Ask HN: If you didn't have to worry about healthcare, would you start a company? - <AUTHOR> If health insurance for yourself and your employees was not a consideration (taken care of without cost) and wouldn't change, would you start a new company in the next year? <comment><USER2> Before we had health insurance, we lost candidates over this issue. I don't have to speculate about it. The current US health care system retards startups.

<comment><USER3> I would contend that the root cause is that we expect our employers to provide our health insurance. We don't (usually) expect them to provide our housing, food, car, or other necessities of life.

I'm not an accountant, but I understand that there are tax advantages for corporations to provide insurance (instead of just giving me cash, so I can choose my own insurance).

The market is much more efficient (e.g., I can more easily and directly signal what is important to me) if the consumer of a good is also the purchaser.

<comment><USER4> The root cause is that only your employer can afford to buy you coverage and also has less risk of getting dropped if they provide coverage for enough people. As an individual, the coverage costs more and your chances of getting dropped is over 50% if you do need care exceeding your premium.

<comment><USER5> Do you have a source for the 50% number?

<comment><USER4> Here's a few articles pointing to the number. I assume that an individual buyer faces a higher rate of recission than those in a large group.

<http://tauntermedia.com/2009/07/28/unconscionable-math/>

[http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/09/02/think-youve-got- hea...](http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/09/02/think-youve-got-health- insurance-better-double-check-and-be/)

<http://wintershaven.net/2009/08/04/recission/>

[http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/company-news- story.aspx?storyid=2...](http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/company-news- story.aspx?storyid=200906161521dowjonesdjonline000607)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Please don't confuse healthcare with insurance.

I went for over a decade without insurance yet I was never without healthcare. That used to be quite common, especially among folks in their 20s. Is that unthinkable for the current generation? Why?

Plus, if you're talking about the US, free basic healthcare is almost universally available. It isn't pretty or convenient, but US govt services rarely are.

<comment><USER7> If you're uninsured you get price gouged. A simple trip to the doctor with some basic tests can be a months rent. I have catastrophic health insurance; $5k deductible 20% copay to $50k. It won't pay for anything, but it will give me insurance group rates. Where is this magical free basic healthcare? Does not exist. Medicaid is only free if you've already become bankrupt.

<comment><USER8> You only get price gouged if you don't negotiate or shop around.

My mom is uninsured. She negotiates everything and often pays less than I do (I once compared her bill to mine). If you pay cash up front, the doctor's office will be very nice to you. Additionally, they give you stuff _for free_ that an insurance company might pay for. An actual exchange:

Mom: "$300 for a splint? No thanks, I'll just have my son tape my finger to a piece of wood."

Doctor's office lady: "Oops, my mistake, I thought you had insurance. We only charge people for stuff like that when they have insurance."

<comment><USER9> $300 for a splint is one thing. Try negotiating an MRI when you've just been in a car accident.

Its a real problem. Insurance companies have a ton of weight by virtue of representing many patients, which they effectively leverage for lower prices. Those paying out of pocket have no such leverage, and pay much more.

<comment><USER8> She has negotiated for post-hoc price reductions on emergency care.

Hospitals have leeway in what they charge. If you make it clear that you will be a pain in the ass unless they give you a good deal, they will do so. This is where you drop words like bankruptcy, $25/month for 30 years payment plans, and threaten to contest every single item (out of 47) on the bill. They will take all sorts of nickel&dime charges off your bill, lower prices here and there, etc, giving you a reasonable deal.

<comment><USER10> All this aggressive price negotiation is fine if that is your choice. But keep in mind your company will have to employ other people and if the company does not provide health insurance you will be expecting your employees to also perform these same kinds of price negotiations for their medical services.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I just might have started one in the last year. I was between jobs over the Spring/Summer and developing pitches and prototypes.

Without going into details, health insurance is a _big_ issue for my family. I looked at my options (I'm in the US) and there really aren't any unless my employer has insurance. I have no idea how insurance companies and employers ended up married like that, but if one wants to get/change insurance, the only option is to change employers. And it seems fewer employers offer it every year.

Then I landed a gig with a very nice place that has great benefits, including epic insurance. So, for this year, I'm here in a job that's about as far one can get from a startup without being a government gig and surprisingly happy about it. That's a big 180 from where I was 6 months ago. :-)

<comment><USER7> " I have no idea how insurance companies and employers ended up married like that"

I believe the short answer is WWII. Price controls meant employers needed to find a way other than higher wages to attract workers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> By far the best thing about moving to Massachusetts for oneforty was the fact that I knew I could get reasonably priced health insurance that wasn't subject to recission through the Massachusetts exchange. (Of course oneforty isn't buying people's health insurance. We're barely seed funded.)

Boston/Cambridge is no Valley, but it's certainly good enough. If health insurance is the one gating factor (and geography isn't), move here.

</comment><comment><USER13> I've often felt that if you would remove health insurance from the employer- employee equation completely it'd be a financial boon for business. How many more employees could be hired, how much more could be put into product development, etc., etc., if one of the largest (and always growing) company expenses was not health insurance for employees.

(I'd also like to see health insurance be at a national level instead of being regulated state-by-state, but that's another topic.)

<comment><USER14> I feel the same way, but I also know it's an institution unto itself. Think about it. Employer provided healthcare has been around since WW2. And you would have to convince the big dogs MS, IBM, KBR, GM,etc. to dismantle a system that they helped create.

Even if the legislation did exist to dismantle the system it would still continue through sheer bulk. ie Microsoft will always be able to negotiate a better price for MS employees due to the fact that they have thousands of employees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Has YCombinator or some other sort of startup incubator considered offering health plans for startups? We're a pretty uniform population, low risk, and probably a bit smarter about lifestyle choices. I could imagine a package deal (office space, funding, health insurance) DONE.

<comment><USER16> Actually, that would make a good choice for a start up, no? The population is generally low risk for costly procedures and mostly need basic, no-frills care and if their business succeeds, they could be converted to a more corporate friendly policy. To be honest, I'm not sure why this hasn't been done yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> If you didn't have to worry about buying food, would you start a company?

If you didn't have to worry about paying the rent/mortgage would you start a company?

If you didn't have to worry about .....

<comment><USER18> It's a little different from that, as there are active proposals in the U.S. to not have people worry about healthcare, and in many other countries you already don't. There are relatively few countries where you don't worry about buying food or paying the rent, by contrast.

<comment><USER19> It's also different because healthcare isn't a necessity. Many people can go for years with no health issues, but everyone needs to eat on a regular basis.

<comment><USER2> This idea (not you, mind you; just your retarded idea) is retarded. Healthcare isn't a necessity until it is.

As a 22 year old, you are unlikely to suffer congestive heart failure. But you also clearly have no idea what it costs to get hit by a car, to have a sudden unexplained seizure, or a burst appendix.

The problem with health care isn't that perscriptions cost to much or that it costs too much to see a doctor. Any of us can pay for a doctor's visit. The problem is that a 4-night stay at hospital will bankrupt you.

<comment><USER19> This is why I'm saying that healthcare isn't a necessity. I might not need any medical care for years, but if I needed to spend 4 nights in a hospital it would bankrupt me. This makes not having health insurance risky, but starting a company has its risks. I would say that most of them are probably not as serious as this, but it's still just a risk.

<comment><USER18> Starting a company is as much about managing risks as embracing them. You want to take risks with little downside and enormous upside. Not having health insurance is a risk with enormous downside and little upside.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If I understand you correctly, a more interesting question would be "What are the reasons you are not jumping into a startup right now?"

I'd love to see a ranked set of answers to that, organized along a timeline. Since there is so much politics infused in this, however, I imagine healthcare/health insurance is going to rank a lot higher now than say five years ago.

As a historical note, every startup that I've ever know that started humbly had no health insurance (although the founders had plenty of healthcare). So it can't be a determining factor in success, although it may be a determining factor in attempts.

On the attempt side, most startups fail, so anything you'd invest in them -- money, health insurance, food, lodging, etc -- is odds-on an overall loss. This is why raising startup capital can be difficult. If I had to pick a freebie to get from anybody, it would easily be lodging. You can do a lot with four walls and good internet connectivity. Much more than having some sort of insurance.

In my opinion, of course.

</comment><comment><USER21> Fortunately, Canada has a sane policy on public health care and this isn't nearly the issue it is in the US.

<comment><USER22> It'd be nice if they included dental and eye care as well; those are basically the same deal.

<comment><USER23> Prescriptions too, please. I pay an extra $40 or so a month for blue cross extended health.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Maybe the question is: if you didn't have to worry about healthcare would you leave your current job for something else. In my career, I had lots of very sharp colleagues that had no choice but to stay at their "ok" jobs because someone on the family has more than average health needs.

</comment><comment><USER25> I purchased a $130 a month high deductible ($3500) health insurance plan before quitting my job. I am healthy and under 20, however. I do know people who are healthy but have been denied (not offered insurance at a higher rate-- flat out denied) because of past procedures.

</comment><comment><USER4> I would adjust the question. Free healthcare can't exist. It costs something, either through taxes or your premium for insurance.

A more appropriate question would be: "If health insurance were more affordable and you were not in danger of being dropped from coverage as a small company or individual, would you start a new company?"

<comment><USER10> What you say is absolutely correct. But the real point of what would be considered public health insurance is that the risks are spread over a much larger group than simply a base of employees. The pricing mechanism is based on the risk of the people in the group. If the group is defined as the employees of the company, then that number is going to depend on the risk factors of the entire group.

If the group is the entire population of a country then you are going to pay a rate that is based on the risks of a very large population. If the people are on average healthy you will pay less. If the people on average are unhealthy you will pay more.

<comment><USER4> I am assuming that any company or individual covered is covered as a group of everyone the insurer covers. I see no reason for one gov entity to cover everyone. 50 to 100 non-profit co-ops would do the job: enough in each group and enough choice to ensure competition.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I imagine most people on these forums are interested in starting a company regardless of healthcare issues. Personally, as I'm a little older and have a family to consider it's a little more of an issue but even then I feel like I can work around it and that it's not one of the major risks I consider with starting a business.

So, that being said, I guess my answer to your question is "yes" although I would probably be doing it regardless of your proposed situation.

I guess what you really may want to know is how many people would start a business that otherwise wouldn't, or how many people consider this a barrier to entry.

</comment><comment><USER27> Since I live in Massachusetts, that's almost exactly what happened! (It wasn't/isn't free, but it was no more expensive than when I worked for BigCo).

</comment><comment><USER28> No, I'm young and healthy, and don't care about health care. I wouldn't go to the hospital anyway.

Mainly, what's keeping me from doing it is that I'm doomed to obscurity and people tend to dislike me when they either see me, hear me talk, or read what I write.

If anyone has experience overcoming those problems, I'd love to hear it. But "health care" is right around "what color is the sky?" on the list of things I worry about.

</comment><comment><USER29> Yes. That said, I plan on doing so anyway...but that would certainly make it even easier and that much more attractive of an option.

</comment><comment><USER30> You're thinking like an employee, not an entrepreneur.

Employees stay at jobs they hate for 30 years because of their "benefits" (what a silly name for cheaper insurance) and the "hope" that they will get some retirement money.

Entrepreneurs start companies because they know that if they do it right, and make a lot of money, these things will come as part of their ongoing successes.

</comment><comment><USER31> This begs the question - what does the average YC startup do for healthcare? Do the co-founders find insurance on their own? Can a startup do 'employer- provided' insurance? What sort of work does it entail?

I see some comments from tptacker regarding this but would love to hear from the wider YC community

<comment><USER32> In my experience most startups live and die based on CORBA timelines. Once you leave a job with health insurance you can pay both the employee and employer portions of the bill and continue your coverage for up to 18 months. This is probably a different story for startups that are mostly composed of post-grads without employer coverage to continue...

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I have a friend who is self-employed as a web designer. He pays $269 a month for Health Insurance. That's lower than his car payment, house payment, monthly food bill, etc... In fact, by his own admission it's only $100 more than he spends at Starbucks every month.

Health Insurance is a political issue that pertains to the poor who can't afford many of the things people on this board take for granted (like morning coffee). Anyone who has the means to quit their job and start a company also should have the means to pay for Health Insurance

Also, if this was a huge issue for startups than wouldn't it stand to reason that Canada, the UK, France and others would have thriving Startup industries? Ones that far out pace the U.S.?

<comment><USER2> No, you're incorrect. Your friend was able to get $269/month health care because he is young and male. But in the US, health insurance isn't guaranteed issue. If you are not young, if you are female, or if you have ever been hospitalized before, it is very possible that you are locked in to employer- provided group coverage.

It happened to us and it happened to other people I know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Someone please give some leads for those who are unfamiliar with US health insurance system. I've been wanting to know how health insurance works for quite some time, but putting it off.

</comment><comment><USER35> I don't have to worry about healthcare (living in a country with a pretty good socialised system) and I'm still too much of a chicken to go fulltime.

</comment><comment><USER36> Could someone elaborate on the issue? How much of a problem is it?

<comment><USER10> I find that it is highly dependent on your target employees. For example, if you are a recent college grad and intend to employ recent college grads, you can probably get by without health insurance. However, if you are older and/or have a family and intend to employ people who also are older and/or have a family those people will expect at least partially subsidized health insurance from the company.

And the costs of health insurance are relative to the size of the group you insure. The larger company you work for, the less expensive and more comprehensive the health insurance is likely to be. For small companies with few employees you will pay a lot for health insurance.

<comment><USER37> until one of your recent college grads gets knocked up or gets his girlfriend knocked up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> eh, I use CORBA; meaning every 3 years or so I have to go get a w2 job for a while. pain in the ass, but not insurmountable.

</comment><comment><USER39> If the cost of health insurance is the deciding factor in your decision to start a new company, you're better off not starting--you're seriously undercapitalized.

<comment><USER2> Repeating a point I made elsewhere, and sorry, but:

The problem isn't just that health care is expensive. The problem is that it _isn't available_ to many otherwise viable founders. You can be turned down with shocking ease by private insurers; no exceptions, no recourse except a multi-month appeals process that is no more likely to get you covered.

The financial drag isn't the issue for us; the uncertainty is.

<comment><USER39> Really? Which state are you in?

I used to work for a private health insurer (in the US) and our "group" coverage was offered to businesses of 2 people (i.e., a founder and one employee). At that time, at least, sole proprietors were in the "individual" coverage category, but there was talk about changing that.

<comment><USER2> Personally, Michigan and Illinois (at the time). Companywide, add New York.

We tried to get insurance ourselves, and then worked with a family friend broker, and failed both times. We could get coverage for three of us (although my daughter would have exceptions in the contract), but not for my wife. I was 28 at the time.

<comment><USER40> Florida. No problem to get coverage for me; we can get coverage for the boys but with riders on my youngest sons; we can't get coverage for my wife at all. We're 27 and 29.

We're "lucky" in that we had COBRA coverage from a Maryland job before we moved here. Now that COBRA is expired, our MD insurer is required by MD law to offer us a group policy. It's decent coverage, but at almost $1000/month it only covers my wife and the kids. It would be another ~$600/month to add me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Yes I would.

</comment><comment><USER42> Yes.

</comment><comment><USER43> I bailed on a company with a great product idea because of health insurance.

Basically, I have a congenital defect in my eyes that will lead, with about 20% probability, to very expensive health bills. This (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigment_dispersion_syndrome> ) if anybody cares. Therefore, I simply can't live without constant health insurance coverage on the off chance I require pretty expensive treatment -- drugs, then surgery if the drugs don't work.</comment>


Why Some Americans Won't Move, Even for a Higher Salary - <AUTHOR> https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/05/moving-location-new-city-how-much-cost-mobile-rooted-stuck/590521/ <comment><USER2> Casually mentions economic crisis, then they go on to say people don't move because they like their communities, and then proceed to describe the economic crisis. People would move if there was a zero percent chance that they wouldn't end up living in a van. The issue is insecurity, caused by the economic crisis.</comment>


Medieval songs reflect humor in amorous courtships, Stanford scholar finds - <AUTHOR> http://news.stanford.edu/2016/08/31/medieval-songs-reflect-humor-amorous-courtships/ <comment><USER2> News flash: medieval people could be humorous.

Man, makes you realize just how negatively the so-called enlightenment era (self-named as an implicit critique of previous eras) slandered the so-called dark ages, even in naming.

<comment><USER3> Every generation thinks that it has invented sex.

This has been true as long as there have been generations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Given the ton of existing humorous medieval literature which is filled with sexual innuendos and so on, the title seems really dumb.

But the article is actually about publishing a collection of humorous love songs.

The author should have used something like "Stanford scholar collects medieval songs which reflect humor in amorous courtship", I'm pretty sure we didn't just find out now.

<comment><USER5> "Stanford scholar translates humorous medieval love songs to English" seems to be the real story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hmm, I wish the article actually explained the humor in amorous courtships. It explains instances of humor, with examples, and _very_ lightly covers courtship, but in no way explains how they combine. I'm not even sure the title is accurate, going by the article.

</comment><comment><USER7> Sourcebook here [http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.asp](http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.asp)</comment>


Let's Not Get Carried Away: Anti-Depressants Really Do Help People - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/06/hey-lets-not-get-carried-away-anti-depressants-really-do-help-people/257976/

<comment><USER2> Long story short:

Studies said the glass was 40% full. Hype led people to think it was close to 100% full. New re-analysis of the data leads to the conclusion that the glass is really 30% full. The hype train responds by deciding that the glass must really be 100% empty.

The moral of the story is that we should listen to Flavor Flav: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK8sxngSWaU>

</comment><comment><USER3> Regardless of whether anti-depressants are effectual, overprescribed, or totally useless: I think it's amazing that an article arguing the merits of a pharmaceutical treatment can be published without reference to any research.

>But that, of course, doesn't mean that antidepressants are dummy pills that have no real effect; and it's crucial that depressives--many of whom are suspicious of medication--realize that.

I think the author subscribes to an outmoded view of the placebo effect and doesn't acknowledge the mind's remarkable capacity to trigger real physical changes in the body. Antidepressants can be 'dummy pills' and still have a real effect.

<comment><USER4> I don't know for sure one way or the other, but I've seen too many of my friends mix anti-depressants and alcohol to think that these pills are placebos that don't have any real affect besides in your mind.

<comment><USER5> What? You realize anti-depressants like SSRIs modify your brain's chemistry and can take 6-8 weeks before you'll notice any effects.

I was staying over at a friend's house and had some drinks (2 beers + 2 screwdrivers), and at the time was on SSRIs for about 4 months. My alcohol tolerance is fairly average and expected a light buzz. Instead I ended up wasted for the first time since college days. In my scenario, anti-depressants definitely amplified alcohol's effects.

Regardless of what you _think_ , it's been clinically proven. That's why the drug's label has a warning about alcohol intake.

<comment><USER4> I think you misread my sentence. You are agreeing with me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Because the submitted article mentions back-and-forth about placebo effects, quoting some researchers on the issue, perhaps I should share here some links that are helpful for understanding what placebo effects are all about. Some of these online links cite quite a few useful scholarly publications.

[http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/michael- specte...](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/michael-specter-on- the-placebo-effect/)

"In other words, the best research we have strongly suggests that placebo effects are illusions, not real physiological effects. The possible exception to this are the subjective symptoms of pain and nausea, where the placebo effects are highly variable and may be due to subjective reporting."

[http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/angells- review...](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/angells-review-of- psychiatry/)

[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-rise-and- fa...](http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-rise-and-fall-of- placebo-medicine/)

[http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/placebo- effect...](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/placebo-effects- revisited/)

<http://www.skepdic.com/placebo.html>

[http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/revisiting- dan...](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/revisiting-daniel- moerman-and-placebo-effects/)

</comment><comment><USER4> "I'd tried everything I could think of to cure myself (cutting out alcohol, cutting out caffeine, practicing better "sleep hygiene," melatonin, etc.); nothing had worked. "

What about exercise? I'm not here to give an opinion one way or the other about the benefits of anti-depressants, or what would work for this particular individual, but I think far far too often people over-look the tremendous health benefits of regular exercise and eating right. Not saying it's a cure all/catch all, one stop fix. I just see it being overlooked far too often. Wanna sleep good, exercise hard for a few days, the endorphins it helps produce works wonders on the brain too.

<comment><USER6> She mentions exercise later on in the article, and implies that she exercises regularly.

<comment><USER7> She does not give much details about that. 3 times a week half an hour "exercise" is one type, preparing and doing a triathlon or a marathon is another. From anecdotal experience when I just exercised I felt better, when I became a serious runner I started to feel amazing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Of course those drugs have their place. They should be used for quick interventions before people get cured by proper therapies. Unfortunately there is so much money in just keeping people on those drugs that just popping pills is offered as alternative solution as well.

Then after 2-3 years when one kind of drug doesn't work anymore you get the next one. The problem are not the drugs, the problem are the people prescribing them and people looking for a quick fix for their problems by taking pills instead of doing a proper therapy.

<comment><USER9> Please enlighten everyone about what "proper therapy" means.

You do realise that depression is not just psychological and that there are physical problems in some cases that ONLY medication will be able to solve.

<comment><USER8> Please enlighten me what persistent physical problems exist for people with depression?

There are temporary physical problems or chemical inbalances for which the drugs work great but once people have done a therapy like cbt, act, mbct or dbt that works for them, those physical problems disappear as well.</comment></comment></comment>


Org-roam: Emacs org file based personal knowledge base system - <AUTHOR> https://www.orgroam.com/ <comment><USER2> Michel Foucault had this to say to contemporary critics of Hegel:

"We have to determine the extent to which our anti-Hegelianism is possibly one of his tricks directed against us, at the end of which he stands, motionless, waiting for us."

It seems any investigation of prior art regarding knowledge base systems comes back to Emacs, where the solution to all problems of note taking and memory retention is patiently waiting for everyone to finally learn Elisp. But Emacs is for dinosaurs, we repeat for the 100th time ...

<comment><USER3> I have come to the point where I don't think 100% of what shows up in modern editors is a re-inventing the wheel. Multiple cursors, for one, was actually a decent replacement for short-and-not-too-many-lines macros. Roam seems ok if used with discipline.

All the new things do however prove the Emacs model at least partially right: most things can become well integrated into Emacs. Multiple cursors and editable fired (file manager) buffers? Worked from day one!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Does anyone have any research or experience with using "personal" systems like these as a team? I've always seen them described as having a single user, but many of the links seem like they'd be just as powerful for a (maybe small, maybe tightly-knit) team.

<comment><USER5> I've used RoamResearch in small groups, and it works well. Just don't try to edit the same block simultaneously (last one wins).

If anyone has successfully done something similar with org-roam, I'd love to hear about it. I've never been on a team that would even consider it, given the Emacs learning curve. That said, I recently helped a Vim + Bear user switch to Doom Emacs + org-roam, and he was swimming in days.

Is anyone aware of projects to diff / merge content in collaborative knowledge graphs like these?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Since these systems have been coming up so much on HN, I have to ask: are there any such softwares that play nicely with images, PDFs, and Word/Excel docs? I've been trying out Devon think and it's pretty good, but I'd prefer to support a FOSS option.

<comment><USER4> I've used org-noter to annotate PDFs in line, so I'd expect org-roam + links wouldn't hurt. Org will display images inline. I don't have a great answer for links into Excel. Do you need the data to "come back out", or just reference capability?

<comment><USER5> I can confirm org-roam links + org-noter works well for linking ideas between PDFs. I haven't found anything better, and regularly demo this to friends.

Related video demo: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy9WvF5gWYg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy9WvF5gWYg)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I see a screenshot there defines an anki card? Couldn't find any mention about anki in docs or on the github (I only skimmed though). Would be interesting to see if there is a possible interplay.

I myself use vanilla org mode for this purpose (spaced repetition). My workflow is the following:

1\. Create a hierarchical structure with leaves representing bits of knowledge. For example postgres/indexes{btree, GIN, ...}

2\. Have a study session with materials (books, video, etc).

3\. Try to recreate a concise version of each subject and place it under leaves, so put text in btree, GIN, etc. If I cannot do something I skip it and fill as much as possible.

4\. Verify written, fix if necessary.

Then, the document will sit there for a while and when I feel that I need to review a certain subject I would open a tree node and try to recall the child nodes, or sometimes go directly to leaf nodes and try to explain each. Then verify with the data there, maybe do additional research if something isn't clear.

I initially wanted to make anki cards for every piece of information that goes to leaf nodes, but it seemed that hierarchical organization suits me better. It would be interesting to try an automatic card system that would keep track of when I reviewed the concepts and remind me to do so.

<comment><USER8> Well, maybe try org-drill: [https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/org- drill.html](https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/org-drill.html)

The repository: [https://gitlab.com/phillord/org- drill/](https://gitlab.com/phillord/org-drill/)

<comment><USER7> Wow, that resembles something I wanted to implement myself. It's crazy how most of the things you think of doing are already done. I think I will migrate to it eventually, thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> All the the recent Org Mode content on HN has really gotten me interested. I feel like I've tried so many systems over the years (including just using one big text file in Joplin currently) ... this one seems to be very well-liked, but the learning curve, at least for someone who is new to emacs, seems steep. I've started by just installing Doom on my clients and am slowly learning my way around.

Two questions for those with more experience: 1\. Do you think this is a good system for someone NOT actually working in emacs all day long (I'm not a programmer)? 2\. I see some mobile apps out there that claim to allow Org Mode use on phones ... is this system of note-taking / task mgmt actually usable on a mobile device?

<comment><USER10> I'm one of the people who started using emacs just for org-mode about a year ago. I've been using it daily to manage my schedule, TODOs and projects. It's nice, but IMO overhyped by a very vocal religious minority. I've been spending as much time configuring little things and working around rough edge cases than it has actually saves me. Elisp is still somewhat of a mystery to me and I'm mostly copying and pasting snippets without truly understanding what's going on.

I've encountered so many little issues that resulted in hours of debugging and searching for solutions that the net productivity gain has definitely been negative. True, if I stick with it for 10+ more years, the productivity gain will likely become net positive, but who knows if that will happen. IMO it's quite likely that better systems are going to be invented over the next 1-2 decades. It's clearly outdated.

Only do it if you are willing to invest a large amount of time into learning emacs, and if you are planning to stick with it for decades. The best for me way to describe it is: Emacs is the ultimate procrastination tool. It's great at making you feel productive by letting you do meta things with elisp and configs, when you really should just be getting stuff done.

<comment><USER11> I've used emacs in a dev environment and about 5 years ago i carted my 3000 or so text files from vim/markdown to emacs/org-mode.

I agree, it is an amazing procrastination tool. My advice is to stick to spacemacs with very few configs. About a year ago i started from scratch with my .spacemacs. Now I've got about 20 lines in there, I use deft/org-roam/fira code, and org-attach and I think the less you fiddle the better off you'll be. Think of it like a 20 year old car-yes you can put a turbo in there, yes, you can chop the springs and lower it, but 1 there will be less people to help you when it breaks, and 2 it will break more often.

Honestly, org-roam is moving so fast that if you aren't in the slack or at least watching the commits, I'd think twice. I'm betting there will be breaking changes in the future, whereas deft is rock solid.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I do like org-roam, but wonder if it's over-engineered. The main thing you need is backlinks, and you can get that without all the complexity of an additional package and sqlite dbs.

      (defun buffer-backlinks ()
        (interactive)
        (rg (buffer-name) "*.org" org-directory))
      (add-to-list 'org-mode-hook 'buffer-backlinks)

Net effect of that tiny elisp snippet is what when I open an org file, I get a buffer beside it (powered by ripgrep/rg) with names + context snippets of all the other files in my org dir that link to it.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is going to be unpopular, but clunky, ugly and antiquated all come to mind when I look at emacs.

<comment><USER14> Yes, a common reaction, until newbies (like myself) find configurations like Doom Emacs and Spacemacs and come to realize the opposite. For myself it's only missing a slightly better "rending experience" like VSCode.

<comment><USER15> I love Spacemacs but due to varying configurations per build on different OS' Emacs either doesnt work at all OOTB with Spacemacs for me, or it works just enough to show up broken. Without cross-platform consistency I'm better off using Neovim + Spacevim which sometimes fails on me due to fonts, but its less broken.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'd be particularly interested if anyone has tried both org-roam and zetteldeft and can compare the two.

<comment><USER11> I've used both. The problem I had with ZD is that it uses a non-standard "ligature" (not sure what the non-coding term is) to identify zettels. This means lock in not just to emacs, but to a specific package. Org-roam OTOH uses standard org-mode notation, which means I can freely mix deft with org-roam or any other package that plays nice with org-mode.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Well that's a trademark infringement lawsuit waiting to happen! Might want to rename it.

<comment><USER17> Do trademarks protections apply against noncommercial works, too?

<comment><USER18> Yes. You can't produce a non-profit Coca-Cola.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> After seeing the "Zettlekasten" concept trending on HN, I've been wondering when someone might bring up Emacs org-mode, because the promises of both technologies seem to overlap. This seems like a step in that direction.

</comment><comment><USER20> Question for anyone who's tried this: Do you use your normal org file directory for org-roam or is it better to start from a fresh directory?

<comment><USER21> I've seen people do both successfully. It plays fine alongside existing non- linked org files. I personally have ~/org with my preexisting files, todos, etc at the top level and (setq org-roam-directory "~/org/roam") as its own thing to try to make it easier to clean up if I decide I don't like it after all. Having a good time so far though.</comment></comment>


Alarm as FDA willing to issue Covid-19 vaccine before stringent safety testing - <AUTHOR> https://mindhive.org/challenges/1273/overview/brief <comment><USER2> As someone who has hastily patched production systems without properly testing the fix, this may be just fine... Or, we may end up with two problems; COVID and ____. This seems like a bad idea.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm signing up for the Pfizer phase 3 trial today. I have every confidence in the world that the researchers involved know what they are doing and would never push something like this if it weren't safe. If I don't get the placebo (fingers crossed), I will be one of the first people in the world with an immunity against SARS-CoV-2. That's worth a slight risk in my opinion. I honestly don't think they can do this fast enough. The difference of having this vaccine by the end of the year versus waiting until next spring could mean hundreds of thousands of lives.

<comment><USER4> Good luck, but you should consider that this isn't a "researcher is good/bad" issue, this is a "global pharma race for billions in profits" issue with all kinds of interference from management, finance, etc.

<comment><USER5> what's wrong with profits?

As long as they lead to delivering to the public/govt. what is needed?

<comment><USER4> The argument is not against profits but rather there is a huge first-to-market benefit here, which might have an impact on usual quality and safety measures.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is why people are uncomfortable with mandatory vaccination orders. I'm pro vaccine and in general well tested vaccines are very important for eradicating some pretty awful diseases. I have all of mine and I'm thankful my parents were sane and paid attention to science.

Safe modern medicine involves care and testing, that's the whole point of organizations like the FDA. If we just carelessly push stuff like this through we can end up with some pretty nasty stuff.

<comment><USER7> This might be one reason they are uncomfortable with mandatory vaccination orders, but there's also the fact that the government is putting a gun to your head and saying, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Now I'm going to stick this needle in you. Don't resist and nobody will get hurt."

<comment><USER8> It's also a violation of the UN "right to be free from non-consensual medical treatment" ([https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet31.pdf](https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet31.pdf))

<comment><USER9> Apologies, but could you clarify "non-consensual" for non native English speakers?

Does this mean "no consent given for the medication" or "medication that is not part of an agreed consensus"?

If the former, then there are literally tons of occurrences of this everywhere.

<comment><USER8> It means the former. What are some examples of medication being given without consent in developed countries?

<comment><USER10> Tuberculosis

<comment><USER8> In which countries? The Tuberculosis vaccine is generally not even given in the US, let alone mandatory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm so sick of politics... I know it's a byproduct of democracy, but this behavior becoming widespread - or at least more noticeable/transparent/obvious.

Even in a crises where scientist should be the shot callers, and regulators should be on their best game... no...

They became tools of politicians.

It's not only in the US. It's not just another "Trump thing". It's a worldwide phenomena. Every matter goes through the lens of politicians to get a refraction, or a twist.

Doesn't matter if it's a technical issue, or a scientific issue, that would required technical or scientific solutions - it all dilutes into politics.

The majority seems to be trying to leverage this pandemic for their political gains, even if that means cutting corners, hide or manipulate information. It's disgusting.

<comment><USER3> And now you understand that _everything is politics_. There is no avoiding it. The moment you begin to make any form of decision that affects more than yourself, you are engaging in a political act. Ignoring this fact and doing things without political discussion is what we call authoritarianism.

<comment><USER12> > Ignoring this fact and doing things without political discussion is what we > call authoritarianism.

This is a broad statement and makes me think of how readily people talk about "fascism" and "neo-nazis" nowadays with little regard to whether the people they're describing bear any relation to Mussolini or Hitler.

<comment><USER3> >This is a broad statement and makes me think of how readily people talk about "fascism" and "neo-nazis" nowadays with little regard to whether the people they're describing bear any relation to Mussolini or Hitler.

Those were totalitarian states. Authoritarian is general term which can be used to describe any entity engaging in autocratic decision making.

<comment><USER12> At least in America, you don't have to be engaged in "political discussion" once you're elected. Or even before for that matter.

You're responsible to the Constitution. Once you violate that you're arguably authoritarian. Blind submission to power without regard for protections against it...that's authoritarianism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Mods, can we replace the linked page here with a link to the guardian? The page here is just two paragraphs of no-content and a link to the guardian. This is its link: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/30/fda- covid-19-v...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/30/fda- covid-19-vaccine-fast-track)

</comment><comment><USER14> How dangerous are untested vaccines and what would be the worst case scenario?

<comment><USER15> Unlikely worst case: there are rare side-effects that get only discovered very late. For example: 70% of those who get the vaccine develops liver complications within 3 years and 60% die a horrible death with no way to cure. Or every women who gets the vaccine becomes infertile within a decade. This is super unlikely, and moreover could only partially detected in a Phase 3. But the longer you give people to look for such complications, the more likely that they're discovered before mass-application.

Realistic worst case: there are some minor complications, and some people will get hurt. This has happened before: [https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns- history....](https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html) , which is why we have such strict guidelines for vaccine development today.

Realistic bad case: the vaccine is not at all effective and does absolutely not protect from (re-)infection, but gives everyone post-covid19-fatigue. It will also be giving anti-vaxxers actual arguments and getting Trump re- elected.

<comment> _-___________-_ Honestly, is it really worth throwing away the strict guidelines for this?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If we discover any issue with this vaccine in the future, this will be a total disaster, not only because of possible complications that vaccinated people may develop in the long term but more importantly because of the anti-vax and the fear of any vaccine people will have for the next pandemic.

<comment><USER17> I worry more that the people who are politically or economically invested in the vaccine's success will hide facts and/or lie about it's effectiveness. It is a common thing to worry about, however I feel there is a much greater chance of happening now, with certain leadership and their addled fans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> As highlight by many scientists, a badly working vaccine is much worse than no vaccine at all. There are two serious risks, the vaccine can have serious side affects for certain genetic population groups, or the vaccine doesn't provide the protection it claims it does. Both will be taken advantage of by anti vaxers.

<comment><USER19> Bah, even if the vaccine was 100% safe and 100% effective antivaxers would claim that it's a death shot that does nothing for your immunity.

But yes, we should definitely be as sure as possible that the vaccine is reasonably safe and effective before getting into large scale vaccination campaigns.

Not because of the antivaxers though. Because it would be incredibly irresponsible not to do so and it could hurt many people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The narrative about COVID is starting to fall apart and these cynical people want to make as much money as they can before it falls apart completely.

CDC admits only 6% of reported COVID-19 deaths were actually caused by COVID.[0]

[0]: [https://t.co/W7Sxq4Pmos?amp=1](https://t.co/W7Sxq4Pmos?amp=1)

<comment><USER14> You probably know this, but that's not what that table means.

> Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes > mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 > (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For > deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there > were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Sounds like a cheap shot at politics and manipulating the narrative

If it works, praise the POTUS for being "brave", if it fails, blame the company.

Sure, the vaccine looks safe, and we might discuss if the protocol of Phase 3 testing can be modified and/or what are the reasons for it, but ignoring testing is stupid (and it's not only a matter of safe/not safe, but of dosage, booster shots required, etc)

Wear a mask and protect yourself while the vaccine gets ready, it's not hard. Or not, if you believe the recent misinformation news about "only 6% of healthy people die" then please join the queue for your Darwin Award.

</comment><comment><USER22> Every day vaccines are delayed costs thousands of lives.

Bioethicists who have forbidden challenge trials in vaccine trials have firmly taken the no-action stance in the trolley problem.

A normal phase 3 trial gives the vaccine to volunteers and waits for them to get sick (or not). A challenge trial is the same, but infects the volunteers intentionally, which significantly speeds up the trial and reduces the sample size needed.

The trolley is running over thousands of people every day, and by flipping a switch you could reroute it to another rail where only a few people would be at risk. The modern bioethicist stance is that flipping this switch is unacceptable. Maybe waiting for people to randomly fall ill instead of acting is more holy and sacred — or perhaps "natural".

<comment><USER23> The bioethicists argue that perhaps having people stay at home and wear a mask when going outside is absolutely required would be better than untested vaccines.

Can you imagine what happens if the antivax crowd gains actual arguments? I don't want to.

<comment><USER24> The antivax group DOES have actual arguments. If you have kids and they have complications from the vaccines maybe you'll do the research needed to help them through their suffering like my wife and I had to do when our 5 year old started screaming, pissing herself and rocking uncontrollably.

<comment><USER23> I am from a country that deems many of vaccines that are used in the US unsafe. That might make a difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Well, it's being done for all the wrong reasons, but I'd gladly take a relaxing of safety measures to be done with COVID, depending on the vaccine and the risks.

The relatively known risks of some types of a vaccine seem a lot better than the unknown ones of COVID.

I would want to wait for full phase III before we had a mandatory vaccine, relied on this fully, or otherwise did too much with it. But we can't ramp up production that quickly regardless. A pilot with a few million volunteers seems as good as any phase III. And with the right few million, it could potentially really curb spread.

<comment> _-___________-_ Really? The risks of COVID are pretty well known at this point, and for the vast majority of people they seem quite low.

<comment><USER26> If the risks are quite low for the vast majority of people, then how come COVID-19 can be seen "from space" i.e. as excess deaths in death statistics.

<comment><USER27> There is excess death due to influenza _every_ year. The number of dead due to covid-19 is not some kind of crazy anomaly that's going to stick out in the statistics.

In no-good zombie-apocalypse Sweden, the total deaths/capita for 2020 is probably going to be above the 5-year average, but below the 10-year average and below the death rate of 2012.

Here's how the excess mortality of 2020 compares to the last 40 years of mortality in Germany, Sweden, France, and Belgium: [https://medium.com/@FrankfurtZack/unprecedented-overall- mort...](https://medium.com/@FrankfurtZack/unprecedented-overall-mortality-in- sweden-and-other-european-countries-cd8fcdd6174a)

If you didn't know about it, you wouldn't think anything special at all happened in 2020, just by looking at the statistics.

<comment><USER28> _There is excess death due to influenza every year._

Right. And the flu deaths will be on top of the COVID deaths.

 _The number of dead due to covid-19 is not some kind of crazy anomaly that 's going to stick out in the statistics._

Yes it is.

I don't know who @FrankfurtZack is beyond how he describes himself: "armchair virologist. hobbyvirologe, hobbystaatsepidemiologe". He has one post on Medium and that's it.

Here are some information sources that are more trustworthy.

[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm)

[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/08/12/us/covid- deat...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/08/12/us/covid-deaths- us.html)

[https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/03/measuring-excess- mortali...](https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/03/measuring-excess-mortality- gives-clearer-picture-pandemics-true-burden/) (Boston Globe)

[https://www.economist.com/graphic- detail/2020/07/15/tracking...](https://www.economist.com/graphic- detail/2020/07/15/tracking-covid-19-excess-deaths-across-countries)

The CDC link in particular is good because the first graph you come across when you scroll down shows deaths going back to 2017, so you can compare COVID excess deaths with H1N1 excess deaths.

<comment> _-___________-_ "going back to 2017" is a very short window. The European excess mortality data I've seen does show COVID as a fairly significant spike in a 5-year context, but even just "zooming out" to 10 years makes it fairly insignificant.

<comment><USER28> Okay, but the above is US data. It's a significant spike given the time window shown.

Also, reputable link to the European data you refer to?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> No healthy child or adult (excluding the very old) should take this vaccine unless it's 500% safe because children and adults are NOT at risk for COVID.

Really it's only the old people that should be given any kind of a COVID vaccine.

<comment><USER30> "NOT at risk" is a bold overstatement. We can debate how much risk but it's dishonest to say "no risk"

<comment><USER29> Compared to an untested vaccine? You truly belive you can ensure the safety of a vaccine without multiple years of trials?

<comment><USER30> > Compared to an untested vaccine?

I didn't say anything about comparisons. I was pointing out that you were engaging in hyperbole.

<comment><USER29> You did: COVID vs vaccine IS a comparison.

Since in the end it's RISK of covid vs RISK of vaccine.

<comment><USER30> I'm really struggling to follow your logic when I didn't mention vaccines at all. You said "...children and adults are NOT at risk for COVID." and I am claiming that this statement is obviously false.

If you'd said something more nuanced I wouldn't be having this conversation.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Chinese Tokamak reaches over 100M degrees - <AUTHOR> http://english.hf.cas.cn/new/news/rn/201811/t20181113_201186.html <comment><USER2> A tokamak is a kind of fusion reactor, and basically the most prevalent.

"100M degrees" (Kelvin) corresponds to 10 KeV (kilo electron volts), which is an important figure to exceed for D-T fusion. D-T fusion which is the kind of fusion the ITER Tokamak (a forthcoming fusion reactor and international megaproject) intends to demonstrate.

An older fusion experiment, JET (Joint European Torus) reached these levels, so this does not break new ground, but it is important if this Chinese Tokamak is going to provide data useful for ITER.

I will note that it's rather unusual to refer to plasma temperature in Kelvin rather than in KeV. I edited this comment with a few more details to try to make it easier for laypeople to understand.

<comment><USER3> > _" 100M degrees" (Kelvin)_

Off topic, but this distinction made me laugh. Like the difference between Kelvin and Celsius would throw everything off.

<comment><USER4> Well, there is almost certainly somebody that read the number and thought about Fahrenheit.

<comment><USER5> Do scientists use farenheit? Genuine question

<comment><USER6> Some. Not the physicists or astronomers, but some Americans who work with data from non-scientists regularly stay with the units in the data. Some engineers, those who are dealing with older equipment, stick with the units used when the equipment was built. US pilots and aerospace generally still talk in knots and feet of altitude.

<comment><USER7> Mountain climbers in the US typically also use feet for elevation. Compasses sold in the US also have different markings for measuring the Universal Transverse Mercator grid(1:24,000 and 1:50,000 in the US) and rulers(inches, feet). 1:24,000 is used on USGS 7.5-minute maps, and I believe 1:50,000 originates from an older map series, both of which have topographical lines marked in feet instead of meters. Altimeters sold in the US also customarily use feet although the digital ones can be switched to Meters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The main challenge in working with these high temperature plasmas is confinement. In order to achieve nuclear fusion matter needs to be heated to immense temperature, so that the kinetic energy of nuclei colliding can overcome the electrostatic force of the protons pushing each other away and "fuse" into larger nuclei (held together by the "strong force"), converting a fraction of the reaction mass into a relatively large amount of energy in the process.

In order to keep the plasma at the temperatures where fusion can occur, rather extreme measures have to be taken. In the Tokamak approach, the plasma is placed in a toroidal vacuum chamber, and "suspended" in the center of the torus by using electromagnets that line the Tokamak chamber's walls. At such high temperatures the plasma is so energetic that it is very hard to contain such fast moving particles. If the plasma "escapes" the confinement and contacts anything (ie. the walls of the Tokamak) it rapidly cools down to temperatures below where fusion can happen.

The immense engineering challenge here is to heat plasma to ridiculous temperatures, and keep it confined in a very small volume at great temperature and pressure to mimic conditions that give rise to nuclear fusion in the center of stars.

<comment><USER9> > If the plasma "escapes" the confinement and contacts anything (ie. the walls > of the Tokamak) it rapidly cools down to temperatures below where fusion can > happen.

Sounds relieving. I used to think that «if the plasma "escapes" the confinement and contacts anything (ie. the walls of the Tokamak) it rapidly…» disintegrates everything around or, when the power is huge enough, causes an apocalypse…

<comment><USER10> At those temperatures, it will disintegrate whatever it touches. It's just that, unlike fission, fusion is unstable[1] so it quickly fizzles out, and damage will be local.

[1] Unstable in the sense that it is hard to maintain fusion conditions, not in the Hollywood sense that it blows up if you look at it sideways.

<comment><USER11> It's not particularly hard to maintain fusion conditions, you just need a stellar mass levels.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Okay, did some search:

\- When two hydrogen nuclei combine, they produce an enormous amount of energy. That process is known as nuclear fusion.

\- Light nuclei have to be heated to extremely high temperature, it is challenging to create a controlled, safe fusion reactor that offers more energy than it consumes. Once we have such we'd have a near-limitless source of clean energy.

\- Nuclear fusion does produce radioactive waste. However, in contrast to fission produced wastes, they are short lived and decay to background levels in a very short time.

\- Tokamaks try to do just that.

<comment><USER2> I will add:

\- While the products of the fusion reaction are short-lived, operating a fusion reactor will active materials in the reactor and create some longer- lived radioisotopes.

\- Unlike a fission reactor, which is loaded with months to years worth of fuel, a fusion reactor would have fuel constantly injected. So operator action to stop injecting fuel would stop the nuclear reaction.

<comment><USER13> Can either you or your parent poster say what "short lived" and "longer-lived" would be roughly?

<comment><USER14> Longer-lived would be thousands of years for the steel structure until it is manually handable. 50-100 years for remote handling.

> It was shown that wait times are required in the order 50–100 years for the > remote handling recycling option and hundreds (Li4SiO4) to thousands > (Eurofer) years for hands-on handling.

Source: [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3115(02)01273-4](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3115\(02\)01273-4)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As there seems to be quite a lot of confusion in this thread about what this is, here's an excellent video giving an overview of the state of the art in fusion energy research that is understandable by a lay audience: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk)

(somebody posted that video on another recent HN fusion thread)

<comment><USER16> Thank you for (re)posting that video, it's an excellent introduction/overview.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is it just me, or have we converged on 1 reactor design (the tokamak) relatively early on in the process? I appreciate that funds need to be concentrated in order to have an impact, but we have built dozens of this design since the 1950s, yet here we are.

<comment><USER18> Wendelstein 7-X in Germany is a stellarator-type reactor: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X)

<comment><USER19> And YC is invested in Helion Energy using pulsed inertial fusion. Though the tokamak seems closest to being functional. The MIT ARC design is theoretically supposed to be able to work, at least on paper:

>The ARC design aims to achieve an engineering gain of three (to produce three times the electricity required to operate the machine) while being about half the diameter of the ITER reactor and cheaper to construct. (Wikipedia)

It's not been built because of the $5bn or so cost, though given global warming / saving the planet type issues I'd be happy enough as a tax payer to have governments fund one and maybe knock 1% off the defence budget to counter that. It'd probably do more for world peace than churning out some more f35s.

<comment><USER20> ARC has some funding now. They spun off a startup called Commonwealth Fusion Systems, which has $50M so far, from an Italian oil/gas company.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Since I don't see any comments mentioning this, I've heard a lot of talk about skepticism on other forums regarded Chinese scientific breakthroughs. I know on the state level, their numbers are not considered reliable (economic data for instance). Does anyone have thoughts on the reliability of this?

</comment><comment><USER22> Let me ask a different question to the knowledgeable folk here. It has been noted that producing the temperature is not the hardest part but confining the plasma for long periods of time is.

On this note, do we have any reason to be particularly confident that magnetic confinement will ever break even and produce surplus energy? In nature fusion seems to occur through gravitational compression, so what makes us sure that we can simulate this by other means that will ever amount to more than just demonstrations?

<comment><USER23> ITER is designed to address exactly what you have asked.

"The ITER thermonuclear fusion reactor has been designed to produce a fusion plasma equivalent to 500 megawatts (MW) of thermal output power for around twenty minutes while 50 megawatts of thermal power are injected into the tokamak, resulting in a ten-fold gain of plasma heating power."

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> As far as I know temperature is one of the important but not the only important parameter. Density and confinement time can be taken into account as well to get a number that better characterizes the performance of a reactor, iirc.

 _Edit:_ I think this is what I meant: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion)

</comment><comment><USER25> Can someone comment on what kind of economic effect that working fusion reactor technology would have?

I hear sometimes contradictory hear-say on the lines of "unlimited energy", "reactor would have to be fed constantly".

<comment><USER26> I'm not sure that it would have a profound effect at all. Fission is very power dense as well and fission fuel cost is not the primary driver of overall costs in existing nuclear designs.

Fusion might end up looking a lot like fission, but hopefully with a lower perceived safety risk and thus more public acceptance.

Granted, modern fission designs aren't _actually_ unsafe, but that doesn't matter for PR purposes.

<comment><USER25> Yeah, that's what's bittersweet about these technologies and policy in general. They're held back by PR.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Please explain what does it mean and why is it good? :) Thank you.

<comment><USER27> It's an important milestone in the search for sustainable nuclear fusion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I know very little about fusion.

Did the reactor produce more energy then was put into it? I just don't understand enough about the field to figure that out by reading the article.

<comment><USER20> No, they've just reached fusion temperatures. It's a step along the way but we're not at net power yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> 100M seems insanely high, beyond what anything man made would be able to contain. Is it extremely short lived? Or over a very small area? Very interesting.

<comment><USER30> It is incredibly high. We hold it in not by any material, but by magnetic fields. Plasma has the handy feature of being magnetic. The Tokamak[1] design used in ITER and this example uses a whole heap of magnets to hold this plasma in a doughnut-shaped area.

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

<comment><USER31> Doesn't it take a lot of energy to have such a big magnetic field?

<comment><USER32> Fundamentally it doesn't have to, because like a weight resting on the top of a ladder magnetic fields store energy and do not dissipate it. In practice it does because our ways of producing and maintaining strong magnetic fields require a lot of upkeep. This, like most things in fusion, is an example of where the realities of present day engineering are far cruler than the laws of physics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Anyone know what the 'standard' and state of the art approaches to inference are for fusion?

I.e. going from sensor readings to inference of the plasma state.

</comment><comment><USER34> How are these results more (or less) significant than the stellerator (Germany) achieved earlier this year?

I thought the stellerator had already achieved 100M Kelvin?

</comment><comment><USER35> If you added one gram of 100M degree material in a 5 sq meter room at 15 degrees C, how hot would the room get?

<comment><USER36> Well.. assuming the room is about 3 meters high, that's a room volume of 15 cubic meters. Assuming it's filled with air, and air weighs about 1,29 kg per cubic meter, that's 19,35 kg or 19350 grams of air. 15 degrees C is 288 Kelvin, so that's 19350*288 = 5.572.800 gram-kelvins of energy in the room initially. Now we add 100.000.000 gram-kelvins (the one gram of hot stuff) to it, and assuming this energy distributes over the air contents, our air now has a heat energy of 105.572.800 gram-kelvins. Dividing it back the same way (over the 19350 grams of air) gives us 105572800/19350 = 5456 gram-kelvins per gram of air, so a temperature of 5456 kelvins or 5183 degrees C. Still pretty hot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Once we achieve sustainable fusion, will it be possible to "share" the energy with everyone else to create more independent fusions? Kinda like keeping the candle burning so as to light more candles because matches are too costly.

Now, I don't expect politics to allow sharing of fusion energy to help other countries.

<comment><USER38> Isn't fusion reactor basically infinite energy, I mean sure it makes total sense to no share it with other because you can sell your free energy for cash, but considering that a lot of global scientists work on it and most of the findings are published, don't think that such strategy would last long.

<comment><USER15> Just like previous predictions that the introduction of fission power plants would result in electricity 'too cheap to meter', I suspect the same will happen for fusion. Even if the fuel is nearly free, you still have to build and maintain the power plant, the grid etc., neither which is cheap.

But yes, the first ones to 'crack' the problem will have a head start in the commercial fusion power plant market, but I don't think it will last very long. As you say, most of the research is being published, and even if somebody manages to initially keep that final 'dot on the i' secret, it wouldn't take other researches long to figure it out.

<comment><USER39> From what i've read[0] it will remove about a third of the cost (probably less). About a third of energy cost goes on fuel (now almost 0), a third on the grid, and a third on the station (now probably more).

Whilst a 20-30% reduction in energy cost would be great. The really important change is that it is much more scalable and easy to get. You don't need to dig up coal, or drill for oil. All of which can be limited. With a working fusion reactor a country like Singapore can be energy independent, in a way it never could with any other type.

This independence would mean no more need to mess around in areas with these resources (think middle east) or have your countries energy rely on a third party you'd rather not rely on (think Germany and others and their reliance on Russian gas)

[0] A Piece of the Sun: The Quest for Fusion Energy - throughly enjoyed this book.

<comment><USER40> Even though the cost of energy is divided by thirds, fusion still generates so much more power that the sheer scale can overpower lots and lots of bottlenecks.

For instance, it is chemically possible to combine water (either atmospheric or from a normal water source) with atmospheric CO2 to chemically synthesize hydrocarbons. It just takes energy. So you could have a single, absolutely massive fusion plant next to an atmospheric fuel refinery and use the hydrocarbons for fuel storage and distribution. You could do likewise with hydrogen and oxygen if you wanted to make fuel cells or rockets. And this would probably be cheaper than refining fossil fuels. You could actually run OPEC out of business this way, make the electric car obsolete, make airlines carbon-neutral, etc., etc.

Climate change? Just extract the atmospheric CO2 using cheap fusion energy and turn it into an easily sequestrable form. Nitrogen fertilizers? You can make those from the air too. Drought? Use fusion power to run desalination plants. Arable land becomes a non-issue with fusion because vertical farming becomes easy. Every city could just grow whatever they needed in exactly the right climate conditions in a set of enclosed vertical farms, though they might not need to because energy will be so cheap that there's no problem shipping the stuff from Honduras anyway.

Computation scales with power, too. More power, more computation, except computation produces heat, which you need even more power to chill.

<comment><USER39> That's a great explanation of some of the benefits! These are the most important in my opinion: "You can make those from the air too. Drought? Use fusion power to run desalination plants. Arable land becomes a non-issue with fusion because vertical farming becomes easy." You could also use this water to stop desertification, which would be a great thing.

I do disagree with you on Hydrogen fuel cells replacing electric cars though. I think battery powered cars will be better than hydrogen powered ones. The power storage is more reliable, and the power transfer is more simple (lines as opposed to truck delivery or pipeline. And if we assumed that it would be done on site at stations, then they would already have power lines, so just use that!)

<comment><USER40> > I do disagree with you on Hydrogen fuel cells replacing electric cars > though.

Not what I meant to imply. You'd just use old-fashioned hydrocarbons, except reconstructed from atmospheric CO2 and water.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Stories like this scare me. With all of the precautions, even things like Fukushima failed and will poison our ocean for millennia. What happens if we have a runaway fusion process through some pathway that was unexpected?

With all the talk about the LHC possibly producing mini blackholes or magnetic monopoles that could potentially cause protons to decay spontaneously, I don't have enough nuclear physics background to know whether we are inherently safe, or if there is a real risk here.

<comment><USER42> Fusion is not a chain reaction. The energy maintained for this is incredible and it can't run away. Fusion has no toxic or radioactive bioproducts.

As a power source fusion is pretty good, which is why it's such a target for research.

See: [http://www.fusenet.eu/node/38](http://www.fusenet.eu/node/38)

<comment><USER43> > Fusion has no toxic or radioactive bioproducts.

D-T fusion, which is the easiest to achieve and perhaps sustain, directly produces He nuclei (that is, alpha particles) and rather energetic neutrons at 14 MeV. Those neutrons, aside from being a form of ionizing radiation themselves, are bound to transmute some of the surrounding material into radioactive isotopes. So, I don't think that "no toxic or radioactive byproducts" is correct. However, the results _are_ easier to handle than those of fission reactors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Fusion was, and for the foreseeable future will be, a boondoggle. In the US it was a cold-war-era arms race program intended to scare the USSR and have them overextend, and now the Chinese are using it for propaganda and scientific Keyensianism.

The fact is, fusion generates neutron radiation that destroys the reaction vessel, making it an unviable technology. Nobody takes it seriously as a source of energy, aside from uninformed people. As cool as the idea of controlled fusion is, it is and will remain science fiction.

<comment><USER45> I dunno, my buddy who just got a degree in high energy plasma physics working on fusion reactors might disagree with you.

And really, you just sound like every crank ever who thought X technology was totally unfeasible and always would be -- until it wasn't. So currently attempts haven't found a solution to the reaction vessel destruction problem. That does not mean someone in the future couldn't figure that one out.

<comment><USER46> OP at least gave a reason: neutron radiation destroys the reaction vessel. No one who's responded has given any evidence for why this is false.

<comment><USER47> It's not false. But it's also not a universal constant like the speed of light or something, absent a reason why it couldn't be planned for and dealt with, I'm inclined to treat it as an as-yet-unsolved engineering challenge.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Perseids are Coming - <AUTHOR> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/31jul_perseids2009.htm

<comment><USER2> If you've got a DSLR: find the darkest sky you can, get a chair and some books to balance your camera on (or a tripod), set your f-stop as low as it goes, your exposure to 30sec, your ISO to 800, and focus to infinity - press the release, stand back, and be amazed at what you end up with.

</comment><comment><USER3> Thanks for reminding me!</comment>


Is HN designed for fast readers? - <AUTHOR>

Can someone explain HN's weird 'next page' behaviour to me?
My usage of the site usually involves reading half a dozen or so articles on the front 'page', then maybe dipping nto the comments to see what others are saying. After I've exhausted the first page in this way, I'll click the "More" button to go to page two.
At this point I often get an unfriendly empty page with Unknown or expired link. and can see from the URL my browser is trying to load that HN seems to be using a session ID, which has presumably timed out while I was reading page one.
What exactly is happening here and why is it implemented in this [broken?] way? I realise that with dynamic content, it is necessary to force the browser to refresh the page, rather than load from cache, but this is usually done with some simple trick like appending a timestamp to the URL. Why does HN use a different [and seemingly less user-friendly] approach? <comment><USER2> it has to do with pagination of database results.

traditionally people used links like ?start=10, however if new items were added in between the time you loaded the page and the time you clicked the link you would see them on the second page if the result set were sorted by newest first DESC

so then ppl used things like ?afterID=10thID, however that doesnt really work with a site with a voting sort, that item will move around from first place to last place on the page and you could get a whole new batch.

hn uses some system, possibley the afterID system, but it knows that after N seconds or N changse to the table the list is no longer valid.

<comment><USER3> So, not to risk showing me a link again, they prefer to show me nothing at all? That's a pretty awful tradeoff.

<comment><USER4> It's not about showing you the link or not, it's the implementation leaking out. A bunch of different user actions generate new fnids (one place you see them is in the 'more' urls) and there is only space set aside on the server for some limited number of them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Because HN is just the webmaster's hobby and has a few weird hacks like that. Although I'm not actually sure it's a session ID we're looking at in the URL.</comment>


NIST's Post-Quantum Cryptography Program Enters 'Selection Round' - <AUTHOR> https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2020/07/nists-post-quantum-cryptography-program-enters-selection-round <comment><AUTHOR> There will be some approved algorithms at the end:

> _"The likely outcome is that at the end of this third round, we will > standardize one or two algorithms for encryption and key establishment, and > one or two others for digital signatures," he said. "But by the time we are > finished, the review process will have been going on for five or six years, > and someone may have had a good idea in the interim. So we'll find a way to > look at newer approaches too."_</comment>


Technical Co-founder/Advisor Opportunity For StickyFrames - <AUTHOR>

We are looking for a web developer to join our venture. Sticky Frames are magnetically attached frames that contain messages users create and print themselves. So one day your StickyFrame can be used as a political bumper sticker, while the next day you can used it to advertise your business or sell a car. At this stage we are going forward with production of prototypes/low volume test series but we need a functioning web platform to maximize the potential of the product. The web service should help our users to create and manage content of their StickyFrames. We can offer a stake in SF project - but we are also ready to discuss other forms of compensation. If interested please contact me via HN or email at computerfix at gmail dot com http://stickyframes.posterous.com/pages/about-us -> Our ycombinator video for W2010. Since then we have developed much better looking, more functional, and cheaper prototypes that are almost ready for production. Other co-founder Dustin is currently in Hong Kong sourcing the production and finalizing the physical design of SFs... <comment><USER2> I just emailed you about a way to do this without producing anything yourself.

All the ingredients to do this are easy to assembly and easy to buy. You should be able to get this done in 1 hour - a working prototype actually not even a prototype, a salable item. Let me know if you did not receive my email:info@bestwhich dot com

<comment><AUTHOR> Replied back to your email. Will talk more. Be back around 7:00 EST (I am in Michigan). Definitely interested.</comment></comment>


Why I don't want to do anything with my life - <AUTHOR> http://www.onescientist.com/observatory/why-i-dont-want-to-do-anything-with-my-life <comment><USER2> > This is a f(p)un post intended to highlight the reasons we might often give > to ourselves for not doing things in life.

So it's not serious, or what? I can totally relate to all this, I really don't want to do anything. Too much hassle.

<comment><USER3> When I first started reading it I thought "Brilliant! Someone else who doesn't dream of running their own business!" So I was disappointed when I realised it was some bizarre attempt at reverse psychology.

I'm totally happy being a good Dad, husband, son, grandson, Christian, citizen, whatever. What I do to put money in the bank account and food on the table is just not that big a deal for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> I really DO NOT want to be an entrepreneur. I've realised that now. But I'm currently jobless and have no intention of getting one soon. Sort of like a sabbatical. So I'm dabbling with writing and basically, experimenting for now.

<comment><USER4> You come across to me as a nice, honest guy. However, I believe that making statements like this, then asking people to fund [0] your unemployment whilst you pursue hobbies will rub many people the wrong way.

[0] [https://www.patreon.com/onescientist?ty=h](https://www.patreon.com/onescientist?ty=h)

<comment><AUTHOR> The Patreon thing is totally an experiment. I find it funny putting it in there myself since for now I have nothing to show for except the book I plan to publish. But, I do dream of writing interesting articles, a lot of science fiction, and other interesting things. So, it's just an experiment for now. I definitely do not expect ANYONE to support me as of now.

<comment><USER5> Could possibly do with a revision on the perks

> For $50 a month, you'll get to download my new e-book "Waves and > Wavelengths" (www.onescientist.com) for FREE. You will also get to download > all my upcoming e-books that I'm currently working on for FREE

Gave me a giggle anyway. For $50/month I get all this free stuff!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't understand why this article seems to offend many of you in the comments. In my opinion the author doesn't claim to have done and mastered all the careers he talks about. Yes, he's promoting his book - so what? You won't find many articles on here that have no business interest behind it.

I for one simply enjoyed the read.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The post is joking, but its actually good advice to not do things if you don't "feel" enough for them. There is an epidemic of middle class neurotic fear of "missing out". E.g. the author has a very varied bio, but i've never heard of him, probably because he does none of those things excellently.

<comment><USER8> _the author has a very varied bio, but i 've never heard of him_

In a world of 7 billion people you've heard of everyone worth knowing about?

<comment><USER7> yes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> sure..., you want just to sell your shitty book and be rich over night!

<comment><AUTHOR> Not even close and it probably IS a shitty book. But I did spend 6 jobless months to think about it and write about it! :) I wrote it for myself. And I'm hoping it might help someone as well. Hell, since you've mentioned it, I will give the book away for free. I'd rather people read it than make me rich.

<comment><USER10> I think you're entitled to derive some monetary benefit from your writing. However I support the decision to make the book creative commons. Perhaps offer paid versions in some form (audio, epub etc.) or use it as a platform to build your list (which I see you're keen on doing) and seek out speaking opportunities.

Oh, and it probably _isn 't_ shitty, based on the strength of this article. I'm assuming there will be some light-cringing involved if engineers read it, but I may be wrong, and I'm sure there's a huge audience for this out there. I know self-help stuff gets a bad rep. Completely understandable most of the time. But there's probably a reason it's so popular - i.e. the good stuff is good!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for all advice and support. If it means people would read it, I'd definitely opt for creative commons. I haven't really figured out how to do it, but Google should help with that.. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm sick of this Myers-Briggs pseudo-science showing up everywhere. It's unethical to sell a discredited theory of the world for monetary gain.

It's like Dungeons and Dragon - people identify with their type/class, except people take MBTI more seriously than they do D&D.

<comment><AUTHOR> I wouldn't really call it pseudo-science. For long I really did think there was something wrong with me for not being able to choose what I wanted to do in life, since I enjoyed doing a lot of things. It would also be a major cause of depression for me. But it's only when I took the test that I figured out that there are so many out there who are facing similar day-to-day challenges like I am. There's comfort in knowing that. I'm also a part of the closed community ENFP group on Facebook and people really do have the same problem. Multiple careers, lack of clarity and focus.

<comment><USER12> I am sorry but there is no reason to believe how a particular trait which troubles almost everyone can be based on a certain personality type. There are lots of take-an-interest-in-everything people out there who can't decide what they want to do, even though being particularly good at lots of things. I am not denying why this question might trouble you, it has troubled me for a long time myself but being a so called INTJ-type, I can't say if the personality- bucketing is the reason you should nail it down to.

<comment><USER6> What was your personal solution if I may ask?

<comment><USER12> I am pretty happy that I am a generalist. I have been passionate about lots of things from front-end development, linux kernel internals to online marketing (although, I am pretty bad at that) and I believe, that's the reason I can suggest ideas to marketing people who don't know enough technology and to programmers who don't know enough marketing.

However, I have learnt to separate facts from knowledge. Reading books about marketing will mostly give you facts without context but if you to talk to people who do marketing or try to raise a blog to several thousand subscribers, you will gain a lot of knowledge.

Doing a lot of things, in my experience will give you more perspective and experience than anything else and frankly, there is enough time in the world to do that.

<comment><USER13> And your employment situation?

I'm the same as you, once again back in the career change cycle.

There's really no corporation out there who wants a generalist unless you're the CEO perhaps, but you have to be an expert to get there.

I'm pretty sure generalists were just meant to be merchants / small business owners but those opportunities have dwindled away in our modern economy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> People also don't want to be born in poverty in third-world countries, without access to decent healthcare or education. You are extremely fortunate (read lucky, certainly through no merit of your own) to have had the opportunities that others never will. This kind of self-entitled crap is especially unpleasant to read, but hey maybe it will sell your book.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are right, I've been blessed, in the sense that I have no responsibilities or children or old parents to take care of and I feel even more lucky that my parents have always been extremely supportive in whatever career or profession I chose to take. But I do take solace in the fact that I've never been dependent on anyone financially or otherwise, since I've saved up quite a bit all these years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> All I read is what is not wanted. It begs the question; what IS wanted?

<comment><AUTHOR> Consumerism! lol.. But honestly though, I seem to be in an eternal state of confusion on this one. But I do seem to enjoy writing a lot and I'd probably end up writing more! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Since we're talking life and pseudo science, here's my pseudo scientific take on life: Everything everyone does in life is aimed at getting two things, love in all its degenerate cases, and knowledge. Love from ourselves to ourselves, love from others, and love, now or in some future, from our deities. That, and knowing what this whole life and universe thing is all about.

</comment><comment><USER17> Thats what majority of people already do.

</comment><comment><USER18> To hanyoddha: consider drawing comics, even if it's just as a side-hobby. You have a signature style that looks fresh. And some people actually make a lot of money doing that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I do love creating comics. Just not been very consistent. I'll probably be more inclined to create an entire Graphic Novel. I do have a few planned. Hopefully, I will complete it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I kind a like it and the book seems also interesting.

</comment><comment><USER20> Is it worrying or reassuring that 'politician' and 'soldier' weren't mentioned?

</comment><comment><USER21> What a sad person

</comment><comment><USER22> that font though.

</comment><comment><USER23> >> Why I don't want to do anything with my life

Suicide seems to be a good decision, then. Eh but wait, that's doing _something_ with your life, then.

:p

</comment><comment><USER24> I honestly can't tell if this is real. My dislike started strong, but his reference to useless MBTI crap and peddling of his book in some annoying non- ironic form turns me even more towards disliking, nearing hatred, to him and those like him. It's nonsense on top of nonsense all the way down.

If it's real - then he's a self loathing twat who doesn't know how to push his own boundaries. If he can do arts and do any job and essentially anything wants, all because of his look-at-me-I'm-an-ENTP qualities, then he's not obviously pushing his own boundaries and is only acting as a detriment to everybody. Do something to improve others' lives. Don't tell anybody you did it. It's difficult yet possible, time consuming yet financially awful, and gloriless yet commendable. Just do it, asshole. It'll make you feel good about yourself and what you do. Sheesh louise.....

If it's not real - learn to mark a clearer point.

I need a break from this site.

<comment><USER10> That's not particularly fair. The vitriol is palpable and unjustified. He's just thinking out loud. Yes, there is ego and yes, there is entitlement, but in the end we all face similar problems.

You probably clicked through to find some relevance to your own life (excuse the assumption - I did, at least). I'd imagine you got annoyed round about when you found out there was a book for sale, eroding any potential value the post may have had.

But did it? If his writing made you think, made you upset, made you question anything, it was 'interesting' in the HN sense and, to my mind, at least, stands alone as a clever piece of literature. Art, essentially.

<comment><USER24> Yes, a lot of that vitriolic anger is, in fact, because he's trying to sell a book.

Thing is, I agreed with the message very strongly. It's a message that I hold dear and it's something I try to live my life by on a day to day basis. But the reason this strikes anger in me is because the message he's pushing sells himself, his potential and many others like him incredibly short. It's a flat idea that could be so much more, but it's not. And it's used to sell a book. Fuck that.</comment></comment></comment>


Learning iOS development Swift or Obj-C? - <AUTHOR>

I'm keen to learn iOS development (just for fun/curiosity), am I better off going the Obj-C or Swift path?
From a quick search Obj-C obviously has a lot more learning material and tutorials, but Swift seems like it's going to be the "future" of iOS dev so might be better to learn now?
I come from a web background (LAMP, JS, CSS) if that matters. No CS background, this will be my first "real" programming.
Any pointers to the best learning material would also be much appreciated. <comment><USER2> I think the best argument against swift is the plethora of knowledge, tutorials, stackoverflow answers there is for objective-c. When I started learning Unity in 2009, I wanted to use C#. Yet 90 % of all the tutorials, docs, etc.. was in javascript at the time. As I was fairly new to programming then, translating from javascript to C# slowed me down. In hindsight, if I just used javascript I would've progressed much quicker than I did. I think the situation within a year will be different, the iOS community is producing swift tutorials en masse. But I would advice you to start with objective-c.

The best iOS material is: \- Objective-C programming book from big nerd ranch or Programming in Objective-C from Stephen G. Kochan (more in-depth) \- cs193p from Stanford (iTunesU) iOS 7 course is objective-c. iOS 8 course (starting in 2015) will be swift.

After cs193p you should know enough to make apps. If you want to be a great iOS developer, you should also learn: \- ios / cocoa design patterns \- cocoapods | git \- visit [http://nshipster.com](http://nshipster.com) \- visit [http://objc.io](http://objc.io) \- Learn from other apps source code: [http://maniacdev.com/2010/06/35-open-source-iphone-app- store...](http://maniacdev.com/2010/06/35-open-source-iphone-app-store-apps- updated-with-10-new-apps/)

Handy links: Obj-C online reference: [http://rypress.com/tutorials/objective-c/](http://rypress.com/tutorials/objective-c/) Obj-C cheat sheet: [http://cdn1.raywenderlich.com/downloads/RW-Objective-C- Cheat...](http://cdn1.raywenderlich.com/downloads/RW-Objective-C- Cheatsheet-v-1-5.pdf) iOS tutorials: [http://nscookbook.com/recipes/](http://nscookbook.com/recipes/) | [http://www.appcoda.com](http://www.appcoda.com) | [http://www.raywenderlich.com](http://www.raywenderlich.com) ! | [http://nsscreencast.com/](http://nsscreencast.com/)

<comment><USER3> "I think the best argument against swift is the plethora of knowledge, tutorials, stackoverflow answers there is for objective-c."

I've been amazed at how quickly the iOS development community has started porting tutorials written in Objective-C to Swift.

The learning ecosystem for iOS is light-years ahead of Android.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Trust me it won't make that big of a difference. The main work is in learning how to use the in built libraries. Swift is still in flux and so my advise is to start out with Objective C and learn to build a functioning app. Once you have a basic understanding get some swift under your belt as well.

</comment><comment><USER5> Personally, i'd go with Objective C but it doesn't hurt to know both! In the end though, it won't make much difference at this stage, just get your head around the platform with whatever you feel more comfortable with when you take a look. There's more resources for learning Objective C right now. Good luck with whatever you choose.

</comment><comment><USER6> Obj-C because you will eventually need to know it to some extent anyhow.

The quickest way to learn Obj-C is to write command line programs for Mac OSX. Maybe find source for a C or C++ hello world program and convert it to Obj-C. Once you are comfortable with the language then try writing a Mac application or iOS application.

</comment><comment><USER7> If it's just for fun/curiosity, I'd say Swift. If you want to be a working iOS dev, you need to know Obj-C for now.</comment>


Preppers Are Quite Prepared to Enjoy Some Vindication - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/technology/coronavirus-preppers.html <comment><USER2> I did a very minimal prep a few weeks before the lock downs started, mostly things we already use and things the kids like. Helped that first few weeks when people were panic buying.

Definitely need to do more thinking on different scenarios (shelter in place, get out of town, etc).

</comment><comment><USER3> I think if I lived in California I'd have a bug out bag. Everyone expects to need to run out on the street during an earthquake at some point, and it could be your building that collapses.

</comment><comment><USER4> Aren't these the same folks out protesting that they can't go get their haircut?

<comment><USER5> Yes, at least in Austin. The protest were led by Alex Jones who pushes prepper gear and related lifestyle products yet they broke after 4 weeks.

<comment><USER6> To cook up a connection to the two concepts (prepping and reopening cities), apply "distrust of government" and season with "individual liberties"</comment></comment></comment>