LSD: The Geek's Wonder Drug - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70015 <comment><USER4> In college I lived with artists. A few of their artist friends come over with big sketch pads, pencils and whatever else artists use. They all drop acid while telling me they can't wait to see their amazing creations once their minds are opened. I went out for a few hours and came back to find them all sitting around the living room.

One sketch pad had a long black squiggle on it, the same design you'd make if you fell asleep while holding a pen to paper, and the rest had even less (One was literally two 1" lines forming a 90 degree angle). The next day they described the night as a huge success even though they never really attained any of their stated goals.

I don't doubt they had a good time, but seeing them utterly fail to use the drug as a tool kinda makes me skeptical of the productive benefits.

As a side note, if you want your ego stroked then ask a student artist for his opinion of your work. In the two years I lived with artists not a single negative comment was spoken by a student of anyone else's work. It was a guaranteed self-congratulatory feedback loop.

<comment><USER5> I have several drawings and paintings that I did under the influence that still amaze me today. I could never reproduce the techniques or forms. There were many times that I wouldn't spend the entire duration drawing/painting, but I had several marathon creation sessions under the influence of LSD.

We would always make sure to have plenty of supplies. Art or otherwise. Pen and paper was probably the most difficult. The effects on your vision are pronounced and drawing can be... hard. I always enjoyed oil pastels the most. Thick and flowing pools of color. Man those were good times.

I was in art school at the time, and critique (the ability to give and receive) was one of the greatest things I walked away with. We would formerly critique on a regular basis in class.

> I don't doubt they had a good time, but seeing them utterly fail to use the > drug as a tool kinda makes me skeptical of the productive benefits.

This is akin to coming onto a software project, seeing a huge tangle of grotesque code produced by some other programmer(s), and determining that the tools were at fault. In both cases it is not necessarily the wand, but perhaps the magician.

<comment><USER6> I would also be interested in seeing scans. LSD has been a wonderful experience for me, undertaken roughly once a year, but with beneficial and creative effects that last much longer.

I think the OP missed the point-- LSD isn't Aderall, it isn't something that makes you push out more. Rather, it can unlock doors that were perhaps holding you back.

<comment><USER7> Or perhaps it can open doors that will end up holding you back. There are people who are legitimate acid casualties. I know a guy who now has social anxiety so bad that he rarely leaves his house. This was most certainly not the case before he indulged in copious amounts of LSD and Psilocybin.

<comment><USER8> Weed will much easily make you paranoid in my opinion. But in fact, too much introspection can go wrong and plant ideas that don't make you go forward.

There is a saying of a guru: "If something goes bad, just drop some more acid" but I am not sure if it is a good advice, only that it doesn't work with weed.

<comment><USER9> Anyone that is not a doctor or pharmacist who says anything along the gist of "If you aren't doing X while taking drug Y, then you need more of drug Y" is an idiot. Everyone is different, dosages will be different, and interactions, chemically with other drugs and psychologically with other issues, will always be present.

I'm all for anyone doing whatever they want with drugs, psychoactives in particular, but taking more is usually the wrong answer. Psychoactive drugs are not a cure-all or magic key that opens creative inspiration in uncreative types, just as much as taking Vicodin won't give you an erection lasting for more than 4 hours.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you have any predisposition towards psychosis, in family history or personally, please avoid LSD.

For those firmly rooted, it might be pleasurable or productive to become a little less so. If you're already sometimes on the edge, LSD can push you over.

This happened to one of my best friends. Growing up he was crazy, creative, always saw things a little differently, prone to manic behavior. After a year of regular LSD use he was unable to form a coherent sentence. Please be careful.

<comment><USER11> Thanks for posting this. I've had two friends profoundly affected by the drug. One is now schizophrenic after taking a large dose and will have a lifelong struggle. Thankfully he is supported by his family and his mom is a psychiatrist.

The second took a large dose about a decade ago and after being a very conservative straight guy. Mormon. Straight A's. Didn't take drugs or drink. He immediately dropped out of school, moved in with a prostitute and decided he wanted a sex change. That was 10 years ago. Last year he had sex reassignment surgery in Thailand.

In both cases I suspect the drug opened pathways that were suppressed. I see LSD as a truly mind altering drug. In rare cases it alters minds for the better. In many cases it exposes latent problems that can be debilitating and life-destroying.

<comment><USER12> I honestly can't tell if you're presenting the 2nd story as a good thing or a bad thing. I doubt that LSD made your friend transgendered (especially since it's been 10 years).

Given that your friend is transgendered, it's probably a lot better that she figured it out while in school instead of when she was 40 and had a wife and kids, even though dropping out of school and getting one's sex reassignment surgery in Thailand are pretty bad ideas.

<comment><USER13> One small point of confusion with your otherwise good post: Some of the Thai surgeons are the best in the world for that particular procedure... going there is not typically considered a bad decision.

<comment><USER14> Actually Thai surgeons in general are very good. I recently entrusted my fiancee to one and the medical care she received was outstanding.

The fastest growing tourism segment here is medical tourism. High quality care at a relatively low cost & lots of good food.

<comment><USER12> My mistake. Thanks for correcting me (both of you). I had gotten the impression that people went to Thailand for cheap surgeries that usually worked out but that it was a little sketchy/suboptimal/risky.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Reminds me of Paul Erdős, who used amphetamines (think Adderall) for a similar purpose.

 _After 1971 Erdős also took amphetamines, despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking the drug for a month. Erdős won the bet, but complained that during his abstinence mathematics had been set back by a month: "Before, when I looked at a piece of blank paper my mind was filled with ideas. Now all I see is a blank piece of paper." After he won the bet, he promptly resumed his amphetamine use._

<comment><USER16> The difference is that amphetamines, though potentially addictive and dangerous, can actually help you do math or programming. I'm skeptical that people can code better (if at all) while on LSD.

<comment><USER17> I have ADD and am a coder. I am on Concerta (methylphenidate, a derivative of methamphetamine) and find that my interest in math, as well as programming, has increased significantly.

<comment><USER18> Me too, though I prefer dexamphetamine.

I've given dex to other programmers on occasion; they're often amazed at how much it helps them concentrate and get things done.

It's kind of like coffee that WORKS.

Hence my favourite programming beverage: grind your beans, sprinkle finely powdered amphetamine on the top of the basket, and make yourself a nice motherfuckiato.

<comment><USER19> Any of them ever end up with a bad amphetamine habit after that?

That's mighty addictive stuff, for someone with the wrong combination of genetics and psychology, this could be really bad.

The drug war is full of nonsense - but amphetamines are regulated for a good reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've taken enormous (read: irresponsible) quantities of psychotropics over the course of my life: psilocybin in particular, but I've had experiences with everything from pure LSD to exotic molecules without names.

The intensity and resonance of those experiences are such that it's sometimes hard to reconcile with the small fraction of the population who have known them. It's an essential part, to me, of the human experience.

That said, when I was younger I didn't always treat them with the respect they deserve, and it's difficult to determine in retrospect the effects they've had on my life - in part because I was still not yet fully formed when I began. I don't regret the path I've taken, but in retrospect it seems a fluke that I've arrived where I am with my sanity (arguably) intact; or even that I've arrived at this age at all.

To me, these are incredibly powerful tools, with amazing potential for both creation and destruction - but the infrastructure to support their responsible use didn't evolve at a pace to match their sudden explosion into mainstream awareness in the 60's, and the results were terrifying to many; alcohol can be an amazingly destructive drug, but societies have had thousands of years to grow comfortable with its effects, and to learn to mitigate its worst excesses.

As a result of this (perhaps rightly deserved) fear and confusion, we've collectively overreacted, not only banning them outright, but elevating their status to one of our most fiercely prosecuted taboos. I sincerely hope that this will change at some point, and that it will coincide with an evolution of the knowledge and wisdom required to use them responsibly.

To me it's evident that there are strong positive outcomes to be gained, from personal and artistic growth to effective treatment for psychiatric afflictions - but more than any other substances I know of, these drugs are chameleons that can change form entirely in response to one's approach to them. They rarely reward foolishness or irresponsibility.

Now, as ever, cultists are everywhere; I put my trust in science. And I hope that as the stigmas attached to these substances subside, our governments have the sense to entrust the exploration of this potential to scientists.

<comment><USER18> There are probably some people reading these discussions and considering taking an "hallucinogen" for the first time.

If you're thinking about it, please, do your homework. Thoroughly. As others have cautioned, drug use can catalyze psychosis, the permanent emergence of bipolar disorder, etc. Consider these risks as they relate to you in particular (your family history, etc) very carefully, and if you decide to go ahead, be sure you prepare with as much care, consideration and thoroughness as it deserves.

And if you do, I'd consider avoiding LSD unless you can guarantee its legitimacy and purity. Mescaline is readily producible from common cacti (San Pedro, et al), has a long history of safe use by e.g. native americans §, and will likely provide you with a more helpful experience. It's also much harder to take too much of than e.g. psilocybin or LSD, which are very easy to consume a psychiatrically dangerous dose of.

There is a wealth of information out there - some of it spurious, but much of it helpful. I would encourage wider use of psychedelics, but I strongly qualify this encouragement. Not everyone should try them: some people are irreparably damaged by their first trip, and I don't claim to be able to say why; nor will they reward being treated without the utmost respect.

That said, after almost a decade of abstinence from tripping, I discovered mescaline, and I intend to continue to use it up to a few times a year. Thus far I've found it to be an extremely rewarding and positive force in my life; I'm an atheist, but you could say it's my replacement for religion.

§ <http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/11/69477> \- "Peyote won't rot your brain"

<comment><USER18> While I'm ranting: if your interest lies in becoming more productive as a programmer, these are not the droids you're looking for. Some people have put forward anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but I personally can't see it being either likely or worthwhile (taken in isolation).

Good sleep, meditation, regular exercise, a good diet, vitamin or fish oil supplements, possibly responsible use of some stimulants (caffeine, dexamphetamine, methylphenidate, etc - I do NOT advise using methamphetamine), quiet work spaces, trying different tactics (e.g. pomodoro technique) for minimising disruption and improving your concentration, fostering dedication to your craft - all of these are much more likely and FAR less risky candidates for making you a better programmer.

And as others here have alluded to, psychedelics yield diminishing returns. One or two trips _could_ change your life and transform your outlook, hopefully for the better; using a psychedelic experience to collect and align your energies up to a few times a year _could_ be a positive influence. Taking them more often than that qualifies as abuse, and will not help you.

<comment><USER18> And may even reduce you to ranting and muttering to yourself ...

<comment><USER20> Not sure if it's sarcasm or not, but I do that often without any drug influence whatsoever.

Edit: ok, I scrolled up and now I've got it. I'm a bit slow today, maybe I need some _stimulant_ after all...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I am very grateful for my experiences with LSD, and wouldn't trade them for anything in the world.

The best way I could describe its practical long-term effects, (once you've come down and realized you _haven't_ broken your brain) is that your previous knowledge has been helpfully flagged as invalid, allowing you to acquire new knowledge in a less stupid, more nuanced manner. Everything you knew about groups of people, genders, categories of objects, in short all the knowledge that allows you to assess a situation and make sense of the world is marked as fallacious, and your mind is now freed to learn how the world works in a more sophisticated manner.

I think everyone should take the opportunity to try it out, if given the chance to do so in a comfortable setting (comfortable socially - roughing it in the wild is fine, maybe even encouraged).

<comment><USER22> _The best way I could describe its practical long-term effects, (once you've come down and realized you haven't broken your brain) is that your previous knowledge has been helpfully flagged as invalid, allowing you to acquire new knowledge in a less stupid, more nuanced manner._

I am curious about whether or not you have ever tried living in another country with a different language and culture for an extended period of time, and then returning to live in a more familiar culture. That too can have the effect of flagging previous knowledge as invalid, allowing you to acquire new knowledge. Perhaps you have done this as well, but I'm not sure about that from what you say about yourself here. As G.K. Chesterton put it, "The whole object of travel is not to set foot on foreign land; it is at last to set foot on one's own country as a foreign land."

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> My tuppence: I was an average student, perhaps an underachiever - I was the youngest in my class... Anyway around about the closing years of high school I discovered the recreational joy of LSD, which I took despite superman comics warning me of the dangers. For a while I dropped out (3 years) and enjoyed a life that was devoid of computers (until that point I had spent all my time on 8bit then 16bit computers, leading up to an 8086 pc). I lived in a bedsit and had no outlook or any desire to "get a life". At some point during an acid trip, I found myself alone and spent a long time in introspection about where I was and where I would like to be. Long story short, fast forward 20 years, I'm married with a beautiful daughter, a great senior technical job with a very public FTSE 100 media company, a couple of irons in the fire with personal software projects I'm writing (in fact, I'm actually procrastinating here, I should be coding!) and a generally great life. If I had continued on my "wastrel" route those years ago, my life wouldn't have been as rosy (though perhaps less stressful). I attribute my conversion from waster to nerd entirely to my experiences with LSD. I thoroughly recommend it to others (though I will caution that I have seen downsides in some of my comrades, not deaths you understand, but longer lead-times to achieving their goals). This article (though lacking in specifics) does resonate very strongly with my life experience. Final question (to myself) would I use LSD again? Answer... not sure, I've done a whole lot of living in the last 20 years, not sure I want to reprogram the grey matter at this stage - maybe again in 10 years...

</comment><comment><USER24> I've had a relatively drug-free life, although I've often volunteered to be the sober friend while everyone else imbibes. I've never regretted it, I've had some great times not on drugs.

But if you've ever seen Little Miss Sunshine, the grandfather has a perspective on drug use that I've adopted wholeheartedly:

 _Don't you start taking that shit. When you're young, you're crazy to do that stuff._

 _What about you?_

 _I'm old! When you're old, you're crazy not to do it._

<comment><USER23> I agree, with my proven addictive personality (i'm a smoker!), I'm terrified of morphine (and less pure versions), I have been in situations where the big bad H or opium was offered but have always refused not because I was really afraid of harm or of legality but because I was afraid that I would like it too much. I've long held to the morbid fact that as soon as I get my cancer/heart-failure/other terminal diagnosis, then I'll be starting Opium use with gusto!

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I predict that LSD will become much more popular in the near future due to services like The Silk Road and Bitcoins. While other drugs can be detected quite easily in mail with scanners and such, LSD in plotter form can't be detected without actually opening every letter.

<comment><USER26> For people like me, who didn't know what "Silk Road" was in this context: It's an anonymous market for drugs using Tor. [1] Bitcoins are used for paying.

[1] <http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3984.0>

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> My sole, true goal in life has been to attain deepest levels of consciousness, connectedness with the being, and crystal clear clarity and to do so without external dependencies like drugs.

I have struggled a lot with the odds and gotten only a few moments of what I am after. But I realized one thing in the process that it requires quite a bit of unlearning, forgiving, accepting, non-reacting and seeing it as it is. I still haven't lost any amount of belief in the feasibility of my experiment as I have gone closer to it - the fact that the degree and duration of my experience can be controlled by me alone is a powerful realization.

Baba Ram Dass' book referenced in one of the comments on the wired site might be worth trying out - [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00486UF8Y/ref=s9_simh_gw_p...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00486UF8Y/ref=s9_simh_gw_p351_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0HNQC50P43BN7RDZJ4H1&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846)

<comment><USER28> Out of curiosity - do you ever drink wine with a meal? Have a beer with friends? Sip coffee discussing exciting new projects or dissecting a problem?

These are all "drugs". Anything we put into our body, food or otherwise, is a "drug" and serves to alter us in some way.

You will always have "external dependencies". You are dependent on food and water to live, social interaction to love and to feel friendship, and other humans to make your life possible through manufacture, farming, and medical care, among other things.

We all have external dependencies. One of the beauties of ingesting hallucinogens is that this is the first realization you will likely have.

<comment><USER27> I used to drink occasionally, of course. But I have been consciously cutting my artificially created dependencies wherever I can.

There is a big difference between dependency on food and dependency on beer for example. Need vs. Want. I don't _need_ beer to survive, I do need water. Beer I will use to lighten up, enjoy - water to satisfy thirst and keep the body working. Drugs fall in mind made wants. Taking drugs to set yourself free of bonds and compulsions that kill your being, joy, clarity - that's illogical - you are trading one dependency for other.

<comment><USER28> Do you eat food for enjoyment?

<comment><USER27> I am not sure what you are getting at. Why is your focus on giving up - <USER2> is on not letting it matter. I am not claiming to have given up on food - giving up is not what I am trying to do - my focus is happiness with understanding and minimalism. Minimalism does not equate to starving yourself to death. It involves doing everything "needful" without attachment or false pretenses or expectations. Doing nothing extraneous.

I am also not claiming to have been 100% done - it's my steady journey towards that goal that I was sharing. It's all about changing gradually with full understanding instead of looking at it as a means to some end.

<comment><USER29> > Why is your focus on giving up - mine is on not letting it matter.

That's some trivial reframing -- if you stopped eating food, it would start to matter.

<comment><USER27> That would be missing the point of course. Read my previous post - there is difference between food and beer that I illustrated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Most drugs are not mind expanders, but blockage solvers. We care a lot about what others say and think. This is blocking our creativity. But you don't need drugs to solve this blockage. You can train yourself letting creativity flow and don't care about what other people say.

A simple method is to start extreme. I think this applies to both graphic creativity as for programming creativity.

They also call it "out of the box" thinking.

<comment><USER31> I agree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> There's no reason to attempt to prove (because you can't) or even speculate (because it doesn't matter) whether any of the "best" programmers anyone has or could suggest have done LSD or still do on a regular basis. However, I find it odd when people seem to insist that LSD is completely unnecessary or necessary to do things. Like it has been brought up before, Steve Jobs cites LSD as one of the most important experiences of his life. To rate it that highly would imply that he feels it somehow changed his psyche in such a way that it impacted who he is today. If that's the case, then you could (not concretely, but with good certainty) argue that LSD can have a positive effect on people's creativity. In fact, it does not actually matter whether it does or not so much as whether people perceive that it does (this could all be a placebo effect). Thus, the worst arguments that can be made on each end of the spectrum are that a) LSD is always unnecessary to foster innovation (Steve Jobs would argue it fostered his innovation in a way that wouldn't have happened if he hadn't tripped) and b) that everyone should do LSD at least once because it will enable them to accomplish more than otherwise possible. The choice is obviously personal and would work out beneficially for some and be fruitful for others. The important part is to remove the stigma of doing illicit drugs and to recognize that they can provide psychological benefits that are otherwise unrealizable OR acid can give you the best time you've ever had sitting on a couch. Most people that do it develop personal realizations that don't extend beyond themselves and that's all. It would be nice if people stopped passing judgment on those who belong to the other camp and instead offered their insights into why they have or haven't felt compelled to do acid. (Full disclosure: I've tripped about a dozen times over the last four years)

<comment><USER33> I don't know that Steve Jobs is creative as much as he is an unrelenting perfectionist. He doesn't design things, Apple's recent success comes mostly from his ability to say "No, that's not good enough. Try again."

Maybe his confidence to do that comes from having experienced some sort of revelations or profound experiences on LSD that make "good, but not good enough" products seem even more mundane and pedestrian to him.

<comment><USER32> That's a good point, although I would argue that he is in fact extremely creative. However, his creativity isn't physically manifest. It lies in his ability to translate abstract ideas about UX paradigms into devices. You're right though, LSD could have / may have given him a new conception of what is "perfect" that led to a his particular brand of perfectionism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Let me chime in here with some personal experience. I am pretty much addicted to marijuana in terms of working and enjoying it.

That is, I don't really enjoy programming nearly as much compared to when I am a bit baked. Mind you, I can work.. but it feels like _such_ a chore (not always but I'm talking typically). There are a lot of us like this.

As for LSD.. I have had many revelations while tripping, some I've had to later reject (which is a difficult process) and probably some that I should but have not yet. However, have learned a _tremendous_ amount from whatever it is that is happening while tripping.

I really think most people should trip their face off at least once. What it feels like is that you are tapping into something truer and deeper (when you are tripping, the hallucinating reality is the 'real' reality, that is how you experience it). I don't know what is actually happening, but it can be just absolutely amazing, or absolutely devestating.

Take for instance, having an intellectual idea of the universe; like what it actually _is_. Some people are fascinated by thinking about these things anyway, others can't be bothered.

Now imagine, instead of having some mathematical and intuitive understanding of the 'building blocks' of the universe.. you were thrown into hyperspace and pulled of your body and _shown_ what the universe is, and what your place in it is. And it's a truly beautiful, elegant thing. And many many people have seen the same thing (it's the universal 'mystical experience').

It's like you were pulled out of the matrix, if just for a bit, and you can actually talk to other people about it, because it happens to lots of people who trip.

Whether it is actually giving insight or not (it could definitely be some idiosyncratic interaction that lsd is having with your brain to make you see things in a certain way); it's at the very least fun, and can have a drastic effect on the way you oritent yourself toward reality.

It can also affect your mental processes--LSD has the effect (at least in me) of continually changing the level of abstraction I am thinking in. You see a situation, then you see the bigger picture of that situation, and on and on until your mind can't even fathom any thing anymore.

You set out to write a bash script to move some files, you suddenly realize an amazingly better way to do bash scripting, which makes you realize some basic change in the OS that would make UI 1000% friendlier, then you realize we shouldn't be using computers at all, then you realize you are here on earth for a purpose and you are wasting your life then your buddy is like--YO you're spacing off and the chain of thinking starts over.

<comment><USER35> >>> What it feels like is that you are tapping into something truer and deeper

It might _feel_ like you are tapping into something truer and deeper, but that doesn't mean that you are.

<comment><USER36> Ultimately, _all_ our experiences are subjective and we can't be sure that any of them are authentic. Perception is reality. LSD really makes this fact stand out.

<comment><USER37> Perception isn't reality. Incorrectly perceiving an oncoming car will prove this.

There are perceptions and there are facts. This is true whether the facts are easily knowable or not, and extends as much to the existence of God and other such questions as it does to the sum of two numbers.

<comment><USER36> "There are perceptions and there are facts."

Do you dispute that facts are also perceptions?

<comment><USER38> Facts are a subset of perceptions. Not all perceptions are facts.

<comment><USER36> Not all facts are facts.

<comment><USER38> Case in point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> What in the name of Albert Hoffman has the title got to do with the actual article? They talk about a couple scientists and a symposium on LSD.

How is this a 'geek wonder drug'? CAFFEINE is the geek wonder drug. LSD probably contributes less than 5% of the world's drug-induced geek accomplishments.

<comment><USER18> I respectfully submit that caffeine is geek oxygen.

If we're casting around for a "wonder" drug, I'd suggest looking at dexamphetamine sulphate, modafinil, etc.

<comment><USER40> If caffeine were geek oxygen, I would be dead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> This article doesn't do a very good job explaining what it is that makes psychedelic drugs so intellectually interesting. I'd recommend listening to Terence McKenna talking about his childhood and how he discovered psychedelics.

[http://matrixmasters.net/archive/TerenceMcKenna/215-McKennaT...](http://matrixmasters.net/archive/TerenceMcKenna/215-McKennaTeachTreePt1.mp3)

Alternatively, listen to Alicia Danforth's amazing talk on giving psilocybin to terminal cancer patients to ease end of life anxiety:

<http://vimeo.com/10931182>

</comment><comment><USER42> Can't resist: "Metaprogramming is the language feature that helps you write code that you won't be able to understand once the LSD wears off."

</comment><comment><USER43> One of my best friends committed suicide at age 18 in 1995. If LSD was not part of his life, I am sure the suicide would have never happened.

<comment><USER44> I don't want to sound callous -- I'm sorry for your loss, that sounds awful -- but your comment doesn't give enough context to gain any insight. It just sounds like "drugs are bad, mkay."

<comment><USER45> The problem is that some people can't handle LSD or other hallucinogens and won't know until they are dead, hurt, or mentally screwed. It's this risk that makes them bad.

<comment><USER36> Some people aren't capable of healthy romantic relationships and will cause and experience a lot of pain through trying to have them. Should we stop everyone from trying because some percentage will end up in abusive situations, or with broken hearts, or even dead? Risk alone doesn't make something bad, just risky. The question is if the potential rewards make the risks worthwhile, and the answer for LSD for many is clearly yes. Learning how to deal with risk is just part of life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> It is amazing what psychedelics can bring to the table. Once you step outside of the stream of consciousness society creates for us, it's tough to want to be apart of it again. You feel free. No longer a cog in the machine, but perhaps more an observer or tinkerer. I realized for myself that I no longer have to be a part of that. It is truly out of the box thinking. I find myself outside of the box and generally I'm trying to find the boundaries. This may or may not effect my programming abilities, but it definitely puts the time I have in this world into perspective. The ability to abstract and visualize connections between objects has most definitely increased since experimentation, but I'm not sure if that's a bi-product of myself programming more, or the drugs themselves. All I know is that I would never take those moments back, the bad and the good, as they have shaped who I am and what I strive to be.

</comment><comment><USER47> I offer some of the highlights of my personal experience with LSD, anonymously, due to the very unfortunate stigma. I'm very positive on its ability to unlock potential, trigger insights, expand perspective, and facilitate learning, even in spite of having experienced a few bad trips. Although the experience is deeply personal, I'll try to offer the most concrete accounts I can.

First, of all the hundreds of little insights, interesting trains of thought, and connections made between previously unrelated ideas, there is one revelation in particular that floats to the top of my mind. It's this: LSD confronts you, in an extremely visceral way, with the fact that the entire universe that you perceive and interact with, the whole world and everybody in it, is entirely in your own mind at all times. Sure, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that it's all derived from an objective, external world - <USER3> you've never interacted directly with that one, and in fact you can't.

Now, you might say that you already "know" this, philosophically. You can even do the smug, Internet know-it-all thing and say this is completely pedestrian, name-drop Descartes and a bunch of other philosophers, and hit me with a zinger about how this is about as deep as "The Matrix". But I'm not claiming that LSD leads you to the philosophical idea; I'm saying that it slaps you right in the face with it, viscerally. It doesn't tell you, so that you have to think about it in the abstract; it shows you, literally with your own eyes. It's the difference between knowing what the Grand Canyon looks like from pictures, and standing on the edge of it.

It is very common for people to describe the onset of their first trip in terms of waking up, for the first time, ever. I'd describe it this way, too. It feels like waking up for the first time, and realizing that you'd been dreaming your whole life. Of course, this is really just an analogy, and it's more than just a feeling. It's a sudden shift in your actual perceptual processes, which are largely chemical, and have now been altered. But by the mere fact of them being altered, you realize that the default way of perceiving is just that - just a default. It isn't more "true" or more "real" - it's a default, it's massively culturally constructed, and it's characterized by a certain amount of non-questioning of assumptions. What's a color? What's a country? What's a "week"? What's a leader? What is solid? Which way is up? What's a job? Your brain starts trying to decompose every concept into basic principles, and you realize that for a lot of things in the human world, there are none. Just made-up, widespread beliefs that cause lots of people to act as-if, and in so doing, make them "real". Again, there is a difference between merely realizing this philosophically, and being transported outside of the web of culturally-reinforced beliefs and observing it from the outside.

So there's a lot of shedding of constructed concepts. What's left when all that chaff blows away? Whatever it is, it a) seems a lot more real, and b) is obscured in normal consciousness. I'm not suggesting that it would be desirable to permanently lose the ability to think on the level of appointments, check-writing, stop-lights, prospectuses, and the rest of the "mundane". I am definitely suggesting that what is left of experience after all that is obliterated from consciousness is worth seeing. There are parallels here with Buddhism and enlightenment traditions. It's also extremely common for people to offer meditation as a substitute. It's perfectly fine if you don't want to do illegal drugs - hardly anyone will fault you. But don't fool yourself that you're getting the same effect. I've practiced meditation too, and while it does alter consciousness, there are many meaningfully different altered states - they are in no way equivalent or substitutable. (Think about it - if you can simulate an LSD trip by meditating, do you simulate a K trip by meditating differently? Can you meditate yourself to a heroin high by a different technique? LSD isn't just another interchangeable "enlightened" state - they're all specific in their sets of effects. I have no doubt that I too have missed out on plenty of profound experiences by not taking, doing, seeing, or achieving any number of things. It's a big world.)

Sadly, this is turning into a wall of text, and I could still go on for the rest of the day. So, I'm going to force myself to wrap up with just a few more short highlights:

* I learned OpenGL while tripping. The subjective experience was of the information slipping into my brain effortlessly. Normally, I have to read sentences and paragraphs multiple times for them to "sink in". That time, I just skimmed, and understood. The next day, sober, I wrote a couple of neat height-field/terrain programs in OpenGL. Of course we've all learned dozens of even more complicated topics without any drugs, so this anecdote is meaningless, right? All I'm talking about is what it _felt like_ to learn it. It felt effortless by comparison to the way I normally learn. Placebo? Selective memory? Your other favorite bias? Might be interesting to know definitively - but I still had a really good time that night.

* I once won a game of Mastermind on the first turn, without making any other guesses. This seriously freaked out the other people at the table. I wasn't tripping at the time, but I was in a distinctly "trippy" mentality - so much so that I was having a mini-flashback by the end of the turn. What I had done was to realize that the room was a closed system, containing the information about the winning pattern, and that as part of that system, I might have access to the information via other channels. Basically, I just paid very close attention to the other person's body language as I fingered different colored pegs, and allowed him to inadvertently "tell" me the correct colors and order.

* I once did a drawing of a woman from the neck up, while tripping. When I started drawing her hair, I got lost. I was drawing hair for what seemed like hours. I was hiding dozens of other, nested, drawings inside the texture of the hair. It still looked more or less like hair, but if you really looked at it, it was teeming with a whole bunch of unrelated drawings. Sure, I could do the same thing now, but it had never before occurred to me to try that. There is something about tripping that is inherently amenable to that kind of recursive, fractal thinking.

In short, don't knock subjective experiences. The enjoyment of music is a subjective experience, is it not?

<comment><USER48> "What's a color? What's a country? What's a "week"? What's a leader? What is solid? Which way is up? What's a job? Your brain starts trying to decompose every concept into basic principles, and you realize that for a lot of things in the human world, there are none."

While I've personally never tried LSD, my favorite is, e, which offers a similar, but different, opening of the mind. Since I've never tried LSD, I can only say that e opens one in an emotional way, one that allows you to empathize and understand the universe in a way that you otherwise wouldn't. It also invokes an odd existential dialog within oneself about how the world works and why we think the way we do.

I suppose I quote you because as a musician and software engineer, it is often the case that I ask myself why it is that certain things are the way they are. For example, anyone that's studies AI realizes that one of the harder concepts is that of _understanding_.

How do we make a machine understand when we ourselves don't understand the _why_ around us?

Drugs like e and LSD present an insight to us that allows us to realize that the answer is a lot more distant than just what we perceive.

<comment><USER49> if you were to read all of these posts, you would find a common theme: we all experience a new level of consciousness when we trip. However, regardless of what this new experience was or through what method it was achieved, the presence of a new conscious experience proves that their are different types even levels of consciousness.

this epiphany occurred to me through a drug induced change in consciousness. i realized that every material thing in this universe is just a product of my consciousness. this then got me thinking: how is it that material is a product of my consciousness, yet science tells me that my brain (a piece of material produces consciousness).

I flirted with this paradox for months. I concluded that everything in the universe is just a system of interconnected systems of the same energy. I thought of the things in the universe as just different manifestations of a single type of energy at different points in space and time.

Then I read about Amit Goswami and learned some very useful scientific jargon for what i was experiencing. Anyone who is interested in "conscioussness" should research this man - he is leading a thought revolution

<http://www.amitgoswami.org/>

<comment><USER18> I'm very suspicious of the use of the word "quantum" as a crowbar to pry open respectable science and fill it with new age bullshit.

I can definitely sympathise with the flavour of insight you're talking about though, and this guy seems to hold some credentials, but phrases like "make brain circuits of positive emotions" trip my hippie detector.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> There is a theory that the connection between the right and left hemisphere of the human brain has been diminishing over generations (The ancients used to audibly hear the voice of the gods, which was likely the right hemisphere, but that ability diminished around 4-5000 years ago).

I wonder if all these psychadelic drugs are doing is enhancing the communication between right and left, or perhaps suppressing the left such that the right takes greater charge? The left does, after all, have very narrow focus as opposed to the right, which processes greater but less focused patterns.

<comment><USER51> This is a really interesting theory to me (and probably many others). Care to share some links, documentaries, or documents regarding this topic? Would love to know more.

<comment><USER52> I assume this is a reference to the 1976 book _The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_, by Julian Jaynes.

Richard Dawkins wrote of it: "It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between! Probably the former, but I'm hedging my bets."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Around the world, there are many different patterns of regulation of drugs, and here in the United States, schedule I controlled substances like LSD can be used for legitimate medical research. Research on new drugs is a multibillion dollar industry in several different countries. But there is a dearth of well statistically controlled studies of the safety and effectiveness of LSD for any purpose. Indeed, medical research more often pursues the issue of how to help emergency room patients who appear for treatment of psychotic symptoms triggered by illicit use of LSD.

On the specific issue of programmer or scientist creativity and productivity, that too is a much researched field, but again there are not well controlled studies showing that anyone increases productivity or creativity in any occupation while using LSD. The checkered academic career of Timothy Leary is instructive in this regard. What research shows makes a huge difference in the productivity and work quality of programmers and scientists is steady deliberate practice building up problem-solving skills and growth mindset, along with accumulation of domain-specific knowledge.

[http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena/course/6/6.055/readings/eric...](http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena/course/6/6.055/readings/ericsson- charness-am-psychologist.pdf)

<comment><USER53> It's cause LSD isn't eligible for patent. Research funds are overwhelming steered toward drugs or medical devices that are patentable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> You have to see this video, dedicated to Albert Hoffman (nominated for Academy Award in 1998):

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xqcjNUqIAw>

YouTube keeps deleting it, so in case link goes bad, just search for this: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_%281998_film%29>

</comment><comment><USER55> LSD is steroids for meditation. A cheat and a shortcut to the hard work. But it certainly seems to work ;-)

<comment><USER56> This is what I understand it to be, as per Doors of Perception. It is on my to-do list when I'm 70.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Did anyone else see _Limitless_?

Did anyone else look at the symptoms of the drug he took (the fictional "NZT-48") and think, "hmmm, sounds like a more extreme form of MDMA"?

Haven't tried it myself. Heard lots about it.

<comment><USER58> why did you think it was more related to mdma versus an amphetamine? i remember when i saw limitless the first time, i kept thinking 'is this movie just about adderall and vyvanse?'

<comment><USER59> I had the same reaction as grandparent, so that's a good question. In my case, maybe it's just because it's the closest drug I've used that matches the description from the movie and I've never tried other amphetamines.

The bright blue skies and sun dappled leaves. The pronounced extroversion and talkativeness that makes you think you're a suave genius. The fearlessness. Like Jay-Z said, "MDMA has you feeling like a champion." MDMA _is_ an amphetamine, so presumably all amphetamines may share these traits. If Adderall does it quite to the same degree as MDMA, I envy diagnosed sufferers of ADHD.

<comment><USER60> I've taken MDMA (Molly) and Adderall, separately. MDMA was good every time. The Adderall only gave me sweaty palms and the inability to stay seated. They don't compare to each other, at least for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> All of you people wondering why people often talk of "seeing God" and other mystical experiences while on LSD, here's the thing:

for the most part, those experiences are false

However, we tend to associate the parts of our life that are more contemplative with the religious or the supernatural. That is why the _descriptions_ are often religious in nature. That is, however, a limitation of our culture. Because we have traditionally delegated those states of mind to the idea of religions, of Church, of God and so on.

LSD will tear you apart and put you back together and you will be better for it. However, even if it was immensely important for me, do not take LSD, even if for this reason alone: it's illegal. I regret my LSD times for that reason alone. I think society is wrong in that regard, but I still like society and I am willing to put up with it being wrong once in a while.

If you want to experience the whole mind-bending experience, go study Philosophy. Read the complicated, boring, dreary stuff. Read Kant and formal logic and everything you can put your hands on. Whatever little thing LSD may have done to some people, Philosophy will do to you a thousand fold. It's the harder path, but it will give you skills that you can control at your will, and it will make you better in every area of your life, permanently.

Philosophy is the whole book to LSD's Cliff's Notes.

</comment><comment><USER38> Not going to read the article, but will say that it produces interesting and uncontrollable cognitive leaps. Your mind is more explorative in its creativity. However, there are massive problems with using it this way: you do not remember very much and cannot think coherently.

As for it making everything seem hyper-real and 'true', yes, it also does that but it is false. If you were to remember everything from a trip, the likelihood of most of it being useful or correct is probably pretty low.

Lastly, I agree that it is too dangerous -- I don't suffer from psychosis but nevertheless my one experience was not enjoyable. It turned bad; I believe I had a panic attack which I acted upon in the worst possible way. You do not want to experience feelings of failure on LSD. Trust me. My body created physical sensations based on my own thoughts and I lay on a bed shivering...

However, I guess it had a profound and positive effect on me. I realised that the experience was not the one that I wanted from life and it made me reflect on who I wanted to be and how I wanted to live. I realised that one of the best things about my mind has always been the clarity of thought that I have in comparison to many people. I refuse to let that go and since then I've actively sought purpose.

</comment><comment><USER62> Before jumping off any drugs, I have done more than ten years testing in testing in expanding of consciousness including LSD trips as well. Those were really impressive. You can see sound, hear colors, every surface gets alive. But the best ones happened in the countryside. When you understand the way Universe is build, how things work etc. That was wonderful!! The consciousness was expanded... but it was just a bubble. Because when it ended after 12 hours, I understood that I knew all those things, that I had those strange super-senses. But now I have only some flashbacks and cannot explain others how the Universe is built. So my opinion is that life is like climbing the mountain. We all started climbing up. But on our way we found all kind of interesting things - bars, parties, working, career, family, relationships etc. And climbing made some sideways, making our journey up slower. Some even stopped or even rolled down. But everybody still have that knowledge of being on the top of the mountain. It's deep inside. And then we found that weed, mushrooms, lsd, salvia etc. helps us "opening our minds". But it's just like someone grabs you by your hair, pulls up to the top of mountain, shows you what's over there and ... releases his hand. So you just fall down, luckily to the same place where you've taken, if not lower. I got it only after several years of meditation when you do your consciousness expansion step by step. But the "trip" you can get out of that is the one you cannot compare with any drugs trip you have got before. At least it worked for me. So be careful with all those trips as it's very easy to get on the hook because it's much easier to have one cube either than sitting for hours in meditation. But we all have all choices. And it doesn't matter which you choose as it's your choice.

</comment><comment><USER63> Is this _really_ a matter of discovering new patterns? Aren't those patterns just mutations and combinations of already-known patterns?

In that case, wouldn't a better process be to expose yourself to new experiences, especially those that challenge you or take you out of your comfort zones? How about reading books and watching movies you have not viewed before? That would have a similar effect, right?

<comment><USER64> Are you arguing for it or against it?

> _expose yourself to new experiences, especially those that challenge you or > take you out of your comfort zones?_

I haven't, and am not saying you should, merely pointing out that you seem to object on _principle_ rather than for a _reason_. Drug "education" when I was in grade school amounted to massive scare tactics, usually without supporting evidence, while they now give you similar things for ADD (but you pay a hell of a lot more, and the chemicals have only existed for a few years). There's a lot of general, unsubstantiated fear in this area, and a lot of irrational trust in drug companies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I think it's cool to come out and say this. I have also had extremely positive experiences with drugs as a geek.

</comment><comment><USER66> Sounds like self-delusion fed by gratification. I know which engineer I'd rather interact with.

<comment><USER67> Don't forget, that line of respect goes both ways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Steve Jobs admits to taking LSD.

I rest my case.

<comment><USER69> "one of the two or three most important things [he had] done in [his] life".

source: [http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-17/tech/steve.jobs.life_1_ap...](http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-17/tech/steve.jobs.life_1_apple- chief-executive-wozniak-steve-jobs/4?_s=PM:TECH)

<comment><USER70> Would anyone like to speculate what the other thing or two is?

<comment><USER71> The two most obvious things would be founding Apple and his daughter. Pure speculation, of course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> While I have great respect for many people whose lives have been changed for the better by LSD, I have never taken it. Many of the mind-expanding experiences they report are my daily experience.

To quote Salvador Dali:

I don't _use_ drugs.

 _I am drugs._

<comment><USER73> This underscores something that's been running around in my head for awhile. I'm almost certain that I had a previous worldview - one that was highly ordered and rational - was completely wrecked by the aesthetic experience. I wouldn't wish it on anyone, as re-writing your worldview is a scary process.

But I found a certain solace in the aesthetics: valuing individual moments more, breaking the spell of materialism, thinking deeply about rather abstract concepts, and not being afraid to embrace mystery when necessary. None of these require the aesthetic experience, they're just by-products of a mind that is being expanded. And they're quite similar to the insights of people on this thread who reported dropping acid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> if you were to read all of these posts, you would find a common theme: we all experience a new level of consciousness when we trip. However, regardless of what this new experience was, or through what method it was achieved, the presence of a new conscious experience proves that their are different types and even levels of consciousness.

this epiphany occurred to me through a drug induced change in consciousness. i realized that every material thing in this universe is just a product of my consciousness. this then got me thinking: how is it that material is a product of my consciousness, yet science tells me that my brain (a piece of material) produces consciousness.

I flirted with this paradox for months. I concluded that everything in the universe is just a system of interconnected systems of the same energy. I thought of the things in the universe as just different manifestations of a single type of energy at different points in space and time.

Then I read about Amit Goswami and learned some very useful scientific jargon for what i was experiencing. Anyone who is interested in "conscioussness" should research this man - he is leading a thought revolution

<http://www.amitgoswami.org/>

</comment><comment><USER74> A related excerpt from BBC Horizon documentary on Psychedelic Science with interviews including Micrsoft's Bob Wallis on the use at the Homebrew Computer Club and Kary Mullis (who claims that LSD was intrumental in the development of the Polymerase chain reaction) :

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2WurhYEQyY> [Flash video!]

</comment><comment><USER75> I'm a bit shocked here about people who expect LSD to make people code better or create better art and if it does not they complain it is "not effective".

Things like LSD (or meditating, running, ...) allow you to to get your mind into a state that enables you to look behind nature, people, society and everything else. It's not a productivity tool and should not be used as such I think :-)

</comment><comment><USER76> Please be careful before you go out and drop acid thinking it'll make you a better developer. Psychedelics like that are powerful.

And by powerful I mean I've had bad trips where I thought I was being raped, and hallucinated a giant penis staring at my face for eight hours.

On the other hand, acid is one of the best drug out there if done right, it unclutters minds.

</comment><comment><USER77> At first I misread the headline as "Lisp: The Geek's Wonder Drug".

Ha, maybe that works too ;)

</comment><comment><USER78> another view of supposed 'creativity benefits' to engineers:

<http://www3.sympatico.ca/ian.g.mason/John_Markoff.htm>

</comment><comment><USER79> I don't see LSD as a "geek's wonder drug", and I'm skeptical of many of its purported benefits. Are those benefits real? Sure, but so are the risks. Could most of those, for most people, be better achieved (given enough time) through other means, such as yoga and meditation? Probably. To use geek terms, recreational drug use scales _very_ poorly. I know a fair number of people who've used LSD once or a few times and consider it a very positive experience, but acidheads and frequent users seem to be among the most boring and damaged people I've met.

Do I think these drugs are evil or that no one should use them? Of course not. They have incredible therapeutic potential and it's a travesty that they're illegal. On the other hand, I think a lot of people overstate their power (in terms of the ability to improve oneself) relative to alternatives. Do these drugs (LSD, MDMA, mushrooms, ayahuasca) have a place, for some people and in some circumstances? Absolutely. Should psychedelic therapies be researched and made available? Of course. Should anyone go to jail or be considered "evil" or "hedonistic" for the curiosity to try some psychedelics? Obviously, no. That said, I think a lot of "geeks" tend to overstate the benefits and downplay the dangers of recreational drug use, _especially_ as a lifestyle. Timothy Leary was actually a mess toward the end of his life, and I've seen a few "psychonauts" crack up.

There may be benefits of long-term recreational drug use that I'm wholly ignorant of, having never gone down that road and having no intention to do so, but what I've seen around me recommends against that pattern. I prefer meditation because, although it requires more time and patience, it scales better: you get accelerating positive returns, and safely as well.

<comment><USER80> A lot of the benefits that would be hard to achieve through time may be due to the shocking aspect or intensity of some of these drugs. Think of a rite of passage, it stresses people out of their normal thought/reaction/logic structure in order to help form a new one. Usually promises are made or responsibilities given that are then psychologically attached to the event. Given that, how the event is structured and to what ends is very meaningful.

The damaged people might be due to more factors than the drug. Besides possible use amphetamines or other drugs, too, your experimental pool would only consist of those who would choose to use these drugs a lot for lengths of time and advertise this. There are some decent studies on use of peyote and ayahuasca where participants use it weekly or more for many years. They scored the same on physical well being but scored higher than the control for mental well being.

BTW, I totally agree that the term 'geek wonder drug' is inappropriate.

<comment><USER79> What you say about indigenous peyote and ayahuasca users is very true. This is a very different use pattern from U.S.-style recreational use. For one thing, non-shamanic users are using doses that we'd consider sub-psychedelic, at least most of the time. The shaman knows the person and if he or she is ready before a person is taken to a level that would be considered "tripping" by our standards. People are only taken to that point when they are ready and know what to expect. Still, you're right that these practices (indigenous/religious psychedelic use) are not especially harmful-- a lot safer than our cultural institution of heavy alcohol use.

The illegality of these drugs, in my estimation, actually encourages irresponsible use patterns, through hard-to-control dosage and intermittent access. There's definitely a mentality of "trip hard now because you may not be able to get this stuff in a year" in the U.S. psychedelic culture, and the drug laws are culpable for creating it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> Great example of irresponsibility. As we can see in the other "success" stories written here, many unsuccessful people -exceptions are the role models- tries it to be creative.

</comment><comment><USER82> Only thing I'm high on these days is life. To each his own, though.

"The goal is being high, not getting high." -Be Here Now, Ram Dass

</comment><comment><USER83> If you need to take psychedelics to 'unlock the wonders of your mind' or whatever just to do some simple programming, software may not be the field for you.

<comment><USER84> Do you drink coffee or tea?

<comment><USER83> Yes. Are they psychedelics? No. Weird how that doesn't contradict my original point at all.

<comment><USER85> Wow. It sounds like your mind could use some unlocking.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Fast sampling and update of weighted items? (data structure like red-black trees?) - <AUTHOR> What is the appropriate data structure for this task?
I have a set of N items. N is large. Each item has a positive weight value associated with it.
I would like to do the following, quickly:
inner loop:

   Sample an item, according it its weight.

   [process...]

   Update the weight of K items, where K << N.
 When I say sample by weight, this is different than uniform sampling. An item's likelihood is in proportion to its weight. So if there are two items, and one has weight .8 and one has weight .2, then they have likelihood 80% and 20% respectively.
The number of items N remains fixed. Weights are in a bounded range, say [0, 1]. Weights do not always sum to one.
A naive approach takes O(n) time steps to sample. Is there an O(log(n)) algorithm?
What is the appropriate data structure for this task? I believe that red-black trees are inappropriate, since they treat each item as having equal weight. <comment><USER2> Red-black trees are far too complex for this simple task : just use any binary balanced tree so that the maximum height is O(log n). (red-black trees will work but take any one you want, red-black tree are slow) On each node you store two numbers : \- sum of the weights at the left \- sum of the weights at the right Want you want to choose an item just explore the tree and for each node choose left or right according to the two weights. ==> O(log n) If you update an item you'll need to update all the weight up to the root of the tree. ==> O(log n) for each update

<comment><USER3> I don't think I'm quite understanding your algorithm. When you say "choose left or right", do you mean to choose randomly between the branches with probability equal to the ratio of the weights of the trees? So that each sample requires log(n) random numbers before you reach a leaf? Or do you mean something else?

<comment><AUTHOR> You know the sum of the weights. Sample a random number between 0 and sum. Then, use this value to guide your search in the tree. For example, if the left branch has weight 30 and the right branch has weight 50, the total weight is 80. If I pick 40, then I am going down the right branch.

At the next child, if the left branch has weight 12 and the right branch has weight 38, the left branch spans 30-42 and the right branch spans 42-80. So you follow the left branch, because you want 40.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here's a sampling algorithm that will work, as long as the maximum weight isn't too much greater than the average weight:

1) Determine the maximum weight mw. (This is O(N) the first time, O(K) subsequent times.)

2) Repeat until an index i is accepted:

      a) Generate a random pair (i, x), where i is a uniform integer over [1,N], and x is a uniform float over [0,mw].

      b) Accept index i if weight(i) < x.

3) Return the accepted index i.

This gives you the desired distribution in time O(mw/aw) (maximum weight over average weight).

<comment><AUTHOR> Rejection sampling is perhaps not a good option, because the assumption does not hold: "the maximum weight isn't too much greater than the average weight"

In learning algorithms, the distribution of the weights can get piqued.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> First, put all items into an array, computing a number k for each item, where k=(sum of all weights above it).

Then, just generate a random number 0<x<(sum of all weights).

Finally, do a binary search on the array O(log(n)) comparing x to k.

...As for the "updating" step, you didn't define that very well or state whether you're interested in minimizing that as well- But given that the number of items may be as large as N it seems that a naive linear update would be the best you could achieve.

<comment><USER2> But you will need to re-compute the sum each time you are doing an update wich takes O(n). You can use Binary Indexed Trees to do that efficiently : [http://www.topcoder.com/tc?module=Static&d1=tutorials...](http://www.topcoder.com/tc?module=Static&d1=tutorials&d2=binaryIndexedTrees)

<comment><AUTHOR> It appears that Binary Indexed Trees are appropriate only when the weights are integral?

<comment><USER2> Exact, I forgot that point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As long as the weights are distributed randomly in the array, you can just perform the algorithm on a random subsection of the array. The subsection needs to have the same distribution of weights as the whole section. I think thats the only requirement you need.

Ideally, you could pick smaller fraction of the array as N gets bigger, giving you sub O(N) scaling.

In other words, if the array indexes that get picked using a slow algorithm are distributed randomnly, you might as well just pick a random subsection, as long as it is big enough to have the same distribution of W's as the whole array.

</comment><comment> a-priori Of the top of my head, here's how I would go about this.

First, preprocess your data:

1) Normalize the weights 2) Sort the items in descending order by weight 3) Calculate, for each item, the sum of the weights of all prior items 4) Enter the items into a binary search tree. The key into this tree is the sum you calculated in step 3. You can use whichever data structure you want here... red-black or splay would probably be best, but it depends on your situation.

Now your O(log n) lookup:

1) Generate a random variate in [0,1) 2) Search the binary tree for the item with the largest key that is <= the variate.

<comment><AUTHOR> Each time you do an update step, if you renormalize the algorithms becomes O(n)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting. Could you tell us what you problem you are solving?

<comment><AUTHOR> I am trying to speed up a machine learning algorithm. There are a very large number of possible output classes. It would be too expensive on each training step to perform an update for all outputs. I use an exponential moving average to keep track of an estimate of which outputs are correctly learned (low weight) and which are not well-learned (high weight). In this way, I can focus training on the what it currently has not learned well, and not spend training time on what it already knows.

<comment><USER2> Which language are you using ? Matlab, C/C++ ?

What would be an estimate of N : 10^3, 10^6, 10^9 ?

<comment><AUTHOR> python/numpy with C.

Funny story, that. At our lab, we are developing an optimizing compiler in Python for math expressions. You write the function you want to repeatedly evaluate in Python. Maybe there's a gradient thrown in. Our library optimizes the function graph, converts in to C, and compiles it. You can then execute your function in python, but it's fast.

We should be releasing 0.1 in a week.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A priority queue [<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_queue>] seems to be the way to go with this.

<comment><USER4> This would give you the maximum weighted item, but not a weighted probability distribution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> if the number of different weights is finite and small, you could create a bucket for each different weight.

for example if the possible weights are .25, .5, and .75, put all items into one of those buckets (array backed). The bucket then gets a weight of (individual weight)*(bucket size). First randomly choose a bucket based on the bucket weight, then randomly choose an object from the bucket.

<comment><USER10> Still O(n).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> What does the << operator mean?

and how are these K items found? Do they have the same weight as the sampled item?

<comment><USER2> It means that K is much smaller that N. Because if K is a O(N) then doing an update in O(log n) is not good, it is better to rebuild the whole strcuture in O(n).</comment></comment>


Drew Houston's (Dropbox) YC Application - <AUTHOR> http://files.dropbox.com/u/2/app.html <comment><USER2> I liked this part >>

 _# Why would your project be hard for someone else to duplicate? This idea requires executing well in several somewhat orthogonal directions, and missteps in any torpedo the entire product.

For example, there's an academic/theoretical component: designing the protocol and app to behave consistently/recoverably when any power or ethernet cord in the chain could pop out at any time. There's a gross Win32 integration piece (ditto for a Mac port). There's a mostly Linux/Unix-oriented operations/sysadmin and scalability piece. Then there's the web design and UX piece to make things simple and sexy. Most of these hats are pretty different, and if executing in all these directions was easy, a good product/service would already exist._

</comment><comment><USER3> With Google's GDrive clearly listed as a potential competitor, which had to be mentioned several times in the application, I didn't find the application as "strong" as I would have expected.

Of course, I love + use DropBox, and GDrive has never really happened (not in the dropbox-like incarnation people expected) but at the time the application was written it seemed as though things were very stacked against DB.

<comment><USER4> I always think that for a space like backup and sharing of data/files a startup always had much chance of success than GDrive or other biggies.

Reasons -

1\. Its important to iterate extremely fast and keep on improving your solution which a big company like Google cant really do any more.

2\. This space does not require integration with other consumer apps offered by big companies like emails/calendars/social-network. Therefore there isnt much to win for big companies to win by focusing enough on competing in the space. Its more of a distraction really.

3\. Backups of data is very important feature for which people are willing to pay. Hence consumer is also very demanding. Must easier for a startup to keep on listening to consumer than a big corporate.

Another similar startup which is doing extremely well in similar space compared to biggies is <http://www.druva.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> There was a version of this with PG's comment that was even more interesting to read. Edit: found here <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=801503>

<comment><AUTHOR> The URL of this submission is the same as the one of the submission you linked; it's strange that my submission made it through the _dupe filter_.

Thanks for the link, crocowhile; pg's comment there is really that more interesting to read

<comment><USER6> I think the dupe filter only checks for stories within X number of days. This was past the limit => new thread.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Source of this submission is pg's following comment: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1938348>

To quote it: _If there's one thing applicants don't get, it's the value of being concise in the answers. Not brief, concise._

</comment><comment><USER7> > What are people forced to do now because what you plan to make doesn't exist > yet?

> Email themselves attachments.

For me, that was the killer feature that got me hooked 2+ years ago.

Today we use Dropbox for so much more. It's become the ultimate networked drive that takes advantage of your local hard disk.

The one feature I wish it had was encryption.

<comment><USER8> I understand the wish for encryption, but once you've put your encrypted dropbox in the cloud, it's there forever. If anyone is going to break the encryption it's going to be:

1) Someone with massive computing power (e.g. cloud based)

2) Someone with a long time to work on it

Who's to say DropBox wouldn't setup background processes to brute force encryption keys? Who's to say your encryption keys might not be trivial to brute force 10 years from now?

And if you use password protected documents you can't change your encryption key because they can always look at a previous version where the key was different.

More to the point, if you don't trust them to store your data, why would you trust their encryption? If they _were_ malicious (and I'm not claiming anything) they would deliberately weaken the encryption 'accidentally' and you would likely never know.

<comment><USER7> If the dropbox client encrypted all files using a shared secret known only to myself, then my files would be protected by an additional layer of security where I manage the keys, that makes a lot of difference.

Obviously there is no such thing as absolute security, but that's not a reason not to take protective measures.

<comment><USER9> How would the dropbox client encrypt the files if only you knew the shared secret? You have to give the client your shared secret, and then we're back to where we began.

<comment><USER7> No because the client is on my machine. See how truecrypt works if you want to understand this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's awesome how honest he was in who his competitors were and how similar they were to his product (including the fear that Google would eventually overtake) and yet all through the application he seemed very confident that his product was going to succeed and surpass what the others attempted to do.

I remember showing my friends the first presentation video when they started giving out private Beta invites. I was so stoked to have something like it that my friends could also use with me. I'm very glad everything worked out for him and the Dropbox crew!

</comment><comment><USER11> OT: The Windows machine I'm using at the moment has the/a Norton... security suite installed (firewall, anti-virus, et al.).

Upon navigating to the linked page, a pop-up appeared warning that the site is "unsafe".

Which causes me some concern that the "mainstream" campaign against Dropbox and others may already be gearing up.

</comment><comment><USER12> I wish my employer would get Dropbox. Not being able to host it in-house is probably a dealbreaker though.

</comment><comment><USER13> Providing ideas which could be patented on the application form seems quite foolhardy (for the applicant) .. is that a trick question?

EDIT: Actually, I suppose it serves two goals -> could show potential ingenuity, but also reveals how 'trusting/guarded' the applicant is.

<comment><USER14> In the US at least, you can still patent an idea for some amount of time after it's been made public.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> My favorite part:

 _# How long will it take before you have a prototype? A beta? A version you can charge for? Prototype - done in Feb. Version I can charge for: 8 weeks maybe? (ed: hahaha)_

Just another example of how optimistic developers can be (I know I'm guilty of the same).

<comment><USER16> For those of us who haven't been tracking Dropbox closely, how long did it actually take?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> "How long have the founders known one another and how did you meet?"

I wonder how many single founders make a terrible joke answer to that question and if some sort of filtering could be applied. Drew handled it well, I would have just put n/a

</comment><comment><USER18> seems like 1 million is the number everyone goes with...so if someone sees a very promising startup at demo day, would be a good number to offer.

<comment><USER19> But with that 1 million acquirers will want the team/product for X years to ensure they get something of value (the product creation ability / pitching skill of the founders).</comment></comment>


Show HN: Stock Trading with Insomnia REST Client and Alpaca API - <AUTHOR> I've created an Insomnia workspace to make it easier to debug your stock trading code and learn the Alpaca API. You can read about how here:
https://medium.com/automation-generation/using-alpacas-stock...
The actual workspace JSON for you to import into Insomnia can be found here: https://github.com/alpacahq/insomnia-workspace <comment><USER2> I've been playing with the Alpaca streaming API's in Node to get quotes. I have it working, the next step is figure out a trading algorithm.

I am a pretty traditional long term investor, $AAPL, Berkshire, Bank of America, Ford, Amazon, AMD, $SPY, with 10+ years in the market. However with the crazy volatility, I have been toying with the idea of buying ProShares UltraPro Short $SQQQ to hedge my losses on big pre-market open down days. Today for example would have been a good day to own $SQQQ for the day (up 7.3%). Any insight on how to go about this hedge strategy using Alpaca? Can I get pre-market quotes for the Nasdaq?

</comment><comment><USER3> Seems inherit the same limitation of RobinHood: you can't do short selling. Not sure how actually they could do a free commission order, so not sure why short selling is not supported, but it limits the use of long only strategy.

<comment><USER4> Interesting. I suppose it's a much more involved process where you need to locate shares to borrow. You need to maintain a list of easy to borrow and hard to borrow names. ETFs by definition are hard to borrow.

I used to work next to the stock loan desk at a bank. The equity markets are generally pretty tech driven these days but stock loan is still operating in a 1980s mentality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Open question: If, for one stock, you could predict tomorrow's closing price today (with 80% accuracy within 2% of the actual price), how would you trade that stock?

<comment><USER6> It's easy to predict tomorrow's closing price with that accuracy: it will be the same as today's closing price.

For a large majority of S&P 500 stocks this prediction will be within 2% of the actual price very often (more than 80% of the days). In aggregate, the hit rate is over 80% as well.

<comment><USER5> Great, so how do you use that for a trading strategy?

<comment><USER7> You can't. What parent tries to explain is your predictions is no different than regular fluctuations, so you can't use it to get an edge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Alpaca looks awesome, but doesn't support after hours trading. Does anyone know of a good API that does?

<comment><USER9> Yes. Narwhal. Narwhal provides commission free flat rate brokerage trading via tradier and you can trade both in pre and post market hours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> How is the access to historical data with these services?

</comment><comment><USER11> A commission-free trading API? How does Alpaca make money?

<comment><USER12> Likely the same as similar services like RobinHood. A quick Google suggests they make most of their money on interest from cash sitting around in user's accounts that has not been invested yet.

<comment><USER13> And by selling info about customer orders to front runners. IIUC, these are high frequency traders who may place similar orders milliseconds in advance of yours then profit from the fact that you have to pay a bit more to fill your order. Full disclosure, I continue to use Robinhood despite this.

<comment><USER14> This is highly illegal and taken very seriously. Is this speculation on your part or do you know this for a fact (in which case, you should report it).

<comment><USER15> [https://seekingalpha.com/article/4205379-robinhood-making- mi...](https://seekingalpha.com/article/4205379-robinhood-making-millions- selling-millennial-customers-high-frequency-traders)

They're probably not front-running. They are almost certainly selling trade information to HFT firms.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ventata - Maximize your profits with dynamic pricing. - <AUTHOR> https://ventata.com/ <comment><USER2> Pricing is more complex than the classic Econ 101 diagram for maximising revenues under the demand curve on a particular price point. Much, much more complex.

There's also considerations of customer value, segmentation, price fencing, bundling, unbundling, price strategy and so on and so forth.

In fact ... whole books are written about it. I read one recently: [http://chester.id.au/2012/09/12/review-the-strategy-and- tact...](http://chester.id.au/2012/09/12/review-the-strategy-and-tactics-of- pricing/)

It's probably the most important business I book I can remember reading. Pricing is the low-hanging fruit, the big juicy lever of profitability.

<comment><USER3> Of course you're right that pricing is not easy. Your list of other considerations is also very good (sounds like you've taken a course in industrial organization). The only other main idea I want to add is that price is just one of the ways that firms compete with one and other (Bertrand competition). Firms also compete with each other over quantity (Cournot competition), and among other general dimensions like quality (i.e. product differentiation).

In order to have good estimates of price elasticity via a derived demand function, one would also need to consider the price and features of competing products in that demand function (which would enable the use of other economic measures of marginal effects like cross-price elasticity of demand). Your competitor's price is just as important as your own price because of substitution effects.

<comment><USER2> That book actually has a good discussion on advanced pricing techniques, including taking competitor prices into account. They even outlined techniques for selecting the most efficient bundle of features for a given price -- right up to labs built to perfectly resemble a supermarket.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Technically, the goal of this service (whether the owners describe it this way or not) is to find the unit elastic point on a product's demand curve. In theory, assuming a linear demand function, profits are maximized at the price and quantity associated with the point where price elasticity of demand = 1 (or equally, where marginal revenue = 0). If your current price is higher than the unit elastic price, your total revenue increases by lowering your price. If your current price is lower than the unit elastic price, your total revenue increases by raising your price. These topics are covered in any intro to microeconomics course (as well as any MBA economics course).

That being said, I like the idea, and I wish you guys luck. I'm actually building something similar (YC application in the pipeline) but with a more specific focus on a particular set of markets.

<comment><USER4> Hi, I'm one of the cofounders. Your description is a great start to what we are doing. There are more considerations that just that but to be fair we aren't publishing papers on economics. We really do want to combine well understood economic principles with machine learning to make a very affordable product for ecommerce stores and event providers.

Thanks for the good wishes!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> 1% of revenue for any company earning in excess of $10k per month seems excessive. But I guess if those clients are also seeing substantial percentage increases in revenue it would warrant the 'data fee'. This is classic supply and demand on-the-go pricing, but from my initial glance the site doesn't really explain where they have tested it, and what real results were measured.

<comment><USER6> It is actually 1% of revenue for all companies: the lower-priced brackets have caps that make it work out as 1% (or higher, due to the granularity) across all brackets.

My problem with this is that there is no way that this algorithm is really that impressive to warrant what might be a substantial amount of someone's margin: if you are finding yourself spending a ton of money on this algorithm, you can easily re-implement it... based on both the video and the FAQ it sounds like they are doing simple hill-climbing, which should take a few hours to implement (and which, I will however point out, isn't even anywhere near optimal for this kind of problem).

<comment><USER4> It's not hill climbing. Gradient descent has some severe limitations.

Also, I have mentioned it before but if you are charged 1% and someone makes you 2%, I don't understand why you wouldn't buy from them. (On a side note: we earn our sellers more than 2% on average)

<comment><USER6> Rereading what I said, I am not certain of the confusion, but I will expand: you can't evalulate the price of your product using the _gross_ value it provides _in isolation_ , you have to evalulate the price of your product using the _net_ value it provides _in comparison to competitors_.

If I ended up in the situation where I was paying you hundreds, certainly if I was paying you thousands, of dollars a month, I find it impossibly difficult to believe that I couldn't get more "bang for the buck" by spending the time to reimplement the features I am getting from you.

(As an entirely unrelated argument, the optimal margin might not even be 1%: to charge a percentage of revenue for something that doesn't have any scaling terms in proportion to the dollars being moved is, to put it lightly, "bold"; my business, for example, probably couldn't afford 1%, yet I routinely move tens of millions of dollars... and I certainly, at the price of _hundreds of thousands of dollars a year_ , would have no trouble reimplementing your setup, and in fact have done similar things as side projects on various occasions.)

<comment><USER4> Customers that do tens of millions of dollars a year tend to call us and get a lower price from us. They don't use the signup box. It's common for enterprise companies to self select by calling for special pricing and in most cases we oblige. We want to make a fair deal for all parties.

On the other hand, I get it - You would never use us, you would try to build it yourself. I can respect that. I get like that for a lot of stuff I see.

The founding team's past experience is in algorithmic asset valuation, commodity trading and machine learning. We are life long learners and are dedicating our time to find better ways of helping ecommerce stores pick better prices. We have several years of experience in workflow automation and we apply that to our current business to make our product as cheap as humanly possible and pass those prices along. Our closest neighbor in the pricing game charges hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees because they use so much human labor to do things.

Saurik, if you ever want to do one less thing and want us to do your price testing. Please give us call, I would love to find a price that makes it worth your time.

After all, I am fond of dynamic pricing. :)

<comment><USER6> You seem to have missed the point of me providing that number (something I take some of the blame for, as I was explicitly mixing two arguments; I did go out of my way to attempt to differentiate them, however): I was demonstrating that even at an incredibly large extreme with regards to absolute revenue, the percentage margin doesn't really become affected; when I was moving tens of thousands (as opposed to millions) of dollars, the answer would have been the same: you can double my revenue, but at 1% you are talking about most of the magin that I'm currently playing with for my not-entirely-uncommon business model (where my upstream obligations, fees, and taxes, scale nearly linearly within my plausible target price range, with respect to the ticket price of the item being sold).

It isn't because I would be an "enterprise company" that I would need special pricing, it is because your pricing model makes a fundamental assumption about the kind of business model that the other person might be engaged in: if you had a "percentage of profit" model--even though you would still be in the "this is too expensive: I could hire a full time developer and a CS grad student at less than this price to get 90% of the benefit" regime--you would no longer de-facto price yourself out of various markets.

(FWIW, my experience on this is that I was a CS person with an algorithms fetish who was recently working with a long-time machine-learning specialist in a weirdly-related-but-not-even-remotely-competing area to your company. The result was lots of conversations both internally and with various of our clients with regards to how to price such a service: the result is that I have seen both a lot of failure modes of advertising and of asking for "percentage of revenue". This is, of course, in addition to running most of my current business on a "percentage of revenue" basis, and seeing the kinds of problems and misunderstandings it can cause.)

<comment><USER4> I understand where you are going now. To be fair, your point about certain people selling on low margins comes up with us and we usually start those companies at $1/product/month on our pricing and go down from there depending on how many products they want to price with us.

We have been testing this pricing model to see if we will earn more revenue doing this.

I appreciate your continued feedback and your clarification.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hey, I'm Luke. I'm one of the founders of Ventata. This is quite unexpected but I'm trying to bring more people online to help with questions and such.

For now, I'll try to answer as many questions as possible.

</comment><comment><USER7> Wonder how these guys compare with Runa.</comment>


Ask HN: What's the best way to learn about world history? - <AUTHOR>

I've recently discovered some interest in knowing more about world history. Didn't pay attention to this subject when I was in school.
What blogs, videos, sites, etc. you'd recommend I read/watch? I can spare 30 minutes everyday.
Thanks in advance. <comment><USER2> As someone who went through this very question a while ago, I'll give you the advice that worked for me.

First off, your best source of solid information is going to be a large dose of good old fashioned book reading. Youtube documentaries and blog posts are fun but badly inadequate as a detailed learning tools.

Pick the main periods of history or general historical fields (economic history, political history, etc) you'd like to know about and do a bit of research to find out which 4 or 5 books get the most frequent mention as expert sources of info for those periods or fields of learning.

Start reading those books and look through their references for more sources that might be interesting.

Repeat for each historical period you'd like to know about. It's a slow process but its very thorough.

Also, do read plenty of economic history and theory books, (especially those from the Austrian school and classical liberal school of econ) they will provide you with good context for why a lot of things in history happen the way they do.

</comment><comment><USER3> Travel. There is nothing like seeing firsthand how history played out. For example, I was a big fan of Roman and Greek history in junior high school, especially while studying Latin. It all seemed so abstract until later in life when I visited places like Carthage, Sparta, or Rome. Rome in particular, since you can see the progression from ancient Rome with their many Gods, to the times where Christians were persecuted, to the Vatican being the center of the Catholic world, right at the heart of the former Roman Empire. There's something so amazing about that that you can't get from history books or Wikipedia.

<comment><AUTHOR> Loved the suggestion. Travel is something that's close to my heart too. I still think I'll need to read up a bit just to know which places have a historical significance. Don't want to accidentally miss them out of the itinerary when I travel.

</comment></comment><comment> Dirty-flow As a fan of the stack exchange network, I can recommend you history.stackexchange.com . It's still beta but has already many interesting questions and answers. For example you can sort them by votes: [http://history.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes](http://history.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes) and see the most upvoted questions. And wenn you see an interesting topic and want to know more about it, just google it.

</comment><comment><USER4> Core samples into specific bits that interest you.

[http://paulgraham.com/raq.html](http://paulgraham.com/raq.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> "World History" is a term of art within history. Braudel, Wallerstein and Toynbee are good names to start with.

For podcasts see Conversations with History. 1hr interviews with notable historians and academics. [http://conversations.berkeley.edu/](http://conversations.berkeley.edu/)

What topics/themes interest you?

</comment><comment><USER6> [https://class.coursera.org/wh1300-002/class](https://class.coursera.org/wh1300-002/class)</comment>


Ask HN: Alternatives to selling desktop software - <AUTHOR>

Good morning HN!
I've been developing (~5 months) a cross-platform (OSX, Win and Linux) desktop application, as an after-work-hobby-project, that is soon nearing alpha state.
Up until now I have mostly kept on coding since it's something I personally have a need for, and it's a fun project, but I also believe there is clique of other people that would find it useful as well. I would love to have other people use it, but I don't think there is enough of a business there to actually sell it, at least in its current form. [1]
I like the "hobbyish sharewarey business" of how Sublime Text started out, and I think my application cater to much of the same audience. But I feel I would not be able to give support or have time to go all in on this project at this stage, having a real job as well.
What are my options to distribute my software, even at an early stage (alpha/beta), without going full business and still be a at least a bit profitable?
Donation-ware? Patreon? Would love some data!
---
[1] There are other both big and small company alternatives, there are also some open source (imho shitty) alternatives. The closed source alternatives come in both subscription and one-time-license models. These alternatives also have much more features of course (but so does Visual Studio compared to Sublime Text I guess... :-) ). <comment><USER2> Firstly, I hope for you that your project becomes popular enough so you can make money with it in theory.

When that happens, I would suggest going the way of Sublime Text: Unobtrusive, friendly reminders asking the user to purchase the software. From my own experience I know that it's difficult and extremely tedious to implement a copy protection scheme because it involves a whole lot of things you don't think of at first: how do you ensure that your license keys aren't posted on the internet? Does the customer need internet access to activate a key? What if the customer complains that the license key doesn't work? What about new versions of your software? Keep it simple.

<comment><USER3> I paid for Sublime Text to make the annoying "buy me" message go away. I probably wouldn't have paid if it didn't nag me, and I never would have tried it if it weren't freemium.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I love to hear also , I love desktop apps I wish it will do comeback soon. I will be happy to hear about more developers working on desktop apps

</comment><comment><USER5> I started by creating a free version of my Windows software and when it was more mature and had some traction, I added some more advanced features and stared charging.

Now it is a nice side income that helps me bootstrap my SaaS app :)</comment>


The TRON Developer Hub - <AUTHOR> https://developers.tron.network/ <comment><USER2> Sounds great. The problem is that the best systems rarely win. Everything seems to be a popularity contest rather than merit based to me.

So to get market share with Ethereum and such that seem much more popular, you might need heroic marketing success. I would even consider something sleazy like beating SpankChain in terms of usage. Which might not be very hard considering that there were a grand total of two cam girls live on there last time I checked. Not that I check those sites often or anything.</comment>