I quit Instagram and Facebook and it made me happier - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/01/social-media-detox-christina-farr-quits-instagram-facebook.html <comment><USER4> I deleted Instagram a few months ago and I've not missed it once. The people who post more take up most of my bandwidth and those people I sincerely do not care about but due to social etiquitte have to follow. As I grow older I find that I really don't care about maintaining superficial relationships with acquaintances, many of whom I might not see ever.

Other negatives- I click on one picture of a scantily clad woman and my entire search feed turns into softcore porn for a month.

Culture is too vain. Selfies, blatantly showing off, spending hours on touch up apps were looked down upon in the entire history of the internet until that Ellen selfie photo that got huge. Apple, Facebook, Google, the media all advertised and made it socially accepted that the vanity is good. That had it's pros and cons but I feel like we are crossed over on the cons side too much.

The culture is too global. Everyone's opinions/posts/comments all converge to the same dumbed down pop culture accepted norms/memes. Everyone tries to be funny in the exact same socially accepted way and there is no originality.

<comment><USER5> I'm also tired of the "global" culture. Reddit is a terrible offender of this. The same opinions always prevail, and dissenting ideas are pushed out of sight. This applies to politics, religion, humor, pop culture, everything. It rewards conformity and it's so boring. Smaller subs are usually lots better, simply because there are fewer people there to perform their predicatable voting.

<comment><USER6> I have an odd image that I think provides a good mental model of this. Bear with me...

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWR0AS2rW48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWR0AS2rW48)

These metronomes start out tick-tocking in their own time, but each affects the other until they are all locked in perfect sync.

This is what global digital media culture is doing to us, subtle nudges to conform to a single global monoculture, so gradual that it's hard to see it happening until it's happened.

<comment><USER7> Very cool demonstration!

You might be interested in this interactive demo of social networks: [https://ncase.me/crowds/](https://ncase.me/crowds/). It explores how the connectivity structure of social networks impacts the spread of ideas.

<comment><USER8> What field of study is this?

<comment><USER9> Social Network Analysis: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network_analysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network_analysis)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> All of us who have engineering talent should think about what we can do to make it easier for people to set up their own presence on an international online network such as the Internet. If that means rethinking some of the essentials of IP, TCP, DNS, HTTP or HTML then we should do it, if it makes it easier for people to get away from the walled gardens.

I've had my own domains since 1999. I used to think it was easy to set up a blog. When I was young I thought it was really fun to write basic HTML. I've been online for many years. But I've come to realize that a lot of things that I found easy are a bit too much for most people. In particular, paying something like $35 a year for a domain name, and maybe $5 a month for online hosting, is way, way, way beyond the commitment most people want to make.

So I wonder if there are ways this can be made simpler or cheaper?

I enjoy online conversation. And comments people post to my blog. I very much enjoy having full control over my own blog: [http://www.smashcompany.com/](http://www.smashcompany.com/)

I'd like everyone to have the experience that I have. But we need to find a way to make it much easier, otherwise the walled gardens will still be the default even 25 years from now.

<comment><USER11> I think this is valid and needed but I often wonder if we over-focus on the open web as the alternative over the other biggest widespread open technology in the world: email.

I go to a lot of art & music performances. Lately, and particularly for the last few events I've attended, the performer emphasized joining their (MailChimp-managed) mailing list, because they didn't want to seem uncool by promoting Facebook.

I don't know exactly what it looks like, but I strongly suspect the social graph that disrupts Facebook gets built on email, somehow. Something like MailChimp, but without the direct marketing/conventional newsletter expectation baggage and a focus on message consumers as well as producers.

The advantages of "push" style communication, flexibility in styling messages, and potential for advertising all seem to me like a revolution waiting to happen. The openness of email, combined with the fact that everyone has one (even millennials!) are icing.

<comment><USER12> I just hosted a small house concert last night for about 20 people; the age range was 18-50, I reckon. I put out a sheet of paper with spaces for names & contact info, for folks who wanted to be notified for future shows, and intentionally left the contact method open -- I figured if they wanted a group text, or a FB msg, I could do that.

I was surprised to find that every person who signed up wrote their email address.

So you may just might be right.

Granted, this is a rural area (West Virginia, US) and there's far less incessant use of smartphones and the like. So my experience might not apply to more urban places.

<comment><USER13> I have no idea how I'd give you my 'facebook address' \- you'd look me up, but it might be private, or you might find the other one of me with my same name, or... I dunno. Problems.

If you send them an email with your FB page in it, a certain % will follow then, because it's a way to get some more passive updates when they want.

EDIT: 30 years ago, everyone would have given you a street mailing address, even though some possibly had faxes or may have wanted a phone call or to be paged when you had updates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> She is still doing a lot of approval-seeking in this very article, so I'm not sure how to handicap her odds of success at staying off Instagram for example, but I wish her luck.

Social media is a lot like every other popular idea that ends up being bullshit. It always ends up costing you time and money in the short-term, and of course some years often have to pass before you finally figure out it's bullshit. So, somewhat unfairly, I refer to that whole class of things as "rackets young people fall for." Like smoking. (Both.) Or drinking, or... weddings. Marriage itself (oh snap). Playing in rock bands. Bungee-jumping. Skiing? I'd better stop before I insult everyone. Get off my lawn. (Lawns also. Total racket. Fuck lawns.)

<comment><USER15> You had me until skiing. Skiing is awesome.

<comment><USER16> It really is, but as someone who started skiing when I was 3-4 years old and am now closing in on 30 and am not in excellent cardio shape... wow, skiing is tough. I had no idea it would be so much harder at 25 (years ago) than it was at 16.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I quit those tools too and realized the number of real relationships I had was _dramatically_ lower than I would have guessed.

Leading one to wonder. If the friendships or whatever feelings these tools provide are placebo vs real. If something bad happens to you in the real world are the online friends going to help? Does support extend to seeing a number with a heart next to it. Does getting 1000 hearts replace the support of close friends when you experience loss?

<comment><USER18> Relations are all about spending time with someone. The problem with online friends is that the time might be unproportional, you might spend hours with someone's content and feel very involved, meanwhile they don't even look at yours. Facebook, Twitter, et. al. communities is best for the popular people, and way more "efficient" then the real world. The only problem is that they can't share their private issues, that's what you need real friends for.

<comment><USER19> But don't forget the cases where you have a problem and no one it meatspace can help, but an Internet forum can. This is common for social/psychological problems.

<comment><USER20> Interesting point. Works better in anonymity in my opinion

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "We have an enormous ecological disaster created by badly-designed social media now being used by people to control and exploit human beings in all sorts of ways.

"That's the consequence of social media structures which encourage people to share using centralized databases, and everything they share is held by someone who is no friend of theirs who also runs the servers and collects the logs which contain all the information about who accesses what, the consequences of which is that we are creating systems of comprehensive surveillance in which a billion people are involved and those people's lives are being lived under a kind of scrutiny which no secret police service is the 20th century could ever have aspired to achieve. And all of that data is being collected and sold by people whose goal it is to make a profit selling the ability to control human beings by knowing more about themselves than they know."

— Eben Moglen

[https://web.archive.org/web/20120414150710/http://www.betabe...](https://web.archive.org/web/20120414150710/http://www.betabeat.com/2011/12/13/in- which-eben-moglen-like-legit-yells-at-me-for-being-on-facebook/)

</comment><comment><USER22> I don't understand why there has to be this dichotomy, you're either active on social media and miserable or off of them and happy. Why can't you have just a moderate use of Facebook. I mention FB because I don't really get Instagram, it's a bunch of photos with no context. I was forced to create a FB account to monitor the social media of a company I consult and my relationship with it thus far has been smooth as silk. Apart from the tracking stuff which I try to mitigate by blocking third party JS on web sites. Other than that it's another tool to get the job done. I don't befriend everyone that makes a request and rarely ever bother to view what my friends put in their timeline. I don't feel that there's only one way to use Facebook, which is to like and watch every little shit everyone in your social circle posts. Just sort stuff out and have a very conservative use of it. A chat session every now and then with friends you can't meet as often as you'd like and a little browsing of posts of the really important ones, like family and very dear friends. Everything else is just irrelevant and you can ignore it. Simple as that. Well at least it works for me.

<comment><USER23> > Why can't you have just a moderate use of Facebook.

Because social media apps are designed to access the same neural pathways as addictive substances. Let me rephrase your question: "why can't you just have a moderate use of alcohol?" Sure, many people can (and note how that's not newsworthy), but try suggesting to an alcoholic to just drink a little less.

<comment><USER24> But the answer may not lie in promoting severance from alcohol/facebook. Like Elrant, I believe there should be a middle ground people try to reach. Not everyone may be able to reach it by themselves but education should be put before a more extreme solution such as cutting people from alcohol/facebook in my opinion. It is not efficient to tell a alcoholic to drink less but it is efficient to educate people around you about the dangers alcohol can pause.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I've had a pretty similar experience when quitting facebook. One think I've noticed is that it forces you to have different kinds of relationships with people. My friends that live on the other side of the country? I text them once a month or so to keep up, not just like their photos on facebook and feel like I'm still friends. I feel like social media tricks you into thinking you're building relationships. And while I see that it can help you keep in touch, it encourages relationships that aren't worthwhile. They are just surface level. Having real relationships with people takes more work and without social media you are forced to work a little harder just to maintain them. But this is worth it in my opinion.

<comment><USER26> What would you define as a "real relationship"? Is texting someone once a month any different than commenting on things going on in their lives, or messaging them on [insert platform]? My view is no - a relationship, whether by social media, text messages, or shared experiences, does not make any other form invalid or less real. I have seen people fall in love purely from online interactions while playing games, or chatting in IRC - these relationships are as real as any other. One person's notion of relationships may be different than another's, and that's ok, but trying to say one's notion is more real than another is hogwash. Depth is not so easily measured here either - <USER2> text messages can also be just as banal (or more) as social media interaction in developing relationships.

I still remember times before Facebook came to dominate social media. It was difficult to keep tabs on friends, and the barrier was higher to keeping in touch with someone you met casually in person, as there are a lot of people who are less willing to share phone numbers with people they just met - <USER3> is something intensely personal about phone numbers or similar to many people, which still holds today. I think many people under appreciate this, and the controls for managing the communication relationship social media gives you (or at least Facebook - Twitter's are garbage).

I use social media casually today - just Facebook and rarely Instagram, and post maybe once a day or every other day. I am in some FB group chats, all which could be text messages, but text messages aren't as robust of a medium (for example, location sharing in a group or easy searching of pictures people want to use to respond with).

<comment><USER25> Well there's a complicated answer, because there are different kinds of relationships.

What I noticed with facebook is that it encouraged a lot of vapid relationships. Not real. And it really discouraged getting to know someone.

And here's a difference in a texting once a month instead of seeing pictures on fb and messaging.

We have to tell each other what happened to us.

Now that may seem simple, but there's a lot that unpacks in that. Jokes happen and you get more a sense of what happened than being shown. You are forced to see the events through your friends eyes. You are automatically filled in on the parts that are important to them, and not the parts that appear most appealing.

I do think the barrier for keeping in touch should be high. You can't reasonable have a good friendship with a lot of people. So it forces you to pick and choose where you are going to devote your emotional time and energy. That's because relationships take work. Knowing someone and what they do isn't a relationship. So someone you have met once and never really talk to is like the relationship you have with a celebrity. It isn't real, but facebook makes it feel that way. I'm not saying all relationships have to be the same as those of a best friend, but I think social media encourages a type of relationship that is more destructive than beneficial. There's also a lot more, but this is already long.

As for instant messaging vs text? Who said I don't use instant messaging? I just don't use Facebook. I do use Signal, WhatsApp, GChat, etc. Friends never have a hard time getting ahold of me. I'm still connected, just not with relationships I don't consider "real".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I have drastically reduced Facebook to like once a month or less (and even then, using only "mbasic.facebook.com" because their normal site is annoying to use). It takes less than a minute of my time because I rapidly realize how little value there is in the content. At this point their value is almost _entirely_ to act as an address book because I'm a bit too lazy to dredge up at least one alternate contact method for each friend. Still, I think my "reconstruct normal address book and delete Facebook" day is coming soon.

Sadly, part of the content issue is Facebook shooting itself in the foot because they refuse to show a simple chronological list of what people have been up to. They literally already have lots of content that _would_ be interesting and they refuse to show it, instead opting for these weird algorithmic "views" that won't even stay consistent between the time I follow a link and go back to the previous page. No wonder I quickly lose what little interest I had.

I would love if social networks were banned from search results too. I am tired of Googling things on "the Internet" and finding lots of results that are essentially "we showed this entire page to Google but all you get is a log-in page". If your site is displayed in search results, you should be required to have _at least a paragraph or two_ "always on" so that I see _something_ when I click the link, instead of absolutely _no_ content and a log-in/create-account page. If you want to hide 100% of your content, make your own damned search engine.

<comment><USER28> That's a pet peeve of mine as well. If you see something as you're clicking away from your timeline, good luck ever finding it again. Would it kill them to let you toggle between chonological and "curated"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think it is all dependent on how you curate your feed. On Instagram, I only follow friends I know well in real life, and even then only about 50 or 60 of them. I am an avid guitarist, so follow a lot of guitar builders or stores that post some great shots of lovely instruments. I pretty much _never_ follow any celebrities or "influencers" at all as I don't do the whole 'fake life' thing.

For that reason, Instagram is actually a happy place for me. Whenever I need a little inspirational pick me up, I fire up the app and look through pictures of beautiful guitars, chess sets, planes etc. as well as the occasional picture of friends going about their lives and I feel happy.

Now if only I could reduce the number of ads in the feed... ;)

<comment><USER30> Same here! Essentially everyone I follow on Instagram is an artist or skilled craftperson, with at most 1 degree of separation from someone I actually know. That means my feed is mainly people posting awesome projects they're working on - it's really nice to look at, and inspires me to make stuff.

Avoiding celebrities/influencers/boring friends is key.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I've had a similar experience after leaving. My in-person social life is much better too. I read more books.

If you want more motivation to quit, track the amount of time you spend on social media sites. After you're done scrolling through the algorithmic feeds, write down what you've learned and compare it to what you would have learned if you read a high quality book on the same subject or learned/improved a skill.

More inspiration:

[https://medium.com/s/story/the-simple-truth-behind- reading-2...](https://medium.com/s/story/the-simple-truth-behind- reading-200-books-a-year-1767cb03af20)

<comment><USER32> Whenever I feel too distracted, I find a half hour or so of reading a book to be really grounding. That either regrounds me for whatever I really need to be doing, or it turns into a few hours of really enjoyable, focused reading.

My son is seven, and he's just becoming comfortable enough with reading to enjoy reading for hours at a time. It's such a pleasure to witness this stage of development for him. I also enjoy sharing with him the tech insiders' view of devices. It's really reassuring to him to know that most knowledgeable people are struggling with how to manage the appeal of connected devices, and that it's not just some weakness on his part.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I only wish they would remove the "Likes" counters from social media. It's so easy to get addicted to that and instead of posting stuff that interests you you start planning and posting stuff that gets most likes.

For some people who make it big that way it works out but most people get into that endless cycle of chasing likes.

Happens to me even on HN...

<comment><USER34> I like that HN has an upvote option, but I wish the numbers were hidden from me. I get pretty distracted

<comment><USER35> I think the difference is "content" vs. "communication".

Insta and FB have become Personal PR outlets where you make content for social validation.

On HN, you communicate, and karma can be a proxy for social validation, but it's to help you calibrate for communicating on the platform.

Karma serves the greater community by helping you understand what the community values, whereas likes serve to validate your own brand.

I think the feedback loops are similar but subtly different.

<comment><USER33> I agree but it's still pretty easy to get addicted to karma.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Instagram makes me happy: my feed is full of cats, guns, food, and travel pictures from people I know (and from a couple of famous pro shooters, famous Japanese cats, a pro cat photographer, Beth Stern who does cat rescue, and a couple of vendors I use.) I post mostly travel, food, cat, and gun/range photos, sometimes datacenters/tech and weird architecture and conference photos. I can easily curate exactly what I want. I don't feel obligated to follow anyone because of social obligations, and I don't make any effort to post certain kinds of photos (other than generally trying for technical quality and "interesting").

</comment><comment><USER37> Am I the only one who doesn't feel this way? These posts seems susceptible to positive response bias, but they also seem more common lately.

If you are like me you might be happy to know that there are other people who don't care about social media (being on it or off it or anything about it).

<comment><USER38> Honestly, when I first read about the negative effects of these platforms I came to a realization that I was using them in a negative way. I abandoned the platform and I don't feel any different. I just spend my free time differently now. When I see others addicted to the approval loop, I feel a little bad for them, but there is no reason others cannot enjoy social networks positively.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> One thing I just noticed with Instagram's website is that I can't select comment text any longer... that may or may not be a new change but I never noticed it earlier and it's driving me crazy now as I frequently copy comments to put into different translators.

<comment><USER40> Their site is also intentionally crippled so you need the app to do some things. For example, to upload pictures, the primary function of the site...

And with the app comes the tracking and stealing of personal information, often using more or less dark patterns to trick the user.

From what I understand, an app that has no rights to pictures, contacts and location and so on, can still get info about the WIFI and put together a pretty good picture of your movements.

<comment><USER41> On Android, Location needs to be enabled for an app to access ambient wifi (scan of all nearby APs). On iOS, there is no API for ambient wifi, though their location API does use it behind the scenes.

On both iOS and Android, an app can access _connected_ wifi even with location disabled.

<comment><USER40> I was under the impression that on iOS an app without access to the location API still could get the name of the WIFI and perhaps the SSID too?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> There are currently about 30 people at my house for a family dinner. We aren't an actual, blood family, but we are close friends that crisscross paths through our various jobs and life events.

We keep track of each other via Facebook. We organized this event, and every other of these events (which are recurring) via Facebook. Tomorrow morning, we will comment on and share each other's photos of the event via Facebook.

I get that some people don't like the service, and that's fine. I personally find it _incredibly_ useful.

<comment><USER43> Maybe that's what FB will eventually turn into, mostly. An evite.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> "Everything in moderation"

She wants to go from the extreme of over-participating to the extreme of not participating at all. Somewhere in the middle is a healthy balance that she isn't considering.

As humans, we have the ability to understand and improve on our failings. First you have to understand that in fact you allow yourself to reach a state of excess and then understand why.

If you aren't able to approach the true issue then you will just repeat the same cycle the next time something social shows potential for excess consumption.

<comment><USER45> This argument falls down because social media companies expend a lot of effort getting you to use their platform as much as possible. Why keep a snake that's trying to bite you in your pocket?

<comment><USER44> I have to imagine that at some point in life, we have to take responsibility for our actions. That is, regardless of how much the cigarette or liquor companies market to me, I'm not going to allow myself to become addicted to their products. I drink. I very infrequently smoke a tobacco product. I don't consume them in excess because I know it is bad for me.

I suspect that we are going to see this type of movement more and more. It's more signaling. It says, I don't need to have social media to have a fulfilling life. My life is fulfilling. See pictures of me in [popular vacation spot]. See pictures of me having casual fun. But again, it's not solving the true problem. If you needed the affirmation from random strangers, that won't change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Social media started out as 'friends hanging out', but turned into 'friends bumping into each other at the mall while salespeople spray us with perfume'

</comment><comment><USER47> I'd be sick of all these "deleting Facebook made me happier" posts, except I deleted Facebook and it made me happier, too.

<comment><USER20> I did that 10 years ago, so I am at least 10 years happier than you ;-)

<comment><USER48> You should make a post on social media and.. oh wait.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Intelligent people are quitting Reddit too, that place has become a toilet except for very niche topics.

</comment><comment><USER50> I would use some social media, but social networks don't want me to use them.

The other day I decided to install Instagram on my phone, only to be unable to find a valid download link on the website, there was only a Google play URL that didn't work because I don't have Google play installed.

Then, I created a Facebook account but it asked for my phone number, which I'm not willing to give them, so they just blocked the account, but provided some really creepy ways to 'authenticate myself': uploading a photo of my face, or my government issued ID card.

So, in the end, fb and instagram don't want me to use them.

</comment><comment><USER51> Sharing your personal experience on CNBC is much more powerful than IG and FB. What's the difference though? Having a need to share our opinions and personal life is the reason why social platforms exist in the first place. The real problem is us, not software companies.

</comment><comment><USER52> In October, I took the month off alcohol. It was difficult sometimes due to social pressure, habit, and shitty days. But I made it the whole month and felt proud of myself.

For December, I decided to take the month of social media. It's day 2 and I've already opened Facebook out of habit 4 times. It's just so deeply ingrained in my habits.

I'm thinking of giving up video games in January and meat in February. I don't think either of those will be as difficult.

<comment><USER53> Manually unfollow everyone. It takes time but worth it. I never check FB anymore (over two years) because I have no news feed. I use Messenger still, unfortunately.

<comment><USER52> That creates an unneeded amount of work come January of re-following everyone and everything I want to follow.

This is a month experiment, not a permanent life change. At least, so far that's all it is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> So I have been wondering what the world would be like if randomly selected self-report happiness was an executive-level KPI (key performance indicator) at Facebook. Perhaps a billion people might be a few percent happier?

<comment><USER55> Ask someone from Bhutan :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I use instagram to get inspired, I follow artists, photographers and travelers. It really depends on how you use it. I also love photography, so I will always take photos when I travel. I don't think deleting instagram will make me happier or taking less photos. Everyone is different.

<comment><USER57> Me too. I always search how others do composition, what good photo spots are before I go to a particular place to take photo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I no longer use fb, instagram and twitter. Was not a premeditated decision though. Just lost interest on them. I found traditional forums like hn more enjoyable.

<comment><USER59> I miss the more traditional forums.

In the past - many groups like clans on games had their own forum with their own members. With topics like "Humour", "Game X", "Game Y", "Introductions", ...

Nowadays that seems to be mostly gone - though more replaced by Discord than Reddit.

However, niches just moved to Reddit and I stayed behind :)

I miss those times somewhat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I actually like Instagram. I only got on it a year ago and it has nice features like "you've reached the end of your new feed" and stuff like that. Takes me 30 s to go through every day and see what my friends have posted.

The stories stuff let's me tap to move through. Overall, quite pleased.

<comment><USER61> _you've reached the end of your new feed_

This was actually a nice, user-friendly addition for once. But it's pretty much a cure for a disease that they invented themselves; the removal of the strictly chronological feed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> The second part of the headline of the piece ("and that's a big problem for social media companies") stood out to me as super-hyperbolic. From my perspective it seems to me that me and my peer's relationship with social media is like unhealthy food. We know it's bad for us, it's just way easier to reach for it than to reach for what it's replacing or substituting for, in the social media case traditional interactions.

So the headline stood out to me as hyperbolic in the sense that most people know that sugar is bad for you but I'm not worried for that industry. Of course I could just be a minority and most people don't know that quitting would make them happier in the long run.

<comment><USER14> The hyperbole might've been injected later by an editor or whoever optimizes cnbc.com articles for pageviews & clicks. Not sure what that person's job title would be. (Senior Outrager? Assistant Click Angler? FUDmaster General?)

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Question is: would there be a lot of people willing to take these so called baby steps if they can post pics like this on the CNBC website - [https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/edit...](https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2018/11/30/105602974-1543610916557chrissy- santorini1.530x298.jpg), and would that make them happier?

Where baby steps according to her is removing Facebook and Instagram apps off the phone, and logging out on the web "without fully disabling or deleting them").

</comment><comment><USER64> I find that being immersed in a challenging personal project tends to drastically lower the compulsion to fire up dopamine crutches like Instagram, Reddit and HN and also ends up being a far more rewarding experience.

</comment><comment><USER65> I think it.. depends - I use instagram as my inspiration feed - it's full of nice things, not other people's lifes - so I think it depends who are you following or what content are you interested it - most of my instagram feed contains professional lego builds, custom mechanical keyboard or bauhaus-like designed products.

Same for twitter - despite the fact I'm now slowly move into joining some weekly emails about the stuff I'm intersted in I still use twitter as a my main source of news about front-end tooling / programming / entrepreneur / design stuff.

</comment><comment><USER66> It's a self fulfilling prophecy, quitting any social network because you think it will make you happier probably will.

<comment><USER67> It very likely has a real effect for some people, beyond just placebo.

<comment><USER66> Only way to know is to get people who are actively using social networks and aren't thinking about quitting to just quit for no reason. Chances are you probably won't see any change in happiness, just a change in habits.

<comment><USER68> That would be a fascinating experiment to perform if experimenters could get compliance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> I've been doing what I call #FacebookLessFridays. Think meatless Mondays but different.

Knowing that I have no "obligation" to do FB is liberating and empowering. That said, I still check HN ;)

</comment><comment><USER70> I never been nor on FB nor on Instagram and never feel the need of being on. Many keep asking me for WhatsApp, Skype, Hangout, ... I polity decline saying I have mail, with a good setup not crappy webmails, and I have a VoIP {soft,desk,cordless}phone(s) with plain PSTN numbers from multiple countries so anyone can call me toll free from their PSTN/VoIP/GSM phones.

The problem in that sense is that people do not know other system exists. Not only "casual people" but technician do not know them. Often I find programmers (not code monkeys, not stupid people, not "ignorant" one) that _do not understand_ how my Emacs works, for them seems magic. Many when I say that I have RSS via mail, notes from mobile (BlitzNote) via mail, projects&c via mail they think it's impossible to handle such volume of messages, when they see a modern (ancient) MUA the seems child looking at some incredible machines.

IMO the sole solution came from a state-backed action that start to limit actual IT trends for the sake of democracy, competition and national safety and empower universities and schools enough to teach basic IT concept not in term of ridiculous "coding courses" but in terms of IT freedom and dangers like democracy vs dictatorship in politics.

<comment><USER71> some things youre extolling will mean social ostracization. if i tell someone to email me vs whatsapping me with the phone number they already have, you know what will happen? the person will just say it's too much hassle to contact me.

also rules out usecases for people who aren't actually "settled" and have to follow social norms in some areas- actually expecting a girl to contact me via phone or email before the first date, i'd be living in a fantasy land. it just won't happen

<comment><USER70> If someone is not willing to contact me via classic phone, mail or SMS well... I do not need to be contacted. It's not a matter of social ostracization.

Also IMO it's a lesson I give for free to my contacts because I explain why I do not use such services.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> I don't use instagram or twitter much and I don't really get it. For me the best interactions on the internet have been forums, reddit and IRC back in the day

</comment><comment><USER73> I use Instagram like I imagine others use Pinterest or browse lifestyle magazines. Subscribe to a few nice cooking, travel and photography feeds and open it once a week or so for inspiration.

I would never consider posting my own photos on there, the same way I wouldn't consider mailing my own article to a magazine.

</comment><comment><USER74> Me too. Except instagram I started using afterward, and my engagement with it was much different. I just put some riding photos up from time to time and I only have good friends on there. No spam and my friends are rad so I don't get the social showboating or preaching. I reduced phone usage in general, and I would only open the app once every couple of days and that's normally to post a picture.

My main change about how I use my phone is that I only touch it when I have a task to achieve, and that is frankly very infrequent. It also doesn't go everywhere with me. If I can do something on my PC later I prefer that to using the phone.

Convenience is not a substitute for substance and I have found myself happier when I delay things to be done thoughtfully later rather than getting them done now.

</comment><comment><USER75> This is not surprising. There are many serious people worried about the mental health aspects of being on social media for extended periods of time. As with most things in life, moderation is key. They can be useful services as long as they do not consume you.

<comment><USER76> The key point here though is that they are explicitly designed to consume you. Notification patterns, feed organization, how the online connection between two people is displayed, what gamification factors as included, what metrics are included on each "post/event", the list goes on. In reality only a small portion of people have the knowledge and skills to actively fight against these designs, and that mental power has a cost. This is why both of these platforms at their core start from a bad seed, even if they are able to birth positive things.

IMO there are many solutions, but two very basic things can fix these problems:

\- Make users pay to use a service so it is ad-free or ad limited so that there is not an incentive to hold a user on your platform as long as possible

\- Remove public facing metrics such as likes/views unless absolutely necessary. When necessary, make them a harder UX to get to so that someone without the need cannot easily access them.

People keep saying the model won't work, but when you look at ARPU for many of these services, many people would gladly pay that. People always frame it at replacing ads, but I think it's much more than that - it's making the experience of using the platform itself better by removing a lot of the incentives that cause bad mental issues with social media.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> My issue is that not all social networks allow you to delete your account. They don't even allow you to suspend your account or disable it so you can't log in. Personally I can't walk away from such sites. If I couldn't login, I'd be far less likely to waste my time on worthless debates. While the commentary on such sites is helpful, for the most part enough of the conversations devolve into authoritarians demanding the rights of others in order to not feel offended, that I'd rather leave permanently. Unfortunate such sites are like a train wreck for me. I can't look away. My only hope is banning.

<comment><USER78> Try pointing them to 0.0.0.0 in your hosts file? Or changing the password to something you don't know? At least then you'll have the chance to think about it when you're about to visit them.

<comment><USER77> I have. I have an addictive personality. It's my fault, and I think I'll try to give them up this month, but obviously I'm failing even now.

<comment><USER79> One option would be to give the account password to a friend and get them to change the email and password and not record the new ones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> Stopped using FB and IG, still uses Twitter "for work", riiiight, of course...

<comment><USER81> This. There is nothing worse that Twitter when it comes to social media drama, attention-seekers and outrage shit shows. At least one can use Facebook as a private network of close friends. Twitter is just cancer at this point, which demonstrates the hypocrisy of the OP. She didn't quit social media, she stayed with the worst one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> Using social media nowadays is like standing in a room with everyone yelling at the same time. Only the loudest people get heard, and they rarely have important / interesting / well informed things to say.

</comment><comment><USER83> I would have to leave internet and find relevant hobbies. I dont do fb or other social networks ( well i occasionally check insta but that is very minimum ). Most of my time gets thrown at rss/browser.

</comment><comment><USER84> I haven't deleted my accounts but for whatever reason I haven't been using it at all.

Now that I think about it, the last time I logged into FB was about a year ago. That too I think I was somehow tricked into doing so with really clickbaity reminder emails.

Instagram, I use the app for sake of the filters but I always save the photo and will remove my post immediately. Maybe there is a better app for me to just take photos with filters.

The only time I look at instagram posts are when it's embedded in some news website talking about something interesting happening around the world.

<comment><USER85> I use snapseed. It's from Google, has filters and other basic editing function (crop, resize, etc.).

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> Around January of this year, I took the plunge and deleted all of my social media accounts. It's been great, and I am pleasantly surprised with how easy I was able to cut cold turkey.

What I can not seem to quit, however, is excessively watching YouTube and Twitch. I spend so much of my time everyday on these platforms and I find it difficult to pull myself away from them. If anyone has any tips or advice on this, I would appreciate it.

</comment><comment><USER87> There is a black mirror episode that shows you how ludicrous it is, posting pictures and hoping someone will like them, and becoming obsessed with your score.

</comment><comment><USER88> I, on the other hand, re-joined Facebook after years of absence and was really disappointed. It's all politics and memes. Just an eponymous Reddit.

</comment><comment><USER89> I too did quit facebook and instagram like 6 months ago, since then I have achieved so much. For starters I have a Job and 6 pack (abs not beer:) and not to mention my relationship with people near to me has drastically improved. I think this was one of my best decisions ever and I am really happy to see that so many people think the same way!

</comment><comment><USER90> Personally, I find it is still convenient for Oauth and event planning. Not sure that justifies the $400B market cap though...

</comment><comment><USER91> What would you think of a Facebook alternative that was the same, except it shows you content only based on who you're around most frequently (using GPS tracking or check-ins). That way your friends in real life (who you actually spend time with) match what you see of your friends' activity online.

</comment><comment><USER92> I'm a student and I deleted the twitter app. In my timeline, all my classmates talked about who they don't like or so. After quitting I found myself relaxed because I don't need to be careful about the existence of friends who are bothered by my trivial behavior. The twitter unfriend custom was awful.

</comment><comment><USER93> Deleted Facebook and Instagram years ago. There was no point to any of it. It's astounding that with all our tech advancements we are so good at building HA distributed systems that can allow people to over share their baby pictures or political opinions while people are still dying of cancer.

</comment><comment><USER94> Next thing on the list - when you walk in the house, turn off your phone. Only then you will feel as if you are free, and the free time it's yours to do whatever you feel like. You soon realize that there is so much you can do without the social media in your fingertips. Enjoy it.

<comment><USER95> Currently I'm using a phone just to tether as I move around Africa.

I turn it on do so some work, then turn it off and put it away.

It feels extremely liberating to be free of the phone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> I have to use facebook for a couple of specific aspects in my social life, otherwise I would probably quit it altogether. As such I would say Facebook is improving my social life, rather than depriving it.

That being said, I am extremely aware of the potential negative impact.

</comment><comment><USER97> If there were a better way than Instagram to see beautiful photography from the National Parks in the US, I'd use it. As it stands, it's not bad but I wish they'd just let me see an actual timeline and automatically mark images seen/archived.

<comment><USER38> You could go there :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER98> [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/18/chinas- selfie-...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/18/chinas-selfie- obsession)

</comment><comment><USER99> I wanted to quit these apps then this thought comes to my mind "Is my mind weak such that something external controlling my emotions (happy or sad). Cannot I be strong enough ". How do one overcome such thought

</comment><comment><USER100> Bunch of us quit that poison decades ago. and we don't make a ruse about it.

</comment><comment><USER101> Journalist writes the obvious and gets credit for what the dissenters have known since the inception of "social media." Shocker.

At least it's upvoted highly here on HN; gives me hope that more and more and catching on.

<comment><USER102> In my time on this site, I've seen a variation of the "I quit $socialnetwork and you should too" post make the front page a few times a year. It's almost to the point of a tired meme.

</comment></comment><comment><USER103> I never used instagram much, but i found the same to be true of facebook.

</comment><comment><USER104> I don't get how people can let Facebook take up so much of their life/time that they have to delete it or stop using it to "get their life back." I find it ridiculous.

I use Facebook basically for two purposes. Sharing and consuming denk mems, and for scheduling gatherings of friends that use Facebook (which is mostly all of them, because this is about all they use it for too).

People need to stop acting like these things are somehow controlling anything you do and realize that they're just tools. Do what you want with them.

If that's "not use it" for whatever reason, fine. I just wish people would stop with these nonsensical "I QUIT FACEBOOK AND NOW MY LIFE IS SO MUCH BETTERER" stories.

<comment><USER105> I think that you are missing one of the biggest points. The problem with us, "facebook haters", is not that we are incapable of managing our time, or friends. I personally quit it because they are one of the worse trackers out there. They show zero respect to privacy, and every year we learn something shady practices that overshadows the previous year's shady practices.

They started as "let's connect the world", and they ended up with "let's track the world, even if they don't want to have an account with us".

I got a massive HOSTS file, a very well catered Adblock+ list and NoScript, just to stay away from those scumbags.

<comment><USER104> And you seem to be missing that that isn't what the article was about. The article was talking about the people that I find absurd: "I can't stop letting sosh meeds run my life so I have to just not use them."

The issue of trading data for service isn't new and wasn't the subject of the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER106> When there is a fire your social network is likely to recommend more fuel. Not the extinguisher.

</comment><comment><USER107> I just decided to do that yesterday as well and deleted Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat.

</comment><comment><USER108> My average time on Instagram is 14 minutes a day. I need to cut it down a bit.

<comment><USER109> How do you measure that (so accurately)?

<comment><USER110> In "Screen Time" (IOS) you can see how long you spend on social networking apps

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER111> Deleted my Facebook 6 years ago, feels good being a trendsetter \o/

</comment><comment><USER112> How is this news? I thought this would be common knowledge in 2018.

</comment><comment><USER113> I wonder how many people are quitting it because of Screentime

</comment><comment><USER114> Instagram is just porn, steroids, and protein supplements.

<comment><USER115> then your friends suck

</comment></comment><comment><USER116> You'll be sad soon enough.

</comment><comment><USER117> Welcome to a new world ;=)

Lets turn tech into what it was meant to be: A tool to give people a better live.

</philosophy>

</comment><comment><USER118> I started ignoring the people who talked about quitting FB and Instagram and suddenly my life was a lot better without their constant negative energy.

Turns out they were the problem, not the platforms.

Good riddance.

<comment><USER119> No doubt you can see the irony in your comment?

<comment><USER118> Temporary negative energy is not a bad thing. Constant negative energy is. Surely you can understand the difference?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER120> >> took a break from social media after realizing that she spent far more time on Instagram than she realized.

So she ended up realizing...</comment>


Sourcegraph Master Plan - <AUTHOR> https://about.sourcegraph.com/plan <comment><USER2> This all sounds like useful stuff I'd potentially use but I don't see it solving the core problem that programming is difficult. I've long worked in environments where "basic code intelligence" works and it is certainly useful but the problems it solves are not what makes programming hard.

Programming is hard because it's hard to define the problems that need to be solved, hard to design good solutions and often hard to implement them efficiently. A smart IDE is a useful tool but it does little to nothing to address the fundamental difficulty of programming. The real challenge to making programming more accessible is how to teach/train people to be better thinkers and problem solvers (and I include myself in needing that).

<comment><USER3> The best way to define the problem is iterating on it. This (and other tools) allows you to iterate faster. That's why tools like this are useful.

<comment><USER2> I'm not saying its not useful. My daily work currently is VR development in Unity and so I'm using C# in Visual Studio with ReSharper which together give one of the best and most complete "basic code intelligence" experiences I know of. It's great and useful but while it makes me more efficient it just doesn't have much impact on the actual hard parts of programming. It improves the workflow for the routine parts but they are merely time consuming, not difficult/hard problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sourcegraph CEO here. Thanks for posting this. Happy to answer any questions!

<comment><USER5> What is the relationship between Sourcegraph and the LSP? The Master Plan reads like you were part of creating it?

<comment><USER4> Sourcegraph CEO here. Microsoft designed and released LSP. We are eternally grateful for that! We played no part in its creation. The first LSP mention links to the repo at [https://github.com/Microsoft/language-server- protocol](https://github.com/Microsoft/language-server-protocol) with more info.

We have, however, built and/or sponsored many language servers. (Those, in turn, build on compiler APIs that other people tirelessly created, to which we also owe thanks.)

<comment><USER6> The LSP is a really wonderful, simple and well executed idea. The simplicity of the protocol, cross platform (not bound to a COM interface or similar Windows only technology), ease of creation of an implementation in any language, all well done.

This is where the deep experience of Microsoft in building developer tools together with the desire to be cross platform are shining.

As a user of Emacs under Linux for the past 20 years to code in Fortran, they succeed in me using Visual Studio Code[0] and hack into a Fortran Language Server!

[0]: [https://www.ceondo.com/ecte/2018/09/vscode-visual-studio- cod...](https://www.ceondo.com/ecte/2018/09/vscode-visual-studio-code- fortran/)

<comment><USER4> Yes, and LSP is one of those ideas that I respect even more because it was laughed at initially! Unlike most other approaches at solving this problem, it did NOT try to model concepts or structures in programming languages. It is presentational, not semantic; it is solely concerned with "what does the user want to do/see". It was radically simpler than other approaches at solving the same problem, and it has achieved tremendous adoption, so I think it's fair to say it's a success.

BTW, very cool that you built the Fortran language server!

<comment><USER6> Simplicity is hard to achieve!

I am not the author of the Fortran Language Server, just fixing bugs and trying to improve it. But as the protocol is simple, this makes the work to improve it also way simpler. This is the part where I am now sure that the LSP will take over the world for the benefits of all the code editors, closed or open source, cross platform or not. And this is good for us as programmers :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So, I've written a language server for a very niche programming language (Paradox Interactive games' scripting language).

I started it as a VSCode extension (via LSP), and am halfway to getting a Sublime Text extension to work, and gave up on intellij. Emacs/Vim shouldn't be hard, but I have no idea how I would release updates. While I agree LSP is technically making it an "n-plus-m" problem, implementing the plugins that wire things up to the IDE is _hard_.

My main pain-points have been:

\- Initial integration: Each IDE has its own extension framework, and it takes a lot of work to get my LSP server to work at all

\- Deploying updates: Once I have it working, I then need to spend days automating updates _for each IDE_.

\- Distributing LSP updates: For VSCode, I bundle the executable, but that means extension updates for every LSP update. I could have system level installation, but I don't want to ask users to take that risk (nor manage installers myself)

\- Syntax highlighting: There is no good standard for semantic highlighting (technically textmate, in practice not). LSP doesn't include highlighting.

\- Settings management: Each IDE has a different way of managing settings, and gluing that to the LSP isn't easy.

Basically, I have to spend a week or two of my free time to support an extra IDE at all (not well), which is frustrating. Probably a month or two for full support, and that would be for maybe a dozen users.

<comment><USER4> Sourcegraph CEO here. We have a project underway that lets you write one editor extension and use it on multiple editors (and other tools with code views, such as GitHub, GitLab, Sourcegraph, etc.). We intend it to solve your problem.

[https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph-extension- api](https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph-extension-api)

<comment><USER8> Awesome mission. But god I wish JS weren't eating the world like this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > At Sourcegraph, we want to fix this and eventually enable everyone to build > software. For now, we're revealing our master plan for phase 1: how we're > going to make it easier and faster for today's developers to build software.

These are lofty goals, and sorely needed.

We've come a long way but there is a lot of "suckage" both in developing software and in using it still.

I wish Sourcegraph all the best :)

<comment><USER9> One thing in particular that grinds my gears about a lot of software is how limited the _actions_ I can perform on _data_ are.

Take Spotify for example, a fantastic product by many measures, but which even so does suck in some ways. Being able to create playlists and to enqueue songs is a start, but think about a list as a special case, limited kind of graph, and think about what kinds of operations we are missing out on by restricting ourselves to just lists.

And that's not all. Spotify is also annoying in terms of looking at the currently playing list of songs. If you go someplace else and look at another list and then go back to the current playlist you'll usually be brought back to the top and if the list is long then you have to scroll a lot in order to get back to where you were.

And I would like to make arbitrary queries like "show me all playlists in which song x occurs".

And I would like to have access to the full history of songs I've listened to, including information about leaving the song before it was done, and skipping forward and back. And I would like to have the point in time in a song where I starred it or added it to a playlist.

Then I could query for example "show me all songs that I've listened to in the past six months, that I listened to at least 80% of the full length of, but which I have not listened to within the last two weeks" and play the resulting list.

Of course, the playlist being a simple concept makes it easy for users to understand. I guess the amount of people that want what I want is probably not many...

<comment><USER10> Arbitrary data querying are literally the problem databases exist to solve. It's a monumentally hard problem.

And there's another issue on top of it, the company 'crown jewels' problem. If Spotify makes it too easy to query Spotify, then it becomes ridiculously easy to compete with Spotify. Which isn't a bad thing necessarily, but not something we should expect Spotify to expend millions of dollars to enable.

<comment><USER9> > And there's another issue on top of it, the company 'crown jewels' problem. > If Spotify makes it too easy to query Spotify, then it becomes ridiculously > easy to compete with Spotify. Which isn't a bad thing necessarily, but not > something we should expect Spotify to expend millions of dollars to enable.

Yeah that's true. But mainly the data I want to be able to query is the data that is directly connected to my own activity. If Spotify made it possible to get access to metadata about my activity and the songs that were involved in my activity then it's useful for users but still limits somewhat what a would- be competitor could do. Combine that with a ToS that forbids redistribution of the data and I think Spotify could provide this without helping would-be competitors too much.

Even if a would-be competitor had access to various data from Spotify they would still need to both negotiate agreements about streaming rights with the IPR owners of the music itself, and they would need a lot of marketing in order to get users. In other words they would need a lot of capital. Where would a would-be competitor even get that kind of money? I don't see why any VC or startup accelerator would be willing to fund someone to build this given how big Spotify is and how limited the group of people probably is that would decide to leave Spotify for this feature.

Whereas on the other hand, this kind of access to data could be a premium feature, and then it could be another reason for users that cared about these things to pay for Spotify Premium. Open source third-party clients could implement query engines, building on exactly what you mentioned in the first paragraph;

> Arbitrary data querying are literally the problem databases exist to solve.

Open source clients exists today, and using them with Spotify requires premium. If Spotify provided the data, _someone_ would follow suit in making use of the data in open source clients. Which _could_ further boost sales of premium membership, while at the same time like I said would still _not_ make it _too easy_ for would-be competitors.

Actually, the client wouldn't even need to be open source, it could be a commercial product, and by integrating with Spotify Premium they would still not be a competitor, and they would not need to go through licensing, and marketing might be easier as well. "Enjoy advanced interaction with your Spotify Premium listening experince by using our client."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Phase 2 sounds particularly interesting to me as it's a problem I also want to solve. Are you guys willing to talk about the direction you're moving in, or is this still to come?

I think making development as simple and accessible as possible is essential for our software-driven economy to scale efficiently.

</comment><comment><USER12> Isn't Kythe[0] trying to achieve this already, with a graph based, multi- language framework?

Of course, there are no integration with current dev tools, but the core is there to make it work, maybe?

[0] - [https://kythe.io](https://kythe.io)

<comment><USER4> Sourcegraph CEO here. Yes, Kythe is a very ambitious project and we have a lot of respect for the team building it inside Google. source{d} ([https://sourced.tech/](https://sourced.tech/)) is another company doing awesome things in the code analysis space.

From our POV, the more people trying to accomplish these things, the better, because:

1\. As developers and humans, we want these things to exist!

2\. Our business and product is a code search and browsing tool, which benefits from better code intelligence/analysis. We don't sell language servers directly; we sell a tool that makes use of them.

(For interactive tools (editors, code search, and code browsers), which is what we're primarily targeting, LSP ([https://microsoft.github.io/language- server-protocol/](https://microsoft.github.io/language-server-protocol/)) is a better fit than Kythe.)

<comment><USER12> > From our POV, the more people trying to accomplish these things, the better

Sure, im totally ok with this vision, given this is how people create new things, even if it looks 'solved' in a given context.

> As developers and humans, we want these things to exist!

The more iteration, the better.. we definitely need more polished tools in this space.

> LSP ([https://microsoft.github.io/language-server- > protocol/](https://microsoft.github.io/language-server-protocol/)) is a > better fit

Oh thanks, thats kind of the context i was looking for.. in what problem domain you guys were pointing to.

It makes perfect sense giving the current goals of Sourcegraph, to create a more complete solution to the dev community it targets.

(I didnt wanted to sound the "Dont reinvent the wheel" kind of guy here, just curious about what you were trying to acomplish, and used Kythe as a reference to the problem domain)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Someone has read their Thiel. +1

</comment><comment><USER14> Impressive that they've sold a free IDE for 20 million to investors...

<comment><USER4> Sourcegraph CEO here. We sell a code search and browsing product for developers to companies ([https://about.sourcegraph.com/](https://about.sourcegraph.com/)).

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't get what problem this solves that Emacs with appropriate language modes doesn't already solve.

<comment><USER4> Sourcegraph CEO here. I have been a near-daily Emacs user for 15+ years. The unsolved problem for you and me as Emacs users is this: I wish I had the same high-quality extensions that VS Code users get. I use VS Code 1/3 of the time because the editing experience is so much better in many languages (such as TypeScript).

Have you tried VS Code? I would highly recommend you try it if you haven't yet. I think you'll see what you are missing.

(Of course, Emacs has many awesome features/modes that other editors lack, too. The same principle applies there.)

<comment><USER16> What the point in using VS Code compared to emacs when we have LSP servers and an emacs lsp-mode ?

<comment><USER4> VS Code extensions for language support are (usually) a combo of a language server plus VS Code extension code. Other editors using just the language server won't get the features implemented in the VS Code extension. So Emacs lsp-mode and a language server won't get you all the features that VS Code users enjoy.

For example, the Go language server (if enabled) in vscode-go is only responsible for hovers, definitions, references, and a few other things. Auto- imports, code lens for tests, helpful commands, coverage, etc., are all implemented in vscode-go's TypeScript extension code.

I recommend just trying VS Code for the languages you use in Emacs to see what you're missing. I bet a blog post about your experience would get to the front page of HN. :)

(One solution, of course, is to make it possible to write _all_ of those things in a way that can be consumed by all editors. Check out [https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph-extension- api](https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph-extension-api) to see our work to let you write any kind of editor extension in an editor-independent way (not just the language/code intelligence features). When this gets into beta, we'll feel comfortable updating this master plan to denote the progress toward the goals.)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is an AI government called? - <AUTHOR> The closest term I could find to describe an AI government is "Cyberocracy", but that doesn't seem to be its standard usage. Are there any other names that refer to this type of political system? <comment><USER2> AI Autocracy?

</comment><comment><USER3> Aictatorship

</comment><comment><USER4> Google.</comment>


Amazon reveals $79 Kindle - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/28/amazon-reveals-79-kindle/ <comment><USER2> You know, this is probably a really ridiculous gripe, but that silvery plastic look makes the new Kindles look cheap. It reminds me of the cheap silver plastic they use for "As seen on TV" products. I much preferred the slate gray and white colors of the Kindle Keyboard.

<comment><USER3> It looks cheap because it _is_ cheap. It's a $79 Kindle, what do you expect?

<comment><USER2> That's kind of contradictory to how Amazon is positioning them:

"These are high-end products"

That's the first phrase of the first paragraph after the product image.

I'm not saying they need to cover them in alcantara, but the old smooth-matte finish is much better than this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Does anyone use the Kindle for technical books? If so, how does it fare? For the $79/$99 it's not a big price to pay, but I have 10s, if not 100s of PDFs that I would like to keep and read (reading on the iPad isn't working out for me).

Any thoughts?

Update: Just saw fribblerz's comment about the DX. But I am still curious about the other Kindles.

<comment><USER5> You basically need a DX for PDF's. The smaller screen requires more zooming and navigating, which is a pain due to the performance lag.

Of course, this can be avoided if they are not PDF out of neccesity. If the book is all text, not heavily formatted, and you just have it in PDF for convienience, look into getting an eBook copy.

Note: I use a 2nd gen Kindle. The newer models might be a little snappier.

<comment><USER6> Nope, still need a DX for PDF and images. Even zoomed, it's hard to make out small notations in graphs and pictures.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm really looking forward to something like a cheaper variant of DX to come along. Technical books don't render well on 6 inch screen and I can't get myself to shell out a notebook's price for current DX.

</comment><comment><USER8> Still no native epub support. What is Amazon waiting for?

</comment><comment><USER9> As someone that's been on the Kindle since the 1st gen, I love the march to something cheap and light/small enough to be held in one hand.

It's just a shame that there's no text-to-speech, which would be really killer on this, the lightest model in the lineup. I find TTS really useful, especially for non-fiction, essays and news (conveying the nuances of fiction, particularly dialogue, can be awkward with TTS). I think the feature's been buried by way of being awkwardly placed in the text-size menu of previous Kindles. I'd say %90 of Kindle owners I talk to have never used it or don't know the functionality is even there.

At the very least, I hope Amazon puts it in their iOS/Android apps.

<comment><USER10> Many publishers don't allow their books to use the TTS feature. Possibly because they fear that it would could into their audio-book market. Amazon may have decided that it's a feature that's too infrequently used to justify the cost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Same price as a Prime membership. How long 'til they say "aw shucks, we'll just give every Prime member one"? Maybe fulfilling the theorized "free Kindle by November '11" prediction? (Price drops vs. dates graph is near straight- line to there.)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Actually, the announcement is now at the Amazon's home page.

Next step: make e-books cheaper!

[http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-version-expensive-paperback- ver...](http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-version-expensive-paperback- version/forum/Fx1YVPLD6A2JUPU/Tx15JXOCDQNRKJF)

<comment><USER12> They used to, but then the publishers forced them to accept the agency model of e-book pricing.

<comment><USER13> Actually, I believe it was Apple who promoted the agency model on the iPad which forced Amazon to convert to the agency model as well.

<comment><USER14> It was still the publishers, Apple just made themselves into a poker chip the publishers could use to play against Amazon.

<comment><USER13> Sure ultimately it was the publisher's decision to go to the agency model but if Apple and Amazon held firm it would have been a win for the consumer. Apple decided to take a swipe at one of its competitors which in the end hurt consumers by allowing for ebooks to be priced artificially.

<comment><USER15> eBook prices were artificial to begin with. Amazon was known to take a loss when necessary to set the price ceiling at $9.99, which (as you can imagine) would hurt competitors who couldn't absorb losses like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Price of this Kindle in the UK: £89 = $139. ([http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kindle- Wi-Fi-6-Ink-Display/dp/B0051Q...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kindle-Wi-Fi-6-Ink- Display/dp/B0051QVF7A/))

<comment><USER17> Europe gets the ad-free version, which costs $109 in the US. Add 20% UK VAT and that becomes $131 or £84. Amazon's price is pretty reasonable.

<comment><USER18> OK, thanks for that, I was thinking that it was the usual small markets pay more thing. Osbourne effect: I've actually been putting off a kindle purchase until the pad was launched as I knew there would be a cheaper electronic ink reader after the pad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I now own over a dozen books that are more expensive than a Kindle.

</comment><comment><USER20> personally I don't like it...the current kindle feels too small and a bit uncomfortable to read because of that, I'd imagine with the new one flipping pages is going to be even more anoying</comment>


Can a mutant douchebag change his life? - <AUTHOR> http://jamesaltucher.com/2010/10/can-a-mutant-douchebag-change-his-life/

<comment><USER2> teenage mutant ninja turtles did change their lives

</comment><comment><USER3> "pop finance books from the 70s like books by Adam Smith"

 _What?_

If by 'the 70s' he meant the 1770s...</comment>


Startups that launched at YC W17 Demo Day 1 - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/20/yc-demo-day-winter-2017/ <comment><USER2> The gear image of the YC logo is rather amusing. Those gears wouldn't move an inch in that configuration.

<comment><USER3> Some brand of spray lubricant back in the 90's had a logo with three interlocking gears on the can.

An ironic arrangement that could never rotate.</comment></comment>


Starting Up, One Year Later: The Honeymoon - <AUTHOR> http://tom.posterous.com/starting-up-one-year-later-the-honeymoon <comment><USER2> Awesome, heartfelt post. It really got me reminiscing about the good ol' times in hot, humid Boston that summer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh man, almost ungodly humid. But I agree, that was a fine piece of writing by Tom.

<comment><USER3> Well, some of you geniuses decided to not even use A/C, which was completely nuts. Once ours were acquired, things were rather comfortable... so long as you didn't leave the room with 2 units in the windows!

<comment><AUTHOR> Our "office" (read living room filled with computers) was actually sealed off with sheets in order to keep the cool air from the in-window AC confined to that room.

The real killer was the two mile hike to YC for weekly dinners and meetings. Unfortunately walking to the T, taking it a couple stops, then walking to YC was the same equivalent distance, so we ended up just hoofing it over there in the heat and humidity.

<comment><USER2> We did pretty much the same. I remember sometimes it would rain like crazy out of nowhere. We'd come to dinner soaked to the teeth! good times, yo

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _I think it's the excitement only a free man can feel, a free man at the start of a long journey whose conclusion is uncertain._

I'm forever going to imagine you riding on an old bus, looking out an open window.

<comment><USER3> It seems like a good image to me. What should life be if not a string of uncertain journeys? I'd be more worried if I knew where I was going.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> how much longer would the honey moon phase last, if you were in SV surrounded by other entrepreneurs?

<comment><USER3> I often wonder that myself. I have a feeling my life would have been more balanced, at the expense of less work being accomplished in the short term. Much "hanging out" goes on there ;)

<comment><USER6> don't let them California folks tempt you; their "thug life" tats are henna. this shit is supposed to hurt.

/me goes back to struggling with CSS in IE, you fucking piece of crap!</comment></comment></comment>


Amazon SimpleDB Grows Up - <AUTHOR> http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2008/11/amazon-simpledb-grows-up.html <comment><USER2> Google reader caught it, here's a link from my shared items: <http://www.google.com/reader/shared/10769756911853394104>.

They are saying that they are opening the beta to everyone, offering limited free usage (500MB, 25 machine-hours) and that they reduced the pricing to $0.25 per GB per month. It's limited to 100 domains with 10GB each.

<comment><USER3> This is something that's always confused me with Amazon's EC2 pricing. If I were to run an instance for my personal use it would, for the post part, have to be up 24/7 but it would be idle for the vast majority of that time. Would I be charged for 24*31 hours?

If so, those 25 free machine hours are fairly worthless.

<comment><USER4> Yes, I think you would be charged for those hours.

If you need a server up 24/7 then EC2 is not the right provider for you; you should be looking at a more conventional hosting companies (Linode and Slicehost have already been mentioned here). EC2 is for people who expect they will need an _extra_ server (or two, or ten) up for one (or two, or ten) hours out of every week, and for the rest of the week they don't care if that server is effectively turned off.

<comment><USER3> This is what I was afraid of. I'm playing around with a couple toy webapps at appengine because it's free, and I'd like to do the same with ec2.

I _really_ don't want to accidentally leave it 'on' and get a bill so I''ll continue avoiding it.

<comment><USER2> EC2 isn't free but it's pretty cheap, it starts from 0.10$/h. If you follow the tutorials on EC2 you'll see that it's pretty well explained how you see your running instances and how to stop them. There is also elasticfox, a Firefox plugin to manage your instances (and other complex commercial management tools)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The price reduction to $0.25 per GB/month puts it much closer to App Engine datastore's expected pricing of $0.15 - $0.18 per GB/month.

</comment><comment><USER6> Is this down for anyone else?

<comment><USER7> Down for me too

[http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/aws.typepad.com/aws/2008/...](http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/aws.typepad.com/aws/2008/11/amazon- simpledb-grows-up.html)

Says its down for everyone.

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks like the post was taken down. Maybe it was posted by mistake.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I can't wait till they support SELECT like statements. Who knows, even an ODBC driver some day?

<comment><USER9> There is a reason cloud services do not support full SQL - relational storage doesn't scale.

<comment><USER8> I know that. But I find that a lot of my projects end up with 5-10GB database tables that I would rather not host myself. SimpleDB could fill my need quite well if I didn't have to rewrite all my apps to work with SimpleDB and instead could just change my SQL statements to work with Amazon. Think of it like a simplistic MySQL server that never goes down or has no scaling problems. The way SimpleDB is now is good but requires significant rewrites to existing applications that use any SQL backend.

<comment><USER9> Then you should probably install MySQL on an EC2 instance with EBS attached. You need some rewriting even when you port to another relational db vendor.

Amazon is definitely not headed towards administration-free experience, it aims for flexibility instead.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tobacco plant may be key to Ebola drugs - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/health/ebola-tobacco-plant/

<comment><USER2> I'm a casual cigar smoker, all tobacco, no cigarettes though, but there's another cure as well, Apparently Garcinia kola? I haven't researched it though.

</comment><comment><USER3> I still don't believe this thing is 100% effective. What about the Liberian doctor who received Zmapp and died?

<comment><USER4> Most things aren't 100% effective, and I don't think anyone is claiming that Zmapp is. The FDA only requires drugs to be effective for a significant portion of users, not 100%.

The FDA's definition of effective is: "There is reasonable assurance that a device is effective when it can be determined, based upon valid scientific evidence, that in a significant portion of the target population, the use of the device for its intended uses and conditions of use, when accompanied by adequate directions for use and warnings against unsafe use, will provide clinically significant results."

[http://web.stanford.edu/group/biodesign/regulatory/materials...](http://web.stanford.edu/group/biodesign/regulatory/materials/safety_slides.pdf)

<comment><USER3> The thing is, this was given to 3 people with Ebola as far as I know.

One was a doctor from Liberia who died.

2 others came to the US for treatment.

If the death rate of Ebola is 70%, that data is probably germane to the quality of the health care in those affected regions, which makes me wonder if the drug is really what helped the 2 who survived, or the increase in health care quality of the US.

It's just too early to tell, and the article that was linked sensationalizes something that we don't even know is the verifiable answer.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: I made a tool to open files from git in one line. Useful? - <AUTHOR> http://arnorhs.com/2011/12/25/open-all-files-from-a-git-diff-or-git-show-with-this-handy-command-utility/

<comment><USER2> Very handy. Also, you can do something like this:

        git config --global alias.open '!sh ~/gitopen.sh'

Which lets you invoke it like:

        git open diff master

Edit: Alternately, if you save the file somewhere in your path as "git-open", you can run it with "git open" as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ahh, awesome. Do you mind if I add that to the post and give you a shout out?

<comment><USER2> Hey of course, go nuts :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Looks neat. I'm just curious, what is the motivation for naming this `gitopen` rather than `git-open`, which allows `git open` with no configuration?

<comment><AUTHOR> Honestly, I simply wasn't aware of the convention. Thanks for pointing that out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you use vim and git, you should check out Fugitive, which adds loads of really useful Git integration into Vim:

<https://github.com/tpope/vim-fugitive>

The last five vimcasts go through what this plugin can do, and are really worth the time:

<http://vimcasts.org/episodes/archive></comment>


Thinking with our hands can help find new ways of solving problems - <AUTHOR> http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/8619.html <comment><USER2> That's why i still count on fingers :)</comment>


Did technology kill the book or give it new life? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33717596 <comment><USER3> I love ebooks and I'm way too prone to impulse-buying them on my Kindle, but recent price movements are trying hard to kill the market.

I'm not going to pay £15 for a text file, sorry. I honestly don't care how good your editing is, chances are it's awful anyway: one I got recently, by a mainstream author from a mainstream publisher, has "renaissance" spelled "re nais san ce" (with spaces) throughout the entire book, clearly an hyphenation fail (and let's not go into "wrong" words you can clearly recognise as spellchecking fails).

So in the end, you publisher-and-author are just shuffling a text file from A to B and you want me to believe your profit is the same as when you were cutting trees, pressing ink and transporting heavy boxes around the land. I just feel insulted. I know cost and price are different and what the market will bear and yadda yadda, I just don't think a text file is worth more than a few quid.

<comment><USER4> I believe that the right book at the right time can change your perspective, maybe your life. £15 is a pretty small price to dive into a well-written book on a subject, practically the moment your interest is sparked in the subject. Other conveniences - the fact that you don't have to trudge hundreds of pounds of books every time you move, the ability to read on any device - <USER2> make them more valuable than their physical counterparts to me, at least.

<comment><USER5> I would pay 15 pounds for a life-changing book, but not for my next pulp fantasy. That's just way too much, especially when the paper book costs around the same or less.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> For me the only "ebook" that truly exists is a PDF/file that I can handle the way I want. I never considered the kindle-amazon combo to be an option. From amazon I only buy physical books, and will continue to do so until the stuff I buy can be used the way I want, on linux, with the reader I want.

There's no point in buying inferior media, especially when the price difference is so small.

An mind, I regularly use PDFs for searching/references, but I still read books just fine. I would need 4-5 e-ink readers to be able to do what I currently do with regular books, they would need to be A4 size at least, and will never settle for anything which is not a dumb PDF visualizer with no strings attached.

Until then, books will continue to live strong on my bookshelf.

<comment><USER7> PDFs are horrible when it comes to different screen sizes, though. I mean, horrible to the point of near unusablility.

The ebook formats (both EPUB and Kindle) work very well indeed on devices ranging from a small phone screen to a large desktop monitor. They're not "inferior" to PDF in the slightest in that respect.

There are still niches where PDF wins, but that's certainly not the case for casual fiction.

<comment><USER6> I don't care so much about the format. I never used epub because nothing I ever used came in epub. I usually get PDFs along with books I buy (which is ironic, but appreciated), but never epub so far.

My main complaint is that these readers come with DRM. As far as the format is concerned, I would be fine with almost anything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I stopped buying technical books approximately 15 years ago. Nowadays I much prefer (online) tutorials along with the (online) reference manual with user comments. In fact, you could quite easily crowd author and publish these things. We could use better software for that, though, because Wikipedia's mediawiki is only so so for that purpose. Furthermore, most reference manuals and tutorial collections do not sufficiently solicit user commenting and other user participation. Books printed on paper do not allow for user involvement at all. Even for novels, I would prefer to read them with user involvement in one way or another. I cannot imagine one type of book that would not benefit from user interaction.

</comment><comment><USER9> For adult fiction, I doubt any of us care how or where people read. It's an uncomplicated example. Instead, consider something like scientific research. The possibilities seem endless when it comes to putting research online: richer _multimedia_ , raw data sets, crowdsourcing, timely publication, etc. But paper (and parchment) is still a more reliable archival format, which could be crucial on some unfortunate day in the (hopefully distant) future.

For content that matters, I wonder how long paper will be able to keep up with digital, and what the long-term effects will be either way.

<comment><USER10> Scientific journals haven't done diddly with the internet but use it as a glorified magazine printing device in the time they've been on it so far. It's possible that's just because they're stupid, but I wonder how much of it is creating scarcity. e.g: You don't make money by sharing your raw data with the world and having it networked with other data to make it easily searchable, you make money by keeping a stranglehold on the data and charging £20 a pop to read a summary with the analysis you want people to have of it stapled to the front.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The only thing I miss when using my kindle is going to the used bookstores and hunting for treasures (generally obscure sci-fi for $1 per paperback).

But my kindle 4 lets me stay in sync with my phone (which I can use in the dark and outside the house unprepared, both of which come up a lot). So I tend to read kindle books still, despite a rather large collection of unread fiction.

</comment><comment><USER12> While I used to be the guy that would carry a book on my mass-transit commute, I found that the (admittedly minor) headaches of doing so were contributing to my reading less and less.

Having to carry a book around is fine if it's a small paperback, but for books I just couldn't wait for, I found that my laptop bag was cramped enough without trying to carry the hardback Game of Thrones, so I ended up prioritizing taking smaller books on the commute, which meant that I had books at home that I wasn't reading. Meanwhile, the Kindle is smaller than a paperback. Advantage: Kindle.

If I was nearing the end of a book, I would just stop taking it, because (for me at least), the idea that I might take a book into my commute, finish it, and not have a book to read on the way home was a hassle. Moreover, I had to carry the already-read book around for the rest of the day. With the Kindle, I could finish one book and start the next. Advantage: Kindle.

Bookmarking / placeholding doesn't need much discussion, but I definitely found that on the Metro, I lost my place a lot more often than reading on my porch. Advantage: Kindle.

Goodreads integration. I like sharing my thoughts on books, but more specifically, I like sharing my ratings of books... mostly for myself, so that when I'm looking for a new book and nothing is jumping out at me, I can check out my Goodreads review, find other books by authors I rated highly, and just grab the next book from an author I previously enjoyed. With paper books, I found that I would often forget to update my rankings, while my Kindle asks at the end of every book. Advantage: Kindle.

To those who suggest that paper is better on the eyes than e-ink, I can't assert scientifically either way, but as a programmer who spends too much time in front of a screen, I can only say that having begun with the Kindle software on an iPad, and eventually moved to the Kindle hardware, the Kindle is MUCH better on the eyes than the iPad. On the scale of paper to iPad, the Kindle feels like it comes closer to paper than iPad, if it's not exactly the same.

While I acknowledge that the above quibbles are in fact quibbles, and possibly unique only to me, on the whole, I've found that keeping my Kindle on me just means that I end up reading more, which is the far better alternative.

<comment><USER13> I have a Kobo but that doesn't matter (correct me if I'm wrong). I really miss the ability to flip pages to re-read relevant passages before getting back to where I left off my reading. I also like the weight of the books and visually and mentally mapping where I am in the book by comparing read pages and unread pages.

I don't know how it is on the Kindle but I have a small notebook where I jot down thoughts and notes. The Kobo software sucks for that (and 2 Kobo crashes deleting my notes and everything else taught me not to use the note taking feature, bookmarking and getpocket integration).

I think e-reader are convenient but paper is still a better experience. Except for lying in bed on one side :). And page turning makes no sound.

<comment><USER12> The Kindle has highlighting and note-taking ability built-in.

The responsiveness on the e-ink keyboard isn't fantastic, but it's decent enough for short note-taking, and highlighting is dead simple.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Other than the occasional technical book, I refuse to buy e-books when reading for pleasure.

After spending all day in front of a screen, the last thing I want is another screen in my face when trying to relax with a good book at the end of the day.

<comment><USER15> I understand where you are coming from, really, I do. My eyes are strained too and I recently got a Kindle (purposely without the backlight) and it is amazing. I'd recommend to give it a try - but I can't really speak for the backlit versions.

<comment><USER16> Seconded. My (non-backlit) Kindle really doesn't feel like I'm reading from a screen. It's a totally different experience from reading on my phone or laptop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What about audio books? I've read more in the last few years than the decade before, since I switched almost entirely to audio books. In many cases they are much better than the printed version. Case in point, Ulysses by James Joyce. The audible.com spoken version is a masterpiece, and this is definitely a book that's meant to be listened to.

<comment><USER18> Audio books has made "reading" a hobby for me. I never thought I was the type that really enjoyed reading a good book. After switching from radio to audio books while driving, traffic has almost become enjoyable (not quite, but you get the idea). I've read so many books the past few years, it's amazing. It feels like it increases your brain's learning rate, or at the very least, it gives you some very interesting topics to talk about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > _Adult fiction - particularly romantic and erotic - has migrated strongly to > the e-book, whereas cookery and religious books still do well in print, as > do books with illustrations. All for fairly obvious reasons._

Like writing on a notepad, reading a physical book does a good job of communicating with body language what you're doing. And if you believe in judging books by their cover, the book cover provides further information about its subject. And you can leave physical books in public places to start conversations.

Additionally, large books like cookbooks and illustrated books often come in a large form factor that tablets struggle to match. That's not too surprising, given that humans have been making books for about half a century, but only making tablets for maybe a decade.

And it's mostly the books we don't want others to know we're reading (adult fiction) for which we use the e-reader, where others can't tell what we're reading.

<comment><USER20> Slight correction, but humans have been making books for over half a millennium. We've got way more experience making them than tablets.

I use my kindle for everything though, I like that it doesn't give strangers any starting point for a conversation, regardless of what I'm reading.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I have multiple readers, including a Kindle DX and a Sony PRS-505 (still works like new!).

Print books are still awesome though, and I just pulled a few off the shelf for re-reading. But now there is freedom of balance. We have a whole carload of books on its way to the Good Will. There isn't an inherent reason to simply hold on to them anymore. So now we can keep what we want to keep; and let the rest be digital (which is easier to archive anyway).

I can't see being extreme either way. My Kindle DX works great for technical books; and I can keep another copy ready for viewing on the computer while I'm coding. My little Sony will show whatever fiction/non-fiction I throw at it (after conversion) and the battery is somehow still healthy. I'm looking to get a used Nook Glow though; as I'm tired of providing my own light.

But I'll still stop in the book store and browse the fiction. It's not only easier that digital browsing, but more fun.

</comment><comment><USER22> Both for me.

For good or ill there are books that only exist in dead tree form. I still buy them. I don't entirely miss them to be honest, but for casual reading or it seems super technical things from ages ago, dead tree is where its at.

For recent things though relating to programming, I honestly can't be arsed to use dead tree form. Being able to have updates to books, sync notes/highlights/blah electronic books beat regular books entirely.

In my mind technology just expanded the definition of what a book is.</comment>


Ask HN: Have you landed a project through "Freelancer/Seeking Freelancer" posts? - <AUTHOR> I'm wondering how effective it has been for people to post their credentials on the "Freelancer? Seeking Freelancer?" posts.<p>If you landed a project, what percentage of your annual revenue did you make from it? Would love to hear specifics if you care to share. <comment><USER2> I posted every month for around 4 months a few years back. I got two responses and one turned into a short term contract. Considering the low effort of 'write an ad, post to HN', it was a positive experience.

</comment><comment><USER3> Last time the question was asked nobody answered ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7832404](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7832404)) and almost 3 years ago only one success answer ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7832404](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7832404)). Either the success rate is low or those with success don't share in worry about attracting competition.

I remember counting the ads once, can't find my own comment, and it was 95% seeking. This month it's 100% seeking. So at least companies no longer post in the threads.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I'd venture that the success rate is low.

I, and others, have asked questions [0] [1] about people's experiences/financial numbers in running an indie business and the HN crowd very willingly shared both. I doubt the freelancing crowd would be that much different in terms of sharing.

[0]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12269425](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12269425) [1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12065355](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12065355)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Last few clients were from those posts, and I'm really happy with them. Right now I would say it's one of the best sources for leads/clients.

</comment><comment><USER5> I work as a contract DevOps guy (mostly out of disgust at the agency recruitment model now prevalent in Britain) and hunt down all my own work. I'd say it's 50% word-of-mouth, 50% HN.

IMO the single best thing you can do to attract clients is show good communication skills (i.e. write a good ad) and a track record of successful projects.

</comment><comment><USER6> Yes, a few prospective clients and one deal. Not particularly much in terms of annual revenue but still.

</comment><comment><USER7> We hired two great guys that I found in the thread. A full time contract of around six months.</comment>


Tesla model S is so safe it broke the crash-testing gear - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2013/08/tesla-model-s-crash-test/

<comment><USER2> it s very nice but Tesla cars are way more pricey than the comparable competition.</comment>


Why does a/(b/c) = a(c/b)? - <AUTHOR> https://www.mail-archive.com/kragen-tol%40canonical.org/msg00320.html

<comment><USER2> I often find the following analogy useful to have in mind

      a-(b-c) = a+(-b+c) = a+(c-b)

      a/(b/c) = a*(/b*c) = a*(c/b)

      a*(/b*c) is not legal syntax in most languages, but why not?</comment>