Giving up reading news will make us happier - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli <comment><USER4> It's not just news. I cut out mainstream media several years ago, and noted a definite improvement in my psychological well-being.

As of the end of last year, I stopped engaging in mainstream social media. So much better.

I still keep a Facebook account for Messenger and Events, but don't post, read timelines, or participate.

Not only do I have more time to read books and learn new things -- made pita bread from scratch for the first time this week -- but I am in general, notably happier and more focused.

I suspect that information hygiene is going to be one of the great underrated skills of the digital age.

Hacker News is an exception that I indulge in maybe once a week or two -- today's the day! -- as most of what ends up on here is worthwhile, and the moderation team has done an _excellent_ job of keeping the signal-to-noise ratio high.

Quora also tends to be good, between Be Nice Be Respectful (BNBR), and the Real Name policy, although they recently went downhill by interleaving the standard cesspool that is mainstream news in the Quora feed.

Reddit... there are a few gold nuggets (/r/writingprompts), but overall it's just a crapfest.

<comment><USER5> I'm in a similar boat. I felt very over whelmed and addicted to social media and news in general in college.

I've got rid of all my social media other than twitter and linkedin which I use for work. Facebook I only use for messenger. I check reddit once or twice a day but rarely do I scroll past the first page. My overall mental health is much better. I feel a little bit of sadness when I see friends who HAVE to check their phones (social media) after being without it for a hour. It's great in moderation but I think most people get too sucked in.

<comment><USER6> It's hard to get rid of it though. I suffer from this, when I get up the first thing I do is open reddit. I am actually thinking about blocking the entire site in the host file, on pc as well as android...

<comment><USER7> I used to charge my phone overnight on my bedside table. Recently I moved it into another room so I'm not tempted to use it first-thing in the morning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Anecdotally, my experience lines up with this article. I was getting depressed with the constant negativity, so cut out daily news, social media, etc. I have to admit, it's pretty wonderful. And somewhat ironic, given that I used to be the TL of Google News 10 years ago.

I still read The Economist weekly, come to HN occasionally, and hear about important/local/political events from friends. I don't, however, have to hear the constant doom bombardment that the media has evolved to produce.

Stepping back really highlights how toxic the news can be. We live in a society with the lowest crime rate, highest levels of healthcare, lowest unemployment rate, and lowest levels of poverty in all of history. Access to the internet and globalization has made people (real people, not the loudest selected subset you see in media) genuinely care about each other everywhere in the world I have traveled. Yet you would never think that just looking at typical media.

It isn't a perfect society, and horrible situations still exist that deserve attention, but that will always be true. We still have enormous strides we can make, and that struggle is an important aspect of our society, especially in defending against erosions of personal freedoms.

Honestly, though, we are doing really well compared with 100 years ago.

<comment><USER9> Hey, Chris! I largely agree with you, and think reading things like the Economist on a weekly basis is salutary - it's weekly, so building a reading habit around it doesn't lead to constant panic. It's broad, covers a lot of what's going on around the world and isn't as obsessed with the trivialities American media focuses on. As a guy who used to work on Google News with you, I always appreciated the effort to get more global news and more global sources integrated into peoples' reading experiences.

Where I disagree is that I think being citizens of a democracy obligates us to pay attention so we can vote as informed participants, and I don't know how to do that without reading the news.

And it's important to be clear that there's a lot still wrong with the world. The climate is in crisis; more humans are in slavery today than at any time in human history; we're in the midst of one of the great migrant/refugee crises of the modern world. Importantly, many media outlets largely ignore those things, but not all media does.

<comment><USER10> I'm pretty sure you can remain informed while reading the news once a week. In fact, I would argue you are likely to be _better_ informed as you will be reading about the most important information, viewing the long term stories that have staying power. By only reading once a week you avoid the hot, attention-grabbing-but-ultimately-inconsequential story of the day.

As for voting, you generally receive a "voter information" packet before hand. If you aren't reading the news then a "good citizen" ought to do their own research rather than rely on a news source to provide you with information.

<comment><USER9> Yes, I quite agree - reading the news once a week can lead you to be incredibly well-informed. But since the OP was asserting that one oughtn't read the news at all, I find "once/week" to be a rather different proposition.

<comment><USER10> Valid point, you are correct. The part of your comment that caught my eye was

> being citizens of a democracy obligates us to pay attention

I agree with the statement itself, absolutely. I just don't think reading the news is necessarily the correct way to pay attention. If you read most news, hardly any of it encourages better citizenship. Much like Facebook, the news requires eyeballs to survive, it has an inherent agenda. To collect eyeballs it needs to have enticing headlines. I hardly think "look at me" is the same thing as "education for a good democracy".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I see many people here who have said it, and I will say it; I haven't watched any mainstream news(Fox, CNN, ABC, etc) in years. All it is, is negativity and deception. For the most part, I don't care about what is going on. I get my fill of major events from browsing reddit and HN, and even then I just read the comments, rarely the article. I've never used FB as a source of information, that sounds about as bad of a source as you can get.

Back when I used to watch the news, it was always the same. Something like

>> Weather >> Death >> Death >> Shooting >> Crime reports >> Crime reports >> Sports >> Empty feel good story(Guy saves kitten, guy donates to charity, etc) >> Ending

They focus so much on negativity and toxic behaviors, it's depressing. I don't want to wake up in the mornings and first thing I see is how many people died the previous day from local crimes. Even worse are the minor crimes where people who might not even be guilty get their picture blown up on screen and automatically deemed criminals prior to being convicted. "Man who might have stolen a car is charged, no evidence has yet been presented. So here is his picture, links to his social media accounts, his address, his entire life story. If you ever see him in the future, consider him a criminal"

It's so hard to get unbiased information anymore. Every major news outlet leans towards one side or the other. The stations that do try an report unbiased get their funding cut and put in financial ruin.

<comment><USER12> > It's so hard to get unbiased information anymore.

I'm not so sure that "unbiased information" is a thing that really exists. For example, you would like to know the outside temperature, so you check online. That information comes from a sensor somewhere near where you happen to be. But who placed the sensor there, and why was that location chosen? Was the sensor calibrated? How was it originally designed? What choices were made in the design process, and how did the engineer's biases shape the final product. You could keep going.

Obviously, that's a bit absurd, but it's relevant to news. Even a simple reporting of facts about a car crash can be view through numerous lenses. Initial fact gathering by police and emergency workers all add their own perspectives and inputs to the "raw data", and then that has to go through a reporter who is also a person with their own world view, opinions, and experiences. Do they use the word "crash", or "accident"? Both words heavily bias the reporting of a car coming into contact with a guardrail at a particular speed. It would be hard to strip all bias from something so simple.

For murkier issues, like the actions of nation states, it is even harder to"stick to the facts". The facts may not even be clear. The data you include in a report has to be curated somehow, and that can't be free from bias. You have to select sources, and again those are decisions made by people.

Unbiased information is in my opinion a myth invented largely to discredit the idea that reporting is useful even with bias and that there can exist objective facts. Perhaps there is a problem of propaganda masquerading as news, or heavily biased reporting pretending to be wholly objective, but that's a different thing. Ultimately it's our responsibility as consumers of information to look at the information presented to us with a critical eye.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "Food, Ivan Arnoldovich, is a subtle thing. One must know how to eat, yet just think – most people don't know how to eat at all. One must not only know what to eat, but when and how.' (Philip Philipovich waved his fork meaningfully.) 'And what to say while you're eating. Yes, my dear sir. If you care about your digestion, my advice is – don't talk about bolshevism or medicine at table. And, God forbid – never read Soviet newspapers before dinner.' 'M'mm . . . But there are no other newspapers.' 'In that case don't read any at all. Do you know I once made thirty tests in my clinic. And what do you think? The patients who never read newspapers felt excellent. Those whom I specially made read Pravda all lost weight."

― Mikhail Bulgakov, Heart of a Dog

<comment><USER14> Love this, but since the book has an anti-Soviet sentiment, I don't think we could generalize this quote. In USSR you would read only what you should and you didn't really have a choice. Freedom of press was something impossible to imagine.

I cannot say that everything what we read, or choose to read today is worth reading but there is a good press, which is at times difficult to find, but you will never get to it if you don't filter.

<comment><USER15> The major US news outlets deteriorated to the point of being close to USSR level of bias and propaganda.

<comment><USER16> No they're not. If you actually believe this, no one can help you.

<comment><USER15> I see little difference CNN has clear political angle so does FOX which is basically directed by owners interests. That's a very short through to the USSR old times. If I ever turn on either one I feel that I am back to USSR. (I lived in US 1995-2004) and came back to US in 2015 the difference is very stark I would imaging when it was happening gradually it would be less noticeable vs going from 2000 +/\- version to today. In USSR you had a small group of people (Politburo) controlling among other things all the media. If you take the number of people in US exerting major influence on media through ownership it's pretty much smaller number than even members of Politburo.

<comment><USER16> I also grew up in the USSR; comparing CNN to Pravda is still stupid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Look, I think this is great and all, but I'm pretty skeptical of this chant, "If the news bothers you so much because of what you're reading, just stop reading. It's not like you can change it."

Obviously, events that already happened can't be changed. But a lot of what upsets people so much is about legal interpretation and political policy. These things _are_ changeable, and direct (and/or collective) action can change them.

When you're in a position where by default things go your way (dominant gender, dominant sexual orientation, dominant phenotype/race in local community) then yeah, you can just disengage and suspect that things are ticking over nicely for you. That's not the case for people outside this happy intersection. It certainly reads to me, as someone out of one of those bounds like you're telling me to disengage while people actively trying to shape law to marginalize me certainly won't.

Further, resistance to propaganda and misinformation is not an attribute of mentality. It's a combination of learned skills and _context_. By yielding all current contextual information, you are severely damaging your ability to process current events. This is in sharp contrast to the arguments put forth here and in the article that often lament the lack of skills (e.g., statistical thinking) that you can both learn and maintain in isolation.

I agree that controlling your media consumption is important and some folks (including myself) sometimes go off on media benders, getting very stressed. But the second assumption (that it's pointless) is wrong. My anger and outrage has helped me aid numerous political campaigns and individuals with money, time and emotional support.

<comment><USER18> "My anger and outrage has helped me aid numerous political campaigns and individuals with money, time and emotional support."

I hope your correct in this; I've felt similarly in the past.

As I've gotten older, I've felt more like a lot of what I was seeing as useful action was the fantasy of useful action. That is, I haven't seen a lot of real gains or losses due to my own political actions.

Maybe I just don't give enough money or knock on enough doors.

But as I've gotten older it's felt more and more that this is just engaging in a particular kind of fantasy role playing.

Perhaps it is true that I can disengage with this kinds of political anger because I can look like I can pass as a white cishet male.

Consider, however, that the only folks who can actually make political gains are people that are already in a position of some amount of power and privilege. The basic premise of incremental change is that the kinds of changes that you'd like to see are sustainable via the system you're interacting with.

To take a specific example from my own set of stuff that pisses me off, I believe that the system of policing where I live is systematically racist.

I would never have a problem with people advocating for incremental changes and I've seen people make small gains in those directions.

However, I believe that the complete disarmament of the police for and more or less the total abolition of prisions is the only workable solution.

I wholly understand that this position is not a moderate position and is probably not something many people agree with, and I neither expect other people to see it as reasonable nor want to support that view here.

I bring it up, rather, because there is no incremental change that I can see which will bring about the conditions under the system where I live.

So I've more or less given up on following news on this front: there is nothing that I can do about the fact that the racist Texas "justice" system has incarcerated some lady for 5 years for voter fraud. I'm neither surprised nor do I feel like there is something that I can do to convince Ken Paxton, et al, that they aren't terrible, terrible people. There's just nothing that can be done that is going to correct that kind of problem in the world.

So, while I think you're correct in asserting that there is a certain amount of privilege in ignoring the news, I point out this:

there is a certain amount of intersectionality with a system involved in believing that you can incrementally change that system to operate with justice.

<comment><USER19> Look to history. I think you are absolutely right that it's purely performative to make political donations to major parties or go and phone bank for politicians that can at best make incremental change (and will more likely allow big business to make things worse). The things that have worked before are much more disruptive. You could try taking part in protests and marches or other direct actions that put real pressure on local government. MLK blocked highways and staged strikes. It was his power (along with many others) to put a halt to the economic activity the government relies on that led to victory for civil rights.

<comment><USER20> >Look to history.

Be careful. History may well tell you that protests and marches generally failed, and the ones we talk about are the exceptions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The problem is that some news is relevant. One of my friends has given up reading or watching any kind of news altogether. At first this seems impressive but when I asked him about how far his house was from the wildfire, he was like "Umm - what wildfire?". He was oblivious to the fact that country's biggest wildfire was just three miles away from his house. He is a very smart and successful guy and it really jolted me how a guy like him could be oblivious to such an important event that could impact his life. The reason - he doesn't watch news.

<comment><USER22> Three miles? Did he also give up looking out the window?

<comment><USER23> Or talking to people in general? That seems incredibly odd.

<comment><USER21> I asked him about if he could not see the smoke. He said the wind direction took the smoke away from his house and some hills obstructed his view. He had just moved into the neighborhood so he wasn't friends with the neighbors quite yet.

<comment><USER24> Wow! I would think the logjam of people _stuffing their cars with possessions and getting the hell out of there_ would have been a clue that something, possibly, was happening that might warrant some further investigation.

There's apparently a fine line between "not ardently following the news" and "not paying attention at all."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> > Out of the 10,000 news stories you may have read in the last 12 months, did > even one allow you to make a better decision about a serious matter in your > life,

Yes, there was an article on HN a couple weeks ago. Pork treated with nitrates increases the chance of colon cancer as much as smoking increases the chance of lung cancer (but pork treated with salt is ok).

<comment><USER26> interesting... can you provide a link?

<comment><USER27> Possibly [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16499149](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16499149)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Giving up political news didn't make me happier, but it certainly reduced that niggling feeling that everything is headed towards doom.

It's said that "an informed citizenry is the bulwark of democracy", and that's probably why many of us consume so much political news.

However, I feel seeing the news and expressing outrage privately or on social media have become low-effort excuses for not doing things that can actually improve our governments. Outrage does not affect anything except our own peace of mind and health.

As far as I can tell, atleast in my country, only two things lead towards any real change - 1)protests and 2)money. Either I should put in the effort to organize people and protest, or I should spend money trying to influence decision makers. Since I suck at the first and lack in the second, I decided to be apathetic towards everything political.

<comment><USER29> The average citizen (not organizing protests and keeping away from fruitless online outrage) can probably catch up with all relevant political news in 1-2 hours/month of concentrated effort.

I've started doing just that and it has had great impact on my mental health. I don't feel any less prepared to make an impact when the time comes (elections, sporadic talks with friends and family).

Should I be more engaged? Surely. But I just look at all of it and think it's a necessary evil and I'm happy other people feel more inclined to participate heavily. I just don't have the mental skills to keep up and be sane.

<comment><USER30> What sources do you use to catch up?

<comment><USER29> It's highly centered on my country so I'm not sure it's of use to a global audience.

But it's a mix of filtering actual facts from newspaper articles on both sides of the spectrum (they usually carry very little information and mostly repeat words to fill up screen space), then check a few respected journalists publishing analysis after a few weeks (again, from left/right). They will be biased, like anything, but there's a kernel of Truth even when I disagree. So that's useful for informing my thoughts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I just listened to a podcast with Laurie Santos, all about her course on happiness research, which quickly became the most popular course ever taught at Yale. [https://verybadwizards.fireside.fm/136](https://verybadwizards.fireside.fm/136)

A shortened version of the course is available on Coursera: [https://www.coursera.org/learn/the-science-of-well- being](https://www.coursera.org/learn/the-science-of-well-being)

It's surprising how much the research validates things we all intuitively know or suspect about happiness, but routinely fail to put into practice. Exercise. Sleep. Mindfulness. Human interactions. Have some free time. "Avoid news" seems like it might fit too.

<comment><USER32> Thanks for this. Watched the course intro and I'm definitely enrolling for April 9th.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> >Out of the approximately 10,000 news stories you have read in the last 12 months, name one that – because you consumed it – allowed you to make a better decision about a serious matter affecting your life, your career or your business.

Okay...

Consuming political news has empowered me to communicate with my elected representatives about policies that matter to me.

Consuming local news has kept me informed of important happenings in my community - including events that I attended and consider my self better off for going.

Consuming industry news has kept me up-to-date on the things that I need to stay aware of at my Cybersecurity job.

I find that consuming 24 hour TV news, or consuming and sharing lots of hyper- partisan political news is emotionally taxing. I don't do much of that. I occasionally watch my local news, but mostly consume local newspapers and neighborhood blogs to keep informed of what is happening in my community.

Everything else I read online, and I do consume news pretty much every day.

I really don't see the point in outright refusing to stay informed of current events. Just don't overindulge in the news/entertainment nonsense that masquerades as real journalism now days.

<comment><USER34> >Consuming political news has empowered me to communicate with my elected representatives about policies that matter to me.

Give an example. Otherwise it's a post-hoc hand-waving justification. Also include how you meaningfully communicated with your representative about the issue (e.g. writing a complaint email about the popular news of the day doesn't count).

<comment><USER33> I wrote to my governor and my districts state reps about making Net Neutrality Washington State law after the FCC repealed those rules.

My state is now planning to pass a state law, despite federal law prohibiting us from doing so.

I didn't do that alone, but if nobody was paying attention to the news and doing their part, it likely wouldn't have happened.

<comment><USER35> Where did you hear about that story?

TV News, Radio News or the local newspaper?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I found this article really unconvincing. It lashes out at random things like the number of hyperlinks in an article, and has completely unsubstantiated claims like the following:

"Most news consumers – even if they used to be avid book readers – have lost the ability to absorb lengthy articles or books. After four, five pages they get tired, their concentration vanishes, they become restless. It's not because they got older or their schedules became more onerous. It's because the physical structure of their brains has changed."

This claim stops just short of saying watching the news causes ADHD, from a self-styled "self-help guru" with no expertise in neurology or psychology, without any sort of citation.

There's also specious logic like this:

"I don't know a single truly creative mind who is a news junkie – not a writer, not a composer, mathematician, physician, scientist, musician, designer, architect or painter"

I also find the question "Out of the 10,000 news stories you may have read in the last 12 months, did even one allow you to make a better decision about a serious matter in your life" to be poorly founded. Knowledge is a good unto itself, and simply raising awareness of issues can lead to action, even if the majority do nothing concrete to help. Simply seeing the change in polling data can cause politicians to enact legislation (though, obviously, donating to a lobbying group or contacting your representative are more effective).

Moreover, I think the fundamental idea asserted here is dangerous. Limiting your news intake is one thing, but forgoing it entirely?. The cornerstone of democracy is an informed public. Keeping people aware of the actions being taken at and highest and lowest levels of government is the only way to keep it accountable. And on a personal note I think it is immoral for people who are relatively well off to ignore the problems plaguing others.

<comment><USER37> If you need to be watching/reading the news more than about once a month, in order to know what way to vote, I would be curious as to why. Once a month (that is, a tiny fraction of the normal amount) is more than sufficient to learn all that you can learn from that source of information. There are way better methods for becoming an informed citizen, than the news.

<comment><USER36> It's about more than knowing which way to vote, it's about developing awareness of issues. People affect democracy in more ways than just voting and political action like protests. Politicians constantly run polls to take the temperature of the people on various issues, and adjust their positions and priorities accordingly. Which isn't to denigrate actual political action, but to demonstrate that awareness can intrinsically affect the government.

What do you think would be a better way to become an informed citizen than watching the news?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Mainstream media in my part of the world - north-western Europe in general, Sweden and the Netherlands to be more specific - seems to have forgotten that it is the fiduciary duty of the news media to keep watch over those in power, instead turning their gaze on those who oppose the government position. While some critical journalism still exists in the main stream media, especially in Sweden this has mostly moved to what for some reason is called 'alternative media'

Given this lack of critical opinions in main stream media it is rather pointless to rely on them to keep informed. The 'alternative' media often offers a more critical voice but that voice often comes with an agenda and an accompanying myopic view which makes it as unwise to rely on any single 'alternative' source as it is to rely on main stream sources.

The solution to this conundrum is most emphatically _not_ to 'stick your head in the sand' (i.e. giving up on reading news) as that just makes you less informed and with that less prepared to make rational decisions. This goes from the small - missing the small article hidden on page 7 in the local paper where the council declares its intention to close down the school you planned to send your children to because they claim to need the building for other purposes (this happened where I live, those who did read the news gathered to protest leading to the decision to be suspended) - to the large ('brexit', 'Russia is the new/old enemy', etc).

Is there an easy solution? No, I don't think there is. Finding truth in the media is like finding a needle in a haystack full of pins. What I do is use a news reader (the News app for Nextcloud, think 'Google Reader' but under private regime) with a select list of subscriptions from both 'alternative' as well as main stream sources. Reading the headlines gives an idea of what is being reported, comparing how what is being reported between sources gives an impression of what really happens or happened.

</comment><comment><USER39> What do you guys do if you need a short break from work? Between tasks or if I have finished something mentally demanding, I will often skim some news sites or hacker news.

Any recommendation what else to do as a quick break between programming tasks?

<comment><USER40> I prepare a cup of tea and stare out the window.

<comment><USER41> Yeah I just go outside pretending taking a mental cigarette, And water is better than tea also

<comment><USER42> > water is better than tea also

What are you basing this off of? How are the comparisons being done? Tea has many benefits provided its not "fake" sugar-riddled tea.

Don't make a comment telling someone else to "stop doing something" without any context about why you're suggesting it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> If being happy is your ultimate life goal then it's probably right. Although the quest for happiness should not be the only thing we work for. Personally I think this is a very selfish way of thinking. Being informed and capable of logical thinking considering your environment is equally important. That said, we should seek for good quality news and I agree with the article on this point about investigation journalism. But this is like research, it is essential, has a cost and not all the time succeeds.

As a citizen it's a duty to be well informed so we can participate in democracy efficiently (Quoting Greek philosophers here).

<comment><USER7> This assumes that consuming the news equates to being well informed. I certainly doubt that assumption. Journalism relating to areas I know well is often woefully inaccurate, if it even is reporting rather than opinion. And keeping in mind the Gell-Mann Effect, I should probably not give the stories about topics beyond my expertise the benefit of the doubt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> When I worked in television news, long ago, it was under the wing of the independent news department. TV news, now, is under the programming department and beholding to marketing. Thus, you'll find "news" stories about products being introduced--even promoted--by "news stories" and pretty boys and girls. Especially on local TV shows where money is tighter and few stations employ full-time news personnel to actually dig into a story and are only "rip-and- readers" as we called them back in the day.

</comment><comment><USER45> I stopped getting the newspaper more than a year ago, and have consciously reduced using Facebook (which was already limited to specific topics related to "greater good", to put it in words that don't expose too much). Since I don't have cable at home, there's nothing blaring in the background with a regurgitation of the same stuff and flashy animations about some "breaking news" that's mostly of no practical value. Many a times it just increases frustration and stress over things you don't generally care about or can't really do something about. I don't mind not having anything to gossip about with co-workers. There's enough going on in general anyway, without mainstream news adding to it.

I've seen that life does actually get a bit difficult in certain ways when one doesn't keep up with news, especially anything related to taxation and other policies (related to real estate, automobiles). So I still check a few online news sites once every two days or so for the headlines alone.

In general, staying away from these sources reduces what I feel as "internal agitation" that usually bleeds into many other activities (while being in the background). I would anyday recommend people to get off standard cable TV and also news, and instead making choices that are a bit more involved. The mental peace thus obtained alone is worth it!

P.S.: Slightly related is giving up surfing the web itself, which my mind (that's been modified to have a low attention span due to years on the web) would probably benefit a lot more from.

</comment><comment><USER46> "And I am sure that I never read any memorable news in a newspaper. If we read of one man robbed, or murdered, or killed by accident, or one house burned, or one vessel wrecked, or one steamboat blown up, or one cow run over on the Western Railroad, or one mad dog killed, or one lot of grasshoppers in the winter, - we need never read of another. One is enough. If you are acquainted with the principle, what do you care for a myriad instances and applications?"

Henry David Thoreau, _Walden_ (1854)

</comment><comment><USER47> Kind of strange, reading that on a news site, pretty much telling you to stop using their site.

<comment><USER48> One of the reasons I haven't blocked hackernews with /etc/hosts is because of it's noprocrast feature.

Most of these sites know they're potentially harmful, the better ones acknowledge it and help their readers avoid the harm.

<comment><USER49> I think op meant The Guardian being a news site.

<comment><USER47> Yeah, that's what I meant^^

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Also relevant, Aaron Swartz' _I Hate the News_ post: [http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews](http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews)

Basically: Less news, more books.

</comment><comment> cirrus-clouds Of course you need to read the news. Select your news sources carefully and limit or eliminate your exposure to social media discussions of the news.

I understand the sentiment that news can make you depressed, but reading the news can also spur people to act positively in a multitude of ways.

When a natural disaster strikes and the news is filled with stories of anguish and despair in the aftermath, people donate to charities because of the news reports they've seen.

Imagine if we never read the news because such stories were too depressing?

Imagine if this young student had never seen a harrowing news report about the Syrian war?

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29900968](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29900968)

<comment><USER51> You may read this tariff story and think, what's the big deal? The story's not bad. Isn't it reasonable to talk about effects of current events in this way? I answer, absolutely not. Such speculation is a complete waste of time. It's useless. It's bullshit on the front page of the Times.

[http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why- speculate/](http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Same holds true for watching "House of Cards" and "The mechanism". If you can watch those without getting angry you probably didn't get it. With "it" I mean the unhappiness ;)

Also, there should be a 2013 in the title

</comment><comment><USER31> Original full essay in German: [http://www.dobelli.com/de/essays/news-diat- full/](http://www.dobelli.com/de/essays/news-diat-full/)

<comment><USER53> And in English: [http://www.dobelli.com/en/essays/news- diet/](http://www.dobelli.com/en/essays/news-diet/)

I read this years ago and stopped reading and watching news. Never missed a thing. Important things you will hear one way or another and the rest is just noise. Loud distracting noise.

<comment><USER54> Did you notice the evil word in the URL of this website before you posted your comment?

<comment><USER53> I did. I'm very aware that lately more and more posts on HN have the same depth as main stream news (what the article is about).

But what I like about HN is that the comment section is full of insight about the subject sometimes even debunking the article that was posted.

So yes.

<comment><USER54> I didn't mean to offend you, in fact, I am trying to consume less 'news' myself since a few years. And while I agree that the HN comments hold a lot of high quality information, I see that HN, in general, has a similar effect on my concentration and productivity as other news/media sites.

So I don't try to not read HN at all, but to become aware of the effect it has on me and limit my news consumption to a healthy dose ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I gave up news last year. It was really hard, I instinctively and habitually checked various news sources, so it was hard to fight this back. I've also removed my Facebook news feed. Now all I consume are HN and Twitter (from which I cull anything political or current affairsy). I have a subscription to Delayed Gratification[1], and am a lot more content now than I used to be.

1: [https://www.slow-journalism.com/](https://www.slow-journalism.com/)

</comment><comment><USER56> The title of the article "News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier", but the HN headline is "Giving up reading news will make us happier".

The former says that not reading the news is individually beneficial, whereas latter implies that it is _socially_ beneficial.

Those are distinct enough qualities that, when coupled with missing "(2013)", inclines me to believe that the current headline is too misleading.

It should be changed to reflect its source.

</comment><comment><USER57> Right and when the secret police come to your door you will be surprised. Wait, you say, when did we get taken over by a dictator? What happened to our democracy? Why is my internet suddenly riddled with NO everywhere? How come my job vanished? Why are my children suddenly forced to eat dirt? Why do I live in a crime infested neighborhood that used to be safe? Why did evil people destroy my environment? Oh yeah, I didn't pay attention.

It's not News you should be looking for, but information, and that's the real problem. If you ignore what is going on in the world because you don't want o hear anything hard you may be blissful, but you are just not involved, and all of us will suffer because you did not care to participate. If finding your information in "News" which is determined to give you false information is bad, ignoring what is going on in life is worse, because the only people who will change things are the very people you don't want doing it.

I remember voting in a bond election in a city of 500,000. Only a few hundred voted. We spent $50M of the people's money because they didn't care. Ignoring News is fine, ignoring what is going on is not.

<comment><USER40> Hence the penultimate paragraph, no?

 _" Society needs journalism – but in a different way. Investigative journalism is always relevant. We need reporting that polices our institutions and uncovers truth. But important findings don't have to arrive in the form of news. Long journal articles and in-depth books are good, too."_

<comment><USER36> Which seemed like a non-sequitur to me. How is investigative journalism not news? Virtually every one of his arguments applies equally to investigative journalism, and the fact that he explicitly overrides those arguments demonstrates their weakness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Most of the times when I watch the "news" it isn't to get more informed, it's more as something to watch, get entertained, and have open in the background. For this reason I like watching local news better as the stories they have are much more focused than CNN or FOX's 100th story about Trump tweets. Most people attack local news but I seem that they have more integrity than the big named channels if you manage to slog through the crappy syndicated ones. Thankfully Sinclair doesn't own any stations in my area.

It's nice to at least have news that is more compact and relates more to your life. Traffic, weather, daily minor politics that won't matter outside of your 50 mile radius. All of these are things that remind me that the area I live in is living and breathing and not just a set-piece for the larger and grander story that most national news medias cover.

</comment><comment><USER59> This is what I have been telling family and friends for years! Life is about personal connections and leading a productive life. News ingestion is harmful to both activities.

Ironic, Guardian warns us about news consumption and I donate $5/month to them because next to NPR they are the best news source for me.

</comment><comment><USER60> I'm of the firm opinion that it is everyone's civic duty to stay informed of what is going on around them, even if news coverage is negative and biased.

The alternative - sticking one's head in the sand - is selfish. In the short run it can make you happier and give you the ability to focus on your personal affairs, but in the long run it makes you more and more isolated and contributes to the degradation of the social fabric.

You don't have to remain immersed in breaking news for hours and hours, but even 15-20 minutes browsing headlines and skimming through select articles can go a long way towards what I call "civic awareness".

</comment><comment><USER61> For a less radical step than giving up news completely, try just giving up 'push' news.

For me this meant disabling my Google Now feed, turning off NYTimes notifications, unfollowing all non-human accounts on Facebook, and unsubscribing from some email digests. Oh and check out the 'noprocrast' settings on Hacker News.

Now I read the news exactly when I want to and from sources I enjoy. I still probably know more than I'd like to about the whims of the president, but I notice that I'm probably 20% happier and 5% less informed than when I started. A good trade.

</comment><comment><USER62> _Goal:_

\- Stay informed about important world events (for yourself AND for social reasons)

\- Reduce time & attention spent on "waste" news

 _Challenges:_

\- Most news "as it happens" is inaccurate

\- Much of the news is colored with story-like "narrative", rather than "just the facts, Jack".

\- News websites have perverse incentives (attract eyeballs, provoke outrage, etc)

\- A lot of attention in MSM is paid to irrelevant topics (e.g. personal interest, odd crimes, etc).

\- Heavy Biases present

 _Solution(s):_

\- Postpone / let it soak: If you see a news article you're interested in, withstand the dopamine - send the article to Pocket. Set aside regular time (end of day, or once a week) to review all postponed news. With any luck, the news story has developed more accurate info

\- Use non commercial news sources. Example: At the beginning of month, review the WIKIPEDIA current events portal. The assumption is that the news articles & topics there are likely "aged" slightly, and more factual. Examples:

News LAST month (Likely fairly relevant & accurate): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/March_20...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/March_2018).

News THIS month (reasonably relevant "breaking news"): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/April_20...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/April_2018)

"Aggregated" news for the YEAR (read the sections by month): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018#March](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018#March)

If you spot-check the above links, you can see that it really does "cover" most of the news that's front of mind in the major news outlets. The difference is, you can click in - read to the depth you prefer - <USER2> _generally_ avoid some of the major editorializing / narrative building.

</comment><comment><USER63> "But at least we still have a hand with which to switch channels or turn off altogether. I tell my lecture audiences to never, ever watch local TV news."

\- Ray Bradbury, 1996 Playboy Interview

</comment><comment><USER64> Slight tangent, but I look at how much time and energy is expended in the tech comment forums, where fanboys argue religiously: Android vs iOS, Windows vs macOS vs Linux, Intel vs AMD vs ARM, Tesla vs Uber vs Waymo.

Eventually it degrades into CompanyX sucks; no CompanyY sucks more.

I wish I could encourage the fanboys to go out and create something awesome, or be part of something constructive. Vs watching and criticizing from the sidelines.

</comment><comment><USER65> My biggest question is how do you keep up if you cut news. I would definitely like to quit checking HN also but FOmo of new technologies keep me coming.

<comment><USER66> Set aside a specific time each week to scan the headlines and pick out the most interesting. For HN or most content aggregation sites, if something is particularly important, it'll stay on the first 5-6 pages for more than a week.

Scan the first few pages, pick out 5-10 articles, read for an hour or two. You'll be at least 80% as informed as if you had checked in every day. This also lets you deep dive into any of the ideas if they're particularly interesting, because it's such a small list of mental options.

One of my worst problems is ending up with a notebook page of 40 items that I found interesting. I never go back and learn more about them because I can't really decide what's the most interesting. Cull options ruthlessly until you have a manageable set of options.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> It's great to see this in the Guardian. I use some of these publications as a litmus test for when a concept has finally gained broad appeal.

</comment><comment><USER68> Regarding news, I have had this self-imposed rule:

* Only check out the first screen of any news web site. No scrolling down, and no clicking links.*

Implementation details: I keep around 10 news sites in a bookmark folder. Through out a day, I right click on the folder and open all of the sites at once, then spend on average 5 to 10 seconds on each site. Do this three or four times each day.

Been pretty happy doing this for a few years now.

<comment><USER69> "Only check out the first screen of any news web site. No scrolling down, and no clicking links."

I like that rule. One quick check of the news home page should be enough to tell you if there is anything truly important going on that requires your immediate attention.

</comment></comment><comment> wu-ikkyu Mainstream media/news is the fast food of information. It's super cheap, easy to get, and it gives you a quick high like you get from all the sugar and fat in fast food, but you'll invetably feel worse after doing so.

Cooking a healthier meal by yourself and doing your own independent research and investigations takes _much_ more time, but also has a much greater reward.

</comment><comment><USER70> > Out of the approximately 10,000 news stories you have read in the last 12 > months, name one that – because you consumed it – allowed you to make a > better decision about a serious matter affecting your life, your career or > your business.

Up to date reports about hurricane Irma's path.

Did I do it? Did I just when the internet?

</comment><comment><USER71> Seems like an uninformed population will be even more umhappy when they are inevitably taken advantage of.

<comment><USER72> I'd really recommend reading the article. I think it addresses this issue very well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> News is like art. Anything can be defined as art, anything can be defined as news.

Elon Musk tweeted? Lets wrap the tweet in a fluff burrito... Although, Tesla stocks been seeing some tough times, today Elon tweeted X..., in conclusion ...

That passes as news, but its just drivel.

</comment><comment> your-nanny There is value in staying informed. However the news cycle ain't healthy.

Slow news is the thing to do. The old weekly or monthly news summaries will increase the snr. Or Wikipedia's news entries.

</comment><comment><USER74> > happier

Seeking happiness is a trap in itself though. This has been extensively discussed by centuries of philosophers. Happiness is transitory and can never be sustained.

<comment><USER75> What counts as sustained? Does a bad day, week, month, or year disrupt it? Or is a year or decade of general happiness mean it is sustained? Does it have to last until your death?

Maybe it requires the context of your first sentence about seeking happiness.

For myself, I would not say I seek it, but that I chose it. I feel I've been generally happy nearly always. Sure, there have been stresses, losses, tragedies, tears, and such. There have been extended periods of feelings of inadequacy and of being trapped. Yet, even through all such events and periods, I'd say I tend to be happy. And the last major part of a decade has been the most fulfilling and blessed part of my life yet. Sure, it could come crashing down. Or it could get even better! I chose to be happy with where I have been, where I am at, and look forward to where I'll go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> A bold piece. I'm glad he was allowed to publish it.

</comment><comment> Digit-Al Somewhat ironic that a newspaper is reproducing an article saying you shouldn't read newspapers :-)

</comment><comment><USER77> I think that being ignorant of current events in the world around you is irresponsible and selfish. It undermines democracy and prevents you from addressing problems in society where you could make a difference.

A better suggestion is to focus on higher quality news sources: I'd recommend Reuters (try the iOS app) and the Economist, and Channel 4 News in the UK.

<comment><USER74> > It undermines democracy and prevents you from addressing problems in society > where you could make a difference.

There are plenty of people undermining democracy while being well aware of what's happening around them. Moot point.

<comment><USER77> Because another person is doing something bad does not allow you to absolve yourself of social responsibility.

<comment><USER74> My point is having access of information is not a useful variable to define enlightment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> Ignorance is bliss for the individual, but has steep consequences for society.

</comment><comment><USER54> The Guardian just publishes that story because know we can't resist :D

</comment><comment><USER79> Ignorance is strength

</comment><comment><USER80> Haven't watched the news in at least 5 years. Actually I haven't watched TV in the last 5 years even. So I don't have ads bombarding me, or fear and propaganda coming in every day.

Highly recommended. You have one life. Make sure it counts as a happy one.

<comment><USER81> How do you stay up to day?

Ideally Id like a weekly review or something where I can spend 30min.

I recongnise it would be beneficial to give up news, but I need to know a bit about whats going on to be social.

<comment><USER82> You could check out Wikipedia's "Current events" page: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events)

<comment><USER81> I didn't know about that page. That looks quite like I want. Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> I read and consume copious amounts of news and I'm perfectly happy. Reason - <USER3> curate/choose carefully what I consume.

</comment><comment><USER84> but what is life without drama?</comment>


Ask HN - I don't understand the up/down arrows behavior ... - <AUTHOR>

I'm finding that on some threads there are comments I can up or down mod, but other comments I can only up mod.  I thought it might be because I couldn't downmod people with more karma than I have, but then I found a two comments by the same user, and I could downmod one but not the other.
I'm very confused by this - not that it really matters - but I'd like to understand.  Can anyone here provide an explanation?
Thanks. <comment><USER2> What confuses me is that there is not a man page that explains the workings of news.yc Parts of it can be pieced together in SEARCHING - or in articles like the Feb 4 newsnews on new comment/color-highlighting feature. Nor have I seen an _explanation_ of why no man page (e.g., "if you dont' understand how it works you're too noob a hacker for these pages" or "we don't explain it all because we don't want it to be too easy to hack the site" (i.e., beat the system) ). As an admitted noob, I remain... puzzled.

<comment><USER3> You can get the source here: <http://arclanguage.org/install>

<comment><USER4> open source is _awesome_. open source is not, however, a replacement for explanations, which are often briefer and more broadly understandable.

<comment><USER3> This is arc code - try reading it, I think you'll be surprised. It does takes a little effort [1], but certainly no UML diagrams - there is an especially fun learning curve around learning what the macros do [2], but nothing like the training needed to read theoretical math or CS papers.

1\. The tutorial helps: <http://ycombinator.com/arc/tut.txt>

2\. `aif' and `awhen' are good examples not covered in the tutorial: they set "it" variables to the result of the test:

      (mac aif (expr . body)
        `(let it ,expr
           (if it
               ,@(if (cddr body)
                     `(,(car body) (aif ,@(cdr body)))
                     body))))

      (mac awhen (expr . body)
        `(let it ,expr (if it (do ,@body))))

<comment><USER4> actually, i read the code first. i have a computer science bachelors and masters from mit, which means i have wonderful memories from writing in scheme and list. reading the code is a joy for me.

after working on numerous projects with a wide variety of skills, many not being programming, i have to say that english is often a better answer than code. not everyone reads code. it annoys me that people want my status report rather than reading my repo commit messages and diffs, but at this i can empathize with their perspective. if you really get into alternate education, which i think is a wonderful way to understand multiple perspectives and find respect for a wide range of abilities, you'll find that communication is more about being flexible on the means.

that said, i did just post about using puzzles to get comment scrip (-;

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You cannot downmod comments that are older than 24 hours.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's an interesting point that I shall explore. However, it's not the whole story. Although I wouldn't want to, I cannot downmod _your_ comment. That might be explained by the fact that it's a response to mine.

I'm still not completely clear on the logic, but some of the factors involved are surfacing.

Is there a complete explanation somewhere, rather than just some reverse engineering?

<comment><USER5> Of this feature, yes. See under 4 August at the bottom of the page:

<http://ycombinator.com/newsnews.html>

I don't know about in general though. There are a "mythical" things about this site that sort of just happen, and you get used to. I don't know if there's a full explanation somewhere!

<comment><USER6> I think there's also something in place to prevent your massively downvoting a single person. It seems to me that if I downvote somebody twice or thrice, I'll find that other comments of theirs become off-limits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> When it happens to me it is because I have replied to that comment. I assume that it is because if you replied to a comment you DO think it is worth reading it, and it surely contributed to the discussion, therefore no sense in downmodding it

<comment><USER8> As Dasil says you cant down mod replies to your comments (for obvious reasons :D).

I find I can vote on comments I reply to... (it doesnt, to me, appear to be logical that if your replying you agree with the post).

<comment><USER7> Well I cannot downmod comments I have _already_ replied to. Up/downmodding does NOT mean you agree or disagree with that comment, it means you find it useful/interesting or that it has added something/contributed to the discussion

<comment><USER8> how do you mean by _already_ ?

I can still down mod the comments in this thread that I have replied to.

EDIT: wait NOW I see :) I cant down the above comment. Ignore me :)

<comment><USER4> if you down mod and then reply does the karma get removed?

<comment><USER8> good question.

I volunteer to be downmodded and replied too :)

<comment><USER9> downmodded and here's your reply.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: I brushed up on SQL using TDD, Ruby, and the pg gem - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/amorphid/learn_sql_ruby/tree/master/spec/statements <comment><AUTHOR> It's a work in progress. If anyone is interested in contributing, discussing, criticizing, or understanding, I'd love to hear from you! I don't really know where this project is going from here.</comment>


Light bulb factory closes; End of era for U.S. - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706933_pf.html

<comment><AUTHOR> We can't make lightbulbs in the U.S. Just stop and take a moment to think about that fact. Apparently there is no way to make a cost effective lightbulb in the United States of America. We need hundreds of millions of bulbs to keep the lights on. The new green bulbs cost something like 5$ each.

And we are supposed to be a super power? Don't get me wrong, I love this place and still think we are the best country in the world and best all around place to live but I really don't know how much longer I can say that. I've gone on about our long slow deterioration into the abyss and here is yet more proof. It's a crying shame.

Before some db posts a "Why does this belong on HN" comment, let me say that manufacturing, operations and logistics are all ripe for hacking innovation. Reading on in the article you will see the phrase: "With new automation techniques". The fact that there is dwindling manufacturing in America means there are no new automation techniques being learnt. That knowledge is reserved for foreigners who we pay for the pleasure.

<comment><USER2> How is it a slam on the U.S. when corporations are playing on a global field (i.e. it's cheaper to produce in another country) and the workers cannot (i.e. no equivalent freedom of movement or, in many places, freedom of unionizing). While some of this is about automation, more of it is about cheap labor and a lack of regulations provided by other countries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The plant closed because of "a 2007 energy conservation measure passed by Congress that set standards essentially banning ordinary incandescents by 2014."

I'm going to have to stockpile incandescent bulbs I guess, because I want no part of CFLs. I tried them, and found that they are utterly inferior to incandescent bulbs in almost every way. I guess they use less electricity, but I noticed no significant change in my electric bill.

The light has an unpleasant color spectrum; they are dim for the first few minutes after you turn them on; they don't work well outside in the winter; they don't last much longer (despite claims to the contrary); they cost an order of magnitude more; and they contain toxic mercury which can contaminate your home if you drop one.

<comment><USER4> I moved into a new apartment townhome that has quite a few lights recently. A large living room with track lighting, multiple recessed lights in the kitchen, etc.

Between the first month and the second month, I dropped my electric bill by over $50. I don't believe I ran any appliances significantly different between the months. Temperatures were about the same.

What I did do was replace almost 20 incandescent bulbs with CFLs. If they were an average of 60 watts each and the CFL equivalents an average of 15 watts each, that's a drop of 900 watts in power usage for lighting.

There are definitely some bulbs that are slow to turn on and have a warm up period before they reach full brightness. I read reviews on all the bulbs I'd need online before buying, and none of the bulbs I got have that problem.

Sadly there were two bulbs I couldn't find a CFL replacement for, or I'd have cut my power bill even more. They're very small dimmable reflector lights. I can't find a CFL that's both a small enough reflector style to fit the lighting, and also be dimmable.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What tools/editors do you use for technical architecture diagrams? - <AUTHOR> I'm a career programmer who recently moved to a "solution architect" role, and I need to present/describe technical systems architecture to various stakeholders and non-technical people. I would like these to be detailed enough (or have 2 versions) so that I can share them with people in the field doing the actual development, devops etc and highlight details about AWS deployments, API endpoints, flow of data/payloads between data centers etc. I've had no formal training with Visio or anything like that and so far have used MS Word (or similar) with boxes, text and arrows. Any suggestions from HN? <comment><USER2> draw.io</comment>


Trump Press Conference Video Doctored? - rkuykendall-com https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/acosta-video-trump-cnn-aide-sarah-sanders <comment><AUTHOR> Sped up or not, I think the missing perspective is "is it okay to walk up to someone and forcibly grab what they have in their hand?" Given the context, him not wanting her to grab the microphone, I see nothing wrong with his reaction

<comment><USER2> I don't think the microphone was Jim Acosta's personal property, and he was an invited guest on federal property, and an employee/intern of the federal government was given instruction to get government property back.

<comment><USER3> Except, Jim Acosta is the 4th branch. His job is to find out, on the People's behalf, what the fed is up to, and the federal government (which we pay for) was trying to squirm out of it.

That's not government property, that's _our_ property. The very house is paid for by our taxes.

If it were up to me, journalists would be with elected officials more than they aren't. I want transparency in government. Full transparency.

<comment><USER2> Jim Acosta turned question-asking into political opinion generation. Are reporters even supposed to render judgment at a Q&A?

<comment><USER4> We have the transcript of the exchange. Can you clarify what you mean by "political opinion generation"?

\----

Acosta: I wanted to challenge you on one of the statements that you made in the tail end of the campaign in the midterms that …

Trump: Here we go.

Acosta: Well, I — if you don't mind, Mr. President …

Trump: Let's go. Let's go. Come on.

Acosta: … that this caravan was an invasion. As you know, Mr. President …

Trump: I consider it to be an invasion.

Acosta: As you know, Mr. President, the caravan was not an invasion. It's a group of migrants moving up from Central America towards the border with the U.S. And …

Trump: Thank you for telling me that. I appreciate it.

Acosta: … why did you characterize it as such?

Trump: Because I consider it an invasion. You and I have a difference of opinion.

Acosta: But do you think that you demonized immigrants in this election to try to keep …

Trump: Not at all. No, not at all. I want them to come into the country, but they have to come in legally. You know, they have to come in, Jim, through a process. I want it to be a process. And I want people to come in. And we need the people here …

Acosta: Right. But your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on …

Trump: Well, that's true. … They weren't actors.

Acosta: They're not going to be doing that.

Trump: They weren't actors. Well, no, it was true. Do you think they were actors? They weren't actors. They didn't come from Hollywood. … This was an actual — you know, it happened a few days ago and …

Acosta: They're hundreds of miles away, though. They're hundreds and hundreds of miles away.

Trump: You know what?

Acosta: That's not an invasion.

Trump: I think you should — honestly — I think you should let me run the country, you run CNN. And if you did it well, your ratings would be much better.

Acosta: But let me ask … if I may ask one other question …

Trump: OK, that's enough.

Acosta: Mr. President, if I may …

Trump: Peter, go ahead.

Acosta: If I may ask one other question. Are you worried …

Trump: That's enough. That's enough.

Acosta: But, Mr. President, I — well …

Trump: That's enough.

Acosta: I was going to ask one other …

Trump: That's enough.

Acosta: The other folks have had …

Trump: That's enough.

Acosta: Pardon me, ma'am. I'm — I'm — Mr. President …

Trump: Excuse me, that's enough.

Acosta: Mr. President, I had one other question, if I may ask, on — on the Russia investigation. Are you concerned that — that you may have indictments …

Trump: I'm not concerned about anything with the Russia investigation because it's a hoax.

Acosta: Are you …

Trump: That's enough. Put down the mic.

Acosta: Mr. President, are you worried about indictments coming down in this investigation?

Trump: I tell you what. CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn't be working for CNN. Go ahead.

Acosta: I — I think that's unfair …

Trump: You're a very rude person. The way you treat Sarah Huckabee is horrible, and the way you treat other people are horrible. You shouldn't treat people that way.

<comment><USER5> "Acosta: As you know, Mr. President, the caravan was not an invasion. It's a group of migrants moving up from Central America towards the border with the U.S. And …"

That's where he's rendering a political opinion.

It would be quite different if he said something like "Congressman so and so said just yesterday that this is not an invasion and is merely whatever and could you comment" or "There is concern in some circles about your rhetoric in calling this an invasion..., could you address this concern or explain why you believe this is an invasion" or something like those -- but in taking the "as you know" line, he's directly calling the President a liar, taking a political position on the issue himself, and trying to bait the President into arguing with him (which of course the President did as he always does).

<comment><USER3> I disagree that this is a political opinion. I think this is one party (Acosta) challenging the other (the government employee) on objective fact, as per Acosta's job description.

>"If someone says it's raining & another person says it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out of the f __king window and find out which is true."

[https://www.google.com/search?q=invasion](https://www.google.com/search?q=invasion) :

> an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.

There are other definitions of "invasion" that can be applied, but why choose the word "invasion" when there are more accurate ones to choose that don't have the negative connotations? It is a bad faith use of the word "invasion" by the government to describe anything other than an actual armed invasion. How should they describe Russian troops landing on US soil if they've already used up the word "invasion" to describe impoverished asylum-seekers?

>he's directly calling the President a liar.

The president _is_ a liar. He lies all the time. I'm glad the auditors are pushing my employee on this. He's lying about what he's using my money for and that infuriates me.

[https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald- trump/statem...](https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald- trump/statements/byruling/false/)

<comment><USER5> Again, you're missing the point. He's taking a political position, not being a journalist.

It's not an objective fact as a significant portion of the US disagrees with you and Mr. Acosta. It's a matter of political discussion and has been for a while.

<comment><USER3> I disagree, and have yet to be convinced it's an opinion instead of fact.

<comment><USER5> it's a characterization. It's a colloquialism.

You can argue that all day long, but calling it an "invasion" (which I don't really agree with btw), is a subjective statement based in opinion. The fact is that there are a lot of people travelling up through Mexico to the US border. How you characterize that is an opinion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> rkuykendall-com I realize this may be removed due to the political nature, but the conversation about video speed and frame-dropping from video-to-gif conversion, made me think it would be relevant to HackerNews.

<comment><USER6> What is even more interesting and relevant is what we will do when videos are regularly and intentionally modified or created, and in much more striking ways than this one. I'm surprised we haven't already seen some good attempts at this with the amount of money and motivation that goes into US politics.

<comment><USER7> Do you remember the thing about a year ago with Trump, Shinzo Abe, and the koi pond? The story was that Trump ignored instructions and impatiently dumped all the food into the pond, but the short video making the rounds was also edited: It zoomed in on Trump to hide Abe also tossing all the koi food, before Trump did.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I watched the side by side comparison of the three videos about thirty times before I read any of the text.

Why is it being framed as Acosta doing a chop rather than the woman in the video trying to punch Acosta. All three of the videos, to me, look like the woman going for a throat punch and Acosta's movements reactionary.

I can't tell who has the whacky bias here. Is it me?

Edit: rather than change my comment after I've posted it, I mean to write that both of the reduced frame rate videos appear as though the woman is going for the throat. The original video just looks nothing like that.

<comment><USER9> > look like the woman going for a throat punch

I mean... no, I can't see this at all. In every instance, it's totally obvious she's reaching for the mic.

I agree that she clearly instigated whatever contact is there, and his movements _do_ seem totally reactionary, but portraying her movement as an attempt at a "throat punch" is kind of ridiculous.

<comment><USER8> Yes, I agree. I just mean to say why is it being framed one way when it can, in my opinion, just as easily be misinterpreted the other way.

My first comment definitely overstates my opinion.

<comment><USER9> Ohh I see what you mean! Yes, it's just as easy to say she went for a throat punch as it is to say he karate chopped her arm. I totally get what you meant now. Sorry for not understanding. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wow. I can't believe the power of tribalism. Really, we are arguing over whether someone grazed the arm of a woman who reached to remove the microphone from a reporter?

I guess we really have no other pressing needs to attend to. Nope- the homeless problem, solved. Opioid abuse? No longer a problem! Ethnic cleansing in Myanmar? Eliminated! Murdering dissidents and journalists? Not happening. Deploying thousands of military troops to intercept a caravan of asylum seeking refugees? That's yesterday's news.

Nope, let's spend our collective mental energy on fighting a battle- did he assault that poor woman?!? Seriously?

I realize my comment stinks of snarkiness, but seriously- think of how this plays out in the history books. How absolutely absurd does all this sound? I mean we laugh at the fact we threw bound women in the water to divine whether they were witches. What reaction will we have to the events of today a hundred years from now?

I leave this comment with a question I have no answer to. How do we fix this bug in human psychology?

<comment><USER11> The implications of this argument are that the government is suppressing media and using disinformation to convince the public that it's alright. This is part of protecting journalists and dissidents like you argue we should be focusing on.

<comment><USER10> yes I agree but I think this reasoned argument is drowned out by the cries of "but he hit her, no he didn't..."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The White House Press Secretary downloaded a doctored video from a conspiracy site and then uploaded it to Twitter to share it from the official Twitter account. The overlay makes it clearer than a side by side: [https://twitter.com/rafaelshimunov/status/106045055781770854...](https://twitter.com/rafaelshimunov/status/1060450557817708544)

While this will get flagged for being "political" the technological analysis by various folks have been interesting.

</comment><comment><USER13> Why is this even being talked about? The intern grabbed the microphone, he pushed her arm out of the way, it doesn't really seem like a big issue at all. Even in the gif it looks pretty minor.

<comment><USER14> When the President of the U.S. runs a press conference and wants to move on to the next question, that's the President's right. It's not Acosta's place to run the press conference and control it. He's one of 60 journalists in that room. There's 1 President. Ok, if you were in a court room, the judge runs the show. When you're in the White House, the President runs the show. Simple as that.

<comment><USER15> That's fair. The President can run his press group however he wants.

But we, as citizens, can also fairly criticize the President for pushing the doctored video and lying to us. This doctored video is proof positive that the White House Press Secretary is willing to photoshop videos to push their viewpoint.

This is a sad day in America. We all know the technology is possible, but to use it on such a trivial issue as "who was trying to grab the microphone" just demonstrates the poor sense of judgement of the current administration.

\</comment></comment></comment><comment>---

The President has the ability to revoke the Press Pass of whoever he wants. But why would they push a false story while doing so? This isn't even that important of an issue, but to see them doctoring up videos and pushing them around is... worrying... to me.

<comment><USER14> The video wasn't doctored. They're arguing about the frame rate and whether it was sped up or down. Acosta clearly used force against the staffer's arm. Whether he used 100 Newtons or 200 Newtons... nobody cares. It's the principle, and the disruption and the grandstanding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is all just so sad. There's really no winner in this, because at this stage of technology and general mistrust towards the opposing party there is nothing that anyone could do in order to provide an answer that everyone can believe in, let alone non tech people. We have truly created a state of lies, mistrust, fake news and conspiracy and this will end badly. It surely plays into Trump's cards which is also quite upsetting too.

<comment><USER17> Divide and conquer at it's best. We, the people, are supposed to stop making decisions based on rational thinking and vote according to a social identity that is shoved into our faces constantly. And if enough people have nothing to trust anymore, and think there are conspiracies everywhere, it is easy to fill the void with just one loud person to trust. It is the last resort based on emotions and identity. Well played, well played indeed.

<comment><USER10> This - a thousand times. Read this story: [https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/21/kent- sore...](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/21/kent-sorenson-was- a-tea-party-hero-then-he-lost-everything-220522)

It's a great story for a bunch of reasons, but what I would like to point out for this thread is how effective pitting ethnic and racial groups against each other in prison is at surpressing organized dissent. That's exactly the tactic employed here with the virulent tribalism egged on by this administration.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Jim Acosta has done this many times. If he was really interested in answers he would continually modify his approach until he got what he wanted. But he's not really interested in answers so much as making a show of Trump not answering his questions. Case in point, I have no clue what he was asking, all of the stories have been about the reporter. Contrast with the Axios interview on HBO this week, where the interviewers discussed trying something different and effectively got a unique Trump interview.

<comment><USER19> Whatever you think about him is really not relevant to the press secretary's complete mischaracterization. She said that he "put his hands on her", and we all know what that is implied to mean. They could've just said that he lacked proper decorum or something, but instead they did this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> No conversation about doctored videos is complete without someone bringing up that time Obama called Trump a "complete dipshit".

[https://news.avclub.com/jordan-peele-makes-obama-call- trump-...](https://news.avclub.com/jordan-peele-makes-obama-call-trump-a- complete-dipshit-1825333067)</comment>


Srain – Modern IRC Client Written in GTK - <AUTHOR> https://srain.im/2020/02/29/introducing-srain.html <comment><USER2> Great IRC client for the Linux users but this might as well be 'only for Linux' since GTK apps looks very out of place when used on macOS and Windows, but that might not put them off so can we get binaries for this app?

It turns out that scrolling down to the downloads section, macOS and Windows users get the typical 'build it yourself' response which is just unacceptable and a bad UX for the end user. The effort involved will just simply turn them away.

If you are going to create apps that instruct the user to 'build it themselves' then you might as well give them a full blown manual with that.</comment>


XBMC now works on Apple TV, iPad and iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/xbmc-now-works-on-apple-tv-ipad-and-iphone-20110121/

<comment><USER2> Plex <http://plexapp.com> is based on an earlier version of XBMC. They have it running on iPhone, iPad and someone hacked it onto the Apple TV and did a similar video a few months ago: <http://www.vimeo.com/16479085>

I'd put my money on plex as an easier way to manage content and stream it from a box elsewhere in the house.

(I have plex running on a 2009 Mac Mini and it works really well)

<comment><USER3> Plex is incredibly awesome. My whole house runs on it. Unfortunately it transcodes all video on ATV2 from another computer running the server. This XMBC app decodes the videos on the ATV2 itself - which is awesome, and I hope the Plex crew gets that up and running as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've been running XBMC as my media centre for years now, first on a hacked XBox (original) and then on a hacked Apple TV (first gen).

It's a great piece of software, happily streaming from my NAS box, playing music, etc. Not found anything it doesn't play yet.

And there are remote control apps for iPhone and Android too!

<comment><USER5> What apps have you found for the iPhone that work will to control XBMC? I've tried a a few for iPad and iPhone and they've been pretty terrible -- I've been using my Logitech Harmony One and AirMouse (iPhone/iPad) but would like a slick iphone/ipad app that would let me use the library features, etc.

I've been running XBMC on a 1st gen Xbox as well (those were the days), then moved to a fullsize HTPC, and now down to a Dell Zino.

If you've got a HTPC setup, you should absolutely give XBMC a try.

<comment><USER4> Aaah, I've got Android myself, so I use an app on my Desire. I haven't tried the iPhone ones, so I don't know what the quality is like.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> All in all, I've found the Apple TV port to be pretty awesome - If you're willing to live with 720p output (It can decode 1080p, but it downscales to 720p - and it supposedly has minor lag at some points) and minor issues with seeking (which are bearable) and the current tethered jailbreak, it's a fantastic $130 XBMC device.

One thing to note is the default skin for XBMC felt laggy, but once I set it all up and switched to something else (in my case, Rapier tweaked to work on XBMC 10), it felt a lot faster and worked pretty well.

Better yet, using seas0npass and nitoTV (It's my own blog post, but [http://blog.ninjahideout.com/posts/apple-tv-2g-and-xbmc- setu...](http://blog.ninjahideout.com/posts/apple-tv-2g-and-xbmc-setup-bliss) details the process) it's relatively simple to set up - the caveat being it's tethered still on Firmware v4.1.1. Here's hoping the new release of GreenPois0n which will supposedly be untethered comes soon.

</comment><comment><USER7> This promises to remove the only obstacle to my spending $99 on an Apple TV box, namely, my fear of being locked into Apple's content distribution system.

Will someone unaffiliated with the project please describe their experiences with using this software to watch mp4s of movies? Any restrictions or gotchas?

<comment><USER8> I saw an independant report stating that 1080p had minor stutters. Don't know if that's fixable. This is an early release but on the other hand they're pushing beyond the boundaries of what the hardware is designed for.

I'm also not sure what profiles it supports. Apple's software specs says Main Profile only, but they sometimes software restrict their hardware to keep support homogeneous across their lines (this appears to be the case for the 1080 support, they're just calling Apple's code).

<comment><USER9> If you wait about 6 months, Apple will most likely release rev. 2 of the ARM based AppleTV, which is rumored to contain the A5 processor, which is based on ARM's dual-core design A9 architecture, and is supposed to be fully capable of hardware accelerated 1080p playback.

The newer hardware should be much more future-proof. It remains to be seen whether it will be easily jailbroken, or whether Apple will get tougher with security.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've been using an ASRock Ion with XBMC as my media center for over a year now and I love it. Plays anything I throw at it without any jitter. 1080p content? No problem thanks to the onboard NVidia chip.

<http://www.asrock.com/nettop/spec/ion%20330.asp>

Combined with the Aeon skin it is a beautiful thing.

<http://xbmc.org/skins/aeon/>

</comment><comment><USER11> I just wish the tetherless JB would be released already.

<comment><USER12> Maybe they aren't evil and keeping it from you (not "releasing" it), instead, don't have a working version they could just press a button and release?

<comment><USER11> I didn't mean to imply they are evil. It's just my only option is OFW or tethered. The tethered part doesn't bother me as much as the fact that I don't have a laptop anymore so ,short of dragging the entire desk across the flat, I can't jailbreak. And I really want to because there is a lot of great stuff that's being released.

I'm sure I'm not the only person in this predicament.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> But why? Handbrake can convert most video formats to something Apple TV- compatible and play them on the Apple TV through iTunes.

<comment><USER14> The XBMC library mode is much better than iTunes. XBMC is living-room ready, wife-approved media player (one of the best on the market, in fact).

As a bonus, you don't have to convert anything.

<comment><USER15> > As a bonus, you don't have to convert anything.

And that's the biggest bonus imho. Most people will watch pirated content on XBMC (torrented TV shows etc) and transcoding everything is pretty annoying.

<comment><USER16> Bought content is usually an even bigger pain in the arse to transcode. I am currently trying to rip some DVDs of mine and it is an incredibly frustrating experience.e

<comment><USER17> Here's a solution:

[http://lifehacker.com/355281/dvd-rip-automates-one+click- dvd...](http://lifehacker.com/355281/dvd-rip-automates-one+click-dvd-ripping)

<comment><USER18> Aside: although Lifehacker's day to day quality seems to have declined, I've found searching their archives for common tech problems like this to be extremely good at returning results. How To Geek (frequently linked from LH) also has a lot of similar solutions. Any other recommendations?

<comment><USER17> Here's one possible solution (appropriately enough from LH itself):

[http://lifehacker.com/344188/get-only-the-posts-you-want- fro...](http://lifehacker.com/344188/get-only-the-posts-you-want-from- lifehackers-site-feeds)

I would suggest subscribing to the type of posts you like the most by tag.

My recommendations for tags would be:

#hivefive/ #hivefivefollowup

#feature

#downloads (you can specify which OS, see link above)

#featuredworkspace (I like them, you may not)

#featureddesktop (again, I like them)

#howto

#diy

There are more I can't think of right now. I definitely agree that the overall quality of LH has declined, however HN and LH are still my number one and number two sources of tech information on the web and I typically check both multiple times a day. Some of the best tips and software I use comes from LH - Dropbox tweaks, XBMC, CCleaner, BitTorrent tips, Launchy and many, many more. Check out their recommended bundles of apps also available for Windows, Mac and Linux, e.g:

[http://lifehacker.com/5562864/lifehacker-pack-for-mac-our- es...](http://lifehacker.com/5562864/lifehacker-pack-for-mac-our-essential- list-of-the-best-free-mac-downloads)

[http://lifehacker.com/5713510/most-popular-free-mac- download...](http://lifehacker.com/5713510/most-popular-free-mac-downloads- of-2010)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> One of my favorite things about XBMC is the plugins. The plugins are basically web scrapers that present content within the interface. If there isn't one you want for a particular website, build your own! They're written in python and could make a fun weekend project. Once your done, commit it to the official repository.

</comment><comment><USER20> If xbmc can run on appleTV 2, then a boxee port should be around the corner. Let's hope, as I love boxe's simplicity, in its ability to auto organize the entire library.

</comment><comment><USER21> Since it's XBMC based, does this mean we'll see Boxxee soon?

</comment><comment><USER22> Can this play from a NAS or folders outside iTunes? And I'm pretty sure it will, but does it play a range of other filetypes - mkv, etc?

<comment><USER23> XBMC plays anything you throw at it. From anywhere :)

<comment><USER6> Except (unless I've completely missed it) stuff over AFP.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Does the AppleTV do full 1080p?

<comment><USER25> Not out-of-the-box. XBMC on the AppleTV(2) does, though.

<comment><USER8> To be precise the hardware is outputting 720p, but XBMC can decode 1080p files and scale them down. I'm not sure if the output can be hacked or not, but the developers claim it's "not a priority" at the moment.

<comment><USER25> Ungh, didn't know about that caveat. I guess I'm back to my initial idea of getting a WD TV Live. Any better option?

<comment><USER14> In my opinion, some ION2 nettop with minimal Ubuntu and XBMC would be better option than WDTV. More expensive, yes, but not that much[1] and definitely provides better experience.

[1] Note that I'm in EU-land, where AppleTV is 120 EUR, which is 160 USD. Acer/Asus/Zotac/other nettop vendors do not have the same problem with currency conversion that Apple does.

<comment><USER8> I've got XBMC on an Acer Revo nettop, and having a little always-on Ubuntu server has various other uses for me.

Apt-getting installs/updates to XBMC rather than jumping through whatever hoops you need to for this is a blessing too.

One downside, you'd need to buy a 3rd party remote and USB-IR receiver and get it working with Ubuntu/XBMC. (At least I did, I think the newer version has one built in).

<comment><USER14> I'd like to get rid of IR remote with non-standard receiver and replace it with Bluetooth one (Sony PS3 Blu-Ray remote). Anyone has experience, how long the batteries last in this thing?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


China due to introduce face scans for mobile users - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50587098 <comment><USER2> Yeah..if it can be abused,it will be abused. Condolences to any Chinese users. Makes me appreciate what little freedom I have.</comment>


Sprint T-Mobile Trail Tech - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/09/tech/sprint-tmobile-trial/index.html <comment><USER2> Actual title: "T-Mobile and Sprint head to court to defend their merger"</comment>


Why Kolab Might Be the Best Secure Email Service Still Standing - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/why-kolab-might-be-the-best-secure-email-service-still-1171618005

<comment><USER2> > Kolab's webmail service is not free, although at $10 a month, it's not very > expensive either.

I heard that an email-only offer is in the plans and should be available end of august/beginning of september. Expect the price to be around $5/mo.</comment>


Understanding Comics - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Comics

<comment><AUTHOR> Although it's about comics on the surface, this book is inspiring for work in all visual mediums, including interface design.

<comment><USER2> I stumbled upon this book reference, along with Edwin Tufte's awesome trilogy, back in college on Bret Victor's old links page: [http://worrydream.com/#!/Links](http://worrydream.com/#!/Links) . That reading list has a TON of great links.</comment></comment>