Safety first.

</comment><comment><USER19> > A deprived port city

As a current resident of Oakland I'm not sure I'd describe the city as 'deprived,' but please, do continue BBC...

</comment><comment><USER20> Oh the irony, the surveillance is too much, let's put more surveillance in place.

</comment><comment><USER21> We changed the linkbait title to one of the photo captions (sometimes a good place to look for more neutral descriptions of the content), to which we added 'Oakland' and 'police'.

</comment><comment><USER22> If you want to learn more or participate, checkout [http://oaklandprivacy.org/](http://oaklandprivacy.org/)

</comment><comment><USER23> Beat big brother. But certainly didn't beat crime.</comment>


Show HN: Interview coaching for engineers - <AUTHOR> http://www.helloworldinterviews.com

<comment><AUTHOR> We've had tremendous personal success using mock practice interviews to prepare for technical interviews. We found that by simulating a real interview situation, we felt more comfortable, confident and clear during the actual interview.

We want to scale that. Our vision is to have qualified engineers around the world helping and educating other engineers to land lucrative and challenging tech jobs.

To iron out the kinks, we are offering the Group sessions for free for a limited time. We also would like to hear your thoughts on how best we can help engineers in the job search.

ps - We're looking for highly qualified engineers to coach promising engineers. If you're interested, please contact us through <http://www.helloworldinterviews.com/contact-us></comment>


The game developer, the CIA, and the sculpture driving them crazy - <AUTHOR> http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-06-08-the-game-developer-the-cia-and-the-sculpture-driving-them-crazy <comment><USER2> I had the chance to look at Kryptos out a window, and it is an impressive piece of art. However, the CIA museum on campus is nothing short of mind blowing and was always the highlight of my visits. [https://www.cia.gov/about- cia/cia-museum](https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/cia-museum)

</comment><comment><USER3> Seems like the K1 solution, "BETWEEN SUBTLE SHADING AND THE ABSENCE OF LIGHT LIES THE NUANCE OF IQLUSION", is potentially in reference to his (then not yet built) Cyrillic Projector[1] sculpture and possibly a play on the word occlusion and/or a reference to Ambient Occlusion[2] given Sanborn's direct interest:

"After Kryptos, he went onto a segment of his work where he was fascinated by the way light was projected onto things," says Dunin. "He went out into the southwest of the US at the middle of the night and he'd beam a pattern of light onto a mountain and use time-lapse photography to record it. There's dozens and dozens of pictures. They look like they're made in computer graphics, but they're Sanborn beaming light on mountains."

Given K2 also seems to be referential back to other Sanborn works, my guess is that the clues/keys lie in his other works... Interesting stuff.

[1] [http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles/1/6/8/1/6/7/0/the-...](http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles/1/6/8/1/6/7/0/the- game-developer-the-cia-and-the-sculpture-driving-them-crazy-140188824284.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER4> Elonka has given some great talks about Kryptos, and other Sanborn sculptures over the years at hacker cons like Phreaknic.

[http://www.elonka.com/kryptos/ppt/index.html](http://www.elonka.com/kryptos/ppt/index.html)

She also enjoys cracking the "codes" given out at these conferences, usually printed on the backs of badges, etc. She has a great walk through on how she has done this, which are pretty cool. Layers upon layers upon layers:

[http://elonka.com/mirrors/AOL/Nova1337/tutorial.htm](http://elonka.com/mirrors/AOL/Nova1337/tutorial.htm)

</comment><comment><USER5> I wonder if the Q in IQLUSION is notable, in K3 it mentions:

        FROM THE MIST X CAN YOU SEE ANYTHING Q ?

and in K2:

        X THIRTY EIGHT DEGREES FIFTY SEVEN MINUTES SIX POINT FIVE SECONDS NORTH SEVENTY SEVEN DEGREES EIGHT MINUTES FORTY FOUR SECONDS WEST X LAYER TWO

Maybe the location in K2 is related to the position of the Q in K1 somehow.

<comment><USER6> It's possible, but I think that it is more likely that they were placed there to make it more difficult to crack the cipher via character frequency analysis.

Then again, I suppose there isn't any reason that it couldn't be both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Jim Sanborn's other encrypted sculpture, Cyrillic Projector, is located on the campus of the University of North Carolina Charlotte. It has a lamp inside that shines through mirror-image Cyrillic text so that when the letters hit the building they're facing the right way.

I saw it a few years ago, and it's intriguing. I went on a Saturday afternoon and had no problems with campus security. Not sure what would happen if you showed up late at night.

[https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=35.306013,-80.729261&s...](https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=35.306013,-80.729261&spn=0.001418,0.00213&sll=35.306244,-80.729493&sspn=0.000709,0.001065&oq=unc+charlotte+bu&t=h&z=19)

From a construction aspect, it's cool how he was able to get the letters cut in the steel (it's 1" thick), presumably with a water jet, and then get the panels curved without distorting them.

</comment><comment><USER8> Can we get layout of if you stand at x degrees from statue facing y angle what the text reads. I can't get around the fact that it's curved. There must be a reason that it is curved. Also the x's and q's could mean something like re- placing the organization of the messages to a surface with those angles with x's on one side and q's on the other.

If you overlay the solved messages on the same bent surface with that type of curve you also get different results.

The reason for it being curved that way is if you stare at it from certain angles it is probably several more puzzles (based on field of view). The fourth box is probably made of more than just the 3 earlier puzzles solved but instead by different angle view puzzles. This would of course make it misleading to try to use the first three puzzles to solve the fourth.

</comment><comment><USER9> This kinda bugs me on the binary route. What binary representation is she referring to as being tried. Is it plain old binary with every symbol representing a 1 or a 0 or is it hexadecimal encoded binary or decimal encoded binary.

There's just so many ways to represent binary.

Would that remove any patterns you would normally find?

She is right there's just an infinite way to approach this problem. :)

</comment><comment><USER10> Maybe the angle where each letter sits is important. Since the whole thing seems to cover half a circle/cylinder.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's what I thought. The precise point 150m away seems very relevant. I wonder if anyone's just tried shining a light at it from that point?

<comment><USER8> Exactly, if he made it that kind of shape it's about the shape being the last part to the 4th part than anything else.

<comment><USER8> Maybe the 4th puzzle is actually the whole thing should be wrapped around. And it's not 97 characters but instead the resulting number of characters of all 4 square puzzles?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If cryptography is broken before implementation, then you are going to have to search "before" Kryptos was implemented.

<comment><USER8> Other parts of his work indeed could be missing parts to the equation of the 4th part as well, but if he did so many of these and most of them have been solved on their own. It is probably solve-able by itself without the other statues.</comment></comment>


LInQer Ports .NET LINQ to JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://www.i-programmer.info/news/105-artificial-intelligence/13495-linqer-ports-net-linq-to-javascript.html <comment><USER2> Thanks for the article. Note that join is now implemented together with a lot of other options.</comment>


Ask HN: Buying a new desktop - <AUTHOR>

I am planning to buy a desktop computer to supplement my macbook - which is my primary machine for nearly 10 months now. I'm primarily looking for a bigger screen, an ergonomic keyboard  and better seating posture that comes with a working on a desktop.
I'm new to the US. So, I'm not sure how to go about buying an economical, hacker friendly (works with Ubuntu to start with) desktop. I have done PC assembly before, so I'm open to the idea of assembling one for myself. However, I would rather have the peace of mind of a branded PC for a few more bucks.
Your recommendations? <comment><USER2> sounds like you want a mini-dvi adapter, a big standalone screen, a usb keyboard and mouse, and a steelcase chair, not a desktop computer.

if you want processing power for web servers and databases, get a slice somewhere -- they're pretty affordable. don't buy an entirely new machine when you can get everything you asked for in the first paragraph for the macbook (and the sync hassles that come with two machines). you'd have to buy that stuff anyhow if you got a desktop, why not get it without the desktop?

my setup: three slices, a macbook, 25" 16:9 flatscreen LG in portrait mode. i use the mac keyboard, but have a really comfy chair. there's a file server in the kitchen, but it's left over from an old desktop and is not a speed demon -- it doesn't have any inputs or outputs connected save for ethernet.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. lot of good points.

Apart from the points you mentioned, I think not having to sell a much depreciated desktop when I leave US is an advantage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> D.J. Bernstein (yes, "that" djb) has a fairly good recommendation page, albeit out dated:

<http://cr.yp.to/hardware/build-20071203.html> <http://cr.yp.to/hardware/advice.html>

My advise is build your own: the price may actually be higher, but the upside is being able to select your own components (for better performance, Linux compatibility and an upgrade-ability route for the future - so you won't need to replace the entire computer in two years).

</comment><comment><USER4> I bought my last rig from newegg - parts and then put it together. For my newest one, I went to Frys to buy an off-the-shelf box and was pleasantly surprised that I could get a very powerful machine for $800 or so.

Frys and Microcenter offer great choices in Dallas (where I am) and I'd assume elsewhere if you have 'em.

<comment><AUTHOR> I visited a local Best buy and did not feel their machines were a good bargain. I'll try the local Frys. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Buy a refurb 20" iMac.

I'm working on mine right now, and it really is one of the nicest machines I've ever used.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was tempted to buy a imac too. but new ones are $1300 and up.

How much did you pay for yours and where did you buy it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> if you can wait it out a bit, USB 3

yum!

[edit] aww crap, now it's saying i have to wait till 2010 till USB 3 hits. that... that's longer than Longhorn 7!</comment>


Codecademy (YC S11) Raises $2.5 Million To Teach You How To Code - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/27/codecademy-raises-2-5-million-to-teach-you-how-to-code/

<comment><USER2> Have others gone through their second JS course? I thought the first course was great (albeit a bit rigid) - but the second course was really terrible. Most of the "interactivity" was just hitting enter, and reading another blurb about JavaScript.

Codecademy will live or die on the quality of its courses, and it gives me pause to see them publish an iffy course so early on. I hope they raise the editorial bar as they release the additional courses they've teased.

<comment><USER3> Well I hope they will take this feedback and take that into account. They are new and going to make mistakes.

Hopefully they're testing out different types of lessons on different people and gauging proper metrics.

<comment><USER4> We'll definitely take the feedback into account - we're perfecting analytics that should tell us the same thing. Feel free to email us more feedback!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is really a fantastic idea. Although there was an article on HN recently about not dropping out, I have to say I feel that computer science is a field that requires no formal education to be successful (economically, and intellectually) in.

Also I find something detrimental about college to the individual, and I'm thinking in a individualistic sense.

Anyways, I'd love to see sites like this pop up, and micro grant programs around them to help encourage individuals to build something great.

<comment><USER6> I think you mean computer programming here, which I completely agree with. Computer science is an entirely different beast.

It's one thing to learn how to lay bricks, but another to learn how to architect a skyscraper.

<comment><USER7> Architects can also focus on design, which reduces the need for a rigorous engineering training. An architect doesn't have to be a construction engineer.

For example, Tadao Ando started as a truck driver and became one of the world's most celebrated architects with no formal training: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadao_Ando>

The software world is missing a job title that would approximate the role of a design-oriented architect. There are plenty of software architects, but this is usually a misleading title because they design infrastructure rather than public-facing spaces. The software architect is more like a "software municipal engineer".

<comment><USER8> It's called Information Architect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> America has been discussing the lack of females that code for some time, but I've never seen women show more interest in programming than when they discover this site.

They're really onto something and I wish them success!

<comment><USER4> thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> With the risk of sounding naive or out of place - am I the only one surprised at this idea raising $2.5m? Not that the site isn't cool and well done, but I can't figure out how developing and hosting a site like this, say for the next five years, may cost something in that range.

What would they possibly need that kind of money for?

<comment><USER11> Check out how much Khan Academy raised :

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Academy#History>

Education is the next big thing. Recent public classes in databases, machine learning and AI from Stanford is proof enough that even the most traditional learning ops are looking at the Khan meme very seriously.

If anything , these guys have raised frugally and probably will be a big hit in approximately 24 months from now.

<comment><USER12> The difference, though, is that the money that Khan Academy has raised is donations. They're not investors who are seeking a (financial) return on their capital. Education is a tough space for startups trying to make money: [http://avichal.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/why-education- startu...](http://avichal.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/why-education-startups-do- not-succeed/)

<comment><USER11> Salman had options to go either way, he chose it to be structured differently due to philosophical reasons. There are other folks who are doing pretty well:

[http://www.vccircle.com/500/news/niit-sells-element-k- corp-t...](http://www.vccircle.com/500/news/niit-sells-element-k-corp-to- irelands-skillsoft-for-110m)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I like it, but this space is getting crowded. I wonder how these sites will start to differentiate themselves?

codecademy.com, codeschool.com, teamtreehouse.com, lynda.com, et. al.

<comment><USER14> I thought that initially, but long term it looks better. After all, there are lots of different _book publishers_ in the programming/tech space alone and they're all doing OK. With their potential to reach even larger numbers of people further down the skills ladder, these interactive tuition sites are still at the leading edge of a potential explosion of providers (solely IMHO, of course).

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I participate in the round. Congrats guys!

</comment><comment><USER16> At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I have to say that I _still_ can't use the site due to how they handle keyboard events. It breaks with my normal keyboard layout: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3120338>

</comment><comment><USER17> It's great to see them teach JavaScript. It's a really nice language and lets people do shiny things immediately.

JavaScript doesn't have the barriers to entry that other languages do: it is dynamically typed, already installed and fairly transparently tied into both a UI framework and distribution channel.

I also rather like the interactive approach they take. I learned programming by reading random tutorials and using Notepad, but I think I would have learned faster with something like this.

</comment><comment><USER18> Really cool. Hope they add some stuff for other languages soon!

<comment><USER4> soon enough!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is very exciting for me. I have a communications background, and zero coding experience. (I've tinkered with Wordpress, HTML, and CSS, but nothing anymore hardcore than that). I've started using code academy and it seems great thus far. However, as a non-coder, they do seem to run through a lot of stuff quite quickly - am I supposed to remember everything I learn after I run the code and steps just once?

</comment><comment><USER20> Just playing with it just now. Very cool site, the sign-up is super easy and quick. And you just dive straight into the programming. This more hands-on approach I find better for learning than just watching online videos. Congrats to them for the round!

</comment><comment><USER21> I tried "2/0" operation in the console. If this is for programmers, I think the result should be "divide by zero", not "infinity". But I think the idea of the startup is good and the UI is catchy.

</comment><comment><USER22> Congrats to the team! I've run through the exercises they've posted and I think they're really on to a cool learning format here. I'm excited to see where they go from here.

<comment><USER4> thanks! we're excited to show you (soon).

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for all the comments and votes folks! I agree that Codecademy has a ways to go until they are a really effective way to learn coding, but it's a start. :)

</comment><comment><USER23> This is a great idea, and the site is fun to try. Congrats, and good luck!</comment>


Some Practical Thoughts on Suicide - <AUTHOR> http://fourhourworkweek.com/2015/05/06/how-to-commit-suicide/?utm_content=buffer7da00&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer <comment><USER3> In January, a student from my alma mater flew all the way across the country to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. I ended up reading a _New Yorker_ article from 2003[1] about Golden Gate jumpers and this anecdote stopped me:

 _Motto had a patient who committed suicide from the Golden Gate in 1963, but the jump that affected him most occurred in the seventies. "I went to this guy's apartment afterward with the assistant medical examiner," he told me. "The guy was in his thirties, lived alone, pretty bare apartment. He'd written a note and left it on his bureau. It said, 'I'm going to walk to the bridge. If one person smiles at me on the way, I will not jump.'"_

He jumped. And ever since I read that, I've made it a personal mission to smile at everyone I pass on the sidewalk every day. Not only does suicide have unknowable impacts on all of the people around you, but even your most insignificant actions could have an enormous impact on the people around you. Be good to others -- you never know how much it might mean to them.

[1] [http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/10/13/jumpers](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/10/13/jumpers)

<comment><USER4> I knew her--the days after her suicide were pretty surreal, because I always needed to ask my self if I had just been a little more hospitable or a little nicer that one time, could it have made a difference?

How we act matters.

<comment><USER5> How we act matters, but we are not as a rule inadvertently responsible for the serious medical conditions of others. Suicide isn't a disease of affection deficiency.

It should help to know that reaching the state of being one smile away from suicide implies a profoundly severe illness; the problem wasn't smiles, it was the way we route the ill to the mental health resources they need.

<comment><USER6> In my view it's a harmful oversimplification that suicidal people are simply sick and need to get their mind fixed. I know it's not what you meant, but that's what reflexively rubbed me the wrong way about this comment because I have seen this attitude multiple times from other people who _did_ mean that.

One needs to consider that suicide is not just an affliction of the mind, it's also a product of the circumstances a _normal_ person finds him or herself in. It's not just the thoughts that need fixing, it's the circumstances too. Usually this is a chicken and egg problem: the thoughts prevent the person from fixing the circumstances himself, and the circumstances reinforce negative thoughts. This way somebody can get sucked deeper and deeper into a black hole of increasingly irrational negative thoughts. Even if the thoughts are clearly irrational to an outsider, they are not to the person themselves. Therefore suggesting that they simply fix their mind does not help. In their view their mind is not just what needs to be fixed, it's also the circumstances. We all should do our best to not create such circumstances and to fix them when they exist. In the story of the OP for example, it's fair to say that the behaviour of the professor played a big role in almost causing his suicide. If suicide is caused by circumstances a normal person finds him or herself in, do we not bear a collective responsibility to prevent it, even if it's just a smile?

<comment><USER5> No.

If you or someone you know is experiencing suicidal impulses, you are experiencing a medical emergency. Please get professional help as soon as possible.

<comment><USER6> I did not say that you should not get professional help. You make it sound like it's the same as calling an ambulance for a physical medical emergency. It's not. Care needs to be taken in _how_ to get that professional help, and the story does not end with seeking professional help. Don't "Your mind is dangerously ill. I've called these professionals to cure it." Such a response can immediately turn a person off seeking professional help, the exact opposite of what you hope to achieve. Do "You are in a difficult situation. Here's what I can do to help alleviate these circumstances, and maybe it's a good idea to get professional help to help you deal with this situation." It's always better to convince a person to seek help than to do it for them. Frame it as if the situation is at fault, and it's normal to have such difficulties in that situation and it's normal to require help for that. Do not frame it as a "psychological medical emergency" if you can at all avoid that. If the person does not want to get help you can always call professional help anyway.

<comment><USER5> I'm sorry if we're perhaps disagreeing pointlessly. So long as we're on the same page (as we may have been from the beginning) that significant suicidal impulses aren't something people should be talked out of by their friends, I'm not sure we have anything to productively disagree about.

There are a variety of conditions that can make a person suicidal. Depression isn't the only one.

In some of these cases, the resolution of the problem may involve changes to environment or circumstances. In others, the resolution might be chemical. In still others, prolonged inpatient treatment may be required in order to ensure safety.

What's true in all cases is that the decisions about how to proceed in resolving the emergency should be made by people trained to do it. As you can see from many other comments n the thread, our intuition on how best to help suicidal friends and acquaintances are, at best, unreliable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The best quote on this topic that I know of is terrifying:

The so-called 'psychotically depressed' person who tries to kill herself doesn't do so out of quote 'hopelessness' or any abstract conviction that life's assets and debits do not square. And surely not because death seems suddenly appealing. The person in whom Its invisible agony reaches a certain unendurable level will kill herself the same way a trapped person will eventually jump from the window of a burning high-rise. Make no mistake about people who leap from burning windows. Their terror of falling from a great height is still just as great as it would be for you or me standing speculatively at the same window just checking out the view; i.e. the fear of falling remains a constant. The variable here is the other terror, the fire's flames: when the flames get close enough, falling to death becomes the slightly less terrible of two terrors. It's not desiring the fall; it's terror of the flames. And yet nobody down on the sidewalk, looking up and yelling 'Don't!' and 'Hang on!', can understand the jump. Not really. You'd have to have personally been trapped and felt flames to really understand a terror way beyond falling.

-David Foster Wallace, Infinite Jest

<comment><USER8> The problem is that the flames are real and unavoidable, while the metaphorical flames of those commiting suicide could be some BS easily overcome and forgotten later, like the bad grades in TFA (a lot of the people commiting suicide do it starting with similar BS reasons, not because they are "medically depressed").

Besides, Wallace wouldn't be the best advisor on the matter.

<comment><USER9> You may believe this. I may misunderstand you.

But statements like this are one of the reasons people are reluctant to get help. My problem is bullshit. I'm weak. What will people think?

Regardless of whether the "reasons" or problems are real (to you) or imagined bullshit, people _do_ kill themselves over it.

Don't perpetuate an environment that discourages people from getting help. They're already not thinking rationally.

Which do you think will produce more survivors and thrivers:

"You're problems are probably bullshit."

"You should talk to a professional."

Let the professional decide if it's bullshit or not, and lead the person to the right treatment.

EDIT: removed swearing.

<comment><USER8> > _But statements like this are one of the reasons people are reluctant to get > help. My problem is bullshit. I 'm weak. What will people think? Regardless > of whether the "reasons" or problems are real (to you) or imagined bullshit, > people do kill themselves over it._

How does that change what I wrote? Is it the "to you" qualifier? As if things can't be objectively BS as reasons to commit suicide?

People kill themselves over all kinds of BS and not just by suicide. This includes nationalism, religion, and even as idiotic things as "dares".

In fact Tim in the article even admits about his own situation being BS. And it didn't take some huge experience to make him see that, or treatment, or medication: just a phone call from his mother.

Empathy is understanding that they feel really bad -- it doesn't mean justyfing the causes of that feeling too.

If you want to help people you need to make them see the BS-ness of those things (e.g. a failing grade), not overdramatize them as legitimate life- ending situations for them out of misguided empathy.

<comment><USER10> Objectively "BS"? What does that even mean? You need to get a grip and stop your anger towards people who are feeling terrible. If you don't recognize the kind of imagery (the manly-man imagery) that is typically associated with your choice of words, please take a moment to reflect on it. You cannot say "I empathize with you. By the way your reasons for feeling this way are total BS" in the same breath and have any semblance of actual empathy. You feel yourself a clever wordsmith, I'm afraid, who packs a gun called "tough love".

<comment><USER8> > _Objectively "BS"? What does that even mean?_

It means that as far as things to commit suicide for go, a failing grade in some assignment or a rejection in high school, are not very important in the grand scheme of life. If someone attempts suicide over the loss of his family, it's more understandable than attempting suicide because you were rejected for The Voice.

> _You need to get a grip and stop your anger towards people who are feeling > terrible._

I'm not sure what you are projecting here. Qualifying something is not anger, and I'm not talking to people "who are feeling terrible", I'm talking to people on a HN thread. This is a discussion. It's not very polite to assume things and feelings for the other end.

> _You cannot say "I empathize with you. By the way your reasons for feeling > this way are total BS" in the same breath and have any semblance of actual > empathy._

Yeah, because lots of people never took their friends aside (or vice versa) to try and help them overcome a dark patch, including suicidal thoughts and depression, by putting things in perspectove for them. So their version of empathy is "Don't bother me, go see a doctor and take your meds".

This conversation is like it's taking place in a bizarro alternative universe, when all suicide is caused by tangible chemically induced depression (which is the only form of depression in that universe too), and people never overdramatize their circumstances.

This might be an 21st century American thing, were individuals must absolutely remove any societal and personal causes for their situation. In these parts of Europe we find it OK for friends to help us see clearly what's trivial and what's not, and we had similar philosophies down to the time of Epicurus.

<comment><USER10> Whether or not somebodies sense of depression is triggered by something "trivial" or "stupid", it is likely genuinely causing them distress. Personally I wouldn't pull my friend aside and say, "Hey man you seem down, but the fact that you just broke up with your girlfriend is a total BS reason to be upset". Perhaps we are only differing in the way we like to describe the situation, but your language comes across as being unnecessarily "macho".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The point about suicidal thoughts is that the urge to have the thoughts is a symptom of a disease, a phenomenon that is occurring in your brain. And on top of the other symptoms of the disease these thoughts create their own suffering.

My advice is not to try to rationalize the urge. If you ask yourself the question "Why do I have to kill myself?" You will get answers. Bullshit answers, usually, but they don't look that irrational because of your state of mind. And a lot of the suffering is caused by these essentially fruitless discussions.

Another key point is to realize the impermanence of the mind and of the self. Though it sounds like a buddhist teaching, everyone who survived suicidal ideation knows this: You enjoy live, then you don't, then you do again.

The mind is never static. Finding that reality helps one to get a grip on the seemingly illogical phenomenon on suicidal thoughts.

<comment><USER12> Right, I've had the experience that thoughts can deeply affect my mood and how I feel about life and myself. I wonder, though, why most people seem to simply leave it at that - "some thoughts are bad, be aware of that". Where's any kind of advice on actually dealing with this mind of ours? Sure, we have meditation and mindfulness, and at least meditation seems to be very effective for many things (I don't know enough about mindfulness). But is the mind really such a chaotic and uncontrollable beast that the only alternative is to focus/quiet it (meditation), or to symbolically shrug at the impermanence of its temperament?

We tell people to exercise if we want to get stronger, but the mind is seemingly something that we either try to repress in an unhealthy way (alcoholism and friends), just blurt out/vent whatever it has been nagging us with lately ("talking about our feelings"), or meditate/mindfulness. The last alternative seems very promising and healthy, though sorely underutilized by most people, even the "my body is my temple". But I find it strange that there aren't more alternative (and complementary) approaches that are being suggested, like trying to think more constructively ("positive thinking" being a part of this).

People who see the mind as a separate and wild beast will probably say that the mind can not be controlled. And I would be inclined to agree. But I think it can be _steered_ to some degree, or at least _nudged_.

<comment><USER11> Mindfulness is not enough. For one thing, being mindful of your breathing won't help you a bit when dealing with unpleasant thoughts. But you can start to become more mindful of these thought, especially when not in a formal meditation.

The "observing" of these thoughts alone can improve the situation a lot.

Mindfulness training also improves the prefrontal cortex and thus the ability to control impulses and thoughts. The idea is to evolve the ability to choose to have a certain thought or not.

Knowing what to do is one thing, doing it is another. Meditation can immensely improve the latter!

Meditation is not a sufficient treatment for depression or suicidal thoughts, but it can help to avoid relapses, and it helps to deal with the consequences of recurring depressions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "It was only then that I realized something: my death wasn't just about me. It would completely destroy the lives of those I cared most about. I imagined my mom, who had no part in creating my thesis mess, suffering until her dying day, blaming herself."

I'm sorry, but that consideration just doesn't help. If the pain (or emptiness) is so strong that you just want everything to stop, this consideration is absolutely worthless and unimportant.

<comment><USER5> You're being downvoted, but if you read advice on how to help people currently experiencing suicidal impulses, one of the first things you learn is not to try to combat them with messages of guilt or obligation.

As I understand it (surely someone on HN has more exposure to this than I do; I've lost friends, but not myself experienced the impulse):

The "do's": _listen_ , _empathize_ , _stay calm_ , _be hopeful in tone_ , _vector them towards help_.

The "don'ts": _argue them out of it_ , _get emotional_ , _judge_ , _try to fix it yourself_.

<comment><USER14> This is great advice. While suicide is often associated with depression, because people with major depression are often suicidal, the predominant attitude at the time is often one of unbearably intense anger or anxiety. Getting judgmental or combative is going to increase that.

Also, many suicides involve alcohol (which, in some, produces a volatile state that mixes despondency and extreme anger) and drunk people don't exactly listen to reason.

I think that it can be worthwhile to remind the person that he has friends who'll miss him, dogs to feed, etc. I don't think that laying in with guilt is the way to go. You want to give them images of the people they care about being happy, not images of them being wrecked by their own possible death.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> For those experiencing everything from mild depression to strong suicidal thoughts, I'd recommend the combination of cognitive behavioural therapy, if you can afford a therapist, and this book:

"Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy" by David Burns.

Depression and suicidal thoughts are often rooted in twisted, invalid logic that we don't recognize as such. For example, say that a stranger unexpectedly smiles at you. It would be logical to smile back, and perhaps even strike up a conversation to ask why they're smiling at you. The reasons are probably good. Maybe they're attracted to you. Maybe they just randomly thought of something funny. The risks of speaking to that person are minimal. A twisted, illogical reaction that many of us naturally have is to assume the person is smiling at our expense and that there's something we don't know. We fear what the person will do or say if we do anything to acknowledge their smile. Instead of smiling back, we retreat inwards, wondering what's wrong with us, why we're so pathetic, anti-social, etc.. Two people can experience the same event in wildly differing ways because of how they process them. For someone who is depressed, events that should be good can easily add to their problems.

Cognitive behavioural therapy focuses on catching those thoughts, identifying them as illogical, and deliberately countering them until the thought pattern in a given circumstance becomes naturally logical. In the situation above, you would need to recognize that you're assuming a lot about what the other person is thinking, recognize that the worst that can happen from striking up a conversation or just smiling back is not very bad, and that the potential gains could be very good. I had a fairly low opinion of most psychology until I came across this. It's actually helpful.

<comment><USER16> Seconded. I'm very grateful for this book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Foreword: I do not believe I have ever been in a mental state that could be considered as 'depression'.

That said, I have experienced times in my life that have made me realise that the common views (e.g. you are free to do anything now; it will get better; etc) are false. They all stem from the idea that the individual is selfish.

The worst times I've had in my life were the times in which I tried really hard to be virtuous, to care, to right wrongs.

When I want more than just to 'succeed'. More than just to fix my life. My life is fine!

Bureaucracy, for example. 'Company policy'. It makes me angry and feel as if millions of humans have lost the ability to feel empathy, have been turned into robots. It's not about the fact I can't return a broken lightbulb; I don't give a toss about the 1 GBP. It's about the knowledge that most people don't care about right and wrong. Most people will obey the rules, they will do what authority says, they will take the path of least resistance.

Politics. My country treats the poor as subhuman whilst praising the rich. It fawns over 'merit'; which is really just random chance.

I could go on... basically, what happens when you realise that you're playing a rigged game? It doesn't matter if you win or lose. You can run away and hide. Or you can fight, all the while knowing that your attempts almost certain to be futile.

Once the box is open it never closes. I cope by employing nihilism, but the triggers are everywhere. Every 'intellectual discussion' about the merits of Red vs Blue, about the latest plan to Lock People In A Box for performing something mundane like shuffling some bits around.

And all around, the advice is to take drugs. Think differently. 'Come to terms with it'. Counselling... I don't want that shit. I want a city, a country, a world that treats its citizens well. If not as equals, at least as more than dogs.

<comment><USER18> You can't depend on outside world's behavior. You simply can't . It's just outside of your control so there is no point to worry about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> i tried killing myself many times. every time, something would happen last minute that changed things, and then life seemed to have a different character afterwards.

i started to wonder if i actually did succeed after the first attempt in 2005, becuase life seems so different now than it was back then.

one of the things that finally stopped my suicidal ideation was the belief that i can never actually experience death. i discovered that other people with a background in physics had the same belief - quantum immortality.

[http://markpneyer.me/2014/08/13/how-i-defeated-recurrent- sui...](http://markpneyer.me/2014/08/13/how-i-defeated-recurrent-suicidal- ideation/)

<comment><USER20> I've often wondered about this, but never knew there was a term for it.

In the past, I've been in situations that I probably shouldn't have lived to talk about and often wondered if I really did make it out alive. Or did my perception of reality diverge from the dimension I was in and continue in a dimension where I defied the odds and lived. Thinking in terms of multiverse[0].

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I once had someone I looked up to and admired very much tell me that if he had gone through some of the things I had, that he would have committed suicide. Shortly after he said that, he effectively stole nearly $13M from me. I sometimes wonder if he did it thinking that it would make things so much worse for me that I actually would commit suicide (because that's what he would have done), and I wouldn't be around to fight him for it.

You can't let bad experiences, bad people, and just plain bad luck make you start thinking about suicide. The reality is that most people that consider suicide don't do it. However, merely entertaining suicidal thoughts can be a caustic force in your life, as these thoughts affect every aspect of your life, and more importantly, hinder your ability to move on from the situation that caused the thoughts in the first place.

When your life crumbles, chances are it wasn't built on a strong foundation to begin with. As long as you're still breathing, you have an opportunity to rebuild it.

</comment><comment><USER22> Something I think could help people in these situations but doesn't have much popular support - over-the-counter antidepressants.

It's telling that the author was able to check out a book on suicide, but didn't seek medical help. That would require a) getting past the stigma of suffering from depression b) calling up a doctor or therapist c) suffering through the long mental health wait times that exist in most countries, d) being sent to a CBT therapist, given a self-help book or website e) being referred to a psychiatrist f) finally being prescribed something.

It can be months before a depressed person gets any kind of treatment at all. And they are the last people to have the energy it takes to navigate a byzantine healthcare system, or have a friend or family member help them (many people still believe depression is a character weakness and will punish the patient for speaking out).

Antidepressants aren't all that dangerous, even when compared to other over- the-counter drugs like Plan B. They're not happy pills, they often won't even make a miserable life bearable, but they do give the patient enough energy to deal with his/her problems. Given the number of lives lost to suicide, and the high disease burden of depression, I think the safety tradeoff is absolutely worth it.

I'm aware this comment is going to attract a lot of ill-will and uninformed comments about anti-depressant efficacy/ woo about happy pills etc. so I direct you to read this FAQ first. [https://medical.mit.edu/faqs/antidepressants](https://medical.mit.edu/faqs/antidepressants)

</comment><comment><USER23> This is why I never want to have kids. I deeply resent being born and being forced to outlive my parents (his point 2).

<comment><USER24> Don't think of it as outliving, think of it as continuing their legacy.

<comment><USER25> This doesn't mean anything if you've decided never to have children yourself. The 'legacy' ends with you regardless.

<comment><USER24> Then reconsider your decision. Nothing is set in stone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I have to commend Tim Ferris for speaking out about this. He's worked his brand to the point of steel- making it sometimes hard to see him as a normal human being. I am a fan of his tip and tricks, but I really appreciate that he was vulnerable here in order to start this discussion.

</comment><comment><USER27> One specific thing you can do, that is rather unlikely to counterintuitively backfire like many ideas, is to simply _make plans with some to meet and talk /eat/play_ with no pressure.

Having something planned -- an easy commitment, but not a heavy intimidating responsibility -- gives people a sense of purpose to move foward through their day/week/month, buying time for luck and expert assistance to come together.

This in addition to steering toward professional help.

</comment><comment><USER28> It should be a liberating thought - that you've got nothing to lose, go try something exciting like

      white water kayaking,
      hike the Pacific Crest Trail,
      sail across the ocean,
      challenge yourself at a sport, biking, swimming, climbing?
      take a safe amount of MDMA and go to a music festival?
      listen to some alan watts [1]
      try fresh cannabis [ideally from Washington/Colorado/California], and music

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtQf5kSHKhE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtQf5kSHKhE)

<comment><USER29> When you're feeling suicidal good luck enjoying any of those.

<comment><USER30> That's the beauty of MDMA actually: there's little that suicidal ideations can do in the face of a massive flood of serotonin. It's like an antidepressant that works within an hour and lasts for about three.

It can lead to insight that produces lasting change.

 _Please_ heed this last part: if you choose to treat suicidal urges in this way, tell someone what's going on so you can have support for the following week. The crash can be _dangerous_ to someone in an unstable place.

<comment><USER31> I was not feeling suicidal when I first took MDMA but I had been struggling with depression for years, and the experience was a key step on the way out. It was such a clear demonstration of the degree to which my perception of the world around me, and my estimation of the beauty and worth to be found there, are driven by the chemical state of my brain. I had thought that I was depressed because I lived in a crappy world; that first MDMA experience showed me that I had causality backward, and that I thought the world was crappy because I was depressed. Insight that produces lasting change indeed.

<comment><USER32> This is really a very important reason to do drugs in the first place, especially psychedelics. They show you how much of your reality/perception is based on a temporary chemical/biological state, not what you previously thought of as 'reality.' It also teaches you to 'ride it out' in the event of a bad trip (also a valuable experience). Ironically to some, doing drugs like this can make you more sane.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Actual practical thoughts: [https://web.archive.org/web/20130721062525/http://suicidesca...](https://web.archive.org/web/20130721062525/http://suicidescale.com/)

</comment><comment><USER34> There is help; here are some resources on suicide and depression, including hotlines around the world.

[http://mefiwiki.com/wiki/ThereIsHelp](http://mefiwiki.com/wiki/ThereIsHelp)

Disclosure: I run the server.

</comment><comment><USER35> This article does a great job of highlighting why I can't stand Tim Ferris. Even when talking about such an important, sensitive and terrible subject he can't stop himself from constantly hyping himself up. Every other sentence is still about how great he is, about how he's constantly talking to celebrities, etc. Awful.

<comment><USER36> So what... Better he not be happy about who he is and his accomplishments? I don't think that this suicide post was a big humble brag... it was to address to his own readership a serious issue in his own light. The more role models that follow this line of thinking to their own audiences the less suicides and more awareness there might be as a whole.

I applaud founders/engineers/leaders who speak transparently on the topic. shout out to Kyle at Keen.io for his very personal post in reaction to brad feld's own [https://medium.com/@dorkitude/entrepreneurship-and- depressio...](https://medium.com/@dorkitude/entrepreneurship-and- depression-5c4b19a06d83)

[http://www.feld.com/archives/2014/10/founder- suicides.html](http://www.feld.com/archives/2014/10/founder-suicides.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > In a tragically comic way, this was a depressing realization when I was > considering blowing my head off or getting run over. Damnation! No > guarantees. Death and taxes, yes, but not a breezy afterlife.

Well if the afterlife is terrible, you're going to end up there at some point anyway. So unless your religion says that suicides are punished, I don't quite see the argument.

Pascal's Wager can be used as an argument against any practice that some religion frowns upon, for that matter. If you accept his argument (I stopped doing that many years ago).

EDIT: and though we, in this _realm_ , have no definite knowledge of what the Afterlife (if any) is, there is no guarantee in the Afterlife. So maybe you'll end up betting on Pascal's Wager through all such realities, indefinitely. And who's to say that, even if you have a wider and "higher" perspective, that you can ever be _sure_ of the true nature of reality, and that there is nothing "above"?

<comment><USER37> > So unless your religion says that suicides are punished

Most of them do in one form or another, especially the Abrahamic tree.

<comment><USER12> At least religions like Buddhism don't punish you for an eternal afterlife. At worst it's just "bad karma".

<comment><USER38> No, but there are hell realms in Buddhist mythology, which can be the result of 'bad karma'. They're not eternal, but they don't sound particularly pleasant either.

<comment><USER12> Buddhists bet their horse in one particular lifetime on eventually escaping suffering by following Buddhist teaching/philosophy. Some suicidal people bet their horse on escaping a more immediate suffering. Other than the immediacy of the suffering, their both existential "bets" from the perspective of the author, and so I don't see a great distinction between either strategy.

<comment><USER38> > Buddhists bet their horse in one particular lifetime on eventually escaping > suffering by following Buddhist teaching/philosophy.

Not actually true, otherwise all Buddhists would become monastics, which they don't.

Buddhists believe that positive karma is accumulated over many lifetimes, and negative karma is extinguished after periods of suffering.

In Buddhist thought, it's often enough to simply live a reasonably 'good' life, then you'll be reincarnated into a heavenly realm, or possibly another human body, etc... There are degrees of everything, and very few Buddhists (if any) believe they're going to achieve liberation after only a single lifetime. Even the Buddha was thought to have lived hundreds of lives, eventually culminating with his miraculous (by traditional accounts) life 2500 years ago...

<comment><USER12> Is any of that supposed to contradict any of what I said? I don't see it.

Though what you've written here doesn't contradict my current mental model of Buddhism, I might have been wrong in assessing Buddhist's motivation as universally being about _eventually_ ending suffering. Maybe some are content with a good, pleasurable existence, and not necessarily Nirvana? Though the fact that not all Buddhists are monastic doesn't in itself imply that - <USER2> if being monastic leads to _more quickly_ achieving Nirvana, maybe some Buddhists don't feel that they are in such a rush, at least in their particular lifetime?

> There are degrees of everything, and very few Buddhists (if any) believe > they're going to achieve liberation after only a single lifetime.

That's why I wrote """eventually escaping suffering"""!! I said nothing about escaping suffering _in the span of one_ lifetime. Only that they choose to devote their life to the goal of _eventually_ achieving this "escape". Note that I contrasted this goal with people who commit suicide; people who commit suicide - because of depression and suicidal thoughts - do it to escape suffering in _one particular lifetime_. Hence, why I contrasted this with Buddhism as "a more immediate suffering". I thought my choice of words, to deliberately contrast these two kinds of sufferings, would be enough to get the point across to someone who understands Buddhism (probably better than me). But I guess you were in a _lecturing mood_. Good for you, buddy; we've all got to have hobbies. And web forums are as good a place as any to do that.

<comment><USER39> > But I guess you were in a lecturing mood. Good for you, buddy

Please follow the Hacker News guidelines and refrain from personal rudeness when posting here.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Java 7u40 Released - <AUTHOR> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/7u-relnotes-515228.html

<comment><AUTHOR> This release fixes a lot of long-standing problems with invokedynamic in the Java 7 series. It'll be fun to play with JRuby 1.7.5 on it when that's released later this week.</comment>


Keith Rabois' Homebuying Startup OpenDoor Raises $9.95M From Everyone - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/07/opendoor

<comment><USER2> Pure speculation: this is carmax for housing. Moving is like trading in your car for a new one. They'll start with a focus on buying from the public to build inventory then begin facilitating the end-to-end of sell-to-buy.

Imagine this: I need to move from, say, Columbus OH to St Louis MO (their focus is not on hot markets). I browse their STL inventory online, pick the house I want, sell them my house, click, click, click then go have a beer and wait for the movers to show up.

Rabois has the money-moving chops from paypal and square... I don't see why this isn't possible, aside from the nightmare of paperwork...

<comment><USER3> Founder here. While facilitating the transaction is definitely a compelling product offering and would be very fun to build, it's by no means necessary to make the selling process dramatically better.

The crux of our business is pretty straightforward to reason about: Be exceptional at valuing homes, maintain a low cost of capital, leverage operational scale, and understand our customers.</comment></comment>


ZozzyTV, my Startup Launches - <AUTHOR> http://www.zozzytv.com/ The idea is to allow people to upload their video, which is then displayed on 3 huge screens in Dublin city centre (Ireland, each one is the size of most shopfronts). Any feedback, comments, suggestions? Its been running for 3 days now, and content submissions are just beginning to pick up. Theres a version 2 of the website going to go live in the next few days, so I would love some feedback so I can work in anything badly needed before then. <comment><AUTHOR> The video uploaded to the screens is Displayed on 3 large screens in Dublin City Centre (Ireland) all day, and allows people to request their video be played via sms.

If anyone has any feedback, suggestions I would love to hear them. Version 2 of the website will go live in a few days, and I'm hoping to include any good ideas I hear. Thanks.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is what the screens look like

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/seanodonnell/4106843248/>

What also might be of interest is they are actually displaying a webpage that uses html5 ogg video.

<comment><USER2> Horay!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is a good idea. I wonder if this has been implemented in America.

<comment><AUTHOR> I dont think so, or at least after a lot of searching, I've yet to see anything similar.</comment></comment>


Do you have loud angry opinions about AWS? Me too; I built a snarky survey - <AUTHOR> http://lastyearinaws.com <comment><AUTHOR> For context, this was sent to readers of my sarcastic / informative weekly newsletter, Last Week in AWS ([https://lastweekinaws.com](https://lastweekinaws.com)).</comment>


Uber Visa Card - <AUTHOR> https://www.uber.com/c/uber-credit-card/ <comment><USER2> so it's just another random visa card without any special discount (cashback) on uber rides? Is there any point to this?

<comment><USER3> I'm not an expert on of any sorts. But these cashback values are much better than my current credit card. And I pay an $100 a year fee for mine. This one is free. It just seems a very solid card.

<comment><USER4> > But these cashback values are much better than my current credit card.

The page is misleading — those percentages aren't cash back values, they're for if you redeem as Uber credits; only 1% if you redeem as cash back.

<comment><USER4> My interpretation here of the fine print was incorrect. See [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15567825](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15567825).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How much cashback on a Lyft?

</comment><comment><USER6> US only?

<comment><USER7> Seems so.

``` The Uber Visa Card is issued by Barclays pursuant to a license by Visa USA Incorporated. Visa is a registered trademark of Visa USA Incorporated. ```</comment></comment>