Double amputee cleared to race in the Olympics  - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/05/double-amputee-oscar-pistorius-will-race-in-the-london-olympics/

<comment><USER2> Unless the analysis in [http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/12/science-of- sport-awa...](http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/12/science-of-sport-awards- controversy-of.html) is quite wrong, I can't see how he should be allowed to compete. The story here is being cast as a win against bureaucracy, but ignores the fact that he has significant mechanical and metabolic advantages against able-bodied athletes.

Final paragraphs:

> The end result of this is that Pistorius was "cleared", based not on > science, but on a legal process that was manipulated by science and the huge > drive to permit Pistorius to run. And make no mistake, there is inspiration > in the story.

> In fact, it got to the point where despite the science, I can appreciate the > viewpoint of those who say "Sure, there is an advantage, but there's only > one such athlete, and he's not running away with the gold medals, and so the > good outweighs the bad, so let him compete despite that advantage".

> I disagree with that, but I can respect the opinion of those who believe it. > What cannot be accepted, however, is the assertion that there is no > advantage. Everything about the science points to the advantage, from the > pacing strategy he uses, to the German-testing that found mechanical and > metabolic differences, to the Texas testing which provided evidence of an > athletic advantage.

> The science was clear, from the point of hypothesis, to the theory behind > it, to the evidence. The deceit in the case, fueled by a willfully ignorant > media who would rather portray as villains anyone who dares suggest what the > science really says, is equally clear, to me at least.

<comment><USER3> What is the decision procedure for whether an advantage is unfair? Athletic competition is always about physical inequalities among humans. Does your decision procedure resort to the idea that certain things are "natural?" If so, that's a feeble notion, since prosthetics are no more or less "natural" than, say, rigorous training and diets or metal plates to fix a broken bone.

<comment><USER4> Physical inequalities - not mechanical.

<comment><USER3> I think mechanical inequalities are also physical inequalities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Several comments in this thread relate to Pistorius' prosthetics and whether they give him an unfair advantage.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport have ruled that there is no evidence that his prosthetics constitute an unfair advantage over his preferred 400m distance. The initial IAAF testing showed that he used less energy at full speed, but this is not relevant to sprinting performance, which demands maximum power output. All below-knee amputees are at a significant disadvantage during the start and initial acceleration of the race, which is vital in sprinting.

Personally, I think the most obvious evidence that these prosthetics do not constitute an advantage is the times of other athletes using identical limbs. Pistorius is whole seconds faster than his nearest rivals. If the limbs constitute a meaningful advantage, then why is Pistorius so uniquely quick?

<comment><USER6> While his current prosthetic might not give him a great competitive advantage, doesn't it seem like a slippery slope? 12 years from now, lets say there is a breakthrough in prosthetic technology, one that gets rid of all the disadvantages, and improves the advantages -- do we let those in, or do we say "No, you can only use prosthetics from x years ago?"

<comment><USER7> This isn't really a slippery slope. It has been dealt with in other sports repeatedly over the years. Competitive (sport) javelins have been re- engineered several times to make them harder to throw after a few of them ended up injuring spectators in the stadium! Heck even golf clubs have maximum performance limitations. There's some trial-and-error involved but sports generally converge on limitations they consider fair.

<comment><USER8> Do you seriously not see the difference between sporting equipment and prosthetic limbs?

<comment><USER9> As prosthetic limbs can be and are switched out for specialized versions adapted to different scenarios, 'race limbs' are just another kind of sporting equipment.

<comment><USER10> Except not all competitors have equal access to them, which is a huge difference. Other sporting equipment is much less affected by this problem, and disciplines eventually converge to an equilibrium point where all serious athletes are using roughly equivalent tech.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Although I admire the guy, it doesn't make much sense to include him in the Olympics. If he were actually good enough to compete for medals, then everything would boil down to the results of the studies gauging the size of his advantage/disadvantage (as linked by stupandaus below).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius#Dispute_over_pr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius#Dispute_over_prosthetics)

Track runners compete on tenths or even hundredths of a second, and it's silly to think you could have a reasonable, objective decision on the type of equipment he was allowed to use based off of the nebulous concept of an "advantage".

<comment><USER12> Although less obvious, there are other areas in sport where these issues currently exist.

One of the more recent controversies resulted in the ban of LZR Racer (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer#FINA_rule_changes>), a swimsuit which resulted in an abnormally high number of world records during the years it was available.

Whats to say that track shoes can't have similar performance aiding effects? It may be time for sporting officials to limit the equipment athletes can use. NASCAR does this successfully -- they have stringent specifications regarding the cars/parts that can be used to keep the races competitive.

<comment><USER13> And steroid after steroid has gone through similar processes; there is a reason there are still world records from the 80s East Germany and the Soviet Union. In less obvious advantages we have dietary supplements, training at altitude or in altitude chambers, biomechanical analysis and direct muscle stimulation. Every athletic competition is a balance between what technology gets through and which doesn't. Most olympic athletes are already genetic outliers; I'm sure sooner or later gene therapy will become a major issue.

The idea that athletics is purely a competition of body is a convenient fiction, nothing more. It seems a shame to me to exclude people simply because they challenge that fiction.

<comment><USER4> Just because you cannot set all variables outside the body to equal does not mean you should have a free-for-all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm surprised that everywhere I read, people are more interested in wondering how much of an advantage his condition gives him, than considering that perhaps it is a great disadvantage.

People are claiming things like, "oh, his heart has to pump less blood a shorter distance." What about the fact that he has way less muscle, no toes, feet, or ankles (which are all critical for balance and for sensing distances and terrain), and that his body is being stressed in ways not intended. These are huge, obvious disadvantages, and I don't see why they're seemingly ignored.

Sure, the prosthetics can vary in mechanical advantage, but you could just regulate those like any other sports equipment. But to say that not having legs could even possibly be unfair for running is ridiculous and a bit offensive.

<comment><USER15> What if, instead of legs, he had electric wheels capable of going 30 miles per hour? That would be a clear advantage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm personally not in support of this decision regardless of whether or not the prosthetics provide Oscar an advantage.

I think a sport such as a running race is a test in how fast the very best people in the world can push the limits of the human body. Removing limbs and replacing them with prosthetics while impressive does not fit that standard.

It's not a level playing field.

<comment><USER17> It doesn't particularly matter. History will remember the asterisk whether the Olympic committee puts one down or not.

Perhaps the biggest question of fairness is that a person (or two) that dedicates much of their life to training for athletic contests will not receive the medal that they would have received had he been prevented from competing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Whatever anyone thinks, I feel bad for this guy. Advantage or not, he's a hell of an athlete, yet he can never accomplish anything without people questioning it.

<comment><USER19> If he wins, people will be split over feeling happy for him and thinking he only won because of his prosthetics. If he loses, the media will spin it as a triumph of meat over machine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'll start believing that Pistorious has an unfair advantage when professional athletes start hacking their limbs off.

<comment><USER21> I can easily imagine the Chinese or North Koreans sending a team of runners that fit this exact description.

<comment><USER22> I think that says much more about you than it does the Chinese or North Koreans.

<comment><USER21> Probably.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think some of the comments are missing an understanding of sprinting, so I will attempt to clarify:

There are four "pure" sprinting events, 60m (indoor only), 100m (outdoor only), 200m, 400m.

On TV, you just see a person effortlessly "sprinting." However, the sprints are actually very technical events. What you don't see is that each race is comprised of four phases: beginning with an explosive start out of the blocks, a drive phase, a transition phase, and finally a sprint phase.

The drive phase - which some commenters have concluded as Pistorius' weakness - is where the athlete builds speed. It is characterized by a forward lean in the athlete and powerful, "pulling" strides. At the elite level, an athlete will remain in this phase for 30m-40m, depending on the length of the race and the height of the athlete.

As the athlete builds speed, it becomes much harder to stay in this forward- leaning position - their legs simply cannot keep up with their body. Thus, they begin to transition into a different style of running. This is called the transition phase - where the sprinter's body moves to from this leaning drive phase into the tall and upright sprinting phase. This can be anywhere from 10-30m.

The drive and transition are important. Some time during these two phases, the athlete will reach their maximum instantaneous speed. At no point after reaching maximum speed will the athlete ever reach that speed again. Thus, the race becomes "who can slow down the least."

The upright sprinting phase is where the athlete tries to maintain the speed they built up during the drive phase until the end of the race. An athlete will be upright, with the slightest of forward leans. Their legs are firing straight up and down very quickly, trying to minimize the time spent on the ground. The ability to do this correctly very much depends on an athlete's "sprint endurance" - which is a completely different kind of endurance than, say, running a mile.

So, on average, 90% of a 60m race is spent gaining speed, 50% of 100m race, 25% of a 200m race, and 12% of a 400m race. The race a sprinter chooses to run depends on whether they are powerful and explosive (shorter races) or how little speed they can lose while upright (longer races).

Here are two fun facts now that you know this information: 1\. Marion Jones (who is a cheater) did not have the fastest top end speed out of her contemporaries. She did, however, have the best ability to maintain speed. She was a 100m Olympic Gold Medalist. 2\. The Olympic-level weight lifters will outperform Olympic-level sprinters in the first 30m of a race.

There are some nuances to what what I've said that I won't bore you with (for example, some 200m runners can perform a mini-drive on the curve to grab a bit more speed for the straight), but the basic idea is that your sprint endurance is crucial in EVERY sprint race except the 60m. You can make your own conclusions about whether or not Pistorius is legit, but having run the 400m at a high level for a number of years, I can tell you that not being able to feel your calves or feet or have to use the energy required to make them move would have been something I'd be interested in.

<comment><USER24> Are there training advantages in immunity to injury below the lower knee? How much training is generally constrained by the resilience of the foot and ankle?

<comment><USER23> Injuries are a part I hadn't thought about. Common injuries in that part of the body are: shin splints, achilles issues, plantar fasciitis, calf pull, compartment syndrome, and stress fractures.

I know of at least two athletes for each injury who have either missed training time, an entire season or a career. Injuries are incredibly common in track and field: and make no mistake, there is no emotional-movie-style strength that allows an athlete to overcome their injury due to sheer force of will. Track and field is an 100% sport: if you aren't at 100%, you aren't going to win. A lot of the sport is managing and preventing injury, especially at the elite level.

While I would reason that "upper leg" injuries like hamstring, glute, hip and quad pulls are more damning and common than "lower leg" injuries (especially among men), and that upper body injuries like arms and abdomen are nearly unheard of, being able to write off an entire class of injuries is a huge bonus.

I also didn't mention strength over time benefits: the ability to have a consistent power output of a critical part of your stride (the toe push) that is unaffected by fatigue is very helpful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> There were studies done that showed that he gains some advantages from springs in long, straight sections, but also has disadvantages in starting and turning.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius#Dispute_over_pr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius#Dispute_over_prosthetics)

</comment><comment><USER26> Good for him, I guess, but does those springs not give him an advantage? How would you even go about measuring that?

</comment><comment><USER27> In some sense, all athletes use prosthetics. Humans aren't born with spikes, and definitely not with asymmetrical ones optimized for making left turns (especially important in the 200m, where one accelerates throughout the curve of the track)

Amputees can take this to a new level. They can optimize the length of their legs on the distance to run and their fitness. For now, we see that as something that enables people, but I think this guy would not have been allowed to take part in a 'regular' event if he had a real chance to win (the wheelchair marathon is a separate event from the regular marathon for the same reason)

<comment><USER28> In regards to already accepted 'prosthetics' such as spikes and suits in swimming, perhaps it should go back to the way the olympics started? I'm not being facetious, but it is going to start cropping up more and more. They don't have to be completely naked, but just covered up so that nothing a person wears affects their performance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> More detail in the full article: [http://www.nbcolympics.com/news-blogs/track- and-field/pistor...](http://www.nbcolympics.com/news-blogs/track-and- field/pistorius-among-those-added-to-south-african-team.html)

</comment><comment><USER30> The whole notion of preventing unfair technical advantages in the Olympics is outdated and stems from the fundamental attribution error [1]. The competition is no longer primarily about the athlete but about the level of training they have access to and the size of a country's pool of healthy candidates to select from. Industrialized nations win the majority of medals [2] since they have a large healthy population to select from and they can afford to train those athletes and provide high quality equipment. Discriminating against Pistorius would be as bad as discriminating against an Olympian because they were rich enough to afford expensive coaches and equipment or banning Michael Phelps because he won the genetic lottery which gave him his body structure.

It makes sense to ban certain performance enhancing methods such as illegal steroids because they have severely negative side effects, but the Olympics would be more fun if the rules were much looser. Let all the athletes have the best training and equipment their sponsors can afford. There is little difference between technology that reduces disadvantages such as lighter bikes or shoes and technology that enhances advantages like low drag swimsuits or cybernetic legs. Unless we want to genetically screen all our athletes to make sure they were not born with any advantage and force them to use the same training program and equipment, we should stop trying to compensates for advantages and disadvantages and just do whatever results in the best entertainment.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error> [2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All- time_Olympic_Games_medal_ta...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All- time_Olympic_Games_medal_table)

<comment><USER31> >The competition is no longer primarily about the athlete but about the level of training they have access to and the size of a country's pool of healthy candidates to select from.

Sure, if the unit under consideration is the country that gains the most medals. But at the individual level, it is still very much about the athlete and what the human body can accomplish.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is the sort of thing Deus Ex touches on. I think we should allow people with prosthetics to perform in the olympics, but they should be judged against other people with the same or similar prostheses. There's no reason we can't accept the accomplishments of humans who have modified or artificial body parts, but they should not be compared to the 'natural' human body. I imagine if they had a separate set of events for cyborgs or humans with modified bodies, people would enjoy those events as celebrations of technology.

In a way, all competitors in the olympics use prosthetics. The shoes that runners use modify the function and behavior of the foot, the suits (banned or unbanned) that swimmers wear modify the drag on the body, and even sports like archery use the highest quality technologies for bows and arrows to provide the highest competitive advantage. These body part replacements aren't much different, and one day the prosthetics will be better than our natural body parts (in some ways they already are).

</comment><comment><USER33> For everyone claiming Oscar has a technology advantage, an expert committee led by Hugh Herr (world leader in bio-mechatronics)[1,2] across scientists from 6 universities, proved in 2008 that Oscar did NOT have any advantage. This has been mostly a political battle.

[1] [http://www.media.mit.edu/news/releases/2008/05/study- revives...](http://www.media.mit.edu/news/releases/2008/05/study-revives- olympic-prospects-amputee-sprinter)

[2] [http://www.technologyreview.com/news/410167/amputee-gets- a-s...](http://www.technologyreview.com/news/410167/amputee-gets-a-shot-at- the-olympics/)

<comment><USER21> In every race someone has an advantage, otherwise every finish would be a tie. The question is whether his mechanical advantage in one section is balanced by his disadvantages in others, and whether this is fair to other runners.

Frankly, I have no dog in that fight; since I am not likely to be running that race, nor am I on the Olympic Committee. I just find it interesting for people's understanding athletics and fairness in general.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Good luck to him. The specs for his "legs" - <http://www.ossur.com/?PageID=13462>

</comment><comment><USER35> One should be able to develop rigid boots that couple to composite springs for non amputees to run in a similar fashion. This would involve an effective lengthening of the limbs. Maybe this is not an idea but a memory...

Search on YouTube for "Spring Shoes": They're called "Skyrunners."

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_rqRknJ7N0>

I wonder if short people equipped with these would be competitive with bicycle messengers? Apparently they confer a significant efficiency advantage. I also wonder if robots could use these to move. I think that would be okay, so long as the robots could also stand still and dynamically balance without bouncing, otherwise they'd be annoying.

</comment><comment><USER36> Prosthetics that improve performance should be banned from the Olympics. If prosthetics become good enough that completely-natural athletes can't win medals, then athletes who haven't lost limbs (and aren't willing to have an "accident") will effectively be excluded from the sport.

Of course, this doesn't apply to prosthetics that don't actually improve performance or are completely irrelevant to the sport in question. It doesn't matter if a soccer player has a prosthetic arm as long as it weighs as much as his other one.

Prosthetics are fundamentally different from other sports equipment in that any athlete can use a given piece of equipment, but most athletes can't use prosthetics at all.

</comment><comment><USER37> Ridiculous. There should be absolutely no technology or mechanical aids allowed in Olympic events like running. There is no way to determine how Pistorius would run if he had legs, so any attempt at analyzing the impact of the prosthetic is untestable.

Suppose a person who suffers from Short stature(<http://www.diseasesdatabase.com/ddb18756.htm>) wanted to compete in Olympic sprinting. Would it be acceptable for him to wear stilts that make him 5'10", since he suffers from a medical condition which prevents him from entering the race otherwise?

</comment><comment><USER38> Stand-up comedian Katt Williams' take on Pistorius being disqualified from the 2008 Olympics - <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qlNEmpxQxI>

"The last place you wanna be in a muthaf-ckin foot race is behind the guy with no goddamn foots."

</comment><comment><USER39> I love this story. I believe the government actually loosened its requirements just a bit to allow him to compete. I think it was a terrific idea. [I'm kind of rooting for him more than I'm rooting for my home country! -- shhh, don't tell anyone]

</comment><comment><USER40> What a sweet story leg less dude gets to compete w legged dudes, but his legs were made for robocop....

Im not going to dispute his athleticism, but in a place like the Olympics where it always comes down to hundredth of a second to beat some decade old record... Where all these ppl trained since they were born... It just doesn't seem right... If at least the prosthetics were engineered to behave like human legs it wouldn't be as bad, but they are obviously designed for a specific goal. I don't think he uses the same legs to go grocery shopping or catch a movie...

Ps: this is an undeducated comment, I'm not planning to read dozens of articles to study the scientific aspects of Joe's toes...

</comment><comment><USER41> An older piece with some good background:

<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/blade.html>

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm really saddened by the cynical tone of the many critics of Oscar out there. People only seem to focus on the advantages his prosthetics, whilst ignoring what must be a multitude of disadvantages. He has less leg power to power out of the blocks and he probably looses energy through the connection of his legs to the prosthetics. And lets not forget mental disadvantages.

Oscar is probably a one in a generation case, it would be travesty to ban him from competing.</comment>


Mario, Wii Fit — what's next for Nintendo? Meet the man who invented Mario - <AUTHOR> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article7067428.ece <comment><USER2> Also see this interview <http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks/nsmb/vol1_page1.jsp> for how Mario was conceptualized. A lot of the functionality and visual features were due to constraints in the gaming systems back then and clever UX designs. E.g. why Mario wore overalls or why he's even a plumber.

</comment><comment><USER3> Even if I am not a very avid gamer I am definitely a fan of Nintendo. Super Mario World was one of the first video games I played and the Super Mario video games are some of the best games ever released.</comment>


Extreme Athleticism Is the New Midlife Crisis - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/s/greatescape/extreme-athleticism-is-the-new-midlife-crisis-d87199a18bed <comment><USER2> I have mixed reactions to pieces like this. It's very salient to me because I fit the stereotype being discussed. At 43, I did my first triathlon and am, I suppose, training to do more (the season for them is basically over where I live, so I can't really do more this year).

The problem with the idea of the midlife "crisis" is that it's more a period of change and not all crisis. And it's somewhat, but not all, about mortality. At that age, in your 40s, you've often had enough time to establish a career, and for many, realize it's not what you thought it would be. It has nothing to do with mortality; if you started your career earlier or later, you'd be reaching that point earlier or later. Also, you've reached a point of wisdom to realize, yes, exercise is good, maintaining your health is good, all these articles you've been reading about it for years are right, and so forth and so on. You might have a new family, which changes things at any age. And finally, speaking of kids, I do think there's something about the 40s being the new 20s, the 60s being the new 40s, and so forth. I could go on and on about many things that cause change, but don't have anything to do with death or even old age.

If you knew me, for example it would be clear that I am in fact in crisis in many ways, and have been in recent years, in the ways that the author suggests. But that's not what motivated me to do a triathlon. It has nothing to do with some need to prove myself or anything like that. It was all about being prodded by friends to join them, and it was something I had always been interested in. I've always been a little athletic. It could have happened in my 20s or 30s but didn't. Why my 40s? I'm not sure. I guess I've just reached a point where there are many things like triathlon I've been wanting to do for years, and am now getting around to it. When you reach that age there are things that accumulate like that.

I think midlife change is very real, and often comes as a crisis, but I think that focusing on the mortality issues that do arise is really missing many, if not most, of the other factors involved.

In the case of athleticism, it stigmatizes exercising and wellness. So you're doing a triathlon or a marathon in your 40s? Now this is a bad thing? Can those of us in our 40s get a break? It's another form of ageism in many regards.

<comment><USER3> _In the case of athleticism, it stigmatizes exercising and wellness. So you 're doing a triathlon or a marathon in your 40s? Now this is a bad thing? Can those of us in our 40s get a break? It's another form of ageism in many regards._

It doesn't stigmatise anything nor point to individual people. It merely refers to a data point where absolute masses in their mid-life have started running or training heavily which did not happen before.

I can validate for my own part with dozens and dozens of my middle-aged peers posting about how next month they're doing their 5K, 10K, 20K, marathon, or whatnot. That sort of flocking most certainly didn't happen ten years ago.

I think that in another 10-15 years the craze has faded and replaced by something else. There will always be people who really do enjoy what they do and it's these people who'd run or train regardless of the passing fashions. But it's often the general mass of people who do things _because others do those_ things.

Entering mid-life provokes a lot of thoughts and emotions to be processed and become acquainted with, and people need to face these in order to lead a balanced life into older age. It has seemed for years that the masses are now doing it by starting with heavy physical training. Which itself is fine but it means that it's not about the running craze itself. It's a fashionable way to live your mid-life and as such I can tell you it does not last forever.

Maybe the next generation's way-of-mid-life is finally giving yourself some rest after all the hard work and doing absolutely nothing.

I think the focal point of the criticism about middle-aged 40K runners is the way that heavy training is praised as if it was somehow a unique discovery or near-enlightening experience that everyone should try. No, people have been training before. No, people have entered mid-life before. Those just happened to meet, for a passing moment, this decade.

<comment><USER4> Around 40, if you are not exercising, you will become noticeably weaker. After a while you start loosing muscle. Your back hurts. It is not possible to ignore it anymore, be it walking up stairs, during holiday or when outside with kids or just when walking to work. Exercising works. And it feels more pleasant then I remember it from younger age. Moreover things like running are not boring anymore (because you did not done those really fun things for years, so you cant compare.)

When your back or whatever hurts and when you have high blood pressure and what not, doctor tells you to do move more. Many people started those runs after healths problems started and sport really helps. The competitions and trying limits is really treating it the way the same people approached school, work, hobbies and pretty much everything in their life before.

Those 10k, 20k and marathons are achievements available to middle aged people. (5k easily reachable) We can run, we cant lift as much we cant effectively start sports that require flexibility or agility. In a lot of senses, these people are not doing anything different then their done whole their life wherever it was possible, except that they adjusted choice of activity to aging bodies needs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hardly midlife crisis. At 40, your kids might be getting old enough to require less time. You have a stable job, etc.

Most importantly, the massive amount of information on hand, connectivity of the internet, and some creative organizers have allowed people to do what many have always wanted!

Why is athleticism not looked on for a 20 year old, but is for a 40 year old?

When a woman returns to work after a decade and a half off because of kids, is she going through a midlife crisis, assuming working wasn't needed to survive?

A crisis implies an impending sense of doom or mortality. It implies socially unapproved behavior. A 50 year old man buying a Corvette to hit on 20 year olds.

Extreme athleticism is hardly risky behavior unless you believe live should be without any risk and limited to strolls in park. Sometimes life just gets in the way for a decade or two.

Does a 50 year old who buys a truck for hunting or fishing have a crisis? Hunting and fishing can be a lot cheaper than flying all over the world on vacations.

A 40 year old is easily young enough to handle an R1, so why not buy one? If he can handle ultra-marathons, go for it.

My father did triathlons until 60. Guess what? He loved them. It was a great way to pass the time.

As you get older, you find you may have automated a lot of your life away, or at least simplified it. You might also not be fighting to climb the ladder, but instead discovered where you are happy.

You might find your day to day too cerebral, with the rest of your body semi neglected. If you have achieved a lot "mentally", why not see what you can do physically?

</comment><comment><USER6> It's not 'new' for middle-aged persons to begin doing things they have been meaning to do but never made time to do so far. It's the onset of age-related symptoms that remind us we're not getting any younger & our abilities are on the wane. Some definitely wig out, but most do something about it in constructive ways. I have logged 100 miles of rugged terrain & paddled more so in the last year. Because of a mid-life crisis? Nah, the possibility that within a decade or less I will not have the faculties to do these activities is what motivates me.

<comment><USER7> I thought that's what mid-life crises were all about: Trying to make the most of youth and vigor perceived as fleeting, vanishing.

<comment><USER6> The key word, and marketable perception, is "crisis". Most don't go off the rails and even fewer go to 'extremes'. This is what I consider real fake news, in the same vein as fake Reality TV. MSM sucks in so many varied ways.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I know someone who _was_ engaged in various vigorous sports for much of his adult life: running, weights, badminton, ping pong. 'Healthy' in every sense.

At age 46 he has osteo-arthritis in his hips and knees. Now: no more intensive sports. Weights are still in, but cardio is limited. He can hear/feel grinding when he walks; even 1-2 km can present a problem. He hasn't given up, though: his big project now is to try to regain the lost cartilage. Consulted doctors, did huge amounts of research, and became an expert in the field of regenerative medicine. His blog details the cutting edge treatments he's administering himself (including purchasing an ultrasound scanner and injecting drugs directly into the joints): [https://myjourney2curearthritis.wordpress.com/](https://myjourney2curearthritis.wordpress.com/)

In a separate conversation, my doctor friend confirmed that the cartilage in joints wears out inevitably, especially with prolonged and repetitive use (cycling, running). There's very limited blood supply to cartilage and bone, so the body has no way of regenerating what's lost.

There has to be an equilibrium sought in the pursuit of fitness and the resulting wear to the body. To paraphrase James Hilton, moderation in everything, including moderation itself.

<comment><USER9> Weights, especially if done in the extreme and with bad form can cause deterioration on the joints. Take an extreme example: Ronnie Coleman, 7-times Mr. Olympia winner( bodybuilding). Apart from the insane amounts of drugs these people inject themselves( bodybuilding competitions are the only "sport" that doesn't test the athletes for steroids), this guy was training with free weights at the extreme. We are talking about 800 lbs squats etc. He has had 8 spinal disk surguries and both his knees replaced.

Compare that to Phil Heath, the current mr Olympia winner for 8 times in row( I think, could be 7). He is using mostly machines and so far( he is pretty old at this point) hasn't had any major injuries. So my point is that although machines are proven to not increase functional strength( due to the isolation of the joints), at some point weightlifting can be detrimental. I don't know if the person you are talking about took it very far or not but it certainly sounds like the type of person that would.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I feel this way, and it seems logical. We have kids late, from 30 onward, we had a free life before and we want it again, only we will be about 50-55 when the kids leave the house. Moreover, we want to do cool stuff when the kids get the age at which they become capable of doing cool stuff (hiking for days, mountain-biking through the alps, ...) And yet we are now 36 and we get back pains from sitting all day, the horror! We must do more sports to be able to experience freedom as we did back when we were 28, when circumstances allow us again: when the kids grow up!!

If only we had kids at 23 when we were most fertile. They'd be 16 now and we would have had a lifetime to live in wealth and freedom. (I'm exaggerating of course, kids are great but man, I would have been able to handle those sleepless nights better when I was 23 ;))

</comment><comment><USER11> There are now apps available that help you to meditate. Since the app not only has knowledge about the process of meditation but tools to help you stay focused on the process, they offer a far more effective way to follow the process. What I'm trying to say is extreme athleticism is only a reaction to a lack of discipline that is probably experienced in that stage of life which leads to side effects that have to corrected. While athleticism is a possible way to treat the problem, it doesn't really get to the root cause, my hypothesis anyways, and using a meditation coupled with some yoga classes under an experienced instructor is probably a better way to treat the effects of age related decay. Note that many of the famous yoga instructors such as Mr. Iyengar and Mr. Bikram who started entire schools of yoga were practitioners and teacher well into their final years. Since most modern gyms now have yoga sections, the problems of extreme athlecicism in Midlife are clearly highlighted to the observers of this new phenomenon.

</comment><comment><USER12> Let's not also ignore the fact that doing triathlon is very expensive. Those who are mature, set in their lives, and have disposable income have much more access to it. Sure, you can swim in 5$ trunks, ride an old hybrid on the bike, and jog in the shoes you wear every day, but that's not the segment the article is addressing.

<comment><USER13> Is it _very_ expensive though?

Pair of good nike swim shorts + goggles cost like ~100

Decent road bike around ~1500

Good running shoes ~150

My gym membership with pool is ~65/month

Sure thats expensive but is its not for super wealthy you need to be well established expensive.

<comment><USER14> The amount of free time required to train for a triathlon also makes it less tractable for someone with a full time job and school-aged children.

<comment><USER13> Wouldn't this be more true for middle aged though. I certainly had way more time in my 20's.

<comment><USER14> I guess it depends on your definition of "middle aged". They seem to be talking about people in their late 40s to early 50s who you'd expect to have grown-up (or at least high-school aged) children and a lot more free time, compared with 30-soemthings with small children.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Here's an interesting video if you are an extreme athlete: it is a cardiac researcher and lifelong exerciser who identifies that such exercise patterns damage the heart: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6U728AZnV0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6U728AZnV0)

<comment><USER16> For a longer treatment of the same topic, I recommend reading the book _The Haywire Heart_ by Case/Mandrola/Zinn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Old mans strength.

</comment><comment><USER18> [ meta-note: why is this flagged? we seem to be rather haphazardly applying the criteria "that good hackers might find interesting", especially given the number of hackers into life-hacking, surviving middle age and athletic behavior]

Not a fan of running, but I am picking up way more BJJ classes than expected at my advanced age (46). Another factor that might help (aside from more free time, money, and the psychological factors in the article) is the fact that once you hit middle age, sporting behavior "is what it is". No-one expects that you're going to tear it up and compete with people in their 20s.

I have found it _way_ easier to maintain a focus on intrinsic achievements ("today I will do X because I want to and it's my goal") than extrinsic factors ("what people will think of me", "what I will look like") once Old Fart status is achieved.

</comment><comment><USER19> I am skeptical that even running 50km with good hydration and fancy shoes on well-maintained paths would be considered extreme if you roll back the clock more than a couple thousand years. Long distance running is a core competency of humanity -- I've run ten miles while being, objectively, out of shape.

If you remove the claims of how extreme this is, all this really says is that older Americans adopt exercise as a hobby they enjoy with seriousness. This is... not a crisis.

<comment><USER20> Actually, I think Iowa State did a study and found that it's actually not healthy to run more than around ~5K at a time. Long distance runs eventually lead to no health benefits and if anything are detrimental to almost every part of your body. Our ancestors likely walked long distances, but didn't run that distance. There's no need to run while gathering, or while farming, only while hunting and even then we developed tools to not have to even do that.

<comment><USER18> Their findings were considerably more equivocal than you make out; certainly "actually not healthy to run more than around ~5K at a time" doesn't seem be something that their study is even equipped to discuss.

[https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(16)...](https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196\(16\)00068-9/fulltext)

Things start to look rough for the highest quintile and especially the top 2 'tertiles of the top quintile' (I know, a weird subdivision here). But we're talking about 24 miles in a week and maybe 5+ sessions... pretty far removed from evidence that you shouldn't ever run more than 5K.

I don't have a horse in this race but there's a lot of broscience drifting around this area with the general message being that any kind of slow distance training will turn you into a pencil-necked dweeb with bad health and a shocking hormone profile.

<comment><USER20> Most 5K training programs have you running about ~18 miles a week. A full marathon is 26.2 miles in a DAY. That's quite a difference. If you ran every day with no rest days, for 24 miles a week (per your post)...that's almost a 5K a day. I never said that was a definitive number. Hence the "~." There are other studies that back up this idea.

As for your last sentence...no one here said anything about that. No one even said it would cause "bad health" to run a full marathon. However, when you run long distances, it has tremendous effects on parts of your body that are prone to injury and strain. Women long distance runners even have fertility problems. The human body was not meant to run long distances as the person I was replying to suggested. It's not "healthy" when contrasted with lower distances. Running itself is good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Speaking from first hand experience, I go to this gym in Bethesda, MD. Very well equipped, including a pool. You go there early morning and you find half the people there a middle aged. Fit bodies juxtaposed with natural signs of age-ing. If you correlate facial expressions with age, you will find a noticeable correlation between age and seriousness. The point of going to a gym is to enjoy the process of replenishing your muscular strength. If you take that too seriously, that points to age-related associations you've developed that do not belong in the gym. The best way to learn about this is to consult an experienced trainer. All trainers in private gyms are in the peak of their fitness years and hence better qualified to determine what is best for you.

<comment><USER21> Most trainers are worthless. Source: trainer.

A good trainer is basically there to evaluate and fix problems. Programs are pretty much the same for each particular goal, available for free on the internet. Want to 'get in shape'? Great. Get your HR above 120 for an hour every day. Doesn't matter how. Snatch stuck at body weight and you want to get to 1.5? Okay, go see a trainer.

But you need one anyway. Source: human.

Most people do absolutely nothing of value in the gym. They'd be healthier using the time to get more sleep. Enter the trainer. Something about a human telling you what to do is comforting and allows you to put your brain away and just do it. People that train with a trainer will see results. People that don't, might. A trainer is required to be the best in any sport. Lots of people that are pretty good don't use one. But if you're at the bottom of the pile in where you want to be, get a trainer.

<comment><USER22> Thats the problem with gyms though, they offer nothing of human value.

I switched to doing BJJ instead and I am addicted because I have training, discipline and a social aspect.

I never got any of that pounding on the treadmill or struggling to lift 16kg dumb bells

<comment><USER23> > I never got any of that pounding on the treadmill or struggling to lift 16kg > dumb bells

I think that's what was meant by "Most people do absolutely nothing of value in the gym."

There's a little bit more to it than that. I retained training services for the first few years I did triathlon simply because I didn't know anything about it. (What are these heart-rate training zones? What strength exercises are useful to triathlon? What are base/build/peak/transition stages? What are the correct biomechanics for strength exercise? etc., etc.) In the end I ended up reading a lot of books and pieced enough together that I construct my own training plans and do my own strength training - correctly - now.

At my first triathlon it was quite apparent that 80% of the participants hadn't done any of this. These days I'll see someone "pounding on the treadmill [or pavement]" or flailing through the water or riding their bike with a seat that's way too low or doing basic strength exercises incorrectly and realize that - indeed - all that time spent exercising is mostly wasted:

a) Pounding on the treadmill/pavement - usually too low a stride rate and/or incorrect running mechanics will lead to joint problems / repetitive stress injury in short order; b) Flailing through the water - hello shoulder surgery! Form is 10x as important as strength in the water. I've seen guys with well- developed lats struggle at 100 yards and skinny kids zip right by me. c) Riding bike with seat too low will eventually lead to knee and possibly back problems. Get a bike fit. d) Strength exercise is useless unless you are correctly activating the right muscles in the correct order. Worst I've ever seen: GHD machine being used with hip flexion range of 45 to -15 degrees. Ouch.

It is possible to get value out of a gym membership but mechanics are really important.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Slack drops 10% after its revenue growth guidance fails to impress - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/04/slack-drops-10-after-its-revenue-growth-guidance-fail-to-impress/ <comment><AUTHOR> > ... investors had expected the firm to more aggressively beat expectations

I know this is the norm nowadays with companies sandbagging guidance, but the above statement is still absurd.</comment>


So, what are databases good for? - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/vwfaq.html When do you prefer, say, text files and a filesystem to a database? <comment><USER2> I feel that they give you an easy way to organize your data and map it to objects in the programming language. If you just use the file system, you have to reinvent the wheel. Since there are several free databases available, the costs shouldn't be a factor in the decision for using them.</comment>


Norwegian ISP: dig your own fiber trench, save $400  - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/norwegian-isp-dig-your-own-fiber-trench-save-400.ars

<comment><USER2> _The obvious downside is that passionate customers are more likely to complain whenever they see shortcomings in the product._

That is not a downside. It's another upside.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think the most impressive thing was how they lined up support _before_ deploying the network. That seems like a win for everyone involved, as they don't have to make huge speculative capital outlays... they already know they will have customers. Presumably the customers reap the cost savings in the form of lower bills.

<comment><USER4> BT did this with the ADSL rollout in the UK. They only upgraded exchanges where the demand from locals went over a threshold.

It actually angered quite a few towns and villages that didn't have sufficient percentage interest to get their exchange upgraded to handle ADSL. They had to do their own local canvasing etc which I guess was a good way to get people to do marketing for free.

<comment><USER5> what's really interesting about this is how BT are going to be pushing through their ADSL2/fiber upgrade- they need to make it commercially viable so are going to be requiring some strict resale restrictions etc. :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In Sweden we've used a similar system. The state has provided financial support for creating economic associations (not sure of the term there, but it's what my dictionary tells me) that build and own fibre networks.

It's been very successful in the country side, where the people of e.g. a village formed the association and then built their own network. These networks are then connected for municipality's backbone, and it's done.

Prices per month for Internet access in nets connected to my local backbone, symmetrical: 10Mbps for $24, 30Mbps for $34, 100/10Mbps asym for $35. There's also an additional $10 or so for access to the backbone.

Each member of the association pays something like $5000 for their part of the network, but that's tax deductible to some extent.

<comment><USER3> In the US, we'd probably call these 'economic associations' co-operatives, or co-ops for short.

There are several municipalities trying to do something like that here. The problem is that the local telephone and cable companies lobby state governments to pass laws making it illegal to do so. It's rather ridiculous.

<comment><USER7> Burlington Telecom is one of the more successful, from Vermont: <http://www.burlingtontelecom.net/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I know very little about telecom infrastructure, so this might have a really obvious answer - but why does the last stretch HAVE to to be underground? In other words, why isn't a "skip the trench, save $400" model feasible?

<comment><USER5> I would suggest that:

\- fiber is relatively more expensive than simple copper strands; \- hanging a cable from a telephone pole to the house is not resilient to weather; \- fiber can snap easily, and needs to be wrapped in thick protection: see point 2 \- most of it comes underground now so it'd be a waste to break out into the air

and: wifi from cabinets in the street would be weird. :)

<comment><USER3> But is there any reason I couldn't run it in plastic tubing along the bottom of my fence for instance?

Only thing I can think of is below freezing temps, which you wouldn't get when below the frost line.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Unrelated except for the impression it forms in me: This story reminds me of encountering one of the chief officers of a small/midsize electric power company in Iowa, back in the 1980's. They were actively working _with_ Amory Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, on energy conservation because they recognized that the resultant leveling of peak generation demands made them _more_ profitable. They sold less power, but their margins improved enough to more than compensate. Everyone won.

It's always impressive to find a company willing to think outside of the established "box", and to work with their customers. To my mind, it represents a generalized form of hacking. It's not just about technology, per se, it's about finding a better way -- and, when speaking of commerce, making a business out of it.

Kudos.

<comment><USER10> God bless Amory Lovins. Every time I hear about something new he has done, I wish the story had been heard instead by someone who wasn't already such a fan.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This will probably make a lot of Norwegians happy. While the construction and public works in Norway are top-notch, they are not known for their speed of execution ;) hopefully this will let the eager geeks be a little more impatient.

</comment><comment><USER12> It works in the US too. I lived in a neighborhood served by a small mutual water company (160 houses). When we needed to replace old 4 inch mains by new 6 inch mains, the neighbors did all the in-the-trenches manual labor.</comment>


MoviePass Adds a Million Subscribers, Even If Theaters Aren't Sold on It - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/27/business/media/moviepass-theaters-tickets.html <comment><USER2> I've been trying to recreate the movie experience at my house for decades: Large screen high definition display, high-end surround sound, etc. but it just does not work. Daylight, phones ringing, kids playing, dryer buzzer, and myriad distractions diminish the experience and I'm always left with notion that it's never as enjoyable at home.

Theaters will always have a place in entertainment. And with the recent addition of la-z-boy furniture and reserved seating, there's simply no contest. Now, I want to experience all my favorite films in the communal environment of a theater. Would be great to be able to 'upvote' classic films and have them play at a local house, and watch along with others who like it enough to be there, place and time. Maybe that's where MoviePass is headed?

<comment><USER3> If you have a dedicated home theatre in your house with a projector, sound system, blocked windows, noiseproofing and plushy seats, and treat it just like you would going to the movies - mute phones, have the kids sit quietly (or be out of the house), you can get an experience equal or superior to most cinemas.

<comment><USER4> Does it have to be a solstice or can you also do it on Leap Day?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you want to see some stock market manipulation and "pump and dump" look at the parent company Helios and Matheson Analytics ($HMNY) 6 month graph — [https://finance.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AHMNY&ei=RAxFWt...](https://finance.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AHMNY&ei=RAxFWtnTIIGC2Aaah52YDw)

<comment><USER6> Haha wat. Can anyone explain this?!

<comment><USER7> [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-11/moviepass...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-11/moviepass- backer-boosts-funding-warns-service-may-not-make-it)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm still not sure how this company makes money or how they make the theaters money.

So they sell tickets for way under what they cost, they take their cut and pass it on to the theater and studio, and then claim money somehow that simply putting butts in seats is their value add.

It just doesn't make sense.

<comment><USER9> Consumer psychology.

Instead of $10 a month think of it as $120 a year. If a theater charges $12 a ticket (just to pull a round yet realistic number that means less than a movie a month at $10/month) then an annualized MoviePass subscription breaks even at 10 tickets per year.

As somebody who likes to go to the movies, how many times did you go to a theater this year, really? Six, seven times maybe? Maybe once in the late winter or spring, two or three times in the summer, once in the fall, whatever Star Wars movie comes out in the winter, maybe another time with your family during the holidays?

The truth is that people don't really change their media consumption habits, in aggregate, when they're presented with unlimited subscriptions. People just like to feel like they _could_ get anything they want and that they don't have to look at the price tag anymore, but they don't _actually_ consume more in aggregate. Sure, you get some binge subscribers who exploit the system, but they're not enough to bring down the entire enterprise.

If the industry could transition from $10/album to $10/month unlimited music subscriptions, from $10 eBooks to $10/month Kindle Unlimited eBook subscriptions, from $10 DVDs (actually, usually more than that) to $10/month Netflix subscriptions, then why can't the industry support a transition from $10 movie tickets to $10/month theater subscriptions?

<comment><USER10> For me, I certainly have changed my habits, because if movies are free, I am willing to see a lot more of them. Most movies aren't worth seeing in theatres for the previous price point with the exceptions you more or less listed. The lower one makes it worth it for me. I've seen 13 movies in the past 4 months. I would have seen maybe 5 or less otherwise. At my ticket price (which is actually around $12 a ticket), even without changing my habits, I would have still saved money at 4. I know too many college students like myself thriving off this.

<comment><USER11> I completely agree. I and a few of my friends have Moviepass, and it has become easier to go see something only a few in the group really want to see, or kind of want to see, but not willing to pay $12 for it. Tickets are so expensive I only need to go 1x/mo to break even.

I'm also a lot more willing to spend $8 for a tub of popcorn when it "cost me $0" to see the movie (I know). Before Moviepass I was going to the movies about 2x/mo, and now it is up to maybe 3x, depending on whats out there and how busy I am.

<comment><USER10> It's amazing to me that time is really the only limiting factor, I imagine for many others. I've gone to 5 movies in the past 20 days because of being off for the holidays.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> i've read that you can't 'pre-book' seats for theaters that have reserved seating a la fandango. you have to wait until you get to the theater to choose your seats. if they can fix this, i'll subscribe right away.

<comment><USER13> You have heard correctly. MoviePass requires you to be physically present at the theater before "checking in" to the movie for which you intend to purchase a ticket. Only then can you use the MoviePass Mastercard to buy your ticket.

So you can pre-book and reserve seats, but only in person. If you live very close to a theater, you could pre-book at lunchtime and come back that evening to watch the movie, for example.

It definitely requires you to be physically present, though. There is no online ticket-buying with MoviePass.

<comment><USER12> there's got to be a way to get that to work...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> In Netherlands various cinemas have their own unlimited scheme. It's usually 19-20 EUR while still needing to pay extra for 3D/IMAX. One (Pathe) charges 28 EUR to avoid the surcharges.

The price point of MoviePass is interesting and 24 USD (~20 EUR) is obviously much more than the 10 USD quoted here. Still, buying only at the theater is annoying. I prefer making a seat reservation and arriving max 5 minutes before the movie starts (there are loads of advertisements anyway).

Downsize of the Dutch unlimited options: you still have to arrive at least 30 minutes early and this gets annoying really fast (30 minutes minimum early is 35-40 in practice plus the 10-15 minutes of watching advertisements you've seen before)... quickly turns into loads of wasted time. I tried when they had a special (4 months for 40 EUR, so 10 EUR/month).

</comment><comment><USER15> There is a Costco promo for Moviepass + Fandor for $90/year, but it has a lot of negative reviews[0] this month (click on the "1 Star" bar in the review section; you can only navigate there via the javascript links).

[0] [https://www.costco.com/MoviePass-and-Fandor-12-Month- Subscri...](https://www.costco.com/MoviePass-and-Fandor-12-Month-Subscription- eVoucher.product.100395930.html?pageSize=96&catalogId=10701&dept=All&langId=-1&keyword=moviepass&storeId=10301&krypto=5OUWCpTOg0jEC9gj8gRGtHWUs%2BZXTIIMuItxc5GbCDORpy05jHXBzrlXprjbBisndqEZWoNCdmLCFqqR8wlhUj4OOC1u5L3MyQtUeWJ200U%3D)

The Costco page stresses that you _have_ to have a mobile device with the Moviepass app running when you check in at the theater, but Moviepass's own signup process doesn't say that.

</comment><comment><USER16> > _The real treasure in this venture, he contends, is the trove of data about > consumer tastes and habits that MoviePass can collect. It hopes to sell that > data to studio marketers._

I wonder if the privacy-minded folks on HN are averse to this. Or is it ok since you're getting discounted movie tickets in return?

I also wonder if they're going to take movie consumption data and marry it with other data they can glean about you (preferred theater location, residence and/or work from geolocation when you open the app, etc.). That data could be sold to folks other than just studios, since they can market related products or correlated products to you.

<comment><USER17> They're kinda beyond discounted. It's a discount if you see one film a month, but beyond that, it's basically free. It's such an insane value, I don't care if they know that I see every movie with a fresh tomato rating.

<comment><USER18> I kind of want to share my viewing habits with studios that are willing to listen. They've been turning out some real garbage the last few years.

I'm fairly privacy-paranoid in general, but in this case, I'm maybe okay with it.

<comment><USER19> It's because in this case, the value you're getting out of giving up your data is tangible and actually worth it. With facebook et al., not so much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > _Cinemark, the third-largest exhibitor, introduced its own subscription > service in early December. For $8.99 a month, members can see one movie a > month and receive a 20 percent discount on concessions, among other perks._

So I can get 30 movies per month for $10 or 1 movie per month plus 20% off concessions for $9? It'd take a helluva lot of popcorn to make that math add up...

<comment><USER20> I don't see any way that the "one movie per day" model continues. At some point, they're going to cancel it and replace it with a significantly limited plan, and hope that a enough people stick with it anyways.

Otherwise, it's just unsustainable. They've got to be burning through VC money like kindling.

<comment><USER16> I'm curious to know what the mean and median number of movies watched per customer are. I don't think you can see the same movie twice, and there are only so many movies that a given person would want to see in one month.

From the consumer side, if people think they're going to see at least 2 movies per month, then this is a win. So the bar is pretty low, and I could see the mean/median being around 3.5 movies per month. I'm sure there are some heavy users, but there are probably also folks who forget to use it some months (but don't cancel).

<comment><USER20> MoviePass does allow multiple viewings of the same movie, that was a mistake in TOS wording on their part.

 _there are only so many movies that a given person would want to see in one month._

True, for the given person you're thinking about. What about a person on disability? A cinephile? A teenager who has the whole summer off?

It's a tragedy of the commons problem. If you have one movie nut who goes to 12 movies a month (not difficult if you live in a city a short bus ride or walk to a theater) then you need 11 users to forget they have it. The outliers have a potential 30x rate.

Not to mention that those outliers could be going to IMAX 3D showings in a major city at a premium theater ($22.75 at the Chinese Theater, for instance), and you've got a $682.50 monthly bill for one user without violating the TOS.

As far as I can tell they're treating this like a gym membership, but ignoring the fundamental difference: Going to the gym sucks, going to the movies is a blast.

This is why I think as the service continues (and the money backing it dries up), they'll introduce more and more restrictions.

<comment><USER21> > Not to mention that those outliers could be going to IMAX 3D showings in a > major city at a premium theater ($22.75 at the Chinese Theater, for > instance), and you've got a $682.50 monthly bill for one user without > violating the TOS.

You can't actually use MoviePass for premium showings (3D, IMAX, etc.). It only works for standard 2D showings.

<comment><USER20> You're right, but even just a standard showing at a place like Arclight is $17.75. So a single ticket per month puts them at a loss for that user.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is there a _list_ of "participating" theaters anywhere?

I've tried a _dozen_ browser combinations (Chrome, Opera, mobile, in and out of Incognito mode, 3 devices, all with Javascript enabled for everyone) and can only get "Oops! Something went wrong!" with the map feature. I'd be fine with an ordered list but see no such option on their site.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm sad to hear this honestly, I was hoping for this to fail to hasten studios accepting that straight-to-digital is the future. Charge me $50 per movie to watch them from the comfort of my home, please.

<comment><USER23> That's existed for a while, but the price is a little eye-popping: $35k for the hardware and $500/rental. There doesn't seem to be much written about it online since 2016, so its possible its defunct or nearly so.

[http://www.primacinema.com/](http://www.primacinema.com/)

<comment><USER22> IIRC to even buy that you have to have a home theater. They come to your house and inspect to make sure it meets their standards. So yeah, it's not just the price, it's essentially a status product; meant only for the super-rich to show off that they have a home theater.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Damn if the article doesn't reek of being just one big advertisement for the service. It is written as if the theaters have no choice in the face of consumers wanting unrealistically cheap tickets.

A service with such an unrealistic price per month that it should be impossible to lose subscribers and be just as impossible to be sustainable once early investor money dries up. It just reminds me of the worst of the early internet businesses, mainly all the grocery delivery attempts and now boutique dinner delivery services

all the theater chains need to do is wait it out, count their money from all these effectively free patrons, and then launch their own if desired version. T

<comment><USER25> If theaters launched their own service, it would be one service per theater. If you lived in an area with more than one chain, you'd either subscribe to both or only go to one theater chain. Or, more likely, eventually grow dissatisfied with the service and cancel.

MoviePass is definitely making things easier for the consumer. One subscription, any theater at any time.

<comment><USER26> I think the value-add of 'you can go to any theater' is a tough sell. If the theater that I frequent offered a subscription that was any amount less than MP I would probably switch. Why would I drive further to see a movie?

<comment><USER27> If I have a MoviePass I can go to any theatre. That means I can go watch a movie with my friend who lives in the Bay area, or my Grandmother who lives in Arizona. Your question, "Why would I drive further to see a movie?" is exactly why multi-chain subscription is superior. Because I don't always go to one theatre in one city.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Is movie pass applicable at all movie theatres?? Trying to do the math to see the value

<comment><USER29> Their materials carefully imply that they aren't, but in my experience all theaters are pretty much covered. Even the small artsy theater ran by a local non-profit.

<comment><USER30> In my experience, most of the theaters in NYC are covered (including all the AMCs) but there are a small few arthouse theaters that aren't covered. That said, there are plenty of arthouse theaters in NYC that _are_ covered, so it's not a problem at all for me.

A bigger issue (for some people) is that it doesn't cover 3D films and other such fancy versions of films that also have regular versions. I personally don't care (I don't like the 3D ones) but I imagine that could be undesirable. Though, technically, there's nothing to stop you from using moviepass to see those kinds of things, but it's against their rules, so if they catch you they could cancel your subscription. I'm not sure how aggressively they check up on those things though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Let's run some numbers.

MoviePass will buy all your movies in a month for $10. They plan to make it back on monetized data. So one user ups his monthly movie consumption from 1 to 12. Let's say they get tickets at a bargain, $10 each. MP is paying > $100 a month to find out what movies this guy wants to see but isn't actually willing to pay for.[0]

That's puzzling enough, but, sure, data is a fun paradox, some kind of ubiquitous unobtanium, so for all I know they're getting it cheap. The actor in this story that really confuses me is AMC. "Not welcome here?" Why again?

Listen AMC, I'm going to let you in on something. For every $10 "someone" pays MoviePass, they are willing to buy 30 tickets.

No, look, no. I'm not saying "use proxies," like Redbox did to buy DVDs when the studios tried to cut them out of the system.[1]

Because, while I have no idea whether that's legal, I do know you're terrified of "value" customers filling seats. Discount entertainment terrifies you because you make almost nothing on ticket sales and all your profit from high- priced concessions. You need whales in seats. It's classic f2p, just somehow with a magically sustainable[2] exorbitant cost of admission tacked on to help you rent content at a ridiculous premium.[3]

So--drumoll--just advertise (hand out?) MoviePass subscriptions when people buy concessions. Anyone who already eats your food is already a w--, er, your target.[4] Not only will you get the MP ticket sales, so you can show foot traffic,[5] but also, bonus!--this will free up more of your customers' income for those ridiculously priced concessions.

[0] I have some cars I'd love to own, so if anyone wants to buy them for me, I will let them know which ones. I'll sign a contract for exclusive use of that data and everything.

[1] [http://www.slashfilm.com/retail-conspires-against-redbox- by-...](http://www.slashfilm.com/retail-conspires-against-redbox-by-limiting- dvd-purchases/)

Honestly though, the studios are probably already using proxies to buy MP subscriptions, just like how publishing companies buy their own books in bulk to drive up numbers. [1a] If not, ahem, studios, I'm going to let you in on something...

[1a] [http://www.latimes.com/books/la-et-jc-handbook-for- mortals-b...](http://www.latimes.com/books/la-et-jc-handbook-for-mortals- bestseller-ya-20170824-story.html)

[2] Well, "sustainable" is TBD. But hey, people still buy cable for some reason. Ok, bad analogy. Uh, people still listen to AM radio? Hang in there, you too can be the niche medium of the future. Just start advertising dubious health and investment products before the films, you'll get there.

[3] Sidenote - This whole new releases model -- Basically the studios are trying to free ride on marketing? Which is the magic sauce that turns lousy movies into hits, so says NPR.[3a] What if AMC just played old indie marathons like the drive in, or the campus theater, for like a dollar a ticket, but advertised the hell out of them? Oh, right, value customers... Ok, go the other way. Follow the Karaoke Bangs where you can just stream whatever you want on a big screen in a small room, hang out with your friends, and maybe add steak dinners and champagne on demand. Just become a full service restaurant with private rooms that look like people's fantasy living room already.

[3a] [https://www.npr.org/2015/08/21/433402308/how-marketing- machi...](https://www.npr.org/2015/08/21/433402308/how-marketing-machines-can- make-lousy-movies-financially-successful)

[4] Here's where I clumsily avoid turning 'whale' into some kind of lazy fat joke. Look, weight is tough, no one needs to pile on. But also look, AMC has promotions for bags of popcorn with over a thousand Calories and drinks that are nearly a liter and a half. Sure, popcorn is for "sharing," but how does 54 oz of sugar water fit in any healthy diet? You're making Big Tobacco look like... like... Michael Pollan. Atul Gawande? Something something health expert.

[5] Welcome to the late 2010s, where the theory that eyeballs are better than revenue has been conclusively proven beyond any doubt, even if no one fully understands how.

</comment><comment><USER32> Why buy a movie pass when I can just buy a ticket then theater hop after?

<comment><USER33> Because you have morals?

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Better movies would help theaters out too... CGI still looks like CGI, even in 2017 it's pretty easy to identify a CGI helicopter or explosion. Then there's the eternal topic of throwing violence and sex scenes at the consumer in an attempt to spice up a mundane plot... when all that's needed is a better plot.

<comment><USER35> The problem with "better movies" is it's totally subjective-film is art. For instance, I'd argue that the current quality of cinema has never been better. It's a mature medium with several mature distribution channels and the barriers to entry have never been lower. Some of the indie films that get produced these days are incredible. And the spectacle offered by blockbusters is truly breathtaking. Sure, there's a lot of bad movies released on both ends of the budget spectrum, but that has always been true.

The theater _experience_ on the other hand, is getting less and less appealing as home audio/video tech continues to improve at a furious pace.

<comment><USER34> Agree, it's always subjective; I didn't mean to imply that art is in any form deterministic. The items I criticized are things a general audience groans about movies both indie and blockbusters. I can think of a few recent examples that were good and bad. For instance, the plot in "Valerian" was fairly well done because there was a tension between the two main characters that we wanted to see resolved, despite the plot jumping around a bit from scene to scene. The plot in "Atomic Blonde" also jumped around, but there was no cohesion overall and the sex and violence scenes that followed were a yawn- inducing attempt to keep the viewer interested. I shut it off without finishing it and I haven't wondered how the movie ended. I love spy movies, and was hoping for another well-baked plot like "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit".

To your last point, none of those movies I watched in a theater, I waited until they were released to my online video service and I could watch from the comfort of my couch.

Thinking a bit more, I had low hopes for "Valerian" and "Jack Ryan", and high hopes for "Atomic Blonde", even though those turned out to be the opposite in reality. To my original point, I think that what killed the theater experience for me. I'm afraid to go spend $15 on a movie that _might_ suck. I'd rather spend half that and be able to leave if it's terrible.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Might as well start with SQL and migrate to NoSQL later - <AUTHOR>

All of the articles I've read recently talk about the successful migration of very large websites to NoSQL solutions. The argument against are that they NoSQL is only needed for a very small percentage of websites. That coupled with the much larger SQL tools and knowledge base and uncertainty that any new website will need such scaling leads me to my question.
Why not just start with SQL and plan a migrate to a NoSQL solution later, when it's really needed?
It's certainly doable. I feel that the benefit of a NoSQL solution is, at this time, outweighed by the ease of an SQL solution for such a majority of sites that to plan from the beginning for a NoSQL solution is overkill.
Thoughts? <comment><USER3> Given that HN is primarily peopled by founders of small bootstrapped startups, it's surprising how many advocates of key/value stores you see around here.

Overgeneralizing, key/value datastores are useful for enormulous things that operate on Twitter/Facebook scale and handle loads measured in thousands of operations per second. Looking at a few existing services that need that sort of throughput, you'll quickly notice that they're all backed by tens of millions of VC and have big teams they can devote to dealing with the overhead needed to build Big Scalable Things.

On the other hand, if you look at the dozens of "little services that charge people money to use them" that the typical bootstrapped startup founder should be striving to build, you'll notice that they all would work just fine on a relational database. So given that there are tools to get you shipped 10X as fast on an oldskool RDMS, it's surprising to see that ANY of these lean little startups would choose to go with NoSQL right out of the gate.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is very close to my line of thinking.

What real benefit is there starting out with NoSQL when most websites really don't need to scale that big.

<comment><AUTHOR> Though I do think there will come a time when it will be just as easy to start with NoSQL as SQL.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think another benefit of NoSQL datastores is the ease of making changes on a live system. There's a great presentation[0] by Steve Huffman (in part) about how reddit ended up using Postgres as a key-value store as much for ease of adding new features as performance. Go with what makes sense for your application and worry about scaling when you have users.

[0] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1330552>

<comment><USER5> Not using a relational database alone doesn't make changes any easier. Often times the complexity is just moved on to a different place or time. Of course a completely generic data model makes it easier to make a particular modification on a live system, but it makes understanding the system and the consequences of that change harder.

The question is really which parts of the entire system depend on particular invariants and constraints? Where are they checked and enforced? How are the rules represented? Moving lots of rules out of declarative and into procedural code won't make things simpler.

I have experimented a lot of with all kinds of data representations, non- relational ones mostly, but I have to say, there are trade-offs that are rarely discussed in a NoSQL context. Probably because NoSQL was primarily the answer to "how do we do something incredibly simple on an incredibly huge scale?"

Many years of doing data integration have convinced me of one thing. Closely linking application code to data makes things simpler in the beginning but it leads to a completely unmaintainable mess rather more quickly than people anticipate. Data and applications have a very different life-cycle. Data lives longer and there is rarely a 1:1 relationship between application and data. That's actually where the real impedance mismatch originates, and I'm afraid it will never go away or become much simpler.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> For me, half of the advantage of NoSQL is that it's much quicker and easier to build with, because you don't have to worry about schemas.

I'd go the opposite - start with NoSQL, and migrate to SQL if you need some more formalized relationships.

</comment><comment><USER7> For Ruby, using datamapper can allow you to (for example) use both a relational database and MongoDB together. You could also have a migration strategy based on datamapper.

That said, I would suggest picking two data stores like PostgreSQL and MongoDB and write some code examples, play around with data models for your app. If you spend several hours doing this then you can make a better decision.

BTW I have tried most of the NoSQL data stores and MongoDB is probably the easiest to use from a developer's point of view. I have used bindings for Ruby and Clojure and being able to store things like Ruby or Clojure maps directly in a documents is great. That said, PostgreSQL with built in text indexing support, etc., etc. is also a great tool. I think that if you become fluent with PG and MongoDB then that is sufficient for a wide range of problems. For my development, I toss RDF data stores into the mix, but that might just complicate things for you.

Anyway, pick one of each, have fun playing with each one before making a big commitment.

</comment><comment><USER8> First of all NoSQL isn't really that hard and the performance gains are indisputable.

For a bootstrapped startup nosql makes total sense b/c you get much more performance for your dollar.

Sure you can go the vanilla PHP/MySql or Django/Postgres route if you want to build your prototype but you will be in a bad position if your system can't scale with demand.

I would build the prototype first in your favorite framework/setup.. If it has market potential after some initial private beta testing I'd definitely go the nosql route.

</comment><comment><USER9> I am basing my startup with MongoDB and Memcached as my storage choices, rather than MySQL, for performance reasons. I can fit nginx, 2 instances of my tornado application, a small memcached slice, and mongodb on a single 256MB memory cloud machine, and am confident when I start driving a bit of traffic too it, I'll just need to bump it up to 512MB of memory to make sure I don't swap.

The real advantage will be when I get to the point of seeing real traffic, I can scale horizontally on inexpensive machines. I'll be able to maxmize all parts of physical machines, when I make to the move to maintaining my own infrastructure.

Honestly, I'm not sure why I'd want to use SQL at all, especially for a project in it's infancy. With many NoSQL implementations you can adjust your schema as you go, instead of locking yourself early into a schema that may not fit a few years down the road, and it becomes a very difficult project to make changes to it.

The caveat being that everything I'm doing works with with a key/value table. My data set and how I access it wouldn't take advantage of a lot of what SQL provides. So, if your application does benefit from SQL, then by all means use it.

</comment><comment><USER10> if you know SQL well, start with that.

If you think non-relational makes sense for your use case, try it out for smaller, non-critical parts of your system till your understanding grows. you can then decide more confidently

</comment><comment><USER11> The model for your data depends on your data. What data are you trying to store?

</comment><comment><USER12> It's not just about massive scale. I like SQL, but my experience is entirely on MS SQL, and hosting costs for that are pretty high. So I can either go with mysql/postgres, or a nosql platform. I have to learn something either way. It's looking to me like nossql can be simpler, with less administration, and very high performance on limited resources.

Redis, for example, is much more about making single boxes perform like crazy, rather than massive scaling (although they are working on a clustering for version 2.0).

Cassandra is mostly about the scaling, but is also very fast (though not as fast as redis), and if you set it up on three nodes you've got high availability. Since I plan to keep my day job, I can't drop everything to deal with server issues. I want something that just keeps on trucking no matter what.

</comment><comment><USER13> You kind of have to go with the tech you know best, otherwise getting started is going to take too long. If you already know a SQL database system, go with that. If you don't know an RDBMS or a NoSQL system, it might be worth learning the NoSQL thing.

The reason is, if you're successful, the cost of migrating later on is going to be larger than you expect. You're going to be spending a lot of time doing a lot of back-end work that users never see. Once you are dealing with huge amounts of data, it takes hours and possibly days for data migrations and conversions to even run. You screw up a data import that took 4 hours... 4 hours is now killed and you have to do it over again. The more data you have, the more potential time these types of issues will absorb.

</comment><comment><USER14> The choice between SQL/NoSQL should be made based on the features of each and what you need, and it's definitely not an exclusive choice. Remeber: _NoSQL == "Not Only SQL"_ Use all tools where they make sense.

Construction workers use both nails and screws, even though they do much the same thing. It's just a question of what's appropriate for a given task.

Finally, if it's only a question of performance, I'd suggest tabling that question until it's a real issue. Scale when you need to, not before. Only once you have a "real" system with scaling stress can you actually see what needs to be optimized. Before that, it's all theory.

</comment><comment><USER15> Get up and running and making money as fast as possible without being too stupid.

This might mean using a NoSQL database. MongoDB seems easy to try out, it could be something you'd use for some component.

But most projects fail before they ever reach some minimally useful state, not because they don't scale. Plan ahead for scaling where appropriate, but the main focus should be getting it out there in a useful state.

</comment><comment><USER16> performance/scalability isnt the only reason people go with "nosql" solutions, some people just really dont like working with traditional rdbms's

a lot of these stores let you have tighter integration with your language (and its data formats), match your mental model better and sometimes have pretty revolutionary things that you just cant do easily any other way (couchapps + replication etc)

<comment><AUTHOR> All good reasons, but for me and mine it's still easier to start with MySQL. Now I say that coming from a lazy standpoint. I use debian and do my best to not stray from the default install. Having NoSQL servers in the repo and books on the self go a long way towards a rich and vibrant ecosystem that makes it easier to get started with.

I know CouchDB is in debian stable, but it's at .8 last time I checked and >.9 breaks some things between the two. I would feel more comfortable once a solution is in the repo and basically feature stable.

<comment><USER17> CouchDB is pretty stable. The BBC are using it live, so it's safe for production use.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not saying it isn't stable, rather it's still in development. I don't want to use couchdb .8 in the debian stable repo only to have to recode my app when I upgrade to .9 or .10 because of breaking changes.

<http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Breaking_changes>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Try one. If it's not doing what you want, try the other way. It's more important to start on something than to obsess over these things :)

</comment><comment><USER19> It makes a lot more sense to start with a relational DB, because as pg notes, you are likely to make at least one change of direction in your startup, and various NoSQL databases are _optimized for different things_. Beginning with a common RDBM like MySQL will help you get started quicker and you can optimize or upgrade later, if it ever becomes necessary.

</comment><comment><USER20> You could always start with MySQL then migrate quite easily to clustrix since they support the MySQL API. They're expensive, but you may find that by the time you need to scale to that degree you can easily afford them.

<http://www.clustrix.com/>

<comment><USER21> Agreed. I think this is an area where we're going to see a lot of competition in the next years so prices should go down quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> quote from Peter:

There are 2 things you should ask yourself. First is the scale comparable – the recipes from Facebook, YouTube, Yahoo, are not good for like 99.9% of the applications because they are not even remotely close in size and so capacity requirements. Second if this "smart thing" was truly thought out architecture choice in beginning or it was the choice within code base constrains they had, and so you might not have.

[http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/03/01/kiss-kiss- kis...](http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/03/01/kiss-kiss-kiss/)

</comment><comment><USER23> Adapting your database models to an exotic NoSQL may eventually alter your functionality. Users don't like change.

<comment><AUTHOR> reddit, digg and others were able to make the transition without altering their functionality. I don't see this as a very hard argument for not.

Even if it were the case, careful planning for the transition could mitigate distasteful changes.

<comment><USER24> Reddit uses Cassandra for a very small part of their functionality - <USER2> primary database is Postgre. Digg has yet to transitation over to Cassandra and generally, their transition has been delayed (even if they have a lot more resources than a regular startup). Facebook only uses Cassandra for inbox search, their primary database is MySQL.

The bottom line is to use NoSQL where it makes sense and where it solves the job better than relational databases.</comment></comment></comment>


Astroquery: A package that contains tools to access online astronomical data - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/astropy/astroquery <comment><USER2> Anyone has example projects using this?

<comment><USER3> There are some Astropy tutorials that use Astroquery: [http://learn.astropy.org/tutorials.html?q=filterTutorials+fi...](http://learn.astropy.org/tutorials.html?q=filterTutorials+filterastroquery)

A number of the example notebooks here use Astroquery: [https://github.com/spacetelescope/notebooks](https://github.com/spacetelescope/notebooks)

LightKurve ([https://docs.lightkurve.org/](https://docs.lightkurve.org/)) uses Astroquery internally.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are you teaching kids during vacations? - <AUTHOR> Hi HNers,
Like many countries, schools are closed in my country too for 2+ months. Kids will be at home and we will not be able to go for outing due to coronavirus. I want to utilize this time to improve their shortcomings. My elder one is 10y old and the younger one is 5. I am not interested in what they are taught in schools. A rough plan I have prepared yey(incomplete though as yet) is given below(For my 10y olds)
- Physical Health:
- Running between rooms for 15 mins initially.
 - Diet plan
 - Breathing Exercise.
- English
 - Improve his English Vocab(We are from Asia).
 - Writing.
- Maths
   - Intro of Algebra
   - Teaching applications of Math and how to use it(Not sure yet, I bought "What is MAthematics?" and "How to Solve it" so might use it.
- Science
   - Home-based science experiment.
   - Teaching basics of different natural phenomenon(How clouds are formed etc)
- Logic
   - How to use FlowChart to make Algos.
What will you suggest or how are you planning to make your kids' vacations productive? <comment><USER2> Yesterday I took my kids (4 and ~7) to an old WWI/WWII fort along the coast. We had a nice picnic and discussed WWI/II briefly. We also discussed sea currents and geology (the fort is in some cliffs overlooking the sea and there is lots of quartz). We were able to go outside, keep away from other people and learn a bit. Social distancing doesn't need to mean stay in your house.

Today they will be drawing pictures of the seedlings they just planeted last weekend. Some are just starting to poke through.

Tomorrow, maybe we make some CNC projects (like making stamps from their drawings).</comment>