Bitcoin fees are skyrocketing - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/bitcoin-fees-are-skyrocketing/ <comment><USER2> > But only a small minority of transactions have taken advantage of this > option so far, so the network's average throughput has stayed below 2,500 > transactions per block

Let's celebrate the exchanges and wallets that have opted in to segwit.

Notable entries from [1]: bitfinex, bitsquare, bitstamp, blockchain.info, counterparty, Gemini, localbitcoins, OpenBazaar, ShapeShift

Let's put pressure on those who are still WIP: Coinbase, GDAX -- and migrate away from those who don't have any plans to embrace segwit.

[1] [https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/](https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/)</comment>


Ask HN: Coding bootcamp before going to college? - <AUTHOR> Looking at ideas for my college-bound kid who's going for a CS degree.
The idea is for him to invest the summer on something that will give him access to a higher earning potential for part time or freelance work.
The extent of his experience is having done the MIT "Computational Problem Solving with Python" course on EDx. He applied some of it to minor problems, including doing some Euler Project and his FRC robotics team. No real web dev experience. Some playing around with HTML, etc., nothing serious. No Linux experience.
Yes, I know, not the best starting point. Not the worst either.
What to do over the summer?
One thought was to send him to a good coding bootcamp and have him invest three months at high intensity learning full stack development.
The other option is to have him dive into a bunch of Udemy and EDx courses under my guidance and supervision.
I don't have the option of tutoring him full time. My plate is full with business responsibilities. What I can do is provide support, guidance and be available for questions, etc.
I don't mind spending the money on a bootcamp if it fulfills the stated goal of allowing him to have access to higher paying part-time or freelance gigs. The theory being that he will be able to earn more in less time and, therefore, focus on his CS studies. Without this kind of a push forward I can't see him earning anything more than minimum wage at essentially entry level clerical or service jobs.
I also considered the idea of him not going to university immediately. Go to a bootcamp, get a job in web development, live at home, put away a bunch of money, learn a ton and go to school in a year. In this regard, I wonder how schools like Stanford or MIT would view such a decision and the experience accumulated during that year.
I'd appreciate any input on this. Thanks. <comment><USER2> What does your son want to do? In all honesty, I would let him make the decision if he wants to go to university or not.

There is tremendous value in an undergraduate degree outside of just the education. It's the formative years for a young adult to experience life outside the realm of his protective "cocoon" if you will. The least valuable thing I got from college was the actual degree, the most valuable thing I got was learning what happens when you don't budget correctly, whether it be time or money.

I wouldn't advise the boot camps at all, I would advise edX and just have him start messing around with different frameworks/languages. Build some stuff with the MEAN stack. Build tools with Python, you could build some nifty DevOps type stuff with Python. Have him explore data analytics with Python.

Also, MIT or Stanford isn't the end all. Great schools, but it's more about the individual's grit and desire to succeed in life than the school on his diploma.

Just my two cents.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed on all points. Just looking for a variety of opinions to help think things through.

I think the value of places like MIT and Stanford is in the network. Like you said, not the end-all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I would be wary of setting his agenda too much. You clearly want the best for him but is he truly on board with these plans? Pushing him too much could blow up and he may drop computer science altogether. Be proud that he's going into this field, and support his current interests, but anything more than that is likely to be a quick recipe for rebellion. Ideally we all do this work because we love it, and not because we were placed on this track. Try to connect with that and instill it, and you'll do great.

Of course, if he really wants to do a boot camp then it could be a great experience for him. It is intense but rewarding. It's an environment for the truly motivated but if he isn't then he may burn out.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry if I gave the impression of trying to force him into this. That's not the case.

I want to do all the thinking and place a set of options in front of him for the summer. I'm perfectly OK if he wants to spend the summer mostly going to beach with friends. That's OK to. I want him to start down the path of making the kinds of decisions an adult has to make.

At this point I see it as a choice to invest some time over the summer to have access to higher paying part time jobs and gigs in CS rather than minimum wage clerical or other stuff.

<comment><USER3> Great, just wanted to make sure!

I think young adults are really into their mobile devices so, mobile development could be another fun way to go.

I personally got a good leg up on becoming a web developer through codeschool.com. Their videos are top-notch and their sandbox exercises are pretty helpful. There's a bit of a leap to actually setting up your computer to actually develop but they've added some videos to help with that as well.

If he can be a self-motivated learner then I'd recommend doing something like that, along with edx, udacity, and coursera on the more academic side, or udemy and pluralsight on the more technical/professional side.

<comment><USER3> ps. Also my apologies for assuming too much

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I thought I'd chime in here, as I actually run a coding bootcamp for current high school and college students (www.joinhorizons.com if you are interested). We've gotten hundreds of applications from talented high school students around the country.

I've noticed a large standard deviation in terms of the types of high school seniors who look into programs like ours. On the one hand, we see smart kids who want to be in technology long-term and have already been teaching themselves code. On the other hand, we see students who apply because their parents pressured them to do so.

So the first point I'll make is that the former paradigm is a much better one - if your kid already shows organic interest in programming and CS, then intensive programs are a fantastic way to continue to fuel the flames. I'm biased, but a big fan of immersive bootcamp programs. The earlier that kids get these skills and perspective, the more impactful they are on the career paths - the high school web dev whizzes are the ones who go on to win hackathons in college, get the best internships, and go start their entrepreneurial ventures in college (at least anecdotally). Good bootcamps also provide a lot of structure around the learning process. In 3-4 months, a motivated students can make it much further than someone on a self-paced curriculum. I'm also a strong believer that the atmosphere and ecosystem plays as important of a role as the actual curriculum. Being surrounded by other smart people who grind for 10 hours a day is positively infectious.

Regarding pushing off college - my thoughts are simple. The "tech" industry has changed significantly from a few years ago. Today it's about the skills you have more so than the pedigree you have. Smart kids who know how to build and ship real code beat out 4-year CS degree students all the time. Not to say that MIT or Stanford are not worth it. It just depends on the type of student and the goals.

Hope this helps give some clarity - let me know if you have any questions or want to chat further.</comment>


Turbulenz HTML5 game engine is now open source - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/02/turbulenz-html5-game-engine-is-now-open-source/

<comment><USER2> It looks like they used TypeScript for a good portion of the client code! That's really interesting. I wonder what the positives and drawbacks for that decision were. If a developer from turbulenz is viewing these comments, I'd be really interested to know why you picked TypeScript.

(it looks like the emacs plugin finally works for TypeScript as well, how convenient!)

<comment><USER3> One of our colleagues wrote this article about our decision and the process we followed to migrate our existing JavaScript code to TypeScript:

[http://news.turbulenz.com/post/47457658846/mostly- painlessly...](http://news.turbulenz.com/post/47457658846/mostly-painlessly- migrating-a-3d-game-engine-to)

<comment><USER4> Do you know why the Polycraft game is so much more pixelated on Firefox than Chrome?

Update: It looks like Firefox's WebGL anti-aliasing is off by default. You can toggle this "webgl.msaa-force" pref to control anti-aliasing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> All the HTML5/WebGL stuff may be nice for casual gamers, but as a gamer I really don't want all that stuff.

Same visual quality/performance as a native game is probably not possible and every game in js will perform worse AND create more load (and waste energy).

Why is everyone trying to move games and big applications to the web?

<comment><USER6> Like you I'm a gamer, and like you this doesn't appeal.

However I can see exactly why people are doing this. There have been a big explosion of indie games recently and that can be put down to iOS and Steam. Both make it super easy to get games.

Anything that reduces friction is going to be very appealing to game makers. And installing Steam is friction. If playing your game simply involves visiting a link - thats pretty easy. As HTML5 matures, as more people use modern browsers, and as Flash becomes less reliably installed on browsers, expect to see a lot of casual games moving to HTML5.

<comment><USER7> Steam makes it super easy to get games but installing it is friction?

I am a gamer with an interest in the indie sector but don't have steam because my first experience with that extra platform abstraction - Origin - has put me off. Neither do I want a game as a web page. I want a gaming experience and that for me is still a standalone executable. I even dislike not having a physical copy of digital distributions.

<comment><USER8> In the end isn't it just about having fun? Whatever format is most efficient for the developer to deliver fun, let them run with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Recently there were some interesting articles about JS optimization by the Turbulenz guys: [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/186171/making_the_move...](http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/186171/making_the_move_to_html5_part_1.php)

</comment><comment><USER10> This is really cool! There are some really amazing features packed in there. After browsing the website a bit, I didn't see a whole lot regarding mobile deployment. Is there a builder/packager included that targets native iOS and/or Android, similar to GameClosure, CocoonJS, directCanvas, or Ejecta?

<comment><USER11> Hi. We are making progress with our native wrapper which you can see here: <http://news.turbulenz.com/post/46003970366>

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Hmm, while the games made with it look quite good, I'm not sure whether to call it a "true" HTML5 game engine or not. You have to download a plugin for your browser to play these games.

<comment><USER13> This is a classic problem of trying to be helpful and it's confusing people until they understand the details.

The engine uses HTML5 and WebGL. When the required APIs aren't present it falls back onto a plugin. This is supposed to be helpful for developers because it means the games will work on pretty much all browsers include IE.

But it confuses people because some people think a plugin is required.

So what's better -

1\. Not providing the fall back and telling users they need to switch browsers? Good for helping people to understand it doesn't require a plugin, but not great for developers who want everyone to be able to play their game, or

2\. Providing the fallback.

Additionally, it's worth noting that the games and engine don't have to provide any plugin support. It is actually the game site application code that is doing the detection and trying to be helpful.

The Turbulenz Engine is an HTML5 / WebGL framework.

<comment><USER12> Yes you're right. Thing is, I used Safari 6 to check it out which has WebGL disabled by default. The site offered a download immediately instead of hinting that I might have to enable WebGL.

The fallback is quite a good idea, but it should've detected that I do have a modern browser which simply might be misconfigured for the game experience.

<comment><USER13> Yep, you're right. We could definitely do a better job of detection. But at the moment we're looking for the 'feature' rather than the browser.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Why isn't there an open source standard game engine built in browsers (compiled to .exe itself)?</comment>


Teapotnet – Private social network for file sharing and streaming - <AUTHOR> http://teapotnet.org/ <comment><USER2> >Each friend-to-friend connection is identified by their usernames and a shared secret.

Showstopper. I wanted to ASK how this beats retroshare. But without asymmertic keys you're kinda f __ __d.

>On session establishment, temporary salted authentication and encryption keys are derived from the shared secret by each peer. The current implementation uses PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA512 (10000 iterations) for key derivation.

Please describe in more detail. Form what I read it highly depends in a really good implementation here to provide perfect forward secrecy.

>where secret exchange is made on our servers. Then a code is sent to both you and your friend so that your Teapotnet instance can fetch the secret through HTTPS. Why don't you just do (authenticated) diffie hellman? Then your Server wouldn't need to know the key.

Sorry but just Form those few sentences i have to assume your crypto is shit and cant be trusted. I'm mobile right now so i didn't look at the source. After that I also probably won't.

Edit: german autocorrect while typing english is REALLY annoying. Sorry for all the typos.

Edit2: What The fuck? Why are there own sha512 and AES implementations? Use openssl! For nie i'd strongly advise Tod avoid until someone more skilled than me has reviewed this. But für crypto Reilly seems horrible.

<comment><USER3> What I've seen so far isn't a complete waste, but I'm still reviewing since I have nothing better to do this morning.

So far I've looked at how a crypto-secure schared secret is established with the "original method." It works just as you would expect. The author even made an attempt to ensure that different pairs of peers using the same input wouldn't generate the same secret by xoring the two usernames together. Of course, collisions are easy to generate and I don't see that the tracker's domain is included anywhere, but no serious attacks come to mind through this vector.

I'm not going to bother looking at the Facebook or email methods because the security there reduces to how much you trust your email provider or Facebook.

I'll keep updating you guys if anyone cares.

<comment><USER4> Hi, I'm the original author of Teapotnet, I want to precise some details.

No cryptograhic library is used mostly for deployment simplicity and portability, but we plan to use OpenSSL in the future (see below).

Xoring the username together is mostly a simple refinement so two passphrases entered for two different contacts or users does not result in the same secrets stored in their profiles. Usernames are part of the authentication anyway.

The current authentication is a simple digest method. It does not garantee Perfect Foward Secrecy. In the future we plan to implement a stronger method using authenticated Diffie-Hellmann (We have to OpenSSL for this). The tracker name is not a part of it as you could change trackers.

Thank you for your interest in the program !

<comment><USER3> > Xoring the username together is mostly a simple refinement so two > passphrases entered for two different contacts or users does not result in > the same secrets stored in their profiles.

I'm aware of that, but why do you _xor_ the two _usernames_ together instead of _concatenate_ the two _full addresses_? So that even if two people on different trackers with the same username using the same shared secret contact the same third party, they don't generate the same key?

Edit: Also, why do you avoid asymmetric cryptography? For the same reason you're avoiding OpenSSL?

<comment><USER4> Concatenating the two usernames is done afterwards to compute the peering (localisation digest). The tracker is not added to the usernames because it should be easy to change trackers without resetting your contacts. The tracker is not really part of your identity like the domain of an email, it's more like a temporary address where your friends know they can reach you.

However, I'm aware of the specific collision issue you highlight. Actually, you must not use twice the same secret for two different contacts (for obvious reasons, since if one of the contacts is somewhat malicious it could guess it and impersonate you by connecting to the other one). Just like passwords, you should never use the same twice. So your example is actually very bad practice for the thrid party.

We don't want to avoid asymmetric cryptography, we want to avoid using a public key system. If you want to use public keys, Retroshare is a pretty good app. The problem is, non-tech people tend to freak out when confronted to public keys, so we wanted something very simple to understand and use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Very high buzzword/sentence ratio.

How is this conceptually different than, say, RetroShare?

edit: also, you keep comparing to DropBox, however, I can't find the crucial info - are the data saved somewhere outside the computer or not? If not, why the comparisons with DropBox?

<comment><USER6> I set up Retroshare on my home server and sent details to a dozen coworkers and friends (all in IT) that had previously used IRC / ftp for similar purposes. Not a single one decided to use it after varying degrees of trying it.

<comment><USER5> Yes, retroshare has unusable and confusing GUI, that's why I wrote "conceptually" :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It seems like nowadays all of these services are trying to one-up each other on privacy and promises of good intention. My parents couldn't care less about their online privacy - they were storing their files by emailing them one-by- one as attachments. Anything is better than that system, so Dropbox really did wonders. This solution is hardly a Dropbox-killer, because its not made for the 99% of people who use email attachments to save their files.

I saw an ad for a product Western Digital is coming out with in this realm:

[http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2424967,00.asp](http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2424967,00.asp)

the "My Cloud" product itself is apparently total crap, but the idea will certainly be refined to serve a purpose similar to that of teapot. That is, glorified network file access.

</comment><comment><USER8> And there's [http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/](http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/)

\- 100% decentralized/p2p (no central server)

\- (public key) encrypted

\- open-source

\- does: file sharing, "emailing", chat, VoIP, forums, etc.

<comment><USER9> it is impossible to setup and use without deciphering thirdparty guides. and even then it is awkward and painful to use. I wish they would restart with a useable GUI and highly limited but well working feature set.

<comment><USER8> I'm very surprised by your comment. I'm using it on Ubuntu, my family is still on Macs but uses it too. Everybody without the slightest issue. Install was as easy as any other program (Ubuntu and Mac). True, the UI could be more polished, but it's the tech behind that's interesting when you're interested in privacy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Bitdefender Free antivirus has detected a malware on this page".

Also Peerblock bloked access to this website.

</comment><comment><USER11> Give permisson someone to download data on my computer. Simple as that. I don't understand why they compare themselves to DropBox and Google Drive. Furthermore this helps software/game/music/film... piracy.

<comment><USER12> Frankly, if I imagine a good piece of software for transferring legitimate files, with appropriate privacy/security and a good featureset, it would also be excellent for piracy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Another private social network (not for file streaming though - there is some media sharing) : [http://bit.ly/blibonline](http://bit.ly/blibonline)

</comment><comment><USER14> Crashes for me upon startup: [http://i.imgur.com/OzPT0yA.png](http://i.imgur.com/OzPT0yA.png)

Win7 x64

</comment><comment><USER15> font for questions in your faq page is straining to the eye and impossible to read, you might want to fix that

</comment><comment><USER16> A demo or some screenshots might be nice.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is pretty much what the web interface looks like ⌘ [http://teapotnet.org/img/screenshot_tpn_total.png](http://teapotnet.org/img/screenshot_tpn_total.png)

<comment><USER16> Nice. Screenshots should most definitely be posted somewhere accessible on your web site, they make a big difference.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Does it implement RFC 2324? [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2324](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2324)

<comment><USER4> You would only get error 418 I'm a teapot. For obvious reasons !</comment></comment>


CrunchBase Unleashes the Business Graph - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/05/crunchbase-unleashes-the-business-graph/

<comment><USER2> Also check out [http://opencorporates.com/](http://opencorporates.com/) which is the world's largest open database of company information.

They've produced some really nice visualisations showing international company structures [http://opencorporates.com/viz/financial/index.html](http://opencorporates.com/viz/financial/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd be curious to know whether LinkedIn is or will start working on a similar user-experience for medium-to-large organizations. On paper it would seem LinkedIn would have a strong lead ahead of CrunchBase with their own business graph model(s), but the existing LinkedIn UI would probably need some major overhauls.

Also, it's unlikely that LinkedIn would want to focus solely on early-stage startups since at this point in their trajectory there probably isn't enough money in that category to justify an additional LinkedIn Premium tier.

CrunchBase is immersed in the startup ecosystem and their Business Graph will probably provide and quickly return more relevant information based on their existing dataset.

</comment><comment><USER4> This strikes me more as a question of measuring what we have got, not what is useful.

I think that helping individuals to build their own graphs is really really powerful - and thin that into a "company I am working for now" role relationship / recruitment tool is where the money is

Hmm - I might just have an idea ...

<comment><USER5> Is it called linkedin?

<comment><USER4> Not really. Its more about me being helped to maintain my contacts over time (and occassionaly remembering to be y'know, sociable) and then being able to aggregate that. If I am looking for someone self-labelled as a good Perl programmer I could trust LinkedIn - or I could hire some good Perl guys and then ask them to scan their contacts list.

hmmm, that still sounds like LInkedIn but its not what I am after...

<comment><USER6> Maybe [https://www.goconspire.com](https://www.goconspire.com) is part of that workflow? At least the maintaining my contacts over time part.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Investigate Chris Dodd and the MPAA for bribery - <AUTHOR> https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/investigate-chris-dodd-and-mpaa-bribery-after-he-publicly-admited-bribing-politicans-pass/DffX0YQv <comment><USER2> 20,000+ votes and counting!</comment>


Latin Becomes a Living Language on Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=145923442130 <comment><USER2> So there's more to Latin than Lorem Ipsum? ;-) Actually, I studied Latin for two years. It's good to see other people outside the Vatican think it's cool to study it too!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Submitted just for the idea that a dead language could come back into use, perhaps even evolve, based on a niche community coming together online.

<comment><USER3> haven't you heard of alt.language.latin?</comment></comment>


Are humans cruel to be kind? - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227081.400-are-humans-cruel-to-be-kind.html?full=true <comment><USER2> Holy crap, this article is amazingly interesting. Please repost it or something. I'd vote for it again.</comment>


Coinbase will be a remote-first company - <AUTHOR> https://blog.coinbase.com/post-covid-19-coinbase-will-be-a-remote-first-company-cdac6e621df7?gi=97cf312cab0b <comment><USER3> I'm really curious, how many people actually prefer WFH permanently vs. just having the flexibility to WFH when wanted.

If I wanted to stay home forever I'd have just taken a remote consulting job a long time ago, but I enjoy going to office and there is a lot of benefits that you don't get from being remote 100%. I've also made very good friends at work and I see my coworkers as much more than just another GitHub account that reviews my Pull Requests.

But again, maybe I'm the exception to the rule and most engineers just want to stay focused on their immediate work and not leave the house and minimize human interaction. But knowing my own personality, if I know a company is mostly remote work culture I'll likely cross it out from my list of places to work.

Also I saw this from the blog post:

>There are no explicit or implicit disadvantages to working from any location: all employees have the same experience regardless of where they are.

Unless Coinbase somehow figured out a way to discard factors caused by human psychology from millions of years of evolution, I just don't see how that's possible for anything other than low to mid-tier ICs with minimal no career ambition.

From my personal experiences most high level decisions are made, or at least started from countless hallway/micro-kitchen conversations or informal coffee walks, and meetings are just a way to present to people of decisions that's already made.

The cynical part of me thinks all this "WFH Permanently" initiative is just a disguise for companies to start lowering cost for entry to mid-level IC positions by hiring from areas with much cheaper CoL. Which makes sense, there is nothing special about an entry level JS frontend dev in SF that warrants you paying them $150k/yr when you can hire the same talent from another state for half that much or from a different country for a quarter that much.

<comment><USER4> I have been working remote by choice for years. You don't have to stay at home, you just need internet access. This means you have the freedom to work from anywhere on the globe as long as you can access the web.

This is a pretty straightforward advantage of the internet. Some jobs have always been "remote". For example, writers still type their manuscripts from anywhere and mail them to editors. However, only some jobs work like this. When I did service or blue collar work I always had to be on the site to physically work the capital.

As for "career ambition", you can make plenty of money or a modest income from remote jobs. Beyond jobs, you can easily own an online business or some other digital capital through the same infrastructure. There is more to life and to work than a high salary. Greed is not a virtue.

You don't have to sell your soul and most of the waking hours of your life to commute to an office, deal with the attached bullshit, and integrate yourself into the corporate machine.

Instead, you have the freedom to actually live your life. Be with you family, friends, pursue your passions, even something as simple as being able access nature or travel freely. Whatever living means to you beyond working.

From the outside looking in, the mirage of SV corporate culture seems really fake and hollow. I do not want a hip fancy office full of zany perks and a weird cult. I understand the power balance as a worker. In any job, I want to put in my time and hard work, earn an honest living, and then be free to live as a real human being.

<comment><USER5> > I do not want a hip fancy office full of zany perks and a weird cult.

Notice taken. Good for you (not sarcastic). This is why you "have been working remote by choice for years". But as the OP said:

> If I wanted to stay home forever I'd have just taken a remote consulting job > a long time ago

...and he didn't. Neither did I. In the past I have worked remotely for about a year, it wasn't great (admitted that company wasn't set up for it). I am doing it now, and I'm miserable about it.

So, OP's point seems not that something is inherently wrong or bad with either mode of working, rather that people who used to be going to the office may not necessarily be happy, or interested, to become remote workers. (Not even because it works well for you.)

I did a nothing little survey during our past team retrospective, and from a dozen of folks 1) most of them want more days working from home than pre- pandemic, 2) most of them would then want more work time in the office than from home, and 3) all of them are desperately looking forward to going into the office again for any sort of time.

<comment><USER6> > 3) all of them are desperately looking forward to going into the office > again for any sort of time.

This basically means that they did not modify their lifestyle for remote work.

Purging office bullshit from your life requires some changes in lifestyle, no question about it. The workplace has to be established, distractions (much less than what is in the office, but still) have to be managed. Social needs have to be satisfied sy some other means.

Still, work from anywhere (not home, mind you, and please do not confuse the two) is much better.

<comment><USER3> >This basically means that they did not modify their lifestyle for remote work.

I really can't understand how one can be this shallow minded. Maybe the life style required to make remote work effective is not the desirable lifestyle for everyone? Maybe people value different things in life? Or maybe some people actually enjoy the place of their work and the physical presence of their coworkers?

>Purging office bullshit

For a lot of people offices offers a lot more benefits other than bullshit. Maybe your experience with office work came from a place with super toxic work culture? It sure sounds like it from how bitter you sound and I can understand how that contributed to your bias.

>Still, work from anywhere (not home, mind you, and please do not confuse the two) is much better.

For you, and for the type of work you do, maybe. But blanket statements like that is just silly.

<comment><USER6> What I say is that _if_ they would have changed their lifestyle _then_ they would not have craved the office experience.

There is nothing shallow about this observation.

If they chose not to it's fine. They just missed a different and, in my opinion, a better experience. Their choice.

I cannot in good faith come up with a type of work that genuinely requires being in an office. Not on a workfloor, not in a lab, not in a conference room - an office.

Please enlighten me.

Social aspects of offices are overrated. Less formal association is better if only because no one is forced into them.

<comment><USER3> >What I say is that _if_ they would have changed their lifestyle _then_ they would not have craved the office experience.

I can say the same thing about WFH. If you have made the lifestyle adjustment then you wouldn't crave to be working remotely either.

Btw I don't know what kind of lifestyle adjust you were thinking about that can magically change someone's personality or family situation.

>If they chose not to it's fine. They just missed a different and, in my opinion, a better experience. Their choice.

Exactly, it is _your_ opinion, but not a universal fact.

>I cannot in good faith come up with a type of work that genuinely requires being in an office.

Just like how you prefer WFH even when your job doesn't _require_ you to work from home, a lot of people can prefer to work at an office even though it's not _required_.

>Social aspects of offices are overrated. Less formal association is better if only because no one is forced into them.

For you, maybe. I find my social interaction at office to be neither overrated nor forced.

<comment><USER7> Your work buddys today will be gone tomorrow. Most work relationships are shallow and transitory. If that's your thing because you're extroverted then great but a lot of people in tech are more ambiverted or introverted, they value deeper more meaningful relationships.

What I see a lot is introverted or ambiverted people tricked into believing their work buddies will call after they leave the company. Tricked into spending time on this shallowness outside of work hours + commute time over spending time with the people in their lives that really matter and will be there for them in darker times.

Sure there are a minority of extroverted people who want to be in the office because they want social time all the time, shallow or not. There are also parents who want some time away from home. On the other hand there are introverted people who want to be in the office because that's the only place they know how to get their social need filled anymore even though it's not truly fulfilling.

<comment><USER8> > What I see a lot is introverted or ambiverted people tricked into believing > their work buddies will call after they leave the company. Tricked into > spending time on this shallowness outside of work hours + commute time over > spending time with the people in their lives that really matter and will be > there for them in darker times.

I'm sorry you've apparently had bad experiences (and I'm trying really hard to be charitable here and not make some sort of dig about how you clearly struggle to make friends and choose to cover it up by asserting that "most" work relationships are shallow and transitory and that people without social skills really just seek out "deeper" and "more meaningful relationship" — whoops, I failed), but this is absolute bullshit.

 _Most_ relationships are based, at least in part, by proximity. With co- workers, the initial bond is usually the work itself and the fact that you see each other frequently. The same is true for the people you get to know in primary/secondary school or in college/university. Even online, relationships are often based on being active on the same platforms — proximity.

Obviously there are plenty of people you can get to know and have good interactions with when you're around each other that will disappear when you aren't anymore — but how do those "deeper, more meaningful" relationships form? It takes effort from both parties.

Adults spend a significant portion of their lives working. To claim that the relationships people form at work are somehow less real or less important — just because someone you used to work with didn't respond to your texts or agree to join your MLM, is beyond insipid.

This is anecdotal but by no means unique: the people I talk to most on a daily basis — the people I trust and rely on the most — are largely current or former co-workers. I have built long-lasting friendships and relationships with my co-workers, past and present.

Yes, it's absolutely possible to build relationships with co-workers without being in the office (the team I've worked on for 3 years has been distributed, with most people not having any office to report to), but it's also a very valid advantage of having an actual office to work from. As remote-first as my team is, the people I'm closest with are people I've spent at least some time with in person — people I've traveled with or bonded with at off-sites.

For me, being able to physically spend time with my co-workers is hugely important. It doesn't need to be every day. But a few times a year makes a huge difference in building trust and a rapport that can be more effective at actually getting work done — whether we're coworkers, work-friends, or form a long-lasting relationship that transcends who signs our paycheck.

<comment><USER7> I'm not taking about myself. I don't have any trouble making friends and I'm not introverted. Also using that as a jab is... well we will get to that.

I'm talking for people I've known who were in this situation because they won't talk about it themselves... Because they are introverted they are only going to talk about it with people they are close to. I've been close with a lot of introverted people because I love getting to know people and I care about them.

You seem to think that introverted people are not as good as everyone else because they struggle to make friends. That is fucked up. That is the kind of shit they deal with all the time and you wonder why so many introverts have social anxiety.

I never said all work relationships are shallow and I'm not devaluing shallow relationships either. I'm saying shallow relationships have less value for introverted people and it takes social energy for them to participate in these relationships that could be better spent elsewhere.

I personally love being in an office where I can spend time with my co workers. I go to the social events, I spend time with them outside of work. Because I have more social energy than introverted people and I don't care that I won't see most of these people in a few years.

I personally think the ideal situation for an introvert is a long term job working at a small company with the same people. Unfortunately that's hard to come by. Most introverted people would be better off with remote work because they can then live in the same city as their close friends and don't have to expend so much social energy just to get a paycheck.

<comment><USER8> > You seem to think that introverted people are not as good as everyone else > because they struggle to make friends. That is fucked up. That is the kind > of shit they deal with all the time and you wonder why so many introverts > have social anxiety.

No, that's absolutely not what I said or even insinuated. To be very clear, there is absolutely no value judgment on being an introvert or an extrovert. Instead, I think people who undermine and write-off people who appreciate being around others as superficial and "surface" (like you have repeatedly), are assholes trying to overcompensate for something. You don't know me and I don't know you. I'm not a classic extrovert. I'm definitely comfortable around people and probably come across as a typical extrovert, but I'm perfectly happy being alone and had to work extremely hard as a child to be be more comfortable around others. And I've had diagnosed anxiety (sometimes so crippling I couldn't pick up the phone and call to order pizza and at times couldn't even leave my house), since I was 6 years old — so you can fuck right off with the insinuation that only introverts have social anxiety or that they are even remotely linked. They aren't. So stop with the straw man arguments.

Remote or in-person, if you want to build an actual friendship with someone — whether they are a coworker or not — it takes work on both sides. Most of the people we call "friends" at various times in our lives will not be around for prolonged periods of time — just as most of us won't be on beck and call to a person they went to school with 20 years ago and only interact with as much as liking the occasional Facebook post. That has absolutely nothing to do with remote work.

Those "close friends" you speak of for introverts — a not insignificant portion of those friendships were absolutely built at work.

You're the one putting negative value judgments on those who dare opine that they enjoy having an office because they like to engage with others by undermining and dismissing their relationships — not me.

<comment><USER7> >You're the one putting negative value judgments on those who dare opine that they enjoy having an office because they like to engage with others by undermining and dismissing their relationships — not me.

I specifically said I'm in the camp of wanting to work in an office and enjoying those connections and relationships. Did you miss that part? What am I missing here?

I don't want to devalue extroverted people! I'm not trying to attack you or anyone else for liking to make more connections with people.

I think I must have triggered you with the word 'shallow' lots of extroverted people (including me in the past) get triggered by that word because they know they are not shallow on the inside. I'm not calling you or other extroverted people shallow or superficial because you like to spend time around people. I should know because people have accused me of the same. What I am saying is that on average extroverted people have more friends and acquaintances than introverted people and spend more time with people they don't know that well. And most importantly that extroverted people have the energy to do that and derive energy from that.

Introverted people loose energy by spending time around people they are not close to. Building relationships requires more energy for them. This is why remote working because work does consist of many shallow (can't think of another way to put it) relationships and that is draining on an introverted person if those relationships don't have a long term trajectory.

I'm also not saying that extroverted people can't have social anxiety. They can. 100% and it can be even worse.

What I am saying is the reason that introverts have more social anxiety on average is because people judge them for being introverted. Because they have less of themselves to give. It sounded very much like that was what you were doing in your previous post by first assuming I was introverted and then directly attacking me for 'strugling to make friends'. A trait of many introverted people. I fail to see how that is not a value judgement against introverts. It came across as very cruel and mocking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've noticed a lot of comments from people who don't like WFH or want a mix of home and office life. I've done both so I understand this.

I'm curious though how this attitude will change if a lot more companies (and eventually a majority) move to remote work. Currently (pre-pandemic) when I WFH my friends are all at their offices. So is my partner. I'm alone. Therefore I like going into the office a few days a week for the social aspect, even if it's just a chat at lunch. If more people are WFH though I might be able to meet my local friends at lunch. Or meet specific people at cafés or other locations to work together for a couple of hours. I would be able to invest in a better home office setup too.

People see quite divided on this issue (I love WFH/I hate WFH) so maybe it's important to keep in mind that the WFH you are currently experiencing is nothing like a normal WFH (due to the pandemic) and if lots more people start WFH then WFH in general has the possibility to change drastically and be much less solitary.

</comment><comment><USER10> Official statement here: [https://blog.coinbase.com/post-covid-19-coinbase- will-be-a-r...](https://blog.coinbase.com/post-covid-19-coinbase-will-be-a- remote-first-company-cdac6e621df7) (Although it's annoying that I need to signup for an account to read the statement of a company's CEO)

Wonder how they are going to handle the complexities around crypto custody (esp. cold storage), given it's hard to sign transactions with multiple signatures when your workforce is distributed.

<comment><USER11> > _Wonder how they are going to handle the complexities around crypto custody > (esp. cold storage), given it 's hard to sign transactions with multiple > signatures when your workforce is distributed._

Multisig works great across distances. I've built coordination apps for multiple distributed parties to propose and approve and sign Bitcoin transactions before. It's pretty straightforward.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I really like WFH. And I'm fortunate to work for a tech company that has been allowing this for years now.

But recently in discussions about this topic it feels like WFH fans want to "convert" Office fans to their preferred model. I don't think that's the right approach. Let's just accept that the world is complex and people are different. I don't think it's necessary to convince the other side everyone should work from home from now on.

<comment><USER3> >But recently in discussions about this topic it feels like WFH fans want to "convert" Office fans to their preferred model. I don't think that's the right approach.

Thank you for that nuanced view. Many comments here want to drive home the point about how all office offers is "bullshit" and "distraction and toxic culture", and anyone who enjoys working at an office with coworkers don't care about actual productivity and only want to do it because they want have someone to gossip with during the day...

There was literally a top comment here that implies someone isn't even living the life of a "real human being" if he's not WFH. That is such a ridiculous stance to take.

People have different personalties and value different things in life and are in different situations in life, there is no one solution that would make everyone happy.

<comment><USER13> I think yours and the parent's issue is in misunderstanding the difference between WFH and "remote work".

Remote work is not WFH. It is not a discussion about the home vs office environments. This is largely irrelevant.

The fundamental shift that Remote Work will bring is that it will allow people to separate physically where people live from their work activity. This means that people will no longer have to live close to their jobs - for whatever definition of "close" you have. It's one degree of freedom that everyone can get when choosing where to live.

And it is a _very important degree of freedom_. When choosing a place to live, one has many things to consider: is this a good environment for my growing family, will I be surrounded by like-minded people, can I find good schools, is the weather good for the kind of activities I enjoy doing the most, etc, etc... but none of that will matter in a location if the jobs are not there. In the current situation, people flock to where the jobs are because they can't afford to choose a nicer place with no jobs.

If you prefer the office environment, you can and will be able to have that even when Remote Work becomes the norm. The key point is in understanding that your office can now be in SV, Texas, Croatia, some city in South America, South East Asia or the Ukraine and you will (should) not be missing out in any professional opportunity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm keeping an index of company remote-work announcements here: [https://airtable.com/shrC1mvKjwntaqocO/tbl73UY1jDmReLge7](https://airtable.com/shrC1mvKjwntaqocO/tbl73UY1jDmReLge7)

If you know of companies that have made changes like Coinbase, please help me build the list by sharing anonymously here: [https://airtable.com/shriP4XRx0ewbBWM0](https://airtable.com/shriP4XRx0ewbBWM0)

</comment><comment><USER11> Non-signupwall: [https://archive.is/GfOUF](https://archive.is/GfOUF)

Aside: Companies, please stop using Medium for your corporate blogs. It's super unprofessional.

</comment><comment><USER15> I have been working from home for the past 2 years.

Pros: I save an insane amount of time due to not having to waste my time commuting. Even a 10 min bike ride takes much longer in reality since you have to properly dress, come in, out, settle down, prepare etc... So I have much more free time. Also no distrations is 10/10\. We have an open office and the distractions cause a severe drop in my productivity. All talks can easily be had through Slack. In fact I much prefer Slack since there is not BS time wasting: you have a talk with a VERY SPECIFIC agenda, nothing else.

Cons: connections, and I'm not talking about "nice to see a human face" or that kind of mundane-waste-of-my-time-BS-water-cooler-conversionation. I'm talking practical things: new business connections by meeting random people for example can be easily done face-to-face without sending any cold emails, there is no denying that "many businesses/connections get done during the smoking break"

</comment><comment><USER16> Why do I need to sign up for a Medium account to read a Coinbase company statement..?

<comment><USER17> Owning up channels of communication and then making them monetized walled gardens has been proven to work, unfortunately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why does Coinbase have their publicly facing blog on Medium, which has a free article viewing limit?

<comment><USER19> It's crazy, right? Maybe it gets them more viewers from within that ecosystem but I find it hard to believe that it's a net positive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Additional remote positions do not make a company remote-first any more than additional @media queries make a desktop website mobile-first.

To understand what real "remote first" might mean, let's define the status quo: "in-person first".

To me, in-person-first companies are those in which being a remote employee means hampered career potential, and mingling with the right people at the headquarters is sooner or later required to advance.

By that logic, remote-first companies either flip that on its head, or at least make personal presence not a factor while encouraging remote participation.

Becoming _X-first_ implies a fundamental shift. Improving _X_ does make you _more X_ , though.

<comment><USER21> Brian calls this out and describes how Coinbase plans to do this in the "This will require a huge shift in how we do things. How will we get there?" section.

> To address all of these, we will form a cross-functional team to oversee > this transition. This group will identify the changes we must make to become > a remote-first company (e.g., around people management, recruiting/talent, > culture and connection, and documentation and async work…), host open design > sessions with all of you to surface ideas, considerations, dependencies, and > concerns, and partner with internal experts to redesign how all of this > works for a remote-first Coinbase.

<comment><USER20> This would work for a different definition of "remote-first".

In the definition I believe makes sense there is just one defining trait, and the author manages to tiptoe around it.

It's unclear whether the changes promised are cosmetic (to convince remote workers they aren't disadvantaged) or fundamental (actually making remote staff equivalent or even prioritized first before on-location staff).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Working from home makes great economic sense for companies that can remain productive in that environment. It decreases burn due to real estate, and reduces commute times which can help with employee retention (especially for certain geos or demographics, such as parents). Worries about pandemic liability will also be a blocker for reopening many offices.

Covid has forced many companies to run the previously-risky experiment of whether they can thrive while remote, and it's unsurprising that those that can remain productive will use it to evolve + reduce costs.

</comment><comment><USER23> "remote-first" sounds different than "WFH permanent". They will still have Offices in their hub cities. WFH is optionally available for "most" roles.

</comment><comment><USER24> First Twitter, now Coinbase. Looks like Christmas is coming early this year!

<comment><USER25> Square as well, which is a much bigger deal than Coinbase.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I have trouble scheduling meetings between colleagues on the west coast and east coast as is. With a "remote first" company where some choose to move abroad potentially (though suspect most would stay in the US) scheduling meetings sounds like a complete nightmare. There's no advantage to that at all.

<comment><USER27> Actually I think WFH would improve this. If both the west and east coast colleagues have to commute to their respective offices, there is a lot of wasted time during the beginning & end of the day. A person may arrive at the office on the east coast just as the west coast is waking up. If both locations were simply WFH, there would be more useful overlapping daylight hours to use because neither side has to commute. Additionally, one office could have modified hours such that they more overlapped with the other office either as a standard or simply as needed.

<comment><USER26> Main problem is a blurring between work life. With one office no one would dare schedule meetings too early or too late in the day. With different time zones you might have to have a 7am meeting on the west coast or 7pm on east coast. There needs to be strict calendar blocking to maintain sanity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> SV companies coming out as remote-friendly is odd in one way. Outside SV there are tons of companies that are remote, and they make no big fuss about it. With corona, so many more people started working remotely, even in companies that you 'd never expect they would. And they made no big deal of it. Seems like SV has been particularly reluctant to go remote (despite making the tools for it!) , for reasons that are not really well undestood. Perhaps they don't want capital to be decentralized or they somehow think there's something magical about the place.

</comment><comment><USER29> Any Coinbase employees here? Was wondering what the tech stack is, saw a job description mentioning breaking a Rails monolith into micro services - <USER2> that mean Coinbase switches to a different stack?

<comment><USER21> The main app powering coinbase.com, the "monorail", is a Rails app backed by MongoDB. It's typically what's being referred to when breaking out microservices.

Historically most other services were Rails/Sinatra with Postgres. These days there's a lot more Golang being used for new services.

There's also some services that are serverless, using Lambda and DynamoDB but these are a minority.

<comment><USER29> Thanks. But is Ruby considered something deprecated? I'm mainly a Ruby guy and want to keep it that way is why I'm asking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I always feel that Automattic don't get enough credit in these articles. Over 1000 employees in 70 countries and no central office...

</comment><comment><USER31> This is inevitable. There are too many advantages for companies to encourage WFH. Reduce the entry level salaries for employees, save on building leases, no need to offer free food and more. The productivity will probably even increase too. I am sure they are all going over numbers to see how productivity changes.

For the employee though it's going to be tough in the long run. Building relationships at work is one great way to get things done not just in the team but also across teams. So code might get written but the overarching dynamics about how things happen in a workplace are changing big time. We don't see the effects of them until sometime.

</comment><comment><USER32> If I did a start up I feel like being remote first almost isn't even a choice especially if I'm not in a tech hub.

Hire anyone in the world at reasonable salaries.

</comment><comment><USER33> Don't forget - if you can do your job from your home, someone else can do your job from their home.

</comment><comment><USER34> This is good since no one at Coinbase does anything important anyway. Just wait until the next price drop when the "technical difficulties" begin again.

</comment><comment><USER35> Off topic but why would a corporate company use a website for their blog which puts articles behind a paywall? It seems completely at odds with the purpose of a corporate blog.

<comment><USER36> Probably they are unable to afford infrastructure required for hosting blog site and/or don't have experienced employees needed for building and maintaining such software - thus they are forced to use blogger alternative.</comment></comment>


Deep sea frogfish that walks on the ocean floor found in New Zealand - never-the-bride http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/12108262/Frogfish-Meet-the-curious-creature-that-walks-at-the-bottom-of-the-sea.html <comment><AUTHOR> The handfish has a very similar type of locomotion: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handfish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handfish) , also: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogcocephalus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogcocephalus).

And the tripodfish stands on a tripod :) : [https://youtu.be/yOKdog8zbXw](https://youtu.be/yOKdog8zbXw)

And on land, there are mudskippers, which are amphibious and have efficient terrestrial locomotion.

<comment><USER2> See also the walking sharks: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemiscyllium_halmahera](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemiscyllium_halmahera)

Various species of bottom-dwelling or feeding fish have independently evolved pectoral fin modifications to assist their locomotion across the sea floor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I wonder how "Found in a beach, spotted in shallow water, and nobody knows where the fish came" ended being translated to "is a deep sea fish".

Nope. Most probably a reef fish living around -20m or so. Is an interesting species in any case.

UPDATED: Dorsal and anal fins discard Allenichthys. Body rough so is not Phyllophryne, no ocelli in body or tail fin, conspicuous esca (so is not Antennatus), first and two dorsal elongated (so is not Histiophryne):

It seems from genus Antennarius.

<comment><USER4> They probably didn't mean "deep sea fish" to be taken littorally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Have anyone been able to find more photos? Only found this one: [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&...](http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11576168)

<comment><USER3> Yes, there is a third photo of the opened big mouth in Facebook, but do not adds much new info. The ilicium shape and lenght is not clear and there is not info about the size of the fish.</comment></comment>


Nintendo pulls Switch game after dev reveals he sneaked in basic code editor - <AUTHOR> https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-04-29-nintendo-pulls-switch-indie-game-from-eshop-after-dev-reveals-he-sneaked-in-basic-code-editor-easter-egg <comment><USER2> Seems like the more things change, the more console manufacturers continue to thwart homebrew apps.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> oops inadvertant dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19779056](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19779056)</comment>


Generational Differences on Social Media - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jamespalawaga.com/generational-timelines/ <comment><USER2> The thing that bothers me about generational stereotypes in this context is that they assume everyone is an exhibitionist and an extrovert. Not everyone is interested in social networking.

Never in my life have I put anything truly personal online; not when I was in school, not when I was single, not even when I was drunk. With a couple of exceptions, most of my friends are the same, regardless of their age.

These types of social networking services attract a certain type of person, just as much as they attract certain age groups. Yes, there are more younger people on them, but there are more young people online in general. Lots of us stick to our little corners of the net, or wherever, and couldn't care less about the "look at me" circus.

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here!

You're absolutely correct—and raise a good point. I think the important thing to consider is to take the same groups of people into account (e.g. if you look at exhibitionist/extroverted people in the younger, look at them in the older). It becomes tricky, because some behavioural tendencies can become exaggerated with age. Nevertheless, I do have introverted friends, but they still do participate in the charade, just in a more passive role. They still instagram, they still snapchat, they just don't generate much content.

This is still a marked difference from older generations who, as statistics show, avoid that entirely.

it is worth noting that this is looking at trends only—obviously not all young people are on [instagram, snapchat, peach, etc], and obviously all of their behaviour is the same.

One thing to note is the networking effect of these apps. I have a wide breadth of friends who share varying amounts about themselves and others—but the less their network is involved, the less they are involved. In your case, if a circle of friends is inactive on social media, there is probably something to be said about the effect of a weak network. Though, that's not to say that a strong network will compulse people to post selfies, either!

Thanks for the comment!</comment></comment>


Is Breakfast Overrated? - <AUTHOR> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/is-breakfast-overrated <comment><USER3> I may have missed something, but it seems like this only deals with the potential effect or lack of effect of eating breakfast (or not) on weight loss. What about the effect of eating breakfast on mental alertness, productivity, etc? Are there studies on that?

<comment><USER4> You don't even really need a study because it's common sense. Hungry people are slower in all respects and much more prone to anxiety and aggression. Who hasn't experienced this?

Most heart attacks and strokes occur in the wee hours of the morning. This is because fasting and darkness both increase stress hormone levels. Stress is highest early in the morning. Eating a good breakfast such as with orange juice and cereal helps rapidly normalize stress and boost the metabolic rate.

As a weight loss strategy skipping breakfast is bunk, anyway. The data consistently shows people who eat breakfast are thinner. Kids who eat breakfast cereals are thinner.

<comment><USER5> >Most heart attacks and strokes occur in the wee hours . . . because fasting and darkness both increase stress hormone levels.

Not true. The wikipedia article on cortisol: "In humans, the amount of cortisol present in the blood undergoes diurnal variation; the level peaks in the early morning (approximately 8 am) and reaches its lowest level at about midnight-4 am, or three to five hours after the onset of sleep."

(Cortisol is by far the most important "molecular barometer" for stress in humans.)

<comment><USER4> What's not true? There you have it, stress levels are highest in the morning. It's a good reason to eat and lower them.

<comment><USER6> "The wee hours" mean the hours immediately after midnight, when cortisol levels are at their lowest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I skip breakfast everyday for the last 6 months and these were my results. Combined with weight training, I got down to 12% bf and lost 15 lbs while still gaining additional muscle mass. Skipping breakfast, keeping my eating window within an 8 hour period each day, while maintaining a 2000-3000 calorie/day consumption seemed to do the trick for me. [http://www.leangains.com/2010/04/leangains- guide.html](http://www.leangains.com/2010/04/leangains-guide.html)

<comment><USER8> point is, would have there been any difference at all when you would not have skipped breakfast and instead maintained those amounts of calories by spreading them out more evenly during the day?

<comment><USER9> Read the link. Intermittent fasting is more than just skipping breakfatst.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There's something very spooky about breakfast that no one really talks about - it's very same-y.

Sure, you can find variety in brunches but typical breakfast food (in the West) is usually eggs, (ham/sausage/bacon) and/or cereal/bread.

As an example, if you go to an airport food court in the morning, you see Asian, Italian, French, Hamburger, Sandwich and Pizza restaurants all suspend their normal menu and offer eggs, a breakfast meat, and bread. No competitive differentiator.

Maybe this is cultural, but I think it really has something to do with people's tolerance for variety when they first wake up.

<comment><USER11> I think it has more to do with the monotony of 9-5 work. The routine of ramping up and getting ready for work without any risks that could upset our day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would rather sleep longer, and go to work, then around 11 or so have brunch, then dinner around 7. Have been doing this for a long time, seems to work well for me.

Over time I have become quite suspicious of many of these dieting trends and advice. Somehow I believe many are sponsored by food brands (cereal companies, bacon and egg producers and so on).

<comment><USER13> I would imagine thats how humanity survived for most of the time. I can't imagine human beings had their food available and ready to eat first thing in the morning until very recently.

<comment><USER14> Why wouldn't a farmer have food available in the morning?

<comment><USER15> So like he said then, very recently. Agriculture is ~9000 years, homo sapiens at least a million.

<comment><USER16> 9000 years is like 400 generations. Russian Scientists turned wild foxes into domestic pets in only 20 generations. The problem with evolutionary biology is that fixating on pre-civilized man ignores how fast evolution can go.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Yes it is overrated. At least in my case.

I'm 26 and on workdays I wake up at 7:30. My first meal is lunch (13:00) or late lunch (16:00). It has been like this since I was 12. I don't feel any hunger in the mornings and I function just fine, be it sports or intellectual work.

However, I am tired of listening to popular "wisdom" from anyone who has 2 minutes of time to lecture me on how skipping breakfast is going to ruin my life because... blah blah blah

</comment><comment><USER18> A lot of fitness gurus swear by cardio before breakfast. The theory is that you'll burn more stored fat before you eat the first meal of the day (or drink anything with carbs, like juice or coffee with milk and sugar).

Is it true? As with all diet and exercise talk, nobody seems to know.

<comment><USER19> This definitely depends on the person. An ectomorph has no business performing heavy cardio while being in a large caloric deficit. Endomorphs, however, could benefit from it. I myself have tried fasted cardio in the morning - <USER2> produced great results but my brain could not function as it normally does. I found myself making far more stupid mistakes throughout the day.

TL;DR - it depends on the person. That is why there is no and never will be a definite answer

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> As a dev I'm vulnerable to getting on weird schedules e.g. keep working later at night and waking up later in the morning until I'm going to bed an hour after sunrise - which I think we all agree sucks bigtime. The ambient light and extra noise leads to crappy sleep quality.

So I found the best way to have my sleep schedule resemble something that matches the rest of humanity is to have breakfast when I wake up as soon as possible after I've showered. Sounds silly, but once you've looped completely around to waking up at 7am again, start having breakfast asap. I've found it's the most effective way to stay on a mainstream schedule. It's been working for me now for a few years.

</comment><comment><USER21> i am tracking calories to lose weight right now, and i absolutely love breakfast, so i try to eat it most of the time. it's my "me" time. usually i cook up a couple of eggs and some coffee.

however, if i go over the previous day's allotment of calories which happens sometimes if i go out for dinner with friends, skipping breakfast is a great way to get my body back into 'burn' mode. some people call it intermittent fasting - cause what your'e really doing is an 6PM - 12PM next-day fast. i can feel the effect of giving my body a break if i over-indulge.

<comment><USER22> This works only if you are an early riser. You can't create a breakfast delicious enough that I would trade for 15 minutes of sleep in the morning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> My experience with intermittent fasting has suggested to me me that the quality of your food and consistency in when you eat it is vastly more important than when and with what frequency you eat. I lost more weight and gained more strength eating all my food in a 4-hour window than I ever did trying to eat 6 meals a day or whatever.

Which is not to say there is anything magic about a 4/20 fasting split, just that it got me eating an appropriate amount of healthy food, which is really all that matters.

</comment><comment><USER24> As a programmer and night owl, breakfast is usually the determining factor for whether I will do any productive work before lunch. I feel much better all day if I have something to eat, but the discipline required to get moving a few minutes early often evades me.

</comment><comment><USER25> Most of the time I skip breakfast, but I'm not too religious on eating it or not - it's more of a time issue for me.

In the past month and a half, I've lost about 17 lbs. For me, the trick has been to eat less overall (usually 1-2 meals a day), and to exercise more consistently. I've still been eating some not-so-great foods like fried chicken, fries, ice cream, and pizza & garlic knots.

In the interim, I have also been getting healthier as well - this morning I finished a 15 mile run, which is an increase from my (then) limit of 7-8 miles before starting on this fitness crusade. Granted, I am a distance runner and have run several marathons, but it is an example of increased fitness.

</comment><comment><USER26> Surprised no one has brought up bulletproof coffee yet.

[http://www.fastcompany.com/3032635/most-creative- people/bull...](http://www.fastcompany.com/3032635/most-creative- people/bulletproof-coffee-the-new-power-drink-of-silicon-valley)

I've been experimenting with it for the last 2 weeks and have lost 3 pounds. I've also noticed reduced cravings during the time between breakfast and lunch and I don't feel an intense caffeine hit like I did when I would drink iced coffee.

I'm not sure how long I will continue experimenting with this nor do I know the long-term effects of having this drink every morning.

<comment><USER27> There is a lot of marketing fluff around this. "Brain Octane Oil"... ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Meh, breakfast was never a magic meal. The point to it is just this: if you wake up hungry it means you didn't go to bed full. Most of the people I know who don't eat breakfast snack well into the night. Most of the people I know who don't snack at night (like myself) wake up very hungry. As to which is better for you I have no real idea, but I always suspected sleeping on a bellyful of food was not a great thing. In any case, I simple find it uncomfortable, which is why I don't do it.

<comment><USER29> > sleeping on a bellyful of food

This is supposed to be bad for you (according to those that grew up watching adverts for breakfast 'cereals'). You are supposed to go for a constitutional walk after a large meal, not pass out asleep.

I have observed what cats, dogs and animals on nature programmes do. Maybe they did not get the memo from the experts. As a rule with no exceptions I can think of, all of them go to sleep shortly after eating a large meal.

The athletes with the highest calorie requirements - Tour de France cyclists - they go to bed on a sizeable meal. It doesn't seem to be a problem for them.

Where did this idea come from that you should not sleep on a full stomach?

<comment><USER14> Most animals are not obligate bipeds. Their bodies are intended to be horizontal all the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Interesting. I (and others including Tim Ferris) was under the impression that eating protein for breakfast helps stimulate mental alertness and promotes weight loss. It seems that this small sample (still a RCT) does not support that hypothesis.

Studies have shown that smaller more frequent meals are important for general alertness and weight loss - the theory being that you're not maxing out your body's sugar or food load.

</comment><comment><USER31> no paywall:

[http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/is-breakfast- overra...](http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/is-breakfast- overrated/?partner=rss&emc=rss)

</comment><comment><USER32> It read a bit like an article from The Onion :)

</comment><comment><USER33> I once read you can answer all headlines that are yes/no questions with no. Seems to work here, because if you start hungry in the day you are grumpy (I am). If you are grumpy all day you can't concentrate (I can't).

<comment><USER34> It's called Betteridge's Law of Headlines.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> After I started eating breakfast I lost 10kg

</comment><comment><USER31> I love breakfast, not overrated IMO.

</comment><comment><USER36> microwaved oatmeal at my desk for breakfast = no cravings for a big or unhealthy lunch. YMMV</comment>


Ask HN: Dissolving an LLC in Georgia - <AUTHOR>

Does it take a unanimous vote from all shareholders to dissolve an LLC in Georgia? <comment><USER2> IANAL, but this might help: <http://sos.georgia.gov/corporations/dissolve_llc.htm></comment>


Show HN: Beta List 3.0 (Redesign) - <AUTHOR> http://betali.st/

<comment><AUTHOR> Disclosure: I am the founder of Beta List.

I launched a redesign of Beta List today. The old design was due for a make- over. The new design is responsive and discovering the close to 3,000 published startups is now easier as you can filter by region (e.g. see all Italian startups) and market (e.g. just education-related startups).

Since I see Beta List is mentioned here every now and then I figured I'd ask for your feedback. What do you think? What do you like? What can be improved?</comment>


The entire US-Mexico border visualized in 200,000 satellite images - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2016/10/26/best-of-luck-with-the-wall/ <comment><USER2> This is stunning. And surprisingly beautiful.

</comment><comment><USER3> wow.</comment>


How Schools Are Handling an 'Overparenting' Crisis - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/08/28/434350484/how-schools-are-handling-an-overparenting-crisis/#HNresubmit <comment><USER2> There are always outliers, but I believe that in America today, academic achievement is almost entirely determined by parental involvement (whether it's time or money).

> How do you respond to the criticism that the problems you're describing > affect only privileged kids?

I was really disappointed by this question and the answers the authors gave.

Firstly because, this kind of parenting actually does have a large impact on underprivileged kids. It's the reason their failure is virtually guaranteed relative to the privileged kids. The underprivileged kid is one student, competing against the privileged kid, who is essentially a multi-person team of cheaters with a bankroll.

Secondly because, the answers the authors gave to the question pretty clearly demonstrate that they're only thinking of this subject from their perspective. And it sounds like their perspective is that of the parents to the privileged kids.

This could've been an article about parental involvement in academics and the impact it has on fairness and meritocracy and social mobility. Instead it's some rich ladies talking about how their kids would've been even more privileged if they did a little less of their homework for them.

<comment><USER3> Income inequality->Two earner family->less parental involvement->vicious cycle

While that is a _gross_ oversimplification, it would do wonders to increase the quality of life for families who elect to have one earner only, with the other (gender regardless) providing more time and resources towards child development.

<comment><USER4> Hmm most middle class and higher families in the states are two earners families with the lower middle class and downwards having one or both parents unemployed or intermediately employed.

The days of the American nuclear family with the dad having a career and the mom becoming a world class housewife are pretty much over.

And considering that low income / low skill jobs are more available to men and that low income jobs will not be able to fund childcare that pushes lower class families to become single earner families even more.

<comment><USER5> When you consider that a full time homemaker does about $60k/yr worth of work during the weekdays , a single income household with a honemaker doesn't look so bad compared to a meduam dual income household.

<comment><USER4> Where was that number pulled off? That's 10K over the median household income in the US. Any how I wasn't saying that having a homemaker ins't economically sound under certain economic conditions i was saying that it's less common in middle class and higher families than in lower class families. When both parents are educated and have a career they don't want to give that up, when both of them make enough to allow them selves to continue to work especially after thee infancy period they are more likely to do so. Upper classes also have higher chances of having grandparents who've retired earlier and are also actually being able to live on their retirement and are able to help with childcare. They are also more likely to work in companies that provide childcare assistance or services to their employees.

Combine all those factors and many more and you get to a point where income inequality actually forces people to become stay at home mom/dad's while the more financially stable classes can afford to continue with their careers.

<comment><USER3> > Where was that number pulled off?

It's closer to $96-100K/year actually. In a lot of cases, its economically rational for one spouse to stay home and take care of the house when that much value is provided versus a traditional job.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/blogs/on- parenting/post/a-h...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/blogs/on- parenting/post/a-homemakers-real-salary/2012/02/01/gIQAh7czhQ_blog.html)

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/02/06/mint_estimat...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/02/06/mint_estimate_of_how_much_stay_at_home_moms_and_homemakers_should_earn_in_salary_.html)

<comment><USER4> Lol Slate, and the post's sources for their numbers is this [http://blog.mint.com/consumer-iq/how-much-is-a-homemaker- wor...](http://blog.mint.com/consumer-iq/how-much-is-a-homemaker- worth-012012/) which i really don't know how to react to this the onion has better sources...

If a stay at home mom is worth 100k then a full time housekeeper/nanny should earn 100k? The highest figures I've seen in NYC with an educated nanny/housekeepr/superperson (nursing, child development really wierd stuff) is on average 700 a week for a 10.5 hours work day and that's in very very upscale areas while usually taking care of 2-3 children. So yeah they'll be earning about 50K a year while taking care of the 1% of the 1%, while in Austin or Chicago for example that figures drops to 23-24000 for the same service.

Sorry but a click bait blog [http://blog.mint.com/](http://blog.mint.com/) for a budge management application [https://www.mint.com/](https://www.mint.com/) isn't really a reliable source in my books, if those numbers were even close to being a reality on average or under any case you would see pretty much every other family in the states where the dad is a stay at home dad and the mom goes to become a super(rich)nany or vise versa...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I suspect a lot of this is an unavoidable consequence of shifting from 3-5 kid families to 1-2. When you have 4 kids,

(1) you don't have enough time to helicopter all of them, some will just have to deal with their own problems

(2) having one disappointing kid isn't the end of the world. you have others to shift your expectations and hopes onto

But if you only have one or two kids... you simply can't afford any failures. If your one kid fails, you're a failure of a parent. So you spend as much time and (maybe misguided, maybe not) energy on them. I think this is a natural response, which makes me think it's pretty un-fixable unless family sizes increase.

<comment><USER7> Part of it is also things getting so good in the world (most people in America don't have to worry about shelter or food) that people start to invent problems or find challenges to solve.

<comment><USER8> "Invent problems" seems to be a strange way to word things. It seems to me that with some basic necessities taken care of we have other problems to address?

<comment><USER5> But most people don't address those other real problems. They just fight negative sum game for social status.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Schools have created this problem by meddling in the parenting process for the last few decades. Calling the police if the kid walks home by himself. Calling social services if they come to school without lunch. Involving juvenile justice authorities if two kids settle an argument with a bit of fighting.

Now after they have parents thinking that one false move and their kids will be placed in foster care, they complain about overparenting.

<comment><USER10> My friend's high school does not permit lunches from home; they require religious or medical permission that they must have a specific diet, and have to be eaten in a separate room, and lunches are checked to ensure no peanuts/etc.

<comment><USER11> I guess I've finally become a hopeless cynic, my first reaction to that statement was that somebody in the school administration and somebody in the company supplying the food to the district probably have a tidy little financial arrangement propped up by the peanut allergy boogeyman.

<comment><USER12> Count me in. Someone is making money, whether it's a an external contract or just the school itself. For Christ's sake, parent said _high school_. What high school student can't handle their own peanut allergy? Oh my, what if 16 year old Timmy trades his turkey sandwich for a peanut butter and jelly? Won't someone think of the teenaged children! I can't believe a high school gets away with that shakedown, you'd think that would be illegal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I taught at a private high school for one year. One of my students plagiarized a huge chunk of an essay. When I talked to my supervisor about it he said to punish her by giving her a "B". I eventually took it higher up and had it dealt with. However, our end of term reports were all proofed by other faculty. When I mentioned the plagiarism on an end of term report another teach redacted the word "plagiarism" and replaced it with "the unfortunate incident".

On another occasion I had a student who was performing badly. Her mother called me at school and said I should have a talk with her daughter and "say something nice to her".

Basically, I've seen the coddling on both ends, both from the parents and from the institution. My best guess is that the institution (in this case funded by the parents) is responding to some pressure by the parents but also keeps in mind that current parents are future donors and you don't want to damage that cash pipeline if at all possible.

<comment><USER14> Did the mother mean you should say something encouraging rather than belittle the student? If so, that doesn't seem unreasonable.

<comment><USER13> No, I was never going to belittle the student. It was more along the lines of "Don't deal with the actual problem. Just encourage her -- that's all she needs." Essentially the student needed a cheering squad rather than honest feedback. In that environment the teachers have to tiptoe around both the students and the parents.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, that doesn't sound good!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> My aunt has been an Elementry school principle for a long time. She says it used to be lots of helicopter parents, but now it's "snow plow parents". They try to prevent anything troublesome from reaching their children.

I have 4 kids, I let them make mistakes and am pretty hands off on the day-to- day. I can hardly get along with the parents I meet at school. They have no lives outside of their children and hover 24/7, and their kids behave poorly for it.

<comment><USER16> Yeah, I'm the same and my wife and I feel really awkward compared to most parents we see at our child's elementary school. We really push for her to be independent and be responsible for her own stuff (with a lot of success), while her classmates' parents are all around their kids all the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> _Schools and parents need to stop blaming each other, and work together to show children that we value learning._

Yeah, good luck with that. Private institutions, especially colleges and universities, are exactly where they want to be right now. Parents have an extremely inelastic demand for sending their children to good private schools because signaling is so important in this terrible job market - this allows universities to raise tuition with impunity. Combine this with an ever- increasing pool of candidates for roughly the same number of spots at ivy- leagues and other comparable institutions, and colleges are set to make a killing on tuition.

Why would private schools have any incentive to change a system that benefits them to such a degree?

<comment><USER18> Honestly, I think one of the major problems with elite undergraduate institutions is they're inherently elitist. Of course they're going to reinforce the socioeconomic status-quo, those are the people whose parents can invest the most into them.

<comment><USER5> You can fight this by ignoring fancy pedigrees and social signaling when you interview job candidates.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So glad I teach in a martial arts school. You got hit? that happens... keep your hands up next time like I told you...

<comment><USER20> Neah. Next time hit him first so hard that his mother cries, not yours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It must be really stressful being a kid these days :(

Now that I look back - the way we treat kids is just plain awful.

When I was a kid I used to write using my left hand and my teacher and parents used to scold me to try and change my habit.

It used to be really stressful and everything they tried did not work, 15 years later and I still write with my left hand and am not a terrorist so it seemed all that work, stress was a huge waste of resources. But more importantly my time and I am not sure what damage that stress must have caused my mental health.

Parents are also under enormous pressure and due to college debt need to save a lot of money and literally cash out a huge amount of their life-time wealth for the services of their kid's education.

By current projections in 2030 the average tuition is going to be 100,000 dollar per year for a private college. That is terrible news for kids and parents both.

<comment><USER22> where did you grew up that there was superstition against left-handedness? that sounds like something from a century ago, not 15 years (in the US, anyway).

<comment><USER23> I suspect you're simply right handed or were lucky enough to be in some kind of safe environment for lefties. For me, a left-hander, while there was no superstitious negativity, there were dozens of harsh, practical negative interactions.

One of my first memories of school was being sat at a round table. Every time I'd try to color, cut, paste, whatever, I'd bump elbows with the kid next to me. He'd get mad. I got in trouble. So I started sitting on the floor and doing my work on the chair. So I got in trouble. I'd smear everything I wrote, mangle my fingers in those fricking scissors, and learning that "Sinister" literally means "left-handed" was really grand.

I despise being left-handed.

<comment><USER21> Hopefully not anymore.

The uniqueness of my left-handedness turns out to be great as an adult as its something sometimes people use as a conversation starter.

The other advantage of left-handness is that I learnt that people who were left-handness had a a more active right brain, which means I am extra creative !

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > If the kids subjected to this type of parenting weren't suffering greater > rates of anxiety and depression than the general population, then maybe we > could wave this off as not-a-real problem. But they are suffering;

I can attest that this is true. It's a cult of false consequences that scares the hell out of high-school students, particularly among the affluent: "Of course we want our kids to do better than we did." How many generations of over-achievers can actually accomplish that? These parents are wanting the wrong things for their kids.

</comment><comment><USER25> Speaking of overparenting, is it true that the US law mandates adult supervision for children under the age of ~12 and that's why babysitters are needed all the time?

<comment><USER26> I live in the US and have two middle school aged kids. I don't actually know the legal age when children can be left "home alone" so I looked it up. It turns out there is no law and social services advice is to "consider your child's maturity" etc. A quick flip through the web page for free range kids seems to indicate that most US states have no firm age. Therefore it looks like it is not true as stated.

fwiw around here (small-town western US) you see kids as young as 4-5 making their own way to/from school -- either walking or biking, without adults, and the typical parent will leave their kids home alone when they're 10-12, depending on the kid and other factors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> if kids are to accept failure then they must be given room to fail. Your average highschool student wanting to go to a good university cannot accept any failure. Bomb a single test and your math grade will slip from the 98% that assures acceptance and the 95% that doesn't. The grade inflation needs to stop.

My unpopular answer: more standardized testing. Don't grade homework. Don't grade the science projects. Grade only those things done by the student alone in an exam room. I know that doesn't remove all parental influence, but at least then the parents aren't the ones holding pen to the paper.

<comment><USER27> Oops. I used bomb as a verb. Please mr NSA man open a dictionary before listing me. I've got to cross a couple boarders next week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Pressure on kids in the 1% is high. Palo Alto now has paid anti-suicide guards on duty at all three railroad crossings near high schools. (This is addition to fences and crossing gates.)

</comment><comment><USER21> >>> "Schools and parents need to stop blaming each other, and work together to show children that we value learning. We can talk about the importance of education all we want, but our kids are too smart to fall for that hypocrisy. As long as we continue to worship grades over learning, scores over intellectual bravery and testable facts over the application of knowledge, kids will never believe us when we tell them that learning is valuable in and of itself."

And whose fault is that ?

Maybe the fact that there are too few jobs.

Maybe the fact that wealth inequality is so skewed that only a handful of people are generating all the demand in the labor market.

When I survey the state of science in 2015 - there is literally no shortage of avenues to explore. If the demand side of the free market worked well, then their would by now be a pill to cure cancer and would only cost 1 dollar.

That is so much innovation locked up in the minds of kids born today. But we spent more and more time teaching them more and more useless stuff since the job market is unable to generate enough demand pushing people to have better CVs, etc.

A high school kid today can start innovating and doing all sorts of cool things for very little capital. There is not even much need for schooling. Most of the greatest minds of the past did not even have a formal education - what they did have was a lot of free time.

Boredom and Laziness is the source of human ingenuity, not mindless exercises with no real purpose.

<comment><USER29> Well said. I think school kind of crushes innovation in many ways. It equips us to know but not so much how to think. I also agree there are a lot of pointless jobs that should not exist. If we got land prices down only one parent would have to work and the other would be free to help the kids and to shape their thinking.

One of the (Monty) Pythons cited "time, time and more time" as a necessary precursor for creativity.

What a mess western economies are in, as we bow down before the banks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Wait, this is new?

This has been a problem for the past 2 or 3 decades. When people stopped having 4+ kids. It is worse when the kid is the only one.

But I think we are past that. New generations of parents, because they were subjected to this kind of over parenting (I wouldn't agree with the term though), they are aware of the issue and seem to handle parenting much better.

</comment><comment><USER31> Universities are largely to blame for this. Having a 3.8 GPA versus a 3.9 can dramatically reduce your chances of getting into a top university. Being in the top 12% of your graduating class versus the top 8% can hurt your chances of getting in. It's stupid, because these are statistically meaningless differences, yet it matters. In an environment like that, it's rational for parents to get involved.

<comment><USER32> Highschool GPA is still the single best predictor colleges have for College GPA though. They have to draw a line somewhere, and it's nearly tautological that those just above the line have no statistically significant difference from those just below.

<comment><USER33> This isn't central to your argument, but I wanted to make a side point that SAT II is more predictive of college GPA than your high school GPA, which is kind of sad, because the SAT's are a flash in time compared to 4 years. If someone who has never met a child, who devises a test from afar, can better predict that child's future college grades than 4 years of intimate proximity...

<comment><USER32> To me, it is surprising that the GPA is as predictive as it is, considering there was no national standard for how to grade things, nor what the curriculum should be.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


'Revolver' (turns 50): Beatles' First On-Purpose Masterpiece - <AUTHOR> http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/celebrating-revolver-beatles-first-on-purpose-masterpiece-w432935 <comment><USER2> An absolute game-changer of an album. One can argue that "proper" rock begins with Revolver (and Blonde on Blonde). This is where the image of "a rock band disappears into a studio to write personal, political and important ideas" is born. It is with Revolver the Beatles established the notion that pop musicians were not unlike an author or a painter.

Since we are mostly technologists on this forum, it's worth remembering (or noting) just HOW much innovation was contained in this album. Reverse recording? You got it. Artificial Double Tracking? It's on here. The first use of samples? You bet.

But that's only part of the story, of course. It's the songs that reveal the much bigger story of how the Beatles were pushing the envelope - tearing it open, really - than anyone else in the field, with the sole exception of Bob Dylan.

A band that was still writing ballads a mere 5 months before Revolver was now writing highly subversive material "Tomorrow Never Knows" and politically charged songs like "Taxman".

"Rubber Soul" is fantastic, but it is only a seed to Revolver's awesome psychedelic bloom.</comment>


Ask HN: 2D Spread-spectrum signal in an advert? - <AUTHOR>

I can remember a company launching an advertising scheme in the late 90's, which involved overlaying a spread spectrum signal on a standard advert, to be printed in magazines. The idea was that readers would point their webcams at the page, for their browser to be directed to a relevant site in a similar fashion to how QR codes are used today. It was evidently way ahead of its time, and it sank apparently without a trace in the dot-com bloodbath.
To be clear, this was not a separate, black-and-white barcode on its own in a corner, it was a pseudorandom overlay across the entire page which, as I recall, was only slightly visible, and didn't overly affect the image quality.
I'm interested in how this technology was implemented (specifically what trade-offs they made with respect to transformations and distortions), but my usual sources have failed me. Can anyone recall what the company or the technology were called? It wouldn't surprise me if they'd tried for a patent, but whether it would have been granted or not is another matter. <comment><USER2> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_watermarking>

[https://www.digimarc.com/resources/docs/tech_papers/dmrc_med...](https://www.digimarc.com/resources/docs/tech_papers/dmrc_media_bridge.pdf)</comment>