In Colorado, opioid deaths fall following marijuana legalization - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/16/legal-marijuana-is-saving-lives-in-colorado-study-finds/ <comment><USER2> There's no evidence that this was due to legalizing marijuana. It's more likely due to first responder's greater access to naloxone.

"In April 2015, Colorado passed a new law, Senate Bill 15-053, expanding access to the life- saving drug naloxone, which is used to reverse overdoses to narcotic drugs, such as certain prescription medications and heroin. ... An individual at risk of overdose."

<comment><USER3> While this is true, there are quite a few stories, where heroine users write about becoming clean with the use of cannabis. Just search [https://www.reddit.com/r/trees](https://www.reddit.com/r/trees) and see for yourself if you doubt that.

Also, if you have the numbers of calls to ambulance, you might see a drop there too. But maybe that's also not enough evidence for you.

<comment><USER4> No, it's not. It's very dangerous to draw correlations like these(i.e. see all the "crime going down"/"crime going up" explanations) because of the huge potential for noise; it's not like we only take one societal decision per year to be able to measure its actual effects.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Comparing the impacts of recreational marijuana laws on opioid deaths seems tricky to me. While there may be correlations I'm not sure there is enough to infer causation.

I'd say they'd want to focus more on the effects of the arrest rates going down. I think that is where you are going to see the biggest positive changes.

That said I think we still need to see marijuanna as a health danger. Much like smoking tobacco, long term irritation of your lungs is not a good thing. I hear a lot of people calling marijuanna a cure all and remember my grandmother telling me how she was told to start smoking as a cure to her anxiety. Not the same, but this was something she told me as I was watching her die slowly from a lifetime of smoking.

<comment><USER6> I agree that smoking in general is probably harmful; marijuana can be vaporized, though, which seems like a good alternative.

One thing that worries me is that, at least around here, teenagers and young adults will often stretch the marijuana they can afford by mixing it with tobacco (from cigarettes). That's another reason for legalization: you get to actually impose rules on sellers, like giving away bags of more healthy filler herbs. Try doing that with the street dealer!

<comment><USER7> Or it could be they aren't stretching and simply taking lessons from other parts of the world, in which marijuana is usually mixed with tobacco or a herbal smoke blend. This is in part because it burns better and more completely and not really due to wanting to stretch their supply.

That said, there is no reason to force folks into giving away healthier filler herbs. Tax tobacco more, fine, but folks can buy their own fillers. And honestly, without testing the safety of the fillers, there isn't a real way to know how the safety compares to tobacco, especially if folks aren't using tobacco daily or regularly.

<comment><USER6> _Or it could be they aren 't stretching and simply taking lessons from other parts of the world, in which marijuana is usually mixed with tobacco or a herbal smoke blend. This is in part because it burns better and more completely and not really due to wanting to stretch their supply._

Well, yes, my friends and the other people in their social groups could be lying to me for some mysterious reason, but barring further evidence, I'm going to believe them. It's true that tobacco burns better, but the general agreement is that they would smoke pure marijuana if they could.

 _That said, there is no reason to force folks into giving away healthier filler herbs. Tax tobacco more, fine, but folks can buy their own fillers._

Fair enough. Just having it available at the shop, even if people had to buy them, would be a great improvement. Currently it's not easy to find around here.

 _And honestly, without testing the safety of the fillers, there isn 't a real way to know how the safety compares to tobacco, especially if folks aren't using tobacco daily or regularly._

Right, so we should test them.

<comment><USER7> _Well, yes, my friends and the other people in their social groups could be lying to me for some mysterious reason, but barring further evidence, I 'm going to believe them. It's true that tobacco burns better, but the general agreement is that they would smoke pure marijuana if they could_

It doesn't mean _your friends_ are lying. Sure, some folks could do that. My circle surely never mixed the two - we were more likely to mix pot and cheap alcohol to make the pot last a bit longer. The other point does exist in different pot cultures, just like some folks use slightly different tools to smoke.

<comment><USER6> Right, hence my initial "at least around here" :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Agree with others in this thread: it's a tough correlation to demonstrate reliably.

HOWEVER, keep in mind that the prior for large parts of the country's leadership is still "OMG WEED IS A GATEWAY TO OPIODS" drug-warrior nonsense. This data certainly makes that interpretation less plausible.

<comment><USER9> > This data certainly makes that interpretation less plausible.

I still think that because it is possible that people will use weed instead of heron that it makes "nonsense" that people that start using one drug for personal pleasure won't use other drugs for personal pleasure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What's interesting is the fact that the opioid crisis is a result of a couple of ultra-rich guys wanting to be even richer. Trump appears to be surrounded by people who are willing to sacrifice public health for their private excessive wealth. [0]

It would be nice if common people understood why their health care system makes fun of them (and why cheap and powerful substances such as psilocybin, MDMA, LSD are actively being blocked from receiving the required research funding).

[0] [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us- canada-41643080](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41643080)

<comment><USER11> Trump was the one who socialized payments to drug companies? I thought that was GWB (part D) and Obama (ACA)?

<comment><USER12> The current "headline" story being referred to here centers around drug companies deliberately lobbying Congress to ensure that the DEA's ability to suspend suspicious opioid orders was weakened (the "Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act"). The Washington Post and 60 Minutes broke the story -- [https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/investigations/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/investigations/dea- drug-industry-congress/)

The story concerns legislation and lobbying between 2014 and 2016, eg, legislation passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Barack Obama. Joseph Rannazzisi, who used to run the DEA's diversion control before "retiring" due to conflict over this very issue, seems to be the big driving force in the reporting.

It does seem that Mr. Rannazzisi riled Congress and pharma companies with his characterizations and rather aggressive stance (for instance, in the article, Mr. Rannazzisi characterized the main difference between pharma execs and heroin / cocaine dealers is that they "didn't have a class ring on their finger from a prestigious university"). From my viewpoint, though, Mr. Rannazzisi's views are quite justified.

To be fair: there is another side to the story, as mentioned in older articles on this. ( [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/opioid-dea- ad...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/opioid-dea- addiction.html) ). Some balance does need to exist between people who legitimately need opioids for pain management. Still, the article suggests that there is far too cozy of a relationship between pharmaceutical companies and Congress. The fact that the response to this article seems to be a lot of backpedaling, nominee withdrawals, and "no comments" suggests to me there's a huge amount of truth in it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> That looks more like noise than something I'd be willing to bet on. Previous years, within that same graph exhibit similar trends to what the highlighted "downward" portion shows.

<comment><USER14> Sources please?

 _edit_

Sorry, I'm asking about the "previous years similar trends".

<comment><USER15> I believe gravypod is referring to previous years in the graph that starts the article. For instance, look at the 2008-2012 period. There is a definite downward trend.[0]

[0]: [https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2017/10/...](https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2017/10/recreational_opiates.png)

<comment><USER13> Yes, exactly. To prove a correlation, in my opinion, one would need....

        1. More smoothed/averaged dataset (centered rolling average ~4 months?)
        2. Explain the other extreme dips in this graph (2005, 2007, 2011)
        3. Plot similar data from other states (with and without legal marijuana)
        4. Investigate other causes (see sparrish's comment)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> That graph is very misleading. I don't have access to the published paper which may be accurate, but the article doesn't mention the reduction in opioid deaths from 2008-2010, which appears to be similar to 2014-2016. Also, the title of the graph states the timeline through 2015, but the x axis suggests there is data up to 2016?

<comment><USER17> Here is the link to the paper: [http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2017....](http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304059)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Probably unrelated to marijuana. See [1]. In Colorado, opioid overdose deaths decreased 6% in 2016. But heroin overdose deaths went up 22%. This followed a state effort to cut down on opioid prescriptions. The number of high-dose opioid prescriptions for more than 30 days was cut in half from 2015 to 2016.

Overview of heroin boom in Colorado: [2]

[1] [https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Opioid%...](https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Opioid%20Use%20in%20Colorado%20-%20March%202017.pdf)

[2] [https://localtvkdvr.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/heroin-in- co...](https://localtvkdvr.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/heroin-in-colorado- final-april-2017.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER19> Like many of these stories, it's a bit shallow - that chart is interesting - but as others have pointed out it's pretty noisy.

However, you can line it up against national data[1] it's really bucking the trend. You also find that opioid prescriptions are at least stable or declining in Colorado. Again, against the national trend that's significant.

Equally, you see spikes in Heroin deaths - so picture is a lot more complex than that chart.

[1] [https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends- statistics/o...](https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends- statistics/overdose-death-rates)

<comment><USER20> I wonder how that heroin stat will compare over a longer term. From what I understand, a common suggestion is that overprescription of opiods leads to abuse. Then removal of the prescription, tolerance gains, or financial considerations push the user to heroin. And once a user is hooked on that, I think introducing marijuana as an alternative is not going to have as much impact. But if reducing number of opiod prescriptions leads to fewer heroin users, I would expect there to be a measurable impact at some point over a longer term, at least in comparison to national trend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> In the article's main image, cited directly from the paper in question ([https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2017/10/...](https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2017/10/recreational_opiates.png)), there doesn't really appear to be much of a correlation. Looking at the high variance in the opioid death data (because there are - fortunately - so few samples), so I'm not really certain if one can extrapolate a trend so soon after the legislation was enacted. The data simply appears to be too noisy. Even the paper states that the upper limit of its 95% confidence interval is a net reduction in deaths by a whopping... _0.03 per month_.

I've said this before, but; by all means, we should embrace the (clearly very real) medical value of this plant by allocating funding and legal frameworks to research it properly. Lots of current cannabis research is plagued by bad experimental methodology, statistically insignificant conclusions, extrapolation of non-existent trends, and broad hand-wavey statements that aren't really backed up by facts, and it's a shame because it cheapens the value of a _genuinely_ promising medical treatment that offers hope for people suffering from a litany of conditions (myself included).

</comment><comment><USER22> Someone needs to study the effects of weed smoke on the lungs. That's the most common way to consume cannabis and I have a feeling it harms the lungs similar to the effects of smoking cigarettes.

<comment><USER23> I think it's safe to say that lighting stuff on fire and inhaling the smoke is bad for you, regardless of the substance.

Note, I do smoke pot and cigars. I'm pretty sure both are bad for me.

<comment><USER24> I'm sure smoking anything is harmful to some extent, but tobacco is particular harmful. For instance, it causes mouth cancer just by chewing on it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Correlation does not equal causation. This is Yellow Journalism at its finest. The researchers even stated that their "results are preliminary" and not final, but of course the media runs with everything.

</comment><comment><USER26> anyone read this? it argues the fent was pushed because of lower marijuana sales (by drug lords) (due to legalizing mj)

[http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a46918/heroin-mexico- el...](http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a46918/heroin-mexico-el-chapo- cartels-don-winslow/)

"Okay, I'm going to say it: The heroin epidemic was caused by the legalization of marijuana."

</comment><comment><USER14> The -most important- subject about Marijuana nowadays, is about being arrested by smoking a joint. I do think.

It's a great thing that we have authorities, but we chase for a better concept for what is 'legal'.

So, while the "opioid deaths" may not have "fall following marijuana legalization" (In Colorado), the world does have great news about the legalization itself.

</comment><comment><USER27> In the period 2009 to 2011, deaths went down at least as much. Beware straight line trends.

</comment><comment><USER28> State/Fed. government: Let's make recreational marijuana legal!

Citizens: Awesome! We all feel relaxed, and those of us dealing with pain feel much better, and we're not dying from over-doses; yay! ...But, uh-oh, a few more car fatalities...what to do?

State/Fed. government: Let's build hypertube all over the state!

Citizens: Unsafe drivers - including drinkers AND smokers - simply take the hypertube home; fatalities have taken a nosedive yay! Second benefit: individual and state costs typically associated with maintaining cars and roads for cars (to support long work commutes) goes down, and overall traffic congestion is diminished; yay! ...But uh-oh, our healthcare costs are still pretty high, since now the likes of Pfizer, Merck, etc. are legally producing marijuana, and not cheaply, what to do?

State/Fed. government: With the infrastructure funds now more narrowly focused on supporting efforts such as hypertube, re-allocate (as appropriate and legal) the remaining, unused funds to help bring down health care costs...Either through government tax breaks (just plain giving this unused money back to citizens) for citizens to pay their healthcare insurance...OR...to buy their own marijuana at retail...OR...use these remaining, unused funds to subsidize programs like ACA.

Citizens: Yay! ...But uh-oh, now that marijuana is legal there are less people being put into jails...and now the jail lobby is whining, what to do?

State/Fed. government: Invite the people who might otherwise be sent to prison (or who have been freed from prison after being unfairly jailed for minor amounts of weed) and have them work as construction workers building the country's hypertube network. A likely side-effect is that the private companies running the jails will surely convert into hypertube construction/management companies, but hey jobs, right!?!

Citizens: Yay! Long-term problems - while not solved yet - are on the mend...but, uh-oh, it appears while sending our satellits to other planets, we disrupted the hybernation of some war-like aliens, and they're bent on attacking us with their advanced technology, strategically planning to strike the most powerful nations on earth first! What to do?

State/Fed. government: ... ... ...

Citizens: Hello? Hello!?! Did you hear our pleas about the pending alien attack? Hello? Is there anyone there in the government offices? where the hellz did they all go???? somebody help us; these guns we have are worthless against these aliens! Heeeeeelllpp!!! ... ... ...

Narrator: Apologies for the levity on serious matters. My whole point is to remember that things don't exist in isolation...and maybe there will always be good and bad side-effects that get triggered from one major legislation change. Nevertheless, the country has lived through Prohibition, and there are expected patterns that likely emerge. So, i say, marijuana should definitely be legalized, though let's have a plan to be ready for any unexpected fallout, should they manifest. Cheers!

</comment><comment><USER29> oh god just enough with the propoganda already. only 0.1% of marijuanna smokers actually need it as a medicine, everyboyd else is simply a pothead. stop praising the thing like its a fucking elixir sent to save the humanity

<comment><USER30> I don't smoke or drink but what is your opinion about Alcohol drinkers are they all drunks? What about Opiate users are they all pill poppers?

Marijuana has been used for millennia as medicine why all the hate? Let it help the sick people and let the others enjoy it's other aspects. No one will force a joint into your mouth. You will be safe...

<comment><USER31> >Marijuana has been used for millennia as medicine why all the hate?

What "hate?" I read the whole thread and I cannot fathom anything even close to anything that could be considered "hate?"

What I read was an extremely mild annoyance at how potheads have developed something extremely similar to a religious cult where their favorite (and my favorite) recreational drug must always be praised and its minuscule benefits must always be exaggerated and paired with a ridiculous and frankly comical pretense at "oppression" because it's not technically legal (although it is de facto legal for virtually everyone reading this website and most like it.)

<comment><USER32> Try selling pounds of it and tell me that it's only "technically" illegal. Or try being non-white, in which case your chances of being arrested for even personal-use amounts go way up. Or an ex-con failing their piss test on probation and going back to jail, or a manual laborer denied work-related injury insurance claims because they smoked a joint on the weekend. I know many people fucked over by the legal system over this drug that you seem to think is not actively prohibited.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: I'd like to write a technical article for a major publication - <AUTHOR> What should I do to maximize my chances that I'll be taken seriously as I approach publications? <comment><USER2> Write for smaller publications first to build up your reputation.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you gave more details we could give more specific advice.</comment>


Why It's Not A Google Failure - <AUTHOR> http://philcrissman.com/2010/02/17/why-its-not-a-google-failure

<comment><USER2> Didn't read it all. However, I think Google's goal would be to deliver everybody the best possible search result. So they would rate this as failure internally, because people had been looking for Facebook, not ReadWriteWhatever. That's not to say Google has the responsibility to do so, I wouldn't blame them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I can see that.

Just had some more thoughts on the topic and it wound up being an (admittedly) long post. This topic might be more or less discussed to death, by now.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Game gift – send a personalised game instead of a card - <AUTHOR> https://www.giveagamegift.com

<comment><USER2> Awesome concept .. but the game is little tough :)</comment>


Simplify - <AUTHOR> http://paulstamatiou.com/simplify

<comment><USER2> A few years ago I ditched all of my belongings and bought the stuff outlined in tynan's gear posts [0][1][2]. I highly recommend his suggestions.

It's nice to see people waking up to the idea that destroying your twenties by working in front of a computer is an unhealthy thing. Take the long view. Life is short.

[0] <http://tynan.com/2010gear>

[1] <http://tynan.com/2011gear>

[2] <http://tynan.com/packing2012>

</comment><comment><USER3> > I used to be a slave to my startups. If I wasn't working, I had a perpetual > feeling of guilt that I should be working. That lead to many all-nighters > and eventually landed me in the hospital last year after fainting twice from > fever and dehydration.

This is such a common story. I start work at 9 and stop at 6. That's it, no more, unless there's something urgent. It's amazing how much you can get done in those 9 hours if you concentrate.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm glad Paul wrote this. The work culture in Silicon Valley can be invigorating; but at the same time, it can be poisonous, especially for someone who is naturally inclined to be work-obsessed.

I left 5 years ago, and I'm so glad I did. It's enabled me to think to myself, away from the noise, and at the same time stay in touch with the "real" world, whom, eventually you're really working for anyway.

With all of the opportunities to _do_ things, it can be hard to see that if you just chose to do fewer things, you could be better at the things that you did decide to do. Also, that if you take some time to relax, the quality of your work can be enhanced.

</comment><comment><USER5> I was a consultant for 3 years during most of which I traveled 5 days a week. It wasn't exactly the case but I can say I lived in hotel rooms with a carry- on suite case for those years.

I realized that all I need for my life can be packed into a carry-on sized suite case and I had perfectly enough space in a hotel room. I will never feel the need for 5 bedroom house so that I can have a man cave, a home office or "an entertainment room" and a whole basement load of stuff.

There is this great movie about simplified life (yes there was also relationship and George Clooney) - Up in the air.

<comment><USER6> > I realized that all I need for my life can be packed into a carry-on sized > suite case

Do you not have any hobbies?

<comment><USER7> I have hobbies and I'm a self employed barber. When the locals don't come to my garage I sometimes go to them. I can easily see me renting paintball gear, packing up a bathing suit, renting a surf board / longboard (I usually use my friend's since it's really his hobby, but if I go somewhere else in the world), renting a soccer ball, there are probably workshops that I can rent...somewhere, maybe, there's my old kindle fire to read, other places like bars, clubs, pool halls, bowling are all over the world, jet skii rentals, fortrack rentals, I only play videogames sometimes in friend houses so I can give that up. The problem is that boots and trail gear would have to be rented and I can see all of this renting stuff adding up. The simplified life is for rich people or people with hobbies that don't need a bike, or special gear.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I recently moved, and am much closer to work. I couldn't figure out what I was going to do with 5 extra hours a week that I wouldn't spend in the car. I could sleep in more! I'd be home earlier!

Except moving takes a huge amount of time and energy. Not just the move, but the shopping, fixing up and changing up random things around the house, visitors who want to see the new place, not to mention the new yard is bigger and will take more time to keep up.

I'm about 3 months behind where I was.

</comment><comment><USER8> Paul thanks for writing this. I always got the vibe you were a bit strung out. Glad to read this. Looks like some hard lessons learned.

I can definitely relate to a lot of the article. The "perpetual feelings of guilt" that you should be working, thats a popular toxic Startup Machismo, Startupcore, mentality.

</comment><comment><USER9> > I got rid of my car.

I know this is a bit off-topic, but it got me thinking and I figure there's a large Redmond audience here. I'm moving there soon and I'm struggling with whether to ditch my car or not. I'll be living downtown and work is under a mile away.

Anyone care to comment?

<comment><USER10> I don't work in Redmond but I lived there for a long time and I still end up there from time to time via car or bike.

The bus system in the Seattle Metro area is not amazing but but you pick where you live knowing this, you shouldn't have a problem. Being near a main transit line or close to a transit center can get you to Bellevue and Seattle fairly easily (might take an hour for the latter).

If you're up for it, I'd really recommend getting a bike. You can ride about half the time during the spring/fall and all days in the summer. Redmond has a lot of bike-friendly areas but, on the Eastside (across the lake from Seattle, Redmond is considered in this area) the drivers are much less bike friendly and cautious so be careful.

In general, the area you're moving to is pretty car-centric but you can definitely make do and you'll be very glad you did on the nice days!

Feel free to contact me if you have more questions.

<comment><USER9> You're living up to your name.

> I'd really recommend getting a bike

For sure. Work is a mile away by road, but it's only two by trail. I'm really excited about that.

My main worry is that it'll be awful to go anywhere during the winter. Do people there bike through winter?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There is a book named exactly <Simplify> on Amazon. $2.99 and 46 pages, it changes my life greatly.

<comment><USER12> The Josh Becker or the Davis book?

I have to say, I finally caved last week and started buying things like mad from The Container Store (which is worth a whole post in and of itself). I finally understand the importance of spending a bit more to get quality items organize as much of your home as possible, and the sense of peace it can bring. It's also helping me get rid of a lot of unnecessary items, which is very cathartic.

<comment><USER11> It is the Joshua Becker one. It is very short but still the author makes his point so clear that I was immediately converted after finishing it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It is hard to know where to simplify- I think you did a great job of pointing out things that most people think are absolute requirements. We didn't start out thinking we had to do those things, we taught ourselves to do that and you rightly point out that you can teach yourself that you don't need that stuff. Getting rid of a car and forgetting the "need" to check in allows you to put your focus on things that matter.

</comment><comment><USER14> Keep in mind that getting rid of your things can turn into an expensive and long process. It took me about 3 years to dump most of my physical possessions and digital legacy and I'm still left with a bunch of stuff. During that time I've also started a new project at <http://flipso.com> that should help to sell/exchange stuff to or between your peers.

<comment><USER15> Really depends on your definition of getting rid of. For me, the cost of getting rid of something has to be less than the cost of keeping it. If you're controlled by your possessions, they're poisoning you, so you're best to just drop them like a bad habit. Sell it, donate it, do whatever is fast and easy.

No offense whatsoever, but taking three years to rid yourself of uneccessary material possessions is WAY too long!

It should take you 5 seconds to decide if you need something in your life. If not, it should take 5 more seconds to decide how to get rid of it.

<comment><USER14> I'm not talking about decisions but the actual process of selling, organizing, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I need to simplify. I feel under pressure everyday to read so much stuff, when actually I think 80% of it adds zero value to my life. Great post!

</comment><comment><USER17> Yes. Life is about balance. Too much working is bad. Too much relaxing is bad.

About getting rid of unnecessary things: For each item I buy (say a pair of new socks), one old has to go. Usually I throw away (or donate) more than one item while I am at it. It's a long-term lifestyle change. But the last time I have moved was the least stressful ever.

</comment><comment><USER18> When you have a child, car becomes required. Also, makes you realize all your stuff is meaningless.

</comment><comment><USER19> A few years back, my wife and I reset our lives: left our jobs, sold everything, were down to two bags each, and moved to India for a year. Since then we have kept things simple, and has made life more flexible and less stressful.

<comment><USER20> After reading this topic "India is drowning in its own excreta" on this site, I don't think I would live in India anytime soon.

<comment><USER19> hehe, it wasn't that bad. But now I live in San Francisco, and if not visually drowning, it sure smells like human and dog excreta everywhere!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> As my father got older he threw out more and more of his belongings. I didn't get it then, but I do now. I'm also trying to simplify, so I can focus on what's important: my own projects, my friends and family, and my health.

</comment><comment><USER22> Agreed, there's so much we don't need. We just canceled cable TV.

</comment><comment><USER23> Great post.

I've been wanting to simplify my life for a while now, but where do I start?

<comment><USER24> Look in a closet, and get rid of one thing.

Then do it again. Then do it in other places. It's a long term thing.

But getting rid of a single thing you don't need is the start.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> great post stammy</comment>


Ask HN: How to be good at sales? - <AUTHOR>

Selling ideas, skills, products, etc... - what should be my resources? <comment><USER2> In my opinion, you can't read a blog or a book to be able to sell, it just takes practice. But I'd recommended the following goal:

Introduce yourself to as many new people a day as possible, and do your best to remember their names. Selling is about relationships, and if you can't build them with strangers, you can't sell.

Everyone has a cool story and something they're passionate about. Find it. On a similar note, try to at least be able to hold a surface conversation over lots of topics and hobbies. It's not hard: golf/sports="Tiger Woods is ...", politics="they're all windbags", family="kids are fun". Discuss in that surface/shallow manner until something deeper comes up. You now may have something to spend hours talking about, and you may have laid the groundwork for a new close friendship.

That's touchy-feely, of course. But it works. For selling, take the above model and replace "passion" or "hobby" with "career." Ideally they should be similar. Relational bonding is how you sell things.

In fact you're not selling anything to anyone; two associates are solving each others problems. Think of it in that light, and you're on the right path.

</comment><comment><USER3> It really depends on what you're selling and to whom.

I sell consulting services on a business to business (b2b) basis. I do a reasonably ok job but I'm not an out and out sales guy.

It sounds to me like you need to get a better idea of what you're going to sell and to whom before you look at how. For example:

What's your route to market? (Cold calls? Mailshots? SEO? Form signups?)

Who are you selling to? (SMEs? Enterprise businesses? Teenagers?)

What are you unique selling points (USPs)? (Price? Quality? Uniqueness?)

From there you can start looking at theory, things like the 4Ps, Sales funnels etc. depending on your answers.

Some things that have worked for me:

Cold Caling Techniques (That Really Work) by Steven Schiffman

Spin Selling by Neil Rackham

Why People Don't Buy Things by Wallace and Washburn

Before you go off buying these books, bear in mind that you haven't sorted out your approach yet. By all means have a look, but sort out your own answers to the questions first.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've done lots of selling over the years - all for my own startups. At first I thought I was bad at it - I just didn't seem to manage to be able to get people to buy what I was selling.

It all changed one day when I started selling something completely different - something that people wanted, that there was demand for, and was priced competitively. Suddenly people started buying and I was hardly even trying to sell at all.

Sure there is always more to learn about selling, and there are lots of good books on it. You should read them. Reading lots about selling will make you a better salesperson.

There's no bigger lesson though than to sell something that people want - that's when you'll start making sales.

Being a good salesperson is all about the product/service and the price that its sold at - it's got to be something that people want.

If you can't make any sales then maybe the product or service you are selling is wrong.

</comment><comment><USER5> 1/ Listen

2/ ask open questions vs. "sell" your idea/product: to understand their pain points, the purchasing process, their objection (which you can answer 1 by 1)

3/ Ask hard questions "what's your budget", "what's our competition", "Why would you purchase from us vs Monster co.?"

4/ know how to shut up when you have asked a question (the 1st who speaks has lost)

5/ Be fair and confident in the value you are selling (otherwise it's a shitty job to sell crap)

\+ check the related question "how to close a sale": <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1897543>

Deer vs rabbit or Elephant hunters: [http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/09/16/most- startups-...](http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/09/16/most-startups- should-be-deer-hunters/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Step 1: Find a person that has a problem

Step 2: Find a solution to that problem

Step 3: Get person to pay for the solution

Repeat...

</comment><comment><USER7> \- Illustrate the Benefits.

\- Price It Attractively for User to Take Action.

\- Follow-Up.

</comment><comment><USER8> To be good at sales, you need to be rich and connected.</comment>


Testosterone is the drug of the future - <AUTHOR> http://fusion.net/story/42619/why-testosterone-is-the-drug-of-the-future/ <comment><USER3> MD here. Just remember that women live longer than men. Although it'll never be proven that hormones are part of that provess, I think it's a good assumption.

Many males as they get older become more lovable and more pleasent to be around because of natural hormone declines.

There are a ton of health issues such as balding, coronary artery disease, prostate cancer, obstructive sleep apnea that are related to testosterone. Whether these clinics can find the correct cocktail to find a healthy balance isn't clear.

I'm neither pro nor con. I've seen people who have been positively and negatively impacted by steroid supplementation.

<comment><USER4> >>Many males as they get older become more lovable and more pleasent to be around because of natural hormone declines.

I resent that. I don't have low testosterone but I'd still say I was a loving father and husband and a generally good person. Being "manly" doesn't mean being a dick, quite the opposite.

<comment><USER5> I think you're overthinking what he's saying.

He's simply talking about the side effect of reduced testosterone -- I think he's just trying to say men simply mellow out more when he says "more lovable".

I can speak to this with first hand experience. I had testicular cancer for a _second_ time in my 30s and while I was waiting several weeks for a chance to see an endocrinologist about replacing the testosterone my body could no longer produce, I noticed a big change in how I saw things.

Traffic, which in my city is a big stressor, no longer bothered me. People would cut me off, and I'd be like "oh well" and move on. Totally unbothered. A lot of "irritants" were no longer nearly as irritating. Now that I'm on testosterone replacement therapy, not so much the case any more. Not saying that I'm more irritable, it's just that I'm not nearly as mellow as I was in those weeks my testosterone levels dipped very low.

<comment><USER6> I've read somewhere that Testosterone could be described as simple as - <USER2> or Kill :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As someone who went from 430 ng/dl to 1024 ng/dl naturally in about two years time (from age 23 to 25) the only thing I can say is don't jump to too many conclusions here.

\- Your testosterone should be naturally high if you're below 30 (and male)

\- If not, something is wrong and you need to fix it (start with blood work, check your diet, move)

\- If you testosterone is in the normal ranges (blood work recommends between 600 and 1200, which is ridiculous), you'll feel good 80-90% of the time

\- the 10-20% are probably psychological worries that you might have, start meditating

\- I didn't get huge muscles or less body fat with more testosterone (huge myth that I thought would change for me)

\- TRT is used heavily in pro-sports (look for UFC fighters and bodybuilders, they have the most experience, since a lot of them are doing it)

\- TRT is a problem if you keep going for too long, because your body just doesn't produce testosterone as it used to, because it expects it from the outside, so below 35 or rather below 40 year olds: don't sign up for this too quickly.

\- Cold showers/baths do work, but probably not for increasing your testosterone, still, do it from time to time :)

\- Intermittent Fasting helps immensely with boosting your testosterone naturally.

I can provide more info or details/specifics if wanted/needed.

<comment><USER8> _" start meditating"_

Research has not shown that meditation beats a placebo

Studies about meditation are usually of poor quality.

Source: [http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross- check/2013/03/08/r...](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross- check/2013/03/08/research-has-not-shown-that-meditation-beats-a-placebo/)

<comment><USER9> How could there be a placebo for meditation? A placebo has to replicate the experience of going through the 'real' treatment being trialled. How could you create the _experience_ of meditation without the subject actually meditating? The claim being tested is simply that the experience of meditation is beneficial, so I don't know what form a placebo could take.

It would be OK to do a trial where one group is instructed to meditate and the other is not given any instructions, and you check back with each group in a couple of weeks and ask them how they feel. If there's a difference in the meditation group, that proves there is value in meditating. Placebo doesn't come into it, because no one is claiming there is any benefit to meditation that _doesn 't_ come from simply experiencing it.

For comparison, I once heard of a way of testing acupuncture against a placebo – someone invented needles that look and feel the same but don't actually penetrate the skin. So they could compare the reported benefits of 'fake acupuncture' with real acupuncture, and see if there's any health benefit to the physical intervention, or if it's all just theatre. And if it is all just theatre, that's OK – it doesn't negate the health benefits of acupuncture, it just helps us understand that it's all about the experience of having someone slowly and dramatically stick pins in you, which is interesting. It's not the same as saying that acupuncture doesn't work.

<comment><USER10> i think you 're supposed to compare the _claimed effects_ on people who meditate vs people who don't (control group)

<comment><USER11> A control group that does not do anything and does not receive anything is not using a placebo.

A placebo is very specifically a substitute for whatever you want to measure the effect of.

You can have both a control group and a group using a placebo and get substantially different results for them, and that's exactly why placebos are used: People report substantial effects from sugar pills and the like when they believe there should be an effect.

<comment><USER10> well yeah , you would then have to have a "sugar pill" group. I wonder whether these studies include an third" no intervention" group.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm 28 now and I have hypogonadisn and have experience using T and other options like clomid. My total T was <120nd/dl. The lab range for this is usually 300-1000ng/dl. I was severely depressed. Moody and very angry. I experience "roid rage" in the opposite of what most people think. When my T is low I am a completely different, awful person. I literally thought I was going to kill myself.

I finally went to the doc. Got the blood work and was put ona low dosage of Testosterone. Enough to get me to the 500ng/dl range. My quality of life improved dramatically and I was the happy and productive person I used to be. I felt like I did in my early 20s instead of like I was approaching 50. Now I have to take clomiphene because the T kills my fertility. Clomid gets my hormones to the 500ng/dl range but I do not feel the same. My brain is "foggy". I'm not as sharp as I was. I'm up and down with my mood. On a higher dosage of clomid I even had experience where my brain just didn't make sane decisions. I rammed a car one time in traffic. I ran over my mailbox backing out of my garage, even though I did this thousands of times before.

Testosterone can be a miracle for some people. It saddens me that it get such a bad rep for being used/abused by athletes.

<comment><USER13> If anyone's ever watched the documentary "Bigger, Stronger, Faster*" they raise some interesting points questioning why steroids are demonized. Professional musicians take beta-blockers, athletes get laser eye surgery and take cortisone and opiate shots before/during competition, programmers take Adderall and Modafinil, male porn stars shot their penises full of drugs to stay erect for hours on end, etc. etc. Plenty of examples of professionals "cheating" without widespread media outcry and pearl-clutching about the sanctity of the profession.

Furthermore, taking steroids won't improve your muscle-memory, proprioception, agility, sports IQ, etc... In my opinion they should be allowed in sports in some limited cases, such as recovering from an injury, where it would be administered in a controlled environment by a licensed doctor to accelerate recovery. They're a very useful drug if used properly.

<comment><USER14> Unfortunately the problem is that they work too well. Every time they are legalized in a limited capacity they are abused in professional sports.

The effect is massively amplified if you give women drugs because they don't have testosterone levels like men do. Those records that were set in the 70's pre-testing will likely never be broken.

The issue is that if it is legal, there is a huge incentive to take it to an abusive point especially in a celebrity economy like what exists is professional sports.

In some sports, professional athletes are almost constantly injured. Off the top of my head I can give you MMA (UFC) and american football as examples but I'm sure there are many others.

Healthy sports end where competitive sport begins.[1]

Right now we have an arms race that barely keeps it at bay. It's not an ideal solution but I think its better than athletes fully abusing their bodies with massive amounts of drugs like they did back in the East German Olympic days.

For non-professional athletes, I agree with you. It should not be demonized to the extent it is.

1\. Quote from Brecht, referenced many times, e.g here [http://gladwell.com/drugstore-athlete/](http://gladwell.com/drugstore- athlete/)

<comment><USER12> The issue that athletes abuse the drugs seems like a problem the athletic association/league/body should prevent instead of classifying anabolic steroids as schedule III drug.

<comment><USER14> Agreed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I went through a major testosterone-related health scare when I was 31 (4 years ago). I was in the midst of launching a startup. Stressed out, financially strained, hardly sleeping, hardly exercising, drinking too much. I thought I was eating right but turns out I wasn't. I began feeling like an empty shell of my former self. And yes, it totally affected my sex drive. Went to doc and had blood work done. My test levels were about 200, which would be acceptable had I been 70 years old. I was terrified.

After ruling things out, the doc prescribed me Androgel, a gel-based test delivery system. You rub it on your shoulders and it absorbs in. But you have to be careful to not let it get on other people. I had a baby girl on the way and sat there thinking that I never want to worry about touching my wife or daughter. Plus this wasn't a temporary treatment. You are a slave to it, and pay about $10/day for it. Oh, and it turns out people, especially younger men, have a higher chance of stroke on that stuff. That's no life, so I decided to try and cure it naturally.

And I did. My testosterone is normal now (forget the exact number). And I feel great. It was simple. First, I started strength training. Weights, especially compound moves like squats, will build test levels. And helps with sleep. Check out stronglifts.com if you want a good starting point.

Second I fixed my diet. Check out the book The Perfect Health Diet. I learned I was not eating enough good fat. I started using more olive oil, coconut, ghee (butter), and quality rumen meat. It made a huge difference.

Finally I cut out the stress. The startup ended up not succeeding but that had nothing to do with me deciding to ease up. I'm happy I did and learned a valuable lesson that health comes first.

So there's my story. If you are going to supplement, be prepared for a long bumpy ride. And remember you can boost it naturally.

<comment><USER12> Studies have shown that creams are pretty terrible. Especially if you happen to have thyroid problems. They seem to work at first and then fade out for a lot of people. Shots just simply work and are cheaper.

<comment><USER5> I'm on TRT for life as a result of having testicular cancer twice.

There are pros and cons to the various types of testosterone you could take. I'm using Androgel.

From what I remember when researching my options in 2007 (things have possibly changed a lot since then):

Monthly shots -- the thing with shots is that your levels go up right after you get your shot and slowly taper off. It's possible that your moods are a little off at the beginning and then you mellow out again by the time you need your next shot. Your options are to have a doctor do it for you or self- administer. Having developed an aversion to needles after my first bout of cancer, I kinda ruled this out quickly, even though it probably is cheap and effective.

Pills - easy but apparently not very good for your liver long term

Gel/Cream -- you have to worry about keeping your hands clean and physical contact, but it maintains your levels consistently since you're putting it on daily. It's admittedly inconvenient but works for me.

<comment><USER12> I took weekly shots at 100mg. Cypionate is usually prescribed in the US. Enthate everywhere else. Monthly is way too long. Most doctors recommend every two weeks. However, there was a new report ([http://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-72185-4_11](http://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-72185-4_11)) that shows the half life ([http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/articles/article- steroid-half-li...](http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/articles/article-steroid-half- life.aspx)) of which they thought was closer to 12 days is actually something like 8. So at the end of the second week you're likely to start feel physical effects again (I know I do). Let me see if I can find it.

Orals shouldn't be considered.

<comment><USER14> What about pellets/implants? Aren't they supposed to release more consistently over a longer period?

Please excuse my ignorance on this, I am in Canada, have been blessed with naturally high T levels, and have no experience with anti-aging clinics, but I'm fascinated by the subject.

<comment><USER12> I don't know much about pellets other than I have read forum postings about people not liking them and I prefer injections.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> >I was just at the gym watching the 30-year-olds at the pull-up bar building muscles in three weeks. And I'm at the pull up bar and nothing's happening

While many of you are thinking that he's making excuses (he might be) or that the other guys worked long and hard to build muscle, I can relate: I've been lifting weights three times a week for the last four years. I still look average, and yes I'm eating and exercising properly.

I believe it might be something to do with testosterone. I was always skinny, high body fat and frail. I worked super hard to even start exercising, eventually I was able to get into routine but still now I feel like I should look much better after all this time.

What's the deal with testosterone in UK? I'm 27, is it likely that I can get it? Are there home test kits I can get (reliable ones)? Do testosterone boosters actually work (I can't verify without testing)?

<comment><USER17> > _I 've been lifting weights three times a week for the last four years. I > still look average, and yes I'm eating and exercising properly._

People _always_ says this. They always eat well and recover properly, but they just can't make any gains. Everyone else can, but they can't and instead of looking at the simplest explanation, they do hurdles to convince themselves they have low test and that's why they're not perfect. Have you been going to a trainer? A nutritionist? Might want to check out other alternatives before taking synthetic hormones. And get off /fit/. This seems like the kind of genius idea that someone on /fit/ came up with.

<comment><USER16> I just made a post saying I didn't jump to conclusions, it was only after years of training that I even considered the possibility that something was wrong with me. Never browsed /fit/ not sure what you're trying to say... I won't try to convince you -- I'm sure there are many that like to make excuses so you think I fall under that category too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Transwoman here, and I have some personal experience in this regard. I've been on T blockers for about 2 years, and I have seen significant mood, hair, and skin improvements, not to mention a lower resting heart rate. My chances of getting prostate cancer have been reduced to basically nil, which is pretty great. A significant portion of the benefits are from the estrogen, but just reducing bioavailable T does make a big difference in skin, mood, and hair. On the flipside, a close friend who is a transman (meaning he is on T), and when he went on it, he became very aggressive and prone to angry outburts, developed significant acne, and a very significant increase in body hair. So... ya know, just be careful so you don't end up having crazy moodswings and back-ne

<comment><USER19> I'm sure whoever is prescribing you estrogen has told you that synthetic estrogen is incredibly hard on the liver. The reduced risk of you getting prostate cancer is as far as I understand it FAR outweighed by the likelihood that at some point you will have liver issues to deal with. Also, I am on TRT and this is somewhat anecdotal (although many 'bodybuilder' types that use testosterone support this) I have noticed the effects on skin mood and hair are stongly related to estrogen, prolactin, and progesterone levels (meaning they should be in the normal range for male or female depending on what your goal is wrt testosterone). I also agree with the commenter somewhere on here that mentioned he feels the 'roid-rage' when he is low. Also anecdotal but generally agreed upon by the community is that the mood swings come from actual 'swings' of testosterone (and bad moods are when you are low, they should call it roid-affection instead). FDA approved esthers in the US (for injection) do not allow precise daily control to mimic the natural cycle, so there can be some very minor mood changes throughout the week (my dr is open minded and lets me pin the cypionate twice weekly) but I would honestly suggest that your friend had some placebo effect goin on there. As for his 'back-ne', I would check my prolactin levels if I had bad acne on my back (sometimes I do get it, and the levels are always slightly elevated... what to do about it is another story).

Anyway, all due respect of course and I have much admiration of anyone who goes through such great lengths to 'be themselves' but please do make sure you are educated on the risks and minimizing them (I remember hearing it mentioned that the patches of estrogen are much easier on the liver than injections but that was from a tv show I think so take it with a grain of salt) I do believe that you are correct in saying >A significant portion of the benefits are from the estrogen, I just don't think you realize how much. As someone who lost a fair portion of my natural production almost instantly I can say with confidence that even if one were considering to transition to the fairer sex, losing your test without boosting the estrogen has pretty much NO positives except perhaps the reduced prostate cancer risk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Read about it 15 years ago in a Belgian magazine. A Belgian doctor was claiming the same.

To be quite honest I use it already for 15 years and indeed it changes you. It helps me to be in "sana in corpore sano". Let's hope the negative health impacts on long term are not to bet so my body stays sano :)

<comment><USER21> Would you be kind enough to share your experience?

I ask you this as a 29 yrs old who's mortified of aging and feels guilty as hell for having a "all-day-sitting" job.

<comment><USER22> _mortified of aging_

Isn't that rather a psychological issue? After all, aging is still quite unavoidable. Would postponing the unavoidable end really make you less mortified?

 _feels guilty_

Sort of the same remark as above. Moreover, it is (afaik) not proven taking any kind of drug will counter or reverse the damage done by sitting all day - so taking drugs anyway would just act as a placebo: it doesn't really help with the actual problem, but you wouldn't feel guilty because you would _think_ it does help. Which is maybe worse than your current situation as you would be less tempted to find a more suitable solution. Which is hard to figure out without knowing your particular situation, but would typically include things such as less continuous sitting, more breaks, more moving around.

<comment><USER23> > aging is still quite unavoidable. Would postponing > the unavoidable end > really make you less mortified?

Yes, I want to postpone the unavoidable. Death is unavoidable, I'm trying to postpone it. I will probably be in a wheel chair like my father eventually, yes I want to postpone that as long as possible so I can walk around in nature and enjoy it. If my hearing starts to fail, I will get hearing aids to try to postpone deafness as long as possible. (My elderly mother wears hearing aids.) I don't care if deafness is inevitable, I will fight for every extra day of hearing birds chirping and the hearing the ocean waves.

What am I missing? Isn't everybody just like me? _SOME_ parts of aging are Ok, but most of them are super bad - when your bones get thin due to Osteoporosis if you fall you might break a bone, which in turn might end your life. Nobody wants to get Osteoporosis sooner, we are all trying to postpone it as long as possible, right?

<comment><USER22> I'm not saying one can not or should not postpone the unavoidable, but rather questioning whether postponing it would make one less scared of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This article seems pretty imbalanced. Modifying your natural endocrine levels (and the decline of testosterone with age in men is natural) can have significant unanticipated long-term effects (witness the problem with estrogen replacement therapy in women).

A quick Google Scholar search pops up paper with titles like "Serum testosterone is associated with aggressive prostate cancer in older men", "Increased heart attacks in men using testosterone: the UK importantly lags far behind the US in prescribing testosterone", "High Estrogen in Men After Injectable Testosterone Therapy" and "A review on the relationship between testosterone and life-course persistent antisocial behavior". There is clearly medical literature that contradicts the rosy view indicated by the article's sources.

I would have liked to see the article discuss those issues and the associated studies.

</comment><comment><USER25> Can anyone link to a gwern-style review of it?

Unfortunately a google search for the same just yields a bunch of T-Nation style spam aimed at wannabe bodybuilders.

<comment><USER26> Gwern wrote a section about Testosterone in Nootropics article: [http://www.gwern.net/Nootropics#testosterone](http://www.gwern.net/Nootropics#testosterone)

<comment><USER25> I like the experiment it proposes, although I wish someone else tried it first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Maybe I am overly cynical, but...

There are a lot of reasons that people may be tired and not in optimal health as they age, testosterone being just one. So when testosterone comes around, and is being pimped by high-cost cash-only doctors, it looks to me as much of a way for a doctor who hates the current medical industry to escape it, and build a high income private practice, as much as a truly holistic approach to improving their patient's lives.

I just have some inherent distrust of people who get rich quick when I blindly accept whatever they are selling.

</comment><comment><USER10> I wonder if it is possible to compare today's T levels with men of 100 years ago or even more. It could be that the industrialization and urbanization has caused a massive change in T levels because of natural reasons (less sun, less exercise, less anxiety, processed foods, tight clothing, what have you)

<comment><USER28> Alcohol, plastics (which leech from containers into the liquid they contain), pesticides (on fruits, vegetables)—there are a host of environmental factors that reduce our testosterone levels.

And as for anxiety, I think our modern urban lifestyle far increases our anxiety levels compared to our ancestors.

The human body was not meant for the world we live in!

<comment><USER29> I've wondered about the effect that environmental factors might have on Japan's current predicament- something in the water? did processing of soy products change at some point such that levels of the estrogen analogs ended up being higher? I guess I haven't been quite curious enough to see if there have been any rigorous studies that have compared T levels there over the last few decades.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Assuming there are a significant number of men on here who hope to some day have a family, it's inportant to note that a significant side effect of exogenous testosterone administration is male infertility. Simplified, the excess testosterone in the blood stream sends signals that shut down the hormones essential for sperm production. This may not matter if you are mid life or older and already have children, or if you don't plan on having any, but otherwise do NOT take exogenous testosterone.

<comment><USER31> HCG, Clomid can be taken to counter that.

<comment><USER30> And anastrazole. However you would have to stop taking exogenous testosterone and take these meds and it still potentially may not work and you could require surgery for extraction. They would raise testosterone levels, but you would not see the same "physical benefits" as a testosterone gel would provide.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I totally get the argument for using testosterone for sex changes.

But as a man who takes his health and fitness into his own hands, I can't help but wonder if something like testosterone would become slightly addictive. Is it something one can use to get out of a slump and then stop taking, or is it more that when one gets to a certain age, it becomes necessary for staying at desired fitness levels?

<comment><USER4> I've never tried it, but listening to strength training/powerlifting podcasts they do say that after coming off it can be psychologically addictive as your lifts and physical capabilities drop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Be very careful. Usually low T has no discernible cause but sometimes it is caused by a (treatable but potentially very serious) cancer of the pituitary called a prolactinoma. Testosterone treatment can mask the symptoms until is too late. See an endocrinologist before embarking on these "over the counter" treatments.

<comment><USER12> Yep see and endo and urologist. I had a mri of the brain to rule this out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Don't forget that Testosterone "feeds" prostate cancer, and that most men will have one variety of prostate cancer or another by age 75. It's often slow growing, but if one feeds it, a different story. So potential "T" users should think twice about messing with this particular hormone.

</comment><comment><USER35> It would be nice to have broader shoulders, but an increased sex drive sounds inconvenient. Life is just more dignified without so much neediness. I don't get why anyone (without a more sex-hungry partner, ie most men) would want that. Is it just a gender stereotype / bro thing?

<comment><USER36> I would have assumed wanting broad shoulder would be so you look more attractive to the opposite sex (or the same sex, if that's what you prefer).

The reason being you are more likely to get more sex...

<comment><USER35> Well, yes, but the timing is important. I wouldn't want a higher sex drive unless sex comes easily, which it doesn't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I found DHEA in the natural aisle of local grocery store under $10. I take a low dose daily (in my early 30s). Worth researching.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehydroepiandrosterone](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehydroepiandrosterone)

<comment><USER38> Given the recent revelation by the New York attorney general's office [1], what confidence do you have that you are actually getting what is on the label?

(I didn't down vote you.)

[1] [http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/new-york- attorney-g...](http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/new-york-attorney- general-targets-supplements-at-major-retailers/?_r=0)

<comment><USER37> Fairly confident, although I do believe there is snake oil on the same aisle. I've used brands Natrol and Nature's Bounty.

I understand DHEA as a steroid hormone that is a precursor to testosterone. I consider the drug's banned status in athletic competition as a signal it might be effective.

From Wiki: "DHEA is legal to sell in the United States as a dietary supplement. It is currently grandfathered in as an "Old Dietary Ingredient" being on sale prior to 1994. DHEA is specifically exempted from the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 and 2004 It is banned from use in athletic competition."

<comment><USER38> While DHEA may indeed be effective, if 80% of the natural supplements that were tested did not contain what the label said, one might conclude that there is an 80% chance that a bottle labeled "DHEA" really doesn't contain DHEA.

<comment><USER39> 80% of /store brand herbal/ supplements. This is an important distinction. Brand names were fine.

<comment><USER38> Yes, after closer reading of the news articles it does seem that they only mentioned "store brands". However, I couldn't find anything where it said brand names were "OK".

My Google foo is failing me, I can't seem to find an actual report, just news articles. Help a fella out with a link?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I have a hard time believing this. My testosterone level is 1,114 ng/dL naturally and I sure don't feel pumped full of energy and ready to go all the time (I'm 24). And I was even a D1 athlete. All it means for me is a greater risk of prostate cancer (which both my grandfathers had). My doctor was concerned about it being that high.

Also, I think the rumors about men with high testosterone being aggressive or having a "player/alpha" mentality have been disproven; I don't remember which journal that study was in. I'm about the least aggressive person I know. If anything, I'm too passive and have a difficult time expressing what I want.

</comment><comment><USER41> Presumably if you go this route you can't enter any organised sporting events or do any form of competitive racing? Just saying, because as you get older, if you start getting some fitness back you'll possibly want to start challenging yourself this way -- look how many vets enter triathlons and marathons, ride gran fondos etc. I'd see supplements like this as a last resort, for when a changed diet/exercise regime etc. haven't worked.

</comment><comment><USER42> Read the leaflets for this product: side effects may differ depending on the region of application ;)

AU: [http://www.besins- healthcare.com/pdf/testogel%20patient%20in...](http://www.besins- healthcare.com/pdf/testogel%20patient%20information%20leaflet%20%28Australia%29.pdf)

US: [http://www.besins-healthcare.com/pdf/androgel_PI.pdf](http://www.besins- healthcare.com/pdf/androgel_PI.pdf)

<comment><USER43> This is utterly useless. Many safe drugs have long, scary side effect descriptions. Conversely, many drugs that have proved harmful over the long term have done so in ways that weren't described on a side effect disclosure.

<comment><USER42> You may find it useless until you experience serious side effects (>1% - <10%): headache, dizzyness, paraesthesia, amnesia, hyperaesthesia, mood disorders, hypertension and gynaecomastia

Wondering if someone using this product can confirm these symptoms.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> [http://www.drugwatch.com/testosterone/side- effects/](http://www.drugwatch.com/testosterone/side-effects/)

</comment><comment><USER45> [http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

</comment><comment><USER46> You can get (expensive) testosterone (DHT) cream from dhtcream.com. No prescription, legal everywhere.

</comment><comment><USER47> I wonder what will be the effects of all these tons of testosterone goingh through humans into water, soil and all other organisms.

</comment><comment><USER48> This is quack science. I wouldn't exchange temporary muscular gains for getting bald and other nasty long term side effects.

<comment><USER43> What is quack about it? Lots of people are noting anecdotally that is has huge benefits. Are there strong studies disproving this? As to the negative effects, what is the largest/longest term/most reputable citation you have for us?

<comment><USER49> What's quack about it is testosterone users calling themselves "doctors" to sell testosterone to other people. I haven't looked into research on either side so couldn't tell you whether I think it's a good or stupid thing to do, other than that if I did consider it I certainly wouldn't be considering the anecdotes of these people useful data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Big fan of supplementation...growing up as a couch potato that medical professionals said should never, ever lift weights due to a physical handicap, I had a lot of body image issues. The fact I really enjoyed comic books didn't help my perception either. Just take a look for yourself and the way the Super Hero bodytype looks like. Straight up juiced[1].

Then, I started natural using a book from the library. Weightlifting actually helped manage a lot of my physical handicap - by being stronger, I was reducing the wear and tear on my body. Well, because I still wanted to break through to another level, I started researching supplements. Using the mind to grow the body.

Protein, Glutamine, BCAAs, Tribulus, ZMA - all of them are natural ways to increase physical strength and also grow into a lean, muscular person. They were good, and eventually I found my way to some PH products. If 19-Norandro was good enough for Mark McGwire (it wasn't he was on the real stuff, that was just a cover story), then I was game to try it! Worked great, enjoyed it but also knew that doing so over a long period of time would have side effects. Eventually 19-Norandro got banned. There are chemists doing great work in the field (I've got my eye on one vendor in particular), and they'll always be 1 step ahead of the law, IMO.

I did a couple more different products but never stacked to the point where I'd need PCT. Honestly, I think budget and liver damage fears were my driving motives. Just look at Arnold - he had to have heart surgery, and I'd bet a lot of money it's related to the muscle being exposed to years of heavy steroid doses[2].

These days I avoid PH or the juice outright. As I age, I might get back into the scene, but it's a crap shoot. There are far, far too many placebo type products out there, and the really good stuff has side effects that must be planned for, otherwise the whole quality of life part goes down, and where's the fun in that?

Overall, I'd say TRT/PH/Juice are definitely not for everybody, but they're not inherently evil. Sort of like alcohol. Not everybody can knock back a dozen beers during a weekend marathon session at home and still be productive / nice / etc, but it's possible depending on the individual.

[1] Freshman year of University the next door neighbor was a Pre-Med, about 5'2" and 205 lbs. We became pals and he let me in on the steroid secrets (cycling, GHB for sleep, etc). We did have a good laugh talking about how comic book characters reflected different steroids: Want to be Captain America? Deca. Wolverine? Winstrol. Sabretooth? Deca + Winstrol! It was a joke in a lot of ways, but kind of not...

[2] Arnold is coming! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sHvWYAzIRo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sHvWYAzIRo)

<comment><USER51> Just curious, but would you mind specifying the handicap this helped you overcome? I'm genuinely curious and it would add more context to your story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Is it just me, or did this article completely assume that it's reader is male?

<comment><USER53> It definitely assumes the reader wants to be (more) masculine...</comment></comment>


The prior can generally only be understood in the context of the likelihood - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.07487 <comment><USER2> Nice article, in the sense that I would assign it to students, although I think it presents sort of a strawman and doesn't really introduce anything that hasn't been discussed at length elsewhere.

It provides a nice introduction to types of objective priors, hinting at their advantages and disadvantages. Also a nice discussion of why priors matter. Incidentally, I agree that "subjective" and "objective" are poor labels for priors--something better would be something like "estimand-predictive" and "inferential-property" priors, respectively.

I'm not really sure why they suggest objective priors violate assumptions about not using information from the data. The model, and thus many objective priors, can be specified given the design, without any knowledge of what the data looks like. This is the strawman part of it.

I get the sense Gelman has been wrestling with objective priors the last few years.

<comment><USER3> Odd because I read the abstract of the paper as a claim for a fundamental advance in statistics; systematic and objective determination of priors in Bayesian analysis. I can't speak to whether the paper is successful in delivering this as I am very dense and it takes me weeks to understand things, but if they have identified mechanisms that allow complex priors to be constructed that minimize overfitting:

1\. I will do a little dance

2\. I will learn how to construct such priors

3\. I will attempt to apply this in practice to see what happens.

I don't see overfitting risk as a strawman, I see it as a nasty business that means that production models can't be trusted.

<comment><USER2> A lot of what they discuss is in the literature on reference priors, if not in other literature on objective priors as well.

It's a little complex for a comment on HN, but IMHO the best formalization of overfitting is in the literature on minimum description length, and related information-theoretic literature ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_description_length](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_description_length) ; the wikipedia page is a little off on some things but the general points are probably about right).

The relationship between MDL/NML and Bayesian statistics is a little complicated--Barron, Roos, and Watanabe have a nice recent paper about it ([https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.7116](https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.7116)) -- but the short story is that there's a certain equivalence (or at least very close relationship) between MDL/NML and Bayesian inference with reference priors (i.e., the "capacity-achieving prior" in IT parlance).

So Bayesian inference with reference priors minimizes risk of overfitting in a very technical minimax sense.

The problem is that reference priors are very difficult in general to construct, although that is changing rapidly, and they have been worked out for certain important cases (this paper provides an interesting new approach with a nice overview of recent papers [https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.01168](https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.01168)). The Jeffreys prior is a form of the reference prior for models meeting certain constraints.

A lot of the issues Gelman et al. touch on have been written about in various places in the MDL/NML/reference prior/information theory literature.

<comment><USER4> > but IMHO the best formalization of overfitting is in the literature on > minimum description length

It's always surprised me how few people know about MDL, considering it's pretty darn close to what we might consider a "universal predictor" (granted, the difficulty with MDL is that it's uncomputable in the general sense). Even among most data scientists I know, very few understand what overfitting really is (and thus cross-validation and regularization are merely tools to what seems like the blackbox "art" of model selection).

But the concepts of MDL/MML and Kolmogorov complexity are very deep and fundamental—to such an extent that I think the path to true AGI will rely much more heavily upon algorithmic information theory than neural networks in the future.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, I have a similar reaction about being surprised MDL and algorithmic statistics isn't better known. As you say, it's very fundamental stuff. It seems so fundamental to me that I just sort of assume without thinking about it or even questioning whether it will eventually become more prominent.

My guesses as to why it's been slow to be adopted so far are that (1) it's relatively new, in the grand scheme of things, (2) certain things about it are really challenging to everyone, and (3) it has a certain perspective on inference that can be alien to a lot of people.

<comment><USER3> Also (5) it doesn't really work or make sense.

The data isn't necessarily representative of the domain theory, in fact in a lot of domains the data isn't, because the domains are so large that you can't capture the whole of it in a tractable training set, for example : images. Other data doesn't capture the domain because the data is generated in a regime that isn't operant when gathered - for example bull runs vs. bear runs in the markets. Bayesian analysis is attractive, we can include informative priors that capture our knowledge that in circumstances outside of the data other determining behaviours exist. This is also one of the reasons why deep networks _can_ outperform support vector machines; deep networks can learn to prefer domain theories that are not the minimal descriptive one.

The other thing that is interesting about MDL is where does the idea that the minimal theory is the right theory come from?

Most people say "oh it's Occam's razor" but where did Occam's razor come from - who was Mr (Fr.) Occam?? Well, he was a 13th century philosopher - part of the Cambridge school and part of the tradition of Scotus invented to construct a story that supported the Trinitarian God... and this is why we prefer the idea that "entities will not multiply beyond necessity" because it says that you have a Trinity because The University ABSOLUTELY cannot work without it, and that's why you have three and not two and not four.

I am happy with all this but why should we think it's a good way to do machine learning? After all there are lots of examples of theories that were simple but don't work as well as complex alternatives - Gravity is a good one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > With the above prior and likelihood, the posterior for β is a product of > independent Gaussians with unit variance and mean given by the least squares > estimator of β. The problem is that standard concentration of measure > inequalities show that this posterior is not uniformly distributed in a unit > ball around the ordinary least squares estimator but rather is exponentially > close in the number of coefficients to a sphere of radius 1 centered at the > estimate.

Of course the posterior is not uniformly distributed in a unit ball (the density is higher at the center of the ball, and extends beyond the limits of the ball). But the fact that it is exponentially close to a sphere doesn't have anything to do with that! If the posterior was uniformly distributed in a unit ball it would also be exponentially close to a sphere.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> [http://andrewgelman.com/2017/09/05/never-total-eclipse- prior...](http://andrewgelman.com/2017/09/05/never-total-eclipse-prior/)

</comment><comment><USER5> > For a fully informative prior for δ, we might choose normal with mean 0 > because we see no prior reason to expect the population difference to be > positive or negative and standard deviation 0.001 because we expect any > differences in the population to be small, given the general stability of > sex ratios and the noisiness of the measure of attractiveness.

That's a _very_ strong prior. To put it into context (if I did my calculations right): assuming that _every single child_ from very attractive parents in the study was a girl (let's say 600 out of 600) while for the rest we have the expected distribution (i.e. 1150 girls out of 2400) the estimate of the difference would be 0.1%.

</comment><comment><USER5> > Stein's trick was to notice that the point µ = 0 has the property that if y > is sufficiently close to it,

It's not clear in this presentation but shrinkage can be done toward any arbitrary point, not just toward the origin.

</comment><comment><USER6> Bayes assumes/requires conditional independence of observations; which is sometimes the case.

For example:

\- Are the positions of the Earth and the Moon conditionally independent? No.

\- In the phrase "the dog and the cat", are "and" and "the" independent? No.

\- In a biological system, are we to assume conditional independence? We should not.

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

...

"Efficient test for nonlinear dependence of two continuous variables" [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4539721/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4539721/)

\- In no particular sequence: CANOVA, ANOVA, Pearson, Spearman, Kendall, MIC, Hoeffding

<comment><USER6> From [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic- inductive/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/) :

> It is now generally held that the core idea of Bayesian logicism is fatally > flawed—that syntactic logical structure cannot be the sole determiner of the > degree to which premises inductively support conclusions. A crucial facet of > the problem faced by Bayesian logicism involves how the logic is supposed to > apply to scientific contexts where the conclusion sentence is some > hypothesis or theory, and the premises are evidence claims. The difficulty > is that in any probabilistic logic that satisfies the usual axioms for > probabilities, the inductive support for a hypothesis must depend in part on > its prior probability. This prior probability represents how plausible the > hypothesis is supposed to be based on considerations other than the > observational and experimental evidence (e.g., perhaps due to relevant > plausibility arguments). A Bayesian logicist must tell us how to assign > values to these pre-evidential prior probabilities of hypotheses, for each > of the hypotheses or theories under consideration. Furthermore, this kind of > Bayesian logicist must determine these prior probability values in a way > that relies only on the syntactic logical structure of these hypotheses, > perhaps based on some measure of their syntactic simplicities. There are > severe technical problems with getting this idea to work. Moreover, various > kinds of examples seem to show that such an approach must assign intuitively > quite unreasonable prior probabilities to hypotheses in specific cases (see > the footnote cited near the end of section 3.2 for details). Furthermore, > for this idea to apply to the evidential support of real scientific > theories, scientists would have to formalize theories in a way that makes > their relevant syntactic structures apparent, and then evaluate theories > solely on that syntactic basis (together with their syntactic relationships > to evidence statements). Are we to evaluate alternative theories of > gravitation (and alternative quantum theories) this way?

<comment><USER7> >"This prior probability represents how plausible the hypothesis is supposed to be based on considerations other than the observational and experimental evidence (e.g., perhaps due to relevant plausibility arguments)."

I guess I don't know about how "Bayesian logicism" differs from "Bayesian probability", but this is totally false in the latter case. The prior is just supposed to be independent of the current data (eg devised before it was collected). In practice info almost always leaks into the prior + model via tinkering. That is why a priori predictions are so important to proving you are onto something.

<comment><USER6> Bayesian logicism is the logic derived from Bayesian probability.

Magic numbers are an anti-pattern: which constants are what and why should be justified OR it should be shown that a non-expert-biased form converges regardless.

<comment><USER7> The use of the term prior probability in that paragraph is not consistent with its use in bayesian probability, so something is wrong.

Also, I am not sure what magic numbers you are referring to.

<comment><USER6> Arbitrary priors are magic numbers.

Is there a frequentist statistic that can be used in a deterministic function to determine which arbitrary priors to use?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Lessons Learned Reproducing a Deep Reinforcement Learning Paper - <AUTHOR> http://amid.fish/reproducing-deep-rl <comment><USER2> _" Switching from experimenting a lot and thinking a little to experimenting a little and thinking a lot was a key turnaround in productivity. When debugging with long iteration times, you really need to pour time into the hypothesis- forming step - thinking about what all the possibilities are, how likely they seem on their own, and how likely they seem in light of everything you've seen so far."_

Not to glorify by-gone days, but isn't there a certain charm to having to wait your turn to plug punch cards into a mainframe?

Having a "single shot", with long iteration cycles, indeed does something strange to the way you approach programming and bugs and program design.

Anecdote: my long iteration cycles were caused by my mom restricting access to my C64. I filled page after page (paper!) with code, anxious for any chance to try it. I like to think I learned something during these "mental dry runs"…

 _On topic_ : I wrote a rant about the "Mummy Effect" of trying to reproduce ML papers (which we do regularly): [https://rare-technologies.com/mummy- effect-bridging-gap-betw...](https://rare-technologies.com/mummy-effect- bridging-gap-between-academia-industry/)

<comment><USER3> As they say, _a few days in the laboratory might save a few hours in the library!_

Alternately, _a few days of doing might save a few hours of thinking._ :-)

<comment><USER4> The flavour I'd always heard was _a day of coding saves an hour of planning_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A lot of these points apply to non-RL and non-Deep-Learning projects as well. I'm currently working on a machine learning project that has nothing to do with RL, neural networks, Tensorflow, or GPUs, but I have encountered many of the same surprises and have converged on many of the same solutions and insights. Here are the ones that I think transfer over to general machine learning projects:

\- Implementation time vs debugging time: I've spent vastly more time debugging and rewriting. Furthermore, I was surprised at how much time I spent even setting up infrastructure to allow debugging. Corollary: Don't take shortcuts in initial implementation. Literally every hack I put in in order to get something working quickly has come back to bite me and I've had to rewrite and refactor every one of them.

\- Thinking vs doing, and being explicit: There are too many degrees of freedom to just try random shit. One of the biggest tools I found (like the author) was to write everything down. I have four+ notebooks filled with literal prose conversations with myself interspersed with diagrams and drawings. I credit that with getting me past many mental roadblocks.

\- Measure and test: Without unit and integration tests, I'd probably go in circles forever. It's too easy to change something to fix a problem and have that break something else. I now have a test for even the most mundane assumptions in my model and my code, after too many times realizing "oh, before I changed X I could assume Y was true but that no longer holds".

I feel like engineering for machine learning requires a different skill-set than traditional programming and even traditional AI programming. Taking a very calculated and deductive approach like the author suggests seems to be crucial.

<comment><USER6> This is exactly right.

When I was teaching machine learning classes, the biggest hurdle I had to get a lot of students over was their history and expectation that they can implement something, fix the compiler errors, fix the runtime crashes, and then just declare victory. Machine Learning is basically the study of getting a computer do give you an answer you don't know, so you have to be in this constant state of defensiveness, never quite trusting that things are correct.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> A good way to get around the long iteration cycles is to develop on subsets of the data or simpler tasks. With computer vision you can either start with something like MNIST (which might not always be ideal because you'll need to adjust your architecture) or take a subset of about a 1000 examples from your real training set and get it to overfit.

Another thing that helps is having a way to queue up multiple experiments. It's not that hard to set up with celery.

Also I'd really recommend starting with the dumbest baseline model possible and getting the evaluation pipeline around it working. You can then focus on iterating on it and measure how much each change moves the needle.

</comment><comment><USER8> What is the tool you are using to write your 'logs'? (pictured in this image [http://amid.fish/images/rl_logs.jpg](http://amid.fish/images/rl_logs.jpg))

<comment><USER9> that looks like jupyter notebook or the floydhub service he talks about mid- article

<comment><USER7> I'm pretty sure that's Bear, a great markdown based notes app.

[http://www.bear-writer.com/](http://www.bear-writer.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, Bear :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> >Switching from experimenting a lot and thinking a little to experimenting a little and thinking a lot was a key turnaround in productivity.

I think corollary might be - Know your data and the processing steps from the paper very well.</comment>