Ask HN: How does one overcome the need for instant gratification? - <AUTHOR> ...in the context of programming and problem solving.  For me, it becomes intensely boring and border line ADHD while pondering over a complex problem that requires some dedicated attention without worrying about the end result.  Instead, I end up taking the easiest solution that may solve the problem only partially, just for the instant gratification it gives.  Needless to say, this is harmful for important decisions.
I believe this has come from years of INSTANT dopamine rushes from social media and Hacker News.
How do you avoid it? <comment><USER2> Some things I'd recommend, off the top of my head:

\- Do not grab phone/computer etc. and mindlessly browse first thing in the morning. (Or before bed. Or at any time really.) But doing it first thing really starts your day on the wrong foot.

\- When seeking to relax, do not mindlessly browse the internet/social- media/tv. Read an enjoyable book. This is an order of magnitude more fulfilling and beneficial to you. And genuinely more relaxing: screens are stimulating, and might let you 'relax' in the sense that you can momentarily be completely absorbed in something 'other', and forget your day to day life; but they don't relax you in the sense of being calm and contemplative (in general, in my experience).

\- Reduce instant gratification from as many areas as possible. Do things that are rewarding longer term. Like reading, cooking, growing plants, hiking, etc.

\- Cut video games.

\- Block facebook + reddit + sites you waste a lot of time on, from main computer. Maybe have a secondary device you use to access these sites, for a set period each day (I recommend this mainly because it can be quite difficult to maintain a social life without facebook, (which is a terrible state of affairs)). Have days where you don't go onto these sites at all.

\- Spend as little time on screens as is possible -> if you can work on paper do so

\- have a regular exercise regime. eg. swim/run. Doing first thing in the morning really helps set your day on the right track, you have already exerted a good amount of self discipline, and achieved something, and this makes it easier to continue being disciplined.

\- I recommend reading 'The Power of Habit'.

<comment><USER3> Really good advice. I tried blocking some sites but whenever my 'bad side' comes up again, I always find a way to get around the block and visit the site anyway. Any recommendations on blocking a site indefinitely?

<comment><USER4> I have a weird alternative strategy. First a backstory, when I quit smoking, I tried what you did, making my vice less accessible/desirable using the sort of strategies you'd find in top 10 ways to quit smoking article. After failing at that for the umpteenth time, I did the opposite. I bought my favourite cigarettes, bought some very nice cigars, fresh pipe tobacco and put it all on my desk where I have to study all day.

Now that it was in my face it wasn't about working around myself, bit rather deciding if I actually wanted and had the will power to do what I had claimed I wanted to do.

So, if you really want to reduce mindless browsing and find you can't and little strategies end up being ineffective, perhaps the opposite might be a worthwhile strategy.

All the best.

<comment><USER5> This is a good point. Those moments where you are ambivalent about a course of action are self-defining moments. If you want to quit smoking, you need to become a person who chooses not to smoke when they have the opportunity to. The problem with habit is that you're no longer choosing. By keeping your cigarettes close, you gave yourself many ambivalent moments in which to build the self that you wanted to become.

<comment><USER6> And to look at it another way:

When the object is out of common sight, you only encounter your self-defining vice moments _when you 're at your most vulnerable_ (because you willfully sought the thing out).

When you bring yourself into more frequent contact, you provide yourself with more training opportunities when your willpower is greater (because maybe you're already busy, or happy, etc).

Thus, even if you fall victim to the poor choices you're trying to avoid the same number of _absolute_ times, you've drastically increased the number of times you make good choices. And the percentage of times you choose good choices over bad.

Counterintuitive, but I like it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm surprised no one mentioned meditation yet!

A regular meditation practice helps with impulse control (sitting still for X minutes requires exercising self control) and that will help with resisting the urge to do tasks which are immediately gratifying, which will free up time and energy for activities which lead to long term growth.

Two things really helped me with meditation: setting a timer, and meditating every day.

Insight Timer (not affiliated) helped with both of these, keeping track of how many days in a row you've meditated, and allows you to set daily reminders.

There are also guided meditations available (in the app or YouTube if you prefer) if you are just starting out.

Best wishes!

<comment><USER8> This is one of the two things I miss about my more religious days as a younger man.

I would pray a lot and it was a great way to run through things I was both thankful for and the people in my (pray for) list who I needed to reach out to and make sure they were OK. I cut it because I stopped thinking it had an affect on the external world, but should have kept it because of how it affected me internally.

I also miss the community, but you can get that elsewhere it's just harder for me personally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> You don't. There are some great suggestions in this thread. I would definitely recommend reducing social media usage, random browsing, picking up meditation, sleeping, and looking to learn new skills. None of those will overcome or avoid the need for instant gratification because seeking dopamine rushes is something we do no matter what. You need to change what gives you the rush. Define the end goal, break up the project into chunks, and then award yourself when you complete a chunk. This is how video games work, they divide up long- range goals into chunks, and then award you for those chunks. I'm currently training for my second-degree black belt. I have no idea when I will get it, so instead, I focus on daily practice which gives me the hit, which then combines with the long range pleasure of knowing that so long as I continue to practice and improve, I will get promoted.

Before you ask yourself how can I avoid something, it's better to ask yourself how you can use it to improve yourself. Fighting against something drains your willpower and you only have a limited amount.

</comment><comment><USER10> I too second the recommendation for "Deep Work" by Carl Newport ([http://calnewport.com/books/deep-work/](http://calnewport.com/books/deep- work/) ). This is one book which is a must-read for all the current generation technology workers like us. I started reading this book about two weeks back and I have finished reading 90% of the book. Already I am seeing tremendous improvement in my day-to-day life.

<comment><USER11> Cal Newport (not Carl) -- just in case anyone is searching by author.

Thirded. Read his book. Do what he says.

<comment><AUTHOR> Just bought the book.

<comment><USER11> Neat. It is one of that books that really helped me change my habits. I don't think there is anything revolutionary in there for the average knowledge worker, but the presentation is compelling and it offers very practical advice and examples. I often think we "know" a lot of things that are good and work well, but without picking some of those good things we "know" and just working them and doing them "knowing" that stuff doesn't help. Books like this offer a practical framework to narrow the scope of the doing and can surpass the mental hurdles to commit to things you already "know" or have a good idea about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Several thoughts, somewhat unsorted:

\- There could be an underlying medical problem. Mild depression often has low willpower as the most noticeable effect. If it's not too much of a hassle, maybe get your thyroid checked. And whatever works for depression should usually work for your problem as well, exercise unfortunately being the most effective

\- If what you're doing really doesn't interest you, it doesn't make much sense to see a pathology where everything is working as intended. Try something new (as a hobby maybe) that requires similar levels of engagement, and see if the problem persists. If not, it's time for tough decisions.

\- There's a theory that willpower works much like a muscle. There's a book about that phenomenon, but it really doesn't have much more content than the last sentence. It's one of those results that I don't completely trust, but trying it out doesn't cost much: do anything that requires willpower regularly, and see if you improve. The examples from the book were really small interventions, such as brushing your teeth with the non-dominant hand. After three weeks or so, people were significantly more likely to successfully stop smoking, compared to the control group. That's a rather big effect.

\- Try reducing your work hours. Being "always on" just drains your resources. Start with restricting your daily work hours to something like 3h or even less, and only expand again if you're productive in those hours.

\- Somehow get your hands on ADHD meds (or, you know, the generic alternatives that fuel the bitcoin boom). You'll be as focussed as you ever wanted to be, and even a one-time experience can be helpful, by reminding you what it actually feels like to be "in the zone".

<comment><USER13> > Somehow get your hands on ADHD meds

Are you a qualified medical doctor?

<comment><USER14> > Are you a qualified medical doctor?

You don't need an MD to know that stimulants increase focus.

<comment><USER13> But you should be one to tell someone to take medication.

<comment><USER14> And what would you say if the author comes back and replies "Yes, I am an MD."

"Oh, okay. Sorry."

?

<comment><USER13> More likely what lottery numbers I should pick for the week since they must be psychic to diagnose a guy on the Internet after just a few sentences.

<comment><USER14> Right. So regardless of his qualifications, you would have objected to his suggestion. So why ask at all?

<comment><USER15> I think brango's point is that it can be dangerous to give medical advice if you are not qualified / not a MD, & even then, it should be given only after proper examination

<comment><USER16> The MD will not even give a public advice public about sensitive subjects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> * Temperance: Restricting yourself in things. Try it: find a vice. Now stop doing it.

* Integrity: Doing the right thing, when no one is looking, or "when it doesn't matter"

Example: Yesterday, Amazon accidentally discounted a $3.5k guitar to $112. It was widely publicized and hundreds of them were purchased. Some people go theirs shipped. Is this right or wrong? After all, it's just "pennies" to a company like Amazon. Answer: yes it's wrong.

* Self-discipline: Do you work out? Force yourself to work out 2x a week. Stick to the schedule. Do you play an instrument? Force yourself to practice multiple times a week.

These things were beat into me as a kid by a pair of "tough love" parents. I cannot thank them enough.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Non-ironically, I watch this video every couple months to remember all my problems are first-world problems and I need to remember how good I have it:

[https://vimeo.com/69662330](https://vimeo.com/69662330)

That helps with the instant gratification problem for me.

<comment><USER19> I watch [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL- ydFMI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI) [http://www.metastatic.org/text/This%20is%20Water.pdf](http://www.metastatic.org/text/This%20is%20Water.pdf)

This is Water - David Foster Wallace Commencement Speech.

I watch this from time to time for a similar reasons.

<comment><USER20> That was pretty eye opening indeed. I feel that companies as well as schools should be attempting to instill more conscious and empathetic behaviour in their execs and employees.

After all - as Foster states education never really ends - considering the immense time and commitment we give our employer I think their reinvestment in our skills and mental well being will reap dividends for both parties.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Don't watch porn (nofap). It is one of the worst habits of instant gratification

</comment><comment><USER22> > taking the easiest solution that may solve the problem only partially, just > for the instant gratification it gives.

This isn't necessarily bad. "YAGNI", after all.

In a work programming context, if you're trying to work up the motivation to do it properly rather than hack it, can I suggest a variant on "rubber duck debugging"? Simply find a more diligent co-worker and discuss the short and long solutions. When they say you should do the long one, agree with them.

Bang! Now you're _socially committed_ to the non-instant solution. It's like having a running buddy. Or the old joke about why are mountaineers roped together: to stop the sensible ones going home.

<comment><USER23> > socially committed

I've found the opposite to be true unfortunately. I can work on a project for hours and hours but the moment I say something about it to a friend, coworker, spouse the motivation to complete it just _dies_. Very odd effect and sucks when you're trying to release a product MVP

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Well, think twice if you really want to go that way. From my own repeating experience, you spend years working on some insanely difficult problem, making you feel miserable all the time, then once you accomplish it you have your 15 minutes of chemical euphoria in your brain; in a week or so everybody around you starts treating it as nothing interesting anymore, and your bosses induce themselves even daily a similar feeling you had from your accomplishment by snorting cocaine, inflating their egos. In addition, all the "easy problem, low hanging-fruit" solvers that rank high in popularity contests will overtake you.

<comment><USER25> > all the "easy problem, low hanging-fruit" solvers that rank high in > popularity contests will overtake you.

I laugh at myself, heartily, merrily, humbly. I am in my low place. Maybe they laugh at me, maybe they hate themselves, maybe they don't even exist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> 1) You could try doing TDD. Each passing test will give you instant gratification. You could even try doing Acceptance Test-Driven Development. Basically you start by writing end-to-end test and implementing minimal code to make it pass. After that you will go one level deeper etc. I would suggest reading "Growing Object-Oriented Software Guided by Tests", this will give you a good overview of the method.

2) Also, if you can choose language to work with, you can try languages that allow you to work in the REPL. That way you can have instant feedback loop and feel satisfied even when you get some small functions working.

3) Pomodoro technique.

</comment><comment><USER27> Addictions can't be unlearned, in my experience. It's more like training a muscle. And like with body training it's an additional habit. So if you are addicted to instant gratification when programming, you need to learn an additional habit of keeping to go on. The longer you do it, the easier it becomes. But it will always cost energy. And when you stop training that muscle restarting will become harder again.

Your question contains a second part: The question for motivation to continue training despite having no internal motivation. I'm not good enough in that department to give a short, precise answer yet.

<comment><USER28> Sure they can. You ever see someone drink too much tequila, get sick, and never want it again? Or go to mcdonalds, see a cockroach, and never go again?

It's called an aversion, and aversion therapy was a common method of habit cessation through the mid 90s. Check out this study on how >50% of 2-pack a day smokers quit smoking after just 6 sessions:

[https://www.schickshadel.com/documents/Commercial_Stop_Smoki...](https://www.schickshadel.com/documents/Commercial_Stop_Smoking_Program.pdf)

<comment><USER27> I know a lot of people who don't like to ever drink again in the morning, and I also see them again with a bottle of tequila in the evening.

Joke aside, a successful aversion therapy will also train another habit additionally to the addiction habit, that just has the opposite reaction, and the hope is that it becomes stronger than the original habit. So it's more of a method of application rather than a counter argument. Wouldn't you say?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Sometimes you have to harness your perceived weakness and turn it into a strength.

Sure, meditation and exercise and reading on paper are great overall lifestyle changes that will help in the long run, but that's not what I see you asking about.

Two things I think can help you immediately:

1) Timers. Set a timer if you're working on a hard problem. 10 minutes focus, 5 minutes to fuck around, rinse, repeat (work/break times are up to you, just start somewhere). Personally, I notice that the "it's only 10 minutes and then I can take a break and look at cat pictures!" is enough to temporarily short circuit the "instant gratification" I want. Before you know it, you'll find yourself annoyed when the 10 minutes is up because you broke your train of thought. Time to add another 5 minutes. Then 5 more. It's important to reward yourself for your work, even if it just means you went 10 minutes without checking Reddit.

2) If you can't shake the feeling and need to just solve the problem and move on, that's fine. Figure out a way that works for you to revisit the problem. Make a note in a journal? Give yourself a calendar reminder? Put in a ticket detailing what you still feel needs to be done so it can be added to your next agile cycle? It's up to you. It's okay to implement temporary/bad solutions and revisit later.

Don't be too hard on yourself and don't let anybody tell you that you're doing to little. Start somewhere an iterate. This is self-improvement and in this context nobody else matters but yourself. Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER30> I recommend reading Deep Work by Cal Newport. There are some good techniques explained in it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Just bought a hard copy. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> By realizing that there isn't enough instant gratification in the entire universe to satisfy that void in you. But a less melodramatic way is to learn to frame things differently. I agree it's a rush to create something that functions even if it doesn't solve the problem in it's entirety, but why stop there? A polished product is much more interesting and satisfying than a sample of one. I don't think there's anything wrong in hacking together a program, in fact it's probably a great way to begin a project, but you'll feel so much more fulfilled and the high will last so much longer, if you take your basic machine and add jet engines to it. By doing things the way you are you've basically created the end result so now .you can work on refactoring the best way of getting there. A bunch of little dopamine rushes is fun, but why settle for that when you can bathe in perma-rush?

</comment><comment><USER32> In order to stop the time drains in my life, endless browsing of the internet, venturing down rabbit holes when I would read something, etc. I had to initially set a schedule for internet activities. I had to do that for about a month in order for me to break the habit of distracting activities when I needed to do other things.

Willpower works for some, not for others, but the bottom line, willpower will only get you so far and if you keep testing it, it will let you down at some point. Get up from the computer and take a short walk, do some form of light exercise or maybe just meditatefor a few moments so that you can refocus. Sometimes just stepping outside for a couple of minutes to enjoy the refresh air and sunshine will let you go back to your project refocused and ready to get after it.

Find what works for you and when you find yourself drifting into things that waste your time, remove yourself for the reset that works for you.

</comment><comment><USER33> Practice.

I repeat versions of these mantras in my head:'

\- Always do your best work

\- It's not done until it's done 100%

I also find it's helpful to chunk things down so that I _can_ bite off a smaller piece without wanting to be done with the larger project of which it is a part. But, I strive for excellence in that part, and often can leverage that momentum to keep going.

</comment><comment><USER34> Putting my phone in another room while I'm working does wonders.

For rationale to steele your resolve for pursuing your question, see this jblow comment for the ages [1] and the comments on _Deep Work_.

[1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7789438](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7789438)

</comment><comment><USER35> Solve the problem on paper including writing code, even if it is pseudo code. Once you have a good grasp of the problem and your hands are just twitching for a keyboard move over.

I find that whenever I am unfocused but have a big problem to solve doing the paper exercise for 30 min to 1 hour greatly help me focus throughout the rest of the day.

ymmv

</comment><comment><USER36> Something to consider: Trying to hold onto the systems and methods of the past is one way in which people lose relevance as they age.

Personally, I embrace the dopamine rush provided by small tangible units of progress, but I make sure that some of these units include refactoring and reworking design decisions, which also provide a tangible sense of progress. (And improves your skills in these areas!)

I believe this is an overall better system than trying to build a perfect artifact from the start -- too often you're actually solving the wrong problem, even if your solution ends up being elegant.

Scott Adams has some good writing on choosing to do the thing that gives you the most energy, which for me is very often something quick and dirty, and I love it.

<comment><USER25> > Something to consider: Trying to hold onto the systems and methods of the > past is one way in which people lose relevance as they age.

I'll bite. The older I get, the more I realize how stupid it is to throw out the systems and methods of the past without understanding them first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> ZOOM IN. focus on the smallest details discernible.

that is what the idiom "put your nose to the grindstone" is about.

if you dont know/aware that the journey is long or even how long , time will fly.

you put one leg in front of the other , until you realise you finished something.

</comment><comment><USER38> You don't have an underlying medical problem, you're fine, you're just wired to want to solve the problem as fast as possible. It's not a bad thing. It's an awesome thing, that's what motivates you. I'd have you on my team! for every engineer like you, there's another who's wired to come up with the most insanely flexible solution possible. Sometimes the quick solution is needed, and sometimes the flexible solution is needed. If I was doling out work, I'd give you the important stuff that needs to be done now, and I'll give the infrastructure work to the other guy.

</comment><comment><USER39> Why (e.g. for whom) are you solving these programming problems in the first place?

<comment><AUTHOR> For my employer. As in I work with a tech corporation.

<comment><USER40> I don't expect gratification from my work as an employee: I expect money.

Many years of submerging my own will has resulted in the realization that the company does not get any gratification from me, either. A quick and dirty solution that produces the expected results is completely acceptable to them, and making an extraordinary effort to produce a deliberate and solid solution was likely a waste of effort.

If you want to write code that won't make you cringe after a six month hiatus, start a side project at home in your leisure time, or launch your own company. Don't think of the rapid and sloppy fix as instant gratification, but as cost- effective development effort. In general, companies don't want the well- considered, "correct" solution, but the one that represents the lowest costs or the greatest profits. And they don't often consider technical debt in those calculations.

If they cared at all about code quality, they would have a person whose job is to monitor and improve it, with the authority to institute procedures for the other developers. If you don't have a boss (or pseudo-boss) nagging you about code reviews or test coverage or metrics, your company doesn't care. Just fix the problem in front of you with as little effort as possible. Take the instant dopamine hit, if you still get one from solving your company's stupid problems with a scant twitch of your brain.

The real challenge in an office environment is to build personal relationships and trust networks, not the actual work you are assigned. In a way, all of your assigned tasks are a distraction from that.

If this seems _wrong_ in your gut, this is a direct result of the current management culture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Stop consuming sugar and caffeine. Fruits are a great suppliment until your body adjusts. You cannot have an abundance of attention without the fuel to power it. - It was one of the hardest things for me to do.

<comment><USER42> Fruits contain fructose, which is another form of sugar, and not quite good when consumed in large quantities.

[https://paleoleap.com/10-reasons-why-fructose-is- bad/](https://paleoleap.com/10-reasons-why-fructose-is-bad/)

<comment><USER10> I doubt this. Anything naturally occurring and has existed for millions of years cannot be bad for us. No matter, what the "research" says.

And if you do want to go by research, please read the works and watch videos of "Robert Lustig" ([http://profiles.ucsf.edu/robert.lustig](http://profiles.ucsf.edu/robert.lustig) )

<comment><USER43> > Anything naturally occurring and has existed for millions of years cannot be > bad for us. No matter, what the "research" says.

Like plutonium?

The difference is, that fruit tends to contain a lot of fiber, which makes the fructose harder and slower to absorb. So fruit is okayish.

However, fruit juice is just sugar water worse for you than Coke, so keep that in mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I second the suggestion for DeepWork. The bit on "Embracing Boredom" is a really good way to exercise that muscle. Also, think deeply about the axiom "think more, type less." Ideally you're programming to create long-ish term solutions. Programming for the flow or gratification does not lend itself well to that. On the other hand, if you're in competitive programming, think about the gratification you can get by writing clean AND fast code.

</comment><comment><USER45> Simplest trick for me (and anecdotally for my peers in the developer world): track your time. Pomodoro technique [1] can give some structure if you're not used to it, with the main benefit (to me) that it forces you to quickly track & dismiss distractions.

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

</comment><comment><USER46> Break big problems up in smaller ones. Make a checklist of the smaller items. Feel a rush of fulfillment every time you check something off

</comment><comment><USER47> Taking the shortest path is a very beneficial habit in a startup environment. That works for us really well - make a quick and dirty solution, manage expectation that it's not permanent, gather feedback, design and commit to a long term solution, implement it. When you promise a specific solution to a given customer the social obligation will help you stay on track.

</comment><comment><USER28> Pavlok allows you to add a slight punisher (uncomfortable negative stimulus) when you do activities like load up Facebook/reddit, use your phone, or sit for too long. The whole design is structured around removing instant gratification.

Bias: I'm the inventor.

[http://pavlok.com/break-habit](http://pavlok.com/break-habit)

<comment><USER48> Is this similar to how an electric dog collar works?

<comment><USER28> like a smart dog collar for humans :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment> d--b I'd suggest taking more vacation. I find myself a lot more willing to take on bigger tasks when I come back from vacation.

</comment><comment><USER49> When I face a problem that I don't know how to deal with, I try thinking about it. But that's a very unfocused, ungrounded issue.

I've found some help with typing out, free-flowing style: "What's the issue? Why is this difficult? What are my options? How can I fix it?". YMMV.

</comment><comment><USER50> Simple. (Purely my personal opinion)

1) Divide the complex problem into small yet challenging chunks of problems.

2) Totally forget about the large/complex problem.

3) Focus/Solve one problem at a time, the way you already do.

4) In the end, ask someone else to weave the individual solutions to solve the original problem. (or DIY if you prefer to!)

</comment><comment><USER51> As someone who was diagnosed by with bad ADD well into my career, I know of three solutions:

(1) Have a work-related problem that absolutely needs you to take the approach you wish you'd be taking.

(2) Adderall.

(3) Vyvance.

EDIT: I've found (2) and (3) to be very helpful for impulse control, which might be an additional factor in your troubles.

</comment><comment><USER52> Weird I'm kind of the opposite. I will procrastinate before I start something big usually a day or two and then it's kind of like my subconscious gives me the answer. And I'm like that's how I need to do this. This has to do more with design than programming tasks.

</comment><comment><USER53> Some great tips and tactics here. I think it's worth describing the end-state you might be shooting for which those tactics can help with.

From what I'm reading, I think you're looking for the ability to deeply immerse in problems when the time is right.

When you're deeply immersed or in a flow state, your conscious and unconscious are completely aligned on a common goal. In fact, your conscious mind participates less and less in the tasks - only providing high-level strategy notions to your work, letting your subconscious tactical problem solving, recall and muscle memory do the work of getting the solution out into the world.

When it's working:

\- your working memory (i.e. the classic 7+/-2 figure from psychology) is filled with the task at hand, and nothing else. Not only are you not thinking about other things, but you also have no doubts or second thoughts about what you're doing or how you are doing it.

\- you have short feedback loops in place, letting your brain's pattern recognition work effectively.

\- you have all of the tools you need at hand to solve the problem, and don't need to switch tasks to build/acquire them.

When you're in this state, you don't need a dopamine rush from anything else - you're caught up in in the problem, and don't need something to synthesize the excitement of discovery. You're getting that from the task!

Conversely, some examples of how it can break down:

\- The steps required to reproduce your test conditions overflow your working memory, especially when decisions or analysis is required. Any conscious thought put towards the steps to recreate a test case is a task switch away from the problem you're solving. You might want to invest in scripts to automate some or all of the work.

\- you're not sure if your approach is the right one. Now you're spending some of your problem solving energy on the "meta-problem" of how best to solve the problem. Take a moment to prove to yourself that the approach is at least worth investing in and then move forward.

Finally, know that deep immersion has its own drawbacks! Most importantly, while deep into solving one problem, it's easy to "over-invest" by going down the wrong path. For now, you might consider that a good problem to have and a sign of success at acquiring this skill. Honing the skill of choosing between the two approaches is level 2 ;)

</comment><comment><USER54> Growing older always helps with this.

</comment><comment><USER13> Meditation. Coursera have a course called "Demystifying Mindfulness". Check it out.

</comment><comment><USER55> I'd first like to recommend a book called "power of habits" which will help you better understand the mechanics of habit forming & reforming habits.

Deep work as mentioned by other poster is also another good resource for focus related topics.

</comment><comment><USER56> one thing that really helped me is working out, when you are building muscles, the result is only visible after a few months, that is how i got to enjoy and grasp the benefits of delayed gratification

</comment><comment><USER57> I have another border-line mental sickness that keeps me from going for the easy solution. If something is sub-optimally structured, it will get under my skin beyond what is normal.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I am reading the book 'The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck' by Mark Manson. Quite an interesting read. Also have bought Deep Work by Cal Newport.

</comment><comment><USER58> Solve the problem the first way. Take a step back and see how the solution might break or doesn't work. Solve the problem again. Repeat.

</comment><comment><USER59> Learn how to have a feeling without acting on that feeling. It works some of the time!

</comment><comment><USER60> Do not have a computer. Just leave it at home. Nothing else works.

</comment><comment><USER61> I've been battling this with Vipassana meditation. I came accross it via Sam Harris. He posted a very nice little intro essay to it [0]; and there is a good podcast interview with Harris and Joseph Goldstein, on Harris's podcast[1].

Another thing is to get off of Social Media, _immediately_ [3].

[0] [https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to- meditate](https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-meditate)

[1] [https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/why- meditate/](https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/why-meditate/)

[2] [http://matthewbrecher.com/socialmedia.html](http://matthewbrecher.com/socialmedia.html)

</comment><comment><USER62> Some ideas/tactics that might be of interest and have been useful to me or people I know:

\- Find some short programming tutorials you can follow along on and gradually increase the length.

\- Starting and stopping your day with the right routines makes a difference. I don't check email and use aquamail to not bug me during those hours. If somethings down I setup a different kind of emergency alert.

\- Treat your senses a little different when you want to focus. Tools like white noise, ear plugs, 9th beet stretch of brain.fm can work well.

\- Keeping a dedicated space for work has taught me to focus at that desk and play in other locations. I have the exact same desk and screen setup at my office and home. I keep it to focus.

\- Log out of all social media apps. And news apps. Disable all notifications. Every app thinks it's at the centre of your life by wanting to gamification you so take it away. Only use the mobile web sites in your phone in a web browser installed only for it.

\- Refuse to read or watch anything that isn't immediately useful for you and what you're up to now. Afraid you'll miss it or forget it later? Install diigo and keyword evening you read. You may find you rarely go back. Plus people don't mind filling you in when you've missed something.

\- Manually block all news, social media sites in your hosts file (point everything to 127.0.0.1) on your laptop. Seems to help a lot of folks. If the path of least resistance is increased just enough..

\- Read books more. Finding good books will teach your brain the act of immersion, focus and flow. You know you've found it when you get slightly enraged by an interruption.

\- Going for walks or bike rides help me. There has been some studies out linking walking, learning and problem solving.

\- Take up some meditation as a form of settling your thoughts and focussing. Meditating can provide the same feeling of a buzz without any hangover, mixed with giving you the fresh mind and focus you woke up with.

\- Use do not disturb and silence notifications as much as possible. It makes a world of difference.

\- Install a plugin that limits the number of browser window and tabs you have open at any given time.

\- Keep a separate device for reading, communicating/socializing. I use a kindle and phablet phone.

\- Understand your time. Be ok with scheduling your day in 1 hour pockets, including fixed reading time, at first and working your way down to 15 minute increments when needed. Be ok with tracking your time for 30 days to observe what you're doing with a tool like harvest.

Hope that mught be of some use.

Some other things I try to remember:

Productivity is as much a muscle as it is a habit as it is a discipline.

It's possible to grow out of the chasing shiny things phase little by little by cutting out all the other places that contribute ute to a distracted state of mind.

We distract ourselves when something becomes a little more difficult, and it's an important thing to manage.

Don't pressure yourself, a little sustained improvement at a time will go way further in the long run.

Building discipline that you can selectively use to focus when needed helps get things done is the goal.

We have a fixed amount of attention each day. Many things are trying to steal it from us so we don't get much done.

Much of our digital experience has devolved into the mindless chasing for hits of dopamine of the good enough updates, links, articles, etc. It's not anyone's fault except the PhD's spending their life's work getting people to click on stuff. If you are, don't feel bad about it, just cut the jerks out :)

There's very little worthy of being an interruption in a day.

Managing focus means managing those hits of novelty and distractions.

The power of habit is a great book as someone mentioned.

IIRC, If will take a few weeks to start forgetting and form new habits according to this book. Starting small, and keeping a list of what your doing helps you come back to it when one strays.

<comment><USER21> I recommend: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/xtab/amddgdnlkmoha...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/xtab/amddgdnlkmohapieeekfknakgdnpbleb) to limit the number of tabs

Outstanding to store valuable tabs and get on with your work is one-tab

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/onetab/chphlpgkkbo...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/onetab/chphlpgkkbolifaimnlloiipkdnihall)

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> iterate more, starting simple has its merits

meditate

</comment><comment><USER64> Fasting</comment>


Durandal - Single Page Apps Done Right - <AUTHOR> http://durandaljs.com/

<comment><USER2> I am evaluating AngularJS with SEO in perspective. SEO is pain thingy with Angular and it needs special focused code or heavy lifting. I am not sure Durandal solves that issue. Senthil, <http://mocdoc.in></comment>


Warren Buffett: I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. - <AUTHOR> http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/warren-buffett-i-could-end-the-deficit-in-5-minutes/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheBigPicture+%28The+Big+Picture%29 <comment><USER3> A republic or democracy presupposes that the majority of representatives will get it right eventually. However, we've seen in the Roman Circus and we see now that there is a weak spot to this thinking. Eventually the elected body will split into a faction that represents business interests and a faction that trades entitlements for votes. The latter faction eventually gains control to an extent that they bankrupt the whole. We are nearing that stage now. Few Republicans will oppose entitlements and both Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama are guilty of ramp ups in deficit spending.

Buffett's proposal would patch this historically reoccurring weakness of representative forms of government. As hnsmurf points out, it would also create a slippery slope where no representative could be reelected if they vote for X, Y and Z policies that are not systemic threats.

As our government is not responding to an issue which can literally ruin us all, it seems to me that Buffett's proposal is the lesser of two evils. Stability demands a solvent government.

<comment><USER4> Stability also requires a stable government. Throwing all the scoundrels out sounds good, but would probably happen (I think they are all too selfish and would play chicken down to/past the wire). Resulting in chaos at the next election - an entire elected body of unknowns with no experience.

<comment><USER5> That's the kind of revolution we're supposed to have when the government becomes corrupt. Also, it wouldn't be all at once; term overlaps ensure that there would be continuity.

<comment><USER6> Terms overlap only in the Senate; the entire House stands for re-election every two years.

<comment><USER7> Right and then one party looks to create a situation where the other party has more people who will be ineligible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think people are missing the point, his suggestion is not meant to be taken literally. What he's trying to say is that reducing the budget deficit is more a question of political will than economics.

<comment><USER9> Very much this. If you want to predict behavior, look at incentives.

For example, the California state budget. There's a constitutional requirement that it be on time, but every year we were setting a new record for how late it was. Then, we pass a law saying that if it's not on time the legislators don't get paid. _Mirabile dictu_ , the budget is now on time. Granted, the requirements for passing the budget were also lowered, but aside from that the Democrats were generally displeased with the budget they passed and I nearly certain that they would have waited around and tried to swing another 4 Republican votes rather than pass what they did.

At the federal level, there's nothing pushing the politicians to balance the budget, except for people who vote on that issue. But it's a rather abstract issue and not a lot of people vote on it compared to, say, abortion. No voting pressure, no lobbying dollars, and no legal repercussions means the problem won't get addressed. Buffet is suggesting changing the last of those three, although any of them would be enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This does not address the question of whether a balanced budget is even desirable. Equating the budget of the currency _issuer_ with the everyday experience of the budget of the currency _user_ is a fallacy.

Looking at the respective balances of the three sectors of government, domestic private, and external, it is obvious that flows are conserved. Given net imports (i.e. more money flowing into the external sector than out of it), a balanced government budget can only occur if the private sector is in deficit, i.e. more money flowing out of the private sector than flowing into it.

Empirically, external balances change only very slowly, unless artificial trade barriers (tariffs etc.) are raised.

So in the end, the political choice is between deficits in the private sector, and deficits in the government sector (and of course a range of choices in- between).

<comment><USER11> What about the moral implications that deficit spending is inter-generational taxation? I think that is a clear case of taxation without representation.

<comment><USER10> Inter-temporal taxation does not exist in any meaningful way. Future citizens do not send taxes to the present government. More importantly, when have you last consumed a good that was produced in the future? In real terms - and that is what ultimately matters - there is no transfer between different times (well, there is some amount of transfer from the past to the present, but this is usually not what people complain about ;)).

Now what you probably meant to say is this: The existence of the debt implies that in the future, there will be interest payments. Most likely (unless the Modern Monetary Theory revolution in education takes place before then), people in the future will be lead to believe that these interest payments come from tax payers.

This has potential moral implications because there is a tendency that those citizens who overwhelmingly _receive_ the interest payments in the future are not the same as the ones who pay the taxes (also in the future). Absolutely. But this is more about equity and distribution than it is about the fact that there is a debt. I have also commented on this before: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2730278>

Edit: I have to correct myself. One could perhaps talk about some form of inter-temporal taxation in the context of using non-renewable natural resources. However, I personally think that it's still better to talk about that in terms of sustainability rather than taxation.

<comment><USER12> Well, not in a literal sense perhaps, but practically, if you are liable for a debt that was incurred before you were even born, let alone of voting age, how is that any different?

<comment><USER10> The question is: Who are you liable _to_? You are _never_ liable to some dead person, but to some other living person.

If, in the future, there are people who are carrying some kind of burden because of the government debt established today, then there will also be, in the future, people who are benefiting from the government debt established today.

This is why I consider it a red herring to think of the debt as an inter- temporal issue. It is, if anything, at most an distributional fairness issue among the people living at any one point in time.

You might worry that in the future, the people won't have the tools at their disposal to fix those distributional fairness issues. However, since a monetarily sovereign government has the ultimate control over the interest rate that it pays on its debts (and the flows of interest payments are what is most relevant), this is not a concern.

I realize that this last part is very counter-intuitive if you're used to thinking only in terms of options available to the currency _user_. Read about how interest rates and liquidity operations of the central bank actually work: [http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern- monetary-s...](http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary- system)

The bottom line is: If the political will to do it is there, those distributional issues can always be fixed in the medium term by manipulating the interest rate. One might have to switch over to using fiscal policy for inflation control, and capital constraints to limit runaway bank lending, but some economists argue that this is preferable anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> One big problem I see with this: in time of war, it is often not only necessary but desireable to run a deficit. Imagine if we had been forced to run a balanced budget during WWII! I would imagine that in such dire need, members of congress would "take one for the team" and run a deficit in order to sustain the war effort, but then you have the classic "changing horses mid- stream" problem when you turn over literally the entire legislature in the middle of a war.

I think that a much more practical constitutional amendment would be to simply prohibit congress from appropriating funds in excess of revenues unless a war has been declared. There is a risk of congress declaring needless wars for the sole purpose of justifying deficits, but that would require the cooperation of both parties, and I would bet that the opposition party would see more potential gain in opposing the war and demagouging its supportors than in letting the majority party have their war of convenience.

<comment><USER14> As much as you might like to think differently war is always negatively productive.

There might be some corner cases where the destroyed wealth is replaced by more efficient use, but they have yet to demonstrate themselves.

<comment><USER15> Oh, I don't know. I think it can be a positive thing for a nation to _not get conquered_.

<comment><USER16> I think the parent is talking just about economics. There are very few post- industrial-revolution examples of nations benefiting economically from war. America in WWII is the most notable exception in my mind.

<comment><USER15> In spite of my flippant tone, I had a serious point too: fighting a war may always come with an economic cost, but losing one can come a much higher cost. Hence, fighting a war can be a positive choice even if you lose money doing it.

<comment><USER13> That's really interesting. To put it another way, economic opportunity costs apply to armed conflict.

You can even extend this beyond purely defensive wars.

The most obvious extension is pre-emptive wars. A great example would be the Six Days war (aka the 1967 Arab-Israeli war). Israel knew that they were about to be attacked (the massed units on their borders were not subtle), and instead attacked preemptively. Arguably, this reduced the cost of the war for them in a number of ways. First, by seizing the initiative and the element of surprise, they likely reduced their combat losses relative to what they would have experienced if they had waited for their neighbors to attack. Even more importantly, the entire war was fought outside of their then-borders, so their infrastructure was not damaged by the fighting.

Clausewitz even makes a case for starting a war that _you know you are going to lose_. That sounds crazy at first, but in some scenarios it makes sense, because it's not just about the balance of power, it's about the direction in which that balance is shifting. If you are highly certain that another country is going to attack you, and that you will lose, you have to consider whether your defeat would be more or less severe in six months or a year. If the balance of power is shifting in your favor, you want to postpone hostilities as long as possible. If, on the other hand, the balance of power is shifting in favor of your enemy, you want to precipitate a war as soon as possible in the hopes of securing a better position to sue for peace. Either way you know you're going to lose, it's a question of how badly you are going to lose.

Finally, even a war of naked aggression could have a nearly immediate net positive impact on your economy if your forces are so superior that you will suffer minimal losses, and if you capture valuable resources as a result, or if you secure tactically valuable terrain that reduces your losses in an impending conflict. The German annexation of the Sudetenland is a prime example of this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Buffett's father was a 4 term congressman and an almost Ron Paul-like libertarian, btw.

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

<comment><USER18> Warren Buffet made a tidy profit on the bailouts. He knew who was anointed to survive and who was not.

Of course Warren loves the influence of government!

<comment><USER19> He lives in a modest home in Omaha and will probably give more money to charity than anyone in history when all is said and done. Do you really think his political views are driven by his own personal gain?

<comment><USER20> > He lives in a modest home in Omaha and will probably give more money to > charity than anyone in history when all is said and done. Do you really > think his political views are driven by his own personal gain?

Yes, because he's human and every human's political views are driven by their personal gain.

Your mistake is in thinking that money is the only personal gain. It's not. It isn't even one of the most effective motivators.

And, in Buffet's case, there's the difference between "money made" and "money spent". At some point, the latter becomes uninteresting but that tells us nothing about the former.

And, interestingly enough, Buffet's "advice for the country" always seems to be aligned with his financial stake. (He never advocates increasing the taxes that he pays and he often advocates increasing taxes in ways that benefit him - the estate tax being a prime example.)

<comment><USER19> On the contrary he has called for increasing the capital gains tax precisely because he himself (and obviously others like him) pay such low effective marginal tax rates. He even took the time to calculate that he paid an effective 17% while his receptionist paid 30%, to criticize the effects of Bush-era capital gains tax cuts.

I don't know how much more clear it can be that this is not financial self- interest.

<comment><USER21> In that particular case, yes.

I don't remember him advocating corporate or estate tax increases though? Capital gains? Hardly applies to Berkshire Hathaway anyway.

<comment><USER20> <http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0214-01.htm> is some reporting on his support of estate taxes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I liked the preface to the comments section below the video:

 _Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous._

<comment><USER23> I had the same reaction. While somewhat pessimistic and possibly offensive toward some visitors, it distills the times found around the web in an eloquent, satirical manner. While I prefer offensive and rotten humor, many would argue this type of remark defies all sorts of social media "how-to"s and guidelines for positive engagement yada yada.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The only problem is that the sitting congress would need to pass the law making themselves ineligible for re-election.

<comment><USER25> I assume it'd need to be a constitutional change rather than a legislative one, otherwise they could just rescind the law anyway.

Which reminds me of one of my biggest objections to the US constitution: constitutional amendments are done simply by getting a bunch of legislatures to agree to 'em, rather than by holding a referendum as in Australia.

<comment><USER26> Well, we could have a constitutional convention.

<comment><USER27> no, hell no - not with 24hr news, pundits, and political correctness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Would Warren Buffett fire the entire management of any company he owned that borrowed more than 10% of earnings in one year, regardless of circumstances? Because that is what his suggestion amounts to.

<comment><USER29> Firstly - I wouldn't put it past him to do something like that if he thought that would maximize his investment. The market doesn't view a debt of +10% of earnings to be that big of a deal however, has priced that risk accordingly, and Buffet has never been put in that situation.

Secondly - there is always a problem with equating governments to corporations, since governments are formed for public good and corporations are formed to maximize shareholder value. Their roles and motivations are quite different.

<comment><USER30> Is it naive to suggest that citizens are shareholders? and to extend the metaphor, that other countries are customers/clients?

<comment><USER31> Yes. In principle, the shareholders are the people to whom the profits flow.

If you follow the money, you discover it goes to government employee's unions, old people and various other special interests. They are the shareholders in government. Not ordinary citizens.

<comment><USER30> ...and to infrastructure and public services and creation and maintaining of them.

<comment><USER31> Such things actually make up a fairly small portion of government spending.

<http://usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2009_US_total>

Further, ask yourself who makes a _profit_ on public service - the child who is poorly educated by a failing school, or the teacher who is overpaid to provide that service?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I ask this here because this is a hacker forum. Why is it that in this day and age that we still implicitly entrust another person to make decisions on our behalf? What do you think would be the kind of systems we need to build to make democracy more participative? What do you think would be the pitfalls we should avoid with such a system?

<comment><USER33> > Why is it that in this day and age that we still implicitly entrust another > person to make decisions on our behalf?

We don't. Congressional approval is always horrendously low.

The alternative just sucks more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> What about laws that state only Congress can declare war or the rules of the War Powers Resolution? These don't stop the executive branch from engaging in war. Similarly, Buffet's simplistic solution wouldn't stop future deficits, because the ruling party could so easily redefine what a deficit is or what the GDP numbers are.

</comment><comment><USER35> You can fix failing schools in 10 minutes: establish that teachers can be fired if the test scores aren't OK. This has the disadvantage that it's a hell of a lot easier to go back and tweak the tests handed in (see Atlanta; see some DC schools) than it is to educate the kids.

But the test scores look great.

<comment> brown9-2 Isn't this already the case with NCLB? Higher test scores on their own don't "fix" the problems with education.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> It would take more than a law to block reelection for sitting legislators - <USER2> would take a Constitutional amendment. I'd like to see Buffet get that done in 5 minutes.

</comment><comment><USER37> Why does this populist nonsense get so many votes? Typical generalized politicians bashing. If you feel that you rep. is so evil, than just don't elect them. Better still, stand yourself and do a better job. Or at least help the guy you think will be doing a better job. It's all about the participation of the Demos, that's why they call it democracy.

<comment><USER38> when congress' approval rates are in the single digits but reelection rates are 80%, its clear that something is broken.

<comment><USER37> What do you mean with "something"? The brains of the voters?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> That wouldn't end the deficit, that would just ensure the deficit was 0 the day before elections. Also there's a slippery slope. This same logic, if we allow it to be applied to the deficit, could be applied to other things. No congressmen could be reelected if gay marriage is legal, etc.

<comment><USER40> _"This same logic, if we allow it to be applied to the deficit, could be applied to other things."_

There are legitimate reasons to discern between the deficit and those other things. Most law systems are based on a small set of core values which are deliberately made hard to change, i.e. made part of the supreme law.

I believe that the (preventing of) deficit has the characteristics shared by those core values: there is a consensus that it is bad (especially in the long term) and yet there's strong temptation to create it for the short term benefits (buying votes.)

<comment><USER39> I don't disagree with you, but a lot of people feel the same about marriage. A lot of people (not me, btw) feel that this is a Christian country and it's antithetical to our founders' beliefs for gays to marry and yadda yadda.

The point I'm making is that everyone has a different idea of what those core values are.

<comment><USER41> Just because people differ on moral values doesn't mean that a properly discovered moral code can't or won't be objective. For example, people differ in their understanding of physics (and often seem hopelessly wrong), but mechanics is what it is. Just because some people don't get it yet doesn't nullify or change physical laws.

The right way for anyone to figure out what their core values should be is to apply _reason_. Dedicated, hard-core Christians _feel_ a certain way about a lot of things, but they ultimately base their conclusions on _faith_ , which is the antithesis of reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> What if instead of a stick – no reeslection for you! – we used a carrot? What if the sitting lawmakers who voted for a balanced budget eventually get a giant financial bonus? (To minimize monkeybusiness, we could require it to have been balanced in retrospect, say via assessment 2-10 years later.)

People – even Congresspeople! – respond to incentives.

Let's assume that the goal – the fiscal stability of a balanced budget – would be a noticeable boost to our $14-trillion-plus economy. Then the incentive could be quite huge – perhaps a million dollars per congressperson per year in balance – and still pay for itself, many times over.

Other interests are making millions per year from the legislative 'generosity' that results in a perpetually out-of-balance budget. Why not pay directly for the alternative result we prefer?

</comment><comment><USER43> That wouldn't end the deficit: it would give us a permanent deficit of 2.99%. Still, an improvement.

</comment><comment><USER44> > I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that > anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of > congress are ineligible for reelection.

Incentives matter, but this incentive would attract candidates who don't want re-election, perhaps old and sick people who expect to die or retire.

Also, how do you measure GDP? Whenever someone drinks a pint of whiskey at the bar, then drives home and kills other motorists, the whiskey sold, car fix-up costs, ambulance and hospital fees, insurance and re-insurance premiums, prison costs, and court settlements all contribute to "GDP", even though real quality of life has gone way down.

And of course any law passed can be repealed by the same margin.

</comment><comment><USER45> I thought the more interesting part of the interview was when he said that social security payments should have higher priority than bond interest payments. That sounds it would result in a worse credit rating and much larger pain in the long term...

</comment><comment><USER46> What's sad about this is we shouldn't need to pass a law, voters could easily enforce this. There is a massive problem right now with a lack of accountability, not just for the debt but for all the horrible decisions congress makes.

</comment><comment><USER47> Warren Buffet for Secretary of the Treasury

<comment><USER48> No thanks.

There is something intensely annoying about Buffett: his hypocrisy.

He claims that rich Americans are not paying their fair share of taxes, but doesn't take the obvious step of voluntarily paying more taxes by sending a big check to the IRS.

He supports the estate tax, supposedly because it is bad for America to have children receive inherited wealth. Of course, he has set up a foundation which his children will administer after his death. Naturally, they'll take a salary for this arduous assignment. And it just so happens that having an estate tax benefits the insurance companies in which he is heavily invested: 10% of insurance company revenue comes from the policies wealthy folks buy in order to avoid estate taxes.

He's all for rigorous corporate government and the avoidance of self-dealing. Except when these standards are violated by his subordinate and Berkshire- Hathaway heir-apparent David Sokol, who -- with the full knowledge of Buffett -- personally invested in a company that Sokol was pitching to Berkshire- Hathaway.

Buffett is clearly a shrewd investor. However, an economic holy man he is not.

<comment><USER47> But he could end the deficit in five minutes.

<comment><USER48> No, he couldn't. His remark is a flip one that is totally impractical. Had Ross Perot (another rich guy who likes to pop off) made this suggestion we'd all be laughing at him.

<comment><USER47> I should have added /sarcasm to the end of my last reply.

<comment><USER48> Oh, sorry! I often fall victim to the same phenomena -- people don't understand when I'm being sarcastic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Right, they'll do that right after they give up their gold-plated healthcare and instead take the government offering for the uninsured.

Gabrielle Giffords would be permanently disabled and disfigured, unable to ever speak or move because of lack of therapy if she was an average citizen standing in that crowd, with the average american insurance or lack thereof.

I love how the topic is constantly steered off healthcare. Remember the mosque in NYC? Remember how all that noise suddenly disappeared?

</comment><comment><USER50> >"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection."

I understand his line of thinking, but the question is could he pass that law? He has a substantial amount of money that could be spent on lobbying, media, etc. But how do you get people who have spent a career chasing power to sign a law that will strip them of that power?

</comment><comment><USER51> One possibility is that the job of congressman becomes a 2 year job and you have to dole out enough goodies in two years to get a secure post-congress position.

<comment><USER52> Ouch. Accurate, but ouch. Bonus points: Eternal September in Congress, as we're always getting a new crowd of inexperienced people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> <TROLL> Nice, but I can end it in 4 minutes: STOP. SPENDING. MORE. MONEY. THAN. YOU. HAVE. </TROLL>

</comment><comment><USER54> Wouldn't the unintended consequence be that the parties become even more powerful than they are now? All the long-standing politicians would move out of official govt capacity and into essentially the same position in their parties, while unknown pawns get elected to the official positions.

</comment><comment><USER55> Budget deficits shouldn't be any more of an automatic trigger for re-election than the unemployment rate, the inflation rate, the number of body bags coming back from a foreign war, or any other undesirable thing.

</comment><comment><USER56> Spending more than you earn? Idiots in charge. Cut back on essentials, keep the things that make you happy, still get re-elected. Hmm, anyone else see a minor flaw?

</comment><comment><USER57> I don't think it would stop the deficits. Instead we would get a new Congress every 2 years with crazier and crazier representatives.

<comment><USER58> We've already _got_ a pack of thieves, idiots, never-do-wells and politicians (but I repeat myself) in Congress.

It can't get much worse.

<comment><USER59> No, actually, we have some fairly functional people in Congress.

They are heinously self-interested and often vote pork and lobbyist groups, of course, but we do the same thing with our own little domains (hacking, free music, code, entrepreneurship). Very people have the ability to have the grand vision, and fewer have the ability to put that view in effect.

But we could have much worse. Much, much worse. A brief survey of world history in the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s should serve to illustrate the meaning of "worse".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> my god cnbc is obnoxious. 9 logos on the same screen. breaking headlines of the interview currently in progress. 5 different bars all blocking the view with equally unimportant text. and the swoush sound effects... seriously you guys. seriously.

</comment><comment><USER61> Some people will play to lose.

</comment><comment><USER62> Or, you know, he could pay his taxes.

</comment><comment><USER63> Better idea... Vice Presidents who still hold shares in companies that still hold gov contracts despite censure..Impeachment as the whole 3.4ths of current deficit was by start of wrong wars Iraq especially..

</comment><comment><USER64> cool... :)</comment>


The coming corpus-based reexamination of the Second Amendment - <AUTHOR> http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=38422 <comment><USER2> it was interesting to see from the comments that there have already been corpus analyses filed as SC amicus briefs (not just law review papers).</comment>


Aging acts account for most of the music industry's live performance revenue.  - <AUTHOR> http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/the-show-must-go-on <comment><USER2> 10 Reasons Why I Don't Go To Concerts Anymore

1\. The price is too high. I can think of a lot of better uses for $300 than a couple of mediocre seats for 2 hours.

2\. The price is even higher. Just try to pay face price before the scalpers overwhelm the ticket sites.

3\. They never start on time. (Why do they think I'll like them MORE if they start an hour late???) Yes, we mortals have schedules, too.

4\. The venues suck. 2,000 people in a theater: good. 20,000 in a hockey arena: bad.

5\. The refreshments are overpriced and difficult to get. You really want to stand in line 15 minutes for that $8 beer?

6\. I can get the programs and t-shirt without going to the concert.

7\. The traffic is horrible. (What else is new?)

8\. The Police, Billy Joel, and Depeche Mode were great concerts. The first 8 times. How about something new? (See #8)

9\. Since disc jockeys don't tell you anymore, I don't know the names of many of the new bands. (Yes, I have an FM radio next to my terminal. No, I don't belong to myspace.)

10\. Being surrounded by drunks and druggies is cool if you're drunk or high. It's hell if you're not.

<comment><USER3> I'll be more emphatic than yummyfajitas: You're doing it wrong.

By the time an act is playing in the venues that meet your description, they are over, also-rans, irrelevant, and tired.

Go see local acts and smaller touring bands. They care that you came to the show, and will work hard to entertain you. There are no programs, only passionate people doing what they love. If you like to recognize the songs being played by the folks on stage, check eMusic and Amie St. and MySpace for the bands that you're going to see...you'll find them there.

The huge mega-rock show is a pointless exercise in soullessness and has been for as long as I can remember (I swore off of them soon after high school after seeing a couple of arena shows of bands I liked and being disappointed by the tiny, tiny people bouncing around on stage while I looked on from the distance thinking "I could see something more entertaining from my couch").

But, every weekend, in every reasonably sized city in the world, there is a concert happening in a small to mid-sized club that you would enjoy. It's a unique experience that you can share with 100-1000 like-minded music fans...a few of whom will be a little drunk, but no one will be heavily drugged up because the small clubs don't tolerate troublemakers. Beer is usually a couple of bucks, and the wait is often less than a minute.

Oh, yeah, club shows cost anywhere from FREE to about 15 bucks. The best shows I've ever seen, in a lifetime of loving rock concerts, cost $12 (Flaming Lips on the Satellite Heart tour), $8 (Fishbone on the Reality of my Surroundings tour), $15 (Mission of Burma reunion), $10 (Spoon, many times at Rudz in Houston), $12 (Spoon, at Emos in Austin), and lots more. $300 will get you an awful lot of great live music if you give it to folks who are really passionate about music.

<comment><USER4> I think it is a good thing if being a musician is no longer the cash cow it once was. This means the musicians will be more authentic (no more Monkees) and producers will not make a point of dumbing the musicians and us down so as to have a large common denominator.

Some people talk about this fracturing as a bad thing, but this is the good side. Mass production had to lower everyone's tastes out of necessity, and now the trend can reverse.</comment></comment></comment>


Skull Island – Google Maps - <AUTHOR> https://www.google.com/maps/place/Skull+Island/@-0.2393111,-122.5331713,3z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x9d21f33bb3cf4851:0x716f2a03bdff60bb <comment><AUTHOR> This is an invented POI created by Google for an upcoming movie, Kong: Skull Island. I just thought it was interesting that they put it on gMaps.

</comment><comment><USER2> Disappointing, I was expecting to see an actual map in there.</comment>


Ask HN: Help with Hard Disk Recovery? - <AUTHOR>

Hi guys, I'm sorry this is a bit of a selfish thing to post on HN, but I desperately need some help.
I blew up my hard disk last night. I booted my Dell inspiron laptop with the Asus eee pc recovery DVD by mistake. It launched straight into an install. I realised within 5 secs and powered down. Apparently, that was enough to hose the hard drive and it wouldn't boot (I had a dual install WinXP/Ubuntu with grub). I booted with an old cd to get a dos prompt and tried fdisk/mbr but that didn't work either.
Googling around brings up loads of shady looking shareware software.
Does anyone know of a good solid software to retrieve lost partitions/data?*
Thanks.
*If not, maybe there's a business idea right there :p <comment><USER2> First, go out and get a USB disk bigger than the laptop disk, and use a live CD to copy a disk image of the laptop to the USB. That way you can experiement and write the original back if it doesn't work.

If you had a dual install, the Ubuntu partition may not have been touched yet. However the partition table itself may have been overwritten. There is a free software tool called "gpart" that guesses the correct partition table based on the data on the disk, it may get you half way there, in that you can mount the linux part of things.

For the windows part of things, the Asus CD probably started writing near the start of the partition, so you won't be able to reconstruct that. Lucky for you, all the user data is probably back a bit in the partition. I think I would try the tool "foremost" which is free software from the US Air Force's Forensic labs, to try to recover the windows files (and the linux, if gpart did not get you to a mountable partition).

As for your business idea in retrieving lost partitions and data, it has been done, but I'd like to suggest a better business idea: backups.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot. Your first idea is very good, I hadn't thought of doing that.

I will also try gpart and foremost.

I thought backups as a business is probably already done well, so I thought recovery would be good. I suppose backups for individuals would still be a good idea. But I'd think there are still quite a few people who lose data the way I have and there just doesn't seem to be a good straightforward solution. None of the ones suggested here appeared on google.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I've had luck with the open-source PhotoRec before. It scans a storage device for bits that match known file types (and it knows a lot, not just photo types as the name implies), and saves them to a new location. I'd definitely give it a try before paying for expensive data-recovery.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, that looks good too. I hope it works!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The gold standard is forensic software like EnCase, FTK, or--if you're broke-- ProDiscover. It'll take some work, but if the bits are still on the drive, they'll get them. Each suite has varying levels of expertise at reconstructing folders and files.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I didn't know about those.

<comment><USER5> licenses for them are insanely expensive :) but worth it.

Encase is the best bet - it will recover all of the files into something resembling a directory structure.

Best to go to a pro firm: £100-200 is a fair price to dump all your files to another drive.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah those license prices are way beyond my reach. Hiring a pro firm seems a much better option. But I might tinker around a bit before shelling out couple hundred bucks.

Thanks for the tip anyway.

<comment><USER5> where are you located and what stuff needs recovering? It's a million to one your near us but I might know a company in your area that's decent.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm in London. I mainly need to recover some files (all sorts - mdb,xls,txt etc) on my Windows XP partition.

Thanks a lot for your help, really appreciate it.

edit: just saw your uk email id in your profile.

<comment><USER5> drop me a line on my email if you want, were quite a way up north but I might be able to help

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Tom. I saw your website - looks like you're just the expert I need to talk to! I'll drop you a line. Cheers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow, the CD commences install without any confirmation whatsoever!? What terrible design!

<comment><AUTHOR> well it did ask something cryptic, i didn't realise it was asking to erase everything. it is terrible design i agree.</comment></comment>


Minefold offers Team Fortress 2 servers on demand - <AUTHOR> http://blog.minefold.com/post/43442243729/team-fortress-2

<comment><USER2> Sharing an office with these guys has allowed us to try our their TF servers for the last weeks and it has been amazing. Trying to get 8 people (5 of which who are not technically savvy) to play together has always been a huge pain for TF2. With Minefold it was a click of a button!

</comment><comment><USER3> Congrats, Team Minefold!</comment>


"Gangbang Interviews" and "Bikini Shots": Silicon Valley's Brogrammer Problem - <AUTHOR> http://motherjones.com/media/2012/04/silicon-valley-brogrammer-culture-sexist-sxsw?page=2 <comment><USER2> I actually like seeing this development in tech because it shows we're not completely isolated from the broader social shift happening on the internet, as its culture starts to catch up with its user demographics, and the internet's brilliant information spreading capacity is being put to use by people who want to evangelize a more just and fair society.

If you're managing tech and wondering what the implication of this kind of public discussion is for you: get out ahead of it. The internet is making a CS major more and more valuable as an asset, but it's also starting to squeeze people who didn't major in CS to pick up coding...and half the users on the internet now are women, so five or ten years from now when you need to pad out a project team with frontend coders, you'd better know how to hire and manage any kind of person. Brogrammer is a marketing term for recruiters, it's used as a shortcut but it's nothing but a dead end. Hiring and building a team in an environment that will be toxic to anyone else will kill you three years down the line just as surely as hiring some kid straight out of college to do all your production releng will.</comment>


Canva usernames and email addresses compromised - <AUTHOR> https://support.canva.com/contact/customer-support/may-24-security-incident-faqs/ <comment><USER2> _all passwords were salted and hashed with bcrypt_

Now that is a breath of fresh air!</comment>


ARM based Cloud Cluster Running Google App Engine - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnx-software.com/2011/11/04/pandaboard-cloud-cluster-running-google-app-engine/

<comment><USER2> Using a comment from the site one can calculate that the cluster gets a coremark score of 34K vs the xeon's 23K(leaving aside the SD card issue).

comment:

""" I went to Coremark website and compared the Coremark 1.0 scores of OMAP4430 running 2 forks and Intel Xeon E5405 (Quad Core @ 2 GHz) running 4 threads. OMAP 4 gets 5742.20 and Xeon E5405 gets 23579. (See screenshot below)

[http://www.cnx-software.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/11/bench...](http://www.cnx-software.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/11/benchmark_coremark_1.0_xeon_e5405_vs_TI_OMAP4430SDP.jpg)

But I still think the Xeon server would probably perform (much) better than the pandaboard cluster during "real" tests because of the storage used in the pandaboards (SD Card or external USB storage). """

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks very cool. But what is a "cloud cluster"? It's evidently not a cluster in the cloud as it's a bit of physical hardware they are using. I guess it could be a cluster that could be used as part of a cloud, but then isn't that the same as saying it's a "cluster"?

<comment><USER4> It's could-ish because it's running TyphoonAE, which in turn runs applications that can scale dynamically according to load without much consideration as to where in the cluster they run.

It's a cloud, just a very tiny one you can power from one power outlet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm working to build a cluster of pandaboards. This week I've taken delivery of a powersupply that will power several boards from a single wall-socket.

Something I've been stuck on - how to create mess-free casing.

The least-bad idea I've had so far is to make a four-leg rack, strap the boards and cables to chipboard, lay them in the rack, and then fold an asian- style room partition around it. This won't keep out dust and spiders though. Any advice?

</comment><comment><USER6> "...Norisuna had a comparison table that showed the Pandaboard cloud (OMAP4 @ 1GHz – 12 Cores) uses 4x times space and 5x less power (50W vs. 257 W) than a Xeon 1.8GHz Quad Core server with about the same amount of processing power and memory (6GB vs. 8GB)...."

any data to back up that claim? Is that just raw MHz or real benchmarks?

<comment><USER7> I suspect that they are counting the processing power of the Pandaboard GPU (most of these types of comparisons do).

It's not really a very useful comparison - most general purpose server software doesn't make much use of the GPU.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Where to live in Boston/Cambridge? - <AUTHOR>

Like many HN-ers, I was really impressed by the recent "Guide to where your cofounders should live in the SF Bay":
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1510553
Is there anything like that for the Boston area?
My startup (currently based in Providence, RI) is about to go into fund-raising and talent-seeking mode after a summer of prototype development, so I'd love to be in the middle of a strong startup hub. I'd also like to live somewhere reasonably cheap, with necessities within walking/biking distance. Suggestions? <comment><USER2> Davis Sq.

<comment><USER3> Agree. It's a bit far from downtown but it's on the subway and gives you easy access to the startup community in the Central/Kendall area with better cost of living.

Definitely stay in Cambridge, though. To get cheap living on the Boston side you have to live way out on the Green Line, which will make it a royal pain to get to meetups and other technology events.

I am in Dallas right now wrapping up Tech Wildcatters, but I'll be back in Boston in August. Feel free to email me.</comment></comment>


Michael Arrington Resigns From Techcrunch - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904583204576545302082353610.html

<comment><USER2> If the paywall is affecting you:

TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington is resigning as editor of the popular technology blog, and will run a $20 million venture-capital fund backed by TechCrunch-owner AOL Inc. and several venture-capital firms.

Mr. Arrington "will run the fund and will continue to write for TechCrunch, but will have no editorial oversight," said an AOL spokesman. Erick Schonfeld, who has served as co-editor in New York, will become interim editor while AOL searches for a replacement for Mr. Arrington, the spokesman said. AOL purchased the site last year.

Mr. Arrington's new fund, called CrunchFund, closed Thursday with $20 million, according to people familiar with the matter. AOL leads the limited-partner group, which includes a long roster of venture firms that kicked in $1 million each: Austin Ventures, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Greylock Partners, Redpoint Ventures and Sequoia Capital. Several individuals contributed money, including Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz of the venture firm Andreessen Horowitz; general partners at Benchmark Capital; angel investors Ron Conway and Kevin Rose; and Yuri Milner of Russian firm DST Global.

It isn't immediately clear what is the fate of AOL's venture-capital arm, AOL Ventures, which has made recent seed investments in start-ups such as spam- defense company Impermium and price-tracking service Shopobot.

Mr. Arrington's partner in the fund is Patrick Gallagher, who has been a partner at VantagePoint Capital Partners since 2008.

Mr. Arrington wasn't immediately available for comment. He posted a message on Twitter after news of the fund broke: "slow news day."

Mr. Arrington, a former lawyer who is known to be well connected in Silicon Valley, started TechCrunch in 2005. The site built up a following for its coverage of young tech companies.

Long an angel investor himself, Mr. Arrington announced on TechCrunch in 2009 that he would stop making investments in start-ups due to a perceived conflict as both publisher and investor. It's "a weak point that competitors and disgruntled entrepreneurs use to attack our credibility," he wrote at the time.

But in April this year, after AOL acquired TechCrunch, Mr. Arrington announced he was investing in start-ups again, while also becoming a limited partner in venture funds Benchmark Capital and SoftTechVC.

Mr. Arrington has often said that transparency and full disclosure keep things above-board when his blog writes about companies he has some financial stake in.

<comment><USER3> >Mr. Arrington has often said that transparency and full disclosure keep things above-board when his blog writes about companies he has some financial stake in.

Isn't this sort of thinking half-bullshit? It's certainly more ethical than writing a glowing review of some startup without revealing you have a stake in it (which borders on criminal), but the truly ethical course of action is to not write about it at all.

A statement admitting you are biased doesn't negate your bias, and leaving it to your readers to decide if you're sincere or full of shit doesn't make for good writing.

<comment><USER4> This conflict of interest is precisely why he resigned. I'm not convinced a personal stake necessarily makes for uninteresting writing, though.

<comment><USER5> Fred Wilson at <http://www.avc.com> writes very interesting stuff about startups he has a stake in, showing it's possible, but it definitely has to be considered whenever you read something by him.

<comment><USER6> Thats a personal blog. I would hope and expect a VC to write about the companies he has invested in on his personal blog. Cheerleading and all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Arianna is now saying that Arrington will not have writing privileges and that he no longer works for Techcrunch at all. [http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-arrington-no-longer- work...](http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-arrington-no-longer-works-for- techcrunch-2011-9)

</comment><comment><USER8> The title is sensational. He's just relinquishing editorial responsibilities and not all writing privileges so he can run a AOL-funded venture capital fund. The question is will he be able to leverage his connections and influence to perform as a capable fund manager?

<comment><USER9> His connections will come in handy, his judgement remains to be seen. It'll be interesting to see how much journalistic independence TC maintains, and how favourably his startups are covered compared to his competitors. I never got the impression that Arrington was the kind of guy to play fast and loose with ethics, but I could very well see him refraining from pulling an Arrington on his own startups, in the way he has on others.

Interesting times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> AOL = TechCrunch and AOL = CrunchFund (as it is AOL's capital seeding the fund)

So even if the fund had a different name, and Arrington doesn't work for AOL directly, there is still a conflict of interest. As Paul Carr said in his article, are TC journalists likely to write a really negative piece on a CrunchFund company knowing that Tim Armstrong ultimately runs both?

Would the Wall Street Journal or the New Times start an investment fund and invest in the exact companies they are reporting on? IMHO they would not, as they realise their core business's need for independence.

If AOL want to follow through on their strategy "AOL is planning on being the largest high quality content producer for digital media." they need to realise that they are a media business and so need to follow the same rules basic rules for good journalism as every one else in their industry.

IMHO this is a very poor decision by Armstrong. For another glamorous dabble in the VC world where he will probably make about 10% ($2M) per annum, he could be betting the entire AOL business.

Not much upside and a whooooole lotta downside = bad trade.

</comment><comment><USER11> Hopefully, Hollywoodization of the Silicon Valley will slow down as the Techcrunch hype machine falls apart.

<comment><USER12> LOL! It's not TechCrunch, it's the money.

<comment><USER12> no rebuttals though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _bangs head on wall_

I've got a draft article I was writing for my blog arguing that Arrington should resign because his conflicts of interest make his role as editor of TC untenable.

Among other reasons I was arguing that Arrington has to disclaim his investment in any article about a competing firm, however since his investment in SV Angels he's now invested in a number of firms which are in stealth mode, which means in practical terms that it's impossible for him to meet his obligations.

<comment><USER14> Well publish it then and post it here! Just change the byline to "I'm glad Arrington resigned..." and all the same arguments follow. A lot of the stories that frontpage on HN seem to be opinionated follow-ups to recent news events.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> He could serve up some drama, but one thing most people will agree on, he has always cheered for and egged on startups and the ecosystem. Simply for that, I wish him good luck.

</comment><comment><USER16> Well when there's a website with a pool predicting your departure the crowdsourced consensus was Arrington wouldn't be at AOL long:

<http://www.whenwillmichaelquit.com/>

</comment><comment><USER17> But staying with TC, notably. As he said after the sale:

 _So we begin another journey. I fully intend to stay with AOL for a very, very long time. And the entire team has big incentives to stay on board for at least three years._

However, I rather hope Michael's "dream" comes true instead: [http://peterc.org/blog/2011/381-michael-arringtons-dreams- of...](http://peterc.org/blog/2011/381-michael-arringtons-dreams-of-a-blog- for-true-startups.html) ;-)

<comment><USER18> "... [Mike would] like to go start another blog that does nothing but write about startups, like the true startups, really every one, again for the core audience."

Jason Calacanis started the LAUNCH blog to do something similar: <http://www.launch.is/>

I subscribe to LAUNCH, and while not every story interests me, I'm sure every story will interest _someone_ (e.g. competitors or potential business partners).

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Strange that this is only 11 months since the acquisition, I would have assumed he would leave at a 1 year vesting.

<comment><USER20> He isn't leaving; he just won't be the editor.

<comment><USER21> I think he is. Leaving TechCrunch that is. If I'm reading the article correctly, he will be full-time at CrunchFund and serve as a contributor to TC (like Vivek Wadhwa and Rocky Agarwal does from time to time).

<comment><USER22> But AOL is the primary LP in the fund. I'm sure they worked something out.

<comment><USER23> Perhaps this is what they really bought TechCrunch for?

<comment><USER24> I wouldn't think so because why did they have him stay so long as editor at TC instead of just switching over to the VC fund?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I have to ask, why is this important?

<comment><USER26> Both TechCrunch and VC can be pretty important to startups, and this story is about both.

</comment></comment><comment> johnx123-up Will the CrunchFund going to be a competitor for YC?

<comment><USER27> In the same way the Crunchpad is a competitor to the iPad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Companies investing in other companies always strikes me as weird, and investing in a venture capital seems even weirder.

Companies have a fiscal responsibility to deliver as much money as possible to their shareholders, do they not? So if AOL is giving Arrington a few million dollars, that's money AOL shareholders are not seeing; it's only justifiable if AOL thinks Arrington will use the money to outperform the market (otherwise just invest in the market or return to shareholders) or there will be some friends-with-benefits deal worth millions to make up for Arrington's lack of edge. Neither one seems all that likely.

</comment><comment><USER29> When AOL acquired TC, I get the feeling that the clock had started counting down for Michael Arrington. Not because AOL wanted to get rid of him, but more because of his need to be disruptive which was being reined in to some extent. The "loose" cannon tag is well earned to some extent.Should be interesting to see some of Arrington's larger investments as a VC.

</comment><comment><USER30> Cant say that I'm a fan of his tactics, but the Man's seemingly omnipresent influence on the tech world is undeniable.

</comment><comment><USER31> Aren't we expecting this? Editorial independence is a good thing here, so really no surprise here.

</comment><comment><USER32> Didn't he report some alleged collusion last year among some silicon valley angels? Perhaps he feels this is his way of competing and creating a true angel market. I'm interested to see where this goes, more startup money can only be good for us!

</comment><comment><USER33> Funny that their current e-mail contact is: email@example.com on CrunchBase page: <http://www.crunchbase.com/financial-organization/crunchfund>

</comment><comment><USER34> Not big a news as the Title suggests. Gist: He quit as editor and started a seed fund

</comment><comment><USER35> Glad to see he's still writing for TC. If I notice MA's name in the byline, I usually read it.

<comment><USER36> Arrington's articles are always interesting but is it best for journalism if he is still there?

There's no question that he still carries weight but he has been investing in startups for some time now. He may make for interesting reading but his motives will always be questioned.

I still don't know why AOL is interested in investing in his latest startup. Has the barrier of personal interests become so dissolved that this is glossed over?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> $20 million. Who said we are having a eco crunch?

</comment><comment><USER38> Even though I hope M.G. Siegler becomes the next head of TechCrunch, I have a feeling that AOL will view this as it's chance to take command, and put one of its own on top. Sigh...

<comment><USER39> I like MG, but maybe someone a bit more balanced.

<comment><USER40> and someone more concise =)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Good on Mr. Arrington. I'm looking forward to seeing what he does in the next few years.

He can be polarizing, but his journalism and analysis have always seemed spot on to me.</comment>