I installed CoreOS on a 9-year-old MacBook - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@singuerinc/i-installed-coreos-in-9-years-old-macbook-3aec88489090#.djmramizx <comment><USER2> That "ugly white notebook" was one of the most usable laptops in its day, *nix or windows, and it still isn't that ancient - computing innovation really has slowed down significantly. Compare to notebooks from '96 and point out the novelty of running a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit machine.

<comment><USER3> I've got OpenBSD running on an old Dell Atom netbook that I use alongside my desktop for keeping notes/task lists/music control etc. It's quite usable apart from most browsers run like crap, which is impressive for a 6 year old laptop on a processor that was considered underpowered even when it came out.

<comment><USER4> HP Mini (Intel Atom) with Gentoo here! With no X it sits pretty at 12MB RAM usage. Now to figure out what daemons to run on it...

<comment><USER5> you mean _other_ than systemd? :)

<comment><USER4> What systemd?? OpenRC here. <:)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This brings back memories of my first website. I hosted it on my white iBook G3, and I used dyndns to get a free hostname for my dynamic IP. The website was only accessible when I was at home, and plugged in (we had no Wifi yet).

It was pretty popular with my classmates for some time -- there was a self- written forum on it where you could upload photos, and people used it to share holiday pictures (this was before Facebook allowed everyone to share stuff online)

Unfortunately at some point the HD crashed and I lost the database since I had no backup of it -- I just didn't know where MySQL stored its files.

<comment><USER7> I feel so old, my first website run on a DEC Alpha.

<comment><USER8> So did AltaVista, when it was good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Good work! We have a black MacBook from the same era at our house; my girlfriend uses Ubuntu on it as her main computer. Should have thought about blogging about it!

That 32-bit EFI with 64-bit CPU is a real curse for installing recent Linux (although Ubuntu did release "amd64+mac" ISO images for these computers, I think even 14.04 is available this way).

Additionally, my internal DVD drive for this MacBook failed, so I had to use an external DVD drive for booting said Ubuntu. It had the weirdest bug -- you had to reboot from rEFInd three times for the EFI boot to recognize that the external DVD drive has a bootable DVD in it. First time, it won't see it, second time, it won't see it, and on the third reboot, it magically does.

The reason is likely because the drive spins up too slow and the EFI boot timeouts unless the drive is powered up from an earlier spinup.

Besides the internal drive failing, the machine with Ubuntu on it is perfectly usable as a main laptop for a student. It shows how the laptop scene did not improve that much in the last 9 years -- and that one can save quite a bit of money if he buys a reliable machine and treats it well.

<comment><USER10> Bugs like that are always so satisfying to figure out. It's confusing for so long, you get frustrated, move on, then later you see a slight correlation and a light bulb goes off in your head.

I love it. I had one of those experiences a few weeks ago with ,of all things, a desk. Turns out you gotta open the drawers in a certain series. Or alternatively rip out the tabs that create said series. The second is a lot more fun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This reminds me of some of my early linux boxes. As a poor high school student in the mid to late 90s I was only able to get free computer equipment. Some of it was pretty cool. In order to squeeze as much performance out of them, I ran slackware and debian.

Some of the most memorable were:

386DX AT&T Server tower (a huge case with a 40lb 1.2GB Hard drive) - got it to run slackware and serve files on a 10mbps network

486SX-40MHz desktop machine running linux with FVWM and Englightenment! :) Biggest achievement: Play a 128mbps Mp3 file streamed from an Apple LC475!

Apple LC475 (68040-25MHz) - The 68040 could decode an mp3 file. I used to use it to decode the MP3 files and send the audio over the network to a 486sx that lacked an FPU. I ran linux on this, not mac os.

Apple Quadra 660AV - awesome little machine. I ran linux and mac os on this.

Those were fun times!

<comment><USER12> My favorite linux machine was a 486 laptop with a 450mb hd and 20 mb ram which originally came with windows 95 running at 640x480, which I got handed down from my dad around 2000.

I bootstrapped a barebones debian system, custom-compiled basically everything on my (debian) desktop and copied it over, stripping out as much as I could, and ended up getting a pretty decent X environment going on it, with opera as browser and fvwm as window manager. I programmed my first web app on that machine, in C++. It didn't even run all that slowly, one wonders what went wrong that modern software is so horribly slow. Good times though, fun machine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Lesson one: Use a DVD-RW instead of a DVD-R. Lesson two: Use a USB flash drive instead of optical media.

The 32-bit EFI vs 64-bit system issue has reared its head again with some Windows 8 tablets (e.g. HP Stream 7). Switching the iso's EFI boot files is an easy way to solve this.

</comment><comment><USER14> Very useful idea. One thing I want to add is docker daemon and client communicate over tcp. So in any computer, you can just export DOCKER_HOST and use it to manage containers and get a more native feel.

</comment><comment><USER15> I've been learning docker on an old 64bit IBM designed for XP using the a newish version of lubuntu.

There are still some things that make it unintuitive and in my view incomplete (eg. a command to copy/cut/paste/delete volumes).

A couple things I've found out: You should definitely use the Overlay FS driver as soon as possible; don't use DeviceMapper. Also, It can be convenient to use data volume containers but watch out for orphaned files in /var/lib/docker/tmp and always use -v.

</comment><comment><USER16> 2006 era hardware [1] is actually still pretty relevant and current, in terms of the standards and features available on the motherboard and hard disk, so it's not surprising that this software works.

Once you go back as far as a machine that only provides PATA/IDE hard drive connectors, that's when I would expect to start seeing problems emerge.

[1] [https://discussions.apple.com/thread/1956385](https://discussions.apple.com/thread/1956385)

</comment><comment><USER17> I installed on even older MacBook Debian Unstable (with part from experimental), Plasma 5 environment (gnome doesn't work because old Intel card supports only to OpenGL 2.1) without any problems and even full fledged KWin. Installation process was: copy netinstall image to usb, sync it, plug usb into macbook and install Debian. Everything works without any problem.

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm running OSX Yosemite on a 2006 Mac Pro 1,1. It wasn't too difficult once I had the correct boot.efi, and it works flawlessly. With an SSD, a minor CPU upgrade, and a recent video card it's nearly as fast as a 2013 Macbook Pro.

I'm thinking of switching it over to Linux though, I'm no longer happy with the direction in which Apple is headed, and I do nearly everything in the terminal and browser anyway.

<comment><USER5> If you do switch, look for a KDE-based distribution like Kubuntu or Antergos. you'll thank me later.

<comment><USER18> I should give KDE another chance. Last time I tried it was like a decade ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Awesome article. I have been thinking about setting up a RPi as a server lately as well. Do you know if RancherOS will run on the Pi2?

<comment><USER20> Check out TinyCore instead, its a modular Linux distribution. You can end up with ~15mb Images.

"The Core Project is a highly modular based system with community build extensions.

It starts with a recent Linux kernel, vmlinuz, and our root filesystem and start-up scripts packaged with a basic set of kernel modules in core.gz. Core (10MB) is simply the kernel + core.gz - this is the foundation for user created desktops, servers, or appliances. TinyCore is Core + Xvesa.tcz + Xprogs.tcz + aterm.tcz + fltk-1.3.tcz + flwm.tcz + wbar.tcz

TinyCore becomes simply an example of what the Core Project can produce, an 15MB FLTK/FLWM desktop. "

[http://www.tinycorelinux.net/arm.html](http://www.tinycorelinux.net/arm.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I wish I still own my PowerBook17 to install CoreOS too. Like the author, I installed almost every distro until I settled on Ubuntu, but it was not enough. Inspiring article! Thanks for sharing.

</comment><comment><USER22> FWIW, I have an old Macbook Pro of the 2009 era. I ripped the DVD drive out and replaced the hard disk with 2xRAID1 SSDs. It runs Gentoo. Fast.

</comment><comment><USER23> I have Debian on a 2001 G3 iBook. Works great.

</comment><comment><USER24> Hmm time to try this with my old laptop.</comment>


Ask HN: Should I host projects on their own domain? - <AUTHOR> Hi all
Last couple of weeks during the summer I've been really productive and launched some little tools/side-projects that were on my todo list since a very long time.
I decided to host them on my personal website, eg site.com/tool-a. Different people gave me the advice to host them on their own domains, as that's more professional. They have a point, but I consider them my personal projects and they are 1-2 pages max and I'm not going to buy a separate domain name for every project I make, as most of the tools don't bring in money  and are just for fun.
One is a mobile app which has IAP,  another one has a donation button on the final page and the other 4 projects are free.
Thoughts? <comment><USER2> The way I see it, hosting them on your personal website portrays them like a portfolio. If they have potential to grow into something on their own you may want to consider giving them their own website to keep it modular. I agree with you, if you're not going to make money off of them, or they won't grow into an open source sensation (even a minor one), why not just keep it on your personal website?

</comment><comment><USER3> You can get some domain names for as little as $1/year for niche TLDs, and if you're willing to splurge a bit, you can get more generic ones for $8. It not only looks more professional, it simplifies administration, and makes it far easier to isolate the domains later. You can also extend the branding to email addresses. If they're just pet projects, it's no big deal, but if you're intending to monetize them or want them to become durable brands, the sooner you get them a custom domain, the better.

</comment><comment><USER4> Private domain is fine if it's just your thing you build at some point. Something I sometimes see people do if things are vaguely related is to get _one_ domain for all of them, with the idea that's it might be easier to remember than your personal domain and makes accessing them faster.

</comment><comment><USER5> How much control do you have over your existing domain?

You could host them on subdomains:

I.e.: instead of site.com/tool-a

You'd have: tool-a.site.com

And: tool-b.site.com

etc.</comment>


Running Emacs on Android - <AUTHOR> http://endlessparentheses.com/running-emacs-on-android.html <comment><USER2> I just installed "Termux" and "Hacker's keyboard," ran `apt upgrade`, `apt install emacs`, and ran `emacs` — everything worked flawlessly.

Unlike the OP though, I barely touched the on screen keyboard for all of this — I just used android voice input, even for the terminal commands and `enter` command.

I literally said "apt install emacs enter" out loud and it just worked! Voice recognition has come a long way.

<comment><USER3> Yes, after I published that post Fredrick patch the Emacs package on Termux so it wouldn't need those workarounds. I've updated the post accordingly.

Sadly (maybe it's my pronunciation), but voice typing isn't that perfect for me. It works alright for regular sentences, but it refuses to understands things that are not plain english (like apt).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Now we need a gesture keyboard so we can type, or twitch, instead of using an onscreen keyboard.

Finger IO: [http://fingerio.cs.washington.edu](http://fingerio.cs.washington.edu)

Google's Soli: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QNiZfSsPc0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QNiZfSsPc0)

Perhaps a modified game controller: [http://www.amazon.com/iGrip-Ergonomic- Keyboard-by-AlphaGrip/...](http://www.amazon.com/iGrip-Ergonomic-Keyboard-by- AlphaGrip/dp/B000O8AOO0)

<comment><USER5> I've seen people being proficient under complex GUIs (final fantasy) with game pads. I'd love to lisp on a paddle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Termux is powerful. I installed nodejs, ran qici engine out of the box and played with it for a while just to see how far I could get. It worked but the touchscreen is unbearable. It was fun to see it working, though. I also did a little bit of coding with a physical keyboard and an USB-OTG cable for a Lumines clone in Go. It was playable but my phone got stolen and I lost all the source code. By the way, I did all of that on an ancient Moto G 2014.

</comment><comment><USER7> Emacs is my main editor, but it seems to me vim is far better suited to the limited interface of a phone.

There is always evil mode I suppose.

<comment><USER8> Would spacemacs work on Android?

<comment><USER9> In the Termux google group somebody reported an issue with it. I run spacemacs on android with Linux Deploy, Debian and a good ssh client.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> mickael-kerjean That's a small step for man, giant step for emacs kind!!! Never really like any other editor and was waiting for that day to come since years!!!

</comment><comment><USER10> It is fine to install emacs on an android device, but I can't imagine doing any "keyboard" intensive work on a tiny screen. I've, in past, installed Vim- touch, just for the sake of it. But I almost NEVER used it (beyond first few minutes to make sure "it works")

<comment><USER11> External bluetooth keyboard makes it bearable.

Keyboards vary to the extent that they are emacs friendly (how many Super- Meta-Alt keys do they have?) but I find this Logitech one just about usable for programming:

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Logitech-Device-Bluetooth- Keyboard-S...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Logitech-Device-Bluetooth-Keyboard- Smartphone/dp/B00NB2NZ92)

(In case it's not clear, the keyboard is huge, as large as a laptop keyboard, so once you start down this road you lose portability).

<comment><USER10> Once you lose portability, why not just use "real" computer ;) (I mean laptop) Entering text of smallish screen is only meant for small amount of text (a tiny note etc.)

<comment><USER11> I'm not going to disagree with you :-) However I do also have a sort of compromise, which is my Nexus 9 with the folio keyboard. It folds up into something similar to the size and weight of a paperback book. It's not-so-bad for ssh (I wouldn't really want to program with it), one thing missing would be good key mappings to deal with my odd choice of 'screen' settings.

Photo here: [https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/nexus-9-ssh-on-the- go/...](https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/nexus-9-ssh-on-the-go/#content)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Very cool, I am going to try this when I get home! (I am in Asia on business and I don't want to risk bricking my phone while on the road.)

With the Java IDE for Android, a remote keyboard and external display would make for a full on computer.

<comment><USER10> Ahh, This I can understand (using Android remotely with "full sized" keyboard/display) (See my previous comment about entering text of smallish screen)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> In conclusion, use Vim instead. ;)</comment>


Nokia's Ovi app store goes live - <AUTHOR> http://conversations.nokia.com/2009/05/26/ovi-store-goes-live/

<comment><USER2> Is it just me? I find all the ovi services cluttered and hard to navigate. It just does not attract me as a user to spend time there learning their services or shop for apps. It looks and feels like any other corporate website. As much as nokia wants to concentrate on internet services, i just don't see it happening from the user's perspective.

<comment><USER3> Have you tried it on a device, or are you just going by the screenshots?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here is one users attempt to use the new Ovi store [http://shkspr.mobi/blog/index.php/2009/05/nokia-ovi-store- oh...](http://shkspr.mobi/blog/index.php/2009/05/nokia-ovi-store-oh-dear/)

<comment><USER3> And here's another's [http://greenerdesktop.com/465/nokias-ovi-store-first- impress...](http://greenerdesktop.com/465/nokias-ovi-store-first-impressions)

<comment><USER5> After looking at that, I can't think anything but "wow, what ugly fonts".. I know that phone isn't an iPhone, but you can still try to do some antialiasing, or something, right? Also, the information density seems pretty low (compared to the App Store).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm a little disappointed by the reception this news item is getting here on HN, isn't this a great opportunity for developers? I know HN is heavily Apple orientated site and filled with Flash haters - but Nokia has millions of phones out there and by supporting Flash - gives the Ovi app store a good chance of success.

</comment><comment><USER7> It does not ship on devices at the moment, making it irrelevant in the great game of app-storeing.

<comment><USER8> You can download the "Ovi App" on existing Nokia phones

<comment><USER9> Chicken and egg, indeed.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=626603>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Whoever picked that name should be fired.

<comment><USER3> You wait 'til you see the Palm Utus Store and MS' new Filopen Store :P

<comment><USER11> Here in Padova, there is a Via Falloppio:

[http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.405923,11.886435&#...
Named after the guy who discovered the body part, who was of course working at the University of Padova.
Speaking of which, 'ovi' in this corner of Italy means 'eggs' (like chicken eggs) quite literally. In Italian, egg is 'uovo'. My wife had a good laugh when she saw the 'ovi store'.</comment></comment></comment>


Ericsson and T-Mobile ink $3.5B deal for 5G - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/11/ericsson-and-t-mobile-ink-3-5-billion-deal-for-5g/ <comment><USER2> The real kicker is the last line. T-mobile can software upgrade its LTE equipment to 5G:

> The partnership with Ericsson means that T-Mobile's already installed base > of Ericsson Radio System radios will be able to run 5G NR with a remote > software installation.

<comment><USER3> Ericsson was/is Intel's large foundry client, but with the 10nm delays and 14nm being thoroughly booked with x86-64 and LTE modems for Apple, there isn't room for Ericsson to produce new chips on modern nodes. Worse yet, I hear Ericsson designed specifically for Intel 10nm, which leaves them up a creek for the next few years.

A firmware update to make existing hardware have a longer lifespan and help Ericsson to retain their clients was likely the only out here. If Ericsson had the new chips they were planning on, this firmware update would be much more expensive and less probable to actually see carriers taking them up on it.

<comment><USER4> >Ericsson was/is Intel's large foundry client

That is actually Nokia. Not Ericsson

<comment><USER3> Nope, its Ericsson, and Intel fucked them over pretty badly. All of Ericsson's newer chips were designed for 10nm, which doesn't work & Intel is full up on 14nm. Firmware updates to existing hardware and rebrands of existing chips are all Ericsson has to retain customers until they can either get another fab to build their chip (2 to 3 years from now), or Intel sorts out the yield issues on 10nm.

[https://semiaccurate.com/2018/07/02/intel-custom- foundrys-10...](https://semiaccurate.com/2018/07/02/intel-custom- foundrys-10nm-meltdown-is-crushing-a-20b-market-cap-tech-giant/)

<comment><USER4> I mean like... For Christ Sake.

You take SemiAccruate as reliable sources, and even if the rumour were right. Ericsson was / is never disclosed as an Intel Custom Foundry Partner.

The only self disclosed Telcom Equipment manufacturer using Intel 10nm is Nokia, and BTW where is the NOKIA bankrupt and "no way out"

Seriously, this is HN, not Reddit.

<comment><USER3> SemiAccurate tends to be fairly on point, they do have a heavy slant against anyone that isn't on the GNU/Linux software support train.

FYI, Ericsson admitted to this silicon problem negatively impacting them recently: [https://semiaccurate.com/2018/08/30/update-to-intel- custom-f...](https://semiaccurate.com/2018/08/30/update-to-intel-custom- foundry-10nm-customer-meltdown/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great. Now I'll be able to use up my monthly data in 2 minutes instead of 10 minutes.

Edit: I don't mean to poo-poo the advance of tech, but this really highlights the disconnect between what's possible and what consumers actually want/value.

<comment><USER6> It would be great to see wireless providers becoming competitors to home ISPs. If some day wireless speeds become comparable, the problem of having only one home ISP would go away.

<comment><USER7> I get 50Mbps with 4G connection for 20euros per month. No data cap. Public ipv4 address.

Router is 4 years old Huawei 4g router and I have installed outdoor antenna on the roof for stable connection. I have been with this setup at home for the last 4 years.

I could propably get faster connection with new router but this is fine.

<comment><USER8> That still doesn't compare to the 300Mbps I'm getting right now even through Comcast, or the 1Gbps I'll be getting once the local fiber company builds out in my neighborhood in the next year or so.

<comment><USER9> Hardly comparable though. The context is wireless internet.

<comment><USER8> I thought the context was wireless ISPs becoming viable alternatives to landline ISPs like Comcast, so it seemed like a relevant comparison.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is good news as it kept Ericsson on the battle field. Nokia is looking a lot worst though may be it will merge with Ericsson some day. In terms of telecom equipment industry Huawei is now bigger than Nokia and Ericsson combined. And may be I am the only one not entirely comfortable with that.

<comment><USER10> I don't know from where exactly you get this impression but last time I checked they only had a 1% difference (28% versus 27% and Nokia 23% with 2017 figures [0]). I can tell you that Ericsson is in a much better position than Huawei. And although I would also like an Ericsson Nokia merger, I don't see it happening soon ;-)

[0] [https://technology.ihs.com/600864/global-mobile- infrastructu...](https://technology.ihs.com/600864/global-mobile- infrastructure-market-down-14-percent-from-a-year-ago)

<comment><USER4> Interesting.

Because even if you take out all the revenue from the consumer mobile phone business, which is growing rapidly as we speaks, the revenue from the rest of Huawei is still bigger than Everything of Nokia and Ericsson combined, in both 2016 and 2017.

[1] [http://telecoms.com/481009/huawei-2016-numbers-reveal-the- ex...](http://telecoms.com/481009/huawei-2016-numbers-reveal-the-extent-of- ericson-nokia-and-ztes-challenge/)

[2] [http://telecoms.com/488793/2017-numbers-show-how-much- huawei...](http://telecoms.com/488793/2017-numbers-show-how-much-huawei-still- owns-the-telecoms-market/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Good news for Erlang? I hope some of those dollars go to improving the language and VM.

<comment><USER12> Here is a video of Joe Armstrong from React 2014 conference where in the intro he describes how Erlang is used:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQIE22e0cW8&t=590](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQIE22e0cW8&t=590)

TL;DL: If Erlang breaks so does cat picture sharing for more than 50% of world's smart phones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is there a specific 5G standard? In comparison to 3G which had CDMA2000 and UMTS, there seems to be mutlitude of unnamed standards.

<comment><USER14> 4G mobile standard was LTE from 3GPP, which competed against WiMax from IEEE and won in the late 00s.

5G mobile standard is NR (stands for New Radio) from 3GPP. There is no competing mobile standard from anyone else.

Biggest change compared to LTE is the formal standard for millimeter wave communication for mobile. Previously it's been used for fixed wireless access and/or satellites. We'll see how it plays out in a mobile consumer environment.

<comment><USER15> So "long term evolution" turned out to not be so long term? :D

<comment><USER16> Not really. 5G won't replace 4G. 5G just requires to many cell towers to make sense outside of high-traffic areas like hospitals, airports and stadiums. 4G will still be what's used in outside environments. That's how it's been explained to me, anyway.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


New scala official website :-) nice - <AUTHOR> http://www.scala-lang.org/ <comment><USER2> Looks amazing, great work!</comment>


Free Access to the Digital Loyalty Academy - <AUTHOR> https://www.producthunt.com/posts/digital-loyalty-academy-free-access <comment><AUTHOR> Hey Everyone,

I'm a long time reader and new poster (hope that's cool).

We just launched the Digital Loyalty Academy through Product Hunt today and we're looking for feedback.

We've released our first course, an introduction to customer loyalty and how it works with digital businesses and are giving lifetime free access away today.

We created the content based on our experience working with 100s of companies including Amazon, Western Union, and Rakuten. We've tried to boil a massive ocean of information, and misinformation, to help people cut out the 10 years it took me to learn this stuff.

Please take a look and let me know if you have any questions or feedback.

Thanks,

Will</comment>


Facebook offers hidden service to Tor users - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/10/facebook-offers-hidden-service-to-tor-users/

<comment><USER2> I hate being impressed by or happy with Facebook.</comment>


Noticing surprise: The most important skill in science or self-improvement - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/01/surprise_journal_notice_the_unexpected_to_fight_confirmation_bias_for_science.html

<comment><USER2> In my experience, it's a very important skill for debugging code as well. Anytime I see something go by in a debugging session that I didn't expect, I try to get to the bottom of it. It may be a clue to the bug I'm trying to track down; it may be a clue that there's a different bug; or at the very least, it tells me I don't understand something about the code, and may have started out asking the wrong question.</comment>


I want to learn Lisp, but don't know where to start - <AUTHOR>

I have never really programmed, except for some basic and html back in the day.  I'm not very familiar with text editors/compilers etc..
I want to learn programming and would like to start with lisp for personal reasons.
However, when I go to certain sites like 'learn lisp the hard way', it seems to be already geared toward people who have a decent understanding of editors and programming.  A lot of it seems very foreign to me.
If I want to learn lisp, how do I build enough of a base so that I will understand how to learn it? <comment><USER2> I suggest the book "Land of Lisp" It assumes no prior knowledge, and is a lot of fun to work through!</comment>


Cocaine stops you from recognising other people's emotions - <AUTHOR> http://www.europeanneuropsychopharmacology.com/article/S0924-977X(15)00265-5/abstract <comment><USER3> > The study, which took place at the Netherland's Maastricht University, > started by giving 24 students either 300mg of the drug or a placebo

Umm... that's an entire line (assuming 3 to a gram).

> They were also found with increased heart rate

Ya think?

<comment><USER4> 3 lines to a gram are some fat lines, it's probably more like 12-14 lines a gram.

<comment><USER3> > 3 lines to a gram are some fat lines

What can I say? I miss the .com days of the 90s...

<comment><USER5> Now it's all nootropics :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Only 12 people got the actual drug, and their performance was only degraded 10%. This is an interesting theory with a little evidence but hardly "stops you from recognizing other people's emotions", and may be just noise from the small sample.

<comment><USER7> > _stops_ you from recognizing other people's emotions

Journalistic sensationalist garbage. I'm no advocate of drug usage but lying about things achieves nothing.

However, from an anecdotal perspective: my flatmate's ex-girlfriend had completely annihilated her brain with chronic use of that drug and, knowing her, would I agree with those incredibly inconclusive results? Somewhat - <USER2> definitely showed no capability of responding to emotions in others, but her brain way _beyond_ fried: so it may have been systemic (or other drugs).

> little evidence

I wouldn't call it that, it is a weak correlation at best. They should have included significantly more people.

<comment><USER8> Also, there's the issue of what sorts of neurological "types" tend to abuse which sorts of drugs. I currently take medication for ADHD which works on the dopamine response and feedback system. Cocaine at least superficially works on similar mechanisms.

I remember when I was talking to my doctor prior to being put on the medication and discussing any past recreational drug use. I'm sure that part of this was in order to determine any abuse potential but the doc also mentioned that a lot of times people with atypical dopamine feedback will abuse or "self-medicate" with cocaine.

I wonder if more people who gravitate toward heavy cocaine use (or the ones more likely to become habitual cocaine users) do so because they don't get the same sort of feedback and reinforcement from external stimuli as more "neurotypical" people.

It's all just conjecture on my part but my experience is that a lot of people who use recreational drugs have their drugs of choice because it's not always just about getting "messed up" but could be because certain tweaks to their neurochemistry are more pleasurable than others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Just had to respond to that domain name; there wasn't a abbreviation available?

<comment><USER10> Auto-complete is such a common feature on all browsers that I don't think it hurts them one bit.

<comment><USER11> I have a long domain name I registered a long time ago when I was in a creativity famine.

Really, the annoying part is that it's always truncated with ellipses before you get to the guts of the URL on many services including my own.

Check out these two blog posts:

        http://europeanneuropsychopharmacolo...
        http://europeanneuropsychopharmacolo...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm curious as to what the placebo they used was. It'd have to be something that could be mistaken for cocaine in low doses, otherwise it's not worth much as a placebo in this trial.

<comment><USER13> Placebos are to make them think they are taking a drug, not necessarily a specific one.

</comment></comment><comment> bro-stick So it may double the utility for stock broker trainers breaking in green trainees whom have latent objections to stealing from granny's life saving. :(

With the clichés of money, hookers and blow, the ease of excess partying habits can very easy and eventually kill most people. Felix Dennis nearly bought the farm in that lifestyle, many others weren't so lucky and/or weren't able to exhibit enough self-control.

</comment><comment><USER14> Anyone with increased heart rates and stress levels is likely also going to have difficulty processing others emotions. You don't need cocaine to do that.

</comment><comment><USER15> Sidebar helpfully links the similar study about cannabis: [http://www.europeanneuropsychopharmacology.com/article/S0924...](http://www.europeanneuropsychopharmacology.com/article/S0924-977X\(14\)00325-3/abstract)

</comment><comment><USER16> So it impairs your acuity to negative signals from others _while high_. This is not interesting - it's kinda obvious. It would have been much more worrying if it continued long term.

</comment><comment><USER17> A sensitive friend of a friend experienced it 3 out of 3 times exactly like that. Maybe for some people the effect is lower, but most people are not very sensitive towards emotions anyway...

</comment><comment><USER18> Couldn't recognize emotions because they wouldn't stop talking long enough?

</comment><comment><USER19> Is the study suggesting that most Politicians live on Cocaine?

</comment><comment><USER20> Url changed from [http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/26151/1/c...](http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/26151/1/cocaine- stops-you-recognising-other-people-s-emotions), which points to this.

</comment><comment><USER21> That's strange I've always found low doses have the opposite effect : more empathetic.

Perhaps it just impairs performance on the simulators where emotion recognition is tested with images, and not in real life.

Or maybe my brain chemistry is different.

<comment><USER22> As with everything in biology there are exceptions, imperfect measurements or wrongly self-perceived measurements. In other words: it could be one of your two suggestions or something else :)

<comment><USER21> Yeah maybe I just believed I was being more empathetic while in fact I was only more confident in my belief.

They are called psychoactives after all -- how reliable could my report be if my perception was altered?</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is your favorite book? - <AUTHOR> Inspired by the recent post, where the most mentioned books on HN got listed, I'd like to know what your favorite books are.
What book sticked with you for the longest time?
What book made a lasting impact on the way you view the world?
What is your favorite fiction book? <comment><USER2> What book sticked with you for the longest time? Peopleware. This book questions open office layouts and widely accepted norms for productivity using data. This book is always on my mind.

What book made a lasting impact on the way you view the world? Thinking, fast and slow. A book that made me aware of all the biases that we have as we make decisions.

What is your favorite fiction book? Ender's game. It's a cult book. What can I say...</comment>


Nearby "Super Earth" May Have Oceans, Thick Atmosphere - <AUTHOR> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091216-new-super-earth-oceans-atmosphere.html <comment><USER2> "Based on its density, scientists think GJ 1214b is made up of about three- quarters liquid water with a solid core of iron and nickel and an atmosphere of hydrogen and helium—not unlike Earth."

what

This is either terrible writing or terrible science (on the author's part, not the scientists', I would imagine). About 70% of the Earth's _surface_ is water, but only a fraction of a percent of Earth's mass is water. (<http://bit.ly/7Gfk8V>, total water volume from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water#Water_on_Earth>). And the Earth's atmosphere is definitely not primarily hydrogen and helium.

<comment><USER3> How do they know what it's made of? How do they even know the density?

<comment><USER4> The gist: spectrum analysis of light that passes through the planet's atmosphere from the system's sun compared to light that doesn't pass through the planet's atmosphere. They look at what light bands the planet's atmosphere absorbed. (IANA astrophysicist, learn more at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectrum> )

<comment><USER3> I thought the article said they looked at how the stars light was dimmed by the planet. They also managed to do a spectrum analysis?

<comment><USER5> No, they didn't -- getting the absorption spectrum of a transiting exoplanet is an order of magnitude or two beyond the capabilities of present-day instruments. They just measured the density.

From the density, though, you can get a pretty good idea of what it looks like. There are three basic ingredients which go into making planets: rock (including pure metals), "ice" (a catch-all term which includes all phases of water along with methane and ammonia) and hydrogen/helium mixture. Everything else is too rare to worry about. Knowing (basically) the density of each of these components, plus knowing the fact that H/He mixture won't accrete to a body until its mass goes beyond a certain point, you can put pretty good constraints on what the composition of a planet of a certain mass and radius should be.

Of course we could be wrong -- it could equally well be a ball of pure argon or something; however it's hard to imagine how any such thing would form.

<comment><USER6> So how do they know the mass?

<comment><USER5> This can be obtained by looking at the red/blue-shift of the star as it wobbles back and forth due to the planet's motion. Combine this with the mass of the star, and you can figure out the mass of the planet.

I forget how you get the mass of the star, but I think it can be pretty well established from its brightness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Using Gmm/r^2 we find that it should have almost exactly the same gavitaional pull as earth at the surface (89% g). That's neat. Means we could have a boat with a sealed cabin at the right pressure and sail around the ocean with basically normal gravity.

<comment><USER8> We could walk too!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> OT, but can we send a damn probe to Europa already? I want to know if there's liquid oceans there, and if so, do they harbor life? It's in our freaking solar system, for crying out loud!

<comment><USER10> Sounds like it will get there eventually. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2009/02...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2009/02/18/AR2009021802497.html)

<comment><USER11> That article is weird. They _already_ sent a probe to Titan: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens_probe>

Maybe it doesn't count if NASA doesn't build it?

<comment><USER5> They did already send a probe to Titan, but the Europa probe project was in direct competition with a project to send another probe to Titan:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_Saturn_System_Mission>

This one would have included a lake lander and a balloon, and would have been generally neat-o, however I agree with NASA that Europa should be a higher priority for now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Link to original article in Nature: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature08679> (for those who have access)

<comment><USER13> $32? Really? For 1 article? I guess they really want you to subscribe at $199 a year. Ridiculous pricing.</comment></comment>


Can America keep its innovative edge? - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11482838

<comment><USER2> Give more Green Cards to smart people!!

Tottally self serving statement, but if I had a green card, I probably would be doing something more inovative than what I am doing at my current job.

It is amazing the hoops that some people have to go thru, before being able to fully utilize their capabilities for this country (and themselves).

This is the only country where a foreign, after living for few decades, can get citizen ship AND can truly say they are "American" _. While a foreigner in an european country, will always remain a foreigner, even they get the citizenship, a second class citizen.

This simple but fundemental difference, is the one that will keep attracting young bright people to come to this country. That is a huge competitive advantage against other really well developed countries.

_Caveat: In the south, you will still remain and feel as a foreigner. But my fully american brother-in-law born in Iowa, said, he felt an foreigner himself when he travels to some part of USA

<comment><USER3> I agree...I feel quite shackled by the green card "process", which consists largely of incomprehensibly lengthy delays. It doesn't make me feel valued at all.

If I had it to do over, I would change this: get a PhD FIRST! If you educate in your own country and then come to the U.S., you are put into this magic bin that says you're better than everybody else, and 90% of the bull in the process is removed.

<comment><USER4> Really? Which magic bin is that? I've got a PhD from a foreign university and I'd like to get a green card at some point in the future. (Haven't started looking into it yet, still on a J1 visa.)

<comment><USER3> One example is Outstanding Researcher (highest preference category) EB1-OR, which can actually be filed in parallel with an application in a lower preference category.

Technically a PhD isn't necessary, but you're almost certain to have a PhD if you meet the actual requirements. If you have international recognition as being outstanding in a field, or significant experience in teaching or research, or you enter in a position of tenure at a university, you can accelerate your green card application with EB1-OR.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The USA definitely needs to make it easier for sharp foreign-born people to immigrate and work here. The public school system needs to be overhauled to provide better science and engineering education. However, these have been valid arguments for years - even before the 9/11 attacks and the rise of R&D in China and India.

I always wonder when the Economist leaves out basic economics. The locations in the USA where engineering, R&D and startup innovation are concentrated are also the most expensive places to live.

25 years ago, a research scientist or engineer could make $60K and buy a house in Livermore for $120K. Now, that same house is $1.2M but the salary for a research scientist is still $60K. The immigrant researchers and engineers who originally populated silicon valley now encourage their children to be doctors, lawyers, or increasingly to go into finance (Economics is now #1 major for Smart People).

This can be fixed one of two ways: pay engineers and researchers more, or build R&D centers in less expensive areas. Corporations are choosing the second option. Unfortunately (for americans), the less expensive areas they are moving R&D are located overseas.

</comment><comment><USER6> America, at this point, only has an innovative edge. I believe this is the reason IP is such a hot debate. How can we tell other nations to keep worshiping us if they can simply take our ideas and manufacture their own copies? We need to OWN the ideas so any "leeching" off America's creativity can be monetized.

<comment><USER7> But as we know from HN. Idea is cheap and execution is most important part. So does IP really matter?

You can go to China to get a copied iPhone running on Linux with software written locally. But why do they copy iPhone instead of other phones? And why don't we copy "new things" from China, Germany? Wait, do they have new thing that we have not yet thought about?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> What we dont need to innovation going is government involvement. What we do need is less regulation in areas affecting innovation. Immigration reform to let in highly skilled individuals (H1-B, etc), greater tax benefits for seeking science degrees and entrepreneurship, and ease costs on starting companies!</comment>


Ask HN: I want to bootstrap a business. What books should I read? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a programmer who want to start a business (app or service). I have a potential partner to work with. I want to bootstrap. What books should I read? <comment><USER2> Since you're a programmer I think you'll like 'Hooked' by Nir Eyal (with Ryan Hoover) about building habit-forming products. It's very accessible, actionable and basically compressed my 4-year UX design college education into a couple hundred pages.

@cdvonstinkpot great suggestion! Huge fan of Seth Godin.

</comment><comment><USER3> Crossing the Chasm, 3rd Edition. It really is a good book and helps people that are new to marketing and product development to understand the product adoption and how it differs at different times etc. They keep updating it which is another reason I like it.

</comment><comment><USER4> Seth Godin: "Purple Cow" & "All Marketers Are Liars"</comment>


Theranos Secretly Bought Outside Lab Gear, Ran Fake Tests: Court Filings - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-secretly-bought-outside-lab-gear-ran-fake-tests-court-filings-1492794470 <comment><USER2> This explains to some extent why investors might have given the company that valuation of 9 billion. If the company faked demos and portrayed results obtained on non Theranos tech as Theranos tech results, most investors can't be blamed for believing the tech worked and it was only a matter of time before all tests could be performed by the tech.

What is baffling to me is unless the data was doctored why didn't any one of the medical consultants or partners bring this up sooner? Why did it take a deposition to reveal this? I'm sure whistleblower protections would have been provided to anyone working there with this knowledge who chose to make it public.

<comment><USER3> > why didn't any one of the medical consultants or partners bring this up > sooner?

Outside of direct "I physically see this patient", people can forget they work in medicine where their answers can mean life or death decisions.

In that situation people end up not wanting to bite the hand that feeds.

When you have automated stuff that has high throughput with little or no human interaction, you seriously limit the opportunity for humans to raise questions.

<comment><USER4> Totally agree, not sure why they've killed your karma.

Between taking a pay cheque and whistle blowing, the large majority of people will always not rock the boat and take the money.

<comment><USER5> I think you're referring to the people working for theranos itself. However, investors generally try and do their due diligence before investing. Did none of the investors seek an expert to verify the claims made by Theranos prior to investing?

<comment><USER6> Yes, and this is why you won't find any reputable biotech VC on the investor list of Theranos ( Mostly a mix of private equity, family funds and informals) . Biotech VC's have domain experts in house or in their network who won't take the narrative at face value and do ask the hard questions.

<comment><USER3> I write software which analyzes DNA. It's pretty interesting to hear the varied responses from lab staff when questions are asked. Many times, however, questions (or sometimes answers) end up being overridden by business needs (aka deadlines). Being a business, that's rather expected to happen now and then.

But it bothers me that many of the questions that end up being unanswered are typically some of the more fundamental questions I ask.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wow. Okay, this takes it from "Shit happens and people can be totally deluded" to actual, genuine fraud.

Edit: Also, how can people be that stupid? You have to know the truth will eventually come out? Right? Or, no?

I don't get it.

<comment><USER8> It's easy to fool yourself into believing that the fraud is just a temporary necessity while you work out the final kinks in your product.

<comment><USER9> It's a frequent fine line in tech.

To get a contract, Bob Noyce claimed for a buyer that Fairchild could produce & deliver a new type of transistor, in a large quantity, without having any production capability for it yet, as it had never been built.

Excite bid on getting a place on Netscape's browser, before having the money to actually pay for it (they figured they'd get it afterward):

[http://bnoopy.typepad.com/bnoopy/2004/09/persistence_pay_1.h...](http://bnoopy.typepad.com/bnoopy/2004/09/persistence_pay_1.html)

Microsoft on multiple occasions said or implied they had something they didn't have at the time, in dealing with MITS and IBM.

<comment><USER10> I went to Stanford (hence the screen name) ...

Stanford students are generally sheep that know one thing for certain: That they are smart enough to get into Stanford and that they now have pretty much zero excuse to not be successful.

They assume that other things (vision, relentless lifelong obsession) are means to ends. It is a fertile breeding ground for what Trungpa Rinpoche most accurately describes a "Spiritual Materialism"

Their logical conclusion is that the key to success is not relentless pursuit of practice, but rather playing tricks like the ones you describe.

Bob Noyce, Bill Gates, Marc Andressen all succeeded as a result of their passion and relentless dedication to a narrow problem space over years of effort. They saw "the truth" and thus were able to make those leaps. "Truths" are always present in every society ... and are hidden. Unfortunately it requires dedication to uncover such truths and most stanford students would rather re-use the same hammer that got them into Stanford on real life than to truly seek "truth".

That's my 2 cents.

EDIT: I can see how this was condescendingly phrased and discriminatory towards a large group of people. We should all note that the person who outed Ms. Holmes was also a Stanford student and did something very brave. I was just annoyed with seeing this pattern everywhere and even partaking in it myself -- something that impacted me very negatively.

<comment><USER11> We should also remember that she graduated like 15 years ago, about the same time I did. The world was VERY different back then. Her style of management reflects the generation she was created from. Unlike her peers, she was unlucky enough to have had access to enough funding to last this long. As a result, the damage done is larger than was typical even back then but also ending at a time when it would stand out. Companies like Theranos collapsed all the time in SV in the late 90s and no one thought anything of it as a result. It's not an excuse but from the looks of it, her hole was too deep by the time trends change to do a course correction.

Let's also not forget that she pursued a vision that was severely flawed, no different than many college students today even. She made a lot of mistakes that many of her peers made at the same age. She's just really unlucky at this point.

<comment><USER7> [http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/16/technology/theranos- elizabet...](http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/16/technology/theranos-elizabeth- holmes/)

She did not graduate. She dropped out.

I also dropped out of college at a young age, but not to defraud the world in an effort to become a billionaire. So, this is not intended to suggest being a drop out is inherently bad.

#JustTheFacts

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So will Holmes go to prison? A green card holder in Texas was just sentenced to eight years in prison for voting in a US election. Surely Holmes will go away much longer right?

<comment><USER13> Is there even a criminal investigation here? I thought this was over a lawsuit.

This guy got 6.5yrs in prison for defrauding investors by making it appear the company had value it actually didn't: [https://www.law360.com/articles/892055/broker- gets-6-5-years...](https://www.law360.com/articles/892055/broker- gets-6-5-years-in-prison-for-5m-tech-startup-scheme)

It's difficult to find other examples as most investor fraud is based on directly milking investors with obviously false claims.

For example, this SF startup founder lied about being close to acquisition and never handed over shares in the company in return for money: [http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/02/20/san-francisco- startup-...](http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/02/20/san-francisco-startup- founder-arrested-charged-with-defrauding-investor-of-210000/) that's more directly fraudulent.

The Theranos thing might be more difficult to prove as it's possible the technology was somewhat legitimate but clearly if sharing the fake test data was a critical part of them investing, then it might be much the same.

The early investors who bought into just the idea may not have any claim. But any later investors who invested based solely on claims made with falsified test data may have a claim against the company/her.

<comment><USER14> > Is there even a criminal investigation here?

Seems like there sure _should_ be.

<comment><USER15> Looking at what happen to the Abhishekh Guttani case in Santa Clara court I believe SV courts are a joke in giving any serious punishments.

I am willing to bet she wouldn't be charged jail time for more than six months. She would have enough contacts and money to may be totally avoid it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Can't read the Journal article so not sure if it has this or not, but reply from Theranos:

This is a one-sided filing by one party to litigation, and we will respond at the appropriate time in the appropriate forum. We disagree with much of what PFM alleges in its complaint. This is not, however, the time or place to contest their mischaracterizations of the record. We will litigate this case in court, where it belongs. What we will say now is that the items on which PFM focuses have nothing to do with why PFM invested, and they amount to a repackaging of allegations the media have already reported for nearly two years.

As for the tender offer: As previously disclosed, Theranos is in the midst of a tender offer involving its most significant shareholders. Elizabeth Holmes' use of her own shares to recapitalize our C-2 and C-1 investors—and thereby prevent dilution to our other shareholders—is consistent with her longstanding, personal commitment to doing the right thing for the Theranos shareholder base. This tender offer has been in discussion between Theranos and its shareholders since July 2016. To date, more than 99% of C-2 and C-1 investors other than PFM have chosen to participate.

PFM, a multi-billion dollar hedge fund, opposes the transaction, and is asking the Court to stop the tender offer because it is "unfair" specifically and only to PFM. In response to PFM's suit, the Court suspended the tender offer for a month in order to permit sufficient time for the court to review the transaction. PFM's effort to enjoin the tender offer is meritless; their legal theories are self-serving and would harm the rest of the Theranos shareholders. The Company is vigorously opposing PFM's new suit and looks forward to completing the transaction with its shareholders.

From: [https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/21/theranos-says-it-has- been-...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/21/theranos-says-it-has-been- mischaractarized-in-allegations-the-company-faked-tests-and-boosted- financials/)

There will never be enough popcorn for the Theranos saga.

<comment><USER14> > ... consistent with her longstanding, personal commitment to doing the right > thing for the Theranos shareholder base...

Uh huh. That's why the offer comes with a "you agree not to sue us" clause, I'm sure.

<comment><USER17> well, to be fair, if they cashed out and then sued as well then that would be double dipping a bit right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I bet there are many other boardrooms around Silicon Valley who are panicking over this. There's so much pressure to be immediately profitable and show predictable year over year growth. How many have faked user trials or cooked the books in ways that would make Enron blush?

<comment><USER19> Look at facebook. 1.23 billion active daily users? Really? And this is published in financial and technical press with precious little skepticism. FB must be happily counting every single incidental embedded bit of javascript that phones home from a facebook logo on an otherwise unrelated site count as an active user. And then some. One in 6 people on the _planet_. Every day. Think about the boldness of saying that with a straight face. But the hype machine is happy to keep echoing that claim.

<comment><USER20> Well the stakes are a lot lower when it's social media or something. Theranos' problem was that it tried to take the Silicon Valley mentality to medicine, and as we've seen there's a little agency called the FDA that doesn't give a damn how hot or well funded you are. They will crush you into dust if you try to play games.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> My question is, who is still working at this place and why???

Also, some reviews here are amusing and frightening:

[https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Theranos- Reviews-E248889.h...](https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Theranos- Reviews-E248889.htm)

</comment><comment><USER22> An archive of the page: [http://archive.is/pijS2](http://archive.is/pijS2)

</comment><comment><USER23> I will keep repeating that: The fact that Elizabeth house is not FBI raided and she is not in jail without ability to talk to co-conspirators just show how you can run your scam enterprise by simply having the right people on your board.

<comment><USER24> Agreed, it's bullshit like this that makes it VERY clear that the law only applies to the poor and non-influential.

<comment><USER23> I go even further - the fact that nowodays nobody cares how obvious your statement is, makes it even more frightening especially in the "free" country that should be run by law and order.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Is this the first total collapse of a "unicorn" this time around? I can't think of any recent, high profile disintegrations of this order of magnitude.

<comment><USER26> Was Theranos really a unicorn? I'd barely heard of them until this story broke.

<comment><USER27> Yes, they raised $350MM at a $9 billion valuation, and Holmes was hailed as the next Silicon Valley wunderkind.

<comment><USER6> Bit more actually, closer to $700M.

<comment><USER6> Why is this downvoted? it's true : [https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/theranos#/entity](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/theranos#/entity)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> "Perhaps Holmes should call up the folks over at Magic Leap, they know a thing or two about getting busted for fake demonstrations and overselling technology." [1]

[1] [http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/04/theranos-staged-fake- bloo...](http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/04/theranos-staged-fake-blood-tests- for-investors.html)

</comment><comment><USER29> Man, I started out _so_ sympathetic to Theranos, too. Just goes to show how good my instincts are.

</comment><comment><USER30> This trainwreck is going to make a great movie.

<comment><USER31> It's already being made: [http://m.imdb.com/title/tt5795144/](http://m.imdb.com/title/tt5795144/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> So when does "the next Steve Jobs" end up as "the next Jeff Skilling"?

</comment><comment><USER33> Removed the paywall: [http://outline.com/DVdmsJ](http://outline.com/DVdmsJ)

</comment><comment><USER34> Who made this call? What was their goal? Like, they couldn't have honestly thought they were able to back up their claims, did they?

Holmes?

</comment><comment><USER35> Hasn't this been known for ages now? (I could only read the start of the article)

</comment><comment><USER36> I told you her schtick was too smooth. 'I'm too driven to care about anything but my work' is always a red flag.

<comment><USER18> The whole 'coming out of nowhere' thing is another red flag. This idea that an undergraduate built revolutionary medical tech in their dorm room no less? Who invests in that? With no data, no trials, no feasibility study?

<comment><USER31> Holmes hasn't actually claimed to have come up with any new discoveries or revolutionary technology while an undergraduate, I think. She had the idea for the company and decided to drop out. Of course, magazines like Inc. had no issues playing up her genius with Silicon Valley hyperbole.

Several people -- her professor? I forget -- warned her the blood test wouldn't work, even before she dropped out.

<comment><USER18> As I recall, she had a co-founder who built the tech, including the whole dorm room story.

Holmes is the MBA part of the team.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is an outright scam. Why haven't we seen any arrests?

<comment><USER38> Because the US legal code is written by politicians who accept bribes to make it difficult or impossible to prosecute white-collar crime in a timely fashion. These weak laws are enforced very selectively, based on the whims of senior officals and judges in the executive and judicial branches of our government. This is reality. Deal with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> It is never ending bad news about this company.

</comment><comment><USER40> Someone should make a movie about this!

<comment><USER41> Bad Blood [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5795144/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5795144/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Paywall bypass redirect:

[http://facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/articles/the...](http://facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos- secretly-bought-outside-lab-gear-ran-fake-tests-court-filings-1492794470)

</comment><comment><USER43> A very worthwhile story, behind a paywall. Welcome to modern times.

<comment><USER44> Will the world ever come back to their senses and we will ever return to the "modern" times of 2002-2012 when all journalism was free?

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> HN is on fire today. Zecco and now Theranos. I'm getting the feeling that we are going to see more and more stories like this in the near future.

Theranos running fake tests is just another example of the type of charlatans enabled by socioeconomic lineage.

> Theranos plans to offer investors shares in the company in exchange for them > not filing lawsuits against the embattled blood-testing company.

How far removed can you be from reality to even think like this?

<comment><USER46> List of YCombinator companies: [http://yclist.com/](http://yclist.com/)

<comment><USER45> One can a lot from this list, this is super valuable for my needs!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Companies like this are a good reason to end limited liability for corporations. Corporations arent people, and the people behind them escape with golden parachutes.

<comment><USER48> The shareholders and investors can go after the executives for fraud. They're not protected in this case.

<comment><USER47> Until corporate officers and shareholders are subject to lawsuits, Limited liability creates an entity that behaves pathologically - without regard to anyone/anything outside of itself.

Theranos,Enron,Volkswagen scandals are just some of the way too many to count scandals that damage citizens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> This all sounds preliminary to me. Based on the headline and one paragraph I was able to read (not pay-walled), this doesn't necessarily indicate malicious intent or foul play. Big companies are complicated, and they do things in weird ways sometimes for reasons that aren't immediately obvious.

It's amazing how quickly the winds of the internet shift to absolutely condemn a person/company before all (or any) of the facts are in. The world is a better place when we all extend a benefit of doubt to our fellow humans and there creations.

<comment><USER14> There are plenty of facts available around the Theranos situation. Not much benefit of the doubt left here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> How is it always WSJ busting Theranos? is a competitor funding their "investigative journalism"? Not to say the article is untrue, just the super hard-on WSJ has for Theranos is mysterious.

<comment><USER7> My guess:

"If it bleeds, it leads." True life drama and gossip (for lack of a better word) has always sold papers.

<comment><USER51> I think integrity is important and I don't like the idea of attacking journalists for printing stories critical of Silicon Valley.

Overvaluation effects us all, these hundreds of millions drive up my rent, your rent and could be better allocated to other startup ventures.

<comment><USER7> I basically agree with you, but I will state that I was not attacking any journalists.

Sensationalism sells. There are both good and bad reasons behind that truism. At the moment, the publishing industry is in crisis. I see no reason to look any further than a dire need to increase sales as "motive" for a particular publication apparently revisiting this particular on-going drama repeatedly.

My sister was a journalism major in college. She was significantly involved in the school paper in high school and was awarded a journalism scholarship that helped pay for her college education. She went on to do other things and is not a journalist, though an early job of hers did involve working on a publication. I also had a class in journalism in high school (where I was disliked by the teacher for failing to be enough like my older sister, whom he had adored as a student and contributor to the school paper) and I was State Alternate for the Governor's Honors Program in Georgia in the subject of Journalism when I was 15. So, I got my toes ever so slightly wet in journalism in my teens, then, I also went down some other path instead of becoming a journalist.

I assure you, my remarks are in no way intended to be an attack on journalists.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Costco opening a $440M chicken farm to escape America's chicken monopoly - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/05/costco--chickens-tyson-perdue-monopoly-america-agriculture-farming.html <comment><USER3> Watching several documentation and seeing chicken farms, I Never buy USD 5 chickens anymore. I buy only organic (more time to grow) and if available from my preferred supplier from the farmer's market (she only slaughters 5 times a year and grows different breeds). My nephew from the US came over and was shocked at the taste (I didn't tell him about the price as he would probably not eat it). Food prices are not a concern for me and I prefer to increase quality instead of quantity. I should anyway eat less.

<comment><USER4> To be honest, although I prefer organic chicken for health and ethical reasons, mass produced chicken tastes juicier and better.

<comment><USER5> >> _mass produced chicken tastes juicier and better._

You might be referring to the "gamy" part of it. That's valid for super wild chickens, but a little walk only makes them a lot better. There's no comparison in taste between a 50 day old chicken raised in mass-produced conditions and a 6-7 month one that roams in someone's backyard.

<comment><USER6> Also, remember that most chicken has added saline as well.

If you eat more natural white meat, it's drier because there is less fat and no added fluid.

<comment><USER7> Often, just water. Chicken is sold by the pound. If you increase its weight by 5%, then you just got a close to free way of boosting profits by that amount.

They don't even hide the fact that they do it; most of them print it right on the packaging.

I quit buying supermarket chicken a long time ago because the quality is very poor. I trim the excess fat off chicken, and supermarket stuff has so much waste it was shocking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I am surrounded by chicken farms, and the farmers who own and operate them. Almost all of them are family owned farms who sell to Tyson.

I can say with confidence that they work hard and are very diligent in maintaining a high standard of quality.

It's a false sense of higher morality to claim "ethical reasons" for not buying those chicken. You aren't saving or improving the lives of any chickens when you do that.

And those chickens don't have it all that bad. I also raise my own chickens and they have a great life for a chicken but it's not idyllic. Chickens have always been low on the food chain and here where I live there are a lot of chicken eaters that are not human.

As for safe and organic feed, we all want that, even my neighbors who are chicken farmers. Right now that's still easier said than done. Costco's move may help lead/push us that direction and I commend them for leading on this issue.

<comment><USER9> > It's a false sense of higher morality to claim "ethical reasons" for not > buying those chicken. You aren't saving or improving the lives of any > chickens when you do that.

I don't see how this statement can be held with confidence to be true.

If I buy chicken whose precise provenance is known, and which are raised in humane conditions with high-quality feed, with a process that is minimally negatively (or, ideally, positively) environmentally impactful, then indeed there is an ethical gain in doing so.

If I buy from Tyson, I have no way of knowing any of this. Nor does Tyson even claim that I can know these things.

<comment><USER10> > If I buy chicken whose precise provenance is known, and which are raised in > humane conditions with high-quality feed

We're talking morals and we're surely going to have some differences in opinion, but I don't see how raising animals who've been selectively bred to grow an order of magnitude faster and larger than they would naturally, kept indoors for most of their lives, and killed at less than 1% of their potential lifespan could ever be considered "humane". Especially when their consumption is wholly unnecessary.

<comment><USER8> Ok, I'll talk morals for a bit.

First off, not eating chickens doesn't make life any better for those chickens that are eaten, and no chickens live better as a result of not eating them. The best that can be said is less chickens live because they were never hatched from an egg specifically to be eaten.

Those Tyson chicken farmers are not torturing chickens, not by a long shot. They get good feed and fresh water and as much of that as they want. I don't know what you imagine chickens do all day when they're not in a barn, but I know what they do. All they do is eat, drink, crap, and screw, and by far most of their time is spent eating. They don't drink much and nothing I know of screws faster than a rooster, so that takes up almost none of their day.

And I can assure you that the lifespan of a free range chicken isn't very long. I know this because there are no wild chickens running around where I live, even though 1000s of acres of National Forest surround me and there are many people that raise them at home and farmers with huge barns full of them surrounding the National Forests here. And because I hatched and kept over 30 chickens myself last year and all of them got eaten by wild carnivores. Mostly fox. They're sneaky as can be.

I don't have a problem with those who don't eat meat, but if we're going to talk in terms of morals let's not kid ourselves or others by thinking that eating only veggies isn't taking "life". It is, and I just cannot kid myself into thinking that killing a tomato is less or more of an affront to God than killing a chicken.

There's really very little difference between raising tomatoes from seed and raising chickens from eggs. Both of those are living things and you have to kill them to eat them.

And I won't try to kid myself into believing that I'd not eat a chicken raised by those Tyson farmers if I were starving. I would, and fast too. And so would most everyone who feels a sense of moral superiority to those who eat chickens when they're not starving.

I'll probably piss some people off with this, but here it goes anyway... Chickens, and really pretty much every animal we raise to eat, are all fairly well packaged for eating. From cows to pigs to chickens and even fish of all sizes, they all are dressed out pretty much the same and it's a pretty simple and fast process to get them kitchen ready, and they taste good, and they make you feel good (as opposed to modern junk foods).

Here's another thing... Most everyone I know who's taken the life of any animal for food did so with a very reverent and thankful attitude. You think about that a lot more than you do when buy a taco at Taco Bell or a salad at a restaurant. I do the same when I take veggies from my garden because I know I'm taking life to sustain my own. I provide care and protection to both my veggies and my chickens and I give thanks when I take them to sustain myself and family and friends.

That's all any of us can do and the best we can do. There is no other way to live as a human.

<comment><USER11> > It is, and I just cannot kid myself into thinking that killing a tomato is > less or more of an affront to God than killing a chicken.

Just a reminder, fruiting plants make the fruit for animals to eat to spread their seeds. It doesn't kill the plant. With the exception of herbs and fungi almost every plant humans eat evolved to be eaten and often we only eat parts of the plant that regrow with the intent to be eaten without killing the main body.

<comment><USER8> "Just a reminder, fruiting plants make the fruit for animals to eat to spread their seeds. It doesn't kill the plant"

But the fact is we do kill those plants. Those tomatoes are filled with seed intended, by nature, to propagate the species, but the chance of that dies when you eat them, and then the entire plant dies. There are no birds eating their fruit and spreading their seed. It that were the case we'd see tomatoes growing wild all over the US, but we don't.

Carrots, lettuce, broccoli, radishes, etc, etc, are all harvested (murdered if you will) before they even get a chance to go to seed. Your reminder doesn't account for that.

So, yes, in fact, billions of plants are murdered each year because we humans eat them.

I'm more curious about why this so difficult for some people to accept. It's obviously driven by empathy and compassion, and I admire that, but it ignores the facts that plainly exist all around us all the time.

The latest figure I could find easily says "In 2008, 9.08 billion chickens were slaughtered in the United States".

And tomatoes? "According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization statistics, around 340 billion pounds (170 million tons) of fresh and processing tomatoes were produced globally in 2014. The harvested area covered 12.4 million acres (5 million hectares) of farm land."

That's a lot of food for a lot of people. All of it brought to life that's taken for one purpose, to sustain us.

This does not make us murderous beasts, and no one, not even those who've claimed to be "Breatharians", has proved they could exist without taking life. There's just no getting around that necessity.

As far as I can make out, this notion that one is existing without taking life is almost exclusively found in cities, generally far from where food is grown and harvested. I'm pretty much convinced it is a willful denial of the truth created by and to convince oneself they are superior to the crude masses who haven't achieved their advanced level of conscientious. And it's a growing trend.

The fact is, it's an example of denial. We all take life to sustain our own. The best we can do is provide the means for it to flourish and take it in as painless a way as possible, rather it's a chicken or a radish.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > _American chicken monopoly run by the likes of Tyson, Pilgrim 's Pride and > Perdue._

That's not what "monopoly" means.

<comment><USER13> 'Monopoly' seems to have become a completely meaningless word. I think it now sort of vaguely means a marketplace or any number of successful companies doing their own thing, and people complaining about a monopoly just seem to be complaining that there are any number of existing successful companies in a space they'd either like to be in as well, or that a company won't do exactly what they want.

<comment><USER14> > in a space they'd either like to be in as well

But that's exactly what monopoly means, i.e. you can't get in and compete with those players.

It sounds like you are justifying monopolized markets for whatever reason.

<comment><USER15> "Mono" means ONE. Literally the number 1. Monopoly generally means ONE supplier that controls the entire marketplace.

There are other forms of market failure relating to a small group having too much power in the market: Monopoly, Cartel, Oligopoly, Monopsony, etc. etc.

Oligopoly or Cartel are far closer to what the article is describing. To use the word "Monopoly" here is simply incorrect English.

<comment><USER14> Literal meaning of the word is absolutely irrelevant. Historically monopoly was about granted status, but it's mostly a theoretical concept today, where everyone is in the middle between monopoly and perfect competition. You can say that if it's not competitive enough, it's a monopoly.

<comment><USER13> > You can say that if it's not competitive enough, it's a monopoly.

A market that is not competitive enough is an 'oligopoly'. That's the word you want. Why do you want to move the definition of 'monopoly' when we already have the word 'oligopoly'?

<comment><USER14> I don't want to move the definition, my definition is fine and is shared among many people. Yours is the one I think is wrong. You shouldn't imply that oligopoly is not a form of monopoly. It absolutely is.

<comment><USER13> > You shouldn't imply that oligopoly is not a form of monopoly.

But the article said 'monopoly', not 'oligopoly'.

Monopoly is a form of oligopoly. But oligopoly is not a form of monopoly.

All monopolies are oligopolies. Not all oligopolies are monopolies.

This chicken situation is maybe an oligopoly. It isn't a monopoly.

If you think a situation with multiple supplies and limited competition is a monopoly, then I'd ask you... why do we also have the term oligopoly? What do you think the difference is?

<comment><USER16> You can argue that all laypeople should use the terms that specialists use, or you can accept that people use words differently and try to understand people when they write/speak.

The latter is far, far easier and actually achievable.

<comment><USER17> This is the first time I've encountered people using the word monopoly incorrectly like this. I'm not really minded to just roll over and accept wrong usage because a few other people object - the usage is wrong so they need to improve their English.

Also for what it's worth I don't believe the article author misunderstands the word monopoly. I think they abused it to get clicks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think the bigger story here is whether or not Costco's chicken will improve with respect to the other players in the market.

Consider that the 'big players' have all extracted the costs they felt they could, with the choices they made, and that is the 'standard' product most people are offered. Now we get CostCo which is making different choices and perhaps getting a different result (size, flavor, what have you). In the event that CostCo chicken becomes the market leader and perhaps people are even incentivized to join CostCo in order to have access to their chicken supply, CostCo would likely open a second and third farm so that all of their chicken needs could be met. And what would that do to the profitability of the others?

To my reading, the article implies that these large farms conspire in their offering, otherwise CostCo could just move their business to the one that was willing to meet there terms. Sort of like McDonald's and their beating potato farmers over the head with demands for the specific variety and size pototato they needed for their fries. (which they could do because their purchases were a significant chunk of the market[1])

So without cooperation from the chicken cartel, or perhaps for other unmentioned reasons, CostCo decides to become an agricultural company too.

I'm really wondering if there is some way to disrupt these large agricultural interests effectively. Imagine the Uber for Chicken Farming where an app connects people with extra chicken into a chicken acquisition and slaughtering pipeline for resale.

[1] [http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32983108/ns/business- us_business/t...](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32983108/ns/business- us_business/t/mcdonalds-holy-grail-potato-farmers/)

<comment><USER19> Forgive my tangent, but do you have any idea why you like to write it as "CostCo"?

I notice it's a common practice on news.y to find (or invent) sub-words in names and capitalize them. Like I remember everyone writing "GroupOn" for the portmanteau of "group coupon"

It's puzzling to me and I want to understand where you're coming from!

<comment><USER20> It is a variable naming convention known as "CapWords" or "upper CamelCase". This is the recommended naming convention for Python class's

[https://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#naming- conventi...](https://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#naming-conventions)

<comment><USER21> If the poster was a Haskeller, they would doubtless also have mentioned Co- CostCos.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Costco is on a supply chain shakedown it seems because they're also making an eyewear factory for similar business reasons as with chicken.

Being in Georgia I see some of these chicken trucks full of live and dead chickens and while they're pretty dumb and dirty birds there's no question that the birds in the system are suffering terribly. On top of that is the human suffering of the farmers that raise them in the kind of financial conditions they're subjected to.

I'm fine paying substantially more for better treated chicken but the issue is that I have few guarantees that this is happening when I choose some labels over another given how convoluted the US agriculture and FDA system is.

<comment><USER23> They likely just hit an inflection point where it started making sense to do their own fab.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The rotisserie chicken is a well-documented loss-leader for Costco. At $4.99 for a three-pound bird, it's an amazing solution for quick weeknight dinners.> [https://www.thekitchn.com/costco-chicken-loss-leader- strateg...](https://www.thekitchn.com/costco-chicken-loss-leader- strategy-260017)

<comment><USER25> Costco's rotisseries chickens are MUCH better than the grocery stores', as well.

<comment><USER26> And yet, so far below getting a quality bird and roasting yourself...

I've noticed that many of the rotisserie birds have really odd texture, I think because they're grossly overcooked

<comment><USER27> If you don't get a fresh one there's a chance it's sat in the warming area for a few hours, which could definitely do something bad to the texture.

<comment><USER28> There's a sticker on each box telling you what time it went out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Look, it's Costco. Not Walmart.

Costco has higher standards than just about any other retailer I can think of.

* Costco tightens standards for antibiotics use by meat producers | The Seattle Times || [https://www.seattletimes.com/business/agriculture/costco-tig...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/agriculture/costco-tightens-standards-for-antibiotics-use-by-meat-producers/)

I suspect this move to own their own production is because they couldn't get the quality they expect, at prices they expect, at scale from the current suppliers.

* Animal Welfare | Costco || [https://www.costco.com/sustainability-animal-welfare.html](https://www.costco.com/sustainability-animal-welfare.html)

</comment><comment><USER30> This is really confusing. When the top 5 companies control 2/3 the market, how is that a monopoly? The biggest company is less than 25%.

Anyway, the fact that I can walk into a store (not just Costco, I do this elsewhere) and buy a fully prepared, seasoned, cooked, ready-to-eat, warm, entire chicken for 5 US dollars blows my mind. We don't understand how good we have it. Most of us here on HN can exchange the money we get for less than 10 minutes of work for the aforementioned culinary delight. We're not talking about a bowl of porridge here, this is protein-packed meat. I've been around the world. Everyone (who eats meat at all) loves chicken. We live in paradise.

I can understand ethical and environmental concerns, but we have to be doing something right here.

<comment><USER31> Agreed, rotisserie chicken is the 8th wonder of the world.

Nice nickname, btw.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Given Costco's size and influence in the food market, I'd like to see them lend more credence to the plant-based meat market which would be even better for them financial and environmentally.

<comment><USER33> I don't know why I can't at least buy lentils from Costco. They've got the huge bags of pintos and rice already. They could definitely apply their business model to plant based options. Instead their shelves are prime examples of foods that could otherwise be great vegan but just have animal products needlessly included.

<comment><USER34> I think it depends on the local market. I live in an area with a large Asian (Indian/Pakistani/Chinese/East Asian) population and my local Costco sells all sorts of lentils along with Naan, etc. They even have a few types of boxed pre-made lentil soups (dals). It probably just doesn't make sense for them to stock lentils in markets with low demand.

<comment><USER35> NJ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> mark-r For an article about chickens, there sure wasn't a lot of meat in it.

</comment><comment><USER36> If it is going to use the same factory farming processes, what's the point?

<comment><USER37> NPR has more info about motivations:

> Building a system to stock its own stores is a way for the company to better > manage supply and costs, especially because poultry companies are trending > away from raising chickens to be sold whole.

> According to Will Sawyer, a meat industry economist for the Denver-based > farm lender CoBank, chicken producers are growing bigger chickens to sell in > parts. "The vast majority are processed into chicken breasts or leg quarters > or thighs, or they're further processed into strips or nuggets," Sawyer > said. "That's where the industry has gone over 50 years now."

[https://www.npr.org/2018/10/22/659561091/costco-builds- nebra...](https://www.npr.org/2018/10/22/659561091/costco-builds-nebraska- supply-chain-for-its-5-rotisserie-chickens)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> You can eat raw chicken at many if not most izakaya (Japanese tapas) in Japan. Tastes great!!

No idea if that means Japanese chicken production is safer or if it's just their food culture is more risky like France's

</comment><comment><USER39> I hope Costco survives Amazon

<comment><USER40> It sells a lot of large things in its warehouses that are expensive to ship. I'm sure you _can_ buy a 50 pound bag of dog food or a giant pack of paper towels online, but will you beat Costco's price? Doubtful.

<comment><USER26> mostly because we value our own time below the market price to have someone else do it for us. If shipping cost ever plummets then this upend warehouse style stores.

<comment><USER41> Not just that - if you can get an entire shopping trip worth of stuff in one trip to a big warehouse-store, toss it all in your trunk, you don't need to fit it all in standardized boxes with bubble-plastic padding, and the distance from warehouse to your house will be covered in the most direct route. Even if you valued your own time at market rates, it would probably take less of your time than it would of someone else's, because shipping has more intermediate steps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This is kind of a nitpick, but I wish articles like this specified somehow that Costco buys _dead_ chickens, and dismembered to boot. I know everybody reading it knows that, but I don't like euphemisms/language games that divorce consumers from the choice to eat an animal that was killed for you.

<comment><USER43> No language games.

It's clear that the chickens will be killed and eaten.

There is nothing wrong with killing and eating chickens as long as its done in a responsible manner.

<comment><USER44> Responsible or sustainable animal agriculture is a pipe dream at this point. With 7+ billion people on a planet facing environmental destruction it's irresponsible to advocate for the consumption of meat.

<comment><USER43> Costco is quite responsible. I think the fact that they are opening a giant chicken farm is a good indication that it is not a pipe dream.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Just moved to Montreal from the US. Was astounded that chicken price per pound is 5x the price it is back home.

</comment><comment><USER46> It says monopoly byt then lists 3 other competitors. Are they all colluding?

</comment><comment><USER47> Does anyone have recommendations on good documentaries in this space?

<comment><USER48> I recall seeing the "giant chicken vacuum" in a documentary once..that was a new low for me.. it is 10 or 12 feet high, but somewhat like a vacuum with a big bag for the birds, and a pole sweeps across a measured, enclosed area such that none of the birds escape.. what comes next is also in that movie.. mercifully I do not recall the name..

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I suspect that this is about quality of product. Chicken has had a lot of problems with poisoning people here in the US (since our standards for the environment where chickens are kept isn't designed to reduce disease - rather, it encourages disease.) People have gotten sick from Costco chickens - <USER2> Costco's better smaller suppliers have been taken over by the large producers - and of course people start dying again. As long as the profits stay high chicken producers are able to get laws passed to avoid any real regulation. Corrupt government is the real problem we should all be trying to solve as software developers.

<comment><USER50> Do you have any ideas on how software developers can solve the problem of corrupt government?

Not being facetious, curious to hear what your views are.

<comment><USER51> OpenSecrets[1] and Sunlight Foundation[2] are great places to start. That said, IMO the greatest change is achieved by canvassing, working in public policy, or running for office oneself. Senator Jacky Rosen (D - NV), a former Software Developer, is a great example.

[1] [https://www.opensecrets.org/](https://www.opensecrets.org/) [2] [https://sunlightfoundation.com/](https://sunlightfoundation.com/)</comment></comment></comment>


Heyzap(YC W09) Launches Platform to Take Facebook Games to Entire Web - <AUTHOR> http://games.venturebeat.com/2010/03/23/heyzap-lets-facebook-game-developers-publish-their-games-to-the-web/ <comment><USER2> Given that Facebook has >300M users, how necessary is this? Are there really many people who want to play _social_ games but not join the largest _social_ network in the world?

Edit: The thought occurred that Facebook may be blocked in China, and it appears that it is (or at least was for awhile? My hits were all for one instance of them blocking it, but I couldn't find anything about whether it stayed blocked). So that could be part of the reason for doing this.

<comment><USER3> There is a _massive_ audience for games outside of Facebook.

Several sites on the internet number below or around Alexa 1,000 catering to these players - ArmorGames.com, AddictingGames.com (MTV), Kongregate.com, MiniClip.com etc.

For as many users as Facebook has it's still only 1/4 of the internet.

<comment><USER2> I bet that a pretty high percentage of some of those sites' userbases have Facebook accounts.

But that's true that it's only 1/4 of the Internet.

<comment><USER3> I don't think there is a lot of crossover, I've published a few casual games that promoted things like Twitter and Facebook apps, and the conversion rate from portals to twitter and fb has been horribly low every time.

One game of mine that did about 1.2 million plays on portals peaked at I think 400 users on the Facebook version, which was promoted within the portal version.

Recently King.com launched a big facebook app called Funflow, which they linked to from over 100 games in ditribution and several large, many-millions- of-plays new releases. They've probably had close to 100 million plays across their games this year, yet their fb app hasn't quite hit 1 million users.

<http://www.appdata.com/facebook/apps/index/id/212391322553>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sweet!</comment>


Reopen America – AAPS – Association of American Physicians and Surgeons - <AUTHOR> https://aapsonline.org/physician-letter-reopen-america/ <comment><USER2> I would like to point out that the AAPS is not actually a medical group. Its a conservative group that poses to be oriented around doctors. I don't think a single medical professional right now would recommend opening the US economy yet.

<comment><USER3> Are not all these MDs and DOs a "medical professional"?

[https://drive.google.com/file/d/19AWKummeK3IHoNcKgIWU8hZPrQq...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/19AWKummeK3IHoNcKgIWU8hZPrQq4-EZb/view)</comment></comment>


Drug 'reverses' ageing in animal tests - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39354628 <comment><USER2> They should test these with old volunteers first.

Life expectancy of 90-year old is 4-5 years depending on gender. If the drug increases the life quality it's probably worth the risk even if it increases changes of getting some cancers.

<comment><USER3> Or sell it for hamsters and old people will try it anyways...

<comment><USER4> Mind blown.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Original paper: [http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(17)30246-5](http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674\(17\)30246-5)

</comment><comment><USER6> The SENS Research Foundation ([http://www.sens.org/](http://www.sens.org/)) has identified the seven ways that the elderly are different from the young, and hypothesizes that the aggregate damage from these seven things is what we call "aging".

Essentially, aging is just accumulated damage from these seven processes.

One of the seven processes is the accumulation of senescent cells. They clog up the works and also release chemicals that prevent normal cells from functioning at full effectiveness. Normally senescent cells kill themselves and are broken down by the body, but this process gets worse over time and senescent cells multiply.

The drug in this story targets and kills these senescent cells selectively. Effectively they are reducing the population of senescent cells in your body from the number you'd find in an 80 year old person so some lesser number (perhaps like a 20-, 30-, 40-, or 60-year old, but human studies would be required to say how effective it is).

But that's what aging reversal is. It's taking the seven biomarkers identified by SENS and reverting them from 85-year old levels to 25-year old levels. If all you're biomarkers are the same as a 25-year old, you _are_ 25 in every sense except calendrical.

EDIT: typo

</comment><comment><USER7> Seeing the headline I shrugged and thought to myself, "oh, I bet it's rapamycin again." That and a few other old cancer drugs routinely get studied for antiaging effects- which is cool, but somewhat less than directly applicable because of the side-effects associated with what is essentially chemo.

But here the drug is apparently a peptide, so it's presumably somewhat more benign (at least relative, mind you, to chemo.) Also easily synthesizable! I wonder if an amino acid sequence can be patented?

<comment><USER8> I am not a biologist but the whole business of senolytics is to mess with the cell cycle. That is not something benign.

<comment><USER7> Not really the cell cycle per se, but yes, the idea is to poison senescent cells. But it can be benign to the organism as a whole nonetheless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There are lot of buzz since some months about "senolytics". However I think aging is a complex phenomena, including having social dimensions. It is probably not something that you could solve with a pill.

<comment><USER9> I would imagine that many of the social dimension are consequences of, rather than sources of, the physical ones.

If a pill could give someone more energy, less daily pain, a more regular sleep schedule, and/or increased sex-drive, I suspect we'd see their place in society nudge towards that of younger persons.

<comment><USER8> I am not sure. For example menopause had been linked to social events like having grand children. It can occur earlier in those who smoke tobacco. Immune system working depends on your social status and has consequences on aging diseases. People who are engaged in a relation and that have a strong social network are aging better. And people are dying around us as we age, one in four people that were born at the same time than me has already died, and I am only 60. So being older means more solitude, which means more biological aging. All in all, there are many indications that aging is something social as well as biological. (edited)

<comment><USER3> Than there should be outliers of those who have younger friends. E.g. Professors with a good relationship to the students or people that live in more age-diverse peergroups/communities like in a small village.</comment></comment></comment></comment>