Brain, Mind, Body and the Disease of Addiction - happy-go-lucky http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/12/16/503317842/the-surgeon-general-s-new-report-on-addiction <comment><AUTHOR> "Addiction" is a very tricky concept... Wikipedia defines it as "compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences". But what if the person engaging in the behavior doesn't mind the adverse consequences? What if the only adverse consequence is a slight decrease in life expectancy? How bad do the consequences have to be before a behavior becomes pathological? The line we draw here seems rooted in personal values, not an objective standard.

What if someone uses amphetamines daily and really doesn't want to give them up. Are they addicted? What if they later learn they have ADHD and they've just been self-medicating? What if they don't have ADHD but the drug just improves their life? What if their name happens to be Paul Erdős?

If someone suffers depression from opiate withdrawal, we call them an addict. If someone suffers depression from going through a breakup, it's just par for the course. And yet both scenarios are withdrawal from a pleasurable stimulus. Why is one acceptable and the other not?

<comment><USER2> > But what if the person engaging in the behavior doesn't mind the adverse > consequences?

Addiction is by definition not something that is indulged in voluntarily by carefully weighing the consequences. I recommend you familiarize yourself with the Jellinek Curve, which accurately describes the guilt and shame that results from addiction.

> What if the only adverse consequence is a slight decrease in life > expectancy?

Addiction itself not only has much worse consequences than that, but you're omitting the fact that addiction is present for a reason. Addiction is self- medication of excessive pain, and that excessive pain has deep, significant adverse effects. There is a reason that addiction is often comorbid with family dysfunction; addiction is a response to pain, not just a cause of pain. "Curing" an addiction involves reducing this pain to remove the need for self- medication.

> The line we draw here seems rooted in personal values, not an objective > standard. We need to recognize that subjectivity when we discuss addiction.

The line is very clear. If you compulsively use, in a way that harms you, to relieve inner pain, it's addiction. Treating addiction as a "subjective" thing just ignores the pain-dimension which drives people to addiction in the first place, to run away from their pain.

Society's focus should be on becoming more nurturing and cohesive, which'll hopefully result in fewer people being in so much pain that they'll destroy their lives and relationships just to feel remotely human.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Addiction is self-medication of excessive pain

Well if you're going through excessive pain, self-medication sounds like a pretty reasonable response. What are you going to do, just suffer it? Therapy is nice but it doesn't solve everything.

Would it be better if you took the "self" out of the equation and were supervised by a professional?

> If you compulsively use, in a way that harms you, to relieve inner pain, > it's addiction.

So this requires all 3 parts though, right? If you compulsively use to relieve inner pain but without harm, that's okay, right? How much harm is allowed before it's addiction?

<comment><USER2> > Well if you're going through excessive pain, self-medication sounds like a > pretty reasonable response

No, it's a survival mechanism. It only reduces the pain superficially and temporarily. It's like giving an adrenaline shot to Atlas instead of getting the Globe off his back.

>So this requires all 3 parts though, right? If you compulsively use to relieve inner pain but without harm, that's okay, right? How much harm is allowed before it's addiction?

It's all motivation. Addictions are a way to deal with deep-seated and excessive shame, guilt, fears, hopelessness, despair, and loneliness. If that's why you take a drug, you're only hurting yourself by not seeking help for the aforementioned problems. If you're taking a drug just for fun, that's fine.

Note that many addicts will lie to themselves and pretend the latter applies to them.

<comment><USER3> > Addictions are a way to deal with deep-seated and excessive shame, guilt, > fears, hopelessness, despair, and loneliness.

Has this link been established? I haven't got the impression that these things have such a causative link. People can be perfectly normal but have addictive tendencies where they can't touch things like alcohol or gambling, and then some people may be fairly miserable but not get addicted to things.

Addictiveness always seemed like its own trait, and the claim that people who get addicted to things must be miserable better have some solid evidence behind it. Really not a fan of the whole trend of trying to tell people they have "deep seated problems".

<comment><USER4> I used to think the same way. As an addict of 20+ years who's been in recovery for about a year, I hated hearing that my family system was something I needed to work on, as opposed to what seemed to me like more relevant/prescient issues of not being able to develop basic self-care behaviors/routines for myself.

Then I came out of denial about being sexually traumatized numerous times by someone close to as a kid in March. The changes I've undergone since have been dramatic as hell & I became a completely different person within a week. I started learning to: speak my fears, say what's on my mind, abandon seeking the approval of others, let go of my anxieties, allow myself to feel my feelings, identify emotions I hadn't felt before or at least not since I was a kid, and more.

I now think we need to tell people the most thorough approach to dealing with addiction starts with assuming there's a deep seated problem until another cause has been proven because that mindset helps break through any denial the addict may not be aware of. I was certain my experiences hadn't traumatized me & it was only after I developed the habit of questioning everything I thought about myself that I challenged the assumption it wasn't traumatic.

The problem I foresee is people taking a less-than-compassionate approach or not educating the addict on the reasons for THE ADDICT to adopt that line of thinking. Once an addict is willing to admit they have a problem & to work on it, then we can ask the questions of how thorough they want to be with their recovery & whether or not they're willing to take a scientific approach for the sake of being thorough.

<comment><USER3> This seems like you are talking your situation and trying to apply it to everyone else. This is exactly the kind of thing we must not do, because that's a lot of people to convince of deep-seated problems and a horrible thing to imply if we're wrong. I am not convinced even from your description that the causality is as you say.

Addictions are often associated with substances or activities that are pleasant. It is not at all surprising that people who are in pain want to engage with pleasant substances or activities. So it is, again, not surprising, that some of those people may get addicted.

Yet, many people don't. Many people successfully "self-medicate" with such substances in the worst of times and don't become hopelessly addicted to them, easily dropping them once the aggravating factor goes away, and sometimes the substance even helps. And then there are people on the other side, where their life is completely normal and can instantly go off the rails if they have even one beer. People for whom addiction isn't a solution for a problem, but the cause.

<comment><USER4> I'm not looking to convince anyone of having deep-seated problems.

Here's a reframing of my argument. I think:

\- two sources of addiction that are the most difficult to identify are undiagnosed/unknown physical causes and undiagnosed/unknown psychological causes.

\- belief impacts the brain's ability to recognize or ignore patterns

\- medical professionals usually better able to diagnose/discover physical causes than patients because they've received a lot of training & have access to good tools for examining the patients

\- medical professionals need to practice assuming (ie. TEMPORARILY choosing to believe) something's physically wrong with the patient (especially since addictions has physical effects on the brain!) in order to reduce the incidents where a patient's issues are easily dismissed as psychosomatic

\- mental health professionals lack good tools for diagnosing/discovering mental issues & can't directly inspect a patient's psyche

\- patients can help mental health professionals diagnose/discover mental issues, as well as confirm the absence of any, by assuming (again...temporarily & only during the time when with the professional) they do have deep seated issues & they simply aren't aware of them

Once someone's willing to explore their own psyche with curiosity and if they're willing to share w/the professional whatever comes to mind, they can start making a list of things in their past that seem questionable, including the things they normally wouldn't consider.

If there's anything I'd like to convince people of, it's the benefits of learning how to temporarily challenge one's own standard patterns of thought, ie. having an open mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is the problem with "mental health" as a metaphor from bodily health. It's better than simply moralizing about addiction, sure, but leaves people with very muddled thinking about the topic through taking the metaphor too literally.

So much of these debates seem like there's a confusion of causes and symptoms. Childhood trauma is as predictive of addiction in adulthood as obesity is of heart disease. Loneliess and personal trauma are just enormously corrosive to a person's mental well-being, but it seems like the mental health frame rarely attempts to deal with problems like that.

<comment><USER2> > it seems like the mental health frame rarely attempts to deal with problems > like that.

I think viewing mental health as similar to physical health is useful (since, in mental as in physical health, lack of symptoms does not indicate good health). It's that we have no clue how to bring people from low psychological health to solid psychological health.

For physical health, you need a good diet, exercise, and sleep. What do you need for mental health? Meditation? Even then, doctors have never told patients to "meditate more", whereas they do tell obese patients to eat less and exercise more. I know meditation isn't effective at solving pathologies, but it's telling that we as a culture have no clue what causes and promotes pathology in the first place.

<comment><USER4> For the past two weeks, I've starting developing/discovering a testable theory for how the mind/body/brain work together by viewing the brain as a neural- network-based machine that can rewire itself, the mind as a VM that runs programs in a well-typed functional language w/effects & coeffects. All 3 are inputs/outputs and the body is the only one able to carry out effects on the external environment.

I've been able to dramatically reduce my daily anxiety without medication in a matter of minutes. I'm finding the model directly implies things we already know, such as why first impressions are important & how to overcome bad ones, as well as aspects of how bad first impressions are related to trauma in some ways. Using the model, I came up with a technique to drastically improve the rigid action in my left pinky for 30 mins to the point that it moved almost as smoothly as my right pinky. 10 years of playing piano and/or sax when growing up didn't help it at all, but 2-3 mins of a simple exercise practically cured the issue.

I'm currently looking for experts to help me flesh out what I believe to be a new approach to mental health that's more effective & can more easily be specifically tuned for individual problems. What I need are category/type theorists to help w/the mathematical model, neuroscientists for the brain stuff, and anyone else willing to explore/play with the ideas. I could also use help figuring out a way to develop an open source science experiment that anyone can participate in & that produces scientifically legit data.

<comment><USER2> My current model of the psyche is based on Internal Family Systems theory[0], which seems much more accurate, useful and potentially more effective than current models. I'd be very interested in playing with your ideas and seeing how the two models can improve each other.

[0]: [https://www.selfleadership.org/outline-of-the-Internal- famil...](https://www.selfleadership.org/outline-of-the-Internal-family- systems-model.html)

<comment><USER4> I'm familiar with the basic concepts of IFS & think they line up really well with the foundations of my model. I've only read the first few sections of your link, but will read the rest today.

Would you be willing to call me at 206-432-7671? I'm not great w/email right now, but if you'd rather that, it's firstname.lastname@example.com.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> 95% of the article explains how addiction isn't just a disease of the brain. The conclusion is a non-sequitur claiming that people only have compassion for addicts because they view addiction as a "brain disease". Am I misunderstanding this?

For reference, he's the NPR article on the SG's report on addiction[0]. All the Surgeon General is trying to do it to shift addiction from an issue of personal blame that's widespread in the culture ("he's just an alcoholic!") and make people view it as a complex pathology that we need to address. The SG also proposes school programs to teach about substance misuse, and stress- management, as stress obviously contributes to addiction. What's unreasonable about any of this? The article in OP seems impossibly nitpicky.

[0]: [http://www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2016/11/17/50240240...](http://www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2016/11/17/502402409/surgeon-general-murthy-wants-america-to-face-up-to- addiction)

<comment><USER6> The author is a philosopher. He's raising the question of why we seemingly need to reduce people's behavior to their neurology in order to have compassion for them. It's a philosophical question.

<comment><USER2> I missed that he was a philosopher. Still underwhelmed by the article. He's raising the question, but doesn't even attempt to answer it.

And he doesn't even demonstrate that we even feel a "need" to do this to feel compassion. That's why it feels like a non-sequitur. The article is more quip than demonstration.

<comment><USER6> Philosophers aren't in the business of pretending to have answers.

By "need" I just meant that it was a matter of course that the surgeon general said it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I believe the reporter is still trying to place blame. This is both counter- productive from a treatment standpoint, and also probably in direct conflict with what the /lead/ for experts in the US has stated is the case.

That once addiction has set in, it is every bit as much a disease that requires external intervention and treatment to correct the imbalance as the other conditions.

<comment><USER8> The author is arguing that the reduction of addiction to a neurological concept ignores a long list of other components to addiction, some of which are moral, some of which are environmental, and others.

The author further argues that people make this reduction because they think it prevents addicts from being blamed for their addiction, and that doesn't make sense because when you talk about what is going on in someone's brain, you are talking about most of what you consider to be the person, including that person's personality, beliefs, thoughts, feelings, etc.

So, it's not an attempt to blame anyone. It's an argument that the mechanisms people use to deflect blame don't make sense.

In other words, people who blame addicts for their addiction have no reason to stop blaming them if addiction is reduced to a neurological pathology, and people who don't blame addicts have no reason to start blaming them if addiction is reduced to a neurological pathology. The neurological pathology thing doesn't make a difference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> >This marks, by the way, a difference between addiction and chronic diseases like diabetes, with which the surgeon general compares it. Both diabetes and alcohol or drug addiction have life style components. Bad diet and low levels of exercise trigger type 2 diabetes in those prone to the disease. In a similar way, drug abuse causes addiction. __But diabetes comes down, finally, to a difficulty managing glucose levels in the blood. __You can 't say that addiction boils down to something straightforwardly physiological in the same sort of way

Is diabetes really that straightforward? Diabetes and heart disease are linked to obesity which is linked to diet and exercise. Most people who are pre- diabetic or hypertensive can reverse their condition through lifestyle changes, yet most fail to do so.

And I would disagree that addiction lacks a physiological component in its later stages. Withdrawals are absolutely a physiological phenomenon and a big reason why people continue to use.

</comment><comment><USER10> There's a huge difference between illness and injury.

A broken leg isn't a disease, it's an injury. You treat the injury - avoid the situations which lead to it - and things are fine.

Moralizing is destructive, but so is saying "now it's not your fault that you went skiing without knowing how."

I think the best way of looking at lots of mental health issues is through the lens of _injury_, not illness.

More on this: [https://markpneyer.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/broken-leg- disor...](https://markpneyer.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/broken-leg-disorder/)

</comment><comment><USER11> PSA: There have been lots of reports of people getting rid of their addiction or obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), as a byproduct of their experience with LSD or psilocybin (the active substance contained in "magic mushrooms").

</comment><comment><USER3> > The slogan that addiction is a chronic disease of the brain is meant to put > the addict beyond the reach of moral reproach — and addiction itself > squarely into the domain of the medical rather than the moral.

> Now, I agree that addicts should be treated with love and compassion instead > of judgment and punishment. But what does it say about us if the only way we > can muster compassion and love for those among us with substance abuse > problems is by suggesting that they are solely bystanders unjustly afflicted > by mechanisms in their brains?

This is a recurring problem that I think is only going to get worse once we get more knowledgeable about many things. Genetics, mental processes, ethics.

I believe it's tightly coupled to the idea of total free will, and as long as that idea is the dominant philosophy of a society, it cannot have compassion for these people as it perceives them as acting freely. This leads to the just world hypothesis. We feel compassionate about injustice; negative outcomes coming from free will are, by definition, not unjust. Among those whose desire to have compassion is great enough, they have to say that the people in question are dealing with a physical problem, as physical causes are the only things that are perceived as capable of encroaching on total free will.

In reality, there is no problem. A person may have a mental model that leads them to addiction. That mental model, most likely, makes sense to them and in their circumstance. Note that mental problems are not fully logical - we're not solving the framing problem. Genetics and environment are pieces here. Given this model, they choose addiction, because in their model, it makes sense. It turns out (we think, md224 has some interesting comments on that part of the equation) that their model is somewhat faulty, and now in addition to having a faulty model and knowing that it's faulty somewhere, they have the expected effects of physical addiction to deal with. Just reading this paragraph shouldn't lead anyone to believe that it will be straightforward for them to suddenly develop a perfect mental model to deal with the addiction from this situation, even if such a thing is possible. The person has made a choice, but it doesn't really matter that they did, and the choices they continue to make, may, again, not matter. There's nothing magical about choices, they're still limited by one's mental model and therefore will never be truly free. They may find a way through to a good model. Or maybe some good people will help them make their way there. Or perhaps a physical intervention will accomplish the same even faster.

Feeling compassion towards someone trying to navigate this complex world? Easy. Just get rid of the idea that we're all sitting in front of two nicely presented plates where one clearly has good choices on it and the other clearly has bad choices on it. That's not how it works.

But we can't think like this. The philosophy of total free will does not allow it. A person either has free will or they don't. Therefore the plates must clearly be there, and any good person will choose things from the right plate. Therefore, any person choosing addiction is fully aware of the outcome and expects exactly the same thing that we expect, so if it happens to them, we get to blame them and put the _full_ weight of the responsibility that free will implies upon them. And from there comes pain.

The terms we use when we talk about agency: attitude, personal responsibility, consequences. These terms became steeped in guilt and shame and authority. Because that is the price we put on agency: if you want to have it, you must feel constant guilt and shame, over any decision you make that _we_ didn't want you to make that has a negative outcome. These are not light emotions, and especially those raised to be good and conscientious will be rather vulnerable to them. These inform of one's status and worthiness and acceptance in the tribe. To feel constant guilt is to not just make mistakes, but to also be wrong fundamentally, as we know one must not feel it constantly. What is one to think when they are convinced by others that they, completely freely, constantly make bad choices? That's a hell of a cross to bear.

Little surprise is it, then, that many people decide that they don't want any of that agency if it comes at the price of constant pain and living life at the lead of someone else. We want to avoid pain, not experience it. They either deny the choices themselves, or deny that they made them, or deny that the choices existed. Anything else leads to pain. They are not allowed to merely banish guilt and shame and reclaim their agency due to the philosophy of total free will, so they just banish all of their agency all together.</comment>


Please stop wishing 'Happy birthday' like zombies on Facebook - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@n00b/please-stop-wishing-happy-birthday-like-zombies-on-facebook-6bfca99e6df5

<comment><USER2> Yes it's an awkward situation wishing someone who has passed a happy birthday but I strongly disagree with this statement that no one cares or reads the messages. Yes, I know people who are annoyed by it and they are welcome to hide the date, but I read every message people leave for me on my birthday and am glad to sometimes be able to take a little time out of my busy life to reconnect with people with this excuse.

</comment><comment><USER3> I changed my b-day to 1901-01-01 a while ago. Looking forward to see the consequences of that sometime. I don't jump on the happy-happy-birthday train anymore either. Instead, I pick up the phone and call people that I care about or see them.</comment>


Ask HN: How would you start a new small office for a small team of developers? - <AUTHOR> If you had the opportunity to start and lead a small team of developers (5 devs) to work remotely as consultants but together in the same office, how would you do it?
Apart from good wages, which benefits would you use to attract the best developers in town to join your small team?
What kind of office appliances/toys/furniture would you invest on? <comment><USER2> Speaking as a dev, the single most exciting, motivating thing one could offer me (assuming a baseline of e.g. knowing what you're doing, having a compelling mission or product, etc.) is my own office with a door that closes.

Other than that: ergonomics. Don't skimp on the chairs and keyboards. Big monitors are good but an aeron chair shows that you know what's up and give a damn. YMMV.

<comment><USER3> By the way those aeron or steelcase you can usually pick up use from a furniture liquidator. Don't go spend $1,200 on a chair when you can get one for 1/3rd of that

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A nap room or, if the name is not to your taste, call it a wellness room. Yeah, you might not need it but potential hires that get migraines, have newborns, have sleep disorders (increasingly common among devs these days) or just plain start feeling ill during the day do need it.

</comment><comment><USER5> Remote first! if you are starting a small op, and intend to interact with customers remotely, make the infrastructure prioritize the remote workflow. This significantly increases flexibility of employees; insures that problems in interacting with customers is first felt by you (not your customers)

</comment><comment><USER6> The best developers are the ones who know how to set up their own best environment. Give them an office, a budget, and some time to build their own ideal space.

</comment><comment><USER7> Four day work week

<comment><USER8> Do you think people would be willing to make less on a per hour basis to have a 4 day week?

<comment><USER9> Nobody said anything about paying less... In my mind if I were to run a company I'd do 6 hour work days with four day work weeks. Nobody actually gets a solid 8 hours of coding done. I don't see why people keep throwing money at more perks/food to compete with FAANG at their own game.

<comment><USER8> It's true that no one does 8 hours of coding. And you're the the last 8 marginal hours of development aren't as personally productive as the average hour. But personal productivity isn't organization productivity.

It's expensive to hire someone, its expensive to manage someone, it's expensive to keep someone informed about a project through meetings/documentation etc, it's expensive to rent office space for someone, it's expensive to have to hire more people to get the same productivity.

And all of these expenses are weighed against the reduced productivity of those extra two hours, and at 99% of companies they've decided it's better to hire for 40 hours.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Cool Virtual Reality Art Gallery - <AUTHOR> http://www.soul-reflection.com/gallery/exhibition/index.html <comment><AUTHOR> I saw this art gallery about a book. It's pretty cool but what type of software is this? I want to do something different.

the youtube video [https://youtu.be/I8_4nTtjMbI](https://youtu.be/I8_4nTtjMbI)</comment>


When "What Do You Do?" Is Taboo - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/fashion/tricky-conversations-with-unemployed-acquaintances.html <comment><USER2> "But I think you should take it, just so people learn not to give their money away. Because once those people are unemployed, I'm not giving the money back! This is not a return on investment."

Wow. That's so cynical I barely know where to start. I've helped many of my friends monetarily in the past, and they've been nothing but grateful. Why do I do it? Certainly not because I expect them to pay me back with interest... I do it because when I was at a terribly low point in my life, someone I barely knew gave me $100. It was enough to get through the month and let me continue job hunting without wondering what I was going to eat.

It's not a financial investment. It's an investment in a person.

/soapbox

<comment><USER3> Agreed. I've had down times (a certain financial disaster and a silicon valley startup comes to mind), and friends and family were there to give us the support, financially and emotionally, we needed to get back on our feet.

If I have the means, I never hesitate to help a friend or family member in need, and rarely ask for anything in return, I would never ask for interest, and rarely even place any expectations on such a loan. "Pay me what you can, when you can," is common terms of repayment for loans such as these.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Carmen Morales, an Orlando-based stand-up comic who collected unemployment > for a year and a half

> "Really, it was God's plan for me to move back with my parents at age 30?"

I read articles like this all the time about joblessness and they _always_ choose examples like this.

Why choose a _standup comedian_ as an example? Thats one of the hardest businesses to get into... and has been a long time.

I've read lots of stories of artists (and startup founders such as the founder of Mint.com) who moved in with their parents to pursue their dream despite the low chances of financial success.

If you're trying to find sympathy among readers, at least choose good examples of struggling individuals. For example, the thousands of well educated law or psych majors who are unemployed.

<comment><USER5> What does "unemployed stand-up comic" even mean?

Does it mean that your job search consists of looking for "stand up comic" positions? Does it mean that you have experience in stand up comedy and you are now unemployed but considering other positions? Does it mean that you are practising stand-up comedy whilst you are unemployed but not making enough income for it to count as "employment"?

I have friends who identify themselves as "musicians" because that is what they see as their profession (they went to music college etc) but their actual income comes from elsewhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Paywall-less Google redirect.

[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&#...</a>

<comment><USER7> I thought the pay wall did not apply when you were linked through via another source, including both Google and HN. Is this not correct?

<comment><USER8> I think the NYT 'paywall system' is just a cookie on your computer. Just delete any related cookies and it'll reset the monthly/weekly counter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Just think how rough it must be if you're not a comic or an actor/actress. There are times that Times is just too much itself.

Years ago an acquaintance said that he made people very uncomfortable at parties in Washington when they asked him what he did and he replied, "Nothing."

</comment><comment><USER10> The wide majority of us have been unemployed at one point or another.

Was it annoying to hear my parents suggest I should just take a job at the supermarket when I was unemployed? Yes. Was it equally annoying when I'd be connected by a friend to someone who had a job but in an area I had no interest in? Absolutely!

When I was unemployed, what got me out of it were chance conversations with people. I doubt I would have gone past the small-talk stage had I lashed out or fumed about the annoyance of being unemployed.

In the end of my six-month unemployment stint, I sent out nearly 120 copies of my resume to various places. Yes, I counted out of curiosity as well as to keep track of status and follow-ups. Toward the end, I had two offers both out of chance/networking encounters because I rolled with these small-talk punches.

In short, unemployed folk, be patient and kind. Very kind. And don't listen to this drivel.

<comment><USER11> I haven't been unemployed in a long time, so I may not really understand, but I think that people who give off the emotional vibe of being desperate and frustrated don't tend to make people want to hire them or otherwise associate with them. Which can put some unemployed people into a nasty vicious cycle - it's tough to just stop being desperate and frustrated when you can't get a job.

I have also tended to be a bit skeptical of getting a job by spewing resumes all over the internet. I doubt that this works well, unless you have some really impressive stuff on your resume. I haven't looked for a job in a while, but I would bet that it's more effective to meet people in person by going to whatever events you can find or even the offices of companies you might want to work for. For software people, internet links to things that you have actually built is probably better too. Of course, driving around and going to conferences can eat up a good bit of money too...

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> These are the problems you face when dealing with any kind of miserable person. It isn't unique to the unemployed.

You can't relate, but you sympathize. That's seen as condescending. You feel compelled to offer to help, and that's seen as insensitive and condescending.

Eventually the walking on eggshells around this person starts to make you miserable, too. But it's misery of a different kind, so it doesn't love the company.

</comment><comment><USER13> In some countries, like France, asking someone you barely know "What do you do (for income)?" is considered vulgar. There, you ask what people are interested in, what they like doing, and so on. I like that. A lot.

</comment><comment><USER14> Single page:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/fashion/tricky- conversatio...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/fashion/tricky- conversations-with-unemployed-acquaintances.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all)

</comment><comment><USER15> What's really annoying is when rich folks release TV shows like "Unemployed" and "How to live with your parents for the rest of your life" thinking it's going to be "funny and relatable". It's not.

</comment><comment><USER16> Interesting article, but the ending felt a little misplaced.

For reasons similar to those mentioned in the article, I've started to instead ask, "What do you do for fun?" The answers can end up being more interesting, and it allows people to define themselves in a way that's not tied to what they do for money. Unfortunately, the question can catch people off guard at times.

<comment><USER17> > Unfortunately, the question can catch people off guard at times.

That's interesting. I'm curious why that would be or how it's manifested. Is it possible that some people don't have much fun?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's kind of always been the case. It's mentioned in "How to Win Friends & Influence People". It's not rude just because you may be speaking to someone unemployed, but because it immediately makes your discussion take a turn for business. People like to be appreciated for who they are, not what they do.

</comment><comment><USER19> I was raised to believe that asking someone "what do you do" is a politer variation of "where do you work", itself a pry into their income level, and the proper response is to describe your hobbies or goals.

<comment><USER10> See, that's fascinating! I was raised to believe that asking "what do you do" demonstrates interest in having a conversation with someone. Until now, I had never ever posited that asking "what do you do" is a pry into income level.

<comment><USER20> Likewise. The bulk of America's workforce spends a majority of their waking hours on "what they do," so it's a perfectly valid introductory topic that expresses interest in communication.

<comment><USER21> Seriously. If you wanted to have a conversation with me and it was something other than "what do you do?" I don't think I'd know what to tell you. If I'm not at work, I'm taking care of my baby, and you probably don't want to hear about poopy diapers...

The real answer here is you probably wouldn't want to have a conversation with me anyway.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Obama races to cement the TPP deal that all his potential successors oppose - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fi-obama-vietnam-trade-20160525-snap-story.html <comment><USER2> I don't actually believe Hillary Clinton is against the TPP. I believe she's only saying she is against it because she's running for election. She doesn't want to lose to Sanders or lose his supporters. Only now that the deal is finalized, it's very clear that the TPP is not popular among Sanders voters, and she is in a presidential run off, does she oppose it.

She previously described the TPP negotiations as "exciting," "innovative," "ambitious," "groundbreaking," "cutting-edge," "high-quality," "high-standard" and "gold standard."

[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/statements/2015/oct/...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-now-opposes- trans-pacific-partners/)

<comment><USER3> Yes I find her total lack of ability to hide her incencerity refreshing. I prefer to know what the likely outcome will be once she's in power. The dangerous thing about politicians like Obama was his excellent persuasive ability, such as his ability to generate reassurance that things will change and it was a very believable.

For ex, I was convinced he truly believed in reducing the militarism of America. But he then managed to push it well beyond Bush, which was beautifully implemented by heavily leaning on the CIA/NSA who operate well within the constraints of secrecy and deception required to maintain that public perception.

In his first year in office it was revealed the CIA destroyed 92 video tapes very likely to contain evidence of torture. A perfect opportunity to confront one of the most serious abuses of power in United States history and he did nothing in response, not even a token stepping down of the director, and there was hardly an ounce of public backlash against him. He won the Noble Peace prize that same year. Amazing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I find it deeply unlikely that Clinton actually opposes TPP. More like, it's unpopular, might as well have the outgoing President implement it so the incoming President doesn't have to expend political capital on it.

</comment><comment><USER5> I hope TPP will be ditched, and the practice of backroom lawmaking and undemocratic policy laundering will have much stronger opposition in the future.

<comment><USER6> Trade deals are by their nature multilateral. Try to do them democratically, and they simply won't get done: every country would propose amendments, each of which would have to be ratified by every other country...

It's reasonable to take issue with the contents of the TPP, but demanding a democratic open process would lead to no free trade deals at all

<comment><USER5> _> Trade deals are by their nature multilateral._

The problem is, these deals aren't about trade, let alone about free one. They are about changing laws. And lawmaking hidden from the public is a very problematic idea.

 _> Try to do them democratically, and they simply won't get done_

There is no need to make massive debates during development of these trade agreements. I agree, it can slow them down. But, they have to be done in public fashion, so when problems arise, they can be spotted right away and then criticized and fixed. That's something not just doable, but it was already practiced before.

 _> It's reasonable to take issue with the contents of the TPP, but demanding a democratic open process would lead to no free trade deals at all_

You can't take an issue with it if: 1. you can't see it until it's too late. 2. there is no way to fix problems in it except axing the whole thing which is much much harder (fast track).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You mean the TPP deal that all his successors SAY they oppose, due to modern politics being theatre.

Do we really believe someone from the two big parties is unilaterally pushing through changes both major parties oppose...give me a break...

<comment><USER8> At least in Washington State, the TPP is explicitly mentioned in the (draft) platform as being something the party opposes.

"(We Oppose:) Foreign policies that put the profit making interests of corporations above the rights, laws, and interests of governments or workers, such as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)"

Of course, it only says that because some people who found time to do things besides idle cynically on HN got off their asses and put in some effort to get it in there.

[http://www.wa- democrats.org/sites/wadems/files/documents/201...](http://www.wa- democrats.org/sites/wadems/files/documents/2016%20SC%20-%20Draft%20Platform%20-%20Public.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm not sure why this article focuses on the house. This is a treaty and has to be ratified by the senate.

</comment><comment><USER10> What are the issues with it? I heard it's more advantageous for US companies than foreign ones.

<comment><USER11> It's bad for consumers; if the US were to sign the TPP, it would be a backdoor way to force legislation large copyright holders want and the American public does not. [https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp](https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp)

<comment><USER10> A lot of the IP issues with TPP are exactly what I meant when it benefits Americans more than other countries, since foreign countries tend to be less restrictive about intellectual property rights.

Also, we really need a Powerpoint summarizing all the issues, both for and against, from all perspectives, with TPP. It's such a huge agreement, and taking only some aspects into consideration, such as IP rights, shouldn't invalidate other aspects of it. It should be considered as a whole.

<comment><USER11> Part of the reason why it needs to be killed is because there is so much in it, and it is an all-or-nothing deal negotiated in secret! These ip ideas have been brought forth before in American Law and unequivocally been voted down. And an attempted end-run around the American legislative branch should be opposed on principal by Americans, even if the letter of the law seemed germane. There is a reason it wasn't done in daylight.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Moving large data sets into Amazon S3 with AWS Import/Export - <AUTHOR> http://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2009/05/amazon_import_export.html

<comment><USER2> Posted hours ago - discussion on <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=620091></comment>


Ask HN: Replacement for Maven which can build RPMs? - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking for something which can replace Maven (as it's messy keeping all the poms, and we are moving away from Java) but I haven't found anything similar which can build RPMs. Am I missing something? What do you guys use for building? <comment><USER2> We use SCons to build RPMs and deb packages. Didn't have any problems with it so far.</comment>


How a batch system watches your processes and why it's so bad at it (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://osgtech.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-your-batch-system-watches-your.html <comment><USER2> This post is from 2011 and the techniques it describes have been superseded by cgroups. One of the followup posts is specifically about them: [http://osgtech.blogspot.com/2011/07/part-iii-bulletproof- pro...](http://osgtech.blogspot.com/2011/07/part-iii-bulletproof-process- tracking.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Might want to add [2011] to the title. The issues Brian discusses have been fixed/improved -- in HTCondor at least -- since this was written.

<comment><USER4> Thanks—added.</comment></comment>


White House Echoes Tech: 'Move Fast and Break Things' - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/business/how-trump-became-the-first-silicon-valley-president.html <comment><USER3> I cannot fathom how Sam Altman thought that it would be a good idea to be a source for this article, let alone provide the specific quotes that he did. How does YC benefit from this? How does public policy benefit from it? "The Silicon Valley President in every way except the ideology is flipped"? "He did everything we tell our startups to do"?

You're the CEO of Y Combinator. When you tell a New York Times reporter that Donald Trump is "the Silicon Valley President", you're speaking for all of YC --- even if you don't want to be. What the hell is the matter with you?

<comment><USER4> > You're the CEO of Y Combinator. When you tell a New York Times reporter that > Donald Trump is "the Silicon Valley President",

> What the hell is the matter with you?

You're completely overreacting to this and misrepresenting Sam's quote, which is this:

"Trump is the Silicon Valley candidate in every way except that the ideology is flipped,"

"He's an outsider. He took on a system he thought was broken and then disregarded the rules, he got to know his users well and tested his product early and iterated rapidly. That's the start-up playbook. That's exactly what we tell our start-ups to do"

This seems like a pretty accurate assessment of events to me.

<comment><USER5> >This seems like a pretty accurate assessment of events to me.

So where exactly does pandering to racists, fear mongering against the "other", and demonizing the powerless, feature in the SV analogy? Is that "disregarding the rules"? Rules meaning, being civil, ethical and sane. I suppose under a certain Machiavellian light, slavery could also be considered as "disregarding the rules".

Maybe SV should start adopting political tactics too. Robocalls that ask you how you would feel if you knew that Google employees were "perhaps" looking at your teenage daughters pictures. Demonize php developers while lying to win32 developers about bringing their jobs back, etc.. :)

<comment><USER6> Not to mention he doesn't really know WTF his product is, or outright lied about it ("our health care thing will cover everyone" to paraphrase).

Silicon Valley has a lot of really competent people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> When governments "break things" they are usually life or death things - <USER2> Healthcare, Environment, Clean Water, Nuclear Weapons, etc.

The Trump WH could be spun as some well thought out scrappy disruption of Politics as usual, which it is not.

It very much is a chaotic mess led by a massively narcissistic man-child and the cynical and dangerous people he seeks advice from. I am amazed at Sam Altman for providing anodyne quotes which almost seems like he admires the chaos that Trump is causing. The disruption is causing massive REAL damage to the US and its allies - exactly unlike a start-up that improves choices for customers - not destroys the market itself.

</comment><comment><USER8> While that may work for Facebook, we're seeing what happens when applied to national security and good governance.

Also, there seems to be this revisionism towards the Trump Campaign as something of a savvy, hidden genius operation. But this election was not won by Trump as much as it was lost by Hillary. There is nothing particularly remarkable about Trump's win as a Republican candidate.

<comment><USER9> > But this election was not won by Trump as much as it was lost by Hillary.

But both Trump partisans (who want the credit) and Clinton partisans (who don't want the blame) have an interest in the Trump team's unusually tactical genius being seen as the cause of the outcome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> A good philosophy for businesses that deliberately take on risk to maximise reward, and where the worst case outcome of "breaking things" is insolvency and loss of jobs and investor's money.

<comment><USER11> I've always taken that phrase to mean , be more productive. I've never been in an environment where I have heard that phrase and they were cool with the live site going down. Does anyone echo my opinion ? Or am I wrong ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I might be more inclined to go for a startup-style government if startups had a better success rate. Sure there are a few great success stories, like Theranos or Uber, but...oh, hm.

</comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash Irresponsible.

The difference between breaking things in the private sector and the public is that in the latter you don't have the luxury of declaring company bankruptcy and going home safe-and-sound to your penthouse.

When states break things, people can suffer and die.

<comment><USER13> You don't think there are lives (and suffering) at stake when private companies mess up? Medical equipment... airlines... toxic waste dumps..

Please reconsider.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life- critical_system#Examples_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life- critical_system#Examples_of_safety-critical_systems)

Ironically, rarely are there examples from private industry who screw up as much as governments tend to, especially in safety-critical missions.

<comment><USER14> > Ironically, rarely are there examples from private industry who screw up as > much as governments tend to, especially in safety-critical missions.

Governments have the power to compel individuals under threat of violence. Private industry does not.

People can choose not to do business with a company, limiting the impact of that company's actions on their lives and the lives of others. Individuals have no choice in government.

<comment><USER15> "People can choose not to do business with a company, limiting the impact of that company's actions on their lives and the lives of others."

That's not always true. See also: pharmaceuticals, utilities, various other markets susceptible to monopolies/oligopolies.

I mean sure, you can choose not to take your prescribed medications, but it's probably not going to end well for you.

<comment><USER14> In which case, you are no worse off for choosing not to do business with them than you would be if they did not exist.

Pharmaceutical companies often have monopolies because of patents - but then, you're back to a government intervention again.

Also note that I said "limiting the impact", because it's possible for a third party to impact you without your entering into a voluntary contract with them. For instance: if there is a river running through your property, if someone upstream diverts the river that is going to reduce the value of your property. If you were using that river to power something that enables you to fulfill a pre-existing contract then the common law concept of "tortious interference" comes into play.

Life is complicated :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Please do not try to connect the shitstorm that is the White House these days to something that is actually functional (Silicon Valley). ugh.

</comment><comment><USER17> As I noted shortly after the election, "move fast and break things" is a fundamentally fascist philosophy.

Nov 23, 2016

I've been reading Umberto Eco's essay "Ur-Fascism" which has been circulating of late, as well as definitions of demagoguery, among them the idea that the demagogue is a leader who is relentlessly advocating action -- usually immediate, violent, and without deliberation.

Having just run across that at Wikipedia, I turned to Eco's essay and found his comment on futurism and fascism -- a possibly unlikely pairing as one of the "weak arts":

 _Take Futurism. One might think it would have been considered an instance of entartete Kunst, along with Expressionism, Cubism, and Surrealism. But the early Italian Futurists were nationalist; they favored Italian participation in the First World War for aesthetic reasons; they celebrated speed, violence, and risk, all of which somehow seemed to connect with the fascist cult of youth. While fascism identified itself with the Roman Empire and rediscovered rural traditions, Marinetti (who proclaimed that a car was more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace, and wanted to kill even the moonlight) was nevertheless appointed as a member of the Italian Academy, which treated moonlight with great respect._

It's helpful to realise that Futurism here refers to the Italian artistic movement,[1] not the general concept of future-directed optimism. Though with the strongly similar features of both, this also raises some interesting concerns over techno-optimists, generally.

With Facebook's decision to provide censorship services to the Chinese government, having so ably demonstrated its capacity to influence and control political movements within the US, UK, and Arab worlds, I realised that this celebration of speed, violence, and risk was precisely embodied in Facebook's motto, "move fast and break things".

That is, Facebook's core design philosophy is fundamentally aligned with fascism.

Food for thought.

________________________________

Notes:

1\. See: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism)

[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur- fascism/](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/)

Originally:

[https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/KoWPUnb2...](https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/KoWPUnb24pZ)

<comment><USER8> I absolutely agree, but only in so far as it applies to politics or the public sphere. When it comes to code, I have a hard time correlating it much with fascist dynamism.

<comment><USER17> If your code doesn't affect others, then moving fast and breaking things is fine.

More generally: if you've created a sandbox or playground where you can move fast, break things, _and not screw with others around you_ , that's a Good Thing.

Moving fast and breaking things in the context of an active government, with livelihoods and souls at stake, is another matter entirely.

As is the rather common practice of pushing out code on live projects and screwing with it in prod. The better firms (Google comes to mind) are pretty good at avoiding this, at least for technical issues. Rather less so for UI/UX.</comment></comment></comment>


Air gaps never exist (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://gse-compliance.blogspot.com/2011/09/air-gaps-never-exist.html <comment><USER2> Doesn't "air gapped" imply physical separation? Putting a firewall, even if it's totally locked down, between two networks does not make it "air gapped".

<comment><USER3> You _can_ get physical separation with WAPs, too...

<comment><USER4> Technically that's not physically separate, as photons are physical entities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > "How do you think I got the firmware updates? We just made an SSH tunnel > over TCP 53 and proxied HTTP to the Sun website."

Sounds like the real problem was they didn't have a better mechanism for getting things like that in. If a security system stops people from doing their jobs, they'll poke a hole in it unless you provide a better option.

<comment><USER6> > Sounds like the real problem was they didn't have a better mechanism for > getting things like that in.

 _Any_ mechanism for getting things like that in is a break in the air gap, _by definition_. (Well, by a strict definition.) But at least a better mechanism would be managed by security policy, not by underlings' need to get their job done. (That is, the security policy would have to take into account the need for updates as well as the potential security implications of importing new executable code from outside.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Pedantically, not a "gap" if there's a network cable going to another network...

<comment><USER8> Years ago I was told by a colleague that he was required to setup an administrative system that was NOT connected the network, but also had to be able to send and receive e-mail.

The inherent contradiction was lost on the people giving the orders. So...

<comment><USER9> Well he _was_ an expert.. wasn't he?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg)

(Draw seven perpendicular red lines)

<comment><USER10> That sketch annoys me. Sure, marketing/sales/PM/design guys are idiots, whatever.

Here are 11 things "I can't do it" can mean:

I don't have time

I don't want to

I don't have anyone who knows how to

I want someone else to do it

I don't want to maintain it once built

I want to work on this other thing

Doing it would take away job security for me

I think it is beneath me

You're not going to use it anyway

I don't think it is worth doing

I think it is too expensive

I think it would be easyish to fill out another 10 reasons for what "can't" really means that are more common than "it is flat out impossible regardless of budget/resources".

<comment><USER9> _> I think it would be easyish to fill out another 10 reasons for what "can't" really means that are more common than "it is flat out impossible regardless of budget/resources"._

Yes. But the skit isn't _about_ that.

I often get impossible tasks from managers. Luckily when I tell them why they actually _listen_ and aren't purposefully obtuse like the team from the skit. But the obtuse manner of the meeting is part of the comedy. Sometimes the management/sales/marketing team just doesn't get it.

The most _common_ request?

"Please enhance this 92x92 .jpg logo x5-x10 its current size without lowering the quality of the logo."

My most common pushback?

"Sure. Get with their designer and get me the original file, be it .psd or .ai so that I can work with a larger resolution copy of the image. If they don't have the original file for their logo, you are asking for one of two things: 1) Recreate their logo or 2) The impossible. If (1) my answer is no. If (2) my answer is with modern technology, I can't."

I've also been asked to _uncrop_ photos. Not as in "restore a backup from before we saved over it with a cropped version" but literally _uncrop_ a photo.

I don't necessarily blame these people or get angry with them. I blame CSI and other investigative shows where they "enhance" a blurry photo to 4k crystal- clear resolution and read the reflection off of a button of a guys' jeans to read the licence plate of his car. They've been told this shit is possible by TV shows that use just-enough real tech to make the fake tech seem real to people outside of the loop.

<comment><USER11> The crazy thing is that the fake tech is also often actually _real_ , but real in the sense that there's a recent academic paper where in certain specific conditions they were able to do what is being asked ask by using lots of math, domain knowledge, and custom programming, at a total cost of hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars when it's all done.

Does that help you in any way in a commercial setting? No, unless you are Google or Apple or the like and it's not a simple request but the basis of a new business division.

<comment><USER9> Are you talking about the paper where they replicate keys from the roof of a building across the street when the keys were on the floor some several hundred feet away from a photograph? :)

<comment><USER11> Not specifically, more just the occasional paper you see posted where they've found a way to recover missing data from surrounding context. I.e. something like reverse engineering redaction boxes from JPEGs by reversing a non- lossless algorithm twice, once to get the lossy image in raw form with redactoin boxes, and at that point again to determine what was likely under those boxes from the surrounding lossy compression as it existed before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I thought "air gap" meant a machine or network that is physically separated (these days also without any radio connection) to other machines.

How can those not exist?

<comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps you should read the submission. The larger point here is that even if you set up a network in the first place which is genuinely airgapped, as time passes and systems evolve there will be constant pressure from within and without to re-establish a network connection _somewhere_ in order to make everyone's lives easier and eventually, whether deliberate or inadvertent, a connection will be made (and of course, we know that the NSA has a variety of infiltration and exfiltration methods to get across air gaps, such as dropping flash drives and waiting for an insider to be foolish enough to bring it inside).

Believing that an air gap exists or will continue to exist indefinitely is hence setting yourself up for some unpleasant surprises in the future, and encourages weak security designs where the network/system is crunchy on the outside and all delicious and soft and gooey on the inside. (Which is more secure, to have your local WiFi set up with WPA or whatever and have employees telnet into servers, or just go Google-style and have fully encrypted end to end links without requiring any belief in security of the links?)

<comment><USER13> > Perhaps you should read the submission. The larger point here is that even > if you set up a network in the first place which is genuinely airgapped, as > time passes and systems evolve there will be constant pressure from within > and without to re-establish a network connection somewhere in order to make > everyone's lives easier and eventually, whether deliberate or inadvertent, a > connection will be made (and of course, we know that the NSA has a variety > of infiltration and exfiltration methods to get across air gaps, such as > dropping flash drives and waiting for an insider to be foolish enough to > bring it inside).

The article is not well written, and I personally had to parse it several times to figure out what he was trying to say. I'm still not even sure if this is the correct interpretation.

> Believing that an air gap exists or will continue to exist indefinitely is > hence setting yourself up for some unpleasant surprises in the future, and > encourages weak security designs where the network/system is crunchy on the > outside and all delicious and soft and gooey on the inside. (Which is more > secure, to have your local WiFi set up with WPA or whatever and have > employees telnet into servers, or just go Google-style and have fully > encrypted end to end links without requiring any belief in security of the > links?)

That depends on your physical security. A facility like the one he described should have had regular security audits to verify that no hard lines were placed where they should not be. All hard lines and ports should have been marked with identifying information. Nobody should have been able to keep a line open for any significant period of time unless these processes broke down.

<comment><AUTHOR> > The article is not well written, and I personally had to parse it several > times to figure out what he was trying to say. I'm still not even sure if > this is the correct interpretation.

I thought it was perfectly clear. He was telling a funny story about how systems and technologies evolve, giving two examples of that (latter, the watch, former, the system's airgap springing a leak), and furnishing an object lesson in the need for regular thorough audits to ensure that systems and controls thereof are still in place and still working the way that the owners _think_ it's working.

> A facility like the one he described should have had regular security audits > to verify that no hard lines were placed where they should not be.

Exactly. In fact, I believe at the time he wrote this blog post, OP was an active auditor for BDO. In some of his other posts, he analyzes observations he made while auditing a variety of companies/organizations; unsurprisingly standards across the board are very poor. He would be the first to say that this sort of thing is what an audit should prevent and why audits are needed (although I'm not sure I agree with his venom against pentesting; which I see analogous to fuzzing).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> That's why you commit to multiple layers and types of defensive and recovery measures. Intelligence, preparation, prevention, prevention, prevention, monitoring, adaptation, more monitoring, effective response, well planned recovery.

<comment><USER11> I'm pretty sure you missed another 2-3 prevention layers. Shit's pretty dire after you're past that layer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Air gaps can also be bridged by using radio or sound waves. There could be a bunch on non-networked computers in a secure lab all talking to each other. This assumes trojaned hardware and/or operating system software in the systems that can send and receive data and commands.

Finally, technology such as Morse Code is still useful in these scenarios. Dits and dahs. Zeros and ones. That's all you need to be able to send and recv data.

[http://www.jocm.us/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=show&catid=...](http://www.jocm.us/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=show&catid=124&id=600)

[http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/air- hopper-m...](http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/air-hopper- malware-final-e-141029143252-conversion-gate01.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER16> > the blue cables in gas filled tubes

Cat5/6 cables? Why would they be in gas-filled tubes?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good question - I have no idea. But if I google 'gas-filled tube ethernet', I get a number of hits like [http://en.tdk.eu/blob/174150/download/5/smd-surge- arresters-...](http://en.tdk.eu/blob/174150/download/5/smd-surge-arresters- pb.pdf) and [http://www.first- electronic.com/uploadfile/2010989552637708....](http://www.first- electronic.com/uploadfile/2010989552637708.pdf) which suggest that these products are sold for networking purposes to prevent surges. Since this is in a military context, I would hazard a guess that this may be some sort of standard hardening requirement to try to protect the datacenter against lightning strikes, EMPs (such as from nuclear strikes), and general accidents. This may sound paranoid, but then again, so do Faraday cages, and it _is_ the military - it's their job.

<comment><USER17> The wording didn't sound like he was talking about a gas-discharge tube for surge protection. Also, that wouldn't have anything to do with security.

I think what may be happening is the ethernet cable runs are in sealed tubes running at either positive or negative pressure so that if someone tries to breach the tube and splice onto the cable it would be detected by a pressure sensor.

<comment><USER6> My interpretation was that the gas tubes were TEMPEST shielding, but if so, I don't understand how it works...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Back in the early days of Ethernet there were fiber to AUI widgets, that used 2 multimode fibers, one for TX, one for RX. We used these on classified systems with ony RX connected - we could send data in to these systems over UDP, and it was truly a one-way path.

</comment><comment><USER19> > I have seem so many kludges connecting SIPPER and NIPPER networks

I don't know how much I trust someone who can't even get the acronym for SIPR and NIPR right ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIPRNet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIPRNet))

<comment><USER20> from the link: "SIPRNet and NIPRNet are referred to colloquially as sipper-net and nipper-net (or simply sipper and nipper), respectively"

<comment><USER19> when you pronounce them, sure, but why capitalize them like an acronym, but mis-spell the acronym?</comment></comment></comment>


Please, stop writing so many "for loops" in Java - <AUTHOR> https://www.e4developer.com/2018/09/15/please-stop-writing-so-many-for-loops-in-java/ <comment><USER2> I wonder why the author doesn't call this construct by its name: Lambda functions?

I'm not using Java anymore, but this write up seemed nice: [https://blog.codecentric.de/2013/10/java-8-erste-schritte- mi...](https://blog.codecentric.de/2013/10/java-8-erste-schritte-mit-lambdas- und-streams/) It's in German, though - I couldn't find a similar nice English write-up with 2 minutes of googling.

</comment><comment><USER3> so many</comment>


Show HN: WeatherGIF is Buzzfeed for weather - <AUTHOR> http://weathergif.com/install

<comment><USER2> I think it might be broken. I get 2 of the same gifs for Newcastle, UK (sunny, 2 degrees) and Irkutsk, Russia (cloudy, -14 degrees).

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. Some GIFs are used across temperature ranges as in the example. Sunny vs. Cloudy though are different criteria, so will look at that. Do you remember what GIF? Thanks for looking!</comment></comment>


Learning to Cut the Sugar - <AUTHOR> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/learning-to-cut-the-sugar/ <comment><USER2> The recipe in the article is a good example of why this it is difficult to convince people to change their habits of eating a quick sugary breakfast. The recipe involves making 3 different items: polenta, salsa and poached eggs. The polenta requires 35 minutes to prepare, salsa is relatively labor intensive, and mastering the art of the poached egg is not easy. While the dish looks very tasty, I find it hard to believe that the average American busy parent will wake up 30+ minutes early to make it; giving your kid frosted flakes is a much easier and much faster.

<comment><USER3> I take a cupcake tray, throw an egg in each compartment, shredded cheese, and some bacon. Cook. Each one is now a keto-friendly "mcmuffin" with no muffin.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/ketorecipes](http://www.reddit.com/r/ketorecipes)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4>
      I'm not against reducing calories. But if that's all you're
      doing, it can't work. It depends what those calories are.

I've heard this argument so many times before but it always rings hollow. If you _actually reduce_ your calorie intake enough, you _must_ lose weight.

<comment><USER3> True. But if you cut the wrong nutrients, you'll lose not just fat, but muscle. Your body will throw whatever it needs in the fire to survive. A diet high in fat and protein is better than a diet high in carbs.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What have you been able to learn during your commute (and how)? - <AUTHOR> Similar to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15170121 from 2017. Could be technical skills or anything else. <comment><USER2> I commute by bicycle, and my brain doesn't absorb things well through spoken word (so audio books aren't very useful to me). So I don't learn much new during my commute.

However, that commute time is of immense value to me. Much like shower time, I often find myself reviewing various technical problems and coming up with "aha" insights about them. Perhaps not the sort of learning that you're talking about, but I think it counts as learning nonetheless.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have gone to YouTube lecture series for a few years for my 1hr/day commute (by car). Some notable topics that work well are history, law, psychology. Generally it depends entirely on the lecturer. Many old school lecturers don't take advantage of visual aid. Unfortunately the more technical the lecture the more it relies on visual aid and the less I am able to learn purely auditorially.

[https://m.youtube.com/user/YaleCourses/playlists](https://m.youtube.com/user/YaleCourses/playlists)

I've also found success with Audible and podcasts.

</comment><comment><USER4> I take naps if I get a seat, otherwise, close my eyes and listen to music. I don't really learn well or retain much when I'm tired.</comment>


Can a seasonal startup survive? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.plowme.com/entrepreneurship/brand-hibernation/ <comment><USER2> maybe you could turn it into a dating service in the off-season?</comment>


Bitcoin's carbon footprint is as big as the entire city of Las Vegas - <AUTHOR> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bitcoins-carbon-footprint-is-as-big-as-the-entire-city-of-las-vegas-2019-06-13 <comment><USER2> The most popular miner right now is the Antminer S9. It consumes 1372 Watts / 14TH.

98 Watts / TH, and the current total Bitcoin hash rate is just under 50,000,000 TH/s. This means that the entire Bitcoin network (all miners) are consuming 4.9 gigawatts.

It's hard to find stats on how much power Las Vegas uses, but NVEnergy reports that North + South Nevada use 7.8 gigawatts, and some other articles estimate Vegas alone at 8GW. So, not quite but definitely close.

<comment><USER3> A majority of Las Vegas electricity is generated from fossil fuels in the form of natural gas. A high proportion of bitcoin mining is generated from hydroelectric which is a much cleaner source of electricity. In that these anti crypto articles have a tendency to be misleading.</comment></comment>


Large Scale DDoS Attack on GitHub.com - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/blog/1981-large-scale-ddos-attack-on-github-com <comment><USER2> "Based on reports we've received, we believe the intent of this attack is to convince us to remove a specific class of content."

Can anyone decipher this?

<comment><USER3> Read one of the other threads on the subject.

<comment><USER2> Thanks! I really appreciate it!</comment></comment></comment>


Jeff Atwood: Learning to code is Not overrated - <AUTHOR> https://www.leaseweb.com/labs/2015/09/jeff-atwood-learning-to-code-is-not-overrated/ <comment><AUTHOR> In response to: [http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/jeff-atwood-learning- code...](http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/jeff-atwood-learning-code- overrated-article-1.2374772)</comment>


Ask HN: Who is moving away from GitHub, recently acquired by Microsoft and why? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I don't believe Microsoft is necessarily "evil." But the amount of consolidation that is going on in the tech is really scary. Five American (yes it matters that they are all US-based, given the jingoistic direction the world is taking) companies; Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon, wields an insane amount of power over the rest of the world.

I think we techies need to come up with democratic, free alternatives for these services. Something like GitHub but federated so that not a single party has to pay for all the bandwidth and server costs.

</comment><comment><USER3> We really need to give github some credit. They have had our backs for the longest time and I don't think they will just give up on its community now.

Microsoft is getting better all the time, they are an important OS contributor, and they seem to be doing pretty ok by devs.

Let's just give both of them some time to tell and show us what their plans are. There is no reason to burn this relationship from day -1.

ps. Github was and is pretty much pretty walled up, I'll keep hoping that at some point they'll allow to add external remotes to github repos, or at least collaborate with gitlab to allow PR/MRs between the two.

</comment><comment><USER4> So far I won't and I personally haven't heard of anyone who does. Then again, maybe it's still too early to tell for sure.

I'll certainly wait how this works out and not make any rash decisions.

Apart from that (and admittedly apart from Skype), Microsoft in recent years has gained quite some credibility from my point of view.

<comment><USER5> I seriously hope they won't fuck it up like they did Skype.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'll be mirroring my stuff to gitlab (an instance that I control). The reason for that is fairly simple: I have never seen an acquisition by Microsoft be a positive development for the software.

On a more ideological level, I think the company is fundamentally reprehensible in it's business practices and has been for the entire time that I've known they exist. I do not think they will ever change and I do not think they came from a good place that they could return to. It wouldn't be right to support them any more than I have to (for example, things I need to do my job).

</comment><comment><USER7> My employer, with +6,000 employees, is not moving away from GitHub.

We have an enterprise instance and depend on a lot of integrations.

<comment><USER8> I'll be very surprised if enterprise customers would move away form GitHub because of this move if anything it might be a plus now.

I suspect some of the more Stallmanist FOSS projects might move away (although I'm not sure why aren't they on GitLab already) and there will be #MeToo migration of personal repos of people who need something new to post to their Tweeter feed which will last about a news cycle or so.

<comment><USER9> aren't they already on savanna, CVS, Fossil, Subversion and git email patch lists?

<comment><USER10> Not necessarily.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Judging by how MS damaged Skype and LinkedIn I certainly won't be using GitHub for future projects.

<comment><USER5> I can see Skype being completely destroyed, but what happened to LinkedIn? It feels totally the same to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Yes, we are moving out our enterprise account from github to bitbucket. Actually it is already done. Right now we are in the migration phase where we are updating all the links in legacy install base to bitbucket.

</comment><comment><USER10> I wanted to do that for a long time already, because getting trapped in closed "ecosystem" is never good, but being able to jump the bandwagon made it so much easier :P

</comment><comment><USER13> Has Github really done anything innovative lately?

Usually you see a slowdown in changes when a big company acquires a company like Github and the existing staff leaves or is purged. I wouldn't be surprised if a more "managed" approach by Microsoft produces a lot more features/improvements.

<comment><AUTHOR> The foundation of the most popular text editor right now, VSCode, is based upon Electron & Atom. So yeah GitHub really paved a way for all the Electron apps.

Also, GitHub really works perfectly for me & I don't frankly need any new features as I am perfectly fine with what's given. There is less likely that I miss something on GitHub or need some new feature :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Not moving away from Github, mostly because I have no reason to, even if Microsoft acquires it.

</comment><comment><USER15> @Those that say Micro$oft is getting better.. remember they are a business and sure they seem to be "credible" now, but in reality the past CEO was blunt about his moves and the new CEO is sly.

Gitlab all the way!

</comment><comment><USER16> The well deserved bad rap for MS is waning. They made some changes in the last few years that seem to be a step in the right direction. I will give them the benefit of the doubt. For now.

</comment><comment><USER17> I wonder if source code repositories and sensible IP of some customers would be in direct conflict of interest with MSFT.

</comment><comment><USER18> Not leaving but I'm going to first create my repos in gitlab and then syndicate it to github from time to time.

</comment><comment><USER9> There's no need to panic. Just backup/export to 2+ other services like any DR/BCP best-practices.

</comment><comment><USER19> well, all this noise at least made me aware of [https://allura.apache.org/](https://allura.apache.org/) ( i know, was i living under a rock ?! ). I would try it on a container sometime...

</comment><comment><USER20> not me

</comment><comment><USER21> Not me

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm not moving away now, because I already moved away years ago.</comment>


Democracy Index 2016 - <AUTHOR> http://www.eiu.com/public/thankyou_download.aspx?activity=download&campaignid=DemocracyIndex2016 <comment><USER2> The only surprising thing is that the US was ever classed as a "full" democracy. The US system largely inherits from the UK's system, which is also a largely broken version of democracy (with the Tories getting a disproportionate number of seats per vote, and smaller parties getting no seats in spite of having millions of voters).

Sweden is one country who has what I'd call a "full" democracy. You can read about seat distribution here[0] and the method here[1].

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Sweden#Seat_alloc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Sweden#Seat_allocation) [1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster/Sainte- Lagu%C3%AB_meth...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster/Sainte- Lagu%C3%AB_method#Modified_Sainte-Lagu.C3.AB_method)

The US and UK likely won't fix their flawed system because it is perfectly designed to direct power to an elite few while locking out everyone else. The biggest problem is that people vote for parties, so the parties in most areas select the winner for the voter (i.e. if an area is a Tory/Republican/whatever stronghold, the voters are going to tick that box no matter the name, making the political party itself the ultimate kingmaker).

I've lived in multiple areas where the winner of the election had never set foot in that area before. They were literally plucked from thin air, placed in a "safe" area, and got the win. Because people vote political party, and political parties pick who gets the seats. Thus allowing an elite to pick our leadership.

</comment><comment><USER3> Are they trying to say that the democracy is now worse because the wrong guys was elected?

<comment><USER4> No: " The downgrade was not a consequence of Donald Trump, states the report. Rather, it was caused by the same factors that led Mr Trump to the White House: a continued erosion of trust in government and elected officials, which the index measures using data from global surveys. In total, it incorporates 60 indicators across five broad categories: electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, democratic political culture and civil liberties." [1]

That link also has a really nice interactive world map.

[1] [http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/01/daily-c...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/01/daily- chart-20)

<comment><USER5> However had Hillary won, this report would be different.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Indices" like these are a pretty reliable way for interest groups to score press coverage.

</comment><comment><USER7> Why would this be flagged? It is a good report with lot of information and analysis to gratify intellectual curiosity.

<comment><USER8> [flagged] on a post means > N users flagged it for a fairly large value of N. We don't know why users flagged it, but in this case I'd guess it's either because the material is politicized or because it requires a registration to download.

HN hasn't proven capable of discussing articles like this without devolving into a partisan spat, so I'd say the flags are reasonable.

<comment><USER7> It is probably the first case because I can download (view the pdf) without registering.

<comment><USER8> I was asked to register, so I suppose some others were too.

<comment><USER7> Ah, never mind, I see the "Welcome, [my university name] user." message on the top header.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Direct link: [http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx?fi=Democr...](http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx?fi=Democracy- Index-2016.pdf&mode=wp&campaignid=DemocracyIndex2016)

</comment><comment><USER10> @US people: Are you aware of how election campaigns in other countries are like? It is no stars'n'stripes confetti craze with hot-air "discussions" and no more than two 'choices' everywhere. I was quite surprised by how much hot air was changing the sides when I saw one of the famous US television duels for the first time in the 2012 campaign. I almost completely ignored the 2016 campaign (apart from the results) given that it was looking much worse. How can an event with such a lack of serious discussion refer to itself as a democratic procedure?

</comment><comment><USER11> That should have happened 16 years ago.

<comment><USER12> It should have happened 200 years ago. It ain't like our political system has really changed all that much since then (if anything, it's only gotten more democratic, what with the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement and women's suffrage). There has always been the opportunity for a President to be elected without the popular vote.

This exact situation happened in the 1876 and 1888 elections (and a similar but not exact case happened in 1824). The whole "fake news" epidemic also reeks strongly of the 1800 election.

<comment><USER11> Oh sure, I just don't think Democracy Index was around back then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Does "erosion of trust" actually represent a quantifiable failure in the system of government itself?

Is 'trust' actually a metric? And if so, how is it measured? It sounds awfully subjective to me.

</comment><comment><USER13> Oh so that's the "Trump effect" at play right? In reality the democracy has been eroding for many years in the US, especially if you consider all the concessions made to individuals rights since the War on Drugs and War on Terrorism - and that's nothing new, it dates back to the 70s already, and it should have been degraded to flawed democracy rating for a while now, regardless of whoever is the President.

So just another meaningless index that's playing politics instead of looking at facts.

<comment><USER14> > Oh so that's the "Trump effect" at play right?

Nope.

> In reality the democracy has been eroding for many years in the US, > especially if you consider all the concessions made to individuals rights > since the War on Drugs and War on Terrorism - and that's nothing new, it > dates back to the 70s already, and it should have been degraded to flawed > democracy rating for a while now, regardless of whoever is the President.

They essentially note this in the report, and say that the US score would have fallen below 8 regardless of who won the 2016 election.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index)

</comment><comment><USER16> It's difficult to take the report seriously when it's titled _Revenge of the Deplorables_.

That said, America's place in the Democracy Index been downgraded based solely on some people(?) losing trust in the government rather than actual hard data. Personally I think this is no more authoritative than a Facebook survey.

Their method deserves investigating though: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Method)

Example questions:

* "Whether national elections are free and fair";

* "The security of voters";

* "The influence of foreign powers on government";

* "The capability of the civil servants to implement policies".

This poll reeks of the same polls claiming 98% chance of Clinton winning the Presidential election, namely fudging it by sampling only folks with a certain political leaning.

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/11/electio...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/11/election- forecasting-wars)</comment>