Expert electrical analysis: $340 audiophile cables test "marginal" - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/340-audiophile-ethernet-cable-gets-a-marginal-pass-on-the-test-bench/ <comment><USER2> Audiophiles have got to be the most gullible consumers. Homeopathy is more plausible than what I see advertised on those sites.

<comment><USER3> I find them very entertaining! I mean, a little while ago one was adamant that his new fancy SD card made his audio sound better.

I worked in pro-audio kit for a long while, as long as there are audiophiles, they'll be work, employment AND entertainment :-)</comment></comment>


Drilling a Square Hole (with a rotating bit) - <AUTHOR> http://www.maa.org/mathtourist/mathtourist_08_31_09.html

<comment><USER2> There used to be one of these in my toolbox:

[http://www.machinemart.co.uk/images/library/range/large/0104...](http://www.machinemart.co.uk/images/library/range/large/0104.jpg)

The small remaining bits at the corners were pushed out by the pointed segments by feeding the bits of leftover wood into the rotating bit.

Worked wonderfully, I wonder during which move i managed to lose it, I always thought it to be a pretty ingenious device.

Mathematically not as clever as the one in the article but definitely simpler and it did the job.

<comment><USER3> Thanks, found it! It's a "mortise chisel and drill": a much more practical solution that I can buy!

While the Reuleaux concept is mathematically cute, it isn't very practical and is only approximate. And the Reuleaux bit requires a special chuck to ensure that the square is "upright" (not tipped at some arbitrary angle): <http://upper.us.edu/faculty/smith/reuleaux.htm> for details.

There's a joke in this somewhere about mathematicians and carpenters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here is an animation showing how it works:

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Rouleaux_trian...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Rouleaux_triangle_Animation.gif)

<comment><USER5> That's only the Rouleaux bit. The article details a bit that produces sharp (vs. rounded) squares.

<comment><USER4> It was confusing b/c the pictures didn't show that the bit's axel had to orbit independently of the bit. This animation cleared that up for me even if it wasn't the exact case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ok, given my login name, I feel like I have to comment on this article.

Also, here is a video of this in action. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qEhyQfbImY>

</comment><comment><USER7> Rounded corners.. giving problems to engineers for 100+ years. :)

</comment><comment><USER8> This and other amusing/interesting mathematical diversions are covered in one of Martin Gardner's books:

<http://www.amazon.com/dp/0226282562/>

</comment><comment><USER9> Am I missing something? The holes can't be square, because of the rotating motion required to create them they will always have rounded corners.

I'd like to see pictures of the holes created with this bit.

<comment><USER10> You are right, it's not really square, but the rounded edges can be chiseled away fairly easy, especially if the drill bit has the chisel built right into it as jacquesm's earlier image showed ([http://www.machinemart.co.uk/images/library/range/large/0104...](http://www.machinemart.co.uk/images/library/range/large/0104.jpg)). although if it's hard wood, you may need to use a solid chisel and a hammer to pound the heck out if it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> a man in china invented a bike with non-circular wheels

[http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/ar...](http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6366308.ece)

[http://www.china.org.cn/china/photos/2009-05/07/content_1773...](http://www.china.org.cn/china/photos/2009-05/07/content_17738257.htm)

<comment><USER12> Amusing: "He believes that people will be drawn to the bike because it requires more work to cycle and therefore will provide more exercise for the cyclist than a conventional bike."

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder if the unsolved problem of drilling a triangle hole is related to the geometric problem of dividing a line into three equal parts with just a compass.

<comment><USER14> You can't trisect an arc using only a compass and a straightedge. (You can simulate a straightedge using a compass.) Dividing a line into 3 parts is trivial.

<comment><USER15> Funny I'd forgotten that that was possible. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dc/Trisectsegment...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dc/Trisectsegment.gif)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The curve of constant width, square drill thing was in Martin Gardner's Scientific American column 30 years ago....

Nice to see it again.

</comment><comment><USER17> rotary engines.</comment>


Ask HN: List of technological breakthroughs through tinkering and perseverance? - <AUTHOR> I'm really interested in compiling a list of important technological breakthroughs that have come about from tinkering, trial-and-error, and in general extensive periods of iteration.
My goal is to try and inspire some younger kids that I will be speaking to regarding the importance of perseverance and not needing to have a fancy ivy league degree to make cool and important things. So any examples and accompanying stories/background info would be great! Bonus points for examples from less classically educated people =)
Here's some that immediately come to mind:
- Edison's 10,000th lightbulb ("I have not failed. I've just found 10000 ways that won't work.")
- Wright Brother's first airplane <comment><USER2> The GNU/linux kernel. It was started in 1991 by Linus Torvalds and it is now so important because of its use in mobile phones & servers (and my computer/laptop/chromebook). We all rely on it indirectly in our daily lives.

</comment><comment><USER3> I feel it trivializes the Wright brothers' success to call it merely a result of "trial and error", in the manner of Edison's "test all the things" approach to lightbulbs. The Wright brothers did a vast amount of on-the-ground theoretical work which paid off handsomely. Their propeller design, for instance, achieved 99% of the efficiency of our best designs today. So it's more correct to call their success a result of being carefully methodical, which is worth considerably more than base persistence.

As for your question, quite honestly, I'm having more trouble coming up with a counterexample wherein progress came from a flash of brilliant insight. Iteration is the norm :) If you're looking for virtuoso performances, you could look to Konrad Zuse and his series of tabletop computers; however there's a lesson there as well, for apart from a couple guided bombs they never amounted to anything despite being years ahead of their time. You get better results with more staying power when you work with other people.

</comment><comment><USER4> First thing that came to mind when I read your question - I found the story of Bertha Benz pretty amazing :

[https://www.mercedes-benz.com/en/mercedes- benz/classic/berth...](https://www.mercedes-benz.com/en/mercedes- benz/classic/bertha-benz/)

[https://medium.com/start-up-vision/a-tale-of-karl-bertha- a-r...](https://medium.com/start-up-vision/a-tale-of-karl-bertha-a- revolutionary-startup-and-the-importance-of-marketing-f38b9ea77bf#.y5eb6o6hq)

Of course, the history of science is full of stories of perseverance despite personal and social obstacles but I am unsure whether that's what you meant by technological breakthroughs.

Closer to the modern day, there is the story of India's sanitary pad man although not sure if that counts as technological breakthrough (although it was iterative and fueled by perseverance) :

[http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26260978](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26260978)

</comment><comment><USER5> I was impressed by reading this recently: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12074096](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12074096)

</comment><comment><USER6> As compared to?</comment>


Voice Calls and the Apple Watch - <AUTHOR> http://blog.discovergpio.com/posts/004-tech-talk-voice-calls-apple-watch/

<comment><USER2> Interesting article - would love to see more information on AEC tradeoffs - what proximity between mics and speakers can you achieve before the cost in audio quality / performance is too high? There's always the risk of feedback (take a hearing aid for example) The Walkie Talkie type approach, while cumbersome, may be the best served for this application aka press a button to speak.

<comment><USER3> From what I've seen, if you can get 20dB of isolation mechanically between the speaker and mic, you'll be good. The AEC can generally take care of the rest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> ... This is nothing more than speculation, they don't have an Apple Watch yet. This is just link bait.</comment>


Every time you type on Windows Phone 7, it plays a subtly different sound - <AUTHOR> http://www.istartedsomething.com/20100815/every-time-you-type-on-windows-phone-7-it-plays-a-subtly-different-sound/ <comment><USER3> Man I hate when an os tries to give too much feedback, and audio is one area Windows has been particularly annoying (that annoying 'click' navigation sound comes to mind).

And now they are adding that kind creative thinking to mobile? Good God no - <USER2> don't want to hear the sound myself, now imagine sitting next to someone txting like mad on a bus...</comment>


Microsoft removes Huawei laptop from store, silent on potential Windows ban - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/21/18634240/microsoft-huawei-matebook-x-pro-laptop-store-windows-ban-no-comment <comment><USER2> Matebooks are the best laptops out there right now, IMO. Basically a MacBook Air form factor with 32GB of ram and latest CPU. Sick..

Huawei also gave us the Nexus 6P, it's hard not to love 'em. And now with the P30 Plus, they're the king of smartphones, even edging out the imaging quality of a Pixel.

</comment><comment><USER3> Now that I can't have it, I really want that Huawei laptop :/</comment>


Learning from the League of Legends Referral Program - <AUTHOR> http://www.referralsaasquatch.com/learn-from-the-league-of-legends-referral-program-update/

<comment><AUTHOR> Problems with the current refer-a-friend program

Reward Tier Structure

"..the average player faces a dilemma where attractive rewards like Grey Warwick and Medieval Twitch are prohibitively difficult to obtain.."

"We understand that the current refer-a-friend reward structure isn't ideal for the average player."

"We found that the majority of League players refer between one and five friends, and we've designed the refer-a-friend update to reward you for bringing those friends into the game."

Fraudulent Behavior

"…70% of accounts with 10 or more referrals are abusing the Refer-a-Friend program."

"…99% of accounts with 100 or more referrals are abusing the Refer-a-Friend program"

You can read more here: [http://www.referralsaasquatch.com/learn-from-the- league-of-l...](http://www.referralsaasquatch.com/learn-from-the-league-of- legends-referral-program-update/)</comment>


Alzheimer's Drug Failure Leaves Scientists Seeking New Direction - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-22/alzheimer-s-drug-fails-and-scientists-ask-is-it-time-to-move-on <comment><USER2> Healthcare costs for Alzheimer's is going to be astronomical.

[https://www.alzheimers.net/research-spending-vs-annual- care-...](https://www.alzheimers.net/research-spending-vs-annual-care-costs/)

Finding a cure or delaying symptoms by a decade would save a lot of money.

Let's add $10 billion to the federal research budget and add a motivated czar to oversee the research. Wonder if Bill Gates has a few extra cycles.

<comment><USER3> Presuming Bill Gates has track record in finding cures?

<comment><USER4> Bill Gates, with the B&MGF, has a decent track record of finding and boosting low-cost solutions to chronic and systemic issues. Basically, choosing where to focus resources to the best effect. I'm not saying he'd revolutionize this field, but there are worse choices than someone with his track record.

<comment><USER3> I disagree; steering basic science needs more than money to do it, and is different from finding low cost solutions. BG also has some spectacular, costly failures like in education

<comment><USER5> I'm no Gates Foundation fan, but their unlike every other group that attempted to tackle educational issues, they were relatively honest about good _and_ bad and they documented it.

The problem is that they found what everybody knows but doesn't want to admit. The current public school system is about optimal for the amount of resource being spent. There is no mythical "pile of waste" that you can magically draw from.

They found that focused resource does help outcomes, but in far less proportion than the increase. If you want 5% improvement in achievement, you need closer to 25% increase in resource--and it needs to be sustained over years. More teachers that are better qualified is a good idea, but that is also the most expensive choice. And, your most effective option is to spend almost all your resource on the lowest achievers. All of these are highly politically unpalatable in the US.

<comment><USER6> _"...optimal for the amount of resource being spent."_

Belated reply, catching up on my reading.

This is a very interesting point.

I live in a largish school district. I've long believed, but cannot prove, that it's just too big. eg Scale matters. Everyone I've ever met who has ties to the district agrees with me.

I know the CFO. He crunched some numbers, comparing cost per student and outcomes. Although he wouldn't share the data with me (political suicide), he related that the it's a bathtub distribution.

So, I believe, but cannot prove, there's an optimal range for most organizations, and education reformers would get a lot of mileage out of correct sizing their districts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Brush your teeth (and gums): [https://www.perio.org/consumer/alzheimers-and- periodontal-di...](https://www.perio.org/consumer/alzheimers-and-periodontal- disease)

</comment><comment><USER8> The present generation of Alzheimer's researchers has a big, big problem. The best evidence now points to infection as the cause, but they are not infectious-disease specialists. It takes a long, long time to become an infectious-disease specialist, and there are lots already. What will they do when it turns out they have none of the skills needed to advance the study and treatment of Alzheimer's?

The present generation of Alzheimer's patients has a big problem, too. Grants for research into Alzheimer's are controlled by the present generation of researchers, who have no particular desire to learn that Alzheimer's is an infectious disease. So, negligible work is going into establishing an infectious-disease etiology, never mind effective treatment. Publications supporting an infectious-disease cause of Alzheimer's are, likewise, not especially welcomed by established Alzheimer's referees.

The herpes-family observations go back twenty years, and are only now gaining traction. The gingivalis observations are more recent.

This is an area where one wealthy donor could make an enormous difference that might improve the lives of millions in a very short time.

<comment><USER9> Science has always had the problem of the establishment fighting new theories/insights. Max Planck once said:

> A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and > making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, > and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Science has been able to deal with this problem for a long time.

<comment><USER8> Halting progress for several decades, and blighting the careers of its best people until the old guard dies is not "dealing with it". That is actively failing to deal with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm surprised that a range of existing drugs with neuroprotective capabilities haven't received more attention. The cynic in me says it's because many of them are cheap generics that have little financial upside for large pharmaceuticals.

As an example, a range of anticonvulsant drugs exhibit neuroprotective effects. Depakote appears to be the best studief of the lot for this, but that's not saying much.Something like lamotrogine has similar results with lower side effect profile. These are widely used drugs for diseases like epilepsy, but they are also used for a wide range of mental health diseases where psychosis and dementia are issues because they are very effective in those areas as well. A nice bonus in treating another disease with similar neuro symptoms.

This probably wouldn't be front-line treatment, but alongside amyloid reducing medications could form a powerful combination. The biggest obstacle might be the side effects, but judicial use in the earliest stages or in high risk poulations would probably be useful. The problem is right now the data is limited to very small studies or anecdotal case studies of individual patients that were treated off label.

<comment><USER10> > The cynic in me says it's because many > of them are cheap generics that > have > little financial upside for large > pharmaceuticals.

The patent is for problem + solution. You can patent many solutions for one problem and also a solution for many problems.

If they prove, say, that vitamin C stops Alzheimer's then they can patent it for that usage.

You see this a lot in cancer treatment and it makes a lot of sense. In a proper functioning system (i.e. not the USA±) it's a pretty decent solution.

± Seriously, the system there is designed so all in theory competing components are incentivized to work against consumer interests. Same thing with the housing market pushing house prices (5% interest on 500k is more $ then 5% on 200k, house sellers/older owners think they're rich but only benefit when they sell and downsize; only winners are lenders and real estate investors).

<comment><USER11> > If they prove, say, that vitamin C stops Alzheimer's then they can patent it > for that usage.

Here is an article discussing this approach:

[http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/6/248/248fs30](http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/6/248/248fs30)

I call them "use patents" but I am not sure if that is an official term or just a colloquialism.

<comment><USER10> I just asked my wife (who's a pharmacist). She says that it's indeed true that drugs companies basically ignore existing drugs because it's not worth the costs to prove that they work even though they can officially patent them for new usages.

Here's an example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregabalin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregabalin)

That's an epilepsy treatment which also worked for nerve damage. They weren't allowed to dispense the generic for nerve problems. However in practise the prescriptions don't include the reason so in practise they provided the generic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Read an interesting anecdote on amyloids in Why We Sleep. During a certain sleep phase, the brain tissues change size and open up pathways for cerebrospinal fluid to pass this. This washes out amyloids.

Over time with age and with brain damage, older adults lose the ability to generate this type of sleep, and so there is less cleaning.

Does anyone know any more about this? It seems plausible that the cause could be partly due to a loss of this sleep cleaning function. Indeed lack of sleep is correlated with alzheimers.

But that's just a book anecdote. I'd be curious to read more.

<comment><USER13> I am currently reading Why We Sleep as well, and Matthew Walker's research on the topic is really interesting to consider within the larger constellation of approaches to Alzheimer's—particularly in context of the dietary/metabolic angle.

The neural maintenance that occurs during sleep, the body's circadian mechanisms and quality of diet all seem to be highly complementary and ultimately point towards a more holistic and fundamental understanding of the disease (or brain physiology in general). It's been demonstrated pretty comprehensively that quality of diet and timing of eating have a profound effect on how well the body functions as a whole, so the sleep component seems to be an important thread in tying all of these approaches together.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> One alternative theory: Alzheimer as a metabolic disease.

"We conclude that the term "type 3 diabetes" accurately reflects the fact that AD represents a form of diabetes that selectively involves the brain and has molecular and biochemical features that overlap with both type 1 diabetes mellitus and T2DM."

[1] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2769828/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2769828/)

<comment><USER15> Significant impact in 30 days. Without changing diet to reduce glucose. Can't achieve 1mmol/L of Ketones in the blood, though, without a Ketogenic diet. The brain _lights up_ in the PET scan on a Ketogenic diet:

[https://youtu.be/OU26epaihmw?t=1469](https://youtu.be/OU26epaihmw?t=1469)

<comment><USER16> Wasn't that PET scan showing ketone _uptake_? So it showed that brains can use ketones... but nothing about the activity or ability of the brain otherwise?

<comment><USER15> The researcher claimed to have observed declining energy use for years before symptoms occurred, showing decreasing energy consumption leading to cell death regardless of fuel availability, finally leading to Alzheimer's symptoms.

Provision of ketones alone reversed this energy starvation. The PET scan literally lit up like a Christmas tree — turned from all blue/black to red!

It was near the end of the presentation...

If neural cellular degeneration is the target of any Alzheimer's management strategy, wouldn't dramatic energy consumption declines over decades before cell death, and reversal of these declines after a short treatment be of specific interest?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Could alzheimer's be more like cancer, where there are several variants and several causes? It seems like beta amyloid were looked at because they produce similar protein manifolding to prions. Other comments on here mention herpes (which is incredibly common. I've never had cold-sores, but dated enough people who have where I may just have it and not present, and it can't easily be tested for since it produced very similar antibodies to chickenpox).

<comment><USER18> I think this may be the case for many brain-related illnesses. My son is severely autistic and through schools etc I know a lot of autistic children and adults. They are all very different but still labelled as "autistic spectrum".

I think there are many causes with many similar symptoms, which is why no-one has discovered a common cause.

<comment><USER19> This is definitely true for autism. It's clearly somewhat heritable, but no one has found _a_ gene or mutation that all people with autism share. Study A picks out this gene from one set of families, Study B picks out a totally different gene (and can't replicate A's findings).

Alzheimer's is a little odd in that most (maybe all) patients seem to have the plaques. Removing the plaques seems to do nothing though so it might be a side effect of something else going wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There's a novel theory that herpes is the culprit for a significant number of Alzheimer's patients.

This line of thought was originally discounted, under the (mistaken) belief that the blood/brain barrier made this impossible.

<comment><USER21> (I'm not an expert) Isn't this evidence correlated to the presence of beta- amyloid in the brain and the increased time required to clean them with herpes? As far as I read it, the evidence that beta-amyloid are a cause and not the consequence of Alz is not there. Also, I think that making such a statement for institutions needs solids theory, because it could effect a major part of population

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think more money should be directed towards tools, sensors and technology that can be used so map and study brain and biochemistry in general, and not just particular pathologies. Expansion microscopy, optogenetics and deep brain stimulation via temporally interfering electric fields are good examples of that. The surprising result that you can clear amyloids from the brain (only in transgenic mice) with 40 Hz light therapy is good example of surprising findings you get when you build new tools.

<comment><USER23> "I'm going for my biannual brain plaque checkup" will be a sentence I won't be surprised hearing. I think it's just a matter of time when we figure out brains need a bit of human-assisted maintenance just like teeth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm taking every preventative measure I can at a young age to reduce chance of Alzheimer's later in life, starting with low carb intake (+ no sugar) and IF.

I can't think of anything more depressing than working your whole life so you can retire only to go into retirement and be diagnosed with Alzheimer's.

<comment><USER25> News flash: we're all going to die, and time flies. At the typical retirement age of 65, most people have 10 or 15 years left.

I'd advise a sensible diet and enjoying life while you are young. Don't spend time ruminating about what might kill you when you're near the end of your life regardless.

<comment><USER26> Life expectancy is around 20 years at 65 in most developed countries.

<comment><USER25> Fine. Point being, 20 years sounds like a long time when you're 25. When you're 55 or 60, and reflect on how fast that time went by, 15 or 20 years doesn't sound like very long. Certainly not enough time to make up for a lifetime of denying yourself life's pleasures thinking you're going to make up for it when you're old.

Edit to add: none of us are guaranteed anything. You could get cancer and be dead at 40. Or younger. Avoiding reckless risks is one thing. Thinking you really have much control over diseases you might get in 40 years from now is another.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I watched two people get it side by side... It felt like I was watching them catch a cold. It is only anecdotal but it feels like it was a virus or something catching.

</comment><comment><USER28> What if the presence of beta amyloid is not the cause of Alzheimer's but rather the symptom? In that case, these drugs should be ineffective.

It would be interesting to see how brain function continues to be impaired even while the beta amyloids are suppressed using these drugs, helping us get to the real process.

<comment><USER29> Disclaimer: I am not a doctor, just try to follow up on big things impacting many people.

According to my understanding of the amyloid cascade hypothesis, the amyloid beta accumulation is not a cause but indeed a symptom (of gene mutations/something). Then, the amyloid beta basically clumps up and other mechanisms happen and neurons get damaged and this collective damage is known as Alzheimer's Disease.

So the amyloid beta is just one link in the chain.

Even with a complete removal of that link (removing/reducing amyloid beta), one cannot expect the disease to be reversed, since removal of something in- between does not revert the already occured damage. But accumulation of new damage might slow down. Coupled with improved early detection even this would be very helpful to many people.

As far as I know, some modest slowing down was observed in some of the clinical trials. This could mean the amyloid cascade hypothesis isn't completely wrong.

Now, what I found really, really interesting is that first Biogen gets ca. 20 % of its market value vaporized after the aducanumab (a joint venture betwen Biogen and Eisai). This is nearly 20 billion USD. Then, Eisai informs that they still go forward with another substance called BAN2401.

The BAN2401 also targets amyloid beta, but in a different way than others (protofibrils).

So... I'm thinking here that this is either a genius move or a really dumb one. It cannot really be anything in-between. I honestly hope it'll be a genius move.

<comment><USER30> > 20 % of its market value vaporized after the aducanumab

You're missing a few words here. Was it "the aducanumab trial failed"?

<comment><USER29> Yes, you are correct, thank you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> [https://outline.com/rfdTx9](https://outline.com/rfdTx9)

</comment><comment><USER32> This book [https://www.amazon.com/dp/0735216207](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0735216207)

<comment><USER33> I read it, it is interesting but it tells only a way to mitigate the disease, not to cure it.

And I would love if there were independent studies that could confirm Bredesen's writings (I do not say there are none, just that I am not aware of them).

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Ultrasound to break up plaques in the brain: [https://www.fusfoundation.org/diseases-and- conditions/neurol...](https://www.fusfoundation.org/diseases-and- conditions/neurological/alzheimers-disease)</comment>


Why INTERCAL is better than Perl (2002) - <AUTHOR> http://articles.mongueurs.net/spoofathon/INTERCAL.html <comment><USER2> INTERCAL has made _many_ contributions to the state-of-the-art for numerous modern languages. My personal favorite sides with the author with the implementation of COME FROM, which is indisputably a vast improvement over the much maligned GOTO. It's so handy that it's been ported to Python! [0]

[0] [http://entrian.com/goto/](http://entrian.com/goto/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Java implementation here:

[http://progopedia.com/implementation/j-intercal/](http://progopedia.com/implementation/j-intercal/)

Now, are there any true innovators out there that want to put a REST-ful web framework on it? ;)

<comment><USER4> [http://www.intercaloninterstates.org/index.html](http://www.intercaloninterstates.org/index.html)

<comment><USER3> Oh... my... God...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hearing about INTERCAL always reminds me of this: [https://skillsmatter.com/skillscasts/6088-the-worst- programm...](https://skillsmatter.com/skillscasts/6088-the-worst-programming- language-ever)

</comment><comment><USER3> That was hilarious. Especially the precedence section. The brilliance behind INTERCAL's design also inspired work in the functional programming domain:

[http://www.madore.org/~david/programs/unlambda/#what_is](http://www.madore.org/~david/programs/unlambda/#what_is)

The lambda calculus without the lambda operation. Brilliant improvement!

Now we just need a video of Wirth's reaction to a demo of these.

</comment><comment><USER6> Perl doesn't have boolean types and you have to end class definitions with 1; Most languages are better than Perl.

<comment><USER7> But what is true in Perl is well-defined: [http://perldoc.perl.org/perlsyn.html#Truth-and- Falsehood](http://perldoc.perl.org/perlsyn.html#Truth-and-Falsehood)

And modules doesn't _have_ to end with 1;. They must return a true value :)

Added: If one really want booleans, there is [1].

[1] [https://metacpan.org/pod/boolean](https://metacpan.org/pod/boolean)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> My favorite part, at the end:

...With INTERCAL, you can regularly type your name in your program. Especially if your name is FORGET.

Author

Jean Forget ...

</comment><comment><USER9> Perl lends itself to craziness because of the notorious TMTOWTDI principle taken to the extreme - Intercal can indeed appear more sane than many Perl programs I have had the misfortune to use and (shudder) update.

</comment><comment><USER10> Is this article actually serious? I can't help but think it is satirical.

<comment><USER3> I'll give you a link and let you guess:

[http://www.catb.org/~esr/intercal/](http://www.catb.org/~esr/intercal/)</comment></comment>


A data-driven Black Friday/Cyber Monday Facebook ads strategy - <AUTHOR> https://sumo.com/stories/black-friday-facebook-ads/ <comment><USER2> These guys may be able to provide a plan to get you more clicks and purchases, but they definitely aren't the ones to tell you how the business of selling stuff works. For example (from the article):

 _We have that there to remind ourselves that everything in ecommerce (in all business, really) comes down to only three factors: \- How many visitors you get \- How many of them purchase (conversion rate), and \- How much money they spend when they do (average order value)

Multiply the three together and, voila, you've got a formula for how much money you're making. That's it. That's the whole game._

No. That's the formula for revenue. Not for income. And to show you how shallow their thinking is, later in the article:

 _At least 20% off (anything less than this tends to be ineffective unless your discount is at least $100 in raw dollar amount).

Don't bother with coupon codes. Just mark down your site (or a particular collection, if that's your style). This makes it easier for your customers, especially on mobile.

If you don't discount much, you can keep that sale discount down at 20%. If you give people 20% often, you probably need to go higher to get people to take advantage of the offer._

Indeed, giving away your profits does tend to motivate a customer. Unless, of course, your competitor is paying people to buy stuff.

So give these guys consulting money, give Google and Facebook ad money, and give your customers your profits. Everyone gets to declare a big victory, except the person making the sale.

<comment><USER3> They're also (anecdotally) wrong about coupon codes. As a consumer, I am most easily "converted" by a tasteful, non-spammy email campaign (maybe 1 or 2 emails a week) that offers short-term, deep discounts on products that I already want to buy. And I don't mean stuff like a LABORDAY25 discount. I mean "You're a valued customer! Enjoy 30% off for the next week, use code NERDPONX30 to save!"

I know the economics of every industry is different, but if you're just interested in moving a lot of product (whether it's digital or physical), it seems like the good old "randomly mail people sweet coupons" works great. Lyft, for example, does a great job of this. Lucky Jeans and West Elm have great sales but they send me too many damn emails, so I never bother.

<comment><USER4> We are speaking about how to manage a BFCM sale and the data definitely says that coupon codes are a significantly worse alternative to a site-wide markdown. It is all about friction reduction. Asking users to type in a coupon code adds a step that doesn't need to be there. This doesn't mean that coupon codes are never useful, but in this particular case we would recommend making the experience as seamless as possible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What I don't get with any of this stuff is that it actually works. Maybe I'm weird, but every time I see that ads actually work and people actually buy stuff as a result, it's a shock to the system. Perhaps that's from enjoying a predominantly ad-free existence online, but I can't for the life of me think of a case where I've actually clicked on an ad, let alone completed a purchase.

I'm much more used to clicking on links that are organically ranked high in DDG or Google, when I am specifically looking to buy something. I have to admit, I barely make a handful of purchases per year, so perhaps I'm just totally disconnected from this whole topic.

<comment><USER6> I'm the same. I block ads aggressively, and never intentionally click ads. I also don't really engage in the whole Black Friday/Cyber Monday circus in any other way.

<comment><USER7> It's always weird when the data contradicts our experiences (I wrote that article, and I myself bought my first ever products from Facebook ads just a few weeks ago), but I suppose that's precisely the reason we check the data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My friends often complain about how early the holiday season starts. The advice in this article sort of explains that phenomenon: competition drives up advertising prices near the holiday, which makes earlier days more valuable for advertisers.

Edit- plenty of cynical fodder there to equate "holiday season" with "days with holiday-themed advertising"

<comment><USER4> Bingo.</comment></comment>


Project management platform Taiga 2.0 is out - <AUTHOR> https://blog.taiga.io/taiga-pulsatilla-patens-release-20.html <comment><USER2> This is a pretty nice project. Can't say I have anything large to use it for but, I'll definitely study the UI design of it. Well done~</comment>


Groupon Losing its Luster - Only 43 sold For NY Times National Deal - <AUTHOR> http://www.groupon.com/deals/the-new-york-times-dc?c=dnb&p=1

<comment><USER2> You sure it's not the times that is loosing it's luster? Still embarrassing for Groupon</comment>


Fundraising isn't predictable - <AUTHOR> http://www.aaronkharris.com/fundraising-isnt-predictable <comment><USER2> This may be subjective, but it feels like there is a lot of cargo culting going on in the VC industry. To a certain extent this makes sense as predicting the future is hard. There will always be a large gap between observed metrics and the end results, because companies are being launched into an unpredictable landscape and the conditions necessary for success change all the time. As a result these uncertain conditions create a strong incentive to pick up "best practices" even if they don't make sense at the time.

However, at the same time, the cargo culting creates inefficiencies and a lot of group pressure which forces companies to conform to the metrics du jour to raise funds. From a vantage point outside of the industry, these metrics feel almost memetic in nature. It seems that a lot of these hoops exist _because_ other people have used these set of hoops before, therefore they must be valid in some shape or form. It's a recursive sort of logic whereby the rationale behind an investment metric is reinforced by the social signals around it. Plus, I'm sure that it doesn't help that most VCs don't actually have a quant styled background and most VCs don't model their investments in any shape or form. (while the modeling may not be accurate - it is still a useful tool for thinking through investments)

Of course all of this is actually an opportunity for the enterprising VC. A smart VC firm could theoretically create a better, more quantitative process and pick up unconventional companies for cheaper and get better returns as a result.

edit: Just in case it wasn't clear, I'm not accusing the OP of cargo culting - it's rather the opposite. It's more of a meta-observation / addendum to his observations.

<comment><USER3> Speaking only for myself, I was enamored by VCs when I first moved to the Bay Area. I definitely put them up on a pedestal, and selectively listened to people who did the same. After spending about 12 months trying to raise money for my "business guy w/ no traction & no product" startup idea, I learned that VCs are highly visible & accessible because they need to generate leads for themselves. But I didn't understand for quite a while that I was bringing them a lead they would never fund. That was a hard lesson to learn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> 10% weekly revenue growth would be great. That means a company doing $1M in revenue at t=0 will be doing $1.6T in revenue in 3 years.

I'm always dubious of these sorts of metrics.

<comment><USER5> While it's not something you could sustain indefinitely, it's doable over shorter time frames. For instance, I've seen a number of companies do it during YC and for some time after that.

<comment><USER4> Absolutely, Aaron. Didn't mean to challenge the value of your article. And it's certainly possible over short time periods. But I'm a big fan of growing at ~20% per year, if you can demonstrate that this could continue over a very long time period. (I bet Yo grew at 500% a week for a while.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Great post!

I think if a founder speaks to a small handful of VCs and/or other knowledgable startup people: they can get a good sense of how easy or difficult fundraising will be...and that will be more useful than any one guideline that can be provided. Series A lead VCs need to see a potential path to $100 million in revenue going to $300 million to be a home run...and a combination of the team/product/market/traction combo gives an investor the necessary conviction and excitement to propose an investment.

The limitation with growth + revenue guidelines for fundraising is that it will never be enough information as there are so many factors that go into an investment decision. And there has been a proliferation of startups that reach $1 million in revenue growing ~15% a month and still the vast majority won't get to the scale that makes a series A VC happy.

As a side note, I'd love to see any company with "Engagement rates that are higher than Facebook" that can't fundraise. :) I think there may be some off the charts positive indicators: team with incredible track record, off the charts engagement + retention in a large market, amazing unit economics + high growth that the ability to fundraise is all but inevitable.

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't mean this as an attack on the author, it's clear he is smart and trying to be helpful, thoughtful and kind in writing this advice.

But I see this type of sweet/safe/simple advice post so often on many sites. The tone reads like how one would talk to a child while trying to be careful not to hurt their feelings or confuse them.

I realize many founders are young with limited experience, maybe even still in school. And there's no reason to be rude about things. But who is the audience for these types of advice posts with this level of handholding?...

 _Are there would-be founders out there pretty much ready to be in charge of millions of dollars of other people 's money, ready to hire strangers, ready to figure out finding/keeping customers, ready to stave off ruthless competitors, but don't yet know that many things in life and in business can be complex and are not predictable and they need this explained??_

Also I am quite sure one can explain life and business are complex and not predictable - and so obviously a single metric like $1mm ARR doesn't guarantee funding or anything - without having to borrow (the much more confusing topic) of parametric insurance as part of the explanation...

For a VC screening, if a founder needs such simple, obvious advice and handholding, doesn't that speak to bigger issues?

Again, really really appreciate when VCs share their knowledge and experience, just sometimes when I see the advice they do give I wonder who/how many founders are they meeting who lack such basic knowledge and common sense and need things explained like this.

<comment><USER5> In a word: yes.

Creating a product, starting a company, and finding users/customers doesn't actually prepare you for raising money. That's a whole other set of skills, and it's one in which founders are at an inherent disadvantage to investors. This isn't a good/bad thing, it's just a function of investors being experts at fundraising conversations, and founders being inexperienced.

Which is all to say that it wouldn't be fair be so hard on people for not knowing certain things. It isn't a reflection on overall quality and intelligence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> >$1mm ARR

>Repeat founders who were previously funded

Interesting. I applied to YC with [https://icanpriceit.com/](https://icanpriceit.com/), not much traction yet. I was hoping I'd get an interview at least, based in part on my existing experience of building an ecommerce/Amazon business to 100k in sales (plus my answer to the "hack" question was pretty good).

I didn't get invited. I know that [https://www.ycombinator.com/whynot/](https://www.ycombinator.com/whynot/) says I pretty much can't get a direct answer why, but my own takeaways were that one of the following must be true. Either:

1\. Solo founder+no traction was just too low to meet their bar.

2\. I messed up some other part of the application, which is very possible.

or 3\. 100k in sales isn't that impressive, relative to the kinds of impressive things other founders did; and the fact that it's not the startup I applied under dilutes the achievement.

Now in the month and a half since I applied, sales (on my amazon business) have jumped and I'm looking at close to a $1 million ARR (~$4500 sales today, ~$22500 sales 7 days, ~$78000 sales 30 days, majority of which are from nonseasonal, replenished products, so can reasonably extrapolate yearly i.e. no Q4 boost). Maybe in 5 months that will be impressive enough to get an invite, at least, assuming I still want YC. Without funding I likely won't be doing too much work on the startup and will mostly focus on my existing business and college.

(I actually talked to Aaron briefly after a talk in NYC, he said I shouldn't worry too much about being a solo founder.)

</comment><comment><USER9> what size raise is this article about?

<comment> mck- Based on what's mentioned in the article ($1m ARR, 15% MoM, post demo day) I'm guessing it's talking about the first institutional money – which could be either Seed or A; between $1m-$10m depending on market/geography</comment></comment>


The Big Sleep (2013) - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/09/the-big-sleep-2 <comment><USER2> I remember reading this in 2013. Does anyone know what became of the drug they're talking about?

<comment><AUTHOR> This is the backstory of Belsomra.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> for what it's worth, if i really _need_ to go to sleep i usually vape a small bowl about an hour before bedtime. When recreational shops open near me, i'll switch to dosed edibles.

I'm not big on the "it's natural so it has to be great" bandwagon, but CBD- heavy strains of cannabis are really properly good at knocking me out.

<comment><USER4> Trazodone works like a charm for me. Knocks me right out. I take it 1x a week when I want to catch up.

<comment><USER5> i've never had dreams of such vivacity, memorability and duration as when i'd been prescribed trazodone. it almost made up for the grogginess the following morning.. :P

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Darkness - real darkness, meaning you can't see the back of your hand, at exactly the same times every day.

I'm old, been through lots, never taken a sleeping pill since adopting this habit decades ago and can't imagine why people do. Before that, ridiculously bad insomnia.

I've lost sleep 'cause I didn't take a pain pill now and then.

</comment><comment><USER7> Detailed stories are one thing, but the journalist here didn't need to follow all the rules of fiction writing. Narrative summary is actually _fine_. Please tell, don't show.

Does anyone want to summarise what the article says?

<comment><USER8> It's a story about a drug company that is trying to unseat the current most popular sleeping drug.

They went to the FDA process twice. At the end of the article the FDA is only approving 10mm dosage of the drug which is just as effective as placebo and that if the patient get no effect then doctor can prescribe higher dosage.

The drug company wants to go back and get approve at the higher starting dosage because starting at 10mm is stupid and would make user think their drug is ineffective.

I actually like the story, I just interned from FDA and am taking survival analysis right now and it's pretty nice to get a clear view of everything and history of sleeping drug and the mindset of FDA and the Drug company.</comment></comment>


HP to produce 100,000-200,000 TouchPads to clear out supplier inventories - <AUTHOR> http://www.precentral.net/digitimes-hp-produce-100-000-200-000-touchpads-clear-out-supplier-inventories

<comment><USER2> HP says they're getting ready to spin off or sell their PC division. According to this article that would be mean the new company or the acquiring company would: \- Be the #1 PC manufacturer \- Be the #2 tablet manufacturer \- Have a 1 million installed base for WebOS \- Have taken 1 million customers away from their competitors who at least in the Android space seem to be struggling a bit

That's a pretty compelling story especially if this new entity can capitalize on it with more management and sales autonomy, focus, and agility. I'm not saying everything about this strategic change is pretty, but I'd wait before calling this a failure.

<comment><AUTHOR> I completely agree with all of your points, and I think that a lot of people are missing the point of just how disruptive HP have been in all of this, in terms of mopping up tablet users with the cheap Touchpad who would have otherwise opted to buy a cheap Android tablet. Amazon for one, must be furious with HP given that this fire-sale happened on the eve of their $250 tablet launch, especially given that the Touchpad makes a sweet Kindle device.

It will be very interesting to see what happens with this spin-off entity, and indeed, what it will be called (anyone taking bets on Compaq or Palm making a come back)?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> So is this company run by 13-year olds? They just can a product line without thinking through the consequences?

<comment><USER4> Hardware is cheap, software is expensive nowadays. And software was the cause of failure.

<comment><USER5> Actually no, the touchpad processor was below par. WebOS / Enyo is a great tablet OS.

The real problem was HP (the new HP) just wasn't commited to WebOS.

<comment><USER4> No one needs yet another Android today. Especially investing it its development. The game is over. Google won. ^_^

Update: the key words here are _today_ and _investing_.

<comment><USER6> In the tablet market Android is still pretty invisible. Saying that it won is just wrong, at least for the tablet market. It might win in the future but it certainly hasn't yet.

<comment><USER4> OK, lets name some names. Kindle. Nook. Galaxy Tab. Xoom. All those Japanese, Korean and Chinese vendors who're trying to catch.

<comment><USER6> Keep up, not catch. That's doable.

<comment><USER4> Oh I get it, it's very clever.

Consider what will happen in a not so long run when the money spent by companies behind those brands start to work in full swing.

<comment><USER6> Oh wise prophet, tell me more about what you are seeing!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


More Than 90% of Americans Have Pesticides or Their Byproducts in Their Bodies - <AUTHOR> https://www.thenation.com/article/pesticides-farmworkers-agriculture/ <comment><USER2> Okay, this Environmental Working Group found traces of pesticides on produce. That's not terribly unexpected, given how most produce is, well, produced. What this article annoyingly neglects to mention, is the _numbers_ attached to those traces of pesticides. Where there large amounts of trace chemicals, such that the levels exceed the EPA's recommended safe exposure levels? Were they so high that dangerous levels of bio-accumulation were likely? Absent numbers, it's difficult to tell if the people mentioned in the article are justified in feeling very worried, if it's a bunch of hand-wringing about nothing of significance, or somewhere between.

<comment><USER3> Well, so here's the other side of the coin-- _nobody_ actually has any idea what's definitely safe.

Do you trust that because the EPA has put a number on a chemical that it can't be wrong?

Why don't you guess what percent of the time when the EPA calls an exposure level safe does it go back and change its mind and decide it wasn't safe after all?

Also, why are you confident the EPA knows all the long-term biological and cross-generational effects of all these chemicals when nobody can even decide yet if coffee is good for me?

<comment><USER2> > Well, so here's the other side of the coin-- nobody actually has any idea > what's definitely safe.

I'm going to disagree with that. I think there is a great deal of information available on what is and is not safe, available to those who will look. I think it is a gross overstatement that _nobody_ has any idea what's definitely safe. Is that data perfect? No. But the data I'm able to find seems to have been workable so far.

> Do you trust that because the EPA has put a number on a chemical that it > can't be wrong?

> Why don't you guess what percent of the time when the EPA calls an exposure > level safe does it go back and change its mind and decide it wasn't safe > after all?

Nope, I don't blindly trust the EPA, they've been wrong in the past, and they're going to be discovered to have been wrong here in the future, because like you and I, they are fallible humans, and sometimes shit slips through. However, I am willing to look at the data available and evaluate for myself whether the declaration of safe or not (and to what degree) is correct, and what to do about it.

> Also, why are you confident the EPA knows all the long-term biological and > cross-generational effects of all these chemicals when nobody can decided > yet if coffee is good for me?

I'm not necessarily, and I think you misrepresent my point above to insinuate that I do. My protest with the original article is that it is thin on data. That someone is worried about pesticide residues on food is not immediately actionable data for me absent other data which the article lacks. Absent said data, I'm going to stick to my currently successful MO of washing my produce before use, and not worrying about it until given a convincing reason to do so.

<comment><USER3> >> I think there is a great deal of information available on what is and is not safe

It's not like the EPA does no testing, but what about the unknowns? For example, men's sperm counts have gone down 50% over the last 30 years and scientists have no solid explanation (despite >1000 journal articles on the topic).

Are you confident that pesticides play no role in this? Or autism? Or immune disorders?

The EPA doesn't even _try_ do testing on long-term exposure to a low-dose of substances, which is exactly what is described in the article.

Calling the EPA "fallible humans" is laughable. The question is - is the EPA process systematically too trusting of new chemicals? I have my answer.

I recommend you start your education on this topic with "The precautionary principle." [http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/91173/E8...](http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/91173/E83079.pdf)

<comment><USER4> This was an enlightening article about how the standards set by the EPA don't seem to be safe standard according to Harvard scientists: [https://www.ehn.org/when-safe-may-not-really-be- safe-2621578...](https://www.ehn.org/when-safe-may-not-really-be- safe-2621578745.html)

It seems there are different classes of pesticides: some really unsafe pesticides that should be banned but aren't.

What can we possibly do in this case? Grow our own food?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The article doesn't mention meat and dairy as a source of surprisingly high levels pesticides and their byproducts.

[1] [https://medium.com/center-for-biological-diversity/does- meat...](https://medium.com/center-for-biological-diversity/does-meat-contain- pesticides-c587f6b252e7)

<comment><USER6> What does that matter? If we get it from directly from plants we eat or indirectly through meat, you are still getting pesticides.

<comment><USER7> _> What does that matter?_

It's actionable information. If you're worried about ingesting pesticides, you might believe that eating fewer vegetables and more meat would be a safer option. The simple fact of bioaccumulation means that this would be the wrong approach.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Watched a great documentary on Netflix called `Stink!` that was about all the crap found in all sorts of products under the hidden phrase "fragrance" (or in some cases, "parfum"). All sorts of chemicals you've never heard of to make those garbage bags smell like apple orchards.

Very informative and, if you're like me and are constantly panicked that everything's trying to kill you, I recommend it.

<comment><USER9> Curious about this part:

> Very informative and, if you're like me and are constantly panicked that > everything's trying to kill you, I recommend it.

So are you saying this will help me STOP worrying that everything is trying to kill me? I'm kinda to the point where I feel like if you aren't eating organic broccoli for breakfast lunch and dinner, than you're killing yourself. So I'm not sure I need any MORE information to enforce that.

<comment><USER10> I hate to be the one to inform you but organic broccoli isn't any healthier than conventional broccoli.

<comment><USER9> And I hate to be the one to inform you, that I tend not to take random internet comments to heart. But if you're saying that eating organic food in general has no health benefits vs. conventional food, I'd love to read whatever source you've derived that from. I always keep an open mind.

<comment><USER10> There have been many studies on the topic. The occasional differences are statistically significant but not significant enough to impact health. Here are a few reviews:

[https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/1/203/4597310?maxto...](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/1/203/4597310?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=organic&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT)

> Conclusion: From a systematic review of the currently available published > literature, evidence is lacking for nutrition-related health effects that > result from the consumption of organically produced foodstuffs.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19640946](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19640946)

> CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory > quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between > organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in > nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to > differences in production methods.

[https://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/1355685/organic- food...](https://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/1355685/organic-foods-safer- healthier-than-conventional-alternatives-systematic-review)

> Conclusion: The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic > foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption > of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic- > resistant bacteria.

Discussion of those papers: [https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-health- benefits-from-org...](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-health-benefits- from-organic-food/)

Discussion of meat and milk: [https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/organic-vs- conventional-mea...](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/organic-vs-conventional- meat-and-milk/)

<comment><USER11> There's ~no correlation between nutrient content and levels of toxic contaminants. If one added a lethal dose of botulism toxin to some food, it wouldn't change the nutrient content. But it would still kill you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is it possible to grow enough food in your backyard to live off of (plus chickens as a yard waste disposal) if you also work full time? I can't even eat at a restaurant without knowing if they use organic produce.

<comment><USER13> Organic produce uses tons of pesticides some of which are really nasty (but hey it's "natural" copper sulfate), so that's not a solution to anything.

<comment><USER12> i thought organic by definition meant that it didn't use pesticides.

<comment><USER14> The term "organic" only means something in Europe, because EU has much stricter rules regarding food quality and safety. In US it basically is just a marketing term meaning "overpriced food for hipsters".

<comment><USER15> Really? We get a lot of "EU-ORG" (the leaf of stars logo) stuff that is also "USDA Organic" labelled. I wonder how many of those products do not have the EU-ORG label in the US.

> EU has much stricter rules regarding food quality

And within the EU the standards are also widely different, especially in the non-EU-ORG stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If the US government is willing to directly subsidize corporate farms with corn subsidies, the least they can do is regulate them.

<comment><USER17> totally agree. If subsidies are given then the it should be possible to tell farms to go organic or whatever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Only 90?? What does the other 10 do to avoid pesticides????

<comment><USER19> Maybe 1/10 Americans only eat meat and over processed grains. They have different problems.

<comment><USER20> Meat and grain also have the pesticides in them though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I wonder if organic food is any better. I recall reading they use _much more_ "natural" pesticides on organic produce. Is growing your own stuff in a backyard I don't have really the only way to avoid pesticides?

<comment><USER22> Most of what I've seen has shown that it is indeed better, although not perfect. E.g. glyphosate is detectable in organic wine, but at much lower levels (5x?) compared to regular wine.

<comment><USER23> Glyphosate is not approved for organic use so that's an irrelevant point.

Whether total pesticide load (however you want to measure that) is higher or lower for organic vs conventional, varies widely with crop, location and farming method.

There are toxic organic pesticides like copper-based compounds that persist in the soil. And things like strawberry fields are fumigated with methyl bromide regardless of organic or conventional.

There is not perfect data on the harmfulness of many synthetic pesticides, so it's really hard to make a great judgment on whether it's worse or better for you - unless you have general faith that petroleum derived mystery cocktails are pretty much always going to be harmful.

It's all bad when it comes down to it, we should prefer something like permaculture.

<comment><USER24> > Glyphosate is not approved for organic use so that's an irrelevant point.

Actually it is a pretty interesting point.

<comment><USER25> Saying "there's less glyphosate therefore less pesticide" is poor reasoning, because glyphosate is replaced with other, generally more toxic, pesticides in organic crops.

It's interesting that organic crops have glyphosate despite it being banned for use with them, but that's a separate discussion.

<comment><USER26> No it isn't. Glyophosate is broadspectrum herbicide for use with gmo glyophosate resistant crops only, there is no organic analogue to this. Also consider that the concentration used is much higher for glyophosate application and the reduced ability for it to be filtered from ground water creates additional externalities.

<comment><USER25> There is indeed no organic analog for glyphosate. But there are other pesticides that are routinely applied to organic crops, such as copper sulfate, pyrethrin or rotenone. Both copper sulfate and rotenone are moderately toxic to people, and rotenone is highly toxic to fish.

<comment><USER26> Rotenone (which has it's usage restricted in omri) and pyrethrin are pesticides, copper sulfate is anti fungal; these non synthetic moderately toxic treatments are replaced with other, generally more toxic treatments in non-organic crops.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Human milk could not be sold commercially, because levels of many contaminants exceed legal limits. And ironically, indigenous peoples in the far north have among the highest levels. Because they live in a global cold trap.

</comment><comment><USER27> Is this supposed to be novel in some way that I'm missing? Of course you have chemicals in your body which are heavily sprayed on your food.

<comment><USER28> I just see it as a reminder that our food production system is set up in such a way that it is almost impossible not to regularly consume poison. Similar to the occasional article that reminds us, yes, the animals we eat were unnecessarily tortured before they made it to our plate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> At this point it becomes difficult to find a proper control group for testing the absence of these items.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm a farmer from the UK and have an agronomist who advises us on pesticide applications.

He visited the USA and said, when he stepped into their spray sheds, it was like going back in time 40 years: all kinds of chemicals that have been banned in the UK were still allowed in the USA (organophosphates etc).

Of course if the article doesn't state the amount of pesticides found, it doesn't tell you anything really, but I wouldn't trust American food standards based on my anecdotal experience, flawed may it be.

</comment><comment><USER31> Assuming pesticides are widespread and pervasive, it seems rather improbable to suggest that up to 10% of Americans _don 't_ have trace amounts of pesticides. Is there anyone who doesn't have, for instance, uranium, in their bodies?

</comment><comment><USER32> I'll go you one better, 100% of Americans have _chemicals_ in their bodies, such as _dihydrogen monoxide_ which causes certain death if inhaled in sufficient quantities.

</comment><comment><USER33> Plastics and pesticides

<comment><USER12> both of which should be illegal. (at least banning plastics for single-use items)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> One problem is that we usually take the easy approach to designing pesticides. They tend to be poisonous to a wide variety of animals, instead of just to the specific pests we are actually trying to kill.

Then we have to come up with some way to try to keep things other than the pests from getting exposed. Maybe we try to make it break down into something safe before it gets farther up the food chain. Maybe we make it so it washes off easily so cleaning the food is good enough (and hopefully we do something sensible with the runoff from that washing...).

There's another way, but it takes a lot more work and so it isn't done much. This is to study each specific insect you want to control, to develop a deep understanding of its life cycle. You identify the hormones that are involved in regulating and timing the life cycle.

You then make your pesticide based on those hormones, so that when exposed to it the insect's life cycle gets messed up. For example, suppose you've got an insect that mates and lays eggs during the warmer part of summer, and you find that the eggs need that heat to develop and hatch. Identify the hormones that regulate that, and you might be able to make a pesticide that causes that insect to lay its eggs too early, and the next generation dies out.

The beauty of this approach is that since the hormone your pesticide is based on already occurs naturally in your target insects, whatever is above them in the food chain has already evolved to not be bothered by it. All you are doing is messing with the timing of it in the insect, not its existence. So that hormone based pesticides are inherently much much safer than the general poison based pesticides.

But as I said, this is more expensive. Each species is probably going to require a pesticide specifically for it. This would probably take several PhD entomologists per species working for years.

If you do study a given insect and its life cycle to that extent, you also might be able to learn to control it without pesticides, especially in the case of invasive insects.

For example, lets say you've got an invasive moth that is attacking your crops and devastating them. In its native habitat, that moth's population is kept in check by parasitic wasps that lay their eggs in the moth's larvae. You might be able to deal with the invasive moths by importing those wasps. But you only would want to try that if you knew enough about the wasps to know that they would not become a problem too. If you know that the wasps only lay eggs on the larvae of that one moth species, great...bring a ton of the wasps, they'll wipe out the moths, and then the wasps won't have any place for their eggs and they die too.

Something like this was actually tried once, with an invasion of some Florida pest attacking California citrus groves. They brought in the wasps (or whatever--I don't actually remember if it was wasps, or something else)...and the wasps all died without harming the moths.

Later, they figured out that what they had thought was one species of parasitic wasps was really two very similar species, and only one of those two would control the particular pest they were trying to eliminate. There were only something like two parasitic wasp experts in the whole US at the time, and there are an unbelievable number of different parasitic wasp species so most of them have never been studied extensively.

</comment><comment><USER35> aka, food. do you eat it?</comment>


T-Mobile quietly hardens part of its U.S. cellular network against snooping - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/22/t-mobile-quietly-hardens-part-of-its-u-s-cellular-network-against-snooping/ <comment><USER2> Um guys, A5/3 is completely broken. According to Wikipedia: "In 2010, Dunkelman, Keller and Shamir published a new attack that allows an adversary to recover a full A5/3 key by related-key attack.[5] The time and space complexities of the attack are low enough that the authors carried out the attack in two hours on an Intel Core 2 Duo desktop computer even using the unoptimized reference KASUMI implementation. The authors note that this attack may not be applicable to the way A5/3 is used in 3G systems; their main purpose was to discredit 3GPP's assurances that their changes to MISTY wouldn't significantly impact the security of the algorithm."

Even if A5/3 weren't broken, there are still tower dumps and IMSI catchers, which are a whole lot easier to use than breaking encryption. Yes A5/3 is better than A5/1, but I call bullshit on this whole article.

<comment><USER3> >Yes A5/3 is better than A5/1, but I call bullshit on this whole article.

Super pendantic, but the title is 'hardens' not 'makes hard'. If it's better, than it's been hardened. Might not be the best thing available, but that's the meaning of a comparative.

<comment><USER4> Super-duper pedantic, but I would say broken can be considered neither hard nor hardened.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have T-Mobile, and I have to say, I've been quite happy with it and I've been just waiting for the other shoe to drop. The only negative thing I hear about them is people don't like the coverage area - which doesn't bother me because when I switched to them they were the only company that offered wifi calling (meaning I can comfortably use my phone at work and at home, where I spend 99% of my time, for the first time in 6-8 years).

Do I just have a rosy outlook, or is T-mobile's limited marketshare such a problem that they're somehow disciplined into being an actually good mobile carrier?

<comment><USER6> I've been a VoiceStream, then T-Mobile customer for over 16 years. There's been ups and downs in the relationship over the years. The most notable "down" was the $800 international roaming charge they refused to remove from my bill a few years back. Even though I really wanted to leave them then, a thorough cost analysis of the competition showed they really were still cheaper...

More recently, the Simple Choice plan they introduced last year which includes "free" international data roaming has ensured I stick with them for even longer. I travel quite a bit, so that + the wifi calling which works pretty much anywhere in the world has been a great thing.

<comment><USER7> Why would they remove the $800 international roaming charge?

<comment><USER8> A lot of the time, such charges come up because the customer was unaware, not because they used it. I once made a call from whatsapp not realizing it wouldnt go through wifi, and ran up almost $150, but T-mobile was kind enough to remove it off the bill. Just customer-friendliness, more than anything else.

<comment><USER9> The wife and I took a cruise a few years ago and I tried my damnedest to turn off anything even remotely resembling "yes, you can have a data connection". I wanted to leave my phone on in case something happened with the kids (and so I'd have a watch), I just didn't want it to DO anything other than allow incomming calls. Got home to a $200 phone bill because there was a checkbox somewhere I'd missed and cruise-ship mobile data is abhorrently expensive.

It happens.

<comment><USER10> Android: Apps/Settings/mobile networks/mobile data/checkbox off

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Just a reminder: TMobile is also actively chipping away at net neutrality through their 'free' music streaming feature.

That is, they inspect your traffic and don't charge your bandwidth quota for network traffic with TMobile-selected music streaming services (Spotify, Google Play, etc).

[http://www.t-mobile.com/offer/free-music- streaming.html](http://www.t-mobile.com/offer/free-music-streaming.html)

<comment><USER12> They don't DPI your traffic for this feature - if Spotfiy detects you're on .tmodns.net, they will serve you from internal Telekom network caches instead of hitting the wider internet. This is pretty much equivalent to australian ISPs' freezones.

They _do_ DPI for other purposes though, such as ensuring that you don't tether without paying (if you use a desktop browser user agent, it'll count your tethering quota separately -- even if you spoof the UA from your phone's browser), and for "caching" HTTP traffic (you'll see a 'X-Via: Harmony proxy' header on any HTTP traffic, on any port).

They also hijack DNS NXDOMAIN for ad-filled pages, with no usable opt out ("opt out" uses a cookie that uses javascript to serve the page anyway, then hide it with a fake nginx 404)

<comment><USER13> VPN solves all of those problems.

<comment><USER14> HTTPS solves these problems too.

<comment><USER15> HTTPS doesn't do anything for their DNS servers not returning NXDOMAIN as they ought to. Also, clients can use a VPN all on their own, they can't force all the servers they use to use HTTPS if they don't already.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> In other T-Mobile security news, their customer website only supports SSL3 and will stop working with Firefox 34 on November 24 (because SSL3 will disabled due to the POODLE attacks). (Their website login is currently broken in Firefox Beta, Aurora, and Nightly release channels.)

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1042380](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1042380)

</comment><comment><USER17> A5/3? Where have I seen this before?

Oh, right.

[http://eprint.iacr.org/2010/013.pdf](http://eprint.iacr.org/2010/013.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER18> This hardens your messages against passive eavesdropping of the wireless signal, but not a targeted attack with a bogus tower, right?

<comment><USER5> From the article:

 _Active attacks, involving a device called an "IMSI catcher," may still be able to eavesdrop on individual calls by manipulating a phone's security settings directly, without having to crack the encryption._

So, just hardens against passive eavesdropping (and only by upgrading to the latest standard, not by any specially devised method).

<comment><USER19> Also, I think a tower (real or bogus) can instruct your phone to downgrade to no-encryption, in which case the cipher won't matter.

If they really wanted to be "progressive" they would allow the phone to display a cipher icon for proper encryption with the tower, which was always part of the GSM spec, but was abandoned very early on. I think your SIM card needs to support that as well, IIRC ...

<comment><USER18> To be fair, it's a lot easier to harden the equipment they own vs the equipment your customers own. I'm not sure such a cipher icon is even possible in iOS without Apple's help. It certainly wouldn't be easy.

<comment><USER19> It's been a while since I went down this rabbithole, but I think it is required via spec, but only if your SIM card has that feature enabled ... and _no_ carriers anywhere (globally) enable that feature.

So I would be interested to see what happens if you insert a SIM card with security checking turned on, into an iphone...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Germany has great cellular network hackers. If anyone of you would like to know more about this area I'd highly recommend to search for talks by Harald Welte or Karsten Nohl.

</comment><comment><USER21> For many years I have impression that T-mobile seem to be the most user- friendly network among all of them.

I also enjoy their Simple Talk Network. $40 unlimited talk, text, mms, 3G. Sometimes my friends have hard time on their $120 Sprint or $140 ATT plan to get internet fast in places where SimpleTalk (T-mobile rebrand) works like a thunder!

</comment><comment><USER22> Good on Tmobile. I had them about 5 years ago and they was pretty good to me. I only switched because I wanted an iPhone and at the time the unlock community didn't come out with a patch. Because of that service I just opened a new line with them for my second phone and so far so good.

</comment><comment><USER23> T-MOBILE USED HARDEN! IT WASN'T VERY EFFECTIVE.

</comment><comment><USER24> Does this only affect 2G/EDGE for the most part? Because I know that T-Mobile falls back on 2G more often than AT&T does.

The only time I've been on 2G with AT&T in the last few years was going through the BART tunnel in South Bay… haha.

<comment><USER25> A5/3 (Kasumi) is near-on identical to the cyphers used in 3G connections, but you're right, this is the 2G only implementation; so yes, this only affects (applies to) 2G/EDGE/GSM.

I'm absolutely bloody agog that commercial first-world operators have taken until the end of 2014 to actually support this -I think it was ratified into the specification around 2001 if not earlier.

Also, for all you tinfoil wearers out there, you might like the fact that the original specification for A5/3 was altered to make it more hardware friendly. In 2010 it was realized that this actually made it extremely easy [1] to recover the session key (if not in real time) [2].

[1] core2due in a couple of hours easy, see the abstract [2]. [2] [http://eprint.iacr.org/2010/013](http://eprint.iacr.org/2010/013)

<comment><USER26> A5/3 is a block cipher, 3G connections use a stream cipher. Respectfully, this is not "near-on" identical.

[http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/334/advantages-a...](http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/334/advantages- and-disadvantages-of-stream-versus-block-ciphers)

Integrating support for these algorithms on the device side ends up being a high hurdle. Doing anything at scale is inevitably harder than you expect it to be. If it was a simple change, people would make it.

<comment><USER25> THanks for the clarification, I'm obviously getting myself confused somewhere. /me goes back to the documentation.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Nutfund, Bounties for Progress. Startupbus, BTC = Charity: Water - <AUTHOR> http://startupb.us/1fAwECq

<comment><USER2> Team member here. Coded this in four days on a roadtrip... We're excited to hear the HN community's feedback on this iteration, and the overall concept of raising bounties which are released to charity.

We're also really excited to shower at some point.</comment>


Ask HN: Read, Watch or Listen? - <AUTHOR> Hey. Do you read texts, watch videos or listen to audio? If so, which method is the most effective to learn something? Effective as in real understanding and complete retention. In addition, are there others ways to learn? <comment><USER2> I've found reading to deliver the longest-term benefits. When I read, I can sit in a quiet room for hours just soaking up information. Video and audio tends to be more click-baity.</comment>