On Monks and Email - <AUTHOR> http://www.calnewport.com/blog/2019/04/29/on-monks-and-email/ <comment><USER2> This reminds me of Knuth's stance on email:

 _I have been a happy man ever since January 1, 1990, when I no longer had an email address. I 'd used email since about 1975, and it seems to me that 15 years of email is plenty for one lifetime._

 _Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things. What I do takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration. I try to learn certain areas of computer science exhaustively; then I try to digest that knowledge into a form that is accessible to people who don 't have time for such study._

[https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html](https://www-cs- faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> The article stops just as it was getting going. I can't help but feel like this was deliberate and for the purpose of selling _Deep Work_.

<comment><USER4> The real meat is in the _Aeon_ article this post links to: [https://aeon.co/ideas/how-to-reduce-digital-distractions- adv...](https://aeon.co/ideas/how-to-reduce-digital-distractions-advice-from- medieval-monks)

<comment><USER5> What was the takeaway from the Aeon post? Ascetic practices?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting historical note: the Puritans, also known for being extremely hard working, pointed out the monks had correctly identified the problem but misidentified the solution.

<comment><USER7> In what text did they point this out?

<comment><USER6> Two that come to mind are John Owen's _The Mortification of Sin_ and Jonathan Edwards' _Religious Affections_.

They agree with the monks that the body is weak, and often desires what is bad for you. Likewise, the mind is weak, unfocused, and filled with pride, jealousy, etc. Both agree that a focused, pure (holy) life is the goal. Where they differ is what to do about it.

The monks advise rigor, abstinence, and communal separation. The idea is if you're good enough, God will accept you. The Puritans say "just try harder" is a counsel of despair because perfection is impossible, and rule-following is always incomplete (there are always more rules to follow). So, the Puritans say ask God for strength to live uprightly, knowing that forgiveness is given by Christ, not a reward for good deeds.

<comment><USER8> They also shunned, kicked out or hanged anyone that didn't "try hard enough" so I wouldn't take their philosophical/religious opinions too seriously. They believed in a merciful god because the earthly reality they subjected themselves to was anything but (i.e. it was a coping mechanism). They basically ran the closest thing to a caliphate to ever exist in the western hemisphere. Of course they put a good spin on it but every utopia is also a dystopia.

<comment><USER6> Hmmm...that doesn't seem to fit the historical data. Most of what they said was inline with protestantism generally. For example Luther (certainly no Puritan!) said this as early as 1518:

> The law says, "do this," and it is never done. Grace says, "believe in > this," and everything is already done.

At most we could say they didn't live according to their preached views, but that's still too broad a brush stroke. For example, the Salem trials (1692) were viewed with near universal horror outside the immediate area, and Salem itself publicly apologized (1696) to the victims, reversed the convictions (1703), and paid restitution to their families (1711).

Shunning was an Anabaptist practice (Menno Simons in Germany -> Mennonites, most famously Amish) not a Puritan practice. Most Christians, including Edwards, have regarded shunning as a cultish aberration since it appeared on the scene in the 1530s.

My point in saying all this: fair criticism is good, and evaluation of their doctrine is fine. But pop culture "knowledge" on this issue is pretty wide of the mark.

Also: I'm not a Puritan. I just like history. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > thinking [...] really is the fundamental value-producing activity in > knowledge work

I don't think that's quite right, for most kinds of knowledge work. Thinking is an important component, but I think observing and communicating are also part of it (with the particular mix varying greatly), and email ties into those.

Which isn't to say the thesis is completely off-base, by any means.

<comment><USER10> Yeah - ironically respected Greek philosphers who insisted upon purity of thought as a virtue have shown that literally pure thinking on its own is ironically useless without a reference to reality given the believed absurdities from refusing to validate against reality.

But that is more of an indictment of purity as a notion being inherently good. Mathematics for instance is "pure thinking" in that any system may be described mathematically doesn't mean your model neccessarily matches or is remotely reasonable beyond mathematical consistency. Combine it with the real world and it certainly isn't debased but enhanced as weird new phenomena can give rise to new theory that encompasses them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This article is a bit weird in that it goes in to all this stuff about the monks' struggle to focus, but never once talks about the practice of meditation. Reading the first few paragraphs, I was thinking "this is precisely what meditation is for". These are exactly the issues meditation addresses.

"Distraction is an old problem, and so is the fantasy that it can be dodged once and for all."

Except that that's precisely what meditation practice does.

<comment><USER11> What I probably should have added here is that Buddhist meditation practice gives you tools for understanding _why_ distraction happens. The whole practice is an examination of the nature of the mind and its multiplicity, and why it is prone to distraction.

Instead of just wringing one's hands in frustration and grumbling about why it's so hard.

<comment><USER12> Aren't we told that one should cease thinking during meditation?

<comment><USER13> Meditation is about awareness and deidentification

<comment><USER12> Indeed, but anything I've read on it suggests stopping thoughts. "If you notice yourself thinking, let it pass by and bring attention back to the breath". This seems contrary to what is written here.

<comment><USER13> Specifically, what part is contrary?

<comment><USER12> From the article:

> "Their job, more than anything else, was to focus on divine communication. > For these monks, the meditating mind _wasn't supposed to be at ease. It was > supposed to be energised_. Their favourite words for describing > concentration stemmed from the Latin tenere, to hold tight to something. The > ideal was a mens intentus, _a mind that was always and actively reaching out > to its target._ "

> Even the monastic renunciation of worldly goods and relationships supported > concentration: the fewer things going on your life, they reasoned, the fewer > things to distract you _while trying to think about God_.

What seems to be popular mainstream advice:

> "If you notice yourself thinking, let it pass by and bring attention back to > the breath."

A fairly typical article in my experience:

[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-to-stop-thinking- during-m...](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-to-stop-thinking-during- meditation-10-tips-to-calm-in-10-minutes_n_8995426)

> How to _Stop Thinking_ During Meditation: 10 Tips to Calm in 10 Minutes

> Have you tried meditation only to get frustrated because you _can 't stop > thinking_ or worrying? Maybe you worry so much that you feel more stressed > after meditation than when you began! If you struggle with _constant > thoughts_ during meditation, don't give up yet! These tips are simple but > powerful to get your mind _calm and clear_.

In the first example, it sounds to me like thinking is a _goal_ , something to be pursued.

In the second example(s), it sounds to me like thinking is an undesirable state, something to be avoided.

<comment><USER11> Yup, that's still sounding a lot like Buddhist meditation to me. There, too, your mind isn't supposed to be quiescent, in fact one of the early pitfalls is "dullness", or simply shutting your brain off. You're meant to remain perfectly focused, and entirely alert. "Tenere", while probably not the way Buddhists would describe their meditative practice, isn't at all at odds with it.

I'm not an expert, but it feels to me like in both traditions the goal is to be completely _present_ , ie all mental faculties up and running and brought to bear. Perhaps for the Christian monks there would be an added element of communication with God (but, perhaps, it was simply being in His presence?), whereas for Buddhists there isn't... I don't know.

The point of Buddhist meditation isn't to somehow beat your thoughts into submission. It's first to acknowledge them, as you say allowing them to come and go. During the course of that you realize that they are something separate and distinct from your self (further realizations about the self come later, of course). Later on, as you progress, they eventually don't intrude anymore. It's not that you've defeated them, they simply don't pop up.

<comment><USER12> > There, too, your mind isn't supposed to be quiescent, in fact one of the > early pitfalls is "dullness", or simply shutting your brain off. You're > meant to remain perfectly focused, and entirely alert.

Alert to what's going on around you, or being present and not distracted by unwanted thoughts....this is my understanding anyways.

> ie all mental faculties up and running and _brought to bear_.

"Brought to bear" on what though I think is what I'm getting at.

> Later on, as you progress, they eventually don't intrude anymore. It's not > that you've defeated them, they simply don't pop up.

And then what is also what I'm getting that.

From the linked article:

> "A more advanced method for concentrating was to build elaborate mental > structures in the course of reading and thinking. Nuns, monks, preachers and > the people they educated were always encouraged to visualise the material > they were processing. A branchy tree or a finely feathered angel – or in the > case of Hugh of St Victor (who wrote a vivid little guide to this strategy > in the 12th century), a multilevel ark in the heart of the cosmos – could > become the template for dividing complex material into an ordered system. > The images might closely correspond to the substance of an idea. Hugh, for > example, imagined a column rising out of his ark that stood for the tree of > life in paradise, which as it ascended linked the earth on the ark to the > generations past, and on to the vault of the heavens. Or instead, the images > might only be organisational placeholders, where a tree representing a text > or topic (say, 'Natural Law') could have eight branches and eight fruits on > each branch, representing 64 different ideas clustered into eight larger > concepts."

> "The point wasn't to paint these pictures on parchment. It was to give the > mind something to draw, to indulge its appetite for aesthetically > interesting forms _while sorting its ideas into some logical structure_. I > teach medieval cognitive techniques to college freshmen, and this last one > is by far their favourite. _Constructing complex mental apparatuses_ gives > them a way to organise – and, in the process, analyse – material they need > to learn for other classes. The process also keeps their minds occupied with > something that feels palpable and riveting. Concentration and critical > thinking, in this mode, feel less like a slog and more like a game."

"while sorting its ideas into some logical structure" and "constructing complex mental apparatuses....process, analyse – material they need to learn" \- might these be tasks a highly capable meditator would be perform _during_ meditation, deeply contemplating a particular topic, _as opposed to_ simply being present with a clear mind? The article doesn't really say definitively.

A modern day example of this might be a pastor working on next Sunday's sermon, say to deliver the ideas from scripture in a way that is relatable to his congregation - might a deeply meditative state be highly conducive to such complex tasks?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> One more perspective on a well-covered issue in our industry. The most success I've had of reaching leadership about it is [http://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html) and, to a lesser extent, the many articles that try to quantify the cost of interruptions in dollars.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm reminded of the concents in Anathem, and how much I'd rather live and work in one of them rather than in today's society and work environments.

</comment><comment><USER16> I find that a lot of my knowledge work involves a kind of thinking that doesn't quite feel like proper _thinking_.

Adding breakpoints or log messages or refreshing constantly.

Entering search queries that are various permutations of my error message or question, and following whatever rabbit hole it sends me down.

Reading the documentation of some API, or refreshing my knowledge of a framework and/or what changed in the latest version.

Figuring out what part of my stack decided to misbehave and why, which I suppose is often a variation on the previous problem.

Writing and rewriting an email or ticket not primarily to communicate what the problem is, or how I solved it (because nobody cares), but rather to get the resources to work on the problem or offer some vague explanation of the solution all the while considering the 'political' context of the issue.

All of those do involve various degrees of thinking and creativity. I'd even go as far as saying that a big part of my effectiveness as a developer over the years is a result of getting better at those things. And it's made me respect the role of non-devs (such as managers) quite a bit more.

But to me they're mostly draining, and feel qualitatively different from, and worse than, the 'thinking' that I do when I'm trying to think of the best solution to a problem, the best way to structure my project, or even the best constructs to use in a bit of code. Or the joy of synthesizing some ideas from one book with those of another book, sometimes complicated by having to do it live, in conversation, while considering all the conversational rules too. Or even the 'thinking' involved in writing and rewriting this comment, however meaningless or pointless it is compared to, you know, all that other stuff I do that people actually ask for and/or pay me for.

I still haven't quite figured out how to categorize these two types of thinking (and optimize for the one I prefer).

But the closest I can get to the core difference is that the former is mostly about rote knowledge (repeat x until I know y, read x in the API so I understand the incantation, rewrite search query x so I get result y and remember which y is usually valuable, remember which stakeholders care about what things, etc.), while the latter actually feels like combining different pieces of knowledge in (personally) novel ways. Maybe it's a bit like the difference between high-school chemistry and mathematics?

EDIT: I'm not saying either of these types of thinking is better than the other, btw, just that I often find myself engaging in the one that doesn't 'energize' me.

</comment><comment><USER17> Cal Newport on point, as usual. _Deep Work_ and _Digital Minimalism_ are essential modern reading if you want to improve the effectiveness of your thinking.

</comment><comment><USER4> I feel like both this post and the _Aeon_ article it links to (which really ought to be what HN links to, as the post just glosses over it to connect it to the themes in Newport's book) miss something important about the medieval monk's struggle against distraction: the underlying reasons for it were _structural_ , not individual. The dynamics of medieval society made it impossible for monks to just be monks.

Monastic orders would generally be founded with the intention of following something like the ascetic lifestyle described, because it was felt that the more ascetic a monk was the closer he was to God. But it was this perceived closeness to God that would undo them, because it meant that prayers from a monk close to God were seen as more powerful than prayers from your average everyday priest.

See, it was common for rich nobles and wealthy merchants, when they contemplated their mortality, to want to better their odds of getting into heaven by using some of their wealth to set up endowments to pay clerics to pray for their souls. And of course, the richest and most powerful people in society didn't want those prayers being offered by just _anybody_. They wanted to buy the _best_ prayers, the ones that packed the most spiritual wallop. And that meant they wanted prayers from those ascetic monks.

The more strict a monastic order tried to be in its self-denial, the more quickly the wealthy and powerful would beat a path to their door to dump sacks of money onto it to buy its prayers. And once an institution starts piling up money, it finds itself saddled with the need to figure out something to do with it. So your spartan monastic order would slowly begin _acquiring_ things, buildings and employees and land and so forth -- and of course all those things require _management_ , and the more you pile up, the more management is required. Over time, the priorities of the order slowly start to shift. Fast- forward a hundred years, and your order of self-denying monks looks more like a holding company, with its monks spending their time worrying over problems of agricultural management and looking for new tax loopholes to exploit instead of contemplating Scripture.

And eventually somebody would look at that order, and, disgusted by its worldliness, flee into the woods to start a _new_ order -- one that would be ascetic and self-denying and pure. And the cycle would start all over again.

Our society is very different from that of medieval Europe, but I believe we can see these same cycles in operation in our lives as well. Just look at Google, for instance: a company started by two academics that loudly professed disdain for the way its main competitor, Yahoo, operated, telling everybody that _their_ company was going to focus on Real CS Problems™ rather than grubby things like banner ads. And then the investors showed up, and investors demand a return, so they held their nose and dipped their toes into enterprises like AdWords, which were ads, yes, but, they insisted, _good_ ads, _ethical_ ads. Fast forward two decades later, and the inexorable logic of the structures Google operates within has led them to become the world's biggest surveillance merchant, an all-seeing eye whose unblinking gaze stares out not just from its own products but uncountable numbers of third-party apps and sites and nine-tenths of the world's phones -- all in the service of what has become its one and only real business, selling ads. Google is embedded in an economic system that can not allow things like Google-as-originally-envisioned to exist; they must either give up their aspirations toward asceticism, or be crushed by someone who will.

I wonder how much of the demand for this kind of lifestyle-hacking/"personal optimization" literature derives from an unwillingness to grapple with this. We look at the vast edifice of capitalism and, shocked by its scope, recoil instinctively from the seemingly impossible idea of changing it. So we turn instead to changing _ourselves_ , which at least feels like something it is within our power to actually do.</comment>


Show HN: Built by 2 people in 1 year - <AUTHOR> https://browsee.io <comment><USER2> It looks like a very good product. All the best.

By the way, how are you guys marketing it. And how are differentiating it from leading players like hotjar.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! What we realized is that there are just way too many sessions to watch which consumes a lot of bandwidth of our end users. So, we came up with AI-tags on session replays which exactly tags useful sessions based on user behavior. So, you can watch only tagged sessions where we will show exact timestamps where users were confused or there was a rage click or there was a U-Turn or error/slowness and many more!

Also, we are doing AI-clusters based on user behavior for heatmaps to show what the users who are dropping tend to do and what those who convert do.

We have realized a lot of data is been collected in such tools but it is hard to get value out of it and we are optimizing on getting value from the data! Right now, many users are liking this pitch and are ready to give us a try :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Haven't tried the software, from the description it looks nicely done.

A quick tip: for many people, it is an essential piece of information where your company is based, that means, in which country, not only, but also because of GDPR. Do not hide that information that much. It should be in reach of single click in the footer where a product comes from, where it is hosted, and what kind of entity I'm having a contract with.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot. Also, thank you for pointing this out. We will definitely cater to this on our website!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From the site

> AI-assistant to Improve User Experience on Your Website

</comment><comment><USER5> Looks nice and useful. How do you handle GDPR/CCPA?

Btw, I'd maybe change the headline to something more descriptive of what you launched.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, thanks. Already took your suggestion and changed the headline. Not sure, how well it looks now :)

Also, we are CCPA and GDPR complaint and we will state it clearly on the website :)</comment></comment>


The Long Tail of Search is Much Longer Than Expected - <AUTHOR> http://weblogs.hitwise.com/bill-tancer/2008/11/sizing_up_the_long_tail_of_sea.html

<comment><USER2> Wonder what this means for Mahalo?</comment>


A New Luxury Retreat Caters to Elderly Workers in Tech (Ages 30 and Up) - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/modern-elder-resort-silicon-valley-ageism.html <comment><USER2> "Elderly" is now someone in their 30s!? Talk about age discrimination.

<comment><USER3> My company sent a memo about efforts to increase employment in underrepresented demographics. One of the those was "people over 30".

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I find the premise of this retreat a little odd, but it is great to see someone get an idea and follow through. I am in my 60s, still working but plan to (mostly) retire at the end of this month. I know enough older tech people to talk with about any issues I may have (mostly centered around still enjoying work but also knowing that it is time to slow way down).

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm already elderly?

<comment><USER6> I'm ancient.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Eh, I work for $BigTechCo, albeit outside SV, and I think my entire team is 30+, with a few 40+. I'm one of the few without kids.

</comment><comment><USER8> Wow. I claim points for being double-elderly. Shoot, if I'm allowed to use octal, I'm due to be 100 in the fall!

</comment><comment><USER9> Where do I get my Elderly Tech Worker discount card??

</comment><comment><USER10> Yay, I'm superelderly!

</comment><comment><USER11> i know i feel old but i didnt think i officially was yet!

</comment><comment><USER12> >30 is only elderly if you're in San Fran.

Some of the participants walked pensively along the Pacific Coast at sunset. Others read from the resort bookshelf, choosing from sections labeled: "What can death teach me about life?" and "What are the unexpected pleasures of aging?"

Oh ffs miss me with that shit dog. What a stupid article.

</comment><comment><USER13> People will be up in arms about "elderly" and 30s being used in the title, it should just say relatable.

People in their 20s (including myself) have a hard time relating with those in their 30s or above and I would guess vice versa.

<comment><USER14> Think about it this way, Someone in their 30s used to be in their 20s, while someone in their 20s has no experience being in their 30s. I think it's not vice versa ;-)

<comment><USER13> I'd go as far to say that with 10 years of time in the current pace of change that it isn't the same relating backwards.</comment></comment></comment>


The Scientific 7-Minute Workout - <AUTHOR> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/the-scientific-7-minute-workout/? <comment><USER2> This is a waste of time. Let me explain.

After years of spinning wheels, like many others, I've found that gimmicky crap like this is just that - gimmicky crap. This may be more efficient than a 30 minute run and burn the same net amount of calories, but you'll offset the entire effect of this workout by eating a cookie. For overall health and lasting benefits you're going to need to get into a gym and pick something heavy off the ground.

As technology-minded guys who tend not to get a lot of physical exercise, we're really susceptible to people throwing around the term "scientific" to describe their exercise pitches.

Please don't waste your time with this "workout," unless of course you're so weak and fragile that it'll literally kill you to do a squat. Really look into Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe for actual good advice.

"Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general." - Mark Rippetoe

Edit: Btw, time comparison: spend years chasing the latest "scientific" fitness fad (see article) and going nowhere or get in better shape while working an office job than 99% of highschool/college guys in a few months for a time commitment of 2-3 hours per week. That's the kind of math I'm talking about when I talk about starting strength and leangains.

<comment><USER3> "This is a waste of time" is read by someone who currently does no exercise as "I may as well not bother trying".

Fitness advice is so fragmented and the debates between those who practice various types of fitness are so vigorous that it puts people off to fitness entirely.

If you actually want to inspire people who are not fit to get fit, it is going to take encouragement, not constant criticism of every possible method of getting fit.

There is literally no exercise routine that someone can propose and not face immediate criticism. A beginner doesn't need a perfect routine (which clearly doesn't exist anyway given all the argument on the issue). They need to do _something_. Something that is not actively harmful and will increase their fitness, even in a small way.

You may think you are showing people a better way, but you are really giving people nowhere to turn for support, because everyone always tries to show a better way no matter what the original way was. I could come here every single day posting about another fitness routine and every single day I would be told it's wrong. So if everything is wrong, what do you think I am going to do? Nothing.

<comment><USER4> _Fitness advice is so fragmented and the debates between those who practice various types of fitness are so vigorous that it puts people off to fitness entirely._

Yes and no.

Once you dig past the obviously bullshit claims and scams, and the One True Way prophets (and even Rippetoe suffers this to an extent), there's a lot that's very well established. Much of the problem boils down to a fundamental set of market failures: fitness _is_ simple (not "easy", but simple), and there's relatively little money to be made in the stuff that really works (that's a principle you can apply well beyond the field as well).

The rebuttal piece noted elsewhere in this thread is excellent. Read it.

[http://elsbethvaino.com/2013/05/should-you-do-a-newspaper- wo...](http://elsbethvaino.com/2013/05/should-you-do-a-newspaper-workout/)

The most important thing for me to realize is _understanding how your body responds to training, diet, rest, recovery, and stress._

Here's the key: _your body is a complex feedback system responding largely with and to hormonal flows you can influence directly through diet and training._

"Training" includes both strength training and cardio. For the typical schmoe or schmoette, a basic level of strength, cardiovascular, mobility, and motor- control fitness is reasonably easy to attain.

An extremely good general overview is Liam Rosen's guide. The Reddit Fitness FAQ is also quite good. Neither is selling anything, a key point:

<http://liamrosen.com/fitness.html>

<http://www.reddit.com/help/faqs/Fitness>

Rippetoe is a good introduction to strength. The "New Rules of Lifting" books by Schuler and Cosgrove go a bit broader (and add some scope to strength training), as well as add the introductory phase that some untrained individuals might benefit from which Rippetoe largely omits (though the general principle that "you cannot start too light" is useful to keep in mind.

As to the failings of the NY Times piece, there are many, and these are highly typical of Gretchen Reynolds pieces -- I've come to discount her, and much other, health & fitness reporting at the Times (Gina Kolada is also pretty poor in my experience, despite her stature and tenure).

\- It offers little or no actual strength development.

\- There's no training of the back (difficult without at least minimal equipment). This is omitting training a major muscle group, and one which is underutilized in most modern daily life. More than even other muscle groups.

\- _There is no progression._ You don't need "muscle confusion", but if you're going to _progress_ in a training program, there has to be some mode of increasing the challenge over time.

\- This is effectively a cardio-only program. It's promoting the same myth that the fitness industry has promoted since the 1970s, that cardio is all you need. The simple truth is that muscle mass and strength offer very significant benefits (Schuler and Cosgrove get into this, Robert Arnot's _Dr. Bob Arnot's Guide to Turning Back the Clock_ also addressed this back in 1994), and _as you age, you are losing about 0.5% of your muscle mass per year_. This is called "sarcopenia", or age-related muscle loss.

So: yes, this is a pretty poor article, the science is lacking. The program is likely "better than nothing", but there are _vastly_ more effective programs (and Rippetoe or "New Rules" would be good starts) which will actually provide far more returns.

The key is this: while "something" may be better than "nothing", "better" is better than "something".

If the article itself would point out these deficiencies and that this program is only a _VERY_ basic starting point, I could accept it. It doesn't. Ergo: it's adding to the problem.

Honestly: Gretchen should be canned.

<comment><USER5> What if cardio-only is sufficient just to make you feel better, more relaxed? Why not just do it for those benefits? Honestly, if someone wants to play 30 minutes of DDR, they will sweat, they will exercise...no they are not in a very good fitness plan but think of it as a gateway drug.

<comment><USER6> The trouble is that cardio-only doesn't improve or forestall certain classes of health problem such as sarcopenia or osteoporosis. Plus most folk discover to their very great surprise that weight training is very satisfying.

For most people the answer is to do a bit of each.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is not a waste of time. Let me explain.

Sometimes you only have 7 minutes. What's the difference between 7 minutes of this and 7 minutes of sitting, reading HN or Reddit? Lots.

I did this one yesterday, just to try it out. Now me, personally, I'm quite active. I did it three times with 30-second stretch breaks because that's what it took to work up a good sweat.

The point of exercise like this, to my mind, is that you can do it anytime and work it into your work day. Exercise during the work day, even minimal exercise sharpens your concentration and "shakes out the dead leaves" so to speak. It makes you sharper, and sharper at 3:30 in the afternoon (empirically determined to be the least productive time of the day by several studies) is exactly what most of us need.

What are your goals when you work out? Depending on that, this is not a waste of time. If you want to lose 50lbs, this will not help you. If you want massive muscles, this will not help you. If you want to be an "active person", this will not by itself achieve that, although it may make it easier to _get into_ exercise later, when you do something short and see nearly immediate results. It's rewarding, and that's the first thing you need when starting an exercise program of any sort.

My point is, don't let anyone -- or yourself -- shame you out of working out. Yes, you read it in the NYT. It's a fad and it's mass-media. That doesn't make it stupid by definition. If it starts you off on finding ways to hack your body and make it strong, endurant, and resilient, then by all means, _go for it_.

<comment><USER8> This should be the top comment. I never realised the tech crowd were as bad/the same as the bodybuilding.com crowd.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I believe there is some disagreement among elite endurance sport athletes about whether interval training is actually better for performance over the long term when compared to long distance training. High intensity interval training did become very popular in the 80s/90s because one could seemingly get very quick results from relatively few hours spent training. However, Americans were always outperformed by African runners.

That is until recently since a new trend of running very long distances at a low intensity for training became popular, just as runners from Kenya and Ethiopia do. Now Americans who employ the latter tactic are starting to fair better on the international scene, even reaching the podium for some long distance events. More American collegiate athletes who are employing the low- intensity, long distance training strategy are clocking sub-4 minute miles as well which is a hallmark of elite running status.

It seems counter-intuitive that low intensity running over long distances should improve high intensity short-distance times, but the proof is in the pudding.

Interval training can increase your lactate threshold, or your body's ability to remove lactic acid from your muscles while you are engaging in high intensity activities (the same acid that causes that burning sensation we all love to hate), but it doesn't do that much for your VO2max which determines how effectively your body uses oxygen.

Most pro endurance athletes mix interval training with long distance training to get the benefit of both strategies. As with anything in physical activity, there is no silver bullet.

<comment><USER10> >>That is until recently since a new trend of running very long distances at a low intensity for training became popular, just as runners from Kenya and Ethiopia do. Now Americans who employ the latter tactic are starting to fair better on the international scene, even reaching the podium for some long distance events. More American collegiate athletes who are employing the low- intensity, long distance training strategy are clocking sub-4 minute miles as well which is a hallmark of elite running status.

This conclusion is premature. We have no way of knowing whether the increase in performance in American athletes comes from them changing their training methods, as opposed to countless other factors. As far as I know, no random controlled trials have been conducted in this area (and those are the only truly reliable scientific method for answering questions like this).

edit: only someone who doesn't understand science would downvote this comment. :)

<comment><USER9> I agree, it deserves better scientific treatment. I'd be shocked if such a study isn't being conducted as we speak.

<comment><USER6> I _would_ be shocked. Randomised, controlled trials are difficult and expensive.

You need enough subjects.

First problem: how many advanced and elite athletes are there? Not many.

Second problem: how many have coaches who are happy for you to experiment on their charges? Not many.

Third problem: given the small samples, how do you control other factors such as diet and sleeping patterns? With great difficulty.

Fourth problem: funding the dream trial. Most research money is public money, and "give us money to find out how to make healthy adults run slightly faster so we can win an extra medal every 4 years" is a pretty difficult ask next to research into helping sick folk.

There's a reason that a great deal of sports science still relies on research done in the eastern bloc throughout the cold war. Totalitarian societies had the conditions and the motivation to set large, serious experiments up, and they did.

In general though, progress occurs through a cut down version of science. Coaches observe, hypothesise and tinker. Scientists do small studies; the studies compound or refute each other. Over time rough consensus emerges about what works and what doesn't. Things that don't work disappear quickly. Meanwhile, unseen, population effects muddy everybody's waters.

Is it the fully dressed version of science we demand from physics or medicine? It is not. But it's what we can reasonably expect.

<comment><USER9> > There's a reason that a great deal of sports science still relies on > research done in the eastern bloc throughout the cold war.

how do we know these types of studies aren't happening right now in other countries that have more lax ethics in science?

<comment><USER6> > _how do we know these types of studies aren't happening right now in other > countries that have more lax ethics in science?_

The one truly totalitarian society left, AFAIK, is North Korea; they might be doing this.

But pretty much the easiest strategy for a centralised sports system is to just throw bodies at sports until the normal distribution gives you winners. The Chinese are finding that this works well for them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> OK, I'll say it: this is not a very good program. Which is fine, because it's a _sample_ program in a fairly silly ACSM article[1].

 _"The exercises selected should ... promote strength development for all major muscle groups of the body"._

Then progressive resistance is required. Simply adding reps does not increase strength past initial accomodation.

 _"... create a balance of strength throughout the body ..."_

Then drop the isometrics. Isometric exercises only produce strength increases in a limited range of motion close to the joint angle of the isometric exercise. And most of those studies were done with maximal voluntary isometric contraction -- ie pushing as hard as possible against an immobile object. Wall sits do not fit those studies.

 _"... adapted as necessary to increase or decrease exercise intensity"_

Which can't be done with most of these exercises.

 _"To maximize the metabolic impact of the exercise, time should be sufficient enough to allow for the proper execution of 15 to 20 repetitions (15) of an exercise."_

Which further breaks the link with strength.

 _" Individuals who previously believed that they did not have the time for exercise can now trade total exercise time for total exercise effort and get similar or better health and fitness benefits."_

Given that the studies done on high intensity interval training were initially done with _elite athletes_ , I'm not certain it shows that at all.

This is about as scientific as two guys spitballing over beer. It hasn't been tested as a program and the idea that you can achieve any kind of serious strength gain through high repetition circuit training is, frankly, a joke.

If you want to get stronger and improve cardiovascular condition, simple barbell exercises and running or swinging a kettlebell will do it better, for longer.

When I write programs for my trainees, I am apparently equivalently scientific. I too take the general principles I am taught and go through a process of exercise selection, exercise ordering, repetition and set layout, rest period selection and then sprinkle in modifications. I'll be right back, I have a scientific program for figure competitors I need to flog to the _Wall Street Journal_.

[1] [http://journals.lww.com/acsm- healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/050...](http://journals.lww.com/acsm- healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/05000/HIGH_INTENSITY_CIRCUIT_TRAINING_USING_BODY_WEIGHT_.5.aspx)

<comment><USER11> _"the idea that you can achieve any kind of serious strength gain through high repetition circuit training is, frankly, a joke."_

I guess the joke's on all the extremely fit, strong people who do yoga, then.

(I've personally gained strength and muscle mass doing yoga, and when I looked at this routine, I saw most of the poses in a basic vinyasa class. Seven minutes is perhaps a bit aggressive, but the exercises do work. The notion that you can _only_ get intensity with weights is the obviously silly one. All you really need for a good workout is your body, and maybe a mat.)

<comment><USER12> I have no doubt that you have gained significant strength doing yoga. It should be noted that the poses in yoga do involve holding bodyweight, and the increasing complexity and difficulty of the various poses involves progressively more bodyweight resistance per muscle group.

There is no question that intensity can be achieved without weights. I believe what the gentleman was referring to is the science of building significant strength increases over a fit level of baseline strength.

The science on this one is very much settled, courtesy of the not very ethical, but scientifically valid, studies from the Soviet Union in the height of the Cold War.

The science is this:

Lower # of reps at 80 - 90% of a weight you can only lift once builds strength most effieciently.

As you progress up the curve to higher reps at 60%, you are still building strength, but not as efficiently, and you are moving more towards increasing endurance.

Endurance, of course, is most efficiently gained with high # of reps at low percentages. However, this will typically be at the expense of raw strength.

Note: For people who are not at all fit, with atrophied muscles, strength will be gained very easily from almost any use of their muscles, high reps or not.

<comment><USER13> I guess when someone can do five reps of one armed push ups, five reps of pistol squats and five reps of pull ups (one arm?) then they can say "well, maybe time to drop this scheme and hit the weights"#. But the vast majority of people don't come close to this, so it is completely and utterly absurd for the grandparent to dismiss anything other than barbells for strength training.

#Admittedly it's hard to find a replacement for something like olympic barbells when it comes to exercises such as the deadlift. And of course weights have their benefits with the easier progression, etc etc...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This _cries out_ for an app, which uses both visual and audio cues to prompt the next exercise, and count down each period. EG:

 _"Starting your 7 minute workout with Jumping Jacks in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..."

"Start Jumping Jacks for 30... [optional chirp-per-second]... 20 seconds... 10 seconds... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..."

"Rest now, next is Wall Sit... in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..."

"Begin Wall Sit for 30... [etc]"_

Obviously, it _could_ be a static recording. But some obvious enhancements would be:

• visual countdown timer

• changing images of the exercises to precede/accompany each phase

• optional chirps/clicks each second

• alternate trainer voices

• optional extra voiced 'encouragement' ("keep up intensity", "good", "almost there", "all done")

• automatic logging/reminders of when/how-often circuit is completed (either based on how many times started run through uninterrupted, or based on a prompted "did you finish and what was your self-rated 1-10 intensity?" question at the end)

<comment><USER15> There's at least one already; <http://willwilson.co/7minworkout/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> A lot of the get fit in 60-90 days fitness programs that sell on TV are based on these types of workouts. I was a fatass my whole life until 1.5 years ago I decided to lose weight and get in shape. I followed the slow carb diet and now try to recommend it every time I get the chance. I exercise daily, but without the diet aspect I dont think my body would have changed at all.

The supplement and weight loss industry has made in very difficult for people to achieve results. I lost 50 pounds fat and put on 20 pounds of muscle with zero supplements, not even a protein shake, just lots of good nutrition, patience, and little understanding that my body might change.

<comment><USER17> Congrats! It's a huge sense of accomplishment, no? I did a similar thing around the same time ago -- started eating better (out with the Frosted Mini Wheats for breakfast, in with the Greek Yogurt), started running, and lost 30 lbs in about 6 months. No supplements either. Best life improvement I've ever made.

<comment><USER16> Thanks and congrats to you too. I have found a lot of people that are into fitness on hn. Taken a few tips here and there. The no supplements thing was something I was just determined to do. In my mind, I ate to get fat, and now I needed to eat to get fit. That perspective helped me out a lot. I wanted to mention that I achieved my results so far without a gym membership. I did put together a small @ home gym, but its not the same as a gym. Just been able to really stay motivated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> BBC medical guru Michael Mosley(PhD) has a very interesting show about 3 minute high intensity training, and there are indeed couch potatoes that can reap huge benefits:

 _...research from a number of centres has shown that three minutes of HIT a week improves insulin sensitivity by an average of 24% ...

Although 15% of people made huge strides (so-called "super-responders"), 20% showed no real improvement at all ("non-responders")._

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17177251>

</comment><comment><USER19> The full article is here:

[http://journals.lww.com/acsm- healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/050...](http://journals.lww.com/acsm- healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/05000/HIGH_INTENSITY_CIRCUIT_TRAINING_USING_BODY_WEIGHT_.5.aspx)

It's surprisingly readable and goes into much more detail. Also, a downloadable PDF.

</comment><comment><USER20> The best article I found on this was "Everything You Know About Fitness Is A Lie" [1]

I'd summarize the contents as: 1- Most gyms are 45% cardio, 45% stretching 10% weights. This is bad. 2- You need to lift heavy things. 3- There are no shortcuts.

Favorite excerpt: My conversion moment came in a garage-like industrial space next to an ATV rental yard in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. I was lying on a concrete floor, near puking, having just humiliated myself on the king of all strength exercises, the old-school back squat. "The best thing I can do for an athlete," coach Rob Shaul said to me as I struggled to get up, "is to make him strong. Strength is king, and you're fucking little-girl weak."

[1] [http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/everything-you-know- abou...](http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/everything-you-know-about- fitness-is-a-lie-20120504)

</comment><comment><USER21> When someone tries to distinguish their X by saying it is rooted in science, all they really mean is that someone with a grad degree and a lab coat came up with it. That is a pretty limited, and IMO flawed view of what science is. Are they really trying to say that other workouts don't use the scientific method at all? That they don't do anything like formulating and nullifying hypotheses with evidence, without any semblance of control? Is your workout really better because it came out of a university research center?

Science isn't peer review. Peer review is merely a filter mechanism to discard bad from good...a filter mechanism that has both false positives and false negatives. We shouldn't conflate peer review with science.

</comment><comment><USER22> "Scientific" ?

I dont see science in this article or the science in this article is the same science behind those late night tv ads where they sell 8-minute-ab-pro (among the others).

The original paper that articles cites does not provide any concrete data to defend their claims.

Secondly the most important thing is what is the objective of this workout. Clearly it is neither to keep your weight in control or to build strength. It is merely to provide "some" exercise.

There are some fundamental truths about workouts which everyone should know.

1\. Your body starts burning fat at higher rate only when you heartbeat is above average for around 20 minutes. Till then your body is mostly burning calories from the carbs. So no matter how hard you work for those 7 minutes you are not gonna lose that extra fat.

2\. Even if you do these exercises regularly it is only within a week that your muscles will get strong enough to get used to your body weight. After that same number of reps wont have any effect on your body. (Yes it might be little better than being idle).

3\. Actually no matter what is your goal if you keep your regimen fixed you very soon find yourself in a local minima. After that the law of diminishing returns kicks in and the benefit of exercise becomes negligible compared to the time you spend doing it.

Here is a quick checklist to see if the advertised regimen should be taken seriously

1\. Is the lower limit on duration around 20 minutes ?

2\. Is there any variable that can be changed with time to increase difficulty level ?

3\. Does it cover all core muscle groups ? Arms, Chest, Back, Abs, Legs and shoulders?

</comment><comment><USER23> I couldn't even do some of these ☹

I think I'll try the bike peddling one first, repeatedly sprint for eight seconds, then pedal slowly for 12 and repeat.

[http://lifehacker.com/5989669/researchers-claim-to- discover-...](http://lifehacker.com/5989669/researchers-claim-to-discover-the- single-most-efficient-exercise-regimen)

<comment><USER24> I read about this and put together a quick js page so that I can run it in the corner of my computer while I bike, or watch a movie.

<http://alangfiles.github.io/bike-workout/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This reminds me a lot of the 5BX (5 Basic Exercises) plan.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5BX>

That has 5 exercises which you should be able to do in 5 minutes. It has a complete scheme of exercises building up in intensity as you get better at them.

</comment><comment><USER26> If you're a beginner and looking to start a bodyweight(BW) program see this[0]. Intermediate fitness enthusiasts can have a look at this[1]. If you're clueless about what the jargons are checkout this[2] 'cheat sheet' for a list of youtube videos for guidance

[0] - <http://i.imgur.com/MwbAD.png> [1] - <http://i.imgur.com/o3bRo.png> [2] - [http://www.reddit.com/r/bodyweightfitness/comments/15bou5/ex...](http://www.reddit.com/r/bodyweightfitness/comments/15bou5/exercise_cheatsheet_for_the_basic_beginner_routine/c7l3osw)

</comment><comment><USER27> I have struggled with fitness my whole life, and I have realized that not everyone is genetically disposed to the same effects of specific exercises. However, I believe that most people can get in shape, it's just a function of resistance.

Diet and fitness is one of those things in life where you should just overkill the plan. Keep your diet stricter than you have to, lift more weights than you have to, do more cardio than you have to.

When you overkill the situation, you will get in and stay in excellent shape, trying to walk the line of "just enough" gets your burned and loses precious time towards proper progress.

<comment><USER28> Fitness is environmentally specific. For example, a predisposition to fat storage, in most of human history, was a powerful survival trait. Your body doesn't know that you want to look good on the beach, only that winter is coming.

Speaking from experience, don't overkill. You won't be able to sustain it over the long term.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> "There's very good evidence" that high-intensity interval training provides "many of the fitness benefits of prolonged endurance training but in much less time""

Sorry, but there's no way that I'll believe that a 7 minute "heavy intensity workout" can burn the same number of calories of an involved 45 minute run, and have the same beneficial effect on weight control.

Better than nothing, maybe very efficient in terms of results/time, but in no way "combines a long run and a visit to the weight room" as the article claims.

EDIT : It's useful to separate what the NYT says and the actual article does.

<comment><USER23> From your years of work in scientific medical research or just 'cus'?

You do understand this is scientific research and not just an idea someone thought up on a whim.

<comment><USER30> Most of the science you need to reach the same conclusions as Kurtz79 is high school biology and some basic physics and thermodynamics.

Calories are a measure of work (Force x mass). To burn Calories your body has to be doing work of some sort. To burn the same number of Calories in 7 minutes as 45 requires doing an equivalent amount of work.

In my case, 45 minutes running is 800 calories. 800 calories in 7 minutes is like 114 Calories/minute. I don't think even maximum anaerobic sprinting comes close to 114 kcal/min, and even if it does I certainly can't maintain that intensity for more than 15-20 seconds.

For a comparison, my 2800 lb Honda Civic burns probably 400 kcal/minute in gasoline during city driving at an average speed of 20mph.

The article is very vague about how reasonable this 7-minute set of exercises actually is. From the article:

 _Interval training, though, requires intervals; the extremely intense activity must be intermingled with brief periods of recovery._

How intense? It doesn't say. This should be possible to measure. To explain more though I will have to read the original paper to see exactly what sort of "benefits" they were talking about and how intense this exercise has to be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'm absolutely not a believer of this. It's beyond just their bad math. (It's an 8 minute workout)

To do a proper sprint interval workout, you'd need to warm up (5 minutes at least), and go so hard in those 30 intervals that you'd need 90 seconds to recover. So 120 seconds * 12 + 5 = 29 minutes. Add in stretching and you're beyond a half hour.

The other issue is many of these exercises won't get your heartrate up to the right threshold to be good interval training.

Yes, it's better than nothing. No, it's not better than a real workout, and not scientifically valid.

</comment><comment><USER32> 80% intensity is no joke - this should not be comfortable. Might want to do a little easy warmup first.

</comment><comment><USER33> While I don't think this workout is actually a great one, I have found that you definitely can do a killer workout in a short period of time, depending on your fitness.

I started Crossfit a few months back, and its entirely possible to do 2-3 simple movements (thrusters + pullups for example) in a short time period (2-10 minutes) and really push yourself to complete exhaustion.

</comment><comment><USER34> Consider the source. Periodicals are in the business of selling you content (and advertising). Therefore, it is in their interests to create the latest "fad" and to sell it to you as tested. And then create something new and sell it to you again. And then...

Is this workout terrible? No. It beats nothing. Is it the key to your ongoing physical fitness? Of course not.

The fitness world is overrun with so-called experts. One problem is that we are all different. We have different body types, different goals, different strengths, different weaknesses, and different likes/dislikes. What works for me may not work for you.

Can a periodical take this into account for all readers? Of course not.

Consider their workout as a first step. If you are doing nothing, do the 7-minute workout. It _will_ help you, to a point. Thereafter, you'll need to challenge your body to do harder things.

Also, consider the physics definition of mechanical work: W=f*d.

So, go apply some force of a distance. That's a workout.

Do work.

</comment><comment><USER35> I have a secret about fitness to share. It's the reason there are so many snake oil programs out there. _Everything works_. For a sedentary person ANY random stimulus is going to give you a couple months of improvement.

The true measure of a program is if after the first year you are still making quantifiable improvements.

</comment><comment><USER36> Fellow HN'ers - I'm slightly disappointed.

How come I go to the comments and all I see is a battle of the anecdotes? Where's the fact-checking?

This being HN, I would at least have expected someone pointing out that 12 exercises à 30 seconds plus 11 x 10 seconds rest between them is closer to an 8-minute workout than a 7-minute workout ;-)

</comment><comment><USER37> The authors of the study actually recommend you do it 3 times. So it's actually a 21-minute workout.

</comment><comment><USER38> I'm all for bodyweight training (you are your own gym, convict conditioning, al kavadlo, naked warrior, barstarzz, coach sommer, calisthenic kings...), and have better results than with metal, without the pain, but this is not it. Seriously, not one exercise for your back, but useless crunches? Do some yoga sun salutation, add some resistance by tensing your body and you have a by far better workout in the same amount of time than this.

</comment><comment><USER39> There's a good chance this will be able to deplete most of the glucose stores in your muscles just like lifting does. You do have to make sure you aren't cheating and are actually teetering on the brink of the activation of golgi tendon reflex (overload). As far as strength goes this is not quite as good at lifting for actually creating new muscles. But this will definitively improve overall use of muscles and cardio system.

</comment><comment><USER40> I think this would be excellent starting exercise for people who don't exercise much. As soon as they would gain some strength, hackers as they are, would explore and find better things to do. I think criticism of this article, which is legitimate, is missing the point of this being targeted to beginners who are just starting.

</comment><comment><USER41> Lift some weights, 2-3 minutes a day, every day.

Eat/drink/do whatever else you want and you will stay fit regardless, because it is about increasing your metabolism and not how much or even what you do, just that you do it every single day before eating.

Oh and don't drink sweet drinks of any kind.

#unsubstantiated personal experience

</comment><comment><USER42> Am I the only one who noticed, that the other, more realistic number _20 minutes_ is omitted in the NYT article. See "the established ACSM guidelines for high-intensity exercise of at least 20 minutes is recommended" in the original article.

</comment><comment><USER43> Interesting, this is very close to the training exercises they use in the danish military.

</comment><comment><USER44> The illustration for the air squat shows the worst possible form. The push-ups diagram looks incorrect too. I'm pretty sure the chest should touch the ground. What's the use of rapid succession if you are using bad form?

<comment><USER45> The nytimes illustration, or the original article?

<comment><USER44> The nytimes illustration. The subject keeps straight back in the original article. Doing this exercise wrong can really screw things up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> It seems great. if people spend less time at the gym and more time doing interesting things, like learning to play a violin or reading james joyce, the world would be a little less boring.

</comment><comment><USER47> I actually like spending time exercising. It allows me to relax and think more clearly. I run about 15 miles a week, and enjoy every minute of it.

</comment><comment><USER48> It doesn't take much endurance to do 7 minutes of training... If you're not going to expend the hard work then you shouldn't expect to see much improvement.

"Sua Sponte!"

</comment><comment><USER49> I have developed the 6-minute workout and it is by far superior to the 7-minute workout. Anything done in less time is technically impossible.

</comment><comment><USER50> Nothing worth having is easy. Anything easy isn't worth having

Getting fit is hard work. If it was easy everyone would look like a Greek God / Goddess!

No Pain, No Gain

</comment><comment><USER51> About 50% of those moves look like the yoga poses I do every week.

</comment><comment><USER52> aka circuit training

<comment><USER53> Here are videos showing the 7 exercises, along with some tips for avoiding potential damage (don't slide down after the wall sit, for example, push up, so you don't damage your knees):

[http://lifehacker.com/these-12-videos-show-the-proper- form-f...](http://lifehacker.com/these-12-videos-show-the-proper-form- for-a-7-minute-ful-499199366)

<comment><USER54> Squat form video is wrong. Don't do that with weight.

Your toes need to be pointed out 30 degrees and knees spread apart, crotch opened as far as possible.

You'll find a lot of wrong YouTube videos. It's a minefield of fitness non- experts trying to make a profit. Follow Starting Strength form recommendations and make sure the videos you're watching follow them approximately.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> this is a workout WARMUP</comment>


Ask HN: Resources for understanding and practicing distributed systems? - <AUTHOR> Any recommendations for good resources for understanding and learning about distributed systems? <comment><USER2> [http://muratbuffalo.blogspot.com/](http://muratbuffalo.blogspot.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks :)</comment></comment>


A Place To Store App Ideas - <AUTHOR> https://appsto.re/us/2WcC0.i

<comment><USER2> How would I know that this app isn't siphoning off my ideas to its own server?

Not that I'm saying it does. Just curious how people might do traffic sniffing ala lil' snitch on an iOS device.

I guess one way is to set up your own WiFi network on a desktop machine, then connect to that network, and also set up a proxy like Charles on the desktop to watch traffic? Not sure this configuration works though. Anyone done something like this?</comment>


Innovators get Linux to boot in 1 second - <AUTHOR> http://www.edn.com/article/CA6720353.html

<comment><USER2> Impressive.

You too can have Linux 3s boot time on one of 214 supported motherboards from the likes of Asus, MSI, SuperMicro, Intel and Tyan with Coreboot (GPL)

<http://www.coreboot.org/Welcome_to_coreboot></comment>


Ask HN: Whole class 'C' is on a "SpamRats" list – how to solve? - <AUTHOR>

This is a Linode server. To quote: "Usually this means the whole range has the same issue of naming conventions or no reverse DNS AND that many IP's from this Class C have been used in Spam Attacks, Dictionary attacks or other forms of attacks, as detected by Mail Servers in the Data Collection Grid. You will NOT be able to use the removal form to remove your IP Addresses."<p>What should I do? the messages ou server sends are very simple, and not rated as spam by Google or SpamAssassin at my other hosting provider, but I suspect many of the messages are being bounced or dropped somewhere, because only about half of our recipients ever respond -- the sample includes personal friends only. <comment><USER2> Since it's Linode, you can 1) spin a new server and hope for a different block, or 2) request a new IP. You don't own the IP block so unfortunately you cannot request removal [0], but Linode should be interested in doing this themselves. Have you opened a support ticket?

And yeah, to quote other commenters, stop sending your own transactional email.

[0] [http://www.spamrats.com/removal.php](http://www.spamrats.com/removal.php)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes I've opened a ticket. And I'm switching to an external service for the emails. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Amazon SES is dirt cheap. Trying to send mail yourself is a waste of time and money.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do I have to do this for both the emails generated by the server and the ones I send from my personal account?

<comment><USER3> Ah, is this for human mail or programmatic mail? In any case, you can probably configure your mail server to use SES as a relay instead of sending directly.</comment></comment></comment>


I've created a new job description: Software Archaeologist - <AUTHOR>

for reasons too depressing to go into - i spent a large chunk of time running someone else's collection (deck?, tree? what's the collective noun for spreadsheets?) of spreadsheets.  I got to the point that I could see the evolution from v1 to v10+ and it wasn't pretty.<p>Here's to all the software Indiana Joneses out there - my condolences. <comment><USER2> In our neighbourhood we've been calling working with particularly difficult legacy code software archaeology: where it's not not clear what some piece of software was supposed to do. <http://media.pragprog.com/articles/mar_02_archeology.pdf></comment>


The 40,000-Mile Volcano - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/science/midocean-ridges-volcano-underwater.html?hpw&rref=science&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0 <comment><USER2> >It turned out that all of those eruptions, from the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, took place from January to June. The cause, she proposed, is Earth's slightly elliptical orbit around the sun. That changes the strength of the sun's gravitational pull on Earth during the year and, as a result, the magnitude of the tides that squeeze the planet.

I felt fairly informed amount about underwater geology, but the idea that the crust down there is so delicate that solar tides can cause eruptions was new to me.

<comment><USER3> If the cycle is that the melting glaciers cause the volcanoes to stop which causes an ice age, then human global warming melting should cause the volcanoes to cool down even more. So there's a chance the planet will rescue us from ourselves.

<comment><USER4> Oh thank god. I was worried I'd have to change my consumption habits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _> Though long enough to circle the moon more than six times_

Why do journalists do this?

Also, why is everyone missing this?

 _Ocean levels fall sharply in such bitterly cold periods as water is tied up in massive continental ice sheets. In a paper, she proposed that the reduced pressure on the ridges might let them erupt far more frequently. As a result, more carbon dioxide would spew into the ocean and, eventually, into the atmosphere, trapping more heat and warming the planet.

In short, according to this hypothesis, the ice sheets would eventually grow large enough to initiate their own destruction, refilling the oceans. It was a radical idea that has stirred debate._

<comment><USER6> > _Why do journalists do this?_

I agree, this doesn't really help convey the size of the number. It assumes readers know the circumference of the Moon, when the size relative to Earth would be more useful.

<comment><USER7> The number 40,000 stood out to me because the Earth is roughly 40,000 kilometres in circumference. Of course, this is 40,000 _miles_ , so it's roughly 1.6x the circumference of the Earth.

I don't really know what the circumference of the moon is. Or, at least I didn't. Combine the facts above with the ones in the article, and you discover the circumference of the moon is roughly 1/4 that of the Earth.

<comment><USER6> Nice, same thought process here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One interesting aspect of the article.. for HN crowd.

>Now, scientists have inaugurated a major new effort. Off the West Coast, they have wired up a highly active ridge with hundreds of sensors and cameras, as well as cables that flash the readings to shore. The ocean observatory is to operate for at least a quarter century, replacing sporadic glimpses with continuous scrutiny. This month, the surge of data is hitting the Internet.

</comment><comment><USER9> " With extreme care, humans and robots have measured temperatures as high as 780 degrees."

Degrees of what?? The article is read worldwide and it could be using literally any temperature scale. Anyone has any idea?

<comment><USER10> Lava typically liquefies at ~700°C, and 780°F is only 415°C, so I guess that is in Celsius.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> OOI has a pretty neat data portal for those interested at: [https://ooinet.oceanobservatories.org/](https://ooinet.oceanobservatories.org/)

</comment><comment><USER12> >"It's a whole new perspective on how the Earth works," said Daniel J. Fornari, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on Cape Cod, Mass.

It's really interesting to see a scientist say that we don't really know how Earth works. I thought the debate was over.

<comment><USER13> No geologist would ever (or likely will ever) say that we "really know how the Earth works". I say this as a geologist, and I can't imagine any other geologist disagreeing.

The natural sciences are incredibly complex. You're not dealing with nice simple interactions, and we can't run experiments on the time, spatial, or energy scales needed to directly test hypotheses in the way you would in an experimental science.

Instead, we observe.

We try to understand the present to understand the past and the past to understand the present.

When you're observing an uncontrolled system, it's very tough to isolate one variable from another. Geology is often accused of not being "quantitative enough". What people don't realize is that the quantitative part is usually stupidly easy. It's choosing the right physics to model that's hard. We usually don't fully understand exactly which physical process are at work.

<comment><USER14> Nicely put. This how I always think about economics: we've got plenty of numbers and models, but meaningfully large experiments are are to design without risking a lot of livelihoods. Science is brutal at scale, and I'm ever impressed with the techniques to make sense of the noise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Absolutely amazing!!!

<comment><USER15> Way cool indeed. And this is my first comment.....

<comment><USER16> > _" Way cool indeed. And this is my first comment....."_

Welcome to HN.

Please read the Guidelines and FAQ:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)

HN is one of the very best news forums out there and we always welcome new people. Just a friendly tip:

In general avoid comments that do not add value to a discussion and short replies of a few words. People here reward thoughtful replies.

Typically your type of comment would be downvoted, but since you are very new, hopefully people will not downvote you this time!</comment></comment></comment>