Disproportionately Common Names by Profession - <AUTHOR> http://verdantlabs.com/professions/index.html <comment><USER2> > People with these names are more likely than others to have these > professions.

Shouldn't it say: "People with these names happen to be in those professions more often than others"?

Anyway, there are a couple of fun ones in there, but I'll let you figure those out yourself. Unfortunately neither my name nor my profession are covered — I'm not quite sure what to make of that. :/

\---

They use the same language in their blog post: "Arnolds therefore appear to have a much higher tendency to be accountants than Shanes." That's just wrong, no? By wrong I just mean intentionally misleading. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that they sell an app that helps you find names for you babies though.

<comment><USER3> It doesn't appear incorrect to me. The blurb on the graph says "For example, a higher percentage of Elwoods are farmers than of most any other name."

As I read it, it means that, say, 1% of Elwoods become farmers, while only .1% of Steves are farmers. That is, if your name is Elwood, you are much more likely to be a farmer than if your name is anything else.

<comment><USER4> What you're implying here is that correlation implies causation.

If 99% of farmers are Elwoods, you can't claim that one's name being Elwood means one is more likely to become a farmer.

<comment><USER5> In that scenario, could one claim that "one's name being Elwood means one is more likely to _BE_ a farmer"?

<comment><USER2> Yup, you got it right. The wording is important.

Apparently, if your name is Elwood you're more likely to _be_ a farmer today. But that obviously doesn't mean that kids named Elwood are more likely to become farmers (it could, but I'm afraid you're gonna have to proof that).

Wikipedia has some simple examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation)

<comment><USER6> In this case, it probably means that people named Elwood are more likely to (a) be older and (b) live in rural areas, both of which are correlated with being a farmer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I remember when I joined CMU my Freshman year the big thing was that the previous year there had been more guys named "Dave" that had graduated from Computer Science than women. This kind of reminds me of that. This was circa year 2001.

<comment><USER8> A comedy channel in the UK decided to rename the channel a few years back. They bandied names around, then someone said. "How about Dave? Everyone knows Dave, Dave's your mate." Dave it was. As it turns out, David has been in the top 3 names from 1954-1994, so reality is if you're a Boomer, Gen X, or Gen Y, you really do know a Dave. (Stats table here: [http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference- tables.h...](http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference- tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-243767))

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't get why this is presented as a 'chart'. Do the layout and colours mean anything? Or is it just a set of lists laid out in circles for no reason?

<comment><USER10> The chart is meaningless. Having a colorful image makes links to the post look more appealing in Facebook, G+, Pinterest, etc.

These days, you pretty much have to put a pretty picture in an article if you want traffic from social sites.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Gah, I hate stats that a) don't say where the information comes from b) don't say which part of the world they're talking about (US sites are particularly prone to this). I'm assuming this is from US census data, but it's not particularly obvious. There's a rest of the world, you know.... [EDIT: looking at the app, maybe it is worldwide? Still, referring to things like "Republican" doesn't inspire confidence that it's international]

<comment><USER11> It says the data sources are from the FEC, SSA, and wikipedia.

<comment><USER12> It does, but it only points to the websites of FEC, SSA and Wikipedia, without really mentioning what data was used. That's barely more useful to me than "Source: Internet".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> [http://www.verdantlabs.com/blog/2014/12/30/names-by- professi...](http://www.verdantlabs.com/blog/2014/12/30/names-by-profession/)

Direct link to the blog that goes in to a few details of how they work out the names.

</comment><comment><USER14> I visited a fire station in the country in my province a few years ago and on the wall were names of the volunteers.

Nearly every one was John Gallant, the surname is very common and it's a small community.

The funny thing is the surname is so common people have nicknames such as John 'Rabbit' Gallant but that name becomes so well-known his son will be called Rabbit Jr.

So the plaque is full of a wild mix of actual surnames and given names and of course nicknames but also the junior of the nicknamed people.

Add to that one family has seven daughters all named Mary.

<comment><USER15> PEI?

<comment><USER14> Of course!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Its interesting to see the difference in type of names between Football Coach (Dan, Bill, Mike, Jim, Rich, Steve) and Electrical Engineer (Bernard, Eugene, Edwin, Charles, Alfred, Harvey). Short (one vowel each), common, English versus longer (two vowels each) French/"Posh" English names. Correlation between the names and background/educative level seems likely?

Songwriter is interesting too: 4 out of 5 end with a variation of "y".

<comment><USER17> It's also possible that football coaches have a tendency to commonize their names - whether to fit in and make their players more relaxed, or maybe they were just raised in solid blue-collar American families.

Their birth certificates could very well read Daniel, William, Michael, James, Richard, Steven.

Similarly, the EE's probably have a tendency to be more formal on their resumes or business cards.

Their family and buddies probably calls them Bernie, Gene, Eddie, Chuck, Freddy, Harv.

<comment><USER18> The data sources are the FEC and SSA (and Wikipedia, for some reason). Which means that this data is coming off the stuff they submitted to the government for whatever reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This seems fairly easy to explain: Many given names are passed down through family lines, and many families pass on knowledge, habits, and even professions from generation to generation.

There are lots of common surnames that demonstrate this - Taylor, Cooper, Cobbler, Smith, and so on. Why not given names?

<comment><USER20> Yep my cousin was named George as was My late Uncle as the idea was that he would carry on the family trade as a turf accountants (book makers)in Birmingham.

Note that this was pre legalisation so watching peaky blinders(uk version of Atlantic boardwalk) on the BBC was interesting shall we say

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Some time ago, I saw a paper when some scientists find that people often tends to have place of live and job which is somehow connected with their names eg. there's more Denises who works as dentists or Louises in Louisiane. I also noticed that in my country (Poland) there's quite more people working in IT with names or surnames which begins on K (Polish word for computer is "komputer"), I'm the case.

<comment> V-2 > I also noticed that in my country (Poland) there's quite more people working > in IT with names or surnames which begins on K (Polish word for computer is > "komputer")

You don't say... :) Perhaps because names starting with K are simply very common in Poland? ;) 1 in 6 out of 100 most popular last names starts with K.

And quite more IT employees than whom exactly? Presidents of the country? Since 1989 Poland had: Jaruzelski, Walesa, Kwasniewski, Kaczynski and Komorowski... Among prime ministers (since the 90s) about 1 in 5 had either first name or last name that begins with K :)

<comment><USER21> Okay, maybe you're right and I'm just biased with serial killer who killed few software developers with K-name living in Kraków

Polish article: [http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,114873,9855837,Krak...](http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,114873,9855837,Krakow__Zaginal_Pawel_Krasny__W_tle_mroczna__miejska.html)

<comment> V-2 Wow, now that's interesting :)

By the way, believe it or not, I do work as a programmer (in Poland), and my first name does indeed start with K :) Not the last name though, so I feel safe.

While the serial killer theory could boil down to a statistical oddity, it reminded me of this novel by Lem: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Investigation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Investigation)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > _Here 's a chart with 6 of the names that are the most disproportionately > common in 37 professions._

It doesn't say they're the _top_ 6, just that they're "6 of" \-- and having worked with a lot of similar data sets in the past, the results here feel a little overly edited (i.e. exaggerated, stereotyped) to me. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.

<comment><USER23> [http://www.verdantlabs.com/blog/2014/05/23/nametrix-2/](http://www.verdantlabs.com/blog/2014/05/23/nametrix-2/)

There they list the actual top 5 for some professions. Having read that, I am inclined to agree with you here.

The top 6 for car salesmen in that graph has literally only one name (Clay) that is in the actual top 5 and even that was only 5th. The top 4 names (Emmett, Luther, Emanuel, Morton) all got replaced with stereotypical white working class guy names.

The top 6 for surgeon in the graph has no female names yet the actual most disproportionately common name for surgeons is 'Vivienne'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Not sure I trust the results. For guitarists they list: Mick, Richie, Trey, Sonny, Buddy, Eddie. That correlates strongly with famous musician names (Mick Jagger, Lionel Richie, Trey Anastasio, Sonny Rollins, Buddy Guy, Eddie Van Halen). Maybe kids are named after these legends and are pushed toward music, but maybe their software just counted a lot of duplicate mentions?

<comment><USER23> In some of those cases, it could also partly be people adapting their names after those legends. For example, a budding guitarist called Michael who loves Mick Jagger choosing to go by the name of Mick. As Michael is a far more common name than Mick, it would only take a small proportion of 'Michael's to do that and suddenly 'Mick' makes the guitarist list.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is worthless unless they correct for age. Which they most likely don't, since age is not even mentioned in the post.

<comment><USER26> Indeed, the time period in which someone was born seems to have a significant effect on the likelihood of certain names. Here's one study that documents that effect in the US:

[http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-tell-someones- age...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-tell-someones-age-when-all- you-know-is-her-name/)

<comment><USER27> Wolfram Alpha parses queries like "how old is [name]" and renders the age distribution, e.g. [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=how+old+is+jane](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=how+old+is+jane)

</comment></comment></comment><comment> V-2 The correlation is obviously indirect, since names are correlated with age, social class, region and other demographics, and these are in turn correlated with career choices.

Once the stats were adjusted for the above, I suppose we'd end up with not much more but noise and some spurious correlations occassionally: [http://twentytwowords.com/funny-graphs-show-correlation- betw...](http://twentytwowords.com/funny-graphs-show-correlation-between- completely-unrelated-stats-9-pictures/)

</comment><comment><USER15> _Rabbi - Chaim, Shlomo, Judah, Meir, Yosef, Moshe_

Seems sort of ... logical.

</comment><comment><USER28> Okay so normally I hate people that bring up gender, but there were some interesting correlations between professions and gender here. Assuming there aren't many guys named Sue. For example, meteorologist: 100% male. When I think meteorologist I think newscast in front of a greens creen so this is perhaps a case of my terrible misconceptions showing.

Also, WHY are things separated by color and opacity? If we're going by opacity, apparently one of the most populous and important professions is...race car driver. Really? That's one of the few professions on that huge infographic that is at maximum opacity?

</comment><comment><USER29> ... in the U.S. Do these people think it should be immediately obvious to everyone?

</comment><comment><USER30> Looks like people alter their name to fit the stereotype of their profession. Lots of drummers named Billy, but I bet it says William on their birth certificate. Same for coaches named Rich, not Richard.

</comment><comment><USER31> Apparently they don't state what "disproportionately" is supposed to mean. If that is indeed the case I doubt much valid insight can be derived from this chart.

<comment><USER2> "In our sample of two and a half million people, a whopping 1.9% of Arnolds are accountants. Contrast that with just 0.55% of Shanes. Arnolds therefore appear to have a much higher tendency to be accountants than Shanes."

[http://www.verdantlabs.com/blog/2014/12/30/names-by- professi...](http://www.verdantlabs.com/blog/2014/12/30/names-by-profession/)

You see where this is going. If you correlate the data with the popularity of names in general, you'll find that Arnold is a much more popular name than Shane ...

<comment><USER21> Well, you're not right. Almost 2% of Arnolds is more than 0.5% of Shanes, no matter how much there're Arnolds and Shanes. If you take 100 Arnolds and 100 Shanes there will be (statistically) 2 Arnolds and "half of Shane".

<comment><USER2> > Well, you're not right.

I think I am, but I might be wrong on that one too.

Given a pool of 10 people to hire from where 6 people are named Arnold and 4 are named shawn Shawn, wouldn't you expect that same relation to show in a specific profession? You can, of course, go ahead and compare those relations. So, if there only were 5 race car drivers in the world and 4 of them were named Arnold that would be noteworthy (as opposed to 60% of them, which is what you'd expect). _Please let me know if I got something wrong._

\---

Somebody just posted an article stating the numbers where actually correlated with the frequency they are used. I'm not sure how they did it though given that those numbers change over time.

<comment><USER32> I think their data is going the other direction. It is not 1.9% of Accountants are Arnolds. Its 1.9% of Arnolds are Accountants.

You would expect that the percent of each profession by name should be the same. So if there are 25 professions, then within any given name you should have 4% going to each professions. So 4% of Arnolds should be a profession, and 4% of Shawns should also have the same profession. That is not what the data shows though. Within any given name there is a tendency towards the professions the chart shows.

This definitely does not account for location, birthdays, etc. But it is still interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Interesting choice of professions. Race car drivers and musicians seem to have similar names. Other than that I have no idea what to do with this information.

</comment><comment><USER34> Here's an interesting article about how names could have long lasting effects: [http://www.livescience.com/6569-good-bad-baby-names-long- las...](http://www.livescience.com/6569-good-bad-baby-names-long-lasting- effects.html)

Also, many cultures obsess over giving the child a good name with a good meaning as they think it determines their future.

</comment><comment><USER35> Gads, the even got the title wrong. Should be "Disproportionately common professions by Name". Or, actually, all we can tell from the little on that page is that the title contradicts the subtitle. So maybe the subtle that should be reversed. Who knows? Data is fun!

</comment><comment><USER36> So, like, the richer you are, the higher the probability that your first name is actually a last name.

</comment><comment><USER37> I like how this has "photographer" and "graphic designer" but not "artist". Never mind "cartoonist". Apparently my profession doesn't exist.

</comment><comment><USER38> The farmers have the coolest names by far. Or at least to a non-american person, they seem rare. Maybe people in those professions are rarely in the public eye.

</comment><comment><USER39> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent)

</comment><comment><USER40> Venture capitalists bucket includes "Guy"... is that from _Guy Kawasaki_ swaying stats to be that high!

</comment><comment><USER41> Nice chart. It would be interesting if hovering over a name also highlights the same name in other professions.

</comment><comment><USER42> In the united states.

Aha funny how people don't define their data correctly, this is an important datapoint

</comment><comment><USER43> Funny I know electrical engineers names Bernard, Alfred and Eugene all from the same company...

</comment><comment><USER44> Where are the numbers? It would be interesting if it wasn't so vague.

<comment><USER5> Also the source of the data, e.g. is it influenced by geography?

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Any Indian names? Like Raj, Pabu, Das, etc. included in this study?

</comment><comment><USER46> What about douchebag? Josh, Chad, Tyler, Brad etc?

<comment><USER47> That's interprofessional.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I know a lot of IT professionals named Mike.

</comment><comment><USER49> Hehe. I am biased to be Electrical Engineer.

</comment><comment><USER50> Kim- Police officer? The only Kim I can imagine is Kim Kardishan.

<comment><USER18> [http://www.totalmediabridge.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/12/K...](http://www.totalmediabridge.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/12/Kim_Possible.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> After we tackled gender inequalities, we can move on to name inequalities. How about introducing name-quotas, that ought to fix the problem.

<comment><USER52> I gather you're being sarcastic, but high name inequality is just another illustration of a lack of social mobility.

People of a certain social class are more likely to name their child certain names, and those children are more likely to grow up into particular professions.

Name inequality represents clear evidence against the existence of a meritocracy.

<comment> V-2 > Name inequality represents clear evidence against the existence of a > meritocracy.

Meritocracy in what sense?

Coming from wealthier background, you're more likely to be well educated.

While we may dislike that it is so, it doesn't mean there's no meritocracy in the sense that employers don't hire people based on their qualifications alone. Only that they don't care where these qualifications come from.

<comment><USER52> > Coming from wealthier background, you're more likely to be well educated.

So, by your admission, education is not meritocratic.

I claim that employment is non-meritocratic first by your measure: if access to a better education is not merited, then employers concentrating on qualifications alone are not hiring according to merit.

I claim also that employment is non-meritocratic independently. The most obvious example is that wealth similarly gives you exclusive access to low- paying but prestigious jobs.

I suspect overall that background wealth is still a better marker for job status than education.

<comment><USER53> > I claim that employment is non-meritocratic first by your measure: if access > to a better education is not merited, then employers concentrating on > qualifications alone are not hiring according to merit.

That doesn't follow. Maybe education changes your merit, and people with a better education actually are better at their jobs.

<comment><USER52> It follows.

Or, in your meritocracy, people pay to increase their merit/the merit of their children? That contradicts my definition.

<comment><USER53> What definition would that be? A nation where people were not allowed to learn outside of standardized government training might achieve equality, but only by grinding everyone down to zero.

<comment><USER52> Haha. No, it's more like this for me: if the provided education system were good and appropriately diverse, few people would feel the need to pay to leave it.

Then you might be able to say that everyone had access to a decent standard of education.

<comment><USER53> That doesn't make the difference you think it does. There are European countries where barely anyone pays for education (and private schools/universities are less reputable than state ones). You still find the children of wealthy people are disproportionately likely to be wealthy themselves. Parental involvement, cultural attitudes to education - and, probably, as politically unacceptable as it is to say it, genetics as well - seem like bigger effects than expensive private education.

<comment><USER52> Sure, before I was derailed by education, my point was that society is not meritocratic. So we're now agreeing.

We don't know if genetics is an effect here because we can't eliminate background wealth - even twin studies are broken because twins get adopted into similar environments.

But, the suggestion from twin studies is that income is primarily environmental, i.e. not genetic. Here's a fresh reference: [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141106113202.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141106113202.htm)

I suggest that it's fashionable to say social inequality is down to genetics - it certainly happens a lot in these forums and it comes up especially when people would rather pass the buck for difficult social problems.

<comment><USER53> Genetics aren't the only thing we inherit, and aren't the only possible source of differences in merit. It could equally be cultural differences - e.g. attitudes towards education, work, society and so on - that would be passed on even to adopted children, and would make people genuinely better at their jobs. Even if the advantages of the rich are purely environmental, that in no way proves that they're not meritocratic.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Tuesday, a new open-source CSS animation library - <AUTHOR> http://shakrmedia.github.io/tuesday/

<comment><USER2> A library of premade CSS animations would be very useful and perform a lot better than jQuery animations. However, I was unable to get the demo to play any animation other than "hinge IN".

<comment><USER3> The page is using some hard-coded http links which causes mixed-content errors if you load the page with https. I assume you are using HTTPS Everywhere or some similar extension.

<comment><USER2> Yeah; it seems to be fixed now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Tuesday, a new open-source CSS animation library __launched on wednesday __(UTC)

Looks nice, good job!

EDIT: working fine on Edge

</comment><comment><USER5> looking really good to me (Safari 9.0) – very nice work</comment>


Does technology greatly diminish human creativity by slowing memetic evolution? - <AUTHOR> Before the advent of the printing press, memetic evolution was much more prominent as stories were retold/copied with changes from one person to another.
But now that technology makes it easy for many people to see the same information, one could argue that memetic evolution has slowed down dramatically.
BTW, one could also argue that modern healthcare greatly slows down natural evolution in humans. <comment><USER2> The problem with this argument is that modern technology has vastly increased the _rate_ with which ideas spread, greatly decreased the amount of time it takes to test a new idea for "stickiness", and made dramatic changes in the "selection pressure" for ideas.

Back before printing it would take a minimum of weeks for an idea to work itself across, say, Europe. (And that would have to be a _big_ idea, one worth hiring the Pony Express to promulgate.) Now it takes a minimum of milliseconds. Before the web you had to publish a paper or convene a major international meeting to place an issue in front of most of the world's experts on a subject; now you can do that in the morning and have everyone's first response on your desk by the afternoon. I work in near-real time with colleagues twelve times zones away.

Meanwhile, while we're engaged in potentially bogus extrapolation from biology, I'd note that human "mimetic" copying has vastly _less_ fidelity than genetic copying, even in the age of web-based copy-and-paste. Yet that hasn't stopped the descendants of bacteria from turning into dolphins. Indeed, it probably helps: If you're going to tinker with the genetics to see if something better happens, it's best to tinker with one gene at a time, not start flipping every switch at once.

<comment><USER3> You beat me to it, only I feel somewhat compelled to add a big "What?! What?!"

In light of _multiple increases_ in the speed of memetic evolution as mechanical_fish outlines, where on _Earth_ do you get the idea that idea formation has _slowed down_? I can't even fathom such a thing.

Your (general sense of "you", i.e., this is true for me too) view of the past is skewed by the fact that we see it all at once, and we are not living it. However, try this: Take your favorite "fast moving" time, perhaps the Enlightenment era. Plot the popular ideas on a timeline. Do the same thing with the last century, on the same scale. Now, put those two timelines next to each other, and you will achieve enlightenment.

By the way, no fair letting ignorance drive the timeline. No fair putting down all sorts of 18th century advances in, say, philosophy, then claiming the entire 20th century was a yawning, gaping void... because while your (again, general "you") knowledge of 20th century philosophy may be a gaping void, _actual_ 20th century philosophy was not. In fact, the reason why we all know much more about the 18th century than the 20th century is that _so damn much_ happened in the 20th century that you can only absorb small parts of it. And while the economy in the 21st has slowed down, idea formation sure hasn't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The written word was a technology advancement as well. It let stories be retold/copied with more precision than song and dance. One could argue that simply formalizing language in writing stifled human creativity as well.

However, its not just memetic evolution that dictates creativity, its also mental abstraction. Even if you copied the same memes to the head of every human, the ideas of the individuals would soon diverge as our mind mixes and matched these 'terminal' memes to propose brand new memes.

I think that the greatest risk to human creativity is much the opposite of widespread propagation. The greatest risk is that the new memes with the most utility can not be understood by enough people to be propagated widely enough, fast enough. The greatest risk is ending up with the mediocrity of new memes that propagate only because they are simple enough to be quickly understood.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's not at all clear that human evolution is slowing down. In a recent study, it was found that it's actually speeding up. Evolution is a tricky area because often its too easy to thought-experiment out a very wrong answer.

"Modern life's pressures may be hastening evolution" <http://www.physorg.com/news158839250.html>

</comment><comment><USER6> hey amichail, i'm happy for you and imma let you finish, but the internet has some of the best memes of all time.

</comment><comment><USER7> Regarding modern medicine, it does seem to have the effect of allowing people to survive today who might not have otherwise. But this means that it increases the diversity of viable genes. Is that really "slowing down" evolution? I'm not sure what a "rate of evolution" might be. Is it the rate of mutation? Has that really changed with medicine? Is it the probability that a mutation turns out to be viable? If so, hasn't that increased at the hands of modern medicine?

</comment><comment><USER8> Religion is something that seems to be diminishing as technology and science becomes more prominent. Just look at Digg.com. Do we really need these "stories retold/copied from one person to another"? To me, it looks like civilization is finally growing up.

As to the healthcare statement, I wonder if that's an argument that the conservative right would try against Obama's reform... that would be quite funny to see, really.

<comment><USER9> There are more memes type than just conservatives that has opposed universial healthcare.

We have libertarianism and individualist anarchism that will oppose any kind of statist control on healthcare for example. Since they are natural opponents of conservative and liberals anyway, you don't hear much of them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > BTW, one could also argue that modern healthcare greatly slows down natural > evolution in humans.

Yes. But we have `unnatural' selection, now. Those genes than make on better placed to profit from modern healthcare have a better chance of staying in the gene pool.

</comment><comment><USER11> The title is pretty bad; You are confusing memetic drift with creativity.

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't know if technology diminishes human creativity, but it certainly increases our love for big, intelligent-sounding words. :)</comment>


Amazing optical illusion or "glitch in the Matrix"? - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504784_162-57416477-10391705/amazing-optical-illusion-or-glitch-in-the-matrix/?google_editors_picks=true <comment><USER3> Strictly speaking, it's not an "optical" illusion at all -- you must film the drops with the camera. You'll see the effect only on the screen.

Still, a clever idea to simply use a sub-woofer to kick the drops. I like it.

<comment><USER4> The same effect can be achieved in real life by adding a strobe light.

<comment><USER5> There might be a little bit more to it than that. I think the vibrating subwoofer actually nudges the droplets and shapes them, controls the flow and the way each individual droplet breaks off.

Anyway, I'm definitely going to try this.

<comment><USER6> I think the idea was to have a vibrating subwoofer and a strobe light, where the strobe light would simulate the synchronized framerate.

It should work. I would try it but strobelights give me a headache.

<comment><USER5> Oh, I see. So then you wouldn't need a camera.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I spent a few years of my life staring at this exact effect. I was working on building a big industrial inkjet printer. The physics behind it is cool too, but not new. Lord Rayleigh first described it in 1878. Not exactly a glitch in the Matrix :). I have a patent somewhere on a minor tweak to the concept, but can't find it right now. Good times.

More info:

Just to clarify for everyone assuming that this is an optical illusion. It's not. The subwoofer is actually creating vibrations in the water stream that increase exponentially as the stream travels until their magnitude is larger than the diameter of the stream. At this point, the stream breaks up into drops. If you do this with a coloured stream of water (i.e. ink) and run a piece of paper under it, you will see individual drops of ink hit the paper.

There are two types of inkjet printers. The most common is what you see in household inkjet printers, it's called Drop-on-demand. You spit out a drop by doing something to the ink. Ofter you heat up a resistor, converting some of the ink to steam and pushing out a drop of ink.

The other type is called continuous inkjet. The way this works is you have a stream of ink, you stimulate it at some frequency which gives you drops at that frequency, and then you select some drops to hit the paper and others to miss.

The project I was working on used conductive ink and selectively charged the drops before sending them between two oppositely charged plates, sort of like a cathode ray tube with ink drops instead of electrons.

It was ridiculously cool technology, and a lot of fun to work on. The printer we were designing (never got to market in that incarnation) would have had paper going by at ~6 meters/second with very high quality, totally variable output. I thought we were going to disrupt offset printing in a big way. Sigh :).

[edit] Ooo, found the patent. Great bedtime reading if you're interested: <http://bit.ly/HXc6o2>

<comment><USER8> If you don't mind me asking, what ended up killing it? It sounds awesome.

<comment><USER7> Two companies doing the same thing both got bought by the same very large company. The other company kept going. We got shut down. I got to leave and start my own company (Leanpub), and everyone lived happily ever after.

It was a great project, but I'm much happier now doing the startup thing than I was being a physicist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You might be able to get a similar effect to the naked eye, if you used a sound wave at/near the same frequency as your local mains electricity, under incandescent mains lighting. A harmonic frequency might even work, too.

I recall seeing a tool for fine-tuning vinyl turntable speed that used that form of the trick - it was basically a cardboard "record" with spokes printed on it every (* grabs a calculator *) 4.02deg, so as to appear to be stationary when rotating at exactly 33.5rpm under light flickering at 50Hz. Thought that was ingenious.

<comment><USER10> s/incandescent/fluorescent/

Incandescent (filament) bulbs glow by black-body radiation as the filament heats. Mains cycles are too short for the bulb to flicker (though you can get interesting effects on slower, ~2Hz or thereabouts, voltage fluctuations).

Fluorescent and LED lighting actually flicker multiple times per second, though this can be tuned somewhat.

If you remember CRT displays and monitor flicker, the problem _wasn't_ so much the flicker rate of the monitor, but the interference in rates and timing between your monitor and the overhead office fluorescent lighting. Setting refresh to anything other than (and preferably above) 60Hz (US) would resolve this.

<comment><USER11> Aren't LEDs fed with DC? If so they would obviously not flicker but I'll admit not cracking my LED bulbs open just to see, as they're expensive enough.

<comment><USER10> LEDs are DC. What I've observed in certain applications, particularly LED taillights/brake lights, is a flicker pattern which I suspect is either an AC/DC conversion artifact, or a brightness regulation. I find it quite distracting.

It's also fairly well known that LED's response to voltage variation is fast enough to be of concern in highly secure data environments. Demonstrations have been made of reading line signal from modems, and even Ethernet and other high-bandwidth networking equipment status/indicator lights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Since water droplets look alike, you get the illusion, at the proper frequency setting, of water dripping up.

I wonder how it would look if a different dye was injected into the flow every few seconds, just above the faucet. Presumably, the colors would appear to flow _down_ as the water appeared to drop _up_.

</comment><comment><USER13> Here's a crazier version: <https://vimeo.com/4041788> The camera takes frames at 30 fps. But each frame is only exposed for 1/4000 of a second, which lets you see the string as if it is holding still during the frame. And finally, the camera has a "rolling shutter" so the bottom of the frame is captured about 1/50th of a second after the top. This creates the visible wiggle in each frame, as the string vibrates several times as the frame is recorded from top to bottom.

</comment><comment><USER14> I think the relevant wikipedia terms here are "Aliasing" and "Nyquist Frequency"

<comment><USER15> I would have said "Poincaré map", as that's basically what this is, in some respect.

<comment><USER16> Whatever you want to call it, it's a very cool effect.. (edit: but thank you for providing some educational context! Off to Wikipedia I go..)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> These kind of computer vision illusions are always really fascinating to me. It's kind of like a natural zoetrope effect.

More: Bass String Video: <https://vimeo.com/4041788> The Phonotrope: <http://www.jimlefevre.com/?page_id=200>

</comment><comment><USER18> Bill Viola did this using strobe lights in an installation format. You can recreate this yourself easily with a programmable strobe. Thanks to Edgerton for the inventions. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Eugene_Edgerton>

</comment><comment><USER19> My question is would this be possible with a strobe light? Or even better, a florescent light? That would make some very impressive shows, if you could have a whole hallway with different streams, all synchronized to the frequency that the lights strobe at.

<comment><USER20> ([http://hackaday.com/2011/03/11/water-droplet-sculpture- using...](http://hackaday.com/2011/03/11/water-droplet-sculpture-using-leds- and-arduino/))

There are plenty on YouTube. It is an amazing illusion.

I find it hard to understand how "a drop" seems to stay the same shape. I need to think a bit more about that.

<comment><USER21> think about an old tire rolling through paint. you'll see the same artifacts every revolution of the tire. the key idea is every cycle creates the same pattern.

so, you could have a mechanical system that hit the tube every /24th of a second, and you'd get some effect, but i think it would be hard to get the impact and recovery to be EXACTLY the same, or close enough you don't notice.

If you use sound to squeeze the tube, rather than pushing on it, the distortion and recovery are much more consistent, so you get the same pattern. I'd guess you don't have much control over where the drops actually appear. you'd have to wiggle the tube around on the speaker to get the right distortion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Does this signal our perception of the universe is structured by the energy's surrounding us? We did evolve along with all of these energies.

The human mind is malleable and dynamic, not fixed like a 24 FPS camera lens (I imagine most humans don't have a fixed framerate for incoming sensory) - <USER2> do wonder if other critters with less dynamic minds would fail to some kind of trick.

I wonder too if it was this kind of dynamic ability that allowed us to disconnect from a fixed reality, thereby giving us contrast, the ability to analyze our surroundings, and therefore consciousness.

</comment><comment><USER23> zoetropes on bicycle wheels: [http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/8/view/17851/bike- wheel...](http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/8/view/17851/bike-wheel- animation-by-katy-beveridge.html)

</comment><comment><USER24> really an optical illusion? I heard two different flows of water splashing in the bucket which I would not expect if it was just an optical trick.

</comment><comment><USER25> Just another trick like the "hovering" russian helicopter...

The matrix didn't go BSOD when Crysis launched, it wont go because of a reverse stream of water...

</comment><comment><USER26> my dog started acting up when I turned this on, any relation?

</comment><comment><USER27> Camera's are not the same as reality. They take images at a certain number of frames per second. 24, 30 or 60 are common frame rates for digital cameras. Thus, the camera is effectively its own strobe.

Since the frequency in the speaker is 24 hertz and camcorders can be set at 24 frames per second, it is likely that this is what is happening here-- the speaker frequency is causing pressure differentials in the water, the water's surface tension causes the succession of drops to form similar shapes, and the camera taking an image at the same frequency of as the speaker makes things look still because the drops are in exactly the same spot each frame.

You can notice on one of the lower bubbles further away from the spout the effect is less precise and the bubble seems to be changing shape or moving around.... this is because the effect of he speaker on the water decreases over time as the water gets further away and air turbulence causes the drops shape to pick up more randomness.

<comment><USER28> We can read the description on the video, you know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Another trick is to take a rope and wiggle it at say 2 to 20 hz and take a strobe light to light up at 1 to 15 hz. In the dark the rope will show a perfectly formed sin wave which is spooky to look at.

Another one is putting clear plastic wrap over a subwoofer, making it face upward, and sprinkling salt on the surface. The patterns it creates look like alien symbols as you explore the spectrum.

</comment><comment><USER28> This is your universe at 24 Hz.

<comment><USER30> It usually looks like the universe at any other reasonable frequency, unless you're doing weird things at a multiple of 24 Hz.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Cool.</comment>


The Fed says it is going to start buying individual corporate bonds - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/15/the-fed-says-it-is-going-to-start-buying-individual-corporate-bonds.html <comment><USER2> Absolutely unreal. Either things are worse than people are letting on, the Fed is simply refusing to let the market drop any further due to optics, or both.

I hope anybody who is bearish on stocks has closed out any short positions because at this point, I can't see how stocks will be allowed to go down.

<comment><USER3> One thing that comes to my mind:

At the end of July, when the CARES Act unemployment benefits expire, people will have to tap into savings to pay their living expenses. If those savings are held in the form of equity (via Robinhood or whatever), then the markets will face a substantial amount of selling pressure.

At that point the corporate bond purchases make little difference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As others have mentioned, this suggests there is large scale dilution of currency happening. When people realize that, it can be extremely destabilizing. We are somewhat protected just because everyone else trades in Dollars and there's good demand for it, but there's a limit to how far that goes. At some point, sentiment catches up to fundamentals.

Also isn't this a sort of nationalization by financial instrument?

</comment><comment><USER5> Is there a point at which the SEC could/might consider the Fed's activities as market manipulation, or is that outside the scope of the SEC mandate?

<comment><USER6> The financial markets have been propped up since 2008.

It started off as backstopping counter-party risk, and kept expanding.

The markets are nothing but manipulation at this point. There is no market that's independent of the Fed.

Our "leaders" should have fixed this in the decade after 2008, but now we've arrived at another crisis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can anyone explain how this doesn't lead to hyperinflation in the long run? The Fed is saying outright that they'll continue to print more money whenever the stock market drops. At some stage that money will have to hit consumer prices, right?

<comment><USER8> The Fed announced these measures on March 23, and they are just now going to start buying these issues.

The Fed is trying to just "replace the wealth destruction that has happened". Keep in mind that even though the equity markets are back up close to pre covid levels, a lot of companies have had to take on Debt to weather the storm. This debt needs to be paid back with interest and in general can be a drag on company earnings.

The fed is also being somewhat judicious and buying shorter term securities (less than 5 years), so in essence they are only creating the money for the term of the bond they buy - they can choose to remove the money from the system when these bonds mature.

I also think that people are confusing the Fed trying to keep businesses solvent by providing short & medium term liquidity with them trying to raise equity prices.

Also the ECB & JCB have been doing this for the last several years with no inflation on the horizon there.

<comment><USER7> > The fed is also being somewhat judicious and buying shorter term securities > (less than 5 years), so in essence they are only creating the money for the > term of the bond they buy - they can choose to remove the money from the > system when these bonds mature.

I don't think the Fed has any plans to shrink its balance sheet in the near future or probably ever. And what happens when these BBB- bonds turn out to be junk and the companies default?

<comment><USER8> If the bonds default, then the fed get's left holding the bag, and their balance-sheet shrinks by default :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Definitely a good sign things are looking up guys!</comment>


How My Startup Suffered Thanks To Arrington's Conflicts Of Interest - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/how-my-startup-suffered-thanks-to-arringtons-conflicts-of-interest-2011-9?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2Falleyinsider%2Fsilicon_alley_insider+%28Silicon+Alley+Insider%29 <comment><USER2> Pretty interesting story about cabulous, a startup/mobile app to find nearby taxis. This post is written by one of the founders, and he explains how they never got covered by Techcrunch although they have been first in the market and leading whereas Uber, a competing app Arrington has invested in, got more than 30 writeups on TC.</comment>


Ask HN: Game engine for multiplayer JavaScript games like agar.io? - <AUTHOR> Or else, where is the best way to start writing one? Need to able to handle online real-time multiplayer without much lag. <comment><USER2> I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "game engine" here.

<comment><AUTHOR> Maybe I meant both back end and front end? \- High performance server code handling continuous multiple requests \- Rendering engine and game logic

<comment><USER2> Those are very different things; on the client side I wouldn't write my own considering how many are already out there, and they're battle-tested and good. On the back end I'd caution against making a premature choice based on what you think will happen: there are many options, most of which will handle most of what people write. Only real advice is to go for something that scales horizontally.</comment></comment></comment>


32 Hour StartUp - <AUTHOR> http://32hourstartup.com

<comment><USER2> Nice idea, especially for $11 USD. :-) It will be interesting to see the turnout and MVPs.

Wish it was offered in my area.

Sidenote: Some relative links seem to be broken (#/contact, #/ideas...)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is taking place in one of the engineering colleges in chennai, south india. almost most of students come out of the engineering colleges without much knowledge about programming. This event has every chance to make them take up learning to code.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Fixing a horrible diet as a programmer - <AUTHOR> Lately, I've been paying more attention to how much work I'm doing as a programmer.  I get things done, but I feel bedraggled.  I'm 25, but I lack the energy you figure a 25 year old would have.  The cause?  My diet sucks.  I typically wake up, start coding, have a very meager breakfast, eat lunch fairly late, and then sometimes, have a big dinner (steak, etc.).  My energy levels are never consistent, however.  I do know I have a high metabolism, though, and this clashes with any serious eating I'll do even on the days where I eat three meals a day.  In the event that I do eat something heavy, less than 2-3 hours later, I will feel as if I haven't eaten.
I've been told to keep snacking (fruits, nuts, etc.) throughout the day, but I never seem to actually be eating enough to not feel washed out.  The key is that I never actually feel hungry, though.
I've been trying to figure out how I can do better with my diet as a programmer.  A lot of things I've read are aimed at losing weight.  I've been the same weight +/- 5lbs. for the last 10 years at least, so that's not my concern.
Does anybody have any recommendations for foods programmers should be eating to maintain energy levels? <comment><USER2> Are you sure it's your diet? I'd investigate lack of exercise before worrying about diet.

In my experience the act of sitting in front of a computer all day just makes me feel lethargic, no matter what I eat. I went on various forms super healthy diets and none of them really changed anything. I generally felt much better when I went to the gym for 2 hours before going into work. However, I felt even better on the days I didn't go into work at all.

I can eat garbage like nachos, beer, french fries and go snowboarding all day and feel on top of the world. I determined that sitting around all day is a slow death, and my body was letting me know.

<comment><USER3> This works great up until about 35... after that you just can't put that kind of 'fuel' into your system and snowboard all day and feel great. For me (post 35)I like to eat a good omelet before I hit the terrain park; plus I don't have to stop for lunch with a belly full of protein.

<comment><USER2> I am over 35 and feel fine putting that kind of fuel into my system when I go snowboarding.

<comment><USER3> Cool, are you in Colorado? We should ride sometime.

Each there own on 'fuel' - that doesn't work for me and truthfully I just don't have the urge for that kind of food much these days, esp. if I'm about to go hiking, boarding, hockey, etc.

<comment><USER2> I have never been to Colorado. I mostly snowboard at Mammoth, but I moved to the east coast. I really only eat the nachos because that's the easiest thing to get at the lodge...

<comment><USER3> Ah, gotcha, that's cool. Well if you are ever in Colorado ping me, seriously awesome mountains to ride and echo mountain is (I think) the first terrain park only hill in north america. fun stuff and a helluva workout too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> My first suggestion would be bloodwork. If you are deficient in certain minerals, it can really screw with your energy levels. As the adage goes, you can't improve what you can't measure. Start with a baseline, to make sure there isn't any particular deficiency you are fighting against.

After that, it's all about balance. I use the iPhone app 'Lose It', which tells me my percentage of calories from fat, protein, carbs and alcohol. It also provides a companion website which shows you graphs of your intake, weight, etc... I find having my dietary data available has been the single biggest improvement in my ability to manage my weight. Though in my case, I've been desperately trying to loose weight. I have lost, and kept off 35lbs over the past year. (No, I have no connection to Lose It, just a very satisfied user).

<comment><USER3> Blood-work/full physical is a good suggestion to start with.

I'd second the need for working out, or at the very minimum getting 'active'. You might find it's better to do something like play a sport, or take up swimming versus 'working out'.

I would also recommend taking a multi-vitiamin. Hit your local WholeFoods or Vitamin Cottage (or something similar).

Other than that, adjusting/being more conscientious of what you're eating is something else to get on. Making small adjustments can go along way. For example, I always eat a salad with my dinners - just a habit of my up- bringing. You might consider ordering fruit or even coleslaw instead of fries. Or brewed tea instead of a Coke.

Making small adjustments like this goes a long way. Once you get the ball rolling in the other (healthy) direction it gets easier; suddenly that rock- climbing class you always thought about doing seems like a fun way to spend Saturday instead of more inactivity.

Of course it's all about balance... inactivity can be a good thing if you are doing things like learning to play an instrument, reading a good book, or just enjoying your family/friends company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Two places to start:

1\. Get your Vitamin D levels checked. I started to run into the same problems in my 20's and as soon as my Vitamin D levels were checked and supplemented, I've been all set. But it took over five years before I got to that point.

2\. Don't buy packaged foods and start eating whole grains. You need foods that digest more slowly and refined grains and sugars need not apply. I highly recommend quinoa. I can have a bowl for breakfast and I'm good to go all day. It can be prepared with fruits and nuts or vegetables and yogurt. Also look into steel cut oats.

</comment><comment><USER6> My metabolism is similar, unless i am eating something (like pasta) that causes my blood sugar to seriously spike, I will not feel hungry, I will just kind of start to drag as the day goes on. The key is to train yourself to pick up on when you are starting to drag, and then go eat something. (I'm still working on this, it is something I have to consciously recognize).

I kind treat my diet as a dynamic programming problem. You have a few variables to think about:

Price of food Speed of digestion Ease of preparation Nutritional content

You can give different categories of food different values, and kind of estimate what things have better min/max heuristics.

Eggs are a very good morning food, for example, they're cheap, high in protein (therefore nutritionally good and digest slowly), and they're easy to prepare. Plain yogurt is similar.

You can do different things to get your ease of preparation and get price down. I can make a fairly healthy chili with lean ground beef and various veggies. It is mostly meat and fiber so it digests fairly slowly, and is high in protein. Normally it is relatively intensive to make it (takes me a couple of hours of time). However, if I make a big batch of it at the beginning of the week, I can freeze part of it (in reusable serving size containers) and eat it whenever. The preparation difficulty becomes similar to that of a tv dinner but it is cheaper/healthier. (Similar can be done with other soup/stew like concoctions).

I also keep a tin of nuts on my desk next to the computer if I need a quick pick me up.

</comment><comment><USER7> As some others below mentioned, I suggest getting in some exercise. Sitting in front of a computer and coding/debugging/yelling at the computer all day gets a bit stressful and its probably wears you out. Even a short 15 minute morning routine worked great to to get me going to a have a good productive day.

I am somewhat in a similar "lack or energy situation". I used to be very good about having consistent exercise schedule, I felt great and productive during coding. Then about a month ans a half ago I have significantly increased the amount of free time I spend on my side project which resulted in the sacrifice of exercise, a more destabilized sleep cycle, and more stress.

The first 3 weeks after a change of schedule were ok, but then I was starting to feel more tiered and a bit unfocused even after stabilizing my sleep. As the only thing that changed about what I did was the exercises, I think that played an important role.

As I have no knowledge in the magic of supplements and nutrition, but only have my experience, I would suggest throwing in some regular exercises and see if that help.

I do know that suggestion is a bit hard to start on, as I myself have so far failed at dragging myself back to the gym after not being there in 1.5 months.

</comment><comment><USER8> I find that my health is best when I pay attention to exercise, sleep, _and_ diet. If you work out hard enough you'll crave whole foods and uninterrupted sleep. If you consistently give those things to yourself you'll feel great.

If you live on 5 hours of sleep a night and minimal exercise you won't feel great no matter how healthy you eat.

</comment><comment><USER9> It's not so much the food as the consistency of eating. The advice you've received is correct: eat small meals or healthy snacks periodically. And as you've found out, it's easier said than done for some people.

I sympathize: I used to be ungodly thin, with a lightspeed metabolism and no appetite at all -- often my first meal of the day would be dinner! When I started lifting weights I _had_ to learn to eat enough or I was constantly feeling faint. Get used to eating. Keep snacks already prepared and eat at fixed times during the day. I ate a lot of apples, tuna sandwiches and lots & lots of milk. IIRC, I even set an alarm to tell me when it was time until I got used to eating regularly.

The good news is that once you've done it for a few weeks, it becomes second nature.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, this is definitely what I go through. No appetite and eating dinner is sometimes the first full meal of the day. Some days doing that doesn't affect me. Others, there's a serious hit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I suggest a Primal diet (meat, veggies, fruit, nuts) and drink water and unsweetened tea. Avoid grains and beans. That sort of diet lets your body adjust to your "proper" weight. For exercise, just do some body weight stuff, pushups, plank, squats, and some walking... no crazy cardio.

For more info, I like marksdailyapple.com (no affiliation) They've got buku info there and a very active community. I've been losing weight on it but I was overweight... I've got all day energy though so it's a win-win for me.

The other recommendation is sunshine. Go walk around 1-2 times a day and soak up the good stuff.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'd say eating enough salad and meat, trying to avoid tons of bread and fried stuff works well for me. Although, i still gain weight if i don't exercise. Gym + sauna is an awesome beginning of the day. You work out in the morning, blood is starting flowing and delivering oxygen to your brain, sauna & sweating takes tons of toxic things out of your body, and you eventually start feeling a whole lot better.

Although, having a chocolate bar when working long hours to keep your brain awake works well too. From time to time, i'd say, but not on a daily basis.

</comment><comment><USER13> The lack of energy rings a familiar bell to me. I started feeling tired after I ate several years ago. Actually, not just tired, but wiped out. Exhausted. I tried changing all sorts of things related to my diet, but finally saw a nutritionist and doctor who were able to run some tests.

A stool test and a genetic test confirmed Celiac disease--meaning my body was having an autoimmune reaction to eating wheat, barley, rye, and (non-certified gluten free) oats. Celiac disease/gluten intolerance is NOT an allergy and will not show up on a typical food allergy test.

If you're having fatigue after you eat, I cannot recommend strongly enough that you see your doctor and specifically request a stool test and genetic test for Celiac disease. (There's also a blood test, but it doesn't work for everyone.) You may find you have it--1 in 133 of us do, but in America 95% go undiagnosed. Or you may find you have its lesser form, gluten intolerance.

The only cure is to completely 100% avoid gluten. It is tricky, but well worth it in terms of energy.

I also suggest that anyone who has Type I diabetes, Crohn's, colitis, lupus, or general digestive issues get tested for Celiac/gluten intolerance as well (via stool test if at all possible.) The tests are painless and if you find out you do have it, other weird symptoms like fatigue and joint pain may disappear if you eliminate gluten.

Celiac disease and gluten intolerance are genetic, so if you get tested and it's positive, your family members should test, too, even if they have different symptoms or no symptoms.

</comment><comment><USER14> The first step is to understand what biological processes affect hunger and energy levels. I'm going to butcher the details for simplicity's sake, so please do further research yourself.

You get hungry and/or tired because your blood sugar is too low, and your cells are craving some energy. So you eat, and your blood sugar rises. Your body then produces the insulin to turn that blood sugar into usable energy in your cells, and you regulate to a normal, satiated, energetic state for awhile, until your blood sugar starts to drop, and you become hungry and/or tired again.

The reason snacks are recommended is because it's not just what you eat, but how you eat it. If you spike your blood sugar (e.g. eat a bag of candy), your insulin will also spike, reducing your blood sugar to "I'm hungry and tired" levels again before you're actually in need of more food. It's a regulatory system, so your body overcompensates when you introduce a shock to the system.

It will take you time to adjust to a better system, because you're purging your habitual behaviors, and your body will resist this change even though you know it is beneficial.

I highly recommend looking into the "south beach diet". The only "diet" part of it is the first two weeks, when you effectively quit simple and refined carbohydrates (which break down into blood sugar far more quickly than fats and proteins, and therefore create spikes in your regulatory system), and break the addiction you have to an unhealthy cycle. You'll have to force yourself to eat protein in the morning, eat when you're not hungry, eat vegetables, and generally retrain your body with all the normal "diet" behavior.

You only have to do this for 2 weeks (and it's not too hard to do any diet for 2 weeks). After that, you've effectively returned your system back to a normal state. Then it becomes about re-introducing a lot of the things you enjoy, but approaching them with a full understanding of how your body is processing them.

This, of course, assumes your problem really is nutrition. Sleep cycles (and deprivation), exercise, light exposure, and more serious medical conditions (see your doctor, I am not one!) can also be contributing factors.

I know you didn't say you wanted to lose weight, but I want to share that the south beach "diet" (really, "lifestyle") helped me lose weight and, far more importantly, keep it off for the past 3+ years.

</comment><comment><USER10> Thanks for all of the suggestions so far.

I'll admit I don't exercise nearly as much as I used to. After college, I moved from a big city where everything was within walking distance to one where a car is necessary for everything--no widespread public transportation and not bike-friendly. In that, I've totally fallen off my walking regimen. Out of boredom back in the city, I'd walk 2-3 miles a day (even though a perfectly good train system was in place) and come back feeling great. I never realized it mattered so much!

My eating habits weren't entirely different then, but I got out more and did walk so the exercise was there.

Will still go visit a dietician, but also go back to walking and taking all of these food suggestions to heart.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'll add my two cents.

Have a good substantial but well balanced breakfast. There is a reason they say it is the most important meal of the day. Assume that on average that you have dinner around 5pm or 6pm. Skipping breakfast or having a meager breakfast and then a late lunch (1pm or 2pm?) means you haven't eaten for about 20 hrs. A big dinner won't carry you through that much time.

I'll also agree with the other suggestions I've seen. Consult your doctor, and make sure you're getting enough sunlight and physical activity.

Try to balance your life.

<comment><USER10> Agreed. I usually eat dinner around 7pm. Scrape by with barely a breakfast or apparently not enough of one, and then won't go out for lunch until 2-3pm. At that point my stomach isn't growling, but I feel spacey. Thanks for the suggestion for balance. ...lacking this, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Lots of good suggestions here.

Specifically for breakfast, there are a lot of ways of getting an awesome breakfast without spending a lot of time. Spend one evening making eggs in muffin tins ([http://www.suite101.com/content/mini-vegetable- frittatas-a27...](http://www.suite101.com/content/mini-vegetable- frittatas-a27561)), freeze them, then in the morning, pull out two and microwave. Getting a good breakfast + exercise (outside, in the sun) should help a lot with energy levels.

</comment><comment><USER17> Keep the fruits and nuts and ditch the steak. But a big yes on the exercise. Consider yourself lucky that you don't have to get into a "food fight" with yourself.

</comment><comment><USER18> Its the same way for me. I have to consciously decide to eat something good. Otherwise, I'll fill up on small things that don't give me much energy.

I try to have an apple or a few handfuls of grapes a day. They're small and only take a few minutes to eat. Plus, my energy goes right up after the meal, in a way that feels good. Not all jittery, like after a double espresso.

</comment><comment><USER19> The best thing you can add to your diet is a good omega three supplement. The best, unsynthesized cold-pressed fish oil you can find.

You will find your mind more alert within hours of first taking it if you are like 95% of westerners that are severely lacking this essential brain food.

Also, you probably need more exercise, less coffee, and more water.

</comment><comment><USER20> Since you haven't really specified what you eat (apart from the fact that you have a meagre breakfast and sometimes steak for dinner), it's hard to know where to start. But I'd agree with maxawaytoolong about thinking about exercise if there's nothing obviously wrong with your diet.

Or, y'know, drink more coffee.

<comment><USER10> As far as food in any given day, I'm likely to have a grilled chicken salad for lunch (not consistently, though). Dinner maybe 3-4 days of the week (which are often big). Usually no breakfast or something unfulfilling from McDonalds when I do eat. I've started adding in raisins and various fruit to start the day, but I'm wondering how many apples do I have to eat in order to feel some kind of way! Perhaps, I'm wrong for thinking I should always be full.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I would recommend you to exercise everyday, as important as diet to get energy, just choose what you like to do and do it everyday.

Start very very gradually, first day just get out of the office, second day one minute, trird two.... Take 30 days for making it a routine. You will feel stronger and happier.

</comment><comment><USER22> While I'm sure we all have opinions on the matter, you might do well to consult a nutritionist or your primary care doctor. They'll know your case history, your peculiar health quirks and can give much better advice than the lot of us.

</comment><comment><USER23> maxawaytoolong could be right. very often people (read "me") feel like have no energy because of too little physical activity.

your body always gives you what it thinks it need (=which is what you demand, or not, from it). so doing some sports may solve that issue quite easily.

for the diet: if you don´t eat for long amounts of time like more than 4 hours, that´s not good, ecspacially if you eat big amounts afterwards.

another important thing is what you eat. try to cook something. fast food is just as bad as easy and comfortable it is. hope that helps a bit :)</comment>


Google loses robotics chief to Toyota's $1B research lab - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcworld.com/article/3019498/google-loses-robotics-chief-to-toyotas-1b-research-lab.html <comment><USER2> I'm not sure I agree that this is a loss for Google. One of the fastest ways for Toyota to move forward in AI would be to adopt one of the existing AI stacks rather than carry out greenfield research. The Google...or is this Alphabet...technology seems like a good candidate given Kuffner's background.</comment>


Pentagon Clears Flying-Car Project for Takeoff - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/11/darpas-flying-c.html <comment><USER2> It really shouldn't be all that difficult to build a so-called "flying car" if your customer is the Pentagon. Just build a helicopter and put driveable wheels on the bottom. You'd probably want to add some kind of rotor-folding mechanism to enable it to fit on a road, but that shouldn't be too tricky either.

Building a flying car only becomes difficult if you need something that isn't incredibly loud, incredibly expensive and incredibly hard to fly. The military can live with loud, expensive and hard to fly vehicles, though.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm more a fan of PFD - Personal Flying Devices <http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/design/q0093.shtml></comment>


Psychedelic Mushrooms Are Closer to Medicinal Use - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/science/magic-mushrooms-psilocybin-scheduleiv.html <comment><USER2> If you are interested in learning more about psychedelics, and their context in 2018, I'd recommend UC Berkeley Professor Michael Pollan's latest book "How to Change Your Mind". It is a really nice, easy to read primer on the topic, and his experience with psychedelics. He approaches the topic with a scientific yet accessible tone, and he asks and answers lots of good questions. Pollan interviews many of the people mentioned in this New York Times article.

Go put your name on the list at your local library!

[https://www.amazon.com/Change-Your-Mind-Consciousness- Transc...](https://www.amazon.com/Change-Your-Mind-Consciousness- Transcendence/dp/1594204225)

<comment><USER3> He also gave a great talk about this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuhmZSFvhL0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuhmZSFvhL0)

Well worth a watch for anyone even remotely interested in the topic.

<comment><USER2> This talk is excellent, and I've already read the book. Thanks for sharing!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Psychedelic mushrooms are powerful medicine. They have a psychoactive effect which alters brain chemistry and helps neurological disorder. We can see that in the paper. But then so do anti-depressants.

I believe the key difference between plant medicines like mushrooms, Peyote, Ayahuasca and others and clinical mood altering medicine is within the ecstatic experience. It is one to thing to have a pill lead you to an empirically more "healthy" brain. It is quite another to embark on a deep, introspective vision which provides a narrative to match the chemical benefit.

I volunteer as a guide within Ayahuasca ceremonies in Peru. Many turn to Ayahuasca as a last resort for depression, PTSD, sexual trauma, and much more. I have seen people in ceremony live through what they interpret as a hellish exorcism, an active exploration of their lineage, or a direct confrontation and resolution of their deepest emotional and spiritual trauma. These people often undergo significant positive transformation after the experiences.

These profoundly "real" experiences appear to be essential to the healing process.

We are creatures of story and psychedelics can help write a _most radical_ chapter of recovery.

<comment><USER5> How bad are the bad trips? And how often they appear?

<comment><USER4> Trips often elevate beyond dualistic thinking. Common dualistic spectrums include good and bad, light and dark, heaven and hell, wet or dry, dead or alive, human and non-human, space or time...

The experiences are ineffable and unlike anything perceived by prior physical sense. The integrative aspect - taking the ecstatic vision and letting it into daily life - is an ongoing process which often takes up to a year. And so good or bad is too simplistic a lens in which to judge the psychedelic experience.

Moments of sheer terror, perceiving the blackest of black, are common. So too are moments of pure bliss and the sensation of limitless loving grace. These become trivialized by the overall experience, which is powerful enough to fully reorient a person's understanding of what it means to be a human being.

The result depends heavily on the pre-existing mental framework that engages with the medicine. For example, people from traditional western religious backgrounds may manifest demons, angels, and heaven and hell within their experiences -- if that is what _they feel they need to experience_ in order to realize the intention that they have brought with them into the ceremony.

My personal view revolves around the entrenchment of an individual's ego. Those who meditate and who have comfort with nondualistic thinking tend to ride the wave better than those who have very rigid conceptions of their self identity and its resultant patterning.

A rewarding read was the academic 'Antipodes of the Mind', a phenomenological study from cognitive scientist Benny Shannon. It is the most rigourous resource that addresses the wondrous weirdness of the Ayahuasca experience.

<comment><USER6> Could you describe what you mean by "....-- if that is what _they feel they need to experience_ in order to realize the intention that they have brought with them into the ceremony", perhaps with an example intention?

<comment><USER4> With mood disorders, there is a moment where an individual decides: "yes, I am going to get better." For many reasons, getting to this pivotal choice is very difficult.

In metaphor, each person keeps their affliction locked within a box. And each person must be the one to create their own key. A person must be willing to open this dark box and release whatever is in it -- the sexual abuse, the long lived depression, or the significant trauma --- and _decide_ to become healthy.

An intention is saying: "This is what I have locked in my box. I want to get rid of it. I want to get better."

Real examples are:

* I no longer want to be depressed.

* I want to get over past sexual, emotional, or physical abuses.

* I want to become sober.

Through the ritualistic component of the ceremony, individuals then go deep within themselves to find and create the narrative, the key, to open the box. The contents of the journey will be unique to each individual. For some, it is getting out of hell or exorcizing a demon within themselves. For others, it is going back to their younger selves to give them love, strength, and support to get over what almost destroyed them. Or, perhaps just catch a glimpse into the delightful madness that is beyond self.

<comment><USER6> Do you have any kind of a feel (from direct observations, or hearing through the grapevine) for how much more effective going in with an explicit, conscious intent to meditate on a particular topic or problem is, versus going in with no specific intent but rather to just "catch a glimpse into the delightful madness that is beyond self"?

Of course, there's no way of doing a direct comparison, but curious if you have a feel or opinion on it, or might know of anyone who writes on that topic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Psilocybin and LSD are on their way to legalization, but the enormous host of compounds in their phenethylamine family might not be so lucky due to a systematic problem with U.S. drug scheduling policy. This family shows enormous potential for treating some of our trickiest mental health / public health problems (addiction, depression, anxiety, OCD, and the list goes on) but the policy for newly discovered phenethylamines and tryptamines seems to be "Schedule first, worry about it later." This slows scientific research down dramatically, research that we need in order to even know in the first place whether a compound might have "high potential for abuse and no known medical potential." If there is medical potential (and in these families at least there usually is), what took days to Schedule will take millions of dollars and years or even decades to reschedule...per compound.

So, while I celebrate the progress being made for a couple of promising compounds with a relatively large base of recognition and support, I'm hoping that I see a more sane approach to drug policy within my lifetime (Portugal seems to be the fashionable example these days).

I'll also second /u/jrowley 's recommendation of Michael Pollan's recent book "How to Change Your Mind" as a good primer, and would recommend the TV show "Hamilton's Pharmacopeia" as another fascinating dive into the subject.

</comment><comment><USER8> Warning: anecdotes ahead.

I would like to add some counterpoint to the otherwise seemingly endless supply of HN enthusiasm for psychedelics.

Personally, I like psychedelics. I have an annual(ish) tradition of tripping somewhere really pretty. I think that the personal growth and emotional... trip is fun and worthwhile.

However, my girlfriend had a bad trip and was scared of large trees for months. And I'd rate my girlfriend as one of the most mentally stable people I have ever met. I am unconvinced that throwing psychedelics at mentally unstable (unhealthy) people is a good idea. We need a lot more research before we start recommending them as medicine.

To that end, I do believe that we should allow researchers greater flexibility to experiment with them because it would be worthwhile to understand more about why psychedelics do what they do.

<comment><USER9> You are using an experience of a "mentally stable" person to dictate the treatment of "mentally unstable" people.

The effects of Ritalin on a non-ADHD person are the opposite to what happens when an ADHD person takes them.

I appreciate the spirit behind your message however.

I think we are at the point where we can start research with mentally unstable people. It has been shown that there is little permanent issues from taking LSD or Mushrooms responsibly.

<comment><USER10> >The effects of Ritalin on a non-ADHD person are the opposite to what happens when an ADHD person takes them.

I believe this is false.

<comment><USER11> "Opposite" may be an overstatement[1], but I take it the general argument is basically a pharmacological version of "one man's meat[2]"

1: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylphenidate#Uses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylphenidate#Uses)

2: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/one_man%27s_meat_is_another_m...](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/one_man%27s_meat_is_another_man%27s_poison)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't know how the government can claim with a straight face that these substances have no known medical use, and are harmful. That's the criteria I think for Schedule 1, but there are clearly known uses for them, and the harm is relatively low.

I really don't like thinking, "the government just wants to ban dangerous thoughts" but mushrooms - really? Compared to alcohol they are so incredibly safe.

<comment><USER13> Institutional inertia is one hell of a drug. Even putting aside the sinister motivations people are often very reluctant to change even in the face of major evidence - especially if it undermines their self worth to admit being wrong.

<comment><USER14> Institutional inertia reminds me of the process of indoctrination, learned through memorization and not through experience and critical thinking. It's true too, that this process can result in good people with no sinister motivations falling into certain traps.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Zooming out a bit, the legislation designed to stamp out the 60s and 70s counterculture is slowly being dismantled, brick by brick.

[https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it- all/](https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/)

</comment><comment><USER16> They should also consider psilacetin (4-AcO-DMT) then - it's similar to the natural mushroom psilocybin but doesn't cause nausea.

<comment><USER17> psilocybin isn't the main cause of the nausea, but the mushroom that contains it.

<comment><USER18> I thought the nausea was caused by the Psilocin binding to the serotonin receptors near your stomach, no?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I have a friend who used to be quite involved in the ayahuasca church. He now knows five people from the church who have committed suicide. The fifth just hung himself last weekend. He was 25, and was the son of one of the priestesses in the church. Spent his childhood in the church, being fed ayahuasca regularly.

One of them was also a friend of mine. By the time he killed himself he was clinically insane and should have been hospitalized, sadly the services didn't get to him in time.

I realise this is about psylocibin, but I think its still appropriate here. Psychedelics are no joke.

<comment><USER20> What is _the_ ayahuasca church? I'm not familiar.

<comment><USER21> In the USA, it might refer to UDV (União do Vegetal) [http://udvusa.org/](http://udvusa.org/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> If you dig up the actual paper, you can see cool graphs about rhesus monkeys self administering psychedelics in test environments. (fig 1)

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002839081...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028390818302296?via%3Dihub)

</comment><comment><USER22> I recommend "Food of the Gods" [https://www.amazon.com/Food-Gods-Original- Knowledge-Evolutio...](https://www.amazon.com/Food-Gods-Original-Knowledge- Evolution/dp/0553371304) to anyone that's interested in what role magic mushrooms may have played in the evolution of humans. It also does an interesting job in talking about what drugs are legal and what drugs are illegal (and the somewhat arbitrary demarcation line between what's socially acceptable (alcohol, caffeine, sugar, tobacco) and what is not and will put you behind bars).

Take it w/ a grain of salt but it's definitely thought provoking.

Also keep in mind that it was written in 1993 but does a pretty good job of anticipating the legalization of marijuana and the eventual decriminalization of moslty all drugs on Schedule I that were put there without any kind of research or backing data (psilocybin, DMT and friends)

</comment><comment><USER23> I have a question about mushrooms that I don't often see get addressed. Psychedelic mushrooms nearly always are touted as medicinal tools and powerful substances for curing PTSD or depression. However, in my own life, I don't suffer from any of these things. I am healthy, don't suffer from depression in any way, and am pretty satisfied with life. I am mainly interested in psychedlic mushrooms out of curiosity. I have never had any experience similar to that, and it all sounds fascinating to me. Is it a good idea for a healthy person to try these "mind altering" substances strictly out of curiosity?

<comment><USER7> Just the opinion of an internet stranger here, but I think the medicinal benefits are touted because they're a way to get a foot in the door and start the conversation about the utility of these substances. Society still has PTSD (pun intended) from the out-of-control utopianism and concomitant criminalization / smear campaign of the 60s and 70s. Therefore using the substances to help those in desperate need is much more palatable for most people than the less urgent "betterment of well persons." But the latter is (or at least should be) a goal of the psychedelic community, for sure. I for one have been helped hugely, _tremendously_, by psychedelics...and never would have been diagnosed as mentally unwell beforehand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> A kind of a problem with "LSD-like" psychedelics (seemingly doesn't apply to "meth-like" MDMA) as well as with the weed is the experience with them depends hugely on your pre-existing vision, what do you actually want and where do you drive yourself during the trip. If you are a kind and loving person by nature (even if depressed and confused at the moment) sensations of beauty, joy and love will probably overwhelm you and you'll end up happy and kind but if you're a psycho like Manson you end up even more psycho. If you consciously stick to the positive emotions and vision during the trip the trip is going to be amazing and may have a profound positive therapeutic effect, but if you stumble upon fear or sorrow inside you and don't know you can and should consciously choose positive emotions it can be nightmarish. I only know of one tryptamine (5-MeO-DMT) and one rare Hungarian mushroom (can't even remember the species name now, perhaps I'll add it later) that seem to always yield positive experience, with all the others one should never forget to "use the steering wheel" during their trip. One can rely on the setting and the sitter instead but I believe this is less reliable and people should really learn basic compassion meditation and being mindful about their feelings before trying psychedelics).

</comment><comment><USER24> I generally dislike mushrooms but I was pretty moved by Joe Rogan's podcast #1035 with Paul Stamets. Despite being over 2 hours long I suggested it to and watched it in it's entirety with several different people and each time we end up discussing the content off and on for weeks or months afterwards. Highly recommended.

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

</comment><comment><USER25> Is the idea of cognitive liberty going to ever make a comeback? [http://www.cognitiveliberty.org](http://www.cognitiveliberty.org)

</comment><comment><USER26> There was an article about poisonus mushrooms that fight cancer as a chemo. Any news?

</comment><comment><USER27> "Here's Tom with the Weather..."

</comment><comment><USER28> Is anyone else concerned about capitalism getting their hands on these sorts of things? I'm all for decriminalization, but I'm really not excited for the patents, potentially heavy modifications to the organism for the purpose of higher yields, potency, etc.

<comment><USER29> Ya that is what I am worried about. Can you imagine the guy selling MDMA? Would make a fortune.

Drugs were best when sold by the hippies that did it to get by day by day. It got corrupted when sold purely as a money making enterprise. I believe that the current trend to legalization is to combat the Mexican cartels which are gaining immense political power using their drug money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The fact that things like mushrooms are illegal is a great example of government programs that are ill-conceived, purely destructive, and take decades to kill.

<comment><USER31> Maybe so, but please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. It leads to generic ideological flamewars, which are toxic and predictable.

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

<comment><USER30> Okay.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Where is the usable Restaurant and small business management software? - <AUTHOR>

I've been having issues finding small business management software online, or desktop. All the webapp startups are mostly tailored to freelancers and those with other web startups, and not much in the pot for those running brick and mortar shops or restaurants.
This has gotten very frustrating, and forced me to improvise with spreadsheets, MySQL tables, and other software to cut and paste a small cafe I own.
I was wondering if HN readers had a good recommendation for a solution to this problem, something with at least good basic accounting, planning, inventory, and a customer history/credit system.
It would also help if any startup founders/employees could list usable software they use, or even better, if any YC startups cater to my crowd. As edw519 said, enterprise software sucks. And the same seems to be for its smaller cousin. <comment><USER2> I also had the same question regarding restaurant software. I thought perhaps that nobody really developed for this market because it all gets bundled into pos software/services. Additional insight is appreciated.

</comment><comment><USER3> What features would you need?</comment>


Make Ubuntu look like OS X - <AUTHOR> http://tanu.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/transform-ubuntu-into-os-x/

<comment><USER2> I love that you can configure Ubuntu this much, but frankly, I would never want it to look like OS X.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Im a big fan of apple user interfaces though they lack a bit in functionality and obviously they are very expensive unless you have lot of money"

This reminds of a great JWZ quote: Linux is only free if your time has no value.

<comment><AUTHOR> LOL.. come on, you are still in BSD age.. take a look at ubuntu and then say!

<comment><USER4> I booted up Ubuntu just now. I support the JWZ quote. Ubuntu is the best Linux has ever been, but there's no competition in any way with OS X, and I'd probably choose Windows 7 over it if it didn't instantly support all my drivers.

This is attracting a lot of downvotes, but I'll restate what I said in more certain phrasing: If your operating system doesn't support my drivers without my having to do work, then you have failed to make your operating system easy to use. Say what you will about Windows, and I'll say a lot, it has never failed to give me audio/video, which Ubuntu has failed to give me every time I've used it.

<comment><USER5> You must have really weird software. OS X, Linux (and BSD), and Windows all suck in different ways. One way that they all don't suck is out-of-the-box hardware support, all three OSes support most common hardware just fine. I run Debian Unstable and I don't think I've ever explicitly installed a driver, everything is in the default install. (I think Intel is mostly to thank for this situation on Linux; Intel has written great wireless and video drivers, so if you have Intel hardware, everything is likely to work really well.)

So if hardware is not a problem, it comes down to the software. Everyone uses the same web browser on all three platforms, so it's not that. Linux has better terminal editors and support for programming. (I ditched OS X after never getting emacs to work right.) Nautilus and Finder are about the same, although I do not like to use a GUI for managing files. Linux lets me choose, OS X forces its opinion on me. (I also don't like manually arranging windows; OS X forces me to do that anyway. It doesn't even have working "maximize".)

Anyway, I spend maybe an hour every two weeks caring for and feeding Debian, and that means all my software is always up to date. On my OS X machine, I spend less than that, but every piece of software I have is outdated since it is too annoying to manually update everything.

YMMV, but Ubuntu is probably a fine OS for 90% of computer users (especially with OO.org 3).

<comment><USER4> Huh! Perhaps it's a fault of the virtualization software, then? I'm using a Macbook Pro, the drivers of which I'd assume are in fairly common use, but I can't get audio to work properly. Would virtualization have anything to do with that?

<comment><USER3> Software like VMWare or Parallels usually makes a fake audio device available. One that has nothing to do with the actual audio hardware in your Mac. They both probably emulate a Soundblaster 16 or so. Which should work fine on anything from Windows to Ubuntu running virtualized.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I can tell how much attention went into the look & feel of OS X when the spacing on the status bar icons in those screenshots really irks me.

<comment><USER5> Do you ever actually use your computer, or do you just stare at the spacing between icons?

<comment><USER7> If a novice took over the layout of your favorite publication, offline or off, you'd probably notice.

Having a desktop environment where things "look right" is, to me, the same as working in a room that is clean and tidy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What about the other way around? I have been using linux for years now but recently I bought a new macbookpro. I am amazed by the way OSX handles battery life and suspend/resume but everything else doesn't even compare to gnome/compiz; gnome is so much more customizable! Was anyone in a similar situation? What did you do? Shift to OSX?

<comment><USER9> One bit of discomfort OS X causes me is that it uses the "Command" (or clover) key instead of the usual Control (Ctrl) key. Switching between GNU/Linux and OS X is a pain keyboard-wise.

Also, I prefer the way Gnome handles switching between windows _on a given virtual desktop_ (via Alt-Tab) -- without changing virtual desktops on you. It works right on Gnome. Why can't Apple at least provide an option to have their Cmd-Tab work correctly?

Another nice thing about Ubuntu is updating your software. OS X can update _itself_ , but Ubuntu's `aptitude` lets you update _everything you have installed_.

As for me, I'm stuck on OS X at work for the time being and would prefer to be using an Ubuntu (with Gnome) setup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'd much rather make OS X more like Ubuntu.

I like my macbook, but a lot of software just doesn't run on it. I'd also like it if xmonad worked for all windows, not just X windows.

<comment><USER4> Can't you run Gnome/KDE on OS X?

<comment><USER10> Probably, but how does that help? Those are desktop environments, what I want is a tiling window manager.

<comment><USER4> I'd have thought you could install the window manager along with everything else.

<comment><USER5> He wants OS X native apps to be managed with a tiling window manager. Not possible, although this would be a large usability improvement for many users. (It's ugly though, so my bet is that this will never happen. Get a Linux box and start thinking for yourself.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There is a tool in the repos that reproduces the macos global menu on the top of the screen. I never tested it, it seems to work only with gtk-apps i think.

<http://code.google.com/p/gnome2-globalmenu/>

<comment><USER12> Cool, I could never love an OS that didn't have a standard menu bar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It looks kinda ok, but all the keyboard shortcuts and cmd instead of ctrl would expose the fake immediately.

</comment><comment><USER14> Funny how there are no articles about making OSX look like Ubuntu...

<comment><USER15> That's a moot point, because it's not possible to theme Mac OS X.

<comment><USER16> that is incorrect: <http://magnifiqueapp.com/> is an app that allows Mac OS X to be themed

<comment><USER2> Well of course it's possible to hack any piece of software to do anything that another piece of software can do, but what the poster meant was that the particular function of theming the graphical engine of OS X is completely unsupported.

<comment><USER4> Except for the fact that all the theme files of OS X are modifiable and hackable to your heart's desire. The fact that no large theming community exists for OS X is that Aqua is a very, very satisfying theme.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The nth "Make _______ (fill in the blank with any OS) look like OS X" web post. Its like putting a Mercedes Benz car body on a BMW chassis.

<comment><USER18> You should maybe pick different manufacturers to clarify your point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Repeat after me: A theme is not a OS.

If you want OS X, get OS X86 or just get a Mac. And I say that as a Windows- user.

<comment><USER20> At the same time, we judge things that we don't know by its look.

For people who don't know what difference between OS X and Unbuntu, the theme is the OS.

This happens everywhere. Racism is one of this bias. We tends to judge non- white as criminals in certain situations.

<comment><USER21> I don't tend to judge non-white as criminals. I tend to judge white man in black suits wearing sunglasses and big moustaches as criminals.

<comment><USER20> But you judge a person by look, right? That's the bias I was talking about. As a non white person, I can feel when people look at me walking on the street and their uneaseness in 4am in Harlem, NYC.

As long as human judge things by looks (I did not say this is good thing. I've been trying to remove biases in my perception in search for enlightenment since my teenager time from readings in Taoism/Buddhism), we will all suffer from a lot of misconnections to great things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> A polished turd doesn't look like OSX.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't stop laughing about people telling it doesn't look like osx. alright its not osx. it works for me, and im happy for it!

<comment><USER4> What makes this different from any other theme? Why submit this one to Hacker News? Because attempts to dupe OS X have been around for a decade now; the existence of this one isn't newsworthy unless it's a nonshitty theme, but that's not the case.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well can't you see the theme ? differentiate it. Just because you don like, doesn't mean no one likes it. Its for the one who like it, if you don't like it just ignore why discourage me or others ?

<comment><USER23> Because sharing nice-looking things isn't the point of Hacker News.

<comment><AUTHOR> come on don tell me what to share on hacker news! i know the rules..

<comment><USER23> It may not be against the written rules but it's certainly against the spirit of the site, which evidently you do not understand.

<comment><AUTHOR> alright you win, i can't convince the novice! i got better things to hack..</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>