Ask HN: What is a way of making residual income with $5K a month? - <AUTHOR> My friends and I have decided that we are sick of living paycheck-to-paycheck. We want to start a business together that would bring us residual income. I have a few ideas, but I am all ears if you have any suggestions.
A little about me: I am highly knowledgeable in HTML/CSS/JS, website development, wordpress, graphic design, online marketing, and social marketing. I've worked with companies such as ARCO Gas, AMPM, HiteJinro, Ballantines Whiskey, and the LA Dodgers.
I have experience and understanding of the current state of the web and effective marketing.
An idea: buy cheap high quality phone cases from China
* The $5K / mo would give us a variety of cases to choose from, as well as bulk discounts. Obviously, we would start small to test the market, maybe invest $1K in inventory
* Simple, modern website that makes purchasing easy on the web and mobile
* Highly targeted market. Example: (Item: a Justin Beiber case) Facebook ad target teenage girls in the USA who have liked Justin's facebook page
* Analytics, A/B testing, whatever I can do to maximize profits
* Sell $1 cases for ~$10; should result in very high ROI
* Even though the case market is saturated, with targeted ads I'm thinking it would be possible.
Any other ideas?
edit: Don't get whats with all the downvotes :/ We are legitimately trying to start something that would help us get out of living paycheck to paycheck, and are simply open to hearing ideas. Isn't this what the whole entrepreneurial spirit is about? <comment><USER2> Go to a local dentist, look at how they do things like X-Rays.

What you will find is that they pay GBP 20k+ for an X-Ray machine that connects via USB Dongle to an old Windows machine... really old.

You'll also find that all of their equipment is old copies of Windows, in dusty long-unsupported equipment.

Sell a service, that virtualises all of this and that you manage. Charge them GBP 250 per month for it, on top of any capital expenditure up to GBP 3k for the host server (probably on-site as a Dentist shouldn't go down when an internet connection goes down).

Now go round the other dentists in the area and repeat until you have 20 dentists on-board.

You now have GBP 5k per month in residual income, for hardware that will take minimal effort to support, and for images of Windows taken from existing machines that are now backed-up.

The lesson here: You're probably looking for some complex and advanced solution that you can automate to great fortune!... but actually there's a lot of money just begging to be given to people who solve the simplest stuff in fields where the computing skill is very very low but the expectations of computing and value from it is very high.

Your profit exists in that space. No-one is doing the simple stuff in those fields.

Other ideas: Beauty/Hair Salon booking systems that work inside the hairdresser and whose web and automated phone system actually works too (Twilio + Google Apps (for Calendar and Google Contacts) + a website will do this with medium effort - it's a small integration project).

The other lesson here: It's not doing stuff that is hard, but selling it.

<comment><USER3> _actually there 's a lot of money just begging to be given to people who solve the simplest stuff in fields where the computing skill is very very low but the expectations of computing and value from it is very high._

This is true...but dentistry is not one of those fields. There are many companies that already do IT for dentistry. Source: my uncle is a dentist. He has been with the same company since 2004.

<comment><USER2> The last time I was in my local dentist I was the first patient of the day and the Windows machine needed rebooting as it didn't see the USB dongle. We got chatting about the fact that it was Windows XP, and her fear that the machine would die but she couldn't upgrade as that specific X-Ray machine was only supported by Win XP (and wasn't purchased too many years ago - the company selling the X-Ray dongle provided the whole solution).

I thought of the above solution whilst there, asked her if anyone did such a thing, and the answer was no-one she knew of. I'm happily employed, but she was fairly desperate to pay that much immediately if it could mitigate the risk of that equipment failing on her suddenly and with a very expensive bill.

<comment><USER4> X-Ray machines are probably heavily regulated, would it even be legal for a third party to change that hardware setup?

<comment><USER5> Most of the machines that you'll find in a small office are actually two separate devices. There's the x-ray emitter and an x-ray sensor. The sensor replaces the x-ray film that had to be manually developed, and is often just a USB device that integrates with whatever imaging application is in place. The sensors can be installed by anyone for the most part.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why not work backwards and start making sales before you have stock, so you know if the business is possible, and if so, what kind of margins you're working with to pay for advertising, inventory, fullfilling orders, packing, shipping, wages, rent, etc?

For example, setup your online store and buy your Facebook ad campaign for teen girls, and try to sell them the Justin Beiber case that you could potentially order from China. When they go through the order process, inform them it's 'out of stock', and flag a potential sale in your database. Now, analyze the numbers, look at how much your ad campaign costed, how many potential sales you generated, how much it would cost to order those actual cases from China, how much it would cost to ship them, etc, and see if the business makes sense. If so, start with a small batch of inventory as you said, you'll get more experience with the entire process, any hidden costs or time involved you overlooked, and go from there.

<comment><USER7> If you are willing to invest a slightly higher amount to test the waters, you can buy a small batch (e.g. 100 units) but sell at the large batch price (e.g. what you would if you had 10k units). You will lose money overall but if your 100 units sell out in 3 days you might not lose as much sleep placing that order for 10k units.

Depending on the product the variance in price between a small order and a large order can greatly influence perceived demand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> -please put up an email address in your profile if you want people to contact you. And trust me--if you're starting a business, email just became your new best friend.

-read everything @patio11 has ever written. Use your brain and research ability to understand his wisdom. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

-start high end markets first. Better margins, better customers.

-think about what products suck! Talk to affluent friends, ask them that question. If you don't have affluent friends, go make them. Your life and this endeavor will be amazing if you do. Trust me on this. Just make sure they're good people. If you can't tell the difference, that's your side job. Learn how to tell the difference.

-bite your tongue. I'm serious, literally bite it. Listen to what ppl are telling you--it could be your next product! Biting your tongue is like a phones mute button. You should be using both to become a much better listener. I started an interruption/swearing jar with my fiancé to break myself of those habits faster. It's tough but super rewarding.

-learn sales. Frank bettger (how I raised myself from failure to success in selling). Dale Carnegie (how to win friends and influence people).

-improve yourself. Sleep 8-9 hours. If you use an alarm clock you're doing life wrong :D, diet (quality and quantity. Whole > processed * 1000. no sugar.) exercise. Move fast, lift heavy things. Sign up for Charlie Hoehn's anti anxiety course. Assuming you're a guy, check out The Mating Grounds and Helping Joe. They'll help you improve your life immeasurably. Sign up for talk therapy. If strapped for cash, group therapy is very effective and inexpensive.

-pay attention to the world around you. The problems to solve will present themselves.

-Don't force anything. It'll hurt to get the round peg into the square hole, and you might lose a finger in the process. NB: Your finger is your happiness.

-cut out negative people, but don't create a Hooli yes-man echo chamber.

-watch randy Pausch - the last lecture. And Randy Pausch - time management.

-email if you need help! I'm an extremely generous person.

<comment><USER9> There is probably some valuable information there but anyone who recommends Tucker Max seriously should be taken with a grain of salt (if not simply disregarded).

People love to posture like they know it all (usually not the tech founders that HN funds)... Look for little things like recommending Tucker Max that suggest maybe they are in fact posturing, because they're trying to grow their brand here or whatever reason. Sorry to sound so harsh.

<comment><USER8> If you don't mind me asking, what is wrong with Tucker Max?

I was, perfectly honestly, hurt by your harsh words. I'm trying to search to figure out what I've done to wrong you, and I'm struggling. Can you help me understand what our shared goal is in this conversation so I have the right frame of reference to continue this conversation, if we are to have it?

EDIT: added comma for clarity

<comment><USER10> Damn sealion...

[http://wondermark.com/1k62/](http://wondermark.com/1k62/)

<comment><USER8> That's hilarious. :) I'll continue to play my sea lion role as necessary though. As the manatee was born to be gentle and kind, so shall I kindly respond to close minded internet commenters. Like an Internet Amish, I shall turn the other cheek.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The reason you are getting down voted is because of the wording in your title. "Sure-fire" invokes bullshit get rich quick schemes, the opposite of what the "entrepreneurial spirit" is about.

If there was a sure fire way to generate $5k profit monthly, everyone would do it, and then it would not be profitable anymore. That's just basic market equilibrium.

If you really just want some ideas, don't use the "sure-fire" language.

<comment><AUTHOR> I misused the word "sure-fire," I stand corrected. My philosophy in a sure- fire way of creating a profitable SaaS or even a simple software is to find an inefficiency in the way businesses are run. However, seldom get to hear the needs of small business owners whom most likely do not have the budgets to invest in a new system. It's usually the "big gun" corporations that have the ability to spend sacks of money to fix their inefficiencies.

TL;DR: Small business/startup owners, what is one simple software/service which would seem to be 1) cheap to implement; 2) easy to implement, that you wish you had?

<comment><USER12> Ok, we took "sure-fire" out of the title.

<comment><AUTHOR> Pretty cool that you can do that! Thank you :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If someone had a "sure-fire way" of making an extra $5k a month, I don't think they would be keen to share them.

In my opinion the case market is pretty saturated, and it's a hit or a miss about whether you get anywhere with it, or just lose your money. You say with targeted FB ads you can do it, but you need to get one customer for every $9 you spend, that's not a lot.

If you're looking to start a business, I'd highly suggest building/selling something that you can sell for much higher than $10. More in the region of $100 - $500. The plus side of this if you need to make fewer sales to reach your target.

You have skills that could make you an extra $5k a month and more, that would be much easier than peddling cheap phone cases. Take on additional consulting project for example?

Or optionally, follow the advice of many financial bloggers and simply cut your outgoings to prevent the living paycheck-to-paycheck situation.

</comment><comment><USER14> \- "invest $1K in inventory" => no, start with orders THEN buy what's ordered...

\- "Justin Beiber case" => warning: you can't use people (or pictures or cartoon or...) images like that... and the rights can be pretty high

\- "$1 cases for ~$10" => didn't you forget taxes, delivery, lost,... business is not: sell $10 - buy $1 = profit $9

Well... I think you should take a look at the business side

<comment><USER15> In this case you need to buy inventory first. Buying from China means shipping takes weeks. And you need to get some samples shipped first, to choose your manufacturer.

Your customers will not want to wait for their phone case for 8 weeks. Shipping phone cases one-by-one from China is obviously out of the question as well.

You also need to buy the Justin Bieber rights, before taking orders.

Also do not forget to setup with a fulfillment partner. You do not want to send out 1000 packages yourself.

Having $9 per case to work with is not too bad. Depending on the costs of the shipping (china+fulfillment) and licence, the numbers might still work out.

But I am not too sure on the advertisement side of things. A customer might be too expensive.

<comment><USER16> On eBay, for $1.49 including delivery from Hong Kong, one Justin Bieber phone case [1]. There's an even cheaper one for $1.39, but Bieber looks younger, so I guess that's old stock.

I buy stuff this way, typically when I don't need it urgently. I've bought phone cases, memory cards, small electronics — they have to be under €10, so they don't incur a customs charge. [3] Delivery often takes a month (by ship), but sometimes I'm lucky and it's just a few days, presumably there was space on a plane.

The competition is the 95% of sellers based in the US, who are selling the same cases for $10 with much faster delivery. [2]

The idea seems to rely on people not shopping around, since

[1] [http://www.ebay.com/itm/Justin-Bieber-Cute-Hard-Phone- Cover-...](http://www.ebay.com/itm/Justin-Bieber-Cute-Hard-Phone-Cover-Case- fits-Apple-Iphone-4-4s-4G-/151898280974)

[2] [http://www.ebay.com/bhp/justin-bieber-phone- case](http://www.ebay.com/bhp/justin-bieber-phone-case)

[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low- value_consignment_relief](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low- value_consignment_relief)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm a bit horrified at the naivety of this post. I think the best thing you can do is just try it, with the presumption it will fail. Then learn the lessons why it didn't work and try and try again.

At some point you will realise that the notion there's a "sure-fire way to $5K" is completely absurd.

Some random notes on your idea anyway:

\- No-one buys from independent websites, only Amazon, eBay, etsy etc

\- You will get no traffic to your website

\- Phone cases are a commodity, there is no chance you can charge higher than Amazon

\- Buying Facebook traffic to sell $10 items doesn't work economically

\- Justin Beiber will close down your website with cease and desist

\- You will end up with a 1000 cases that you can't even sell for 99c

\- The real money is in value-added high-price items, or in selling services

<comment><USER18> been there done that. Tried Facebook advertising with a service gave up after zero leads where google was 10x cheaper. Ebay good luck they blocked me for saying my cases worked with ipads. even though I tried to explain that's not trademark violation. bought sites on flippa traffic slowly degrades(and adsense revenue) unless you pump money into it. tried building an affiliate site that aggregates Chinese wholesale sites(aliexpress,dx.com etc) and ebay so I could find the cheapast price. Tried monetizing with viglink.com made no money from them and a little from ebay affiliate program. spent couple dollars a day at 10 cent clicks wasted $300. my next idea will work for sure though...lol...

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> At the start of every month, buy $350 of the S&P500. At year 40, you should have over $1M and at year 50 over $2M.

[https://vestu.com/articles/how_to_make_1m/](https://vestu.com/articles/how_to_make_1m/)

<comment><USER20> That doesn't take into account inflation. Presuming you do keep paying $350/month and not increasing that with inflation, that gives you $1,229,998.43 for 40 years.

If you apply the same U.S inflation rate as seen from 1965 > 2015 to cover a 40 year period, that gives you a cumulative inflation rate of -86.7%, leaving you with the equivalent value in todays money of $163,249.36

You might be a millionaire in 40 years, but you're not going to be rich..

<comment><USER19> Inflation 1926-2014 was 2.93% annualized Inflation 1970-2014 was 4.15% annualized Via IA-SBBI in Morningstar.

You are correct that inflation plays a big role, it always has, it always will. One argument for equites is in their ability to digest inflation (raising prices and returning ever higher earnings). There are many choices here, some simple (S&P500) and some more advanced. End of the day, if you are not making a return ahead of inflation, you are falling behind.

Here is a snapshot of annualized returns from IA-SBBI: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/l7gmcynm3tggnrw/Screenshot%202015-...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/l7gmcynm3tggnrw/Screenshot%202015-12-16%2008.22.00.png?dl=0)

[https://VestU.com](https://VestU.com) provides investment courses, model portfolios, webinars for individual investors. We launch in Jan 2016 and are finishing up the courses now. The material is based on our co-founders experience managing investments at the B level for endowments (University of Texas System), Boards (BHI,CAM), and foundations (Meadows Foundation, Others) for over 40+ years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I see this done all the time:

Build websites for a couple dozen clients. Charge hosting fees and maintenance each month to keep sites live.

Marking up AWS hosting to $50 / mth and charging some hourly here and there at $100 / hr adds up quickly.

<comment><USER22> That only lasts so long until the client figures out they are being fleeced. My wife hawks those businesses that are way overpaying for their web hosting and the like (maintenance each month to keep sites live).

<comment><USER23> Indeed, I've found the sweet spot for managing and hosting a website for a small business or individual to be around $10/month and I net maybe $5/month/client out of that after hosting fees and time invested. There's a plethora of "build it yourself" hosts out there who use economies of scale to offer simple shared hosting for under $5/month with a site builder engine that's good enough for the masses. Look at A Small Orange[1] as a great example of how to thrive while offering a good but cheap service.

It can be done, but given the small scale it's basically pocket money, not any sort of real income, unless you can build a brand and scale it up. That's the secret sauce: Marketing.

[1] [http://asmallorange.com](http://asmallorange.com)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> _Isn 't this what the whole entrepreneurial spirit is about?_

No.

"Entrepreneurial spirit" is abut identifying a problem that people have and providing a solution it, and then building a sustainable business around that solution. It's not just cobbling together something so you can cash in.

 _Even though the case market is saturated, with targeted ads I 'm thinking it would be possible._

The first thing you should do is research the cost of those adverts. Highly targeted adverts are valuable, and consequently they're expensive. I wouldn't be surprised if an ad targeting young women with an interest in Justin Beiber on Facebook will cost upwards of $2 each time someone clicks, so you'll be needing a to get upwards of a 20% conversion ratio just to cover the $10 you're planning to charge, and that's before any other costs. That's not a sustainable business.

<comment><USER25> Actually, that's the start-up fantasy. In the real world, the vast majority of entrepreneurs create their business out of necessity - not out of some lofty goals to improve anyone else's situation.

Source: helped a professor with research on entrepreneurship and small business teamwork for 2 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> "Even though the case market is saturated, with targeted ads I'm thinking it would be possible." I spent a bit of time in this market years ago... YEARS Ago... Don't enter it. Your thoughts that targeted ads will work prove to me that you're not actually that knowledgeable in digital marketing. If you think that you're going to discover some magic formula to sell these cases that all of the cell phone case creators (including the phone manufacturers) in addition to amazon and much more haven't done and with an unbranded no name business and phone - you're fucking wrong.

</comment><comment><USER27> Like.....absolutely surefire? I can only think of one - borrow $$$, buy a large warehouse/commercial building in a popular part of town, pay it off within 5-10 years either by renting it out/running a business that at least pays for the loan payments, then once it's paid off just rent it out - if it's large enough you will easily get residual income of $5k/month or more. That's like the only _guaranteed_ way with >90% chance of happening. Anything else is a much larger risk and depends on you knowing how to run a company.

</comment><comment><USER28> Business is hard. Anything of value takes effort and time. Read "The Lean Startup" and "The 4 hour work week". And whatever you do, don't build a website - a website is not a business. Start with eBay, then try something like Shopify once things get better, and spend your money testing ideas and assumptions.

</comment><comment><USER29> What's up with the edit? You can't downvote submissions (afaik?) so what are you referring to?

<comment><USER30> Despite hanyoon being an HN user for ~5 years, it's apparently the first time they've noticed that all text submissions are displayed as low contrast, similar to a downvoted comment. Even the ever-popular "Who's Hiring?" posts display the text identically.

<comment><USER31> ha. i only browser with a stylish extension that turn every web sites white on black with decent contrast. never noticed that either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Generating $5K/month in _revenues_ is a respectable achievement for a new business. It's more traction than many new businesses will ever achieve, and of course most new businesses will fail.

If you're talking about _spending_ $5K/month in costs to run your business, and then presumably on top of that the value of the time that you and your friends are putting in, then you need way more than $5K/month in revenues to make a significant profit.

If it was that easy, everyone would be doing it. Unfortunately, as others have said, a lot of the assumptions implicit in your post are wildly unrealistic.

</comment><comment><USER33> Based on your skillset, and some suggestions posted here, one possibility to generate recurring revenue would be to leverage your "highly targeted marketing" abilities and offer them to existing merchants, instead of trying to learn to do it yourself.

You could either resell / drop ship, or (better IMO) partner with the merchants, maybe on a commision basis? (no upfront cost for them, recurring revenue for you).

</comment><comment><USER22> Your idea is somewhat like Hawkers Sunglasses here in Spain. If you can read Spanish, check this out it is packed full of what you are trying to do, except they made way more money: [http://www.elconfidencial.com/tecnologia/2015-04-06/hawkers-...](http://www.elconfidencial.com/tecnologia/2015-04-06/hawkers- gafas-de-sol_753986/)

</comment><comment><USER34> Buy a couple duplex properties in an inexpensive midwestern or southern state. You'll have to save up some money to do this, and depending on that amount your margins may be nonexistent. Being a landlord is a lot less work than running a business and far less speculative, and the profit margins show it. But you asked about income, not profit.

<comment><USER35> Why go for less populated areas? It seems to me that that would increase the risk since it will is easier for a small town to start dropping in population as opposed to a big town. Also land is cheaper and there is more room for development so less people need to rent.

<comment><USER34> Not small towns, but medium sized cities. Margins are higher in places like Columbus, Ohio compared to Los Angeles because property is cheaper.

Here is a heat map for rental returns. [http://www.realtytrac.com/content/news-and-opinion/best- and-...](http://www.realtytrac.com/content/news-and-opinion/best-and-worst- markets-for-rental-returns-heat-map-8023)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> As someone that tried a similar idea with imported phone cases I won't recommend this path at all. It can be possible, but there are several challenges with this market. There is too much competition, the amount of stores and private sellers that exist will crush the profit margin and some of these private sellers aren't paying any taxes at all.

Another major challenge is the hundreds of devices and colors that exist and that you will have to stock in order to fullfil the orders on a timely manner.

Finding reliable suppliers is also a challenge, I've had a few experiences with chinese suppliers that I've found on Alibaba and they weren't the best. Inconsistent product quality, incorrect models\amounts shipped, lack of proper invoicing which made me have some issues with customs along with additional fees.

I tried some targeted ads with several groups, but it didn't help.

</comment><comment><USER37> You sound naive but hopefully well intentioned.

You need an edge, I do not think your skills in making a modern website are enough of an edge (when eBay and Amazon already make purchasing very easy) when it comes to selling products.

If you do not have an edge you need to find a rising tide (from rising tide lifts all boats). At this stage Justin Bieber or phone cases are not a rising tide.

Let me give you an example of an edge:

In 2000 before the first internet bubble popped my Japanese-American friend made $3k net monthly selling hentai DVD boxes on Yahoo Japan.

How did he do it? I hooked him up with a distributor in Florida who was dumping a large quantity of $49.95 retail price 3DVD hentai boxes for $7-8ea if taken in quantity 100+.

My friend sold them for $90 each on Yahoo Japan and he sold about one a day.

So why did this arbitrage work so well?

Because of 2-punch, my access to the liquidator and my friend's access to Yahoo Japan and realization that $90 for average hentai series without pixelation would be a good deal in Japan (surely breaking a few decency laws in Japan).

It was the realization that the Japanese release of the DVD was censored and the American was not was what gave the extra pricing power.

By comparison my US based anime store sold only a few copies at $20-30 in US because it was a very average series.

So theoretically my Japanese friend could have made money even buying at American retail and selling in Japan albeit the risks would have been greater.

I think Yahoo Japan cracked down on this and also the low price DVDs also dissappeared.

Another story: There was a kid from Australia here on HN a few years ago who made very good money in mid 2005-6 selling imitation iPods (buying wholesale in China) on eBay. He was not misrepresenting them as iPods but people though they were. Eventually Apple enforcement got stronger + Chinese sellers started selling them themselves and the business dried up.

His edge was the rising boat of people still clamoring for iPods pre smart phones + average buyers confusion that iPod was not a generic term.

This is Economics 101 whenever there is a huge value capture, there will be new entrants in the market.

The darker side is tha often the value capture comes from breaking a law somewhere. You need to ask yourself whether you can live with this.

</comment><comment><USER38> For anyone else thinking 'buy XXX from China' T-Shirts are a great case to learn from: Import quality generic T-shirts in bulk at extremely low cost, then do the branding / dying locally to respond to customer demand. Virtually no risk. Aggressive marketing works in the T-shirt (and other generic clothing) business to discover (key: discover, not compete in. Once discovered, they're gone as of days or weeks) markets/interests in a very short (2-3 day) turnaround time.

Phone cases... seriously though...

</comment><comment><USER35> 2M in rentable real estate should do it.

</comment><comment><USER39> I think that the vast majority of the comments think you want to earn $5k/month, not that you want advice on how to invest $5k/month into your own business.

The wording is unclear--I had to re-read your title to understand that when I entered the thread.

</comment><comment><USER40> I have another idea for a product that you could import and sell, instead of phone cases from China.

I don't know how to contact you directly, so maybe you can drop me an email. My email address is: my HN username at yahoo dot com.

</comment><comment><USER41> Kudos i say, Ive always wanted to quit my job and start/build a business!!

</comment><comment><USER42> If you want a sure fire way..

Put 3 million in an stock market index fund. In most years you will get at least a 2% increase, which is $60K (or $5K a month).

Getting the initial capital for this is easier said than done.

<comment><USER18> kinda like best way to make a million dollars in a restaurant ... start with 2m...

<comment><USER43> My favourite Branson quote, though it may well have been an old adage he repeated, of course.

"If you want to be a Millionaire, start with a billion dollars and launch a new airline."

<comment><USER18> that's pretty good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> "Don't get whats with all the downvotes"

You are asking a pretty daft question. There is no sure-fire way of making a residual income

</comment><comment><USER7> > _cheap high quality_

Pick one.

</comment><comment><USER45> Get a job that pays $5k/mo?</comment>


We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer - <AUTHOR> http://nytimes.com/2014/01/31/opinion/we-are-giving-ourselves-cancer.html?from=mostemailed <comment><USER2> The article's first sentence annoys me right off the bat:

"Despite great strides in prevention and treatment, cancer rates remain stubbornly high and may soon surpass heart disease as the leading cause of death in the United States."

This seems to be implying that cancer death rates are growing and will soon "surpass" those of heart disease. While the article is technically correct, this is due to the fact that deaths per year from heart disease have been going down in the US since 1975 (see here: [http://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart- public/@wcm/@sop/@smd/...](http://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart- public/@wcm/@sop/@smd/documents/downloadable/ucm_449847.pdf))

It's irritating because the article's premise is flawed. It also gives no statistical data to back the claim that cancer rates are increasing.

<comment><USER3> Because it wants to scare you, not reassure you. If it had started, "We've been so successful in tracking down and treating the things that lead to heart disease, it may soon drop to second place leaving Cancer as the #1 cause of death." Then you would be all happy that you weren't going to die of a heart attack and realize that your risk of dying from cancer hadn't changed (actually its been going down as the cohort of major smokers leave the population). But who wants to feel good about this stuff really? :-)

<comment><USER4> There's plenty of cognitive dissonance now that the stuff that kills us anymore is the stuff we understand the least. Actuarial tables aren't something we can reason about intuitively.

I was shocked to learn that an nMRI (where the nuclear "n" is usually silent) doesn't involve radioactivity. Such careful PR to avoid confusion about electromagnetic radiation, and it didn't even work?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> >A single CT scan exposes a patient to the amount of radiation that epidemiologic evidence shows can be cancer-causing

That does not look right to me. A single CT scan is 2-7 millisieverts, and exposures under 13 can not be linked to health effects - look for UNSCEAR in [http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert)

If you do the math by ICRP formulae, you end up with increase chance of cancer of 1 in 2600 over the next 20 years from a single 7ms CT scan today. This compares favorably with "natural" risk that is 1 in 10 without any extra exposure above background radiation.

Now if you do a scan every year for the next 20 years your chances go up to 1 in 130. So there is something to worry about, but article overstates the cause.

<comment><USER6> >If you do the math by ICRP formulae, you end up with increase chance of cancer of 1 in 2600 over the next 20 years from a single 7ms CT scan today. This compares favorably with "natural" risk that is 1 in 10 without any extra exposure above background radiation.

But that is a meaningless comparison. The doctor should be comparing this additional risk, to the benefit of the scan.

The "natural" risk of developing cancer is totally irrelevant to the cost- benefit analysis.

<comment><USER5> I see your point.

I wonder though if there should be a cutoff somewhere, below which you stop caring? I used background cancer rates as an anchor to judge if the cutoff has been reached, without getting specific about benefits of treatment in each particular case. Would you suggest another cutoff level that is broadly applicable?

<comment><USER6> I think the only comparison that makes sense is the benefit from the scan.

So if you are certain that the benefit of the scan is, no matter what the particular case, going to be worth much more than a 1/1000 chance of getting cancer, then that is a reason to ignore the risk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This goes beyond the medical field. ProPublica did a story about how X-rays are becoming more common in law-enforcement and border security as well.

[http://www.propublica.org/article/drive-by-scanning- official...](http://www.propublica.org/article/drive-by-scanning-officials- expand-use-and-dose-of-radiation-for-security-s)

<comment><USER8> Is there a relatively inexpensive portable Geiger counter or something that can measure this type of radiation?

<comment><USER9> [http://www.amazon.com/RADStickerTM-radiation-exposure- determ...](http://www.amazon.com/RADStickerTM-radiation-exposure-determining- dosimeter/dp/B004VJ06CI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391321366&sr=8-1&keywords=dosimeter)

<comment><USER10> Or you could just get an app (and some black tape), depending on the energy range you want to look at:

[http://www.xinexus.ch/nuclear-radiation- dosimeter/index.html](http://www.xinexus.ch/nuclear-radiation- dosimeter/index.html)

edit: I think I got the wrong thing there.. better go for this:

[http://www.hotray-info.de/html/radioactivity.html](http://www.hotray- info.de/html/radioactivity.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have no doubt that patients are getting exposed to more radiation via imaging than they need to.

However, every decision in medicine is (or should be) a risk-vs-benefit analysis. Cancer is not the only thing you can die from. If you suffer a head injury and end up in the ER and get a CT scan, you may increase your long-term risk of cancer, but you are also _drastically_ reducing the risk of dying from a brain hemorrhage that couldn't be identified by any other method.

<comment><USER12> Of course, no one would dispute ordering a CT for a trauma patient if the presentation warrants.

But the article was talking about the increase in CT usage over the past 20 years. That's largely been driven (in the US) by misaligned incentives that reimburse procedures at much higher rates that clinical decision making. Put simply, the person who owns the CT machine makes much more than the doctor who interprets the results. And so we have had a blossoming of imaging centers, and CT machines have moved into outpatient cardiology and even family care practices.

One of the major goals of Obamacare is addressing these misaligned incentives and shifting to a model where providers are paid to keep people healthy (outcome driven) rather than on volume (fee for service).

Another issue has been the difficulty of sharing/accessing existing imaging data, so tests are just repeated to save time (rather that save cost or adequately balance safety). Our long, painful journey to electronic record standardization should also help with that.

<comment><USER13> CT is also simply more available, so it's an option. In the past, not so much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Cancers rates are have been on the decline or remaining steady not rising. Look at the stats for the most common types of cancer.

[http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html](http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html)

[http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html](http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html)

[http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html](http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html)

[http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/lungb.html](http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/lungb.html)

<comment><USER15> I wonder how discouraging people from air travel influences cancer rates...

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> CT Scan doses vary wildly depending on the type of X-ray (chest, head, limb, etc.), the size of the person, and a lot of other things. The bigger the cross-section of the thing you put in a scanner, the greater the exposure. CT machines themselves also vary considerably. Newer machines are often more sensitive and employ better imaging software, so they can do their job while delivering a much smaller dose. Anyone who quotes a solid number is probably using one that's absolute worst-case, which probably means a chest scan on a fat dude with a CT machine that's been around as long as disco music.

Personally, I like to think of medical imaging in terms of how long I'd have to work as a flight-attendant to get the same dose. When you fly at high altitudes (as most passenger jets do) there is less atmosphere to block cosmic radiation, which is the source of background radiation that we're exposed to every day. You get a higher dose of radiation at high altitudes amounting to a few tens of microsievert's for a decently long flight. Medical X-Rays that consist of a single photo are approximately in the same ball-park as an intercontinental flight or two, or working as a flight-attendant for a day or so. CT scans are in the ballpark of several months working as a flight- attendant. It sounds bad at first, but flight-attendants aren't known to have a massively increased rate of cancer after doing the job for _decades_.

In general, people fear radiation to an extent that is out of proportion with reality. To add more perspective, the background radiation in your living room will add up to a CT scan, most likely, in less than a year (unless you live in very deep mine). You can marginally improve your odds of getting cancer by avoiding medical scans, but only at the cost of massively increasing your odds of dying from something those scans might have helped diagnose. It's not an intelligent trade-off. Yes, unnecessary CT scans are bad, but not as bad as the article claims. The greatest cost of an unnecessary CT scan is probably to those who don't get scanned due to high demand on the machine. This article, by stoking irrational fears of medical imaging, is more likely to harm people than help them.

Note: Medical imaging is generally not done very often, is tracked, and is usually performed by trained technicians with quality apparatus. The same is not true of security X-Ray scans, which people can be subjected to much more frequently, are frequently performed by the near-unemployable, and use machines that are not designed with the primary goal of helping those it scans. The U.S. is also starting to use truck-based scanners to scan parked vehicles and people on public streets. You may be scanned by these not only without consent, but without _knowledge_. I do find this to be objectionable.

<comment><USER17> While your comment as a whole is thoughtful and well written, I'm surprised to hear you say, "Medical imaging is not done very often..."

Medical imaging is commonly overused, and its overuse is recognized as being one of the leading causes of certain types of cancer. For example, the original story explains...

"In a 2011 report sponsored by Susan G. Komen, the Institute of Medicine concluded that radiation from medical imaging, and hormone therapy, the use of which has substantially declined in the last decade, were the leading environmental causes of breast cancer, and advised that women reduce their exposure to unnecessary CT scans." (The substantial decline refers to hormonal therapy, not imaging.)

<comment><USER18> Perhaps it varies wildly between countries. I've never heard of anyone I know having a CT scan, but I know of 3 MRI scans.

<comment><USER19> MRI is very different from CT. CT use X-rays, which is an ionizing radiation. MRI uses a very strong magnetic field, and as far as we know it doesn't increase the cancer rates.

The final images are quite similar in appearance (semi transparent films with a black background), but the underlying process is very different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "We are giving ourselves cancer by living long enough to develop it"

is what the title should have said. This article is the worst form of opinion.

<comment><USER21> Agree, and it's not opinion, it's scare-mongering linkbait. Ridiculous to see that along with no actionable data from NYT. I'm giving myself a stroke just thinking about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Any people here who go to the dentist?

       Specifically, the American Dental Association's
       guidelines for heathy persons suggest that

       * children receive 1 x-ray every 1-2 years,
       * teens every 1.5-3 years,
       * and adults every 2-3 years.

~ [http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/243952.php](http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/243952.php)

I was personally very surprised and alarmed by this.

<comment><USER5> Before getting alarmed consider doing the math to assign numerical value to level of danger. Wikipedia article on Sievert has the formulas for it, as well as benchmark values to judge the outcome.

If you don't want to do the math, consider this handy chart: [http://xkcd.com/radiation/](http://xkcd.com/radiation/)

<comment><USER23> Why does a kid who hasn't lost his baby-teeth need dental x-rays?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The xkcd chart on dosages of ionizing radiation

[http://xkcd.com/radiation/](http://xkcd.com/radiation/)

is a good introduction to the orders of magnitude differences in exposures from different kinds of sources.

<comment><USER25> It would have been more helpful if that chart didn't mix the units of time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I am a surviving AML patient, relapsed once and had a stim cell donor. I have had over 50-60 CT scans and I have one or two a month to monitor my lungs for fluids. This article makes me chuckle cause who knows what it's doing to me, but without the CT scans to spot pneumonia and other infections in my lungs I would probably have died already.

<comment><USER27> Congrats on surviving AML.

I have a few oncologist friends. I think that their point of view is that once you go to see them, getting a CT or 50 is the least of your problems. So, if they even _think_ there is something wrong, you're getting a CT. The risk of having a problem _now_ is much worse than the remote risk of something else going wrong in the future. If you survive this bout, who cares about the extra radiation exposure.

Being able to worry about that later is a good problem to have.

<comment><USER26> That's exactly how I feel. CT sure sign me up. Ive had so much chemo therapy and radiation xrays and scans that I am sure my lifespan is shortened a lot. However I am alive 6 more years than I should have been, and I have a son and a wife that I would have never experienced.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Big elephant in the room: Pre-test ban atmospheric nuclear tests.

Of course, there's nothing anyone can do about it. The somatic damage period is probably more or less over, but we are transitioning through the genetic damage period.

<comment><USER29> Squeaky mouse in the room: the actual numbers.

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

Natural background: 2.40 mSv/year (world average)

Atmospheric testing: "peak of 0.11 mSv in 1963"

<comment><USER28> Isotopes of specific atoms have a different biochemical targetting and effect than EM radiation. Iodine is concentrated in the thyroid, strontium makes its way to the bone (close to hematopoetic stem cells), etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> When I worked with radiologists (at a PACS vendor, mainly selling to the military and the federal prisons), the radiologists and staff _were_ exercising due care about minimizing radiation exposure from CTs.

Personally, I don't care about regular x-rays, particularly digital ones, for any reasonable medical use. I get one every year or two as part of a checkup.

CT and C-arm fluoroscopy scare me, as an educated person who isn't a doctor but knows more than 99% of people about radiation safety, and I'd want there to be a clear clinical need and decision supported by them. Which is the standard I saw applied. (I never actually saw a c-arm procedure) In extreme trauma you might err on the side of a CT in 1/100 cases. but that's not a big deal.

<comment><USER31> Apparently loads of dentists lost fingers and hands to cancer and bone degeneration before they figured out not to hold the x-ray film themselves. Now they have the patient hold it. It just drives home that the stuff is not harmless.

<comment><USER19> Let's analyze the worst case scenario: 50 weeks/year * 5 days/week * 8 hours/day * 2 patients/hour = 4000 patients/year

So your finger would get 4000 "dental" x-ay of ~5uSv (u=micro), that is 20mSv. For comparison, the radiation worker yearly dose limit is 50mSv, but the 50mSv are distributed to all the body, and you get the 20mSv in your finger. Doesn't sound good.

The problem is the repetition. Taking 4000 dental x-rays in a year is not a good idea. (I'm not sure if someone proved that it's dangerous, but don't try this just in case.) This is also the reason why x-rays technicians hide behind a shield while taking the x-ray.

* Nobody claims that x-rays are not dangerous. The claim is that the risk is minimal under reasonable use and in some circumstance (for example an accident) the benefits are much bigger than the risks.

* And the Linear No-Threshold model is mostly an upper bound, the risk of small radiation dose is perhaps smaller than what is extrapolated from big radiation doses.

For example, suppose that 4000000 patients take one dental x-ray and 1000 dentist take 4000 dental x-rays each one. In which group will be bigger the increase of the cancer total number? The Linear No-Threshold model says that the expected number should be equal. But perhaps it's smaller in the patients group, because the body perhaps can deal better with a low number of problems from radiation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A handy radiation-exposure chart: [http://xkcd.com/radiation/](http://xkcd.com/radiation/)

It's the first thing I check with before looking for any details (which are conveniently linked at the bottom, by the way).

</comment><comment><USER32> What about MRIs? Don't they offer the same benefits of CT scans but without all the radiation?

<comment><USER33> No. They have different strengste and weaknesses. Roughly, CT is for bones and rough details of soft tissues, MRI for detailed views on soft tissue in patients without metal implants. More nuanced views at [http://www.ct-scan- info.com/mrivsctscan.html](http://www.ct-scan-info.com/mrivsctscan.html), [http://www.diffen.com/difference/CT_Scan_vs_MRI](http://www.diffen.com/difference/CT_Scan_vs_MRI) or [http://blog.radiology.ucsf.edu/neuroradiology/exploring- the-...](http://blog.radiology.ucsf.edu/neuroradiology/exploring-the-brain-is- ct-or-mri-better-for-brain-imaging/)

For the discussion at hand, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_resonance_imaging#MRI_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_resonance_imaging#MRI_versus_CT) has some discussion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Of course I'd rather get a CT scan sooner than an MRI later if I'm a serious trauma patient. But CT scans are way over-used for procedures that are not time-critical.

</comment><comment><USER35> People who receive CT scans have a higher rate of cancer. This seems like a logical fallacy.

People who receive CT scans are more likely to get cancer. So CT scans must cause cancer.

The alternate hypothesis are that people who are more likely to develop cancer are more likely to have a CT scan. Given the tiny number involved here (in absolute number of people who develop cancer after having a CT scan), is it not possible that these people had a CT scan because of early symptoms of cancer?

</comment><comment><USER36> Just FYI, there are a couple of initiatives in the medical imaging world to reduce over exposure:

* [http://www.imagewisely.org/](http://www.imagewisely.org/)

* [http://www.imagegently.org/](http://www.imagegently.org/)

</comment><comment><USER37> >One in 10 Americans undergo a CT scan every year, and many of them get more than one.

For what?

<comment><USER15> For back pain? More than half of the people at some point in life develop some for back pain. It's scary so if you can afford a scan you get it. Of course there's nothing wrong and the pain goes away by itself in following months, usually after switching chair in which you spend most of your waking hours.

<comment><USER38> I can't imagine someone in the UK getting scans for lower-back back pain unless there was some clinical need for it.

The advice for most people would tend to be "lose weight, get exercise, check your beds and chairs; and carefully take paracetamol for the pain".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Actually at least in the USA there are geographic portions of the USA where radon gases via what the house foundation was built on are more of a threat than tracked medical imaging as obviously if the house is not tested than we have no way of determining whether radon gas is a threat.

EPA map of radon gas zones, Zone 3 is the high risk level: [http://www.epa.gov/radon/pdfs/zonemapcolor.pdf](http://www.epa.gov/radon/pdfs/zonemapcolor.pdf)

and no sarcastic comments about it also being the bible belt please..:)

</comment><comment><USER40> This article does not represent current state of knowledge in this field, and makes many misleading statements. I have presented a line-by-line criticism of the article in my blog which is available at: [http://are-we-really-giving- ourselves-cancer.blogspot.com/](http://are-we-really-giving-ourselves- cancer.blogspot.com/)

CT scans are safe, and the present concerns regarding radiation dose from CT scans are not justified by any evidence.

</comment><comment><USER41> This article does not represent current state of knowledge in this field, and makes many misleading statements. I have presented a line-by-line criticism of the article in my blog which is available at:

[http://are-we-really-giving-ourselves-cancer.blogspot.com/](http://are-we- really-giving-ourselves-cancer.blogspot.com/)

CT scans are safe, and the present concerns regarding radiation dose from CT scans are not justified by any evidence.

</comment><comment><USER42> I liked the part about them causing "excess deaths." It's good to know your chance of dying is lower if you avoid CT scans...

<comment><USER38> People are harmed when they get unnecessary CT scans. Not from the CT scanning but from the unneeded treatment they get after that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> The article misses a very important point.

People are living longer because of better heart care (lower death rates at a given age from heart disease). All else being equal, this means people are living longer, which in turn means they are at increased risk of getting cancer.

The CT scan impact is small in comparison with this fact.

</comment><comment><USER44> Ok fine, except that cancer is well... complicated. [http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1162](http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1162)

</comment><comment><USER45> As a person who had two minor head injuries and took a CT after each one (to find nothing, thankfully) in the last 6 months...

I find this rather disturbing.

<comment><USER46> I took more than 20 in a couple of months (ordered by myself) after doctors couldn't find anything concrete (later on the current diagnostic is "fybromialgia" and the symptoms remain nearly 2 years later). I was aware of cancer danger but I needed to find some treatment before ending completely mad.

<comment><USER47> You may be interested in [http://www.intidyn.com/Newsroom/article-0009.html](http://www.intidyn.com/Newsroom/article-0009.html) \- the probable cause of fibro has been identified - which will be a huge boon to the sufferers - including my girlfriend.

<comment><USER46> Than you. I'm very up to the news on r/fibro (reddit) and I already read that article but I'm glad you brought it up here. Since my diagnostic I'm also trying to make my way to develop health tech that could help mitigate (completely or partially) the pain and the other symptoms, so now I'm living in the bay area instead of my own country.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Why doesn't anyone mention that our diets are also culprits because they weaken our immune systems. Diets full of fats cholesterol and cooked vegetables do not have the required nutrients that we need day to day. This is pretty eye opening: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1528734/?ref_=nv_sr_1](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1528734/?ref_=nv_sr_1)

</comment><comment><USER49> I've had a theory that TSA workers will start reporting higher than average cancer rates soon.

</comment><comment><USER50> We are giving ourselves cancer when we spend time outdoors without sunscreen or other protection.

</comment><comment><USER51> I know several people that died of cancer, and as far as I know none of them had a CT scan before it. In contrast, the one who was often scanned during his illness, lived almost 10 years with cancer.

The article just says CT scan has higher radiation but other than that no hard facts are presented. Looks like the NYT is writing research articles now...

</comment><comment><USER52> Not that we're doing anything to prevent it either... like, for example, exercising.

</comment><comment><USER53> leo'c Law of Medicine: You can get away with Absolutely Anything Whatsoever if you characterise it as a medical treatment.

</comment><comment><USER54> Yup, and all the advise that helps are being voted down. So we shall enjoy you people getting what you deserve.

</comment><comment><USER55> since the media is now exposing this secret there must have already been a decline in CT scans, otherwise the media would never say a word about it. The media never exposes a mainstream money making scam until the money has gone out of it.

</comment><comment><USER56> We also eat a lot more crap today.

<comment><USER57> blame monsanto, not our poor decisions

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Stay around some carpet. The carpet absorbs the radiation from electronics that you're all concerned about... I think so. Does carpet only absorb sound?

</comment><comment><USER59> Let's simplify this. Industrial waste is everywhere. Old buildings are built with cancerous materials and we are expose to all kinds of radiations and air pollutions. We eat junk food, we don't exercise much. Kids are playing with toys painted with lethal chemical substances. Second-hand smoking is always present. We eat overfried food and we also sleep late.

So the story is clear and doesn't require some heavy scientific investigation. We are risking.

<comment><USER60> Sleeping late caused cancer now???

<comment><USER59> [http://188.8.131.52/pages/curso_ritmos/capitulo15/Davis.pdf](http://184.108.40.206/pages/curso_ritmos/capitulo15/Davis.pdf) And weaken your body is one way to allow cancer to spread quicker.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/27/stress-cancer- gene-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/27/stress-cancer-gene-immune- system_n_3804917.html)

If you think cancer is all about radiation, you are wrong..</comment></comment></comment>


No competition is no excuse for being mediocre - <AUTHOR> http://scottkle.in/no-competition-is-no-excuse-for-being-mediocr-0

<comment><USER2> I like your point but I thought the story was going to end with - "and I couldn't believe that they only offered two options, way to close off options to hungry diners just because no one else was around to serve them anyway"

Hefty margins in 8.95? Best bacon-wrapped fillet within 100 miles? I guess we are just on totally different wavelengths here with dining profits and the importances of great bacon-wrapped steaks.. Still, besides that, love your point.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's South Dakota. I may have been hyperbolic about the hefty margin, but the 100 mile statement I would go to the mat for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Positioning is all about finding your spot and own it. Reminds me of the largest island in a lake on an island in a lake on an island. Now, that's positioning! [http://scienceray.com/earth-sciences/physical- geography/larg...](http://scienceray.com/earth-sciences/physical- geography/largest-island-in-a-lake-on-an-island-in-a-lake-on-an-island/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Must suck if you're a vegetarian.</comment>


Simple Raspberry Pi Rack - <AUTHOR> http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=34987 <comment><USER2> And if you like to play with legos: <http://i.imgur.com/75XSCWX.jpg>

[http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/9372/colocating-my- rasp...](http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/9372/colocating-my-raspberry)

<comment><USER3> ooh I remember seeing this Lego rack. IIRC it's from a professor's computing project, with the rack built by his son?

<comment><USER4> Original source: [http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~sjc/raspberrypi/pi_supercomput...](http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~sjc/raspberrypi/pi_supercomputer_southampton.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _USB 3.0 7-Port Hub for power_

That has to be the most expensive power supply workaround ever.

Oh and part 2: [http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4...](http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=41669)

<comment><USER6> I view it more as an novel solution. The Pi's power cable is Micro-USB, so buying things that interact with that standard rather than hacking up your own cables makes a bit of sense.

That hub is $50 USD: [http://www.amazon.com/Plugable-Power-Adapter- VL812-Chipset/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Plugable-Power-Adapter- VL812-Chipset/dp/B008ZGKWQI)

So it works out to around $7 for each Pi, probably closer to $10/each with cabling, which is quite reasonable for a slickly put together setup.

That hub also has a 4A power supply, which is probably needed for a few heavily loaded Pi's.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I like articles that put the hack back into Hacker News.

In a similar vein - [http://www.doctormonk.com/2013/02/raspberry-pi-and- breadboar...](http://www.doctormonk.com/2013/02/raspberry-pi-and-breadboard- raspberry.html)

<comment><USER8> "Does not exist"

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> There's a link to this recent redesign at the bottom of the comments: [http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4...](http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=41669)

</comment><comment><USER10> Very nice. However, do you have any ideas what can be accomplished with a multi-computer rack infrastructure that costs about $500?

It is probably too weak to run virtualization (which racks are used for these days). It is also not trivial to set up cluster computing wherein these multiple computers can meaningfully share memory and computing resources. Many of us can afford a 7 computer rack for less than $500, but how do we use it?

<comment><USER11> Erlang (or Elixir) runs really well on the Pi - and cross-node communication is brain-dead simple.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Its a shame they don't support PoE. It'd make the whole thing a lot easier and cheaper

<comment><USER13> AIUI, and you may know this, the reason they don't is it would make each Pi considerably more expensive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> That looks cool and all, but what does one do with a rack these things? How does it compare with a cluster of x86 CPUs on a processing/watt basis?

<comment><USER15> An example of use is for educational purposes, to initiate students to MPI programming etc.:

[http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~sjc/raspberrypi/pi_supercomput...](http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~sjc/raspberrypi/pi_supercomputer_southampton.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm tempted to replace the 2-yr-old DreamPlug I use as backup server with a Pi. Does anybody know how long a Pi would last if left running 24/7 ?

<comment><USER17> I've been running a 512mb Model B for 8 months now as my home's server. I think it has been rebooted twice due to power failure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Would anyone pay about $20/month to rent an RPi colocated somewhere in the states, along with a basic control panel (reboot, reinstall, virtual console access, etc.)? Something like a model B with a 16 GB SD card? Just curious if there is a market for this vs virtual servers.

<comment><USER19> $20/m is too high.

There was another posting recently where a guy co-located his RPi (or Beaglebone?) for less than $20 total over a period of 18 months.

<comment><USER18> $20 is what you would pay for a comparable Linode virtual server.

You can also colocate your RPi for free in Amsterdam, but would you host anything serious there?

<comment><USER20> A $20 Linode Server would totally outperform a Raspberry Pi... you've got access to 8 Xeon cores vs 1 700MHz ARM6 chip.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Seems like it's missing an opportunity for linking the speaker to mic plugs in a daisychain for a cyclic network(of admittedly limited functionality)</comment>


Ask HN: Is there a market for batched distributed Monte Carlo computation? - <AUTHOR>

I've been working on an extension to the bitcoin protocol called
NooShare in which participants can buy the right to specify a Monte
Carlo calculation to be run as part of the blockchain's proof of work algorithm [1].  I'm pretty excited about this, because in principle it could be useful for a variety of optimization and inference problems, and even if it only got to be as big as litecoin [2] is today it would be a substantial computational resource.  But I am also worried that it forces a model of computation which many potential users will find alien and difficult to program to [3].  Andrea Arcangeli's CPUShare was a similar marketplace for computational resources, with a similar computational model.  CPUShare died, and one of the main frictions he faced in selling his service was that people wanted to just run their existing code, which relied on languages his security model couldn't handle, file system storage, real-time network communication, etc. [4]
I think building distributed computation into a blockchain the way I'm proposing with NooShare potentially solves a chicken-and-egg problem CPUShare probably had.  That is, because all transactions were spot
trades denominated in conventional currency, no one was interested in plugging their computers into the CPUShare network to sell time because no one else was buying time, and no one was buying time because the resources on sale were so small.  Hopefully there will be a contingent of early NooShare miners who are excited about winning currency which will grow in value as the computational resources committed to the network grow, just like the early bitcoin adopters.
But, I am really concerned about the potential level of demand for NooShare's computational resources.  Does it sound to people here like there would be a market for this?  Any suggestions for how I could
explore this question without implementing NooShare in its entirety? Something along the lines of "build an MVP involving just the computational framework you intend to use, and see whether people buy it," except that then I'm back in the same situation as CPUShare, with no substantial computational resources to motivate its adoption.

  Notes
  -----

  [1] http://tinyurl.com/nooshare

      (Google doc preview of pdf.  Click on File->Download Original in
      the top LH corner to view it locally.  Incidentally, I welcome
      feedback on any aspect of this paper and its ideas.  I'm asking
      here about marketability mainly because I think it's HN's
      wheelhouse, but I'd also love for people to pound on the
      economics, cryptography and security features of the design.)

  [2] http://litecoin.org/

  [3] Difficult aspects of the computational model: Batched calculations
      which will run as much as several days later; almost embarassingly
      parallel, with extremely limited communication restricted to a
      tiny number of processes run in one current block reporting their
      results to processes being run in subsequent blocks.  It would
      suffice to find the sweet spots in the parameter space of a
      Markov-Chain Monte Carlo algorithm, but I haven't thought of a way
      to generalize it beyond that.

  [4] http://tinyurl.com/7dtt536

      (archive.org copy of CPUShare blog post.)
 <comment><USER2> Sorry, but my guess is that there is no demand for this. You could test this simply - just offer to run these sorts of batched calculations to people and don't specify how they will be run. If anyone takes you up on the offer, then you have some demand. If nobody takes you up on the offer, then you should think of something else.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the suggestion.</comment></comment>


Optimizing Python with Cython - <AUTHOR> http://doublemap.github.io/blog/2015/05/29/optimizing-python/

<comment><USER2> If you can live with changing the signature from two tuples to just taking the four floats, you'll see a big further improvement --- these are the only lines showing up yellow when running the code through cython -a: [https://rawgit.com/syllog1sm/a13542690c59d5e60ebf/raw/499418...](https://rawgit.com/syllog1sm/a13542690c59d5e60ebf/raw/4994187cd560aab45dabe772a376171f409bd109/gistfile1.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Looking at this step:

 _-from math import sin, cos, acos_

 _+from libc.math cimport sin, cos, acos_

What happens if the C math functions and the Python math functions don't take the same arguments/kinds of arguments?

</comment><comment><USER4> On my system, PyPy is 4x faster than the fastest Cython version given.</comment>


Using WASM with Rust - <AUTHOR> https://wiki.alopex.li/ActuallyUsingWasm <comment><USER2> I really like this JS-free future we have ahead of us. I mean, I needed to format a date as text recently, and JS can't even do that without downloading some library... The sooner we'll be able to use real languages on the front- end, the better.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure that'll ever happen now (as much as I would like it). JS/TS has inserted itself into just about every area and theres a whole lot of Javascript developers who are going to want to keep writing Javascript. It's basically the PHP of it's day.

<comment><USER2> Let them have it, they certainly have fun reinventing wheels and dealing with dependency issues etc. That won't prevent a new WASM ecosystem from springing up. Not in the least because, as the article says, WASM is a sandbox not jusy for browser use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's some talk about desktop application, but how will it work? Will people need to download something like the JRE to run WASM programs?

<comment><USER5> My personal guess is that there'll be two main ways end users use WASM apps. One will be the browser naturally, but with a push for PWAs. If you go to an app URL and like it, you can "install" it from the browser menu. This isn't WASM specific and sites like Twitter and Instagram already do this, but I suspect we'll see a bigger push from players like Google to make WASM PWAs.

The other main way will likely be "native" apps that are based on Electron or a similar framework. Electron is already Chromium based so WASM support will likely be included in Electron (if it's not already) and devs will make "native" apps that way that are downloadable, or installable from OS app stores.</comment></comment>


Someone Figured Out How To Compromise VMware From Inside - <AUTHOR> http://www.sdtimes.com/blog/post/2009/04/11/Someone-Figured-Out-How-to-Step-Up-in-VM-Ware.aspx Finally seems there is code in the wild to step up and compromise a hypervisor from the inside. <comment><USER2> 90% of the linked article is a waste of bytes. Here's a summary of the other 10%

VMWare released a patch to address a critical vulnerability in the virtual machine display function that might allow a guest operating system to run code on the host. [http://lists.vmware.com/pipermail/security- announce/2009/000...](http://lists.vmware.com/pipermail/security- announce/2009/000055.html)

That's about it. There's also two barely related links to

<http://www.invisiblethings.org/papers/redpill.html> and <http://bluepillproject.org/>

The first one is a technique for detecting the presence of a hypervisor, the second I can't quite figure out, but it appears to be a kind of hypervisor.

<comment><USER3> Don't take this the wrong way, it's meant as a little meta-joke: Based on word count, you're "summary of the other 10%" is exactly 46.8% of the original. :)

<comment><USER2> I guess "summary" was the wrong word :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There was at least one talk at Defcon last year about this kind of thing. Escaping VMs is not as hard as the article suggests.</comment>


Ask HN: How to network in San Francisco as a super introvert? - <AUTHOR> So I came to San Francisco 1 month back. I have got to know 10 to 15 co workers so far who maintain professional relationship. I am super  introvert since childhood ( many reasons). I just don't know how to network. Now since I am in best tech hub in the world I want to make most of it. I am non-citizen tough. I have read repeatedly that best opportunities come through network. It does not matter if  you know four more algorithms but if you know right people you can make it big, powerful  impact and possibly change the world for better.
So how do I network in SF and make most of it while I have this opportunity. Many people on HN have diversified experience so would love to hear from everyone what can i do ?
I like hanging out with people but I suck at holding up interesting conversation one that could trigger or create lasting impact.
There are so many great minds in this area so would love to hear techniques to connect to potential founders, VCs, engineers, PMs,business people.
What can I do  to attract people,  to get myself invited to parties and have someone talk to me about their ideas, meet people from Goog,Twtr,Fb,Reddit,HN more and more.
Cheers <comment><USER2> > There are so many great minds in this area so would love to hear techniques > to connect to potential founders, VCs, engineers, PMs,business people.

> What can I do to attract people, to get myself invited to parties and have > someone talk to me about their ideas, meet people from > Goog,Twtr,Fb,Reddit,HN more and more.

A couple of suggestions:

1\. Don't focus so much on meeting specific types of people or people who work at specific companies. When you have a clear agenda motivated by personal gain, it can be a huge turn-off. Instead, make a habit of talking to lots of people, and remember: to be interesting, be interested.

2\. Parties are overrated. It can be hard to make quality connections, especially if you're introverted. Instead, try meetups/events that put you in the room with folks with whom you share an interest. It's a lot easier to break the ice in these environments.

</comment><comment><USER3> You're doing it now by posting! I think in some ways most engineers are a little introverted. Sometimes you just have to muster up the energy to start a conversation. Find people you're comfortable with and go from there.

</comment><comment><USER4> Get involve in a user group, organization or association, a recreational activity such as masters swimming or yoga, perhaps a Hacker news meet-up?

Better yet, do all of the above. Good luck. I wish you success.

<comment><USER5> That was going to be my suggestion... there are lots of user groups in pretty much any major city with a number of interests.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Network your ass off after hours :-) That is what I've done (similar situation).

This is one of the many reasons I created 3cosystem [1], a simple mobile website that lists most of the tech and startup events in over 60 cities worldwide.

I was new to Stockholm and wanted to plug-in to the startup ecosystem as quickly as possible. Turned out there were a lot of others that had the same issue.

Have a look -- there are a ton of events.

[1] - [http://www.3cosystem.com/san-francisco](http://www.3cosystem.com/san- francisco)

<comment><USER7> 3cosystem is just a merged feed from Meetup and Eventbrite ?

The best events are sometimes those that are not purely focused on tech.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Find someone to go to these events with, who is more talkative than you. Ask the people you know to introduce you to someone they know, who would also like to network with the same types of business people. Do it together.

</comment><comment><USER9> Volunteer. Get involved in the community. What San Francisco needs is not just people who want to be part of a tech clique. Your network will expand and naturally there will be people from some of these companies.

</comment><comment><USER10> Don't forget to look up meetups in the tech section at meetup.com! Very good way of finding like-minded people.

</comment><comment><USER11> No one "is" an introvert. Some people suffer from social impairment to such a degree that they need professional help, but most introverts are just shy and uncomfortable because they don't easily read social cues and situations. Rather than calling yourself an introvert and reinforcing the behavior, practice conversation and acting "not shy" until it becomes natural.

When I was young my teachers told my parents that I was autistic. My mother, to her credit, refused to medicate me and figured I would grow out of it. Some years later, when I was an awkward shy teen, my grandfather, a psychiatrist, told me that I could try acting "not shy" and I would get better at meeting people and handling social situations. He was right, I tried, and it worked. That short talk in my grandfather's car was the equivalent of thousands of dollars of therapy.

Years later when my younger daughter was about five she was too shy to go trick-or-treating or sell cookies door-to-door. She told me how anxious she was talking to people. I told her to try acting "not shy" \-- smile big, look people in the eye, talk a little louder than usual, and listen and acknowledge what people say. She did that, it worked, she sold lots of cookies, and she started making friends and feeling more confident. Today, at 21, she says she still feels shy on the inside but no one else knows that, and she comes across as outgoing and charming.

Socializing and conversation are learned behaviors, and almost everyone can improve. Like any other skill it takes determination and practice. Remember that if you try to meet someone or make a friend or professional connection and you fail you are almost always no worse off than if you didn't try at all.

Put yourself into social situations, often. Introduce yourself, talk a little more confidently than you are used to, look people in the eye, smile. Listen when people talk to you and acknowledge what they said, even if it's just a smile or a nod. If you listen and can add something to what was said, great. Listening with interest will get you most of the way there -- don't feel like you have to respond to everything or say something fascinating. Listen and add to the converation when you have something to say. Eye contact and tone of voice are important; people who mumble and avert their eyes come across as shy or even antisocial, and that makes other people uncomfortable.

Try Toastmasters or some other safe venue to overcome shyness and social anxiety. If you can get comfortable speaking to a group you will feel more confident in casual conversation. I once worked with a professional salesman who told me he used to suffer from crippling shyness. I was surprised to hear that, because he was an Alabama good old boy with a bellowing voice, big smile, and vice-grip handshake. He told me he had overcome his anxiety through Toastmasters and practiced his smile, voice, and handshake until those were second nature. I practiced the same things and stopped calling myself "shy" and "introverted" because I learned I could behave any way I chose.

<comment><USER12> This is an fairly ignorant post - it's well established that introversion has nothing to do with shyness [0] [1].

One common definition of extroversion vs introversion is that an introvert needs time alone to recharge, whereas an extrovert needs time around people to recharge.

I would suggest doing some reading on the topic to prevent undervaluing a large portion of the population. For example, see [2], or Susan Cain's "Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking" [3].

[0] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/introvert- myths_n_3...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/introvert- myths_n_3569058.html)

[1] [http://psychcentral.com/library/shyness.htm](http://psychcentral.com/library/shyness.htm)

[2] [http://www.bustle.com/articles/56526-7-things-all- introverts...](http://www.bustle.com/articles/56526-7-things-all-introverts- wish-people-knew-because-its-time-to-set-the-record-straight)

[3] [http://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Power-Introverts-World- Talking/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Power-Introverts-World- Talking/dp/0307352153)

<comment><USER11> Although the original author identified as a "super introvert" the problem he or she is asking about does not seem like introversion, but rather shyness and social anxiety. The author describes going to social gatherings and "like[s] hanging out with people," but has problems carrying on a conversation. I didn't read this as a clinical diagnosis of introversion, but as someone asking for help dealing with specific social situtations. As your own sources point out many people conflate introversion with shyness, and based on what the original author actually described I inferred that shyness and anxiety are the actual issues, whether or not he or she is also truly introverted.

My personal anecdotes, as both an introverted personality and (formerly) shyness/social anxiety sufferer, are not meant as professional therapy. Take my stories and advice for what they are. They are presented as personal anecdotes, not psychology or self-help. Whether I know more about introversion and shyness than the distinguished Huffington Post, Psychology Today, or Bustle is left to the reader, but sites that also promote "One Weird Trick" and celebrity diet advice may not be the best sources for psychology information. Since I grew up around practicing psychiatrists and psychologists in my own family I know that basing a diagnosis on a Jungian dualistic principle is out of step with modern psychology.

Introversion and extroversion are not things people are; they are opposite directions on an arbitrary scale of personality types. Likewise social anxiety is a spectrum of behaviors and maladaptations, not a black spot in the brain you can see on a CAT scan. That's what I meant by no one "is" an introvert. Many people have behaviors that are commonly described as introversion, and also shyness and social anxiety. Those behaviors may overlap in an individual, or they may not. More important than the labels you or someone else attaches to your personality and behavior is understanding that how you perceive yourself, and how you present yourself and react to social situations, are things that most people can change. Some people can do it themselves, others may need professional guidance.

There's not enough information in the original article for me or anyone else to say if the author has an introvert personality, or suffers from shyness and social anxiety, or both. I addressed the actual problem the author described: difficulty meeting people and carrying on conversation.

Since the author specifically asks about networking in the SF Bay Area I will reiterate that listening is the best skill to develop, because he or she will be trying to network with many people who love nothing more than an audience so they can talk about themselves.</comment></comment></comment>


Spreadsheet of 2018 House Election Results - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Rd-WduF8esJMT_WDrwxd-HDgFmUnT8B6-2Q0xsZFZ8g/edit?usp=sharing <comment><AUTHOR> After hearing various people point out that the democrats got ~8M more votes than republicans in 2018 I wanted to see the data myself. Inexplicably, it doesn't exist in an easily consumable format on the internet.

So I grabbed the json that was being fed to CNN's election results page and extracted the data out into a simple spreadsheet. I figured I might as well share.

PS - Regarding the 8M "house popular vote" democrat edge... The democrats had 39 uncontested seats (ie no republican in the race). Those races add up to 6M votes and explain it rather well. (not to mention that they did win more seats in the house so it would make sense that they had a "house popular vote" edge).</comment>