Ask HN: How do you lose weight? - <AUTHOR> Most of us probably have mentally demanding or stressful jobs. How do you approach weight loss without becoming too lethargic or irritable?<p>Alternatively, what's your strategy to maintaining a healthy weight? <comment><USER3> Lots of good advice here regarding diet and meal tracking with MyFitnessPal.

One thing I'd like to add which doesn't get nearly enough attention is _periodization_. If you go on an extended caloric deficit your body will adapt and lower your metabolic rate which result is a small deficit for a given intake and commensurately lower energy levels and activity.

So, my advice is to go on a caloric deficit for _at most_ 3 months then do 3 months of maintenance where you're in caloric balance, then go back to a deficit.

Also, weigh yourself every day, ideally at the same time (for me, its right after I go to the bathroom when I wake up). There's a lot of interday and intraday variance (i've have 7# swings in a single day) so any single measurement isn't important but the moving average is critical.

Furthermore, if you are in a deconditioned state (not having exercised in a while) and you pick up weight training or crossfit, you will likely gain weight in the beginning. Thats OK! Gaining muscle will significant improve everything you want to improve (looks, energy, mood, etc) but not be reflected on the scale.

<comment><USER4> Coupled with this, I found that eating the same stuff helps a lot to maintain a calorie deficit.

The first time I ate at a calorie deficit (it was for 3 months, randomly), I ate the same damn thing every day - a cup of cereal with a cup of milk for breakfast, a lemon zest luna bar for lunch, and a veggie-melt for dinner with an apple and peanut butter snack. It was barely over 1,000 calories. A also had a Blizzard every Friday, extra large, instead of the veggie melt. I'm a 6' male, and dropped rapidly from about 215 to 175. I also felt amazing and slept like I never had before in my life. I also swam a mile 3 times a week and did a little trail running. The diet was the only thing that mattered though.

That's my anecdote for losing weight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Each day:

* Get 80% of your calories from fat.

* Eat less than 25 grams of net carbs (total carbs - fiber content).

Last 4 years experimenting with sustainable weight loss diets, this (ketosis) has been the most effortless and enjoyable method I've found. I feel satieted, I don't have after-meal drowsiness and most importantly, after a few months it's become part my lifestyle, so maintaining it is a breeze.

Happy side effect: I prefer home-cooked food to eating out because restaurant food isn't usually fat heavy.

One resource: [http://eatingacademy.com](http://eatingacademy.com)

<comment><USER6> What do you eat at the gathering in a mexican place, or pizza place? Its not that easy...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Eat more plants, especially green ones. Drink a ton of water. Don't eat anything that comes in a box.

Some less conventional tips:

* no calories from liquid! Water and tea (or black coffee) only. No milk, juice, alcoholic beverages, etc.

* skip breakfast. This is a form of intermittent fasting called time-restricted eating. Hard to implement at first (you will be hungry during the morning), but gets easier over time.

* learn about ketosis and how eat a modified Atkins diet that is mostly plants, meat, and healthy fats.

Food list for plant-based diet here: [https://github.com/DeBraid/medicine/blob/master/plant- based-...](https://github.com/DeBraid/medicine/blob/master/plant-based- diet.md)

<comment><USER8> Time-restricted eating is not about skipping breakfast, but to shorten window for eating[0]. In fact if you move your feeding window later in a day it can bring adverse effect.

Ketosis might be harmful[1]. For some people this might be dangerous[2]

There is not such thing as perfect diet, or "trick" that works for everyone. Problem with diets is that long term results are difficult to measure.

[0][https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255155/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255155/) [1][https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945587/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945587/) [2][http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/early/2014/01/06/ajpen...](http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/early/2014/01/06/ajpendo.00453.2013)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Just started the Keto diet and its working wonderfully so far. (Lot) more info at [http://reddit.com/r/keto/](http://reddit.com/r/keto/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Keto is interesting though it seems like it could be hard with social activities. Have you had any difficulty?

Best of luck!

<comment><USER10> I don't do keto but I do a similarly "limits social activities" sort of dieting.

I just don't follow a diet "strictly at all times". If you're (truly) following your diet 95% of the time and go out every-other Friday (or hell, even if it is _every_ Friday) for a social dinner, 1 meal of 21 or 42 meals isn't going to _completely ruin_ your dieting any more than forgetting to brush and floss after lunch on Thursdays is going to _completely ruin_ your teeth.

If you go out for social dinners every single day it might be a problem - <USER2> that is pretty atypical.

I feel most people could benefit from "following a strict diet 95% of the time" over "not dieting at all because I like pizza during my weekly Saturday D&D nights".

<comment><USER11> Keto relies on being in ketogenesis, which _is_ affected by intake.

You can certainly have a "cheat" meal of higher-than-normal carb intake, but you might get knocked out of keto for a few days. If you cheat every week, you could be screwing yourself out of progress.

<comment><USER10> For keto in particular I'll agree out of ignorance. I was speaking broadly of "dieting makes social occasions hard" which is a common excuse to avoid certain diets. However, even with slower progress, I contend that slowed progress is still an improvement over no progress.

<comment><USER11> Very delayed follow-up, but I wanted to respond: you're 100% right.

Any progress at all is better than no progress. If being able to deal with social interactions by utilizing a cheat day helps stick to the diet -- helping to shutdown excuses, helping to be the "weekend" at the end of a long work week, etc -- then that's a useful model to adopt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I lost 100 lbs in a year just by eating 1500 calories a day. No heavy exercise needed. Just go for a 30 minute to 1 hour walk a day consistently and eat 1500 calories a day or less consistently.

You just have to be patient and consistent. You will lose 10 pounds a month max, so don't try to force more weight loss than that.

</comment><comment><USER13> I focus on eating nutritionally dense foods. That has led to me shrinking multiple dress sizes, even though losing weight was not a goal.

I also walk a LOT. (I gave up my car years ago. Walking is basic transportation for me.)

</comment><comment><USER14> Record every calorie you eat. Set a goal ~500-700 calories under your base metabolic rate.

Once you record everything it becomes clear where the extra calories are coming from and where to improve your diet. Diligence in log keeping is key.

<comment><USER15> Prefer counting as well. At the end of the day weight loss is bound by thermodynamics. All diets are just hacks to help subconsciously tip the balance. May as well cut directly to the root and just count.

Health is a different story and more subject to what is actually consumed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> If its just a few lbs, follow the advice here. Otherwise get bariatric surgery.

Every legitimate long term study of non surgical weight loss shows that it doesn't happen for the vast, vast majority of people.

1) ["In controlled settings, participants who remain in weight loss programs usually lose approximately 10% of their weight. However, one third to two thirds of the weight is regained within 1 year, and almost all is regained within 5 years. "]([http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580453](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580453))

2) Giant meta study of long term weight loss: ["Five years after completing structured weight-loss programs, the average individual maintained a weight loss of >3% of initial body weight."]([http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.full](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.full))

3) Less Scientific: [Weight Watcher's Failure - "about two out of a thousand Weight Watchers participants who reached goal weight stayed there for more than five years."]([https://fatfu.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/weight- watchers/](https://fatfu.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/weight-watchers/))

4) [The reason why it's impossible seems to be that although calories in < calories out works, the body of a fat person makes it extremely difficult psychologically to eat less.]([http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker- pope-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat- trap.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all)) This is borne out by the above data.

5) [The only thing that does seem to work in the long term is gastric surgery.]([http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421028/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421028/))

Moreover, you won't find any reputable study on the web where the average person lost 10%+ of their body weight and kept it off for five years. Not even one.

<comment><USER17> If the issue is obesity (e.g., you need to shed over a third of your current body weight) then I agree that bariatric surgery is definitely an option to consider. The odds really are against you trying to lose that amount of weight via diet and exercise alone at the parent post suggests.

(Considering surgery is certainly a more helpful suggestion then, "Have you tried eating less and moving more?" like they are the first person to ever tell you that. The way different bodies process things is far more nuanced than that, involving so many factors including hormones, age, gut bacteria and heaps of other things, not just will power. The more we discover about nutrition shows how much we don't know about nutrition. End rant.)

From my own personal experience[1] I would consider a gastric bypass or gastric sleeve, but avoid a lapband - all other factors being equal.

Obviously seek competent advice from medical specialists on the matter before doing something irreversible.

[1] [http://www.michevan.id.au/content/adventures-in-bariatric- su...](http://www.michevan.id.au/content/adventures-in-bariatric-surgery/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Simple diet hack of cutting out carbs has had a huge personal impact. Tim Ferriss expands on this subject > [http://tim.blog/2007/04/06/how-to- lose-20-lbs-of-fat-in-30-d...](http://tim.blog/2007/04/06/how-to-lose-20-lbs- of-fat-in-30-days-without-doing-any-exercise/comment-page-10/)

<comment><AUTHOR> He really sells it with that cheat day. Thanks for the link!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> No sugar, No grains. Cutting back on mindless between meal snacking and also quit drinking beer/wine every night.

Basically just that. I'm down 20 lbs and still losing weight and it's been a breeze.

No additional exercise or calorie counting. (Though I was already walking a couple miles everyday).

Actually the first couple weeks were awful as I was kicking the sugar addiction. I didn't lose weight during that period since I was over eating other foods to compensate. But I didn't gain either and I was eating basically as much as I wanted without trying to feel stuffed.

Once I got used to not eating sugar, cutting back on my eating was easy. I didn't have the hunger pangs I used to, and I often have to remind myself to eat at meal times. (Which is crazy for me since I'm a glutton).

I still drink from time to time, and I haven't been crazy strict with it after the first couple weeks, but I'm still seeing great results.

Google NSNG and Vinnie Tortorich, he has a pod cast about this stuff. Very down to earth advice.

</comment><comment><USER20> True story...after popping a button off my dockers for the third time I said "the heck with this" and decided to skip the fast food for lunch, then I embarked on a simple plan.

No fast food, no soda. I weighed a little over 200 pounds. I went to the supermarket after work and bought vegetables, some kind of meat, and decided to just eat food that I cooked, and only drinking water (mostly) and some fruit juice. Some nights I ate salads with vinaigrette for dinner (big ones) and brought roasted vegetables with chicken breasts to work for lunch.

2 months later (and many comments about how I was looking kinda thin) I weighed myself for the first time since I started. 164 pounds. I lost over 30 pounds in two months.

I gained all of it back eventually and then some, then eventually I stayed away from fast food again, along with getting a little more exercise, and I'm around 184 right now, at 5'8".

Moral of the story for me: Don't eat crap.

</comment><comment><USER21> Just adding support to the two other posts. Cutting carbs. My personal experience is that losing weight is 2/3 achieved by how you eat.

Another personally effective method is intermittent fasting. I don't normally eat breakfast, so for me that means skipping lunch two or three times a week.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sounds interesting. Is the fasting something you do every week or just when trying to lose weight?

<comment><USER21> When I'm trying to lose weight. I'll be honest, it's very hard to do without pigging out in the evening. It takes a lot of will power.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Eat the same thing every day and just stick to it. No deviations. You should construct a healthy meal that contains everything you need and adjust the amount so you're on a calorie deficit.

Not for everyone but has worked wonders for me. Really easy as well.

<comment><USER23> I largely do this these days, but learn to use spices and seasonings well. Essentially no effect on calories (perhaps on salt), but wildly different meals even with the same base ingredients.

<comment><USER22> Yes, good point! I do the same.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> As much as I hated to hear it a few years ago, it's a lifestyle choice. Within 10 months, I had wisdom teeth removed and a knee surgery. From this is developed a) portion control, and b) exercise habits (for rehab). I lost 75 lbs in ~18 months.

I found that calorie intake monitoring is a great first step. I used MyFitnessPal religiously because it helps with calories and really exposes nutrition to you in an accessible interface. It also allows you to set goals for weight loss and will adjust your daily calorie intake recommendations based on how physically active you are. It also "gives back" calories based on exercise (and will even count steps for you, or it can connect with your activity tracker, which I do not have), but I didn't consume more than my daily allotment, even if the app allowed me to do so.

With this app (and not eating solid foods for a few days), I've trained my brain to realize that it doesn't need as much food as I was eating. I learned portion control. The comment about nutritionally dense food is also great. Simple proteins and veggies were my primary diet for a long time. Finally, I didn't eat after a certain time (for me it was 20:00). Having that personal rule helped quite a bit.

My second overall strategy has been accountability. I hate "checking in" as accountability. It makes me feel like I've been a bad person if I gained a pound, or didn't lose, if that's my goal. The accountability I find works best for me is joining something active. Find something that appeals to you: indoor soccer, kickboxing, regular camping/hiking group, rock-climbing group, frisbee golf friends, etc. Something active that's scheduled that you can do with others. It's less checking in and more being active together.

Finally, and according to my spouse, most effectively, I gave up beer and other malted beverages.

</comment><comment><USER25> I used to count calories and I still keep an eye on my calories, but I have switched to keeping an eye on carbs. Since I sit at a desk most of my day and I'm still sitting, I try to ride my bike to work and back home for some exercise. So I try to eat and live on the ketosis diet.

I also swim and go hiking when I can. But for the most part, it all comes down to what I eat, and I have since switched to high fat, moderate protein, and low carb. I'm not really losing much weight anymore, but I'm maintaining about +/\- 5 pounds of my current weight.

If you are interested, basically, I lost 80 pounds, but gained about 10 pounds back, and that's where I'm at about now... this post was written 2 years ago, but its very relevant to the life I still continue to live today. [https://mypost.io/post/no-bullshit-diet](https://mypost.io/post/no-bullshit- diet)

</comment><comment><USER26> Just decide to do it. You'll work it out. You already know what you need to know - sugar is bad and if it comes in a package it's almost certainly unnatural.

Take a look at [http://www.marksdailyapple.com/](http://www.marksdailyapple.com/)

If there's one thing you need to hang on to it's this: no matter how starving you feel, you're not going to die if you don't eat something! Your body can go for three weeks and more without you taking in anything more than a few glasses of water each day.

In other words, if you can't eat something natural, don't eat anything at all.

You. Do. Not. Need. That. Snack.

(Personal anecdote: I trained for an ultra endurance event a couple of years back and used to set off on 100-mile rides without eating breakfast first. Once your body adapts, you'll be amazed at how little you actually need to consume to really feel alive.)

</comment><comment><USER27> Every time you eat, take a moment and think about it, even photograph it if you wish. It's easy to eat well all day and feel good about it, to then just stand over the sink and eat 4 fun-sized Snickers as a snack at 4PM. (I've never done that of course)

</comment><comment><USER28> If you drink soda or other sugary drinks, stop that first (or switch to diet).

Then, the only thing that has really worked for me: pick either lunch or dinner, and take 1/2 of the meal (before you start eating), and box it up for tomorrow. Don't get seconds.

I was eating out for lunch a lot, and when I started eating just 1/2 of the meal, I started to lose weight (surprise surprise).

It's not fun or easy to stop eating at 1/2 a meal, but it's a simple rule to remember. After you're used to eating less, you can start worrying about eating healthy foods, etc., but to start with that was too overwhelming. The simpler the rules you set for yourself - the easier it will be to stick to it.

<comment><USER23> I've found a glass of water with a splash of lemon/lime juice satisfies my soda cravings, and is probably better than drinking diet soda. On ice, I can fill the glass a couple times before it loses all the lemon/lime flavor.

Boxing the meals is a really good idea. When I first lost a lot of weight (and finally kept it off), I was usually doing this (though it was stress that had killed my appetite, it wasn't intentional). Once I'd reset my concept of "full" it was much easier, after the stressors were resolved, to maintain that eating level. I allow myself more food now, but I'm also much more active. And when I spent a few months unable to exercise (injuries), adjusting my diet down to the lower activity level was easy (only gained ~3 pounds over 4 months, most in the first month).

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Different things work for different people. I lost about 70 pounds over 10 months in 2006-2007, and have mostly kept the weight off so far. I am about 5'9\. My strategy consisted of eating a good lunch portion every day: rice and meat (mostly chicken), and some vegetables if possible. It could be Thai or Mexican or Chinese or Indian... Didn't matter, so long as it had a good ration of rice and meat. Make sure it's enough so that you are not dizzy from hunger in the afternoon, but not too much so you don't go back to the desk feeling sleepy. As you are finishing the lunch, before each of the last few bites, ask yourself if you are full. In the evening, I had Lean Cuisine and a banana. LC boxes don't have too much sodium, and a lot of them are actually quite tasty (Swedish Meatballs!). You can get them at Target. I always went for the ones that maximized the proteins/calories ratio, at least 15 g of protein for a 300-calorie box. At home I kept some diet soda (0 calories) around to quelch the "sweet-tooth" cravings. Obviously, lay off the greasy stuff and regular sodas. At the Mexican places, skip those items that appear to be swimming in cheese, and also those "refried" beans and the chips-and-salsa are not good for you. At the Thai places, the rice-with-some-meat items are nice; lay off the pad thai.

Bananas and apples are good because they are so large, they take a while to eat, and don't have too many calories; grapes, raisins, and strawberries are not so good because I can eat like 30 of any of them in one sitting and not even notice. They are all "high-energy-density" foods (a lot of calories in a small volume of food). Not good. Once you get to your target weight you can dispense with the Lean Cuisine.

On days that are particularly stressful you might have to compromise, just _don 't go overboard_. Don't eat like 3,000 calories or something. That's actually pretty important: on the days in which you have to take a break, take a break, not a BREAK. Don't kill your momentum. The hardest part is the first two weeks, when you are getting started. BTW, the body adjusts and tries to conserve energy in that second week, so you might lose little or no weight on Week 2. Maybe don't weigh yourself the second week. Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER30> I lose weight with a low-carb diet and intermittent fasting. I eat only between the hours of 11 AM - 7 PM.

I have lost 32 pounds, so far. I hope to lose at least 17 more.

<comment><USER31> I would suggest working out (lift weights) if you aren't already doing it. I lost 50+lbs a few years ago with fasting and light cardio activity, and still don't have the body to show for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Step on a scale daily at the same time in your routine, preferably one that tracks your weight. I have a year of daily data now, which I think is helpful for me to see progress.

<comment><USER33> I prefer once a week. Once a day is... somewhat noisy. (Of course, if you do so once a week, you still have noise in the datapoints, it's just less obvious.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> [https://www.xkcd.com/1744/](https://www.xkcd.com/1744/)

I initially lost over 30 pounds at the age of 20 (gained a lot of weight in college) by cutting soda and processed sugar completely out of my diet. the effect was dramatic.

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm a 26 year old male living in San Francisco who went from 242 lbs, 32.8 BMI to 168 lbs, 22.8 BMI over the past ~12 months by bringing together weightlifting, running, and the slow-carb diet. And I did this while working on and building my startup. Top lessons that I learnt during the past year:

1\. _Pick a ridiculously easy workout routine_ : Losing weight is a confluence of a lot of habit changes. You have to realize that although your entire lifestyle has to change, you cannot do it all in one go. It may take many months of experimentation for you to find your rhythm and get settled into your new lifestyle. But it all starts with picking up a ridiculously easy workout routine. As soon as you start exercising, you automatically want to eat better, sleep better, and in general take care of yourself. It helps if the routine you pick up is so ridiculously easy that it's almost too hard to come up with an excuse to not follow through. For me, this was the Stronglifts' 5x5 weight training workout ([https://stronglifts.com/5x5/](https://stronglifts.com/5x5/)).

2\. _Pick an audacious fitness goal_ : I hate doing any cardio in the gym since it usually gets too hot and stuffy for me. Around this time I came across this NYTimes post: How To Start Running ([https://www.nytimes.com/well/guides/how-to-start- running](https://www.nytimes.com/well/guides/how-to-start-running)), and I cannot thank the author enough for effectively introducing me to a form of cardio that I actually love. In April 2016, I gave myself 4 months to train for the San Francisco Half Marathon held near the end of July. That's, couch to 13 miles in 4 months. It's good to have an audacious goal, and it's absolutely necessary for you to put down that non-refundable fee and make a concrete mental commitment to go through the distance. I like "finishing a long distance race" as a goal since whether you finish or not is very binary and very public. You can't make excuses, unlike other metrics. Of course, the best cardio workout for you is the one that you actually end up doing. Running outside is the only cardio that I happily look forward to.

3\. _Compliance, Discipline, Patience_ : Another thing that I started in parallel in March 2016 was the Slow Carb Diet that a lot of you may have read about somewhere on the web. Tim Ferriss introduced it in his book The 4-Hour Body, and although it's not radically new, I think Tim's genius lies in realizing that it is the easiest diet regime to stick to compared to any other low-carb plan. There are a bunch of summaries around the web, but when I read the book a long time ago, I made some notes and put them up here: ([https://www.commonlounge.com/discussion/62384879d50b4a8b80bf...](https://www.commonlounge.com/discussion/62384879d50b4a8b80bf5c729323f753/main)). Go read it, and follow it to the letter. This is important. You have to go all in for 6 days a week and make no excuses, or this won't work. You'll be tempted to abandon this diet, or abandon getting fit altogether. You'll hit plateaus every few months, but despite that, I saw a consistent 1.5 lbs per week loss for a whole year.

If you have any questions, I now also run the Fitness community on Commonlounge ([https://www.commonlounge.com/community/bf228e76c54c479c92ff0...](https://www.commonlounge.com/community/bf228e76c54c479c92ff0abb0dcb14b9)) (I'm one of the cofounders). If you like this, come say hi and jump in the discussions there.

</comment><comment><USER36> myfitnesspal or similar - track what you eat then learn to make trade off's like a sweet at 100cal vs 200cal

<comment><USER24> what i love about myfitnesspal is how it helps with overall nutrition. it reminds about fats, sodium, carbohydrates, etc.

<comment><USER36> the hard part is logging a bad day

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I went on Nutrisystem for a month as I needed a "reset." Our kitchen counters were topped with snacks and candy, and I had fallen into the habit of mindlessly snacking every evening. Plus, I like to eat! :) At my heaviest I was 254 lbs - I'm 40 years old and 6' 2".

Nutrisystem (or any other "crash" type of diet) is painful. You crave food. But what's going on during this time is your body is getting over its sugar addiction, and learning to require less food.

When that period was over, I went to a diet of approx. 2,000 calories a day. 500 calories in the morning, 500-700 calories at lunch, same for dinner. No more sweets, except for a treat on Friday. No more snacking - after dinner I'm done eating. If I'm truly ravenous later in the evening I get an apple.

That's the discipline and habit part. Next is the mental, because it's easy to backslide. Plus, our own bodies may be fighting to regain the weight! [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser- weig...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight- loss.html)

This is where I have to look at the opportunities to overeat and say no, every time, but ALSO to ask myself "what particular need, or hole, is this trying to fill?" The way I figure, the chronic overeating was me trying to fill a hole in my soul, so to speak, to fix something broken in my psyche by engaging in indulgent behaviors that feel good at the time. But, as future self will always tell you after a night of hard drinking, "now I feel worse, thanks jerkwad!"

So, basically, you gotta do the mental work as well. Figure out your hole - what does the food do for you that life does not?

Finally, exercise! When I first started I was "running" a little under 2 miles. Really, it was running a few blocks, then walking half a block, then repeat. I decided to go on a hiking trip with some friends in July, and figured I needed to be running straight for at least 4 miles by then to be in shape. To date I'm up to a little over a 5k, no walking. I got a bike, and I'm trying to get in at least 15 miles a week. Nothing crazy. Lastly, if you're strapped for time like I am with a wife and kid at home, the 7 minute workout is great for busting out a quick workout with nothing more than a chair and a place to do some calisthenics. It's HIIT, and helps with flexibility, strength training, and cardio - plus it's only 7 minutes.

For me, I'm just going for getting in some type of exercise at least 4-5 days a week. Once again, the mental plays a part here, because when you get home from work, exercise is often the last thing you want to do. I've noticed though, that as I get into better shape, it's the first step, or jumping jack, that's the hardest - after that I actually start to enjoy it. :)

Currently: 231 lbs. (and still going - I look for opportunities to eat less, instead of more. I want to go about 20 lbs more)

Disclaimer: obviously this is my experience, and won't work for everyone. But, I do believe that it's the attention to how much is going into your body, doing the mental work, and exercising that will make a difference for anyone.</comment>


Replacing Judgment with Algorithms - <AUTHOR> https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/01/replacing_judgm.html <comment><USER2> Schneier makes a startling claim:

 _It 's already illegal for these algorithms to have discriminatory outcomes, even if they're not deliberately designed in. This concept needs to be expanded. We as a society need to understand what we expect out of the algorithms that automatically judge us and ensure that those expectations are met._

Schneier is discussing an unpleasant fact; unbiased algorithms often discover that things we previously attributed to bias were actually unbiased predictors. But we don't like to admit this, so we instead make silly statements like the above.

If we want to mandate the outcome of our decision process, let's just do that openly and honestly. E.g. for credit, just impose a quota of credit that must be issued to each protected class.

If we want fair and unbiased decisions then we need to instead examine the internals of our process and accept the outcomes, whatever they may be.

But we need to stop pretending we can do both.

<comment><USER3> > Schneier is discussing an unpleasant fact; unbiased algorithms often > discover that things we previously attributed to bias were actually unbiased > predictors. But we don't like to admit this, so we instead make silly > statements like the above.

There is a legitimate question as to whether an algorithm is actually unbiased. It could be quite accurate or there could be a bias, e.g. because the algorithm penalizes drug convictions and drug convictions have an unjustified bias due to racist or sexist enforcement.

The problem is it isn't a simple question to answer. And people are going to want to choose their answer based on their politics.

But that can't work. We can't let a black box take discriminatory inputs and expect it to produce a just result. We also can't just assume that every unequal outcome had an unjust cause, or we'll end up e.g. causing loans to be given to uncreditworthy people and wrecking the economy (see also housing crash).

Which means that Schneier is wrong about quotas but exactly right that what we need is transparency. Because _if_ there _is_ unjustified bias then we need to understand why so we can prevent it, and if there _isn 't_ then we need to understand why so we can accept it.

<comment><USER2> Consider your drug conviction example, and lets say the algorithm is linear regression so I can give a very simple explanation.

The model will then be FICO = stuff + (-1) x (drug conviction).

I.e., your FICO score is lowered by 1 point if you've been convicted of drug use.

If you are correct, some enterprising quant can take your hypothesis. He can then rerun his regression with (drug conviction, black) and (drug conviction, white) as variables. If your hypothesis is correct the result will be:

FICO = stuff + (-0.5) x (drug conviction, black) + (-1.5) x (drug conviction, white).

This is because the bias in drug convictions makes it less predictive for black people.

If you are wrong the coefficients will be equal [1]. If you are right he just made millions of dollars for the bank he works for and probably added $100k to his bonus.

What you are discussing is strictly a statistics problem.

[1] For examples of this type of analysis on social indicators (I don't know of any on credit allocation), see these papers: [https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/www/external/labor/sem...](https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/www/external/labor/seminars/adp/pdfs/adp_ajph.pdf) [http://egov.ufsc.br/portal/sites/default/files/anexos/33027-...](http://egov.ufsc.br/portal/sites/default/files/anexos/33027-41458-1-PB.pdf) [http://ftp.iza.org/dp8733.pdf](http://ftp.iza.org/dp8733.pdf)

<comment><USER3> You're essentially making an argument from the efficient market hypothesis:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient- market_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis)

In other words, the algorithm won't be biased because there is a buck to be made by removing the bias.

But the efficient market hypothesis is weird. It's kind of like Schrodinger's Cat. If you can find some specific instance where it's wrong and publish it then the market corrects itself, so if you observe a bias then it ceases to exist. So now on one hand, we know that biases can exist because people have discovered them in the past; it's just that _those_ biases have already been published and are being taken into account. We can speculate that more exist but we don't know what they are. On the other hand, maybe now we've finally found them all (or the remaining ones are negligible) and the efficient market hypothesis becomes true.

But notice that the thing to do if you believe the efficient market hypothesis is wrong in a particular case is clear. _Prove it_ , because you'll be able to make a lot of money by making the world more just.

Which is why we need transparency. Because the market participants can't find the bias if they don't have the information, and then the efficient market hypothesis will certainly be false.

<comment><USER2> I made no claims about the EMH. My only claim is that if bias like what you describe exists, it's something that statisticians rather than politicians need to identify and fix, and that the statisticians in the position to fix it have perfect incentives to do so.

Politicians have neither the ability nor incentive.

Similarly, if someone were claiming that we need political oversight of UI/UX choices, and that American web pages need more red/white/blue to improve conversion rates, I'd suggest that this is a job for web designers rather than politicians. I'd also say that if you just want red/white/blue designs for patriotic purposes, you should openly advocate for that and not talk about conversion rate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Paraphrasing Sussman-Minsky story [1], just because you rely on judgement does not means there is no algorithm, it's just that you don't know what the algorithm is. In a country like China with rampant corruption, Algorithms are a welcome relief. Schneier having never faced any kind of corruption at individual level completely ignores this giant problem. While the exact details of the algorithm might be debatable, yet having an algorithm as opposed to corrupt bureaucrats making arbitrary decisions is a welcome step.

[1] "So Sussman began working on a program. Not long after, this odd-looking bald guy came over. Sussman figured the guy was going to boot him out, but instead the man sat down, asking, "Hey, what are you doing?" Sussman talked over his program with the man, Marvin Minsky. At one point in the discussion, Sussman told Minsky that he was using a certain randomizing technique in his program because he didn't want the machine to have any preconceived notions. Minsky said, "Well, it has them, it's just that you don't know what they are." It was the most profound thing Gerry Sussman had ever heard. And Minsky continued, telling him that the world is built a certain way, and the most important thing we can do with the world is avoid randomness, and figure out ways by which things can be planned. Wisdom like this has its effect on seventeen-year-old freshmen, and from then on Sussman was hooked."

<comment><USER5> Regarding the Sussman story, it made it into a Hacker Koan

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_koan#Uncarved_block](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_koan#Uncarved_block)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article is mainly about algorithms used by the government for surveillance and control. Bad stuff, of course.

But in general, I think algorithms are something to embrace rather than fear:

Even very simple algorithms reliably outperform experts by a large margin, in certain domains: [http://lesswrong.com/lw/3gv/statistical_prediction_rules_out...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/3gv/statistical_prediction_rules_outperform_expert/)

Despite this, humans are heavily biased against algorithms. Even when we know they perform much better than humans. We also tend to vastly overestimate human performance: [http://lesswrong.com/lw/lsc/link_algorithm_aversion/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/lsc/link_algorithm_aversion/)

This has a lot of consequences. Humans are terribly biased, and often aren't even aware of our biases. Not just stuff like race, but even people that are ugly are heavily discriminated against: [http://lesswrong.com/lw/lj/the_halo_effect/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/lj/the_halo_effect/) We discriminate against people of different political parties even more than we do based on race: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate- anything...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything- except-the-outgroup/) Or just random factors we can't predict. Nothing about being judged by a human is "fair".

And beyond fairness, they just give better predictions. Humans just aren't very good at prediction, even when we think we are. And in some domains that's extremely important, like in medicine. The first link referenced several places where statistical methods did better at diagnosis than doctors who specialized in it. Yet there has always been massive resistance to using algorithms in diagnosis.

<comment><USER7> > I think algorithms are something to embrace rather than fear

He has the same sentiment in his article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Replacing judgment with algorithms has always been part of bureaucracy.

Once encoded as programs, though, they have a chance -- however unlikely, and still not without flaws -- of being audited either by the public or at least by independent auditors.

<comment><USER9> Why do you supposed that programs written in a programming language will be audited more effectively than programs written down on paper?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> A large part of our lives is already devoted to gaming the human judgement system. The clothes we wear, the way we speak, the way we walk. Who we associate with - "Associate with deadbeats, and you're more likely to be judged as one." \- has always happened in real life too. Women wear makeup to work to game the judgement system and men try to show off their confidence. All just to try to influence how other people see them.

So adding computers isn't really a big deal. It's already a major part of our daily lives and efforts.

</comment><comment><USER11> I think we can probably get transparency and ethics built into the algorithms. But I think we'll have a much harder time controlling how pervasive and intrusive the algorithms are. And as a result, our behavior will be more effectively controlled by corporations and governments.

</comment><comment><USER12> If any such algorithms are going to be built, it better be open source or be able to explain to me how it arrived on that judgment. I am not going to trust some blackbox on this.

</comment><comment><USER13> Dupe: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10864933](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10864933)

<comment><USER14> calling attention to a story without upvotes or comments isn't very useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> There's already very active mathematical work in this area. See fatml.org . I appreciate jeremy kun calling this out in Schneier'so comments.

</comment><comment><USER16> >The first step is to make these algorithms public. Companies and governments both balk at this, fearing that people will deliberately try to game them, but the alternative is much worse.

This needs a lot more than the one sentence given to justify. How do we know that an open source security algorithm will be better? The justification isn't powerful enough for the claim.

<comment><USER17> It seems to me that the whole article is about proving this point.

Relevant quotes:

> The secrecy of the algorithms further pushes people toward conformity. If > you are worried that the US government will classify you as a potential > terrorist, you're less likely to friend Muslims on Facebook.

> If you know that your Sesame Credit score is partly based on your not buying > "subversive" products or being friends with dissidents, you're more likely > to overcompensate by not buying anything but the most innocuous books or > corresponding with the most boring people.

> Uber is an example of how this works. Passengers rate drivers and drivers > rate passengers; both risk getting booted out of the system if their > rankings get too low.

> Many have documented a chilling effect among American Muslims, with them > avoiding certain discussion topics lest they be taken the wrong way.

<comment><USER16> Those are trying to establish a loss from having these algorithms. They don't show whether the benefits of open source outweigh the costs. That part only seems to be handwaved in the sentence I quoted.

<comment><USER17> I think you're being unfair. The author has given us many clear issues with closed source algorithm that would not exist with open source algorithms.

Showing that the benefits _outweigh_ the costs would require a model of the impact the (closed or open) algorithmic judgments on the society, and thus a model of the society itself.

Such model would inevitably be subject to even more subjectivity and discussions.

If you're not buying it, it's your choice, and you may even be right. But that doesn't make the whole argument unreceivable. Instead, you should mention the benefits of closed source algorithms for the society, they're not that obvious to me.

<comment><USER16> "the alternative is much worse."

That's a definite statement, and shouldn't be made without such a model. If you only have handwavey models, you can't claim one is "much worse" than the others. The level of confidence isn't justified. I'm fine with a list of possible bad outcomes, but don't claim way A is much worse than way B without stronger evidence.

>Instead, you should mention the benefits of closed source algorithms for the society, they're not that obvious to me.

One is mentioned in the part I quoted: that they're harder to circumvent. This isn't the same as regular security software where they theoretically are secure, but practically have holes, and so there's gains by opening it up and letting people report holes. There would be no theoretical security model here, it would only be probabilistic. There may not be a "patch" for the kind of holes (I'll give an example soon). So security by obscurity might make more sense here than in general.

Example: suppose our data shows that people that drive car X have a greater security risk. If this is kept secret, we are able to more effectively target people (probably, many different factors will combine until someone is an extreme risk, but this is simplified.) The fact that X is weak evidence of risk is information that becomes useless relatively soon after it is publicized (because potential terrorists just put "don't buy X" on their checklists.) So publicizing the algorithm would concretely lead to worse results.

Realistically, car model probably isn't too predictive, but possibly the union of all behaviors that are easy to change when known predicts risk reasonably well.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Pricing SaaS based on how much it cost to develop? - <AUTHOR> I'm trying to make sure that pricing for a SaaS is correct.
Is there anything like finding a price based on how much it cost to develop the service?
For instance, if it cost 500K, $100/mo. at a minimum, or things like that? <comment><USER2> No! That is not really how most people calculate how much to charge for a SaaS product. Usually, it comes down to two things.

First, what's the total per-user cost? That includes, servers, storage and even the user acquisition cost. i.e. ads. Second, what is the product worth to the user in terms of it solving their problems. For example, if the product costs $10 and it saves them between $100 to $500 per month. It's something they will likely be fine with. Simply put, it's about the cost-to-value for the customer. How much are they willing to pay to solve their problem. It can be a $1 or even $1000 per-month.

I would advise you to research your potential customers and find out these things for yourself.

Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your reply. I'm aware of how you price things, but I'm also aware that often amateurs (like me in the SaaS world) tend to underprice things. That's why I thought I could see if this was possible to make sure I didn't pick too low a price.

<comment><USER2> You're right, in that people starting out usually end up undercharging for their product. Though, all I can say without anymore information about your individual case. Is, to take what you find the cost should be and then double it. And if you can, run a A/B test while you increase your products cost to see if people are willing to pay the higher amount. And, if they are. Then increase the price until you find an equilibrium for your product where you don't lose customers because of too high of a cost. But, where you don't either undercharge for it.

Finding this balance will require some work. But, using analytics and A/B testing should help guide you towards the right price point.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks.

I think I'll just do that.

Actually read Amy Hoy saying to double the price you have in mind and that's the correct price, but I'm still afraid to undercharge even with that.

I'll start with doubling and then do A/B testing.

Thanks for your help.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Price is based on the value. If you are unsure of the value, ask. Or 3x cost and find the metrics for your break even point then charge that. (# users * $$ * Months) = B/E

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks.

I'll definitely do some research to find out how much people value the service, but I also want to make sure not to undercharge.

After how long is usually break even? 1 year?

Thanks for you help.</comment></comment>


It's not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works. - <AUTHOR> http://uxdesign.smashingmagazine.com/2013/10/23/smart-transitions-in-user-experience-design/

<comment><USER2> I disagree, engineering is how it works, design is about interaction between the user and tech-object. People nowadays tend to put too much emphasis on design vs. engineering, without design you have a bad working tech-object, without engineering you have no tech-object at all.

Don't think that I regard design as non important, I think both have their place in inventing and manufacturing.

<comment><USER3> On the flip side, without design, you have a technical product that doesn't solve a problem that the user has.

Design doesn't need engineering. Design can even (in the extreme case) be done to a process that requires no technology at all.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, looking pretty... lol...</comment></comment></comment>


Does people still use RSS? - <AUTHOR>

I've been wondering lately if people are still using RSS? Somehow email always prevail other communication and notification platforms.<p>Do you still use RSS? <comment><USER2> As a developer and blogger I still use RSS quite a lot, but I suspect I'm on the very edge of edge cases these days.

\- I use Feedly multiple times a day to see what's happening in the world. My account is subscribed to many different sites and a few aggregate sources (like Hacker News, various subreddits, planets, etc)

\- I publish a RSS feed [on my blog]([https://thepcspy.com](https://thepcspy.com)). While the site traffic has held fairly steady (with a few popular articles recently), the number of RSS subscribers has died off. This could just be the ilk of Feedly killing off stats because they cache so hard.

\- My blog is syndicated on Planet Ubuntu through a full-content RSS feed. Many planets only know how to deal with RSS.

\- I have several bots that consume remote, live data through RSS... Although the format could be anything. People seem to be moving to JSON because it is much easier to handle in native languages (and client side).

\- Several client sites also make RSS feeds available through services that also allow email subscription.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks for the answer!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I am building [https://www.rdrbot.com](https://www.rdrbot.com) to (among other sources) aggregate RSS feeds. So far 100+ RSS feeds have been setup most are fairly active.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks I'll check it out!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Of course they do.</comment>


Ask HN: Is this a security concern on the Atlassian single sign-on? - <AUTHOR> If you try to login to [1] Atlassian with an email that isn't on their system, it will present a signup form.<p>[1] https://id.atlassian.com/login<p>Doesn't that mean someone could run through and check if accounts exist for certain emails, then try a bunch of commonly used passwords... or worse run through leaked email/password combinations... <comment><USER2> Exposing whether an account exists is a risk, but the alternative is also a hard problem to solve. Sign In screens could throw a generic error that doesn't reveal whether it was the email address or password that was incorrect, but what about registration flows?

If users can sign up and register to your system, it's harder to offer a slick user flow without revealing that an account already exists. One way to achieve this is to only capture the user's email address, send them an email, and they complete the rest of the sign up process as a second stage. A user who already has an account gets sent an email stating that an account already exists.

As a business I assume they've decided that the risk of exposing whether an account exists was worth it in exchange for a better user experience.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the explanation. But I would think a generic error would be more secure, as it reveals less information. It's also what most systems implement.

Yes, the signup flow is an important part of any system, I think an ideal solution is make the feedback of wheather an account exists much longer. So they need to fill in a registration form, before they get feedback on wheather the email exists.

Anyway, in the end I guess it's a UX decision with trade-offs either way.</comment></comment>


Why I quit a $500K job at Amazon to work for myself - <AUTHOR> https://www.indiehackers.com/@dvassallo/why-i-quit-a-500k-job-at-amazon-to-work-for-myself-36639e3975 <comment><USER2> We have saying in Czechia along the lines "he is dissatisfied because he has it too good".

I've had friend of a friend like this who ended up in suicide, because he was unable to replicate his success in big company.

I wish him luck regardless.</comment>


How RIM's PlayBook Could Have Succeeded - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/06/rim-playbook/

<comment><USER2> Is anyone here going to develop for this thing? I should think after iphone, ipad, android, palm, regular blackberryOS devs and maybe windows phone7, devs will have their hands plenty full. Can people really take on this totally new OS? Or will it only be the big companies that do it (ie. playbook won't get many apps built)</comment>


New Zealand Made Trolling Illegal Last Month - <AUTHOR> http://www.vice.com/read/new-zealand-makes-trolling-illegal-0000704-v22n8

<comment><USER2> As G.K. Chesterton once said, "They might make it illegal, but they'll never make it unpopular."

This law is destined to be abused and misused. Look at Poe's Law: you can't tell the difference between extremism and very advanced sarcasm or parody.

<comment><USER3> Can we restate that in an "Arthur C Clarke" way?

      "Sufficiently advanced sarcasm and parody are indistinguishable from extremism."</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How can I get started with an open source project? - <AUTHOR>

I am sure lots of you are involved with one or more open source projects. How did you get started? Did you start the project or join in?<p>Thanks, <comment><USER2> Starting a project is a very different experience from joining an existing one, what is your motivations?

By the fact you asked this question I am guessing you have heard it is good learning experience / opportunity to work on open source, if so then joining an existing project is what you want to be doing. There is no lack of thousands of single author open source github, they often server a practical purpose for their author but you rarely learn something new (past technical questions) by working on a project by yourself.

Look at the software you use day to day, find out whether they are open source, pick out the ones that are closely aligned with your skillset and ones that you enjoy the most. If you find you dont have much choice after that, look at alternatives to the software you use, it will very often have an open source alternative.

Once you have found a project, Join the community, thats generally the mailing list and an IRC channel. Look through their bug tracker, often projects will label their bugs as 'goodfirstbug', they will almost always need help with triaging / reproducing bugs and improving bug reports and often with documentation and the like.

When you start doing this introduce yourself to the community, say you would like to get involved and ask for guidance, good open source projects will usually have people that are very happy to help out newcomers to get acclimatised .

Dont expect to join a project and make sweeping changes or redesign a bunch, you will often need to become familiar before you understand the project dynamics.

Good luck :)

<comment><USER3> This response helped. I myself am faced with a similar problem. I like cryptography so I learnt it and implemented it in some self-developed applications. But all i was doing was using API's/libraries/modules written by someone else. I wanted to be a part of the API creation/maintenance process which is actually just being part of some open-source projects. I am going to try the approach mentioned by you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wanted to get started in the open source community by contributing to some well established ones out there. I went with Mozilla Firefox. Signed up on their "Help" page and was contacted by a mentor in a couple of days time.

I was able to patch one bug successfully and while I created another patch for another bug, the owner of that specific module rejected the patch. And he/she wasn't too civil about it. That was offputting really.

After pondering a bit, I realised that there was a need for another GUI for PostgreSQL based on my own experience with the default GUI tool bundled with postgres.

I created pgXplorer (<http://pgxplorer.com>). I am extremely satisfied with it. So far some 16 watchers and about a 1000 uniques in 20 days. I am thinking of adding some killer features that will really set it apart from the current open source GUI tool out there.

</comment><comment><USER5> Here's a place that teaches you about joining, giving nice experience for when you start your own: <http://openhatch.org/></comment>


Draw Your Breast App - How's your Boobs looked like? - <AUTHOR> http://www.cloudstat.org/index.php?do=/kaichew/blog/29992cloudstat-30011-19981-21516-32617-26479/

<comment><AUTHOR> Just for fun. Not offensive to anyone. Don't be serious ya ^^</comment>


Titan launches its mobile 'not a hedge fund' - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/20/titan-invest/ <comment><USER2> Both the article and [https://www.titanvest.com/performance/](https://www.titanvest.com/performance/) cite performance relative to S&P 500. If you expand out disclosures it says "Figures cited for 2017 and since 2004 represent backtested performance of a hypothetical account using Titan's investment process, not an actual amount." It's trivial to overfit a backtest to get whatever results you want. For a startup whose objective is to "enable you to become a better investor" they might want to start by explaining why you shouldn't take their performance page seriously.

<comment><USER3> yep and it makes this statement rather suspicious:"Of the ~3500+ hedge funds out there, we track ~5% of them. We believe these are the good guys: long-term oriented and rigorous in their research."

Its the 5% that performed well in their backtest, but that doesnt mean they will perform the best going forward.

What Titan did in 2016 was chose the top 5% of funds that did well up until that point. Then when they saw it performed bad in 2017, they most likely went back and chose a different 5% that did better. And recalculated all the returns.

The problem is you cant keep doing this once you actually start investing with real money.

<comment><USER4> Do you have any evidence for any of this, or did you just pick the most uncharitable possible scenario and present it as factual?

<comment><USER3> This is just all theory, of course but this is something most backtesters do, so I wouldnt rule it out.

It helps to be overly skeptical when anyone claims to beat the index. Because it is such a powerful claim.

<comment><USER5> You said "What Titan did". That's a far cry from "I wouldn't rule it out".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I hope they aren't just using 13Fs to determine hedgefund holdings. I saw one being filed recently and I was amazed at how useless they are for determining a funds actual positions.

You don't need to report short positions. This resulted in many scenarios where we were short a company, but from our filings, it looked like we were long. 3 examples:

\- Class A and B shares. If you are long one and short the other, only the long shows up.

\- Own the stock, but sold calls? Don't need to report the calls. Plus, options that are reported are done so as if they are fully exercisable.

\- Debt, Convertible debt, and types of warrants and other instruments are not reported.

So don't use them to determine a fund's thinking.

<comment><USER7> Agree 100% with this. 13Fs are not indicative of most HFs actual bets. Especially if they are running strategies where a bet consists of a bundle of securities (Eg convert arbitrage).

Also, Given delay in reporting, you'd just be getting in after they get in and likely they get out before you do. So the aggregate impact costs from this strategy becomes their alpha. Hence why some of these LS guys always talk up their positions.

<comment><USER3> Agree with the second. Making money in stocks is not just what to invest in, but when.

If you bought FB in the beginning of July just after a hedge fund reported it (but they actually bought in April and sold in July) that would have been bad for you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The average person is much better off putting their money in a whole market index fund that charges a tenth of a percent (or less) rather than a managed fund that charges 1%. The managed fund is unlikely to outperform the index fund in the long term.

<comment><USER9> I disagree. It's very unclear what strategy will work over the next 20 years. Many people are bullish on index funds because research has shown that they outperformed managed funds over the past 10-20 years. It doesn't mean they'll outperform over the next 20 years. Past results are no indication of future results.

<comment><USER10> > Many people are bullish on index funds because research has shown that they > outperformed managed funds over the past 10-20 years.

According to John Bogle, this has been true for over 100 years. His analysis goes back to 1900.

<comment><USER9> You can't backtest a fund such as VTI. The issue is that these analysis don't take into factors such as volume. I'm sure if someone backtested $100MM investment in Bitcoin starting from 2010, the results would be spectacular, but we all know that buying pressure would've caused Bitcoin to skyrocket and the returns would be less than the backtested results.

I personally tell people to invest in index funds if they don't understand investing, but it doesn't mean it will do better than other options. Index funds are only a recent phenomenon.

The biggest issue with index funds at the moment is "group-think". If everyone in America is investing via index funds then when people need money, those same index funds will fall sharply. There is a valid line of thinking where one should avoid stocks with heavy exposure to index funds because those stocks will have the best returns during an equities downturn.

[http://theirrelevantinvestor.com/2017/08/31/today-in- market-...](http://theirrelevantinvestor.com/2017/08/31/today-in-market- history-the-first-index-fund/)

<comment><USER11> You _absolutely_ can backtest VTI. We have reliable historical market data of the total US stock market (what VTI is) going back to the late-1800s.

Also, please tell me 1 of those better options?

The link you posted seems to take the opposite view from what you expressed. Batnick is very pro index funds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't see a clear value proposition here.

As others have mentioned, ~95% of people should only invest in index funds. They are wasting their money if they actively manage it or put it into a managed fund.

The value add of a hedge fund is its sophisticated research. Hedge funds have analysts who are looking at satellite images showing the number of cars in parking lots to determine whether sales at Best Buy are up this year, PhDs creating ML models that incorporate behavioral finance, that sort of thing.

It seems like Titan operates in a space directly between these two business models - higher fees without the sophisticated research. Its return over the past year is promising, but you can't really evaluate the performance over such a short time frame. I'm very skeptical, but hoping to be proved wrong.

</comment><comment><USER13> >What Robinhood did to democratize buying individual stocks, Titan wants to do for investing in a managed portfolio.

huh? RH's success comes from letting people play wall street hot shot trader for free. "OMG did you hear what Musk just said?".

If they think they're capturing the same kind of audience attention with a managed portfolio then they legit don't know which way is up.

>Titan picks the top 20 stocks based on data mined from the most prestigious hedge funds

That's index ETF thinking. The real hedge funds invest in opportunities that aren't even listed. You don't make hedge fund type return without hardcore research & hardcore risk taking on the basis of that research.

The whole "hedge fund" thing might make for decent initial PR but I predict this will backfire when people don't get the immediate visceral return they expected. Acorn's "Invest & grow" type PR slogans are better if you are going for managed because it'll align with the return.

<comment><USER14> reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets gives a good idea of where Robinhood's success is coming from.

<comment><USER11> If you ever find yourself questioning the validity of all the studies indicating how terrible retail investors are at investing...read r/wallstreetbets and realize you and your index funds are still in the minority.

<comment><USER13> >and realize you and your index funds are still in the minority.

Quite the opposite. Index fund are busy eating the world alive.

If you've got massive money flowing into the top 100 in the index thanks to ETFs the smart money is on companies 101 - 120. Similar risk profiles to the top 100 but their price earnings profile hasn't been distorted yet but the wave of incoming index wave.

Passive is indeed the truth but don't swallow it wholesale...you're just buying into a top 100 self-reinforcing bubble that has no economic backing without realising it.

<comment><USER11> As of October last year Index Fund investors still represented less than 18% of the global stock market:

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-funds-blackrock- passive/l...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-funds-blackrock-passive/less- than-18-percent-of-global-stocks-owned-by-index-investors-blackrock- idUSKCN1C82TE)

I'd hardly call that "eating the world alive." The only thing its eating so far is the absurd wealth management fees old school financial advisors used to make.

Also there's about 200 different indexes all slicing up the marketplace in various ways. Not every investor is buying the large cap, cap-weighted index (although most are).

Ultimately, this idea of passive "distorting" the markets just isn't true (also I'm not sure what you mean by "earnings profile"...earnings are set by consumer demand for a company's product, not investor demand for company stock). Active traders set prices, indexes simply follow the prices set by active traders. We are no where near the point where distortions would happen, and if we ever got to that point, there would be massive incentive to profit off of a easily predictable mispricing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> 1% of capital every year is crazy money.

If the fund is really that good, they'll take x% of the profits and not charge a fee on capital. You take capital because you're not really that good, and you don't know (like basically everyone else) what's going to happen.

Funds know they can't reliably beat the market, and thus don't offer such structures.

I want a ratcheting fee structure. No capital fees, and no fee if the fund loses compared to its benchmark. The fund only makes money if it beats the benchmark.

<comment><USER14> If the fund is really good, they take 2% of the capital and 20% of the profits... (Actually if the fund is really good it's closed to outside investors, so it doesn't really matter.) But of course if a fund is really good it's not just a portfolio of 20 hedge-fund darlings rebalanced quarterly.

I don't know how do they select the 20 names from hedge fund filings (looking only at their long positions, as they don't disclose short positions), but it seems that diversification is not one of the criteria. Virtually all of them are tech (IT/Telecom).

The 0-20% short (using inverse ETFs! [1]) is inactive, so no hedge at all currently on this overexposed portfolio. If (when) there is a large correction it may not be enough to ensure the loses are lower than for the market even assuming that they do it in time (surely it worked well in the backtests).

But hey, it's just 1% and runs (only) on your iPhone!

[1] They track the inverse performance well each day but can diverge over longer periods and have other risks that make them not-so-good as hedges. But anyway is just 20% of the long exposure...

<comment><USER16> ^This. It feels like some cheap ML recreating a fund-of-funds with some shorts that limit exposure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > while using an app to cut out the costs of pricey brokers and Wall Street > offices.

Unless they have DMA themselves, alongside their own order/execution platform, I would suspect that a broker still exists who may well be in a wall street office? And god damn if you think 1% is "cheap" for this (not-very) smart beta strategy you need your head examined

 _Please don 't stock pick based on what some app tells you some other people in finance have probably stock picked_.

If you believe in active management. Pay an active manager. If you believe in passive investing, buy an index. If you believe in smart beta, pay a little bit more for a properly defined strategy which fits your world view. This is none of those things.

[Past Performance Is No Guarentee Of Future Success]

</comment><comment><USER18> They are just a "Separately Managed Accout" as service.

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

</comment><comment><USER19> Seems like a classic risk vs return scenario. If the return is that much higher than the S&P 500, then the risk associated with it will also be higher. I think the risk vs return is better balanced when you put your money in an ETF in Vanguard especially since there low fees and "choices" for particular markets.

</comment><comment><USER20> This looks very interesting. Has anyone here used it yet? And does hedging really work with such low numbers? I thought the point of hedging was being able to spread the risk across lots of large investments. Can you really spread enough with only $1000?

<comment><USER21> Investors invest into the fund, the entirety of which is then available for the hedge, and the total profits/losses redistributed back to individual investors based on their share of the fund's total pool.

<comment><USER20> It specifically says they invest in your name and pick shorts based on your risk profile though, which is where I got confused. It is not pooling everyone's money together. So not sure how it actually can hedge with such a small amount of money.

<comment><USER21> Based on the article, they use holdings of the same 20 stocks, and seem to adjust risk exposure by varying the percentage of short-sell. Their Program Brochure[1] backs this up - you get fractional stock as part of an investment pool in the 20 stocks they choose, instead of entire shares, so you get the same relative hedge you would otherwise. They do mention direct ownership, but it's fractional shares still held through Apex.

[1] [https://cdn.titanvest.com/library/Titan_Investor_Materials.p...](https://cdn.titanvest.com/library/Titan_Investor_Materials.pdf)

<comment><USER20> On their FAQ: "Is Titan a hedge fund?: No. You are not investing in a hedge fund. Hedge funds pool their investors' dollars together and each investor is treated the same. We keep your money in your own individual account and personalize this based on your risk tolerance and investment goals. Titan invests you like an active manager, with the personalization of an advisor in your pocket."

I could definitely not be understanding what they are saying, but it does say they are not pooling.

[https://www.titanvest.com/faq/](https://www.titanvest.com/faq/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's basically a mutual fund?</comment>


Improving Google Reader (great for netbooks) - <AUTHOR> http://longair.net/blog/2010/01/03/superficially-improving-google-reader/ <comment><USER2> Much better. Google Reader, for all its fame and popularity, really falls short in my eyes.

It's painful to go from NetNewsWire on the Desktop to Google Reader online.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not working in Chrome for me...</comment>


WikiLeaks will Not be abandoned. - <AUTHOR> http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/18289990888 <comment><USER3> We need organizations that are true watchdogs of the government. Governments should be made uncomfortable by the press.

However, WikiLeaks lost me when they released selectively edited video, spliced in editorial overlays, registered a domain name "CollateralMurder" and advocated a position.

<comment><USER4> here is the question...off the top of your head can you remember one other leak besides the collateral murder one that wikileaks leaked?

<comment><USER3> The "Climategate" CRU emails.

<comment><USER5> That was wikileaks? FUDleaks then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is there some background on this I should know about?

<comment><USER7> <http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-dump.htm>

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Pentagon declared Wikileaks as a threat to national security.

I we look at The Apache helicopter and Australian internet plans leaks, the government was trying to do something wrong, which Wikileaks exposed. Now they have been declared threat to national security. Great progress in hypocrisy.

<comment><USER9> That's just about the most generous possible interpretation of what's been happening with Wikileaks.

A less generous interpretation:

* Wikileaks leaked the video that accompanies a detailed transcript (with quotes) of the same video that appeared in the Washington Post many months beforehand --- a PR black eye to be sure, but in no way a revelation.

* Wikileaks has in fact cultivated confidential sources inside DoD and military service agencies that are talking about forwarding cables and other TS-classified material, and is in fact part of a grave threat to national security (which, true, the real "threat" is clearly the negligent lapses in operational security that allow someone like Manning to leak cables in the first place).

In other words: Wikileaks is less valuable to society than it seems, and at the same time the government has a legitimate (if misdirected) concern with them.

<comment><USER10> Do you really believe Manning is the leaker?

<comment><USER9> I don't care that much, but, what's your theory?

<comment><USER10> I just found the whole story a quite odd - the Wired reporter and his friend's difficult to believe story, this low-level kid, the obvious desire - <USER2> leaked plans - of the US to find and punish leakers to discredit Wikileaks.

I don't care that much either. On net, I think Wikileaks is a good thing, but I've never donated and never would until they are more transparent about their own operations. Re that video, the first half wasn't what disturbed me, but rather the firing of the missiles into the building in the second half.

But there's an obvious strategy for the US to discredit Wikileaks, and that's to find someone - anyone - that appears to have leaked to them, and come down hard on them. Finding an oddball kid suits the story they want to tell, irrelevant of how guilty he may be. But the Wired stuff is just off the wall odd.

<comment><USER9> Doesn't it bother you that without reliable evidence, you can make a similarly credible narrative out of almost anything else? Maybe it was the Bush-era DoD people who leaked the story to discredit the Obama administration! You can't prove a negative.

I'm working under the assumption that someone named Manning did in fact do something stupid with Wikileaks, which did indeed encourage him to do that stupid thing. That Wikileaks is encouraging stupid people to do stupid things is something that bothers me about Wikileaks; that stupid people are given access sufficient to do stupid and damaging things is something that bothers me about the DoD.

<comment><USER10> I don't think Wikileaks encourages stupid behaviour - as I understand it, the input avenue is primarily an file upload field.

As to evidence (in the legal sense), I don't have any one way or the other that Manning had anything to do with the leak. I just have media reports, which sound really weird, which makes me not give them much weight.

<comment><USER9> Regardless of how (say) Manning conveyed files to Wikileaks, leaking classified-TS cables is manifestly stupid. One doubts most of the people who might help Wikileaks from inside the DoD have any idea what they're actually doing. My guess is that it all seems unreal, happening as it does on the always fake-seeming Internet using computers that make everything seem like chat room drama.

<comment><USER10> Do you have evidence that classified top secret cables were leaked? That one is easy to prove. A quick Google search, though, seems to only turn up rumours.

The only direct source of much of the rumours seems to be the completely unbelievable Wired story. The Salon story on Wired's reporting is the primary reason I don't trust it, nor anything implied by it on other sites:

[http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/18...](http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/18/wikileaks)

<comment><USER9> You're saying it's easy to prove that someone likely to have classified-TS access who said they leaked classified-TS information _did_ or _did not_ leak information?

And to support that argument, you're citing Glenn Greenwald?

<comment><USER10> You earlier spoke of proving a negative; by easy to prove, I meant that this is a positive, and an existence proof is sufficient.

If something was leaked, but noone can point to it, or the consequences of it, is it really leaked?

The way you phrase your sentence about Glenn Greenwald, you seem to imply that I should know something about him. What are you imputing?

It also seems an ad hominem attack. I cited the article as reason to doubt the Wired story; but the article should be attacked on its own merits. And the reason to doubt the leak of TS cables is because I haven't seen evidence that they've been leaked. The video certainly was leaked - I saw it - but I've seen not a peep of these alleged cables.

It doesn't make any sense. Why would a 22-year old kid have access to thousands of top-secret cables? Why should we trust an attention-seeking ex- convict who says he had an IM with a leaker who spontaneously contacted him for the first time ever (randomly choosing him from twitter #wikileaks, of all things), and boasted to him that he leaked such cables? When Wikileaks denies that they have such cables?

When these stories come up in the news, who benefits?

<comment><USER9> I am absolutely confident that 22 year old kids have access to ridiculous information; I think that's far more of an outrage than any news Wikileaks has "broken" about the DoD.

<comment><USER10> On the other hand, I think the risk of the US to the world is greater (far greater) than the risk of the world to the US.

The US is in no danger of being attacked or invaded by anyone; one cannot say the same about other countries with respect to the US.

Even something as substantial as 9/11 was only a crime - a monstrous crime - but certainly not an act of war. There isn't any actor with the capability or will to do any serious damage to the US that wouldn't be annihilated by nuclear retribution; the US's security derives from its obvious and plain- sight strengths, not anything it keeps secret.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Has anyone noticed a pattern yet? We get a sensational rumor. Then we get a flat denial. Over and over.

Someone trying to cast doubt on their viability in hopes of getting people to stop funding them?</comment>


Robots Could Set the Tone for Social Interactions - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2019/04/12/how-robots-could-set-the-tone-for-social-interactions/ <comment><AUTHOR> I posted this because I think one of the scariest things about AI and computers is how they will affect our perception of reality. Some one commented the other day about having to realize they were not playing Grand Theft Auto when driving. The concerns around virtual reality are real. Infants think "alexa" is a person. Google Duplex is trying to con people into believing that which is not human is.

How can we live in a society where we do not know what is real? I will be constantly suspicious of whether something is real or a robot; would you not?</comment>


Facebook Is Dying, Wall Street Just Doesn't Realize It Yet - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/crypto-oracle/facebook-is-dying-wall-street-just-doesnt-realize-it-yet-ca3c5076e573 <comment><USER2> Not sure I buy that a key ratio is MAU/DAU, and even if it is ... the big problem for Facebook is that it's gone from 66.3 to 65.7 in two years while both numbers are growing?

The fact that they started grouping FB/Insta/WhatsApp together in quarterly numbers is to me a more telling sign about Facebook core app.

</comment><comment><USER3> Coming from someone who still thinks cryptos are the future

<comment><USER4> Because his one belief is questionable doesn't make his other not worth considering.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Awesome! I'm looking forward to the time when friends send me a public video that I'm not denied access to unless I log into Facebook.</comment>