State of the Lambda - <AUTHOR> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~briangoetz/lambda/lambda-state-4.html

<comment><USER6> > An alternative (or complementary) approach to function types, suggested by > some early proposals, would have been to introduce a new, structural > function type. A type like "function from a String and an Object to an int" > might be expressed as (String,Object)->int. This idea was considered and > rejected, at least for now, due to several disadvantages:

Too bad they didn't, C# originally had delegates that you had to declare, but with the addition of generics and lambdas, that system got prettier and easier. The generic delegate types Func and Action are just that, so I can have a method that looks like this:

      private Foo MyMethod(string str, Func<Bar, string, int> func) {
        //...
      }

...which means that MyMethod is a method that takes two arguments, the first is a string, and the second is a method that takes two arguments, a string and an int, and returns a Bar object. But when I call it, I can use a lambda expression, like this:

      var result = MyMethod("hey hey", (s, i) => new Bar(s, i));

...which is far from unwieldy. But I can see how checked exceptions would make it horrible, and I'm glad C# doesn't have those.

<comment><USER7> Using lambdas in Java 8 looks pretty much exactly like your example.

The line you quote from the article is about a proposed way of declaring lambda types, where instead of

        private Foo MyMethod(string str, Func<Bar, string, int> func) {
          //...
        }

you could write something like

        private Foo MyMethod(string str, (string,int)->Bar func) {
          //...
        }

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > It is our intent to _prohibit_ capture of mutable local variables. The > reason is that idioms like this:

      int sum = 0;
      list.forEach(e -> { sum += e.size(); });

> are fundamentally serial

An unfortunate decision. Yes, updating such a variable from multiple threads can cause race conditions. But there are many ways to run into race conditions when writing multithreaded code, and this doesn't really add a new one.

Furthermore, most code is mostly serial, and the ability to modify captured variables is a very useful one in serial code. (I've written code like that in Lisp for decades.) And finally, the restriction is, of course, easily worked around -- just store the value you want to update in a 1-element array.

So the restriction doesn't really protect anyone from anything -- it just forces them to use an ugly workaround in order to write their algorithms in a natural way.

<comment><USER9> The motivation is that the question of whether list.forEach (or maybe better, iterable.forEach) is serial or parallel is to be left up to the implementation of the collection. Everything related to multi-threaded code since about Java 5 has been about hiding the details of concurrency and allowing programmers to think about code in a serial fashion, but still get the gains from multi threaded code.

It's not necessarily about parallelism either -- you could just as easily pass in a function as some sort of callback that gets called far in the future, for example,

String error = null; return createClientWithErrorHandler(e -> { error = e; });

What does that even mean? Does the execution context need to be kept hanging around?

Java already provides good atomic references if you need to have a sum variable or anything similar.

<comment><USER8> > What does that even mean? Does the execution context need to be kept hanging > around?

Once the block containing the declaration of 'error' has been exited, the only way anything could refer to 'error' would be if there were at least one additional lambda expression in the same block that was closed over the same binding of 'error'. Two such lambda expressions could thus communicate with each other through the shared binding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm surprised more people aren't just using Groovy. The performance of Groovy 2.0 on JVM 7 is greatly improved to the point where its a non-issue in 95% of situations (and you can just drop to java for those portions with no penalties).

<comment><USER11> I tend to agree with you, but Groovy 2 is still pretty new. In my experience, most of the hardcode Java shops and devs that rejected Groovy (primarily?) because of speed are generally slow-adopters, and wouldn't be using Groovy 2 just because it was released a few months ago.

As to speed, I've not benchmarked it on JDK7, so I'm not sure what effect the InvokeDynamic stuff has yet, but @CompileStatic annotation helps a lot.

My fibonacci stuff at <https://github.com/mgkimsal/newgroovy2> (did a presentation on groovy2 last week) showed:

fibonacci run of 30:

* pure java (not in the github) - <USER2>

* groovy2 compilestatic - <USER3>

* groovy2 dynamic with typedefs - <USER4>

* groovy2 no typedefs - <USER5>

So yes, while @CompileStatic groovy2 is technically approx 40-50% 'slower' in these tests, the noticeable diff for a lot of projects (especially considering file and db access will be constants regardless) will be likely negligible.

<comment><USER12> Groovy 2.0 was only released a few months ago, and isn't production ready. Groovy 2.0 has two jars in it, one with static-compilation and static- inference grafted on, and the other with optimizations for JDK 7's invoke- dynamic bytecode. Programmers _can't_ use both static-compilation _and_ invoke-dynamic in the same source file.

Also, both jars seem to have problems. Groovy 2.0.4 was released yesterday only 2 weeks after version 2.0.2 was released "to fix static compilation and type inference problems". Grails 2.2-rc-1 (actually the first beta and not a serious "release candidate" for production use, because the releases called "beta" are really alphas) has only just been released, the first with Groovy 2.x, with only the static-compilation jar from Groovy 2.0.2 bundled, _not_ the invoke-dynamic jar.

The facilities of the invoke-dynamic jar might never be merged into the static-compilation jar. There seems to be some infighting at SpringSource over who's in control of Groovy. Version 2.0.3 was skipped because the P.M. "compiled it on the JDK 6 instead of JDK 7 by mistake", which looks like a political play by Guillaume Laforge, SpringSource's project manager for Groovy, against Jochen Theodorou, their technical lead who's done most of the programming work on Groovy since 2004.

A year ago, Laforge hired another developer, Cedric Champeau, to put static type inference and compilation into Groovy, in order to mitigate a SpringSource business threat by Alex Tkachman's Groovy++, a static-compilation addon to Groovy which has since been abandoned. Groovy++ had to switch from supporting Groovy 1.8 to 1.7 for a while during its development because of compatibility problems in subsequent beta releases of Groovy, which may have been deliberate, and at the very least, Groovy++ served as an "inspiration" for Groovy 2.0's static-compilation jar. It's looking like Theodorou's invoke- dynamic bytecode optimizations aren't being merged into the static-compilation jar because of a power play by Laforge and Champeau who control the static- compilation jar. The project manager is diluting Theodorou's technical importance to Groovy and thus increasing his own influence.

Concerning your benchmarks of Groovy with Java, you left out Scala and Clojure, also popular JVM languages, _and_ you chose an algorithm not used much in business. Both Scala and Clojure have lazy-evaluation in their library lambdas/functions, as will Java 8. Groovy _only_ enables strict evaluation, which slows down many computations used in real business programming scenarios, of which fibonacci isn't one. Lazy-evaluation isn't in the pipeline for Groovy anytime soon. Its "GDK" utility methods were mostly written early on by a programmer without the aptitude for developing anything too complex, such as lambdas with lazy-evaluation. Seems like JDK 8's lambdas, due to ship in about a year, will be the first time Groovy will enable lazily-evaluated computations, long after Scala and Clojure. As for the invoke-dynamic bytecode optimizations being merged into the main jar used by Groovy 2.0 and Grails 2.2, JRuby's long stolen that show. It might never happen with Groovy.

And of course there's no spec for Groovy, unlike Scala's detailed spec or Clojure's function doc-strings. Without a spec, Groovy is still single- platform, unlike Clojure and Scala, and many other JVM languages that began their life somewhere else first.

So I don't think slow adoption by Java shops that were concerned about Groovy's performance is the reason more businesses don't adopt Groovy. It's more likely that the static-compilation code isn't production ready, just laden with problems, political infighting at SpringSource, trailing behind other languages in lazy-evaluation of lambdas (Clojure, Scala) and invoke- dynamic optimizations (JRuby), an informal-only spec that changes between point releases, the names "Groovy" and "G-Strings" evoking drug use and discrimination against female employees, and a general sense by technical managers that there's a price to be paid later down the line if they adopt Groovy.

<comment><USER13> As a main Groovy developer, the Jochen Theodorou, that was spoken of above, I think I have to correct the above quite a bit.

Yes, the distribution contains 2 jars now, one for the groovy parts being precompiled with the invokedynamic port as well as the invokedynamic implementation itself and another one. But! The other one is not a static version. It is the normal dynamic Groovy, that was it before. Of course you can use the indy jar and use non indy code as well as you can use @CompileStatic with it. Should there be any problems in mixing indy and static compilation, please report them, they would be bugs. In both jars indy is disabled by default and needs to be enabled on the command line or as compiler option if you want to use it. The problem with having precompiled groovy code in indy simply is, that it cannot run on a pre jdk7. The alternative would be to have no indy precompiled stuff in the distribution and we may take this path later on. So the difference between the jars is, that the second jar has additionally classes for invokedynamic support and precompiles some stuff using indy, while the non-indy jar has no indy classes and is compiled like before. Static compilation has absolutely nothing to do with it. So sorry, but you say above is large nonsense and please stop spreading non-facts and false flags. Groovy 2.0.4 was released because of some critical bugs in stub compiler, that have been a bigger problem to other projects, that want to release soon a new version. As for Groovy++. If you want to hear the full story, I will tell it you, but not in public, because I am respecting Alex, but what I would have to say about this, wouldn't sound like it and is not explained in a few lines of code. Let us just say that we had some very negative vibes between us. Him being my boss in the G2One days made things especially bad.

Then about lazy evaluation... the way I know them is for example generators. There is an article on the Groovy wiki on how to make generators using groovy.lang.Closure. I don't think that lambdas in Jdk8 will allow for example partially uncompiled code or non checked code paths until needed. So the will effectively not be better than Groovy in terms of laziness.

<comment><USER12> > Should there be any problems in mixing indy and static compilation, please > report them, they would be bugs

Looks like I misread the announcements about the 2 jars in Groovy 2.0. Perhaps someone should have corrected me when I first misexplained it in my blog 3 months ago (<http://groovy.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Blog02#13>).

There are, however, other issues that go back much longer. During 2006-2008 I wasn't welcomed but instead ignored then ridiculed by many in the Groovy community. Besides the public stuff, there was much more through back- channels, which appeared to be instigated by the project managers. Regarding Groovy++ and static compilation, I started building "GRegexes" atop it so had a stake in its success. So when in July last year, those project managers started a parallel project under VMware control to do the same, it looked like they were again squashing anything not under their own umbrella, despite advertising API transformation hooks allowing others to independently plug their own functionality into (Codehaus) Groovy. I started speaking out publically about their behavior then. Not wanting to give up on Groovy, I started building a version atop Clojure around December last year. Lo and behold, within a week after 8 years of neglecting JSR-241, the Groovy project manager starts writing a tool to generate a "TCK" from the Codehaus Groovy tests, from which he intends to generate a "spec" automatically. Whatever tests the current version of the Codehaus implementation of Groovy happens to pass at the time becomes the latest version of the "spec". Any changes to the "spec" will effectively be discussions on the Codehaus mailing list and Jira issues.

After all this it looks like VMware don't really want anything related to Groovy that's not under their own direct control. Other languages _embrace the anarchy_ : Perl has CPAN, and v6 has a spec with different implementations. Ruby has gems and an ISO spec with many implementations, and Rails was built _outside_ Matz's control afaik by 37signals. Haskell has Hackage and a spec with many implementations, but the VMware project managers seem to be discouraging independent development like Groovy++ and GRegexes, and even stonewalling regarding a spec. I have only respect for your contributions to Groovy, as well as those of Cedric, Paul, Jeremy, and others I don't know about, but I have a lot of mistrust with the non-technical overlords at VMware. Perhaps that was how I misread what they said about the two jars in Groovy 2.

<comment><USER13> Should I have corrected your misread about the announcements? Well I would have done so if I had read it. I try to concentrate on working and what goes through the lists. I don't read blogs very often. The normal channel for me is to ask on the mailing list if there are things unclear. I then try to answer them as best as I can.

Looking at nabble a bit (I did of course not look at all your messages) I don't see what you mean with being ignored or not welcomed or ridiculed in 2006-2008. as for the back-channels, that was the situation from 2003 onwards already. back then a lot happened in IRC for example. The long discussions on the list have often only been the tip of the iceberg. As for GRegexes... it is the first time I hear about it. Remember I don't usually read many blogs and you never mentioned it on the groovy lists. So I am sorry that you have this problem. I won't say Alex is the only one at fault for this. We offered him a slow integration path of his "ideas" including a rewrite of the code, because his code was quite makeshift. He was not interested without getting money. And getting new founds from VMware is a fight, especially for Groovy. If you think VMware wants to control anything Groovy, then I think I have to tell you that this is wrong. Most of VMware doesn't even know Groovy exists. This has pros (no being bothered too much by marketing) and cons (not getting much in terms of funds). The part VMware is mostly interested in, is Grails as part of their products. And they don't care too much about what Grails does exactly either, as long as it works for them. So I really don't see VMware wanting to have everything under their control. I mean you complain also about a time long before main developers have been with VMware. From my perspective the freedom we have now is more then when there was G2One (there we always had financial problems). And before G2One is was even difficult to meet. I mean when I attended the first Paris meeting I was still student and paying everything myself.

Regarding a spec... We discuss this since... I don't know, since James had the stupid idea of doing a JSR and then not working on it. Jeremy worked a lot on it, but in the end he had to stop because of potential copyright issues with Sun. We asked them if we could take their spec and adapt it for Groovy. That of course they didn't want. Then we started with a "delta" spec. But actually this cannot work for two reasons. One is that Groovy has some quite fundamental changes of the concepts, so a simple "delta" will not do it in large parts. The other is that they too change the spec over time, making a "delta" a bit difficult. Well, ok, the later is not such a big deal, if you have some persons working on this... but we never had anyone but Jeremy. As for the spec from Guillaume... What you wrote doesn't sound quite right to me. The idea is to have a document similar to the JLS for Groovy, including code. This code is to form the TCK, and "directly" executed from that spec. Quite some tests from our test suite would then go into that spec and the spec will become part of our build, to ensure we do not accidentally change the spec with our implementation. If you want to make such a project you are welcome. But then I suggest not only looking at the very small beginnings at <https://github.com/glaforge/dokspek> I also suggest we discuss the exact thing on the list first - and that without letting us be blinded by emotion please.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Hey, it's only been 17 years.

<comment><USER15> In which Java basically has taken over the world of enterprise programming. Contrary to fringe languages like Haskell and the like.

<comment><USER14> Java forces you to write code in a pretty readable/static manner. Of course you can write 'bad' Java, but the point is that Java limits expressiveness so that YOU are replaceable/won't introduce memory issues. That's the whole point of using Java in the enterprise.

To be clear, I'm not saying anything bad about the JVM.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> State of the Lambda December 2011 4th edition

<comment><USER17> Yes, why old news make front page? I guess not everyone is aware of it yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> > Default methods provide a more object-oriented solution for this problem: > people.sort(comparing(Person::getLastName));

Yay function pointers.

<comment><USER19> and default methods are traits but it's a secret.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Most of the effort around Lambda in the JVM has now shifted to implementing the collection libraries. You can follow along here:

[http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-libs-spec- obse...](http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-libs-spec- observers/2012-September/thread.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> It actually looks pretty good. I can see they spend a lot of effort to make sure it fits into the existing system, keeping new syntax or new form to the minimum.

</comment><comment> jmcdonald-ut If this helps replace functors I'm all for it.

</comment><comment><USER22> Fortunately for us, the programming language world isn't as litigious as the smartphone world.

<comment><USER23> I cannot see how to apply the lambda-calculus to smartphones…

<comment><USER24> Lamdas are not orignal.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: CloudyBox – Linux Desktop on Browser Service - <AUTHOR> https://cloudybox.co/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hello,

I recently launched CloudyBox and I would be tankful if I got from you any feedback. Also I'm here to answer any question...</comment>


Ask HN: Anyone into Stock Scalping? - <AUTHOR> Asking as an amateur. First, let me say that I know that trading is not a game and most people lose money.
Having said that, the idea of scalping really fascinates me as I have always thought about it a simplistic manner "Hey that stock moved a couple of bucks up today. If I had 50 shares to sell, I could make a quick $200 profit minus the commission". Of course, the stock could have moved down and then may be I would have held it anyway.
A very simplied version of course but kinda scratching the surface of what stock traders call scalping. I know there are many other techniques in scalping itself.
Does anyone do this at a smaller level as in less than a few hundred bucks a day or even a month ? <comment><USER2> I would think that doing this on a small level would eat at your profits rather quick. You have your broker fees which could be as high as $10. If you are only spending $100 to $200 you limit the number of shares you could buy, which also limits your profits. Let's assume a $10/share stock and you spend $200. You have your buy and sell commissions from the broker, which we could give a conservative estimate at $10 total. Right now you're at $220 and have 20 shares. You would have to have a $0.11 price swing in order to make a profit, and that profit is only $4. That assumes that the trade actually goes your way.

It seems to me that you are not going to make much money if you are trading that little amount of money daily.</comment>


Ikea's flat-pack refugee shelter is entering production - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/26/8287509/ikea-refugee-shelter-flatpack-photos-iraq-syria <comment><USER2> These units seem to be priced at $1,000 for anyone else who was curious.

Source: [http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-09/thousand- do...](http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-09/thousand-dollar-ikea- house-refugees-big-pic)

<comment><USER3> 10,000 of these are contracted to the UNHCR.

I've always found it curious; often innovations in the refugee arena would often be very welcome in other venues: camping, cheap structures, etc. These things are always priced really cheap, but we never see them really entering into the commercial market -- or when they do, they're always going for some kind of 2x the price scheme.

For example, these 188 sqft shelters would be great as a sheds, or workshops in affluent areas. Heck, I'd like to buy one for my parents to use as a storage shed on their property. Equivalent sized sheds (without solar power, or good design) run >$2000.

I see this all the time, nifty water purifiers, portable lights, radios, etc. There's some really interesting stuff being produced for refugees. Instead of crazy 2:1 schemes or whatever, why not just sell these on a 20% markup and donate the profit to buying more shelters? Or just sell them and push the price down due to the greater economies of scale?

The refugee space always seems so weird to me.

<comment><USER4> Have you considered that maybe actually selling them to end users is > double the cost?

Massive amounts of risk, supply chain, logistics, all eliminated when selling to the UN like this.

<comment><USER5> Don't forget about advertising which on it's own often adds 20% to niche items costs.

Also, CC processing might be ~3% but it's added on at the end. aka 3% of manufacturing, 3% sales etc. Which can add up to 10% of the initial manufacturing cost.

<comment><USER6> Some companies minimize advertising budget but manage do do very well. Patagonia spends less than 1% of sales on advertising. ([http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/brand-strategy- tha...](http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/brand-strategy-that-shifts- demand.aspx))

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There's a startup in Austin, TX aiming to compete in a similar space: [http://www.reactionhousing.com](http://www.reactionhousing.com)

Full disclosure: I work there. ;) And if you find this sort of mission compelling: we're hiring software engineers! (firmware, backend) [http://www.reactionhousing.com/careers/#embedded-firmware- en...](http://www.reactionhousing.com/careers/#embedded-firmware-engineer) [http://www.reactionhousing.com/careers/#software- engineer](http://www.reactionhousing.com/careers/#software-engineer)

Our design is quite different (and geared towards a shorter length of stay) but all the same, I'm excited to see these go into production.

<comment><USER8> How many of those can you fit in a shipping container? It looks like it is rigid, whilst the Ikea ones are flat pack.

Logistics is _everything_ in disaster relief.

<comment><USER9> They nest inside each other as the picture shows. This is clearly a low-labour product. Though I think if you have a lot of people needing a house, there's already a pool of excess labor available.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If my wife and I had lived in one of those for our first two years of marriage, we could have saved up one heck of a down payment for our first house.

<comment><USER11> Likely but the real problem with doing so is actually land. Even if you own some many cities take issue with non-permanent domiciles that are lived in for long periods (not least of all because you escape housing tax, and aren't up to "code").

However several people have done what you're suggesting by:

\- Living on a boat (either out at sea, moored just off-shore, or at a marina). This can range from being cheaper, to being much more expensive.

\- Campervan, or enclosed truck. They often park semi-legally overnight and move every few days to escape harassment. Bathrooms are problematic (gym? work?).

\- Camping (i.e. just tent and woods). This often escapes harassment (since you aren't in a city) but you are limited by water, and often travelling to/from the site is time consuming if you wish to work.

\- Living at work (if possible). Likely legal but can get you fired thus homeless.

\- Living a hotel. Some people have claimed that they can live in a hotel for less than the cost of a mortgage + utilities + taxes + other expenses. Ditto with some cruises. YMMV.

\- Living in a foreign country. If you work remotely living abroad or in the middle of nowhere can cost a LOT less than living in a big expensive city.

PS - In general being homeless is "illegal" in most US cities. You'd get harassed, maybe even arrested, just for being without a fixed address. Most cities will try to run you out of town (literally and figuratively).

<comment><USER12> > Campervan, or enclosed truck. They often park semi-legally overnight and > move every few days to escape harassment. Bathrooms are problematic (gym? > work?).

My neighborhood has had an increasing influx of these in the past few months. At first I figured, "Live and let live. If this is all they can afford until they get back on their feet, more power to them."

Since then, I've learned that the solution to the bathroom problem is often "shit in the alley behind my house", and their daytime activities typically consist of dealing and doing drugs and scattering trash. I ran out of sympathy right around the time I found a used needle near the front yard where my toddler likes to run around and play.

<comment><USER9> Sounds like your problem is drug users/dealers, not people with mobile homes. I hope you wouldn't also want to push out the good ones who aren't causing problems. You can just consider that you now live in a bad neighborhood. Some people have this from their permanent house neighbors too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It would be nice to see a list of requirements these shelters have to adhere to. It would illustrate how difficult the design space is.

</comment><comment><USER14> I haven't found their weight, but their lifespan in only estimated to be three years, does anyone know if they are easily recyclable, do they burn, if so are any gases toxic?

Can they be combined to form interlinked structures?

<comment><USER15> I'm guessing that the end-of-life path for 95% of these are shantytowns.. where they will continue to be among the safest structures. so in that regard, they are completely recyclable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Makes me think of the Hexayurt project.

[http://hexayurt.com/](http://hexayurt.com/)

</comment><comment><USER17> They should do a tom's shoes thing with this. We both could have a house.

<comment><USER18> Sure, but then you have to find some place to put it. The house I'm living in is worth $25k, but the land it's on is worth $1.6m last I checked. It's not always about a place to put your things, it's about where to put the place to put your things.

<comment><USER19> Depends. There's a lot of cheap land in the western US once you get away from the city where $5k-$10k will get you a place you can plop a few of these things down when you wanna get away from things. You'll have to bring your utilities with you, but water tanks, solar panels, etc aren't horribly expensive these days.

<comment><USER20> There are towns in rural Saskatchewan Canada that will sell you a serviced lot for $1 if you agree to build a house on the lot and live in it for three years.

<comment><USER21> And some are even offering tax credits to move there. Pardon the ugly link, it seems the main town website is currently down. [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GyiysDw...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GyiysDwTCdgJ:allan.ca/moving/population- growth/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca)

As a curiosity, are you from around here? I'm in Saskatoon right now, but we've got some land down in the Last Mountain Lake area that we might develop with a small "away from the city" home. (In fact, my girlfriend purchased it... 3 lots and an old unplumbed church for $1).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think a flat-packed boat with the autopilot set for Italy or Australia would be far more popular.

<comment><USER23> They wouldn't make it to Australia. The government would force them to Nauru or Cambodia where they would be locked up in basically a prison until the tried to commit suicide or were beaten/raped by staff. Or until they gave up and decided to go back to where they came from.

Australia truly is a lovely, compassionate country.

<comment><USER24> And if you're gay and try to flee persecution and claim asylum in Australia, they send you to Papua New Guinea. Where being gay is a crime.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> So when can we buy these at the local ikea?

<comment><USER26> It would be really great if they sold these such that one purchase could cover the cost of one for charity. It would be even better if there was enough demand to drive the production cost down further.

<comment><USER27> > It would be really great if they sold these such that one purchase could > cover the cost of one for charity.

No, absolutely not. This is the same mistake the one laptop per child people made.

Just sell the shit out of them to everyone who can use one. Economies of scale will bring the price down. The "buy two, get one!" approach deters people from buying them and shoots economies of scale in the head.

<comment><USER26> Depending on how much they cost as well as how much IKEA wants to profit from their sale, it could be well within their reach to charge (for example) Americans what one would expect for an IKEA garden shed, writer's shed, whatever you want to call it. If you search prefab outdoor sheds on Sears, you'll see that prices vary from around $300 to $2000 depending on size and materials and taking sale prices into account. One advantage IKEA has is that they thrive on people _buying in_ to their systems, even when it's not necessarily cheaper than the alternative. That can be attributed to better design, integration/continuity (i.e. "everything just goes well together"), or just shopper's fatigue after a day of wandering through an IKEA store. How much would you be willing to pay for it? That's the only question IKEA needs an answer. If the can sell it for cost x 2 without an average IKEA shopper batting an eye then they're golden. Whether they want to try squeezing a profit in there is up to them but by no means necessary. They get publicity and a new product line.

To address what you've said about OLPC, I don't think it's a good comparison at all. Problems with the OLPC in this case: huge restructuring due to the economy, never intended for consumers, and in an already massive product field (PCs > Laptops > Netbooks). Still, the _Give 1 Get 1_ campaign netted 83,500 sales. That's pretty good, considering the cost was $400 in the same year that the MacBook Air became available for $1800 (which people thought was pretty high then). How many of those people expected to actually use their OLPC? How many people do you think would buy an IKEA shed just for it to sit around and make them feel charitable or something?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> As I understand it, Buckminster Fuller designed a geodesic dome to be made from wax coated cardboard. The pieces were printed with instructions for assembly with some kind of large stapler. His intention was for these to be used in similar situations such as refugees, disaster relief, etc. He claimed that the structures would survive rainy seasons and winters, but that they were still supposed to be temporary.

</comment><comment><USER29> This could also be used to provide housing to Sweden's rapidly increasing population of homeless beggars

[http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&art...](http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6044464)

<comment><USER30> The problem of housing in Stockholm isn't about how expensive it is to build; it is about zoning (and rent control on top of that).

Generally, third-world solutions (tents, shantytowns, container homes, or this) are a solution for how to build cheaply. First-world problems are mostly about zoning and permissions to build.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> These remind me of an architecture project to produce semi livable spaces for Tokyo homeless. The blue tarpaulin structures. I think there was a German movie cherry something or other in which a terminally ill man who travels to Japan to gets to know a girl who lives in one such structure in one of the parks there. This is bigger and perhaps more durable. But too big for a homeless person to move to a new spot, if necessary, in a hurry.

If they could marry the modularity of this with the size and portability of the blue tarp structures, this could be an option to homeless communities who prefer not to go to official shelters.

In other words, I wonder if they could take this but build a version for individual homeless people.

</comment><comment><USER32> How easy are these things to heat and cool?

How well do they keep insects and other pests out?

</comment><comment><USER33> I'd love to see a similar approach to San Francisco homelessness problem.

At $1000 per unit, housing costs for all homeless people in SF will be below $100M.

<comment><USER34> Congratulations you have re-invented slums!

<comment><USER35> Google Hooverville

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> These look pretty functional. A bit sturdier than the typical Army tent and no external guy wires. Given that they have been testing these, how do they hold up in the field to wind? I was recently asked how I would provide shelter for people working on a pipeline in the middle of no where, and this looks like it would fit the bill.

</comment><comment><USER37> This is really impressive. The problem is highly constrained. Because a house is a sturdy structure, large amounts of physical material are involved. Furthermore, there are quality/safety requirements.

It's great to see Ikea applying their deep expertise in producing sturdy structures that can be shipped cheaply, to this area.

</comment><comment><USER38> What about sustainability, ecology, ease to dispose the materials? Isn't that gonna trash the land?

</comment><comment><USER39> I'd buy one of these this summer no question - my wife's family lives on a small, mostly uninhabited island, and has some space set aside for a cabin for us. But building much of anything there is crazy expensive, so this would be awesome.

Sell these in Canada/America, please!

</comment><comment><USER40> [http://gizmodo.com/the-un-is-ordering-10-000-of-ikeas- brilli...](http://gizmodo.com/the-un-is-ordering-10-000-of-ikeas-brilliant- flatpack-r-1693716589)

Gizmodo link that worked for me.

Looks great. Simple, robust, decent size, solar powered, ventilated, lockable.

</comment><comment><USER41> These look like the solution to Bay Area housing prices. BRB going to IKEA.

<comment><USER42> Single family structures _are_ the problem in the bay area. We need way more density than these things can provide.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> They should throw in some Billys or Ivars for the refugee's stuff.

<comment><USER30> Aren't the refugees suffering enough already?

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I can hardly put together an IKEA shelving unit in 4 hours...

</comment><comment><USER6> I think these are engineering-wise fantastic. Though, I do worry that they look a little too non-local. When you take care of someone, sure you start at the base of Maslow's law of hierarchy, but it is important to take cultural, personal, etc. issues into consideration as well. This hold especially true when dealing with prolonged displacement where identity and self-worth can be challenged.

<comment><USER45> I disagree. The condescension that western people show to the rest of the world is very grating, as a non-westerner.

People don't care about "culture" when it comes to basic needs and survival. A roof, any roof, over my head is worth infinitely more than no roof when it's raining outside or -10 degrees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> It would be interesting to buy these and use them to live in abandoned buildings.

</comment><comment><USER47> Nice to see the 28 billion dollar charity actually doing some.

[http://www.fastcodesign.com/3035734/infographic-of-the- day/i...](http://www.fastcodesign.com/3035734/infographic-of-the-day/ikea-is- a-nonprofit-and-yes-thats-every-bit-as-fishy-as-it-sounds)

<comment><USER48> This cannot be said often enough: "non-profit" is a phrase relating to the tax situation of a corporation. It is not synonymous with "good", "charitable", or even "not greedy." On the flip side, "for-profit" is not necessarily synonymous with "evil" or "non-charitable".

<comment><USER49> I've noticed lately that a good portion of society views legal tax sheltering and legal reduction of tax burden as immoral.

The thought seems to be if you are making lots of money you are obligated to freely hand over a good chunk of it to the government.

IKEA is very creative in their tax avoidance. Interestingly enough, it may actually be a net gain for the countries where IKEA employs people. Because of their ultra-low tax burden and the fact that the profits mostly have to go back into the business, they are able to pay more employees AND pay their employees more. Those employees in turn pay taxes to support the government.

<comment><USER47> A simple test to use is to ask what would happen if all organizations did the same thing. It would have to be structured differently.

Nonprofits are barred from distributing profits, and IKEA uses a loop hole - trademark costs - to circumvent this.

As for paying more people better, the evidence doesn't support this. IKEA tends to match standard retail wages: store managers make approximately $125K, and salespeople $28K.[1] Near Vancouver, Canada, IKEA recently weathered a 17 month strike from its union. [2]

[1] [http://www.onlinemba.com/blog/video-why-is-ikea-a-non- profit...](http://www.onlinemba.com/blog/video-why-is-ikea-a-non-profit/) [2] [http://www.richmondreview.com/news/280108422.html](http://www.richmondreview.com/news/280108422.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> The interior reminded me of the magical tents in Harry Potter movies.

</comment><comment><USER51> Do they come with the hex key?

</comment><comment><USER52> why do i want to cry when i see those pictures?

</comment><comment><USER53> These things are great. But at the same time - so weird.

Helpless victims of failed states, social injustice, greed, hatred, etc can now rely on high tech structures to take care of them.

Genocide ? No problem, we've got you covered. We've got just the perfect structures for $1000 a pop for you to take shelter in.

I mean, it IS the right thing to do, but at the same time, I don't know..

I guess would prefer that somehow there were no refugees and suffering in the first place...

It's a strange thing to say, but somehow, by providing these solutions we're making the crimes less grave, more acceptable, a technical matter rather than a moral one...?

<comment><USER54> No, what this is, is cheap shelter.

The rest of what you are saying is just an inability to cope with reality. And I mean that in the nicest way possible.

It is hard, and deeply troubling, to accept that there is such a large group of displaced people in the world who could use something like this.</comment></comment>


Commentary: The Story of Jesus Is an Allegory for Neo from the Matrix - <AUTHOR> http://shermanave.org/sherman-ave/commentary-the-story-of-jesus-is-an-allegory-for-neo-from-the-matrix <comment><USER2> > Even before he comes onto the scene there are many prophets who have been > predicting the coming of a savior. Sound familiar?

New/first baby stories. Let's give a warm welcome to our new friend here.

Now, he's come a long way and I think we should all simmer down, because he says he's the son of a virgin - the only son of God - and he's here to save us.

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

"Hero's journey" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey)

> First, Jesus is betrayed by Judas, a supposed friend, when Judas identifies > him to the Roman soldiers in exchange for a bag of silver coins.

Babylonian chronicle 1 is all about how Alexander slapped down Bessus, who betrayed. Why is this the first chapter?

He claimed to be King, and they were all like "IDK buddy" and turned him over to the new authorities; and now we have this story to tell instead of about how Alexander was the meanest of the mall.

And this week: A story about love for one's neighbor:

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

> Jesus has to sacrifice himself to absolve mankind from its sins in reference > to the way Neo had to sacrifice himself to keep the machines from obtaining > the Zion mainframe codes!

Alright, I'm going to need some of you to sign up for the army. An army, really. Any army you can find.

Sometimes, it really is better for one person to just, you know.

> Then we come to resurrection. It's well documented that after Agent Smith > kills Neo he remains dead for 72 seconds before rising to show that he is > "The One": the savior of humanity. In the Bible Jesus rises after 3 days—72 > hours—to show that he is the savior of humanity. Coincidence? Yeah, right. > The writers of the Bible are doing all this on purpose to spell out in big > flashing letters that Jesus Christ is a Neo metaphor. Do you think it's an > accident that Jesus ascends into Heaven at the end of the New Testament, > kinda like the way Neo flies upward at the end of The Matrix? Or that the > person who doubts Jesus is named Thomas, the name Neo goes by when he doubts > that he is "The One"?

Birth is the opposite of death?

Sometimes when you're having a baby you've just gotta get out of town and find a safe place for awhile.

Put a rock in front of the door of the cave.

There'll be a great flood. So he made a boat. And l, two by two they marched up the plank.

Ishtar, Easter. Gilgamesh. Man, those girls could tell some stories!

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

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

> I could go on about how the sin plaguing humanity in the Old Testament is an > allegory for the war with the machines prior to Neo's arrival, or how the > Father, Son and Holy Ghost—a.k.a. the Trinity—is a clear reference to the > name of Neo's love interest, but by now I think one thing is abundantly > clear. The story of Jesus is a grand allegory meant to reframe the > Wachowskis' seminal sci-fi hit, and in doing so it makes us take another > look at the deeper philosophy behind The Matrix.

Rule of three (disambiguation): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three)

Turns out there's a text with predates Pythagoras' theorem.

Three wise men came from the East. Bearing three gifts. (And antibodies).

Triple deity: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity)

> "Carl Jung considered the arrangement of deities into triplets an archetype > in the history of religion."</comment>


Relying on a Google API and going over the quota on launch day - <AUTHOR> http://blog.pushbullet.com/2013/10/24/push-to-chrome-a-retrospective/

<comment><USER2> This is super offtopic, but it thought it was awesome: on the ActionBar in the PushBullet android app, the pullout drawer icon makes it look like the bullet (your logo) is being shot across the screen (like "action lines").

It made me smile :)

<comment><USER3> This is great. I totally did that on purpose (lining it up vertically and everything) but I figured I'd never hear anyone comment on it :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Good for Google upping the limit here. Similarly when I developed a search engine using Google's API I too exceeded the query limit on the first day; however, At a rate of $5/1,000 queries with a daily cap at 10,000 I was forced to redevelop using the Bing API.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, what's amazing is that they didn't charge us to increase the limit. It's also pretty awesome that their android push notification service has no quota and is free.

<comment><USER5> Using Google's search results takes a lot of computing power and could be abused by competitors.

Having robust messaging increases the value of Google's Android platform.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm impressed that the quota was lifted so readily. I've hit quota limit issues with other Google API services and hit brick walls regarding raising them.

<comment><AUTHOR> In the recent past, even with a premier paid account on GAE, getting a specific quota raised took a few days and was apparently a non-trivial operation.

<comment><USER6> I've been working on raising one of my quotas for the past 10 months. Filled with regular meetings with Google reps about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So you are already a paid user but you can't adjust the quota yourself? Or GCM quota cap is 10,000?

<comment><USER3> Using GCM for Chrome is free but you do have to have an API key (unlike some Google services). The 10,000 messages cap is is what they call a courtesy limit, hinting that you can get it increased, but we had never gone through the process of requesting one, nor did we feel we were necessarily guaranteed an increase.

(Adding a credit card didn't let us increase the cap.)</comment></comment>


The Brash Boys at 37signals Will Tell You: Keep It Simple, Stupid - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/magazine/16-03/mf_signals?currentPage=all <comment><AUTHOR> Response from 37signals: [http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/881-37signals- featured-in...](http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/881-37signals-featured-in- wired-march-2008-issue)</comment>


Beware of fake job postings - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/career/?p=712

<comment><USER2> In 2001 and 2003, I was unemployed for too long, and found that there were an enormous number of fake job postings back then as well.

One place was obviously looking for resumes to show that no American wanted the job, as they were claiming that the job was in a non-existant city (one was minneapolis, colorado).

More than one place that was calling folks up for interviews turned out to be pitches for multi-level marketing. After the first time I got suckered that way, I learned to identify and avoid other MLM pitches again.

The places asking for SSN, DL and salary history with resume are thinly disguised identity theft gangs.</comment>


The Modern JavaScript Tutorial - <AUTHOR> https://javascript.info/ <comment><USER2> ES6 has been there in our browsers since a long time now, yet why do so many still use babel?

<comment><USER3> Agreed. Babel is a disgusting cancer that taints the build chain for JavaScript things which people _keep using_.

It's not actually a bad thing to ask your customers to upgrade their browser if it doesn't support ES6 - it's probably for their own benefit anyway.</comment></comment>


Twitter pays engineer $10 mln as Silicon Valley tussles for talent - <AUTHOR> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/twitter-pays-engineer-10-mln-105959384.html

<comment><USER2> There's a bit of a difference between "engineer" and "senior vice president of engineering".

Further down, you can read:

 _even entry-level engineers can draw lucrative salaries in the Valley. Google Inc offered $150,000 in annual wages plus $250,000 in restricted stock options to snag a recent PhD graduate_

Being a PhD graduate doesn't make you "entry-level".</comment>


Validating UTF-8 bytes using only 0.45 cycles per byte (AVX edition) - <AUTHOR> https://lemire.me/blog/2018/10/19/validating-utf-8-bytes-using-only-0-45-cycles-per-byte-avx-edition/ <comment><USER2> I see a lot of applications trying to take advantage of SIMD, but what when you try to run them on systems that don't support these instructions? My guess is that you need to write multiple files taking advantage of different sets of instructions and then dynamically figure out which to use at runtime with cpuid, but isn't that cumbersome and a way to inflate a codebase dramatically?

<comment><USER3> In my understanding when you use intrinsics and build for a processor without support for the intrinsics then GCC for example will replace it with equivalent code.

<comment><USER4> Unfortunately, no.

That is the case with GCCs __builtin functions. With a few exceptions, intrinsics are basically macros for inline asm that the compiler can reason about.

If on x86-64 you use a _mm256* intrinsic and compile without AVX support you just get a compile error, not a pair of equivalent SSE instructions.

<comment><USER5> Even worse. You mostly get run-time errors when the built machine supported that feature, your machine doesn't, and the features aren't separated into multiversioning or loading different shared libs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Under the new string model in java > 8 a fairly frequent workflow is:

1) get external string

2) figure out if it is UTF-8, UTF-16, or some other recognizable encoding

3) validate the byte stream

4) figure out if the code points in the incoming string can be represented in Latin-1

5) instantiate a java string using either the Latin-1 encoder or the UTF-16 encoder

I know some or all of these steps are done using hotspot intrinsics, and then the JIT/VM does inlining, folding and so on, but I wonder how fast a custom assembly function to do all these steps at once could be.

<comment><USER7> You might be interested in his blog on the same subject a few days ago: [https://lemire.me/blog/2018/10/16/validating-utf-8-bytes- jav...](https://lemire.me/blog/2018/10/16/validating-utf-8-bytes-java- edition/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Previous blog post on HN:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17081571](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17081571)

</comment><comment><USER9> I wonder about the Joules per byte. AFAIK AVX units are quite expensive energy-wise.

<comment><USER10> Don't they also tend to work at a lower clock due to their higher energy requirements?

edit: though this is AVX2 ("AVX-256") rather than AVX-512, and Lemire has covered AVX and the possibility of throttling (with or without AVX) in the past so they're probably aware of the potential issue and consider that they either won't get triggered or the gain is good enough to compensate the lower frequency.

<comment><USER9> Nice. So I understand that AVX2 is not bringing the CPU's clock down.

Got any sources for power consumption figures/comparisons of those AVX units?

<comment><USER11> Heavy use of complex AVX2 operations causes downclocking, too, but typically less so than AVX-512. More details are documented in [https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/frequency_behavior](https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/frequency_behavior) \-- also see e.g. [https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/xeon_gold/6138#Frequencie...](https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/xeon_gold/6138#Frequencies) for an example how the frequencies differ depending on the number of active cores.

I _think_ the reason for reducing clock speed when vector units are in heavy use is to keep power usage in check.

You might also find [https://blog.cloudflare.com/on-the-dangers-of-intels- frequen...](https://blog.cloudflare.com/on-the-dangers-of-intels-frequency- scaling/) helpful, which goes into detail about a specific case where dynamic frequency scaling resulted in AVX-512 code running _slower_ than AVX2 code.

<comment><USER7> It's worth noting that the cloudflare test was done on a Xeon Silver, which has worse properties around the frequency changes than the Gold or Platinum. If you're on either Gold or Platinum, you're less likely to suffer the problems that Cloudflare did with mixed workloads.

This seems an optimisation nightmare. Your program needs to be aware both of the capability of the chip for using instructions, and what type of chip it is within a family to decide if you maybe do or don't want to use certain vectored instructions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> What does linux utilities like sed, awk use for text manipulation because they were very slow when I was changing a few table names in a sql file.

<comment><USER12> What was the size of the SQL file?

A "few table names" doesn't mean much if the SQL file is 20GB.

In any case, sed and awk are plenty fast, but not the fastest methods of text manipulation. You could write a custom C program for that.

<comment><USER13> While it sure is possible to do text manipulation in C, I don't think it should ever be the first choice, even if 'fastest' is a goal. A 0 byte is perfectly acceptable in a utf8 string (or any unicode string, really). But C has those annoying zero-terminated strings, so if you want to manipulate arbitrary unicode strings the first thing you can do is kiss the string functions in the C standard library goodbye. Which you probably want to do anyway because pascal-strings are simply better.

I would use Rust or C++ for this task.

<comment><USER14> > A 0 byte is perfectly acceptable in a utf8 string (or any unicode string, > really)

What? My understanding was that utf8 was crafted specifically so that the only null byte in it was literally NUL. That all normal human language described by a utf8 string will never contain a NUL. They're comparable to C strings in that way, where it can be used safely as an end of string marker. If you have embedded NULs, it's not really utf8, is it?

<comment><USER15> > My understanding was that utf8 was crafted specifically so that the only > null byte in it was literally NUL.

Correct.

> That all normal human language described by a utf8 string will never contain > a NUL.

Correct.

> If you have embedded NULs, it's not really utf8, is it?

Incorrect.

NUL is a valid character. If you accept arbitrary utf-8, or arbitrary ascii, or arbitrary 8859-1, then there might be embedded NUL. You can filter them out if you want, but they're not invalid.

<comment><USER16> It's invalid for unix filenames to have a null character. Therefore, if your application is printing filenames in their unicode representation, it doesn't ever need to consider there to be a null byte. This of course isn't an arbitrary case, but it shows one can make assumptions regardless of the "validity" of a character. I believe for most cases of arbitrary input, the correct and safe thing to do is to assume a byte stream of unknown encoding.

<comment><USER13> Since we arrived on this null-character discussion by considering text manipulation in C, I suspect most comments in this thread are made in the assumption that the text must be manipulated in some way (mine are!), so treating it as a byte stream of unknown encoding doesn't really solve the problem.

While null in filenames may be forbidden on Unix (and also on Windows), there are more exotic systems where it is allowed [1]. When writing portable software it's probably best not to make assumptions about what characters will never be in a filename.

Naturally if you have a problem where you can get away with just moving bytes around and never making assumptions about its contents then that is a great solution.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filename#Comparison_of_filenam...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filename#Comparison_of_filename_limitations)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Making Prodigy's "Smack My Bitch Up" in Ableton by Jim Pavloff - <AUTHOR> http://www.victusspiritus.com/2009/12/24/making-prodigys-smack-my-bitch-up-in-ableton-by-jim-pavloff/ <comment><USER3> The producer here is clearly talented, but the fact remains that notwithstanding Liam Howlett's setup in the late nineties, today's most basic music production software is a country mile more powerful than that which produced some of the most memorable music of the last twenty years.

I often think that there exists a clear analogy between electronic music and video games. The computer games of the 80s and early 90s possessed a simplicity and level of fun - often characterised as _playability_ \- which was to a certain extent lost when the exponentially-increasing power of hardware in the late 90s led to programmers to concentrate on all encompassing 3D effects at the expense of simple fun.

Likewise, I feel that many musicians today get too caught up in the neverending technical possibilities offered by their software (and digital hardware) at the expense of good, simple music which hits a spot close to the heart.

All the gear, but no idea - to coin a phrase.

I'm not sure what you'd call the musical equivalent of playability, but I think more musicians should bear it in mind. :)

<comment><USER4> I think we still see innovation in games, but what's happened is there are also more clones. So every year we get a bunch of first person shooters, that are more or less the same type of game but with different storylines, graphics, and environments. So this drowning by copycat games makes it seem as if innovative new games are not being produced as much anymore.

<comment><USER5> It has always been this way (at least as far as I can remember, I've had a PC since '86), you just don't remember the 1,000,000th space invader/pacman/tetris clone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I once thought Prodigy used mod trackers (those in-game chip tunes), but I found out they just use loads of Roland equipment.

After years of using soft samplers and synths, I recently moved into a bigger house and set aside a whole room for my music studio. With that much space, I now have:

+2 Akai S950 samplers (with enough memory for about 16 drums)

+3 mixing desks (2 vintage, one newer - the Yamaha vintage makes everything sound great

+Already had an Oberheim Xpander and a Bit 1, and a Crumar Toccata organ

+2 outboard compressors, UC200 chorus pedal

+Laptop with 192khz soundcard to master and sequence MIDI

My basic tactic is to make the entire track sequenced - recording only vocals and the non-MIDI Crumar Toccata - and then record it straight from the desk. A hardware mixer mixes better than Cubase can mix.

So overall, the older equipment was harder to use, but to my ears, sounded more 'real' than computer instruments. But I'm not in any way saying a music setup is 'better', just different, and sometimes different is what you want.

<comment><AUTHOR> Will forward these comments to my brother. He's a long time digital producer although I'd be hard pressed to get him to mix together ambient/electronic/d&b/whateverIlove.

Sounds like a pretty sick and expensive setup. Nice job putting it all together.

<comment><USER6> Actually, I bought the mixer after I couldn't split about 10 signals to the soundcard any more! I had splitters going into splitters and it was a mess.

Then the mixer I bought had FX inputs, so I bought the outboard FX units. Then I read about the S950 and bought 2 . They have 8 outputs which you can run through a mixing desk and EQ, adjust gain and volume, and even put an FX unit on a drum.

The great thing is all this equipment was bought on eBay in just a couple of months.

I put together a spreadsheet of the costs. The Akai's, mixers and effects units came to about £1000. The Xpander wasn't cheap, but I bought that in 2004. The organ was about £200 including postage.

But the point is, you can build a retro studio quite cheaply and experiment.

<comment><USER7> I'm impressed that you still use hardware samplers. It's pretty much the first thing that I would think of replacing with a computer (quasi unlimited sampling memory, unlimited storage, etc). I have a S2000 somewhere, gathering dust...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> That was amazing to watch. I have often wondered how awesome it would be to see great hackers at work in a similar way. I've had the luck to watch one or two sit next to me and work (during school), and it's mind-blowing how fast they are, and how they go about fleshing out a quick skeleton into a full piece of work.

Now with software like Etherpad, I wonder if soon we'll have screencasts of the making of great code.

<comment><AUTHOR> So much passion, focus and energy get's funneled into one life of the legends.

Humbling to watch epic artists at work. There's nothing in my life that has ever held a candle to the master level creators. It doesn't stop me from trying though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am curious how he found the original songs whose samples are mixed into the song. I guess in an interview the authors told about it, but hard to believe that he recognized those pieces by ear.

<comment><USER10> I am curious how does this work business wise? Since there are quite a lot of samples from other artists/songs, who gets paid how and how much in order to release something like this to the market?

<comment><USER11> Rights-clearing in electronic music and hip hop is usually quite complicated. Taking a beat or riff from a song is fair game, as it could not in any way be claimed to serve as a replacement for the original work. Often though, big named folks like Kanye West or Daft Punk will clear their samples before releasing, just in case.

I believe the payment is a flat rate, through rights clearing houses and the artists' agents.

<comment><USER10> Do you have any more info on this perhaps? I know when I'm working on a TV show or basically anything that will get screen time I have to work out through sheets of paperwork where I list every single sound item in the video, including main background track(s), background noise tracks (imagine a distant bg music from a radio down the street) etc. I have to list Name of the track, artist that played it (since it doesn't have to be an original author - <USER2> guess they somehow settle that on tier 2 then), basically any music that is longer than 8 beats - but common dogma is to include those also, just in case. It's very tedious process and I hate it, since when I shoot some scene where I don't have a total control over environment I basically have to know which song is playing by whom from a few seconds byte. Sometimes I just don't use great footage because I couldn't identify the song playing in the bg.

As I understand (I have to check it) those sheets are then handled by legal dpt. in production company that sends that sheet to the authors union of sorts in whichever country this show is played in and they send the bill either to the TV house or production house, or sometimes both based on total songs played in that month or something like that. It's hell. It gets even more complicated when the product is to be standalone (as in a movie or show that gets sold around).

I also vaguely remember legal dpt. used/uses some sort of online database with all possible songs/authors from various distributors where they can pay and clear rights via them. I'm not sure if this still exists, if not - there's a great startup idea _nudge_ nudge* for someone here.

<comment><AUTHOR> That sounds like a system in SERIOUS need of hacking to improve usability.

<comment><USER12> You are correct. Moreover, from talking to people who work therein, I get the impression that broadcast production is full of such systems, with overengineered unhelpful software if any.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Back when Prodigy did this in the late 1990's they must have used tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment... samplers, synths, sequencers, filters, etc...

Today, the entire thing can be done in a single piece of software.

Wow.

<comment><USER14> Even in the late 1990s they had powerful audio editing software. The first version of ProTools came out in 1991 and there were a ton of cheaper tools as well.

I'm not saying they didn't do this on thousands of dollars of equipment but in 1997 there's nothing you saw on this video that couldn't be done on a single piece of software (ok maybe two) even then. It wasn't the dark ages.

And get off my lawn.

<comment><USER15> You still couldn't chop audio nearly this easily, or move it around visually like you can in Ableton. Most of the manipulations were probably done in the sampler, so they all had to be done by ear, and sequenced out using MIDI. I think the big time-saver now is the "elastic" audio capability built into modern sequencers, allowing you to easily realign transients within the audio.

<comment><USER14> Yes you could, both Cubase and SoundForge we're ~$500 products that would allow you to do multitrack editing like this on a PC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This article goes into a bit of detail on some of the gear and a few pictures of the setups used by Liam Howlett, post 'Fat of the Land' at least.

<http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Oct04/articles/prodigy.htm>

<comment><USER17> Liam Howlett used Reason (among other things) to make Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned. I'm not sure what was used for their latest work, Invaders Must Die, but it's likely similar software given their live setups for the last few years have been powered by several Macbook Pro's (along with other equipment).

Truly a master at his craft though. Here's a hacker who started making professional electronic music mostly the old way in the early 1990's, and has successfully transitioned into the digital age. If you've listened to Prodigy long enough, you end up coming across music they sampled in the most unlikely of places. It's like an endless easter egg hunt. I can't even begin to imagine how dynamic Liam's record library is.

BTW, if you've never seen them live before, you don't know what you're missing. Seen them three times already and they easily outshine NIN, Manson, and Rob Zombie in terms of live energy. The type of crowd they attract is energetic and intense. But bring a pair of earplugs if you don't want to go deaf. ;)

Edit: Check out Nekosite if you want to know more about the band: <http://nekosite.co.uk/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Most of the names mentioned here are brand name, well known musicians. However, thousands of people use Pro Tools and Ableton to create amazing music.Problem is you do not know about them. Only the heavyweights get the big marketing.

As mentioned, the same can be said for the gaming industry, or any other industry. Technology has pushed the cost lower and created opportunity for the lowest common denominator.

The problem with "audio" in general is that it is taken for granted. MP3's on ipods sound terrible. CD's have replaced vinyl character. High end speakers have been replaced with Bose. Deflation in audio, like many other industries.

Using Pro Tool and/or Ableton is not easy and takes a lifetime to master.

As a career, like most others industries, the bids are going to lowest bidder with mediocre experience.

Audio is so important and often neglected.

Happy Holidays to All!

<comment><USER19> Damn kids get off my lawn! The problem with "audio" is all this recorded music stuff. Real music is played by musicians. Why do people think that a shiny little disc or (even worse) bits on a hard-drive could ever replace that.

:)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Props for this link. These guys were true pioneers that pretty much started the whole 'rave scene' back in the 90's. I saw them live in Toronto once, fantastic show.

<comment><USER21> I'm by no means an expert on rave but you're definitely wrong about them starting the whole scene.

<comment><USER22> Actually, it's pretty fair to presume that they were pioneers of rave. True they weren't big at the same time as the Happy Mondays, Primal Scream, or Westbam, but they were releasing tracks as early as '91:

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

And unlike their predecessors, their production is far more in line with the rave sound and iconography that any other group of that era.

<comment><USER21> They were around from the beginning but they had a lot of contemporaries too. Like I said, I'm not an expert but rave culture arguably got going in 89 with the rising popularity of house and then techno (this still sounds fresh from 89 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6musPMSe24Q>)

Around 90 and 91 it moved to a focus on more hardcore techno and breakbeat. Mr Kirk's Nightmare by 4Hero was around 1990, which sounds quite primitive now but quickly spawned records like those produced by NRG, Prodigy and G Double E. Prodigy were part of a much wider scene but had the talent and music to go mainstream.

Apologies to anyone if I've got this wrong. I was about 10 back then but I have plenty of friends who lived through it (and indeed were DJs back then!) so I've picked up a lot.

Here are some tracks from 91 and 92 that I can recall as being representative of the scene: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCoCTkC0oL0&feature=fvw](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCoCTkC0oL0&feature=fvw) <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mRIW4ZHHCg> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS2w6o2llHQ>

<comment><USER22> No worries. I was actually producing my first underground events back in '90 in San Diego. Obviously I wasn't in the middle of the makers, but I was moderately aware of what was going on.

We didn't really have "techno" & "breakbeat" until '91, but there were hints of it. Meat Beat Manifesto were doing industrial breaks using the drum samples that came into popularity later on. I don't have time to go into history, but there's also the US techno influences that came into play in '90.

I can share one story: back in '89 hanging on in a tiny record shop in San Diego known for industrial, new beat, and dance music. They got in some domestic imports. We gave them a listen and thought "these are really great, but where are the lyrics?"

<comment><USER21> It would have been great to see those early events in San Diego. I'm very envious! One thing we did have back in the early 90s here in Manchester was a great radio station called Sunset (it quickly became a commercial mainstream station, alas). Some shows can be found here: <http://durftal.com/music/bonus1/index.html>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Great song, I have seen these guys live more than once. I never realized that it was mixed like this. Very interesting post. The mixer is a very talented guy indeed.

</comment><comment><USER24> It could to without those people popping up all over the place. Other than that, awesome reconstruction of an awesome song.

<comment><USER25> "Those that love law or sausage shouldn't watch either being made"...but in this case, extremely fascinating.

But how much of this technology existed in 1997? How did Prodigy _really_ make the track?

<comment><USER26> Mostly hardware rack samplers. I think Liam used (uses?) Akai S1100 or a similar model. You play in chunks of audio to them, trim the waveform to the part you need, optionally build a keyboard-split/layered patch with it, and then play it via MIDI. They also have some envelopes for pitch modulation and other stuff you can use.

You can do this with sounds you make yourself (The Prodigy frequently samples their own synthesizers) or to anything you play in.

The sequencing would have been done with a hardware sequencer (unlikely) or a PC tracker or MIDI sequencer (more likely.) Record the outputs onto tape for mixing at the studio.

<comment><USER25> Exactly my point. This stuff was way harder without all these nice comfy ProTools and ACID GUIs. The keyboards never had interfaces that were easy to use when doing things like trimming waveforms. Must have been hella tedious.

<comment><USER27> Especially back when most CPUs were about 200MHz tops, drives were _much_ smaller, and turning on a single reverb brought everything to a screaming halt. (Freezing trax was not an option.)

One of the better DAWs at the time was Opcode's Vision (still is, tho they went out of business back then)(Live didn't exist, Pro Tools didn't have MIDI worth mentioning) and the first decent plug-ins were just being released... nothing worked together and crashes were frequent.

Very tedious ... not to dis _this_ production which is madly skilled. I'm still not convinced that Prodigy did all that in software.

<comment><USER28> Here's Herbie Hancock demonstrating a Fairlight CMI synth/sampler on Sesame Street in '84-ish:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKoisNv1ftw&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKoisNv1ftw&feature=related)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Health Effects of Coffee - <AUTHOR> https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/6/1842 <comment><USER2> I have a pet theory for why coffee has such great benefits: A lot of my friends who are more anxious have had to stop drinking coffee because it exacerbated their anxiety to extreme degrees. On the other hand, people with less anxiety drink it and feel fine. So there's selection bias at play, and correlative studies are just picking up the benefit of not being anxious.

<comment><USER3> I 100% agree. *Note to anyone quitting caffeine for anxiety reasons, it takes about a month to notice the benefit.

Another pet theory I have is that a confounding variable in these studies is often the amount of work someone has to do, and the type of work.

Someone drinking 4+ cups of coffee likely has a reason to be that productive. Which may result in more intellectual stimulation, a higher income, and other differences that makes the two groups very different.

I'd like to see studies where the same individual both drank 4+ cups of coffee everyday for 6 months, and then quit caffeine entirely for 6 months and measure the changes in health, and output collectively but on an individual basis.

<comment><USER4> Can someone provide more information on the 1-month recovery from caffeine induced anxiety? In my experience and from what I've read online, caffeine withdrawal typically lasts 1 or 2 weeks.

I recently quit drinking coffee hoping I could stop grinding my teeth in the night. It hasn't helped yet, but I quit only about 3 weeks ago.

An aside, grinding your teeth in the night is very problematic because it's not something you can directly resolve unless you get a mouth guard. Trying to pinpoint stressors in my life has been an arduous process.

<comment><USER5> I hope you're using a mouth guard every night. Tooth material cannot be replaced.

<comment><USER4> I went to the dentist recently and they recommended I reduce stress in my life. So it's probably not that bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Normally I'm content to follow the data where it leads, but I opened this with trepidation lest it give me a reason not to enjoy my morning coffee. Fortunately it confirms my pre-existing biases.

I find I can never just have one cup, so I make a 50% decaf mix and have 3-4 cups spaced out over as many hours. Not only does this give a smooth and constant hit of caffeine, but it suppresses my appetite as well and I easily power right through from 5:30 until midday lunch. These are by far the most productive hours of my day.

<comment><USER7> I often do this too, but I'm starting to feel what might be the pains of a stomach ulcer.

Has this bothered your stomach? I'm worried about what all that coffee is doing on my empty stomach.

<comment><USER8> > stomach ulcer

If you feel stomach aches, you should see a doctor and make sure you don't have H. pylori, "the third highest cause of worldwide cancer mortality as of 2018" [1]. H. pylori is treatable with antibiotics.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylori#Cancer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylori#Cancer)

<comment><USER7> Thanks for looking out, this is scary. I'll be seeing a doctor soon.

<comment><USER8> My mother had H.pylori, developed cancer at the stomach (and the doctors believe it was because of H.pylori), had her stomach removed, did chemo (which is a version of hell on earth), and she is fine now, 6 years later. But it could all have been avoided if she had taken an antibiotic treatment. Unfortunately, although she had tested positive for H.pylori, she was given a non-antibiotic treatment, and that was simply not enough.

After this episode, I went to a gastroenterologist together with my wife, we both got tested. I didn't have it, my wife did. She took the antibiotic course, which was slightly unpleasant (leaves a metallic taste in your mouth, I think), but it's a small price to pay to avoid a cancer that is quite deadly (about 70% 5-year fatality rate).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Habitual coffee consumption ranges from about 1 to more than 5 cups per day, > which indicates that the daily dose is defined by something other than > genetic reasons.

One curious question I've always struggled with is, what is a "true" cup of coffee? I've often seen people say a "coffee" cup is 6 oz, but then I'm confused by this:

1 US cup = 8 oz

1 Imperial (British) = 10 oz

1 Australian cup = 8.45 oz

<comment><USER10> Brewed coffee varies so much in potency, I'm not even sure how much the quantity of the liquid even matters. A shot of coffee that has been cold brewed with finely ground beans for 48 hours is dramatically more potent than a giant cup of coffee brewed quickly with less-fine grounds and hot water.

<comment><USER11> From the Wikipedia article:

 _Caffeine is moderately soluble in water at room temperature (2 g /100 mL), but very soluble in boiling water (66 g/100 mL)._

Caffeine is 33 times more soluble in hot water!

What matters more, then, is the concentration of coffee grounds to water, and how much of that water is left in the grounds.

<comment><USER10> This doesn't have to be academic. You can do an experiment at home. Brew a big cup of coffee with a drip machine and drink it. Note how you feel. Then, make a batch of cold brew and let it sit for 48 hours. Drink half as much of that as you did the hot brewed coffee, but pease do so slowly as some people become very uncomfortable with that amount of caffeine.

<comment><USER12> Yes, cold brewed coffee can have much more caffeine than you'd expect given the smoothness of the taste. Back when my brother managed a coffee shop, the first time I popped into his work and asked his recommendation, he didn't warn me of the caffeine content. I was well habituated to caffeine, but quickly drinking 12 or 16 oz. of cold-brewed coffee left me feeling a bit dizzy, to the point I hung around the shop for a bit to make sure I was fine to drive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Anyone drinks coffee because they like it?

Every time a coffee related subject comes up on HN, it seem that the majority is drinking it like a drug. Aren't there people that drink it because they like it?

I like coffee. I don't drink it for waking up. Coffee is also my hobby. I search for good green beans, I roast it, I heavily invest in good equipment (grinders and espresso machines) and always chasing the elusive perfect shot of espresso. It kind of makes me sad that the majority of the people view it as a drug and consume it as a drug.

<comment><USER14> I imagine everyone who drinks coffee does so because they like it... else they wouldn't drink it. Some enjoy the flavor of straight coffee more than others, sure.

I don't really understand how getting into coffee as a hobby makes it any less of a drug. You're still consuming caffeine. There's just as much of a hobby scene around marijuana; hobbyists are still consuming THC.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Also, apparently coffee drinkers want coffee more than they actually like it:

[https://digest.bps.org.uk/2020/06/22/heavy-coffee- drinkers-w...](https://digest.bps.org.uk/2020/06/22/heavy-coffee-drinkers- want-coffee-a-lot-more-than-they-actually-like-it/)

Research method seems sketchy to my engineering mind.

<comment><USER16> That's more-or-less in line with my personal experience.

I usually drink tea, because I like a hot beverage, but find that my quality of sleep and overall sense of wellbeing tends to suffer if I drink coffee. Even when I only drink it in the mornings.

But I do still like (don't love, but like) coffee, and most cafes and restaurants in my part of the world can't make a decent cup of tea to save their lives, so I often just drink coffee when I'm traveling. And I find that, even after only a few days of drinking coffee, I will experience 2 or 3 days of cravings once I get back home and return to my regularly scheduled pot of dragonwell.

<comment><USER15> That's me as well, I drink tea at home, coffee at restaurants. Luckily a lot of coffeeshops now make a decent cup of tea as well, especially here in the Northwest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> FYI: "H.K. received fees for providing consultant services to Tchibo GmbH. K.K. and S.M. reported no conflicts of interest."

One of the main authors was compensated by the largest coffee retailer in Germany.

<comment><USER18> Apparently, many such coffee studies are sponsored by firms with an interest in publicizing coffee's benefits. It doesn't mean the science _necessarily_ isn't good. Although, consider the opportunity cost: we could instead be researching many other things that don't carry as high a cost as coffee (in terms of production labor, refining, and transportation), and may commute even greater benefits. Of course, we shouldn't expect big corporations to sponsor that kind of research, because it's not in their interest.

It _is_ decidedly in the interest of coffee conglomerates to demonstrate that coffee is good for society, because it justifies the great fiscal and human expenses they go to, to bring fresh coffee to your breakfast table. Not passing judgement either way, it's just an interesting lens to consider.

There was a nice article in the new yorker a couple months ago on the subject of society's shifting moods towards coffee, and how it's materialized in the literature and science. [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/04/27/the- war-on-cof...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/04/27/the-war-on- coffee). One of the reviewed books: [https://www.amazon.com/Coffeeland-Mans- Empire-Making-Favorit...](https://www.amazon.com/Coffeeland-Mans-Empire- Making-Favorite/dp/1594206155).

Edit: oh boy. I misread the parent comment. I thought they _had_ declared a conflict of interest. Sorry. I didn't intend for my comment to read as a corporate-research apologia.

<comment><USER19> > _Apparently, many such coffee studies are sponsored by firms with an > interest in publicizing coffee 's benefits. It doesn't mean the science > isn't good._

Usually the science isn't good even with no conflicts of interest, with 80% or more of studies being non-reproducible BS full of errors and cherry-picking.

Now consider the percentage when there's also conflict of interest...

<comment><USER20> How did you arrive at your 80% number?

<comment><USER19> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis)

[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists- rep...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists- replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/)

[https://www.wired.com/2013/04/brain- stats/](https://www.wired.com/2013/04/brain-stats/)

[https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology- studies-...](https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail- reproducibility-test-1.18248)

[https://phys.org/news/2018-07-beware-scientific- studiesmost-...](https://phys.org/news/2018-07-beware-scientific-studiesmost- wrong.html)

<comment><USER20> Looked at the links, didn't find anything relevant to address my question. I don't consider "may be" to be data, you seem to have a different opinion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I really like thye kind of articles that the NHS does on this [https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-and-diet/drinking-3-4-cups- coff...](https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-and-diet/drinking-3-4-cups-coffee-day- may-have-some-health-benefits/)

<comment><USER22> _> Drinking 3-4 cups of coffee a day may have some health benefits_

:-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm surprised there's no problem because of the roasting process. It's kinda burning it. Isn't burnt stuff carcinogenic?

<comment><USER24> Coffee roast temperatures are about 350 degrees.

do you worry about getting cancer from bread? Bread ovens are about 200F hotter.

<comment><USER25> Coffee roaster here, at 350F the beans have turned yellow and barely started browning. 390F~ is around the point where most roasters would consider development of flavor to really take off (yeah yeah pre-development phase, I'm keeping it short) and beans will be done at various points after that depending on roast preference.

The smoke that the roaster produces towards the end of roast is no joke, and some has to get on the beans, but I'd say it is minimal enough to not be an issue as there should be plenty of air flowing through the roaster at that point.

If roasted improperly oils could seep out of the beans while in the roaster which burn as well and stick to the beans. I'd say that is more of an issue than the smoke or roasting too dark.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Coffee/caffiene is only really useful to me when I have to do something I hate.

Otherwise I'm more productive without the crash.

<comment><USER27> Finally someone who feels like me. I drink like once every two weeks. But only when I'm too exhausted and needed to do something yesterday. I don't like feeling weird as I do when after 3-4 hours of coffee like I'm having a high blood pressure or feel consciousness changing.

<comment><USER26> Ha, well, hello.

Feeling the elevated heart rate while being tired and not able to take a nap indeed sucks. I get why people just start drinking 3-5 cups a day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Did a search on claim "Coffee plays a dominant role in that regard because it is the major dietary source of phenolic acids and polyphenols in the developed world": [https://www.healthline.com/health/polyphenols- foods](https://www.healthline.com/health/polyphenols-foods)

Granted it's suggested to cook these a bit to maximize absorbtion because cell walls & things

</comment><comment><USER29> Is this a reputable paper? I am an academic and quit reviewing for MDPI 2 years ago because the quality of the initial submissions was so low.

</comment><comment><USER30> It's amazing how much people want coffee to be bad for you. That's been a constant for at least hundreds of years.

</comment><comment><USER31> I didn't start drinking coffee until my late thirties, and feel as if I have had too different lives before and after. My life with coffee is happier, successful, productive, contented. If i had objective data, I think you would see it was more regularly patterned with respect to sleep, work, exercise. I think for me it was a little nudge across a transition threshold. I doubt coffee is bringing a huge health benefit on its own, and I reject the 'anyone can make it if they try attitude', but as a smart enough, healthy enough, lucky enough person in a wealthy country, my fate was very much bounded by my own lack of consistent organised disciplined effort. A little bit of coffee nudged my behaviour in a direction that has made me happier, and perhaps ultimately healthier.

</comment><comment><USER32> The abstract says that the majority of the benefits of coffee probably comes from phenolic phytochemicals. This implies you can receive all of the same health benefits like lower risks type 2 diabetes by eating other vegetables.

Is the western diet really so weak that coffee is a major source of our vegetable intake?

<comment><USER33> If people generally liked to eat vegetables, it would not need so much propaganda.

I think the evidence that vegetables are all that healthy is not that great and the statistical effects are not large.

Phytochemicals may be hormetic stressors, or they may just be stressors most bodies can deal with, but do not actually benefit from. Antioxidants in particular seem to not live up to expectations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Interesting to me, that this is the first time I am hearing of lowered disease risk from regular coffee, which the study points out "has been confirmed in prospective cohort studies in many regions of the world".

The way I understood it, the study aims to correlate benefits with the "plant" contents of coffee. What would be interesting to me is to see more about the effect of the roast. The study touches on it in a couple of points ("Phenolic Phytochemicals in Coffee May Account for Health Effects" where a darker roast produces more phenolic components), but I could do with something more specifically targeting the roast differences.

</comment><comment><USER35> This is a complex scientific way of saying "coffee is a vegetable."

Let's hope politicians with influence over school lunch menus don't misuse this result.

</comment><comment><USER36> I can't drink coffee because I have a nickle allergy and it makes my skin on my fingers get bumps all over them.

</comment><comment><USER37> Has anybody here experimented with coffee substitutes (such as [https://www.cookinglight.com/good-food-fast/mud-wtr- mushroom...](https://www.cookinglight.com/good-food-fast/mud-wtr-mushroom- coffee-review) )?

<comment><USER38> I'm a fan of Postum. Interested in trying this mushroom coffee though I'm concerned about the footprint of where they get all of their ingredients.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> It looks like CYP1A2 gene polymorphisms correlate with increased risk of non- fatal miocardial infarction: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16522833/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16522833/).

</comment><comment><USER38> Has there been a study that weighs benefits from studies of coffee consumption against the societal health impacts of coffee production? I mean we have coffee farmers developing kidney disease ([https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24878647/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24878647/)) and the environmental impact of its cultivation and shipping ([https://www.sustainablebusinesstoolkit.com/environmental- imp...](https://www.sustainablebusinesstoolkit.com/environmental-impact- coffee-trade/)). It's the second most tradeable commodity after oil but as it's largely unnecessary for society to function. I would doubt it would come ahead as a net positive for humanity.

<comment><USER22> Where would you start and where would you end the analysis? What about for example the endless number of families that rely on coffee as income in developing countries?

<comment><USER38> One could start by analyzing if the economic benefit of growing it and the healthcare savings of consuming it actually outweigh the long-term damage of its production. My hypothesis is once you strip away subsidies that allow farmers to clear forest for cultivation and fuel subsidies for shipping it across the ocean or by plane the hidden costs start to add up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> for what is worth this has been known for a while (lookup Stanford medicine study). what's interesting is that 4-5 cups per day is better than 1-2. also there is speculation that it's not the caffeine but other things in coffee that have beneficial effects.

i also suspect that large coffee consumption is better if you compare people that don't get enough sleep (as someone that does not drink coffee will have a better quality of sleep - unless you drink 5 cups in the morning)

</comment><comment> a0-prw Reading the comments I've noticed a lot of people talking about addiction... I have for years had the habit of starting the day with 3 to 4 cups of strong coffee, either plain or with cream. I was pretty sure I was "addicted". Until the time, after about 2 weeks, when I noticed that the new brand I had quickly grabbed and happily consumed every day for 2 weeks was decaf. What you tell yourself is far more important and stronger than "addiction".

</comment><comment><USER41> If coffee is healthy (like the article suggests) because of the "plants" wouldn't tea be even healthier?

</comment><comment><USER42> I view coffee as absolute evil, but necessity for any kind of office type work.

<comment> iso8859-1 Why is it necessary? Do you fall asleep without coffee? Or do you just not feel productive without it?

<comment><USER42> I just have trouble starting intellectual tasks without coffee, probably psychological or something.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> i wonder how coffee compares to tea in that sense.</comment>