_why is a role, not a person - <AUTHOR> http://words.steveklabnik.com/why-is-a-role-not-a-person <comment><USER2> I feel like OP read a psychological / philosophical book and feels the need to share his newly gained insights. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, I just think it's not very relevant on Hacker News.

The guy simply likes to be anonymous. So do I. There's not that much to it.

Woopdeedoo.

<comment><USER3> For what it's worth, I have been maintaining more of _why's code than anyone else over the last few years, and no, I didn't 'read a psychological/philosophical book,' I read lots of them. ;) This stuff is broadly applicable across all of technology, not just _why: I happen to believe that grokking Deleuze/de Landa is incredibly important for technologists, especially on the web.

That said, you are entitled to your opinion that "there's not that much to it," but I have too much evidence to believe that's the case. I just hinted at it here; when you need to summarize an entire school of thought _and_ share how to apply it, it can get a bit lengthy, and I wasn't in the mood for that, but did have many people asking me "what do you think about the possible return of _why."

<comment><USER4> For those interested in learning about the subject, here's a good place to start (in order):

 __Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics __[http://books.google.com/books?id=B0eB8mvov6wC&printsec=f...](http://books.google.com/books?id=B0eB8mvov6wC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)

 __Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology __<http://www.mohamedrabeea.com/books/book1_3997.pdf>

_and, for fun..._

 __Jacques Derrida, Differànce __<http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/derrida/diff.html>

<comment><USER3> These are all great, but I'd be wrong to not point out that Deleuze is a bit different, in that he is a materialist. The rest of 'the continentals' went Idealist and turned to Saussre etc because they rejected essences. Deleuze's place is solving that issue, creating a neo-materialism.

(At least, that is my current understanding of the history)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> >So what makes a zebra a zebra then? I don't want to get into it, but basically, I take the position that you can't define something by what it is, you have to define it by what it does.

I like that the author doesn't embarrass himself by attempting to define a Zebra by what it does.

<comment><USER3> Haha. :)

On a more serious note: philosophers who use a process-based ontology/metaphysics would be a little more careful with words: you're defined by your position in given historical processes. Some of these, of course, are initiated by you, hence 'what you do.'

So in the case of a zebra, it's a zebra because it's genesis lies in a historical process: zebras giving birth. If you have two parents who are zebras, then you're a zebra. The first zebras became zebras once they are unable to sexually reproduce with another species, I forget the exact biology term here. For another example, I'm a citizen of the United States because I'm part of a historical process by which people are born in a particular space, both geographical and political, over a certain time period. I don't possess some sort of intrinsic US-ian property.

If you're interested in this kind of thing, Whitehead, Deleuze, and more recently, de Landa (who I adapted the zebra example from) are all materialists who replace identity with process.

<comment><USER6> Deleuzian materialists on HN!

Deleuze and de Landa were my primary inspirations during graduate architecture school. I wrote about how such thinking might be incorporated into a web design.[1]

[1]: [http://kimble.co/2012/bottom-up-web-design-and-the- materiali...](http://kimble.co/2012/bottom-up-web-design-and-the-materiality- of-the-web.html)

<comment><USER3> Haha, the soap bubble: yep, that's de Landa alright. Great post, I really enjoyed it.

You know, something about de Landa bothers me a bit, maybe you can chew on this and sometime, we'll discuss it: he wants to "de-postmodernize Deleueze" (even though he's careful that Deleuze isn't pomo, just that he uses dense words), but I'm not entirely sure that you can really separate, say, A Thousand Plateaus from the performative properties of the text. It seems strange to me that a materialist would want to remove the ideas from the primary material that they came from.

That said, he does a damn good job of making it a bit more accessible, especially to technologists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> uhhh, as with most existentialist nonsense, this does not follow.

_why was/is a _name_ (or alias), not a role - it refers to a particular (awesome) dude, not a class of awesome dudes.

We don't all start calling each other "Steve Jobs" when we put on black polo- necks and start being mean to each other.

You can redefine it as a role if you want, but that's a semantic change to English that I can disagree with (and will.)

<comment><USER3> Deleuze was not an existentialist, to get that out of the way. He specifically thought that Hegel and dialectics was terrible, but I'll just leave it at this.

Just because it is an alias does not mean that it cannot also be a role: roles have names, you know. ;)

> We don't all start calling each other "Steve Jobs" when we put on black > polo-necks and start being mean to each other.

This is not even close to what I mean. You would say that someone that does that is 'acting like Steve Jobs' though, no?

<comment><USER8> > You would say that someone that does that is 'acting like Steve Jobs' > though, no?

Right, metonymy is a rhetorical device that can be used for figures such as _why, but that doesn't mean that the figure _is_ [just] a metonymic structure and not a person.

<comment><USER9> are you saying that "_why" is a metonym for the Man Himself? i don't think that's valid (in a linguistic sense) - he _was_ _why in a much deeper sense than "_why" being some small part of him that was used as a stand-in for the whole. a metonym can derive from a role, but the role is not the metonym.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _why is both an attempt at a symbol and a person. Most of the interest around the persona was generated by the eccentricity in hiding as much as (if not more than) around the other theatrics and unique works created. That's not how you create a symbol, that's how you create curiosity and interest. I know its a dirty word, but its marketing (and marketing that the ruby community needed, it certainly helped to popularize things in the early days). In going into hiding and ripping away his works, he actively destroyed the symbol and very concretely attached it to the actions and whims of one man.

Its nice to think that it could be a symbol, and maybe it is... but it would only be due to the actions and desires of the ruby community.

<comment><USER3> I was discussing this with someone earlier on IM: I think that there's also a lot of fruit in a "_why as myth" angle. He himself said what you said, in the Poignant Guide, the part where he talks about his own suicide:

        > Blix was right. I'm in so [sic, should be 'no'] shape to write this book.
        > Goodbye until I can shake this.
        >
        > Aw, come on!!! You're leaving us here??
        >
        > Ha! I was right! He flipped his lid! He's all burned out
        > and he's going to shoot himself in the head!
        >
        > But what about us? This doesn't bode well for us.
        >
        > Oh, *we'll* be fine. We're famous. Other people _will_ sketch
        > our likeness.
        >
        > We'll be twice as famous when he's gone. People can be
        > so idolatrous with their mourning!

[http://mislav.uniqpath.com/poignant- guide/book/chapter-6.htm...](http://mislav.uniqpath.com/poignant- guide/book/chapter-6.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This comment will probably be met with a bit of derision, and maybe deservedly so. It is admittedly over-analyzing a bit of micro-community ephemera that probably doesn't warrant such high-falutin' pretense to intellectualism. I can only beg off that I've always seen philosophy as kind of the ultimate 'hack' as it were, and when someone starts intersecting the two worlds of philosophy and software I get really intrigued and find myself compelled to over-comment. The following will not be to everyone's taste, I am mainly responding to Steve here -- and just as an aside, he's invoking some pretty ancient philosophical discussions and doing it well. For those of you bored with such, this is not for you...

That said: I think the trick here is to be careful that we not confuse process philosophy (Whitehead, Bergson, Hartshorne) for pure nominalism, or the pure separation of identity/name/essence from its object. Process philosophers, as I read them, as a general category try to bridge the tension between idealism (the reification of essence or form into an eternal fact) and nominalism (the view that all names/essences are purely ad hoc and never actually representative of the substances they attempt to indicate).

It's not that process philosophers reject essences out of hand, but that they attempt to find more descriptive language that accounts for the constant motion and change of substances. So Bergson had the notion of "Duration" and Whitehead had "occasions" and "ingressions." Names, essences in the process view expanded further along the ontological spectrum than the ad hoc naming of Occam/nominalism, but never so far as Platonic 'ideals' which are eternal and unchanging. It's really, at the bottom of it, not _that_ far from Aristotle himself, but with language that pulls notions of essence further toward immediacy and the Heraclitean flux (i.e., You can't step in the same river twice -- or maybe even once).

All this to say, I wonder if the notion of a 'role' is truly descriptive here -- the role itself changes, as does Subject. The idea of "_why" as a free- floating identity actually, to my mind, moves it further towards an Idealism rather than the process/duration ideas you seem to be advocating. "_why" in this scheme becomes almost a pure abstraction devoid of the context of having been invented and inhabited by Subject.

Questions of essence always become arcane and you can chase this rabbit down countless holes. For the issue at hand, to me it becomes a question of execution rather than definitions. "_why" as a role is only as abstract as Subject makes it. Compare with, say Bob Dylan, who to my mind has spent most of his career negotiating the same dilemma. There's no question that "Dylan" is a character that Robert Zimmerman has been playing and inhabiting for decades, with varying degrees of theater and overlap between real autobiography and pure myth-making. _why/Subject is playing a similar game here probably for similar reasons, and the connection between the two and how much real biography and myth-making is really up to Subject.

In other words, I don't think the idea of "_why" as a free-floating 'role' is completely adequate here -- the narrative is too entangled in the community's mind with Subject for it to become _purely_ abstract/theatrical/literary and divorced from its creator. We're not going to see _why fan-fiction any time soon, and I suspect if anyone else starting writing in the voice of _why, it would quickly be spotted and met with opprobrium. Whatever distance between Subject and the _why role there is remains in the hands of Subject and in the nuance of how he executes the theater of it.

For me personally I've been fascinated with his creative persona since I read the Poignant Guide many years ago and love his creative integrity and sense of whimsy and fun. Totally unique in the software world, and one of the big reasons I was attracted to Ruby in the first place. It'll be fun to see how/if Subject plays this out.

<comment><USER3> > just as an aside, he's invoking some pretty ancient philosophical > discussions and doing it well.

Thanks! I'm not sure I invoked it well enough for people that don't read these things, though: that's what I get for dashing off a blog post. I'm still learning how to properly communicate the things I've been doing for the past few years with people, and I've had mixed success.

> the trick here is to be careful that we not confuse process philosophy > (Whitehead, Bergson, Hartshorne)

So: I think that part of our difference is that I'm coming from process philosophy from the 'other direction' if you will: Deleuze and de Landa, who come later than Whitehead/Bergson. I still have yet to actually read those two, so there might be a bit of that going on.

> the trick here is to be careful that we not confuse process philosophy > (Whitehead, Bergson, Hartshorne) for pure nominalism, or the pure separation > of identity/name/essence from its object.

Right. I certainly don't want to confuse the two, and maybe I have a bit here.

> It's not that process philosophers reject essences out of hand, but that > they attempt to find more descriptive language that accounts for the > constant motion and change of substances.

See above about Deleuze vs. Whitehead. Regardless, point well taken.

> All this to say, I wonder if the notion of a 'role' is truly descriptive > here

I am not perfectly happy with 'role' to be honest, but was trying to find a good analogy for those who haven't read my influences. Also, probably because (process vs essences) as (DCI vs OOP) is weighing heavy on my brain at the moment. Not that I like DCI...

> "_why" in this scheme becomes almost a pure abstraction devoid of the > context of having been invented and inhabited by Subject.

I think this is a good critique, and I think that's where I was getting at with my bit at the end about "I don't think anyone should literally take up the mask." I may be making this too ideal; obviously, I prefer to stay material. Idealism is just too easy though!

> It'll be fun to see how/if Subject plays this out.

Agreed.

Anyway, thanks for this: I'm gonna give this some thought for when I write out a longer, more rigorous iteration. Feel free to email me if you ever want to talk about this intersection; it's pretty much what I do these days.

<comment><USER11> > Anyway, thanks for this: I'm gonna give this some thought for when I write > out a longer, more rigorous iteration. Feel free to email me if you ever > want to talk about this intersection; it's pretty much what I do these days.

Absolutely, I'll ping you over email shortly. Although I find in person over libations to be much more dialectical (in the Socratic rather than Hegelian sense.) Maybe we'll cross paths at a conference some day...

> it's pretty much what I do these days.

A minor obsession we share, apparently, although it's been a while since I've been in full philosophical immersion mode.

I must admit I am woefully late to the Deluezian party. I've been reading around him for years (Heidegger, Husserl, a bit of Lacan, Marion, Levinas) but this discussion has pushed me over the edge, it's time I got up to speed -- where would you suggest I start?

As for Bergson, I see him as a kind of rival to the entire Husserlian tradition, Heidegger in particular; addressing the same questions regarding science and the difficulties of post-Kantian, post-Hegelian epistemology in the modern world, but much clearer and therefore less subject to the cult of interpretation that seems to be the domain of French phenomenology. It's all but forgotten that in say, 1920, had you had asked who was the most important philosopher in the world likely the answer would have been 'Bergson.' I think he still has a lot to say to us in 2013.

I'd start with his _Introduction to Metaphysics_ and then to _Matter and Memory_.

Thanks for the exchange Steve, very fun stuff.

<comment><USER3> > this discussion has pushed me over the edge, it's time I got up to speed -- > where would you suggest I start?

It depends: I personally struggled through Anti-Oedipus and Thousand Plateaus, then read Delueze's solo stuff after. It was pretty rough, though: worthwhile, but dense. If you're doing Lacan/Heidegger, I'd imagine you'd be fine. But I'm really super partial to Nietzsche and Philosophy: in the intro, Mike Hardt says it's "the best introduction to both Nietzsche's thought and Deleuze's." My understanding is that it relies a bit too much on The Will To Power for more recent Nietzsche scholarship, but that doesn't necessarily matter... anyway. You should check it out for sure, as it has really interesting relations to _why as well...

TL;DR: A Thousand Plateaus, Nietzsche and Philosophy, in either order.

<comment><USER11> _Nietzsche and Philosophy_ it is. I'm quite partial to Friedrich, particularly _The Gay Science_ \-- had a huge impact on me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think that is a little too deep. I think _why is a nickname. Lots of people on the Internet use nicknames. He's posting stuff to his domain again, and people who are excited about that don't need to be told not to be.

<comment><USER3> > people who are excited about that don't need to be told not to be.

Whoah, if you got "Don't be excited" out of this, then I've failed: I am trying to not get too excited, just in case, but it's certainly exciting.

At the end of the Poignant Guide, _why talks about his own return: [http://mislav.uniqpath.com/poignant- guide/book/chapter-7.htm...](http://mislav.uniqpath.com/poignant- guide/book/chapter-7.html)

        > Don't "hi" us!! Where have you _been_?
        >
        > Just Around.
        >
        > ...
        >
        > What about us? Do we have to take a nap?
        >
        > No no! We got chapter eight...

I don't want to read too much into the emphasis placed on the 'U' in 'around'...

Seeing a great actor pick up his most famous role and re-take the stage is certainly a reason for excitement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interesting take on it, similar in some regards to what Nolan did at the end of The Dark Knight Rises. _why is essentially a symbol of the ruby community, anyone can be _why, is it important who's underneath the mask? For some people yes, there's a mystery to be solved, for others it's enough that they're there doing what they're doing, and by adopting the mask they obviously want to remain behind it.

I'm on the fence, mostly as I came to ruby and RoR long after the _why era, but I get why someone might value their privacy and remain hidden whilst working in public.

<comment><USER3> I think it's important only in that Subject was the best ever _why, and the one who created the concept.

I also do not want someone to literally pick up the name and 'adopt the mask.' I mean that if we want to truly understand his work, we should keep that joy alive, and occasionally have a moment of becoming-_why. But just a moment.

I do not think that it's often appropriate; I maintain quite a bit of _why's code these days, and we've had to throw much of it out straight-away. Creative, artsy C code doesn't do much for maintainability, even though it was the genesis of many great ideas.

<comment><USER13> Oh I know, that's why I said similarities rather than out and out. More as in _why was important as a symbol to the community because _anyone_ can be _why, and _anyone_ can contribute that joy and momentum to the community. Does it matter who the man was? Or is? Or could be? He was just a guy at the end of the day, and we can all essentially be him for a while.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's the dread pirate ruby!

</comment><comment><USER15> "I use very different terms than when I'm speaking with my Republican 'Murican relatives."

I don't know why people feel the need to do this. Someone has different political beliefs. Deal with it.

<comment><USER3> To do what? I made no value judgement on their politics. I certainly can if you'd like. ;)

<comment><USER15> <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=muricans>

"Inhabitants of The United States of America. Typically uneducated and/or ignorant, they tend to have conservative political stances, speak only American English (no foreign languages), tend to only live and travel exclusively inside the United States, have strict religious ethical codes and practices, and rarely understand or mingle with people of other cultures, races, or ethnicities. Merikans are often disliked by citizens of other Nations and tend to be parodied in foreign television, movies, or other media. They tend to also be disliked by many other Americans."

<comment><USER3> Right. That is my family. They literally say 'murrican' instead of American. They watch Fox News, read every Glenn Beck book, and were birthers. They think I'm a homosexual because I wear skinny jeans. They fit every single one of those stereotypes.

None of these things are judgements: they're statements of facts. They'd think that all of these qualifiers were positive.

You can imagine what happens when I bring up anything French.

<comment><USER15> It's derogatory term in the way it is used.

When I lived in Korea one of my co-workers didn't have a problem with the slur gook. She equated it to mean people of rice. That doesn't mean that gook is no longer a derogatory term.

When people use the term Murrican they really mean, "Those people down south who are dumb as shit."

<comment><USER3> That's fine, this must be a cultural difference. I'll take note of it and use something else in the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's turtles all the way down.. 'The Ego Trick' by Julian Baginni is a good book on the subject (no pun intended).

<comment><USER17> Also The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Presentation_of_Self_in_E...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Presentation_of_Self_in_Everyday_Life)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Coming up next on Obscure Subculture News, the shocking revelation: Gabe and Tycho aren't people. They're cartoon characters.</comment>


Welcome to the future of video. Please stay a while [YouTube Blog] - <AUTHOR> http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2011/05/welcome-to-future-of-video-please-stay.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I personally welcome the competition in online video rental, especially here in the UK where there is a very limited choice.

I think if YouTube can nail video quality and streaming reliability then they could seriously threaten the likes of iTunes and NetFlix. Hopefully they will integrate a simple/low friction payment mechanism, and focus on one-off movie rentals, rather than having to sign up for a subscription. If they can do this then I will be very keen to use this service.</comment>


GVM: Go Version Manager - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/moovweb/gvm

<comment><USER2> Bummer that the name clashes with the other GVM(Groovy gvmtool.net) I use.

<comment><USER3> It probably doesn't matter, because when you think about it, the sort of people using Groovy and the sort using Go are at opposite ends of the spectrum, and are highly unlikely to have both tools installed on their systems.</comment></comment>


Massive Dosing - the LSD Thumbprint - <AUTHOR> http://insanebraintrain.blogspot.fr/2011/07/massive-dosing-lsd-thumbprint.html <comment><USER2> I note that "It's like tripping your balls off on LSD" is missing from the list. But, funny thing: It's the most accurate. Instead you get a bunch of gobbledygook about death, eternity, and direct messages from god. The fact that you might just be having an episode of impaired cognition does not actually enter your brain.

Let's not make this more complicated than it is.

<comment><USER3> Anything with the phrase (paraphrasing) "but I must warn you, you must be surrounded by evolved people" sounds so incredibly condescending and pretentious it really shows how these people see themselves as superior to others, like your friend who travels a lot and brings it up all the time. Except his stories are rational and meaningful, while stories about tripping balls are so subjective, they're meaningless.

Yes, I'm sure it was a positive experience, but the idea that you can learn wisdom and maturity via chemistry, well, that idea never panned out. Instead you get the typical empty-head drug talk about "seeing god" and "being nothing." And for all the elaborate salesmanship, what do these people get in the end? They're extremely ineloquent and whatever wisdom is purported to be there, just doesn't seem to be there. They've obviously invested into some kind of "rebel" personality and drug culture panders to them. I should know, I was invested in drug culture myself for longer than I care to admit on the internet.

Meh, the counter-culture petered out for a reason. Turns out ingesting random chemicals isn't the big statement so many thought it was. There's no shortcut to being an interesting and clever person. You gotta put the hours in.

<comment><USER4> The insights available through meditation and psychedelics are insights into the workings of conceptualization and the odd subject/object split we habitually do with thought and language. Being able to experience reality below the lens of conceptualization is the most powerful experience of my life.

I can now clearly see the fake reality created instantly by thought and the truth that there is only this moment of experience and it is totally inherently free from meaning. In this is realization is liberation from limiting thoughts and ideals and an existence that is free from anxiety, boredom, or any sense that something is wrong or needs doing.

Describing what its like is like describing an orgasm to a person who has never had one. "Uh...its like a really good sneeze."

I did this through the path of meditation, but I know others who have used psychedelics to similar ends.

<comment><USER5> _I did this through the path of meditation, but I know others who have used psychedelics to similar ends._

Based on what I've read and observed, the people who get real benefit out of psychedelics are those who are already fairly meditative people, who use them in reasonable settings (with people they trust) and know what they are doing.

There clearly are people who are able to make good use of these chemicals, but they seem to be fewer and farther in between than people who succeed on other, less risky, paths. What seems to be the mainstream in psychedelic drug culture (although it's hard to tell what the mainstream of an underground, illegal subculture _is_ ) is just lazy.

The idea that one can pop a pill and have a spiritual experience (instead of context-free noise) is ridiculous. LSD seems to be a magnifying glass, so people who use it as part of their spiritual practice seem to get real benefit, but those who use it as a "party drug" are just magnifying crap and polluting their minds.

<comment><USER6> Who's talking about using LSD as a party drug? It's certainly not even slightly suggested in the posted article or this response.

<comment><USER7> I've actually known quite a lot of people who have used LSD to that end. The Mushroom, however, is a different, more spiritual journey that is very difficult to evade.

<comment><USER8> I've known quite a few people who take mushrooms as party drugs, as well. Anything is a party drug to the right group of people.

<comment><USER7> 'tis true :/

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Somehow I cringe when entertaining the thought that there might be some open- minded HNers for whom it just so transpired that one of the first pieces of text on LSD chanced upon happened to be this. If it mere me, I'd probably remain unchanged after reading something which was written by someone who simply happens not to share many of the conceptual tools / words / concepts I presently have.

I would instead recommend reading Albert Hofmann's original accounts of how he came to discover and to sample LSD for the first time; his was a very measured (though his very first experience was unexpected and therefore somewhat peculiar), delicate and elegant approach to discovering the molecule's effects; a scientist with an open mind - _that_ read stirred quite a few things in me! A good read / book by any measure.

<http://www.maps.org/books/mpc/chapter1.html>

edit - wanted to add that the book in question also includes early accounts of other researchers, psychiatrists, etc. - for a quick read, see e.g. this account in particular: <http://www.maps.org/books/mpc/chapter4.html>

</comment><comment><USER10> I don't understand the negativity in this thread... haven't taken LSD myself, but Steve Jobs was a fairly smart individual, and described taking LSD as a profoundly important action in his life. Perhaps there's something to it beyond the ramblings of "burn-outs" and "hippies."

<comment><USER11> Its just that burn outs and hippies are the ones to both do it the most and talk about it the most.

But many people can think of _something_ in there life that resulted in a complete change in the way they think - about some thing. Death of a loved one, some traumatic experience. Growing up, having kids, falling in love. Whatever. We naturally hate to think something as emotional or _meaningful_ as those events could be compared to a simple drug, but at the end of the day, anything and everything you think and feel _is_ the result of a chemical reaction. Is it so far flung to think that some _other_ chemical reaction may lead to insightful experiences?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have met only one person who has taken such an amount. He has permanent tunnel vision as a result, so I find myself suspicious. Certainly not a practice I would recommend.

</comment><comment><USER13> Well, shit. A thumbprint is pretty intense, but you haven't really done LSD unless you've done a _handprint_. With both hands. You pass through death and eternity to _become LISP_.

<comment><USER14> Naw, man, you gotta do _lines._ Only then can you become a qubit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> While I'm certain this doesn't qualitatively compare to a thumbprint of LSD, I have had the most INTENSE experiences with pure DMT. So much so I'm very hesitant to ever consider doing anything within that class again.

Just like Strassman described in his research studies ([http://www.rickstrassman.com/index.php?option=com_content...](http://www.rickstrassman.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=54)), the "entity" / "alien" contact that people report is utterly inexplicable and real to those experiencing it, myself included, and consistent. Spaceships, abduction tables, 3000000-million-years-in-the-future technology, telepathic communication, and so on. Its beyond words, and it's terrifyingly real.

Honestly, I hesitate to even call DMT a psychedelic; its more like a time machine or teleportation device. Having done the whole gamut of psychedelics, I can, with complete certainly, say that this is something else entirely, and it needs to be further explored.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm glad to see so few commenters dismissing the subject because of their own lack of perspective, and so many commenters articulating their experiences so well.

The Internet--which incidentally owes its current incarnation to so many acid- dropping individuals--has provided many forums (fora?) for truthful discourse about these substances. Those who have had experience with LSD together have a voice that is going to drown out the insane, fearful rambling propaganda of the prohibitionists. It's safe to say we've reached a tipping point, and it's only a matter of time before we recover our freedom to explore our minds. Respect.

</comment><comment><USER16> I wonder if intelligent machines will infect themselves with severely disruptive but temporary algorithms (viruses) and believe they too understand the meaning of life the universe and everything.

<comment><USER17> A better analogy might be giving the machine a quick peek at it's debugger.

<comment><USER18> So would life be nothing more than universally good local viruses within the universe?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Loss of ego. Personal death. Seeing ALL, the "connectiveness" of everything.

This sounds like an extreme version of some of the experiences I had while meditating (usually after the 30-50 minute mark). These experiences for me typically vanish as soon as I come out of meditation. But something sticks, as if the mind is reminded of the experience at random times. Those times feel like "seeing the matrix". You're suddenly here seeing the intricacy of everything.

There have been Buddhist monks who after trying LSD suggested that it could be some kind of "accelerator" on the spiritual path.

<comment><USER20> You might be interested in reading the following article, titled _"Are Psychedelics Useful in the Practice of Buddhism?"_

<http://psychonautdocs.com/docs/stolaroff_buddhism.pdf>

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> LSD is an intense drug that alters ones brain chemistry. We are those neurons and synapses. When they change, we change.

LSD will alter one's perspectives. Maybe the correct statement is, add more perspectives.

<comment><USER22> we are neurons and synapses? is it not perhaps the case that neurons and synapses are simply arbitrary inputs into our true selves? which, like any input, could be configured, removed, or entirely replaced.

<comment><USER23> Yep, we are. No, that's not the case.

<comment><USER24> Well that just settles it. Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This doesn't seem like a good idea.

</comment><comment><USER26> I take psychedelics on a regular basis. Usually a couple of times a month. Although I've done several hundred micrograms (there is really no way of knowing) of LSD at once, I also really enjoy experimenting with smaller doses and casually micro-dosing on work days.

I happen to be a software engineer and try to apply my knowledge of "machines" to the psychedelic experience. While I don't believe in anything supernatural, I do think that there might be a chance that psychedelics, especially LSD, help your consciousness tap into some deeper abstractions of the human mind, maybe even the universe.

Let me explain that insane claim as best I can:

There is a great book on psychology that was published recently called: Thinking Fast and Slow. In summary, it goes into great detail about two systems of the human mind. System 1, the immediate reaction system, and system 2 which is responsible for computing and solving problems.

When your brain is in system 2 mode (solve 17 x 54 in your head) your heart rate increases, your pupils dilate, and your brain starts consuming glucose. It's doing work. System 1 is the trained mind that recognizes facial gestures and stuff infinitely more complex than a simple math equation. It reacts to danger before you are consciously aware of danger.

I would speculate that LSD turns on System 2 where normally my System 1 brain would give me an immediate response. Your mind starts processing information differently. This cascades into an incredible effect on your emotional awareness, creativity, introspection, insights, and behaviors both physical and cognitive.

I wonder if these extreme doses of LSD eliminate your minds ability to process normal sensory input. What you're left with are low level systems. You're self-awareness is turned off, but you are left with cognitive factories still churning away.

Imagine something sad that happened to you once. Now imagine the visual component is gone, the memory of language gone. You're left with the actual chemical response of the memory. Now do the inverse for something positive. That's what ego-loss is like. You're swimming in a sea of emotions as your brain randomly wanders off into different states, sometimes many at once, sometimes you get stuck in one. Sometimes that state is incredible panic, sometimes you're crying-laughing for 10 minutes straight. This is a common experience I've had on measly 300-500ug doses.

As for the universe claim, as far fetched as it sounds, maybe some of these systems are abstractions of the universal systems. What we are perceiving in these insane states are also little clues into how the universe organizes itself and a peek at something pre-selfawareness.

That last paragraph is all bull-shit heresy but even with my lighter doses I've had remarkable insights. Things that have changed my life in incredible ways. It's like a Pi of molecules or some shit.

edit: grammar

<comment><USER27> > I would speculate that LSD turns on System 2 where normally my System 1 > brain would give me an immediate response.

As far as I've read, LSD is, surprisingly, just a serotonin agonist, similar to anti-depressants or MDMA. (Technically, it's a _non-selective_ serotonin agonist, and it does this by _reversing_ the chemical reactions that take serotonin apart, to basically "un-use-up" serotonin you've already spent-- which might explain its differing experiential effects--but in the end it still means "more serotonin in the brain.")

Now, the two things serotonin has been heavily implicated for in neurology, are _pleasure_ (though not _reward_ ; that's dopamine), and _neurogenesis_ : serotonin is basically released when something "feels good" in a sensual way-- something looks aesthetically pleasing, something tastes delicious, etc.--as a signal to the _rest_ of your brain to backtrack to what _caused_ this stimulus to happen, and build up the neurons involved. Basically, if I find some tasty berries while foraging, reinforce the memory of the walk I took to get to the berries. [This effect can be harnessed: consume a bit of some fat-saturated food right after you study something, if you want to remember it better.]

But LSD, MDMA, and other drugs that stimulate serotonin release, can have psychedelic effects well beyond what you'd expect from "remembering things better." This is because the reaction to serotonin, _neurogenesis_ , goes way beyond sensible memory formation. It takes _any_ spikes in electrochemical activity that are going on in the brain at the time, and says "that: build up the synapse for that." And, of course, neurons have an underlying level of _noise_ , that usually gets buried under actual cognition--so, when you turn the "gain" up on what "becomes brain cells", suddenly you start forming 'concepts' for ideas that are made of _nothing at all_ \--the feeling of seeing shared properties between things that have none. Which would indeed, likely, be best described as "a trip."

Of course, this also informs the other thing people--especially those in creative fields--say about LSD: that it's a life-altering experience, quite foundational for later productive work. This is basically because pushing up the "noise floor," if you have a lot of potential ideas lurking just below the surface as potential connections you haven't made between concepts, ready to be exploited--they'll get wired together by the non-selective flood of serotonin too. But, unlike the nodes for "the purpleness of music" or what- have-you, these nodes will actually self-reinforce once created--that is, they're _useful_ to have, so you'll keep using them--so they'll stick around, whereas the other synapses will just get their reactivity scaled back down when it turns out how purple a song is doesn't have any causal impact on anything else. :)

<comment><USER28> Thank you for this very interesting post, but I would like to point out a few things.

Most currently used anti-depressants are serotonin (some also norepinephrine and/or dopamine) _reuptake inhibitors_ , not _agonists_. Tetracyclic antidepressants even act as _antagonist_ (inverse agonists). Buspirone (more an anti-anxiety than AD medication) functions as a serotonin receptor partial agonist, but that is selective (5-HT1A) and I have never heard that it has any psychedelic value.

I would say there's a way more than just "more serotonin in the brain". That suggestion is even VERY DANGEROUS: too much serotonin means serotonin syndrome, which is potentially fatal condition. It may cause hallucinations, but rarely pleasurable ones and they are accompanied by various unpleasant symptoms such as nausea, sweating, tremor and eventually death. So, please don't try to abuse SSRI/SNRI anti-depressants. Few other AD-s have recreational value (for example tianeptine), but not for psychedelic experiences.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-depressants>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricyclic_antidepressant>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin_syndrome>

<comment><USER27> Right--I probably shouldn't have even mentioned anti-depressants; X-monoamine reuptake inhibitors don't have much at all to do with X-monoamine agonists in terms of effect.[1] I was mostly just trying to connect the discussion to something people would more commonly have actual experience with.

So, to reinforce the parent: serotonin syndrome is very dangerous for precisely that reason of "neurological gain" mentioned above--eventually when you turn gain up enough, you get _clipping_ [2], and then you don't have a _signal_ any more, you have a _seizure_. Surprisingly, it's very hard to do this with LSD--probably _because_ of its differing pharmacodynamics from regular serotonin agonists--but it's a real risk of pretty much any other drug that affects serotonin at all, either in overdose, or in combination with other drugs, even ones you might not expect (the nicotine in cigarettes is an MAOI!)

But anyway, it's really a shame that we aren't each (legally) given the neurological equivalent of a "chemistry set" at some point in our lives, to adjust all the knobs on our own brains and learn the effects. Knowing what serotonin, dopamine, GABA, acetylcholine, etc. are in a clinical sense is one thing; but intuitively understanding that a feeling you're experiencing is _the way it feels from the inside_ [3] when some monoamine or another happens to be at a certain level of concentration in your brain at the moment, is quite another.

[1] Though you'd be surprised what things are, in fact, reuptake inhibitors (what you classically think of as "therapeutic drugs") instead of agonists (what you clasically think of as "stimulants.") Cocaine, for example, is just a triple (serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine) reuptake inhibitor; basically, ADD medication + an SNRI anti-depressant. In another society without our history of race-discrimination-related drug bans, Coca Cola (the original stuff) might be the office-worker's morning stimulant of choice instead of coffee. :)

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipping_(audio)>

[3] [http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_insid...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_inside/)

<comment><USER28> Thanks, you have interesting points.

To others who are interested in psychoactive drugs I would like to suggest following book (you are probably already familiar with it):

 _A Primer of Drug Action_ by Robert Julien ( [http://www.amazon.com/Primer- Drug-Action-Robert-Julien/dp/14...](http://www.amazon.com/Primer-Drug-Action- Robert-Julien/dp/1429233435/) )

It contains concise and objective information about various psychoactive substances, their effects and mechanisms of action.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> An insane and incredible book that I highly recommend reading is "A Heart Blown Open", the autobiography of a crazy Zen master / LSD manufacturer Jun Po Denis Kelly. Its the most unreal life I have ever come across. [http://www.amazon.com/Heart-Blown-Open-Practice- Master/dp/16...](http://www.amazon.com/Heart-Blown-Open-Practice- Master/dp/1611250080)

</comment><comment><USER29> I wonder if there is some plausible medical research which could justify 20-50mg LSD doses.

<comment><USER30> In 1962 a scientist gave an elephant LSD. Unfortunately they got the dosing very wrong and gave the animal a massive overdose. The elephant died.

([http://scienceblogs.com/retrospectacle/2007/05/30/science- va...](http://scienceblogs.com/retrospectacle/2007/05/30/science-vault-how- much-lsd-doe-1/))

<comment><USER9> If I recall the story correctly, they gave the elephant other drugs, too (to counter the effects of LSD after some hours/time into the experiment), and some of those countering drugs had associated known LD-50 (probably not measured for elephants, though..) - would need to reread the original text.

<comment><USER31> Yes, I don't have a link to the original article, but iirc they gave the elephant a gigantic dose compared to its body weight (the amount needed per kg of body weight goes down dramatically as body weight increases). The elephant started having what looked like seizures (faire enough, after basically eating the human equivalent of a full thimble of LSD), so they gave it a whole bunch of other drugs to try and stop the seizure. Then other things happened, so they gave it more drugs... etc.

<comment><USER29> It seems more plausible that they hated elephants rather than wanted to do science.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Try reading this: <http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008DZEWF8> for another point of view on LSD and the impact it has.

<comment><USER5> I tend to think of these things as karmic accelerators. The karma that would usually ripen over 2 years is, instead, experienced in 12 hours. If that karma is negative, that might take the form of an immediate psychotic crisis instead of some longer-to-unfold variety that might, due to time, be more manageable.

My personal belief is that, moreso than any religious belief, it's important to manage the karma we experience-- to learn from the bad, and not to turn the good into bad by becoming hubristic. Negative karma _will_ ripen, and the important thing to do is to let it do so in a way that doesn't turn into recursive negativity that generates more bad karma (either for oneself, or in negative actions toward others). What bothers me about these drugs is that they seem to take away some of that ability to manage the karma that comes through. You experience a lot of sudden karmic ripening, which is interesting, but the insight that needs to develop over time isn't there for a lot of people, and those I've met who I think _could_ use those drugs effectively (rather than haphazardly) often have no interest. I've been very unimpressed by most of the drug mystics I've met, because most tend to be sophomoric and unbalanced. I'd rather talk to a zen master any day of the week.

Personally, I'm not interested in using these drugs at this point in my life, but I don't think they should be illegal or as stigmatized (in the larger society) as they are. They're probably less dangerous than alcohol. The problem is that, if you choose to use these drugs, you're trying out a technology that's still in the very early experimental stages, mostly because the research has been (wrongly, I would argue) outlawed.

<comment><USER33> I have always thought LSD works in this way:

Your brain gets data, and has models of how all the data fits together. For example, if you look at someone you don't know, your brain will get the data "appearance" and plug it into the model "assorted stereotypes" and get out some expectations about who that stranger is.

What LSD does is _perturb_ those models of how data fits together. If your models are in line with reality, you don't have much to worry about. After your trip, everything will settle back to about where it was before. If, however, your models are out of whack (e.g. you blame others for failures that are your own fault) then you run the risk of having some really _really_ unpleasant realizations while you're looking at the data without your old model mucking things up.

<comment><USER5> I disagree, if only because I think some people diverge farther from reality when they take these drugs. I know some people who've gone from "slightly weird" to derelict insanity because of them.

If a person's already on a bad course, then psychedelics (under typical recreational use patterns) are going to throw this person farther out into space. The negative experience, in this case, isn't that person being ripped back into reality, but going even further away from it.

<comment><USER33> Could be, I'll admit I don't have much experience in this arena. I used the word perturb deliberately though, because it does not necessarily have to make you come closer to reality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I often think that Steve Jobs' biography is the worst thing that has happened to enlightenment, and the methods we seek in achieving it, in modern culture.

This was a great read. Thanks for sharing it. It's a shame the responses are overwhelmingly arrogant and myopic/naive. You don't know what you don't know, especially when it comes to the individual perception of others.

</comment><comment><USER7> For anyone who is curious (or skeptical) about the incredible potential for psychedelic use in a therapeutic setting, I highly recommend this read:

<http://www.salon.com/2011/09/28/the_new_lsd_cure/>

Probably the best general article I've read on the subject in recent times; it's also very hopeful.

<comment><USER35> you can also read what happens when you take it too far <http://www.freeleonardpickard.org/Skinner-Timeline.html> [http://www.dallasdancemusic.com/awareness- politics/73509-tee...](http://www.dallasdancemusic.com/awareness- politics/73509-teen-kidnapped-tortured.html) <http://www.vice.com/read/life- is-a-cosmic-giggle-803-v18n5>

of course rumor has it he would take DMT via IV for 8 + hours several times a week. I can only imagine what that would do to someone's mind (hint it wouldn't be pretty)

<comment><USER7> Oh yeah, I've read that Vice article before. EVIL dude. I couldn't imagine anything worse, physical or otherwise.

<comment><USER35> a few years ago i read the account of what went down with the kidnapping, Truly horrible stuff there, highlights include ball stomping, injecting him with an unknown substance which still affects him (likely a parasite) and leaving him for dead in the middle of the desert. For some reason I can't find it, which is likely for the better

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Does anyone have real data on the LD50 (median lethal dose) for LSD in primates or something more similar to humans than rats? ...I find it nearly impossible to find any good hard data on this, and considering that the substance was once researched even by the military, there should be some data somewhere.

...and no, you can't compare LD50 for _iv injected_ LSD with _injested or mouth-absorbed_ LSD, there might be very different pharmacokinetics and the deaths from injected doses might be a "reflex" heart stop or some other preventable cardiovascular side-effect.

<comment><USER37> It was researched by the military for interrogation purposes IIRC. I think they used human subjects for this so I doubt any lethal doses were given, and doubt even further that they would be published if so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> This kind of thing seems, unwise, to say the least. If you value your brain functioning the way it does now, do not even think about this kind of thing. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against psychedelics, but this is not healthy and is unsafe for your brain. Most people who take a thumbprint never REALLY come back to their old selves. If you want a little psychedelic therapy session, just eat some fungus you can find in the forest. It's natural, rarely dangerous, It'll teach you a lot, but it won't permanently change you unless you want it to.

<comment><USER5> _just eat some fungus you can find in the forest. It's natural, rarely dangerous, It'll teach you a lot, but it won't permanently change you unless you want it to._

If you don't know what you're eating, that's _very_ dangerous. Foraging mushrooms without knowing what they are is a terrible idea, because some are deadly.

(I don't think that's what you meant, but in the rural US there are people who forage mushrooms, both for food and drug purposes. It's an awful idea if you don't know what you're doing.)

<comment><USER39> cow patty shrooms: wash, boil water, make tea, take a walk, sit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> That sounds vaguely like some of my experiences with ayahuasca.

</comment><comment><USER41> From my experiences involving meditation and psychedelics I find it to be an energetic transformation. Basically, the drugs alters the subject's energetic vibration which pushes awareness into different realms.

The chakra model is a common map of these vibrations:

[http://www.grdn.cc/energy-slash-quality-slash-organ-slash- ac...](http://www.grdn.cc/energy-slash-quality-slash-organ-slash-activation)

Personally I'm finding some of these levels are achievable without the use of drugs. I used to work with micro-doses of LSD, 1 day dose 10ug / 2 days off, but quickly found I can achieve the states through meditation.

Here's a section from Ram Dass book "Be Here Now". He travels to India seeking answers to what LSD could be all about. He eventually encounters a very advanced yogi:

\---

He looked at me and extended his hand. So I put into his hand what's called a "White Lightning". This is an LSD pill and this one was from a special batch that had been made specially for me for traveling. And each pill was 305 micrograms, and very pure. Very good acid. Usually you start a man over 60, maybe with 50 to 75 micrograms, very gently, so you won't upset him. 300 of pure acid is a very solid dose.

He looks at the pill and extends his hand further. So I put a second pill - that's 610 micrograms - then a third pill - that's 915 micrograms - into his palm.

That is sizeable for a first dose for anyone!

"Ah-cha."

And he swallow them! I see them go down. There's no doubt. And that little scientist in me says, "This is going to be very interesting!"

All day long I'm there, and every now and then he twinkles at me and nothing - nothing happens! That was his answer to my question. Now you have the data I have.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Here_Now_(book)>

\---

<comment><USER20> Decades after _"Be Here Now"_ was published, Ram Dass published a follow-up interview, in which he revealed that he found out that his yogi had actually never taken the LSD he was given. Instead, he used a magician's sleight of hand trick to make it appear that he swallowed the LSD when he did not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> i spent a couple hours talking to a guy who had supposedly done approximately 60 mg print back in the day.

one component i didn't see in this blog post was what he described as "A PIERCING WHITE LIGHT". :)

<comment><USER29> I know of a fair number of people in the "700 club" (700mg single dose, liquid, instilled onto tongue); seem to have lived productive lives to date.

What's two orders of magnitude more? :)

<comment><USER43> 700mcg you mean?

<comment><USER29> Yes, I meant 700 micrograms :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Hey guys, with your cynical, snide comments...What would Steve Jobs do?...Not that I condone drug use, but...at least some guys have the guts to push their limits...for better or worse.

</comment><comment><USER45> I remember finding this <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uFzhEDdexc> when I read that article

</comment><comment><USER46> Brian Wilson explains rather well: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d45F7PqxxY>

</comment><comment><USER47> If nothing else, that's needlessly expensive.

</comment><comment><USER48> > "LSD is a direct message from God. Period."

> "I feel high all the time still and it's been years."

Reason to avoid large doses right there.

</comment><comment><USER49> Brilliance.

</comment><comment><USER50> The described LSD "thumbprint" sounds more like 10-30mg to me.

As a grain or two of table-top salt is about 1mg (*but this of course depends on the density of the substance).

Either way it sounds like a horrifying experience for anyone that's not ready. And also for those that are.

The first time I tried mushrooms, instead of 1 stem and a cap (of some fairly potent shrooms), I ate the entire bag.

Then I made the further mistake of trying to sleep it off. Let's just say that was a mistake as at least otherwise I would have remained slightly inside the real realm, even if it was melting apart.

What happened afterwards, as I fell asleep and at the same time was aware, while tripping (in the worst of ways), had me in a place you don't want to ever go.

<comment><USER20> _"I ate the entire bag. Then I made the further mistake of trying to sleep it off..."_

Sounds like you also made a major mistake in tripping without an experienced guide to help you through the experience.

Any guide worth their salt would have helped you select the proper dose, would know that you're not going to be able to sleep off a serious psychedelic experience, and would have known how to help you have a positive experience.

Unfortunately, way too many people try psychedelics without having much of a clue as to how to use the substances constructively. Reading the following link would be a good start:

[https://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/faqs/psychedelic_experi...](https://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/faqs/psychedelic_experience_faq.shtml)

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> 'It's not possible to describe what it's like. Except maybe DEATH.'

I know I'm going to be downvoted into oblivion, but I _have_ to link <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkFyGNjaQ8k>.

/reddit-style</comment>


Heroku changing up dyno pricing - <AUTHOR> http://notes.ericjiang.com/posts/881

<comment><USER2> A clarification, Heroku's add-ons store works almost identically to Apple's. They take 30% off the top of each add-on subscription each month.

Source: I run [https://addons.heroku.com/expeditedssl](https://addons.heroku.com/expeditedssl)

</comment><comment><USER3> Those big Performance dyno sound great but I sincerely hope they don't get rid of the free plan, you're right about today's software being out of sync with their pricing - with NodeJS I was able to get 1000+ requests/dyno/second before they even had 2x dynos.

</comment><comment><USER4> "Active up to 12 hours a day"</comment>


Ask HN: what document management tools to use? - <AUTHOR>

A friend is looking for a simple document management tool. (I searched here and found a similar question with no answers a little while back?). Docley (http://docley.com/) looks good but isn't released and thus well tested as yet. A full CMS like Joomla might work, but seems poorly focussed. KnowledgeTree is definitely overkill and the MS integration wouldn't be suitable. The community (free-gratis) versions of Magnolia-cms (http://www.magnolia-cms.com/home/magnolia-cms.html) and Alfresco (http://www.alfresco.com/community/) look like possibilities.
He requires versioning, notes to accompany the docs (eg abstract), limited checkout (it's a small firm so just a note of the "owner" is fine), ability to make files available to clients via the web. It would be used for legal and financial docs so it needs to be self-hosted with good security.
There is a low level of technical ability amongst his 5 workers.
Google Docs/Zoho Office would probably be fine if it were privately hosted and readily shareable. There is very little budget available.
We're both in the UK.
So, suggestions? What do you use? <comment><USER2> Would a wiki work? If you can find one that has page-level authorisation based on the username, then you can host it and give individual clients' usernames access to specific pages.

Not sure if Mediawiki allows that.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've installed/used a few Wiki's before and authorisation on a tree has been possible, hadn't really thought of a wiki for document management (ECM).

Have you used a system like this?

<comment><USER2> I use wikis for my personal use quite a bit, as a holder of notes and scribbles, organized by project. I guess you could call it a document manager, but nowhere did I ever push the system: I only use the basic features and that's sufficient for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> By the way, earlier this week we set up a company that had an older person that I would consider a computer-Phobe and he was comfortable with using they system in 30 minutes. Is there a legal reason that the system must be hosted locally? If so, then imagesilo will not work. If you would like I can get you set up with a demo and trial to see if it meets your needs. Not trying to sell, just trying to help. You're call.

</comment><comment><USER3> I would recommend a solution called imagesilo. It is made by digitech systems and is sold through a reseller network. It is very powerful and can do all you ask and more. Numerous healthcare companies and financial institions currently use the system. Data is transmitted in a secure manner and the data is encrypted while it is stored. They also sell a package called PaperVision which is very good.

</comment><comment><USER4> box.net seems like a good fit for your friend, except it's cloud based.

Do test drive the service with a free account. I'm pretty happy with the service

<comment><AUTHOR> If you don't mind, what in particular is good, what's not good please?

Not sure he'll go for cloud based, it's largely a psychological thing but ownership of the files and assurance of security is quite a big thing.</comment></comment>


Trabb Pardo-Knuth algorithm - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabb_Pardo-Knuth_algorithm <comment><USER2> In Arc, as written by a n00b:

      (= f [+ (sqrt abs._)
              (* 5 expt._.3)])
      (= a '())
      (repeat 11
        (= a (cons (coerce (read) 'int) a)))
      (each i a
        (let f_i f.i
          (if (> f_i 400)
              (prn i " TOO LARGE")
            (prn f_i))))

Not sure if reversing-while-reading is considered "cheating", but it seems natural to do it with a cons.</comment>


Ask HN: Why on God's beautiful Earth does std::string not have a trim()? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Now, now... we don't want it to look too much like those silly scripting languages, do we?

(Serious answer: I have no idea, and despite having written a lot of C++ over the years, I've actually never needed to use a trim(), so I never noticed that it was missing! I learned something new in the middle of my insomnia!)

<comment><AUTHOR> I use it all the time in other languages like Clojure, and now needing to use it in C++ I am finding that lots of people have their own implementations for it laying around. Just look at all the ad-hoc trim()s on stackoverflow. Ridiculous. Such a basic string feature, yet std can't provide it for reasons unknown.

<comment><USER2> [http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/general/115700/](http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/general/115700/)

Here is a good "explanation" as to why, and I suppose it's as good as any other. The forum post does recommend using boost, though, which is a common c++ staple.</comment></comment></comment>


Landing Page Design: Visualizing the High Cost of Credit Card Debt - <AUTHOR> https://www.readyforzero.com/cost-of-credit-card-debt/ Well designed Interactive Infographic/ landing page that let's you visualize how much your credit card debt is costing you, then prompts you to do something about it. <comment><USER2> In chrome it does some weird resizing/layout changing thing while scrolling around the coffee part.</comment>


Google too scared of telcos to buy Skype: Implications for Google Voice - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/if-google-is-worried-about-pissing-off-carriers-whats-the-future-of-google-voice-2009-9

<comment><USER2> Nothing but pure speculation. You don't think it's possible that Google decided Skype wasn't a great investment?

<comment><USER3> I agree there...Google probably figured there must be a cheaper way to get Google Voice to VOIP than spending $3 billion.</comment></comment>


The lingering health effects of the Civil War - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/04/the-lingering-health-effects-of-the-civil-war/ <comment><USER2> >Modern-day heart disease deaths were higher in states that experienced a rapid rise out of poverty between 1950 and 1980 — even when controlling for the effects of obesity, smoking and education level.

No mention of controlling for a predilection for sweet tea, fried everything, and vegetables being limited to fried okra or green tomatoes. I loved southern cuisine when living in the South, but the cultural effects seem to have a much greater impact than biological. Take as a control anyone who has the biological makeup described and grew up in the South but then moved. It seems like poor study design to me.

<comment><USER3> >No mention of controlling for a predilection for sweet tea, fried everything, and vegetables being limited to fried okra or green tomatoes.

You left out collards, green beans, field beans, turnips, turnip greens, etc. Personally, I find the traditional southern sides as tasty as the BBQ/Fried chicken.

<comment><USER4> > You left out collards, green beans, field beans, turnips, turnip greens, > etc. Personally, I find the traditional southern sides as tasty as the > BBQ/Fried chicken.

Well traditionally those are cooked in some sort of animal fat, so yes, people seem to love them.

My father in law thought he loved Black Eyed Peas. Then as his health got worse as he got older and did less his wife tried to make food healthier so dropped the ham hock from the pot. Turns out he didn't like Black Eyed Peas at all, he just liked the taste of ham.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The more interesting question is what's going on in MN to keep heart disease so low. I'd have thought it would follow the same general pattern of the midwest.

<comment><USER6> Ever since I moved to MN, I've been hearing anecdotes that it's because that the population tends to be very outdoorsy and gets more exercise than in other states. Don't know if it's true at all, but even in winter, I see an awful lot of people out fishing, hunting, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Or stress methylation of their DNA passed through generations. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028390814...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028390814000203)

</comment><comment><USER8> I can't believe this research was even published it's so bad.

<comment><USER9> Why? Please explain.</comment></comment>


Unit Testing Isn't the Best You Can Do [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://rbcs-us.com/documents/Segue.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> The original title is a bit unspecific, so I used a sentence fragment from the text instead; I feel that sums up the overall push of the article reasonably well.</comment>


Acquaintance with SVG images - <AUTHOR> http://frontendbabel.info/articles/acquaintance-with-svg/

<comment><USER2> interesting - one thing I find difficult is how to deal with paths in SVG, some people use that to draw a font even.

Any pointers on that one?</comment>


$10 Showdown: Linode vs. Digital Ocean vs. Amazon Lightsail - <AUTHOR> https://joshtronic.com/2016/12/01/ten-dollar-showdown-linode-vs-digitalocean-vs-lightsail/ <comment><USER2> I am sticking with Digital Ocean over Lightsail because I don't like potential financial liability. I like being able to not think about my vps for months and knowing there is a maximum amount I will be charged.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why not vultr. Between these vultr is the only host that actually let's you install from your own media.

</comment><comment><USER4> Personally, I would include support quality in this analysis, because you can always find cheaper VPS hosts.

One thing I also notice with DigitalOcean (may apply to the others) is that they proxy apt-get requests and cache them in their datacenter, so the network feels much faster than some cheaper hosts.

<comment><USER5> AWS does the same. They have debian mirrors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> In reality you get very little for $10. If you need more than 8 instances it makes more sense to rent dedicated server and get something like Rancher

</comment><comment><USER7> One more important thing, amazon does not support ipv6.</comment>


Pillars Of Successful Brand Building From HootSuite CEO Ryan Holmes - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/1841963/the-4-pillars-of-successful-brand-building

<comment><USER2> Branding is where so many companies miss the mark. Nice to see someone explain it properly. Brand = customer engagement and experience.

When you do it right, you get evangelism, customers who will spread your message, and growing network effects.

I can't help but suspect that Ryan's strong branding expertise comes from a history in hospitality.</comment>


Bitcoin price sees largest spike ever in Argentina following market crash - <AUTHOR> https://decrypt.co/8333/bitcoin-price-sees-largest-spike-ever-argentina-following-market-crash <comment><USER2> This is not bitcoin is the peso devaluating, USD also climbed 20% after the election</comment>


Show HN: Making Phone Calls from Slack - <AUTHOR> http://jamesthom.as/blog/2015/05/29/phonebot/

<comment><USER2> This would be useful for taking meeting notes, not perfect of course, but better than I think what most people do: no notes.</comment>


Japanese Language: Grammar for Giving and Receiving in Japanese - <AUTHOR> https://learnjapanese.best/2019/10/22/giving-and-receiving/ <comment><USER2> 授受 noun 授受する verb</comment>


C# on the iPad - <AUTHOR> http://monotouch.net/iPad

<comment><USER2> Has anyone had an experience using MonoTouch in general? As a .Net developer I'm very intrigued.

<comment><USER3> I've been playing with it and so far I'm impressed. You still have to learn the individual iPhone API calls and adjust to the new environment but once you get past that it's actually quite easy to use.

FYI: This e-book has helped a lot: [http://www.wrox.com/WileyCDA/WroxTitle/Building-iPhone- and-i...](http://www.wrox.com/WileyCDA/WroxTitle/Building-iPhone-and-iPod- touch-Applications-for-the-NET-C-Developer-with- MonoTouch.productCd-0470590734.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The evaluation version is fully functional in the simulator, but you can't get it onto a real device. $399 for the cheapest version. If they halved the price I'd buy it, I'm sure many more would too.

<comment><AUTHOR> I suppose you have to make the decision if the time you save by working with C# instead of Objectve-C (if there's any at all) is worth $400.

<comment><USER4> I don't suppose anyone's still following this, but I borrowed a mac, and installed monotouch. It's very impressive indeed. $400 is easy to justify at work, but for free stuff at home not so much.</comment></comment></comment>


Now, Even the Government Has an App Store  - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/now-even-the-government-has-an-app-store/?ref=technology <comment><USER2> Great! Now I can get a "GOVERNMENT PROFESSIONAL EDITION - CALL C" for only $746.91 [1]. But seriously, the front page looks half-decent (ignoring the JPEG artifacts), but the rest of the site is like a very, very bad joke.

1\. [https://apps.gov/cloud/advantage/catalog/product_detail.do?B...](https://apps.gov/cloud/advantage/catalog/product_detail.do?BV_UseBVCookie=Yes&oid=271819733&itemIndex=-1)

<comment><USER3> I can't figure out what some of these apps even do. "GOVERNMENT ENTERPRISE EDITION", $1,436.37

Yeah, let me just buy that $1500 iPhone app.

Edit: Removed link, realized you linked to the "PROFESSIONAL" edition.

<comment><USER2> My link is now dead. Apparently, looking at a list of the app and clicking on one of them yields a URL that only works a couple of hours. Great.</comment></comment></comment>


Google Chrome will finally support casting local files - <AUTHOR> https://www.xda-developers.com/chrome-casting-local-files/ <comment><USER2> Hmmm. I casted a local file today. Is this feature already live?</comment>