Speaking to yourself in the third person makes you wiser - <AUTHOR> https://aeon.co/ideas/why-speaking-to-yourself-in-the-third-person-makes-you-wiser <comment><USER2> Related anecdote: I've always found that I'm able to make clearer judgments about situations, when _someone else_ is going through them. It's much harder when I'm the subject of the story.

I guess the difference is that your mental context is so much more developed when you're thinking about yourself (not in the 3rd person). You have skin in the game, maybe it's that you're worried about the outcome of the situation, or it's just stressing you out, or you're thinking about how it will affect your friends/family/the rest of your life. So when you view it from an outsider's perspective, and throw away all that mental "noise", you have a clearer head and can make better decisions with the long-term in mind.

Alternatively, if you're going through something, you could try imagining someone else in the same situation (make up someone if you have to) -- What advice would you give to them? Then use that advice for yourself.

<comment><USER3> Definitely agree. A couple of mental models I sometimes adopt to look at my situation more objectively:

* Thinking about what I would do as a parent if my child was in the same situation as I am

* View myself as a video game character (in the 3rd person, looking from above), and thinking about what I would do if I was controlling this character in a game with the same rules as life

<comment><USER4> Those are fantastic little self-hacks - thank you for sharing.

Currently looking down on myself and my advice to my games avatar is stop using HN and go to bed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> An important caveat for Psychology studies is to ask, "If the participants are told exactly what is being measured, do the results stay the same?" If the answer is "No" you should question the validity of the study.

Here for example, if you tell people that "intellectual humility; taking the perspective of others; recognising uncertainty; and having the capacity to search for a compromise." all lead to "emotional wellbeing, and relationship satisfaction" just prior to taking the test, would that effect size be similar to intentionally omitting that information and having people journal for four weeks?

As far as I can tell there was no informed control cohort in this study.

<comment><USER6> A lot of psychological studies measure effects invisible to the participants, often masking the real experiment as a technicality of a fake experiment that the participants know about.

It is well-known that "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."

<comment><USER7> > often masking the real experiment as a technicality of a fake experiment > that the participants know about

That's a common trope, but as far as I understand, based on discussions with friends who are in the domain, studies based on deception will in general be blocked by ethic committees (at least in Germany).

Don't quote me though, I'm not in psychology myself, and may not know what I'm talking about here :)

<comment><USER8> Based on what my friend (who is running a small psychology study) told me, non harmful deception is allowed so long as you explain the deception in the debriefing of your experiment. This is in the US.

<comment><USER9> Can confirm, as someone who has been a voluntary subject a couple times. But it's kind of weird, because deceptive design is so typical that I find myself speculating what the real study is while being studied.

<comment><USER7> > I find myself speculating what the real study is while being studied.

Faire point. I'm wondering how much studies are impacted by that in reality. Is there a known way to kind of estimate/mesure?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The results from this study are interesting but I am even more interested in the definitions of wisdom. I've been ruminating lately on the difference between knowledge (narrowly defined as a set of facts) vs experience. The most tortured analogy would be someone who has spent a lifetime reading books about swimming vs. a person who has spent all of their life swimming in pools/rivers/lakes. I realize this a non-standard and narrow definition of knowledge but I hope it is possible to bear with me since I can't think of a suitable synonym to separate phenomenological experience from book learning.

It does seem that our conceptions of intelligence are related to facts/knowledge more so than experiences. Intelligence appears to be a facility to collect, organize, analyze and draw conclusions from a set of facts. In that purely analytic view of intelligence, knowledge is highly prized. However it seems to me wisdom is more closely associated with lived experience. For certain, there does seem to be a rough distinction between someone we consider "knowledgeable", someone we consider "intelligent", and someone we consider "wise".

This supposes there is some aspect of phenomenological experience that is inherently different than the collection of facts and further some aspect of cognition separate from the organization and analyzation of facts. I am very interested in the sorts of things that separate my previous distinctions: knowledgeable, intelligent, wise. Could we realize a Turing-like test for wisdom?

<comment><USER11> Knowledge is a set of facts.

Wisdom is knowledge about which facts are useful in which circumstances for deriving new facts which are useful in said circumstance.

In other words wisdom is the ability to use facts to a good purpose.

<comment><USER12> >Knowledge is a set of facts.

This view, very common in the 20th C and beyond, is exposed and (I think) demolished in Oakeshott's essay _Rationalism in Politics_ [0]. The _rationalism_ he's talking about (which he says almost all political parties in the West nowadays espouse) is precisely believing that _knowledge is a set of facts_. That all knowledge can be written down in bullet points, and taught.

Yet most knowledge cannot be. If I know how to ride a bike, to play a musical instrument, to do any complex activity well, most of what I know cannot be put and wasn't learned in such a form. It's "know-how", practical knowledge, distinct from the kind that can be put into words, "know-that".

Let Oakeshott speak for himself a little:

"The second sort of knowledge I will call practical, because it exists only in use, is not reflective and (unlike technique) cannot be formulated in rules. This does not mean, however, that it is an esoteric sort of knowledge. It means only that the method by which it may be shared and becomes common knowledge is not the method of formulated doctrine. And if we consider it from this point of view, it would not, I think, be misleading to speak of it as traditional knowledge. In every activity this sort of knowledge is also involved; the mastery of any skill, the pursuit of any concrete activity is impossible without it. These two sorts of knowledge, then, distinguishable but inseparable, are the twin components of the knowledge involved in every concrete human activity. In a practical art, such as cookery, nobody supposes that the knowledge that belongs to the good cook is confined to what is or may be written down in the cookery book; technique and what I have called practical knowledge combine to make skill in cookery wherever it exists. And the same is true of the fine arts, of painting, of music, of poetry; a high degree of technical knowledge, even where it is both subtle and ready, is one thing; the ability to create a work of art, the ability to compose something with real musical qualities, the ability to write a great sonnet, is another, and requires, in addition to technique, this other sort of knowledge.

Again, these two sorts of knowledge are involved in any genuinely scientific activity. The natural scientist will certainly make use of the rules of observation and verification that belong to his technique, but these rules remain only one of the components of his knowledge; advance in scientific discovery was never achieved merely by following the rules..."

[0] 1962. It's very readable, everyone should read it. It was embarrassing how much I learned from it. I even learned a lot about teaching music from it.

<comment><USER13> I wouldn't call the skill to ride a bike "knowledge" even though English does conflate that which you know with that which you can do.

The reason I want to make the distinction explicit is that the conflation makes it easier for people to be confused about what they know; after all, they would "know" how to ride a bike, right? Yet, most people would probably be stumped (at least for a while) if you asked them what it actually takes to ride a bike.

You can be very skilled at something without having all that much knowledge about what you're doing.

<comment><USER11> Correct, I think. We don't really "know" much about how to ride a bike because we can't really explain it or teach to others by explaining it. It is a skill, not knowledge.

Of course, words only mean what we intend them to mean. But we are striving to arrive at definitions of concepts which most people can readily agree on.

<comment><USER12> Well, you and the GP might find it interesting to read _Rationalism in Politics_ , where what you see as just correct and reality, he describes as a recent error/insanity that's infected the world. (I really can't do his argument justice here.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> D.A. Freccia: You're a pretty smart fella.

Joe Moore: Ah, not that smart.

D.A. Freccia: You're not that smart, how'd you figure it out?

Joe Moore: I tried to imagine a fella smarter than myself. Then I tried to think, "what would he do?"

\-- Jim Frangione, Gene Hackman, Heist (2001 film)

<comment><USER15> This can be a real thing.

Sometimes our performance is less about our actual ability than it is about the role we're currently playing. Taking a different role can lead to stronger outcomes.

As a basketball and soccer coach, I've noticed the way that team mates will improve their game when the dominant player is missing for a game. After consideration, I've decided that there's a bit of a social component to how well they choose to play -- perhaps they hold back a bit to avoid messing with the pecking order.

Recently I've been experimenting with imagining myself stepping into the role of heroes of mine (my father and my step father, actually) while I lift heavy weights. It seems to help me let go of some of my restraints and lift harder.

<comment><USER16> I wonder if major league sports are aware about this effect? Is that why some of their star players have injuries so often? I don't follow sports at all, but star players becoming injured is a news item that sort leaks into more general news to the point of being cliché.

<comment><USER17> Perceived frequency = incident frequency * report frequency

What's the random vs. nonrandom variable?

<comment><USER16> Thanks to you 'dredmorbius and 'brokenmachine for reminding me about perceived frequency. I was trying to get at whether or not the rest of the team starts playing harder when the players higher in the pecking order are way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The most damaging advice I ever got in my life was to talk to myself.

I have always thought in mostly visual/symbolic terms. This made me really good with math early in my life, but it started failing when I began proof writing. Then I got the advice to "explain the problem to yourself and the solution will come naturally" from a friend who is really gifted at mathematical proofs. (And also later received similar advice in programming in the form of "rubber duck debugging").

Surprisingly, it works remarkably well and probably increased my problem solving skills tenfolds, or at least my ability to communicate the answer. I started using it for everything.

But it comes with the side effect of gaining a voice in your head. And that voice is a fucking vicious asshole to me. In the recent years the thoughts even started subvocalizing and I have to forcefully remember to make it stop. It's super embarrassing when there are other people around you.

I am sure this problem is unique to me because I have never heard someone describe it (other than partially matching symptoms of schizophrenia or tourette). But I am certain in my case when the voices started and I am not sure the superpower problem solving skills are worth the trade.

<comment><USER19> The only issue I have with the voice in my head is that it makes me read slowly, because I have to imagine the sound of the word instead of its meaning only.

<comment><USER20> This was the actual advice I was given when proof-reading text I had written. Reading it in your head allows your brain to auto-correct issues in the text. Reading it out loud is supposed to slow you down to "disable" the auto- correct. It's not perfect, but I definitely found and could correct more of my mistakes before submitting the text.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This example came to my mind:

"I can't get involved in it, you know. One thing I didn't want to do was make an emotional decision and I wanted to do what was best for LeBron James", LeBron James talking about himself in third person, [https://youtu.be/yrd9T-hny84?t=14](https://youtu.be/yrd9T-hny84?t=14)

<comment><USER22> What's weird about that is that it mixes first and third person; it sounds like "I" is supposed to be someone different from LeBron James", which makes it sound really strange to me.

<comment><USER23> I think it actually perfectly describes what he was trying to communicate, and I've seen this construction a few times before. He's saying that he had to think of himself as a third party and consider the wellbeing of 'that person' in order to make a rational decision... sort of a corollary to the article's point.

<comment><USER24> I would say that in practice LeBron James (celebrity) is effectively a separate entity from LeBron James (human), with overlapping but distinct goals and interests. LeBron may be the "CEO" of and largest stakeholder in the celebrity entity, but the final product presented to the world (basketball games, interviews, social media, movies, video games, trading cards, etc.) is going to be an amalgamation of numerous people's contributions.

In this sense, it's worthwhile for him to make a distinction between the celebrity entity's image/profitablity and his own personal happiness, as well as a distinction between his own personal thoughts/actions and those of the collective "LeBron James" celebrity.

This idea isn't specific to celebrities (except insofar as most people would be smaller operations or "sole proprietorships"); one's mind and the legal entity of one's self are clearly different things — the latter of which may incorporate contributions by accountants, lawyers, relatives with power of attorney, etc. At a more basic level, anyone can at least make a distinction between itself and its body's interactions with the rest of the world.

<comment><USER25> Thanks for this description. It made the mental shift easier to empathize with. Individuals do constitute so many external and internal influences. It seems it could be helpful to think of each expression of our selves as a product, or a plant, that we have the power to consciously cultivate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Really? Feels too close to cultivating schizophrenia. Why not keeping youself as "I" in inner dialogue, add "what the fuck did I just do?" or "what would somebody else think in their head?" questions more often if you think you're not objective. If you really want to put yourself in somebody's shoes, why not do it temporarily and run the dialogue as I=them? I think changing your inner dialogue to 3rd person can have further reaching negaitve consequences. I haven't run any study to confirm it, it's just a feeling, but arguably they haven't as well because 4 week test with single culmination test won't find any issues after a year or two, what if it increases negative schisophrenic- like behaviour tenfold?

<comment><USER27> > "what the fuck did I just do?"

Made me think of the perceived difference between an I, a You and a We in this context. Try it.

If someone asks you what your stance or beliefs are on a subject, doesn't explaining "I think..." or "It seems to me..." put you through something emotionally? Now try third-person, isn't "Joe doesn't like that kind of thing" actually feel different to say? Isn't it less emotionally taxing, easier to get through?

How about "what's next for us, Self?", better/easier than "how do I feel? What am I up to?". I think so.

Or, better yet, "/me agrees".

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It also makes you sound important

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tPGc9lYFyZ0](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tPGc9lYFyZ0)

<comment><USER27> I R baboony.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Good comedian's do this too. They might tell a funny story (that _they_ were involved in) from a 3rd person perspective. This allows them to approach a situation from multiple people's perspectives.

It makes for good comedy because it show's how each character's view/opinion could be misconstrued and humorous depending on their context, prior knowledge and stereotypes...

</comment><comment><USER9> I wonder if this is a reason people find prayer so meaningful, aside from any metaphysical/supernatural beliefs. Though I've left organized religion and am probably some sort of agnostic theist, I still occasionally pray. I don't ask for outcomes anymore, as it's pretty clear to me that tragedy and fortune visit the pious and impious all the same. Yet, it brings me some comfort and clarity to externalize my hopes, fears, and joys, all the same. Perhaps our rich, egoistic inner life as humans is really useful for the steady-state of the systems we've invented for ourselves, but unsuited for navigating disruptions. For that, we created mechanisms to dissolve our fragile egos and externalize our thinking.

</comment><comment><USER30> To be fair, speaking to yourself is the second person; speaking about yourself is the third person.

<comment><USER31> I disagree - the audience of one's speech doesn't necessarily dictate point of view.

I can tell myself "I can do it!", "You need to settle down", and "solumos needs to remember to lock the back door" without breaking any rules.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Do many people speak to themself in the third person? It seems kind of odd in my opinion since we usually think of people that speak about themselves in the third person as being self absorbed, eccentric, or both. I do often take on the role of a third party in my own thoughts. For example, if I am fixing something on my house and not 100% sure of the results. It may seem ok to me or my wife, but then I think of the previous owner (a very meticulous person named Tim) and think "what would Tim have to say about this". Then I proceed to scrutinize things from their perspective. It's not really the same thing, but I think it serves a similar purpose and doesn't seem so internally awkward.

</comment><comment><USER33> Given that I find it natural to use second person (singular) pronoun for the "voice" in my head, I find it weird that only second and third person pronoun (sigular) were part of the research.

<comment><USER23> What's the difference between second person singular and plural? I thought they were both "you"?

I find I tend to slip between first person singular and plural depending on what I'm doing. In particular, I always comment my code in first person plural because it's a conversation I'm having with whoever reads the code.

<comment><USER33> > What's the difference between second person singular and plural? I thought > they were both "you"?

Didn't think about it while writing that comment, but my main language is Hebrew, which makes this distinction in second person.

<comment><USER23> I did wonder if it'd be something like that. I learned something new today! :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> > In a series of laboratory experiments

Every single result in the social sciences ought to be considered false until independently reproduced. There have been far too many failed replications lately to take studies at face value, even when these studies are published in prestigious journals. You should apply this skepticism even more assiduously in cases where some study claims that one weird trick makes you a better person.

No. Stop it already. Stop believing p-hacked nonsense. If it hasn't been reproduced independently, it's a fairy tale.

<comment><USER25> I agree with your sentiment. If the cost is minimal, and the potential gains large, is it not worthwhile to try out for yourself?

<comment><USER34> Because self experimentation is very hard to blind properly and the cohort size is tiny

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Russell thinks this might be a good solution for people who don't currently (or maybe ever) have a significant other or a close best friend. Normally, Russ likes to bounce ideas off his partner, but when he isn't in a relationship, it feels like he's hamstrung when making daily decisions. He's a little worried about seeming like a complete lunatic by talking to himself though - especially if he starts to talk or write like this in public.

<comment><USER36> Russell is a wise guy

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Talk to yourself in the third person, but talking _about_ yourself in the third person to others is .. creepy. (and it is. It is just .. creepy "he said")

<comment><USER36> What I was thinking exactly

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Anybody read the original research ?

If so , how big was the effect ? What are the stats ?

<comment><USER39> The article mentions the "research" which, even though I think self- introspection is worthwhile, is extremely subjective and the self-measurements would influence the results. I wish social studies like these had other terms so that it wouldn't be conflated with real science.

<comment><USER40> What would you classify as "real" science? Be cautious of dismissing research because it doesn't fit into your personal definition of reality.

<comment><USER39> Quantifiable, repeatable, falsifiable theory that is peer reviewed and forms a foundation for other theory. Physics is at the peak of hard science. Social science is a worthy endeavor, but it belongs in a different category.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> When it comes to introspection or when examining yourself or working out a problem, in my view, anything that gives you some level of objective detachment can help. I can see where speaking in the 3rd person could be one approach. Other people find that journaling and reading it back helps. Still others find talking with an objective 3rd party (friend, therapist, etc.) is helpful. For me, one trick I use is to pretend that I am preparing a presentation of the problem to a group of people. I think this let's me approach the problem in a methodical and objective way.

Everyone is different so the best thing I think is to try different approaches and use what works best for you.

</comment><comment><USER42> Robert Anton Wilson describes a process of using only the third person in speech and thought for psychological change, and IIRC he got the idea from Alestier Crowley, so the idea could be nearly a century old.

<comment><USER43> He also extolled the wisdom-widening effect of writing in E-Prime, a subset of the English language that excludes all forms of the verb 'to be': [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Seem to always remember this because I feel it opened my eyes to how much speech can influence, but also assist you. I'm talking about Lebron James and when he was going through his decision making in 2010. To stay in Cleveland, with the hometown team who nurtured his career and it is home, or should he sign on with Miami. For him to begin making an unemotional decision, he distanced himself from the situation; at the time he was supposedly pressured from many sides.

"I wanted to do what's best for LeBron James and to do what makes LeBron James happy."

</comment><comment><USER45> I consider myself an introvert, but feel-good books like quiet are pandering. Is this the same? I looked at the website. It looks like pandering next to click bait in _insert your_ town. Look at the website. Sorry, if you talk to yourself in the third person - take advantage of it. I talk to myself in the third person constantly - don't need studies to prove that it's helpful. It definitely helps me with presentations - rehearse and rehearse. Because, I'd be considered crazy if I didnt.

</comment><comment><USER46> During an intense Vipassana retreat I was examining how my inner personality was being projected and it suddenly fell away as unnecessary. I smiled and internally said Chris has been releived of duty. For several days I perceived my self non subjectively as a friend might see me. I observed my face in the mirror as a third person. It's hard to describe the actual physical feeling. We view ourselves through one hell of a subjective filter. It was a very calm and real experience.

</comment><comment><USER47> I am a very poor student of mindfulness meditation. But, one of the big benefits I do recognize is practicing this strategy.

Have you ever watched someone screw up in slow motion? Where you sat back and said "Duuuuude... don't go there!" And, it went badly exactly how you knew it would?

Wouldn't it be great if you could practice doing that for yourself in intense situations? That's a lot of what mindfulness meditation can be about.

"Can be" because there are a zillion variations out there depending on where you look.

</comment><comment><USER48> I've always seen wisdom as the ability to reason well from moral axioms, whether yours or others, to normative conclusions. If reasoning from the axioms of others to normative conclusions you yourself would disagree with, you've demonstrated the ability to understand their views.

Once you're able to do that you're able to engage in the synthesis of several viewpoints to do things like conflict resolution, negotiation, leadership, etc.

</comment><comment><USER36> People who speak about themselves in the third person on their profile feels like they have some kind of narcissistic personality.

</comment><comment><USER49> How about speaking of oneself in the third person to others? Does this make one _seem_ wiser? Or perhaps arrogant.

<comment><USER23> I actually misread the title to be this, and thought of all the Yoda-esque 'wise people' who do this in popular media. I think the actual post is much more interesting, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> One thing watching Thai daily soaps has taught me is that nobody in Thailand uses pronouns like "I" or "me" \- everyone just refers to them in the third person by name as if there is a copy of them standing right there. I thought it was totally weird but maybe they are just wiser :)

</comment><comment><USER51> Next time you are angry, upset, frustrated; say out loud to yourself, "Why is <your name> angry?" and "What is making <your name> angry?" Start answering those questions to yourself and I can guarantee that your anger will subside.

</comment><comment><USER52> That's how praying works.

</comment><comment><USER53> I think it just makes you sound like a cute anime character:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImhfIv5NSqY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImhfIv5NSqY)

</comment><comment><USER54> I can only agree. But I thought the reason this worked was that it assured I engaged the assistance of the brightest person in the room.

Aside: I wish I were joking.

</comment><comment><USER55> He'd throw a fit if I did that though.

</comment><comment><USER56> Interesting. I only talked to myself when I was depressed or when I was a child.

</comment><comment><USER57> An exercise that has you expend extra mental energy to think about your decisions results in you making better decisions. Duh.

I doubt the specifics of the exercise (thinking about it in the 3rd person) are all that important, except inasmuch as it takes more mental energy to think of yourself in the 3rd person.

</comment><comment><USER58> Some of the comments and responses here provide huge insights about what it's like to live with "voices" and ways that have helped manage them. This is truly great information. I'm going to bookmark it and come back later and spend some time learning.

</comment><comment><USER59> I must be brilliant then, at least that's what the voices tell me.

</comment><comment><USER60> Jimmy and misunderstandings kinda clash

</comment><comment><USER61> This is incredibly useful information

</comment><comment><USER62> It puts the lotion in the basket.

</comment><comment><USER63> Bob Dole, the Rock- is there any evidence that this thesis isn't intuitively correct?

</comment><comment><USER64> Oh the irony. I always thought the people who do this were slightly insane. Guess I'm wrong.

</comment><comment><USER65> So this is the reason I have so much gray hair in my early thirties!

</comment><comment><USER66> Imo "learning to be wiser" is an oxymoron

<comment><USER67> I think that the idea that wisdom is either innate or entirely absent is the main reason that there aren't more wise people around. (Kind of the "I was never any good at math" school of thought.) Wisdom is, and should be, a learned attribute.

<comment><USER68> In fairness, learning implies a sort of intentionality to study something. While math can be picked up with some hard work, in my experience, what a lot of people call wisdom is just reflecting on your life and what's worked and what hasn't.

<comment><USER69> I don't see why self-reflection can't be learned. It's a matter of building the right habits and processes to make it a natural thing for your mind.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Typesetting: Linotype – 1960 Educational Film - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wHiddZOfa8 <comment><AUTHOR> The mechanical world of typesetting, circa 1960.

This runs a tad longish (34 minutes), but I found it captivating. How roman, _italic_ , multiple fonts, j u s t i fi c a t i o n, and more, were handled in matrices and hot type.

(Actually, come to think of it, ligatures weren't mentioned. Hrm... OK, they're on the keyboard itself: [https://www.thebookdesigner.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/07/L...](https://www.thebookdesigner.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/07/Linotype-keyboard.jpg))</comment>


Digital Ocean / EC2 - any other on-demand cloud providers? - steve-slicify

I've put together a quick online calculator to help you figure out how much your IaaS provider is going to screw you for: https://secure.slicify.com/Calculator.aspx.
I have EC2, Digital Ocean, and some others. Am I missing anyone else that sells compute by the hour? (I know there are tons of VPS services that sell monthly, but this is specifically for hourly rates).
thanks Steve <comment><AUTHOR> Here in Sydney I use [https://ninefold.com](https://ninefold.com) if I want something in a local legal jurisdiction...</comment>


Why Espionage vs Treason for Snowden? - <AUTHOR>

It's interesting that they chose espionage vs treason. Espionage is the act of spying or using spies to obtaining secret information" Espionage can be an act done for one's country - treason can never be an act done from one's country. By choosing espionage it could be a nod toward the fact that this is proven to a deliberate act towards the country. Or it could be simply to remove that as a point of conjecture to better secure a conviction. <comment><USER2> The definition of treason is constitutionally limited in the U.S.:

 _Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court._

This is generally taken to mean that one can't be convicted of treason for doing something that indirectly aids an enemy, which is what leaking secrets would probably fall under. Instead it's limited to cases where someone actively fights the U.S. (e.g. joined the Taliban, or during WW2 joined an Axis army), or where they give direct material assistance to an enemy of the U.S. ("adhering" is a bit vague, but is typically taken to require some kind of direct allegiance, not only helping them indirectly).

Some cases of espionage could be treason, but it's only been charged in the past where there is a very direct kind of espionage _for_ someone else, e.g. an American being paid by the KGB.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hong Kong doesn't have an equivalent to treason and so would not be able to extradite him on charges of it.</comment>


Failure of Open Salaries - <AUTHOR> https://jay.kanakiya.in/blog/failure-of-open-salaries/ <comment><USER2> Buffer has been widely successful in implementing open salaries</comment>


Your culture is becoming less valuable every second. - <AUTHOR>

http://brennenbyrne.com/post/45700543310/cultural-inflation <comment><USER2> Don't put your URL in the text field, it's not clickable. Better to delete and submit again.</comment>


What you guys think of Windev? - <AUTHOR>

I'm searching for arguments against this software.<p>Anyone have used it and can say some feedbacks ? <comment><USER2> Since there are many different things that are referred to as "windev", you might want to be more specific. Put a little thought into your submissions before submitting them.</comment>


The Bare Bones Essential Checklist For Sending Solid Email - <AUTHOR> http://www.sendicate.net/blog/2013/10/03/bare-bones-checklist-for-sending-solid-email

<comment><USER2> Thanks to Kevan from [http://sendsmarter.co](http://sendsmarter.co) for the post. Definitely check out Send Smarter for great email tips.

</comment><comment><USER3> Obligatory comment about how blech HTML e-mail (still) is.

<comment><USER2> Why is it any worse than HTML web sites? ;-P But seriously, doesn't it depend on the implementation just like everything else?

<comment><USER3> When someone sends me an e-mail, I want to read the message they've sent. I don't want their idiotic decision to render it in unreadable tiny blue lettering to factor in to this. I don't need a half-megabyte PNG showing me what their corporate logo looks like.

I don't want my mail client to have to rat me out to the sender when I open the message, just because their template depends on loading images from the web (apparently some mail clients now do this again by default? Madness!).

I don't want to parse the sender's message through a complex (and historically fragile) HTML parser just to give them the opportunity to make the message more difficult to read.

E-mail is about communicating a textual idea - the text is what matters. Let me decide how I want to render that so I can best digest it.

<comment><USER2> We (Sendicate) agree with your points. We have templates that automatically resize images, use readable fonts and colors, emphasize text and readability on mobile (even with multiple columns and dynamic layouts). We also automatically create a plain-text version without re-writing links for tracking. We have learnt from the mistakes of others and tried to solve the problems you describe. Email can be horrible, but it doesn't have to be.

The good news is that you _can_ decide how to view your emails. For Apple Mail try running "defaults write com.apple.mail PreferPlainText -bool true"

<comment><USER3> Good on you for making an effort and thanks for the tip about Apple Mail. If only this was more widely known and/or available on iOS.

A viable text/plain part is extremely important - it means my MUA ([http://sylpheed.sraoss.jp/en/](http://sylpheed.sraoss.jp/en/) is fantastic, btw) doesn't have to try and mangle down HTML in to something readable.

I would suggest just turning off the HTML part though, it's superfluous once you have a working text/plain 8^)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why are the buttons on the apple tv remote differently shaped? - <AUTHOR> http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/54999/why-are-the-two-buttons-on-the-apple-tv-remote-shaped-differently-menu-play-p

<comment><USER2> Same reason why there are bumps on the F and J keys...or raised dots on volume/channel buttons on tv remotes...

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think so. Because that's for blind people. And them being right and left, UNDERNEATH the big circle at the top makes that relatively easy, right? I think it maybe that, but definitely something else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> So the user forms an association between the shape of the button and its function, that way they are easier to differentiate in the dark.

Edit: I totally beat the stackexchange answer by 4 minutes :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Is that really why? That's awesome

<comment><USER3> Well, I don't work for Apple and I'm not a professional UI designer. So I can't possibly be certain that I know the true motivation for that design decision. But I think it is a reasonable guess.</comment></comment></comment>


YC Winter 2017 Technology Stacks - <AUTHOR> https://siftery.com/groups/yc-winter-2017?activetab=products_used <comment><AUTHOR> Just started this today so it's a WIP. So far we've picked up 291 unique products across 103 companies.</comment>


Winkli – The app to discover you'll bump into at your Facebook events - <AUTHOR> http://wink.li

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi ! I'm the co-founder of Winkli. Very excited to launch the app on iOS and Android. Would love to talk with you about your first impression and feedbacks ! Loading might be a little long for users who have 600+ friends on Facebook. Don't worry we're working on it :)</comment>


Show HN: Phrassed.com – a decentralized anarchistic chat app - <AUTHOR> https://phrassed.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Creator here. It's amazing what you can create in just a few hours using modern web technology.

Source code can be found here: [https://github.com/vnglst/svelte-gundb- chat](https://github.com/vnglst/svelte-gundb-chat)

Let me know what you think!

Btw. had a very nice chat with the creator of gundb (Mark Nadal) right inside the chat app. That was pretty cool. He also tweeted about it here: [https://twitter.com/marknadal/status/1253446569665257473](https://twitter.com/marknadal/status/1253446569665257473)

</comment><comment><USER2> what is a decentralized anarchistic chat app?</comment>


Cereal Masturbation – National Geographic - <AUTHOR> https://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/history/cereal-masturbation.aspx <comment><USER2> That was quite the risky click, but interesting nonetheless!

</comment><comment><USER3> It's fascinating to me how much of our culture has been shaped by straight up lunatic whack-a-doo people from hundreds (or even thousands) of years ago.

<comment><USER4> It's ironic then that, from the sound of it, I don't think Dr. Kellogg whacked his doo.

<comment><USER5> Or he did but felt so much shame he went to all this effort!</comment></comment></comment>


There's a Tatt for That: Tattoo Ink Read by iPhones - <AUTHOR> http://campustechnology.com/articles/2011/07/22/theres-a-tatt-for-that.aspx

<comment><USER2> Great concept, though porting it to the Symbian or even Android platforms could make more sense given the high prevalence of diabetics in South Asia.</comment>


Don Rosa: Why I Quit - <AUTHOR> http://career-end.donrosa.de/

<comment><USER2> _"But it's an unfortunate fact that there have never been, and I ultimately realized there never will be, any royalties paid to the people who write or draw or otherwise create all the Disney comics you've ever read."_

Please remember the above quote next time you hear some corporate puppet bring up the "starving artist" argument in a copyright policy debate.

<comment><USER3> Don't frame it like that. It's dishonest.

Corporations withholding royalties from artists is _obviously bad_. But it's entirely consistent to condemn such abuse while still supporting the idea that artists ought to be repaid for their work.

<comment><USER4> Corporations withholding royalties from salaried employees with whom no agreement was made regarding royalties is not "obviously bad".

<comment><USER3> Point taken. My objection was to praptak's generalized false dilemma of corporations cheating their employees versus weak copyright and widely accepted file sharing. Don Rosa's case is indeed more complex.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This guy's history speaks volumes about success and being good at something.

People who want to get into Software business because of money and people who want to learn how to play the guitar because of popularity have one thing in common: they only envision the outcome. They daydream of sitting on a load of cash or being surrounded by friends (and girls) when playing a tune.

People who get really successful at something enjoy the freaking process. Most of the times (if not all) they don't even realize they are heading for success: they are too busy enjoying the improvement of their craft.

</comment><comment><USER6> I grew up reading Don's comics, and my D.U.C.K. book is so worn that it doesn't have a cover anymore. Hell, in my old room I still have his (wonderfully and finely detailed, as usual) Duck genealogical tree poster. Despite all this, I knew nothing about the man himself, which - judging from this heartfelt article - is as good and intelligent as his comics. It's sad to see he stopped writing, mostly because there's no one there to fill his gap -- and it's a huge gap, as huge as those left by Floyd Gottfredson and Carl Barks.

<comment><USER7> I also own every duck book he ever released. I grew up with his and Carl Barks' comics. I still enjoy them.

Btw, Don Rosa and Carl Barks are almost like national heroes in Finland where I grew up. When Carl Barks visited the country, there were people on the streets celebrating. Don Rosa's visits are also a big thing.

<comment><USER7> Here's a video from 1994 when Carl Barks had his first visit in Helsinki. The streets were full of people celebrating. He was kind of a rock star in the country.

[http://yle.fi/elavaarkisto/artikkelit/carl_barks_suomessa_14...](http://yle.fi/elavaarkisto/artikkelit/carl_barks_suomessa_14320.html#media=14325)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I might not understand the complaint here. I don't get paid royalties on the software I write either, because my employer owns the copyright to my work. That licensing arrangement suits both of us because I would like to collect a salary without assuming the risk that my work won't be profitable. It's not an exploitive relationship.

<comment><USER9> The thing is, you are actually assuming the risk that your work is not profitable.. if the work is your personal work, your employer may sack you or withhold a raise. if the work is your team's then you share the risk, unless your team is the only team and then your employer goes out of business.

It is (usually) an exploitative relationship, most just don't know it. The fact that this arrangement is the norm speaks only of the power differential and nothing of fairness. Could you imagine what would happen to management if employees got a fair share of the work they produced.. for that matter, how much of Don's profits came from his hand and how much from the advertisers and how much from Disney's distribution network? Why are advertisers paid so much and box packers paid so little?

The fact that so many of us accept this system is because we don't have the power to demand profits (or we don't know any better) and we need to eat. We just tell ourselves that we prefer to earn a little less so we don't have to worry about risk. It makes it easier to sleep at night.

<comment><USER10> Not really. Once you get into understanding how investors, investment and VC, etc. work, the mathematics of risk and payoff become very clear. If you, as an investor, are throwing millions of dollars into a product that requires millions of dollars, and has only a 10% chance of success, then you a commensurate share of the payoff as well, which may even be most of it.

At my last job, I got to choose the balance between salary and equity I wanted -- and I really had to calculate if I wanted to earn a little less (or a lot less) in exchange for a greater share of future profits. Or to earn a little more (or a lot more) in exchange for giving that up. And having gained quite a bit of knowledge from the investor side of things, at least here in the tech industry in NYC, I don't think it's accurate at all to say it's "usually an exploitative relationship". At least, as long as employees bother to figure out how it all works.

Of course your employer can sack you or withold a raise. But of course _you_ can leave for another company, or tell them _you're_ leaving if they _don't_ give you a raise.

But you've got to have enough skill to be of value, and enough negotiating skill not to be taken advantage of, as well. Just like a company has to have enough skill not to hire not to be taken advantage of by _its_ employees -- the employees who don't contribute, the employees who spend more time playing politics, etc.

<comment><USER9> Absolutely! I agree with your whole post. I was meaning 'usually' in the sense of usual employer / employee relationships.

Most employee's do not know, nor know how to find out, their net worth to the company. They definitely do not get offered equity.

Most companies go to some lengths to obfuscate the earnings from their employees and contractually forbid their employees from speaking about their own earnings. Most employees, even if armed with such knowledge, do not have the power to demand their worth as there are a large queue of eager replacements for their position.

My point was essentially, if someone thinks they are trading off rewards / equity / ip royalties etc for job security, they probably do not have a good understanding of their relationship or value to their employer.

Don seems to have known full well what he was trading off, and as he explained when he drew the line and exercised his right to negotiate "they simply refused to actually ask permission". They refused to negotiate as they were so used to being in a position of power.

"But you've got to have enough skill to be of value" I would say, you have to have enough skill to be of 'great' value.. then you have the power to negotiate or go elsewhere. If you do.. more power to you!

<comment><USER11> You don't need great value, you just need two prospective buyers to compete.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This article is a good example of why I don't buy non-creator owned comics (aside from the fact that I view Marvel and DC comics from 1990-on to be pure shit). I know most comic fans don't give a shit but I do.

</comment><comment><USER13> Wow I never expected to see an article about Don Rosa in HN. This is a really sad turn of events which I was not aware of. I grew up with Carl Barks's and Don Rosa's comics and thoroughly enjoyed each one of their stories, was inspired and moved by them. He leaves some pretty big shoes to be filled.

Thank you Don, for everything you have done and for being with me through all my childhood( and beyond) through your stories

</comment><comment><USER14> btw, advice to anyone who experiences it, if you think your retina is detaching, SEEK MEDICAL ATTENTION IMMEDIATELY. (If that wasn't obvious from the article.)

</comment><comment><USER15> 9 volumes!

</comment><comment><USER16> TL;DR:

Disney sucks to work with.

</comment><comment><USER11> > Most Americans retire after 30 – 35 years.

</comment><comment><USER17> It seems it all boils down to this: he didn't make as much money as he wanted.

I don't want to trivialize the issue: making money is not easy, but the guy over-plays the victim card.

He seems to be a successful artist. He quits and it's all a fault of _other_ people, who don't pay him as much as he deserves.

Again, not to trivialize the issue, but an artist with a lot of fans should be able to find a way to make money.

Did he try to follow the steps of many cartoonists that make decent money doing daily cartoons on the web, like theotmealguy?

Did he try to create anything outside of work-for-hire arrangement that he entered (willingly, as a consenting adult) into with Disney?

No evidence of that.

According to him, it's just the system conspires against poor artist.

According to me, he's just a lousy businessman who lacks awareness of his own shortcomings and oblivious to many ways he could have made money with his art. Instead he chose a safe route of employment and as an adult he should understand that it also usually comes with limited upside.

If he wanted a bigger upside, he should have taken more risks.

<comment><USER6> I don't think you read his article very well. He doesn't give a shit about making money. He's just pointing out that in the Disney comic system there are no royalties and artists get exploited.

<comment><USER18> I don't think this is particular to the Disney comic. How many game developers are being paid proportionally with sales? Usually sales and marketing people are the ones with those benefits, not the content generators. On a flip side, is not like they invest any money on the final product as they are generally being paid as a regular job.

<comment><USER19> Before 7th generation pretty much everyone paid royalties in the games. I believe one of the major reasons the industry is in shambles now is that, with the advance of the 7th generation, 3d parties moved to cut off royalties either by acquiring studios or by rigging contracts. Still, 3d party owned studios working on profitable titles are paying bonuses that are proportional to sales more or less. For example, check out Activision vs. Infinity Ward GMs lawsuit.

<comment><USER20> I think that with respect to game royalties, that ship set sail a long time ago. Publishers in the earliest generations would often give creators huge royalties, and it's just been on a gradual decline since then.

The topsy-turvy situation the industry is in now, though, has countless factors - it's going to be discussed for years to come, and the signs of disruption are appearing on all fronts.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Announcing the TechStars Network - <AUTHOR> http://www.techstars.org/2011/01/31/announcing-the-techstars-network/ <comment><USER2> Their page title advertises Techstars as the "#1 Startup Accelerator in the World." I'm not sure what metric they are using, but that seems a bit disingenuous.

<comment><USER3> Computer Scientists count from 0? :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [gripe]

Why do people think the highlighter type functionality is a good idea? I, as well as quite a few people I know, tend to highlight as we read to make it easy to read text in contrast and keep our place within a page...

<comment><USER5> I do that too. Double clicking on web page text is sort of a nervous tick for me. On sites like the New York Times (and now TechStars, apparently) odd things happen when you highlight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> _Pioneered_ by TechStars? Really?

<comment><USER7> There's also this gem in their title _"Funding and Mentorship from the #1 Startup Accelerator in the World"_

From the organization that blatantly copied Y Combinator, the #1 accelerator.

Somebody has an inferiority complex.

<comment><USER8> And Founder Institute wins on quantity

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My company is participating in the current AlphaLab (Pittsburgh) cycle. Although we're still learning all the details about what being in the Network will mean for us, I can't imagine that this will be nothing but good for us, our company and the AlphaLab program as a whole.

<comment><USER10> Great to hear AlphaLab is part of this. I've considered applying to the AlphaLab program before, but timing has always been an issue for me. Hopefully next time around! :)

<comment><USER9> Nice! Definitely do it. We've been so thrilled to be part of the program. I'd be happy to answer any questions or meet up sometime to talk about our experiences so far. Email's in the profile.

<comment><USER10> Whats your startup?

<comment><USER9> Since you asked... check it out! <http://www.deliriumapps.com>

(Shameless plug) We're looking for beta testers soon - ideally, you have an iPhone and use Highrise and/or LinkedIn a lot

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm really enjoying the arms race between YC and TS. This is as fun as watching the browser wars, or Android vs iPhone, or Windows vs Mac vs Linux. Competition is driving everyone to be better.

<comment><USER12> I suspect from the outside it looks like an arms race, but as a TS founder from Seattle '10, it is not uncommon for TS/YC founders to hang out, give each other discounts (or free services), and otherwise be generally helpful. It's never really felt competitive. We're all just trying to succeed (and help each other along the way).

<comment><USER11> Entirely tongue in cheek. I can't think of two more generous, internally driven group of people than the YC team and the TS team.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I am a great admirer of TechStars and I think their book _Do More Faster_ was great, but frankly this scares me a little.

When government contributes money (our money!) or fosters an environment in which we can blossom, great. When they try to do much else, not so great. I have trouble understanding how government resources can replicate the contributions of people who have actually done it, ie Techstars or yc.

Entrepreneurship is something that is done and shared, not talked about or theorized upon. I sure hope Techstars influence can find a way to harness these resources without having the pontificators fuck it up. Good luck with that.

<comment><USER14> Government isn't contributing any money here. Government is serving as a catalyst, organizer, and a validator.

See: <http://www.startupamericapartnership.org/faqs>

In fact, the TechStars network is a membership based network of independently owned incubators. So you can look at Government as having this dialogue with TechStars:

Gov: Hey, Techstars, we want to create more jobs. We think what you've done is interesting. We'd love for you do do something with our new project StartUpAmerica. We got a bunch of people involved. You in?

TechStars: Sure, sounds interesting, what can we do?

Gov: What do you think you should do-- how could you be the most impactful here?

TechStars: Well, we could create a network to help create more techstars like organizations, and have them working together.

Gov: Sounds good. We'll put you on the website.

TechStars: k cool.

<comment><USER15> Right, that's what the parent is worried about - not the money part, the catalyst, organizer, and validator part. As he said, _When government contributes money [...] great._

The TechStars Network sounds fine and all, but I really don't understand why it'd hitch itself to the broader governmental initiative, which on first glance looks both bureaucratic and problematic.

For example, I read over on TechCrunch that Cass Sunstein is leading the associated regulatory review. That's like asking Bernie Madoff to supervise financial reform - the only thing I want from people like Sunstein is for them to be distracted elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Strengthen commercialization of the about $148 billion in annual federally- funded research and development, which can generate innovative startups and entirely new industries;"

i'm curious what exactly they're planning to do there. would they be funding the VCs already involved in university research commercialization, or are they going directly to the research groups?</comment>