Apple Plans Giant High-End iPhone, Lower-Priced Model - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/apple-is-said-to-plan-giant-high-end-iphone-lower-priced-model <comment><USER2> > Despite months of breathless hype, the iPhone X hasn't sold as well as > expected since its debut last year. Apple sold 77.3 million iPhones in the > final quarter of 2017, below analysts' projections of 80.2 million units. > Some consumers were turned off by the iPhone X's $1,000 price despite liking > the design even as they wanted something more cutting-edge than the cheaper > iPhone 8. With its next lineup, Apple is seeking to rekindle sales by > offering a model for everyone.

This seems like color commentary that isn't supported by their sources, or data. I'm not sure how they are supporting this statement. Apple's recent quarterly earnings [0] showed iPhone sales as (essentially) stable, year over year. ASP increased to $800 dollars (!) which would point to the iPhone X doing relatively well, despite not being available for the entire quarter.

Even beyond that, there is no way for Apple to begin product development at a point _after_ they saw the Q4 results. There is far to much lead-time required for them to be able to wait until now to do so.

My guess is that 1) the rumors of these 2 new models are true, 2) Apple committed to this product roadmap a long time ago, and 3) Bloomberg is adding it's own spin to make the leaks more salacious.

[0] - [https://sixcolors.com/post/2018/02/apple-reports-its- holiday...](https://sixcolors.com/post/2018/02/apple-reports-its- holiday-2017-earnings-today/)

<comment><USER3> There is a decent amount of evidence that Apple's sales from the iPhone X (specifically) are less than expected, including 2-for-1 deals and Samsung cutting production of OLEDs. At the same time the margins on the X are better than ever.

I agree it's unnecessary commentary, but based in fact without too much speculation.

<comment><USER2> I haven't seen any iPhone X 2-for-1 deals, in the US at least. Samsung's OLED production glut can't be pinned solely on Apple [0]. Most of the "Apple slashes iPhone X production forecast" rumors seem to be... unreliable at best [1] [2].

[0] - [http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently- apple/2018/02/apples-i...](http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently- apple/2018/02/apples-iphone-x-is-the-instant-scapegoat-for-samsungs-failure- to-win-oled-orders-from-chinese-vendors.html)

[1] - [https://www.ped30.com/2018/02/20/nikkei-slashes- apple/](https://www.ped30.com/2018/02/20/nikkei-slashes-apple/)

[2] - [https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/958421107245232128](https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/958421107245232128)

<comment><USER4> Yeah, we hear this every 1Q's. Apple's sales peak during the release quarter and steadily declines over the next three quarters, until the new one comes out next year. I think this natural decline has been misinterpreted by reporters who really don't know any better and misreported as "declining demand."

<comment><USER5> Apparently [https://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-reduces-oled-panel- product...](https://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-reduces-oled-panel-production- citing-poor-iphone-x-sales/) (warning: autoplaying video with audio :( ):

> Samsung Display, Samsung's panel-making division, is reducing OLED panel > production at its South Chungcheong plant, according to the Nikkei Asian > Review, thanks to lower than expected iPhone X sales.

> The report states Samsung now plans to cover 20 million or fewer iPhone X > devices for the quarter ending in March, a large decrease from the expected > 45 to 50 million units.

(I certainly can't confirm the reporting.)

<comment><USER6> [https://www.statista.com/statistics/263401/global-apple- ipho...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/263401/global-apple-iphone-sales- since-3rd-quarter-2007/) claims Apple sold 50.76 million iPhones in the equivalent quarter a year ago.

If that is correct, expecting them to sell 45 to 50 million iPhone X'es this quarter, to me, seems a tad optimistic.

Similarly, [https://www.statista.com/statistics/276306/global-apple- ipho...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/276306/global-apple-iphone-sales- since-fiscal-year-2007/) claims Apple sold 216 million iPhones in total in 2017, but [https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-samsung-iphone-x- oled...](https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-samsung-iphone-x-oled- display-824718/) claims

 _"Samsung shipped Apple 50 million OLED displays for the iPhone X in 2017. That number looks to quadruple to 180-200 million in 2018."_

Who is pulling numbers out of thin air, statista.com or Samsung?

<comment><USER7> > Who is pulling numbers out of thin air, statista.com or Samsung?

These numbers don't necessarily contradict each other. Since the X is the first OLED iPhone, and the X wasn't realeased until November, those "50 million OLED displays in 2017" were only for enough production to cover 2 months of sales. Projecting 180-200mm units in 2018 isn't unreasonable, based on that initial demand.

It looks like from the parents CNET article that they may have trimmed that outlook since then, potentially based on a stronger tapering of demand than they expected. But the original number isn't quite in the realm of thin air and lived comfortably in the land of the mildly optimistic (if improbable).

<comment><USER6> Two months with pent-up demand (Apple announced the iPhone X on September 12, and 'everybody' knew a new phone was going to be announced at least two weeks before) in the quarter were Apple typically sells a third of its yearly number of phones.

If you assume the other three quarter each do 22% of sales, that 50 million already goes down to 34 million. Anything more, for me, would be a big surprise.

But chances are this is more to blame on reporters hunting for attention than on Samsung. Samsung may just have said they would sell fewer displays than the 50 million of last quarter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Despite months of breathless hype, the iPhone X hasn't sold as well as > expected since its debut last year. Apple sold 77.3 million iPhones in the > final quarter of 2017, below analysts' projections of 80.2 million units.

Considering the iPhone was going to be a flop by those same analysts, I'd say selling 77.3 million of them is pretty good.

Who actually writes this rubbish? They missed out on 3 million phones, based on a number you made up? It was out of stock for weeks and is only now really available.

<comment><USER9> Analysts always make these wildly stupid predictions and then throw a fit when Apple magically doesn't meet them. It's absurd.

Meanwhile other companies like Uber lose "only" a billion dollars and the analysts are losing their minds.

<comment><USER10> It's kind of weird that gaining marketshare in a shrinking market while increasing revenue per sold phone would be a bad thing just because some analist thought it would even sell better.

<comment><USER9> Apple has always had a strange relationship with analysts, but post Jobs they started to generate increasingly insane projections.

Part of the blame here is on Apple, they run an unusually secretive operation, where other companies would give a lot more in the way of guidance to help keep expectations more realistic.

<comment><USER11> They don't provide guidance on product mix, but they do provide guidance on expected revenue and margin. For Q1 2018 they projected between $84-$87 billion and came in at $88.3 billion.

Apple has been historically accurate in nailing their projections, yet when analysts calculate the expected product mix, they either forget the mix and assume Apple is going to sell $80 billion in only iPhones, or they include the mix, which must mean they expect Apple to sell $120 billion worth of stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> " _Apple has tried selling cheaper phones in the past with poor results._ " I love the iPhone SE. They can keep gradually improving that model and I'm good.

<comment><USER13> I have an iPhone 6/64GB and it has been running really slow. Last thing I tried is to disable all location services (besides for specific maps apps) and helped a little bit. Apple diagnosed that its battery still good. Question, how is your iPhone SE performance?

<comment><USER14> I'd still replace the battery regardless of what they tell you.

Apple once told me I had a good battery even though my phone would randomly shut off and attaching to a charger was the only solution to get the phone to turn on. Thankfully I had AppleCare and pushed for them to replace the phone.

<comment><USER15> Yup, download GeekBench and do a test

My iPhone 7 was had a crippled batter after one year - it performed like an iPhone 6..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Do you know what I really want from an iPhone? A more stable iOS. They've got a lot of bugs creeping in that seem like regressions. Little cracks appearing around the corners. Stuff that shouldn't really be bugs as they should have tests in place for this. I don't want fancy talking animated emoji. Or balloons flying around when I send an iMessage. I just want something solid.

One of the most annoying issues I have is with basic SMS from a non-iPhone user. The notification doesn't give me the sender's name, it just gives me their number, even though it's in my Contacts and I've just sent them an SMS. Not everyone I send messages to lives in an iMessage bubble or has WhatsApp or whatever. I've raised this as bug with Apple and they've flagged it as a duplicate. Many iOS updates later it somtimes it says [Maybe: <Person's Name>] as the notification. Why maybe? It never use to say that.

<comment><USER17> > _Do you know what I really want from an iPhone? A more stable iOS._

Apple (apparently) hears you: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-12/how- apple...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-12/how-apple-plans- to-root-out-bugs-revamp-iphone-software)

I also recommend this Steven Sinofsky tweetstorm: [https://twitter.com/stevesi/status/963142502604779520?lang=e...](https://twitter.com/stevesi/status/963142502604779520?lang=en)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> As long as they don't kill the SE, this is fine. I like having a truly functional decently new iPhone.

</comment><comment><USER19> Hopefully lower-priced isn't just cheaper parts alone, but also the option for a smaller phone.

Edge-to-edge, I want a phone the size of a 6/7 screen. Smaller form factor without losing usable area is my dream iPhone, not something larger or even the X size.

</comment><comment><USER20> I keep on thinking about ditching my iPhone for a Mini with cellular capability. I never make phone calls any more; mostly it gets used for Mastodon, IM, email, and running the Kindle app. Maybe I'll try that when the next upgrade happens. If it does; MacRumors says the main rumor is of it being discontinued soon...

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm an Android user because I don't want to spend more than $250 on the device in my arsenal that takes the most abuse.

A good Apple product that competed with, for example, the Moto G4, could change the game. I'd love a mostly disposable iPhone that was as good as a mid-range Android.

<comment><USER21> Not really understanding the downvotes here. I'm a potential Apple afficiciando, but at the Moto G4 pricepoint. Does that make me fodder of some sort?

<comment><USER22> Only reason I can think of is that it shows a bit of a misunderstanding of Apple's business model. They've never competed on price in the phone market and are unlikely to start any time soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Hmm, maybe I should buy a couple spare 7 or 8.

I'm not buying a phone without touchid.

</comment><comment><USER24> I keep wondering when Apple will bite the bullet and make a phone for the emerging market. The smartphone market is getting more and more mature and if Apple want's to keep sales up I think segmentation will be key. I would not be surprised if there is a philosophical battle going on in Apple right now about whether or not to make a phone for India & Africa, but the market is there.

<comment><USER25> The budget market is generally a race to the bottom, and I don't see Apple interested in such a market. I know the counter will be that Apple can combine quality with fairly low price, but I think that's quite a high risk proposition.

<comment><USER26> I think the one good reason to make a phone for the budget market is app developer mind share. While developers obviously cant avoid building for iOS, the more data you see of overall users/your users coming from Android, you implicitly start building for Android first and then your iOS app "catching up". If you are a resource constrained company in India, in China, I imagine you build for Android first and then iOS. This lost mindshare would be problematic in the long term.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I do not want FaceID, and will resist it as long as possible. I do not want to normalize the idea that security should depend on a camera taking images of my face and environment. I am not alone in this, and believe this is one reason the iPhone X is selling poorly.

<comment><USER28> FaceID doesn't "take images of your face and environment" though. It uses a dot projection (the pattern is unique to each phone) to produce a 3D approximation of your face's structure, and collapses this into some sort of mathematical representation of your face. This information is stored in a separate chip on the phone which the OS does not have access to (and it never leaves your phone; Apple isn't using your face for processing in the cloud or anything). By their statistics, FaceID is an order of magnitude less likely to result in false positives than TouchID.

And aside from this, for people who are truly concerned about security, Apple recommends not using either FaceID or TouchID anyway (as both can be compelled by court order in the US).

<comment><USER27> > FaceID doesn't "take images of your face and environment" though.

From "How Apple's New FaceID Works" at Gizmodo:

"Face ID starts with an image of your face, but builds on top of it with the TrueDepth's dot projector, which will invisibly project over 30,000 dots onto your face each time you look at your phone, creating and building on its map of your features.

"'We use the image and the dot pattern to push through neural networks to create a mathematical model of your face,' Apple's Phil Schiller explained."

\- [https://gizmodo.com/how-apples-new-face-id- works-1803813400](https://gizmodo.com/how-apples-new-face-id-works-1803813400)

Your objection to my objection might be that FaceID doesn't store the images it takes, but uses them to construct a facial map that it stores instead.

But even if that were any better, that's not true, either.

From Apple's iOS Security Guide:

"Once it confirms the presence of an attentive face, the TrueDepth camera projects and reads over 30,000 infrared dots to form a depth map of the face, along with a 2D infrared image. This data is used to create a sequence of 2D images and depth maps, which are digitally signed and sent to the Secure Enclave."

\- [https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf](https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf)

The public nature of your face inherently makes access to your phone less secure than the private nature of your fingerprints or even a PIN. But it's not the security of the phone, or the photos or face map stored on it that trouble me.

It's the camera-based security paradigm I reject. It reduces resistance to a surveillance society, and increases the incentives for other businesses to use face-identifying software, which destroys privacy in the real world. I don't want people to get used to surrendering their privacy to access their data, and I won't buy a phone that sends a market signal telling the corporate world that I accept these kind of privacy-destroying technologies.

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful response.

<comment><USER29> Are you arguing that a face map and high resolution infrared photo is more public than a fingerprint?

<comment><USER27> No. I'm saying that your face is more public than your fingerprint, and that makes your phone less secure. That's not my primary reason for being against FaceID, but it's an obvious truth that Apple has engaged in a lot of misdirection about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Apple just lost time with iPhone X, they don't know what they're doing, they're loosing time tasting the market and giving away their path to competition. Clearly someone with more vision is making the difference here.</comment>


AMD EPYC Tech Docs and White Papers - <AUTHOR> https://www.amd.com/en/processors/server-tech-docs/search <comment><USER2> Seems more like benchmarks and marketing material. Was hoping for something more like [https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel- sdm](https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-sdm)

<comment><USER3> Something like those? The equivalement to the SDM is the "AMD64 Architecture Programmer's Manual". The other documents are specific to the EPYC (and other families).

[https://developer.amd.com/resources/epyc-resources/epyc- spec...](https://developer.amd.com/resources/epyc-resources/epyc- specifications/)

[https://developer.amd.com/resources/developer-guides- manuals...](https://developer.amd.com/resources/developer-guides-manuals/)

EDIT: Just realized the BIOS and Kernel development guide for family 17h isn't there. Will probably come out soon enough.</comment></comment>


Comprehensive undergraduate math book list - <AUTHOR> https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~abhishek/chicmath.htm <comment><USER2> There is similar website for physics textbook recommendation if anyone interested. The list was last updated in 1997.

[http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/booklist...](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/booklist.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice list.

Let's say you spend your weekends (15 hours / week) focussed on going through this book list. Approximately how long would it take to get through (~50% of exercises) let's say one book in each topic in the "Intermediate" section?

<comment><USER4> Where are you starting from? Are you seeing the concepts for the very first time or dusting off concepts you've learnt about years ago and then forgotten?

Also it's not worth going through all the books since there is a lot of overlap. Pick one book from each topic that interests you and start with that. Then you can perhaps go back and fill in any gaps those books might have left.

Time-wise it's basically impossible to say anything useful. It depends on the book and on you. If you get the right book that teaches a topic you find fascinating in the 'right' way for your brain, you can probably get through it in a couple of weekends. With the wrong book teaching the wrong topic using the wrong approach for you, you can beat your head against it for months and still not get anywhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> No Principia Mathematica, or anything on Cantor or Kronecker - though they might be touched on elsewhere in the list. They do include a intro to infinity, which I've not read.

I'm not actually sure that is a bad thing. So, just a curiosity.

<comment><USER4> We're talking undergraduate here. Undergraduate level math is really just about introducing the basic concepts of mathematics. There is no way your average undergraduate student would gain anything of note from trying to read Principia.

<comment><USER5> I was a math major and consumed it while an undergrad. I also would find that a good time to start work on infinity and save randomness for graduate levels.

Kids these days! ;-)

I do suppose it may be a bit different today, as I'd expect today's foundations to include more computer-centric course. That is not a complaint, just a sign of the times. We were, for the most part, expected to figure that out on our own.

<comment><USER4> Undergraduate courses will obviously cover the core ideas discovered by Russel, Whitehead, Cantor etc. The basic concepts from their works where certainly introduced to us during the first year of my undergrad math degree, and built upon during subsequent courses. I just think that expecting undergrads to read the actual works of Russel, Whitehead, Cantor etc. is not the best use of their times.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Did the vertical spacing increase? - <AUTHOR>

I am used to seeing almost 27 posts per page, but now I see 24. I thought I was imagining it, but the cached version is more compact: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://news.ycombinator.com/
Apparently the height of the <tr> containing the title has increased from 16px to 19px.
No opinion on it. <comment><USER2> Not sure what the reasoning behind it was, but it now displays 11% less information per pageload, with no improvement (for me at least) to readability. Hopefully they can either justify it (no pun intended) or better yet revert it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Soon: news.news.ycombinator.com—all the daily updates you could want about changes to un-cache-busted HN CSS and backend modifications.

<comment><AUTHOR> Juicy.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is it worth it working on big ideas that will probably never succeed? - <AUTHOR>

I believe there are some big problems that can be addressed with technology and big problems with technology itself (see internet centralization and spying)
I would love to try tackling those big problems, but I have the concern the public is not worried about it at all.
And it seems way easier to work and be successful working on the next Snapchat for puppies. <comment><USER2> "The public" is not a good market. Find a small set of people who really need what you're thinking of, and grow from there.

There are a lot of people working on cool tech for important problems. You just don't hear about them because its much easier to share the latest silly app with your friends.

</comment><comment><USER3> With all due respect to Snapchat's users and their puppies - they're irrelevant. Successful businesses function in one of two ways: they either create a solution to a problem that bothers certain parties and sell that solution to them, or they create a problem and then "invent" a solution. Any real business on this planet is about supplying something that you know there's demand for. If you know for sure that you want to be a big-problem- solver, then go for it, you'll find your market as you go. Also, this might serve as an inspiration: [http://www.technologyreview.com/magazine/2012/11/](http://www.technologyreview.com/magazine/2012/11/)

</comment><comment><USER4> > big problems that can be addressed with technology and big problems with > technology itself (see internet centralization and spying)

You might be interested in the SAFE Network ([http://systemdocs.maidsafe.net/content/en/what_it_is/README....](http://systemdocs.maidsafe.net/content/en/what_it_is/README.html)). It's not quite ready yet (but it's expected to launch this year, perhaps in the summer).

</comment><comment><USER5> Some people might tell you it's the only thing that is worth it. I'm paraphrasing here, but Fred Wilson just today said that the way to succeed is to work on things that nobody else things will succeed, and succeed.

</comment><comment><USER6> Why do you care what the public thinks? Don't work on things just because people want them, work on things because you care about them.</comment>


PyGreen – The Simplest Static Web Site Generator Ever For Python Programmers - <AUTHOR> http://butterflyprogramming.neoname.eu/pygreen-the-simplest-static-web-site-generator-ever-for-python-programmers/

<comment><USER2> I've been looking for a blogging-focused static website generator in Python. Nikola [1] is the best I've found so far.

[1] <https://github.com/ralsina/nikola>

<comment><AUTHOR> Nikola is very similar to Jekyll or nanoc. Everything is declarative, you're limited to the features implementented in the generator (and to the features that are documented). That's really not the same thing than the quick&dirty, code-what-you-need approach of PyGreen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Why does everyone claim to be the "most simple" static website generator? Then they list their few dependencies like "web framework foo". My idea of "most simple" would be something like this:

         #!/bin/bash
         for f in *.mdwn
         do
        	pandoc "$f" -o "${f%.*}.html" --standalone
        done

A bash script with a loop plus one command to convert a markdown file into a HTML file. You might choose something different than pandoc. Most likely you will have an executable called "markdown*" in your $PATH.

<comment><USER4> I wrote a command line program that evaluates jinja2 templates (jinjafy.py), and then a script that filters a directory of html files through it, copying any other files. Works ok so far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Whenever I find myself making a static site I create it in flask and them wget over it to convert to HTML. Normally I push to s3 so it would probably make sense to put a layer in to self publish using boto. Building in a simple framework and pushing to static is a great way to create a solid and cost effective site.

<comment><USER6> You might try Frozen-Flask.

<http://pythonhosted.org/Frozen-Flask/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> There's also Cody Broscious's Benjen framework, if your need is a blog.

<https://github.com/daeken/Benjen>

 _"Benjen is a tiny static blog generator. At its heart is a <100 line Python script, which takes in your templates and blog entries and produces a static site."_

</comment><comment><USER8> Nicolas,

You should consider adding a little more leading to your website's copy to improve readability.

</comment><comment><USER9> I like this trend of making ever-more simple static site generators. To promote my own project, check out Kerouac [1] if you prefer your tooling to be in Node.js.

[1] <https://github.com/jaredhanson/kerouac>

</comment><comment><USER10> This is an interesting everything-old-is-new-again trend. The original Blogger actually published static web sites over FTP.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, of course, who didn't :). That was the way to learn html in the nineties.

No, seriously, if you want to compare with an old stuff compare with PHP because that's precisely what I copied. But as far as I know there was no other project that ported that quick&dirty approach to Python.

<comment><USER11>
      > if you want to compare with an old stuff compare with PHP because that's precisely what I copied. But as far as I know there was no other project that ported that quick&dirty approach to Python.

mod_python has been around for something like 13 years.

<comment><USER12> mod_python is more like CGI than PHP. What was missing was reversing the whole paradigm from "Start with a programming language, and add HTML generation" to "Start with an HTML page, and add little dynamic bits" which is what PHP did so amazingly well that it is still more or less the top server-side programming language despite its many deep flaws.

<comment><USER11> I was speaking more of the PSP[1] (python server pages) component of mod_python, but I guess that component was released later in 2004[2].

Note: I make no recommendation for its usage. I personally consider 'start with html and add dynamic bits', for anything beyond the trivial, as an anti- pattern.

      [1]: http://www.modpython.org/live/current/doc-html/pyapi-psp.html

      [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_Server_Pages

<comment><AUTHOR> I could not agree more with you. Even if I created Pygreen I would not use it for big projects. _But_ I know what I'm doing when I create my small web sites and I know for a simple static web site 'start with html and add dynamic bits' is just fine. See it as a bash script, it's not meant to be readable nor reusable. It's quickly created code that serves for one purpose.

I'm the first to say it's quick&dirty. Yet quick&dirty has its advantages in some cases, even for good programmers that know how to make solid and maintainable applications.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > sudo easy_install pygreen

Who uses easy_install these days.</comment>


The Peculiar History of Life Insurance - <AUTHOR> http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/the-peculiar-history-of-life-insurance/ <comment><USER2> This sounds more convincing in terms of the history of life insurance.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_insurance#Life_insu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_insurance#Life_insurance)

Maybe the article means to talk about the history of life insurance in the USA.

</comment><comment><USER3> for those who wish to know...

Life Assurance (as opposed to insurance) is an excellent investment vehicle.. and often provides a tax free investment after a specified period, providing life cover up until it is cashed in.

[http://taxplanet.com/magazine/other- topics/107-miscellaneous...](http://taxplanet.com/magazine/other- topics/107-miscellaneous/467-difference-between-life-insurance-and-life- assurance)

<comment><USER4> "Life Assurance" isn't a phrase commonly used in the United States. It's just called Life Insurance. And, as long as the organization backing it doesn't go under (counterparty risk), and you can live with being locked in for a period of time (there are usually pretty significant penalties for early withdrawal) it certainly offers a higher yield than most savings accounts you can get these days.

<comment><USER5> The proper comparison is stock investments, not savings accounts.

<comment><USER4> Not sure how life assurance/insurance works in the United States, but in Singapore, the principal is 100% guaranteed by the SDIC (Singapore Deposit Insurance Corporation) - so, kind of a hybrid between Savings (Guaranteed by Government), and Stock (ROI linked to underlying equities.)

The major difference is significant penalties for early withdrawal.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Buyers, Browsers, Bouncers & Trolls - <AUTHOR> http://adgrok.com/buyers-browsers-bouncers-trolls-or-why-you-really-really-want-conversion-tracking?utm_source=hn&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=help

<comment><USER2> I think the closest analogue to a bounced visit is a window shopper: they take a glance at your site as they're walking by, don't see anything that catches their eye, and move along. Of course, the analogy isn't quite the same because the "boundaries" feel different--a window shopper never enters your shop, but a bounced visitor does enter your site. Perhaps you can imagine that the "boundaries" of your shop includes the storefront and the little area of street outside, where you may set up a sign. Similarly, you may not consider someone "in" your site until they click past the shiny welcome mat.

In any case, the analogy is useful because your tactics as a site/shop owner are similar: you have someone's two-second glance at your pretty facade as they walk past to pique their interest and convert them into a browser. And once they're in, you still have to convert them to a buyer.

</comment><comment><USER3> _utm_source=hn &utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=help_

I hope you have a better marketing strategy than blogging for hn...

<comment><AUTHOR> I only added the Google Analytics tracking parameters only for geek irony... The referring URL is sufficient to track HN viewers.

Thanks for reading!

<comment><USER2> In Google Analytics, the referring URL is overridden by the contents of _utm_source_ if it is present. In addition, changing the _utm_medium_ means that the new source value won't show up in the Referring Sites report with the rest of the referring traffic. If you were looking in GA, you wouldn't be able to figure out where this traffic was coming from, and your search traffic will be inflated.

Of course, if it's your site, mess with your data all you want. Just be sure to let your analyst know, so he doesn't spend all week trying to find the inexplicable jump in traffic from this new search engine named "hn."</comment></comment></comment>


Startups I'd Like to Fund - <AUTHOR> http://thestartupconference.com/2017/02/17/startups-id-like-to-fund-2017/ <comment><USER2> > Maybe machine learning can help distinguish the important e-mail I care > about. Is your startup taking a fresh look at e-mail? Great!

Google has been doing this for years, automatically sorting your inbox for you.

> Why can't we aggregate great comments from different sites, based on what > I'm interested in? Where is Big Data when you need it? Twitter has failed > miserably at solving that problem.

Companies are deliberately sequestering their data and preventing it from being scraped, because that data is a valuable asset.

> Talking about cool technologies, I find Machine Learning fascinating. It's > entirely possible that only a few years from now, programming will become > irrelevant, replaced with feeding huge amount of data to all kinds of neural > networks.

This doesn't even mean anything. What do you think all those magical AIs are made of? Computer programs, written by a programmer.</comment>


Glenn Greenwald, I'm sorry: Why I changed my mind on Edward Snowden - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/2015/05/23/glenn_greenwald_im_sorry_why_i_changed_my_mind_on_edward_snowden/

<comment><USER2> I voted for it before reading it - it sucks. The title makes it sound like Glenn Greenwald is saying sorry - I don't see anything like that in there. His name gets a couple of mentions, but it's about some no-name former marine changing /his/ mind. I regret my upvote.

edit: Ah, I mis-read the title, I see he's saying sorry _to_ Glenn Greenwald. No harm no foul, but I still wouldn't have upvoted.

<comment><USER3> A former assistant secretary of state is hardly a no-name former marine.</comment></comment>


Draw Worms with javascript/canvas - <AUTHOR> http://tholman.com/series/flash-forward/ports/draw-worm/01/

<comment><USER2> Very nicely done, also enjoyed playing with the various versions you came across along the way. Have to say I'm quite impressed at the performance too. The machine I'm on right now only has Firefox 3.6 on it with its older, slower JS engine and yet your demo runs beautifully. Again, very nice.

Couple suggestions... having drawing while dragging apply a differing effect. Also using click to turn on and off the draw (with a separate clear button somewhere else)</comment>


Show HN: git-gud - A (really really) simple Git commit checker - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/aaossa/git-gud <comment><AUTHOR> Last night I was able to provide support to check multiple commits and specify a branch, just like git log would normally do. ([https://github.com/aaossa/git-gud#usage](https://github.com/aaossa/git- gud#usage)). Thanks for the stars :)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN! I made this short script to practice bash scripting and improve my git habilities. If you have any feedback (README, code, anything) please let me know!

<comment><USER2> See my GitHub fork. The last 2 checks were too strict for me. But the todo list looks ok to me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, they're a bit strict. A possible solution is to ask for 'user.signingkey' in the config file and, if exists, expect a "good (G)" signature, but always warn about any other other unexpected state different than "good (G)" and "no signature (N)". Thanks rurban!</comment></comment></comment>


Just In Case: U.S. Has Plans for Americans to Flee South Korea - <AUTHOR> http://nation.time.com/2013/04/05/fleeing-imminent-incoming-north-korean-rockets/

<comment><USER2> The headline is wrong - it should be South Korea, not North Korea. I don't think there are many US citizens in North Korea.

And I'm not surprised at all. Planning for contingencies is kind of what the military does when it's not actively fighting.

<comment><USER3> I laughed when I read the headline - I thought that it was likely something that applied to maybe 2 people, both CIA.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Spectre exploit demo - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/idea4good/spectre <comment><USER2> This bit isn't right:

      void move_one_page_in_cache(uint8_t* addr) {
          static unsigned int github_idea4good = 1;
          _mm_clflush(&github_idea4good);
          if (0 < github_idea4good) {
              volatile uint8_t temp = probe_pages[*addr * PAGE_SIZE];

Here, the probe _is_ executed in the retired instruction stream. That's not Spectre. If you can retire an instruction that dereferences addr, your Javascript engine is busted already.

To demonstrate Spectre you need to put the probe in a path that _isn 't_ taken, but train the branch predictor to speculatively execute it anyway.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can do change like this:

static unsigned int github_idea4good = -1;

if(0 < github_idea4good) will never be true.

But the result is same.

I believe the key is: github_idea4good must out of cache.

<comment><USER3> github_idea4good is unsigned. There's an implicit cast at the assignment. The condition is still true and that path is always executed.

<comment><AUTHOR> good catch!

Change it like this:

#define PROBE_TIMES 100000

static int github_idea4good = -1;

If probe times big enough, it works still.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This does not demonstrate Spectre! This just demonstrates different timing of cache access to memory you DO have access to. This dumps memory from the actual process which already has access to it!

<comment><AUTHOR> I want show accessing the memory without read it directly.

<comment><USER4> Doing it in the same process has always been easy. The whole point of Spectre is you can do this in someone else's process.

<comment><AUTHOR> sure, that will much complex. I would like focus on basic scenario.

<comment><USER4> What you are saying here is that you would like to demonstrate the possibility of commercial space flights to other solar systems by showing off a paper airplane. I'm not trying to be offensive but you really should understand the difference between Spectre and what you were doing.

<comment><AUTHOR> So... what do you think I am doing?

Would you please give me a appropriate outline?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Besides the other flaws:

> If you translate the code into Javascript, you could dump IE browser data.

In JS you don't have access to clflush, so it would be a bit more complicated than that.

<comment><AUTHOR> sure, need more code to do clflush things.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This demo has only 70 lines code.</comment>


Ireland sets up venture center in San Jose, plans $100m VC fund - <AUTHOR> http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14675758?source=most_emailed

<comment><USER2> This will be a failure like anything else the current Irish government has put it's hand to. Who makes the decision on who goes? It won't be anyone with anything revolutionary thats for sure.</comment>


Lensless, pinhead-sized camera: The Planar Fourier Capture Array (PFCA) - <AUTHOR> http://www.newtec.us/?p=1114 <comment><AUTHOR> This sort-of duplicates my earlier submission:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2745248>

Now I've been hunting around to try to find out more since the paper seems to have vanished, and this is the best I've found.

If you're interested, good hunting! Come back and show us what you find.

Here are some more:

* <http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July11/microCam.html>

* [http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=pix...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=pixie-camera-captures-precious-pixe-11-07-08)

* [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2011929/Micro...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2011929/Microscopic-camera-revolutionise-surgery-invented--costs-pennies.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

As far as I can tell, the actual paper:

* <http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ol/upcoming_pdf.cfm?id=147442>

<comment><AUTHOR> The actual paper in its own submission:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2745423></comment></comment>


Show HN: campaign - easy responsive emails for Node.js - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/bevacqua/campaign

<comment><USER2> Lovely, trying it out as we speak</comment>


A new dating app, at least better than Tinder - <AUTHOR> http://www.floretapp.com

<comment><USER2> While the Stable Marriage problem is related, is it really useful in the case of pairing people for dates?</comment>


Can genetics explain why some people thrive on less sleep? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/30/science/sleep-gene.html <comment><USER2> Answer is yes, definitely genetic. I have narcolepsy and need no more than 5 hours sleep a night. That has been proven consistently over the 28 years of my working life.

I aim for 5 hours' sleep, though usually it's more like 4h45m. I am less sharp once it falls below 4h30m. I usually work in the evenings til 12:30 or 1am. I wake up around 5:20am, usually just before my alarm. I cycle to work and arrive at the office shortly after 6am.

Narcolepsy is usually associated with daytime sleepiness. It is best described as a switch in my brain that turns off if I don't get enough stimulation. I was prescribed drugs for it (dexamphetamine originally, now modafinil) but I don't take them anymore. I prefer to treat it by having very high-pressure jobs (currently Chief Risk Officer for a start up, previously tech lead for an investment bank trading desk). Also I have found that computer programming provides the perfect amount of deep mental focus to beat narcolepsy.

At night, narcolepsy means I fall asleep instantly. I hit the REM sleep phase within a couple of minutes. Most people need 90 minutes to reach REM sleep. So that alone means 4h30m of my sleep is equivalent to 6 hours for a 'normal' person.

(Final note: This was verified clinically by an overnight stay in a sleep lab then daytime sleepiness tests the following day.)

<comment><USER3> Just because something is unique to you and persistent over a lifetime doesn't make it genetic (there seems to be a huge lay misunderstanding about this). It can also be epigenetic, which is basically the programmable layer on top of your genome which causes certain genes to be expressed instead of others.

<comment><USER2> It's definitely genetic in my case. My mum and two of her three siblings have it, as did their grandmother. Family dinners often end with half the people round the table falling asleep, and our spouses telling sleep-related anecdotes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Matthew Walker, professor of neuroscience and psychology at the University of California, Berkeley focusing on sleep, would like to say something about that: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j9xCC_VtQA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j9xCC_VtQA)

Text writeups of similar talks:

[https://podcastnotes.org/2018/12/05/sleep-2/](https://podcastnotes.org/2018/12/05/sleep-2/)

[https://podcastnotes.org/2018/04/29/why-we- sleep/](https://podcastnotes.org/2018/04/29/why-we-sleep/)

(Paraphrasing, but the percent of people who can get by on under 6 hours of sleep rounded to a whole percent is 0)

<comment><USER5> Not disagreeing but doesn't the second link you posted say five hours?

>Based on evidence from over 100,000 studies, the number of people who can survive on 5 hours of sleep or less, without showing any impairment, rounded to a whole number and expressed as a percentage of the population…is 0

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> According to Matthew Walker's book "Why we Sleep", sleep deprived people think they thrive. [https://inweb.notesalong.com/id/5d785df04818060013b15a78/htt...](https://inweb.notesalong.com/id/5d785df04818060013b15a78/https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/sep/21/why- we-sleep-by-matthew-walker-review#notesalong:5d785db5de43c60000733b2c;)

<comment><USER7> There are Yogis that claim they can thrive on 2.5 hours of sleep, and that they've been doing that their entire life.

I don't think he addresses this subject in the book or in his talks, but it would be interesting to know his opinion on the subject.

<comment><USER8> There are also yogis who claim they can levitate, read minds, or bring dead babies back to life. Some healthy skepticism is in order.

[https://www.quora.com/Have-you-seen-Himalayan-yogis-who- clai...](https://www.quora.com/Have-you-seen-Himalayan-yogis-who-claim-to- have-supernatural-powers-Do-they-exist)

<comment><USER9> _There are also yogis who claim they can levitate, read minds, or bring dead babies back to life._

You don't need to be a yogi to do those things. There are men and women (even kids and teenagers) who can read your mind like a page. Advanced ones can know what you're thinking before you're even aware of what that thought is. And they don't even have to be looking at you. It's 360 degree vision. Distance is no barrier. People who can read minds know to respect your space, because they know it's against spiritual law to violate your psychic space.

People who have developed the ability to bring the dead back to life will not do it, because they know there's a reason why somebody had to die. Why mess with the cycle of life?

<comment><USER10> > People who have developed the ability to bring the dead back to life will > not do it, because they know there's a reason why somebody had to die.

That must be terribly reassuring to the families of car crash victims.

You can make all the extraordinary claims you want if you never have to prove it, and no one should believe you until you do. You're basically just wasting your breath and letting everyone know you believe in fairy tales.

<comment><USER9> _That must be terribly reassuring to the families of car crash victims._

But maybe there's a reason why an automobile accident happened in the first space. Live is not just made up of a series of random events.

<comment><USER10> > Live is not just made up of a series of random events.

 _citation needed_

You can make all the claims you want. Everything is being made as it goes along, and if someone claims to have these powers and doesn't use them, they are either lying, deluded, or terribly cruel. It's awfully convenient, and really a sick joke, if the moment one has real agency, they can't use it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've read several of these articles about genetics allowing some people to feel well-rested on little sleep but a key factor always seems to be left out of them: Are they actually well-rested? That is to say, how is their risk of sleep deprivation-related illnesses such as heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and depression? Is it as low as that of people who get a full night's rest or do their genes simply mask the effects of sleep deprivation, making them feel good while ravaging their physical health?

<comment><USER12> This article - [https://www.news-medical.net/news/20190828/UC-San- Francisco-...](https://www.news-medical.net/news/20190828/UC-San-Francisco- scientists-identify-second-short-sleep-gene-after-10-year-search.aspx) \- touches on it.

The researcher mentions the typical effects of sleep deprivation - "This has well-known, long-term health consequences. You're more likely to suffer from cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia, metabolic problems and a weakened immune system." \- but says that these people don't suffer them.

This would suggest that they get all the sleep they need. They're just better at sleeping than us so it doesn't take them as long to get enough.

As a less serious and more fun aside, I want to breed these people with that group who have ridiculous endurance capability. The ultra-runners who only stop because they fall asleep :) Like this feller; [https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-running- blog/20...](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-running- blog/2013/aug/30/dean-karnazes-man-run-forever)

<comment><USER13> But it should be that most rare "benefical" mutations have at the same time drawbacks, otherwise they would be probably much more widespread. In this case the drawbacks are just not yet known.

<comment><USER14> Or they used to have a drawback that is no longer relevant. I'm thinking for instance that the world's longest continuous culture considers 'dreamtime' to be more important in some ways than the waking world. It may be that the functions which used to require 8 hours of sleep can be done during waking hours as well, perhaps through greater caloric intake or more articulated mythologizing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm surprised that the work on the glymphatic system still isn't widely known, but pretty clear it solves the why. We sleep because the glymphatic process cleans the brain of the damage caused by waking life.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25947369/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25947369/)

Seems likely the process is more efficient for some people versus others, just as it's active during waking life but much less so. Less/more clearance/cleaning is mechanistically explained by the need for less/more sleep.

</comment><comment><USER16> If I sleep 8 hours or more, I wake up like someone beat me up and I find I'm tired and exhausted all day. 5-6 hours for me are the sweet spot (leaning towards the 5). I'd love to know the reason because all "scientific" literature always pushes me to take 8 hour sleeps. I always feel like I'm doing something wrong going against "science" in that regard, but long sleeps just don't work for me.

<comment><USER17> When you don't sleep enough, your sympathetic nervous system (fight or flight) gets activated. Your heart beats faster, cortisol is increased.

If you spend most of your time in this state it seems normal to you. A return to good sleep might initially feel like you're stuck on a lower gear.

<comment><USER18> Unless brain fog is everyone's normal state, I disagree. 6.5-7 hours is my optimal amount, if I sleep in and go 8+ I wake up in a haze and stay like that much of the day.

<comment><USER19> I thought that's why most people drink coffee.

I optimally sleep ~9 hours every day and start to feel tired if I sleep less for 3-4 consecutive days. I bike to work (and generally tend to go as hard as I can, so heart rate tends to spend a lot of time in Z4 or so). I almost never drink coffee so it takes me 2-3 hours to "fully awake" but I don't think that's unnatural so I don't mind it, I let nature run its course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Echoing a lot of other comments here. I can think I thrive on less than 8 hours of sleep, but I don't. I don't wake up to an alarm clock and feel rested and all that. But the reason I don't need the alarm clock is because I use my environment as an alarm clock. Once the combo of temperature and lighting hit a certain sweet spot, I'm up. If I want to sleep longer, I go to bed earlier so that the sweet spot is 8 hours out rather than 6 or less. If I allow myself, my sleep requirements is 8 hours.

I'm glad I'm not "gifted" and I wouldn't want a magic pill or treatment which would make me that way. We need 8 hours of sleep. If I'm smart enough, I can figure out how to make my day with 8 hours of sleep. I'm not smart enough to believe that getting by on less than 8 hours of sleep is a good thing regardless of how I feel or what technology can do for me.

<comment><USER21> > and I wouldn't want a magic pill or treatment which would make me that way. > We need 8 hours of sleep.

I mean, it's literally a magic pill that would make you not need 8 hours of sleep.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I sleep about 6 hours or less. But this transition happened suddenly sometime in my mid-twenties. I don't know if I'm suffering from insomnia or if I'm still good.

Definitely do not feel as super rested as I use too.

<comment><USER23> I stopped having good rest at around 25, a year or so ago. Cause unknown as of yet. I miss feeling well rested for sure.

<comment><USER24> I stopped having regular good night sleeps starting in February of 2016.

The reason is _definitely_ genetic, and started pre-k last week.

<comment><USER25> As a younger guy who doesn't have kids (yet) it's crazy to me that parents can thrive on 2-3 hours of sleep.

How do you do it?

Does it feel like you adapted? Or are you aware of a cognitive decline?

Like, what's the experience like?

<comment><USER24> > _parents can thrive on 2-3 hours of sleep_

Oh, we didn't thrive. It sucked. There was absolutely a cognitive decline, and physical exhaustion to boot. We adapted in the sense that we weren't falling asleep on the subway after awhile, but I flat out told work not to expect my best work for the next six months.

But it also wasn't 2-3 hours of sleep a night. Unless you get really unlucky, babies do sleep for hours at a stretch; and you're very incentivized to sleep when the baby sleeps.

There _are_ adaptive strategies! If you're supplementing with formula (or even if you're not, to a lesser degree) you can take shifts. I would go to bed at ~9pm, and my wife would be "on call" until ~3am. After that, when the baby woke up, I would be on call, and would wake up and take care of her until ~9am, when I had to leave for work. This guaranteed a six-hour period where even though we'd get woken up, we could at least not have to get up and take care of the kid. Granted, it's still interrupted sleep.

But in general, the experience is: you're happy but also low-key miserable, and you feel like your head is full of cotton.

The low-level stress also impacts your immune system, so you get sick more, and when your kid goes to daycare, you get sick _a lot more_.

<comment><USER26> I think his question could be rephrased as "why don't we witness a mass epidemic of parents falling asleep"?

I think many 20 and 30 somethings (without kids) who, if they were to get under 6 or so hours of sleep for a couple nights, would automatically pass out on the train/subway/bus/etc, in public.

So how are (seemingly most) parents getting 4 hours of sleep for extended periods of time yet aren't falling asleep on public transit on their way to work?

<comment><USER27> > So how are (seemingly most) parents getting 4 hours of sleep for extended > periods of time yet aren't falling asleep on public transit on their way to > work?

Most parents are getting more than 4 hours of sleep, but it's broken up. If your kid is on a 3 hour feed/sleep cycle, and it takes 1 hour for feeding and getting back to sleep (which is in the difficult part of the spectrum), that leave s you 2 hours to sleep before another wake up.

If both parents are needed, or if it's a single parent, chances are you're going to bed early, because you're exhausted; you'll probably go to bed when the evening feeding is done, say at 9pm, sleep for two hours, wake up for 1 hour, go back to sleep at midnight for two more hours, wake up at 2 am to feed, sleep again until 5 am, feed until 6 am and then get ready for the day.

You've ended up with 6 hours of sleep -- this is okish. If you have two parents taking shifts, one parent slept from 9-11, and then from 12-5, for a total of 7 hours; the other slept from 9-2, and from 3-5, also a total of 7 hours.

Of course, some nights don't go well, or the evening feeding is over at 8 and you don't really want to go to bed then, and that pushes everything back. But, if feeding only takes 30 minutes, that helps a bit. And some times the feeding cycles clash with sleep cycles -- it was awful for the (thankfully short) period where baby was consistently waking us up during REM sleep.

Also --- micronaps :D

<comment><USER28> Just to be clear, six hours of broken sleep isn't the same as six hours of uninterrupted sleep. The longer you're asleep, the deeper stages of sleep you get to, which is important to being fully rested.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Lucky guys. I wish I could need as little as 4 hours so that I have more free time.

<comment><USER30> As someone who does I promise you: no you don't

<comment><USER31> Why not?

<comment><USER32> Seems to me that having a physiological pattern which forces you outside the normal rhythm of society could be detrimental to one's mental health (pure conjecture).

<comment><USER33> Or beneficial! Depends on the context really.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Going on title and comments only, sorry, but why does "it's genetic" count as an _explanation_ for anything?

An _explanation_ for this would need ecology. Why is it beneficial for some of us to need less sleep, but not for all of us? What are the _trade-offs_? It seems like needing less sleep has no downsides. Is it a novel, all-beneficial mutation that just didn't have the time yet to sweep the population? Or do short sleepers experience serious downsides?

There is no explanation in "we found a gene for it". Pretty much _every_ personality difference is genetic, that doesn't explain why such differences evolved, or persist.

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm fine and productive with 6 hours of sleep. I thought it was the coffee i consumed that keeps my up, given how much we are told we need 8 hours or else etc... So i decided to go without coffee for like 2 weeks. I didn't that much feel different without coffee, less jittery. I like myself without coffee more then with coffee. Right now i just use it as my pre workout and social event with colleagues.

<comment> blaser-waffle I'll second this. Caffeine is a reasonably powerful stimulant and most people have a long term dependency on it.

Cutting down consumption and going to bed earlier definitely made a difference to my mornings, and I've found I can usually swing less sleep. I often find myself getting up at 4:30 or 5am, which isn't so bad in terms of free time--I get a lot done at 5am.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Given that so many people claim to thrive on less sleep, whereas so many other people in the same gene pool make no such claim, there seems to be quite a bit of evidence that nurture is far more at play here than nature. Not to say genetics has no effect at all, but it seems pretty minimal.

</comment><comment><USER37> This piece seems to be entirely about feelings of tiredness? That can be important in some sorts of performance but what the other effects of sleep. For instance, the quality of your NREM sleep _subsequent to_ learning new vocabulary or REM sleep after learning new motor skills has a large effect on how well the training takes. Do we have any evidence that people who feel the need for less sleep, e.g., learn new languages as fast as people who get 8 hours a night or do they learn them as fast as people who get 6 hours a night but use stimulants to prevent feelings of tiredness? I can actually imagine mutations that give people faster sleep spindles or something but that's very important for evaluating the impact of these sorts of genes.

</comment><comment><USER38> I'm not sure if I'm totally fine on 6 hours of sleep, or I'm just so used to it that I don't recognize the difference.

</comment><comment><USER39> Lugging small children in wheel carts intended for shopping, with no safety harnesses, is ill-advised. What a poor photo to choose for the article.

</comment><comment><USER40> This seems like a bit of a silly question seeing that nobody can actually know the answer and therefore you will only get opinions.

</comment><comment><USER41> Yes, there is a gene mutation that allows certain individuals to fully recover after only 4 hours of sleep.

Lucky them I would say :)

<comment><USER26> Source? As far as I know that's complete speculation. There is one single study which followed one single family and implicated one gene which may possibly allow people to be more alert on less sleep. Hardly scientific consensus.

<comment><USER12> Two such genes have been independently identified, that I know of. There has been more than one study.

Here's a piece from 2015; [http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150706-the-woman- who-barel...](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150706-the-woman-who-barely- sleeps) , which discusses this from 2009 - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2884988/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2884988/)

A search for studies on DEC2 suggests a steady stream of work going on; [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=DEC2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=DEC2)

Here's more recent research identifying another gene; [https://www.news- medical.net/news/20190828/UC-San-Francisco-...](https://www.news- medical.net/news/20190828/UC-San-Francisco-scientists-identify-second-short- sleep-gene-after-10-year-search.aspx)

There has been more than one study, more than one family and more than one gene implicated.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Would you rather log in with Facebook or leave your e-mail? - <AUTHOR>

I'm building a free to play strategy game using node.js and HTML5 canvas and I was planning to release it on Facebook. But, many have told me that people don't like logging into Facebook to play it because they are scared they would be spammed. I've seen other similar games, and they require your e-mail instead.
Now, this looks controversial to me. Is it really true that people would rather leave their e-mail (which can then be spammed to death) than login with Facebook (where you can easily revoke permissions for each game separately)?
If you considered playing a game, would you rather log into Facebook or leave your e-mail? <comment><USER2> You can provide both so I don't see that as a big problem.

Also people usually have an email account to register on non-important possibly-spammy stuff. So they don't even need to bother about spam.

</comment><comment><USER3> Would you rather I play your game at all (I have an email address), or not (I don't have a Facebook account)?

Even if I still had a Facebook account, I would prefer email. Facebook doesn't need to know everything about me.

As incision points out, I'm more likely to try it if I don't have to sign in at all. If I want to save my state I can give you an email or a made up ID then.

</comment><comment><USER4> What benefit do I have for signing in?

If the game saves state, so I can login again later, then I'd prefer to start playing without signing in at all. Then, when I'm ready to leave, if I want to save, then I'll give you some identifier. At this point, the identifier doesn't matter much because I've decided I want to give you something.

<comment><USER5> I second this notion. Personally, I'm for neither, but if you can present a compelling case for an e-mail address (like rare updates on new content, etc...) I might turn over my e-mail address... otherwise you're getting a Mailinator e-mail account.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't have a Facebook account and there's little chance I'd even try your game if I have to sign-up before I can start playing.

</comment><comment><USER7> Neither. I'm not going to give up email just to try something out.

</comment><comment><USER8> i think email. I don't know why people provide their personal details on login panel of different site(giving ur FB is like that for me) but i will never do that.</comment>


Mark Zuckerberg's new challenge: Eating only what he kills. - <AUTHOR> http://postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/05/26/mark-zuckerbergs-new-challenge-eating-only-what-he-kills/ <comment><USER2> This has probably been discussed on HN previously, but to me the most interesting idea here is the meta-issue of Zuck's personal challenges.

I think it's a wonderful practice and while I'm sure most of us take on these kinds of challenges from time to time, but he seems to take an admirable zeal to it.

For example, I've taken on various learning-a-language (natural and otherwise) challenges, but I've never gone so far as to commit to practicing an hour a day, every day, for an entire year. Now, Mark only says he 'blocked out' the time, but if he actually follows through then it's very impressive.

</comment><comment><USER3> I actually find this pretty interesting. It's certainly weird and surprising to see Zuckerberg do it when it will surely receive a lot of criticism. I say fair play.

</comment><comment><USER4> At least he is being conscious about his eating. He noted the hypocrisy of people who will eat meat and then say they don't want to think of what was involved in producing it. No support of mass slaughterhouses, hopefully he will keep it up.

</comment><comment><USER5> Don't care. Not one bit. More concerned about Facebook's privacy policy.

</comment><comment><USER6> As a vegetarian, I totally support his decision and respect it.

My meat eating friends like to call themselves carnivores, I usually correct them and say they are actually scavengers.

<comment><USER7> How come, as a vegetarian, you support killing animals?

Still puzzled by his quote: "This year I've basically become a vegetarian since the only meat I'm eating is from animals I've killed myself."

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't get it.

I assume he still had to pay for what he took home, so how is him going to a farm and killing a chicken, pig and goat any better than someone else doing it and selling it to him? Hell, the people at the farm would probably have done it more humanely anyways.

Yes, he wants to be more thankful by providing himself with a concrete connection between the animal and his food, but what does that really change?

And I think a lot of the pig and goat will go to waste.

<comment><USER9> It is a different thing to personally perform an act than to simply know, logically, that it is being performed on your behalf. It makes act more real, more personal, more identifiable. Knowing that someone killed a goat at some point is not the same as having to perform the act itself. I have never done something like this, but I can understand how it would make you appreciate your food more, and really understand what you are doing when you are eating.

The article indicates the animal is still taken to a butcher, so one would believe that there is no more waste than any other time.

As to what it changes, I think you are looking at the system and saying one dead goat, one fed human, what's the difference. But it isn't the result that he is trying to change; he is trying to change himself. I can't believe you could do what he is doing and not come away from it with a different outlook.

I don't see anything wrong with the practice, and if it makes him feel a little more grounded, more power to him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> /Only/ what he kills? That would be interesting.

This is not the E! of the tech world, flagged for bullshit.</comment>


Ask HN: How can we stop making disposable hammers? - <AUTHOR> The tech industry feels to me a lot like a disposable hammer factory. The hammers we make are made out of a non-durable material, and they tend to break down without constant maintenance. Every few years you have to buy a new hammer because the old one becomes ineffective. You can get a new hammer for really cheap, but it won't last long, and it really only works on nails and boards that are made to work with the disposable hammer of today.
Trying to use a Netbook with a dual core Atom processor and 1GB ram recently to browse the web was a bit like pulling teeth. I can't imagine trying with my first "fast" computer, a Compaq Prolinea with 50mhz 486DX2 and a whopping 32 megs of RAM (http://www.totalgeekdom.com/?p=356). If my Compaq could browse the web back then, it should still be able to browse the web now, but I imagine that it would be very difficult. Good luck trying to put any new files on it.
A hammer from 100 years ago, or even a telephone, works about the same now as it did then. But the technology we're making today seems like it will be completely unusable in just a few decades, or less. This is pretty wasteful and probably not sustainable. How can we stop making disposable hammers? <comment><USER2> Part of this can be accounted to Wirth's law. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law)

I also partiality disagree with you. Hammers did not change much for last few hundreds of years. The web made a massive leap in just a few years.

We created an abstraction to develop faster. We build it on top systems that accumulated decades of cruft. In my opinion, a new start like RISC-V and Fuchsia/Redox is needed.

</comment><comment><USER3> How often do you use a hammer? What else can you use a hammer for?

Now answer the same question for a computer.

Some of the technology changes are due to "shiny shiny" and others due to "people time is more important than CPU cycles.</comment>


Practical Magic in a Suffolk Village - <AUTHOR> https://recipes.hypotheses.org/9190 <comment><USER2> If anybody would be interested in the esoteric side (and not just the physical doings), I'd be happy to oblige... well, as long as the rate-limiter is turned down.

(as an aside.. it's strange to start seeing quite an upturn on mystical and esoteric articles in such a short period. It usually happens a lot slower normally.)

<comment><USER3> Do you have any evidence to suggest the phenomenon of consciousness is (or is not) isolated to the brain? (Existence of human spirits, natural spirits, that sort)

Particularly with the Chaos mages, there is an indication of an extra fundamental force to reality- much like electricity would have seemed in the 1600s. Do you think this is the case? Or do you think there is some other interaction between the mind and the 4 normal fundamental forces?

What theories do you have with regard to the prime mechanism of action in magic?

<comment><USER2> > Do you have any evidence to suggest the phenomenon of consciousness is (or > is not) isolated to the brain? (Existence of human spirits, natural spirits, > that sort)

You're not going to get material evidence. Anyone who can is _probably_ looking for money or other goods. They're usually a good sign to stay away from.

The proof I talk of, is personal. I look at it more like one would look at a Zero Knowledge proof: there's no such thing as 100% confidence, but (2^64-1)/(2^64) is pretty damn close to 100%. Same idea.

> Particularly with the Chaos mages, there is an indication of an extra > fundamental force to reality- much like electricity would have seemed in the > 1600s. Do you think this is the case? Or do you think there is some other > interaction between the mind and the 4 normal fundamental forces?

I would accept this to be fact if we can find proof of this new force. But as for now, I'm operating under the fact that we know of 4 fundamental forces. I'm assuming that most magic and auras are actually specifically under EM, and not Weak/Strong/Gravity.

Although, some divinations I've done does seem to indicate that there might be another force, but not as a "force".. But more of interdimensional interference. If one accepts the Multiple Worlds Interpretation, there are a near-infinite amount of dimensions nearby. If they could interfere with each other, we could see effects percolate from seemingly nothing. My divinations also indicate that a likely area where we will first see this effect is with the EM_Drive. If this is shown to be proven correct, this is the first case of a reactionless drive--- The key here is a new phenomenon to investigate. Possibly leading to a new force.

> What theories do you have with regard to the prime mechanism of action in > magic?

Hard to say. I'm doing the equivalent of firing bowling balls into a kilogram of solid gold, and trying to interpret its atomic structure...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What was foolish about the purchase? Just the fact that repairs had to be done? It looks like a nice, quaint house.

<comment> david-given Listed buildings are money pits. It's not just that you've bought a house that's older than most countries, and is therefore wearing out in _so many ways_ , it's that you have to do the repairs using original techniques and materials whereever possible, and they _will_ check up --- you need to get consent for modifications, in advance, backed up by big penalties, including massive fines and imprisonment.

You're limited on modifications, too. So even something as simple as installing double glazing can be fraught.

Owning a listed building is really reserved for people with huge amounts of money whose idea of a good time is filling out government forms.

[http://www.lewes.gov.uk/Files/plan_listed_buildings_owners_g...](http://www.lewes.gov.uk/Files/plan_listed_buildings_owners_guide.pdf)

<comment><USER5> Thanks for this post. Being American, I didn't even realize that "listed building" meant "historical building." I thought it referred to the building being listed for sale.

<comment><USER6> We'd likely call it a "registered building"\--referring to a registry of historical buildings--as "listing" a building is putting it up for sale and advertising on the MLS, the Multiple Listing Service.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Under the floorboards in my house I found a clog.

</comment><comment><USER8> Lemons in India are considered to ward off evil.

[http://madh-mama.blogspot.com/2013/10/common-superstitions-i...](http://madh- mama.blogspot.com/2013/10/common-superstitions-in-south-india.html)

</comment><comment><USER9> The real question is why you would move to Suffolk!

<comment><USER10> I moved here over a decade ago, and it's fantastic. So much cheaper than Cambridge yet perfectly commutable, and great countryside to boot.

But yes, we tell everyone that it's really bad so we keep it to ourselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Now I'm imagining the children of the 16th century living in fear of... the Puckle!</comment>


Show HN: Kretes, Self-inspired IDE for TypeScript built on top of VS Code - <AUTHOR> https://kretes.dev/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN, author here. Kretes is an integrated programming environment for TypeScript & Node.js, built on top of Visual Studio Code. It combines a web framework - similar to Rails/Django - with a UI layer built inside of the VS Code editor.

This project explores the ideas introduced by the Self programming language and aims to bring them to the current age. The ultimate goal is to create a semi-visual tool for building web apps in a more intuitive way using the same programming language (TypeScript) on the client & on the server, and without the accidental complexity. :)

The project started as a way to arrange my knowledge/toolset around JavaScript. Inspired by the past, I decided to (somehow) replicate what Sun Microsystems did in '95 with Self (a project I find both underrated and ahead of its time), but using modern, popular tools (VS Code, JavaScript/TypeScript, WebAssembly, PostgreSQL, etc).

Happy to answer any questions here or at firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><USER2> > goal is to create a semi-visual tool for building web apps

Interesting! How far with "visual" do you want to go? Do you plan integrating with Figma API or embedding sth like Blocks UI (blocks-ui.com)?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It looks interesting. Node.js still needs a good full-stack web framework that just works out of the box and is extensible, like Rails in Ruby. Would love to see some demo of an app written in it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I made this short video with Preact and Snowpack: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ESEH1sQdcM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ESEH1sQdcM) The project was formerly known as Huncwot. Let me know if that helps!</comment></comment>


Body as a Map - <AUTHOR> https://www.sapiens.org/column/machinations/body-modification/ <comment><USER2> I'm curious — what do folks find remarkable about this article? Why has it lingered on the front page for so long?</comment>


Twitter's Policy Reboot: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/twitters-policy-reboot-good-bad-and-ugly <comment><USER2> The biggest issue with the policy (and one which is not really mentioned here) is enforcement. Doesn't really matter what the policies are, if Twitter is very, very loose when it comes to actually enforcing them.

For example, I've seen a few people get banned or suspended because they said something that made a popular user (or in some cases, one a Twitter member of staff agrees with) uncomfortable, whereas someone who supports said staff member's political views or has more followers can get away with murder.

For example, there have been people who said something loosely associated with GamerGate who got suspended until they removed the tweet, whereas certain journalists and media figures could try and falsely accuse their enemies of serious crimes and get in no trouble whatsoever. It was also a certain Twitter employee who got Milo unverified for ridiculous reasons.

Twitter's policy reboot is already worrying, but what it really needs to do is be even handed with its punishments towards those that break the rule. It shouldn't matter if you're a nobody or a celebrity with millions of followers; break the rules, get suspended or banned. It shouldn't matter if your political views align with Twitter staff or not. Same deal.

Twitter needs to examine what it's policy on freedom of speech and stuff is, but then also enforce it equally, however unpopular that may be.

<comment><USER3> Twitter has also started censoring their search suggestions down the same political lines you mention. You no longer get auto-suggest for #gamergate or any Milo related topics.

Ironically they're also blocking #twittercensorship. You can see for yourself here: [https://twitter.com/search-home](https://twitter.com/search-home)

As far as I know this change wasn't announced (seems to have rolled out over the weekend in response to the Milo incident). It does not bode well for freedom of speech on Twitter.

Edit: to clarify the results are still there if you manually do the search, but the hashtags are no longer in the search suggestions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The new Twitter policy is already used to mass-silence activists by dedicated (paid) teams of trolls.

[http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/01/09/twitters-new-policy- mi...](http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/01/09/twitters-new-policy-misused-by- pro-kremlin-accounts-to-attack-top-ukrainian-bloggers-saveuatwi/)

<comment><USER5> I'm curious to know how this is happening. Perhaps the people who handle complaints in Russian and Ukranian are Putin supporters and bring their personal animosities to work. It would be hard for Twitter to hold accountable judgement calls in languages management doesn't understand.

<comment><USER6> >I'm curious to know how this is happening.

Seems pretty straightforward if you believe the claim that the abuse complaints are coordinated, even if they're "legitimate". Both pro-Ukraine and pro-Soviet users are violating the new rules, but people are systematically seeking out and reporting violations on pro-Ukraine twitter accounts and the same isn't happening to pro-Soviet accounts.

<comment><USER7> Maybe because there aren't actually any Soviets anymore?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't envy Twitter's position right now. They are stuck between (1) trying to renew their platform to monetize and grow, (2) facing huge amounts of criticism on how they dont properly handle abuse, and (3) expected to keep their reputation of openness still left over from the 'Arab spring'.

It is doubtful that they can survive without sacrificing at least one.

<comment><USER9> I think they are well on their way to sacrificing 2 and 3.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Quick question to people that know more about these things than I do (pretty much everyone on HN):

Is there a way that Twitter can prevent users from creating another Twitter account to continue to send threats and horrible messages?

The worst messages we see on Twitter always seem to be from new accounts with 3 followers, clearly throwaway accounts. Ban one, they start another.

<comment><USER11> There _really_ needs to be an option that users can turn on to block all @ from people they don't follow. Even temporarily, say for a period of a month at a time.

I'm also a fan of the "reddit gold" style idea of cheap paid accounts that don't necessarily have to be paid by the account holder. That would make it easy to allow people to filter out unpaid unknown accounts and raise the cost of abuse.

The underlying problem is that comment moderation is a kind of emotional labour that can be fairly gruelling at times, and it needs suitably paid staff to do. Attempts at automatically dealing with it are very much like the early days of spam fighting: not very accurate and constantly shifting. But whereas spam is broadcast, abuse is targeted.

<comment><USER12> > There really needs to be an option that users can turn on to block all @ > from people they don't follow. Even temporarily, say for a period of a month > at a time.

Get a blue tick :)

I have the worst source (I think I heard it on a podcast...) but I'm pretty sure that verified Twitter accounts get an extra notification option to prevent notifications or messages from non-verified users from appearing. It basically turns Twitter into a verified-users-only service where you never see the regular plebs.

<comment><USER13> That's the behaviour, yeah. Verified accounts live in their own rareified world. The idea being that high-follower count accounts are probably more interested in chatting with their peers (most often, celebrities) than with deal with the deluge of plebeian notifications.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Should be "threats of violence" not "violent threats". Since people think anything can be deemed violent nowadays.

<comment><USER15> I don't get nostalgic for much, but one thing I miss about the earlier internet was everyone's ability to dismiss internet tough-assery as ridiculous, overblown stupidity. I guess that's the difference between a pioneer town and a safe space on a university campus.

<comment><USER16> Most people didn't have to deal with it on a daily basis, and hardly anyone had threats that were deemed credible enough to actually happen.

Sorry, but it's not all ridiculous, overblown stupidity anymore. Some of these people seem stupid enough to actually follow through on their threats.

<comment><USER15> "Seem" is an interesting word here, as well as the phrase "deemed credible." Both indicate that my point is not being rebutted.

I'm not denying that the scale of the problem has grown to the point that rare events (someone following through on Internet bluster, in this case) will occur. I'm simply remembering a simpler time, when people didn't clamor for the sanitization of their daily Internet lives.

<comment><USER17> Not wanting to receive threats of violence against you or family members is hardly clamoring for sanitization. Sure, most of those threats aren't actually going to happen but a real human has the stress of having to evaluate each one and hoping they didn't get it wrong.

It's also not as if the only two possibilities are "actual stalker attacks you" and "nothing happens". SWATing, spamming friends/family/coworker with hateful propaganda or photoshopped porn, placing embarrassing ads with the victim's actual contact info, etc. are all things that happen in the real world and don't require some blowhard to leave their house or risk persecution anywhere near as much as a serious physical attack would entail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The most interesting reveal to me has been the the "verified" flag isn't really a verification at all.

<comment><USER19> Especially after the removal of verification from noted cultural theorist Milo Yiannopoulos.

<comment><USER20> Twitter's rules say they can remove your verified status at any time for violating their ToS. It's pretty obvious that Milo has violated their ToS many, many times, so he's not verified anymore. Don't know what the big deal about that is.

<comment><USER21> If he has - and I think he has based on one particular tweet where he said someone 'deserved to be harassed' \- then he should be banned or suspended. Not 'unverified'. Not given a link to the ToS without at least one specific incident.

Conversely, the person whose previously doxxed him - also violating the Twitter ToS - should be punished too.

Twitter just need to have a concrete set of rules (objective not subjective) and enforce it consistently regardless of politics or celebrity status.

<comment><USER22> > based on one particular tweet where he said someone 'deserved to be > harassed'

Apparently that tweet was a joke to a friend (another conservative commentator).

Which just illustrates the problem: it's really really hard to regulate speech fairly

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've seen multiple people claim that it would be easy for Twitter to ban harassment on Twitter.

<comment><USER24> The same way it would be easy for crypto companies to build a backdoor, in that if you dont understand the problem, it is easy to solve.

edit: (and remain secure)

<comment><USER23> More that it is easy if you don't care about throwing away other things you value in pursuit of that goal

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I don't understand about the scope of this problem, maybe someone can tell me but is it really that big of a deal? What horrible things are being typed out that can't possibly be ignored or dealt with in other ways?

<comment><USER16> If you're constantly receiving a barrage of horrible, hateful, violent threats, then it becomes really hard to ignore. Some people may have thicker skin than others, but really, no one should have to deal with that. And quite frankly, I see no reason why anyone should be entitled to say those kinds of things on someone else's platform.

<comment><USER25> I find that hard to believe. Trolls who make threats on the internet (and not simply having differing opinions) typically make up a very small minority so they should be manageable by a small ban list (and if they aren't - what kind of stuff are you spewing out that makes so many people waste their time getting angry with you?)

It sounds more to me like even after getting banned, the minority of trolls can just make new accounts and resume their harassment, so the solution here isn't human intervention but a technical solution to disincentivize trolls from making new accounts.

<comment><USER26> > Trolls who make threats on the internet

See this thread:

[https://twitter.com/terraloire/status/686591765931921409](https://twitter.com/terraloire/status/686591765931921409)

With the internet being as central to modern society as it is, instead of simply some USENET servers used by some college kids and bored sysadmins, there isn't really a distinction between "threats on the internet" and "threats" any more. (This is not to say that there's no longer a distinction between "idle threats" and "serious threats", of course, just that whether they're on the internet is not a determiner of them being idle.)

> (and if they aren't - what kind of stuff are you spewing out that makes so > many people waste their time getting angry with you?)

"Normal" people get angry when they feel threatened. If you are challenging the status quo, it's not unusual for people who benefit from the status quo to get angry at you. This has been true for all of history, and arguing that you shouldn't upset the supporters of the status quo is quite literally arguing that Twitter should not be a platform for free speech.

It honestly sounds to me like you're approaching this from first principles / intuition, instead of any data (or analyses of data, which exist) about how internet harassment actually works.

<comment><USER25> > instead of simply some USENET servers used by some college kids and bored > sysadmins, there isn't really a distinction between "threats on the > internet" and "threats" any more.

The biggest thing that changed is instead of using anonymous handles, people got into the habit of using their personal information. From the link you included, that woman has what I assume is her name, her photo, her city, and her personal website - most of which is likely a gateway for googling more information. On her actual profile, her latest retweet is millennials mansplaining or something, one could say she's basically baiting a group of people she disagrees with, and further down she's calling Ricky Gervais a "whiny baby" (where does that fit under twitters rules?)

If I was spewing that kind of crap about people with my own name beside it, I guess I'd be worried about people finding where I live and harassing me too. It's mind boggling why people do this to themselves.

> It honestly sounds to me like you're approaching this from first principles > / intuition, instead of any data (or analyses of data, which exist) about > how internet harassment actually works.

It's why I asked. Maybe it's just that I think of the internet the same way I did 15 years ago where nobody online ever needs to know your name, age, sex, height, opinions, political affiliations, favorite food, etc unless you make it so, and when you want to start over with a clean slate, you can just remake internet accounts rather than having some dumb crap you said 10 years ago stick with you forever on google.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I think the only feasible way Twitter could stop abuse is if it charged $100 per signup, and then ban people on the slightest whim. I don't see how anything else would work. Of course the downsides of a plan like this are so large that it wouldn't ever be done.

<comment><USER28> The forum Something Awful does something like this: They charge $10 per signup. When you get banned you have to pay again to get back in.

<comment><USER29> Even $1 would remove a lot of harassment because a lot of people would be less abusive if thought it would be easier to find them and hold them legally responsible for their comments.</comment></comment></comment>


How much can you earn from blogging on Medium? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/swlh/how-much-money-can-you-actually-make-writing-articles-on-medium-e9855c255485 <comment><USER2> TLDR; They only want to give max which is in range of $5000-$11,000/mo income for a writer. This could obviously be deceiving as we get to see only extreme outliers. Slighly better stats are here: [https://medium.com/s/partner- program-updates/april-update-fr...](https://medium.com/s/partner-program- updates/april-update-from-the-partner-program-1bf39020f3f4)

* 7.1% of active writers earned over $100/mo

* per article lifetime value of an article could be $200-$500 (we don't know the criteria)

Again, without clear filter criteria, mean (or better median) above numbers are pointless.

However I do believe in their vision of making writing as a profession where you can actually make living out of. All the income is through $5/mo premium membership, part of which gets distributed in proportion of engagement on article. There are lots of people who wants to simply travel the world and make living from their explorations. I think Medium is becoming very attractive for such lifestyle as Medium takes responsibility of SEO and infrastructure while writer just focuses on content.</comment>


How Different Languages Can Help in SEO - <AUTHOR> http://www.searchenginejournal.com/how-different-languages-can-help-in-seo/49662

<comment><AUTHOR> Post from October 11, 2012</comment>