A Diet and Exercise Plan to Lose Weight and Gain Muscle - <AUTHOR> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/a-diet-and-exercise-plan-to-lose-weight-and-gain-muscle/ <comment><USER2> > Of course, by the end of the month, none of the men wished to continue. This > type of extreme calorie cutting combined with intense exercise "is not a > sustainable program in the long term," Dr. Phillips said. "It's more a kind > of boot camp," he said, manageable in the short term by people who are very > committed and generally very healthy.

No no no.. don't diet.. change your lifestyle. Drinking a fancy shake for a month is a diet. Never touching Soda again is changing your lifestyle.

One works for the long term, one does not.

<comment><USER3> I've been paying very close attention to the responses of my body to different foods, etc. Drinking water has not produced better weight loss than drinking coke zero. Maybe by "soda" you meant soda with sugar...but for me, the coke zero is well worth the mood improvement, and I've observed no negative effects.

<comment><USER4> Diet soda causes insulin resistance, dental erosion, and I believe acid reflux. Just something to consider when weighing the pros/cons.

[http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/4/688.full](http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/4/688.full)

[http://www.colgate.com/en/us/oc/oral- health/basics/nutrition...](http://www.colgate.com/en/us/oc/oral- health/basics/nutrition-and-oral-health/article/sw-281474979359772)

A better alternative, though still exacerbates acid reflux I believe, is flavored club soda like la croix. After about a week of drinking it, lime la croix tastes like sprite. Then if you have a real sprite you'll gag. Plus it gives you an excuse to act all fancy.

I should probably add that the difference between diet soda and flavored club soda are the flavoring agents.

With la croix, "The flavors are derived from the natural essence oils extracted from the named fruit used in each of our LaCroix flavors. There are no sugars or artificial ingredients contained in, nor added to, these extracted flavors."

[http://www.lacroixwater.com/nutritional- faqs/](http://www.lacroixwater.com/nutritional-faqs/)

However I suspect drinking carbonated beverages in general is worse for you than straight water, of course.

<comment><USER5> The conclusion of the diabetes-related study you linked to is not that diet soda causes insulin resistance, but that diet soda consumption is positively associated with metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes.

The nature of the link is not established, but the authors speculate that diet soda consumption may lead to increased consumption of high-sugar beverages or food either directly by causing sugar cravings or indirectly by impairing the ability to gauge whether one has eaten enough.

<comment><USER6> > The nature of the link is not established, but the authors speculate that > diet soda consumption may lead to increased consumption of high-sugar > beverages or food either directly by causing sugar cravings or indirectly by > impairing the ability to gauge whether one has eaten enough.

Or it could be the other way around. Suppose you are consuming a high sugar diet, both from consuming high sugar soda and eating high sugar foods. You are fat, and you know you are heading toward diabetes. You want to start taking steps to avert that.

The easiest step to take is to replace regular soda with diet soda some or all of the time. For many people that is as simple as inserting the single word "diet" into their order at the fast food place.

Thus, I think that you are going to see correlations between diet soda and various bad things because people who have these bad things or are worried about developing these bad things switch to diet soda.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Great article, nice and short, and to the point. This is not news to diet and exercise enthusiasts, however, but it is always nice to see supporting evidence. Strength training, combined with a high-protein diet, is ideal for maintaining or increasing muscle mass even in caloric deficit. Compound exercises, like squats, deadlifts, benchpress, etc, involve greater whole-body muscle recruitment and are more effective than accessory exercises like bicep curls. It is likely, however, that the 3 pounds of muscle gained was attainable because of the relatively untrained status of the participants and their high body fat percentage (article mentions approximately 24% average body fat percentage for the participants). Leaner, more well-trained individuals, have a harder time packing on muscle when in caloric deficit.

</comment><comment><USER8> The study is very misleading. I was excited to read about some scientific breakthrough because I saw the link from Hacker News, but this one crucial fact gave it away:

> the McMaster researchers rounded up 40 overweight young men

Of course they both lost weight and gained muscle. They were overweight to begin with. Anyone overweight who starts exercising loses a lot of weight and gains muscle simply because their bodies began to have higher caloric expenditures, and their muscles had to adapt to more mechanical stresses.

If we're talking about someone whose body fat percentage is already normal, however, we'll go back to choosing between losing weight or gaining muscle, because you can't do both. When you exercise, you burn the carbs first, then the fat, then to a small extent, the protein, though these three are being used simultaneously to produce energy. You hit the fat-burning zone when your carbs can't produce as much energy (fat produces way more energy but requires way more intensity to burn), but since fat also takes some time to burn and you already need to produce energy to continue with the exercise, you use the protein too, which comes from your muscles.

This is the reason why bodybuilders have a cutting phase and a gaining phase. They gain muscle or strength for 2-5 months, cut for 1-2 months, then go back to gaining muscle again. How do you gain muscle? You put on weight--meaning, you eat more. The weight that you put on will be about 5 parts fat and 1 part muscle, and that is why the cutting phase is necessary. Muscle is only gained with the fat and continued weight training, so burn the fat once you put on the weight. Whenever you attempt to lose fat, you will always inevitably lose muscle, so if you want to get buff, you can only do so much fat-burning exercises. That means keeping your runs at 10-15km, for example.

In summary, you can't do both. You can only gain muscle and lose weight together if you're really fat to begin with. If you're within the average body fat % range, though, you still need to switch between cutting and gaining phases.

</comment><comment><USER9> Just ask any competitive bodybuilder how to lose fat without losing much muscle and they will tell you about their "cut" diet, cycling, periodization, etc. Some of them (eg Ben Pakulski) work with scientists in fact, and go to ridiculous lengths in that regard. Except body builders drop carbs significantly and they always eat a ton of protein, cut or bulk. Of course steroids help to achieve and sustain single digit body fat percentages, but even without steroids you should see OK results if you're willing to put in the work in the gym.

</comment><comment><USER10> Here some tips after losing weight ( 25 kg = 55 lbs in 6 months) ( healthy way).. It was 1/4th of my weight.

\- Morning cardio, after a protein shake

\- Eat every 3 hours ( no sugar please!)

\- Men are easier at gaining "muscle" ( testosteron), i'm not a woman. But woman would have more effect with more cardio. Men have more effect with doing both

\- If you eat more then 4 consecutive days too little, your body will cut on the daily energy requirements. Eat 1 cheat meal every 4 days. ( because of a hormone called leptine, it's the reason why you can survive 30 days without food)

\- Eat every meal ( morning, noon, in between and evening) || 6 meals a day will make you a king

\- Last (small ) meal = 2 hours before going to sleep

\- Protein to be lean, drop the carbs closer the evening. In my opinion, you should have the "big meal" in the morning, so you have to whole day to digest it..

\- You don't digest things in your sleep, it gets stored as fat ( you're not doing anything, so your body doesn't need it now)

\- Sleep enough

\- Weight exercise in the evening, if you want to do cardio. Do it afterwards.

\- If you suck at running, don't try Start 2 run. Run 1 minute, stretch 20 seconds and repeat for half an hour. Next time. Run 2 minutes and stretch. I ran 10 km in a month ( and i hate running and i was pretty fat :p )

\- Don't like running, try rope skipping

\- Don't like rope skipping, rowing is awesome!

\- If you have pain, take care and don't overdo it!

\- 40% is exercise, 60% is better / healthier food

\- Fish is healthier then every meat

\- Poultry is the best meat

\- Repeat exercising every day, except 1 day in the week ( rest day)

\- Don't expect extreme results after a week, it will become more and more visible as your metabolism will improve

\- Don't check your weight on a scale daily... Do it monthly or biweekly

\- Change your exercises regularly, your muscles adapt / become more efficient at what you do the most. You don't want that...

\- A pure protein diet as in the commercials, will ruin your metabolism... ( Eg. When you eat after the diet, like you ate before the protein diet, you will gain weight faster then you lost it)

\- If you want your weight to stay off, respect your metabolism. Eat always ( preferably small portions)

\- Not every fat is bad ( transfats are), not every sugar is bad ( eg. fructose and dextrose)

\- Probably some controversional theory, but they always say alcohol are empty calories. I also think that alcohol lowers your metabolism

You want reading material with more information? Try Tom Ventuo with "Burn the fat, feed the muscle". ( you'll learn more about calorie cycling and much more then what i've said here)

You want another good author ( short / good articles), search for anything of Lyle McDonald. Eg. [http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/](http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/)

<comment><USER10> And somebody downvoted me, why? I just gave a lot of tips which i used and who are effective for other people... And i didn't wrote a book about it... :)

<comment><USER11> yeah, not sure why you were downvoted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> They reduced calorie consumption, but also mandated that 50% of the diet comes from carbohydrates. Is it possible that for their average experiment participant the weight loss was a result of net reduction of carbohydrates consumed, not variations on a 50-35-15 formula?

</comment><comment><USER3> In both groups %50 of their calories came from carbohydrates. Carbs are quick sugar energy, and the resulting rise in blood sugar tells the body that it has plenty of energy.

This would have been much more interesting if one group had low to zero cards, and high fat and high protein.

Such a diet has worked well for me to lose a hundred pounds in 8 months... without any exercise. (and I don't think I'm losing muscle.)

The question is- can you cut carbs and become fat adapted (Which is what I have done, and the results are dramatic, my bodies response to fat is much different than before)... while still building muscle.

This is the next phase for me- the second hundred pounds I want to lose I will do while working out and building muscle.

In my case, this change in diet has become a change in lifestyle. I'm perfectly happy eating steak and BBQ and when I get a hankering for a pizza I make it with almond flour and have very little carbs. It's easy and fun and I'm eating better now (and saving money) while feeling much better.

Like the people in the study I've also recently started experimenting with a shake. It's called "Keto Chow" and you can find the recipe at diy.soylent.com. The nice thing about this is that I put my daily vitamins in the shake and some supplements so I'm getting better nutrition than I was before.

This is taking essentially no effort. Before when I dieted (low fat, high carb standard "diet") it was very difficult because it took a huge amount of willpower.

This takes almost none.

Of course, exercising will take willpower so I'm finding exercises that I like to do. Dancing is my aerobic approach. Not sure what I will do for muscle building yet, though, because lifting is kinda boring. (but I do have dumbbells next to my chair and I pick them up and exercise a bit when I'm thinking.)

I think the whole theory of "calories in < calories out" is BS-- people are different and some people are more sensitive to insulin the others.

<comment><USER13> >I think the whole theory of "calories in < calories out" is BS-- people are different and some people are more sensitive to insulin the others.

You think the first law of thermodynamics is bullshit?

<comment><USER14> It isn't bullshit, but it isn't helpful information to someone trying to lose adipose mass.

Repeating it to a fatty as fat-loss advice is a lot like trying to teach someone to swim by continually telling them that water is wet. Absolutely true, but completely unhelpful.

The broken element in a fatty is a complex biochemical feedback system that ultimately does not send "start eating" and "stop eating" signals at appropriate times. The frontal cortex can consciously override it to some extent, by refusing to eat when the "start eating" signal is sent, but this is psychologically very stressful.

One of the great things about low-carb and keto diets is that the body's backup ketone-burning power system is usually not affected by the buggy firmware updates that have been applied to the carb-burning system over the years. Once you are adapted to it, you can consciously control your caloric intake as appropriate for your body-reform plan _without_ getting bombarded by unsatiated appetite signals every waking moment of your day. You can eat a 1200 kcal diet without biting through the padlock on the fridge and gorging yourself on whatever is in there.

A fatty usually isn't fat because they _want_ to be, or because they don't understand thermodynamic balance. They're fat because they have a little shoulder devil constantly whispering in their ear, that just won't shut up, ever.

      DEVIL:  Hey.  I want a doughnut.  I want a dozen doughnuts.
      FATTY:  No.
      DEVIL:  Get me a doughnut.  Do it.  Do it now.  Gooey jelly doughnut.
      FATTY:  Those are like 300 Calories.  Each.  So, no.
      DEVIL:  Don't care.  Ok, compromise.  3 beignets.  C'est si bon.
      FATTY:  No!
      DEVIL:  Fine.  Churros, por favor.  Me gusta.
      FATTY:  No.  No fried sugar-dough of any kind.  Will french fries work?
      DEVIL:  Super size!  Extra ketchup!  Fountain drink!
      FATTY:  [om nom nom]
      DEVIL:  Now I want chocolate.

As you can see from the example conversation, the fatty _already_ knows that a doughnut has too many calories in it. That knowledge simply does not help to silence the imaginary anthropomorphization of appetite.

<comment><USER15> I love the dialogue there! When I'm up in the middle of the night (certain periods when my sleep schedule is off) I have this exact voice in my head, planning to go get a donut from my favorite shop when it opens. Luckily my desire to get in better shape has been keeping this urge under control, but it's amazing how persistent it is at convincing me otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've been following this guide which has a lot of information on better foods and how your body functions: [http://ss.fitness/](http://ss.fitness/)

Most notably:

Cut grains/flour/wheat/sugar/baked goods from your diet completely.

Diet accommodates for about 60% of your body while exercise makes up the rest 40%. Give or take 20% depending on your type and metabolism.

</comment><comment><USER17> anybody get to the conclusion?

"Of course, by the end of the month, none of the men wished to continue."</comment>


Ask HN: What is the SAAS you currently pay for and don't mind paying for? - <AUTHOR> In addition what is the price you pay for it like monthly. For example, I pay for Netflix & WWE Network $9.99/month. <comment><USER2> I pay $30 / month for Offramp ([https://offramphq.com/](https://offramphq.com/)), an automated customer- recovery tool. It's saved me three customers whom I'd have otherwise lost in the last two months (one customer = $35 MRR), so it's been pretty much a no- brainer for me.

</comment><comment><USER3> Xero, Dropbox, Bitbucket, Audible, Netflix, S3

</comment><comment><USER4> VPN</comment>


Why do airplanes crash?  - <AUTHOR> http://corp.galois.com/blog/2012/7/30/tech-talk-video-why-do-airplanes-crash.html

<comment><USER2> Also submitted here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4316295>

No votes, no discussion. Will this fare any better?</comment>


Get Lamp (Interactive Fiction Documentary by Jason Scott) - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o15itQ_EhRo <comment><USER2> Thanks for the link.

FLOSS weekly had an episode about interactive fiction:

[https://twit.tv/shows/floss-weekly/episodes/408](https://twit.tv/shows/floss- weekly/episodes/408)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks back! That show is new to me.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I linked this today after following a lark, an idle session of ZORK presented online.

These games meant a lot to me. They still do. It was fun to go back to that world for a time.

Today, we have voice recognition, spatial sounds, etc...

Someone needs to revisit this art form.</comment>


The Practical Neuroscience of Buddhism - <AUTHOR> http://www.zacharyburt.com/2010/05/the-neuroscience-of-buddhism-practical-tips-via-insightful-framework/

<comment><USER2>
       > By the way, I know that "parar" means "to stop" in
       > Spanish, which is how I distinguish between the
       > parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous systems.

It's a nice mnemonic, but the medical "para" comes from Greek, meaning beside or near.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh word. Like paramedic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Thanks for the article. It's a very good read. Definitely going to check out the book. I meditate once in a while and when I do, I find out that I can concentrate better. It's great for those who have or suspect they have ADD.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've been searching for a physical/scientific basis of mindfulness. This sounds like a great read. Thanks for sharing.

<comment><USER5> You might look at the work of Philosopher Humberto Maturana and Biologist/Philosopher Francisco Varela. In particular, Varela's work The Embodied Mind may be of interest. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Varela>

<comment><AUTHOR> Mind/body connection is something I am also interested in exploring. For example, I can often tell when I am going to miss a basketball shot by feeling a creak in my kness. Sounds crazy but I'm sure there's a reason for it. This is a different phenomenon from people anticipating when it's going to rain by feeling pressure.. I think it's something like my predictive intuition has been working in the background outside of conscious awareness, and only becomes conscious through tells that I've learned.

<comment><USER6> Have you read The Inner Game of Tennis?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not yet. I will eventually. Thanks for the reminder.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you're into meditation, I would also definitely check out Eckhart Tolle's book, The Power of Now, mentioned in this article. Besides a lot of religious elements, Tolle has some real insights into how the brain really works that you may find very useful.

</comment><comment> alan-crowe The two dart system, mentioned at the end of the blog post, comes from early Buddhism: [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nyp...](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nypo.html)</comment>


India's elites have a ferocious sense of entitlement - <AUTHOR> http://newint.org/features/2013/01/01/india-elite-sense-of-entitlement/ <comment><USER3> This does not just apply in India. A long time ago, I had a job soliciting donations door to door in the US. We did all we could to avoid the rich neighborhoods and actively sought out the poor minority neighborhoods. People in those neighborhoods with only two dollars would give one to help others. In the rich neighborhoods, they would call the police the moment they saw you. If I ever had to have a heart attack in the street, I would much rather have it in a poor neighborhood, because some kind person would help me.

My theory is that poor people rely on cooperation with others to survive, and this forces them to develop compassion and learn good human relations at a young age. Rich people on the other had don't need others so much, and instead are much likely be in competition with them.

Even in family relations this applies. Siblings in poor families offer much needed support to each other. In rich families siblings seem more likely to be considered as competitors for parental affections at a young age, and competitors for inheritance when older. This mentality of constant competition is poisonous.

Honestly, I think that being rich is a pretty clear path to ultimate unhappiness. Better to be slightly poor in money and rich in the things that actually bring happiness, like family, health, friends, spare time, and a clear conscience.

<comment><USER4> In the UK a lot of door to door collecting for charities is done by private companies who take a significant chunk of the donation for themselves.

Perhaps richer people are more likely to know this and be sceptical of door to door collections. They may also value their time more and not like being "hassled".

This does not necessarily mean that they do not provide charity donations. They may just do it in a smarter way, for example attending charity dinners/events where they get to rub shoulders with other affluent people.

<comment><USER5> > This does not necessarily mean that they do not provide charity donations. > They may just do it in a smarter way, for example attending charity > dinners/events where they get to rub shoulders with other affluent people.

Smarter = self-serving?

<comment><USER6> people don't donate (at least, not those huge donors who throw lavish dinner parties) out of the kindness of their own hearts. They do so to appear charitable, and to show off their status. THis is why you don't often see private, undisclosed and anonymous donations in large amounts.

When a rich elite donates money, they are doing it to sing praises for themselves - whether they admit it consciously or not.

The end result is still good - i don't care whether their charitible activities are self-serving, provided that it achieves the results of helping those who needed the charity.

<comment><USER4> Reminds me of this: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqncCjxGqGw>

<comment><USER6> wow, what show is that?

<comment><USER4> Curb Your Enthusiasm

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Nietzsche and The Last Psychiatrist[1] would have a field day with this.

The article tells a story we love to believe: we may be poorer than the people the article talks about, but we are nicer, more empathic, _better_ people. We love to believe it, because it makes us feel good about ourselves and provides a sense of justice: nobody has it all and if someone has more of one thing, he will have less of something else.

We also love to believe it because that way we don't have to consider a far more disturbing possibility: that these people aren't accidentally rich and their moral shortcomings aren't a result of their riches. That they are rich exactly _because_ they are capable of the repugnant behavior described in the article. That our capitalist system is fallacious, can be gamed and _is_ being gamed by these people. The system we are so infatuated with allows people that are undeserving, cheaters, to get the prize.

[1] <http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/>

<comment><USER8> Yes, people who you believe are undeserving can obtain wealth. No, that doesn't mean that all wealthy people are like that or that it is necessary to behave badly to become wealthy.

The last psychiatrist is an ok writer, and a lot of his stuff is fun to read, but he draws some really erroneous conclusions. I'd be careful about being drawn in by that.

<comment><USER9> "He?"

<comment><USER8> I assume it's either a man or a misogynistic lesbian; there are several references to watching porn from a male perspective, that the writer finds women attractive, and the writing style is masculine.

I've never bothered to check before but a cursory google shows no real evidence either way, though most others think it's a man as well.

Or if you're referring to me and saying I drew an erroneous conclusion, I didn't draw any conclusions at all, save about the last psychiatrist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Am _I_ the only one who sees this exact same behaviour here in North America, and indeed, here on Hacker News? A sense of entitlement? A feeling that things like anti-discrimination laws are an inconvenience to be brushed off, taxes are a way of stealing the hard-earned wealth on entrepreneurs, and so on?

I see nothing particularly Indian about this story. It seems like part fo the human condition. That being said, we have abolished slavery. Women have the vote and are struggling to control their bodies. Although the rich control the media, the poor still have a vote.

We humans _can_ change.

<comment><USER11> > anti-discrimination laws are an inconvenience to be brushed off, taxes are a > way of stealing the hard-earned wealth on entrepreneurs,

I personally also see a massive amount of entitlement in the inverse...

A never-ending creation of new laws and controls over citizens lives from "philosopher kings" [1] who think they know how to run peoples lives better than they do via "social engineering and idealism".

Or attempting to create some highly idealistic society of total safety....via as security theater, strictly enforcing victimless crimes [2] (such as owning a pitbull or drugs)... and the constant erosion of basic civil liberties in the process to achieve the former.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king#Criticism>

[2] [http://www.policymic.com/articles/8558/why-we-need-prison- re...](http://www.policymic.com/articles/8558/why-we-need-prison-reform- victimless-crimes-are-86-of-the-federal-prison-population)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have seen this kind of behavior going on in India for so many years. There are countless cases of where rich people would push poor people on bikes off the road and into ditches with their cars.

I'm convinced that this stems from the religious caste system which has now become the monetary class system in these new times.

I always wondered why don't the poor just revolt, they're treated so badly, almost like slaves and everyday they lose more and more. They have their kids run over and police will do nothing about it because the rich will pay them off to make the case go away. It truly is sad.

The worst part is poor people will do the same to other poor people given the opportunity. We (Indians) have learned nothing from Gandhi on how to treat our fellow men.

<comment><USER13> ___There are countless cases of where rich people would push poor people on bikes off the road and into ditches with their cars._ __

That would be a serious crime in the USA. If you did that, and you got caught, you would be in very serious trouble. And, it would not matter how rich you were. That's assault, perhaps with intent to harm or kill and civilized society does not tolerate it.

<comment><USER14> > it would not matter how rich you were.

Which USA do you live in?

<comment><USER13> Every part of America I have ever been in would not tolerate that. It's illegal.

<comment><USER15> It may not be as bad as some countries where you can just pay the cops but the rich and well connected in America definitely play by a different set of rules, especially with regard to punishment.

Example: a rich old woman in my hometown was drunk in the morning and ran over a guy riding a bicycle and killed him. She ended up getting probation. Not a day in jail. Put a poor minority behind the wheel of that car and they are going to prison for a long time.

<comment><USER16> That's an entirely different problem set from what seems to be happening in India. What you're describing in the US is a system where perceptions and punishment of superficially similar behaviour vary based on your position with society, namely based on whether you activate the sympathies or antipathies of the mainstream establishment. I.E. that old lady is much less likely to be perceived as aggressive and anti-social in court than a young minority member. The system is not completely fair, and you can argue about the extent to which the system is unfair, but the system at least holds fairness as an ideal, and the mainstream establishment identifies with this ideal. Cops and judges may not perceive it as unfair if a similar crime when committed by an old rich lady is more likely to be viewed as a regrettable mistake (especially if she appears distraught and repentant in court) than when committed by a minority member.

In India it seems like fairness is not even part of the equation. It sounds like a seriously dog-eat-dog environment, where there are few if any checks on raw, ruthless antisocial behaviour. Society lacks even the value system which would encourage the privileged to feel guilt and regret over their treatment of those beneath them.

Basically it is the difference between a society where people are shocked and angered by unfairness and a society where people are desensitised or even perversely excited by unfairness.

<comment><USER6> > ...lacks even the value system which would encourage the privileged to feel > guilt and regret over their treatment of those beneath them.

i'd like to talk a bit about this "value system". While i'd like to believe that in a western society that the value system for me to not steal and murder is built in, i really doubt that's the case.

The value system is one which is enforced by laws - and actual enforcement, instead of lip service. I assault a person, i get to go to jail. Imagine if the enforcement isn't there - i'd steal my way thru life! Forget about the morals, when you can have the latest shit for free! This is the exact psyche of a software pirate - because it is unenforceable.

I would say that the value system is so poor or non-existent in india could be because they are unable to enforce their laws, or that those with money can get away from the punishment etc. Hence, the poor sees that and assumes that the laws are selectively applied, and that its OK if you get away with it.

I m sure things will improve (as things have improved in western society over the past several hundred years - you'd see similar behaviour in the middle/dark ages in europe). It just takes time, and takes wealth build up in such a way that those who are most desperate aren't anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Questioner: What do you think of Indians?

Krishnamurti: That is really an innocent question, is it not? To see facts without opinion is one thing, but to have opinions about facts is totally another. It is one thing just to see the fact that a whole people are caught in superstition, but quite another to see that fact and condemn it. Opinions are not important, because I will have one opinion, you will have another, and a third person will have still another. To be concerned with opinions is a stupid form of thinking. What is important is to see facts as they are without opinion, without judging, without comparing.

To feel beauty without opinion is the only real perception of beauty. Similarly, if you can see the people of India just as they are, see them very clearly without fixed opinions, without judging, then what you see will be real.

The Indians have certain manners, certain customs of their own, but fundamentally they are like any other people. They get bored, they are cruel, they are afraid, they revolt within the prison of society, just as people do everywhere else. Like the Americans, they also want comfort, only at present they do not have it to the same extent. They have a heavy tradition about renouncing the world and trying to be saintly; but they also have deep-rooted ambitions, hypocrisy, greed, envy, and they are broken up by castes, as human beings are everywhere else, only here it is much more brutal. Here in India you can see more closely the whole phenomenon of what is happening in the world. We want to be loved, but we don't know what love is; we are unhappy, thirsting for something real, and we turn to books, to the Upanishads, the Gita, or the Bible, so we get lost in words, in speculations. Whether it is here, or in Russia, or in America, the human mind is similar, only it expresses itself in different ways under different skies and different governments.

— From Think on These Things (also published as This Matter of Culture) by Jiddu Krishnamurti, Chapter 11 - Conformity and Revolt. - [http://www.jiddu- krishnamurti.net/en/think-on-these-things/1...](http://www.jiddu- krishnamurti.net/en/think-on-these-things/1963-00-00-jiddu-krishnamurti-think- on-these-things-chapter-11)

<comment><USER18> Krishnamurti truly gives all the tools to free oneself of the very root of culture.

Indians are also known to be highly tolerant of different types of behaviours; they usually believe that this world is "maya" - a virtual reality. Depending on one's own predicament, they will create and experience their realities. All this comes from the core Indian philosophy, and those who have read Krishnamurti, know that he very well represents that philosophy.

While this view may not mean all Indians are philosophical; I would say, it may be higher % wise than other cultures. Even the most popular religious channels and their gurus hold extremely engaging philosophical discussions - very different from other cultures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Humans are apes. It happens right here in Silicon Valley too.

Atherton has nice little yellow signs that say 'No Through Traffic'. Why? They don't want the poor people from Redwood City coming through. In fact, one Atherton gentleman went to a RWC City Council meeting complaining about it and asking RWC to put up signs on their side too. The folks at RWC apparently told him to go stuff himself, that those little yellow signs were potentially illegal and if Atherton kept pressing, they would disallow traffic from Atherton through RWC. This was about two years ago.

The rich are different from you and me - they take because they can and because they can then get away with it.

[This is not to say that all rich are evil, nor all poor virtuous. Just that as money accumulates, so does power, and this when left unchecked by self- imposed moral constraints leads down this path.]

<comment><USER20> Humans are not apes. Neither literally, nor figuratively. That's not only incorrect, but it's a vicious thing to say, and it has dangerous implications.

<comment><USER21> I loathe pop sci interpretations of animal behaviour applied against human behaviour (which includes the context of the parent of your comment) but humans _are_ apes. The 'Great Apes' are chimps, gorillas, orangs, and humans.

<comment><USER20> Thanks for the correction, I guess I was wrong on that point, though hopefully the actual intended meaning of my statement remains intact.

EDIT: Well, according to Wikipedia, "Great Ape" is a common name, not a taxonomic label, and is only sometimes used to include humans. I, personally, would advocate not equating the term "great ape" with the hominidae family.

<comment><USER22> Your original intent remains intact because I don't think anyone here knows what the original intent was. How is labeling humans as "apes" dangerous?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> "Bill Goldman, the great screenwriter, said to me when I was pathetic enough to ask what Robert Redford was "really like" - 'what would you be like if you hadn't heard the word "no" for 30 years?" - Stephen Fry

</comment><comment><USER24> I highly doubt the veracity of the article about the SUV driving young man and the vegetable seller; this story confirms your worst stereotypes about India and gets eyeballs but it is bullshit.

I would like to point out that poor people in India are a very well represented : Communist part and Marxist parties are doing very well in India. Every political party courts the votes of poor people. If you pull shit like that SUV kid , the vegetable sellers would swarm your car and fuck you up good.

I grew up in Delhi. The poor people in Delhi day are very well aware of their rights and exercise them -- sometimes with violent consequences for the brash rich.

The feudal India that you allude you is gone and good riddance to it . One has to be super fucking powerful to get away with shit like that in India.

Btw , Salman Khan (the actor) is facing jail time. So yeah !

<comment><USER25> Stereotypes often ring true, no one attributes this kind of stuff to northern Europe and there's a reason for that.

As to your claim that he's lying about the vegetable cart story. In order for his car to get swarmed, at least one of those vegetable sellers has to make the first move, sometimes this happens, but 9 times out of 10 people look out for their own skins ahead of righteous vengeance.

<comment><USER26> A rich man or the bigger car banging into a smaller cart, especially in a poor neighborhood, will get swarmed 9 times out of 10.

You drastically misunderstand the level of righteous vengeance and drama centrism in such a situation. On top of that many people will look at a richer person as someone who is likely to have connections and hence escape justice.

You are more likely to be swarmed than not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> >You'd think if people had more than they need, they would be generous about it, and would see, reflecting on themselves, that others might want to have more as well.

This doesn't really make sense to me. People who value relationships or are compassionate generally, in my anecdotal experience, value money less. So of course they'll have less. Th people who rich are the ones who value spending their time getting money over helping others (empathy, essentially). At least, that's how I feel about money, and I assume other people who are rich/desire to be rich feel the same way. More precisely, it's not that people who get rich lose their ability to empathize -- people who never developed the ability to empathize have an easier time getting rich.

<comment><USER28> Strange. When I have money, I feel generous about it, and want to use that money to help others. I thought most people felt that way. It's one of the reasons that a progressive tax system makes good sense to me.

There are many ways that people get to be rich. Some are born into it, and stay rich because of systemic biases. Others "value spending their time getting money over helping others" and get rich that way. Still others get there by luck - winning the lottery - or by semi-luck - getting paid in pre- IPO shares of a wildly start-up.

Based on the various stories I've heard, those who win by luck tend to be the most generous with their money.

This essay is about those in the first category; those who are rich because of systemic biases, where society "is so deeply hierarchized along both class and caste lines" and "wealth is so completely tied in with political power, and often to crime without punishment." It's not really the one you're possibly thinking of, where someone starts average and ends up rich.

My income does tend to fluctuate. Some years I make really good money as a consultant. Other times I don't. I don't have much control over it. That would fit with the semi-luck category, since I don't get the feel that my income level is a good reflection of how much effort I put into things; income isn't a good measure of my self.

<comment><USER29> The difference is that you acknowledge that you 'have' money. Also, you possibly acknowledge that you had certain opportunities that other people could ill afford and therefore have this money.

Unfortunately, the difference in opportunity in India is considered (by both rich and poor) to be something that God has handed down and therefore it's fair. By the rich because it's convenient to think that way and by the poor because they feel like they have no escape apart from reincarnation.

I was traveling in Brazil last year and found that the poor in Brazil (also due to drug issues..) actively blame the rich for their poverty and are also to a great extent violent against wealthier people. (at least in the cities that I was in..)

However, the difference in India is that poor people more often than not attribute their poverty to God and therefore do not blame the rich or seek retribution. I honestly believe this is what keeps the poor in India from revolting en masse. If the Indian belief system was like the Brazilian system, over here there would be a civil war.

<comment><USER6> > attribute their poverty to God and therefore do not blame the rich or seek > retribution....If the Indian belief system was like the Brazilian system, > over here there would be a civil war.

that's interesting. I've always considered religion to be a form of control over people by a certain elite group. This gives me more anecdotal confirmation.

I wonder if indian society could be better served if there was a civil war, where the poor raise up, and appropriate the land from the wealthy. I keep reading articles like [http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/08/generat...](http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/08/generations- pay-off-debts-through-slavery/) and it sounds like that would be a painful fix, but may be the end justify the means...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Ooh, no comments, I'll bite. The last time I said something negative about Indian society I had my personal details thrown all over HN. Wonder what's going to happen this time.

So here's the thing. This article is pretty spot on. We, the privileged of India, do indeed feel entitled. There's absolutely no doubt about that.

My theory is that the population pressure in India is so very high that you're always fighting for your piece of the pie and over extending yourself (such as the man with the large house who took over the pavement). Yes, it's greedy, but it's a particular mentality that comes out of being part of this massive rat race with millions.. billions.. of competitors. I have several friends in India who I would call upper class. You know, rich people with 4 bedroom apartments on the 17th floor in and around the capital.

You know what these people call themselves ?

Middle class.

They refuse to acknowledge that they are wealthy. That they are privileged. That they are truly upper class. I have a friend who drives an Audi presented to him by his father who thinks he's middle class.

These people struggle (or think that they do..) for so long in the rat race that they forget that they have risen above it and gone far beyond that. Perhaps that is why they seem to lack compassion and empathy. Maybe they feel that they are still struggling to survive and therefore can't spare a moment for someone else ?

The rich do need to take a moment to feel rich and then feel responsible. Unfortunately, as the article mentions the rich in India - to a great extent - are failing at this. Maybe it's desensitization due to the immensely large number of poor people. Maybe it's something else - further study is required.

Of course, I'm not even going into how hierarchical and class oriented Indian society truly is. Most people who the 'middle class' perceive as lower class are almost sub humans in their eyes. This is another reason in my opinion the Delhi gang rape case was such a big deal. The middle class got to point fingers once more at the lower classes who 'rape us'. They got to ask the government what they are doing to protect them from these 'evil immigrants who come into New Delhi and ruin our fair city'. I've had statements from rich girls in New Delhi who don't like 'these poor people who stare at us', but are completely fine with spoilt rich brats driving circles around them while honking away.

On the flip side though, this article mostly covers behavior in New Delhi. I'll go as far as to say that New Delhi is possibly the most horrible city in India when it comes to these things. Other cities tend to be more relaxed. There are far far better places than New Delhi.

The class system in Delhi is enforced and reinforced by the rich and poor collectively. I had a reservation at the Hilton for one night two years ago and I arrived on a friend's motorbike. The security at the hotel wouldn't let me through because I didn't look 'rich enough'. The security at the hotel by this logic, wouldn't let in people who looked like themselves either.

Situation's complicated.

EDIT:

There are a lot of replies to this post comparing the mentality I've mentioned above to that which exists in the west. I can see where that is coming from, but the main factor that needs to be taken into account is the kind and scale of poverty that exists in India. In India we say that if you have two meals a day, and a roof over your head, you're already rich!

Consider that, some posts here say that SV millionaires do not consider themselves upper class. That would be absolutely ridiculous in India! But, there are people here who go by the same ideals.

It's VERY EASY in India to make a difference in someone's life. Even if you're middle class, you can make a difference because people around you are way poorer than you. The problem is one of large scale apathy and complete indifference.

As an example, being middle class in the west, it's impossible to think that you could change someone's life by just hiring them to work in your house - <USER2> giving them reasonable pay and good working conditions. In India this is quite possible, a middle class person could easily hire 3-4 people and therefore start to create change. Maybe not the best example of how you can make a difference but the article is about how the privileged in India _should_ feel more responsible and try harder to make a difference. For example, if you do hire people to work in your house, make sure that you encourage them to educate their children ? (stuff like that helps us move forward with these problems..)

My point is, being privileged in India is not really like being privileged in the west. You may not have government and industry connections but you can still make a massive difference at a personal level and if enough people start doing that, there will be a change. It's probably our only shot at it.

<comment><USER30> > You know what these people call themselves? Middle class. They refuse to > acknowledge that they are wealthy.

No, they've got it right. The distinction between middle class and lower class is entirely about wealth, but the distinction between middle class and upper class is not. Wealth is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for being upper class; the distinguishing features are flexibility and power, not money. It is possible to convert money into these things, but most middle-class people who acquire sufficient wealth nevertheless fail to become upper-class because they lack the mental toolkit, or are embedded in power structures that won't let them.

<comment><USER31> I agree: upper class isn't about wealth. So much of it is about culture (in the sense that culture breeds character traits). And the ambition to obtain wealth in the middle class breeds character traits that impose a barrier for entering the upper class.

<comment><USER32> >the ambition to obtain wealth in the middle class breeds character traits that impose a barrier for entering the upper class.

Care to elaborate on said traits?

<comment><USER31> One example: the inferiority complex.

<comment><USER32> An ambition to achieve wealth breeds an inferiority complex? Actually quite the opposite. In the states snobbery of any kind is severely looked down upon, as it should be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is not elite entitlement. This is right wing entitlement. The recent death of Maggie reminded me of what she really changed - she made it ok to be selfish and disdainful of "undeserving" poor.

India was a hybridised socialist country for a very long time - coming out of that will look at lot like Britain the in the eighties I suspect - and if you want to put bets on the next two term incumbent - they will look a lot like the drivers if the SUVs and will tell then its good to be hard working, it's what will get us to moonbase alpha

Welcome to running the planet. Beware.

<comment><USER34> Margret Thatcher is responsible for the entrenched class system... in India?

<comment><USER35> No, it's pretty clear that that _wasn't_ the point being made.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> _In a recent incident, three poor Dalit boys inadvertently caused a small fire in a local community centre where they worked._

The fact that children are labelled as anything other than children, that Indian society calls them "Dalit" at birth, to me, summarizes why the region will remain retrogressive for a long, long time.

<comment><USER37> No, Indian society does not label children anything other than children at birth. It is a label gratuitously applied by the author, likely as a short- hand to indicate poorer section of society. People from these self-identified sections have reached the highest post in the country - from writer of the constitution to president, to various positions in the political spectrum. There is a problem of equal access to education, yes. But a) this problem exists all over the world - consider school districts in the US and b) is more acute in India due to large, distributed population against a largely agrarian/human labor based economy. Active discrimination is a much smaller factor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> There is an implied causality in this article. Being rich -> Lose empathy. I'd be curious to know if there indeed is causality in either direction (Less empathetic people get richer) or is it just correlation masquerading as causality.

<comment><USER39> I have always been a strong believer in the saying "Fortune does not change men, it unmasks them". Studying this area would be difficult though as you either need to know ahead of time who would be successful, or study such a large cross-section that you are statistically likely to snare future successful people in your population.

<comment><USER40> Well, with modern technology, it's harder for a newly wealthy person to conceal their past. The days of whitewashing personal history are fading.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> The poor man whose cart was tipped, can't sue the rich guy. Neither would this be covered in the news. The police would simply refuse to register a case of loss against the rich (and probably powerful) guy. There is no insurance of the cart, of course.

When the poor know that every cog in the society is biased against the poor, people are quick to dismiss them and their misery. If it was another car instead of the cart, the SUV guy won't have hit the car, for the person riding the car would certainly be able to sue/ report to police, and might even have insurance.

This is about the lack of entitlement of the poor, rather than the ferocious sense of entitlement of the rich. The rich are just exploiting the absence of any entitlement to poor.

</comment><comment><USER42> You can find examples anywhere, even in the US; years ago I read articles of affluent seaside communities erecting no trespassing signs fences and such blocking off access to public beaches.. I'm sure there are more examples of it, but here is one interesting site about the US entitled rich problem.

<http://www.cityprojectca.org/ourwork/beachaccess.html>

</comment><comment><USER43> It's not the rich. It's the "nouveaux riches"... Happens all over the world. Little education + fast money does that.

<comment><USER22> This... doesn't make sense at all, and is also simultaneous a True Scotsman fallacy.

For one thing, the vieux riche inspired _entire revolutions_ with their compassionless, ridiculous, indefensible behavior. The wealthy nobility is a primary reason why so many countries are now democratic.

Clearly "being a complete dick" is not the exclusive purview of the nouveau riche. The notion that people who inherit their wealth are less likely to abuse it over people who earn it quickly also doesn't pass a lot of mental muster.

The distinction between "nouveau riche" and "vieux riche" smells like (and is) a classi No True Scotsman.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> There may be a lot of misconceptions on the poor and class divide in India. I would like to answer some of them by posting some numbers and providing context.

 _Who are the 'poor' in India?_

The poor in India, according to the Planning Commission, are people who live on 32 Indian Rupees/59cents per day.

 _How many people are poor in India?_

The Planning Commission of India reports that there are 29.8% of the population who are 'poor' [0,1]. This roughly equates to 360 Million people who live below the poverty line.

 _Are the numbers for poor accurate?_

May be, may be not. Some believe these numbers could be as high as 77% specially considering the inflation rate and other factors.

 _Is it possible to live on 59 cents per day?_

No but that's not even the main problem. Here is a comment from Jean Dréze, an economist and former member of the National Advisory Council India [2],

       "What is really shocking is not that the official poverty line is abysmally low, but that even with that abysmal
       benchmark, so many people are below it.The belated discovery that it is impossible to have a dignified
       life on the official poverty line draws our attention to the appalling living conditions of the Indian poor." Taking a
       position diametrically opposed to Mr. Bhalla and Mr. Panagariya, Mr. Drèze argues, "The message about the terrifying
       nature of 'hidden poverty' in India has been somewhat lost in the din of the recent debate."

Even with such a low price point the number of poor in India are staggering.

 _Is there a class divide in India (in particular Delhi) and possess a sense of entitlement?_

Yes. I would recommend reading on how the elite tried to stifle Delhi's first Bus Rapid Transit system by filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Delhi HC [3]. Here is the reason from the petitioner's (a car owner in Delhi) on why he decided to file the petition

        "Car owners are the creators of wealth. Do you realise that they get exhausted sitting in their cars due to traffic
        jams and they reach office completely tired? It affects their efficiency. Do you want them to perform less?" asks the
        main petitioner BB Sharan.You cannot keep a commander-in-chief waiting in traffic while his army is waiting for his
        orders. How does it matter if a peon reaches office five minute before time?"

This is the attitude of the "rich" in India. The society doesn't matter as long as their work gets done.

[0] <http://planningcommission.nic.in/news/press_pov1903.pdf>

[1] <http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_pov.pdf>

[2] [http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/what-does- indias-p...](http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/what-does-indias- poverty-line-actually-measure/)

[3] <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-19572583>

<comment><USER45> This link might be a good read related to income per day context and an attempt to manage in that much amount: [http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/Harsh_Mander/barefoo...](http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/Harsh_Mander/barefoot- the-other-side-of-life/article2882340.ece)

<comment><USER44> TFS. I was trying to find this article but I couldn't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Inter related things.Ferociousness here is due to frustration of too many people around.

Too many people means: Too much inequality,inability of governing people properly,lack of regulations and so on.....

India is 3 times more populated than USA but 1/3 in land size of USA!

Population does matter. Nothing about riches only in India. Put these conditions in any other country and you will see same behavior.

</comment><comment><USER47> I'm not from India but my parents are from Sri Lanka and when I went back there I was surprised to find what seemed to be middle class families having maids and butlers (they call them servants). Maybe some rich people in India must feel like they have the right to do it because they grow up having those people cater to their every need

<comment><USER28> You may not know this but you are touching a very sensitive issue.

Which is better for the country: asking people to employ domestic workers, or have higher unemployment?

Let's take South Africa, which I know better than any place in Asia. There's high unemployment. The government encourages people to hire domestic workers. Checking now the rates are about US$ 1/hour. These are maids/domestics, gardeners, childminders, caretakers for the sick and elderly, and so on.

I grew up on the US, and from my family learned a strong moral principle that it's best to do everything yourself, rather than have 'people cater to my every need' at home. As an adult, I followed that same moral principle.

Then I bought a house. With a garden. A quite beautiful garden that I wanted to keep. I couldn't do it myself. More importantly, my rates as a software developer were more than 8x that of a gardener. I fought that moral training and realized that it's little different than regularly going to a mechanic to maintain my car.

The position of the South African government is similar. If you have the money, then why not use it to hire people to help around the house? Living in South Africa for a short time, I learned about some of the advantages of having someone who would do laundry, including ironing, sweeping, or mowing the lawn. None are tasks I enjoy.

As you (and the essayist) point out, that's fraught with difficulties. At what point does that turn into a sense of entitlement? How can abuses in the workplace (that is, the home) be monitored and reduced?

You can read some of the difficulties and different viewpoints at <http://www.sacsis.org.za/site/article/473.1> .

<comment><USER40> The solution of course is higher taxation or philanthropy. The gardener should be paid to build a public garden, not private garden.

You should be paying someone who is more efficient than you at those tasks, so you can write software to solve problems more efficiently than your customers do otherwise. That is wealth creation across a community.

You should not be paying someone (x N) to work at a much lower hourly wage than you simply because you have accumulated more wealth.

Now, some dose of income inequality is healthy, to motivate individuals to better themselves and be valuable (education, skill, physical execise), but extreme inequality is to be remedied by rebalancing the income, not just making someone work _for you_.

<comment><USER28> "The solution of course is higher taxation or philanthropy."

I don't see the "of course." Using that argument, it sounds like I shouldn't hire a carpenter to work on my house but should instead pay more taxes so that the carpenter can work on improving the public buildings, and only use my own skills and time to improve my house.

I shouldn't ever hire a mechanic to fix my car but rather I should always pay more taxes in order to fund the mass transit system.

I shouldn't ever hire a gardener but should rather let the existing garden in my yard fall into disrepair - or learn the skills myself - in preference for a neighborhood garden.

"You should not be paying someone (x N) to work at a much lower hourly wage than you simply because you have accumulated more wealth."

I never held that position, and I don't know how you inferred that that I had that assumption in mind.

There is some boundary on where it's better for myself and/or the community that I do something myself, and better sometimes for others with more time and/or better skills to do it. My argument is that one of the reasons that people don't hire domestic help is because of moral qualms. Sometimes those qualms are unfounded, and in that case, an educational campaign to change attitudes may be an appropriate means to mollify those qualms and improve wealth creation across a community.

In your words, they are doing something less efficiently than they could, and need a reminder backed by a good argument for why they should hire someone else to handle those jobs.

"simply because you have accumulated more wealth"

That is part of a different argument. The mathematics I outlined are based on differential income, not wealth accumulation. That is, had I spent every penny of income or contributed it through taxes, such that I had less wealth accumulation than my gardener, it would still make economic sense for me to hire a gardener instead of tending to the garden myself. As you said, your goal is 'wealth creation across a community'. The scenarios I described are not incompatible with that goal. I can outline others if you wish.

Also, at that time my work was very bursty. I would sometimes visit a client site for a month or two, then not work for a few months. Her work was relatively constant, so she could maintain my garden while I was away. Even if I maintained the garden myself, I don't think it would be morally or economically objectionable to hire someone for that case. It can be even be worthwhile to hire someone on a continual basis, in order to ensure availability during odd times.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> You know, it's really interesting how people can become oblivious to the concerns of others. It's not necessarily wealth that does it either. It can be a job promotion, parents that always bend to the will of their child, or a variety of other factors.

The most shocking thing is that I don't think these people realize they are doing it either. Now certainly there are some who realize it and just don't care (psychopaths or sociopaths), but I think it is more common that people lose the ability to think about the consequences of their actions.

Evaluation of my actions is something I try hard to do with myself. It is very, _very_ difficult to objectively evaluate yourself and how you come across to others. Something you may not even think twice about can have a lasting, negative effect on someone else. You don't know what that person is going through; maybe they just got laid off or lost a relative -- who knows what really.

</comment><comment><USER49> Entitlement is a problem amongst many people who experience success, regardless of class or nationality.

Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky have shown this in numerous studies, but here's an easily relatable example of theirs: Financial advisors.[1]

Predicting markets is an inherently random game. We often point to those who have been successful for a long period of time as an example that it is possible to beat the system, but that analysis fails to account for the other end of the probability distribution: those who have failed for a long period of time (or failed so hard early that they had to get out of the game).

In other words, for every big winner, there is a big loser. The fact that some people win or lose can (mostly) be explained by randomness (or cheating).

But Kahneman & Tversky's stunning finding with Financial Advisors, and humans in general, is that those who are successful attribute their success mostly to skill, hard work, etc, while failing to adequately acknowledge how large a role chance played. For the humble, this is not a problem, but for the arrogant or uninformed, this can easily turn into entitlement.

(BTW I definitely believe that, in most fields, a person needs to meet certain thresholds of hard work, energy, intelligence, etc. to be successful, but the level of success after reaching those thresholds is largely a function of chance.)

We humans are very good at drawing false conclusions from random data. Have you watched a basketball game recently? If a good shooter misses a couple free throws, commentators seem obligated to explain that the reason for this is fatigue, or poor form, or this, or that. How about the fact that it just randomly happens sometimes?

Applying this thinking to Indian elites: they have a lot of money, probably through their families or their own success. They believe their status is well deserved and earned, either because of superior genetics or superior skills (or any other number of reasons), and as a result, the uninformed feel entitled (and act accordingly). The author's anecdotal examples aside, this is no different than how many (but not all!) people behave on Wall Street, in athletics, at the high levels of corporations, etc. This is not an Indian problem, or an elite problem; it's a human problem.

Fooled by Randomness[2]. Again.

[1][http://www.businessinsider.com/daniel-kahneman-on-wealth- man...](http://www.businessinsider.com/daniel-kahneman-on-wealth- management-2012-12) [2][http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden-Chance- Market...](http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden-Chance- Markets/dp/0812975219)

</comment><comment><USER50> India is a banana republic in every sense of the word; where the mighty have their way and even basic amenities are denied to the poorer 80% of population. But do stay tuned - the Indian class war is yet to play out.

</comment><comment><USER51> India has many wonderful things to offer but my biggest issue in that country would be the cast system. The untouchables! I think it's awful that any human is deemed less than human at the point of birth. Awful!

<comment><USER52> Actually, the caste system isn't that much of a problem anymore. Because of various affirmative action programs, many former Dalits have risen to high governmental posts and industry titans.

<comment><USER51> That's good to hear. My friend was recently in India some months ago and when visiting he was delegated a servant which he didn't even ask for or want. The kid was not even allowed to sit on the couches! Sad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Only in India? I'd be inclined to think that elites everywhere have the same sense of entitlement.

</comment><comment><USER54> Change is already happening. One of the best examples I can cite is the Madurai based chef-turned social worker, Narayanan Krishnan. He quit his 5-star hotel chef job to feed the poor. He was one of the CNN Heroes in 2010.

[http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cnn.heroes/archive10/naryana...](http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cnn.heroes/archive10/naryanan.krishnan.html)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narayanan_Krishnan>

</comment><comment><USER55> Wow... very nice. While the rich are really mean and ferocious, the poor (normal) people are very generous and giving. That is the reason the country is still functioning. Fortunately there are millions of normal ( poor by western standards ) people in India, especially outside of the big cities. Still most people live in villages which is a very good thing, they are not yet corrupted by the greediness. I hope they don't.

</comment><comment><USER56> Any solutions? I have mostly given up being beaten down by the scale and inherited mentality of 100s or years.

</comment><comment><USER57> My experience in Delhi is that there is too much people in a very small place.

You see chaos everywhere, in the roads, children playing around electricity cables(non insulated, working cables), so much people living in trash...

If I were to live there for extended periods of time, I will get crazy. It is like living in a beehive.

</comment><comment><USER58> See also: Delhi Boys

<comment><USER59> Don't know if those outside India will find it funny, but: <http://www.quickmeme.com/Rich-Delhi-Boy/?upcoming>.

<comment><USER40> Ugh is there really such a problem of rich kids shooting people? That's horrible

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I'm a NZer living in India and I see the themes described in this post on a daily basis. One example: <http://lostinmumbai.org/2013/04/14/a-man-called- bunty/>

</comment><comment><USER61> I'd suggest that the elites from all societies have a ferocious sense of entitlement. However, some are better at hiding it and coming across as harmonious members of society.

</comment><comment><USER62> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Pj8QKTvRTQ>

"this car can buy your whole family" - same attitude everywhere mate!!

</comment><comment><USER63> Call me crazy but "taking"? The man scratching the mans car with his cart was Taking. The people in the street who wouldn't get out the way were taking.

<comment><USER64> Do you mean how the man in the SUV threw over someone else's cart full of produce (likely his only source of income/livelihood), and then throwing a large heavy metallic object at him in a effort to physically harm him is NOT "Taking" (with a Capital T)?

<comment><USER63> As opposed to charging the man for repairs and the man likely ending up in jail? I say the man got off easy. If the man had to pay for the damage to the SUV he would have been much worse off.

<comment><USER64> It doesn't matter if he got off easy or not. Two wrongs does not make a right.

If you wrong someone, and s/he tries to then injure you with a heavy blunt object but fails, it doesn't mean "you got off easy". You can then counter sue for attempted murder.

So now who got off "easy"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Why is this article here on HN?

It takes a single incident and extrapolates from their to the authors biases.

How is this at all worthy of discussion for intellectually curious people?

</comment><comment><USER65> Just one of the many side effects of private property.

</comment><comment><USER66> Well they did have a religious caste system that pervaded everything in life for hundreds if not thousands of years. Is this a surprise?

</comment><comment><USER67> The reason is __Population __

there are just too many people fighting for same resources. hence it gets messy

</comment><comment><USER68> Calvanism

</comment><comment><USER69> This happen to be a very Chinese and Indian thing. You don't see this in say countries like Sweden or Germany.

<comment><USER70> You don't see this in stable societies with more income/class equality, but it shows up in any place with large social inequality. Russia/ex-USSR after the 'wild capitalism' of 1990'ies is also a great example with similar situations as described in the original article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Unfortunately, this is quite an accurate article. I've only been to Delhi once, but in my parents' home city of Hyderabad, this behavior is commonplace. That being said, this article is being written from a feminist and classist perspective, so one should be careful when making generalizations about India. It's important to keep in mind everyone has an agenda, and this author has clearly delivered one.

</comment><comment><USER71> _India's elites have a ferocious sense of entitlement_

That is better than here in America. Here its our lazy freeloaders whom have a ferocious sense of entitlement.</comment>


A few nice resources on iOS - <AUTHOR> http://devcharm.com/pages/19-ios-bits

<comment><USER2> Thanks for sharing this! PonyDebugger looks awesome, I'll definitely try it

<comment><AUTHOR> Glad that you like it! PonyDebugger is indeed a pretty powerful tool</comment></comment>


What if you had a clone - with only one difference: tireless determination - <AUTHOR> http://lesism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/another-you.html

<comment><USER2> Before reading the article, my response would have been: "With my stupidity plus tireless determination, the clone would be dead in five minutes"

>>> Your clone decided to give up the bad habits you shared.

This suggests more than one difference.

</comment><comment><USER3> "You finished that app!" I'd exclaim, and my clone would nod contentedly. "You finished Breaking Bad!" he'd exclaim, and I would nod contentedly. My clone, smug in his accomplishments, would be as jealous of me, smug in my slothfulness - because we both missed out on something.

</comment><comment><USER4> Well, what would happen is that the clone would commence a depth first walk down the path of the original's imagined task graph and probably overdose on some stimulant while trying to prove the Riemann hypothesis.

I found the story in the article to be a bit naive...</comment>


Rewire Your Brain for Positivity and Happiness Using the Tetris Effect - <AUTHOR> http://lifehacker.com/5982005/rewire-your-brain-for-positivity-and-happiness-using-the-tetris-effect <comment><USER2> Great article. I know a lot of people that dreamed of Tetris.</comment>


Ask HN: Please review my app: Was it up? - dead simple monitoring - <AUTHOR> http://wasitup.com

<comment><USER2> Love it.

Minor suggestion - in the email, change the text in the email from "To unsubscribe from this service, go to:" to something like "To manage all your monitorings, or unsubscribe, go to:". It isn't clear this link does more, and I wouldn't have thought to click on it as it may unsubscribe me without confirmation (until i read your comment above about a link showing you a full listing).

From that listing page, would be nice to be able to add another service, or at least a link back to the homepage to add another.

<comment><AUTHOR> Implemented both. Appreciate the suggestions. Gotta love one command deployment with fabric;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I don't love it. The users of such a site want to use your UI as rarely as possible, but be full of trust and understanding of what it's going to do for them.

Before I'm going to do anything, you need to tell me about the requests you're going to make (frequency, user-agent, robots, etc like other people have pointed out). Then I want to know about your own server's reliability. There are no clues at all that you'll be around even for a week. One way to improve this would be to offer an optional RSS feed that has a post every day that my site is _up_. That way I would know your server hasn't stopped completely, but you aren't blasting me with emails. Or just decorate your page in a way that makes me think you have some reason to keep your own system running.

I am using a free competitor (<http://www.aboutmyip.com/AboutMyXApp/Watchdog.do>) which sends me periodic uptime reports. I don't remember their setup UI being any more difficult than yours. Maybe it was, but I certainly don't remember! That's the nature of this app-- people almost never interact with it. Clearly on aboutmyip, they have several other things going on that could pay the bills.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are spot on regarding the lack of explanation of how Wasitup goes about monitoring your site and why it won't miss a tragic downtime on your site. I'll probably add info about my polling interval and the distributed nature of the back-end. Currently it's only distributed within the same data center (on separate racks and power mains). I was meaning to make it geographically distributed across different providers (to be better protected against large DDOS attacks against all data centers of a single provider). Sadly I've not had the time to do this yet and decided to just "launch" it anyway as it has been to long in the making already.

I really like the idea of the RSS feed to give some peace of mind to users. Thanks for that! I might implement such functionality soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really like the idea here, but I've encountered a problem using it.

I think all emails from the service must be getting spam-filtered before they reach me. Because (a) I've never had an email with a settings link, like the one discussed on this thread, and (b) I've not been notified when my site has been down (which, recently, it has).

I know I entered the email right: when I enter the same email and URL, I'm told the URL is monitored for that email. And I can see your hits in my Apache logs every 15 minutes.

Obviously, my spam filters are not your fault, but they do create an annoying problem: (b) means the service is useless for me, and (a) means I can't cancel it! So it seems I'm obliged to take 4 pointless web site hits an hour forever (short of blocking you with iptables or some such).

One way round this might be for you to require people to click a link in a confirmation email in order to start monitoring, but obviously that does add a precious click to the sign up process.

</comment><comment><USER5> The "contains / doesn't contain" feature is a killer, great work. I've been wishing someone would add that for quite a while.

One thing, under the 3rd input the text reads: "We only send email when your site goes down. 2 click unsubscribe."

That last bit doesn't make sense.

<comment><AUTHOR> The contains/doesn't contain feature was inspired by all the badly implemented sites I've seen which does not care to return proper HTTP status codes. I actually meant to implement regex matching as well, but sadly such a feature would be hard to protect against pathological DOS attacks.

The "2 click unsubscribe" part was meant to convey the ease of deleting the monitoring subscription if you for some reason would find them bothersome. Why did it not make sense to you?

<comment><USER6> I understood it when I read it, but now that I look at it, I can see why it might be confusing. Someone could think it is saying "To click, unsubscribe" in IM-speak. Maybe it should be "Two-click unsubscribe."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Tiny UI gripe: If I select one of the contains/doesn't contain radio buttons, there's no way to go back to "neither". Nothing selected is also a forbidden state for radio buttons. There needs to be a third choice.

</comment><comment><USER8> I've actually been looking for something for this for a while. Very cool app!

<comment><USER9> I have been using Server Density (which is also free for one host - and more comprehensive in what it does) but this is much easier.

Good stuff!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> One thing that I spotted. The validation error messages cover the Was it up? logo on the right. Perhaps move the error mesages on the left.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree that it's not optimal to cover the logo. The problem with moving the error messages to the left would be the increased total horizontal with of the page. I don't think I'd go wider than 1024px as I'm mainly using a low resolution netbook at home.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wrote a similar tool for monitoring my own servers. Besides being "up", I find that it's important to track slow responses (>10 secs) and to differentiate between DNS problems and web server problems.

(I also find that it's useful to check for load, disk space, mysqld is responsive, etc. but that's would take away from the elegance and simplicity of this tool.)

<comment><AUTHOR> I close the socket of the connection after 5 seconds. That should identify problems with slow responses. In the notifications that are sent I differentiate between responses that are not 200 OK or matches your criteria, problems with getting to the server (DNS), and problems with parsing the response. Within these three categories I also give additional info (HTTP status code returned etc). Thanks for the feedback,

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Looks great, I love the simplicity. Although you chose an interesting color scheme.

How are you determining when a website is down? What are you using to create the error message on the right? What's your website running, if you dont mind me asking. Python? Ruby?

On a side note, your blog is just as beautiful as your app. Kudos.

<comment><AUTHOR> Glad you liked both the app and my blog!

A website is down if it does not return a 200 OK HTTP status code and if the response body does not contain the text provided at registration (if such were provided).

The error messages to the right are rendered out in a normal unordered list below each input. On document.ready they are retrieved with JavaScript, hidden, and copied into tool-tips provided by the BeautyTips jQuery plugin (<http://www.lullabot.com/files/bt/bt-latest/DEMO/index.html>).

The entire service is coded in Python. The website is running Werkzeug (<http://werkzeug.pocoo.org>) on mod_wsgi inside Apache with Nginx as a proxy and media server in front. Jinja2 (<http://jinja.pocoo.org/2/>) is used for templating both the web pages and the emails. WTForms is used for form handling and validation (<http://wtforms.simplecodes.com/>).

All data is stored in Tokyo Cabinet trough the Tokyo Tyrant network interface set up with multi-master replication.

Fabric (<http://www.nongnu.org/fab/>) is used for deployment and other kinds of distributed automation.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I created this service mainly as an exercise to help me learn more about distributed applications. Behind the simple interface sits a multi-node setup with multi-master replicated Tokyo Tyrant instances for persistence.

I'd appreciate any suggestions or improvements.

<comment><USER13> For one, you should mention on the front page a) 15 minute poll-times (then also say "with optional upgrades"), and b) multi-node checks to ensure you know when you are really down.

<comment><USER14> I'm trying it out. I love it so far. Couple ideas for paid features:

\- A chart showing uptime vs. downtime. I just like charts. \- Ability to display server details like host etc. \- Optional notifications via cell phone text \- Ability to auto-notify hosting service via email of the downtime.

<comment><AUTHOR> Glad you're liking it. I have most of these features written down as possible improvements and/or premium features. But it's good to get some validation of my own crazy ideas.

<comment><USER14> I'm getting a lot of error notices of no response before five seconds, then immediate error resolved. Not sure what this indicates. As I'm just a designer, I don't know if this is a problem or not. I'm at the point where I ignore all the notices. So now if it did really go down I wouldn't believe it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. I'll probably increase the max timeout.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This looks great - perfect for the site that doesn't need 1-minute monitoring. Montastic has been ok for this purpose but I'm happy to try something else.

My feature request - 140-character SMS messages when you're down.

<comment><AUTHOR> That could be a possible feature for paying customers. I'm not shelling out lots of money for a good international SMS broker before I know that it can break even.

For now you can use your mobile provider's Email-to-SMS gateway (if such are provided).

<comment><USER15> That's totally reasonable. You might offer two emails for an outage, one to their email and one for SMS.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, I get what you meant now. My normal email would of course be mangled by the SMS limit. I'll look into it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Do you uniquely identify your polling agent to the server being polled ? Do you check for robots.txt ?

If you don't, you should in case if people are trying to monitor sites that are not theirs.

<comment><AUTHOR> I send the following user agent sting: "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Wasitup monitoring;<http://wasitup.com)>. Checking the robots.txt file on registration is on my TODO list.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> One other suggestion -

One problem with these sorts of services is that when they're working, nothing happens, so if I don't get mails for a week, I don't know if that's because everything's been working or if you've stopped running the service.

There are lots of complex answers, but an easy one is just to have a "last checked" for each URL - it's ok if I have to go on-demand to make sure things are running. (A weekly/monthly update is nice too, just more work.)

<comment><USER17> Expanding on that idea a little. Store the proof of operation on the clients own server.

Let them enter a url to a script on their own server, that you will POST to, whenever you check their server. The user can log POST's to a text file, DB, etc., so they know that you are actually monitoring them.

When they see that you haven't POSTed to that file for a while, they know you're out of business, and they are unprotected.

On second thought, make it easy on yourself, and use GET. It's not like there's anything confidential about it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been thinking of implementing webhooks as an additional form of notification, but not as a a presence mechanism. I like the idea, but given the simple nature of the service I'd have to give it some thought before implementing something like this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've been working on something similar to this in my free time; yours is very nice :D

The only thing that I looked for that it doesn't seem that you've got right now is the ability for me to see the sites that I have registered - it'd be nice to be able to enter my email address and have the site tell me that you're monitoring x, y and z for me.

How frequently are you polling?

<comment><AUTHOR> If you register a site you'll get an email with a link to a settings page which lists all your subscriptions and offer one-click unsubscribe. For now I only allow one site per email though. The plan is to offer several sites per email and lower poll intervals for a small subscription fee in the future if there is any demand.

I poll every 15 minutes. I should probably mention that somewhere for the technically minded.

<comment><USER18> You may want to change the verbiage of the email - it looked like it was just an unsubscribe link to me. I wouldn't have clicked it at all except for the fact that you just said it would take me to a settings page.

(Right now it just says: "To unsubscribe from this service, go to: <link elided>")

<comment><USER19> Agree, never would have clicked on it (other than to unsubscribe).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Hey, we both seem to have the same values in simplicity as I've just launched an alpha of <http://nimbu.net/> (dead simple website monitoring) - I like your easy signup process

</comment><comment><USER21> Very nice, pretty straight forward. The error messages are somewhat oddly placed, but overall good job!

</comment><comment><USER22> Nice UI. Seems similar to pingdom.com, so you could check them out for feature ideas, etc.

</comment><comment><USER23> Good idea. Neat implementation. Kudos!

</comment><comment><USER24> Awesome.

</comment><comment><USER25> I have a couple of websites but one primary email account. So when I tried to add the second site I got this message: "We only allow one monitoring per email."

Is there a specific reason for that? I'd like for all my sites to come to one email since its the only one I check regularly.

Other than that I really like it. Super simple and easy to use. good stuff.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. I just pushed a change which ups the limit to 10 monitorings per email address. I'm a bit hesitant to having no limit at all due to the ease of abuse. After all, I do have to pay for the BW out of my own pocket.

<comment><USER26> Provided that you can guarantee reliability, charge a buck a site (forever, for a year, a month... figure it out). Maybe offer the first few sites for free so people try out the service. I'd pay a buck a site

Check out AreMySitesUp.com (and other competitors) and their pricing, and offer something more competitive price-wise.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll see how far the free model takes me. If the monthly server costs starts to take away a considerable chunk of my salary I'll probably consider taking payments from the most active users.

As you've alluded to this marked is swamped with competition. Usability, pricing, and features are the only attack vectors as I see it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I was too lazy, but the idea is cool. If hassle-free this is something I would pay for (1 thing cam to mind: how can I trust your site is always on? explain this to your prospects).

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually, as of now the site itself (HTTP) is not redundant. It could be by using DNS for failover to a slave host or some kind of heartbeat setup. The data is replicated, so the problem is just sending you to the right host when you type in <http://wasitup.com> in your browser.

The monitoring backend on the other hand is redundant (or as redundant as I feel is needed for a free service).</comment></comment>


Show HN: Superwidget - <AUTHOR> http://blog.yesgraph.com/superwidget-flow/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey folks, I used to run growth at Dropbox. I ran dozens of optimization tests on top of the referral program and sharing flows.

Now my startup YesGraph (YC W15) launched a widget that has all the same powerful sharing features. Our contact importer is actually 30% faster than Dropbox too -- I tested :)

The link in this post is to an announcement post. Try it out for free without creating an account in YesGraph here: [https://www.yesgraph.com/demo/](https://www.yesgraph.com/demo/)

</comment><comment><USER2> This looks really good. I've seen quite a few half-baked internal implementations of this kind of thing, it certainly seems to me worth paying for for a well-built, drop in one of these. A couple of questions..

How does the pricing work? If I sign up for the $199 tier and suddenly get 10058 users, does it block new referrals, or do I suddenly owe you $400?

Are the contacts shared between installs? e.g. does my install "learn" from other company's installs?

I tried it out and it picked some pretty bad recommendations, one was a well- known blogger who I had emailed once years ago, one was one of my other email addresses with the same name, and only the third checked suggestion was a good suggestion, a friend who I might actually recommend something to. A lot of the unchecked items on the "top" list were weird emails that I wasn't even sure why they were in my address book.

Still, the invite interface was nice, and even with odd suggestions this is something I'd use. I'll keep it in mind. Thanks!

<comment><AUTHOR> Without our recommendations those "weird" emails are what everyone would see. There is a lot of noise in contacts. We have a pretty good blacklist, and it's getting better all the time. We'll soon have enough data to make the blacklist more automated -- essentially classifying patterns of email automatically. Right now, it's a whack-a-mole. This is a big focus of ours.

The ranking for this demo example is only pretty good because not many people have used this flow. We just launched today. Normally we have a lot more data to train the ranking.

We do extract patterns across thousands of users. For example, do people tend to invite those with the same last name? To enable this learning, we do keep the data around, but we don't share contact data across apps. We aren't a data broker. The basic model is that we won't send more contact data than a user already shared with you. But we do try to find more signal to help with the ranking, and that can include, for example, counting mutual contacts that we learn from any source. Again, this data isn't shared back, it only informs our ranking.

As far as pricing, it's based on the number of address books -- not your user count. So the free tier actually covers a social graph with around 1M edges -- which is a huge value.

No, the service doesn't automatically shut off or anything like that. If the pricing doesn't fit your app (e.g. you're very high scale and a free app), just email me: email@example.com

We already priced things to match a high scale B2C app, so this pricing is a steal for most users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I want to try this, so I tried signing up for SendGrid but got an instant rejection for unknown reasons. I think the many-step setup involving multiple vendors is a bit of an obstacle here... although maybe it's a net positive for you to weed out less committed buyers. Do you think you could manage the email API on behalf of your users at least for low volumes? Wondering if there's a way to let people try it "for real" on their site without going through all the hoops. I know email is a challenge because of reputation and deliverability and all that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, YesGraph doesn't want to get in the email deliverability game. There are a hundred vendors who can manage this, and every serious web app solves this problem.

I think it's a feature to use your own email system. This gets really obvious when you start reusing your templates and centralizing your analytics.

We'll implement many more backends than SendGrid -- including easier ones like Mailchimp.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a really cool piece of functionality, but what surprises me the most is that they're trying to build a business around it. I would have never thought that this was enough of a problem to justify paying for.

(Not intended as a negative comment. When I read the site, I thought it was going to be a node plugin or something...)

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually this just makes adding our real product (recommended invites) very, very easy.

Here is the VC pitch: YesGraph is replacing Facebook Connect.

Instead of building a lobster trap social network and giving that data to developers, YesGraph is helping developers do more with their data (like imported email contacts and mobile address books).

This is a big deal when you think about it. The "single line of code" seems like a small deal, but dramatically lowers the cost of more apps getting on YesGraph.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is the third attempt at this niche I see on HN. I guess there's definitely a market for this, so good luck :)

<comment><AUTHOR> We don't consider other referral program competitors. We want to help them level up and work with our API to recommend contacts to invite.

We're in talks with a few right now actually :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was the lead engineer on this project--thoughts and feedback welcome :D

</comment><comment><USER7> Great to see the unminified source for Superwidget online.

<comment><AUTHOR> Repo: [https://github.com/YesGraph/yesgraph- superwidget](https://github.com/YesGraph/yesgraph-superwidget)

This is the normal include: [https://cdn.yesgraph.com/yesgraph- invites.min.js](https://cdn.yesgraph.com/yesgraph-invites.min.js)

Just remove the "min" if you're, for example, debugging. [https://cdn.yesgraph.com/yesgraph- invites.js](https://cdn.yesgraph.com/yesgraph-invites.js)</comment></comment>


Kevin Smith's SmodCast Pictures partners with Phase 4 to release indie films - <AUTHOR> http://www.slashfilm.com/year-selfdistributed-red-state-premiere-kevin-smith-partners-small-distributor-phase-4/

<comment><AUTHOR> "Park City, UT (January 23, 2012) -- Berry Meyerowitz, President & CEO of Phase 4 Films, announced today that the company has entered into an exclusive distribution deal with SModcast Pictures, the production company founded and run by filmmaker Kevin Smith (Clerks, Chasing Amy, Red State). Through the deal, Phase 4 obtains exclusive rights in the U.S. and Canada to exhibit and distribute up to twelve films per year under the newly created 'Kevin Smith and SModcast Pictures Presents' label. Phase 4 will release four of these films theatrically each year, which will include a live tour with Kevin Smith, similar to that of Red State, with the remainder of films being released via all other traditional and digital platforms."</comment>


How many people does it take to ship software? - <AUTHOR> http://thecodist.com/article/how-many-people-does-it-take-to-ship-software <comment><USER2> Jonathan Blow (indie game dev of Braid and The Witness fame) also talks a bit about this subject in this video:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k56wra39lwA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k56wra39lwA)

He wonders why a companies like Facebook or Twitter need so many people to ship software and brings up some of his ideas on the matter.</comment>