Chronic sleep deprivation suppresses immune system - <AUTHOR> http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/9813.html <comment><USER3> I used to like to sleep for as long as possible, then slowly it began to feel like a waste of time.

Also, having small children affect sleep although not directly, it's the time you try to claw back after putting them to sleep, pushing it a little later to get other things done.

After a while it became obvious nothing much was being achieved this way, in fact my mental acuity seemed to drop substantially.

Then I realized I hadn't been dreaming (or at least remembering dreams) for a while and that was weird. Slowed down, went to bed as soon as tiredness kicked in for a few months. Improved my diet which probably helped a lot.

Dreams have returned with a vengence, it feels like all night is one long dream, I feel better and sharper.

I wish I could sleep less than 7 hours, but my body disagrees.

<comment><USER4> I agree with everything you listed, but I have one complication. "went to bed as soon as tiredness kicked in".

Give me a night or two of good sleep...and I won't be tired until 1am. Waking up for work will then be hell (I don't function well on low sleep).

My body knows when it is tired...but that doesn't match the work schedule :( When I'm practicing sleep diligence (which comes and goes based on whether I've been tired a lot lately or not) I have to force myself to go to bed when I'm not feeling tired. That feeling of sacrificing time is almost as hard to maintain as being constantly fatigued.

First world problems, but they are my problems.

<comment><USER5> Sounds like you could have delayed sleep phase disorder/syndrome. It's just having a delayed circadian rhythm - not really a disorder except that it's hard to fit in with 'normal' schedules.

I have a lot of issues with this (my circadian rhythm delay is pretty bad). My employer tolerates me coming in at 10am but even then I'm still suffering symptoms of sleep deprivation pretty constantly and don't feel like I can survive without sleeping in to midday on Saturdays and Sundays...

It's a frustrating condition to have, because while research into circadian rhythms has generally found that you can't fight against your natural sleep cycle long-term without experiencing sleep deprivation, pretty much everyone who has a normal cycle will tell you that you just have to "be more disiplined", "just wake up the same time every day and you'll get into a better routine", etc. Even most GPs I've talked to aren't up-to-date with the latest research and it's been really hard to convince them to refer me to a sleep specialist! It's also especially bad at work, because management tend to be older (sleep cycles are usually at peak delay during adolescence, and then shift earlier as you age) and seem to have an impressive ability to not understand the condition. But if the science is to be believed, what people tell me is about as effective as telling a severely clinically depressed person to "just be happier."

But even for people with more normal (average) cycles, one sleep scientist has suggested [1] that work shouldn't start until 10am, which would make people more productive and more alert.

1\. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/staff- should-s...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/staff-should-start- work-at-10am-to-avoid-torture-of-sleep-depriv/amp/)

<comment><USER6> > pretty much everyone who has a normal cycle will tell you that you just have > to "be more disciplined", "just wake up the same time every day and you'll > get into a better routine", etc

I feel your pain. Been there many times. The way I solved it was to become the boss.

Daywalkers will never understand. Even if you're an owl rather than a lark it's looked down upon - and the standard trope of "you're just lazy" come out; but delayed sleep phase syndrome where it's possible to go in and out of sync with the day is a real killer for the regular office hours.

I now get significantly more work done than at any time in my career because I sleep and awake when I want. Of course occasionally I need to be in-sync with someone (meetings, etc.). But it's relatively easy to have a few things to get in-sync with if I get good sleep the rest of the time.

<comment><USER7> This many times over. I don't have problems with adapting ot new time zones. But it is difficult to get on a "standard awake/sleeping" schedule. It's not for a lack of trying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I hope to see more and more of these studies.

I've always since I can remember struggled with sleep.

During the periods where I've had it under control everything is just better: your outlook is more positive, more energy, less anxiety, and on and on and on.

People say exercise should be put into a pill - I really wish they did this with sleep.

<comment><USER9> There are sleeping pills, everything from benadryl to xanax to ambien. It's just that there are a lot of side effects to any of these approaches.

<comment><USER10> Melatonin is at least natural, don't know if there are many studies on it though.

<comment><USER11> I tried Melatonin during a heavy travel stressful period doing interviews.

Getting back off it and falling asleep naturally was not easy for me.

I think conventional dosages may be a bit extreme at 3-5 milligrams.

<comment><USER12> I agree on the dosages sold being too high. I'm a terrible sleeper that wakes up all through the night. I've found taking a fraction, between an eighth and quarter, of the 3mg pills is enough for me to sleep and wake up refreshed.

Also I've found sleeping at least 7-8 hours is necessary while taking it. Any less and I feel groggy all morning.

<comment><USER13> Studies tend to say that any more than 3mg of melatonin, your body will just evacuate it. Also, taking it more than 5 days is most likely pointless.

<comment><USER14> I can tell you with personal experience that this is not true. I have taken 30-40mg before bed, and there is a definite difference in my experience from taking 1-5mg. The sleepiness I felt 30-45 minutes after dosing was the most extreme sleepiness I've ever experienced in my life, the dreams are mind- blowing, and I feel tired the next day far beyond what I feel after taking a smaller dose.

<comment><USER13> Thanks for your personal experience but I was talking about scientific studies [1].

\- [1] - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12076414](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12076414)

\- [2] (a narrow google search that i'm sure i could find more) - [https://www.google.com/#q=melatonin+dosage+site:.gov+OR+site...](https://www.google.com/#q=melatonin+dosage+site:.gov+OR+site:.edu)

<comment><USER14> I don't see anything in that study about excess melatonin being evacuated. The paper only talks about effectiveness as a sleep aid.

<comment><USER13> Under the main results section "Daily doses of melatonin between 0.5 and 5mg are similarly effective, except that people fall asleep faster and sleep better after 5mg than 0.5mg. Doses above 5mg appear to be no more effective." [1, from parent comment]

Upon further research with the link I provided. It seems that for older people dosage levels should be introduced small and then increased, this study talks about the effectiveness of 50mg in older patients [1]

[1] - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24802882](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24802882)

<comment><USER14> I don't see anything in your comment about excess melatonin being evacuated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I wish having healthy sleep became vogue. Imagine people humble-bragging about the quality of their dreams, about sleeping 8 hours or more, having enough self-discipline to routinely go to bed by 10:30pm, etc. Imagine sleep, it's quality, the freshness of body and mind it gives, became a subject of conspicuous consumption, a symbol of higher status. "I work smarter, not harder", etc.

Dies not sound implausible to me.

<comment><USER16> Dude, I'm in bed right now (9:30pm). After I'm done typing this out I'll read my book for a bit and go to sleep. I'll prob get up around 6am with 7.5 - <USER2> hours of sleep, work out, and be at my desk by 9.

I bootstrapped my business and I work 8-10 hour days. I wasn't always this way. Getting on a healthy sleep and exercise schedule is the best thing I've ever done.

The hardest part is, right, rejecting the SV mantra that you need to work every waking hour and drink Soylent if you wanna be successful.

As they say, it's a marathon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I like seeing this, but: "Correlation does not prove causation."

I have a serious, incurable medical condition. Getting healthier has dramatically improved my ability to sleep. So, while lack of sleep may well cause health problems, that relationship can run the other direction. I see nothing in this piece which addresses that possibility.

<comment><USER18> Most of mind-body connections go both ways. Do one and the other factor will improve. Improve the other factor and first will get better. It's almost never a one-way connection.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's always interesting to see things that everyone knows, turn out to be things that we don't _actually_ formally know yet.

<comment><USER20> Or most notably, just kind of ignore - I know some of the things I do are bad for me, but I do them anyways...

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I keep telling people it's making them sick to only sleep 4 hours a night and they keep telling me that "It's just how I am". No, it's not. It's how you've forced your body to behave after years of staying up too late and drinking coffee too late and drinking alcohol and not caring about sleep. It's not normal. It's not "how you are". You're not "totally fine" on 4 hours of sleep. You are fooling yourself.

<comment><USER22> There's a DEC2 mutation, possibly others, that let some people only sleep 4 hours and function fine. Maybe not all of these people, but I bet some of them have some sort of mutation on DEC2.

<comment><USER21> True for less than 1% of the population.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Nice to see a well done twin study here, but I'm guessing this was conventional wisdom for most.

</comment><comment><USER24> Sorry, but, this required a new study? Sleep is the most consistent way of preventing, and curing ailments. At even the slightest hint of feeling run down, I'll go to bed extra early.

<comment><USER25> Considering how little concern people put into it (eg: how difficult it is to handle disruptive neighbors at night, how little concern is put about noise near residential areas, etc), we sure as hell need more of those studies.

Because as of right now, nobody cares.

<comment><USER26> I sleep with an eye mask and ear plugs every night. Once you're used to that, it's pretty hard to fall asleep without them.

<comment><USER27> Yeah, something similar - started sleeping next to an air purifier (white noise) and pulling a 2nd pillow on top of my head for additional random noise suppression. I struggle to sleep without this, unless I'm wrecked with exhaustion from exercise.

Wish I had thought of the 2nd pillow in my younger years..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I sleep 8 hours and wake up automatically. If I get 6 or less, it feels like a bus hit me.

</comment><comment><USER29> The article does not mention if they actually showed causality. What if there is a third variable (coffee, acquired virus, anxiety, lack of exercise) that simultaneously causes lack of sleep and a depressed immune system? The cause could even be the other way around - I know I don't sleep well when I'm feeling sick.

<comment><USER30> When you show a correlation like this, you can still take action.

Even without knowing the underlying reasons behind the issue, you can at least diagnose based on the easily visible corrleated event----sleep depravation is much easier to test for than the comorbid immune supression.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> ha I could attest to that.

I also used to experience those sleep-paralysis events Jesus those were terrifying. Thankfully I have not had that in a long time.

But yeah, sleep is good. My body feels sore all over when not sleeping for a long time, get sick easier, can't even watch tv or do anything, you just hate yourself hahaha or briefly go delirious then go back to hating your current situation, can't enjoy anything.

</comment><comment><USER32> Anecdote: I used to sleep about 8 hours a day, but then had a long period of anxiety and depression that caused me to average about 4 hours sleep a day. This lasted for about 9 months, maybe more. During this time my brain was on constant overdrive, thinking about everything all the time, for most of that time I didn't notice any loss in alertness or clarity. I was particularly anxious about my friends and was out seeing different friends about 13 nights a fortnight. I was probably getting drunk about 3 nights a week. When I get depressed I don't really eat much, and I lost about 17% of my body weight. It was terrible, but in all this time I never got ill at all, not even a mild cold or cough. I missed the whole of winter 2015/2016 cold season, and I've got ill at least twice a year in winter for as long as I can remember. I am even ill now!

I was speculating the other day with a friend as to why this might be. I suggested that because I wasn't looking after my house I was pretty much sleeping in mould and I have heard anecdotally that that can have antibiotics that may have had an affect. He suggested that in extreme stress your body is less likely to overreact to a mild infection, and so maybe any infections may have much less obvious symptoms.

I'm pretty much better now and am attempting to sleep 7h30 a day, but it really does feel like a waste of time.

</comment><comment><USER33> It's fascinating to think of a counterfactual world where humans don't need sleep -- sometimes I wonder how much more could be done. Sleep seems to be a biological constraint that could be optimized around.

<comment><USER34> Its something i've put thought into and it seems that it would be a truly incredible advantage to any species to remove it, so there must be some fundamental reason that is preferable than having almost twice as much time in the day. I believe that the primary function of sleep is that it is an inexorable part of learning, but more studies are required in this area

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> gotta get good sleep.</comment>


HBO No Go - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/08/hbo-no-go.html <comment><USER3> Do you still get the video on the iPad? If so, this feature makes some sense. If you've got AirPlay speakers, they'd be a great substitute for the crummy built-in ones.

Clearly HBO is walking a fine line here: The cable companies that partially subsidize them in order to lure subscribers don't want you walking over to your (non-subscriber) friend's house and throwing "Game of Thrones" up on the big screen via Apple TV.

The whole "let me pay for it!" debate has been well-covered elsewhere: In short, HBO probably couldn't make a living charging individual subscribers for content, especially on a per-show basis. How could they produce new material without the guarantee of N-million monthly subscribers? And cable/fiber/satellite companies who help promote their service?

<comment><USER4> Airplay has an audible delay that is hard to compensate over 2 devices, so the feature makes no sense at all.

<comment><USER5> Maybe I don't understand what you're saying, but iOS corrects for the audio delay of AirPlay audio streaming.

I don't have an AppleTV, but I do have an AirPortExpress. Streaming video to iOS with audio on my home stereo works great, with the video on the device synced with the AirPlay audio.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, I have no idea what he is talking about, I have two AirPort Expresses, and an AppleTV, and AirPlay is the only wireless audio protocol I've yet found that actually gets the audio sync right, every time.

<comment><USER7> Not every time. Maybe on Apple-only hardware (although I think audio from games wasn't synced perfectly when I tried with AirPort Express).

But if you use audio equipment with licensed AirPlay made by companies who don't get these computers thingies, such as Philips or Marantz, it's worse. My Marantz AV receiver introduces 6-or-so seconds(!) of delay into music playback and that's one of the better ones.

<comment><USER6> Ahh, I imagine it's completely likely that non-apple hardware just ignores any of the sync commands.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This isn't just HBO Go, or even just third-party apps – first-party video playback on iOS will, depending on hidden flags from iTunes store purchases, arbitrarily disable video over AirPlay.

A friend and I found this out the hard way one afternoon when we decided to rent Ridley Scott's Alien, in anticipation of seeing Prometheus. He pulled up the store on his iPhone, found the movie, selected Rent: HD, and signed on to my wi-fi network, my Apple TV appearing on his iPhone without a hiccup. So far, pure Apple seamlessness – until he selected the AirPlay output. The audio played back over my speakers, but the video remained on the 3.5" screen.

Thinking resourcefully, I suggested he try AirPlay mirroring. This, at last, gave us the "fuck you, consumer" from the studio in explicit form: a message appeared on his phone saying the AirPlay display couldn't be trusted.

We both resolved never to use the iTunes store for movies again.

<comment><USER9> Pirate it. You get a higher quality product.

<comment><USER10> This is why I don't get Hollywood and all of the cable providers. It isn't like pirating software, where it is usually an inferior product due to updates and the like. Instead, pirating video (movies and TV) is truly the best form of the product you can get. Music finally went the right way after a handful of years full of DRM - we can only hope the same will happen with video.

<comment><USER9> Sometimes pirated software off better. Some games might have DRM and require an always on internet connection to authenticate so you can play. Pirated games might have no such limitations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's amazing what people will put up with. I built a media center PC running Windows 7 using a guide like this[0]. It was the best decision I made. I just torrent content on my desktop, access it over the network share on my HTPC, and everything's good to go.

You can get a 10' UI using XBMC if you want, and you can access the full versions of YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, (and HBO Go, I presume) etc. - <USER2> restrictions. No transcoding, no syncing - if it works on your PC, it works on an HTPC.

0: [http://lifehacker.com/5936546/how-i-built-the-media- center-o...](http://lifehacker.com/5936546/how-i-built-the-media-center-of-my- dreams-for-under-500)

<comment><USER12> Yes, because downloading torrents + network share is just the same as streaming + airplay.

This guy already has a cable set top box _plus_ an Apple TV that can stream from HBO _and_ network sharing. Airplay is another matter, you can't mirror/stream from your mobile to your HTPC.

<comment><USER11> > Yes, because downloading torrents + network share is just the same as > streaming + airplay.

No, it's much better. It's free and completely automatic. Set up an RSS feed for your favorite shows and tell XBMC to monitor the download directories. It's a truly breathtaking experience.

> This guy already has a cable set top box plus an Apple TV that can stream > from HBO and network sharing.

Compared to a full-blown HTPC, an Apple TV (or any other device without a full OS) is very limited in its functionality.

> you can't mirror/stream from your mobile to your HTPC.

Oh really? This article would beg to disagree: [http://www.redmondpie.com/how- to-mirror-your-ios-or-android-...](http://www.redmondpie.com/how-to-mirror- your-ios-or-android-device-to-your-pc-mac-for-the-ultimate-big-screen-gaming- experience/)

<comment><USER13> It's also illegal and some of us actually believe you should pay for other peoples creative work.

<comment><USER10> I believe I should pay as well. And I happily would pay the $120 monthly the cable company wants for two years if I could get a license that let me download all the content via newsgroups and have non-DRMed MKV's that I can use wherever I want for my PERSONAL use. I do not want to pay for Comcast's awful distribution, I want to pay for a license to download the content for my personal use, regardless of what distributor I use.

<comment><USER14> I have long thought that there was a potential insurgent business model here: sell a lifetime license to a particular piece of content, which the user is now allowed to acquire by whatever means they choose. In essence, you pay for the content holder to waive their right to sue, and nothing more.

It'd be a tough sell for Big Content, but once it generated sufficient revenue for indie and niche stuff to prove the model, eventually they would come around if it meant an excuse to charge you for the White Album yet again. You could also collect pledges or pre-payments from users so that they could put a dollar value on how much revenue they're missing out on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The reason for this is that iOS allows an app to opt-out of video AirPlay, but not opt-out of AirPlay audio [1]. HBO has opted out of video AirPlay most likely to satisfy its cable provider partners who provide the vast majority of its income[2].

1\. [http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/AudioVi...](http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/AudioVideo/Conceptual/AirPlayGuide/Introduction/Introduction.html)

2\. <http://dcurt.is/hbo-forbes-journalism>

<comment><USER16> This restriction likely comes from the studios which provide the content (these deals usually contain DRM restrictions on how the content can be distributed), not the cable operators.

<comment><USER17> Likely comes from cable companies as well, they don't want you watching television except through their boxes (hence cableCARD never taking off).

<comment><USER16> _they don't want you watching television except through their boxes_

This is entirely untrue. Most cable companies have apps which allow you to stream content via iPad or even Xbox apps.

The whole HBO Go thing is part of a cable wide initiative called TV Everywhere which is entirely about letting you watch your TV content on alternative devices as long as you have a cable subscription. Streaming content is actually a win for the cable operators because it offloads a lot of work from their cable infrastructure. They're actually fine with you streaming content via their network's services as long as you're paying your cable bill.

<comment><USER17> Excuse my lack of clarity; when I said television I mean the television screen. They are perfectly fine with you watching HBO Go on your iPad but they don't want you watching things on your television except through their cable boxes. Because the cable box contains advertising for other channels you don't currently have and HBO Go does not.

<comment><USER16> I know, but this info isn't correct. The cable operators are fully allowing the networks to stream to "Over-The-Top" boxes gaming consoles and connected tvs. The two requirements are:

1\. Full DRM Solution, this mostly means Widevine or PlayReady DRM. This support is lacking on some notable platforms. The most recent Roku devices don't support full DRM the best they provide is encrypted HLS which can fulfill the DRM requirements for some operators but not all.

2\. Authenticated Users, Users must be authenticated with their cable operator. This usually means also having the necessary infrastructure for limiting the number of registered devices etc.

These present is a fairly complex infrastructure component from the operators and HBO Go has been leading the way in meeting these two requirements. This is why you can stream _right now_ to HBO Go on the Xbox and on Samsung SmartTV connected TV platform.

I don't say this as an interested observer, but an active participant I run a services company that actively works with Broadcast Networks on streaming to these platforms. We're literally doing this work _right now_ with large broadcasters.

EDIT: I apologize, I edited this to remove some snark.

<comment><USER17> Awesome, thanks for your insight.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Not a week goes by where I don't hear from someone who wants to watch HBO GO on their Apple TV or output from their iPad to the tv. The idea that the consumer has the right to view their legally paid-content where they want and how they want is slowly but surely becoming a reality. It's just a matter of time before HBO caves. Frustrating in the interim though.

<comment><USER19> There may be alternative services which do not look to place any restrictions on where content can be viewed, which will place pressure on HBO, however, as long as a particular provider produces unique desirable content that they are comfortable monetising in specific ways, whatever restrictions that provider wants to place on viewing will remain. It may not make much sense in the example, but the idea still applies.

When you buy content from that provider, you agree to their terms and their methods of distribution. As such, there will never be a right to view content wherever you wish, unless the particular provider distributes in such a manner.

<comment><USER20> By "alternative services" I assume you are referring to BitTorrent? :-)

<comment><USER12> NetFlix is one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I have a Galaxy S3. I bought an MHL -> HDMI adapter, hooked up to my tv and started up HBO Go for a test run. On Android they don't even bother with an audio only implementation. The app simply crashes.

Until this article I assumed the developer sucked. Now I'm not so sure the crashing is a bug.

</comment><comment><USER22> Roku has the HBO Go app on it, but will probably fail you too.

Subscribers log in to HBO Go with their username and password from their cable subscription, not something they get from HBO.

Time Warner Cable blocks using the Roku with HBO Go. When you try to authenticate the device, they slap you on the wrist and say no.

You can however, airplay from the HBO website in Mountain Lion, but I find things get a little out of sync.

<comment><USER12> Why do american regulatory agencies put up with this crap? One provider shouldn't interfere with another (much less block it).

<comment><USER23> The regulatory agencies are staffed almost entirely with people who used to work at the networks. They're in on it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> If you happen to have a jailbroken iPad 3rd generation, iPad 2, or iPhone 4S, you can install UnrestrictPremium to work around this limitation: <http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/08/09/unrestrictpremium/>

</comment><comment><USER25> Calling it broken is a relative statement. On a technical level, they had to do something to prevent mirroring from functioning as the article wants. So, they implement AirPlay, but audio only. But, I'd argue this works exactly as HBO wants it to, so it's not broken, it just doesn't do what you want it to.

HBO's business model isn't terribly friendly to watching their programming on a TV unless it comes via cable or one of their heavily licensed, and generally stationary, partner products. You are a lot less likely to take a Roku or Xbox to a friends' house to watch Game of Thrones, but you always have your iPhone. Of course you could have them over and this falls apart, but you could do that with their cable feed as well. They're trying to slow the bleeding since they can't stop it.

<comment><USER26> > _But, I'd argue this works exactly as HBO wants it to, so it's not broken, > it just doesn't do what you want it to._

You're nitpicking. It's broken in the colloquial sense -- the app makes an implicit promise and then delivers only partway. That it was built to spec is immaterial; if the spec is "broken" (anti-user, antipattern, etc) it doesn't matter if you build exactly to spec... it's still broken.

<comment><USER25> No I'm not, and I think you are. Just because it doesn't do what you want doesn't make it broken. That's like buying a car, but being upset it can't drive distances with a flat tire. It's not supposed to do that, so other than a faulty tire, the car isn't broken. And the spec isn't either - they aren't being anti-user, because they don't have to release the app at all. I can come up with a dozen business cases for audio only (the iPad/iPhone speakers being mono only for one, being a crappy speaker for two), but they are interests to protect. This app is a compromise that you don't have to use, not meant to replace the television experience, but be an additional screen for occasional viewing.

<comment><USER23> Does the car in your example prevent you from changing the tire to one that isn't flat? Does it _actually come with a flat tire_ from the dealership? _

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> OP seems like exactly the kind of customer that the cable industry would want to bend over backwards to make happy, not unnecessarily hamstring. He has all the devices and subscriptions he ostensibly needs, and appears to be a Good Cable Citizen. The fact that HBO feels it necessary to restrict him in this way smacks of hubris.

</comment><comment><USER28> I've written about the issues with HBO Go extensively. It's a terrible app that has a lot of promise, but it's really hampered by old-media ways of thinking about content distribution. The app is intended to be a second, third of fourth screen in your house, nothing more. That's not what the name implies, nor does that fit the reality of how many people consume content today.

You can't cache/download shows to use on the go, meaning that your streaming ability requires a connection and a good one at that: [http://interchangeproject.org/2012/05/14/game-of-thrones- loo...](http://interchangeproject.org/2012/05/14/game-of-thrones-looks- terrible-streaming-over-hotel-wifi/)

Why is HBO Go not a to-go service? [http://interchangeproject.org/2012/05/10/why-is-hbo-go- not-a...](http://interchangeproject.org/2012/05/10/why-is-hbo-go-not-a-to-go- service/)

Here is a podcast discussing the issues with HBO Go: [http://interchangeproject.org/2012/05/22/episode-38-to-go- or...](http://interchangeproject.org/2012/05/22/episode-38-to-go-or-not-to- go/)

Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that HBO Go is a needless usability mess.

<comment><USER29> It's a streaming service, no streaming service offers to-go. Is there Netflix To-GO? No. But, I can connect to my hotel's wi-fi and stream their ENTIRE catalog of television shows. To me, that's even better than their TV experience on my STB.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's amazing that people are surprised at all when a combination of proprietary media-playback system don't work as desired.

No snark intended, I've just not ever had a good experience dealing with a _single_ proprietary playback mechanism.

<comment><USER31> Not even stand-alone players? My first one ever, a mid-range blue-ray player works fine. Other than that, I agree. Btw, the open source players (vlc, mplayer etc.) have been the best software players out there for the last decade.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I can imagine being a developer on this product would be insanity. They probably implemented the Airplay feature, showed it to their bosses and for whatever reason the higher-ups had their reasons for nixing the second screen... Then they thought -- Ok, so we can't do video but perhaps people would want to airplay the audio to their fancy pants audio setup in their homes, better than nothing, right? Wrong.

I hope the big media companies get their acts together. They only get to screw up a finite number of times before someone comes and blows them out of the water

<comment><USER33> AFAIK; AirPlay is essentially "free" with the standard video player in iOS. It takes more effort to remove it than put it in.

<comment><USER34> Well, I think it's a config switch, so it takes very little effort to add it or remove it.

<comment><USER35> Which is something Apple shouldn't have done - with all the crap they make devs go through, fully working airplay should be a required feature with all the video players.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> After many trials and tribulations (Apple TV + Airplay, Roku 2, PS3) the ONLY decent (read working) option was XBox 360 + XBox Live Gold + Comcast XFinity* + HBO Go App.

It does feel like I lost my soul signing packs with so many devils, but at long last, I have an HD HBO Go app running the way it ought to.

* Not all cable companies have a deal with HBO for HBO Go

<comment><USER23> You are their ideal customer, and I wouldn't doubt that that network of requirements was mapped out in advance. "If all goes well, these X companies will get signups from HBO Go customers."

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Its tactics like this that are the reason I'm cutting the cord when my DirecTV contract is up in November. HBO has great content. Some of the best available in fact. But I refuse to give them a dime while they institute policies that actively diminish my viewing experience.

</comment><comment><USER38> It's particularly annoying that this prohibition is in place even though there are still other ways-- albeit less convenient ones-- to get the video streaming to your TV. For example, you can use a thunderbolt-to-hdmi connector (or VGA) from your laptop, and probably a 30pin-to-hdmi from your iPad (although I've never tried the latter).

So it's possible to still get the content to your TV, in a much less user- friendly (i.e. tethered) way. I know not everyone has these connectors, but since the ability is there, you'd hope they would just be gracious and allow for the better experience.

</comment><comment><USER39> Okay listen to this. HBO GO is only available to people with certian cable companies. I live in an apartment complex so i cannot changes who provides my cable. My younger sister has HBO GO app on xbox live and direct tv. I have knology, a non support cable provider while direct tv is. She gave me her direct tv credentials and i put them into mh 360 and it worked no problem, all it does is show a direct tv logo in the app itself.

<comment><USER40> Apartment complex exclusivity was re-affirmed as illegal a few years ago [1]. Of course if there is only one choice in the area, that's perfectly legal.

Does HBO Go work well on those device? I watched an episode of Newsroom using the HBO Go website, and it was a terrible experience. Ignoring the "sign into your cable company" thing, the video quality wasn't that great despite using tons of bandwidth. It stuttered but looked OK. On the other hand Netflix movies look much better and use less bandwidth. It's like they're still using the old Flash codec instead of MP4.

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/05/federal-court- uph...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/05/federal-court-upholds-fcc- ban-on-exclusive-cable-deals/)

<comment><USER39> I have both Netflix and HBO Go on xbox 360 apps and the quality is identical to my naked eye.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Shouldn't the App Store approval process reject an app that does this? It must be violating some ux guideline.

</comment><comment><USER17> The iTunes screenshots don't show the AirPlay icon:

<http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/hbo-go/id429775439?mt=8>

The conspiracy theorist in me wanted to believe they left audio in there just to advertise AirPlay support.

</comment><comment><USER41> Amazon Instant Video suffers from the same problem.

<comment><USER3> The difference with Amazon Instant Video is that it's trivial to find a plain- old TV-connected device that supports it. My year old Blu-ray player handles it just fine. It's not that different from NetFlix in that regard, except I suppose it's not available for Apple TV yet.

The only device designed to put HBO Go on your TV screen is, I believe, the XBox 360 when connected to particular cable networks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> It's got the button, but not the feature. Gotta love it! ;-)

<comment><USER43> No, it has the button to play audio through Air Play. It's a different icon for video.</comment></comment>


Why regulators should focus on bankers' incentives - <AUTHOR> https://bankunderground.co.uk/2017/04/05/guest-post-why-regulators-should-focus-on-bankers-incentives/ <comment><USER2> "Responsibility is a unique concept: it can only reside and inhere in a single individual. You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished. You may delegate it, but it is still with you. You may disclaim it, but you cannot divest yourself of it. Even if you do not recognize it or admit its presence, you cannot escape it. If responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion, or ignorance, or passing the blame can shift the burden to someone else. Unless you can point your finger at the person who is responsible when something goes wrong, then you have never had anyone really responsible."

– Admiral Hyman G Rickover, United States Navy

</comment><comment><USER3> Bankers are slightly more sophisticated estate agents and they have similar incentives. The basic business model is to do a lot of free work upfront in exchange for a shot at being massively overpaid for relatively simple work.

I think the main problem is a classic principal/agent situation. The person who hires the bankers is often paying with someone else's money. This is really no different to other forms of enterprise sales.

I think both are massively corrupt, but there seems to be a disproportionate amount of breath wasted on bankers as compared to other salesmen.

<comment><USER4> > There seems to be a disproportionate amount of breath wasted on bankers as > compared to other salesmen.

Putting aside the question of how valid the analogy is, banking deserves the focus because of its importance to society, and the degree of harm it could cause.

<comment><USER3> How does banking cause more harm to society than, say, construction or databases or cars?

<comment><USER5> Neither databases nor the construction industry are leveraged 10x+.

Neither provides fundamental utility to other sections of the economy through lending activity, which can result in liquidity events at otherwise perfectly solvent firms.

Neither can drive prices in other sectors through speculation in financial instruments or through financial reporting and reporting downgrades.

<comment><USER6> > Neither databases nor the construction industry are leveraged 10x+.

Maybe banking shouldn't be either?

<comment><USER7> How much leverage is the right amount? Regulators seem to think it is somewhere around 10x.

<comment><USER8> It's probably context dependent; which is why it's //critical// to never lie about, cover up, or over-simplify that context. In my opinion, doing that is quite nearly as bad as murder. At the very least doing such things should bar someone guilty from working in the industry for many decades.

"The right amount" then is when expected losses are less than expected profits; with some safety factor. This is complicated by allowance for both rare really bad sets of loss all at once and absorbing losses over a longer time. I think the solution for both is insurance. In fact, I really hope that the US FDIC (mandatory insurance for deposits, though it hasn't kept up with inflation) represents the basic insurance for the 10% figure you quote.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> As long as risks are financial only, they will just get insurance against it and still get away with the current risk-taking behavior, passing the costs to the customer.

Criminal punishments (jail time) might work. I think that taxing transactions in financial products would help a lot more, making the finance industry smaller, which I think would be very beneficial to society.

<comment><USER10> Making the finance industry smaller would not help society, because it would make lending more expensive. That would mean more expensive mortgages, more expensive loans, less VC funding, etc.

Making big banks smaller also will not help socially because banks have returns to scale in diversification. So bigger banks are less likely to fail by themselves, and can lend for lower rates, which is socially good (recent research [1] [2] indicates this might not be true for the biggest banks -- they exhausted benefits of scale).

Now one might ask if "too big to fail" effects might incentivize the bigger banks to act recklessly and counteract the above benefits? The answer is that there's the evidence does not back that up [3] at least for 2008 [4]. But that doesn't mean it is or is not the case going forward.

Why did banks act so recklessly if they were not acting on too big to fail incentives, then? The answer, like in the OP, is management incentives. The managers could not give less of a fuck if the bank failed, because they were incentivized by shareholders, in the form of bonuses, etc. to generate large year-over-year profits. And in any market close to efficient, the only way to do that is to take on large risks.

Not only did the managers not lose money if the bank failed, they didn't have any personal risk whatsoever. The lead up to 2008 was perfectly strategically rational coming from a bank manager's point of view.

As the poster above me says, one way to fix that is to impose penalty from the judicial system. There's only so much financial regulation can do. But DoJ has been awful at that, even clearly criminal acts (remember HSBC?) doesn't send management to jail.

[1] [http://commons.colgate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&...](http://commons.colgate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=econ_facschol)

[2] [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2655448](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2655448)

[3] [http://fic.wharton.upenn.edu/fic/papers/11/11-47.pdf](http://fic.wharton.upenn.edu/fic/papers/11/11-47.pdf)

[4] Remember the official fed policy was not to bailout banks coming into the crisis. They let the first behemoth fail, but quickly realized the disaster that awaited the global economy if they let the next one fail.

<comment><USER11> Yes, a smaller financial sector would make lending more expensive. But would that be a bad thing, socially speaking?

A smaller financial sector would stabilise the financial and economical system, albeit at a lower level of economic activity. The less rich and powerful suffer most from economic instability. They also stand to gain most from increased stability. Ask people from the Baltic states about what happened in 2008-2009...

Who is the biggest beneficiary of credit? Us, the rich and powerful!

Have a look at the most expensive thing most people ever buy in their lives: a house! Housing prices and interest rates are directly linked. More expensive lending would mean lower housing prices. To some extent, deflating that bubble is actually a good thing for the less rich and powerful!

<comment><USER12> > More expensive lending would mean lower housing prices.

That benefits people who can pay in cash. Otherwise, the difference in price goes to the bank as interest.

<comment><USER13> Might also want to note that it negatively affects borrows.

Especially those who are underwater on their home loan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I fundamentally disagree with the ideas of this article and think it is a wrong and harmful way to go about the problems in banking. It will create a dangerous precedence for other industry. The premise is based on a flawed homo-economomics understanding of human psychology. It is classical right-wing libertarian thinking, where the assumption is the only incentives driving people are greed and fear of punishment. These so called incentives are all stick and no carrot.

People should be given a reason to do the right thing. Quite the contrary they are usually punished for doing the right thing. Whistle blowers have poor protection. Responsible employees get worse results than the reckless ones and thus get passed over on promotions or hounded by their managers.

It would be much more effective to simple get rid of all the incentives designed to only measure financial performance and nothing else. Pay people to do a good job, rather than according to a narrowly defined metric of performance.

The measurement based, new management style way of doing things has been poison everywhere in society not just banks. It causes police to arrest people just to fill their quota. Parking guards to write out tickets to meet target for number of tickets written by management. It makes hospitals push for unnecessary medical procedures.

It is time to stop treating people like greedy robots, and actually accept that people are blessed with compassion and the ability to make complex decision. They will do that if you let them, rather than rewarding them for being reckless idiots.

<comment><USER15> This is unrealistic. How do you measure whether someone "does a good job"? What if their job is to earn money while taking a certain amount of risk? This is ultimately what all banks do: all loans have a risk they won't be paid back, and the job of the bank is to earn money while managing that risk.

I think if you tried to refine these ideas into something more specific and concrete, that would apply on a daily or yearly basis with respect to employee performance and compensation, you'd see that this idea needs to be a lot more fleshed out. You haven't considered how incentives play out at multiple levels in an organization or how to construct the right ones.

There is no such thing as "just pay people for doing good work". The world doesn't have a ruler that can decree this and if it did there's still no way to enforce that it happens. You need to think about how to structure incentives for each person in the organization so that they shape behavior in the right direction. Personal liability is an incentive. "Pay people for doing good work" is not an incentive nor a policy that can be directly implemented. It is at best a goal that could be refined into policy and incentives after defining what exactly it really means. (What is "good work" and how do you know it when you see it?)

The author of the article is advocating for creating a much stronger incentive to do the right thing by making people who work at banks personally liable for the outcomes of their decisions. The author specifically makes the point that people outside the system don't how to recognize "good work", but people within it do, and by making them personally liable, they will think twice before doing bad work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Hard to disagree however it's the BoE blog and the BoE is responsible for this regulation. However their policy is to make the UK into the biggest finance cesspit imaginable in order to try and siphon off surplus value globally.

There has been very little action against banks despite continuous fraud in the UK. Yet we have dawn raids for bank employees who go "rogue".

The UK's only "industry" is banking. Their unique selling point is that you can come here and do whatever you like so long as you launder most of it through land to continue the UK fire sale to forestall total collapse.

</comment><comment><USER17> I feel like there's some sort of parallel with the Machine Apocalypse.

"What if we build intelligent machines that execute their goals at the expense of humanity," we worry.

</comment><comment><USER18> Thinking about it, if you are going to print money, credit is probably one of the worst way to do it. Even something like basic income has its problems.</comment>


How the iPad Wants to be Used - <AUTHOR> http://speirs.org/blog/2011/1/21/how-the-ipad-wants-to-be-used.html

<comment><USER2> My initial reaction to the iPad when it was first announced was that it needed user accounts. I mean, your smartphone is yours. No-one else is going to pick it up and use it for a few hours. But the iPad just intuitively seems like a device that's destined to live on the coffee table and be a family's shared machine. The software may "want" to be personal, but the hardware definitely doesn't.

There's really nothing stopping this happening from a technical standpoint. Have multiple "swipe to unlock" arrows on the lock screen, one for each user, labelled of course. Passwords on accounts if users so choose. Everyone gets their own apps, browser history/cookies/cache, music, movies, etc.

Where this gets tricky is when users of the same device want to share things. You shouldn't need to have two copies of the same movie on a device. I also have no idea how iTunes syncing would work.

<comment><USER3> The iPad doesn't need user accounts... everyone in your family needs an iPad! :)

This sounds exactly like the kind of feature that Apple would carefully consider and ultimately reject because it doesn't match their vision. The ability to have user accounts is just one more feature that makes everything more complicated for the user.

<comment><USER4> I have to agree with you. Apple won't saddle iOS with a stop-gap feature that won't be necessary in 5-10 years when iPads will be cheap enough that everyone will have their own.

I would bet that Apple has a lot data from Macs being brought in for repair and from new setups that would indicate that only a small percentage of users actually use more than one user account on their Macs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What you're seeing is the slow merge of PC's with consumer electronics and the surprising thing is that people actually like it ...

What I think is going to happen eventually is that only 'geeks' will have real laptops/desktops. Everyone else will have one of these personal devices (in varying forms of complexity).

We live in interesting times.

<comment><USER6> I think if that happens (which seems more likely every day) it'll create a bigger disconnect between creators and consumers than we have now and it sort of worries me. I got involved in making things from my desktop PC just stumbling on "how to make x" guides, if I'd only owned an iPad I don't think that would have ever happened because I'd have to have had made a concious choice to purchase a desktop computer for the "advanced" tasks like creating.

I guess it's good for Apple short term, but long term... although I guess the exposure to the app store and similar systems may cause that concious decision to purchase a desktop to create.

<comment><USER5> You're absolutely right, but is that such a bad thing?

I mean right now you could look at it like we're forcing Users to deal on a level of knowledge/abstraction that they don't want to be on ... that is too complex for them, as evidenced by things like users not knowing what a browser is or the inane questions users ask tech support when their computers run into trouble.

To take an extreme example ... Automobiles ... I drive one everyday, but I barely know anything about how its built, how it works or how to fix it when its has problems ... now imagine if to start my car in the morning I had to have some knowledge of exactly how a car worked? (You can even substitute a manual transmission for this) ? Wouldn't that be a bad thing?

What is going to happen is the segmentation of enthusiasts and experts from everyone else, and I actually think that is a good thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The way that he suggests Windows PCs "want" to be used (with antivirus) is clearly a design flaw, for any usage scenario. Why isn't this a design flaw, even if only for use in schools where a cheap tablet that automatically resets itself to a known good state and leaves user date in "the cloud" seems a better idea. The ChromeOS idea of being able to lose or break your laptop and carry on regardless (possibly even from a random Windows desktop as long as it has Chrome) seems a perfect fit for students, even if it doesn't play to Apple's strengths.

</comment><comment><USER8> Schools would do much better to give every student a Kindle.

<comment><USER9> Please explain...

<comment><USER8> The iPad is too much fun. It's slightly better geared for single-tasking than a PC, but at any moment you're still three taps from every piece of attention- sucking media in the world.

Although reading books works fine on an iPad, reading books is the only thing that works on a Kindle. And reading books is the behavior most critical to learning and becoming educated.

<comment><USER10> But is Kindle really good for textbooks where there are a lot of diagrams, pictures etc? It might be good for novels, but I don't agree it would be more suited to textbooks than iPad.

Maybe if the DX price was lowered to normal Kindle price, it would be more appropriate; but at the moment if you are going to shell out 350$ for a Kindle DX, it is wiser to spend 150$ more to get an iPad.

<comment><USER11> How many textbooks have you seen that actually need more than two or three colors to effectively communicate the point? Unless you're studying art or showing a really complicated map or 3d surface plot, the Kindle's 16-level grayscale should be enough. It would also have the effect of discouraging the gaudy, overly flashy designs textbook publishers use to distract from the lack of content.

In my experience, for subjects like math or most basic science courses, the quality is inversely proportional to the number of colors of ink used.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


My Favorite Liar (Econ prof's lectures include a lie that students must find) - <AUTHOR> http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/02/my-favorite-lia.html

<comment><USER2> [referring to the past lecture that had no lies] "Do you remember the first lecture - how I said that 'every lecture has a lie?'" ... "Well - that was a lie."

What if THAT was the current lecture's lie? :)

</comment><comment><USER3> I used to work for a small boutique testing/QA shop. They took this approach with almost all their internal documents. In order to get people to actually read and absorb new documents and/or presentations, they would deliberately salt the content with one falsehood. It was a very effective technique.</comment>


Making Twilio calls from Zabbix - <AUTHOR> http://ducksboard.com/blog/when-duty-calls-literally-making-twilio-calls-from-zabbix/

<comment><USER2> Nice to see Zabbix getting some love, it's a good and simple monitoring system. I've already got my Zabbix install talking to Hubot, Twilio integration is next on the list. :)

</comment><comment><USER3> :( .. Seems Ducksboard doesn't play any role here ... I was dreaming for a Ducksboard's integration of Twillio services of some sort ... Any time soon?

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh boy, are you in for a treat then :)

Let's just say that there'll be news announced next week...</comment></comment>


JSON versus XML: Not as Simple as You Think - <AUTHOR> http://metajack.im/2010/02/01/json-versus-xml-not-as-simple-as-you-think/

<comment><USER2> JSON is certainly easier on the eyes (almost as much as YAML) than XML.

<comment><USER3> But both are intended for consumption primarily by computers, so that shouldn't (heavily) weigh into a decision to use one over the other.</comment></comment>


Google's Project Glass Lets Technology Slip Into the Background - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/google%E2%80%99s-project-glass-lets-technology-slip-into-the-background/

<comment><USER2> Our culture has to change a lot before a product like this can be mainstream. I don't think I could feel comfortable being in the same room with someone wearing one. The core problem is they break our ability to perceive the environment we are in. I can see that I'm in a room with 5 other people but I cannot comprehend that thousands, maybe millions, of other people are streaming it at the same time. I would constantly be thinking that one wrong move and I'm going to be embarrassing YouTube #1 clip of the day.

<comment><USER3> First time, yes. Second time, not so much. Third time, you'll want one yourself.

In a near future we will all look back to the day we thought no-one would ever wear it and laugh.

<comment><USER4> I dunno… I always feel like jsz0 does when there's a camera being used in the room. And they've been around all my life. Hard to say until it's tried out in real life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Agreed. I've found myself too many times watching my kids' activities through the viewfinder of a camera or holding up and iPhone between them and me. When staring at a device, you're seeing them but you're not in the moment with them. (The other option of course, would be to stop acting as if everything needs recorded and shared.)

</comment><comment><USER6> Glass will definitely have privacy implications.

1\. who owns the data. 2\. who has access to the data. 3\. how do you opt out from my recordings? 4\. will this lead to a private crowd-implemented version of pervasive CC-TV?

This could the the penultimate implementation of a system to surveil a population. If this becomes ubiquitous, who would ever need state installed CC-cameras?

<comment><USER7> Agree that there are privacy implications, but don't believe they'll be quite as drastic as you make out.

From what I understand, Google Glass connects to your mobile phone, so it's effectively outsourcing a mobile phone's camera, video speaker and microphone to a pair of glasses. So the answer to a lot of your questions is the same as if you were asking them about mobile phone technology. I wouldn't think anything differently of someone wearing these glasses as I would of someone using a mobile phone to take photos or video in a place or at an event. (And importantly, I would assume the same battery life constraints around video'ing and constantly taking photos would apply to glasses just like they do with phones.)

The key difference is that it's very obvious when someone is using their phone to do this, where it's not with glasses. This could be bad (being video'ed when you don't want to be), but could also be pretty good (taking photos of a fantastic meal at a great restaurant when you don't want to disturb anyone else.) The product people behind this need to understand where those lines are and design to them.

<comment><USER6> You make some good arguments. However, one big difference, is that to take photos or videos, you actively have to point the device at people and make an effort to record. With Glass, that's taken out. You could be recording and no one would be the wiser --one might have to assume that anyone wearing Glass was recording. This could be a bit creepy.

Now, I know there is no expectation of privacy in public places --this is what allows photographers to photograph anyone on the streets (with very few exceptions). However, a photographer is very noticeable. If this becomes ubiquitous, there is no way of avoiding being recorded. Now, what happens on private property? What laws would apply there?

<comment><USER8> Yep. It's why camera phones, in some places, have to make a noise when they a picture (by law). You have to announce that you are doing something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think some of the comments on that article bear merit towards a contrary position:

'Right now, the book is giving way to the screen and hypertext, and who knows - how can we possibly know, stuck as we are in the heart of the maelstrom? - what this will do to our concept of self. Nick Bilton writes that "When technology gets out of the way, we are liberated from it." But perhaps what is also true is that we ourselves are getting out of the way of technology, adjusting and morphing our selves to adapt to and accommodate it, encouraged all the way by gee-whiz journalism, advertising, and the whole throbbing. hissing, bloated blogosphere itself.

Too bad for Sergey, I say, that he can't enjoy playing with his child more in the moment, without a computer to mediate and record the event (and the smiles) for later viewing in case he misses it when it happens.'

<comment><USER10> It isn't inherently terrible or good. It just is. We will change, and it will change with us. Your example is poorly chosen though, as the current model of standard parent behavior is to just sit there with a big SLR taking photos of the kid playing with the other parent, or playing alone, since how can you play while you are busy using a camera? Sure you can say people _SHOULD_ be present all the time, but the reality is people want to take pictures of their kids.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> im all for Google Glass - but I just don't see anyone talking about the health aspects of these glasses. Given the prominence of electromagnetic radiation and the often fear that it has spread around the globe in respect of brain activity, heat and so on.

how possibly can it be healthy to be wearing a set of these around, all day long, with data beaming towards your temple as it processes what you are looking at ?

i love the idea and concept - im just not sure I like the idea of the electromagnetic radiation being so rawly exposed to your head for as long as you are wearing the glasses. at least with mobile phones you are subjected to "bursts" in the sense that its only for the duration that the phone is against your head (which many fear - regardless of whether you personally being FUD or not)

contrast this to glass however, it's there constantly and design to be so. i would just love to know the risks associated with the volume of data, the impact of such exposure and the level of heat generated etc. it just seems to be swept aside in my mind

<comment><USER12> My fear is not even that: I worry about a future where we're so used to loads of context sensitive information bombarding us that we see it as weird to unplug or otherwise try to slow down.

Consider Facebook: it is probably a net negative for me, but in the past five years it's become weird not to have an account. So, I delay killing it off, justifying it not by the utility, but instead by the apparent necessity.

<comment><USER13> See Charles Stross' "Accelerando"; chapter 3, "Tourist". When heavy user of glasses is being mugged of them, they lose nearly all of their intelligence and identity. They stumble around like a blind idiot, trying in vain to remember what they lost and how to get it back.

The book is available for free from the author's website, and individual chapters make sense as self-contained short stories. [http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog- static/fiction/accelera...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog- static/fiction/accelerando/accelerando-intro.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Black Mirror Episode 3 is worth a look, if your interested in where this could end up going. It deals with ubiquitous interpersonal surveillance.

[http://www.channel4.com/programmes/black-mirror/episode- guid...](http://www.channel4.com/programmes/black-mirror/episode- guide/series-1/episode-3)

</comment><comment><USER15> Anyone know how your eye can focus on a screen so close to it? How do they pull that off? I have a headache just thinking about it.

<comment><USER16> It doesn't.

 _Glass is designed to project the image at far-focus, so if you have good eyesight or corrective lenses (like me) that allow you to see in the distance, there is no need to re-focus to see the image._

[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/131877-ive-seen-the- futur...](http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/131877-ive-seen-the-future-hands- on-with-google-glass)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I can't see this working legally for privacy reasons without the glasses having an LED go on when the camera is recording anything.

Not to mention the more sticky social issues: Imagine a guy in the subway with these glasses on - every woman in that subway will feel "watched" any time he looks in her general direction.

<comment><USER18> The subway is already full of cameras

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Reminds me of Alan Kay's forbidden quote "A computer should disappear in the environment".

<comment><USER20> I fail to read it as "A computer should appear on everybody's face".</comment></comment>


"In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice even in practice." - <AUTHOR> http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=148

<comment><USER2> I like the phrasing:

"The difference between practice and theory is greater in practice than in theory."</comment>


The gig is up: America's booming economy is built on hollow promises - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/02/gig-economy-us-trump-uber-california-robert-reich <comment><USER2> Best quote from the article for me: "At the rate gig work is growing, future generations won't have a minimum wage, unemployment insurance, worker's compensation for injuries, employer-provided social security, overtime, family and medical leave, disability insurance, or the right to form unions and collectively bargain."

When I talk to gig workers about why they're driving for Uber, charging scooters, ghost writing, etc. even when the answer is (increasingly rarely) along the lines of saving for a vacation or paying off debts, I can't help but think to myself, "does anyone remember when American workers could afford a middle class lifestyle and some vacation time every year _without_ having to work a second job?" It just seems like we're moving backwards even while people are touting unemployment numbers and cheap disposable goods as progress.

<comment><USER3> This feels kind of like saying "future generations won't have access to horses, slaves, whale oil, or pocket watches".

Jobs as we know them today are going to be obsolete in a few generations.

<comment><USER4> Well that's surely a nice theory.

The jobs part not the hyperbole.

Me I prefer to have insurance, protection if I get injured at work and the whole host of other things myself and my parents fought for.

It's easy to stand up and say you want things differently, until you get older and have a family. Then you realise those pipe dreams of an easy life doing what job appeals to you at the moment are the vapid dreams of the young and lazy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > According to a recent study, about half of New York's Uber drivers are > supporting families with children, yet 40% depend on Medicaid and another > 18% on food stamps.

Notice that Uber can lean on contract workers so hard because of the social safety net. In effect, we all subsidize Uber through our taxes.

<comment><USER6> > Notice that Uber can lean on contract workers so hard because of the social > safety net. In effect, we all subsidize Uber through our taxes.

If those people are essentially working full time for Uber, the government should bill Uber back for the costs of supporting its workers with the safety net.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> also, the use of zoning, enviro regs, building codes etc to throttle the supply of housing so that homeowners get rich is outrageous...cutting down on living costs by making it easy to build housing, that would go a long way to making america a better place to live...right now what we have is essentially extortion via control of laws in order to squeeze people for rent and medical care

</comment><comment><USER8> This is very similar to a pollution problem: companies abusing and then dumping discarded humans, a most toxic waste indeed.</comment>


Twitter/Weather Mashup I put together over a few nights. - <AUTHOR> http://www.tweetweather.com

<comment><USER2> This showed up: "Homemade migas this morning; cold brewed coffee & client work the rest of the day"

How about you match only if at least _two_ words are weather-related? Or at least 1 weather related + 1 location related, like "cold in new york."

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Yea it's definitely imperfect, but I'm limited by the functionality of the twitter search api, what i have been doing and what I can improve on is filtering out of common terms that involve weather related words, so for instance "ice cream", or in your case "cold brewed", which I am about to add to the exclusion list. granted this whole app has only about 15 hours of dev in it, so such a list is going to be FAR from perfect.

<comment><USER2> Ok. BTW, why are you using the twitter search API instead of Gnip?

<comment><AUTHOR> I definitely plan on switching to gnip. As i said, tweetweather is just something I put together after work the past week, grabbing from the search api was the quick and easy solution to getting tweets into the system.

Gnip rocks.

<comment><USER3> Can you explain how you'd use Gnip in this instance? From reading the API docs, it doesn't sound like you can do anything with Gnip + Twitter other than get tweets from / to a particular Twitter user. So you can't get keyword- filtered results from the public timeline, I don't think. Am I missing it?

<comment><AUTHOR> You're 100% correct. But I'm hoping they'll add the ability to use filters on the whole firehose in the near future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This rocks. You, or someone, could do a similar Twitter mashup for movie reviews - I just did a few searches for movies and the some of the short reviews are pretty entertaining.

It'd be even cooler (and much, much harder) to do some NLP on the reviews and try to give them a star rating based on your model.

<comment><USER3> <http://flixpulse.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Excellent initiative Aviel. I think it's a great demonstration of the future trends in Twitter mashups!

</comment><comment><USER6> How did you decide which twits to pick up? Did you just have a list of keywords that were weather related that you picked up? Or did you use some other method?

<comment><AUTHOR> There is a whole ton of logic in there uses the current forecast, weather alerts, etc then determines based on keywords it finds what terms users might be talking about.

Unforunately weatherbug is struggling right now so it's not working as good as it should be. I'm switching to weather underground as we speak.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Very cool, the ability to post weather via Twitter is something I'd like to add to my social weather startup: www.OtherWeather.com

</comment><comment><USER8> Found my town from the ip address and then when I tested a post it appeared as fast as I could switch windows and reload.

</comment><comment><USER9> Wow -- it figured out where I was much better than most systems.

Are you doing geolocation with IP? Or something else?

<comment><AUTHOR> Just geolocation with ip.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I found it amusing that most of the tweets were by women.

</comment><comment><USER11> Great idea! Very useful and easy to ue.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm in Sydney, asking for weather in Sydney, I don't want to see temperature Fahrenheits.

Other than that, a very nice idea and execution.

<comment><AUTHOR> Unfortunately, due to the unreliability of the weather bug api, i've had to switch to the weather underground api which makes this much more difficult. Currently working on this.

<comment><USER12> Well I guess it can be done easier. Currently, the only countries not using Celsius are United States and Belize. And you are already using GeoIP.</comment></comment></comment>


Starting a High Tech Business: Get a Clubhouse - <AUTHOR> http://www.windley.com/archives/2007/10/starting_a_high_tech_business_get_a_clubhouse.shtml

<comment><USER2> Personally I hate offices. If you are really close to your co-founders, you can rent a house together and turn it into your headquarters.</comment>


How to Fix The Heroku 30 Second Delay - <AUTHOR> http://blog.onemonthrails.com/how-to-fix-the-heroku-30-second-delay/ <comment><USER2> The free single dyno per app is really for development purposes. If you're not actively developing/testing, then the dyno sleeps after an hour of inactivity. The free dyno isn't meant for running a production site 24/7.

The proper way to "fix" the 30 second delay is to run a second dyno. The 'ping' solution just seems like cheating Heroku out of payment for a service.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Fix".

Oh yeah, because there's something to "fix" about a free product. Is this seriously what we're coming to? Being so cheap that we can't accept that our quick hack/technology showcase/dev site/small personal website takes more about 30 seconds to spin up when it's there for FREE?

Well, thanks anyway for this nice article: now that I know this, I'm gonna remove NewRelic from my free dev app and I'll put it back when I'm ready to go into production and pay for it.

DotCloud used to be "free" too but I they reduced the free possibilities offered by their app, because of costs I guess. I hope Heroku doesn't follow because of users who think of nice "fixes".

</comment><comment><USER4> the fix is simple. pay them. I'm pretty sure keeping development instance up is agains the tos.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, it's a neat hack I suppose but in reality it's abusing it, whether it's against the TOS or not in my opinion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a good solution for me when I'm staging a site for a client before moving to a full-on production setup. A common complaint I get, that has to be explained anew each time, is that the site "takes forever to load". New Relic (or Pingdom) helps me keep it up (sorry) so my clients don't think I built them a POS.

<comment><USER6> Further, you shouldn't do this if you plan to leave it like that in the long term. That's robbing Heroku.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I do this with Pingdom.

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't like this at all; you're basically screwing Heroku out of what they should be paid for providing a good service.

Secondly, you could set up a DigitalOcean server ($5/month) in about 10 minutes with Rails and this wouldn't be a problem.

</comment><comment><USER9> You could also create another app that only has the dyno curl the website every hour.

</comment><comment><USER10> The best way to avoid paying for fruit is to steal it from your local store.

</comment><comment><USER11> how to do it if we are running at nodejs app?

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually think it shouldn't matter what kind of app you're running on Heroku. It's just pinging the URL every 30 seconds to check availability, which has the nice side effect of not allowing your dyno to idle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Even easier way is to use [http://www.wekkars.com/](http://www.wekkars.com/)

You sign up for free and add whichever websites you need that needs to stay awake.

<comment><USER13> "We offer a free, monthly renewable plan! This plan lets you wake up 5 URLs every 30 minutes. At the end of the month, we send you a mail with a link to renew your free plan. As easy as could be!" now all I need is a free service to check my email and click the renew link once a month :)</comment></comment>


Magic Leap One is available to creators in cities across the contiguous US - <AUTHOR> https://www.magicleap.com/?zip_modal=true <comment><USER2> Discussion about Magic Leap from 15 hours ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17715337](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17715337) (176 comments)

Older discussions about Magic Leap (very popular topic):

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=magic%20leap&sort=byPopularity...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=magic%20leap&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

</comment><comment><USER3> No, thanks!

At that price point I think it makes sense to hold off and see what Microsoft does with the Hololens 2. I think they'll be able to undercut this price and have less cropping.

</comment><comment><USER4> Since the website tells you nothing but the price, the Magic Leap is

> a head-mounted virtual retinal display... which superimposes 3D computer- > generated imagery over real world objects, by "projecting a digital light > field into the user's eye"... Magic Leap asserts that it achieves better > resolution with a new proprietary technique that projects an image directly > onto the user's retina...

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

</comment><comment><USER5> > To help you take your first step into spatial computing, we're going to hand > deliver the device to your doorstep and personally get you set up.

Someone has read Paul Graham's "Do things that don't scale" essay :)

</comment><comment><USER6> Is the "lightfield" display in Magic Leap One the same technology used in the Hololens?

<comment><USER7> According to magic leap: no

According to reviewers: looks the same

Magic leap does have multiple focal points that hololens does not have

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Gotta love it when the headline of their marketing website is a flat-out lie. Most people cannot, in fact, "get" a Magic Leap. It's not even being offered for sale to the public.

When lies this clumsy and big are evident this early in a company's history, the prognosis is poor.</comment>


AMC Theaters to MoviePass: Not Welcomed Here - <AUTHOR> http://investor.amctheatres.com/file/Index?KeyFile=389925821 <comment><USER2> AMC can say whatever they like, but it's hard to see how they could block this.

I was a MoviePass subscriber a few years ago (at $40/month, not $10!), and how it worked was that I had a MasterCard that would work to buy one movie ticket every 24 hours. It had my name, my billing zipcode. I'm not sure how AMC could have known it was MoviePass. They certainly did nothing to stop it when I was using it then.

<comment><USER3> I prefer dealflicks' business model. I understand it's a somewhat different use case from what MoviePass is doing. They (dealflicks) partner with the movie theaters to sell tickets at discount last minute etc like Hotel Tonight. This is mutually benefitial to both parties, as the Theatre is able to fill seats ( at a slight discount ) that would otherwise go empty, and dealflicks get a commission for helping fill those empty seats.

I came across their site [https://www.dealflicks.com/](https://www.dealflicks.com/) while helping a friend research / validate his MVP (he wanted to do the exact same thing, like a last minute deals for movie tickets).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is weird. It says MoviePass will pay them the full ticket price when a pass holder goes to a movie in their theaters. Leaving aside how exactly that is supposed to work financially for MoviePass, what is AMC's actual problem with this? It's just a bunch of "not in the best interest of blah blah".

<comment><USER5> It (the linked statement) seems to read "we don't like this at all but it looks like there's nothing we can do about it right now, but we're sure going to look for a way to stop it".

The part they don't like is probably the general feeling that this will devalue their product. Ticket prices already "feel" high to the general public. Having advertised services out there (even if ultimately untenable) that drastically undercut standard prices will not help this perception at all.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, that makes sense. This still leaves them in the position of griping about getting money when people see movies in their theaters, though.

<comment><USER6> MoviePass would have brought more viewers to their establishment. The customer would now have saved $10 on admission, and can now use that towards concessions. Since their concessions are basically 1000% markup, its pure profit for them.

I don't understand their complaint other than, they didn't think of it first.

<comment><USER7> No they're still making full price on tickets too, it's just that the money is coming from some VC that's willing to dump it for a bunch of data instead of directly from the customer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> When Amazon sold ebooks below cost, it benefited Amazon. AMC sees that MoviePass is an attempt to Kindle them so they're pre-emptively refusing to "negotiate" how much control of their business to give up.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> MoviePass seems to many and to AMC as just another attempt by some unicorn tech outfit to ride the coattails of those who actually did the work to build the movies and theaters and so forth, and try to ultimately undercut and co- opt them, like Netflix is doing. AMC should be fighting, probably.

It takes real money to make movies and sell them. Just like it takes real money to make TV shows, and design new fashions, and create new foodstuffs...This whole let's make a subscription service out of everything is getting kinda stale...

I guess ultimately it depends on how deep MoviePasses pockets are...

<comment><USER9> Maybe AMC should release their own movie pass subscription service then, instead of keeping their heads up their ass in the dark ages.

<comment><USER10> Or have AMC make their own movies since they are leeching off the movie creators after all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I can't see how that was written with a straight face by a lawyer. If the average ticket price for an AMC movie is $9.33 how I will be "disappointed" for getting unlimited monthly movies for $10/mo. AMC sure has a lot of fake concern for someone else's business model. Really this is about control, not concern for consumers.

<comment><USER12> It may have changed since I was a kid, but from what I recall, the ticket cost goes straight to the distributor and the theater makes its money on concessions. This model seems perfect for the smaller venues you'd want to actually go to (Alamo Drafthouse, etc.) rather than the blown out, trash compactor megaplex you subconsciously avoid because you'll wait for it to hit Netflix rather than endure the long lines, bad parking, and apathy that tends to crush the moviegoing experience.

<comment><USER10> The gross revenue shifts toward the movie theatre the longer the movie is released. It may be a revenue split 90/10 first week, then theatre gets bigger cut each week. This is why second-run movie theatres can still make money showing two movies for one ticket price aside from concession sales.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I see perhaps 1.5 movies per year, mostly because the value proposition is not good.

To see a single movie in the non-shitty cinema, with a drink and popcorn will run me up about $35AU. I still have to watch 20 minutes worth of ads at the beginning too, so we'll boost that up to $40AU for wasting my time and brainpower. That gets me about 2hrs entertainment.

Why would I do that when I can pirate your movie in a few months and watch it at home, infinitely cheaper? Only the rare exceptional movie is actually worth the "cinematic experience" (ie. Dunkirk). Something like Guardians of the Galaxy or Deadpool is perfectly fine watching on my TV and Soundbar.

You can skip the ads and tell people off for talking during the movie in your own home too.</comment>


Opal: Ruby in the Browser, the Basics - <AUTHOR> http://www.sitepoint.com/opal-ruby-browser-basics <comment><USER2> This is a dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7536260](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7536260). When an article has already had significant attention on HN, we generally don't allow reposts for about a year.

Please check for this before posting. In the present case, running "opal ruby browser" through HN Search returns the above item.</comment>