The Psychology of Dreaded Tasks - <AUTHOR> https://dcgross.com/accomplish-dread-tasks/ <comment><USER2> Additionally..

1\. Give yourself permission to just try, for a little while

2\. use fear-setting for really tough moments

A technique that I've found helpful when dealing with anxious thoughts is I become mindful of the anxious feeling, realize what I'm feeling anxious about, and then give myself _permission to just try_ , regardless of the outcome. I'll explicitly granting myself permission to "just try" and even throw in "just for a little while, see how things go". This at times has turned into a productive, multi-hour session.

Tim Ferriss talks about a technique use to confront fears, called "fear setting" [1]. Essentially, I put together a 3-column table and think through the worst that can possibly happen. It helps me think about risks and realize what I can handle. This helps to manage worry.

[1] [https://tim.blog/2017/05/15/fear- setting/](https://tim.blog/2017/05/15/fear-setting/)

<comment><USER3> I would add take care of some low-hanging fruit to your "just trying" item.

Get the menial, "paperwork tasks" out of the way before you to get to the hard, problem-solving stuff.

Also, know when to walk away and think about things away from sitting in front of a monitor and keyboard. Showers are great for thinking. I also like to swim laps to do hard work - thinking work.

<comment><USER2> I do some of my best work while walking my dog! :)

<comment><USER4> Gardening for me. These are good examples of one of the main benefits of working from home. At many workplaces you need to simply be present at your desk hammering away at the keyboard to signal productivity, but it's easier for remote workers to get up and do their coding while engaged in something like walking or working outside. It's amazing how clearly the solutions for programming problems can come in those scenarios.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The best way I found of actually getting through the dread tasks is to cheat. Ask for help from someone else (presumably they do not have the mental block).

1\. Identify the dread tasks.

2\. Ask someone who cares (about you) to help you.

3\. Do them together, with the other person not letting you get distracted.

For big tasks asking other people to help you chunk them also helps. After that avoid thinking about whole thing and just look at the small chunks.

<comment><USER6> I came to comment the same. I think there could be a business for "dread task buddy on demand".

On second thought this sounds like a life coach

<comment><USER7> Yeah but 'life coach' has negative connotations whereas dread task buddy sounds awesome. This is one reason pair programming is good at times.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In the "Learning How to Learn" course, that was mentioned in the MOOC- discussion a while back, they suggest tackling this by focusing on process over product and tying a reward to it:

"I'm just gonna sit here and do taxes for 25 minutes and then eat some chocolate" rather then "I'm going to finish my taxes".

The reasoning is that by removing the pressure of completing the whole task you can sometimes convince yourself to stop procrastinating.

If that still doesn't do it for you then at least you have the chocolate.

<comment><USER9> Also, in that 25 minutes, you can discover the _actual blocker_ to doing the task. Oftentimes, I find that my dread about a task is because of some ambiguity. By committing to a certain chunk of time working on it, it becomes obvious what that ambiguity is.

Of course, then I have to push through the discomfort of resolving that ambiguity. But that is easier now that I'm an adult and:

1) Know how to frame questions in a way that sets the answerer up for success.

2) Can ask "why are we doing this?" (better phrased "what is our goal in doing this?") and get an actual answer this rather than "because I said so".

3) Have the backbone & confidence to push back when someone says "stop procrastinating, just write the damn essay." and press until I get the question answered or decide that I'm not going to do the task.

<comment><USER10> Yes! What's stopping me is usually that I'm not entirely sure how to do something or I'm afraid that I will uncover some really hard or time consuming problem when I start doing the task. Instead, often only a short time is needed to get an overview of the task and realize it's not that hard.

For me, the first step is to commit to only a five minute overview and information gathering session. During those five minutes I will figure out what output is expected from me, write down a couple of concrete tasks, and then start with the one that either looks like it will add the most value or, if I'm low on energy, the one that's most fun. When I tick it off, I'm at least closer to completion and hopefully has enough momentum to start the another task on the list.

All of the above are best case scenarios, as I still usually put off things for way too long and have to work through the night to catch up. I constantly try to improve this, but as soon as one deadline has passed with a marathon work session, I relax because the next deadline is far off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I must say, just last night I had a bit of coding to start and it seemed like I was being asked to kill a kitten or something, the thought was so incredibly depressing.

I forced myself, through the resistance, just to start.

I said I'd do it for an hour then I could stop. Note that this was beginning a new, big task. If I was in the middle of it I probably wouldn't have had such a huge urge to resist it.

Anyway, once I started it was cripplingly painful for about 5 minutes. Then I couldn't stop for the next few hours - I think because the thing I was working on was incrementally rewarding - every 5 minutes or so I could see the progress I was making.

Also, it helped a lot that I put on an interesting podcast that makes me feel great.

I suppose my point is that this guy is pretty correct, at least for me: it was pain I was avoiding, and just starting was the biggest hurdle.

I'm a bit ADD-ish, I think, so YMMV.

<comment><USER12> There is this crazy swimmer here - he swam down 50 miles of the ganges river in some iron man contests - and he constantly swims between islands.

The way he visualizes is splitting down the goals to smaller portions. "I only think about the next 15 minutes, if I would think about the whole thing I would go crazy.".

<comment><USER13> I've found that's the best for any sort of physical task - for running it was "ok, I'll run to that light post" \- a run could be an hour and a half of light posts. And for strength training it's always a lie on the bad days. "I'm not feeling great so I'll only do three sets today." \- I always end up doing my prescribed five, but the size of the lies change as I need it to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There is a point not addressed here. Some tasks are distasteful by nature, like cleaning manure out of horse stalls. It's disgusting but I don't have a problem with it. Other tasks are neutral by nature but infuriating by their very existence. Taxes fit into this category, even when owed a refund. Any kind of job/school application or process that takes a lot more of my time than the person who will evaluate it. I know that negative thought will come, and I don't want to have them. Also, there are arbitrary decisions to be made that are irreversible and can have huge negative consequences if done wrong. These are also avoided. The idea that a task is avoided because it is distasteful by nature is really saying something about the simplicity and inconsequentiality of it.

<comment><USER15> Not really a "task" in the sense that it only takes 5-10 minutes but I hate that in 2018 when I visit many medical offices I have to fill out lots of forms, even when it's an office I have a history with and none of my data has changed. Ideally they'd show me a screen and say "has anything changed?" the end. If a screen is too expensive they'd print out a piece of paper will all my data and just have me sign that it hasn't changed. When I've asked though I'm told "it's the law" and that it has to be handwritten. Maybe Estonia is better at this?

<comment><USER16> The library manages this the 1-2 times a year I go to a branch. They show me the latest information in the PINES database, ask me if it's all current, and input any changes. Of course, they don't have the same regulatory and liability concerns as a doctor.

<comment><USER17> Weirdly it feels like it might lead to more inaccuracies to have everything re-keyed many times, due to variances in how people remember things and enter subtly different information in forms on subsequent occasions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is particularly hard for people with ADD. That said, I think it's potentially dangerous to give advice that's in any way titled the "Psychology of..." without actually basing it on evidence and the literature because people might confuse it for rigorous or clinically appropriate guidance. I recognize you couch this in your experience, but if you're going to write about something that in anyway dovetails with a pathology, it could be helpful to include at least some even abridged literature review, since this will be viewed by thousands (given you're a shoe-in for HN's front page).

<comment><USER19> Exactly!

> _Don't "do your taxes". Just change the label to "gather finance documents"_

Finance documents? What finance documents? Which ones? How would I know without having started on my taxes? Wherever did I put them? They're all over the place. This is hopeless. Maybe tomorrow.

<comment><USER20> You've been downvoted but I laughed because this is exactly the inner monologue I have whenever I try to start a Dreaded Task.

"I don't know where to start! Well, I could start with document A, but then I'd need some information from document B, which requires document C, but I can't do C until I've done A -- oh no, a loop! I can't see how to get round this at all; maybe my head will be clearer tomorrow. Time for a break.

(NB the "loops" often aren't really 100% circular, but seem insurmountable in my head; this is the point where talking to someone is invaluable, if I can get past the usually correct suspicion I'm going to sound stupid for making a big deal about a block which seems totally trivial and non-blocking when I try to put it into words)

...Also, didn't I already work on document B? But I can't remember where I got to, or where I put my notes, or what they mean..."

I do suspect I might have AD(H)D but I live in a country where adult ADHD is not really recognised, so I guess I'll have to do the best I can using some of the good tips posted here instead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've a theory for nasty work, the "Bikini Wax Theory of Nasty Work". The theory goes like this, a bikini wax and nasty work are exactly the same because:

1 - Nasty work and bikini waxes are both painful to do.

2 - you must move decisively and quickly for both nasty tasks and waxes, getting it over as quickly and competently as possible.

3 - if you fail to execute #2 properly the results will be a bloody and even more painful mess, likely taking more time to achieve the desired results.

I've shared this theory with close colleagues. Nobody has told me I'm wrong to my face.

<comment><USER22> Most people just wouldn't do a bikini wax given the options above. So maybe not the best advice for getting dreaded things done.

<comment><USER23> And yet thousands of women get them every day, so there must be a reason.

(Yes, they're painful. It's about 5 minutes of ripping off band-aids at 30-second intervals. Then it's over and it doesn't hurt at all any more, though the cortisone cream is soothing.)

Oh, the reason to go through that? It saves 6-8 weeks of shaving a very sensitive (and awkwardly shaped and difficult to inspect) area and dealing with 5-o'clock shadows and stubble and ingrown hairs and razor nicks. If you're self-conscious about wearing a swimsuit (or, for some, about your appearance in the bedroom), it's totally worth it.

Now, that nasty work that you're procrastinating on: why do you want it to be done in the first place?

<comment><USER21> And yet thousands of women get them every day, so there must be a reason. > Yep!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Some good mind hacks here, but I have to say that changing wording from "do my taxes" to "organize my finances" is not a way to reduce dread.

I have done my taxes about 18 times in my life. I have yet to organize my finances.

<comment> gm-conspiracy Also, this is a unique US problem, no?

<comment><USER25> It's certainly not a problem for me in the UK; PAYE is automatic, and I've not yet had to do a tax return. Although I did once need to get an adjustment, which I did with a short letter. I do wonder why the US puts such a tax administrative burden on individuals.

<comment><USER26> Lobbying by tax preparing companies is part of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Does anyone else have _an absolute dread of FIXING / REPAIRING something?_ And a solution for this dread?

Sometimes I'm at a point where I would put my hand in a running blender together with a live kitten or something painful and horrible like that, just to get _NOT to have to FIX something that needs fixing_ and instead to _START something new_ or to _completely replace or refactor something_ or to _buy something new and set it up in the place of the thing needing fixing_... anything, just _not repairing_ , _not debugging_ , _not fixing_ or _not optimizing_ one more little half/broken thing.

The only thing I similarly dread is "going the last mile" from 80% to 100% and finishing any project/task, but for this at least I have a big bag of tricks that works most of the time.

But fixing / repairing instead of replacing something or starting with something completely new... This is HELL for me. Even visually, a blank piece of paper or a blank screen pumps me up with energy. But when I see something already half-working / half-written but know that there are some serious bugs/defects that I need to hunt down and repair somewhere in that. It sometimes fills me with so much dread that my subconscious makes me "forget" that that task exists, or forget what its components are so I end up miss- estimating by factors of up to 100x (with obviously horrific consequences for everyone's budget and sanity).

<comment><USER28> I've had very similar feelings before, and in my experience that fear of "fixing" is telling me something, that i'm not in a good position to be fixing whatever it is.

You mention that "refactoring" doesn't give you the same dread? Could it be because you know the problem better if you are tackling a refactoring but you don't when you are bugfixing? I've found that that dread wasn't from bugfixing, but was from a lack of confidence about the part of the codebase i'm working on.

Personally, I've found good results with tricking my brain into thinking i'm "refactoring" while really "bugfixing". Schedule the time to review the codebase that i'll be bugfixing, talk to the author if possible (and it's not you). If I want to indulge myself I'll sometimes "mock refactor" it, I'll open a new tab in my editor and almost pseudocode rewrite the component or module that needs fixing/debugging. Then once I feel I understand it enough, I can actually dive in and fix the bugs in the original code. And by that time i'm familiar enough with that section that i'm not fearing every letter typed as I know what will happen, I understand the intent behind the code.

I also struggle with the fear of "wasting time" a lot with this kind of stuff. I have this incorrect feeling that if I was able to develop these 300 lines of code in 6 hours, that I can't possibly devote 6 more hours to fixing a few lines. But the reality is that often the small 1-2 line bugfixes are the largest timesinks of all, and that I can't be afraid to schedule those 6 hours to look into that bug. Once I get over that hump that I'm somehow "cheating" the system by allocating so much time to what ends up being so little change, I feel a LOT better about actually doing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> When I was a little child I used to hate going for a bath, but really enjoyed being in the bath, and didn't want to leave. I remember thinking to myself then, "why do I hate getting in the bath when it's so nice in it?!"

I still don't know why, and it's still both amusing and puzzling when I encounter similar things with coding and other tasks as a grown up.

<comment><USER23> I think exercise can be like this for a lot of people. If you do figure out the solution, let us know, would you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Essential reading on this topic: "The War of Art" by Steven Pressfield [https://www.amazon.com/War-Art-Through-Creative- Battles/dp/1...](https://www.amazon.com/War-Art-Through-Creative- Battles/dp/1936891026/)

<comment><USER31> This has to be the most disappointing book I've read this decade, I came away with nothing actionable. It was like reading the advice "just eat less" as a way to loose weight.

<comment><USER32> If you crave for further disappointing books, I can also recommend "Do the Work" by the same author. Instead of actually doing the work, I read the book, and it hasn't helped me a bit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This sounds nice, but given that the title is "The Psychology of Dreaded Tasks", I'm saddened there's essentially no reference to psychological findings. The references to the brain in the article are completely unreferenced. They sound fine given what I know about predictive processing, but I can't really tell whether they're just a nice sounding story, or something scientific. There a lot of psychological work on procrastination (I'm not sure how much neuroscience there is, but there's bound to be some).

This post would have been less impressive but more honest without the veneer of psychological authority.

<comment><USER34> I don't think whenever someone says "psychology" they're going to have extensive knowledge on the subject. Sounds like he's speaking from his own experience. What would you call it? He's talking about the brain isn't he? Or are these terms reserved only for those who've gotten their PhD?

<comment><USER33> Make the title something like "How to approach dreaded tasks", or maybe something a little more creative than that.

The topic really doesn't have to be about the brain. We all have experience confronting tasks we dread, but we don't have to know anything about the brain to talk about that experience.

Now, maybe neuroscience comes along and tells us something new about how that dread happens, how to confront it, etc. If so, that's great--but it should be properly cited. Also note that simply invoking the brain does not necessarily add anything: if you find out dread involves the XYZ subsystem of the brain, that is irrelevant to a discussion of the experience of dread, until you say what we've learned from it being the XYZ subsystem.

So my demand is intellectual honesty. Which parts of your post are grounded in science, which are personal experiences, which are just fluff?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I created a terminator script at work. It shutdowns my system if progress.txt is not updated in the next 3 minutes. If I am dreading any task, I launch this. All I have to do is make _any_ progress and record it in the progress.txt file. It forces me to focus.

Shutting down the system is not a life threatening situation but it is annoying and a minor inconvenience. Especially since it takes a few minutes to restart the system and load all the applications.

<comment><USER36> What job do you do where you can be productive while interrupting yourself every 3 minutes to update a text file? Or am I misunderstanding something?

<comment><USER35> 3 minutes is an arbitrary time limit, you can set it to anything. This forces you to act. Once you get to a flow state you can turn off the program.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Personal gripe, but he just had to mention coffee, didn't he?

Are there any folks out there who like to get difficult things done without caffeine?

edit: I guess not.

edit #2: You're sending me mixed messages, Hacker News.

<comment><USER38> I don't like to get difficult things done at all, that's the problem. I will take any advantage I can get. Sometimes caffeine helps, and in those cases I'm not gonna leave it on the table.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I have been doing that for years form me and for others(managing people) so they do not procrastinate with the team like they will do if alone. I do that without telling them I am doing that.

I will add some things I consider very important:

Use paper, write things down. Dividing a big task means nothing if you have no external memory you could trust to free the brain short term memory but you could recover it later. Paper today is the cheapest and more advanced external memory there is.

You could also use a tape recorder if you prefer audio memory.

After creating small sub task(tactics) from your general strategic thinking, put a checklist square near it. When you finish the task, check it.

Every hour of deep work, mark it on a calendar like a prisoner does with sticks. This provides visual feedback for your brain of your accomplishments, specially with hard tasks that takes months to complete.

The word for managing to do dread task is "reframing" into something that is important and positive for you.

Of course if you have money and power you could delegate most of the dreaded task, like googlers do with most of their domestic chores.

There are more things but the important thing is that you need practice, practice and practice until you get it. And like in anything else you will learn it much much faster if you personally know someone who "gets it" and learn from this person directly.

I have met some "naturals" of this processes in my life but I am not. I developed this skill over a long period of time, making me super productive compared to when I started.

<comment><USER40> I generally enjoy using paper for this reason as well, but I struggle with organizing the paper. Or, sticking to some form of organization.

I've tried setting up bullet journals, but paper discourages me for a few reasons.

\- What if I need to edit or add extra content? I generally write in pen so that what I write down sticks around.

\- I prefer to write in a stream of thoughts. To organize the paper, I try to think ahead and categorize my nebulous thoughts. This extra effort discourages me from writing and eventually, from using any organization system with paper.

I like Evernote because I can throw it in there and search will eventually help me find it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> This article assumes you're just going to follow the advice it gives. If you can in fact do that, you're half-way there.

But some people have strong resistance to doing anything that will get them closer to the dread task, and will instead distract themselves (say with video games or any number of other distractions), or by doing some other less- dreaded task, etc.

There could be some underlying cause for such resistance which no amount of visualization, coaching, coffee, or workouts could touch.

This is where working with the right therapist might help. "Right therapist" being the key phrase there. There are so many different therapists out there, and so many different approaches to therapy too. What might work for one person might not for another.

<comment><USER42> > This is where working with the right therapist might help.

What exactly would a therapist do? Saying consult a therapist seems a bit like a trope. It isn't within itself an answer.

Simply talking through the mental block as if it is a rational decision isn't particularly helpful, a lot of the bad roadblocks are something deeper than your conscious mind or inner monologue.

For example, there are many people who have read the books, followed the steps, and still struggle daily with these kind of dread task problem that seemingly get worse the longer you avoid them.

<comment><USER25> > What exactly would a therapist do?

Diagnose your ADHD and prescribe you medication.

<comment><USER43> Only a psychiatrist (an actual medical doctor) can prescribe medication.

A therapist is usually what people refer to as a licensed marriage and family therapist (LMFT), who does "talk therapy". They are typically NOT MDs, so they do NOT prescribe meds, because they can't.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=cbt+as+effective+as+antidepr...](https://www.google.com/search?q=cbt+as+effective+as+antidepressants&oq=cbt+as+effect&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.2779j1j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

<comment><USER25> I'm not from the US, so I'm not familiar with that system. Although I would have expected "therapist" to mean a psychiatrist in the context of attention control (as opposed to interpersonal relationships).

<comment><USER43> One way to think of the difference is: whereas one focuses on helping you feel better through mere conversation[1], the other focuses on achieving the same goal but through the use of chemicals.

They are not mutually exclusive, and everyone's thoughts and bodies are "wired" differently, so it's very common to have a combination of both solutions (talking & meds) to achieve the same goal.

I think too many people think "therapy" == meds 100%, and that is absolutely not true. Many people can benefit from just the "talk" therapy (no meds) and feel better about it.

[1] I say "mere" conversation in jest, but it is no less significant (IMHO), than that of a lawyer's output (mere words too, right?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> >> Break down a big idea into small bits.

I'm not getting this. Of course you would start by breaking down the task. This is what you do with every task. You don't just gulp down an entire task without planning ahead or thinking about steps. So this is no different than saying "now start doing the task". It is silly self-encouragement, trying to trick your brain into thinking that you did something to alleviate the problem. You did not. You just started the dreaded task and made yourself focus.

I am tired of seeing these kinds of "advices from experts" online and in self development books.

<comment><USER45> Comments like this make me realize there's an entire universe of people who don't have the problems I have, and I wonder what it's like to be like them, and have learned the things that are so obvious to you.

For example: Is it obvious to you that faced with a task you're dreading and procrastinating on, it helps to replace it in your mind with something smaller? It was not obvious to me, and was learned after years of misery, and even now I have to consciously remember to do it, and whenever I _do_ do it, I find it helps immensely. (For example, when there's an email I'm dreading replying to, and have been procrastinating for weeks—it hanging on my mind every day of course—it helps when I replace "reply to Ram's email" with "just write a reply to Ram's email" or (if that doesn't work) even "write a garbage outline of a reply…" or even "reread Ram's email". For another example, I had to apply for a travel visa and was procrastinating for months, and what finally helped was mentally replacing "finish the rest of application process" with "create a travel history document" with (when that didn't work) "collect all travel history"… along with the "talk to people" trick.)

And yes, the idea is indeed to "trick your brain" into doing the dreaded thing. At least, I have found it to help.

The matter-of-fact way in which you say "You don't just gulp down an entire task without planning ahead or thinking about steps" is really inspirational, because that's not my mental model of doing things, and I have to consciously practice it. I wish I learned these things in school, instead of just coasting by and now struggling with getting anything done at all.

<comment><USER44> >> For example: Is it obvious to you that faced with a task you're dreading and procrastinating on, it helps to replace it in your mind with something smaller?

I am not immune to procrastination, I did it for five years straight and dropped out of a college. I just don't experience frustration or anxiety when trying to figure out how to do something in general. It isn't really education or upbringing, but perhaps I watched carefully when I saw people trying to do things that are hard for me and easier for them.

<comment><USER45> Thanks, that's interesting. [And hi! I dropped out of a degree too :-)] Did you mean only "when trying to figure out how to do something…" as you said, or do you include even "when trying to do something"? Because not experiencing anxiety or frustration in the former is something I can manage too (a challenge is always fun, especially when it's a purely cognitive task like figuring something out), but the problem arises when one thinks one is in the latter situation.

To take the example from the OP, "do your taxes" is probably something that I have done a few times before: so I don't think of it as something to figure out how to do. (Maybe the fact that I'm so unsuccessful every year at doing it until the last minute means that I really do need to figure out how to do it, but it doesn't seem that way: it seems that I know roughly what it involves.) The mental model is that I'm just going to sit down for a few hours to "do my taxes", and do all the things it usually involves. And it causes dread, avoidance, resistance. And the OP's suggested fix, the one you're commenting about, of replacing it in one's todo list with things like "gather bank statements" (or something smaller and concrete like that) seems to help immensely. Does this not fit your experience? (Maybe not with doing taxes, but with some dreaded task… or is there usually nothing you dread?)

<comment><USER44> >> And the OP's suggested fix, the one you're commenting about, of replacing it in one's todo list with things like "gather bank statements" (or something smaller and concrete like that) seems to help immensely. Does this not fit your experience?

Therein lies the distinction. I don't figure things out roughly. Perhaps it is a habit of generalized thought about Todo lists that I got rid of at some point. Instead, I keep in mind just the first exact thing I need to do, avoiding the thought of seeing the whole picture instinctively.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> The highlighted sections on this page drive me crazy. They really interrupt the flow of the text.

<comment><USER23> Most browsers these days offer a "reader mode" \- great for reducing those distractions. (Also for dealing with sites with awful fonts or layouts.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> There are so many articles on productivity on the internet that I'm starting to wonder whether there isn't a deeper problem at hand here.

</comment><comment><USER3> Coffee will give you a boost for a limited amount of time, then you feel worse then before. I still drink coffee, but I don't do the morning routine anymore. I have energy in the morning, the afternoon is when I need the boost.

Working out and the resulting endorphin rush is great, but once again that's a temporary fix. You probably got a couple hours of the endorphin rush until you're more tired than you normally would be. Don't overdo the workouts, know when the best time for you to workout is, and get plenty of rest.

</comment><comment><USER48> My instinct is always to talk about my goals for the reasons listed in this post. But research suggests that talking about goals makes it less likely that you'll follow through: [https://www.inc.com/melissa-chu/announcing-your-goals- makes-...](https://www.inc.com/melissa-chu/announcing-your-goals-makes-you- less-likely-to-ach.html)

</comment><comment><USER49> I'm a big believer in attacking a big problem after a workout and a good coffee. Also set a time for it. "8 am tomorrow, I'm doing this thing"

After a work out, I can clean the entire house, pumping music in my ears, for example.

</comment><comment><USER50> The idea of a prediction being painful matches my experience. I never thought of it that way, but now that I do, that makes things a lot easier. (I meditate, so just knowing about this helps me a lot).

</comment><comment><USER51> I'm avoiding a dreaded task by being on hn right now...</comment>


Physics in Javascript Using Box2D - <AUTHOR> http://somethingcoded.net/post/35794507334/physics-in-javascript-using-box2d

<comment><USER2> Looks cool, but I couldn't get the page to load. I was once worked on a demo of a similar kind of game to help teach physics.

<comment><USER3> I'm using box2d (there are at least three box2d javascript implementations; the most impressive is the emscripten port from the actual C++ code: <https://github.com/kripken/box2d.js> but I'm using an older one for this). I wanted to prototype a simple balancing robot controller, and I hacked this up on the bus to work earlier this week in fact: <http://www.a1k0n.net/code/balance.html> Click to drop junk.

(Sorry, this is totally off-topic, but...) It's surprisingly easy to make a segway-like balancing robot with perfect sensors. My plan is to add noise in the sensors and limited motor torque, etc. Ideally it would estimate its own kinematic parameters and do an A* search for approximate optimal control.

<comment><AUTHOR> hey a1k0n, we'll definitely have to take a look at the port you dropped in your post. we didn't do a ton of research before hand, but we were debating between box2djs and box2dweb. in the end we choose box2dweb since it's self contained within a single file and was supposed to be more up to date.

i don't think what you're saying is totally off topic. box2d is pretty awesome and it's surprisingly easy to get physics simulations up and running using the library.

<comment><USER3> The thing about the emscripten version is that their own demos seem to GC- pause _constantly_ on Chrome. I'm assuming the emscripten-generated code is making tons of incidental garbage, but I haven't profiled it or anything; it's all Closure-compiled and impossible to read. I'm still using the old old old actionscript port of the old version, and wish I had seen box2dweb sooner.

btw disasteroids is hilariously awesome. Great work.

<comment><USER4> Emscripten generally speaking does not produce garbage because it uses a virtual heap. If you profile the demos using a heap profiler like Chrome's you will be able to observe this. The pauses are likely due to bugs in V8 that cause it to recompile a page's JavaScript constantly (it has a lot of them). The cost of those bugs ends up being higher than that of equivalent bugs in Firefox's JS engine because of the way V8 is designed.

Either way, though, if you have a reproduction case for those pauses you should definitely file a bug about it on the appropriate tracker - emscripten's if something is wrong with the generated code, or chromium's.

<comment><USER3> Yeah -- I knew about the virtual heap arrays, so the GC explanation didn't make sense. I'll dig into it; thanks for the pointers.

I think you're right though. Once it's been running a while, it seems OK; so I think it was JIT compilation pauses.

<comment><USER5> We've been testing out ammo.js (Emscripten compiled Bullet) for 3D physics. In this demo <http://apps.playcanvas.com/will/ammo/crates> after the first couple of resets, it runs smoothly.

It does indeed seem to be the JIT warming up. The good news is that Chrome Canary is significantly smoother, so 6-8 weeks until that hits stable.

<comment><USER6> Canary takes 0-6 weeks til Dev, then 6 weeks til Beta, then 6 weeks til Stable, so it's 12-18 weeks.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why have login forms been split into two steps? - <AUTHOR> It seems to me that it would make the most sense to have the login and password field exposed on the same step. Many sites will separate email address from password -- why is this done? What is the benefit? It breaks autofill from a browser password manager extension (like 1Password) which seems like an antipattern. <comment><USER2> This allows customized flows based on username/email. From what I've seen, there are mostly two use cases 1\. different flows based on organization e.g. Microsoft Office 365 2\. different flows based on guest vs user so the website can capture the emails if it's not a registered user e.g. tumblr

<comment><AUTHOR> Makes sense thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > It breaks autofill from a browser password manager extension

That is the benefit, just not for the user. The companies that started this trend were generally single sign-on providers that want you to sign in to everything with their account so you can be tracked everywhere on the web, services like 1Password make this unnecessary. The rest I think are just cargo-culting the big players.

</comment><comment><USER4> \- Sites that do single sign on: your email domain is 'corp.example.com'? -> redirect to your org's sign in page.

\- Mandatory 2FA/etc</comment>


Ask HN: If you had idea that could fix social networks what would you do? - <AUTHOR> Essentially if you had an idea how to fix a social networks, and it could be applicable to any of the big ones as Facebook, Twitter ... etc, and you wanted to get money from it what would you do? Would you patent your idea first? Would you try cold email to Jack or Mark or any other founder? How would you find their contacts? What is your general strategy to find people you would like to pitch? This is just an example, I am interested how do you startup founders found your investors especially when you have specific product you want to offer to the specific person? <comment><USER2> All the small social networks I'm on are paid for by someone out of pocket. The fundamental problem with the ad supported web is everything paid for by advertisers turns to shit.</comment>


Response to Concerns Regarding eDellroot Certificate - <AUTHOR> http://en.community.dell.com/dell-blogs/direct2dell/b/direct2dell/archive/2015/11/23/response-to-concerns-regarding-edellroot-certificate <comment><USER2> "We thank customers such as Hanno Böck, Joe Nord and Kevin Hicks, aka rotorcowboy, who brought this to our attention. If you ever find a potential security vulnerability in any Dell product or software, we encourage you to visit this site to contact us immediately."

That's something a lot of companies could learn from. But besides that the whole reason why they did it seems a bit thin, as if it needs a root certificate to get to a device tag.

<comment><USER3> Doesn't seem like even Dell has learned from it. Hanno posted a few tweets that seem connected to today's Dell statement:

"Dell has a publicly reachable security team. They just didn't answer when I contacted them about the eDellRoot." [https://twitter.com/hanno/status/668856347455324160](https://twitter.com/hanno/status/668856347455324160)

"I should repeat that: I contacted Dell's media team on 1st Nov and security team on 9th Nov about eDellRoot. No answer." [https://twitter.com/hanno/status/668857466076180480](https://twitter.com/hanno/status/668857466076180480)

<comment><USER2> Why would he contact the media team first?

<comment><USER4> I can just answer that myself.

At first I didn't find a security contact on the Dell webpage. As I'm a journalist and as I investigated this issue to write an article (for Golem.de), the media contact was my logical next point to contact.

Around a week later without a reply I saw that hackerone had a list of security contacts for large companies and found that there was a contact address for Dell there.

<comment><USER2> It's the 9th link when searching for 'dell security contact', but it is not on 'dell.com' so I can see how you missed that.

There is a dell.com/security page but it lists all kinds of stuff and does not provide a security contact.

Maybe every company should have a /security page with a contact?

Or even a 'security.x.com' website as a first point of contact?

Dell should probably instruct their personnel to forward any and all mail relating to potential security issues to the right department, but at the same time I don't feel that contacting their marketing department counts as the day the issue was properly reported.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _" It was intended to provide the system service tag to Dell online support allowing us to quickly identify the computer model, making it easier and faster to service our customers."_

Yeah, right. There's no other way to identify the model other than loading a root certificate with the power to certify any site as any domain. They expect people to believe that? Are they incompetent or corrupt?

<comment><USER6> Evidences (for example, leaving the private key) suggest that they are incompetent.

<comment><USER7> My experience as an empolyee of a huge manufacturer of consumer electronics says the same.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I worked for Dell a few years ago, and this is a complete bullshit response. The service tag takes all of 3 seconds to obtain. The full system specs are revealed once it's entered. At no point is bypassing the customers security a requirement of getting your service tag.

<comment><USER9> If you worked for customer support then you know how much longer calls can take when people are looking for the service tag.

They were speaking for online support, where no support agent is available to guide the customer through finding the service tag.

I believe they had good intentions but it was very poorly executed.

<comment><USER10> I'm an ex-Dell Support site web developer. This used to work using Java/ActiveX if memory serves me right. Since browsers have started to downgrade the whole Java experience, it appears that Dell now want you to download an EXE which you then have to install.

I really don't understand why they would need to install a root cert to make requests from a client's machine when you already have installed an EXE on the client's machine (which can basically do anything it wants).

Can anyone think of any genuine reason why an installed executable would need a CA root cert?

<comment><USER9> When it comes to leaving the private key on the client systems then I would have to refer to Hanlon's razor.

It could simply be a stupid mistake, social media make stupid mistakes into big deals but they're not a new phenomenon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It gets better: they also shipped the private key material for signing arbitrary windows kernel drivers with a Verisign-issued certificate: [https://www.duosecurity.com/blog/dude-you-got-dell-d- publish...](https://www.duosecurity.com/blog/dude-you-got-dell-d-publishing- your-privates)

</comment><comment><USER12> I was wondering why they did it... Now I think I'd prefer not knowing. Not only was it a terrible idea, apparently there was nobody to tell the programmer it's a terrible idea, and even QA (if they have it) didn't do their job.

Basically all the way from the idea to release, they had no person who knows what root certificates are.

<comment><USER13> Sometimes I wonder if this stuff gets added initially because of the need for manufacturing testing. And then some nitwit VP of engineering, decides having it installed in production would be super for some deranged reason. And no one can tell him no because the management culture prevents pens from throwing sh*t back upwards.

<comment><USER14> I had my fair share of being forced by higher management to commit insecure code, obfuscations and encryption security theater despite vehemently protesting. They seriously don't give a single shit. For them it's acceptable risk.

<comment><USER13> Acceptable because if it blows up they'll just toss you or one of your coworkers under the bus. Watch what happens at Volkswagen, you'll see.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't think it was installed with malicious intentions. It wouldn't make sense to leave the private key inside anyway

</comment><comment><USER16> With this root cert anyone could decode SSL traffic between you and a supposed secure web server. These kind of accidental security blunders seem to be a regular occurrence. Are people that incompetent or is there a more sinister reason.

<comment><USER17> Is that true? I may be off base with this, but as I understand it if the encrypted traffic you're trying to crack was encrypted using a certificate chain not descended from this root certificate I wouldn't have thought having this root CA would help.

As I understand it the vulnerability is that anyone who can obtain this root CA from a Dell machine can sign their encrypted traffic to appear to be trusted and secure, even if it's not, to other Dell machines with the same root CA. You can pretend to be someone you're not to those other Dell machines, but it doesn't give you a backdoor into chains of trust that don't descend from the same root CA.

I suppose this might allow you to do a MITM attack, but not decode traffic you've passively snooped. Otherwise this root CA would have just totally compromised all internet security.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> A bad situation, but a good (and timely) response.

<comment><USER19> A response full of lies and spin now qualifies as "good"? Are you kidding?

<comment><USER18> Which parts do you think are lies?

<comment><USER19> The fact that they installed the certificate unintentionally. It wouldn't be there without intention. They're just stupid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm beginning to think that Microsoft should automatically block unrecognized root CAs unless it is added through a group policy.

</comment><comment><USER21> > Customer security and privacy is a top concern and priority for Dell;

Come on!

The author says right there that the certificates were "intended to make it faster and easier for our customers to service their system."

Statements completely contradicting each other.

</comment><comment><USER22> > This certificate is not being used to collect personal customer information.

That's a very strong statement, which a sizeable percentage of Hacker News readers could probably disprove in minutes.

<comment><USER23> Let's see if that happens. I guess a few hundred people are already looking for something, either as a claim to fame or just because they are bored.

Personally I but my $0.1 bet on incompetence. Which is of course bad enough but not superfish-league.

<comment><USER17> Good point. A lot of parallels are being drawn with Superfish, but the Dell issue appears at first look to be just incompetence. Further investigation might finger Dell for more than that, but it's clear that Lenovo/Superfish was intentional subversion of customer privacy and security in full knowledge of exactly what they were doing and what the consequences were for customers.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you market your blog/articles - <AUTHOR> Dear HN
What are some best ways to market your blogpost to the right audience and gain visibility <comment><USER2> Last year, I started a Substack for fun.

It is about investing in stocks but with a venture capital mindset (my background is in tech and vc)

For me the audience seems to come in waves because right now I work full time and I haven't focused on marketing much.

but here is what has worked for me so far:

1) write high quality content (i think it's better to write fewer articles but more high quality). This is your best marketing.

2) To start off, tell your family, friends, and co-workers about it - I find them to be supportive and will sign up if you ask, but frankly only the ones interested in the subject matter will actually regularly read the emails. That said, they will give you real feedback.

3) Interest based groups like fb groups can help sometimes

4) twitter - when i participate in the conversation regularly, this can help a lot actually.

5) Rmr what I said about high quality content - Some people actually contacted me about my SS and wanted to talk on the phone/zoom etc. They usually shared the site with their friends/audience after our conversation. One linked me from their blog which drove a lot of traffic. I think this is a great way if you can make it happen.

Overall, I find I have a good sign up rate from folks interested in investing + innovation, and people interested in investing with options.

If you're interested, check it out:

[http://playingfordoubles.substack.com/](http://playingfordoubles.substack.com/)

Anyway good luck!

<comment><USER3> Checked out your substack. Well done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> \- I unfriended all of my friends from HS and college I would never connect with again, or we're on the same career path, this got me down to a few hundred. This step is important because when FB shows your post to people, and they don't engage, it kills reach.

\- I joined all of the relevant Facebook Groups. Maybe 25% of the ones I joined were worth staying in.

\- I added thousands of people doing cool stuff in the same space

\- I optimized my Facebook profile to get link clicks to my blog

\- I created an in-content CTA to download a template

\- And a bottom bar that promoted my Facebook Group

The more I add value in relevant groups and on my own profile, the more of my target audience investigates who I am, sees my FB profile CTA, click my link, get on my email list and join my Facebook Group.

Then all these people engage with my new content.

</comment><comment><USER3> I started a substack one month ago after a couple of friends asked me to share my ideas and insights. I read a lot of books and have a wide interest across business, finance, technology and personal development. This has enabled me create content so far.

For the time being, marketing my blog has been through friends and family members.

I also get views straight from google. I think the title of a post sometimes brings more organic views from google.

For me right now, my goal is to output great content to the world. Great content comes from an intersection of reading a lot, observing the world and interacting with the world.

If anyone is interested, check it out. [https://leveragethoughts.substack.com/](https://leveragethoughts.substack.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Really cool newsletter

<comment><USER3> Thank you. Please share it with your friends and family that might enjoy it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I mostly write for myself. The few times my posts have gained traction have been through hashtags on Twitter, or being retweeted by a relevant account. For example, Netlify retweeted my post about moving from WordPress to Jekyll.

I have an older post on Medium related to Django migrations that seems to get passed around on Reddit. If newer posts are relevant, I will occasionally post them to sub-Reddits.

</comment><comment><USER6> I began writing my substack[1] less than a month ago.

Have about 159 free subscribers + 10 paid.

I just write. Then, I post it here + subreddits. Sometimes, it got noticed (or not).

Surprisingly, I see much traffic from Google.

I have from 1k to 10k views within the first 24 hours. Nothing huge so far.

[1][https://codarium.substack.com/](https://codarium.substack.com/)

<comment><USER7> Interesting premise.

How to sell your work when all you know is a backend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Some articles I have authored are about specific questions related to things I am interested in. I subscribe to subreddits related to these subjects and when someone asks a question related to a question I have already written about, I point them to my article in a comment.

</comment><comment><USER7> Is the advertising revenue still worth it?

I read a while back, years ago, that you need something like 100 blog articles, before your site reaches critical mass, and where you can make some decent advertising revenue.

There was a blog website that just talked about things like space launches, and stories about outer space. It only published like 3 blogs a week. And most of the articles were rehashes of what Reuters published, so it wasn't anything really insightful or investigative. It was just some random person's individual opinion on the matter.

And it was pulling in something like $250,000 to $400,000 USD or so, annually. This is not significant for a business of course, but it might be enough to sustain one person, maybe two. And possibly gain yourself financial independence.

<comment><USER9> 400k usd is a really large amount of money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I like Ahrefs for things like this:

[https://youtu.be/C5ddo63kHHI](https://youtu.be/C5ddo63kHHI)

</comment><comment><USER11> Know your niche, feed them targeted ads, outsource the spam?

</comment><comment><USER12> Okay

<comment><USER12> Hola

<comment><USER12> Yoo

<comment><USER13> Yellow</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Nanosatellites part of Endeavour payload - <AUTHOR> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/05/space-shuttle-endeavour-launch-minisatellites-.html

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a technology I've been watching for the last 15 years. Once you reach a particular amount of compute at the scale of a playing card, you start having the ability to create 'meta' satellites out of clusters. Thin whisker like conductors trailing like long cilia beyond one of these can use the magnetic field of the earth to do station keeping and move around without fuel (using only electricity from solar cells to add charge to the whiskers.)

The 'smart dust' people and others are working along these lines and could create a new market for satellite delivery which consists of filling various voids in an otherwise 'full' launch with nano-satellites which, once deployed, would work their way toward the rest of the group and then join into their network.

</comment><comment><USER2> What would be the implications for space junk in orbit? Is lots of dust-size stuff more dangerous (would spread over a wider volume, or is it just like having a normal satellite but only most of it is empty space)?

</comment><comment><USER3> It still seems like a long way off, but I'm quite convinced that model rocketry's "sputnik moment" is coming.</comment>


Ask HN Dropbox cloud storage service with one Amazon Fire Phone as backend? - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/How-practical-is-it-to-offer-cloud-storage-service-with-one-Amazon-Fire-Phone

<comment><USER2> Against the terms:

 _You may not use the Service to store, transfer or distribute content of or on behalf of third parties, to operate your own file storage application or service, or to resell any part of the Service._

[http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId=...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId=201376540&ref_=cd_tou_fp)</comment>


Ask YC: What is the average growth, in terms of traffic, for a startup? - <AUTHOR>

We all know success stories of startups that became big overnight. But how it goes in regular cases? <comment><USER2> "startups that became big overnight" most overnight successes I've seen have been a 3+ year timeline.

Your question is too vague without knowing things like the application target/purpose, number of users and pricing model, and what a page is made up of (in terms of bytes and server load (ie: database driven, are db queries heavy as reads, writes or both? Are any objects cachable?).

Also, how are you looking to measure the growth? CPU ticks consumed per page load over time? Server costs per month? Bandwidth? DB storage growth? User registrations? Unique page views?

Maybe it's just me, but the more I read your question, the more vague it seems :)

</comment><comment><USER3> for your average "good idea" startup targeting an average niche market, one to two years with a two founder team until you're in the black (i.e. you're making more than business expenses + a reasonable living).

edit: even the popular websites take that long. for example, it really took digg.com 1-2 years to become substantially popular. reddit came in about a year after digg started and caught the same wave, so it took less time for them to become substantially popular.

<comment><AUTHOR> What you mean "the black", in terms of traffic, page views, uniques etc.? The business expenses vary, as well as what you mean by "reasonable living" (depends on the state a lot).

<comment><USER3> yes, everything depends. being "in the black" depends on your business plan, operating costs, cost of living, etc..

the only real indicator of a "past this point, you're successful" is when you start making more money than you're spending on expenses and paying yourself and your other employees/founders as a reasonable salary.

and even then, it is not necessarily the case that after you pass that point, you'll be successful forever. things can change.

<comment><AUTHOR> But this is obvious and is not what I'm asking for.

What I'm asking for is your experience with traffic. When you launched the site, how many users you had initially, what is the average monthly growth and such stuff.

<comment><USER4> I think stating an average grown is a very difficult thing to do but probably slightly above 1%.

Thats taking into account the few sites that blow up huge quickly, the other sites that gradually grow and the vast vast majority that never grow.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Indian ISP won't let its users use strong encryption - <AUTHOR> https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/07/indian-isp-wont-let-users-use-128-bit-256-bit-encryption/ <comment><USER2> So wrap your good encryption in another layer of 40bit encryption. If they call you on it you can prove conclusively that 40bit encryption doesn't work.

</comment><comment><USER3> You broadband is one of the best ISPs in India. Probably after ACT. One of the first companies to invest in fiber optic cable and changed the internet landscape in India.

This screen shot came up in r/india a few days ago. They aren't really enforcing any such caps on encryption. It's a case of an outdated TOS, which was more likely a copy-paste job, where neither the copywriter nor the one who approved it, had no idea of what they are talking about.

</comment><comment><USER4> Used You Broadband a few years ago. Awesome service. Had no problems whatsoever with the level of encryption of anything. This is most probably an outdated law requiring them to have this clause. I am pretty sure banking rules and regulations require a much stronger encryption. So the law is at odds with itself :/

<comment><AUTHOR> The interesting bit is...

> ...the Department of Telecommunications, to forbid individuals, groups, and > organizations from using encryption with keys stronger than 40 bits _without > permission_. Instead of asking the regulators for this permission to allow > its users to actually utilize viable encryption key lengths without > violating the user policy, YOU Broadband has elected to pass on the 15 year > old rule on encryption – essentially making the use of encryption online > against the rules of the ISP and a potential reason to lose service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can't really complain at an ISP who requires (but doesn't technically enforce) their customers to meet the local law...

<comment><USER6> Of course one can complain. The way I read the article, they've used them as an example because of their size, and to make it concrete. Putting pressure on ISPs gives ISPs a reason to put pressure on government.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> So you can not access any site that uses TLS?

<comment><AUTHOR> You can, but you're in breach of contract and they can disconnect you anytime based on this. Furthermore you may lose any other rights as a consumer due to this.

<comment><USER8> This is crazy. Might be time to revist "chaffing" and see if it's possible to warp that into working as vpn and/or tls/ssl wrapper/replacement? (Or of course, due the usual thing and work politically to get crazy legislation off the books....).

[https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/Chaffing.txt](https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/Chaffing.txt)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Will "Swift developer" ever be a job title? - <AUTHOR>

Hey guys,<p>I keep seeing posts on Swift and I am trying to figure out what its purpose is. I know it is a new language but is it an Objective-C replacement or more of something that should/can be used alongside Objective-C? Another question, where does this leave beginners? Will job positions for junior iOS devs require Objective-C and Swift knowledge or could one get by with just Swift knowledge? <comment><USER2> It's a replacement for Objective-C, but you can mix and match code in the same project.

You'll need to know both, at least for the time being - many open source libraries are written in Objective-C, so if you need to make tweaks, you'll need to understand Objective-C. Also, a lot of existing tutorials aren't written for Swift.

One really important thing to note is that even though the languages are different, the underlying iOS/OS X libraries and frameworks are the same. The hard part isn't really learning the syntax of the language, it's understanding how to accomplish what you want. For instance, showing pins on a map or displaying items in a collection view.

FWIW, I teach iOS app development, and I think that beginners should learn Objective-C, not just Swift.

<comment><AUTHOR> This post was really informative and pretty much answered everything, thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Beginners should comprehend essentials of Objective-C first and then learn Swift. At first there will be demand for Objective-C since a lot of companies already use it. But over time it should change in favour of Swift (more aggressive promotion by Apple).

Swift is a replacement for Objective-C in Apple world. But that doesn't mean Objective-C is going anywhere. It has rich ecosystem and experienced developers all over the world. You can create application using both languages simultaneously which allows you to use mature libraries or frameworks in Swift.

Language is a tool. Companies don't hire programmers for knowledge of specified language but for the ability to solve problems.

</comment><comment><USER4> Some jobs will require Swift, some Objective-C, some both and some neither. The best Junior jobs will realize they should require neither and hire the best general programmer, which is what I have always done.

Senior developers only need Obj-C for now, but should be learning Swift already.</comment>


As police move to adopt body cams, storage costs set to skyrocket - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworld.com/article/2979627/cloud-storage/as-police-move-to-adopt-body-cams-storage-costs-set-to-skyrocket.html <comment><USER2> I think police body cameras are needed but I don't understand the need to retain all of this data for months or years. These body cams are probably going to pick up a lot of people whether they are involved or not with the police activities being recorded. Storing all this data indefinitely is likely create huge privacy problems going forward.

I think the data should only be retained if it is relevant to a serious incident (say where someone was killed or seriously injured or felony charges are filed) or to a complaint that is filed in a timely manner. I would think an appropriate storage time would be from 2 weeks to 1 month. That should be enough time to assess whether an investigation is likely to be opened requiring the data and if complaints are filed outside of this window in cases not involving serious consequences, I don't think I'd see a problem with those complaints being time barred.

I realize this can also be a problem with other surveillance cameras but many of those are under private control and so not directly accessible to government or to hackers, by being stored in one place. Also, I may be wrong but I doubt most surveillance cameras are recording the video for long periods of time.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wonder how much Taser is adding to the overhead. With Glacier, it would cost $50 to store a terabyte of video, and an additional $250 to download it all given a 48 hour window.</comment>


The removal of road markings is to be celebrated. We are safer without them - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/removal-road-markings-safer-fewer-accidents-drivers <comment><USER5> IMO these findings that roads are safer without markings, or by being narrower are because drivers have a heightened level of attention and focus when they encounter something unexpected. When they are widespread and commonplace the accident rate will go past that of wide/marked roads. For a fair comparison, if you compared a country with wide/marked streets to a country where narrow/unmarked streets are commonplace (Mexico for example) you'd find marked/wide is much safer.

<comment><USER6> I suspect that there would also be some negative effect of consistently increasing the cognitive load associated with driving, as opposed to looking at performance on specific roads on which a given driver probably only spends a small portion of their total drive time. At some point, I would expect the detriment of mental fatigue to outstrip the benefit of "forcing" people to pay attention.

<comment><USER7> When I drive and see a huge truck driving at high speed from the opposite direction, I tell myself "just keep your lane, he will keep his lane too, and it will be fine" (and I probably unconsciously slow down a bit). Without the lanes I'd probably feel a bit less comfortable.

On the other hand: having visited a number of EU countries, IMO the UK seems to have 2-3x more clutter on the roads (lanes, texts for drivers and pedestrians and what not) than any other of them. They have texts everywhere!

<comment><USER8> Feeling less comfortable is exactly the point :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There are so many fallacies here that it's hard to know where to start. Others already pointed out the possibility that these effects are a short-lived result of the change in policy.

> Research has shown that removing white lines induces uncertainty and thus > cuts vehicle speeds by 13%.

Not paving roads would decrease vehicle speeds, too. Adding obstructions to windshields would also likely increase uncertainty and cut vehicle speeds. But neither decreasing vehicle speeds nor maximizing safety is the singular goal of the road system, and the article seems to completely miss that.

> Rules, controls, signs, traffic lights all reduce our awareness of our > surroundings and thus our sense of danger.

Even if true, I would expect that rules and signals afford us much more predictive power about nearby moving objects, which could be far more valuable than an increased a sense of danger.

> A crossing is where everyone should be watching everyone else, but everyone > is watching the lights. They are awaiting orders. When given them, they > assume all is safe and crash on.

If everyone's watching and obeying the lights, then how do the crashes happen?

Of course, they happen because of the people not obeying the lights. What reason is there to believe that the same driver who would run a red light (by accident or otherwise) would generally make better ad-hoc judgments without the light?

You could argue that drivers already obeying traffic lights could also avoid accidents by also watching other drivers, but they can already do that. You can argue that removing the lights will force them to do that, but it's not clear that's a _net_ positive (i.e., would ad-hoc human decisions really be better on average?). That argument would also undermine the article's claim that the existing system of lights represents our attachment to the nanny state.

<comment><USER10> >If everyone's watching and obeying the lights, then how do the crashes happen?

You can obey lights and stop signs and still run over a walker who is obeying the law. Turning right on a red is terrible for this reason (many drivers never even look right before the turn, assuming only cars from their left merit consideration). Cyclists get right hooked when drivers blindly turn when the light tells them it's ok.

<comment><USER9> That's certainly true. I thought the article focused more on car-car crashes, but those are obviously important, too. It seems like the considerations in suburban and rural areas are fairly different than urban areas.

<comment><USER10> Protecting everyone is important, but at this point we think disproportionately about people in cars when considering safety. We should be looking at the fact you are vastly more likely to be killed per mile walking or riding than driving. This despite the fact that walking (or cycling) don't even involve hurtling yourself through space at 60mph. (For motorcycles it's not a huge surprise to see higher morbidity, of course, since you combine high speeds AND lack of protection).

In short, we've made driving a car safe, possibly by making it really easy to die doing anything but driving a car. Making drivers nervous, slow, and cautious should help with this. (Correlation =\= causation, I realize). How safe do you feel crossing a busy street with an uncontrolled crosswalk? I hate it - drivers don't actually understand they're supposed to stop. How about bicycling on public roads? Waiting in stop and go traffic on your motorcycle hoping the person texting behind you doesn't pancake you between them and the truck in front of you? (This is a good reason to lane split, btw, or at least adopt a lane position such that if you are hit you get thrown into empty space and not a vehicle).

On a motorcycle you're thirty times as likely to die per mile as you are in a car. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety)

On a bicycle you're twice as likely to die _per trip_ - the rate per mile is much higher since people tend to cycle shorter distances than they drive. [http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6431a1.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6431a1.htm)

Pedestrian data is hard to gather well since people don't log walking miles like driving miles, but they are also more likely to die per trip, and again, since people walk shorter distances than they drive, almost certainly more likely to die per mile;

"...Pedestrians are over-represented in the crash data, accounting for 14 percent of all traffic fatalities but only 10.9 percent of trips.... "

"In 2013, 4,735 pedestrians and 743 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts). " [http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm](http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> When cycling in a painted cycle lane I am consistently treated far worse than when cycling on a road without one. Well, used to be. I no longer cycle in them at all - I am forced to use the entire lane because it is unsafe to use a painted cycle lane. I'd rather get beeped at by one motorist than be endangered by five close passes.

Edit: I am in the UK, and usually cycle in towns.

<comment><USER12> Cyclists like you make people like me vote against pro-cyclist laws. You have no moral right to slow down all traffic on a road to the speed of your calves because you feel unsafe in your designated lane, and I hope you soon have no legal right to do that.

<comment><USER13> You forget that most often such a lane is as wide as a bicycle + 10 cm on each side. Meaning that if a car passes fast enough it could even push the cyclist around just with its air flow. Plus, at lower speeds bikes tend to go less than straight, so there is a fairly real danger of bumping into, e.g. the mirror on a car. Additionally a cyclist is obligated to handle things coming at him from between parked cars and such, which is really tricky since a cyclist is often much closer to those than a driving car. Those and more i don't have in mind right now are plenty important reasons why taking a lane can make traffic safer for everyone.

Having been in the situation often enough, i can also tell you: I wouldn't mind if cars passed by me in narrow situations if they slowed down while doing so, but more often than not, cars pass by at full speed instead.

Lastly, keep in mind that this situation only happens in narrow side streets, not on big streets with better separated traffic flows.

Sport cyclists taking a whole lane while ignoring a dedicated bike path are just assholes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There's a less-proselytizing piece about Monderman in a 2004 Wired: [http://www.wired.com/2004/12/traffic/](http://www.wired.com/2004/12/traffic/)

<comment><USER15> Good article, and apparently not one that has been discussed on HN before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Lane marker detection is one of the ways that computer vision is being incorporated into vehicles in order to make them autonomous.

<comment><USER17> Isn't this already mapped out? For all of its other faults, I know HERE Maps has a feature to warn you if you're above the speed limit.

<comment><USER18> GPS isn't accurate enough to keep a car in the right lane. You need maybe 0.5m resolution for that, and GPS only gives you 3m or so.

<comment><USER17> Sorry, mixed up. Somehow thought he/she was talking about the signs and such.

<comment><USER18> Gotcha. Cameras are good for those too. You can get speed limits and such from databases, but they may be out of date. A camera is guaranteed to see the latest every time. For an extreme example, the interstate closest to me has dynamic speed limits at peak times. My car can pick up the current limit with the camera, but a database lookup obviously couldn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Perhaps one can take the notion of "fewer markings = fewer accidents" in a different way- perhaps it's simply the number of things to look it is more than humans can handle.

The town I grew up in is about a 10 minute drive from the main highway, along a country road. Between the highway and the town there are something like 50+ signs, in a 15km stretch.

Local attractions promoted by the local government; speed limits; directions to various villages and towns; that this road was recently improved by the Provincial Government (sign coincidentally in the most recent political party's favourite colour); warning that there's a traffic light up ahead; oh don't forget you're on provincial road #whatever.

The result is one of two things: you either spend too many brain cycles focusing on them (and not the road), or you completely ignore all of them (possibly to your detriment).

I anxiously await the coming of the autonomous vehicle so that these problems go away.

</comment><comment><USER20> The author hints at, but does not point to, data that correlates motorcycle helmets laws with higher accidents. That is counter to recent research which supports the standard view that helmet laws save lives: [https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-cost-of- repealing-m...](https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-cost-of-repealing- mandatory-motorcycle-helmet-laws/)

Short version: after repealing helmet laws in Michigan, they have seen higher injury severity and mortality.

<comment><USER21> The research you are thinking of concerns bycicles, not motorcycles - <USER2> risks are an order of magnitude apart.

<comment><USER20> I think you are mistaken. This is the quote from the article I am responding to: "Adams has figures to prove that countries – indeed US states – that do not require motorbike helmets have fewer biking accidents than those that do."

The research I linked to is also about motorcycles.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's kind of hard to believe the same remains true in heavy rain, in the dark. I find that even the absence (or poor maintenance of) cat's eyes can be problematic then.

<comment><USER23> People would then be driving very very slowly which would have the same effect. You wouldn't believe it, but my friend drove 90 mph in fog so thick you couldn't see 10 feet out. This is because he had road markers and assumed the other drivers had their lights on so he would see them. If there were no road markers he'd be driving 30 mph.

<comment><USER24> Your friend sounds like he has a death wish! People, animals and large objects don't have headlamps.

<comment><USER23> It was on a freeway, but it's true, we were in danger. The point is, if it wasn't a divided freeway he wouldn't dare.

<comment><USER25> And now we know how 17-car pile-ups become 18-car pile-ups.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> There are a few examples of councils poorly implementing shared spaces. Any crossings are removed (pedestrians are supposed to be able to just cross anywhere at any time without waiting); but car drivers don't change their behaviour. It's a bit of a problem, especially for people with visual impairment.

<comment><USER27> There's a passing reference to accessibility in the article.

It's probably like a lot of things, the takeaway doesn't need to be the extreme that safety features on roads are bad, it can be that each safety feature on a given road should be evaluated as to whether it is truly beneficial.

(Which I think is sort of banal thought, oh well)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I drive full speed on a highway with a traffic light, so when it's green I go through at about 55 mph. I get a little nervous because a wreck at that speed would not be fun.

If that traffic light were removed I would go a lot slower through that intersection, as would most people. Perhaps there would be fewer wrecks, and at low speeds any wrecks certainly would be less harmful.

But that would come at the expense of backing up that highway.

Some road design decisions are made to facilitate speed and throughput, not safety.

<comment><USER29> That's why in some countries streets with limits faster than 40mph have to be fully grade separated from the rest.

Especially for streets with no limit it's useful to separate them, or people literally fly through the streets.

<comment> steve-howard I doubt that's practical in the US. The country has many miles of state highways (and the older US Routes; US 41 north of Chicago is a popular bypass for a toll road) for which a limited-access road with no at-grade intersections is far too expensive to be worth it, but traffic is light enough that a 55 or 65 mile per hour speed limit is reasonable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is one of those non-intuitive findings - like that study which showed bicycle helmets increase bicycle accidents due to increased risk taking - <USER3> I refuse to believe.

<comment><USER31> And people who buy insurance are more likely to drive/act recklessly?

<comment><USER32> Everyone who drives has to buy insurance (except for those few who are too poor/just don't care/etc), so I'm not sure that's a valid comparison.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I support that removing markings is fine for areas that are lower traffic or lower speed: country back-roads, neighborhoods, etc.

I'm highly dubious that it's a good idea for high capacity or high speed areas. I cannot even begin to imagine how effective the over capacity freeways in the Seattle metro area would be without their stripes. Nor can I imagine what other major metro areas would experience.

</comment><comment><USER34> Today, people get upset when the car ahead of them is driving 25 in a 25mph zone. I mean, how dare this idiot ahead of them slow them up on their way to the Walmart?

In the unmarked road case, people will eventually learn to act in their own self interest, which probably means zooming around the slowpoke.

This will result in (a) very little, (b) a head on collision (c) the sudden termination of the 8 year old that was riding their bike in the road - <USER4> is why the original idiot was driving at 25 in the first place.

There's a solution that takes the best of both worlds: clearly marked and enforceable road markings made to deliberately slow traffic by requiring more attentiveness:

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569375/Council- clai...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569375/Council-claims- painted-white-lines-middle-road-wonky-ON-PURPOSE-slow-traffic-reduce-risk- accidents.html)

I seem to recall hearing about this approach in the mid 90s; I wonder if it came about as part of the same research mentioned in the article.

</comment><comment><USER35> Urban real-estate is expensive and valuable terrain, so wasting it on wide lanes that encourage fast traffic in places where fast traffic is the opposite of what you want (eg. where people live and walk and bike) should be an obviously bad idea.

I'm iffy about the removal of lane marking in all but quiet residential roads, but I'm definitely onboard with narrower lanes.

</comment><comment><USER36> I wonder if unmarked roads would make the development of self-driving cars more challenging or less challenging.

</comment><comment><USER37> >removing white lines induces uncertainty and thus cuts vehicle speeds by 13%

Surely that effect is temporary?

</comment><comment><USER38> Its a very high load on brain, because you have to make decision on every road. Also, its unclear how you handle insurance cases. In some countries road hog's insurance company pays money for recovery. Without clear rules its gonna be a mess.

</comment><comment><USER39> Some how I really doubt that Mondarman ever drove in DC traffic. To say that without other indicators, drivers will seek to look other drivers in the eye definitely wouldn't work around here.

</comment><comment><USER40> This article pulls me both ways, because on the one hand I sympathize strongly with the libertarian idea that people should be left to judge their own risk, but on the other hand I don't buy the argument that the only reason for having white lines on roads, traffic signals, etc., is nanny-state control of people's behavior rather than letting them judge their own risk.

To me, the lines on the road and the traffic signals are not there to make me feel safe; they're there to provide Schelling points. If I have two-way traffic on a road with no line down the middle, how do I know where the division between lanes is? And more importantly, how do I know all the other drivers will think it's in the same place I think it is? The line is a simple solution to that problem. Similarly, if I come to an intersection and there is a 4-way stop sign, how do I know when it's my turn? And more importantly, how do I know all the other drivers will think it's my turn when I think it is? Traffic lights are a simple solution to that problem. The article just assumes that the root cause of accidents is drivers behaving recklessly, rather than drivers making different judgments about where boundaries are. But it presents no data to support that.

Also, at the end of the article, we get this:

"Traffic engineers, who maim and kill us with their regulations, lights and paint pots, merely go on dreaming up ever more of them. They pretend they are making our lives safer when they are doing the exact opposite. And we let them."

This suggests a completely different root cause of the problem: the people who put the boundaries and regulations in place bear no responsibility if they turn out to be badly placed. If that really is the root cause, the solution is obvious: make the people who place the boundaries--the traffic engineers-- legally liable for making the boundaries function properly. If painted lines down the middle of the road, or traffic lights, increase accidents, make the traffic engineers pay. That would give them an incentive to only make regulations that are net benefits. But of course the article does not talk about such a solution at all; it only talks about fighting one one-size-fits- all regulation with another.

Btw, I am not advocating the above solution; I am merely saying that it is a logical consequence of the observation I quoted from the article. To me, the correct solution to what the article claims is the problem--lack of incentive for personal responsibility--is to increase the incentive for personal responsibility. You don't do that by removing obvious Schelling points for coordinating behavior, like lines on roads and traffic signals. You do that by making people suffer the consequences of wrong decisions. If you are at fault in an accident, your insurance company should raise your rates. If you are at fault in a serious enough accident, you might not be able to afford to drive at all. If we have a problem with personal responsibility in our society, it's because we refuse to acknowledge that responsibility has to work that way if it is to work at all.

<comment><USER34>
      people suffer the consequences of wrong decisions. If you are at fault in an accident, your insurance company should raise your rates

How do you establish at- fault behavior on unmarked roads? if there are no markings, and I'm supposed to just "do the right thing", then by definition I can not be at fault because my actions were entirely performed within the framework of the unmarked road constraint.

Of course, there is a solution to this: universal, publicly funded ( via use taxes ) auto insurance.

I suppose another alternative would be to re-establish private toll roads. (In the US these are quite rare, although there are some public toll roads.).

Pay extra for roads that are marked and patrolled. (In that case, reduced price insurance could be purchased at the time of paying the toll.)

<comment><USER40> _> How do you establish at- fault behavior on unmarked roads?_

I was not advocating unmarked roads. The article does, but I don't. Being able to establish fault is another aspect of the road markings being Schelling points--everybody knows that if they jump the line they're at fault.

 _> If there are no markings, and I'm supposed to just "do the right thing", then by definition I can not be at fault_

The above notwithstanding, I don't think this is correct. It's not impossible to assign fault without road markings; it's just a lot more difficult, and the assignment is a lot more likely to cause conflict between the parties.

 _> there is a solution to this: universal, publicly funded ( via use taxes ) auto insurance._

I don't understand how this solves the problem. If anything, it seems to me it would reduce drivers' incentives to correctly judge risk.

 _> I suppose another alternative would be to re-establish private toll roads._

This would help with the incentives of the traffic engineer, yes. I'm not sure how it would help with the incentives of the driver.

Also, the problem with any privatized road system is that competition in roads is difficult; roads are not commodities. Good road rights of way are determined by geography, not the market. This is one of those cases where even if an optimal solution exists, it's not one that can be reached in the absence of an omnipotent divine being.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Will this also hold for driverless cars?

<comment><USER42> Not for Tesla [http://www.wired.com/2015/10/tesla-self-driving-over-air- upd...](http://www.wired.com/2015/10/tesla-self-driving-over-air-update-live/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I think what we'd all actually be safer without is super smart academic types who think they can do a better job of system design than 100 years of shared experience. Traffic rules are among the most organic constraints we have developed. Literally every rule was written in blood. When I was teaching my daughters to drive I told them that if they ignored a stop sign, or ran a traffic light, they were not only putting their own lives and the lives of others at risk, they were also disrespecting the memories of the people who were maimed or killed so that we could realize we needed a traffic signal or sign in that spot.

Automated vehicles will solve this entire problem, and in the meantime I'll go with what we've learned by, you know, actually driving over academic theorizing.

<comment><USER27> The article discusses (positive) real world outcomes of reducing traffic controls.

<comment><USER43> No the article discusses observed phenomena and attributes their cause to what the author wishes the cause to be, without, as far as I could see, any real evidence.</comment></comment></comment>


Cello: Higher Level Programming in C - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/orangeduck/Cello <comment><USER2> Now this looks like an assortment of terrible hacks that I'd never want to use.

Good job though.

</comment><comment><USER3> I am currently working on a compiler that emits C and have been looking for something along these lines.

I'll definitely look into this!

</comment><comment><USER4> Very impressive! Especially the fact that it only uses macros (if I parse the website correctly).

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not just macros. See the src directory [https://github.com/orangeduck/Cello/tree/master/src](https://github.com/orangeduck/Cello/tree/master/src)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> for me this takes the fun out of C, however, it's pretty cool project full of neat tricks to learn form if you want to know what C can do or how to implement certain high level constructs in your own projects. good job!</comment>


I Was Wrong, and So Are You - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/12/i-was-wrong-and-so-are-you/8713/

<comment><USER2> I don't understand the methodology undertaken in this study.

The whole point of having political ideologies is that you believe yours is correct.

They asked politically polarizing questions to conservatives and liberals, and each answered according to their beliefs. It's not so much confirmation/myside bias, as it is confusion about truth.

This study required the authors to have objective truth measures for all the questions asked. How were those truths obtained?

It's completely irrational for people to believe in things that are known, objectively to be untrue. Basically all the author has done is shown that politics based on ideology is irrational, since ideologies lead people to disagree with known true facts.</comment>


Cloudkick + Zencoder deal for $17 on AppSumo - <AUTHOR> http://appsumo.com/yc-week-combo-deal/

<comment><USER2> For those not ready for a larger server plan, we do offer a free-forever Developer plan ... <https://www.cloudkick.com/developers>

</comment><comment><USER3> Does the Zencoder credit expire?

<comment><USER4> Nope. Use it as long as your Zencoder account is active.</comment></comment>


Google News needs a rethink; this is definitely not a 'top story.' - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/extra/2011/mar/08/international-womens-day-offer

<comment><AUTHOR> _Celebrate International Women's Day with our book offer

To mark 100 years of International Women's Day, Extra members can get a 50% discount on Women of the Revolution. Edited by Kira Cochrane, this is a lively and witty collection, the essential guide to the feminist thinking and writing of the past 40 years_

100 years of International women's day is a landmark. But this is a coupon, not a news story. I know, I make a post like this every month, as if they owed me something. But this is where Yahoo was when I first discovered Google in ~1998. It's just news, not Google in general. But I care about the news and find the inability to customize my feed to any meaningful degree increasingly frustrating.</comment>


The secret of IKEA's success  - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/18229400?story_id=18229400&fsrc=rss

<comment><USER2> I can't remember how many case studies I've read about Ikea through my Supply Chain Management program, but it's a lot.

After taking those courses, it's such a wonder walking through the store. They really do try their hardest to pack everything in long flat boxes to cut down on transit costs, which has saved them a ton of money as oil costs rise.

This is an interesting article in regards to their structure and its financial implications. Thanks for the read!</comment>


In Codd, we trust: An Introduction to PostgREST - <AUTHOR> https://samkhawase.com/blog/postgrest_introduction/ <comment><USER2> What a coincidence, I literally saw the comment on the Supabase thread about PostgREST yesterday. I wonder how does this handle server side tasks like sending emails etc?</comment>