Firefly – Full Text Search Engine for Dropbox - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2015/03/firefly-instant-full-text-search-engine/ <comment><USER2> I would've loved to hear more details about why you built your own. For example, you mention that Elastic Search wasn't deployed at your scale and there was some talk about machine footprint, but it doesn't explain how your solution compares to something like ES.

Did ES just didn't scale when you tried it? Is your solution better/faster? If so, by how much and on what workloads?

Contrast this with something like RocksDB. They just show you the numbers - [http://rocksdb.org/](http://rocksdb.org/)

<comment><USER3> I think it depends partly on implementation and partly on their use case... The way ES works probably doesn't do well past a couple hundred nodes, max and even then likely has some real issues. Though they could have several independent clusters and shard out their users. What it looks like they implemented will scale better (to thousands of servers), and probably work better with their design.

That said, I'm somewhat surprised they didn't just try doing custom index/word counters against a larger cassandra cluster, which would scale well while still being somewhat out of the box as a software approach. I didn't thoroughly read through the article, but not sure of their use of stemming/mapping for word bases either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _" Firstly, we expect some users to have a large number of documents in their Dropbox, making it non-trivial to update their corresponding index "instantly"."_

If the alternative is maintaining a single index, won't the time it takes to update it at least be the time it takes to update per-user indexes? The former naively sounds like updating a single, gigantic binary search tree, the latter seems like updating a hashmap of UserId/BST pairs.

 _" Secondly, this approach requires the system to maintain as many indices as there are users with each stored in a separate file. With over 300 million users, keeping track of so many indices in production would be an operational nightmare."_

..Why?

Anyway the stuff about shared documents is enough to make per-user indexing probably a bad idea, but I don't understand the reasons they provided above.

</comment><comment><USER5> Is LevelDB linked in this article related to leveldb developed at Google ( [https://github.com/google/leveldb](https://github.com/google/leveldb) ) ?

<comment><USER6> The "C++ Library" link on [http://leveldb.org/](http://leveldb.org/) points at Google's LevelDB, so yes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Aren't documents on dropbox supposed to be encrypted?

<comment><USER8> It's server side encryption, they still can access your files. That's how they generate thumbnails for example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I can't help but I just don't want Dropbox or anybody else to read all my files.

<comment><USER10> If you really didn't want Dropbox having access to your files, why would you upload it in the first place?

<comment><USER11> Most likely the average HN reader is well aware that dropbox must have access to read your files. But possibly an average joe who doesn't read the TOS and who doesn't think everything through would assume that private storage is private to joe only and that the advertised encryption extends beyond transport to storage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> RabbitMQ, interesting. I was just reading up on NSQ and it seems like a good alternate.

Any details on the tech Firefly was coded in? Go, C++, Java?

</comment><comment><USER13> Can it do substring search? Unfortunately, Firefly is only available for business customers.

</comment><comment><USER14> Today. We have indexed all of your documents, you can search easily inside your documents, even though you have created good directory structure and named your files accordingly.

Tomorrow. Hmm we have your data, lots of data, we wanted to know what is interesting to our users, so we decided to analyse them and find people with common interest.

Day after tomorrow. Miss Rice challenged us "can you find terrorist users using all of the documents you have indexed and analysed?"

Future. Hey user your first name is strange, your documents contain some strange characters, you are uploading data from country where our political leaders have problems, are you terrorist?

<comment><USER15> You are of course welcome to not put your content on Dropbox, a private service run by a for-profit company.

They're adding a feature that they think the majority of their users will find useful, and betting that most of their users realize this doesn't increase Dropbox's access to their content: they could have written this indexing years ago and never disclosed it, using it solely for whatever tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory style acts they'd like.

If they lose the bet, they either pull the feature or go out of business. I'm betting their side, though, given that I expect most Dropbox users either don't care (which is their right) or care and made a willful decision to store their data on somebody else's systems (which is also their right).

<comment><USER11> Part of the concern is your average joe who doesn't read the ToS or understand computers might assume that their private Dropbox.com folder is exactly a computer analogue of a physical private folder where you drop your physical files from your physical desk, which then does some computer magic to sync them between your work and home desk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If DropBox is now letting you search and index your files, then they've been doing it for months.</comment>


Why Doesn't Someone Write a COBOL-Python Cross-Compiler? - <AUTHOR> https://thenewstack.io/cobol-everywhere-will-maintain/ <comment><AUTHOR> How hard is it to write a cross compiler? If there is "still 220 billion lines of COBOL code currently being used in production today", why hasn't someone written a COBOL-Python or COBOL-SomethingElse cross-compiler?

This URL has been discussed on HN before: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14343342](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14343342) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14336524](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14336524) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14287557](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14287557)</comment>


The food we buy is shrinking (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180510-the-food-you-buy-really-is-shrinking <comment><USER3> Here's an idea, stop constantly feeding yourself from companies who enjoy playing psychological pricing and ingredient/filler games on massive scales. Chances are you have someone in your town who roasts coffee beans. Chances are there are local eggs you could be getting easy, or with a little more effort, harvesting your own. Stop feeding yourself and your offspring insanely high levels of sugar breakfast cereal. Have you realized that they skirt food definitions around you? When was the last time you bought real dairy iced cream? Why are we chlorinating chicken and pumping it full of saline solution for the shelves, again?

This article is frustrating because the onus is not directly on the manufacturing... consumers allow the behaviour by largely being ignorant about their own nutrition. But who can blame them, we have entire governments building pyramids to suit questionably beneficial food industries. Where does all that corn come from for our addiction to high fructose corn syrup?

Stop letting people and companies who do not care about YOU, feed you and your family.

<comment><USER4> _> consumers allow the behaviour by largely being ignorant about their own nutrition._

This idea that "consumers allow the behavior" is a very pernicious one - it's common in the context of global warming too ("if only people stopped driving their car and started caring about the planet!").

It's an utter reversion of causality. People are going to do whatever makes the most sense given their own context, and if you're struggling time and money wise to take care of your family in a nutritional desert [0], and the only jobs you can get require you to drive an hour a day, then of course you're going to be buying frozen waffles at Walmart and Big Mac takeout for your kids and driving your car around. Not to mention the billions of dollars spent on advertising to manipulate people - what do you want citizens to do, when their own educational system fails to teach them the most basic literacy/numerical skills? [1]

We need to be angry at governments and companies, not people doing what they can to merely get by.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert) [1] [https://cepa.stanford.edu/content/patterns-literacy-among- us...](https://cepa.stanford.edu/content/patterns-literacy-among-us-students)

<comment><USER5> Not only that, but even if you can afford (both in time and money) to shop for honest, nutritional alternatives, how many people are really going to spend a significant amount of their time seeking out and acquiring these alternatives?

The OP talks about finding local sources of coffee and eggs, but many people would have no idea of where to get those, nor have any means of verifying that they were really what they claimed and not fraudulent.

As a consumer, I have no way of knowing if, for instance, the people hawking food at my local farmer's market (which I'm lucky enough to live within a convenient distance of) are really source their food locally or just pretend to. I have no means of verifying whether their food is really "organic", or is merely sold as such.

To take an example, the adulteration of "raw", "organic" honey with fillers like corn syrup is a serious problem.[1][2] An individual consumer has virtually no means at their disposal to determine which honey is genuine, short of becoming a beekeeper themselves or having a trusted beekeper friend, which is (I would venture to guess) the case for approximately 0% of the population.

The same goes for pretty much every other product. In aggregate, for all of the products a typical consumer buys, this can not be solved at an individual level.

[1] - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22518291](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22518291)

[2] - [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/884kq4/your-fancy- honey-m...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/884kq4/your-fancy-honey-might- not-actually-be-honey)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> To be cheeky, I didn't see any real food in the picture nor the article. My fruit and vegetables aren't getting any smaller.

Frankly, given the problems with health, diet, and obesity in most of the world, anything that makes more nutritional food compete easier with packaged food seems like a good thing. Like "packaged food is ripping us off" would be an excellent meme if it took any real hold. We're dying.

I watched a video that compared the food we have in our convenience stores to what they have in Japan (fresh soups, vegetables, fish) and it really opened my eyes about how our lives/health could be, and how effortless healthy choices could be. Until then, the only thing perishable at my local 7/11 is a mealy saran wrapped apple and it has to somehow compete with all the tastier packaged food.

<comment><USER7> > To be cheeky

You should have spent a little bit more time reading the article than the admittedly poor headline. The article isn't about making "more nutritional food compete easier with packaged food", it's about how packaged /products/ (not just food) are stealthily shrinking as prices remain fixed so as to slowly increase effective unit price to the end consumer.

That is the point of the article, and your comment has nothing to do with it.

<comment><USER8> I already know that shrinking a package is a common tactic, but I also know it goes in cycles. For instance, long ago, spaghetti used to come in 1 lb boxes. Then I started seeing reduced size packages. Now it seems mostly back to 1 lb.

My reaction to the headline is that the article is probably dumb and I don't want to read it, because the implication is that there is a new trend which will go on indefinitely until every food product is like a teaspoon.

If the article was like, here's an interesting way in which economics and psychology interact to produce a discontinuous behavior in the marketplace, I'd be more positive.

In other words, I have the same sour reaction as to most stuff these days - <USER2> hate journalism, clickbait, and ad-tech.

<comment><USER9> Actually, they cite that behavior _exactly_:

> Still, in the end, Dworsky says that the sneakiness, and the sense that > companies have a low opinion of their customers' intelligence, is what gets > to him most. Over his years as a professional observer of grocery shelves, > he has noticed an interesting pattern: it is common for a downsized product > to come full circle. First a product drops from 16oz to 14.5oz. Then, as the > years pass, maybe it goes down to 11oz. Perhaps it even drops to 8oz. Then, > a 16oz size appears again. But this time, it's the super or mega size. And > the cost is much, much higher than that of the original.

<comment><USER8> It's obviously not literally true, though. That's what I find irritating, the exaggeration and the tone, and I think it confirms that my prejudice was exactly right.

The cycle does not take a huge amount of time, and if it was extreme as people pretend, then we would know it because of inflation rates, and we would all be buying super-ultra-mega sizes of everything. And it's not a low opinion of peoples' intelligence, it's a recognition that people are sensitive to price increases for unchanged products. It's directly dictated by what people feel is fair.

I wish we could have articles that don't have the tone of feeding a persecution complex.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This theme always reminds me of the story Joel Spolsky related about optimizing the number of sesame seeds on a burger bun [0]. It may work for a while, but there is a logical lower limit to how small an ice cream container can be before it becomes a pint (e.g. pint plus 1/32 oz?). But that is always the next guy's problem, I suppose.

[0] [https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/09/11/theres-no-place- li...](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/09/11/theres-no-place-like-127001/)

<comment><USER11> Well, I stopped buying Haagen-Dazs when their tubs shrank and stuck to Ben & Jerry instead. And I stopped buying Tropicana Orange Juice when they shrank their juice containers from 64 fl. oz. to 59. You can't fool all of the people all the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> My favorite example of this in Canada is a brand of butter that is shaped/looks exactly like a standard pound of butter when it sits on the shelf... but when you pick it up it's actually half a pound of butter... as it's only half as thick as you would expect it to be.

It's usually priced higher than your average stick of butter as well.

I picked one up once, laughed, and have actively avoided looking at that brand ever since.

It's been on the shelf for years now though so they must be making good money?

</comment><comment><USER13> I make my own yogurt, my own ice-cream and maintain a wild-yeast culture for making sourdough. I roast my coffee in a popcorn popper for espresso. I make my own cookies, cakes, spice mixes, jam from raspberries on the back-yard and even some cleaning products. Sometimes I churn my butter.

But, still, found this article disturbing. I can't make my own toilet paper, milk or cream (for the ice-cream). We need some more creative destruction on the economy.

</comment><comment><USER14> This isn't a remotely recent phenomena.

Back in the 90s when I was studying computer graphics I checked out a textbook on statistics and data visualization from the local library. I don't remember the year it was published, but it was one of those old hardcover books with browning coarse paper pages and a dark linen lining on the exterior.

It was full of real world, hand-drawn visualizations, and one of the economic examples plotted Hersheys chocolate bar size per year across over a decade, with some other economic factor, GDP or some such. The text went a bit off on a tangent describing how the price of the bar stayed relatively constant but its volume varied in lockstep with the economy.

I doubt you could use the Hersheys bar today as an economic barometer since we have so much variety on the store shelves. Back then there was just one Hersheys bar... but they seem to have always manipulated its size over its price.

</comment><comment><USER15> I never read the price per unit, I always read the price per liter, kg etc. and use that to compare products.

<comment><USER16> I do the same. I'm in Sweden. There's old school pre-EU-legislation for price labels to have show a comparison price like that here. I've always assumed this came out of the consumer-empowerment-movement in the 70s, here. Is there a similar thing in the rest of the EU? Perhaps this is left to the member countries?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Given enough time, customers will eventually exit the market. Ex: I have completely stopped buying processed cereal (Cheerios etc) in favor of natural oatmeal.

I have a 40lb bag of oatmeal at home that will last 4 months. Also much healthier.

When I see tiny cereal boxes on a store shelf...I shake my head.

</comment><comment><USER18> When I lived alone I ate a lot of convenience food and pre-made sauces and such, then I moved in with my partner and she cooks everything from scratch (she's same age as me and Hungarian so she grew up under communism-lite where having your own animals and veg/fruit gardens was common if you lived in the country).

Honestly I'd forgotten how _good_ basic food tastes when it's cooked fresh - she makes simple things like mashed potato amazing and she bakes a lot as well - she wastes no food, left-overs are used up as lunch or frozen.

The _really_ stupid part of all this from my point of view was that our combined food bill from raw ingredients is about the same as what I was paying living alone.

<comment><USER19> My sister got a whole chicken from the butcher and roasted it.

I tasted a bit and went into a fugue, when I came to I found I had made a chicken sandwich!

I used to think I didn't like chicken but it turns out I'd just never tasted it before.

<comment><USER18> My partner can get 3 meals for 3 of us out of a single chicken.

She also buys the 'cheaper' parts like Chicken thighs and then slow cooks them to utter perfection, with a few herbs and veggies it is sublime.

I honestly though since I 'cooked' I was been economical but things like spaghetti bolognaise jars of sauce added 30% to the cost of a meal compared to the way she does it.

<comment><USER19> Riiiiight? It's cheaper and tastier and I'm sure it's healthier.

> She also buys the 'cheaper' parts like Chicken thighs and then slow cooks > them to utter perfection, with a few herbs and veggies it is sublime.

That sounds so good. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I always thought cake pops were the ultimate expression of this idea about the smaller dessert.

Here is a single bite of cake.

(They sell them at Starbucks, I don't know how much of a thing they are anywhere else. Actually I just realized I see the same idea in several restaurants with fancy little desserys in shot glasses. Still $6.50 for that one or two bites though.

</comment><comment><USER21> I wonder if this shrinkage skews cost of living indices to any relevant degree. Changes to individual products may not amount to much money lost, but I could see them adding up in a non-trivial way that flies under the radar for most researchers.

</comment><comment><USER22> I don't understand what the problem is.

Either the value makes sense to you at the point of purchase or it doesn't. What does it matter to anyone what it used to cost yesterday? This isn't yesterday and you aren't being offered the product at yesterday's price, so forget about what happened yesterday. Take the current price or leave it.

The article talks about 'sneakiness'. I don't get it. Are they lying about the volume or weight of the product? No? So what on earth is the problem? Sometimes prices go up, sometimes they go down. It's not some secret conspiracy. Prices fluctuate, world markets and supply conditions change, labour prices change. Does he think it's the job of a manufacturer of ice cream to protect him from the sands of time?

And for some of the examples in the article... do people really need larger servings of 'fruit loops' of all things? Come on.

<comment><USER7> > I don't understand what the problem is.

Is it that you don't understand what the problem is, or that it makes you uncomfortable to look at the problem? Let me phrase a few questions that help me think about what I think the problem is in a few ways:

\- Do you think it's necessary or unnecessary for American regulations on advertising to exist?

\- Do you think it ought to be punished for products to be packaged in a deceptive manner as long as it's theoretically possible to see the base information to make a determination about the product?

\- Do you think that manufacturers that sell high purity goods can survive against those that diluted purity goods loaded with adulterants while concealing that and winning marketshare on volume?

<comment><USER22> I agree with advertising regulations.

I don't think any situation described in this article is deceptive.

I think it's up to the consumer to pick purity that meets their needs. I'm not really sure how pure 'fruit loops' can be though so I'm not sure that's relevant here.

In summary, there's no moral issue here. The price by weight or volume of every product is accessible to the consumer, and they can judge the quality of the product on their own.

And anyway a half gallon of ice cream is an absolutely obscene quantity, and it's a good thing producers are packaging things in more reasonable sizes.

<comment><USER7> > I think it's up to the consumer to pick purity that meets their needs.

This isn't legal for pharmaceuticals, for instance. And if this were true, what is the point of the FDA? Why was the act established in the first place, why does the administration exist? What makes food, which is just as consumable (and can also have a significant impact on one's body), any different from drugs? I think that there is a reason the act's name is called the "Pure Food And Drug Act" \-- emphasis on the world "pure".

<comment><USER22> There's no indication in the article that any of the products have an _illegal_ impurity is there? Some of them have a different purity level, which may not be what you want, but someone else might be happy with at that price point. If the purity of your old brand doesn't work for you, buy a different one instead.

<comment><USER7> > an illegal impurity

What makes an impurity illegal in the first place?

What is the difference between a legal and illegal impurity?

<comment><USER22> Normally there are regulations about what you can and can't put in a food product. For example chocolate often has to contain a certain percentage of cocoa solids.

But again this isn't what this article is about. This article is about food products being smaller _than he 'd like_ and in some cases less pure _than he 'd like_. Not illegal small or illegally impure. He should just pick another product if they don't meet his requirements. He thinks he's exposing some kind of conspiracy, when really it's market prices and tastes changing.

<comment><USER7> > Normally there are regulations about what you can and can't put in a food > product. For example chocolate often has to contain a certain percentage of > cocoa solids.

I hear you, but that's not exactly what I'm asking. I'm asking a more specific question: how does a thing, previously legal, comes to be illegal? What happens at a societal and legislative level for such a change to transpire?

<comment><USER22> Are you asking me how legislation works? I'm not an expert on how it works in your country but you can often look up YouTube videos online if you want.

<comment><USER7> > Are you asking me how legislation works?

No. Laws do not exist a priori. They are constructed by the human society that forms structures and mechanisms to create them. I am asking you _why_ legislation comes into existence. In this specific case, I am asking you _why_ the Pure Food And Drug Act came into existence. Do you know the history?

<comment><USER22> Because of dangerous impurity.

But this isn't dangerous impurity.

This is a guy angry that he isn't getting as many fruity loops as he used to.

<comment><USER7> > Because of dangerous impurity.

Now we are getting somewhere. Yes, dangerous impurity -- that is part of it. But the act also prohibits selling "misbranded or adulterated" food or drugs. For the purpose of food, the act defines "misbranded" as:

```

First. If it be an imitation of or offered,for sale under the distinctive name of another article . Second. If it be labeled or branded so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser, or purport to be a foreign product when not so, or if the contents of the package as originally put up shall have been removed in whole or in part and other contents shall have been placed in such package, or if it fail to bear a statement on the label of the quantity or proportion of any morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta eucane, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, or teetanilide, or any derivative or preparation of any of such substances contained therein .

```

Key points here: 1\. "If it be labeled or branded so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser"

2\. "if the contents of the package as originally put up shall have been removed in whole or in part and other contents shall have been placed in such package"

If you did indeed make the assumption that the point of the act was to limit and only limit dangerous impurity, then I think it's important to challenge that, because it seems to be an error by omission. The full text of the act clearly references not just dangerous impurities, but the whole spirit of deceptive dilution of purity with filler.

And this is why I think it's important to know the history behind it as well. The act did not fall from the sky. It was not merely a matter of people dropping dead from poisonous adulterated products. There was a broader spectrum of adulteration, from lethal danger to deceptive but unlikely to be dangerous to anything but your pocketbook. And either way, there was a national uproar about it, and people had decided they'd had enough with it and they pressured legislature for redress. There is a reason that said legislature didn't just stop at prohibiting dangerous impurities, and that is because there wasn't just an element of physical grievance, but moral grievance as well. I think that arguments which presume that the market itself is a good enough mechanism end up missing this element of the act.

The act was set up not just to protect consumers from physical danger, but to protect society from dishonest, anti-consumer business tactics which are intended to deceive. It is the latter part which I believe your argument misses.

[1] [http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference- files/PPL_059_384_F...](http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference- files/PPL_059_384_FoodDrugCosmeticAct.pdf)

<comment><USER22> Sorry - none of this seems applicable to me, because the products are honestly and non-deceptively marked.

<comment><USER7> Is it better to have a market for lemons, or not?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I still remember when 12 oz cans became 11.5 oz cans.

</comment><comment><USER23> And yet my bmi keeps going up...perhaps they need to downsize some more...

</comment><comment><USER24> The ultimate example of this is dollar stores like Dollar General.

<comment><USER25> I feel like it's pretty fair in thst case. By definition they can't raise prices, so how else are they to keep up with inflation?</comment></comment>


2015 in review - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@sebmck/2015-in-review-51ac7035e272#.ijh2n3z5s <comment><USER2> The most impressive part of this, to me, is that the writer shows wisdom and temperament far beyond his age.</comment>


Tracking down the OpenSSL developers - <AUTHOR> http://advogato.org/person/branden/diary/5.html <comment><USER2> Why the hell do I care how hard it was for them to track down the OpenSSL developers?

This flaw was Debian's fault. They patched OpenSSL for no reason. Nobody complained about it. Nothing was broken. They ran valgrind --- awesome, but noisy --- on the tree and blindly started "fixing" problems.

This claim that they ran the change past the OpenSSL team before they committed it? Comical. To believe it, you have to believe that it is _more likely_ that:

\- The OpenSSL team reviewed a code change that _commented out the randomness from their RNG_ , quite literally the most sensitive code in the whole package

than

\- A part-time OpenSSL team member told a Debian developer that, while debugging, it would be fine for him to lose a line of code, not expecting that the Debian developer would then commit a change to their repo that _commented out the OpenSSL RNG_.

Stop wasting time pointing fingers, Debian. Fix the problem. You had no business editing OpenSSL; it is very hard to believe that your developer even read the code they changed. Promise us that from now on, you won't mess with security or crypto code.

<comment><USER3> Have you read [http://marc.info/?l=openssl- dev&m=114652287210110&w=...](http://marc.info/?l=openssl- dev&m=114652287210110&w=2) ?

Sure Debian made a mistake, and they shouldn't make changes that they don't understand the effects of, but an OpenSSL developer _did_ say it wouldn't be a problem.

Instead of passing the blame I would rather see the parties involved working on the underlying issues.

<comment><USER2> All due respect, but, did you read the rest of the mailing list, or, for that matter, my original comment? He _didn't_ clear the change; he said it was fine for debugging, before other OpenSSL people corrected him.

There's no "problem" to fix here. Really! The problem is that Debian made an elective style-guide patch to OpenSSL based solely on Valgrind output. The "fix" to the problem is to back the patch out and make sure everyone's system is update.

The only underlying issue that needs to be fixed here is for Debian to never, ever independently modify OpenSSL (or any other crypto code) again. I think that's reasonable at this point. This is one of the worst crypto vulnerabilities I've ever seen, far worse than when OpenSSL and NSS broke RSA.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: A Social Programmer Test? - <AUTHOR>

Once upon a time, we avoided programmers that used dated zip files to manage software releases, or wrote cvs wrapper scripts to help a team understand version control, or mandated the text editor to avoid white space merge issues, or used word & excel to manage requirements, or could not write software without customers.
Today, the red flag for me is "social".  I'm sure you've met the developers I'm talking about.  Their happy saying "social cloud infrastructure", but JSON and REST is for their lower back.  Communities without meetings and entry fees don't exist.  Revenue comes from PR, not a killer product.
How do I find great social programmers?! <comment><USER2> I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you a bot?</comment>


NHS opens clinic to help child addicts of computer games - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/08/nhs-opens-clinic-to-help-child-addicts-of-computer-games <comment><USER3> It's really no wonder. Way too many games are straight up designed to create habits in the players.

[https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131494/behavioral_gam...](https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131494/behavioral_game_design.php)

Rewards and punishments are used to create schedules. They make player do the things the company wants them to do when they want them to do it. A simple example:

\- playing every day rewards the player with bonus items

\- taking a break punishes the player by making them weaker relative to other players

And of course there are those _wonderful_ companies which reward players that spend money and punish those that don't.

WHO already recognizes the existence of a gaming disorder:

[https://www.who.int/features/qa/gaming- disorder/en/](https://www.who.int/features/qa/gaming-disorder/en/)

It's only a matter of time before this industry is regulated.

<comment><USER4> I'm glad I got out of playing games like that when I did. Having diablo 2 when I was young was bad enough. I wasted a good amount of my teenage years on that game. It pioneered a lot of those Skinner box mechanics that those pay to win, I can't even call them games, scams have refined to a tee and use heavily. I'm glad I never grew up with games like that everywhere. At least I see them for what they are these days, I'd hate to think how hooked I might have gotten on those things.

<comment><USER5> As ridiculous as it sounds a serious benefit to me of owning a Mac is that it's utterly useless for gaming.

<comment><USER6> You'll be delighted to learn Catalina contains Apple Arcade (you can find it in the App Store). Yes, Catalina is the latest version of macOS, 10.15. Queue the "what would Steve think" memes.

As for the topic. "(Computer) addiction" is a symptom of a (myriad of) problem(s). It could be depression, it could be the person is bullied, it could be autism, it could be "just" puberty.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I used to think that I was addicted to video games when in high school I would get together with my friends and play Civilization all night long, every single day.

Nowadays I keep hearing about younger brothers and sisters who are literally unable to get off their computers, consoles, and devices. I do relate to them a lot, but I don't know if it's becoming more serious over time, or if we are more attentive to it.

I hope it's not the former; I made a lot of friends playing and making video games, but it's not a particularly productive pastime if you're _only_ playing them. Of course, you can disagree, but I am personally a little regretful that I didn't end up picking up an instrument or spent more time on my drawing skills. My programming developed quite a lot during my teens, but I definitely could have toned it down and 'played outside.'

<comment><USER8> I wonder if a career in software engineering is the difference between a functional computer addict and nonfuctional addict. It really gives a new perspective to the concept of developers jamming out in a hackathon for 24+ hours while sleeping under desks and trying to stay in a flow stats as long as possible

<comment><USER9> The main issue with games addiction is that at the end of the day/night/week you are poorer both socially and financially. The financial aspect is quite important and often makes the difference between a "devoted" worker/workaholic and a "junkie".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In a parallel universe I'd like to know what these people would do with their lives if they did not become addicted to games.

I. E. What percent would lead normal lives, what amount would become addicted to something else like gambling, drugs, or television, and such.

What I am wondering is how much of this is due to games being at fault and how much of it is on the person + biological inclination to become easily addicted?

Yea, games do design tricks to get people to keep playing, but so do casinos and there is very little sympathy in society for people who are addicted to gambling.

Gaming addiction is still relatively new and needs more studying. The question I pose is, if someone was going to get addicted, would it be better for a person to be addicted to games, or would you prefer something else?

<comment><USER11> Perhaps amongst many, there is little sympathy for people addicted to gambling or indeed drugs, however the government still regulates these areas.

This is because government understands while there is obviously variation between people, the key drivers for these things are not innate, rather social. ie opportunity, environment.

This is highlighted by other addiction patterns - painkillers, tobacco, even caffeine - these are not limited to a small group of 'losers'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Targeting 13 to 25 year old's seems awfully young. Near all in my media addiction self help group are older, quite a few of them significantly.

Such help only works if the individual actually wants to change itself, and the realization for this to be necessary can require quite a bit of "damage" to occur. Especially if parents (inadvertently) enable the behavior. They themselves got to fight in that dispute as well, just sending your child to therapist tends to be a waste of time. Didn't work on the few anecdotes I've seen/heard. Didn't work on me when my parents tried long ago. Took embarrassingly long for me to finally seek help with the intent to change.

Btw, if anyone near Berlin (Ger) is willing to give a Dev with little professional experience and lots of blank space on the CV a chance, please shoot me a message.

<comment><USER13> > Btw, if anyone near Berlin (Ger) is willing to give a Dev with little > professional experience and lots of blank space on the CV a chance, please > shoot me a message.

Munich-based so can't help you directly, but look for the various marketing agency networks. They all have offices with openings in Berlin and have a constant need for new staff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If your are solely data driven, without any higher vision ( eg creating enriching experiences ) then this is what you get ( and Coca Cola and high sugar and fat burgers and fake news ).

The question is - is it solely buyer/user beware or do the vendors have a duty of care? Note these games products are often aimed at children.

The opioids and tabacco lawsuits would suggest people expect companies to have have some duty of care.

In the gambling industry, governments tend to strongly regulate, and place duty of care rules on companies.

As data and machine learning leads to optimization of exploitation of human weaknesses for gain, what do we do?

There are already open source games - how would you manage that? make it illegal - imprison people?? ( like for drug use )?

This problem is at the heart of the question of freewill/or whether the strong should be allowed to ruthlessly exploit the weak.

<comment><USER14> >There are already open source games - how would you manage that? make it illegal - imprison people?? ( like for drug use )?

That is interesting, I've definitely gone through periods where I felt "addicted" to freeciv and openTTD. I wouldn't make them illegal though, they can be helpful tools for managing your mental state.

<comment><USER11> Not suggesting freeciv should be made illegal - just a thought experiment.

So if it was decided they are harmful - you could consider the drug analogy. Making with intent to supply is illegal or being involved in distribution - not actually sure about creation for own use.

It might sound like a silly idea - but some countries have actually banned video games. Malaysia banned arcade games about 20 years ago. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia- pacific/957636.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/957636.stm)

<comment><USER14> My reaction to that is maybe the philosophy of making potentially harmful things like that illegal might be wrong.

<comment><USER11> Actually that's how the law typically treats things.

However it often takes a different view on profiting/promoting/supplying harmful things.

Back to the point about free will - versus whether people should be allowed to ruthlessly exploit others.

Quite often people are allowed to do stupid things to themselves ( free will ) , but other people are not allowed to exploit it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Meanwhile, suicide and depression rises for children in the UK [1]. I would really rather the NHS prioritize the massive mental health crisis (affecting children and adults) instead of bad parenting.

There are ratings on the games for a reason. Also, there are already laws regarding children and gambling, they simply have to enforce them.

[1] [https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and- families...](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and- families/features/teenage-mental-health-crisis-rates-of-depression-have- soared-in-the-past-25-years-a6894676.html)

<comment><USER16> Maybe bad parenting results in a massive (mental) health crisis?

<comment><USER15> Maybe, but the solution for stopping young children getting addicted to gaming is simple - stop giving kids gambling games, monitor any online play and teach them to play games for healthy amounts of time.

I personally can't point to a single thing a parent can do in order to greatly reduce the mental health crisis and I'm not sure it's yet well understood. What is clear though is that behaviours that lead to suicide (e.g. depression) are spot-able and treatable to some extent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is probably unpopular but I can't help but feel the X addiction framing is reminiscent of drapetomania. No freaking shit that kids would prefer games to schoolwork and chores. I am sure many of us have fathers or grandfathers who would rather fish than work.

Narcistic bad psychology based upon what they want and expect from others as the standard of health instead of trying to understand motivations and incentives. That has been a reoccurring theme with later discredited bad psychology like treating homosexuality as a mental illness to be cured, or infamous uses of institutionalization of "troublesome" people. It betrays an ironically terrible theory of mind.

Now there certainly are uses as unhealthy coping mechanisms and executive dysfunction but addiction loses meaning when abused to apply to literally every source of pleasure.

The pathological cases would be better referred to as compulsive behavior instead of addiction - a subtle but very important distinction.

<comment><USER18> Addiction has earned a medical definition in recent decades, and it focuses on the psychological feeling of craving and the persistent compulsive behavior. Thus, under the modern definition of addiction, yes you can experience craving for all kinds of non-substance things, beyond tolerance. (And, obviously, Substance Tolerance as a separate thing has also received a rigorous medical definition, but that came earlier than addiction.)

Of course I'd prefer to play games rather than do chores. And as a father I'm concerned that my son is spending too much time on the iPad playing minecraft. Is he an addict? Should there be intervention? He does seem to experience craving. Could it be a persistent compulsive behavior? For now he's able to put down the iPad and do the homework we all know needs to be done, so no, I don't view that as addiction and I don't think it fits the definition. But if it becomes an overriding compulsion to the exclusion of most other behaviors, then absolutely we should call that addiction and treat it like addiction.

"Big Tech" knows this quite well I think and we all should know that our A/B testing that's focused on user engagement is, in fact, curating addictive behavior.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is why the NHS is permanently underfunded... because it is always called on to do additional things but it can never ditch any existing obligations. Any serious discussion of funding must start with stopping taking on more until the existing functions are budgeted for, then we can talk about extras.

Tobacco was taxed to cover the cost of healthcare associated with it, so games and social media should be taxed the same way.

<comment> vertex-four In this case, these kids were likely seeing psychs anyway - maybe even the same psychs. Setting up a clinic basically amounts to setting aside an amount of time in the month for a doctor to take existing caseload on from the existing system and hiring a receptionist.

The problem is that highly specialised clinics breed power imbalances - <USER2> don't usually have another option for where to go because other doctors refuse to touch the subject matter now that there's a specialised clinic for it, so getting treatment involves conforming to whatever the clinic doctor demands of you, no matter how undignified or inhumane.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I used to think this was really far fetched but there's a whole subreddit dedicated to folks affected by this. People constantly post on there about how they become so obsessed with climbing a multiplayer ladder or getting achievements/trophies that they miss class, bail on social functions, skip work, etc.

</comment><comment><USER21> Addiction is a need for connection that isn't fulfilled. Need peace of mind? Play some ego shooter. Can't get hugged? Use drugs. Looking for appreciation? Go for Facebook Instagram Twitter etc. I'm addicted to gaming. Having a keyboard under my fingers gives me a high. Why? Well people don't know loyalty. Authorities have been abusive. We're told our world is dieing and still politics is unwilling to change anything (feels like it at least). Nothing meaningful to do for a kid. Except maybe go protest for a better future. And even greta seems to be a tool. Which is pretty cynical.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm grateful I was finally able to kick my gaming addiction. Better late than never, but I feel like I wasted too much of my 20s and now I'm already 30. I used to convince myself that it was fine as long as I was having fun. In hindsight I can finally see how much of a colossal waste of time it was. There is definitely some healthy level of gaming that can be done. However, when your priorities put gaming at the top and everything you do is in order to get back to gaming you should understand that it is a problem.

<comment><USER23> Games or not, when you're relatively young you'll waste time by the standards of your elders. At least it's not drugs or criminal gangs.

Youth is wasted on the young.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> MM this new "gaming disorder" that's been invented and pushed by certain countries.

You could make the same argument about hardcore soccer fans.

Its also common for domestic abuse to happen after the abusers team loses.

<comment><USER22> I don't disagree that people can be unhealthily addicted to sports. Those people probably should seek help too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Would much rather have a clinic for Social Media mental diseases.

<comment><USER26> You're in luck - this is for gaming and social media.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Do the parents bare any responsibility?

</comment><comment><USER28> Great, hopefully one will open for people addicted to the web too.</comment>


5 Monkeys - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZeiSKnhOBc

<comment><USER2> I don't remember when I first heard this story, but it was back in the early 90s, at least. I've been trying to trace it (in a desultory fashion), and the closest I've come with a very quick search is a reference from this page:

[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_monkey_banana_and_water_sp...](http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_monkey_banana_and_water_spray_experiment_ever_take_place)

... to the following articles:

      Stephenson, G. R. (1967).
      Cultural acquisition of a specific learned response among rhesus monkeys.
      In: Starek, D., Schneider, R., and Kuhn, H. J. (eds.),
      Progress in Primatology, Stuttgart: Fischer, pp. 279-288.

      mentioned in:
      Galef, B. G., Jr. (1976).
      Social Transmission of Acquired Behavior: A Discussion of Tradition and Social Learning in Vertebrates.
      In: Rosenblatt, J.S., Hinde, R.A., Shaw, E. and Beer, C. (eds.),
      Advances in the study of behavior, Vol. 6, New York: Academic Press, pp. 87-88

This search:

[http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&q=Five+monkeys+cage+water](http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&q=Five+monkeys+cage+water)

... gives over a million results. I haven't checked them all. Does anyone have any better references?</comment>


Social Media Ad Revenue Will Never Match Search - <AUTHOR> http://voltagecreative.com/blog/2008/12/social-media-ad-revenue-will-never-match-search/

<comment><USER2> Not necessarily! I'm an advertiser, and I spend about 10 times as much on Facebook ads as I do on search. As search advertising gets more crowded(you can only have 8 or so advertisers on a page) lots of people are turning to Facebook and MySpace to advertise. For some niches, thanks to the demographic targeting options available, I'm seeing significantly higher ROI than search.</comment>


Robotic suit could usher in super soldier era - <AUTHOR> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90M7EDO7&show_article=1 <comment><USER2> But it is not going to happen anytime soon without a major breakthrough in battery technology. I don't know much about battery technology except that I keep hearing the challenges are tremendous. I dream of the little walnut sized atomic power plants Asimov described in the Foundation books.

From the article:

"Before the technology can become practical, the developers must overcome cost barriers and extend the suit's battery life. Jameson was tethered to power cords during his demonstration because the current battery lasts just 30 minutes."

<comment><USER3> The same sort of breakthrough is needed for not-powered-by-gasoline cars, so it's not like it's not a being-worked-on problem. :) This seems like a good application for fuel cells, actually, given that the energy density is five or ten times that of the best chemical batteries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Well, they don't specify what kind of 'press' (bench, leg, drill, coffee?), but I'll assume they mean 'bench', and for an 'athletic' 5'11" guy at 180lbs, not being able to bench 200 is... surprising. Anybody can, with a bit of training, bench 10% above their body weight.

I know that this isn't the point of the article -- I'm just being nitpicky. I definitely think that the tech is interesting, but I think that it will end up finding many more uses in the civilian world than it will in the military. A reliable, self-powered exoskeleton would make for a lot of changes in the building trades, in the way warehouses are managed, in the way factories operate...

We live in interesting times. :)

<comment><USER4> It says he's "lucky if he can press 200 pounds" unassisted, which means he presses 200 lbs on a good day. Which, as you say, is pretty normal. I'm not sure what you're surprised about, unless you're misinterpreting the phrase "lucky if".

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was going to go into this field, until I saw this really good documentary as a teenager, which made me realize how dangerous this technology is.

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088247/>

</comment><comment><USER6> battery limitations are the show stoppers on every cool piece of technology I've seen for the last few years. :(

it's one of the fundamental engineering challenges of humanity. how do we store energy more efficiently?

</comment><comment><USER7> Now we can "liberate" even more countries!

</comment><comment><USER8> Robotic suits not make soldiers super.

<comment><USER3> Well, every time we've tried radiation, all we've done is given soldiers the super powers of 'getting cancer' and 'dying', so I'm kind of happy that they're going for more the 'Batman' and 'Iron Man' approach. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Master Chief?</comment>


John Hancock will include fitness tracking in all life insurance policies - <AUTHOR> https://venturebeat.com/2018/09/19/john-hancock-will-require-fitness-tracking-for-all-life-insurance-policies/ <comment><USER2> The purpose of the Vitality program has almost nothing to do with the advertised improvements in health but act as a 'land grab' of healthy lives from other insurers. Its almost entirely to do with selection despite what they may advertise.

Established insurers that dont start their own incentive program to keep these healthy lives are in for a very rough time as Vitality will spread like a cancer.

</comment><comment><USER3> An alternative solution is to buy enough of a policy or have a savings account to just cover funeral expenses and drop the life insurance extra payouts.

Bet John Hancock would _hate_ that solution. I mean, once you've covered your expenses, everything else is just luxury and hubris.

</comment><comment><USER4> A few insurance providers in the U.K. give out Apple whatches and gym memberships that need to be used for a "discount" the discount is them essentially not charging you the cost of these "gifts" not sure if they are collecting any data or not.

</comment><comment><USER5> No. In fact, Hell no. I'm not wearing a fitness tracker so my life insurance company can keep tabs on me. That is utterly ridiculous. Give me a physical and charge me more if you have to, but none of this big brother stuff

<comment><USER6> If enough people subscribe to the idea, this might become the standard operating procedure and you won't even have the option of saying no.

<comment><USER7> Those of us in free countries, those with proper national health care, sure will.

<comment><USER8> The same countries, like the UK, where most motor insurers are well on the way to requiring in-car black boxes? Even the AA and RAC, that once could have been relied on to take a stance against such a thing, now offer telematics insurance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It sounds like a voluntary discount at the moment--including some manual data entry--but after they make it tighter and more mandatory, I predict a new industry: gaming exercise programs.

At first, in order to spoof daily steps, maybe you can just throw the tracker into a clothes dryer or rock tumbler, or maybe inside your hubcap. If they want to see heartrate also, then I predict a device that you place against the tracker's IR sensor and blinks IR back at it, simulating a heartbeat. This would cost a few dollars in parts.

The next step of course is to simply spoof the tracker and upload directly to the company's internal API.

<comment><USER10> It seems that we are way ahead of you: [https://boingboing.net/2018/07/24/fitness-tracker- cheating-i...](https://boingboing.net/2018/07/24/fitness-tracker-cheating-is- bi.html)

<comment><USER11> As Chinese says, 上有政策下有对策(If the Upper class has policies, Lower class has mitigations)

<comment><USER12> That's fantastic! I think that's my new favorite next to 天高皇帝远 "Heaven is high and the emperor is far away."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Genuinely idiotic idea - from someone who does martial arts and can't wear fitness trackers during sport.

<comment><USER14> One of my first thoughts on this was that there are many ways of being healthy - many that do no fare well with such a tracker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> >"In theory, everybody wins, as policyholders are incentivized to adopt healthy habits and insurance companies collect more premiums and pay less in claims if customers live longer."

If someone is not incentivized to adopt healthier habits due to the benefits of actually being healthier or feeling better are they really going to by a "incentivized" by their life insurance premiums?

It's also laughable to think one could ever be "winning" when they have agreed to wear a corporate tracking device.

</comment><comment><USER16> God might be dead, but it sure feels like we will soon be back to where people believe they are being monitored at all times.

<comment><USER17> I am a senior software engineer with John Hancock. I can say with quite a bit of certainty that the Orwellian conspiracy is just paranoia. I can't tell you how many boring but necessary meetings I've sat through around what data we can cache on user's devices and ensuring we don't collect more geolocation data than necessary.

It's not just the project I'm on. It's a company attitude that it can't afford the problems that arise from bad data collection policies. My gut says this is sensational journalism.

<comment><USER18> This is a simply ridiculous response. Geolocation is the least intrusive data that is being discussed here. By far the bigger offense is tracking an individual's health to ensure that the employee is sufficiently "healthy."

John Hancock may not be monitoring my location (although every mobile device already is) but by its own admission, it will be monitoring my activity levels, computing the number of steps I take (or whatever other health metric it plans to use e.g. heart rate) and applying some formula to penalize employees who are "underperforming" on their health "goals." Insurance is already an enormously intrusive industry and fitness tracking crosses the threshold of unacceptable conduct.

<comment><USER17> The number of steps you take is more intrusive than where you've been? I'm supposed to believe John Hancock is going to bring about the boring dystopia you describe because you claim insurance is enormously intrusive?

Was your first sentence a warning about the rest of your response?

<comment><USER19> And developers who refuse to see other people's points are the exact reason we get these issues. That does not mean that you are wrong or that the people here are wrong.

Just because its not intrusive at the moment, it does not eliminate the slippery slope that it can cause. Because if we mandate fitness trackers today, tomorrow they might be used to monitor you during the workday, for "stress reasons". This is one of the main reasons why at least i dont like this.

Another reason i personally dont like this, is that it allows the insurance company to build an even bigger profile on me, and my data. Then sooner or later, that data will get sold off, stolen, or just gifted away. Also, how do we know other apps on your phone wont start stealing the info? Maybe Facebook will add it to their increasing list of info it collects, or google will add is as part of usability improvements or some other bs excuse.

edit: spelling

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> JH offers two types of plans, Vitality Go and Vitality Plus. The latter offer these incentives, but apparently (I just spoke with a JH rep) cost $2 more per month.

This changes the math a bit, and makes it clear that the "free" incentives aren't actually free. You're just paying for them in a different way (especially if you don't hit the activity targets). Maybe you come out a little ahead if you hit all the targets, but not as far ahead as you think.

</comment><comment><USER21> This isn't a new idea, Virgin Pulse has been providing a service just like this for companies to integrate into their health-insurance and benefit plans for years.

[https://www.virginpulse.com/use-case/reduce-healthcare- costs...](https://www.virginpulse.com/use-case/reduce-healthcare-costs/)

</comment><comment><USER22> Actual title says "John Hancock will include fitness tracking in all life insurance policies", not "... require ...".

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe they updated the title.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm sure a partnership with Apple is soon to follow, given the latest Watch's capacity to be certified as a medical device.

</comment><comment><USER24> Either venturbeat changed the title to be more accurate or uploader editorialized "include" to "require"

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe they updated the title.

<comment><USER25> Thanks! So did we.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I knew that you could get a free Apple Watch Series 3 if you hit certain targets. I emailed to find out if they were going to have the same offers for Series 4, but have not gotten confirmation one way or the other. I just got an email saying "we couldn't find you in our customer database, so we can't help you".

I'd love to be one of their customers, if I can get a Series 4 out of it. Not just to have the watch, but also the incentive to stay active.

EDIT: this is my most downvoted comment ever, and I have no idea why. I assumed others reading this article might also wonder if their programs apply to the new Apple Watches. Apparently I was wrong?

<comment><USER26> I have not downvoted you but I am guessing that most people find the idea of giving up so much of your personal data in exchange for a shiny pebble silly at best.

<comment><USER20> I figured this might be part of it, and appreciate your confirmation. I'm certainly not saying others should do this, but for me it's a good concrete incentive. The immediacy of the financial benefit is more psychologically motivating than the long-term benefit of a longer life, at least for me.</comment></comment></comment>


College students are now smoking more pot than cigarettes - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/09/01/college-students-are-now-smoking-more-pot-than-cigarettes/ <comment><USER2> I was a huge pot head when I went to college. Smoked weed through pretty much all of high school and had some traumatic events happen that lead me to it for medication. In high school I was considered an outcast. I was the only sophomore to ever consider taking AP Comp Sci(true rebel here...) and generally the kids drank alot.

But when I got to college, I gave up the weed and focused on the programming and outside my comfort zone stuff. And then I was in an advanced comp sci class, working with a smart dude and he paused, and said, "Toke up, get food and get back at it?" Then, for the first time ever my world was opened to programmers that smoke weed. And it was like a moment of, "holy shit I can be normal here."

Marijuana can be a blessing or a curse. All in your relationship with it. I advise using it for the benefits, and not abusing it for escape.

<comment><USER3> How on earth can you code on weed? I would get lost in the minutiae of the font.

<comment><USER4> Strain, dose, method. All have a big impact on whether you're left in a productive state or if it's time to get some chips and netflix

<comment><USER5> And as with any substance (or activity in general), environment matters a lot.

Hanging out on the couch at home? Probably fitting to crash soon.

Out at the park with a book? Read until you realize you're burning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder how much of that statistical increase in pot use is due to students smoking pot more and how much of it is due to students being more willing to admit that they smoke pot due to the changing perception of the drug? That's the problem with survey type research, it's based on the presumption that people are generally honest, while in reality most people lie most of the time.

<comment><USER7> One of the things I really liked about Colorado's legalization is that people could openly and honestly discuss their preferences without the whole legal/moral/peer group issues. E.g. one of my younger cousins said, quite frankly, that she doesn't like the effect pot has on her and prefers alcohol. When drugs don't have illegality to taint or glamorize them we can be honest with ourselves and each other about them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The thing people don't seem to realize is that there are two very different effects caused by the two primary MJ strains (Sativa and Indica's).

If you smoke pure Indica, or Indica dominant strains then yes, you are likely going to be knocked on your ass and get absolutely nothing done.

But if you smoke a Sativa, or Sativa dominate strain, then you'll find that your focus goes way way up, your ability to dig into problems and solve them goes way way up, and generally you get a ton more done.

Reading this article and then the comments on that site it's pretty amazing how poorly people understand pot still.

<comment><USER9> I've always heard this but anecdotally I've never experienced any difference -- it all makes me want to fall asleep. Is there any legitimate research into this? How do you know which is which?

<comment><USER10> > Is there any legitimate research into this?

Tons - there are over 70 cannabinoids last I checked (which was several years ago, and we've discovered more since). They all have different effects. Some aren't even psychoactive at all.

The indica vs. sativa is a rough way of describing the relative ratios of the various cannabinoids. Not all indicas and sativas are the same, and some sativas might be more sleep-inducing than some indicas, but it's easier than enumerating chemical compounds which have rather unfriendly and unmarketable names.

> How do you know which is which?

Ask the person growing or selling it to you. If you live in a medical or recreational state (Colorado, California, etc.), they will be labeled as pure indica/sativa, or a hybrid (and if a hybrid, which one is dominant).

<comment><USER11> Full extract oils (essentially the entire planet is dissolved in ethanol, then evaporated to leave a concentrated resin) claim to contain over 400 compounds (not all are cannabinoids). You can buy them in high THC, high CBD, or high TCH and CBD (in addition to the others) formulations.

Recent studies have shown that reported genetics aren't very reliable (ie. what is claimed to be a pure indica or indica dominate hybrid have actually tested as ~75% sativas).

The combination of compounds is probably the biggest driver in a person's experience and the percentage of indica vs. sativa only has some influence over that combination.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I just graduated from college and I was one of those kids who started smoking both cigarettes and pot in 6th grade because I hung out with older kids that I wanted to be like. I quit cigarettes my freshman year of college and rarely smoke pot (I prefer drinking for socializing).

What surprises me was how many of my friends _started_ smoking cigarettes at college. While part of me understands that college is the first time many kids are let loose and free to make decisions about their bodies, I assumed that age, experience and knowledge would override the desire to smoke cigarettes at least.

Not to mention this was a wealthier, liberal arts school, which seemed even more out-of-place, especially from my different environment growing up.

Still, the frequency of pot smoking was much higher than cigarettes and bled over into the female circles, whereas cigarettes rarely did.

Overall, the trend I witnessed is that, at a young age, people were more likely to smoke pot and cigarettes, in contradiction to when I was in college, where many more people smoked pot.

Despite this being anecdotal, I am curious what factors (age, generational differences, education) have the strongest influence on this trend.

<comment><USER13> > Despite this being anecdotal, I am curious what factors (age, generational > differences, education) have the strongest influence on this trend.

Here's my anecdotal theory; prevalence of media and ease of media consumption. Let's be honest, media (games, movies, tv) is really great when you're stoned. You don't have to move much and it tickles your auditory and visual senses. The internet makes consuming media incredibly cheap and easy, and Universities often have good internet access (also local media sharing with DC++ is rife). For a student, cheapness is king. Weed is cheap, media is cheap, both are very rewarding when combined and much cheaper than sports, bars, parties, etc.

<comment><USER11> Not necessarily; especially when watching lesser productions, where it is more difficult to maintain the illusion. The strange juxtaposition of the fantasy attempting to be created vs. the reality that it's just a bunch of people dressed up, trying to create the illusion of another reality can be particularly disconcerting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I love the stuff, but for me it was incredibly dangerous because of precisely how much I loved it. Once I start up smoking, I can't stop. I'd go through a quarter every two days. I would smoke as soon as I got up, as soon as I got home from work, all through the night, waking up every hour or so to smoke. I would stop seeing my friends (none of whom smoke), I would stop going out. I had no patience to read or code, and so all I would do was lie on the couch and watch TV or lie in bed listening to music. I stopped working out because moving took too much energy. I stopped self-improvement. I lost any intellectual curiosity. Sure, I would write down my moments of "great high inspiration" which were usually meaningless strings of words in childlike handwriting (because my fine motor skills are pretty terrible on the weed) that sober me was embarrassed of.

Some people can function perfectly fine on the stuff, but my addictive brain absolutely cannot handle it, and I'm much, much better without it.

But I love it.

I love it.

And every day it's really, really hard not to just give up and call my guy and smoke the night away.

<comment><USER15> I'm in the same boat man. We just need a little tamper-proof dispenser that only allows us a certain amount for a given period of time.

Like you, I'm better off without it. But I do miss it.

<comment><USER16> try this: [http://www.thekitchensafe.com/](http://www.thekitchensafe.com/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I am one of those college students and actually I have been smoking way too much. I just recently stopped and now I sleep much better, getting up in the morning is way easier, I just have more energy.

It's hard for me to have access to it and not smoke it, both my parents were addicts so I'm supposedly predisposed to addictive behavior. I would smoke all day, every day, even when I didn't feel like it.

I'm a little turned off by it now since I found it was having negative effects on my life, but I'm sure that is because I was simply smoking way too much.

Anyways, don't smoke too much.

</comment><comment><USER17> Hmm... Perhaps the best way to win the war on drugs is not to make drugs illegal, but rather to regulate the industry to death. After all, heavy regulation seems to have curbed tobacco use.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Culture plays a huge part too. In a lot of social circles, tobacco is looked down upon as a smelly loser's fix, whereas celebrities champion being high every waking moment. Of course there are major differences in health effects - cigarettes can kill you but you can't OD on weed - helping drive this cultural shift, but in the end there is only so much that regulation and legislation can accomplish.

<comment><USER18> Pot doesn't cause lung cancer either: [http://www.webmd.com/lung- cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-n...](http://www.webmd.com/lung- cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer)

<comment><USER19> It's worth remembering that inhaling burning plant matter is never really going to be a _good_ idea.

<comment><USER17> Yeah, lungs did not evolved to breath smoke filled air. In my book, smoking of anything is bad for respiratory health.

<comment><USER20> That's a shallow argument. Your fingers didn't evolve to type but they're fine with it in moderation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I started casually smoking weed for fun in college, and have continued intermittently since with a different perspective. Marijuana has improved my life consistently by providing me with an easy-to-access window into my mind which persists even when I'm sober. Weed also transiently helps me to be less angry, although I've experienced a few other people undergoing weed rage from time to time.

I think weed is going to be increasingly popular among highly educated people for its innocuousness, creativity/thought promotion, and relaxation.

</comment><comment><USER22> I must be unlucky because most strains of marijuana give me terrible panic attacks. The sativa heavy or hybrid strains do it every time, and with indica its a dice roll depending on how long the smoke is in my lungs. I inhale and then immediately exhale (the smoke is in my lungs for less than a second). One hit and bam! I'm as high as I need to be (and it feels great). Any higher makes me feel like I'm having a heart attack.

Contrast this to some of my friends who can smoke bowl after bowl of super buds and still write good assembly language.

It's probably better for my health but I do wish I could smoke more, feel the good effects, and not get crazy paranoid.

<comment><USER12> Yep. I'm the exact same way as you. Forget bong rips like my friends; I'll panic. I inhale and exhale immediately. The worst part of it is that not a single one of my friends shared this trait with me, so I thought I might be abnormal or something, and I was always known as the 'light-weight' when it came to smoking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Given that both anti-smoking campaigns and the stereotype of college students as potheads both date to at least the '60s, I'm surprised that it took this long.

</comment><comment><USER24> Ok, so here's a question I've been struggling with: is there such a thing as "too much" weed?

I have had issues with depression and anxiety for a long time. I have tried CBT, talk therapy, medication, meditation, group therapy, and combinations of those for about two decades.

Looking back, I often self medicated - with food, and later, with alcohol. Now I have a medical marijauna card, and in the evenings, I generally relax by smoking some weed and watching netflix, browsing HN/Reddit, or just jumping around on Wikipedia.

In the grand scheme of things, is that bad? You could make the argument I'm "abusing" it, but if there are no negative effects, what does it matter?

What I have to ask is this: If I'm happy in my life, ding

</comment><comment><USER25> As an interesting anecdote, joints in Australia are commonly "spun" with tobacco, mainly to keep the alight iirc. I'd be interested to see how these statistics change and what the general behaviour towards cigarettes in university students would be if a similar article came out here.

</comment><comment><USER26> Finally. Although edibles are safer.

<comment><USER27> Have they done any long-term studies on smoking pot vs. vaping vs. edibles?

<comment><USER28> Well, if you're not breathing in tar, heavy metals, free radicals, etc., it's not hard to come out on top over smoking.

<comment><USER29> There still has to be some damage from smoke inhalation, no? Then I'm curious about smoking vs "vaping" vs oil etc. Anecdotally I see a lot of old hippies still kicking.

edit: I didn't realize you were pointing out the effect of smoking cannabis.

<comment><USER28> Sorry, that WAS the damage from smoke inhalation. Theoretically if you're vaping or eating you shouldn't be combusting anything and should get 0 smoke.

And yes, you can get lung/throat cancer from inhaling pot smoke. Probably way worse than from a cigarette because there's no filter (THC is super sticky, so it's kind of counter productive).

<comment><USER30> This is a myth. Smoking marijuana might actually be negatively correlated with lung cancer for long term users. Regardless, it's certainly not associated with increased lung cancer or increased risk for COPD. You and others who are misinformed should stop spreading around these ridiculous lies and look at the science:

"Although marijuana smoke contains a number of carcinogens and cocarcinogens, findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use." \-- [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23802821](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23802821)

<comment><USER28> It is far and away irrisponsible to call a health effect a myth because one paper suggests an opposite effect for light to moderate users. Considering we DO know what we are inhaling, and we DO know it causes massive problems for other smoked substances, it is rational to think that there are likely related effects. Until we can identify that these effects are NOT occurring, we should definitely assume that you can get lung cancer by inhaling massive amounts of carcinogens.

<comment><USER30> So let's throw out the hard scientific evidence you don't like and substitute "rational thinking" instead? I think you were born in the wrong century.

<comment><USER28> The hard scientific evidence is that light to moderate users do not have increased lung cancer rates. This is a far cry from "smoking pot doesn't cause cancer".

It is not I who is avoiding rationality, friend. Check your ability to corroborate your statements with evidence.

<comment><USER30> You haven't provided any evidence to support your viewpoint that it does cause cancer so whatever you deduce through "rational thought" is meaningless.

<comment><USER28> I don't have evidence. All I have is lack of evidence. Skepticism leads me to conclude we do not know the effects of smoking marijuana w/r/t cancer with any certainty. Correspondingly, it would be wrong to call the prospect a myth, as you cannot say that with any certainty.

<comment><USER31> You also have lack of evidence of unicorns causing cancer.

You're also choosing to ignore the studies that show moderate use (e.g. people who smoke it casually and aren't huffing 24/7) show no increase in cancer.

 _Maybe_ if you smoke from the moment you wake until you pass out you _might_ have an increase of cancer. Same way that drinking water til you die of water poisoning is a thing. It is freakishly uncommon and you'd have to more or less _choose_ to do so on purpose.

<comment><USER29> "Although marijuana smoke contains a number of carcinogens and cocarcinogens, findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use."

That seems hardly conclusive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Is the marijuana festival really april 19th? Seems more logical to have it on april 20th. ;)

</comment><comment><USER33> The probability of developing psychosis among college students is going to be substantially increased.

</comment><comment><USER34> This week in "class indicators".

</comment><comment><USER35> 420 blz it

</comment><comment><USER36> "Now"

</comment><comment><USER37> I'm surprised this is news.

If only because of the massive anti-(cigarette)-smoking campaign of the past several years, combined with the massive pro-marijuana-legalization campaign. Good or bad, that sends a pretty clear message to students that tobacco bad, marijuana good.

<comment><USER38> Do they realize the joint/spliff they are smoking is filled up with way more tobacco than marijuana ? (or do they smoke fully loaded joint ?)

edit: I don't understand the downvote but to clarify things: in Europe, where I live, I seldom saw fully loaded joint (which would be called the same: joint or blunt).

<comment><USER29> TIL a joint can contain tobacco.

<comment><USER39> In Denmark (and I think most of Europe?) joints usually have tobacco in them, though apparently that's less common in the US.

<comment><USER40> Yes, in Europe it is very common to mix tobacco with your weed/hashish when rolling joints.

<comment><USER41> Yuck.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


San Francisco's Yellow Cab Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy - <AUTHOR> http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/San-Franciscos-Yellow-Cab-Files-for-Chapter-11-Bankruptcy-366271321.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_BAYBrand <comment><USER2> This gets maximum visibility now, coming just before the Super Bowl crowd hits town.</comment>


I Got Hired by Google - <AUTHOR> https://blog.amaiorano.io/2019/03/28/how-i-got-hired-by-google.html <comment><USER2> Very nice write up! Concise and to the point. I've never had a whiteboard interview before and honestly, I don't know if I could do it. I understand why big name companies do it, but it just feels weird as a requirement. My first interview out of college consisted of them having me explain inheritance in Java and what an abstract class was. It was quite underwhelming for all the studying I had done.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I have mixed opinions on whiteboard interviews; it's definitely a controversial topic. From Google's perspective, I believe they see it as one way to be as fair as possible. I won't argue the merits, though. All I can say is I knew what to expect coming in, and prepared for it. There were no surprises, and that's definitely a good thing.</comment></comment>


July 2018 Median Household Income in the U.S. - <AUTHOR> https://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2018/08/july-2018-median-household-income.html <comment><USER2> Personally, I like to check the ratio of median to mean household income as a crude measure of socio-economic polarization.

It's not pretty: [https://i.imgur.com/58MIBxB.png](https://i.imgur.com/58MIBxB.png)

 _edit:_

here's an alternative version for those who think letting the y-axis start at 70 is too confusing: [https://i.imgur.com/zSNjZY2.png](https://i.imgur.com/zSNjZY2.png)

<comment><USER3> So rich guys are getting richer faster. Big news! They have access to instruments folks with median income dont.

You are missing the point that everyone s situation seems to be improving - the median income is a better metric to measure that.

<comment><USER4> You believe access to special financial instruments (such as..?) is the reason rich people can get richer? Can you expand on that

<comment><USER5> Not OP but some might be: illiquid alternative investments with lockup periods, investments that require investors to be "accredited investors", funds with large minimums, outright purchases of investment real estate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looking at the graph, an at least equally accurate headline would be "inflation-adjusted median US income stays flat since the last 20 years while share of expenses for medical, housing, childcare and education costs skyrockets in the same time"

<comment><USER7> What do those four areas have in common, incredible levels of government manipulation and funding. Seriously, the areas where the government subsidizes, buries under regulation, or bleats about during election season, are all areas that suffer higher than normal costs increases.

<comment><USER8> Yes, and a lot of left-leaning people continue to think that "just a bit more government regulation and subsidies" and they'll get it right - this time for sure!

Housing - build more and higher density.

Healthcare - price transparency and make it easier to shop around. Incentivize frugality.

Education - stop letting 18 year olds take out $200k in loans for poetry degrees.

It's almost like industries protected from essential market functions become disasters! Who would have thought?

<comment><USER9> European view here. We're pretty much all left-leaning from an US-perspective.

> Housing - build more and higher density.

Zoning is an incredibly hard science. Hardly any country on earth manages to get this right. Solutions are often also highly specific to local parameters. Though admittedly, the US has glaring issues with some housing areas being super spread out and low density outside of city centers.

> Healthcare - price transparency and make it easier to shop around. > Incentivize frugality.

The problem of making healthcare universal and affordable has been solved plenty of times around the globe already. Obama's administration made a huge leap in the right direction, but there's more track to cover and issues to fix before the US's healthcare system becomes comparable to a say, European, equivalent. They never got the chance to finish this though.

> Education - stop letting 18 year olds take out $200k in loans for poetry > degrees.

Generally having education governed by free market forces, thus giving the best education to the highest bidder, kind of goes against the US's slogan of (equal) opportunity. Not to mention all the other issues with that idea. Again, just copy any of the plenty of countries with a better system.

And don't give me any of that "But the US is a larger country and thus those solutions wouldn't work". What happened to divide and conquer? Just have administration sit at state level and you get to pretend the US is really 50 smaller countries - divide further as needed (some countries like Germany use this strategy to divide administration of their education system as well). Also there's plenty of countries with a number citizens in a comparable order of magnitude with working systems.

<comment><USER10> _> kind of goes against the US's slogan of (equal) opportunity._

No more than the government not providing access to private yachts to all citizens. Equal opportunity doesn't mean equal buying ability.

<comment><USER9> Wow. This is _incredibly_ disingenuous.

You don't need a yacht to compete with others.

You do need education though.

<comment><USER10> You may need education, but certainly not school.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Required reading for any discussion on median _household_ income. Note in particular compositional effects - household size and mix have changed over time.

[https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the- region/where...](https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where- has-all-the-income-gone)

<comment><USER12> It's fascinating to me how much of our discourse is based on "facts" that simply aren't true.

<comment><USER11> I think it's overstating the case to say there's "no there there" in income stagnation - other and more recent data point to alarming trends in total individual compensation and in overall inequality. But it's important to take into account the flaws in certain metrics we use.

<comment><USER12> I'm not suggesting there is no "there there." Just that here is this basic shibboleth, trotted out multiple times a week by the media, that's just not true. Does it mean everything is fine? No. Does it suggest that we're living with the mixed results of various well intentioned policies, rather than the outcome of actual cartoon villany? I think so.

<comment><USER11> Agreed. Didn't mean to suggest that's what you were saying, just to address the general point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Here's the update for August 2018:

[http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2018/10/august-201...](http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2018/10/august-2018-median- household-income.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Excellent job there. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's entirely expected that unemployment this low will increase wage growth.

What's different this time is that inflation has been so tame this far into the process. At this point in the 2000s boom cycle we saw inflation was ticking over 5%, whereas today it remains tame under 3%.

This means for the first time in a long time the higher wage growth is actually making a significant difference in people's real income.

Another factor that's not widely reported is that the insurance marketplaces seem to be stabilizing and rate increases for 2019 are single-digit and some areas are even seeing decreases. Compared to the 20, 30, 40% increases in the early years of the marketplace that makes a huge difference.

<comment><USER15> Student borrowing has also flattened off to single digit increases, similar to healthcare cost increases.

Either those things have nearly maxed out their cost potential, or it's the strong dollar (the dollar imploded during the disastrous Bush years, which sent nearly everything priced in dollars skyrocketing that wasn't nailed down (consumer prices and wages were largely nailed down)).

Might be a combination of those things. The average student debt acquired for a four year degree, has been nearly flat for six years, after soaring from $20k to $30k in six or seven years (between the years '05-06 and '11-12). This six year span is the longest period of flat growth in individual student debt accumulation in a quarter century.

<comment><USER16> Two important dates that clarify your accurate observations:

2005 - As part of the 'Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act' student loans from for-profit and non-governmental entities were given immunity to dismissal in bankruptcy. [1]

2012 - College enrollment flatlined. [2]

It's basic supply and demand. The widespread deregulation of university tuitions paired with lifelong debt even from private creditors removed all cost barriers to education. And so the only weighting factor in the supply:demand relationship was how many people were willing to take the poisoned fruits of ever-larger life long loans. And so universities kept ratcheting tuition up under spurious justification. Until the number of people entering university flat lined.

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Prevention_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Prevention_and_Consumer_Protection_Act#Dischargeability)

[2] - [https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college- enroll...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enrollment- and-projections-in-public-and-private-institutions/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment> dis-sys trump is going to take full credit of that and mention it many many times.

<comment><USER17> And he'd be right to get mileage out of it. The media would certainly hang it around his neck if the opposite were true.

Can you imagine the media saying "now let's be fair to President Trump, the current economic situation is due to Obama-era policies" if we were in the middle of a recession right now?

<comment><USER18> Like what? TARP, for example, came out of the tail end of the Bush administration (literally and figuratively)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Uh oh, better raise those interest rates. Can't have inflation creeping up. Now that the middle class is starting to get a bit of the gains, the business cycle needs to be reset.

<comment><USER20> Don't make any mistake, the middle class still isn't getting any gains.

<comment><USER21> How isn't it making any gains? Anyone who has retirement savings invested properly (in stocks, not under a mattress or in a bank) is making use of these gains.

<comment><USER20> They don't have stocks and probably not much of a retirement. Those things are reserved for the already wealthy.

[http://time.com/money/5054009/stock-ownership-10-percent- ric...](http://time.com/money/5054009/stock-ownership-10-percent-richest/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>