Release of "13 Reasons Why" Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates - <AUTHOR> https://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/2019/release-of-13-reasons-why-associated-with-increase-in-youth-suicide-rates.shtml <comment><USER2> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19788773](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19788773).

</comment><comment><USER3> Same reason that when they show the shooter's face all over the media and they give them tons and tons of attention, it typically spawns more copycats who are just lonely/sad/broken teens looking for the same attention.

In the show, this teen's suicide was portrayed to have had an impact on many students/families/teachers etc for a very long time after the incident. It almost glorified the suicide and the methods of leaving tapes behind.

Real suicide is not so glorious and does not leave a much of an impact as you would think, other than on the immediate family.

For example, when my mother committed suicide, my sister, grandparents and myself were impacted severely for a bit, but outside of our family circle it didn't have as much of an impact.

When I was in high school, we had a student commit suicide, which we ended up having 1 school meeting regarding it, but after about a week it had been forgotten by most and swept under the rug as everyone moved on to the next thing.

I guess I am biased based on my two experiences with suicide, however glorifying it in any way will only lead to more incidents.

<comment><USER4> The scary thing is that both this article and the example you cited are used as reasons to limit constitutional freedoms:

Limit second amendment more to prevent mass shootings.

Limit first amendment more to prevent suicides.

Really though, we should be focusing on the root cause: lonely/sad/broken people. Focus on helping/loving them and I bet suicide/mass shooting rates drop significantly.

<comment><USER5> > Limit second amendment more to prevent more shootings.

I've always wondered the validity of a "constitutional freedom" that allows random everyday people to own and operate tools that are essentially killing machines.

<comment><USER6> > I've always wondered the validity of a "constitutional freedom" that allows > random everyday people to own and operate tools that are essentially killing > machines.

Not sure why you put quotes around constitutional freedom.

The reason for the amendment is such that when someone or someones come along and attempt to abridge your rights you can kill them with the killing machine.

As simple as that.

<comment><USER5> > when someone or someones come along and attempt to abridge your rights

Isn't that what highly trained and professional law enforcement is for?

At least that's what they're for in my part of the world.

<comment><USER6> > Isn't that what highly trained and professional law enforcement is for?

That works fine and well until the police are the ones kicking in your door to drag you away.

Fortunately for us all, that's not a thing that ever happens.

Since it clearly needs said, the 2A is not about day-to-day life. It's about large-scale societal failure modes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The full text is on Sci-hub: [https://sci- hub.tw/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.020](https://sci- hub.tw/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.020)

I'm extremely skeptical. I don't know how many ways they carved up the data before they found a segment of the population with increased suicide rates at the right time. Also, the show is about a girl who kills herself, but the female rate of suicide didn't increase enough to be considered statistically significant. Lastly, the spike in suicides starts in March, which is a month before the show was released. Their claim only makes sense if you think that watching the trailer is enough to trigger suicides.

<comment><USER8> Maybe I missed it in the article, but did they check the Netflix viewing history of those that committed suicide. Seems like that would be a critical causal link. If a show about suicide is available on Netflix and no one is around to watch it...

<comment><USER7> They did not. The CDC data on suicides only contains statistical information, not identities. And even if the researchers did have the identities of everyone who committed suicide, I doubt Netflix would share account data with them. It would also be very noisy as many teens use their parents' Netflix accounts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is just bogus p-hacking and perverse causality analysis.

Look at their graph of monthly data.

[https://i.imgur.com/mc8PJW8.png](https://i.imgur.com/mc8PJW8.png)

You can't draw any conclusion from that but that it is an overall increasing trend with cyclic tendencies by season.

March prior to the release in the end of March was already all time high rate of suicides.

"Table 1. Association Between the Release of 13 Reasons Why and Suicide in the United States, by Age Group"

I mean ... it's just stupid. The series' premiere date is also a arbitrary point in time.

I don't refute that the series might have increased the suicide rate, but I have no idea how to verify that or put a estimate on it. The authors surely don't know either.

<comment><USER10> Worse part is the top comments contains the following, based on this p-hacking garbage:

>The scary thing is that both this article and the example you cited are used as reasons to limit constitutional freedoms

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Obviously horrific but a major failing of the study is that it doesn't state what percentage of the teens who committed suicide actually watched or were even aware of Netflix's "13 Reasons Why". The conclusions are drawn from very indirect evidence.

<comment><USER12> A randomized double bind study probably has ethical issues. I guess this is the best we can do, unless Netflix volunteers viewing data for everyone

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "When researchers analyzed the data by sex, they found the increase in the suicide rate was primarily driven by significant increases in suicide in young males. While suicide rates for females increased after the show's release, the increase was not statistically significant."

I have watched the series. I wonder why males saw a significant increase in suicides if the show revolved around a female suicide. And, yes, I understand they didn't find direct causation.

There explanation at the end was refreshing.

"While compelling, this research had several limitations. For example, the study used a quasi-experimental design, meaning that the researchers cannot make a causal link between the release of "13 Reasons Why" and the observed changes in suicide rates. The researchers cannot, therefore, rule out the possibility that unmeasured events or factors influenced suicide rates during this period."

<comment><USER14> Males commit suicide more, in general (in western countries). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide)

Edit - as for why there were more male suicides linked to this show, one reason for male suicides in western countries is the increasing marginalisation of men (whereas in countries with more female suicides or a more equal ratio, women are highly marginalised). If the show glorifies suicide as a way to gain more attention and de-marginalise the individual, it makes sense that more young men would do it.

<comment><USER15> Men are more successful, but women try more often.

<comment><USER6> > Men are more successful, but women try more often.

What's the source behind that, particularly how do they count "try," e.g. is it self-reported or based on emergency services dispatched?

Does something like sitting in your closet with a 12GA in your mouth for 30 minutes only to emerge unscathed, to never speak of it again count as a try?

<comment><USER15> The Wikipedia article linked above:

> Although females attempt suicide at a higher rate, they are more likely to > use methods that are less immediately lethal.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide#Differing_methods_by_gender)

<comment><USER6> I'm asking about methodology as relates to the statistic, not for the sentence in a Wiki.

<comment><USER15> Then perhaps check out the references the Wikipedia gives?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Paper: [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gUa9-S...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gUa9-SNEkTgJ:https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567\(19\)30288-6/pdf+)

The Werther Effect was well known, from inception, filming and publishing, the concerns seem to have been brushed aside. I really can't see how the studio, netflix and the producers can reject the blame for the induced suicides.

The show distinctly glorifies suicide, playing on the emotional issues and need for acknowledgment of teenagers.

Responsibility does not vanish if the effects are indirect or abstract.

"We produced the show true to the book." is no defense at all and there is a higher moral standard if you sell a product to children still.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm curious if there's an unusual dip after the spike. In other words, it might have accelerated some suicides, versus adding to the overall rate over a longer time period.

<comment><USER18> That would be true if all the population watched the series at t0. But in reality the series is always _new_ to someone somewhere.

<comment><USER19> I think the parent was implying that the show's effect was time shifting imminent suicides to 'now'. Since the consumption of streaming media is big- spike-on-release + long tail, that big spike when the show is released would still be visible. It would look like a spike and then dip for suicides averaging to the trend line on a larger time scale.

<comment><USER17> That's a terrific summary. Thank you. I'm predicting a dip based on acceleration versus any real additive effect. I could certainly be wrong but the stats would be enlightening.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Potentially OT. Why do people write

>"While suicide rates for females increased after the show's release, the increase was not statistically significant."

instead of

>"Suicide rates for females did not increase significantly after the show's release."

?

I have seen this quite often and it always seems a bit misleading to me.

Edit: I should have written the 2nd version as "No statistically significant increase in [...] was found". My point is not about the difference between "significance" and "statistical significance" but about mentioning an effect, while also saying the effect is not statistically significant. If it's not statistically significant, why mention it?

<comment><USER21> IMO, your proposed second option leaves ambiguity as to whether "significant" means "statistically significant" or "materially significant." The original option is clear on that point.

However, I would argue that the original text is also misleading, because if the result wasn't statistically significant, there's no evidence that rates for females increased. If anything, the first option could perhaps say "While suicide rates for females IN THE STUDY increased after the show's release, the increase was not statistically significant, so we have no evidence that it's a real effect."

<comment><USER22> > if the result wasn't statistically significant, there's no evidence that > rates for females increased.

That's not quite right. A conclusion of no statistical significance is not a conclusion that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis, but that there is _insufficient_ evidence.

The study failed to disprove the null hypothesis, but "failure to disprove" does not prove it to be true either. A more powerful study (with a larger sample size, or one that includes this incident in a meta-study of similar media events) might be able to use this data to support a positive conclusion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> These suicide studies are ridiculous. A 30% increase works out to something like twenty additional suicides in a population of around forty million. Trying to blame that on a television show seems far fetched.

</comment><comment><USER24> You should be _extremely_ skeptical of this finding.

1\. It's an observational, retrospective study.

2\. The control analysis is dubious, and its unclear if the control analysis was selected in advance.

2\. It's an astonishingly high effect size.

3\. They do numerous sub-group analyses without any indication that such analyses were pre-registered, and apparently without doing any multiple- comparisons corrections (e.g. bonferroni).

3\. From the article: "The observed suicide rate for March 2017 — the month prior to the release of "13 Reasons Why" — was also higher than forecast. The researchers note that the show was highly promoted during the month of March, exposing audiences to the show's premise and content through trailers. The researchers did not find any significant trends in suicide rates in people 18- to 64 years of age."

We're being asked to believe not only that the show itself can have this huge effect, but that the trailer can too. But only among males in a certain age group.

This stinks.

<comment><USER25> Nothing about this "research" is compelling. This is 2019s Momo; hide your kids!

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> It's a show that (at least from the title, and a quick summary of the plot) agrees with the common, awful idea that what people do to you can _make_ you kill yourself, and that killing yourself will somehow punish the people who made you do it. You would expect it to increase teen suicides as much as you would expect a slickly produced show about a suicide bombing in a shopping mall causing an unjust government to fall and the bomber to be remembered forever as a hero to increase suicide bombings.

</comment><comment><USER27> > NIH-supported study highlights the importance of responsible portrayal of > suicide by the media

I'm not going to say that media doesn't play a part, but this is mostly a symptom of an inadequate mental health system and a disfunctional society that provides no sense of community/cohesion. Many of us are painfully alone and directionless. We come from broken homes and experience neglect and abuse in childhood.

Pointing the blame at a TV show just feels insulting.

</comment><comment><USER28> >When researchers analyzed the data by sex, they found the increase in the suicide rate was primarily driven by significant increases in suicide in young males.

"13 Reasons Why" was a show about the suicide of a young girl and was primarily aimed at a young female audience. If the studies numbers were primarily driven by an increase in suicides among young males, the causation implied seems rather dubious.

<comment><USER29> You don't think young men can find young women influencing?

<comment><USER28> That isn't my point. My point was that young men are less likely to be aware of or watch a show that isn't targeted at them. They can't really be inspired to copy something that they aren't familiar with. Similarly if the show was the cause of the spike and the audience was largely young girls, why wasn't there a statistically significant spike in the suicide rate of girls?

<comment><USER30> > They can't really be inspired to copy something that they aren't familiar > with.

Can't they? Who's to say they weren't _more_ influenced because the protagonist was female? The show still had a significant male viewership rate of 35%. That's not the majority, but it isn't small either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Interesting to ponder, but hard to draw any conclusions. There are too many confounding factors, including other prominent suicides covered in the media.

LA Times article criticising the study[1]:

> While no variations in the suicide rate were found for people ages 18-64, > the rate among people ages 10 to 17 increased by 28.9% in April 2017, the > month after the series debuted, the study said. It was also up significantly > in June and December of that year, and was higher than expected in March > 2017, when the show was heavily promoted. The April 2017 rate was the > highest in the five-year period that was studied.

> Outside events include things such as the much-covered suicides of > Soundgarden's Chris Cornell in May 2017 and Chester Bennington of Linkin > Park in July of that year, and the death of musician Tom Petty by accidental > overdose that October, Moutier says. Also, former NFL star Aaron Hernandez > died by suicide in April 2017. […]

> Here's how a 28.9% increase can also be described as a "weak association," > according to Moutier: The overall suicide rate of boys 10-17 is actually > very low, she says, around 0.6 per 100,000 people. Therefore, any change > could be seen as significant change.

Guest column from the executive producer of the show[2]:

> However, the research failed to substantiate the author's own hypothesis: > that when the show launched on March 31, 2017, young females would be most > affected, because it's a girl whose suicide is depicted onscreen. In fact, > there was no increase in suicide rates for adolescent girls that spring — > and for boys the increase started before the show even launched. As you can > see from the chart below, which is based on the same government data, > suicide counts for adolescent girls over the last decade have been much more > stable than for boys, which have risen consistently. The highest recorded > month for girls was November 2016, well before anyone had ever watched 13 > Reasons Why.

[1]: [https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et- st-13-reasons...](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et- st-13-reasons-why-suicide-study-netflix-20190501-story.html)

[2]: [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/13-reasons- why-c...](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/13-reasons-why-creator- refutes-studies-linking-netflix-hit-suicide-increase-guest-column-1213858)

</comment><comment><USER32> Depression is a tough topic. Speaking from experience here, it's healthy to talk about your feelings, etc. But if you look at the communities like # depression on tumblr/reddit etc, I bet it will make healthy people feel a bit depressed.

In kinda a cyclic issue, the problem is that depressed people need to sorrounded them selves with happy people to talk to, consume more positive media,etc.

Otherwise you end up feeding your own depression, producing and consuming more depressive content and comments with others.

To anyone facing depression : Please talk to a therapist, and consider avoiding needlessly negative communities/media. Sorrounding yourself with depressing things won't help.

<comment><USER12> I actually disagree somewhat: if I'm feeling terrible, happy music makes me feel worse but something a little similar to my mood is soothing. I think that's why Marilyn Manson and NIN were so popular

Edit: this is to an extent only. Burying yourself in an extremely negative place does make things worse if you spend too much time there or go in too deep

<comment><USER32> I understand that feeling for sure! One of the common coping strategies (this is a real strategy) my doctors have tried with me is: "Think about how others are in worse situations".

But for me that made me feel worse. I'm financially stable, decently intelligent, have been given a great start at life, etc. yet I can't go to the grocery store without having a panic attack? How pathetic is that? On paper I should have nothing to complain about - but the depression SAID NO.

So I definitely understand how you feel. It's kinda like how if you just broke up with somebody serious, watching a makeout scene in a movie would just suck.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Throwaway and vagueness for hopefully obvious reasons.

I was loosely involved in the production of this show. I didn't find out about it until after our contribution was finished.

If I had known what content we were working on I would voiced my concern. I'm deeply ashamed I had anything to do with this and if I had known, I wish I could have verbalized my objection and voiced concern over being affiliated with the reckless disregard the production staff has for a leading cause of death among people in America that has taken the lives of friends and family.

</comment><comment><USER34> A pet peeve of mine is the noble suicide trope used often in film and tv. Armageddon, Aliens, Endgame, 7 Pounds, its everywhere. I haven't seen any research but I imagine it could normalize suicide in the minds of the impressionable young.

I get that's its an effective (though artistically blunt) plot device but I would prefer that it be used less.

<comment><USER35> lots of heroic stories result in the death of the hero. I suppose suicide is technically correct but the story is a heroic sacrifice not a suicide.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> The movies we watch can affect our decisions and choices we make in our life. And the affect is different for different people.

In the same way that those sponsored scenes already did to smoking and drinking trends. Bad driving styles, attraction to martial art etc.

</comment><comment><USER37> Here's the study itself, although it's not open access, so you'll need to be somewhere that can get you access to it.

[https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567(19)30288-6/fulltex...](https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567\(19\)30288-6/fulltext)

<comment><USER38> Hey, I just found someone - [https://sci- hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.02...](https://sci- hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.020)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> the title of the paper is at the bottom of the nih page. plugging that into google produces this page:

[https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567(19)30288-6/pdf](https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567\(19\)30288-6/pdf)

which combined with sci-hub, gets you full text.

</comment><comment><USER40> Yeah no cap they kinda glorified suicide. I don't mean like the gritty details, but like the concept. The show romanticizes suicide as a way to get back at the people who harmed you, solve your problems, and make a huge impact on all the people around you, for better or worse.

</comment><comment><USER41> This is not suprising and not the first time something like this happend.

There is even a term for that "Werther Effekt"

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

</comment><comment><USER42> This news marks the end of my Netflix subscription. This news should have everyone at the company questioning why they are contributing to service that claimed the lives of nearly two hundred children.

</comment><comment><USER43> So I suppose that we should ban series about suicide... Also the more people that drive, also increases the number of people who die on the road, thus it follows that we ban driving.

</comment><comment><USER44> I seem to remember suicide being considered cool in the grunge era of the 90s, especially after Kurt Cobain took his life. I wonder if there's data on that.

</comment><comment><USER45> But how many people realized they were depressed, or someone around them had suicidal tendencies, and got help as a result of this program?

</comment><comment><USER46> This must be brutal for the producers & actors. I'd be crushed.

<comment><USER47> Netflix was told over and over that it would be prudent to remove the most graphic scene, and it refused to... for _two years_. Until they did.

[https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/16/20696151/13-reasons- why-n...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/16/20696151/13-reasons-why-netflix- suicide-scene-removed-controversy-medical-experts)

<comment><USER48> Wow, this was recent, too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Where can I find the full text of the study?

<comment><USER38> [https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.02...](https://sci- hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.020)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Funny how one tv series would have induced many suicides, while currently family situation and society have nothing to do with it? Please...

</comment><comment><USER51> Is there a link to the study?

</comment><comment><USER52> But how many of those students watched the series? Or was it less direct? Maybe the show's popularity led to a higher number of suicide discussions, insults, references etc?</comment>


A new global visual language for the BBC's digital services - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/02/a_new_global_visual_language_f.html

<comment><USER2> BBC has always inspired me with the amount of thought an effort that goes in each redesign. See this document on a previous redesign they did, featuring the patina effect on the home page: <http://www.liamdelahunty.com/blog/media/theglasswall.pdf>

</comment><comment><USER3> Neville Brody did similar work for the Austrian broadcaster ORF in the 90s - it's profiled in _The Graphic Language of Neville Brody 2_ \- but for their actual onscreen identity. Very similar in scope though.

The book is great but I couldn't find much good about it online except this before/after video that shows off how much Neville Brody dragged the channel into the modern era: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWwLcCsVrmQ> \- the "After" section starts at about 1:30. You see TV go from the cheesy 80s to the slick 90s instantly!

</comment><comment><USER4> > _Our ambition is to be the best digital media brand in the world._

This is not their brief - their brief is to serve the UK public with broadcasts that educate, entertain and inform (or something along those lines). If they are incidentally the best digital media brand that's fine, if they're spending a penny more to reach this pinnacle then they're _ultra vires_.

Incidentally did anyone else think that the "new look and feel for the embedded media player" was just what 4OD are using?

</comment><comment><USER5> I wonder if the more gradual gradients will look even worse on cheap LCD screens - the ones with only 6 bits of color?

<comment><USER6> Even the top-end MacBook Pros have 6bit screens, don't they?

<comment><USER7> Yes. (at least mine from three years ago)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In summary - fashion colors and _big bold iconography_.</comment>


Children of atheists are significantly more generous than those of believers - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21677613-far-bolstering-generosity-religious-upbringing-diminishes-it-matthew-2239 <comment><USER2> Link needs relabeling. No avowed atheists were included in study.

<comment><USER3> Indeed; "non-religious" doesn't imply atheism. Think of all the people who say, "I believe in God, but in a personal way--I am not religious".</comment></comment>


How Our Professional Elites Are Hired - <AUTHOR> http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/08/how-our-professional-elites-are-hired.html <comment><USER2> The Big Law model (in which I worked for four years some time back and with which I have dealt repeatedly over the years from one angle or another) depends heavily on highly leveraged relationships within the firm, typically with something like a 1 to 3 ratio between the equity partners and the young associates who do the bulk of the actual hourly billing.

It also depends on the firm's having the capacity to do highly sophisticated legal work while consistently adhering to standards of excellence.

Finally, it depends upon the firm's ability to induce the associates to adhere to wildly oppressive work hours as part of their normal schedule, such that, for example, when FB broadened its disclosure of user information there came popping out a whole series of attorneys who had (in the former cover of darkness) described themselves as "Slaves of xxx," or some variation thereof (which FB automatically designated as company names).

These firms will pay the associates anywhere from $165K/yr to start up to the high $200s, often with large bonuses tacked on to the base salary.

Why? Because it is basically a vast money-making machine for the partners who lead and manage those firms and who pull in multi-million dollar annual incomes. And the key to it is to have lots of talented bodies consistently pulling all-nighters on major pieces of litigation and major deals that such firms handle. Thus, whenever you read about a headline deal ("Skype to offer shares in IPO at $1B valuation"), you can assume that there is a small legal army at work in the background doing an orgy of billing.

For their part, the associates toil and slave in such systems for as much as 8 to 10 years in hopes of making partner so that they can one day be on the receiving end of this money-making machine.

This system works well only if highly talented young attorneys can consistently be recruited to handle the vast bulk of the billable hours involved in such work. Thus, the most precious asset belonging to such firms is precisely this pool of young talent, and they will pay dearly to get it. What is more, such associates are paid in lockstep, meaning that if one of these large firms "adjusts," the others will be quick to follow. For a nearly unbroken period over the past 25 years, those adjustments have consistently been upward. The craziness peaked in the bubble years of the late 1990s, during which the associates themselves set up "greedy associates" websites and compared notes on every dollar paid and every perk provided by their respective firms. Of course, if any firm began to be seen as out of step with what these young lawyers came to see as their entirely legitimate demands, this would be suicide for the firm involved because the top talent would no longer go there. Thus, one saw the spectacle of the most elite law partners in the nation cravenly bowing and scraping to green new grads, all for the purpose of continuing to curry favor with them for recruiting purposes.

It goes without saying, then, that the firms would easily shell out for the sorts of things described in this piece - for expensive and luxurious flights, hotel stays, cab fares, dinners out, etc. It was all part of the game, and not a particularly costly part given what the firms would ultimately derive from this labor-pool asset within their business models. During their summer internships, they would be wined and dined as law students and would be repeatedly told what a great place to work the firm was. Once recruited as associates after graduation, they were introduced to the "slave system" in spades, and the naive perceptions they had as students would often be deflated in light of a sometimes harsh reality of endless, long hours and of often harsh taskmasters who drove them with an unkind hand.

A significant part of this has to do with grabbing the students from the elite schools but the real goal was to grab the talented attorneys from each graduating class (this meant those from top schools and those from the top 10% or so of second-tier schools). The practice of law in such environments is truly demanding, and the goal was to find attorneys who worked hard, who knew how to think, and who comported themselves with the highest standards of discipline and excellence. Very few young attorneys can do all this consistently, and they are in great demand.

In one sense, however, this piece reads like it must have been written a couple of years ago. In reality, Big Law is still reeling from the latest economic collapse and the latest crop of 3Ls is still largely unemployed, with no serious prospects for improvement in sight for this particular labor market. Even the Harvard 3Ls have largely had to settle for the types of positions that, until recently, they would not even have begun to consider.

This truly is an artificial world and there is some doubt today whether it can continue to operate in its accustomed manner. Time will tell on this. I personally doubt it.

<comment><USER3> grellas, insightful post as always. Do you mind elaborating further on your last sentence/point?

There was an article earlier on HN about the growth of legal outsourcing in places like India, as well as the prevalence of four tiers of law schools overcrowding the marketplace. In your opinion, is the current state of the law labor market a reflection of recent economic shock, or do you think there is a paradigm shift occurring to some degree?

<comment><USER2> The recent economic collapse has caused a general revulsion against the billable fee structure that has been routinely used in large firms.

At their peak in 2008 before the collapse, fee structures had gotten to the point where first year associates were being billed at about $500 per hour, with senior associate rates reaching into $600/hr plus and partners ranging anywhere from $700 to $1,000/hr (even paralegals would be billed at as much as $350/hr plus, not to mention the summer clerks, who also would be billed at such rates).

Even more, the standard practice in such firms is to travel in packs. Several lawyers and a team of paralegals would be assigned to a typical project that comes to the firm and every one of them bills time on the matter whenever they talk to each other about it. Thus, a "team meeting" may wind up costing the client thousands of dollars per hour, as the lawyers and paralegals ruminate over the strategy of a case or the details of a discovery strategy, etc. Now it is not the norm to have everyone globally assembled even for a large matter, but even the routine, day-to-day handling of a matter winds up being double- or even triple-billed, e.g., a court hearing at which a partner shows up to do the argument with two associates in tow carrying the bags.

All in all, not a very efficient system. But, as noted in the article, there is an incestuous network in place between the big firms and the general counsel and other senior in-house counsel who effectively determine to which outside law firms they will farm out the company's most complex matters. Not only do the lawyers on the client have relationships with the big-firm lawyers but they also operate under the "I can't be fired for using IBM" principle - and this has led over the years to strong ties within this network that have assured a steady and growing stream of work for the big firms from the most prominent companies with the most complex legal needs, all in spite of any inefficiency in billing or even overt billing abuses.

For a while, when all was still well, these same in-house counsel, under pressure from management, began to assert themselves by questioning the overbillings, etc. and this led to a pattern by which initial billings in a matter became, in effect, akin to opening offers. Such billings would be scrutinized and returned with complaints about this or that, would be cut back, and would then be paid in what was generally regarded as still-inflated form.

The downturn did change all this, with companies having had enough of this billing model. In today's environment, the large firms have had to adapt and have been forced to temper the old abuses with reduced hourly rates, fixed-fee arrangement, caps, etc. It is still the same old machine but much humbled when it comes to routine billing matters involving the in-house network. Very large and very complex matters still command the old rates and the old multiple- billing mechanisms, and that is why large firms salivate over the prospect, e.g., of getting a prominent role in the Lehman bankruptcy or in defending a prominent class action, etc. The problem is that there are only so many matters of this type, and certainly not enough to support the range of large firms in the manner to which they had historically been accustomed.

Thus, today, the field is much more varied even for the larger legal matters that have traditionally gone to large firms. For discrete issues, such as complex discovery, much of the work is being outsourced, e.g., to the Indian companies you mention. Instead of having a team of U.S. lawyers and paralegals poring over millions of documents at rates of $500 and up, you have a much less expensive labor pool overseas doing this sort of mind-numbing work. You also have a proliferation of smaller, boutique firms throughout the country doing the same work as the larger firms generally do, by comparably qualified lawyers, at half the billing rates. Some are set up "virtually" to enable themselves to compete on price even more effectively. And, in response, as noted above, the big firms themselves are adapting and discounting rates, etc.

All this represents a major change from historical patterns. I would go so far as to say that it has left the large firms "reeling," if that term is not too strong.

Will it result in a paradigm shift? In some ways, no. The network upon which the large firms feed is firmly intact and it does not appear that anything will change the basic ways in which the work is generated for such firms, i.e., they will continue to get the prestige big-company work and this will continue to support the existing structures. To that extent, the downturn has basically caused a short-term shift in the relative bargaining power between the company clients and the large firms. I expect this will shift back over time because law more and more affects large companies, with ever-expanding government regulatory frameworks, etc. in place, not to mention ever-expanding theories of legal liability. In this sense, Big Law will continue to be a "growth" business, albeit one that is temporarily in a slump.

In other ways, yes, however. Modern technology has indeed transformed the way law works and it is far easier today for clients to find good law firms of varying types to compete for their projects. Thus, at this level (which certainly includes the bulk of the startup world), clients have a far broader range of choices and this means more competition among the lawyers and better billing arrangements for the clients. Clients in such cases do not need to put up with things such a double-billing, or paying extensively for the learning time of all those young attorneys who are part of the 3-to-1 ratio on which the Big Law model depends. In these respects, I think the change is permanent. Clients are more knowledgeable and the information is now out there to give them good choices. This will not change going forward and is a good thing from the client side.

The ultimate institutional constraint, though, that will continue to support the current system is the guild system under which lawyers operate. Owing to the force of the law regulating the field, one can only practice law in a jurisdiction in which one is licensed and one who is not licensed can't offer any form of legal services to the public. This system, though intended to be protective of clients, acts much as the old guilds of the middle ages did in making sure that only the licensed artisans get the work. This in turn creates artificial scarcity, leaves it impossible for enterprising people to solve legal problems through creative means, and generally leaves the client with fewer choices and little ability to bargain over price. As long as this system generally prevails, there will be no fundamental changes in the field.

Sorry to go on and on, but I do hope this helps give you an insight into the broader patterns in the field.

<comment><USER4> Very informative and interesting comment - thank you for "go[ing] on and on!"

It seems to me that the pattern you are describing also applies to Big 4 professional services firms like PriceWaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, etc, in areas anchored around accounting and auditing but characterised by an ever-expanding array of allied services. Would you care to comment on any nuances or differences particular to them as opposed to Big Law?

<comment><USER2> Both are attempting to take what were traditionally fairly sleepy service professions (this would be 50+ years ago) and transform them into worldwide mega-businesses for their respective niches. This means that the old partnership model has effectively died in both professions. Partners tend not to sign on for life with such a firm any longer but rather tend to align themselves more opportunistically with any given firm, ready to jump to another as opportunity and the dollars warrant. For this reason, too, the firms tend not to support partners over the long term and the loyalty factor is much diminished from what it used to be. In short, both are now major businesses, with all the upside and downside that comes with taking the risks of major entrepreneurial ventures.

Thus, as firms trying to expand aggressively into new fields, with worldwide operations, such firms are now subject to all the vagaries of major businesses. In the past, a major law firm or a major accounting firm would not have wild fluctuations in its firm operations - ups and downs, yes, but not wild swings that could threaten its survival. Today, both large law firms and major accounting firms have done the unthinkable: (1) systematically purging their partner ranks to weed out less productive partners, (2) mass layoffs of younger professionals to survive severe downturns, (3) firm explosions that have caused some of the premier firms to go out of business altogether (in accounting, Arthur Andersen, of course; in law, firms such as Heller Ehrman (which was a 150-year-old firm, Brobeck, etc.). These are all symptoms of the shift from staid profession to major business venture. Of course, the rewards of successful expansion have far exceeded the risks over the years, and have enabled such professionals to make returns on average per partner that easily dwarf what such partners used to make under the old ways and hence they have made this shift.

I don't think I am competent to comment on refined nuances between the large firms within the accounting profession versus the legal and so will leave that to others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I worked at one such firm for five years, and did a lot of recruiting of undergraduates in that time. This is a mostly fair summary, but I take exception to the following:

 _Even getting an interview often requires attending an Ivy League professional school or a very few top tier equivalents_

Anyone _could_ apply. All applications were taken seriously, and I worked with several excellent people from non-Ivy-League schools. It would be much more accurate to say:

 _Even _knowing_ about such business consulting firms often requires attending an Ivy League professional school or a very few top tier equivalents_

I always found this regrettable. It boils down to the fact that most undergraduates have never heard of most business consulting firms (or the industry at all), so a lot of work (consultants' time) and money go in to on- campus awareness marketing. That doesn't scale well at all. So we ended up doing it where we had the biggest bang for the buck (in the UK, this was just Cambridge and Hull... err, I mean Oxford). We would sometimes send one new hire to the careers fair at a few other universities.

Bottom line: anyone could apply; every application was taken seriously; 99% of students outside Oxbridge had never heard of us, and that was too expensive for us to fix.

<comment><USER6> This is true. I went to a state school and had never heard of management consulting until everyone I met from MIT went into it. I remember a dinner in Boston where I kept asking them, why would a company pay a 24 yr old with no experience for advice on anything? I still haven't heard a good explanation.

<comment><USER7> [http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/04/consulting-isnt- about-...](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/04/consulting-isnt-about- advice.html)

How about having someone to blame?

<comment><USER8> It might be one of those apocryphal engineering war stories, but one I've heard a few times: a consulting company is brought in by management with a pretty obvious goal of ratifying something management already wanted to do. The in-house engineers know what's going on, and what management wants ratified, but they're supposed to work with this consulting firm. The engineers at the consulting firm know that they're probably being asked to ratify some already-made decision, and their job is basically to find out what it is and recommend that. Early on, the in-house engineers just spill to the beans to the consulting firm's engineers, and both groups more or less take it easy for three months, short-circuiting the usual charade while management on both sides thinks that some sort of consulting dance is going on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've been on the other side of this as a Wall Street trading intern. As a college senior in 2007, my future employer hosted a party in NYC for all those who had accepted their job offers. Keep in mind, this is for people who had already agreed to take the job -- not for potential candidates. Still, they flew us to NYC from our respective colleges, put us up in a really nice boutique hotel, reserved a very nice restaurant for the night, paid for our drinks, drove us around in limos, served us brunch, and flew us back to NYC the next day. It was totally outlandish.

Potential employers wine and dine their candidates because, well, that's how THEY would want to be treated if they were applying. Wall Streeters are quite status conscious, so of course they'll try to appeal to candidates' materialism and sense of status. Law firms are no different, though they're probably a bit more modest than your average investment bank.

It's the same thing as Google bragging about their massages and catered sushi. Google is just showing that they have what their candidates care about. Your average tech employee probably wouldn't care, and would maybe even be a little put off if their employer took them to an exclusive club. Wall Street banks are big on expensive dinners and bottle service, but many of them don't even have gyms or subsidized cafeterias, much less free food. My firm didn't even have napkins in the pantry!

<comment><USER10> I published a technical book at the age of 21. While I didn't make much money, the publisher (who has since been bought and sold 3 times I think) certainly wined and dined me at every conference and event that I went to. Great meals and all the free booze I could drink. Not to mention the chance to flirt with the always really attractive editors they sent out to work these things.

It sure made an impression on 21 year old me. There didn't seem to be a lot in it for the publisher (other than keeping their writers happy I suppose). It wasn't like my book was very successful. Hell it wasn't very good at all. At 21 I had the knowledge, but lacked the work-ethic to really put the time into it.

I always wonder if that's all this really is. Folks who have the money looking for an excuse to spend it (and make some kids year). I'm not sure it's a big plot to make them dependent on the job. I really think that people, generally, like to throw money around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> A few random thoughts from long time lurker, first time commenter (I finally have some value / expertise to add): The biggest thing that these interviews are testing is structured assimilation. Banks look for someone who can convincingly discuss their unremitting passion to enter finance as a lifelong career without seeming either passionate or betraying an interest in the money. Consulting firms structure 'case interviews' designed to test 'problem solving' when they are really laying out a regimented structure which can be most easily mastered through having a successful network of already-hired junior consultants. Again, it's not that there isn't a desire to hire creative, talented people, but the profile has to fit along certain metrics.

<comment><USER12> What experiences led you to this assessment?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think it basically comes down to a status signaling mechanism. They are selling a dream to these candidates, so later they can sell these candidates to their clients. And selling is just that -- appearances. I doubt other schools don't have the candidates with the appropriate knowledge. However, I am sure, they do not have candidates that are in $200K+ student dept, and who expect to drive a Porsche bought with the signing bonus from their first job after college, who know the tastes of various types of caviar, and spend their vacations on private islands. One needs exactly these kind of people for your customers to interact with. They exude class, luxury, superiority, and confidence.

So it is about signaling a certain status position and it is about giving your client the best ass cover they can imagine. Anyone hiring these consultants can always point to them and say "Look, we had all the best people. If they can't solve the problem, nobody can". These firms tap into that market -- the market for golden scapegoats.

And the funny thing is, if the golden scapegoats fuck up, it is not a problem -- on the contrary, bonuses still roll in. The firm doesn't lose reputation. Because, after all, if these guys and gals can't do it, nobody can. The fuck- up is just a demonstration of impossibility of solving the particular problem.

</comment><comment><USER14> Management strategy while hiring a Consultant is _Heads I Win. Tails You Lose_</comment>


Try Out the New Disqus 2012 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.disqus.com/post/22325598158/try-out-disqus-2012

<comment><USER2> Wow, this actually looks like something better than either old disqus or fb comments. I'm tempted to finally get around to setting up a blog again to try it out. (I had kind of given up on the idea of a blog comment network once disqus semi-stagnated, and fb comments became more common).

I'm amazed at how much worthwhile comment (albeit with a horrible SNR) is still trapped in phpBB forum sites, blog comments, and other basically painful to access places. Within startups and technology, generally quora or hn or stack overflow or blogs themselves seem adequate, but whenever I search for info about my car, firearms, legal, DIY, etc., it feels like a bad version of 2003.

There's still no good solution to the "local newspaper comment quality problem", though.

<comment><USER3> > is still trapped in phpBB forum sites

I really don't agree with that. Standard internet forums have a very important role in internet community, they can't just be replaced by blogs. If you approach forums as just a source of information then sure, they _could_ be replaced by a blog because "why not put all the information I want in blog posts?" but internet forums are so much more than just a source of information. They're about _sharing_ , _community_ and _discovery_ , if you only ever use forums because google search results contain links to them then your opinion is very skewed.

<comment><USER2> I like forums and community discussion, I just don't like the forum software widely used. phpBB and similar are a colossal step backward from what we had before (USENET).

HN is better software than any forum-type software I've seen, but isn't used anywhere else.

Reddit might be the second best, but despite trying many times, I really can't get into it, even with subreddits.

<comment><USER4> phpBB bugs me too. I have two problems with using HN or reddit to fill the void though.

Posts drop off the front page after a day. I've never seen a way to prevent this happening, there really needs to be a way to sort by "most recent comments" on the post pages.

The comment threading would need a small overhaul so it isn't mostly nested anymore. So the first response to a comment stays flat and the second response braches to a new comment node. Comment threads only growing to 8 comments deep before "continuing on a new page" is a bummer, this would keep almost all the discussion on a single one.

<comment><USER2> This is the product I wish Google would build, rather than a shitty Facebook knockoff.

Google Groups has gone through two major iterations, and is now basically useless.

People might not want Google to have their personal information (I'd say people probably trust Facebook more than Google with "sharing social information" -- this isn't entirely rational), but forum posts are basically things you want to have public.

It's got a "community management" piece which Google probably couldn't get right, but they could provide tools to people/groups to run forums. The big plus for users would be aggregating content (RSS++), anti-spam, etc.

Facebook Groups is probably the best "small group sharing info" tool right now, and it's inherently non-indexed.

<comment><USER4> I wouldn't want it integrated with current sites though. I'd like it self- hostable and with separate account signups. "Login with facebook/gmail" is ok but for some people that's a privacy barrier that they won't cross.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Disqus has never gotten enough credit for their design. People forget how crappy comments used to look. When Disqus came out, everyone eventually copied their design. With Disqus 2012, I think that's going to happen again. They are leading the way.

<comment><USER6> This just looks like Reddit with avatars though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> My biggest annoyance with Disqus is that you can't tell in advance what requirements it will make in terms of signing in. Some sites have openid and some don't, some are okay with anonymous comments and some aren't. Usually you have to type some junk, hit post and then find out what you'll be allowed to use and give up, or comment as appropriate. Sometimes I forget, write an insightful comment and then find I can't actually post it.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, this is actually one of the biggest things we wanted to address with the new version: the inconsistency for end-users. Disqus is quite configurable, but it caused a number of barriers that was detrimental for the websites themselves.

We're trying to go with guided, designed experiences that makes it attractive to participate — not punishing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The new changes look excellent and i'm excited to roll them out on our site. Unfortunately, however great it is won't stop us from planning to migrate away from disqus and on to a custom-built system.

The simple reason is the prohibitive pricing for pro features. Down the road we will need control over authentication, so that we can roll in more interactivity on our website (premium content, interactive and community features).

Disqus offers this feature for pro users, but at $300/month its just not feasible. As a media site that hopes for small 4-figure revenue monthly, $300 is just way outside our budget for a third-party service like this. It would need to be more like $30/m to be in the ballpark really.

I guess we aren't the people they are targeting, but i hope Disqus considers a much lower tier with single sign-on and without some of the other pro features (we aren't interested in analytics, can live without realtime, theme editor, priority support). I wonder how many other "pro-bloggers" and "small businesses" (2 things listed under 'who is this for') are alienated with the high pricing.

<comment><USER10> Exactly the reason why I couldn't use it on my site. I would gladly pay the $300/month after the site generates decent revenue. But it is a huge barrier to entry for small projects. I wish they had a plan where you pay nothing for single-sign-on till you hit 5K or so comments every week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you want to play around with this live, I noticed it's been running on AVC for a week or so: [http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/05/twitter-brings-you- closer.ht...](http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/05/twitter-brings-you-closer.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> Quite honestly, I was skeptical about these changes upon first looking at the Community tab in the screenshot. Then I scrolled down to the end of the post, where you can actually see the new comment system in action. It does indeed seem like a significant improvement, including the new Community tab. In a day and age when it seems a lot of companies make UI changes that are actually a step backward, bravo to Disqus for the enhancements. Well done!

</comment><comment><USER13> I didn't see a link, but I'd be interested to know if and how the integration changes for sites implementing the new Disqus.

In any case, looks really good!

<comment><USER14> There's no changes required by publishers (users implementing Disqus). It works with the same embed code as before.

<comment><USER15> Interesting; I has assumed as much from "The new Disqus integrates in a way that is naturally discoverable by Google — out of the box, without any extra work." <\- this did not require any changes on the user end?

<comment><USER16> I wondered this... I'd actually planned to use the API to embed the comments, but haven't had time to implement yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If you are interested in how we do the realertime notifications stay tuned for a blog post (and talk at EuroPython). Hint it isn't node.js.

<comment><USER18> gevent?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Does it support SSL yet? Last I checked (admittedly, about 6 months ago), it seemed Disqus could not be used at full-SSL sites.

<comment><USER20> Yup we've supported SSL for almost that long now actually ;)

Just change the <http://> prefix to <https://> in the universal code (e.g., <https://yourforumshortname.disqus.com/embed.js>) and you're good to go. Works with all our files: embed.js, count.js, everything except media attachments (which we're working on).

Give it a shot. If it doesn't work holler our way at <http://disqus.com/support>. Happy to lend a hand.

UPDATE: Caveat: I'm referring to the current version of Disqus, not Disqus 2012. SSL support for 2012 is on our radar.

<comment><USER21> In general, wouldn't you just support leaving the protocol out and changing the universal code embed to just `://yourforumshortname.disqus.com/embed.js`? Isn't this best-practices these days, as it covers both cases best?

<comment><USER22> I can assure you that our problem isn't that we don't know how to redirect users to the correct URL :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The video mentions that they use a technique to include comments that provides proper SEO (and feels natural to Google). Any information on what they've done? I remember previously, they had a WordPress plugin that brought Disqus comments back to your site for SEO purposes.

<comment><USER14> We'll be talking more about this in the future. For now it's mostly in prototype/draft form, but we have confirmed that it is supported.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I love Disqus. They are one of the few startups building seemingly unsexy but solid fundamental tech.

I just hope they have a solid business and don't get bought by BigCo for talent or fear of competition.

</comment><comment><USER25> Nice, now all the racist crap at the bottom of Drudge-linked articles will look like YouTube comments instead of Yahoo! comments.

</comment><comment><USER26> Is Disqus more friendly to screen readers / impaired users? In the past its reliance on Javascript has made it painful for accessibility software, but the SEO improvements might have made things nicer now. This is the big objection to deploying Disqus on our site.

<comment><USER27> We've gotten positive feedback from early testers who use screen readers. Let us know if there are still gaps. Accessibility is a priority for us.

<comment><USER28> Accessibility isn't just about screen readers.

Example user flow illustrating brokenness:

1\. Open Firefox.

2\. Disable JS.

3\. Go to:

        http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/05/twitter-brings-you-closer.html

4\. Follow the "View the entire comment thread." link:

        http://avc.disqus.com/?url=http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/05/twitter-brings-you-closer.html

5\. The "Please login to view this page" dialog is missing any visible keyboard focus for hyperlink controls.

       http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#visible-focus

6\. The dialog includes a "Use OpenID?" link that doesn't lead anywhere. Not supporting some functionality without JS is regrettable and sometimes unavoidable; leaving broken controls in the DOM is just that: _broken_. Feature detect and add controls to the DOM when the necessary functionality is available.

7\. Follow the "Go home" link:

       http://disqus.com/

8\. No visible keyboard focus on the Disqus homepage either.

9\. Click "Sign Up".

10\. Click "Create commenter account".

11\. There are big buttons in the page ("Facebook", "Twitter", "Google") that do nothing.

As a web developer who cares about frontend code and UI quality, this sort of thing is enough to put me off integrating with Disqus. Which is a shame, as I think commenting-as-a-service is a great idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Will it remove the unnecessary scare-warning about third party cookies?

</comment><comment><USER30> Finally, collapsible comment threads! awesome.

Now, only HN needs to fall in line and all comment-thread-hijacking problems will be gone!

</comment><comment><USER31> looks pretty good - I am of the belief that anonymous comment posting should not have a place on the internet simple because of the poor quality of conversation it leads to. Would have been nice if they had innovated in this desperately need area of real IDs for comments. Image all the shitty comments that will disappear when people have to back them with real name id.</comment>


Pointer – a reading club for developers - <AUTHOR> http://www.pointer.io

<comment><USER2> Huge fan of this — lots of great technical articles delivered to my inbox. A lot of the articles are things I would've expected to see on HN, but either missed or they didn't make the frontpage. Highly recommended!</comment>


How Duolingo achieved a 50:50 gender ratio for new software engineer hires - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-duolingo-achieved-5050-gender-ratio-new-software-engineer-sohn/ <comment><USER2> "We made a decision to revisit our typical list of schools and only visit the universities that had more than 18% of female undergraduate computer science majors"

So instead of having a very wide search Feild for applicable people, they reduced it for the sake of being sexist. Great

<comment><USER3> This is an anti-sexism measure.</comment></comment>


Proposal for a database-less, general purpose, name-based file management app - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/rhythmus/11118629

<comment><AUTHOR> For a long time I've been naming pictures with some combination of

      - the names of all people appearing on it,
      - the date,
      - the place where the picture was took and
      - what were everybody doing

Something like: "me, bob and anna running to get a bus on the christmas eve 2005.jpg"

<comment><USER2> Start the filename with a sortable date (and maybe time), eg. 20150220-whatever.jpg

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is interesting.

One of my current pain points with metadata is that I have hundreds of PDF files on my android tablet that I read at the gym. If they are e-books I got from Oreilly, the titles are obvious, but I have lots of documents where the titles are some meaningless number.

An obvious answer is to extract metadata from the files and rename them, although unfortunately only the files from Oreilly have consistently good embedded metadata. I have my own needs for a "bloated" system with a database, but that is not mutually exclusive with filename discipline.

<comment><AUTHOR> You don't even try to rename them manually?

In fact, a very nice way of starting this would be a command-line tool that renamed files according to file metadata and some heuristics with the file inner content.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> With deep directory trees, long names can reach the limit for operating system paths. Calibre stores a Dublin Core metadata file (plaintext) in the same directory as the target file.

We need a public metadata registry that includes file hashes and license status, along with a hash of the license file.

This will decentralize the manual effort of naming and tagging PDF, epub, video, etc. It will also make it easier to identify files to which malware has been added.

<comment><AUTHOR> The public metadata registry seems insanely good. Hasn't it been tried? What else do know about the subject? Please share.

<comment><USER4> Haven't seen a general file registry. There are "open metadata" efforts for music and books:

[https://musicbrainz.org](https://musicbrainz.org) & [http://alternativeto.net/software/mp3tag/](http://alternativeto.net/software/mp3tag/)

[http://openlibrary.org](http://openlibrary.org) & [http://alternativeto.net/software/metax/](http://alternativeto.net/software/metax/)</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Compiled podcast about Covid-19. Bites from top podcasts of the week - <AUTHOR> https://soundcloud.com/user-857781619/curatedpodcast-coronavirus-impact-on-economy-rude-babies <comment><AUTHOR> Took bites from the best podcast episodes of the week and compiled into a single 30 min episode! This one is all about coronavirus - from its origin, to why CDC testing was delayed, potential impact on the economy when compared to 2008, and a fun little segment at the end about rude london babies :)

This is a fun experiment that my friends and I are running while quarantined - there are TOO many podcast episodes, and so we're picking bites from the best ones. Now you can sample new episodes, learn something new, and if you like a specific one, go and listen to the whole episode!

Would love thoughts on the format, and if interested in future ones, sign up here - [https://forms.gle/8gUEgTugUt4Gfw6L9](https://forms.gle/8gUEgTugUt4Gfw6L9)</comment>


Will AI and Big Data Help Tamp Down Coronavirus? – IEEE Computer Society - <AUTHOR> https://www.computer.org/publications/tech-news/covid19-research/will-ai-and-big-data-help-tamp-down-coronavirus <comment><USER2> the tech to save us from coronavirus is not surveillance , it's biotech</comment>


Grandma's on the Computer Screen - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/27/us/27minicam.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss <comment><USER2> "And no one quite knows what it means to a generation of 2-year-olds to have slightly pixelated versions of their grandparents as regular fixtures in their lives." That's one inhuman side of technology ...</comment>


S.F. Tenant Forced Out by 315 Percent Rent Hike Wins $400,000 Settlement - happy-go-lucky https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2017/01/17/s-f-tenant-hit-with-315-percent-rent-increase-wins-400000-settlement/ <comment><AUTHOR> If you don't understand the rental laws don't be a landlord. There's too much of a belief that landowners can do whatever they want.

</comment><comment><USER2> The landlord definitely had no right to raise rents to such an absurd price, but a 400k penalty is equally absurd. I have no respect for both people in this case.

<comment><USER3> I have no respect for you, since it was an agreed upon settlement that reflected the penalty that the landlord would have faced had he gone to trial, and that penalty wasn't set by the tenant.

<comment><USER2> There is no need to get personal here. I am stating my opinion of these two people as a bystander, you are making a personal remark to me.

There are limits to an agreement. In terms of respect, I respect people who value logic, reason and morality over terms of an agreement. Your point taken to the logical conclusion means that agreements can override everything including human rights.

400,000 is unreasonable. Although the tenant didn't set the penalty she was rewarded not compensated for her troubles. Sure the word of the law is final, but did the tenant deserve 400K? No. The tenant does not deserve 400k as much as the tenant does not deserve to have rent prices used to kick her out.

<comment><USER4> jibalt should have said they don't respect your conclusion given that the parties involved came to an agreement.

The tenant is not getting $400k, there's no world where the attorney doesn't take at least half of that through hourly and itemized billing. We also don't know how this would affect the landlord's ability to retain, sell, or lease the apartment in the future had they lost this suit.

I'm going to go ahead and assume, however recklessly, that the landlord can afford the penalty since they both agreed on it and were the beneficiary of at least one estate.

<comment><USER3> The point is that I can't respect someone who so blatantly misdirects blame at the tenant when, as I said, the terms of the agreement are due to facts not created by the tenant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is insane. An owner of a property not subject to rent control should be free to raise rent to any amount. The argument that "Look, you can increase the rent to market rate, but you can't raise it way above market rate" is completely insane. If I want to charge you $900,000 per second to rent my house, I am free to, and you are free to not rent it then.

<comment><USER6> Actually, no. Charging existing tenants more than the market rate in order to evict them and so avoid your obligations under the OMI regulations is not something that you are allowed to do. If you want to do an OMI, then do the OMI. File the paperwork, compensate the tenant, wait the required period, and do the owner move in properly.

Nothing forces you to be a landlord -- in this case the owner inherited a house with tenants. They can always sell the asset to someone who is familiar with the laws and is able to comply with them. Given the high prices in SF, this should be easy to do.

But owning property with an existing tenant makes you a landlord -- you are choosing to be in this highly regulated line of work. It used to be case that landlords could do whatever they wanted to tenants, but the law has since changed. Now being a landlord requires that you maintain the property, that you give proper notice for things like rent increases, that you file paperwork when you want to do the OMI, and that you compensate the tenant for evicting them due to no fault of their own (such as what happens with an OMI). So please do your homework instead of arguing that you should be able to do whatever you want to your tenants.

<comment><USER7> I don't think that's what happened in this case.

They removed an illegal (that's the key word) in-law unit, making the unit a single family home.

That single family home was no longer under the rent control laws, enabling the owner to jack up the rent.

If they had gone by the book, they would have just had to pay the tenant 9.5k to go away, which is what (in retrospect) the owner should have done.

400k seems egregiously high, and designed to pander to populist opinion rather than any reasonable interpretation of the law.

<comment><USER8> > That single family home was no longer under the rent control laws, enabling > the owner to jack up the rent

Unreasonable rent increases to circumvent OMI rules are generally prohibited in such rules (since they are the most obvious way to effect an eviction pretextually), which are independent of rent control rules. The legal issue here was the OMI rules, not rent control, so the illegality of the other unit or the change in rent control status is irrelevant.

> 400k seems egregiously high, and designed to pander to populist opinion > rather than any reasonable interpretation of the law.

It's not a 400k award, it's a 400k settlement, which means that the owner clearly thinks that the actual award that survived all appeals plus the cost of litigation (including the cost in the owners time) would be at least that much.

<comment><USER7> > It's not a 400k award, it's a 400k settlement, which means that the owner > clearly thinks that the actual award that survived all appeals plus the cost > of litigation (including the cost in the owners time) would be at least that > much.

Why did you nitpick a point instead of addressing the egregiously high seeming cost? Your point merely buttresses my point, which is that 400k is far more than can and should be reasonably expected.

<comment><USER3> Why did you dishonestly call it a nitpick, rather than the essential point that it is?

> Your point merely buttresses my point

Um, no. That's a ridiculous dishonest claim.

> which is that 400k is far more than can and should be reasonably expected.

No, the whole point of the "nitpick" is that this is false. The landlord quite reasonably expected to pay more if he were to go to court. There's a good reason for this expectation: because the landlord intentionally violated the law for their own gain at the expense of the interests of the tenant. The landlord is a bad bad person who did a bad bad thing, and should be treated accordingly.

<comment><USER7> I guess this is you missing the point.

> Why did you dishonestly call it a nitpick, rather than the essential point > that it is?

You should understand the point being discussed before accusing people of dishonesty. The point buttresses my point, if read using any definition of basic reading comprehension you'd chose to use.

> The landlord quite reasonably expected to pay more if he were to go to > court.

And my point is that the unlawful eviction of somebody, even with punitive damages, shouldn't rise to even the same order of magnitude of 400k, let alone a huge amount higher. That's enough to buy a new house in much of the rest of the country.

The punitive damages should be something to do with the total lawyer fees in the case, as well as the expenses to move, as well as a deterrent amount.

NOT the ability to buy an entire new house, or an amount which might reasonably requiring the person being sued to sell the house. Now is the point clear to you?

<comment><USER8> > And my point is that the unlawful eviction of somebody, even with punitive > damages, shouldn't rise to even the same order of magnitude of 400k

Why not?

> That's enough to buy a new house in much of the rest of the country.

So what? What does the rest of the country have to do with it? The rest of the country isn't where the wrongful deprivation occurred.

> The punitive damages should be something to do with the total lawyer fees in > the case

Lawyers fees and court costs are often awarded _in addition to_ any actual and/or punitive damages awards, and are, like actual damages, compensatory rather than punitive.

> as well as the expenses to move

Again, that's compensatory rather than punitive damages, and it's what's required when landlords _comply_ with the notice and other restrictions applicable to OMI evictions.

> as well as a deterrent amount.

Actually, that's the only part that is punitive in nature.

You've basically identified the relocation payment they would have had to make if they complied with OMI rules, punitive damages, and fees and costs, but not any compensation for harms due to the failure to observe the procedural (notice/timing) requirements of Omi rules or for not paying when due.

Now on top of what all that would have been in the case of a trial, add in the value to the _defendant_ of not admitting wrongdoing, and avoiding the costs (including time costs and stress) of litigation, and you've got a reasonable upper bound on a settlement.

> NOT the ability to buy an entire new house, or an amount which might > reasonably requiring the person being sued to sell the house.

Well, it's clearly not enough to buy an entire new house in the area in question, so that's irrelevant. And I hardly see how the latter standard is justified, since that's dependent wholly on the defendants financial state. You certainly haven't established that the actual number here doesn't fit even your initial description of the elements that would make a reasonable amount.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Should a startup start on web or mobile if it plans to operate on both? - <AUTHOR>

Please also provide an explanation for your answer.<p>Thanks in advance! <comment><USER2> If you have to pick one, in most cases it'd be web. Mobile devices have web browsers but web devices don't have mobile browsers.

9 times out of 10, if your application doesn't have any advantages on a mobile device (location services, camera services, attachments like square) then there is no point of releasing an app at all- just make a mobile-in-mind web site.

</comment><comment><USER3> We chose to do web first even though our app will mostly be used on mobile devices. One of the main reasons we chose to implement the web application first was to get a working MVP. I am much more experienced with web apps and have designed our product with mobile in mind. It's currently the best of both worlds when it comes to time and functionality. In the near future we plan on creating device specific apps.

I know this scenario is specific to our case, but I believe many other startups are in the same boat. When you have to choose between creating a two device apps (iOS and Android) vs one centralized web app for an MVP, I'd chose the web app. Again keep in mind not all scenarios fit this mold.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks to all who have taken the time to answer.

I also posted this question on Quora at [http://www.quora.com/Web- Development/If-a-startup-plans-to-e...](http://www.quora.com/Web- Development/If-a-startup-plans-to-eventually-operate-on-both-web-and-mobile- what-must-it-consider-when-deciding-which-platform-to-start-on).

I should have clarified that I wasn't looking for advice for a specific startup, but rather to draft up a general guide of pros and cons to consider for any startup facing this decision.

I'll absolutely take all of the comments made on this thread into consideration when I write the post!

</comment><comment><USER4> The web should be the first move because it is an easier pivot point for starting. With a website, you can give people a way to see your product and/or interact with it. It also centralizes your product under a findable URL. A website can also get many more users than one mobile platform can. Mobile discovery is lacking so as of now the web is the best way to start your project.

</comment><comment><USER5> Fred Wilson gave this some thought in his posts "Mobile first, web second" <http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/09/mobile-first-web-second.html>

</comment><comment><USER6> What does your market research indicate? How about a web site with responsive design? Let analytics tell you where your clients are coming from.

</comment><comment><USER7> I would start with "web" first. If you hit it off, then build a mobile version. My gut is always to google something on a computer and not to go to the app store and search for apps. But it could just be me.</comment>


Friendly Foxes' Genes Offer Hints to How Dogs Became Domesticated - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/science/foxes-tame-genetics.html <comment><USER2> This is not just the same perennial article about the fox domestication experiment, they did some new sequencing [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0611-6](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0611-6).

</comment><comment><USER3> Are there similar hints about how humans became domesticated?

<comment><USER4> I always liked the competing theory the wolves/dogs were responsible for domesticating humans. Mostly because I have seen first hand dogs train humans.

For example, my parent's Goldendoodle knocks (punches) a sliding glass door when she wants to be let in/out. No one taught her this, she did it and got the response from the human she was looking for and continues the behavior getting the same expected result from the human everytime.

<comment><USER5> _For example, my parent's Goldendoodle knocks (punches) a sliding glass door when she wants to be let in /out. No one taught her this_

Dogs do what works. You have no idea the plethora of other things the dog tried before tapping the glass. Training, OTOH, involves "I would like the humans to open the door when I tap the glass. Using positive training, I shall..." The dog would have been just as content to bark if it got the door to open. Edison didn't train a light filament to glow without burning up, his assistants kept trying until they found a method that gave the results they desired.

<comment><USER6> Is there a meaningful difference between

> "I would like the humans to open the door when I tap the glass."

and

> "I would like the humans to open the door so I'll keep trying stuff until it > works"

? I say that because I feel like your description means training is a means of applying a specific input and obtaining the output. Where as, even humans often don't even train dogs - they try random inputs until they obtain the output they desire.

So what would you call it if a human tried random inputs to a dog, eventually getting the desired behavior? If that's not training, what is it? Is the input just as crucial as the output to "training"?

<comment><USER5> _So what would you call it if a human tried random inputs to a dog_

A waste of time? When I train a dog, I want the dog to respond to a _specific_ input, for instance saying the word "sit". I'm not going to stand there trying different words until the dog's ass hits the ground.

The difference lies in that the dog cannot be said that it wanted the door opened when it tapped the glass. The dog simply wanted the door to open. Of the many things the dog (might have) tried, tapping the glass was the only thing that worked. So the dog goes with that from now on.

Is the input just as crucial? Yes, it is. If for no other reason than a standardization of language. Because teaching your two year old to just use whatever random word she makes up for what the rest of us call "strawberry" isn't going to get her very far in life. In a similar manner, standardization of language with dogs is just as essential. I've got two dogs, you think I'm learning a different language for each? Duh, no. Consistency of input/desired- output mappings is a key element to training in general.

<comment><USER6> > A waste of time? When I train a dog, I want the dog to respond to a specific > input, for instance saying the word "sit". I'm not going to stand there > trying different words until the dog's ass hits the ground.

Agreed, it's far from efficient - but it's what I've seen a ton of people do. Throw random inputs at the dog to try to get them to go pee, or go outside when peeing, or sit on command, or etc.

> The difference lies in that the dog cannot be said that it wanted the door > opened when it tapped the glass. The dog simply wanted the door to open. Of > the many things the dog (might have) tried, tapping the glass was the only > thing that worked. So the dog goes with that from now on.

My question was mainly centered around the idea that, the way you describe it, I think is the same that a lot of people use in "training" dogs. They don't care what the input is, they care what the output is. Even during simple things like Sit. They don't pay mind to all the random variables they're throwing in like body language, tone, gestures, food, etc.

> Is the input just as crucial? Yes, it is. If for no other reason than a > standardization of language. Because teaching your two year old to just use > whatever random word she makes up for what the rest of us call "strawberry" > isn't going to get her very far in life. In a similar manner, > standardization of language with dogs is just as essential. I've got two > dogs, you think I'm learning a different language for each? Duh, no. > Consistency of input/desired-output mappings is a key element to training in > general.

Well I think you misunderstand me. I'm not asking if input matters, I'm asking if input matters to your definition of "training".

Ie, if a dog tries random inputs and eventually figures out a way to get me to let it outside - it sounds like you did not consider that training. Yet, I feel like frequently people do the same to "train" dogs. Hence my question towards you.

<comment><USER5> _Yet, I feel like frequently people do the same to "train" dogs._

Apologies, the concept is so foreign to me at this point (as a result of training <g>) I just didn't consider that. But you're right, folks do attempt to train dogs in that manner. I suppose it would be like lifting weights for that big marathon you have coming up. If you ask me, a runner, if that's training I would say no. But I'm fixated on the specificity. More accurately, I'd have to admit that it is, indeed, "training".

But without that specificity, it degrades to semantics. I mean, c'mon, who thinks solely lifting weights is going to get you to the finish line? When I say I'm training for a marathon, the vast majority of people would assume I'm spending most of my time running. And when I say I'm training my dog, I imagine most folks expect something along the lines of "when I say a specific command, the dog takes a specific action". Because the desired outcome of training generally is not "the dog's butt hit's the ground", the desired outcome is "I say 'sit', and the dog's butt hit's the ground". If folks are content to have a dog sit with non-specific inputs, they are free to call it whatever they like. But it is not what most people call "training", and no professional trainer would consider it to be "training".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I always find it interesting that domesticated foxes basically behave like large pups.

</comment><comment><USER8> Interesting science, but I still say it should all stop. This long-running experiment uses foxes raised for their fur. I have read many articles over the years and I am unclear whether the study populations are still harvested for fur. If they are, the study needs to stop. Anything involving fur farms needs to stop asap.

<comment><USER9> Foxes without the desired trait are put to sleep, because they have no other use. So....we could either burn their carcasses, or at least use the fur. Why is that a bad thing? The fur is a byproduct here - no one is breeding those foxes for it.

<comment><USER10> But why do you need to put the foxes to sleep? For a lot of people, that part is the immoral bit, whether the fur is used or not.

<comment><USER11> [moderate NSFW]

What I find immoral is _not_ putting them to sleep.

Some fur farms do literally skin foxes alive. This is because, __if I remember correctly__, ripping the pelt off in one go produces something of the highest quality/grade because the fox was standing on its feet while the skinning took place. I think if it's lying down it flattens the pelt out, and there's some risk of tearing.

At least, I think this is what I read. I'm not trying to editorialize/dramatize, but all I can vaguely remember from that one random webpage I found showed a skinned fox('s insides), so that's what got mentally filed away... it wasn't (that) horrible (well, if you basically switch your emotions off), but that impression kind of took precedence over remembering anything else from the webpage, which I (unfortunately) cannot possibly remember where to find now.

In any case, I remember there being a legitimate reason other than pure maliciousness, and I think it was something to do with pelt quality.

I think some places use a two-electrode stun/kill technique; one probe end goes in the, uh, _back_ ; and the other probe (perhaps it's a ball? I've never cared to find out) goes in the mouth. Bang. I have, for the purposes of simplicity, decided that this method is reasonably humane. (Hopefully it doesn't burn the tongue?) I wouldn't mind hearing others' opinions.

(Written very late, excuse tiredness)

<comment><USER12> God forgive us.

Reading that you might get the impression that I am now off to bomb a fur facility or something. No; I get it; I eat meat, and I can understand how our use of animals contributes to the survival of their species (if cows weren't good to eat, we'd have far fewer of them, etc.). And I believe people when they say they try to kill in a humane way.

But 500 years from now, when we can grow meat and leather and what-have-you, they will look on us as barbarians.

I don't have a so-what. Just a sense that animal products are in some way _sacred_ , and deserve our respect at the very least.

EDIT: I am reminded of the "stroggification" scene from Quake IV: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwyjWpP4XA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwyjWpP4XA) (NSFW)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bust a Name - Great way to find available domain names - <AUTHOR> http://www.bustaname.com It's like Instant Domain Search taken to the next level - give it some words and it'll help you find something. Sorting by length and readability are great ideas. <comment><USER2> Once you have a few domain names picked, you can use <http://www.DomainGrader.com> (still in alpha) to see what score it gets.

</comment><comment><USER3> That's a good one - but upon testing it does produce a lot of domains quickly that are similar, using only a few of the list of keywords in some cases. Still worth my upvote tho.

</comment><comment><USER4> Excellent. Goes to show that even when there are great products in the market (like pcnames.com and instantdomainsearch.com), someone will come up with something better.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Instant Domain Search taken to the next level. Sorting by length and readability is a great idea.

</comment><comment><USER5> but why are they using tapefailure? are they checking out what users type into the forms?

</comment><comment><USER6> wow! that thing is simply amazing - I remember just a month ago we did a domain hunt for our app, and it was so slow and frustrating. But with this I found a couple of great names in a matter of minutes! Definitely goes to my favs!

</comment><comment><USER7> excellent work! i love this

<comment><USER8> What makes it even more amazing is that it has a business model. Great to see a fresh, simple and smart execution of a useful tool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wow, this is one of the coolest things I've seen in awhile. Nice work!

</comment><comment><USER10> well, there goes another one of my startup ideas... I suppose there's room for more than one in the market, though, as it's an implementation game.</comment>


Is Apple trying to run interference on Google Maps installations? - <AUTHOR>

When I searched for Google Maps in the App Store on my iPhone and my iPod, instead of the results of the search appearing, a pop-up advertisement entitled "Apple Apps" appeared and asked me if I wanted to install iTunes U, Find My iPhone, and a few other Apple products (some of which I already have installed). I had to close the window to see the results from my search. Anyone else see this? Or is this now standard for all searches in the App Store? <comment><USER2> You always get that the first time you use app store, possibly the first time after upgrading if you don't have one or more of the apps.

Not new, not related to google maps.</comment>


Show HN: unix subprocesses for Erlang with reading with backpressure - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/dozzie/subproc <comment><USER2> I considered messing around with your project, then immediately gave up due to lack of documentation. Sure I could spend the time reading through all your code, but one of the benefits of using a library by someone else is I can treat it as a module, learn just the interface, and be productive. Check out the mongodb driver for erlang for a great example of documentation:

[https://github.com/comtihon/mongodb- erlang](https://github.com/comtihon/mongodb-erlang)

<comment><AUTHOR> > [...] then immediately gave up due to lack of documentation.

 _What_? I paid _special attention_ to the quality of EDoc documentation, and now you say I _didn 't provide any_? Not to mention that the application you gave as a role model is documented in a sloopy way, with many functions not described at all, missing argument names left and right, all private exports and modules included in published docs, and lack of formatting on top of that.

<comment><USER2> My apologies, and why I linked the other project. README goes a long ways, cause at the end of the day you're trying to release a project in an ecosystem where (for better or worse) that's what gets shown to users looking at your project.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Can we get Browser and OS Stats for Hacker News? - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> One could make an approximation based on the traffic coming via Hacker news. [1][2]

This seems to be: Chrome: ~60% Firefox: ~16% Safari: ~12% IE: 1%

OS numbers seem to vary wildly. While according to [3] Windows > OSX, a post of mine which was on the homepage (way back) got more OSX users than Windows users.

[1]: Jan 2015 stats [https://ma.ttias.be/the-frontpage-hacker-news-stats- graphs-a...](https://ma.ttias.be/the-frontpage-hacker-news-stats-graphs- analysis/) [2]: [http://alainmeier.com/traffic-data-after-hitting-the- hacker-...](http://alainmeier.com/traffic-data-after-hitting-the-hacker-news- homepage) [3] [http://willgrant.org/hn-traffic-stats- summary/](http://willgrant.org/hn-traffic-stats-summary/)</comment>


Why observatories shoot lasers at the Universe - <AUTHOR> http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/07/24/why-observatories-shoot-lasers-at-the-universe/ <comment><AUTHOR> With a bonus video: Paranal telescopes with Laser Guide star (Unique 360º night time lapse)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g77CxWquJEU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g77CxWquJEU)</comment>


Hawking: Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes - <AUTHOR> http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761

<comment><USER2> This seems to be a short piece where he summarizes his points and puts forward a (new?) idea. Maybe it's obvious to researchers in the field, but I don't see much argument or reasoning supporting his claim. It seems like he's just introducing a new idea for people to consider (brainstorming with the community).

So please don't blow this out of proportion.

<comment><USER3> "So please don't blow this out of proportion."

Surely that won't happen on a reputable site such as Hacker News.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7114913](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7114913)

Well. There's that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> More information: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence#Black_ho...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence#Black_hole_information_paradox)

</comment><comment><USER5> When linking to arxiv, you should link to the actual paper's page rather than directly to the PDF:

[http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761](http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761)

As always, looking forward to peoples' thoughts.</comment>


Typesetting automation – Lean document production workflow with Pandoc and LaTeX - <AUTHOR> http://mrzool.cc/writing/typesetting-automation/ <comment><AUTHOR> Where I elaborate a bit on this project, that reached HN's frontpage yesterday:

[http://mrzool.cc/tex-boilerplates/](http://mrzool.cc/tex-boilerplates/)

Comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10663298](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10663298)

</comment><comment><USER2> I don't want to sound too critical, but have any professional typographers reviewed this?

I'm mostly asking because at first glance, some of the models look quite terrible to me (questionable font pairing, excessive column width, no visible grid, etc.).</comment>