Effect of longer-term modest salt reduction on blood pressure (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004937.pub2/abstract <comment><USER2> Salt might be a contributing factor, albeit small, but there's an increasing tsunami of research pinning sugar, especially added sugar in the forms of table sugar and high fructose corn syrup, as the primary cause of hypertension, obesity, heart disease, and a huge host of other diseases.

This is a lengthy discussion between a health/fitness expert and Gary Taubes, author of "The Case Against Sugar": [https://bengreenfieldfitness.com/podcast/nutrition- podcasts/...](https://bengreenfieldfitness.com/podcast/nutrition-podcasts/the- case-against-sugar-gary-taubes/)

After listening to that and reading some of the linked studies and articles, it seems obvious to me that sugar is orders of magnitude the highest candidate for heart-related disease and obesity. Just my conjecture though, happy to be proven wrong. In the meantime, I'm cutting down heavily on refined sugar and processed carbohydrates. I've never felt better. Same caloric intake, just different sources.

<comment><USER3> Gary is a big proponent of the low carb/insulin hypothesis for weight loss. And so far, with his Nutritional Science Initiative and their testing, it's just not panning out..

[https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for- weight...](https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for-weight-loss/)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiUyjMjuLl0&t=674s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiUyjMjuLl0&t=674s)

I'm wondering if he's still worth listening to..

<comment><USER4> Weight loss is only one aspect of the nutrition story. That being said, remember that just because Taubes is wrong on a bunch of things, doesn't make sugar any healthier.

<comment><USER5> Sugar can be unhealthy without being the Ultimate Evil, cause of all ills, that Taubes makes it out to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'll just leave this here [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its- time-to-end-t...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end- the-war-on-salt/)

<comment><USER7> Another relevant article: [https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/health/salt- health-eff...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/health/salt-health- effects.html)

Sodium is interesting in that low or high levels in the body are bad for you. But it would appear that sodium promotes weight loss to a certain degree, the undesirable side-effect being the burning of muscle tissue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> That's half a teaspoon a day. I cook every single day, so I'm very well aware of how little that is. Id rather die a bit earlier then limit my added salt to half a teaspoon.

Just don't eat processed food. Also restaurant food uses a ton of salt so tread carefully.

<comment><USER9> it just takes time for your tastebuds to get used to lower salt, but afterwards food tastes just as good. Some years back after eating probably 8,000-10,000mg of sodium a day for most of my life I had to permanently switch to an extremely low sodium diet (<500mg/day) and taste has not been an issue after the first few weeks of acclimatization, tastebuds are very adaptable and interestingly nowadays some vegetables (potatoes for example) will taste slightly salty to me on their own for example.

The major issue has been of course that eating out or eating pretty much any packaged/premade food is impossible, due to everything having tons of sodium/salt added. For some n=1 blood pressure was not the reason why I had to get on this diet, but my bp went from 145/85 to 105/65 after not that long on it, which really surprised me of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If I understand correctly, this is a meta analysis – meaning that they're drawing conclusions based on pooling together existing research.

The very first study they linked was on something called the DASH diet, which in addition to reduced sodium encourages people to stay away from processed carbs and to favor whole grains.

Basically, I'd want to dig in to the linked studies and get a better sense of how other factors besides sodium could be affecting the outcome. For instance, fast food contains a lot of sodium. To get to lower sodium, you'd probably have to cut down significantly on fast food. You'd drop the sodium, but you'd also be changing a _lot_ of other variables.

Salt makes food taste good. If you're cooking at home, you're probably not going to have to worry about salt unless you have a chronic condition of some sort. It just doesn't compare to the amount of sodium crammed into processed food. I'd rather focus on eating less processed foods, and season my home- cooked meals so they're not terribly bland. The high-order bit is to eat less processed foods.

</comment><comment><USER11> I take 5-7g of salt daily in the form of manual supplementation. I eat a ketogenic diet so it's necessary to combat the diuretic effect of low-carb eating.

I feel like this study doesn't really do a good job isolating the actual changes that might have led to the improvements. How was salt intake determined? Was it controlled? Unless I am getting lost in the technical writing it looks like the results were based purely on urine output tests, not inputs.

<comment><USER12> 5-7g seems very high. What else do you eat?

<comment><USER11> Meat. Eggs. Cheese. Salad. Broccoli. Other veggies. Avocado. Nuts. Oils. Coffee. That's the gist of it.

<comment><USER13> That looks like a very healthy diet. What happens, or would happen, if you reduce or stop your salt supplementation?

<comment><USER11> Headaches and flu-like symptoms. I take something called "lite salt" which is intended to be a salt substitute for folks with health issues. It's essentially a 50/50 blend of salt and potassium so it's perfect. I put a teaspoon in some water with a zero-sugar flavor aid like mio, shake it up, and boom I got some zero-sugar/low-carb gatorade.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There are other problems with this analysis, but the main problem is this: it does not indicate in any way that reducing salt intake will result in a reduction of morbidity, and reducing morbidity is the only thing that actually matters.

Blood pressure is important as a marker for a whole host of health issues, but lowering blood pressure via reduced salt intake does not mean that you will reduce the incidence of of health issues that are commonly associated with high blood pressure. One simply does not follow from the other.

<comment><USER15> > it does not indicate in any way that reducing salt intake will result in a > reduction of morbidity

It doesn't? I thought it said pretty clearly it will lower the incidence of cardiovascular disease and predicted a reduction in strokes, heart attacks and heart failure.

> Blood pressure is important as a marker for a whole host of health issues

False, blood pressure is far more than a marker. For example: _" The incidence of stroke rises progressively with increasing blood pressure levels, particularly systolic blood pressure in individuals >65 years. Treatment of hypertension convincingly decreases the incidence of both ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes."_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complications_of_hypertension](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complications_of_hypertension)

<comment><USER16> Salt is responsible for 2 pts of BP benefit. Insignificant for most people. And the depression from being on a low-salt tasteless diet could more than offset for any gain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Not really convinced by the last line:

>The current recommendations to reduce salt intake from 9-12 to 5-6 g/d will have a major effect on BP, but are not ideal. A further reduction to 3 g/d will have a greater effect and should become the long term target for population salt intake.

First, this latter recommendation is not tested by the study; second, lower BP is _not_ always optimal, as anyone who's ever experienced a fall resulting from orthostatic hypotension can attest. It isn't obvious, but accidents are among the top 10 causes of death in older people, and falls comprise more than half:

[https://www.verywell.com/top-causes-of-death-among-adults- ov...](https://www.verywell.com/top-causes-of-death-among-adults- over-65-2967470)

</comment><comment><USER18> I see it is from 2013, could somebody explain why is it interesting five years later? I don't say it isn't, just wondering.

 _current levels of approximately 9-12 grams per day_

That seems like a lot. I'm pretty sure I don't use so much, even if I like salty food compared with people around me.

I do know that salt comes with a lot of prepared food, but most of it has been considerably reduced. And I don't eat much prepared food anyway.

So if it's a real number, someone must be eating spoonfuls of salt to raise the average :)

<comment><USER19> > _I 'm pretty sure I don't use so much_

Two teaspoons of table salt are roughly 12 grams [1].

[1] [http://www.traditionaloven.com/culinary- arts/cooking/table-s...](http://www.traditionaloven.com/culinary- arts/cooking/table-salt/convert-tea-spoon-tsp-to-gram-g.html)

<comment><USER18> That's correct. I've just actually put ten grams in my hand and it's as much as I thought.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "Therefore, 3 grams per day should become the long-term target for population salt intake".

But why should this study be regarded as a definitive basis for public recommendation ("should become") given numerous other studies which do not come to this conclusion?

<comment><USER21> It's more trustworthy than one study because it's a systematic review of many other studies. Reviews of good studies are the best form of evidence[1].

This review was conducted by Cochrane[2]. Cochrane reviews are widely regarded as the best and most rigorous reviews.

[1] [http://www.essentialevidenceplus.com/product/ebm_loe.cfm?sho...](http://www.essentialevidenceplus.com/product/ebm_loe.cfm?show=oxford)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_(organisation)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_\(organisation\))

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I seem to recall research saying that homeostasis kicks in on time horizons longer than the ones used in this trial.

</comment><comment><USER23> What is the expected change in outcome from a BP drop of 5mmhg?

</comment><comment><USER24> Ayurveda is showing interesting benefits for hypertension [http://www.medindia.net/patients/lifestyleandwellness/herbs-...](http://www.medindia.net/patients/lifestyleandwellness/herbs- for-high-blood-pressure-arjuna.htm)

<comment><USER19> > _Ayurveda is showing interesting benefits for hypertension_

You're being downvoted for referencing an article making health claims with zero citations. It should also be noted that Ayurvedic medicine is considered a pseudoscience [1], slightly less useless than homeopathy or crystal healing.

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda#Classification_and_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda#Classification_and_efficacy)

<comment><USER24> Fair comment about posting an article with zero citations. However Ayurveda is not pseudoscience, rather a complementary health approach. This time more credible source: [https://nccih.nih.gov/health/ayurveda](https://nccih.nih.gov/health/ayurveda)

<comment><USER19> Under "What the Science Says About the Effectiveness of Ayurvedic Medicine Research" section of your own source [1], it says "most clinical trials of Ayurvedic approaches have been small, had problems with research designs, or lacked appropriate control groups, potentially affecting research results." The page doesn't define "complementary medicine," and presents loads of warnings about the heavy metal and toxic contents of many Ayurvedic products. Most notably, the "For Health Professionals" section is blank.

Ayurveda isn't quite as bunk as homeopathy or crystal healing, where the fundamental mechanisms are flaws. (Aspirin and penicillin came from natural sources.) But any claims about its efficacy are pseudoscientific.

[1] [https://nccih.nih.gov/health/ayurveda/introduction.htm#hed4](https://nccih.nih.gov/health/ayurveda/introduction.htm#hed4)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Approach Investor without BP but you are building what he said he wants to see? - <AUTHOR>

I was just watching some interview of an investor. I was shocked to hear when he described the idea he would invest in is very similar if not exact thing to what we are developing. In the interview he said send him the business plan, if we are working on the idea he described. We do not have a business plan yet, and will probably not do a very good job at writing one.<p>I don't want to miss the opportunity and want to approach him as soon as possible to give him a demo. Just wondering how can I go about it without being dismissed right away for not having a business plan. He already spoke about what he would invest in, do you think a business plan is still needed? <comment><USER2> Whip together a business plan ... it doesn't have to be a minutely detailed path for the next 30 years. Having a product already developed / far into development is going to make up for a _lot_ , especially if you already have any traction.

<comment><AUTHOR> We do not have traction yet, as we have not released the product. We were planning on launching private beta in next few weeks.

<comment><USER2> It would be much better if you were launched and had even a tiny seed of traction, but either way you should just put together a brief plan and contact the guy.</comment></comment></comment>


Giving up is always harder than doing it - <AUTHOR> http://devcomponents.com/blog/?p=586

<comment><USER2> "Volunteer for hard projects."

This is best way to become a better developer. Even if you don't exactly know what to do to complete the project you must take it so long as it is possible for you to learn how. The acquisition of new knowledge to solve increasingly difficult problems is the essence of development.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Don't ask for help from others on how to solve a problem. Solve it yourself first then ask for opinions on your solution."

If this means don't constantly pester the programmer in the next cubicle, I agree.

If this means re-invent the wheel instead of searching for how the problem may have been solved in the past, I strongly disagree.

In my experience, the "best" programmers are the ones most adept at searching for an existing solution. This appears to help them solve typical problems faster, and all the approaches they're exposed to while searching make them personally able to more quickly solve a broader array of problems than those who beat their heads against the wall till the wall bleeds a solution.

</comment><comment><USER4> Excellent article & advice, especially for those who procrastinate all the time but don't even know it.

On the other hand: knowing that giving up in mid-flight has it own set of consequences will often lead to not starting at all

aka 'Go Directly To Jail, Do Not Pass Go' ;-)

</comment><comment><USER5> The flip side of this is that a problem can haunt you such that you aren't willing to let it go. This is great when the problem aligns with your goals, but can be destructive in other cases.

</comment><comment><USER6> It's never too late to give up

</comment><comment><USER7> Nice article, but it is possible to explain this as forming a habit. The 10,000 hour concept was popularized by Malcolm Gladwell who based it on a research on students learning violin. [http://www.google.com/search?aq=0&oq=malcolm+gladwell+10...](http://www.google.com/search?aq=0&oq=malcolm+gladwell+10,00&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=malcolm+gladwell+10+000+hours)

Someone who is trying to learn how to play a violin is really trying to form a habit. Once playing a violin becomes a strong habit, as strong as walking, so that it is done without thinking, it is said that the student has become a virtuoso.

But becoming a virtuoso does not guarantee a career as a concert violonist because there are a limit number of slots available in the world for concert violinists.

At some point one must consider quitting for strategic reasons. There is nothing wrong about quitting in this sense. In other words, once you realize that you were not chosen for the top spot you must quit or accept the consequences.</comment>


Ask HN: Flying all the way to CA & the USA, what to see? - <AUTHOR>

Possibly will be coming over around next July for about 2 weeks.
Purpose of the trip is to check out some Unis in the USA for me, but will also be a holiday for my family -> 5 of us including me, with a 10 y/o girl, 15 y/o boy and me at 17.
Interests:
- would love to be able to see whether I would like it if I lived here/went to uni in the US (as opposed to Australia) -> so getting a feel for where I might live/work
- checking out some unis near SF
- holiday stuff: aquariums (I hear Monterey Bay is good), adrenaline stuff (theme parks, skydiving, etc - never done skydiving, parasailing etc but would like to, though not urgent)
- sports (skiing, snowboarding, water skiing -> haven't done these much, but would enjoy them)
Ideally would make sure that there is always something 'fun' at each of the places we go, so not just long scenic drives with a bored 10 y/o girl.
Would consider going to other places too if we can fit it in, not sure whether 4 days in SF would be enough, then 4 in NY, 4 in Florida?
What would you suggest, I'm a bit lost.
And to give something back, if anyone is looking to come over to Melbourne, tell me what you're interested in and I'll see what I can think of. <comment><USER2> I strongly second Muir Woods, if you have any interest in wilderness at all. I also hear that the coast is beautiful in that area, e.g.

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Point_Rey...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Point_Reyes_National_Seashore_headlands_from_Chimney_Rock.jpg)

so you might visit Point Reyes National Seashore.

You probably can't ski in July, but some ski slopes will rent you mountain bikes and carry you up on the lifts, which I've heard is great fun.

The submarine USS Pampanito in SF bay might also be interesting to visit. If you're in New York, the USS Intrepid is also worth seeing.

In Florida, you can rent sub-machine guns, which might be fun.

Some of the state parks along the Florida coast are also pretty nice. You might rent a boat and sail out to the more remote ones.

Unfortunately most of my favourite places (Glacier, Canyonlands, Zion) are nowhere near any major Universities. It just depends on your willingness to travel a whole lot more than necessary.

</comment><comment><USER3> Florida in July is not a good idea. It is hot, really unbearable to be outside.

In case you want to come anyways in Orlando there is:

wakeboarding at the OWC, indoor sky diving tunnel, The theme parks (They will be seriously packed in July)

Tampa is an hour away there is: Bush Gardens theme park, the Florida Aquarium, a couple parasailing spots (google for the names of shops)

Miami is three hours away from Tampa. There is the Miami Aquarium and parasailing. Dave and Busters is right across from the Ft. Lauderdale airport they have a wooden rollercoaster.

</comment><comment><USER4> In San Francisco, don't miss the Exploratorium. It's a great experience for anyone who pays attention to the world around them.

A walking tour of the San Francisco waterfront is a good way to get a feeling for the city. There's an App for that -- [http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/san- fran-waterfront/id4075675...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/san-fran- waterfront/id407567581?mt=8) \-- buy it for your iPhone and you'll be set.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think you'll be surprised how quickly you can eat up 4 days. If you were staying longer, I'd recommend Yosemite.

The California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco is a great place to go with family.

<comment><AUTHOR> Would definitely consider staying for longer, possibly even the whole 2 weeks - just depends on what is recommended.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Muir Woods -- It has redwood trees, which are a "must see" if you go to Cali, and it is local to the SF bay area, unlike most of the remaining redwoods (which tend to be out in the middle of nowhere).

The big park in SF has an aquarium and an oriental-style garden. My kids thought the aquarium was a big yawn (after visiting the huge, world-class one in Tennessee, _all_ other aquariums were forever ruined for them) but really liked the oriental garden, which was a new experience.

Just drive around SF. It is the only large city I have been in on two continents that made me go "Wow. I wish I could live here." The city itself is amazing.

Six Flags has a theme park in Vallejo: <http://www.sixflags.com/discoverykingdom/index.aspx> I never went to it (I'm not a big fan of theme parks) but you did ask about theme parks.

Point Reyes is unique. I never made it out there (unfortunately). It is a piece of the Pacific Plate that is above water. The land is, therefore, geologically distinct from most of California and this helps contribute to a unique ecosystem with (IIRC) some species unique to that little piece of land.</comment>


FCC ushers in a troublesome new world for online privacy - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/07/fcc-ushers-in-a-troublesome-new-world-for-online-privacy/ <comment><USER2> "...onerous limitations on Internet service providers' use of web browsing information without regard to whether the information is sensitive or not, which differs greatly from the guidelines governing all other online companies, like search engines and mobile apps."

They're trying to spin this hard, I get that, we all have our spin on things. I know that paragraph is supposed to make me think "oh no, those poor ISPs, that's not fair they have onerous limitations and others don't." But all I can think is GOOD, they should have onerous limitations on this stuff. It should be unfair. We (we being end users in this case) ALWAYS lose when companies start to "innovate" with our personal information. I totally get that there's been a ton of innovation, I totally agree with them on many points, but we're already paying for access with our money and we shouldn't pay a second time with our privacy.

<comment><USER3> This is only going to stop when we legislate a value associated with our privacy.

<comment><USER4> Considering the current and former casts of the DHS Data Privacy & Integrity Advisory Panel[0], those who 'recommend' and write the laws, that will be a cold day in hell.

[0]

[https://www.dhs.gov/privacy-advisory-committee](https://www.dhs.gov/privacy- advisory-committee)

<comment><USER3> It's true, and why the only solution is widespread education of voters; making this a "big issue". Then again, it's hard to imagine that happening with some large-scale disasters regarding personal privacy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Looks like the editor missed a big set of repetitions in the middle of the article:

> _But at the same time, consumers who enjoy access to Internet services are > concerned about protecting their privacy. As a result, the best way to give > consumers what they want is to strike an appropriate balance between which > uses of personal information to permit and which ones to restrict._

> _The FCC's approach abandons this nuanced perspective in favor of an > approach that prohibits practices on which online companies frequently rely, > such as making product recommendations based on past browsing and purchase > history._

> _As a result, the best way to give consumers what they want is to strike an > appropriate balance between which uses of personal information to permit and > which ones to restrict. The FCC's approach abandons this nuanced perspective > in favor of an approach that prohibits practices on which online companies > frequently rely, such as making product recommendations based on past > browsing and purchase history._

To me, this suggests that this is "native advertising", effectively, that was emailed over and rushed out.

<comment><USER6> I agree, this absolutely reeks of a press-release-turned-article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I clicked on this link expecting to see another case of government failure when it comes to understanding technology, but was pleasantly surprised to see the government doing EXACTLY what it's supposed to be doing... Shame on TechCrunch for peddling this kind of misinformation.

</comment><comment><USER8> I upvoted this story because it helpfully made me understand a lot more about TechCrunch than I have in the past. This read like a PR statement from an ISP, not like an article from any type of news source.

</comment><comment><USER9> Odd article, seems like the authors are upset that ISPs are being curtailed from partaking in the same kind of tracking that web sites can conduct. I wonder where the author's academic research institute gets its funding from... Comcst maybe?

</comment><comment><USER10> >The approach taken by the FCC will lead to a world in which technological progress is dictated by the actions of regulators [...] instead of by innovators experimenting with ways to provide users with groundbreaking new services.

It's interesting how the author seems oblivious to the fact that the "groundbreaking new services" in general seem to care very little about user privacy.

<comment><USER11> More specifically, I think the authors assume that groundbreaking new services care very much about _violating_ privacy, since that's their business model. So any pro-privacy regulations are "destroying the future".

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Onerous? Or modest?

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161027/11361035900/as- ex...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161027/11361035900/as-expected-fcc- passes-modest-privacy-rules-broadband-providers-isps-act-like-world-has- ended.shtml)

Those poor, poor ISPs. How could they ever abuse our info again? Oh wait, they'll still be able to, because for one, they can still COLLECT all of our info, they just may get more slaps on the wrists and "huge" record-breaking $2 million fines, when they misuse that data and break these new rules.

[http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/10/11/comcast-fine- mischargi...](http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/10/11/comcast-fine-mischarging- fcc-million/)

Also FCC's new rules exempt law enforcement, so AT&T can still make money selling all of that _collected_ data to law enforcement and the NSA for profit, just as they have in the past.

[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/25/at-t-is- spy...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/25/at-t-is-spying-on- americans-for-profit.html)

But yeah, other than that, what will the ISPs ever do to not go bankrupt? (I mean other than charging for their basic services at monopoly prices).

</comment><comment><USER13> Well, the author is a pro telcom lawyer and law professor at UPenn. Here's an amicus brief he filed asking the court of appeals to reconsider their order classifying ISPs as telecom services (net neutrality):

[https://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/documents/15-1...](https://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/documents/15-1063%20Christopher%20S.%20Yoo%20Amicus%20Brief%20080615.pdf)

His foundation is supported by telecom money:

[https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/ctic/about- ctic.php](https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/ctic/about-ctic.php)

Techcrunch should reclassify this story as an opinion piece, or delete it.

</comment><comment><USER14> So in a summary: FCC tries to stand up for users. Paid article tries to go against FCC.

</comment><comment><USER15> Troublesome for large ISP's, a bit less troublesome for people who already pay their monopoly prices and care about privacy.

</comment><comment><USER16> In case you missed the By-line!

By David J. Farber & Christopher S. Yoo

        > David J. Farber is Alfred Fitler Moore Professor of Telecommunications
        > Emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, Adjunct Professor of
        > Internet Studies at Carnegie Mellon University and former Chief
        > Technologist of the Federal Communications Commission.

...and...

        > Christopher S. Yoo is the John H. Chestnut Professor of Law,
        > Communication, and Computer & Information Science and the Founding
        > Director of the Center for Technology, Innovation and Competition at
        > the University of Pennsylvania.

<comment><USER17> I was amazed to see Dave Farber's name on that. He used to be a good guy and involved with the EFF. But he's 82 now.

Carriers are in a uniquely privileged position. In many areas, you don't have a choice of cable carrier or phone carrier. So they have stronger privacy responsibilities than online services, where you get to pick which ones to use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is weak product from what would appear to be a shill source.

</comment><comment><USER18> poorly edited, blindingly biased, puff piece. If nothing else this is a smear on techcruch.

</comment><comment><USER19> Haha. This needs to trend, so I will add to the list of comments my opinion that this is a paid piece. Something a PR firm would churn out for an Internet Service Prov... AOL.

</comment><comment><USER20> What's troublesome in it? They are doing the right thing.

</comment><comment><USER21> I read the article, and left convinced that the FCC is doing the right thing. You cannot avoid using an ISP in the first mile, so it is appropriate to limit what that monopoly can do. Most people cannot reasonably switch ISPs, after all. Good job FCC.

</comment><comment><USER22> Exhibit (A): Conflict of interest inherent when the content deliverers own the content creators.

<comment><USER16> So far everyone in this thread agrees with you in principle, so I'm not sure why your comment was dead. Perhaps they disagree with some specific point about exactly who owns techcrunch?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think everyone posting comments here is already familiar with the story via other sources...

Could someone who doesn't already know the story describe what they think this article is about? Thanks...

</comment><comment><USER23> This is what (a form of) propaganda looks like. Use it to learn to recognize propaganda on topics you're less versed in.</comment>


EDEX-UI: science fiction terminal emulator - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/GitSquared/edex-ui <comment><USER2> A few tangentially related links ...

First, there are a few write-ups of the fictional UI(s) used in _The Martian_ :

[https://www.behance.net/gallery/30473933/The-Martian-UI- Scre...](https://www.behance.net/gallery/30473933/The-Martian-UI-Screen- Graphics)

[https://medium.com/territory-film/ui-stories-the-martian- eff...](https://medium.com/territory-film/ui-stories-the-martian-efffa28e1a98)

Second, I think this blog on sci-fi typography may be interesting to those reading this thread:

[https://typesetinthefuture.com/](https://typesetinthefuture.com/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Here's a write-up about the Tron scene in question was produced (hilariously, it features Emacs): [https://web.archive.org/web/20110726180753/http://jtnimoy.ne...](https://web.archive.org/web/20110726180753/http://jtnimoy.net/workviewer.php?q=178)

<comment><USER4> I cant read this webpage it hurts my eyes. The font literally hurts. It not because I am a vi user... I am old. Also the EDEX-UI is the same way.

<comment><USER5> It's horrible. I used the Inspect feature and changed the font for the "seriouscopy" class to Arial. It's much more readable. Why would anyone ever use HelveticaNeueUltraLight?!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Big plus of this software is that it runs without any configuration effort.

Usually these flashy Hollywood-OS terminals require a bunch of work before they look even slightly like the example image used by the developer.

I can't see myself using this for actual work, but it does look pretty. Maybe I could use it during a presentation :)

<comment><USER7> _I can 't see myself using this for actual work, but it does look pretty._

I use Cool Retro Term (CRT) for actual work. I find the PET font soothing. I also use it for certain types of tasks, so if, out of the corner of my eye, I see lots of text scrolling along, then my mind processes it as "Something's gone pear-shaped with Task X" without having to look at the other monitors.

<comment><USER8> Another link that might interest you, using an amber screened VT220 terminal with a modern computer.

[https://jstn.tumblr.com/post/8692501831](https://jstn.tumblr.com/post/8692501831)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Absolutely sick! Definitely I'll say its not the most usable, but some of the features make a ton of sense! Like having an active finder window thats always in the directory of your terminal, so great! Also +1 to having no configuration to get to a sweet looking setup.

<comment><USER10> This is one of the things I love about KDE's Dolphin. It's a file manager with a built in terminal and both stay in sync.

<comment><USER11> Yes, it is indeed quite friction-removing and combines the usefulness of both.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Neat!

In contrast to previous toys I've seen like this, EDEX-UI seems to have a bunch of good ideas. It's not something I'd use yet, but it's close. The idea of showing files in my current working directory is good. There's a bunch of other stuff that's good. And then there's a bunch of stuff that's a useless waste of screenspace.

But I could totally see myself replacing the useless stuff with things I care about:

* System status (computer thermals, connected USB devices, Bluetooth, Wifi, audio devices, etc.)

* Weather and time across places I interact with

Etc.

Key thing would be a ______simple __ __ __extension API, where I can add the things I care about with a 5 minute learning curve.

I'd be glad to toss something like that up on one monitor.

I use a tiling window manager, but it doesn't support general tiling of the type needed to make everything an appropriate size, like this thing does.

Keep pushing. I think you're onto something.

</comment><comment><USER13> Very cool! If you're a VS Code user, I ported my favorite Tron-based iTerm theme here [https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=emeraldi...](https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=emeraldio.encom)

</comment><comment><USER14> There is recreation of classic 80s computerised synthetiser system (which was) called Fairlight CMI. It has interesting hybrid GUI which is controlled both by the command line or mouse in the same time. Lot of retro sci-fi vibes.

See [http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2020/06/30/fairlight- cmi-i...](http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2020/06/30/fairlight-cmi-iix- recreated-for-linux-mac-windows/)

</comment><comment> yjftsjthsd-h > Useful commands for the nerds

... are there _non_ -nerds using this? ;)

</comment><comment><USER15> Ha! Had it installed just to play around with (I imagine that is what this is for). My laptops fan wouldn't stop running below 4000rpm as long as this was in the foreground.

Edit: But I do agree that the configuration was pretty easy. If you wanted to move stuff around and make it look a certain other way, it was really simple to do that.

</comment><comment><USER16> Surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet, but "FUI" (fantasy user interface) embodies a lot of the "candy" on display here. Fun to see on reddit[0] or YouTube.

[0] [https://www.reddit.com/r/FUI/](https://www.reddit.com/r/FUI/)

</comment><comment><USER17> I just last night watched the below video that covers the code that shows up on Dennis Nedry's computer screen in Jurassic Park. Turns out it's only example code they put up on screen, but this type of stuff is always interesting. The way movies get made is so intriguing!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq2Vkgsams0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq2Vkgsams0)

</comment><comment><USER18> ... and this is the exact reason I still love hacker news.

<comment><USER19> I know I love a good opportunity to waste a little time with novel software. It's hard to describe, but it brings me a feeling of joy

This is really neat, I was actually surprised that it "just worked". Usually, as others have pointed out, you have to sacrifice a few goats and utter the forbidden ancient incantations before novelty pieces like this will work at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Nice replication of the Tron theme! Perhaps this can actually do something unexpected like feed actual working experience back in to the realm of the Sci-Fi UX designers to let them know how much of it doesn't work, but let them know about the things that do. Still looks and feels great.

</comment><comment><USER21> Cool, but impractical. With FVWM/WMaker you have usable screen state with system info and functionality.

You could replicate it with FVWM and using a 10th of the resources.

Inb4 Enlightenment back in the day, E16 used not as much as resources as this, even E21 is far snappier than ruling an NPM based desktop.

<comment><USER22> _Cool, but impractical._

Someone should do a practical one for an overview of what all your containers and AWS accounts are doing. AWS monitoring provides a reason for a map of the world with lines and markers. There are AWS monitoring tools which, with better color choices, would look like something from Hollywood. Dynatrace is almost there.[1]

[1] [https://cdn.comparitech.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/10/Dynat...](https://cdn.comparitech.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/10/Dynatrace.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is so cool. The Tron Legacy OS interface is one of the most sci-fi looking realistic interfaces I can remember seeing. Really awesome to be able to play with it locally, even if it isn't really a practical terminal compared to iTerm.

</comment><comment><USER24> Gorgeous. As a computer artist myself I can see that work and balances put into this. I'm quite excited to check it out and fiddle with it. The extensibility is especially endearing.

</comment><comment><USER25> Gosh that is very pretty, and very smooth. I'd like an audio volume option rather than on/off - it's cool, but loud as hell.

</comment><comment><USER26> Cool project! :)

I could've sworn I'd seen a similar dashboard, but web-based. Can't find it... anyone know/remember?

<comment> amiga-workbench [https://www.robscanlon.com/encom- boardroom/](https://www.robscanlon.com/encom-boardroom/)

<comment><USER26> That's it. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I've always been waiting for something like this! Now I got an excuse for a new project. Ty ty:)

</comment><comment><USER28> Pretty but I can't see myself using this :/

</comment><comment><USER29> Great toy for HollyWood!</comment>


Work discipline, or motivation is a bitch - <AUTHOR> https://blog.artemix.org/article/show/work-discipline <comment><USER2> True, real, motivation comes forth from becoming begeistert or obsessed with your project. The Kanban board will not help with that core thing.

This is at least something I notice when reading biographies or success stories, or even looking at my own humble side projects: the obsession, to think about it day and night.. that's what moves things forward.

Agile with Kanban etc.. are just tools to facilitate and reinforce the process.

Or perhaps "obsession" is not the right word: but "passion", is.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think that the line is very long between "obsession" and "passion", as, from my point of view, I see obsession as some extreme form of passion.

Still, that's a fair point.</comment></comment>


Twitter hands over messages at heart of Occupy case - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19597437 <comment> brown9-2 It seems to me that Twitter has upheld the user's privacy as best they could. There is only so far they can go in fighting a court order.

Disregard for privacy would have the company turning the data in question over to authorities whenever they asked, without so much as a subpoena or court order. That doesn't sound like what has happened here.

There is a legal process and like it or not, companies have to abide by it.

<comment><USER2> From what I've seen many think the judge is in the wrong to not even allow them to appeal. Why wouldn't the judge allow them to appeal? Makes no sense.

[http://gigaom.com/2012/09/12/the-facebook-addicted-judge- and...](http://gigaom.com/2012/09/12/the-facebook-addicted-judge-and-the- little-blue-bird/)

<comment><USER3> Huh? How does a judge "not allow someone to appeal"?

Twitter and the NYCLU are alleging that by holding Twitter in contempt for not honoring a court order, the judge is effectively infringing on their right to appeal. That's a sane argument, but it isn't the same thing as "not allowing them to appeal". Moreover, if there was a clear and urgent grounds for appeal, the appeals court could expedite the challenge. They haven't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Twitter is consistently working for legal user privacy, even in the face of this U.S. setback. (I'm not affiliated with Twitter, I just follow them).

Read about the Digital Due Process alliance here, including Twitter: <http://digitaldueprocess.org/>

"An alliance of tech companies including Twitter, Google, Amazon.com, Apple, AT&T, Facebook along with nonprofit groups called the Digital Due Process Coalition has been pressing the U.S. Congress to update federal privacy law to reflect today's cloud computing era, but has enjoyed only limited success so far. "

<comment><USER5> These huge companies (I'm looking at you, Google) can choose to operate (or not) under the draconian jurisdiction of the USA, where the PATRIOT Act's NSLs have completely evaporated due process at the federal level.

It's been in place for over a decade now. It's not going anywhere. Yet these companies are still installing new servers within the borders.

At which point does the blame shift from the lawmakers to the complicit? Is the ten years between October 2001 (PATRIOT) and October 2011 sufficient? If not, then what is?

<comment> brown9-2 How do you expect them to do business in the US or have employees in the US while avoiding the PATRIOT Act? What is Google or Twitter realistically to do here - shut down business in the largest market and highest-skilled workforce in the world?

edit: Also, it seems to me like your argument could be extended from the companies that provide services in such a jurisdiction to the people that _use such a service in such a jurisdiction_. At what point do we blame Twitter users for an (unrealistic) expectation that their data will never be turned over to authorities?

<comment><USER5> I emigrated from the US leaving friends and family behind four years ago for just this reason.

<comment><USER6> _I emigrated from the US leaving friends and family behind_

To which place? What are the laws there about subpoenas of the records of online interaction?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here's a PDF of the June ruling which discusses the legal issues: [http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/owsharristwitterdec63012.pd...](http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/owsharristwitterdec63012.pdf)

It's a fairly easy read and is interesting. There are a number of issues at stake, primarily who has standing to quash the subpoena and should a warrant be required.

Looking at this solely as a geek and not taking into account the legal issues, any information that has been publicly available on the net at any point should be considered permanently public. If you don't want something to be public don't post it publicly.

<comment> brown9-2 The ruling is very interesting, thanks for posting.

It seems the main issue is whether the defendant has the right to sue to intervene when Twitter is subpoenaed to turn his information over to third party (the People). That is a bit different than the way most of the media coverage is framing the issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> _> If the messages were not handed over on 14 September, Twitter would have been in contempt of court and faced substantial fines. _

So pay the fines, take a stand.

You have $1billion dollars right? Put it to some good use.

<comment><USER9> That's a game that twitter can't win. The fines will keep escalating until twitter folds. What does it cost the judge to keep doubling the fine until it eats up $1B? Maybe five cents of ink each time. What does it cost twitter? $1B.

<comment><USER8> They could win in the court of public opinion if they yell loud enough. This is politics nothing else.

Could you imagine the headlines/press if the judge levies a fine of even $100mil+?

Here are some for fun:

 _"Twitter forced to consider termination of 300 employees after partisan Judge <name> levies $300million fine because of Twitter's refusal to destroy the public's trust."_

 _"Twitter CEO <name> asks the Obama Administration why, in light of severe employment and a depressed economy, it's willing to force a shinning example of American innovation and job growth into bankruptcy. The Romney camp responds by accusing President Obama of flip-flopping on his campaign stance of being 'for a free and open internet'"_

... and so on and so forth.

<comment><USER9> Can you point to an example where the legal system was changed so easily through protests, and say why that applies here?

It took fifty years of a well executed and persistent legal strategy to go from Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. Board of Education. Plessy lost the test case and had to pay the fine. The equivalent here is to pay $1B in fines.

I'm not saying that fear of terrorism or other boogeymen is as entrenched as racism was in 1896, but if it was that easy to change, we wouldn't have the TSA and all this other nonsense. We wouldn't be instituting policies that erode privacy, the same way the UK has been over the past couple of decades. I remember when I was a kid, and people talked about the stuff happening in the UK as if it was on the moon. Now that's normal. I would love it if that changed, if someone would put in the sort of effort the NAACP did from 1909 to 1954. But, I don't expect twitter to risk bankruptcy doing it.

Even if the founders are completely selfless and willing to throw away their fortunes, they'd probably feel that they have a responsibility to their employees to not run the company into the ground to prove a political point. I wouldn't be surprised if it's not even possible to do it, given twitter's legal obligations. The VCs might be able to step in and get management removed if they start burning money on political causes. And, if they're going to do that, why shouldn't they just donate it to starving children in Africa? Because it's not their money, not in that sense. It's one thing for Bill Gates to take the money he's made off of MS stock and spend it on causes he supports. It's an entirely different thing for the CEO of a company to use company funds to support the same causes.

I should point out that, at least the NAACP managed to accomplish something, which doesn't always happen. I have radical leftist friends. They go to protests, get beaten up by the police despite protesting peacefully, and are often charged with crimes, so that it will look like they're just trying to get out of something if they complain about the police. It's been happening for decades, and nothing has changed. It's possible to make a stand, and for no one to care.

The alternate headline, call it the fox news headline, if you like, goes something like this

 _Twitter CEO refuses to pay fine yet again, company is held in contempt again. Twitter's complete disregard for the legal system comes on the heels of . . ._

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Here's an account of the incident, written by defendant Malcolm Harris in October 2011: <http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/a-bridge-to-somewhere/>

</comment><comment><USER11> Twitter wants this both ways, they say it's the users' data when requested to turn it over, but they say it's their data when a user wants to use a 3rd party client to access it.

</comment><comment><USER12> The state's hunger for information about all of us is really something that ought to give us pause as we continue to move more of our lives online. Things that were impossible for the state to know in the past, such as our location and our thoughts at specific points in time, are now claimed to be indispensable to them.

</comment><comment><USER13> It sounds like the user had removed the tweets from his account to hide them from public viewing. (I might be wrong here, not the point)

But, is there some law or other reason that Twitter would continue to store tweets that have been removed by its users?

<comment><USER14> There very well may be a legal requirement. There is with email. If I understand right, a company must retain all communication for something crazy like 3 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> this is unfortunate, especially since Ben Lee, Twitter's legal counsel, took a stand supporting users earlier this week. [http://blogs.lawyers.com/2012/09/twitter-users-rights-for- no...](http://blogs.lawyers.com/2012/09/twitter-users-rights-for-now/)

<comment><USER4> Twitter is still supporting the users; Twitter waited until the last possible day to turn in the records and in addition has protected the tweets from being used until after an appeal process.

<comment><USER16> No; Twitter originally argued that privacy laws were being violated by this request. They should have stuck to this position and contested any contempt fines. Someone has to be willing to get involved and challenge this if privacy law is indeed being violated by the district attorney or other parties in these cases.

<comment> brown9-2 It seems to me that the appeal is already a form of contest.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


'But the Plans Were on Display' - <AUTHOR> https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/08/13/douglas-adams-plans <comment><USER2> Both settings are under Settings - Location on Android phones. Hardly hidden.

Can someone answer me why some Apple fans have this strange compulsion to lie and mislead about non-Apple products? I get that they love your Apple device (I do too!), but why lie about products you're not using?

<comment><USER3> Google's documentation on Location History:

>You can turn off Location History at any time. With Location History off, the places you go are no longer stored. When you turn off Location History for your Google Account, it's off for all devices associated with that Google Account.

[https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3118687?hl=en](https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3118687?hl=en)

Google's own documentation is certainly misleading on this matter, if another setting must also be changed to "really" turn Location History off.

Furthermore, Google seems to have a recurrent issue with following it's customer's wishes in relation to location tracking.

For instance, this investigation was not quite a year ago.

>Many people realize that smartphones track their locations. But what if you actively turn off location services, haven't used any apps, and haven't even inserted a carrier SIM card?

Even if you take all of those precautions, phones running Android software gather data about your location and send it back to Google when they're connected to the internet, a Quartz investigation has revealed.

[https://qz.com/1131515/google-collects-android-users- locatio...](https://qz.com/1131515/google-collects-android-users-locations- even-when-location-services-are-disabled/)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Epistemonikos, a Health search engine in 9 languages - <AUTHOR> http://andesbeat.com/2012/08/21/epistemonikos-the-most-efficient-health-search-engine-in-9-languages/

<comment><USER2> Took a couple of clickthroughs to find out just _which_ languages are supported. I saw the list on the top navbar (under Languages), but this was a little worrying: >We are different from any other site, since all the information is translated in all languages.

 _Who/what_ is translating your results? Assuming it's machine translated, this should be noted in an obvious place since I suspect there will be mixed feelings about it. "Localized results" seems more appropriate unless I'm missing a whole lot behind the scenes.</comment>


Who is doing Kinect and whats the best way to start? - <AUTHOR> http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Kinect/Kinect-Effect

<comment><USER2> This is a great example of Microsoft is supporting the hacking community around kinect.

Though I wonder if there is a nefarious side to this in the long-term.

I suspect with the public history Microsoft has, most people developing technology on Kinect as a platform are smart enough to know how to handle Microsoft, and hopefully Microsoft's 'evil' days are behind them.</comment>


Gizmodo Gives Lots of Free Publicity to Patent Troll - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/5621897/why--failure-is-an-option-at-intellectual-ventures

<comment><AUTHOR> Here are four more very recent articles promoting IV: [http://gizmodo.com/5621899/why-we-need-more-inventions- lots-...](http://gizmodo.com/5621899/why-we-need-more-inventions-lots-more- inventions) <http://gizmodo.com/5621869/why-ideas-are-expensive> [http://gizmodo.com/5621679/how-intellectual-ventures- wants-t...](http://gizmodo.com/5621679/how-intellectual-ventures-wants-t..). <http://gizmodo.com/5621607/iv-gallery/gallery/></comment>


There are now more people over sixty-four than children younger than five - <AUTHOR> https://ourworldindata.org/population-aged-65-outnumber-children <comment><USER3> I'm supposed no one has mentioned the - sort of - deterioration in our relationships. back in the day it used to be a lot easier for two people up meet, fall in love, get married and have kids. I'm not saying that there weren't any forced marriages, but that's not my point. In the age of tinder we are exposed to more and more people and possibilities. So basically it seems like the average Joe and Betty keep holding off for the perfect mate, when chances are they already rejected them. I'm just observing that the typical meets are decreasing rapidly and could be to, at least partially, blame.

<comment><USER4> More to the point, there is a curious social stigma around having children before you enter your 30s that has developed.

The idea that you should "play the field" is part of it, but I'm not sure that tells the whole story. There seems to have been a concerted effort to reduce pregnancies among younger women. In fact, programs like "16 and Pregnant" and "Teen Mom", which follow young mothers in their teens and 20s, were, according to their creator, meant as a "cautionary tale" to reduce pregnancy rates. In modern culture, "rural hick" even conjures up images of a young mother. Not the image most want to portray, which is a powerful social tool.

Equally curious, once you enter your 30s all of a sudden the social norms flip to "why haven't you had children yet?", "the clock is ticking", etc. However, once you are in your 30s, there are some rather hard limits to how many children you can practically have.

<comment><USER5> I think its less stigma but economic realities that are driving this. People have too much debt and not enough income and are too early in their careers in their 20s to comfortably take time off to have a kid or pay for childcare.

<comment><USER4> _> People have too much debt_

For what? Less than half of Americans, aged 25-34, have a post secondary education. Less than half of Americans in the same age range own a home. The same age group are much more likely to reject car ownership than generations past. Outside of those purchases, it is not common for young people to take on debt.

You no doubt describe a minority, but the majority aren't putting any effort into picking up the slack. Birth rates are falling in all walks of life.

 _> not enough income_

Or _too much_ income? There is a very strong correlation between being poor and having more children.

At the extreme, the women of Niger have over 7 children each, on average. Even the least paid people in America are living like kings in comparison to the people of Niger.

But even within America, the reason the "rural hick" is oft associated with young mothers is because rural areas tend to be poorer and poorer people are more likely to have more children.

 _> are too early in their careers in their 20s to comfortably take time off to have a kid_

While the average reader on HN is certainly career driven, most people are not. "You need to focus on your career" is a line that has been used to deter 20-somethings from having children. I'm not sure that is the same as them actually focusing on their career. Most people simply find what work is available to them, trudge through the day, and then go home as soon as possible to not have to think about work again until tomorrow.

<comment><USER6> > For what? Less than half of Americans, aged 25-34, have a post secondary > education. Less than half of Americans in the same age range own a home. The > same age group are much more likely to reject car ownership than generations > past. Outside of those purchases, it is not common for young people to take > on debt.

But the job prospects and odds of financial security for people without a college degree have cratered, and so they're still unable to support a family. Pick your poison: either stable income but a shitload of debt, or no debt but no income, and neither is a good place to start having children. College in America now is damned if you do, damned if you don't.

<comment><USER4> _> But the job prospects and odds of financial security for people without a college degree have cratered_

Are you sure you are not confusing that with the fact that post secondary attainment is rising, which means that those who are unable to attain a post secondary education, and find work, due to challenges in their life (disability, for example) take a larger share of the lower education segment?

Let me put it another way, as that may be confusing. Take two people. Let's say one is a highly intelligent, hard working, person who had to drop out of high school to care for his ailing parent. The other a drug addict who dropped out of high school because the drugs started to take over his life.

The highly intelligent person has a job. The drug addict does not. His addiction has left him unable to keep employment. Given this scenario, 50% of those who are high school dropouts are unemployed.

Okay, now let's say the first person's parent got better and he was able to return to high school and graduate. He is no longer in the high school dropout category, but now the high school completion category.

That means that 100% of those who are high school dropouts are now unemployed. If you weren't paying attention, you might think that the job market for those who are high school dropouts cratered, but in reality nothing really changed except a rise in high school attainment.

 _> either stable income but a shitload of debt, or no debt but no income, and neither is a good place to start having children._

There is never a good place to have children. But the data clearly shows that the richer you are, the less likely you are to have children. How are you resolving that discrepancy?

<comment><USER7> > But the data clearly shows that the richer you are, the less likely you are > to have children. How are you resolving that discrepancy?

Without taking a stand on the greater discussion here, I'd just like to add: birth control is not all that cheap, and poorer people are much less likely to be as educated on all the birth control options available to them anyway. I would also reason that the feeling of having limited life prospects would make one more likely to have kids as it becomes a larger milestone at that point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So, to put it simply, more and more people have to work to support more people than before, right ?

<comment><USER9> Only if productivity have not increased.

<comment><USER10> _Only if productivity have not increased._

It has not, alas.

Take cars as an example: if we were building Fort T models, then yes, they would cost peanuts (especially Chinese copies). But for every dollar of productivity increase we add two dollars of safety devices, emission controls and new shiny gadgets.

<comment><USER11> Making safer and less-polluting cars _is_ a productivity improvement: it means people are getting better cars -- and everyone else is getting less likelihood of getting killed in a car accident, less health damage from other people's exhaust fumes, etc.

<comment><USER10> Right, but in the context of this discussion the cost primary function of the car (moving my butt from one place to another) has increased, or, in the best case, stayed the same.

<comment><USER12> Productivity is an economic term of art, which IS the context of this discussion.

Productivity in the non—services sector of the economy has increased dramatically. You can buy much, much more stuff per inflation adjusted dollar.

There remains rigidity in the market, which doesn't generally make it easy for people to work 15 hour weeks to earn a 1940s income, but really, productivity for goods has dramatically increased.

<comment><USER13> >> You can buy much, much more stuff per inflation adjusted dollar.

Is it the stuff that works a 1/10th of the time it worked before because today we can "optimise" for longevity?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't know many people having or even considering children under the age of 30. The window to actually have them gets pretty tight, a mother aged 35 or older is considered a geriatric mother on the NHS (basically higher risk). I'm sure that a lot of my friends are going to find it difficult to have children as they get older, in contrast to parents in the 80s and 90s who were mostly having their first child in their 20s.

From my anecdotal perspective it feels like we are going to see population growth flatlining and global population starting to decline over the next 100 years. It feels like the data is moving in that way to back that up.

This could be a really tough problem to solve. How do we keep economic growth going if our main driver (human capital) is disappearing?

<comment><USER15> > I don't know many people having or even considering children under the age > of 30.

We now value professional careers above everything else. You can't have kids and be competitive anymore. Half of the people I know who have kids basically delegates everything to caretakers, they see them 30 min in the morning, and 30 min when they get back to work and kiss them goodnight.

Instead of telling men to slow down and take care of their kids we tell women to forget about kids and follow men in their insane quest for professional conquests. Sprinkle a bit of consumerism over that and it's game over, kids are too expensive, why would people do that instead of buying a nice car, the new $2k smartphone or a trip to Venice to flex on instagram for imaginary internet points.

I'm also inclined to believe that the hookup culture plays a huge role in the trend, why would you want to settle down when you have a virtually limitless pool of potentially better mates available at the tips of your fingers. Newer generations are afraid of commitment and responsibilities, having kids in your early 20s is more stigmatised than having a one night stand every other night until you're 40.

<comment><USER16> > We now value professional careers above everything else. You can't have kids > and be competitive anymore.

Do you have any evidence of that?

> Half of the people I know who have kids basically delegates everything to > caretakers, they see them 30 min in the morning, and 30 min when they get > back to work and kiss them goodnight.

And that's fine. There is nothing special about biological parents being the ones to take care of kids. Daycare workers, grandparents, etc., love the kids too and are better equipped to keep them engaged.

Indeed, our parents and grandparents spent half as much time with their kids than we are spending today, and their kids (us) turned out fine: [https://www.economist.com/graphic- detail/2017/11/27/parents-...](https://www.economist.com/graphic- detail/2017/11/27/parents-now-spend-twice-as-much-time-with-their-children- as-50-years-ago)

> One analysis of 11 rich countries estimates that the average mother spent 54 > minutes a day caring for children in 1965 but 104 minutes in 2012. Men do > less than women, but far more than men in the past: their child-caring time > has jumped from 16 minutes a day to 59.

<comment><USER17> > _And that's fine. There is nothing special about biological parents being > the ones to take care of kids._

There absolutely is an irreplaceable bond between natural parents and their children that can't be replaced. If you spend time around a lot of kids it's very easy to notice a happiness difference between those with a stay at home parent and those raised by paid professionals (who are usually taking care of many other children, unless you're wealthy).

> _Indeed, our parents and grandparents spent half as much time with their > kids than we are spending today, and their kids (us) turned out fine_

I mean, did we? The birth rate is dropping through the floor, marriage rates are down, and studies show women in particular are more unhappy than ever.

As my generation ages into their 40s I see a stark happiness divide between those that focused on their careers vs those that built families (strongly in favor of the latter).

<comment><USER18> According to NORC at U Chicago, general happiness for women _leads_ that of men, and is within low single digits of its all-time peak.

[http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_PsyWellBeing15_fi...](http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_PsyWellBeing15_final_formatted.pdf)

<comment><USER17> Most studies contradict these findings:

[https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual...](https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Stevenson_ParadoxDecliningFemaleHappiness_Dec08.pdf)

<comment><USER18> Isn't the paper you're citing based on the paper I cited? The General Social Survey is NORC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I need a table with booleans "There are now more people over X then children younger than Y."

<comment><USER20> Here is the data: [https://www2.census.gov/programs- surveys/popest/datasets/201...](https://www2.census.gov/programs- surveys/popest/datasets/2010-2017/national/asrh/nc-est2017-alldata-r- file01.csv)

<comment><USER21> Couple of interesting items from this US census data (month 6):

1\. There are more people over 74 than under 5; there are more people over 80 than under 3.

2\. x = [12, 62], y = 74 - <USER2>

It's a near linear relationship between those older and those younger for this age range, i.e. those older than 62 outnumber those under 12 and those older than 12 outnumber those under 62. Make note that the y-intercept equals the under 5 comparison age.

3\. There's a large difference between the populations of those age 63 and 64, those born around 1946-47. The baby boom

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Good? We need less population, not more...

<comment><USER23> Maybe but we also need an increase in quality of life, not a decrease. While a plateau (and even reduction) in number of people would not necessarily be a bad thing, it needs to be in a kind of controller fashion to avoid a broken age pyramid, ending up with too many elders incapabke of substaining their means by themselves, and too few working age people to support them, ending with both group living below the means we should strive for them to reach.

The age pyramid in some european countries, in china, in japan, ... Is scary, and not because of the decline of population it represents, but because unless we also change and adapt society accordingly there simply won't be enough people to pay for those who can't work anymore, and the few that can pay end up paying more than their fair share.

It's a huge issue, and nobody wants to change it much, making it feels like we will wait until the situation explodes before adapting.

<comment><USER24> But that ship has sailed. Population changes are notorious in how extremely predictable they are. If we wanted a slow decline we needed to act 20 years ago.

Right now the numbers look suspiciously quiet, hiding the fact that there are a number of countries growing ridiculously fast (sub-Saharan Africa), and a lot of countries (all of "the West", except the US) in accelerating decline.

So there will be increasing immigration despite low (global) population growth.

And this is over and done with. It's a fact at this point. Policy today can only determine if in 20 years we want to cause +0.2% in kids or -0.2% in kids. I mean anything short of a meteor strike or new spanish flu won't really influence anything sooner.

<comment><USER25> If they are predictable then many people have done an extraordinarily bad job at projections. Because there are a lot of real howlers out there then if you look at proven wrong population projections of the past both from Malthusian demagogues and official sources trying to do extrapolations.

Although it is true we can only "add" at 0 for new humans if you want workforce ready new humans immigration from elsewhere is required.

<comment><USER24> Well Malthusians are frankly crackpots trying to make a political point which the numbers (especially now) don't support. So that they come with numbers that are found lacking ... is not a fair attack against serious people.

Which specific forecast did you think was so bad ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> There is a great book that lays out the case that the boomer's decisions, policies, votes, actions, and inactions have destroyed our environment, our economy, and our future. The greatest generation handed the boomers a world with a bright future; the boomers have squandered it. Instead of investing in critical infrastructure that would ensure a better future for their grandchildren, they have decided to shackle us with financial ruin.

And then they blame millennials.

The book is : A Generation of Sociopaths

Thanks to the boomers, you will never be freer (as in liberty and privacy), you will never experience the same economic opportunities, and you and your grandkids will pay for their short sidedness long after they are dead.

</comment><comment><USER27> Is it surprising that items in range 64 - 120 is larger than 0 - 5?

<comment><USER28> Yes. Total species populations grow exponentially, and all of the growth is at the lowest age bracket. The number of living members in each birth cohort also decreases exponentially as the cohort ages. It follows straightforwardly from this that population numbers by cohort will be on some log scale.

We can naively estimate the relative size of these cohorts like this:

      >>> math.log(6) - math.log(1)
      1.791759469228055
      >>> math.log(121) - math.log(65)
      0.6214032757011045

So we should expect a little under a 3x difference in favor of 0-5, which is in the rough ballpark of the 2.6x difference that the chart shows for 1950.

Note that actual scientists work on this, and use much better methods than this (with confidence intervals and all that jazz). However, this method is a decent "try it at home" approximation, and still much better than comparing the number of years in the age cohorts.

<comment><USER27> Fair enough - Thanks for clarifying :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Sounds about right. If people don't die young, the population pyramid becomes a rectangle, so there should be approximately the same number of people under 5 as above max age - 5, let's say 80.

<comment><USER30> That's only true if birth rates also remain constant across time, which is not the case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> The obvious question is - has the data been adjusted for the fact that people now live longer, otherwise the conclusion is not very useful.

</comment><comment><USER32> Interesting. One piece of information is missing: When are we expected to stop getting older on average?

</comment><comment><USER33> It would be terrifying for population projections if it were the other way around. This is good.

The only argument I see as a downside is the reverse population pyramid. Which will be a problem but still a better problem to have.

</comment><comment><USER34> Love the concept for the site, and love the interactive charts

</comment><comment><USER35> Isn't 64 a rather arbitrary number?

65 used to be retirement age (for men at least), it clearly needed raising years ago, but was hard to do politically in many countries. It is finally being raised. When pensions were first introduced they were meant to run 5 years, not 20.

In the UK, at least, you could argue we're left paying for a generation of Baby Boomers who are swanning about on cruises, golf days and health spas on pensions they never paid even half towards.

Most are perfectly able to work for another 10 years at least (and if you're younger than 50 you'll have to work those extra 10 years), but for some reason we need economic migrants for economic growth. Even though we're not building anywhere near enough homes, schools, hospitals and transport infrastructure for this mass immigration, and we're not training enough nurses, doctors, teachers. We are effectively just shunting all the economic problems of the end of continual growth 20 years down the line. We even scrapped bursaries for student nurses! Utter madness.

And then, rather ironically, it's this same generation who overwhelmingly voted for Brexit to even further destroy their children's and their children's children prospects because they're not happy about the changing face of the Britain they're not even going to live in.

<comment><USER36> I'm Australian and my parents "retired" at 58. They're not quite on cruises and golf days but they're perfectly capable of work even now at 63 if they really wanted. They just don't want. Is it their fault or the governments?

<comment><USER37> The government's primarily, but theirs too because they are the govt., or at least their cohort, friends and neighbours.

The proper thing to do is raise the retirement age to 75, reflecting gains in longevity and economic reality. Other options include some form of part-time mandatory volunteering component to earn the govt. portion of the pension.

However we do it, we are breaking a promise, if you will, that society made to these people when they entered the work force, in that if they endure the indignities and inequities of a salary/wage position for 35 years, then they have earned the freedom to spend the remainder of their time as they see fit.

<comment><USER35> A promise made by preceding generations that didn't think it through, not by us or people younger than us.

Politicians are now implicitly or explicitly saying that such a promise is clearly not being made to us, why should it be honored as they're the ones who didn't 'pay it forward'?

<comment><USER38> They did, their politicians just spent it all on battleships.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Entering late 20s and I'm basically hoping for a next life similar to my parents generation. This generation has so many requirements thrown upon us that made living a modern day prison and only unless born into an upper class family that would pay for what have become necessary requirements to succeed past the apartment life. Sure, some people are anomalies and had events making the contrary but it just hinders the truth of the majority who didn't necessarily get worthless degrees but still struggle to pay of student loans in an crippling economy for people without much money. I'm not sure if this is all the product of student loans, not enough homes being built, the all sexes need to equally work, and or people controlling capitalism getting even more greedy. Something is making it where having a kid would make a financial disaster even worse.

</comment><comment><USER40> People got confused and started thinking there was something virtuous about _not_ having kids.

Which, in my opinion, is one of the most anti-human sentiments that you could construct.

In a weird way, one could make an abstract argument that choosing not to have kids has an element in common with murder. It's reducing the amount of lived human life.

Regardless, on a practical level we are seeing non-replacement birthrate in advanced countries ... and people are complaining about it ... while making parenting as unpleasant as we can possibly imagine ...

This is also part of the same philosophy, but turned sideways. Instead of viewing children as a resource they are viewed as a huge obligation, and we seem to feel a little guilty about bringing them in to the world.

It's fascinating.

<comment><USER41> > People got confused and started thinking there was something virtuous about > not having kids.

It's simple resource management really. We have three alternatives: 1. Keep multiplying, keep our lifestyles and fuck the planet until it's unhabitable, 2. Keep multiplying but drastically reduce our impact on the planet by rationing ourselves, 3. decrease the multiplication rate so that at some point we can sustain our lifestyle while not fucking the planet up.

I can't see how wanting all humans to live decently is anti-human. Until we have good enough confidence that future humans will live decently, spawning new ones is risky, and spawning so many that our numbers keep increasing is just reckless.

Are you familiar with "The Repugnant Conclusion"? [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant- conclusion/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/)</comment></comment>


At what time would you read a book? - <AUTHOR> Would like to know when you pick up a book ( any book ) serious or casual reading. How you manage your time and manage to read a book ? <comment><USER2> I read on my smartphone (shameless un-affiliated plug: Moon Reader for Android), so I can read a chapter anywhere at anytime. Plane, subway, bus, toilet. Between personally downloaded (cough) books and the Kindle, I generally go through a couple novels a week.

</comment><comment><USER3> Kindle on my way to work, when I'm walking my dog or waiting somewhere. Also maybe 30 minutes or more before sleep.</comment>


Richard Feynman cut straight to the heart of complex ideas - <AUTHOR> https://www.eliotpeper.com/2020/07/how-to-make-sense-of-complex-ideas.html <comment><USER2> [https://youtu.be/N1pIYI5JQLE](https://youtu.be/N1pIYI5JQLE)

Feynman explains fire. I'm a big fan and believe his crude straight to the point style, coupled with an incredible ability to storytell is what made him special. I think it's pure, genuine, curiosity and the intellectual capacity to understand the complexities.

<comment><USER3> What a gift. I love how he just squirms with enthusiasm.

We have a couple large fields by our home that alternate yearly between soybeans and corn. The amount of biomass that accumulated in a corn field between mid June and mid July is remarkable. Knowing that nearly all of that mass is from the atmosphere and not the ground is quite a prospective shifter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's a good example (heh) of feynman explaining an idea here, and it's great reading too:

[http://longnow.org/essays/richard-feynman-connection- machine...](http://longnow.org/essays/richard-feynman-connection-machine/)

</comment><comment><USER5> I have a similar policy that all complex ideas in my field should be thoroughly explained on a small test model. It makes learning a lot easier.

</comment><comment><USER6> Yep. Feynman technique.

</comment><comment><USER7> My understanding is Feynman was a great explainer partially because he despised jargon and specialized terminology in general.

</comment><comment><USER8> Wow, that article was _really_ short. I was hoping there would be an actual example of Feynman doing this...

<comment><USER6> there is plenty out there. google "feynman technique"</comment></comment>