Arch Linux on MacBook Pro Retina 2014 - <AUTHOR> http://loicpefferkorn.net/2015/01/arch-linux-on-macbook-pro-retina-2014-with-dm-crypt-lvm-and-suspend-to-disk/ <comment><USER2> After running Linux on MacBooks for the past 5 years I would strongly recommend against it. The basics usually work fine but you are constantly dealing with issues. Each MacBook revision introduces some new issue. For example the webcam recently switched from being usb attached to being attached to the PCI bus and Linux doesn't have drivers yet. Other things like GPU switching, multi monitor, display brightness, all have quirks.

Just recently I gave up getting MacBooks to work with Linux and went back to ThinkPads and I couldn't be more happy. Granted you can still buy ThinkPads that have similar issues as the MacBooks. The difference is that you can find a ThinkPad (or some other brand) that works practically flawlessly. With the current line of MacBooks, not a single one doesn't have huge issues (like the webcam).

<comment><USER3> Which ThinkPad models work flawlessly for you?

<comment><USER4> I recently bought a T420 for $300. After upgrading my ram to 8G and the stock hard drive to a samsung SSD, the laptop is easily a better overall laptop than my wife's MacBook Pro.

I'm running Ubuntu, although I may switch to Arch soon, but I haven't had any problems with drivers in Ubuntu and would imagine the same would go for Arch. So far, the only relative downsides compared to the MBP have been:

1) Battery life, although mostly fixed with TLP[a]

2) Keyboard quality...sometimes feels like some keys have more resistance than others

3) Screen contrast. My wife's MBP isn't a retina, but it still has much better resolution and contrast.

[a] [http://linrunner.de/en/tlp/docs/tlp-linux-advanced-power- man...](http://linrunner.de/en/tlp/docs/tlp-linux-advanced-power- management.html)

<comment><USER5> I have a t420s, and replacing the DVD with a bay battery was a very worthwhile trade.

<comment><USER4> Do you have any links to these batteries? I'm very interested.

<comment><USER6> IIRC they only work with the T420s, not the T420. I might be wrong though, but Lenovo definitely removed the connectors that are required for that in some models of the T series at some point in time...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Maybe I am just getting old but in 2015 it shouldn't be this much work to get an OS installed on a computer. Getting pretty much any Linux or Windows installed on my ThinkPad is a piece of cake. As pretty as a Bacbook Pro is I just don't have the time for this kind of thing anymore.

#GetOffMyLawn ;)

<comment><USER8> I moved over to Mac/oSX years ago from Linux and FreeBSD because I was done dealing with tinkering with things I didn't care about tinkering with -- getting things to work -- wireless, multiple monitor support, etc. I've been more productive since.

I still use both for vms for projects, but minimized my system administration headaches.

<comment><USER9> Agreed. I'm too old to worry about drivers and compiling kernels. it's exciting when you are a young hacker/tinkerer. Now I just need to get work done. OS X basically 99% perfect for me. Most unix stuff compile no problem, and the OS is free.

<comment><USER10> Free*

*If you purchase a computer that supports OSX, which just so happens to only be overpriced Apple computers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The author asks for language corrections on his documentation.

>English is not my native language, corrections and fixes will be greatly appreciated.

There's nothing really bad that I could see. No potentially ambiguous instructions at least.

Two typos ("Thunderbold" and "actuel"), a missing "to" ("on a second USB") and a spurious "s" ("informations"). What's the best way to provide the feedback?

Edit: Looks like submitter is author, so this may be a solved problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fixed, thank you for taking the time to report the typos !

<comment><USER12> Also, you have the work "partitionning". I believe that should be "partitioning".

<comment><USER13> Also, you have the word "work". I believe that should be "word".

<comment><USER12> Ahhhh

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Totally unrelated to the subject matter, sorry:

what is the service that generates the author's picture on the top left? I've been seeing them a lot lately and I don't really understand why people use them in place of a real photo.

<comment><USER14> Looks like it's www.faceyourmanga.com.

<comment><AUTHOR> I confirm.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have the same machine as the author of this post and I have been wondering about installing Linux on it for quite some time. I was wondering: wouldn't it be simpler to use virtualization (no problems with the hardware, ease in sharing data between Linux/OS-X no need to partition the disk and so on)? What am I missing?

<comment><AUTHOR> Why not, but which virtualization software to use? I can see the advantages, but what about the drawbacks? Does someone using a virtualized Arch Linux system under Mac OS X is willing to share?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> As an academic exercise, bravo. As a practical matter, articles like this boggle my mind.

I really struggle to find a single reason how Linux makes sense on a laptop in 2015 as a primary OS when OS X is an option.

If you feel that strongly about running a Linux desktop, just do it in a VM.

<comment><USER17> * OSX is NOT Linux * OSX is not free * OSX is not Open Source

<comment><USER16> > * OSX is NOT Linux

Is this sportsball? Glad we're picking teams.

> * OSX is not free

Not really concerned with a Richard Stallman view of the world, nor am I about the semantics of free vs. free.

> * OSX is not Open Source

Parts of it are. And I fully support the rights of companies to distribute which parts of their own projects that they deem necessary.

> * OSX > * OSX > * OSX

Actually, it's OS X.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Instead backing up the raw disk with dd, you can create a USB installer in OS X. The trick is to download Yosemite from the App Store and prevent it from running. There are plenty of articles describing the process. If you also have data to preserve, connect an external disk and do a Time Machine backup. If anything goes wrong, you can reinstall OS X from scratch and restore your data (and even restrict the size of your OS X partition so you don't have to resize it again).

</comment><comment> shawn-butler I don't think I would trust for very long any system spitting out those ATA errors.

The interrupts are also probably the cause of the abnormally high kworker CPU usage.

</comment><comment><USER19> Core Storage volumes can be resized with 'diskutil cs resizevolume' even if they're encrypted. It's not documented in the diskutil man page, and thus probably not supported. I've done this maybe a dozen times and on one of those attempts it totally imploded the file system and couldn't be salvaged - so it works most of the time but a backup is still wise.

</comment><comment><USER20> Nice job. I'm running on Archlinux on a Mac Book Air 2014.

The only thing that doesn't work is my webcam. Does yours work?

<comment><USER21> The iSight cameras are now PCIe rather than USB, and no drivers exist for them yet as far as I'm aware. There is some more information on the kernel.org bug tracker[1], and there's also an ongoing attempt to reverse engineer one on GitHub[2].

[1][https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71131](https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71131)

[2][https://github.com/patjak/bcwc_pcie](https://github.com/patjak/bcwc_pcie)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for sharing, I will add a section about the webcam.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'd like to install FreeBSD on my MacBook Air. Unfortunately, Broadcom Wi-Fi. Still no driver.

<comment><USER23> I never understood BSD on laptops. It's like oil and water.

The realm of many things BSD is great at does not include power management or hardware support so you will be guaranteed to be unhappy with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Why use powertop instead of tlp? I've been using tlp on my macbook for a few months and everything works smoothly. Good battery life and suspend works perfectly using all tlp related programs (tlp, tlp-sleep, tlp-rdw). :)

<comment><USER24> Also, forgot to mention, the SATA issues is fixed on Linux 3.18. Or you might want to disable NCQ while you dont upgrade with libata.force=1:noncq

[http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux- ide/msg49716.html](http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-ide/msg49716.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I will add the pointer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Getting an OS on a laptop shouldn't be this much trouble.

<comment><USER19> A big part of the complexity is inherent to dual-boot. Dual-booting Macs is a touch more complex than the usual because the firmware is "Apple EFI" not UEFI and not legacy BIOS, and no firmware setup. Next Arch has only recently developed a GUI installer. Several distros have mature GUI installers. So the trouble is partly about the choices made. Even OS X + Windows dual boot quickly gets really complicated if you want to do anything that Apple doesn't directly support in Boot Camp Assistant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Great post!

re "You can leave me a tip for hosting fees, thank you :)":

There are 10000 free alternatives to host your blog. Look into Jekyll+Github pages for example.

<comment><AUTHOR> To be more precise, I rent a dedicated server for personal hosting. But to be fair, I have modified this sentence, it's not logical to ask money for something you can find for free. And I'm already convinced by static site generator, because I'm using Hugo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> lvcreate --extentes 100%FREE -n root vgcrypt

unrecognized option '\--extentes'

I think you meant '\--extents'

<comment><AUTHOR> Fixed, thanks for the report.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Dell Latitude E4300 with OpenBSD.

</comment><comment><USER29> Nice list, I liked part about powertop.

BTW I would like to see similar list howto install OSX on Thinkpad.

</comment><comment><USER30> great lesson. there has to be a buyer for every seller and a seller for every buyer.</comment>


A Future with No Future: Depression, the Left, and the Politics of Mental Health - <AUTHOR> https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/future-no-future-depression-left-politics-mental-health/ <comment><USER2> This is blatantly incorrect to the point of being offensive.

> If the individual is responsible for her own happiness, then she is also > responsible for her own unhappiness

Just hold right there. There was nothing about "responsibility for unhappiness" in the source that was quoted. Author just casually added this part. "Responsibility for your own happiness" just means that it's _you_ who is in control and that you actually can change things - no matter how bad they look at the moment.

> It is a deeply moral message. Failing to be happy is simply immoral. If you > are such an immoral and bad person that you have become unhappy — or > depressed — it is you, and you alone that is to blame.

Being unhappy does not make yourself a bad person. This is literally one of the first things you hear when you visit psychologist to treat your depression.

> Yet the psychiatric and public discourse remain bent on treating depression > as a personal problem devoid of context

Incorrect. Context is incredibly important and is being discussed a lot during therapy sessions.

And so on and so forth.

Source: my own experience with depression.

Edit: grammar

<comment><USER3> > There was nothing about "responsibility for unhappiness" in the source that > was quoted.

I'm sort of baffled by this claim of yours. The quoted source is very clearly saying that happiness is up to the individual:

> Happiness is a personal responsibility. Happiness is not something you can > expect to get from others. Everybody has the key to their own happiness. And > hence also the responsibility to put the key in the right lock.

Likewise, I think your other points seem to miss the point of the author. She's not claiming that being unhappy makes you a bad person, she's illustrating that that's a common viewpoint in modern society, and is attempting to refute it. She also views therapy very favorably, and is trying to imagine a therapy that focuses on the collective rather than the individual.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Depression isn't sadness. Sadness is healthy, depression is when it runs amok like a cancer, sometimes with no apparent cause. Someone with a great life, job, friends, health, can be horribly depressed. That's what makes it illness. It's not due to low serotonin levels. The serotonin / chemical imbalance theory has been out of favor for the past ten years: [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12115-007-9047-3](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12115-007-9047-3), right now we think it's more related to decreased levels of neurogenesis but we're not entirely sure. The "happiness is an inside job" thing works if you're not depressed. When you are, it's like your "happiness muscles" don't work at all. You're just a non-responder to positive stimuli. It's like telling someone that any other illness is really their fault, with the underlying message being that they want you to go away.

</comment><comment><USER5> This article is very "inside baseball" for the far left. As far as I could understand, the article basically says: depression is caused by the world being terrible, and the world is terrible entirely because of capitalism, so depression is mostly capitalism's fault. Therefore, we on the left (the article is explicit that it is only for "we on the left"), must learn that therapy is a kind of important political collective act to help us recover from our depression so we can fight capitalism, and not be fooled into thinking it's something that our depression is something we have individual agency over.

I guess.

I don't have a deep understanding of depression, except that it is a very real and difficult thing that many people struggle with. So let me caveat that first.

But I have to say, my gut reaction is that it's rather sad to take a worldview that makes things so dire as to say one's own depression and the apparent increase in depression around the world is entirely due to the politics you oppose.

To me this reads as the tragic consequences of ever escalating polarization. Instead of seeing the politics around you as merely diverse ideas held by your friends and neighbors, you see it as something more like a species differentiator - and "they" are in control. Well, yes, that would be dire.

But out in the real world it turns out the vast majority of people on the right and the left are not so far out to the wings of their ideology, and that if they sat down over a nice meal they could have a great conversation and really enjoy each other's company, perhaps even learn from each other and positively influence each other.

The political world around us is indeed depressing, but I would argue we shouldn't wish that we could get out of bed so we can "throw a brick through a window," but perhaps instead so we can work toward understanding and reconciling with our neighbors instead.

<comment><USER5> Hah! This got downvoted in the first second after posting, which to me says the down-voter couldn't have read past the first sentence. Come on now, HN downvotes are for unconstructive or inappropriate comments. If you disagree you're not supposed to downvote, you're supposed to reply :)

<comment><USER6> On hn downvotes are for posts you disagree with. Inappropriate or unconstructive get flagged.

For what its worth I upvoted your first comment because i agree, and downvoted your second for complaining about votes

<comment><USER5> @mattrp, looks like we're at the max thread depth. Thanks for your comment.

I certainly don't mean to say people should shed their ideas, or that we should be starlings that flock together.

But I do think it's important to see humanity as one species, one people, who have most things in common and thrive by working together constructively.

That's why I feel it's important to seek to understand the people who see the world differently than you, rather than just exist in blind opposition to them.

When we let our ideology define who we are it becomes a religion, and world history has plenty of examples of people taking religious ideology as a reason to blindly oppose and eventually wage literal war on "the other."

Meanwhile, healthy mutual tolerance comes from seeking to understand and then arranging life in such a way that each person can have their own ideas and worldview without needing to quash the others.

To me that feels like just a description of liberal philosophy, so it's surprising I most often have this conversation with friends leaning far left who are so angry they are thinking more in terms of how to wage a war than how to find a workable mutual tolerance.

<comment><USER7> I'm surprised that you're surprised. As far as I understand it one of the fundamental differences between what we generally call 'leftists' and 'liberals' is that the latter think we should solve problems by talking and trying to understand, whereas the former considers this as silly as expecting a slave to sit down with his masters and discuss the inconvenience of the beatings and workload.

Better for the slaves to sit down and write complex analyses on what is wrong about slavery and bicker amongst themselves about the details (I joke)!

But anyways, obviously most 'leftists' wouldn't equate slavery with their own situation, and I'd argue most of them _do_ want to go as far as possible through understanding and conversation. But to some degree I'd say that's the basic point of view.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is the website dead for anyone else?

<comment><USER9> Archive link:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20200216142141/https://lareviewo...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200216142141/https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/future- no-future-depression-left-politics-mental-health/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> (2019)

The article seems to articulate that happiness is the opposite of depression and that unhappiness is synonymous with depression. That could be arguably a thing in a purely rhetorical sense but is absolutely incorrect in a clinical sense.

Clinically speaking depression is the multi symptom result of one or more chemical imbalances in the brain resulting in arrhythmic emotional states. The opposite of depression from a clinical perspective is emotional balance. This is why treating specifically the symptoms of depression often results in relapses at later times.

<comment><USER11> Are you sure? I thought the "chemical imbalance" story was made up by pharmaceutical companies to justify their new class of antidepressants.

[https://qz.com/1162154/30-years-after-prozac-arrived-we- stil...](https://qz.com/1162154/30-years-after-prozac-arrived-we-still-buy- the-lie-that-chemical-imbalances-cause-depression/)

<comment><USER10> Yes, I am sure. Drugs are a medical treatment for depression but are not the only or generally preferred treatment.

<comment><USER12> Have you ever tried to seek treatment for depression? I and others I know have found it incredibly hard to get any sort of treatment other than the SSRI at the top of their list.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> 'Anxious? Depressed? You might be suffering from capitalism: Contradictory class locations and the prevalence of depression and anxiety in the United States'

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4609238/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4609238/)

</comment><comment><USER14> Excellent article, and to anyone interested in the topic, I'd suggest going beyond the review and reading Mark Fisher himself. His book, _Capitalist Realism_ , as mentioned by the article, is short but an essential read to understand the politics of mental health: its current privatization at the hands of pharma companies and individualization at the hands of self-help authors and YouTube stars.

<comment><USER15> Privatization, pharma? Between regulation and licensing it was my understanding that in practical terms pharma is at least as much public as it is private.

<comment><USER16> claudiawerner is talking about the privatization of mental illness, not Pharma, as outlined by Mark Warner in the essay "The Privatisation of Stress" from 2011.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've had this same thought for a while now. Mental illness (and I am not using this term judgmentally) is, essentially, when your perception of the world persistently does not agree with the external reality: for example, you're under the impression that you're fat when in reality you're nigh emaciated.

If that's a correct characterization, is depression really a mental illness? If people perceive their lives to be dreadful, whereas in reality their lives are dreadful, where does the misconception come in?

<comment><USER8> Sorry, but that's a pretty terrible definition of mental illness. Mental illness can be any case where your mind has fallen into a pattern of being chronically unhelpful to you; this can mean it doesn't report on reality correctly, or that it sends incorrect (or merely destructive) emotional signals, or whatever else.

That said, this is one of the reasons I like to think of it as "mental health" rather than "mental illness". It's more like weight/nutrition, where a person doesn't simply have a problem or not have a problem; it's a sliding-scale. Everyone's mind benefits from care, the degree of one's challenges just varies based on personal history and genetics.

<comment><USER18> There's actually some evidence that depressed people perceive the world more accurately:

[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8x9j3k/depressed- people-s...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8x9j3k/depressed-people-see- the-world-more-realistically)

Happiness might be more a form of delusion, albeit a productive and even necessary one.

<comment><USER8> It's been my experience that the human psyche fundamentally needs a certain amount of self-delusion (or at least suspension of disbelief) to be able to function. Any hopes or dreams or beliefs are in some sense disconnected from reality, but are also extremely necessary. We must be able to step outside of reality, without losing track of it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Commit directly to master. Dotmesh engineering principles - <AUTHOR> https://dotmesh.com/blog/our-engineering-principles/ <comment><AUTHOR> I was pleasantly surprised how quickly we converged on these principles. I've worked on teams before where some of these items took months of debate!

In particular, only doing code review if the author wants one really demonstrates how this is a team of experienced engineers built on trust. So far this has allowed us to move fast without breaking things!

What are your engineering principles?</comment>


Researchers say a breathalyzer has flaws, casting doubt on countless convictions - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/draeger-breathalyzer-breath-test-convictions/ <comment><USER2> This is a feature, not a bug.

In fact, many jurisdictions have requirements that, above a breathalyzer- reported BAC threshold, different minimum mandatory punishments are levied. Sure, a sober person won't get a result that's above the legal limit most of the time, but someone who's done some drinking and is within appropriate parameters is often labeled as DUI, and could potentially register as above this higher, mandatory-jailtime, mandatory-felony situation.

I've known of cases where the breathalyzer in question has been shown to be broken and decommissioned, yet the people whose numbers were so wildly inflated that they couldn't possibly be accurate have still been convicted using these numbers.

In one case in particular, the judge ruled that the evidence on the unreliability of the machines in general (and _this_ machine in particular) was not admissible for court.

It's about punishment, not deterrence.

</comment><comment><USER3> It doesn't look like this is an error that will cause a totally sober person to fail a breathalyzer test. If you're worried about the accuracy of the machine, you can also submit to a blood test: [https://duilawyerlosangeles.com/dui-lawyer-advice- breathalyz...](https://duilawyerlosangeles.com/dui-lawyer-advice-breathalyzer- vs-blood-test/)

This is one issue where I'm firmly on the side of the police until there's evidence that faulty breathalyzers are putting totally innocent people in jail. If you choose to get into the driver's seat of a car, you should not be anywhere near the legal BAC limit. By the time an officer asks you to submit to a BAC test, they've already observed enough behavior to make them believe that you may be a danger to others.

Plan ahead so that you don't have to worry about leaving your car somewhere. Call an Uber or a Lyft. Get a friend to drive you home. Moderate your drinking. Take some time, go for a long walk. On popular holidays in many places, you can even call AAA for a free ride home, even if you're not a member.

Just please don't drive home on the hope that a defense lawyer can argue on your behalf that breathalyzers aren't reliable.

<comment><USER4> When someone blows a 0.08 when it really is a 0.07, that would be putting an innocent person in jail.

<comment><USER3> In case it wasn't clear from my comment, I'm less willing to argue for the innocence of a person who was at .07, or .075, or .0799, because of the potentially serious consequences of their decisions and the number of convenient alternatives they had available.

That's my personal position on this. It's consistent with my own moral framework. I get that there's a valid counterargument from a position of law- and-order morality.

But I've also had friends who were first responders to a horrifying drunk driver collision. Trying to keep innocent people from bleeding out on the side of the road messes you up for a while. It's not a victimless crime.

You can get from .08 to .06 by walking around for an hour. If you think you might be close enough to borderline, go take a walk.

<comment><USER5> > You can get from .08 to .06 by walking around for an hour. If you think you > might be close enough to borderline, go take a walk.

This isn't what the science says, and you can't "think you might be close enough to borderline" because you don't have an internal BAC meter. All in all this is extremely bad advice.

<comment><USER6> > This isn't what the science says

Umm yeah - science and personal experience say it really is. Do you have a source for your claim?

<comment><USER7> Science says that when you start walking, your body stops absorbing alcohol from your digestive tract?

What if that walk takes you from .6 to .8? Oops.

<comment><USER6> Citation please? That's not supported by any of the studies I've read or personal experience with BAC testing. In fact, pretty much everything points to walking having no affect on alcohol metabolism at all, so what you've done is spent an additional hour metabolising the alcohol, and lowering your BAC.

<comment><USER7> [https://mcwell.nd.edu/your-well-being/physical-well- being/al...](https://mcwell.nd.edu/your-well-being/physical-well- being/alcohol/absorption-rate-factors/)

"A person who has not eaten will hit a peak BAC typically between 1/2 hour to two hours of drinking. A person who has eaten will hit a peak BAC typically between 1 and 6 hours, depending on the amount of alcohol consumed."

Walking does nothing, but giving the alcohol more time to absorb can take you from safe to unsafe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Remind me again why a device paid for with public funds and used to carry out essential public functions of the government should be anything but open source.

<comment><USER9> Because the software/IP isn't owned by the government.

I'd personally rather the US government pick the best solution, not the most open source one.

I would hope the best solution is open source, but the gov't shouldn't be forced to sacrifice quality.

However, I can agree that any Software/IP developed via public funds should definitely be open source.

<comment><USER10> How should the public verify the government has chosen the best solution if the design of the solution isn't readily available? Depending on your perspective and definition of best, faulty designs that give more favorable results could deliberately be chosen to increase revenue / crime stats.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In Switzerland, breathalizers may be used to justify pulling people out during traffic controls, but only a blood test is valid proof of too much blood alcohol before court. Is that different in the US? After all, even ripe fruit can result in a breath test indicating too much alcohol.

<comment><USER12> There are now breathalyzers that are near enough as accurate as blood tests that are admissible in court these days.

But they are huge machines kept at the police station after you've been hauled in after failing the normal road side breathalyzer test.

<comment><USER13> >There are now breathalyzers that are near enough as accurate as blood tests

But in the general case this is quite simply not possible. It might be very accurate in the controlled case of a subject who hasn't consumed anything in the past hour but these breathalyzers are not being used in a nice controlled environment. The concentration of alcohol in a breath can vary wildly compared to the concentration in the blood. If someone used e.g. mouthwash a few minutes before being tested it will indicate a high BAC even if it's actually zero.

Unless the police are going to start forcing people to brush their teeth, clean their tongue, and use some form of non alcoholic mouthwash before testing you can't come close to the sort of accuracy that an actual blood test would give. In real world conditions there are too many situations where the concentration of alcohol in your breath is substantially different than the concentration of alcohol in your blood.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The police department says they "approved the instrument that best fit our business needs." It's a bit disturbing that they think of themselves as a business, especially since arguably their business need is to get as many convictions as possible.

</comment><comment><USER15> I got a DWI in 2009, pre Uber/Lyft. I don't excuse my actions and I got what I deserved.

That being said, I would never consent to a breathalyzer or field sobriety test today sober or not. I see no issue with flexing our rights and really get tired of the "just comply" narrative.

<comment><USER16> As opposed to pre taxis?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It should be know that in many jurisdictions (at least within the US) the officer's belief that you're impaired is usually enough for arrest - regardless of the outcome of any field sobriety tests or machine results.

On one hand I understand this approach due to the dizzying array of factors that cause impaired driving - from alcohol to prescription drugs to designer drugs that may not have definitive tests available. Seeing as sleep deprived drivers often perform as poorly as impaired drivers on various tests that should be included as well.

On the other, this is still a situation where an officer's opinion with no supporting evidence (or conflicting evidence) can lead to arrest.

Sure, you may "win" in front of a judge eventually but this is after you get handcuffed, spend the night in jail, have an arrest on your record, etc. Not to mention having your mugshot posted online by various unscrupulous sites running an extortion racket (demanding payment to remove). You'll soon discover that to many people simply being arrested = guilty.

In my case my "win" came 14 months later when the judge watched the dashcam footage, saw that my driving, speech, behavior, etc clearly wasn't impaired and threw the case out. Total time in court was less than 20 minutes.

Interestingly we watched the dash cam footage after the officer testified. At one point my attorney asked why the officer thought I was impaired. He responded with "I'm Irish Catholic and I know what drunk people look like". The entire courtroom (myself included) laughed.

<comment><USER18> > He responded with "I'm Irish Catholic and I know what drunk people look > like".

Perhaps the officer was impaired.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I drink and drive all the time, which is to say, I will drive to a restaurant, enjoy dinner and drinks, wait, and then drive home.

In order to be sure that I've waited long enough to be safe, I bought a BACtrack S35 breathalyzer to keep in my car. In many, many years of testing myself, I have never seen a reading above 0.03, at which point I feel pretty impaired. If I'm over 0.02, I don't drive. I don't think I could stay conscious long enough to get myself up to the 0.08 legal limit.

All of which makes me wonder: can I trust this gadget to be properly calibrated? And how would I find out? The only way I can think of is to approach a police officer while drunk and ask them to breahalyze me so I can compare readings. Somehow, the opportunity to do that has never arisen.

It seems to me like a no-brainer that any establishment that serves alcohol ought to be required by law to have a properly calibrated breathalyzer on the premises for its customers to use. But of course this won't happen because the truth is we don't really want to know. We have drunk-driving theatre just like we have security theatre, and both seem to be a stable equilibrium.

Alas.

<comment><USER20> BACTrac actually recommends you send it to them on a regular basis for calibration

<comment><USER19> Sure. But the results I get today are consistent with the ones I got when the unit was brand new. In fact, it's so consistent I can predict with very high accuracy what my reading will be just based on how much I've had to drink and how I feel. So if the unit is inaccurate now, it was inaccurate when it was new.

Also, we have two units, one in my car, one in my wife's car. I've tested myself back-to-back with both units (at home) several times and the readings are always consistent.

<comment><USER20> Yeah fair (and that's awesome, I think mine went out of calibration after like a year)... but like I said in another comment. If devices are inconsistent it doesn't really matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I use a cheap breath tester to see if I'm in ketosis when losing weight (burning fat creates ketones, which trigger breath tests).

Jus' sayin'.

<comment><USER22> You should be skeptical of the output of a ketone measurement device. You need to measure blood concentration of beta-hydroxybutyrate to accurately determine your ketosis situation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The biggest flaw is that it doesn't actually measure drunkenness or impairment.

<comment><USER24> You'd still need to be stopped, which would still take an officer observing erratic behaviour, and he'd still make you walk in a straight line and ask you questions to check if you are slurring your speech. And then you'd still need to be tested to see if you are over the legal limit.

So maybe you mean that the law shouldn't be based on BAC?

<comment><USER23> With stronger reckless driving laws then we can get rid of DUI and cell phone laws. If you're driving recklessly and putting other people in danger, it shouldn't matter how you got there. Drinking, prescription drugs, lack of sleep, cell phone usage, eating, reading, and watching the coast as you drive by are all examples of things that can have equally bad results. Yet we focus almost completely on convicting people based on some arbitrary measurement and sobriety tests designed to make you fail. We should instead convict people based on endangering others.

<comment><USER25> Agree but reckless driving is subjective and harder to define which is why we have specific laws that are so concrete.

edit: subjective, not objective :\

<comment><USER23> I think you mean subjective, not objective? I do think reckless driving laws need to be modified, also. Here's an example, from Mississippi [1]:

> Any person who drives any vehicle in such a manner as to indicate either a > wilful or a wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty > of reckless driving. Reckless driving shall be considered a greater offense > than careless driving.

> Every person convicted of reckless driving shall be punished upon a first > conviction by a fine of not less than Five Dollars ($ 5.00) nor more than > One Hundred Dollars ($ 100.00), and on a second or subsequent conviction he > may be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten (10) days or by a fine > of not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($ 500.00), or by both.

The way it's defined does seem a bit subjective. I'm sure this can be addressed, but at least in this example, it's not immediately clear to me how it can be improved. I would probably get some ideas by looking at other states. The penalties, however, could absolutely be increased. In comparison, the punishment for a first offense DUI [2]:

> (a) First offense DUI.

> (i) Upon conviction of any person for the first offense of violating > subsection (1) of this section where chemical tests under Section 63-11-5 > were given, or where chemical test results are not available, the person > shall be fined not less than Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($ 250.00) nor more > than One Thousand Dollars ($ 1,000.00), or imprisoned for not more than > forty-eight (48) hours in jail, or both; the court shall order the person to > attend and complete an alcohol safety education program as provided in > Section 63-11-32 within six (6) months of sentencing. The court may > substitute attendance at a victim impact panel instead of forty-eight (48) > hours in jail.

> (ii) Suspension of commercial driving privileges is governed by Section > 63-1-216.

> (iii) A qualifying first offense may be nonadjudicated by the court under > subsection (14) of this section. The holder of a commercial driver's license > or a commercial learning permit at the time of the offense is ineligible for > nonadjudication.

> (iv) Eligibility for an interlock-restricted license is governed by Section > 63-11-31 and suspension of regular driving privileges is governed by Section > 63-11-23.

The penalties are much more, though the end result of the illegal act itself are the same. The only difference is that you drank a couple beers instead of taking your prescription medications. I picked Mississippi simply because I live here currently, but it's similar with all the states I've looked at.

[1] [https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2013/title-63/chapt...](https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2013/title-63/chapter-3/article-25/section-63-3-1201) [2] [https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2017/title-63/chapt...](https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2017/title-63/chapter-11/section-63-11-30/)

<comment><USER25> Yes, I meant subjective. :\ I don't believe it's possible to define reckless driving objectively. Does crossing across a double-yellow line constitute reckless driving? What if you're doing it to avoid a deer? Or a pothole? Or at very low speed? What if you do it at the speed limit and there's no obstruction and there is heavy traffic, but a child in your car is choking and you're look back at them to make sure they're okay?

There are too many things that could be considered reckless and even more things that could be extenuating. The penalty for reckless driving could certainly be higher, though, since it's defined as willful or wanton disregard.

The DUI law you cited already covers prescription drugs, by the way. _" Is under the influence of any other substance that has impaired the person's ability to operate a motor vehicle;"_

<comment><USER23> Your point about the subjectiveness is well noted, I hadn't much considered it before.

You are correct in that the DUI law covers prescription drugs. I hadn't noticed that until you pointed it out. It's rare though, from what I see, for a DUI case to be about anything other than BAC. I have no actual statistics on that.

I guess in my earlier comment the prescription drug part can be replaced by using a cell phone.

<comment><USER25> > _It 's rare though, from what I see, for a DUI case to be about anything > other than BAC. I have no actual statistics on that._

That's because BAC is easy to measure. If you want to prosecute for BAC, you just need trusted test results. If you want to prosecute for impaired driving in general, you need to prove actual impairment, which is tough. This is why MADD campaigned for the .08 limit nationwide. It's easy to enforce.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> There is at least one model where, if the officer covers the outlet tube, the reading doubles extremely reliably. I saw this tested in a short documentary some years back.

If you're going to get breathalyzed, will you notice if the officer is doing something shady? Could you even know, without knowledge of the various machines?

I'm also quite miffed that a cop can give you a DUI even if your reported (by the machine) BAC is under the legal limit, 0.00 included.

</comment><comment><USER27> Years ago, on "L.A. Law", a story arc had one of the lawyers stopped for weaving. His partner advised him, "breath or unine -- _not blood!_ ". This was in CA, which gives the driver his/her choice of the three methods.

Are there cases where blood disfavors the suspect?

</comment><comment><USER28> This is news to exactly nobody who ever read the manufacturer specs of the sensors used in devices that detect alcohol for law enforcement.

They're running industrial process control sensors at the limits of their range and in widely changing environment. It should come as no surprise that they're hard to calibrate accurately and likewise deliver variable results in a lot of cases

In a factory environment equipment doesn't get calibrated in a 70deg car and used in 20deg winter air to measure 90deg human breath. In law enforcement that's exactly what happens.

Ankle bracelets are even worse.

The fact of the matter is that most hardware/software solutions sold to law enforcement are only a small step above the scam bomb-detectors that got sold to the Iraq government (Google it if you're unfamiliar with the story).

If NASA were writing the calibration code, the results weren't being interpreted by laymen and their interpretation wasn't being used to destroy lives I'd feel differently.

</comment><comment><USER29> This is not really news. For example in Texas, DWI lawyers run a lucrative racket combating breathalyzer test results using the known flaws in the machine and its application. Blood tests are considered more definitive and harder to defend against.

<comment><USER30> Why is it a racket?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Why would it even be possible to disable sensors critical to getting a credible estimate of blood alcohol? It all sounds like a convenient way to boost revenue with false positives while hiding behind the techno-wizardry.</comment>


10 Reasons Why Groupon is Bad for Merchants - <AUTHOR> http://blog.womply.com/?p=112

<comment><AUTHOR> Sharing with you 10 Reasons why Groupon is Terrible for Merchants in an infographic.</comment>


Chromeos-apk – Run Android APKs on Chrome OS, OS X, Linux and Windows - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/vladikoff/chromeos-apk/blob/master/README.md <comment><USER2> This is amazing. There's a long reddit thread and some additional instructions here: [http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/2gv035/you_can_now_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/2gv035/you_can_now_run_android_apps_on_chrome_for/)

From the README:

> Soundcloud - Works, crashes when playing sound

Funny definition of 'works'.

<comment><USER3> I experience the same thing with devs and 'done' all the time.

"It's _done_ ; it just has some bugs that need fixing."

To be fair, I've said this sentence myself in earnest several times.

<comment><USER4> OTOH, software that has no bugs in need of fixing is usually not a realistic goal.

You can say it will probably never be done, or you update your definition of "done" to "it has no bugs stopping a release". Personally I prefer the latter.

<comment><USER5> From my experience the problem isn't the existence of bugs (like the existence of gravity), but the widespread occurrence of the cowboy programmer with very limited attention span.

Often there are tons of TODO comments left in the code (including TODO comment this class), unit tests are non-existent, a simple smoke test will cause a null pointer exception or not even deploy, or they committed schema migration SQL scripts but did not change the entities/data objects corresponding to those tables so the - now mandatory - new columns cannot even be FILLED by the app.

Stuff like that, that isn't DONE, it's deserving a punch in the face. OTOH, it may be symptomatic of our don't-blame culture that the consulting firm in question isn't fired on the spot or the much needed punch in the face isn't delivered. Those are days I wish we had US-American at-will employment and hire/fire culture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So, now we can write apps in Angular that run on the web and compile to Java so that we can install them to Android, running on ChromeOS, running on OSX.

Brilliant.

Edit: Perhaps the punny nature of this is deserving of downvotes, but the statement above is the actual use case I presented to a co-developer, discussing how this project could be of use to our app, which was built with Ionic.

FWIW, there's value in it (the app, not necessarily this post) even if it means having to unplug fewer devices to swap them out with different devices to test.

<comment><USER7> [https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and- death...](https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death-of- javascript)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Can anyone explain how this differs from using an Android emulator? ([http://developer.android.com/tools/help/emulator.html](http://developer.android.com/tools/help/emulator.html))

Is it a matter of features, speed, or convenience? Obviously, all of those can be overcome, be it as a fork of the official emulator or as a third-party emulator. For instance, this new Chrome extension must be the same thing under the hood: a Dalvik runtime, _possibly_ an ARM->Intel recompiler for any NDK applications, etc.

I figured the only reason this wasn't done to mass effect already was because it wasn't in demand. But if it's so desirable, surely creating an actual emulator would be superior to hacking up web browser extensions and ostensibly playing cat-and-mouse with Google over this?

<comment><USER2> It's been a few years since I dared run the official emulator, and I used to have an underpowered computer for development, but last time it took about 10 minutes to boot Android and another 2-3 minutes to open an app.

I presume it's been improved since then and runs nicer on better hardware, but my first impulse is that speed is a huge concern in Android emulation. Convenience only matters if speed is solved, but then it becomes huge.

<comment><USER9> Hey Android developer here. I used to have the same issue - even on a fantastic machine the emulator would run very slowly, or not at all. This is now __completely different __

You no longer have to emulate ARM. You can run the native x86 image, using GPU acceleration, and the thing screams. I can get multiple high resolution emulators running in parallel without issue. I 'm __still __used to debugging every single compile on an actual device having been through years of slow emulation, but let me tell you that the environment is quite different now. Genymotion is even better, but not by much with regards to performance.

<comment><USER10> The last time I worked on Android (which was about 6-12 months ago) I tried to get the x86 image working on my laptop, but it apparently requires an intel processor[1]. Do you happen to be aware of any speedups for AMD processors?

[1]: [https://developer.android.com/tools/devices/emulator.html#vm...](https://developer.android.com/tools/devices/emulator.html#vm- windows)

<comment><USER11> It looks like they are using KVM to accelerate in the linux sdk, maybe that will work on amd?

<comment><USER12> Yes, KVM acceleration works fine with AMD processors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Neat proof of concept.

I hope Google gets us something official sooner rather than later. It's a little disheartening that I own a Chromebook Pixel and yet I can't use Google's own hardware to design or test Android apps without installing Eclipse on a sideloaded Linux chroot via Crouton.

<comment><USER14> How is that disheartening? The whole point of the Chromebook is to only use the web.

<comment><USER13> The fact that Google is starting to roll out the ability for Android apps to run as Chrome apps suggests that they are aware of the limitations of being "web only". It also stands to reason that if they're going to soon allow Android apps to run under ChromeOS, you should be able to develop them too, no?

To boot, the Pixel's relatively decent hardware, high-res display, and touchscreen just seem like it would be ideal for testing Android apps if it could be done natively.

I doubt it will ever be as simple as I would like. But I can dream.

<comment><USER15> There are no limitations of what you can do via a web browser. My company personally developed and delivered projects otherwise thought not possible in browser environments. With the help of extensions and solid JS and HTML, everything is possible. Of course super low level stuff are out of the picture but this is not normal users will be concerned about.

<comment><USER16> > _" There are no limitations of what you can do via a web browser" [...] "Of > course super low level stuff are out of the picture"_

...so what you're saying is there _are_ limitations around what you can do with a browser.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I will absolutely go nuts if this thing manages to run OneNote on my Debian desktop.

<comment><USER18> Please don't downvote this.

What is on debian today that you can't get on or don't like about OSX? I ask this as a former Linux die hard. What am I missing back in the Linux world these days?

Also, One Note is killer isn't it? It is so much nicer than Evernote. I've loved One Note ever since the first time it shipped with Office. It's so great to see Microsoft porting their better apps to other platforms.

<comment><USER18> and I got downvoted... sheesh HN.

<comment><USER19> Saying "please don't downvote this" does not immunise you from getting downvoted.

<comment><USER18> It was more like, "hey wait I'm not attacking Linux, just read the full comment". Didn't work.

<comment><USER20> I read the whole comment. It is still an off topic plug.

<comment><USER21> And a ridiculous one

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is amazing.

I hope Google could really carry this project as far as possible. The next several major issues would be polishing up the platform, eliminating the bugs, unifying the android and chromebook development interface. Think of one day when android developers could actually design apps for the desktop. How cool would that be?

That's when Microsoft should really get worried.

</comment><comment><USER23> We worked with the ARC team at Vine as a launch partner, there were 0 modifications that we had to do to get it working on ARC. The only difference was that the "bugs" we had to fix were all reproducible on Nexus devices as well BUT the threading model had to be more strict on ARC in terms accessing system resources.

</comment><comment><USER24> Running Android apps in Chrome on desktop is huge! I'm glad that the ARC runtime I provided in [https://github.com/vladikoff/chromeos- apk/issues/5](https://github.com/vladikoff/chromeos-apk/issues/5) helped to achieve this.

<comment><USER7> #humblebrag

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Hope this means good netflix support in Linux.

<comment><USER26> Netflix should work on Linux natively (at least in Ubuntu) very soon [http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2014/09/netflix-linux- html5-nss-c...](http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2014/09/netflix-linux-html5-nss- change-request)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Interesting, Google announced working on this on this year's I/O and posted the first apps just one week ago ( [http://chrome.blogspot.com/2014/09/first- set-of-android-apps...](http://chrome.blogspot.com/2014/09/first-set-of- android-apps-coming-to.html) ).

</comment><comment><USER28> Java makes a triumphant comeback in the browser?

</comment><comment><USER29> I have had some success running Android x86 ([http://www.android-x86.org/](http://www.android-x86.org/)) in VirtualBox.

</comment><comment><USER30> Fuuuuu Out There a good game only available on mobile crash with this solution ...

Dam but it looks full of promise i hope one day it will work well ...

</comment><comment><USER31> How is this really good? Android apps are really good but they are designed for touch interface on mobile devices, not desktop.

<comment><USER32> A lot of new laptops of today have touch screens displays, this trend will only grow in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> could you use this to run ChromiumTestShell.apk on windows for testing android chrome rendering?

[1] [http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/chromium-browser- con...](http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/chromium-browser- continuous/index.html?prefix=Android/)

</comment><comment><USER34> Awesome! Works for me on arch linux running latest chromium. Much faster than running android emulator!

</comment><comment><USER35> Google needs to do this.

</comment><comment><USER36> Its about bloody time!

</comment><comment><USER37> Want Open Office!</comment>


The Surprising Power of Virtue Labeling - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/61/coordinates/why-you-should-tell-everyone-theyre-honest <comment><USER2> I appreciate the ideas of this article (and book). It's a hard to digest one and possibly controversial as well. But at least with raising children, it does seem to work. Especially in the negative way.

There's a pattern parents are supposed to follow now. When a child does something undesirable, you criticise the individual action. When they do something desirable, you praise the overall quality.

Eg - Child attempts to pull glass off table. Instead of calling them naughty or careless, we explain to them that doing things that could break glass is dangerous to them and the people around.

When a child picks up their toys and puts them back where they belong, we say "thank you for being so helpful", or "thank you for being so neat".

At least anecdotally, calling children mischievous tends to have this kind of reinforcement on them where they then start to adopt the label of being mischievous.

Admittedly, I don't know if it's just confirmation bias. It could be me thinking of their behaviour differently by avoiding any labels in my head too.

<comment><USER3> If that was the case we would live in a very different world. Discipline is necessary for children, they cant reason, why something is supposed to be in a certain way, so speaking to them like they do at an age of 5, is the real danger here.

As they grow older and understand more complex concepts you can start to educate them on the nuances and reasons but in my experience, they will automatically start asking you at the right age and you should be able to just use that as your trajectory IMO.

<comment><USER4> I'm not really sure what you mean by "discipline".

Anecdotally, as the parent of a not-quite-2-year-old, I have found that when I treat 2- to 4-year-old kids at the playground with basic human respect, and pay attention to their interests and feelings, they end up following me all around subsequently (and e.g. running over to me when they see me the next week, wanting to show me their toys and tricks, ...), as if they were craving non-controlling non-judgmental human interaction they otherwise were not receiving from other people they interact with on a regular basis.

Watching other parents and caretakers, there are a substantial proportion who constantly deny kids' feelings, tell them what they are supposed to feel and think, baby them by doing things for them that they could do for themselves, prevent them from doing not-very-risky things ostensibly for safety reasons, pointlessly force them to do irrelevant things they don't want to do, etc.

YMMV.

<comment><USER3> Thank you for asking. I don't mean "discipline" in a physical way of course. I simply mean that I am not going to explain to them why they are not allowed to do certain things or why I want them to do certain things when they are too young because they don't' understand why. I was responding to the idea that you need to explain to kids why or we would get mischievous kids.

With regards to the feelings. It's not as simple as you seem to portray. Kids will use that to get things their way there are plenty examples of parents who accept all their kid's emotions at face value and end up running around being controlled by their kids.

So a balance is needed.

And yes I agree that they should do as many things themselves which also for our kids means getting a lot of bruises for falling down from things (within reason obviously)

It's all about balance. Don't deny your kid their emotions when they are real but "call them on their bluff" when they are not. That's my approach at least.

<comment><USER4> > _I simply mean that I am not going to explain to them why they are not > allowed to do certain things or why I want them to do certain things when > they are too young because they don 't understand why._

You might be surprised. Even when kids don't fully understand the explanation, they can understand tone of voice, and might still appreciate that the adult has reasons for acting and is trying to explain instead of making decisions capriciously. The act of explaining also forces the adult to think about the reasons for their decisions, which gives a chance for reconsideration when the decision was in fact arbitrary. Finally, explaining things gets both parties in the habit of talking about their feelings and decisions instead of expecting everyone around to guess them and then getting mad when they are not understood.

(For a simple example, if we just read the same book 3 times in a row, and I want to read something else, I can either (a) explain that I am bored with the book and need some variety to keep my sanity, and let the kid pick the next book, or (b) realize that I don't actually care which book we are reading, and just dive in for time #4; either of those is better than just "we aren't reading that book again, we are reading this one" which is just a unilateral decision.)

> _With regards to the feelings. It 's not as simple as you seem to portray. > Kids will use that to get things their way there are plenty examples of > parents who accept all their kid's emotions at face value and end up running > around being controlled by their kids._

For instance, when someone falls down and is fussing, either "oh get up, you are fine, that didn't hurt" or "oh my gosh! you must be really hurt! let me smother you in kisses and make it better!" are telling the kid what to feel/think, and if the response doesn't actually match the severity of the fall, then this is quite confusing for the kid. A better response is "are you alright?"; then the kid can decide if they are actually just surprised, or if they are in pain and want comforting, or if they are seriously injured and need more significant help.

Again, anecdotally, I have observed that the parents who get run over by their kids tend to be the same ones who are consistently ignoring or denying the kids' feelings (or sometimes largely ignoring the kids' existence unless they are misbehaving). Demanding things and throwing tantrums is one of the few ways the kids find to get the attention they crave.

Accepting someone's feelings doesn't mean giving them whatever they want. It just means listening to what they are actually saying, and then responding to that in an empathetic way (a good start is to just echo back what they are saying or what you think they might be feeling).

To any parents out there: I recommend the book _How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk_.

<comment><USER3> Besides the first part which I just don't agree with I agree with the other things and as I said it's not either or but finding a balance.

The kids are looking to you to find out what maximises your attention so that's what you have to manage before anything else. Of course you are not just saying "oh get up, your are fine" to someone who is actually crying because they hurt themselves but there is plenty of room from that and then to someone who cries for every little thing.

So again balance. Read the situation and react to that.

<comment><USER4> In my opinion it is never appropriate to tell someone who just fell down and is making a crying sound "oh get up, you are fine, stop crying" etc. No response at all would be better. But you do you.

<comment><USER3> Where have I said it was appropriate? Strawman much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Beyond these preliminary observations, though, there does not seem to be a > well-developed and widely accepted model in the psychology literature to > explain how character labeling makes such a difference.

Sure there is. The results can by explained by how the brain resolves/reduces cognitive dissonance: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Reduction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Reduction)

A central feature of many contemporary cognitive models is the notion of a 'schema,' which can be thought of as a record of beliefs/assertions on some subject. Cognitive dissonance arises when observations create a contradiction within a schema; reduction of cognitive dissonance involves modifying the schema in a way that (as best as possible) accounts for all observations. (Sometimes there isn't a good way of doing it and some pretty strange behavior may result.)

Another way of looking at it is that your schemas constrain your behavior so that the actions you take, insofar as it's possible, are consistent with both your goals and your relevant schemata.

So if you can actually modify someone's schema for the subject of their self, you can influence their behavior so that it becomes consistent with that modification.

Hence, theoretically, you tell someone they're "so compassionate" etc. and they start playing the part. Now, in practice, I doubt this will do much. Your statements are a bit of data supporting some assertion that can become part of their 'self schema,' but there's a whole lot of other data coming from other places that will conflict with the b.s. you're telling the person.

<comment><USER6> I believe there are also studies about the psychology of not wanting to let people down and about loss-aversion which also have an application here.

<comment><USER5> That's s good point. Could definitely be an amplifying factor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm not necessarily a fan of telling people "you're an X person" (other than whimsically like as in "you're a gentleman and a scholar"). But I am a fan of biasing feedback in favor of praising good actions rather than condemning the faults.

I had a two music teachers back in the day. One would call me on every flaw in a fairly negative way. I got to the point of dreading my weekly lesson. I got to college and the prof there gave targeted attaboys for things I was doing well, or (this is key) showed signs of improvement at. I worked much harder for the attaboys than I did to avoid disparagement.

That's not to say flaws can't be corrected ever... it's just that positive encouragement is typically more effective than negative signaling in my experience.

<comment><USER8> There are people that respond better to (constructive) criticism than praise. To me praise has zero meaning and I can't really do anything with it. A good criticism however gives me information on how to improve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Follow this author's advice and a generation from now you may find yourself in a world where none of these virtuous labels have any meaning at all. That's the real hell right there, imagine a world not where everyone is dishonest, but where it's impossible to even distinguish honesty from dishonesty, your mind has been compromised, you can't even articulate the difference between the two. This is what we've seen happen with the self-esteem movement over the past 3 decades, no one even really knows what that phrase means, it's just this weird mantra people like to recite.

<comment><USER10> I had the same reaction after reading the article. I have a feeling we're in for more and more of this sort of "meta" research, which leads to more and more meaninglessness.

It feels like something out of a Kafka or Orwell or PK Dick novel.

Next up: compassion training!

<comment><USER11> I _do_ teach compassion. Mainly to people who need it in their relationship with themselves and their children.

It has a lot to do with un-teaching (self-)oppression and habitual cruelty.

It's a wonderful superpower I have, limited by the fact that I can only teach it to someone whose request is sincere.

<comment><USER10> My comment was a joke based on mass requirement through social pressure of people to self-oppress as presented in novels such as "1984."

Phillip K. Dick also described a machine in "Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep," which injected the right chemicals to emulate emotional predispositions, such as compassion.

That said, I'm certain your one-on-one training is very helpful to those with an open heart and mind. My brother had to go to AA after drinking and beating his son. The whole time he complained, and I couldn't help thinking to myself, who beats their child and cannot muster up enough compassion to admit they were wrong. He was later diagnosed as manic, and I've noticed he also demonstrates a predilection for self-cruelty (per your comment).

He works at Oracle (for example). No disrespect meant to people who work at Oracle, but I've heard it's not a very easy-going place to work.

<comment><USER11> Thank you for the clarification, I did miss the reference.

Your brother's story brings me sadness. I see a lot of suffering, both for him and for the ones around him. I hope he is able to find a way toward healing. Introspection can be an important step of this process.

Labeling is a violent process as it replaces the person in our relationship with the label we project onto them, thus confining them to that projection, taking away from their humanity. It is easy to recognize it when applied with the explicit purpose of dehumanization (Jews as "vermin", immigrants/refuges as "illegals").

Mental health diagnoses do a bit or a lot of this, too, unless one is able to intentionally look at the diagnosed as a human being, especially in difficult situations.

The mention of Oracle makes me think that Pieter Hintjens' book, Psychopath Code, may be of interest for you — it looks into the mental health of organizations. [https://legacy.gitbook.com/@hintjens](https://legacy.gitbook.com/@hintjens)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you don't prejudge everyone as lacking virtue, you have no reason to insincerely tell them they are virtuous to try to make them more virtuous.

If you want to do some good in the world, sincerely appreciate the good in people and help them feel seen in it.

</comment><comment><USER13> > The idea is to attach a label to people you know. Labels make a big > difference. For with that label attached to them, there is a good chance > that they will try to live up to it. And perhaps the more they care about > living up to the label, such as honest person, the more they will actually > become that honest person.

I could see this working in some contexts, but in others I'd be worried about trying to influence someone's identity or self-awareness.

I'd imagine the pressure of trying to live up to a label you didn't choose for yourself could be overwhelming for some people.

<comment><USER14> I know people who do this, and I have to resist the urge to bait them. Frankly, I find behaviors like this manipulative, and have enough of a cantankerous streak to manipulate back, if I notice it and become irritated enough.

Another side of this is that I've seen people do this when frustrated, and after a while it can start feeling nasty and passive-aggressive and difficult to respond to. Or be around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Hidden beneath the ridiculous claims and the n=3 studies, there's an observation of something most of us know: if you treat people like they're going to steal something, they'll pick up on the idea that a lot of other people must have thought stealing was a good idea, and steal a little themselves. What I really want to know is, do infantilizing school and college programs reduce or increase responsible behavior?

</comment><comment><USER16> The famous Jim Rohn quote: "you are the average of the 5 people you spend the most time with" was once clarified to me by a psychologist as "you become what the 5 people closest to you think you are".

</comment><comment><USER17> I had a related thought a while back: that maybe our extreme political cynicism is actually fueling a culture of corruption. If you're guilty until proven innocent why bother?

<comment><USER18> That's the entire plan and point of the propaganda we've been under.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-undermine-west- democra...](http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-undermine-west- democracies-2016-10)

It's working a treat.

Never before have intelligence agencies had such direct access to populations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Nit: I would be _astonished_ to hear that any recent clinical trial involving placebos had taken place without all participants knowing that they might be given one. FDA guidelines on informed consent[0]: "Procedures related solely to research (for example, protocol-driven versus individualized dosing, randomized assignment to treatment, blinding of subject and investigator, and receipt of placebo if the study is placebo-controlled) must be explained. ... The description should also provide relevant information about any control used in the study. For example, whether the control is a medically recognized standard of care or is a placebo (including an explanation of what a placebo is)." Searching the web for "placebo IRB" turns up more detailed institutional guidelines; UCI's is one of the most in-depth[1].

I believe this is relevant because the author's comparison of placebos and virtue labelling hinges on whether or not the practices are deceptive. But the norms around informed consent mean that using placebos in clinical trials does not, IMO, involve deception. I'm not sure if there's a comparable mitigation to make virtue labelling not deceptive (can you imagine handing someone a consent form saying "I will sometimes lie to you about whether or not I think you are a good person, for your own good"?)

[0] [https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm40497...](https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm404975.htm#description)

[1] [https://www.research.uci.edu/compliance/human-research- prote...](https://www.research.uci.edu/compliance/human-research- protections/researchers/placebo.html#Protocol)

</comment><comment><USER20> Tempted to quote Rumi:

"Either seem as you are or be as you seem."

In Turkish:

"Ya olduğun gibi görün ya da göründüğün gibi ol."

</comment><comment><USER21> I can't agree with the execution as described. It's manipulative and dishonest. Instead of squandering virtuous labels at every opportunity, do something much simpler and more genuine. Simply notice when people do something good, or right. With time, they'll internalize that feedback, and I believe the positive effects will last longer because the recipients make the connection to an actual action they have taken and can sense the authenticity of the statement in a way that coheres to their actual worldview. Much different from telling people, "you're honest", when they've done nothing to indicate it.

<comment><USER6> You're very good at reading the whole article before commenting. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's the idea of the self-fulfilling prophecy!

I feel like Horoscopes and Zodiac signs do this, in a sense. To prescribe traits to an individual based on some quality out of their control, like their birth date, and have those traits told to them repeatedly throughout their lifetime (if they're surrounded by the kind of people who would do so), that individual would grow Into those traits

<comment><USER23> I've always wondered how much your birthday does matter. There are fundamental reasons, like seasonal changes that may directly or indirectly impact development. And there are also arbitrary cutoffs for things like school.

<comment> benji-york [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101251.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101251.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > In the process the doctor does her best to come across as medically > authoritative and confident, so that the participants believe they are > getting an effective drug treatment. Otherwise the placebo won't work.

I was always under the impression that placebos worked even when patients new that they were getting placebos, is this not true?

<comment><USER25> Presumably the placebo effect is stronger when patients do not realise they are getting placebos.

<comment><USER26> Nope. There is no magic in the word "placebo". Nor in the fake pills. The effect is solely due to "set and setting" establishing belief. The "placebo effect" is on a spectrum with hypnosis. It has nothing to do with the actual pill or injection whatsoever, those are just _props_ , like in theater.

(Sorry to badger the point, it just seems so under-appreciated and misunderstood.)

<comment><USER25> Do you have studies to back up the claim that placebo is binary and not a spectrum?

<comment><USER26> I don't understand your question. What do you mean by "binary"?

In any case, I'm saying that the so-called "Placebo Effect" is activated by the patient's belief that they will heal, which is created by the "story" told and acted out by the people around them. The word "placebo" has no inherent effect, nor does the pill, it's all a kind of _hypnotic suggestion_ that activates a somewhat mysterious ability of people to heal themselves.

The GP said, "Presumably the placebo effect is stronger when patients do not realise they are getting placebos."

This reflects a common misconception, usually born out of the "fact" that "fake pills can't cure you".

But it turns out that this "fact" in, in fact, not true. _Fake pills can cure some people some of the time._ This fact is as established as a fact can be, over and over again, in thousands of studies and cases.

Imagine someone with an illness and who has never heard the word "placebo" or anything about it. Maybe you two are stuck on a deserted island. The point is, you can pick up a bit of bark or shell or a pebble or something, wave your hand over it and mumble some magic words, and tell them _with total conviction_ that it has a good chance of curing them... _because it 's true._

So my first point is that it doesn't directly matter whether people know they're getting a fake pill or not, it depends on what they've been led to believe about the efficacy of fake pills. Anything that lends credibility (ability to believe) to the possibility of healing for the patient can be expected to "amplify" the "effect".

My second point, which I think you're asking about, is that the whole healing is done by the "story" engendering belief which then somehow activates the patient's own ability to heal, and that this is a kind of hypnosis, or at least related to hypnosis. Because, again, there's no magic in the word "placebo" either to strengthen or weaken the "placebo effect" and "fake pills can't cure you". Right? So it has to be "all in your head".

I mean what would you call it if I told you a story and gave you a piece of candy and your illness cured itself? Is that not hypnosis?

There's a joke people tell to disparage "alternative medicine": If it works, it's just called "medicine".

My third point is that this should happen for the "Placebo Effect"! The power of _theater_ \-- of storytelling and the mind --to engage healing should form a third pillar of medicine along with Biochemistry and Surgery.

<comment><USER25> > The power of theater-- of storytelling and the mind --to engage healing > should form a third pillar of medicine along with Biochemistry and Surgery.

Let's say hypothetically that two patients received this 'theater treatment' \- but one had an amazing actor and the other had a mediocre actor. The amazing actor convinced Patient A of the efficacy of the treatment better than Patient B.

If you believe that 'theater treatment' or the placebo effect is binary then it doesn't matter how good the actors are, and therefore they will get better at the same rate. If you believe 'theater treatment' isn't binary, then the more the person believes in the treatment, the faster their condition will improve. That's what I mean by binary vs a spectrum.

There's evidence that placebo treatments aren't binary - e.g. placebo injections work better than pills - [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0067485).

Therefore, with reference to my original statement 'Presumably the placebo effect is stronger when patients do not realise they are getting placebos'. In both cases, the placebo effect will work, however it will work better if the theater is more convincing - and it's more convincing when they aren't told it's sugar pills.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Damn, "virtue labeling". I guess that this is a riff on "virtue signaling". But seriously, there's no dishonesty involved if you simply acknowledge people for being honest etc. It is true, on the other hand, that only people who are thinking about lying will say that you can trust them.

<comment><USER28> It's not a riff on it, they just have the same word in them.

<comment><USER27> It's more than just the same word. It's the same word, used in the same ironic and mocking way.

<comment><USER28> What? No. Both of these come out of the academic literature.

People on some parts of the internet _use_ the term "virtue signaling" in a mocking way. I haven't seen "virtue labeling" used that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Crazy shit happens when you expose the rules of the social game we're all playing.

</comment><comment><USER30> I have heard the Nobel Peace Prize awards explained this way - more an attempt to sway than to congratulate.

</comment><comment><USER31> Every time I open a nautil.us page it opens a bunch of processes that max out several cores on my CPU and eventually my cooling fans boost up to maximum. Hmmmm.

I should email them and tell them that they are a respectable and responsible company that ensures they nor their employees nor their advertisers would ever run unnecessary code on their visitor's machines.

</comment><comment><USER26> What a weird, almost sociopathic article. If you are nice to people and encourage niceness they tend to act nicer. Reifying this blindingly simple thought into "virtue labeling" isn't scientific, it's scientism. The author is advocating insincerity and _deception_ as a way to promote good character. This sort of neurotic thinking always has such obviously absurd contradictions.

Insincerity is in contradiction to good character, and attempting to foster good character in others by deliberately lying to them is obviously hypocritical and foolish.

Virtue is a greater solvent than water. You can always find a way to _honestly_ encourage better character in others, if only you start with yourself. (Someone once hugged Stalin and he _cried_. Stalin! He said something like, "You're the only one who has treated me like a human being." It didn't stop him doing what he did, but my point is even he was frail before virtue.)

</comment><comment><USER32> In 1950s, I think, there were extensive research about behavior and how it changes in response to external influences, run chiefly by F. B. Skinner. The overall conclusion of that was that punishing the undesirable behavior does not work; that is, it will likely change the behavior, but not in the desired way. The only reliable way to change the behavior was to reward the desirable behavior; there's also some details on how to dispense the rewards (first regularly and then over irregular intervals). Skinner even wrote an utopian- genre book _Walden Two_ about the future society that engineers its own culture using behaviorist method. (For example, quite a few diseases can be prevented or detected early simply by undergoing regular medical observations; yet not that many people do this regularly. What if we could change our culture to shape the desired behavior? Wouldn't it result in much more efficient health maintenance?)

For quite some time I regarded this as a humanist approach, but then I changed my mind and consider rewards used in this way not much different from punishments. Even if you don't try to use it manipulatively (which is obviously evil) but actually care about another person, it's still too dangerous and, I believe, eventually detrimental to the person's well-being. Besides, it's very easy to deceive yourself that you're not trying to manipulate while you actually are.

Consider that, for example, many video games follow the Skinner's model to the letter: they reward the desired behavior (playing) by dispensing some virtual rewards from time to time. Not regularly, so it's not boring, but often enough so that you get the boost and continue; and from time to time they give "better" rewards (more rare or in exchange to a number of smaller ones, so they look subjectively more expensive). It's easy to see people addicted to these games.

</comment><comment><USER33> I imagined Retsuko calling Mr. Ton "honest", and he became the shiny-eyed, smiling Ton everyone is scared of.

<comment><USER22> Reminded me of the end of Kubo and the Two Strings, where the humanized antagonist is bestowed virtues that he then embodies

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Why is this person so worried about manipulating other people to be "virtuous" in his eyes? Clean your own house first, the community will thank you for it.</comment>


Linkerd v2: How Lessons from Production in a Rewrite of the Service Mesh - <AUTHOR> https://www.infoq.com/articles/linkerd-v2-production-adoption <comment><USER2> The title of the page is actually:

Linkerd v2: How Lessons from Production Adoption Resulted in a Rewrite of the Service Mesh

Whereas the title currently shown above is a non-sequitur.</comment>


If you're still creating new apps with Rails then wake up your career is over - <AUTHOR> http://blog.markdownmail.io/blog/2014/02/21/async-in-rails-is-awful/

<comment><USER2> Linkbait. The whole thing can be summed up with your admittance "Obviously this is demonstrating a lack knowledge about rails."

</comment><comment><USER3> Say the guys using webrick in production: [http://imgur.com/Raob24o](http://imgur.com/Raob24o)

<comment><AUTHOR> True, it's not like we're going to re-write all the things 'cos we didn't like it :)

<comment><USER3> I get that :) I mean, webrick is not recommended in production - [https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/getting-started- with-r...](https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/getting-started-with- rails4#webserver)

<comment><AUTHOR> Shit the bed, thanks for pointing that one out. But seriously what the hell Heroku? I'd expect the recommended way to be the default way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If there's one thing I hate, its a complete idiot who thinks and tries to prove he's smarter than the world.

</comment><comment><USER5> async IO is not the bullet for any service that you will ever wrote. and you are using webrick in production, this pretty much show you're knowledge about rails and web development. But is fine, is good to be troll and you're the smartest in the world. you're world</comment>


Rosetta Disk Designed For 2,000 Years Archive - <AUTHOR> http://www.rosettaproject.org/about-us/disk/concept

<comment><USER2> The use of a religious text is regrettable, it's a bad first impression to make on their hypothetical future civilization discovering one.

Otherwise, damn cool. I wish they weren't charging $25,000 for them.

</comment><comment><USER3> I remember reading about this in the Wall Street Journal about five years ago when it was still in the early planning stages. It's nice to see that the project has survived.

One problem, however, is the disks will be very expensive, ranging from $1,000 to $25,000 (see <http://www.rosettaproject.org/about-us/donate/donate>). This not only prevents interested people from purchasing them, but also interferes with the ultimate purpose of the disks -- spreading an archive of soon-to-be lost languages to the widest possible audience, which will ensure that the record survives across the millennia.

<comment><USER4> Actually, I think it having a fairly high price is a good thing. If everyone has one it's worthless, granted it would make them exceptionally easy to discover if there was ever a catastrophic collapse of human civilization. However, what I get from it is that the project is to get museums and collectors (vis-a-vis people who'll protect it) to buy them and keep them, so that when human languages mutate then our ancestors will be able to look at it and use it to translate other documents.

<comment><USER5> That seems counter-intuitive. The collectors and museums will still buy it even if it were massed produced and everyone in the world had one in their pocket. It's just that cool (as far as museums are concerned).

If your goal is to have something that could be found after some catastrophe (or by future archaeologists), then obviously more are better. But I guess (as you point out) if your goal is to have something that will spend 500 years in the Smithsonian on display, rarity is a good thing.

Either way, I imagine the high price has more to do with the cost of making them than marketing. ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Previous discussion: <http://kk.org/kk/2008/08/very-longterm-backup.php></comment>


Show HN: Reddigram – A familiar looking client for Reddit - <AUTHOR> https://reddigram.wolszon.me/ <comment><USER2> Some feedback:

Gifs do not play, however they should.

Uisng the Frontpage to pupulate the popular category results in pictures that make no sense without the headline. Maybe use /r/funny or something.

When I login with my reddit account, you could provide the option to use my subscribed subreddits.

Maybe provide some default subscriptions?

Overall good work!

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, thanks for the feedback!

Working GIFs is a feature on my TODO, for sure! :)

There will be something like suggested subscriptions once you don't have any.

First screen sometimes is a little bit strange indeed, I don't have a good idea for that now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I love your website design. What's that animated background made of? I will check out the app in a bit when I have my android phone handy!

<comment><AUTHOR> Website uses a template from [https://cruip.com/](https://cruip.com/)

<comment><USER3> Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I've just released the very first public version of my application which I've been working on for the past month.

Reddigram - an app that aggregates photos from Reddit and displays them in a [redacted]-like manner. We can double tap them to upvote, there are subreddits subscriptions and other features which are presented more vastly on the landing page of the app (domain is temporary): [https://reddigram.wolszon.me/](https://reddigram.wolszon.me/)

Why have I created it? That's simple, for pure entertainment whilst you are sitting on the toilet or trying to get asleep or just as an alternative for scrolling [redacted].

You can download it here: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.wolszon.red...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.wolszon.reddigram)

Any feedback is greatly appreciated!

<comment><USER4> What about the comments? None of the screenshots on either the website or the Play Store show how a comments thread would look like in your app.

<comment><AUTHOR> Comments aren't a feature I'm going to implement there, that's strictly for "scrolling entertainment", if you want to dive into discussions you can open the post on Reddit (using the button under the photos)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> iOS planned?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's written in Flutter, so porting this to iOS is a matter of ~2hrs, but I don't have a Macbook nor an App Store license. Once I'll have my hands on those I'll surely release it to iOS!</comment></comment>