The Remarkable Brain Waves of High Level Meditators [video] - <AUTHOR> https://kottke.org/18/11/the-remarkable-brain-waves-of-high-level-meditators <comment><USER2> For those who are interested and new to meditation, I started meditating several years ago with Headspace and YouTube videos of Jonathan Kabat Zinn and others. It's a great place to start.

I later went on a silent meditation retreat and learned a lot more about meditation and got confident with techniques I could practice on my own. This may not be available to everyone due to the time commitment (and being completely disconnected during this time), but it really cemented my meditation practice.

These days I meditate on my own as well as attend meditation groups (in traditions that I feel connected to). I strive to meditate on my own daily but don't stick to it (ironically meditating has helped me be ok with that inconsistency). While meditating on my own is very helpful, the groups are what really help me stick to the practice. I get a lot from other people's questions and comments and the teachers' responses. I highly recommended finding a group (in a tradition you are open to) if you are just starting out or have an existing meditation practice and want to maintain and develop it.

In the grand scheme, I'm early on and not a "high level" meditator, but sharing one data point, meditation has been pretty life changing for me in terms of dealing with minor mood disorders (depression and anxiety), feeling happier (and recognizing it when I am), and treating others with compassion. It's all still a work in progress.

I'll end with a common phrase. May everyone reading this be happy and free.

<comment><USER3> In practical terms, how do you feel meditation has changed you?

Curious to learn more

<comment><USER4> Not the OP, but have a similar story. According to my goal-tracking apps, I meditate about 65% of days, and I average about 10 minutes a day. (So, not a ton, but pretty consistent.)

The most common way that meditation changes me is to help me identify that I'm in a rumination cycle and to break out of it, and to be more present in certain moments. For me, it's not that I have noticed a baseline change, but rather that it's a skill that's super-helpful in key moments. Some examples:

\- When my mind is racing while trying to sleep

\- In moments of anger or frustration when I'm ruminating about some slight or when someone has reneged on a committment

\- Noticing that I'm distracted or anxious when out with friends or at a concert

<comment><USER5> It makes me think that meditation could just be practicing to put your mind in a quiet place. Whenever you are in a bad place, if you've trained well, it's easy to grt back to that quiet place of your mind.

<comment><USER6> Yep, the skill is "refocusing." I thought it was going to be the skill of "focusing" at first, but as the parent notes you first have to develop the skill of noticing that your mind has wandered, or is locked on something you don't want it to be, then you expend effort to refocus and then maintain that new intentional focus. I also had no idea how damn hard it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> To me, there is no better guide to meditation from start to advanced than Culadasa's book "The Mind Illuminated". I suggest it to nearly everyone I can—it breaks down the meditation process into concrete stages, skills to practice, and issues that may arise along the way.

<comment><USER8> I bought this book recently because I was at a stumbling block - my mind going completely numb due to focus and nearly falling asleep. So, I can see why people recommend it as a meditation text.

But, when I loaned my copy to a friend, he disliked it. He read it like a book and found the text to be too dense. So, while it is a good text I think anyone buying it needs some background into meditation and go stage by stage instead of reading it cover to cover.

<comment><USER9> > instead of reading it cover to cover

Yes! I also highly recommend the book, but it is a _technical manual_ for the mind. If you try to read it cover-to-cover, most of what you read is going to be meditation techniques that are months or years away from being useful to you, and models of the mind that are far removed from your current experiences.

Like, feel free to read the whole thing _if you want to_ , but be aware that it's akin to reading the C++ spec as a beginning programmer. The mind isn't simple.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I just don't get it.

It's difficult enough to spend 1000's of hours on honing my craft. How can I possibly justify that sort of investment in meditation?

If you tell me it helps those with sleep issues, mental blocks, psychological issues, or addiction, your point is well taken and understood. But for those of us blessed to be in relatively sound mind, how will we benefit from meditation?

<comment><USER11> It will improve your craft and you don't need to allocate time away from the latter to do so. You can do both at the same time.

Put more simply; when you're doing the dishes, do the dishes. Focus on the sensation of the water on your hands and the movement of your muscles as you scrub and dry them. When your mind wanders away from that as it tends to do, acknowledge that your mind has wandered and gently bring it back to what you're doing. That's meditation.

Likewise, when you're working on honing your craft, notice when your mind wanders away from the task at hand and gently bring it back in focus when that happens without judgement.

You'll find that doing this will help you hone your craft in ways you've never considered.

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure I understand that analogy. When I'm doing the dishes I've never had my mind wander to where it adversely affects me doing the dishes. Is it just a way to focus better?

<comment><USER13> It's just focusing on the moment, not something to really master the art and craft of cleaning dishes. Dishes is just an example activity that many might find venal, but is an opportunity to practice mindfulness

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Interesting, a few friends and I attempted to launch a startup a few years back looking to improve meditation and focus using neurofeedback: [http://synaptitude.me/](http://synaptitude.me/)

Even went so far as to launch a Kickstarter [1]. We had quite a bit of interest, but we didn't feel we had enough sign ups or people interested to take a risk (all of us having been offered jobs and having student debt).

The trouble, is most of these studies have too low of an N number and/or the equipment has trouble at the higher frequencies. That's actually part of why we were launching the startup. We had a way to do error correction for those frequencies and by providing value via applications, we could open a secondary market to do experiments with a larger N number.

IMO until something like this exists, I take most studies worth a grain of salt.

[1] [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/synaptitude/thinksuite-...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/synaptitude/thinksuite- brainware-not-software?ref=user_menu)

<comment><USER15> Can you please spell out your technical critique of the equipment? You are saying that they don't reliably measure gamma waves?

<comment><USER14> To capture gamma waves you need to have something that samples at least 200 times per second on the low end 400 times per second on the higher end. This is a minimum, preferably you'd be sampling 1000 times per second. Most EEGs sample between 240 - 500 times per second. This is due to the way FFTs work.

Now this does not include noise OR sensor sensitivity, which for reference you'll see from things like electrical (ranging from 50 - 60 hz), which incidentally is the same as gamma waves. You'll also have movement, heart beats, static, equipment interference, electrical signals from looking at things, etc. Etc.

This is why you need more sampling the higher you go, because the sensors have errors due to sensitivity already, plus you add a bunch of interference, at a lower sample rate, than say beta waves (which are 12 - 30 hz).

Essentially, the more potential for errors the higher N number you need. I never used gamma waves in experiments due to the lack of statical relevance.

<comment><USER16> What's the technical problem in measuring a differential signal at a 1000 samples/sec, plus removing noise and amplifying it ? It's a common analog electronics problem.

And if it's not technically complicated, why does nobody do this ?

<comment><USER14> It's a very difficult problem, first lets just look at data throughput:

1000 samples/sec, 4 bytes per sample, 32 nodes - that's 128Kb / second. Not crazy by any means. However, you then have to process that... That's doing an FFT + binning (in the case of brain waves). All doable at probably 60 FPS (where a frame is the prior 1 - 3 seconds).

Still not a problem, then try to do error correction! You have 32 sensors, what's real, what's an artifact? That's when things slow way down typically. This type of analysis can be done after the fact and you essentially guess at errors. Removing known issues or more likely from a research perspective they just mark those sections of the data and remove them.

Here's where what we built comes in:

[http://synaptitude.me/blog/using-computer-vision-to- improve-...](http://synaptitude.me/blog/using-computer-vision-to-improve-eeg- signals/)

The above is all about post processing, however, I managed to improve the method and write a proof-of-concept for a real-time application that removes artifacts in EEG signals, BUT leaves the underlying signal (AKA you don't need to throw away the whole sample). This can function to capture error corrected brain waves at 50 Hz with 512 samples per second + a 50hz video stream. Probably could do more.

This is extremely technically complicated and probably took a year or so to develop. This enables real-time stream (50Kb / second) to our hosted server and real-time applications:

[http://synaptitude.me/blog/view-brainwave-data-thinksuite- io...](http://synaptitude.me/blog/view-brainwave-data-thinksuite-io/)

Unfortunately, I couldn't find someone willing to support the work further, and even though we had maybe 30 people vouching $300 each. That wasn't enough to continue the work. Most of this work concluded in early 2017.

For reference, I may apply for an SBIR grant coming up to fund additional work on this (my wife started graduate school, utilizing EEGs, so it aligns pretty well).

Honestly, if anyone is interested in this please let me know. Its an area of interest, just couldn't justify the expense or time investment (now working on this: [https://hnprofile.com/](https://hnprofile.com/))

<comment><USER17> [http://web.mit.edu/6.111/www/f2017/handouts/FFTtutorial12110...](http://web.mit.edu/6.111/www/f2017/handouts/FFTtutorial121102.pdf) shows an FFT implementation using a Cyclone EP2C20 FPGA. It can do 50ksps, 1K points, 12bit precision, 100 µsec/1K complex FFT @ 50Khz clock. May be a Zynq can be used to build a standalone device?

I wonder if the EEG signals can tell if your attention wanders. That may help improve meditation.

Have you looked at/played with the Muse or Muse2 EEG headband?

<comment><USER14> That's exactly what we were doing (without an FPGA), you need at least 8 sensors to properly localize attention though (based on our experiments). Things like the Muse I highly doubt work effectively

<comment><USER12> Coming from the RF world, those numbers honestly seem trivial for processing. Is it just a money issue or is nobody willing to build something like you did?

<comment><USER18> Muse Headband did, and they have a finished working retail product which reliably improves meditation practice. I've tried it personally. (No affiliation.)

<comment><USER12> Thanks. Love your show.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I was staying at a yoga retreat in Cambodia back in 2015. Meditation was done twice a day for 30+ minutes. I was familiar with meditation for a number of year's already, but a lot of the attendees were "first timers".

Not every day, but on some days we would share our experiences with the group after the meditation was over.

One of the women who had never meditated before, had the biggest smile on her face and goes, "Meditation is amazing! I managed to plan my next three vacations." \-- this is a word for word quote.

Is it amusing? Yes, very! Is it meditation? Not at all.

Try to hold focus on an imaginary object during meditation. It's honestly not that simple.

<comment><USER20> I don't get what you mean in this sentence :

>> Try to hold focus on an imaginary object during meditation.

Could you explain what kind of "action" it is (or non action, I don't known anything about meditation except for clichés) ?

<comment><USER21> It is continual refocus. At least it is for me.

I don't focus on an imaginary object; rather, I use my breath. But Just focusing on how my breath feels going through my nose is hard. I get distracted by all sorts of things; the next door neighbors fighting again, the assignments I didn't work on yesterday, the friend I just started talking to again.

So, I refocus on my breathing again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There is an alternative to Meditation. If all the problems & thoughts happen due to our mind. Take mind out of the equation and become mindless instead of mindful. Do not listen to your mind. Do not trust it. Just watch it. Rely on a solid process to make decisions but do not let your mind inject bias into the decision making process.over time, things will come naturally to you as a second nature like riding a bike where you don't need the mind. Just chuckle when your mind tells you something because you now know our mind operates from a place of fear and uncertainty.

<comment><USER23> That just sounds like an alternative form of mediation. There are a lot of variations out there.

>Just chuckle when your mind tells you something because you now know our mind operates from a place of fear and uncertainty.

That sounds like what Buddhists or psyconauts describe as the ego, rather than the mind.

<comment><USER22> Ego resides in mind. Isn't it?

<comment><USER23> Sure but its isn't your mind. Just an aspect of it (that often causes problems).

I had an interesting experience with psychedelics where my ego revealed itself as a kind of front or mask that I put on to impress other people. The personality that I reveal to the public. There was a whole other deeper part of my mind that was able to observe that. That was actually what got me started meditating.

<comment><USER22> Thank you for sharing your experience. I am curious- how did your ego reveal itself during your experience with psychedelics? What form did it take? How did it talk to you?

<comment><USER23> Its strange, its was like two parts of my mind talking to each other (as in inner talk). The closest I could describe it when you do something wrong and reflect on yourself / your actions, except it's in the present rather than the past. As I say, like two parts of my personality talking to themselves, though the non ego side was definitely a lot deeper, more objective and seemed like my "true self".

(Psychedelics are definitely strange, the hallucinations come and go. At some points like that one I felt quite "with it", just inner talk. Often once you have "sorted out" things like that the pleasant stuff live visions begin, though I think they affect everyone differently).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> As a life-long meditator, I have this to say: the conclusion, emphasising "less attached view of the self" is absolutely right. There is a strong correlation of this with "olympic level" meditation. However, it is generally difficult to say which causes which. Luckily, meditation is about simplicity, not complications.

</comment><comment><USER25> What do these 'meditators' do for a living ?

How can they afford to spend their days sitting down doing essentially nothing ?

Could they do this high-level mediation in a busy office with people on phone meetings all around them ?

<comment><USER26> Put very curedly, they're getting high.

And, everybody's getting high.

Life is about pleasure.

If you found out that you can feel really, really good by sitting and doing nothing... would you do it? Of course you would. :)

Now the stark reality however, is that to be able to sit and meditate properly requires to be already at home in the body. Any amount of trauma will make that particularly difficult. As soon as you sit, you have to work through restlessness, anxiety, and myriad of other unpleasant states of mind. And they all come up.. it's like a purge of the nervous system.

In fact I was just recently reading an article about the unexpected side effects of meditation. This is not talked about enough.

Meditation Is a Powerful Mental Tool—and For Some People It Goes Terribly Wrong

[https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/vbaedd/meditation- is-a-...](https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/vbaedd/meditation-is-a- powerful-mental-tool-and-for-some-it-goes-terribly-wrong)

edit: forgot this beautiful quote: "First, you chase the truth. Then truth chases you".

<comment><USER25> "If you found out that you can feel really, really good by sitting and doing nothing... would you do it? Of course you would. :)"

Nope, I'd go for walk. Meditation is passive and lazy. Being outside in nature with the sounds of the birds and the UV light, being actually connected with the universe, being alive.

<comment><USER27> > Meditation is passive and lazy

It truly is neither. "Passive" meditation would be daydreaming, which all meditation techniques aim to minimise. Hardly 'lazy' either - retreat drop-out rates are high precisely because it can be really, really hard to muster the will to maintain the required discpline for hours (and days) at at time.

> Nope, I'd go for walk

Most meditation traditions include walking practises.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I have used Alan Watts guided meditation every other morning for 10 months now. It has changed my life. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPpUNAFHgxM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPpUNAFHgxM)

<comment><USER22> Thank you for sharing this video. I meditated today using this video. What a great experience? Are there more videos like this from Alan Watts? This one put me right in the meditative state.

<comment><USER29> I was looking and there are some more on the same youtube channel. As Watts died in 1973 I presume the videos were mixed posthumously.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Meditation as an Olympic event.

Meditation as competition.

Meditation as vehicle to sell products.

Yup, meditation has come to America full-force.

</comment><comment><USER31> For graphs and data, this published paper[1] is referenced by the book mentioned in the article. I quote the book below[2], which has only slightly more detail than the article (I bought the book hoping to see more data, a waste)

[1] [http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16369.full.pdf](http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16369.full.pdf)

Long-term meditators self-induce high-amplitude gamma synchrony during mental practice. Antoine Lutz, Lawrence L. Greischar, Nancy B. Rawlings, Matthieu Ricard, and Richard J. Davidson

[2] (from the book)

"Gamma, the very fastest brain wave, occurs when differing brain regions fire in harmony, like moments of insight when different elements of a mental puzzle "click" together… In the yogis, gamma oscillations are a far more prominent feature of their brain activity than in other people… on average the yogis had twenty-five times greater amplitude gamma oscillations during baseline compared to the control group.

"No brain lab had ever before seen gamma oscillations that persist for minutes rather than split seconds, are so strong, and are in synchrony across widespread regions of the brain.

</comment><comment><USER32> I've been a zen student for maybe 12 years now, my meditation practice is not 100% consistent, but conservatively I average 30 minutes a day, which wolfram alpha tells me is a little more than 2000 hours. Pretty far from Olympic level. A few years ago I borrowed a muse (a low cost eeg that connects to your phone to help "train" your meditation) from somebody and played around doing direct captures to make spectrograms. I was curious about if I could actually see any correlation between what I subjectively considered samadhi and the spectrograms. Didn't see anything. Granted the muse only has 4 contacts and the guy in the picture has many more. Anyway I did the math and to get to 62000 I think it's more like 12 hours a day for the next 12 years..

</comment><comment><USER33> The book they mention, Altered Traits, is a great read for those interested in what hard facts the numerous studies on the subject have yielded so far (+ some nice stories about "olympic level meditators").

The authors make a point of painstakingly explaining why these kind of studies are hard to conduct, what a good one looks like and why they had to discard ~99% of them to write the book because of statistical insufficiency, lack of proper methodology etc. At a time when many meditation apps claim to be "science based" I found this quite relevant.

They both are proficient in meditation and have been associated with the western scene very early on. It's mostly about mindfulness/vipasana meditation since that's the subject of the majority of the medical studies.

<comment><USER34> I second this. I just finished this book and it was excellent - however the edition I read is called "The science of mediation". They're very honest about which studies provide robust evidence and really quantify what the benefits of meditation are. They also delved into the 4 "neural pathways" meditation transforms. I've been meditating for 3.5 years and it was a real eye opener reading about how the different techniques I use affect different parts of my brain.

A highly recommended read!

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Gil Fronsdal's intro to meditation is a great series - [https://www.audiodharma.org/series/1/talk/1762/](https://www.audiodharma.org/series/1/talk/1762/)

</comment><comment><USER36> > Olympic level meditators ... gamma very strong all the time

These gamma waves have high frequencies, and point to a LOT of things happening in one's mind at once. I'm not sure if that's the goal of meditation? Also, a meta analysis of ASD (autism spectrum disorder) showed that "The most consistent result that could lead to a generalization is an increase in absolute gamma power in ASD compared to non-ASD subjects", and that conclusion was based on 4 different studies

Source: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5506073/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5506073/)

<comment><USER37> I share the thought that Olympic is an unfortunate word to describe long term meditators. At least in vipassana one does not meditate to get better at it, because there is no getting better at, only the act of meditation. You get better at not letting the mind wander of, but that is not the goal, just a consequence of practicing meditation.

<comment><USER36> My comment wasn't about the article's word choice, it was about the fact that if this article is correct, then there seems to be a link between meditation and autism spectrum disorder (based on 4 studies showing strong gamma waves being a great indicator of ASD).

Since many meditators say that meditation "cures you of mental illness", the idea that the best meditators have ASD is probably something that meditators would disagree with. Hence, I think meditators should be saying this article is incorrect, and be up-in-arms about its findings. At the very least, the basic fact that gamma waves are the ones with the most synapses (meaning your brain is not at ease, but instead is working on overtime) combined with this study (showing meditation to be linked to constant gamma waves) is at odds with what meditators say meditation will do to a person (instead of calming you down, it makes your brain work hard all the time). I'm not sure if the problem is that they aren't really reading/understanding the words, or if they're just ignoring their meanings in hopes of staying happy

<comment><USER37> yet I believe that meditation is not a tool to calm the mind, but rather to focus it. The mind is always active and meditation gives you the means to shift the activity focus to something healthier, even if it means that the mind is working harder at it.

When you meditate you are not disperse in a thoughtless slumber, that would be the first stage of non-rem sleep, but rather completely focused. That might explain the increase in gamma waves.

<comment><USER38> Yeah, it's really just about having full control of your thoughts. Here's an excerpt from Culudasa's The Mind Illuminated:

"You enter Stage Ten with all the qualities of śamatha: effortlessly stable attention, mindfulness, joy, tranquility, and equanimity. At first these qualities immediately fade after the meditation has ended. But as you continue to practice, they persist longer and longer between meditation sessions. Eventually they become the normal condition of the mind."

As for the gamma wave correlation, my guess is that the adept meditator is actually taking in everything that goes on around them (due to powerful mindfulness). While the layman is probably just thinking about what they'll have for dinner as they navigate the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> What I am interested to know is if meditation correlates with increased ability to cope with life problems. Because many people treat it like a refuge from the hardships of life, not a super boost in mental powers.

I have hardcore practiced meditation for 20 years and some of my colleagues who were doing the same were in a pretty bad state - unmarried, with a low level job and not owning their house. They weren't on average happier than normal people.

I attribute their failure to the philosophy of detachment and switching from normal life goals to 'spiritual goals'. It was all a bust. They were exploited by the school under which we practiced. I had the good sense to keep my life separate from the practice so I wasn't affected as much.

Maybe it's a problem of the school I followed, but the same idea of detachment is part of all schools. In the end what matters is survival, and in today society, it means building your career and family, not just sitting still.

To the down-voters: can you contradict me after 7000+ hours of meditation, where you actually achieve the experiences mentioned in the ancient texts? Meditation worked very well for me, it was the general direction that was bad. We're supposed to maximise our rewards, including having children, not replacing this with an artificial abstract goal. Our rewards are selected and chiseled by evolution, they are what made us survive and thrive.

<comment><USER40> > We're supposed to maximise our rewards, including having children, not > replacing this with an artificial abstract goal. Our rewards are selected > and chiseled by evolution, they are what made us survive and thrive.

Evolution is a thing which occurs at the group level. If you tell an individual to be faithful to evolution, you're telling them "do what your biology would cause for you to do!" Well, that's impossible to _not_ follow. Every human ever born has acted in a manner which was faithful to evolution.

I'm not sure if I understood that right, but if you are trying to justify the way you live because of evolution, then the point is this: it's difficult to claim that evolution shaped the way _you_ lived your life while simultaneously claiming that it's _not_ responsible for directing your peers to live the way they have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> 62,000 lifetime hours! That is insane!! That is about 3 hours average every single day for 60 years!

<comment><USER42> Not so insane if you consider meditation as important as sleeping or eating, which a monk would. Also monks tend to get up at around 4AM to start the morning meditation routine. They are also sleeping less.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> In the Viniyoga tradition, meditation is on an object that is chosen by a teacher for their student. The object is chosen very carefully for the situation of the student. The student works one on one with the teacher. There are class situations, although these are for getting an introduction to the tradition.

In this tradition, the meditation comes after the asana practice (yoga exercises) in order to prepare the body and the mind for the meditation. I have found this to be very effective.

<comment><USER44> In original Patanjali Yogasutras, Yama, Niyama, Asana, Dharana are first to be practiced and perfected.

<comment><USER43> This is an interesting quote that I think is somewhat relevant:

"Can these four Yoga Aṅga – Yama, Niyama, Āsana, Prāṇāyāma – be practiced by everyone at every stage of life? How often and how long should one practice? How can we adapt our practice to changing circumstances? These questions and others like them must be answered by a competent teacher, according to each student's individual circumstances." – T Krishnamacharya's commentary to Yoga Sūtra Chapter One verse 30

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> As a Zen Monk, my answer to "What does it mean?" would be: "If I tell you, I deserve 30 blows. If I don't tell you, I deserve 30 blows. Now, tell me: Why did I say so!"

Zen Monk Alain M. Lafon, headmonk of Lambda Zen Temple of Glarus, Switzerland [https://zen-temple.net/zen-temples/lambda-zen-temple/introdu...](https://zen- temple.net/zen-temples/lambda-zen-temple/introduction/)

<comment><USER46> I would guess that what the monk is communicating is that to think about "what does it mean" is to separate oneself from the meaning (i.e. the experience), which is the opposite of Zen. The goal is for you to be your true self. There is no true self in figuring out the meaning of something. Meaning comes from personally conducting the chaos of one's life (which is "the way"). To philosophize (or similar) something is to step too far into order (e.g. classifying objects instead of seeing an object as an action/existence), and to submit, yield, or do nothing is to step too far into chaos.

<comment><USER47> > There is no true self in figuring out the meaning of something. Meaning > comes from personally conducting the chaos of one's life (which is "the > way"). To philosophize (or similar) something is to step too far into order > (e.g. classifying objects instead of seeing an object as an > action/existence), and to submit, yield, or do nothing is to step too far > into chaos.

That's a great explanation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Amateur meditator here, who had the trippiest experience from meditating in the World's Quietest Room (anechoic chamber at the Microsoft lab) for two hours.

tl;dr: multiple sensory streams completely merged. I "lost" the t-region of my face. All breathing relocated into my auditory track (can't be a coincidence I was in a -22db environment, right?)

I'm still curious to try to get a veteran meditator or neuroscientist to explain what might have happened. Closest I got was being third in line at a Sam Harris event.

Post-event description follows. Most peaceful event of my life, x1000.

Wave 1: uneventful. Wasn't trying to force anything, nor did I have any expectations. But the experience was an ordinary meditation experience. Getting settled.

Wave 2: after a few rounds of body scans, imagined sphere of light expanding outward from the heart, and breath focusing, I had a rather spontaneous, surprising, and effusive wave of gratitude -- visualizing the faces of loved ones (family, friends), one at a time, smiling and happy. Flowing gratitude for them and their happiness. Accompanying this was a deep somatic attunement.

Wave 3: At first I thought the silence had pronounced some mild tinnitus. But after a while the silence took on a pulsating dominance of its own -- as a dominant object of consciousness. Later doubted the tinnitus, as the chair on which I was sitting would occasionally make a tiny crinkle, and those crinkles I heard loudly and completely. My fixation on breath became impossible as the rhythm of my breath slowed enough, and remained steady enough, to merge perfectly with the slightly pulsating dominance of the "loud silence" (oxymoronic, I know). This was the deepest level of somatic attunement I reached in the two hours. At one point, sensory awareness of the middle rectangle of my face (eyes, nose, cheeks) seemed to vanish. This wasn't numbness, nor disassociation, but ... something else. A crowding out of consciousness (?) due to the dominance and deep observation of the pulsating silence. Incredibly peaceful and self-possessing.

When the lights came on, first words out of my mouth were, "no way!" (was that two hours). I swore not even an hour had passed.

<comment><USER49> Were the lights off as well?

<comment><USER48> Yes, total darkness and artificial silence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> For anyone interested in the neuroscience behind this, I recommend reading Judson Brewer's book the Craving Mind. He did the first fMRI studies of meditators and makes explanations entertaining, interesting and accessible without sacrificing the science behind it.

The cool thing about using fMRI is that they can see which networks and physical systems deep inside the brain become active, not just surface level activity of eeg. From there they see decreased activity in the default mode network from meditators when they are meditating, which is the same activity seen when people take sufficient doses of pychideics such as psilocybin.

</comment><comment><USER51> Allow me to digress a tiny bit. After failing health, I had to find ways to calm my mind. So meditation~ was a ritual of mine for a while. It did help a bit, so I kept talking about it online.

I went on a caribean island for 3 weeks. The climate, vegetation and loose rhythm of their lifestyle did more than meditation ever did (now I'm not trained so ..). But there's a deep deep thing that happen when you live in a highly green place. We sat down near a tiny river, just watching animals around and watching the flow of water.. it was blissful.

/2cents

<comment><USER11> One could argue that while you were sitting st that tiny river watching the animals and the flow of the water you were meditating.

I believe, personally, this is likely how meditation was "discovered" in the first place.

<comment><USER51> Yes indeed, I wasn't really trying to oppose both. But I want to share that a good environment, with a deep nature, is a free and constant meditative context. While our society is quite the opposite.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> This pretty much is what Dhyana has said in Hinduism for a long time, a branch of Yoga. Dhyana and Jnana Yoga are all forms to enlightenment of opening channels in your mind to concentrate on a higher purpose and using meditation is one practice. The effulgence/aura of the people who do this in Hinduism is equated to bliss. I wonder if this is related to these brain wave changes.

</comment><comment><USER53> I have tried meditation, and successfully acquired the skill at a pretty young age as part of our aikido lessons.

However, nothing calms and refocuses my mind more than remembering a very respected collegue's voice telling me to focus when I was frustrated and making mistakes. That affirmation that he believed I could do it by focusing and that intent in his voice always helps a great deal.

</comment><comment><USER54> I am wondering whether high levels of gamma waves are the result of so much meditation throughout their lives, or the other way around - maybe these meditators have higher levels of gamma waves to begin with and therefore they enjoy meditating more than normal people or they are able to meditate long hours without much effort.

</comment><comment><USER55> Your consciousness(attention) is energy. During meditation, close your eyes and try to concentrate your energy to your third eye(2 inch above the bridge of your nose which is right where you prefrontal cortex is) by staring at it with your eyes. Of course, sit up straight in lotus pose and breathe normally.

</comment><comment><USER56> [https://gitlab.com/tslocum/meditationassistant](https://gitlab.com/tslocum/meditationassistant) \- Android meditation session timer and logger with numerous features and customization options.

available via Google Play, Amazon and F-Droid.

</comment><comment><USER57> I find the real benefits of meditation are evident when it is done consistently. Sadly, it is easy to stay consistent with checking phone several times a day than meditating few minutes a day. Any tips on how to make it a habit?

<comment><USER58> Discipline?

Less glib edit :) I should probably give you a tip. Say to yourself, "I am a meditator." Now, imagine someone asking you "oh, when did you last meditate?" What kind of meditator are you? Are you one that can answer "I meditated today" or "I meditated yesterday and I'll do it again today"? Or, will you answer, "I meditated last week" or "it's been a slow month for meditation"?

If you can't say "I'm a meditator" and mean it, then you should just stop thinking of yourself as one who meditates. You don't practice meditation in any real sense. That's the rules of discipline. You are what you do and you aren't what you don't

<comment><USER59> It's funny, honestly I was reflecting the other day on how I hadn't seen the word 'glib' for ages, and then along you come with a great example of a glib comment :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I prefer binaural beats, which allow to entrain without years of meditation.. you can engineer your personal brainwaves for each time of day and purpose with sbagen sequence files.

</comment><comment><USER61> What are "Olympic level meditators"? For me sounds like a very inefficient form of plant

</comment><comment><USER62> Sam Harris recently released a meditation app for iPhone and Android. As the reviews attest, it is outstanding, the best thing I've seen for getting started on your own.

[https://wakingup.com/](https://wakingup.com/)

<comment><USER63> I have to disagree. I tried it for a couple of weeks but have unsubscribed. The problem is that Harris talks way too much during guided meditations. A good guided meditation normally has a judicious mix of instructions and silence, but Harris keeps rambling on, making it difficult to concentrate on the instructions. He has an old guided meditation available on YouTube; that one is much better.

Insight Timer is a much better app IMO. In terms of better guided instructions, I would recommend Peter Russell, Michael Taft, Joseph Goldstein and Sharon Salzberg.

<comment><USER64> I second this. Sam Harris's books and videos on YouTube are great but in his wakingup app he talks way too much.

<comment><USER23> Talking is good when you are starting out as your mind probably wanders very quickly. Once you have some experience it gets in the road.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> So one guy measured a gamma wave of his friend, and it's a >140 point article on HN? There's zero substance to this article. No links to reviewed research.

<comment><USER66> On the one hand, it is a pretty light article. On the other, the names dropped are fairly respected in their fields. If you have a genuine interest in the topic, may I suggest you check out this podcast:

[https://samharris.org/podcasts/111-science- meditation/](https://samharris.org/podcasts/111-science-meditation/)

It involves the people mentioned in the article and is quite illuminating as to what they've done over the previous few decades regarding this research topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Western concept of meditation (mudra-holding sitting in a crowded room, wearing special yoga pants) has almost nothing to do with the original meaning, which was "let the mind stop by itself, become 100% idle, so the so called primordial awareness - _life itself_ , which is prior to the language- based intellect, could be realized as one's own true nature", which uses breathing techniques, isolation from society, _solitude_ (contrary to the narcissistically idiotic group settings), moderate austerities (the Buddha strongly emphasized futility of the extreme ones) and balanced body-mind complex in general.

All that cosplay, which almost screams at you - "I am yogin, look at me, I am meditator, look at me! I have this spiritual hairstyle and all the mystic tattoos", is so distant from the original meaning of the ancient practices, it is just ridiculous.

Study must be bad, because they obviously does not have any proper setting, like everything-else-being-equal, proper control groups, etc.

I could challenge any naive yoga-meditation zealot with assertion, that breath-holding divers, Nepalese porters (high altitude goods carriers) and marathon runners will exhibit similar but much better physiological reading, because the most important part is any yoga/meditation practices is _regularity_ and _restoring the original balance of the body /mind complex_ which is just proper homeostasis.

Rally, try these divers, porters and paraphon runners - they will put all the narcissistic yogins/meditators into shame.

</comment><comment><USER68> I see lot of good suggestions for starting out in meditation but I see lots of "use this app, go to this camp, read this"

While in reality meditation is an exercise you need to practice in order to build that muscle. I don't like people productizing what's already has been available for millenias.

Basically the core of meditation is not escaping as some people have mistakenly believe but simply allow yourself to become aware of the fact that you are aware and awake. You are continually observing yourself observing and gradually you remove those superficial noise that cause so much suffering in our daily life.

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

1) Visualize the Tibetan letter "A" with your eyes closed and in a relaxed state.

2) Open your mouth slightly to make an "ahhh" sound barely audible.

3) No other effort than continually visualizing the symbol.

Another technique I found was when you are sitting in your bed in a dark room with your eyes slightly open and focusing on a point in space. You will see everything fade to white and it's very easy to slip into the meditative state. I don't know what this is called as I discovered by accident during my teenage years.

One final technique which may help those that still have trouble keeping their mind focused, I know I did, smoke an indica joint, sit in the sauna or steam room.

Okay one last final technique which I don't recommend to those who are virgins to psychedelics with safe alternatives like Psilocybin mushrooms. I don't recommend LSD because those are purchased of the streets and are usually not LSD but some other shit. Not the case with Psilocybin mushrooms, it's legal in Canada. I say I don't recommend this technique to newcomers or especially those who have never experimented but it's the closest I ever got to be on a plane of existence that I cannot identify as of this 3rd dimension. But overall the after effects are long lasting calm and freedom from anxiety. Ironic because intense anxiety can be felt depending on your surrounding and state of mind. It's definitely opened my third eye but after going on a heroic dose, the trip has scared me from ever attempting large doses. Instead, micro dosing with small caps not only ended up being the best fucking nootropic ever, but my life felt improved in many ways.

TLDR: there are several ways of achieving meditative state and you don't need an app. Some drugs may enhance your spiritual journey but I wouldn't rely on it as it fails to be useful after a natural tolerance builds. Instead, it should be used as a guide to put you in a state that would otherwise take many hours of meditation sessions, and allow your mind to make that "leap" into the serene state of mind, free of ephemeral desires and judgement that society has programmed into us from the moment we are born, which we forget in our next life.

<comment><USER63> > Another technique I found was when you are sitting in your bed in a dark > room with your eyes slightly open and focusing on a point in space. You will > see everything fade to white and it's very easy to slip into the meditative > state. I don't know what this is called as I discovered by accident during > my teenage years.

This is Troxler's fading. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troxler%27s_fading](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troxler%27s_fading)

> I don't like people productizing what's already has been available for > millenias.

As long as people are only being introduced to meditation in a user-friendly manner, I don't see the harm in productizing. Maybe some users will get interested enough to go look up original sources or carry on meditating without a product/crutch.

The only organisations that are doing some harm IMO are cults and/or those that profess to have a secret formula that they only disclose for money. Transcendental Meditation is one such organisation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> As with any research on meditation we should caution that except for subjective measures , meditation has not been linked to some objective life benefit

</comment><comment><USER70> > We actually have no idea what that means experientially

Well one could start by reading what some of those meditators have written. The behavioral correlate of the half second of gamma seems consistent with the notion of "rigpa", where one practices direct experience without trying to get carried away in the thought process.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigpa](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigpa)

<comment><USER71> Just a note : 'rigpa' is intimately related to Dzogchen ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen)), a high level Tantric practice common to several Tibetan schools of Buddhism as well as the Bon religion, and thus is a /bit/ more complicated than and definitely not quite the same as simply trying to maintain presence in direct experience.

A more appropriate correlate would be 'sati' : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(Buddhism)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_\(Buddhism\))

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> One of the best ways to learn advanced level meditation is to travel to a vipassana meditation camp. They usually hold sessions lasting over 10 days where you are not allowed to have any outside contact with the world. It is also conducted by trained Buddhist monks. You'll easily find multiple reviews for this course on the internet ( just google 'vipassana meditation' ) and it's one of the best crash courses that you can attend. They charge no fees and you are free to leave at any point in time.

I've been meditating since I was 14. My father used to forcibly take me to a vihar(a Buddhist temple) every weekend for meditation sessions back then. Meditation is great for when you want to calm your mind. Just the act of observing your thoughts for a small period of time gives you a lot of insight on how your mind is working.

EDIT: This is probably not for meditation beginners based on comments but for people who want to explore advanced meditation techniques. They accept pretty much everyone though.

<comment><USER73> No. This is dangerous advice. An intensive, torturous retreat away from friends and familiar places is one of the worst ways to start meditating.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=vipassana+psychosis](https://www.google.com/search?q=vipassana+psychosis)

<comment><USER74> Can confirm from personal experience. Even a lot of vipassana meditation by itself can send you into psychotic states when you're not ready for all the insight yet. I came very close to psychosis once, experienced ego death, broke down mentally and had to spend 2 months in a depression ward. Cannot recommend.

<comment><USER72> 'ego death' can be really scary at first. There is an entire article in wikipedia about it ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death) ) and how to integrate such experiences.

<comment><USER75> ego death and the resulting occurrences of depersonalization and lack of training/experienced people to help deal with the trauma is dangerous</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Twitter Tempts Fate - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/08/twitter-tempts-fate/ <comment><USER2> Meet Michael Arrington, armchair CEO/CTO of Twitter.

These are such ridiculous non-stories. I'm almost tempted to start a blog about startup blogs and play armchair editor-in-chief of TechCrunch.

<comment><USER3> You could do it as a series of tweets @fakearrington is still available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "The smartest thing Twitter could have done would be to hire former Chief Architect Blaine Cook back as a consultant to keep an eye on things for the day (he seems to be the only person that can keep his crazy architecture actually live)."

I'm lost for words.

<comment><USER5> Agreed, this makes little sense. As time goes on, someone's ability to maintain a system (assuming it is something that only he could do well when he was there) quickly approaches zero the longer that person is not involved with it. What's the realistic limit on this anyway, or when will Blaine no longer be mentioned in relation to twitter? At some point, it's all the current employees' burden to bare.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> instead of completely banning TC, what if we ban all TC articles that mention Twitter?

</comment><comment><USER7> "Expect silence on our end if they do [succeed], and a merciless blog post if they fail."

PG: How about this: all stories from Techcrunch should be allowed to be downmodded.

</comment><comment><USER8> perhaps they see this as a day to shine and really believe they can, thus its a calculated risk.

</comment><comment><USER9> Enough with these 0 content posts already!! They are ok on TC not here!</comment>


Optimizing your CouchDB Calls by 99% (no strings attached) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.cloudant.com/optimizing-couchdb-calls-by-99-percent/

<comment><USER2> I'll save everyone the time:

Don't use CouchRest::Database! because it tries to create the DB each time. (Use CouchRest::Database instead)

Don't let multi_json pick the json library! Pick jsonx yourself before couchrest runs.

Don't use HTTPS for internal connections.

For the last 3%... He hacked in a binary format into couchrest and couchdb in 10 lines of code.

<comment><USER3> Thank you. I'm too ADD for videos, and besides, don't know of an easy way to import them into iTunes as a podcast-style video (one that won't restart from the beginning if I stop it halfway through.)

<comment><USER4> Is that a bug or a feature? ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like the idea that Tim is working on a binary-based protocol interaction with Couch. If the binary protocol integration is generic enough I'd like to discuss with them the possibility of supporting the Universal Binary JSON format (<http://ubjson.org>)

While the HTTP-only protocol work up until now has been one the nice "Ease of use" standout features for Couch, it also leads to a lot of overhead when you know you absolutely don't benefit from it.

All the work on CouchApps (only CouchDB + JavaScript apps) makes a lot of sense to have the rest-only interaction, but if you are trying to scale out a high read/write couch install and are already using tricks like TCP no_delay and server-side batching along with batch-doc operations on the client there is only so much you can do before you slam up against what _looks_ to be a 6-10K docs/sec change rate due in no small part to Couch (even with its new JSON parser) processing data structures into and out of textual JSON.

<comment><AUTHOR> To be clear, I'm only working on integrating a binary _data format_ , which is different from a binary protocol.

HTTP is baked pretty deep into CouchDB, which makes it hard to remove (but who knows, Couchbase seems to be having some success ripping it out). BigCouch (Cloudant's distributed version of CouchDB) has the HTTP layer neatly separated through the Fabric library (<https://github.com/cloudant/fabric>), so it'd probably be easier to add a binary protocol there.

<comment><USER5> Tim, is the Couch server still going from binary disk data to JSON and then you convert that to the binary format or is your work actually allowing Couch to skip any textual JSON generation such that all the REST methods are still there, but their response bodies are just MessagePack binary data instead of text?

<comment><AUTHOR> The Couch server goes from binary Erlang terms (our default internal representation) to MessagePack right away, skipping all textual JSON generation. All the REST methods are still there, the body is just sent in MessagePack format with an application/x-msgpack header [https://github.com/timanglade/couchdb/commit/b601286dae04bdc...](https://github.com/timanglade/couchdb/commit/b601286dae04bdc2488a0d9bf028c58e6feb3449)

<comment><USER5> Ah! That is exactly what I was hoping for (skipping the JSON in/out cycle server-side).

Keeping the HTTP protocol in this case is fine for me and not require any unexpected changes to Couch. I hope that binary format work can be make configurable in the future with other formats supported.

Thanks for the clarifications Tim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Are there no slides or transcript, or blog posts? It would be nice to have something that can be skimmed through.

I don't use Ruby, so I'm not sure how much of the talk would apply to me, but we use CouchDB extensively at work.

<comment><USER5> Are you guys using any of the replication? If so, have you seen any of the replication failures that are tracked in JIRA right now?

There are 2 or 3 nebulous "replication breaks" bugs that are filed from older versions, but one that says it is still happening on 1.1.1 with no followups from the team.

Filipe I believe rewrote the replication code from scratch for 1.2 so again, it is hard to know if the replication hickups are non-issues or not so I'm curious if you have real world data points here.

<comment><AUTHOR> The replication is borked, we know. The replicator database introduced in 1.1 only solves part of the issues at hand. Everybody at Cloudant & Couchbase is pretty confident that the 1.2 replicator will be much more stable & efficient, which is why there isn't a lot of activity right now on plugging holes in the old replicator.

<comment><USER5> I had only read ancillary data about the new replicator work on the lists and in JIRA, really glad to hear that it got the rewrite treatment.

Is this work going to go into Couchbase 2.0 builds? (not necessarily the current preview, but the final GA release?)

<comment><USER7> Yes, it's going into Couchbase.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have to wonder why so many presentations have 'X sucks, I say use Y which rocks' as an attitude. Negativity doesn't really sell me on much.

I realize he has just grievances against multi-json and couch-rest, but really that kind of attitude drags the whole community down.

OSS should be about collaboration, not a dick swinging contest.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have to wonder why so many comments have 'X sucks, please say Y which rocks', as an attitude. Negativity doesn't really sell me on much.

Seriously though. The poor design (& egregious misuse) of those libraries became a major concern for us at Cloudant. I wanted people to become aware of what they were doing wrong & why. I thought it would be best done with a bang. Fixing the situation beyond the patches I submitted would have required that I go on a campaign to have those libraries removed from the face of the earth (which seems more extreme than very strongly recommending people stay away from them).

<comment><USER9> When I originally wrote CouchRest, it was just the "non-magic" parts, and was a clean little library. Then one day I had about 3 hours fun, adding a query generator as an experiment. Next thing you know, that aspect had gained contributors and grown into a full blown ODM. If you just use the basic features, CouchRest should treat you just fine. The only reason you'd use the extended stuff is if you are more comfortable with Active Record style APIs than with HTTP. Turns out that's not a small set of people...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Mostly a waste of time.. there's nothing about optimization, just common sense, like "don't parse json with ruby".

</comment><comment><USER11> So in summary the performance issue was entirely with JSON encoding/decoding.

</comment><comment><USER12> I know this is going to sound pedantic, however, optimizing by 99% would make them 1% less efficient? Right? Or am I muddled?

<comment><USER10> optimization is inherently positive, so it could either mean +99% performance, ie 199% or -99% time.

<comment><USER12> Bingo, thought what I had said sounded wrong, thanks for the clarification.</comment></comment></comment>


Phish of GoDaddy Employee Jeopardized Escrow.com, Among Others - <AUTHOR> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2020/03/phish-of-godaddy-employee-jeopardized-escrow-com-among-others/ <comment><AUTHOR> From the article: For maximum security on your domains, consider adopting some or all of the following best practices:

-Use 2-factor authentication, and require it to be used by all relevant users and subcontractors.

-In cases where passwords are used, pick unique passwords and consider password managers.

-Review the security of existing accounts with registrars and other providers, and make sure you have multiple notifications in place when and if a domain you own is about to expire.

-Use registration features like Registry Lock that can help protect domain name records from being changed. Note that this may increase the amount of time it takes going forward to make key changes to the locked domain (such as DNS changes).

-Use DNSSEC (both signing zones and validating responses).

-Use access control lists for applications, Internet traffic and monitoring.

-Monitor the issuance of new SSL certificates for your domains by monitoring, for example, Certificate Transparency Logs.

I'm still amazed that some of the largest sites, like Facebook and Google, don't have DNSSEC enabled.

<comment><USER2> Since your registrar controls your DNS delegation, DNSSEC can't do anything to prevent a spearphishing attack against the registrar itself. It doesn't apply at all to this article, and it's weird that it's listed as a suggestion; usually Krebs is better than this.

 _Virtually none_ of the largest sites use DNSSEC; DNSSEC is a moribund, dead- letter standard that will never be adopted. Virtually all new DNSSEC adoption is European, and a consequence of European registrars that auto-sign new domains (which is, for obvious reasons, security theater). For a few years, DNSSEC adoption in the US had ticked up as a consequence of the federal government requiring it; the USG has rescinded that requirement, and CLOUD.GOV doesn't even support it.

You can confirm this for yourself by taking any list of the top DNS zones and checking them for DS records with "dig" or "host":

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22321703](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22321703)</comment></comment>


Comments' Usage and Best Practices in JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://blog.shhdharmen.me/comments-usage-and-best-practices-in-javascript <comment><USER2> Most comments could be replaced by better names and smaller functions</comment>


Open Web Application Security Project - <AUTHOR> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Main_Page <comment><USER2> I found their top 10 really approachable. Of course I knew some of the more common things such as SQL-injection and knew of other things but didn't know their name such as CSRF.

It was great to formalise independent knowledge into a common language I could discuss with colleagues, and the examples were things you could take straight from the PDF to the workplace. I don't work in infosec and it really helps to have clear guidance to give to less security minded people to say not just that it really _is_ bad if people can inject javascript or cause arbitrary redirects or make arbitary requests from the server, but to give clear indication of how bad relative to each other.

It also gives some ideas for how to find issues which is of use for anyone hoping to bag a bug bounty, although there are some more useful resources now for that such as Yaworski's "Web Hacking 101" [1] which should also be essential reading for any web developers who don't quite understand _that security stuff_ well enough to find bug bounties but still want to keep aware of the kind of ways their platforms may fall prey to security bugs.

Getting back to the top 10, I look forward to it's release this year. It is important to keep up with changing trends in web application security. The release candidate notes that CSRF has dropped because frameworks now include csrf protection configured in the defaults, in part because of the work that groups such as OWASP do.

If you work in web application development you owe it to everyone else to get a cursory education in web application security. If you are not doing that you are an externality cost that everyone else has to bear.

[1] [https://leanpub.com/web-hacking-101](https://leanpub.com/web-hacking-101) (It was available free from hacker one for a while, I'm not sure if they still run that offer.)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Someone in another thread mentioned this and found it interesting. Never heard of it before.

[https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2017-Top_10](https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2017-Top_10)</comment>


Evidence Based Scheduling - <AUTHOR> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/10/26.html

<comment><USER2> neat; but especially if you are writing software to support the product you sell (rather than the product you sell being software) the 'it's done when it's done' is a viable alternative.</comment>


iMeshup (startup) is launching–cloud workflow tool for 3d game development - <AUTHOR> https://imeshup.com <comment><AUTHOR> iMeshup is an online management system for the game development industry. It's place where you can store, organize, and review 3D assets— all in the cloud! We've combined top-notch repository functionality with visually-accurate compression and viewing capability to give you a way to inspect, discuss, and accept 3D models, without the use of any desktop software! Get all the pieces of your game together quickly with seamless uploading, on-the-model- commenting, and easy versioning!</comment>


Winner of 2011 Google AI Challenge Describes Released Code - <AUTHOR> http://xathis.com/posts/ai-challenge-2011-ants.html

<comment><USER2> I had fun playing around with the challenge and spent most of the time poking around with map exploration as implementing min-max once again isn't too much fun. I ended up having the most fun playing around with the idea of an anti- object . The simplicity of anti-objects combined with the low memory and low cpu overhead was very nice. Wrote it up in a little blog for others:

[http://benjamin-meyer.blogspot.com/2011/11/using- collaborati...](http://benjamin-meyer.blogspot.com/2011/11/using- collaborative-diffusion-rather.html)

Any ideas for a type of challenge that wouldn't be reduced to mostly min-max for the ranking, but could explore other concepts?

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually used this idea from the forums and your post to get 683rd place even though I started on it with 36 hours to go before the deadline. <http://aichallenge.org/profile.php?user=972> So thanks.

How'd you do?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Now this is what I go to HN for! The most interesting part for me was that he did not focus on some huge strategy. Just individuals and small groups with clear goals and constant revaluation. Keeping in mind that the only thing kept between rounds were missions and those were constantly reevaluated as well. I think this is a vivid, albeit simplified, example of how successful organizations of anything should operate.

EDIT: grammar

<comment><USER4> What's that? You aren't more interested in the SOPA drama?

<comment><USER3> Well I was when it was 1 day from being jammed down our throats. Then it was postponed to the new year, at least the lobbyists in our courts(EFF, Google, etc) have sometime to throw some cash around. And people can do something.

I do think the SOPA Drama was a bit delayed and overblown here on HN.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I see a few people saying that they didn't have much time (or that they didn't want to spend too much time) for this.

Is that really actually true, or is it some kind of 'modesty'[1]?

When people talk about IQ there's usually a list of people saying something like "IQ is meaningless, it's a flawed concept (but my IQ is 138)". Are there any people saying "I worked really hard at this, I spent a lot of time and effort. I ranked 984th."?

Because I'd love to see the results if those smart people got together and spent some serious time and effort on it.

Lots of popular science projects suffer from a heavy churn rate, which leads to people being introduced to the subject, producing an introductory program, doing a bit of reading, but then moving onto something else. A few people stay, and work on intermediate and advanced level projects, but they suffer from lack of interest and expertise. See, for example, all the millions of artificial life / evolution softwares derived from Martin Gardners Bugs. (See also the death of Fractint, which was excellent software but did not transition to Linux or Windows or modern display programming.)

[1] Not the right word but I'm not sure what fits.

<comment><USER6> Netlix's movie rating prediction contest is a great example of smart teams collaborating. As the contest progressed some teams would join forces forming new hybrid algorithms.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah. In this competition collaboration was discouraged. That does keep politics/alliance building skills out of the equation at the cost of worse overall final products.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Otherwise if the ant was just spawned sitting on my hill, the target border > tile is determined using some complex calculation considering the ratio of > own/enemy ants near that border position, the possible distance to enemy > hills, how many ants are already on a mission to a near border tile and how > long they do need to reach their desitnation... Oh, I'm kidding, it was > random. Completely random. Like in target = > area.border.get(turnRandom.nextInt(area.border.size()));

Nice pun targeted at over-thinking of things. If you try to take many things into account without any concrete knowledge of how they influence outcome you'll get random result. So you may just start with random and see if it's good enough.

</comment><comment><USER8> Unfortunately the link appears to be temporarily dead. Luckily before you read about his bot you should watch it play anyways!

Here are two replays of the same map. The first is played by average players and the second is played by xathis (and other top bots).

Avg: [http://aichallenge.org/visualizer.php?game=335973&user=8...](http://aichallenge.org/visualizer.php?game=335973&user=8180) Top: [http://aichallenge.org/visualizer.php?game=329760&user=4...](http://aichallenge.org/visualizer.php?game=329760&user=4513)

<comment><USER9> Note that every one of those "average" players finished in the top 10%.

It's a hard problem to write any kind of generally adequate player for. All the good bots depend heavily on subtle properties of emergent behavior. Don't let the simple explanations fool you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The first lines seemed familiar:

<http://quotenil.com/Planet-Wars-Post-Mortem.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha. It didn't say that before, because he hadn't officially won yet. It's actually been propagated from Tron: <http://a1k0n.net/2010/03/04/google-ai- postmortem.html>

<comment><USER11> I definitely had no intention of starting a tradition there. Haha.

<comment><AUTHOR> You didn't do too badly this time yourself. 11th place. Looking at what he did, do you see what you could do to improve your bot further?

<comment><USER11> Sure, but as he concludes at the end, I didn't want to spend too much time on it. My bot was fairly unique in that it used Monte Carlo methods rather than deterministic minimax, and it got the job done without too much effort. I wrote a forum post describing the basic approach here: [http://forums.aichallenge.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2044](http://forums.aichallenge.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2044)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> No content inside (but ads)

<comment><USER13> > bplaced.net Zugriff verweigert, Fehler 403. Sorry, access forbidden, error > 403. Contact service provider

I think the hosting provider may have pulled the plug after a traffic surge.

Google cache

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cac...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fxathis.com%2Fposts%2Fai- challenge-2011-ants.html&btnG=Search&pbx=1&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=)</comment></comment>


Evernote was two weeks away from bankruptcy in 2008 - <AUTHOR> http://www.arcticstartup.com/2012/05/04/from-brink-of-bankruptcy-towards-an-ipo-the-evernote-story

<comment><USER2> Not hard to believe really. Surprised they are still around at times.

<comment><USER3> Seems like a pretty useful service... Why are you surprised they are still around?

<comment><USER4> I assume the grandparent post is referring to the staggering amount of cash they've been burning. (personally: who am I to judge - they've clearly convinced investors they're on the right track)

<comment><USER2> Yes, pretty much it. Useful service yes, but one that doesn't seem to add up as far as those who actually use it enough to make them a profit versus how much money they seem to spend on their service.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I love evernote, but am I the only one who feels like it's incredibly slow sometimes? Any hackers out there know how to speed it up at all?

</comment><comment><USER6> I like the part where the Swedish investor stepped up for a product he cared about, took the risk, and will likely reap the reward after the IPO. Great story. Almost an eBay-pez worthy story, but real.</comment>


Ask HN: How can programmers propel the clean energy usage? - <AUTHOR> Hello HN folks,
I'm a programmer and deep in my heart, I consider myself an engineer(generic). So, quite naturally, I'm interested in and excited by what Elon Musk is doing in the clean energy sector. So, I'm wondering if there's anything that developers can do in the field of clean energy, energy saving & management. I've a few basic ideas for IoT systems for energy management etc. But these ideas are independent of the energy source.
Are there any companies that develop software systems related to clean energy? Is there any scope for programmers to be a part of the clean energy movement? What do you think? Share your thoughts. :) <comment><USER2> The cleanest energy is energy that isn't used. Non-use of energy extends into the embodied energy of the artifact...the energy that goes into obtaining raw materials, processing them into a product, delivery to and installation at the end user's facility along with the energy used to build and run the facilities at each of those steps.</comment>


Amazon founder Jeff Bezos calls for governments to end patent wars - <AUTHOR> http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/915146-amazon-founder-jeff-bezos-calls-for-governments-to-end-patent-wars <comment><USER2> People have already been making this mistake: calling out Jeff Bezos over Amazon's one-click patent is a strawman by the name of tu quoque (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque>). This is a non-argument. Being a hypocrite doesn't make you less correct.

Regardless of past transgressions, Jeff Bezos is right. Governments and their people need to examine their patent laws (I would argue all IP laws) and figure out what the right amount of protection is necessary given our modern world.

<comment><USER3> I hate it when people bring up the logical fallacies in incorrect contexts. The fallacies apply to purely logical arguments. They do not apply to arguments, like Bezos's, that are based on a mix of logic and credibility.

The argument against software patents does not go "if A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then C." In this context, labeling someone a hypocrite is indeed not logically relevant. Instead, the argument against software patents is couched at least in part on empirical evidence: we need to reform the system because it holds back innovation, as can be seen from X, Y, and Z observations. In that context, credibility is relevant. Why should we believe you that you're accurately representing X, Y, and Z? Does self-interest color how you're characterizing the patent reform argument? All of these are relevant because it's not a purely logical argument that can be evaluated purely on its own merits.

<comment><USER4> When I play by a game, I use all the rules to my advantage even if I support a change to some of those rules. If I could legally vote twice because I had a college degree, I would -- even though I would support repealing such a rule. Here, we see AMZN maximizing shareholder value (which it MUST do,) and wee see Jeff Bezos suggest that some of the common rules of the game aren't optimal.

Think of the Buffet position on taxes -- he is going to pay as little as he has to, but he wishes everybody in his peer group paid more. He could just give his money to the government, but that is a categorically different action from lobbying for a systematic change.

<comment><USER5> > which it MUST do

Nope, as far as I am aware there is no law that companies must maximize the value for their owners at the cost of all other considerations. This gets brought up constantly, and I've yet to see anyone support the claim with evidence. Sure, you can sue for breach of fiduciary duty, but that duty does not include no-holds-barred maximization.

<comment><USER6> >Sure, you can sue for breach of fiduciary duty, but that duty does not include no-holds-barred maximization.

That depends on what you mean by "no-holds-barred". If the company is giving up potential income they had better be able to explain the reason, otherwise it is a breach of fiduciary duty. Of course they're not allowed to do anything illegal, and you can probably get away with saying "this would give us bad PR". But "we don't enforce our patents because we think patents are stupid" is definitely a breach of fiduciary duty.

See here:

[http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/sp...](http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/special- comment/ebay-v-newmark-al-franken-was-right-corporations-are-legally-required- to-maximize-profits/)

<comment><USER7> Managers have extremely wide latitude under the law to run the business as they see fit. As long as they have some hazy explanation as to how their actions could plausibly be for the benefit of shareholders, then they can do as they please. If shareholders don't like that, they can fire the managers. For example, Bezos could certainly say, "We think patents are stupid, as do many of our key customers, potential acquisition targets, and employees we'd like to hire." That could all be hogwash, but as long as he says it with a straight face on the witness stand, I don't believe he can successfully be sued personally.

The only reason eBay v Newmark exists as a case is that the managers are also the majority shareholders, which introduces a conflict of interest. (Well, that and the fact that eBay are dicks who were trying to fuck with a key competitor.) It's a weird case, and that decision has no practical implication for Bezos.

That bit from the decision comes up in regards to complicated stock shenanigans designed to keep eBay from getting more CL stock. The principle isn't being applied to ordinary management decisions, just decisions about stock ownership and board seats. So even if this decision did mean something for Bezos, it wouldn't mean anything about him deciding not to enforce patents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yes, maybe Bezos is a hypocrite. His company has a history of abusing the patent system and he's now realizing that software patents are a Bad Thing because he's just about to get on the receiving side of them [0]. _So what?_

Even if he doesn't have the moral high ground, it doesn't change that he's right. And that's a good thing; it's better to have one hypocrite in power with ability to change things for good, even if he does it for selfish reasons, than to have one hundred morally pure [1] people who don't have the power or means to do anything else than whine. Google, Amazon, and others may not be white like snow, but they would serve good as temporary allies in fixing things for everyone.

</rant>

(In general, I hate when people throw around the label of 'hypocrite'; quite often it's just an distracting ad hominem.)

[0] - but hey, "it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." (Upton Sinclair)

[1] - then again, how many of us are really so innocent? How many would stand to principle if offered a chance to patent some silly software "invention" and thus speed up career development?

<comment><USER9> To anyone curious about the actual transgression, here is the WP article: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#cite_note-16>

The FSF called for a boycott of Amazon once but then reverted its decision: [http://web.archive.org/web/20081121093238/http://www.gnu.org...](http://web.archive.org/web/20081121093238/http://www.gnu.org./philosophy/amazon.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> How ironic given the first ridiculous software patent I remember was Amazon's one-click purchase patent that it use as a cudgel against many e-tailers in the late nineties (and may still, for all I know).

EDIT: Not saying there weren't other ridiculous software patents; just that this one got a lot of press at the time and brought software patents to developers attention in a way that hadn't happened before.

</comment><comment><USER11> I think we all would love to see an end to patent threats in software not so much for the sake of the big players but for the sake of small businesses attempting to bring a product to life. If it took Amazon to make it happen then great. Heck, if Steve Ballmer brought an end to software patents I'd be thrilled.

Whatever ill will Amazon created amongst the technorati more than a decade ago pales now in comparison to Ballmer's inept continuation of Microsoft and the post-iPhone Apple walled garden and patent actions. Less obvious but significant are the erosions to privacy brought on with the help of Google. I vote Jeff Bezos "least evil" at this moment. Someone I know even said he was a "nice guy." Small sample, yes.

I'm not particularly hopeful that we'll see meaningful legal reform in software patents. There is too much money to be made by lawyers in filing and litigation. Their brethren in government making the laws are't going to one day just shut down this little parasitic industry that feeds many of their friends and likely contributors.

Until then, where's the most troll-free place from which to conduct a software business? Black and white immunity is not necessary, just a not-worth-the- effort situation for trolls??

</comment><comment><USER12> Why is he a hypocrite?

To exist as a tech company today, you'd be insane to NOT patent as much as possible. Seriously, if you're developing tech to compete with Apple (or any large tech co), but have no IP of your own, you're defenseless. Thats the impression I get, anyways - that you're best bet is to patent as much as possible. The more vague, the more absurd, the better. It offers more bargaining chips. Because lets face it - can a non multi-million dollar company survive a couple of lawsuits by one of the tech giants? I doubt it.

Patent warfare is a systematic issue; its not unreasonable to attack the system (Gov't sponsored patents). That's what I take from this message. I'm sure there's a Game Theory term for this, but its clearly not something that can be resolved outside of the system. Anyone who stops the lawsuits (or threat of) quickly disappears.

<comment><USER13> >To exist as a tech company today, you'd be insane to NOT patent as much as possible.

Patent holders are not required to actively defend patents in order to maintain their rights to them. That's only trademarks.

Amazon has a history of not just filing patents of questionable validity, they have a history of going after competitors for infringement. The most obvious example would be suing Barnes & Noble over the One-Click patent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I look forward to Bezos matching his words with actions.

It's pretty well known that Amazon's lobbying in DC is entirely focused on preventing Amazon from having to pay state sales taxes. Bezos has never lifted a finger to help any other tech cause -- note that Bezos didn't co-sign the open letter on SOPA from tech CEO's[1], and that Amazon didn't co-sign the company letter[2], for example.

If he does become active on this, that's great. But given his history I'd be shocked if he put real resources behind it. And until he does it will just be empty words.

[1] [http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/14/tech-execs-anti-sopa- lette...](http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/14/tech-execs-anti-sopa-letter/)

[2] <http://www.protectinnovation.com/downloads/letter.pdf>

<comment><USER15> Actually, I think Amazon has switched gears and now is for Sales tax everywhere because they can deal with it better than most other players.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> They should just retitle this article "Jeff Bezos finally realizes he's next"

</comment><comment><USER17> I completely agree with Bezos as it's absurd that companies can patent things like rounded corners or 1-Click shopping, oh, oh wait...

</comment><comment><USER18> This rings about as hollow as if it were Tim Cook complaining about closed ecosystems. Bezos likely realizes that as Amazon moves into making and selling mobile devices and tablets, they too will be targets for patent litigation.

<comment><AUTHOR> Does it matter who's the messenger if the message rings true? I think it makes sense for victims or potential victims of the broken patent system to complain about it and fight to change or eliminate it. Who else is going to do it otherwise? The patent aggressors like Apple and Microsoft? I just don't see that happening.

<comment><USER19> What matters is that when the messenger is so obviously self-serving and hypocritical it dilutes the message and leads a casual observer to look for the hidden agenda for others who carry the same message. Now that Amazon has used the patent system as a cudgel to achieve a stable position in the market it fears having other companies do to it what it once did to them, Now that Google has used its patents to achieve a solid lock on the search and search advertising market the benefits of strong patents seem less compelling to the founders & board members of that company. If you want credibility then talk about patent reform on the way up, not once you have reached the top and no longer need them to maintain your dominance.

<comment><USER20> So, if Apple, Google, Microsoft, IBM and all of the other or some subset of the large software companies came out today to say the same thing or completely endorse Amazon CEO's point of view, you would dismiss their message just as equally for who they are and their history?...

<comment><USER21> That would be a very different context. You can't just take the same story and apply it to a different subset of companies. If Apple were to do this, it would be a very different situation since by doing so, they risk losing market share. Amazon won't lose anything from this, they can only gain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Bezos's 2000 open letter on patents: <http://oreilly.com/news/amazon_patents.html>

Good sentiment, but it's twelve years later and the only positive action we've seen from Amazon concerning patent reform is an offhand comment to a reporter. How's that prior art database coming along, for example? Forgive me for not getting too excited.

<comment><USER23> I wonder why he doesn't pave a way for the rest of the tech industry giants to start innovating?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Jeff Bezos calls for governments to end patent wars" seems a bit dramatic when you consider his actual statements. From the article, he actually said (emphasis mine):

"...we're _starting_ to be in a world where [patents] __might start __to stifle innovation...Governments _may_ need to look at the patent system and _see_ if those laws need to be modified..."

If he truly believes that the patent system needs to change (and I really think he does), couldn't he have left those qualifiers out? As it is these just seem like timid observations, far from a call for governments to step in and do something.

</comment><comment><USER25> What a weak article. The interviewer had Jeff Bezos complaining about patents, and never brought up one-click? He never asked about consistency of position, or if it the uncertainty of being a new entrant into an established market had given him a new perspective on the factors that encourage innovation. The paucity of actual quotes or dialogue in the piece make it seem like the full interview (linked to from the OA) was conducted by sitting behind Bezos in business class and scribbling down what was overheard.

<comment><USER26> It's the Metro - it is given away free on UK public transport (at least here). Not quite a tabloid, but it's not exactly the Financial Times either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Sort of like 1973, when the largest stockpilers of nuclear weapons started to talk about limiting them. The weapons holder is in a unique position to know how bad the use of weapons can be.

</comment><comment><USER28> If anyone has credibility here, it's Bezos (for reasons listed in other posts). Not sarcasm.

</comment><comment><USER29> Geez guys, when someone hands you a victory, take it.

</comment><comment><USER30> I think more important than the level of protection at this point is public knowledge and awareness of just what patents are out there. One project that might galvanize federal action just launched and is seeking crowdfunding to shed light in this arena.

Specifically, IP Checkups aims to map out the patents and shell companies of Intellectual Ventures, and potentially other mass aggregators, to foster public knowledge and the original purposes of the patent system. For more information, see: news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57532492-38/patent-activists- lets-light-up-intellectual-ventures-ip-portfolio/

</comment><comment><USER31> I'd respect this more if he hadn't patented 1-click shopping. Oh yeah, that was innovative. Now that he has "his," he wants to change the rules. Love your company Jeff, hate your IP policy and not impressed by your flip-flopping.

</comment><comment><USER32> The article ends with

      Mr Bezos would not be drawn on whether Amazon plans to
      release a smartphone of its own.

Amazon's plans in the smartphone market may be influencing Jeff's argument.

</comment><comment><USER33> It doesn't say exactly what change he wants.

The devil is in the details.

</comment><comment><USER34> Realistically, the only way the patent wars can end is if Amazon, Google, Apple and Microsoft all get behind ending it.

<comment><USER35> But not necessarily in the right way. They can also _agree_ to not sue each other, (or more legally, cross-license each other for free), and the patent wars will end. The small startup will continue to get screwed regardless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> He had very good reasons, Amazon is going to sell a lot of kindle fire and people are going to come after them.

</comment><comment><USER37> The government has been pretty busy with the debates, I don't think they have attention to patent wars.</comment>


World's Largest Fusion Reactor Is About to Switch On - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/worlds-most-insane-fusion-reactor-is-about-to-switch-on-1741199892 <comment><USER2> posted 6 days ago: [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6259/369.full](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6259/369.full)</comment>


JointJS 0.8 Released - filters, gradients and ports - <AUTHOR> http://jointjs.com/blog/jointjs-0-8-released.html

<comment><USER2> How does this library compare to d3?</comment>


History of (computer) storage - <AUTHOR> http://cs-exhibitions.uni-klu.ac.at/index.php?id=187

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought the mercury column based delay line memory was one of the most interesting.</comment>