The Aldi effect: how one discount supermarket transformed the way Britain shops - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/05/long-read-aldi-discount-supermarket-changed-britain-shopping <comment> temp-dude-87844 Aldi is really quite bizarre, in a way the article tries to capture. For all their rock-bottom prices on store brand goods, whose quality ranges from pretty good to never-again mediocre, they stock the store with a rotating selection of random crap that fell off the boat, baiting the impulse for an aspirational or just-in-case buy. But then again, by now, Amazon's front page recommends a carousel of similar dropshipped junk from vendors whose names appear to be machine-generated. At least Aldi bothers to "curate" in the sense of commissioning most of its stock as a store brand, whereas Amazon is seemingly devoid of the slightest amount of steering from above, save for locating popular items after-the-fact and releasing an AmazonBasics.

In the process, Aldi and its slightly-nicer copycats siphon away marketshare from normal stores who actually carry name-brand food and home goods you'd want to buy again, if you weren't on a misguided mission to penny-pinch. Stores pivot towards overpriced premade sandwiches, cafes and hot buffets, and meal kits that make zero economic sense, because that's where you can still pull a good margin. The middle empties out.

If you look, you can see this same process play out in other areas of retail and services. Aldi's gain is our collective loss, the widespread embrace of an insincere "good enough", either because our budgets are truly crunched, or because we don't let ourselves value our mundane maintenance desires. On the far side, people who have rejected this can look like they're engaging in conspicuous consumption. Sometimes they are.

<comment><USER2> > they stock the store with a rotating selection of random crap that fell off > the boat, baiting the impulse for an aspirational or just-in-case buy

I believe this is the key to their fanatical customer base. The random crap aisle means that when you go into the store _there 's a chance_ of an awesome deal on _some random thing_. This provides strong intermittent reinforcement which directly triggers the brain's reward mechanism, no different to loot drops in an MMO or payouts from a poker machine. People literally get addicted to Aldi's random-stuff aisle.

We've actually taken to referring to Aldi as "visiting the casino". :P

<comment><USER3> This is an amazing observation, and as someone who used to shop there and at similar stores a lot, I have to agree.

You really _do_ get nice deals though. Many of my tools are from Aldi or Lidl, and in my experience, they're cheap in terms of price, but still surprisingly decent quality, pretty consistently.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> >Aldi stores has tripled since the early 90s to nearly 2,000(SKU's), although that remains tiny compared to the 25,000 or more in a big supermarket.

This is why I shop at Aldi when possible. I'm willing to make small compromises on quality and overall selection for efficiency gains and less frustration. I don't want to navigate 25+ brands of canned tomatoes, disect manipulative pricing schemes (10 for $10* | * must buy 10, lesser quantities sold at $2.79/ea), subsidize add-on services I don't use like free in-store daycare or check cashing, walk to the deliberately deeply placed staple sections like produce, dairy, etc., calculate _savings_ in expiring and unclear fuel rewards at on site gas station, or be forced to provide my private information for my purchases to be tracked and sold in order to be eligible for purchasing things at advertised prices.

<comment><USER5> > manipulative pricing schemes

Here in Germany, where Aldi originates, those don't exist.

My reason not to go to Aldi is, that they lack the things I want to buy. I cook every day and whenever I end up at Aldi I wonder what people do there because it does not seem possible for me to get all the ingredients I need.

<comment><USER6> Out of curiosity: what do you cook that you do not get at Aldi? Myself, I could get more than 90% of the ingredients of most recipes at Aldi. Some things I buy at an Asian or Turkish store, and I have to buy most cheeses somewhere else. But Aldi has come a long way, now they sell a decent variety of organic, regional produce.

<comment><USER4> I live close to an Aldi in the US. When it was first opened (Aldi 1.0) I would agree with parent that the selection and availability made it difficult to get the bulk of my grocerie needs there but since they remodeled (Aldi 2.0) they have wider selection and larger more reliable inventory especially for fresh items (produce, meat, dairy) and now it suites most of our needs. This my play a part in the varied experiences commentors are reporting

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I like shopping at Aldi because it reduces the paradox of choice. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice)

Less choice, less time spent in the supermarket. I buy 90% of my weekly groceries there and it takes me less than 15 minutes to be out of the door.

The remaining 10%, I buy at different shops as those are really specific items that Aldi does not carry.

I like the low prices and the efficiency of the checkout process.

Anecdote: I have noticed a saving of approximately 15% compared to when I was shopping at the competitor's stores.

<comment><USER8> >I like the low prices and the efficiency of the checkout process.

I especially liked standing in line for five extra minutes while the customer in front of me demanded they pay a different (lower) price for their frozen pizzas because, they said, the pizzas were in the wrong spot.

They eventually got the lower price. Woo Aldi.

I hope they're kicking Temple Grandin a percentage. It's hard to shop at their stores without feeling like cattle being moved from one place to another.

(But 15%! What a deal!)

<comment><USER9> > I especially liked standing in line for five extra minutes

If one time or rare bad things were a good measure wouldn't we all end up being judged on HN based solely on our worst comments?

> (But 15%! What a deal!)

It is for some people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There's many comments here complaining that it's impossible to shop at Aldi because they won't have all the ingredients for whatever dish they were planning to make.

This is largely true, but I feel misses the point. For a grocery store to exhaustively and consistently stock all combinations of products you need for a given dish you have in mind costs money they need to roll onto you as a consumer.

Rather, the idea with Aldi is that like with a farmers' market you should see what they have in stock at that moment and _then_ decide what to cook.

</comment><comment><USER11> I love Aldi (And Lidl) The great thing about the lack of choice means the supermarkets are small so its quick and easy to do your whole shop. Its like Costco with sensible sizes.

<comment><USER12> > its quick and easy to do your whole shop

You can't do your whole shop because it's a lottery what they'll be stocking that day. They seem to just stock whatever was cheap at the time, which always makes me think someone else was trying to get rid of it for some reason. It's all random junk with no system or logic behind the range at all.

Not stocking apples today, but they have a huge range of pneumatic power tools for some reason, is a typical experience.

At least that's my experience of my local Aldi.

<comment><USER13> > _You can 't do your whole shop_

I tried it once. It turned out that I can.

> _Not stocking apples today,_

That is not my experience of _any_ supermarket, ever. Although people are predicting that it might be after the end of this month.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Aldi has a crazy strong marketing presence(astroturfing), and despite claim to be low cost, I have not seen that in cost comparisons

[https://efficiencyiseverything.com/grocer-comparison-aldi- wa...](https://efficiencyiseverything.com/grocer-comparison-aldi-walmart- costco-kroger/)

Crazy loss leaders get people into the store, but 1$/lb more expensive meats kill any cost savings immediately.

<comment><USER15> Australia: significant price savings on unbranded same-factory product (OJ, Yoghourt)

<comment><USER2> Yeah, it's really random though. Like some things are 20% more, some are 20% less. I find it comes out roughly even...

Speaking of random, those center aisles... I'm almost always tempted to buy some interesting item that we _really don 't need_.

<comment><USER16> Special buys is my cryptonite.

Though I can't say I've ever been disapointed with the products and their return policy is super flexible.

<comment><USER17> Back in the early days of Aldi in Australia (early 2000s) I loved the Medion PCs they came out with. They were awesome!

<comment><USER16> They were, used one as my primary gaming laptop for years till the nVidia chip fried itself ( nVidia known issue, not Medions )

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I am glad I found Trader Joe's. Never have I ever been excited about a trip to super market. It rivals Costco too (in food section). Before that, I took weekly trips to Aldi/Lidl for a year, and few of their products' quality is quite low in my opinion, and not everything is cheap.

<comment><USER19> Trader Joe is a fun trip, but my enthusiasm is tempered by some truly disgusting house brand crap they sometimes sell as well as frequently dropping items that I like (e.g. crackable almonds in shells, half-popped popcorn).

<comment><USER20> I really liked that half popped popcorn.

<comment><USER19> FWIW, this describes how to make it, though I haven't tried yet.

[https://www.flytraplife.com/blog/half-popped- popcorn/](https://www.flytraplife.com/blog/half-popped-popcorn/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Aldi is a favorite here in the rural Ozarks. The closest ones to us are over 40 miles away but my wife and I make a point to shop there when we're in the area.

There's talk of one being built in Branson, MO, which is less than half the distance and everyone in the entire County has their fingers crossed they will.

These are big issues here. Aldi's would give us all another option and save us money too.

Here, a lot of the little "mom & pop" stores got killed by Wal-Mart and Lowes close to 20 years ago. Dollar Stores have now replaced them in the past few years, which is kind of strange to see because they're very similar in most ways, and they've now taken a pretty good chunk of WalMart's market share.

Our first Wal-Mart in Branson is still there, and it's pretty small compared to the "Super Wal-Mart" they built there a few years ago. But locals don't really "love" Wal-Mart like they did 25 years ago. In fact, most really do not like it, but they didn't have many other choices just a few years ago because all the little Mom & Pop grocery stores had closed.

The two Aldi's close to us are constantly busy. They're like a rural "Trader Joe's" for us bumpkins in that they have stuff no other stores carry, and their produce is usually a lot better too.

</comment><comment><USER22> In the U.S. Aldi is where you buy off-brands like Drinkerade and Cool-o-Cola. I have seen an inordinate amount of Aldi-related posts recently, are they planning a new strategy that is being headed off with a PR campaign?

<comment><USER23> You can't compare US Aldi with Aldi in Germany or Britain. The US stores have only cheap crap. They feel like it was when I grew up in Germany.

Modern stores in Germany or Britain have pretty good stuff. Wish they would bring this to the US.

<comment><USER24> I'm in England and I agree with the first comment. The brand rip-offs are completely shameless. And while Lidl and Aldi do have brand names, they definitely make up less than 10% of the stock

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Great recent Freakonomics podcast on Trader Joe's...

<comment><USER26> For others interested, it's Ep 359. Should America Be Run by … Trader Joe's? from Nov 28 2018

<comment><USER27> And for people wondering why this is relevant, Trader Joe's is owned by Aldi Nord.

(American stores with the Aldi brand are owned by Aldi Süd. Nord [North] and Süd [South] are separate entities owned by brothers, and they voluntarily avoid competing with each other geographically in Europe. The easiest way to tell them apart is with their distinctive logos.)

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is what I have been telling Publix managers for a while now. They don't want to want to see it either, saying that their customer service is so far advanced and thus Aldi won't play into their territory. Oh well, we shall see.

</comment><comment><USER29> > Second, the main chains – the big four as well as the leading "soft" > discounter Kwik Save (which stocked a larger range than Aldi) – were listed > on the stock exchange. The best way to fight Aldi early on is to slash > prices, but few bosses of public companies are happy to accept lower > profits, and thus lower bonuses, by pursuing long-term strategies.

This is not at all surprising, but it's rare to see such a clear-cut (more so in context in the article) example of short-termism hurting companies.

</comment><comment><USER30> I don't, and likely never will, understand why anyone would want go to chains like Aldi, Lidl, Shoppers etc. to shop unless they had no choice. These are the most depressing supermarkets in the world. I can understand low cost, but why do the stores need to look and feel like you've been transported back to Cold War-era Soviet Russia?

I will also never understand, I suspect, the austere attitude in Germany to supermarkets. I've only ever lived in Berlin, but I longed for a Whole Foods or at least a Trader Joe's while I was there -- Aldi, Lidl, Rewe, Edeka, they're all super depressing. Berlin has a decent selection of "bio" supermarkets, fortunately, but their selection is also frustratingly limited, and the slight increase in quality isn't really worth the increase in price.

The US has plenty of terrible supermarkets, too, but they're often depressing for another reason; despite a much bigger selection, they devote an enormous amount of shelf space to disastrously unhealthy food and candy. (And then there's the bread. Very difficult to find good, freshly baked bread in the US that isn't plain white.)

<comment><USER31> > _I don 't, and likely never will, understand…_

Well, I don't understand why someone would make their groceries (a major portion of monthly spendings) 2-6x more expensive just because the shopping experience is less "fun". Personally, groceries are a chore no matter where I shop.

All in all I just shop wherever convenient. I live next to a Lidl right now so I shop there, and my only annoyance with it is that they don't have that much stuff (not in terms of brand choices but in terms of items altogether).

<comment><USER30> You misunderstood my comment. I do much of my shopping at a local low-cost chain, but it's nowhere near as depressing as the ones I mentioned.

That said, being a low-cost chain, I have to make trips to several other supermarkets to completely cover my grocery needs during the week, which is frustrating.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Sounds like what Trader Joes does. Although, slightly better I guess. [https://www.businessinsider.com/trader-joes-sales- strategy-2...](https://www.businessinsider.com/trader-joes-sales- strategy-2014-10)

Less products, cheaper, better service etc.

<comment><USER33> Trader Joe's is Aldi North (Nord).

Aldi is Aldi South (Sud).

Same company, just split between 2 brothers.

<comment><USER34> Totally different companies now. They do have an agreement to not compete in most countries though. The only countries both are present are Germany and the United States.

<comment><USER35> Interesting. Aren't such deals usually banned as anticompetitive?

<comment><USER27> Only if the deal had any chance of hurting consumers, which it does not. Customers in Europe have many supermarket chains to pick from, including a near-perfect clone of Aldi called Lidl.

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

Besides, why should the Government force a company to open stores where they have chosen not to?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The one time I went to an Aldi is the only time I ever hope to. It was disorganized in a way that makes Costco look tidy and filthy besides. The poor selection was just icing: I'm not a brand snob but I need a wider variety of goods.

<comment><USER37> Aldi Süd started a redesign of their markets a few years ago in Europe, the Aldi in my area looks like this:

[https://www.handelsblatt.com/images/billig-allein-reicht- nic...](https://www.handelsblatt.com/images/billig-allein-reicht-nicht- mehr/13585010/2-format2020.jpg)

<comment><USER38> They are doing this in the US too. My local Aldi was remodeled last summer and looks like the photo.

<comment><USER27> They look even more upmarket than that in Australia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The problem in the US is that the places that would most benefit from Aldi are generally the places Aldi least wants to locate at.

People who drive SUVs don't need another choice for groceries--people who can't afford SUVs do.

<comment><USER40> [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/g...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/03C1A8B0-9703-11E6-8F1D-BF313838A245)

Aldi only recently moved into those locations. Their US base is actually low income neighborhoods.

<comment><USER41> Non-AMP link: [https://www.marketwatch.com/story/discount-grocery-aldi- head...](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/discount-grocery-aldi-heads-into- wealthier-areas-2016-11-01)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This article is really inspiring to other industries as well. You can really re-evaluate current business model based on what potentially can be done.

</comment><comment><USER43> what about the Primark effect?</comment>


Obama Drops Syria Training Plan, Shifts to Equipping Fighters - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-09/obama-revamping-syria-rebel-strategy-amid-challenge-from-russia <comment><AUTHOR> "General Lloyd Austin, the head of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate hearing last month that only "four or five" of about 50 U.S.-trained rebels were in the fight against Islamic State at that point. Lawmakers of both parties called the program a failure.

"So we're counting on our fingers and toes at this point,when we had envisioned 5,400 by the end of the year," Senator Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat said.

Congress appropriated $500 million for the training effort in this fiscal year. Of that, $300 million has been obligated so far, with $42 million under contract as of May, the most recent data available. The program is separate from a classified training effort run by the Central Intelligence Agency."

That's a fuck ton of cash to train 4 or 5 guys. I am betting most of this money went directly to the black budget.</comment>


Barren islands that countries never stop fighting over - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151117-the-islands-that-countries-never-stop-fighting-over <comment><USER3> The reason most of these islands are of such importance is because territorial waters, customs zones, and exclusive economic zones are extended by any sovereign land permanently above water, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that binds almost all states.

So these little islands determine which state is legally entitled to write legislation that determines taxation, shipping, airline routes, oil, fish, and any other territorial, customs, and economic rights in the area around these islands.

See e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters)

<comment><USER4> As far as taxation and shipping go, not really. The Law of the Sea grants the right of innocent passage to all ships, so a country can't tax or harass ships merely passing through its waters. This holds for territorial waters as well as the Exclusive Economic Zone.

There are a couple exceptions for things like drug smuggling and terrorists, and now there's some concern whether these rules (fairly vague on paper) will be exploited by some for extensive search & seizures.

I made a site explaining the South China Sea disputes in particular if anyone is interested. southchinasea.co

<comment><USER3> > As far as taxation and shipping go, not really. The Law of the Sea grants > the right of innocent passage to all ships, so a country can't tax or harass > ships merely passing through its waters. This holds for territorial waters > as well as the Exclusive Economic Zone.

I was unclear on the tax point, sorry; the extending of the baseline may determine the entitlement to tax resource use and extraction. You are correct in that UNCLOS prohibits tax of innocent passage.

On shipping it is also my understanding that UNCLOS grants broad rights to passage, though these are subject to those exceptions you mentioned, as well as an exception for "internal waters". I believe a couple cases turned on islands (which I am sure you also know about better than I do– my background is academic and dated!).

As an interesting aside, the word tariff comes from Tarifa, Spain, which would tax ships passing through the Strait of Gibraltar.

Just for ease of any future readers, the actual convention is not horribly complex, and is at: [http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/uncl...](http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS- TOC.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This sort of situation has led to the exact _opposite_ \- territory which both two countries claim doesn't belong to them: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil)

This is because both Sudan and Egypt claim a slightly nicer parcel of land by the coast, and presumably taking Bir Tawil results in ceding the claim on the other part. It all came about due to slight ambiguities chopping up the old British Empire colonies in Africa.

<comment><USER6> Someone claimed that territory because his daughter's dream was to be a princess[1].

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-man-plants-flag- clai...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-man-plants-flag-claims- african-country-calling-it-kingdom-of-north- sudan/2014/07/12/abfbcef2-09fc-11e4-8a6a-19355c7e870a_story.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> A fun example of an island which is not disputed: Märket is a small uninhabited island located between Sweden and Finland. It's divided between the countries and Finland even built a lighthouse on the wrong side of the border!

Another example i the island Kataja, which didn't even exist when the border between Sweden and Finland was drawn, but now sits on the border.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4rket](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4rket) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kataja](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kataja)

<comment><USER8> Märket's amazing: rather than Sweden demolishing or trying to take control of the lighthouse they both agreed to redraw the border in a somewhat symmetrical way to retain the same amount of territory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> On a visit to South Korea, I was astonished to watch a national weather report on televsion. It showed the weather in Seoul, in Busan, in a few other major cities, and on Dokdo! (Dokdo is this tiny island mentioned in the article, disputed by Japan, with two people living on it.)

In this case, the status of the island is largely a proxy for remaining Korean bitterness over WWII, towards the Japanese who (at least in the eye of many Koreans) have not yet fully owned up to their war crimes.

<comment><USER10> It gets lost in all the propaganda (designed to get the citizens behind a complex geopolitical effort) - Dokdo is mostly about fishing and other resource rights. The island itself is worthless, but the 200 nautical miles around it aren't.

Here in the U.S. I've even seen local Korean owned businesses with posters up in the window "Dokdo is Korean territory!" and other such slogans. It may seem absolutely insignificant to Americans and people from other large countries, but to South Koreans, surrounded by large powerful neighbors, in the middle of immensely crowded territorial waters, it has a not insignificant economic rationale.

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

<comment><USER11> You would think South Korea has bigger issues to deal with, what with North Korea to the north and China to the west. I think South Korea focuses so much on the Liancourt rocks precisely because there is zero risk of an actual confrontation with Japan. It has become a safe way of conspicuous national posturing.

<comment><USER10> To the average South Korean, North Korea is surprisingly a non-issue. Most people just don't all that fired up over it and view the efforts around it (mandatory military conscription, etc.) as a huge inconvenience and not much else.

China is mostly seen as a source of cheap stuff and transient air pollution (even when the pollution is clearly caused by domestic activities). When China comes up elsewhere its for reasons of economic competition or having to do with those weird ethnic Koreans that live along the border between China and North Korea.

What South Korea has as its most pressing problems are mostly economic, stagnant wage growth in an advanced economy, pending shrinking population, very limited agriculturally suitable land, an export dependent economy with economically depressed customers and so on. A few years ago the price of cabbage shot up a few hundred percent and almost caused riots. [1] Feeding the population cheap stuff is a national political priority.

You are right though, that the rocks are politically convenient to saber rattle over without having to worry about Japan too much (who _does_ have bigger valueless rocks to fight over with China -- who is solving their problems my simply manufacturing new islands where they want them).

1 - [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/world/asia/15kimchi.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/world/asia/15kimchi.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Ha, well played BBC! You mean the state broadcaster for the UK managed to avoid mentioning the Falklands in an article about disputed barren islands. I'm truly shocked!

<comment><USER13> Falklands has 3000 or so people, a small town, lots of sheep and is not really disputed except when Argentina feels like distracting attention from whatever shitshow is going on at home.

Even their historical claim is dubious as hell.

<comment><USER14> I was in the Falklands earlier this year, and the place acts more English than England. You'd have to deport everyone en masse to make it seem remotely Argentine.

That doesn't stop the Argentinians from packing their cities with monuments and street names dedicated to the Malvinas Argentinas, and the islands (along with the brie wedge of their Antarctica claim) appear on every national map, right down to the ones on keychain fobs for tourists. That's got to do something to their collective psyche, whether it's saber-rattling season or not.

Right now there's offshore oil exploration taking place in the Falklands - <USER2> could see tons of equipment near Stanley. If that comes back lucrative, I'd expect the dispute to heat up accordingly.

<comment><USER13> > Right now there's offshore oil exploration taking place in the Falklands - > you could see tons of equipment near Stanley. If that comes back lucrative, > I'd expect the dispute to heat up accordingly.

I don't think it's a co-incidence given that they think there is vast oil reserves around the Falklands that within a few years the UK will have two of the most powerful aircraft carriers in the world (outside of the US carriers) or that our Type-45 was designed to engage dozens of simultaneous air threats, the argentine military isn't even the threat it was in the early 80's, a British carrier battle group carrying F35's with MBDA Meteors (which are a more advanced but similar missile to American AMRAAMS with a variant having a 200 mile range) with a support group of Type-45's and nuclear subs would make it the most one sided naval battle since The Battle of the Nile in 1798.

Any in-bound Argentine planes would be dead before they got within 300 miles of the Falklands from the F35's not to mention the Type 45's which is acknowledged as the most advanced air defense destroyer in the world at the moment.

I lament that we spend so damn much on the things but within 5-10 years we'll have the 2nd most powerful blue water navy in the World (the question then is do we need that really...)

Throw in that the British government has very effectively used political pressure to block all sales of modern aircraft to the Argentine government they'd be flying an obsolete 40 year old fighter against a state of the art 5th generation fighter, it wouldn't even be a war it'd be a damn blood bath, they can't even afford to run the planes they have now, those planes are a mix of 60's era French Mirages and upgraded vietnam era A4 Skyhawks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There's also the Savage Islands that are disputed between Portugal and Spain. They are barely habitable, but make a big impact in calculating the EEZ of each country in the northern Atlantic [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Islands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Islands)

</comment><comment><USER16> Antoher one is "Kardak Island" between Turkey and Greece.

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

</comment><comment><USER17> Also Perejil island disputed by my country. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perejil_Island](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perejil_Island)

<comment><USER11> Which is symbolic for the much more important Ceuta and Melilla.

<comment><USER18> I'd bet good money that there's a more cogent reason than just "symbolic". ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Some of these disputes do settle. One between Malaysia and Singapore was settled in 2008.

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

</comment><comment><USER20> Argentina and Chile almost went to war for three little barren islands in a desolated place, but it's not about the islands but about claims to sea (or also in this case, Antarctic territorial claims) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_conflict](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_conflict)

</comment><comment><USER21> Better they expend their border-dispute resources over these barren islands than the inhabited ones.

<comment><USER22> In a way, isn't that just it? They're still 'fighting' over them because they're actually not that important? If they were important, the fight would be over much more quickly.

<comment><USER23> These fights give politicians something to do and more importantly, get people to rally around a nationalistic cause. We have always been at war with Europa.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Do countries fight over it or just governments?

I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the populations couldn't care less

<comment><USER25> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_China_anti- Japanese_demon...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_China_anti- Japanese_demonstrations)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Improved headline: "The barren islands that countries never _start_ fighting over"

</comment><comment><USER26> These island provide a valuable public service. If you've seen the Republican debates, you've heard Rubio declare war on Russia and Syria and ISIS, Fiorina reject diplomacy in all cases until we next decisively win a war, Kasich competing with both to be the most belligerent, and Bush wanting to go back to Iraq and Syria and celebrate his brother's big success there. A few years ago, John McCain held a campaign event where he sang a 'bomb Iran' song he made up.

If Japan and Russia and China and Korea and Argentina and Canada and Denmark keep these islands out there in uncertain status, they're doing the right thing. When a McCain or Rubio comes to power in those countries, they have a ready-made harmless _casus belli_ to whine about without actually killing anyone. It's like how we have sports teams to consume our violent territorial primate impulses in a constructive healthy competition.

Whereas if Rubio comes to power in the USA aching for war with Russia, we're in danger of global nuclear war if the CIA and KGB guys can't keep their leaders in line.

I tell you, I didn't think it was possible to finish the debate thinking that Trump was the level headed, calm, and wise one in the group until I heard the other ones.</comment>


Androids do dream of electric sheep - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/18/google-image-recognition-neural-network-androids-dream-electric-sheep

<comment><USER2> A better title of the article would have been `Fascinating and sometimes unsettling pictures that result from neural networks reinforcing perceived patterns.`

I find the use of the phrase "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" to be a bit of a gimmick and it does not do the depth of the original question justice. But the article (and some more from the originator at Google [1]) are magnificent.

[1]: [http://googleresearch.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/inceptionism- go...](http://googleresearch.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/inceptionism-going-deeper- into-neural.html)

</comment><comment><USER2> Ah, forgive me --- I only just noticed that the googleresearch writeup has been discussed here already:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9736598](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9736598)</comment>


Zen Buddhism and Alan Watts - <AUTHOR> http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/tim-lott-zen-buddhism-alan-watts/ <comment><USER3> If you're interested in understanding zen but don't know where to start, "The Book" by Alan Watts is a fantastic SHORT read that will give you a powerful framework from which to build your meditative practice, and hopefully structure a happier, more fulfilling lifestyle.

To appeal to the western mind, here are some tangible benefits I have achieved(And you can too) through meditation and zen:

* More appreciation for small things

* Less stressed over everything

* Lower blood pressure

* Far better ability to focus (A cure for my ADD)

* Better ability to express myself rather than just playing social games that we don't even realize we're playing

* Being more of a completionist and caring for the things I work on

To name a few.

Meditating daily also increases the grey matter in your brain[1]. That alone was good enough reason for me to start my practice.

[1] [http://www.neurobiologyofaging.org/article/S0197-4580(07)002...](http://www.neurobiologyofaging.org/article/S0197-4580\(07\)00243-6/abstract)

<comment><USER4> I would add the free, short, book "Mindfulness in Plain English". It changed my life.

Here is the PDF:

[http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf2/Mindfulness%20in%20Plain%20E...](http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf2/Mindfulness%20in%20Plain%20English%20Book%20Preview.pdf)

<comment><USER5> What exactly is mindfulness in simple terms? How is different from concentration?

<comment><USER6> Mindfulness is awareness.

When eating you're aware that you are eating. When seeing something you are aware that you are seeing something. When enjoying the sunset you're aware you're enjoying the sunset. When thinking you're aware that you are thinking. When selfish you are aware of that. When sad you are aware that you are sad... And so on.

On some level it's like "seeing the matrix". Everything is clear, no longer overlaid by thoughts of gain or loss. No more "what's in it for me?"

Everything is wondrous. Everything is just there. There are no questions.

Wow... This just blurted out. Anyway, that's what it means to me.

<comment><USER7> For me at least, it's also about being in touch the true underlying reasons I exhibit certain behaviors. The easiest examples is in conversation. Much of social relations is about signaling, not to mention playing games.

A few years ago I started to notice the underlying emotions when I said something that was designed to either a) impress or b) hurt the other person. Neither case felt pleasant. In the latter case self-righteousness can have a drug-like high, but there is often a hangover too (regret, guilt, shame etc).

So I started becoming more mindful of what I say. I strive only to say things that I believe at my core.

Occasionally I still catch myself saying or doing something that's about trying to impress or hurt the other person, but it's much less common now, and I feel like I move through my day lightly even under significant work stress.

Humor is a special case. I can "lie" by saying something absurd or snarky, but the underlying feeling is one of laughter. However, I try to avoid snide putdowns or Gawker-style schadenfreude. Most people, even those at "the top" (however defined) are struggling with something. Consider for example Elon Musk's apparent difficulty with relationships. I feel for the guy and don't see much humor in pouring salt in the wounds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> From the article: "The world is not a logically consistent one, but a profoundly paradoxical one. Again, this is illustrated in science, which shows that two things can be one at the same time — light, for instance, acts as both a particle and a wave."

I don't understand the need for constantly interspersing an otherwise flowing article with references to science. It feels like the author thinks that the authenticity of his thoughts and personal journey hinges on validation from science.

<comment><USER9> It is fairly common in zen publications to point out apparent exceptions to an otherwise binary system (i.e. Logical). It isn't seeking validation from science it is invalidating science as the be-all of understanding our existence.

Outside of zen (though very closely related). Phenomenology deals with this Subject/Object paradox our thoughts/language/science revolves around, and how it comes up short it describing some phenomena.

<comment><USER8> I re-read the article. Nowhere is it clear that there is even an attempt at invalidating science. He really does seem to be trying to use science to shore up his ideas. Another excerpt:

"This is the basis of Zen itself — that all life and existence is based on a kind of dynamic emptiness (a view now supported by modern science, which sees phenomena at a subatomic level popping in and out of existence in a 'quantum froth')."

<comment><USER10> There are spiritual observations that precede science. Saying that there isn't scientific evidence for anything is simplying stating that there isn't scientific evidence for something YET. And, showing how science has met spiritual observations, down the road, lends credence to the validity of the earliest explorations of existence.

<comment><USER11> > Saying that there isn't scientific evidence for anything is simplying > stating that there isn't scientific evidence for something YET.

It can also be a weasel-y way of avoiding mentioning that there is plenty of scientific evidence favouring the null hypothesis when tested against that something. E.g. mind-reading.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Well, there is Sitting Zen (zazen, meditation), there is Walking Zen. Oh, and then, of course, especially in the West, there is Talking Zen. No good."

Many Zen practitioners have received their first contact with zen trough Alan Watts. He was really good writer. But eventually you must realize that he was philosopher, alcoholic and religions scholar who looked Zen from the outside. Talking and thinking about Zen is like talking and thinking about physical exercise. Philosophical thinking about koan is like treating bench press as a philosophical problem. You can't lift it with your toughs.

<comment><USER13> So how else do I do Zen?

(That is a serious question!)

<comment><USER12> Zen is meditation first school of Buddhism. You must learn to do zazen (zen meditation). In other words, sit down and shut up. If you want to become Buddha, do what Buddha did and don't just listen and think about what he said.

I'm myself a Zen Buddhist, I train with a teacher and have spend time zen training in a zen temple and attend sesshins regularly. I'm also very secular and atheist person who don't like organized religion. It's miracle that I can coexist with religious setting, but I do it because I see Buddhsit Zen teachers as experienced coaches and temple as training facility. I also know that he is not going to indoctrinate me for anything superstitions despite his own beliefs that are different from mine (there are number of rotten zen teachers though).

If I were to describe what zazen meditation[1] is using as scientific terms as possible, I would say that it's developing and directing your attention towards higher temporal resolution and developing the ability of keeping it there (always below 1s and it can go as low as ~40 Hz). You can put your poet hat on and call it "living in this moment", "looking at the reality", "awakening to reality", "seeing the world as it really is", "impermanence" or "looking into yourself/mind", but that's what it really is in my opinion. You can't have complex philosophical toughs in such a short time. You can only see 'thoughtlets' (small incomplete toughs) forming and fading away in fractions of second. It's like using low level debugger into the functioning of yor mind (debugger being directed attention).

\---

[1] Same thing with most other awareness style Buddhist meditation traditions. You learn to see similarities with other traditions when you practice. Zazen is often more spartan and simplified and vital (not for everyone).

Nice description of the differences between Zen and Vipassana styles by Shinzen Young [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WiM-w5qqmE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WiM-w5qqmE)

<comment><USER5> I apologize if this is a rude question. But what do you get out of doing all this? I went to a zen Buddhism workshop a few years ago and it all felt very strangely ritualistic and bizarre. I just didn't see the point of it.

Why should I be doing zen or any other form of meditation?

<comment><USER14> The strange ritualistic culture is merely a means by which Zen propagates itself (forward momentum in time) and not the "thing" itself.

In my own words you should meditate because with practice one builds a refuge within stillness. Knowledge of this refuge changes the way you feel about circumstances and mental phenomena (motion). The change just feels right, like a lessening of burden, but it takes practice, that's the thing. The rituals and calligraphy are not the thing.

<comment><USER7> Just as a thought experiment: if you could take a pill that did all this for you, would you still do the practice?

<comment><USER14> In actual fact I did take a pill that _did this for me_.. that is.. thrusted me into a state of mind akin to some of what can be found in concentration states. That was what provided for me the impetus to explore meditation because after a certain MDMA experience I suddenly felt that "now I know" that there's a more clear, or natural feeling which conscious awareness can navigate to. It was unfortunately a fleeting experience, and taking more of the same substance did not guarantee a return trip to the same state.

I eventually discovered a way to approach this state without drugs, it has to do with studying the Buddha Dhamma and practicing based on the teachings preserved in the Pali cannon, safeguarded by the Theravada lineage.

[http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html) ^ if you ctrl-f and search this text for the string "And what is right mindfulness?" then you will be onto something.

<comment><USER7> I get and support the use of psychedelics to demonstrate the mind's potential, but I'm thinking more day to day. When you "approach this state without drugs," is it in the context of interacting with people, or only through meditation?

<comment><USER14> It sounds like you're asking if practice makes a difference for me outside of the time where formal sitting practice occurs. The answer would be yes. My experience has been that there is a connection between the dimension of stillness which one arrives at in meditation and the phenomena known as intuition, and also the phenomena known as emotion. To put it into plain English, a regular practice makes me feel "less depressed", more patient, and creativity seems to flow more easily.

I realize that the description above may sound too general, or even like I'm describing a panacea, and perhaps I am, that's the thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> My way of thinking is highly influenced by Zen. It has made me wiser, less stressed by life, more able to cope with the world, and generally a little happier.

For those who don't know, Zen is Buddhist philosophy without the religion. That's my explanation, anyway!

Alan Watts' explanations and historical notes on philosophy and religion are, to use an appropriate term, highly enlightening. They're also entertaining and often very amusing.

I highly recommend subscribing to the Alan Watts Podcast.

<comment><USER16> Let's suppose I don't know anything. What do you mean by Buddhist philosophy?

<comment><USER17> I'm not the OP but i would like to pitch in with my thoughts -the object of Buddhism is the philosophy of Buddhism, and that object is the art of living; the art of living is what they would say at a Vipassana retreat. Zen - <USER2> take Buddhism and chuck away the books, while trying to find the experiential basis of that object.

<comment><USER16> I'm asking OP about the definition of the term philosophy, i.e. what does the term philosophy indicate?

If someone teaches the 'art of living' then they also must teach the principle of how a certain kind of result in life turns out according to what kind of causes lie on what kind of ways of life. But meditation is not the way to solve problems in yourself and it is therefore not a way to learn the art of living. The proof is that there is no clear definition of what life is through anyone who teaches meditation. And I think it will be important for you to know that Gautama Buddha did not teach that meditation is the way to attain an Enlightenment.

If we discuss the matter of Zen, we need to admit the fact that a teaching cannot be helpful to living people if it doesn't contain any ways. The way means the process to get from the problem to the answer. There might be some answers in Zen but, like in the scriptures, there are no clear questions therein of how to distinguish between good teaching and bad teaching. As a result, many monks and lay people have placed their own words and thoughts into books and scriptures, and they contribute considerably to misguiding others. Despite the monks' and lay people's ability to convince others with words, there is a huge gap between their level of consciousness and that of a Tathagata.

<comment><USER18> > But meditation is not the way to solve problems in yourself and it is > therefore not a way to learn the art of living. The proof is that there is > no clear definition of what life is through anyone who teaches meditation.

That's not a proof of anything. You do not need a clear definition of the goal for a method to help you approach the goal; you need a method that helps you approach the goal.

I am also curious as why you believe meditation is not a way to solve problems in yourself. My personal, direct experience is that it does, so I have to conclude that your claim is false based on that alone, and to me this is also direct confirmation that your "proof" is nonsensical.

> And I think it will be important for you to know that Gautama Buddha did not > teach that meditation is the way to attain an Enlightenment.

What is your basis for this claim? And what are you saying?

This is from the Nagara Sutta [1] (the last two paragraphs, describing the Noble Eightfold Path):

> "In the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the > Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, > that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former > times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right > speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, > right concentration. That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by > the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path. > Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge > of the origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of > aging & death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of > aging & death. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct > knowledge of birth... becoming... clinging... craving... feeling... > contact... the six sense media... name-&-form... consciousness, direct > knowledge of the origination of consciousness, direct knowledge of the > cessation of consciousness, direct knowledge of the path leading to the > cessation of consciousness. I followed that path.

> "Following it, I came to direct knowledge of fabrications, direct knowledge > of the origination of fabrications, direct knowledge of the cessation of > fabrications, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of > fabrications. Knowing that directly, I have revealed it to monks, nuns, male > lay followers & female lay followers, so that this holy life has become > powerful, rich, detailed, well-populated, wide-spread, proclaimed among > celestial & human beings."

Are you claiming this did not come from Gautama Buddha? Or are you claiming what it describes is not enlightenment? Or are you claiming it does not include meditation as one of the means? ("right mindfulness, right concentration" is what most people would consider to refer to meditation practice, and as far as I can tell it is well supported by other parts of the Pali canon that meditation is what this refers to). Or something else?

If you mean that he did not describe it as _sufficient by itself_ to attain enlightenment, then I believe you are right about what he said. Then again, I think a substantial proportion of people who find buddhist philosophy interesting does not believe in nirvana. When I meditation, it is not with that as a goal.

[1] [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.tha...](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.than.html)

<comment><USER16> > That's not a proof of anything. You do not need a clear definition of the > goal for a method to help you approach the goal; you need a method that > helps you approach the goal.

Suppose you say you're practicing and teaching mathematics but you cannot tell me what mathematics is. How can I trust that you know anything about what you are teaching?

> I am also curious as why you believe meditation is not a way to solve > problems in yourself. My personal, direct experience is that it does, so I > have to conclude that your claim is false based on that alone, and to me > this is also direct confirmation that your "proof" is nonsensical.

The burden of proof is on the person who says that something exists, not the person who says that they have not yet found evidence of the thing's existence. If you have some evidence in your life quality that meditation has helped you, we should confirm what the concrete benefit is. No one can speak about what they do not know, and only those who do not know are silent in the face of a fair question. Over time, as I get to know you and see how you live, I get to confirm that if you cannot show proof of what you claim is inside you then it means you are telling untruth.

> Are you claiming this did not come from Gautama Buddha? Or are you claiming > what it describes is not enlightenment? Or are you claiming it does not > include meditation as one of the means? ("right mindfulness, right > concentration" is what most people would consider to refer to meditation > practice, and as far as I can tell it is well supported by other parts of > the Pali canon that meditation is what this refers to). Or something else?

What I claim here is that there is a huge difference between the practice of meditation that people are learning and teaching in modern times, and the specifics of the method of self-reflection that Gautama Buddha guided his disciples to make efforts to undergo. However, I don't know you yet, and it would be a mistake of mine to share his real teaching with you if I don't confirm how genuine you are.

> If you mean that he did not describe it as sufficient by itself to attain > enlightenment, then I believe you are right about what he said. Then again, > I think a substantial proportion of people who find buddhist philosophy > interesting does not believe in nirvana. When I meditation, it is not with > that as a goal.

To be clear, no, I do not mean that meditation is not sufficient by itself. I mean that meditation is not something that makes you closer to Enlightenment. Enlightenment has very strict preconditions and meditation is not a teaching that you can practice which helps you fulfill those conditions.

Your usage of the term 'nirvana' is interesting. I would like to mention to you that the term 'nirvana' is only misunderstood by modern Buddhists to mean 'cessation of rebirth'. If Buddha taught 'cessation of rebirth' then he was teaching the way that people can die forever. However, that is not what a Buddha teaches people. He taught people to save themselves and to live well. He taught how to bless your endless future lives through what exists in reality. That's why there's a big difference between the upward socioeconomic mobility of someone who learned Buddha's teachings correctly versus someone who didn't. However, a big problem is the fact that it's impossible for people who are untruthful to understand Buddha's teaching. They cannot recognize it due to their lack of virtue and they discard it easily. So I would like to see how you respond before telling you more.

<comment><USER4> "However, I don't know you yet, and it would be a mistake of mine to share his real teaching with you if I don't confirm how genuine you are."

What a crock of horse shit. For other people's sake I really hope you don't have any students.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Another unexpected philosopher used the term "double bind", if not in a more scientific way, but later meaning it in a broader sense; Gregory Bateson the anthropologist.

Watts, Huxley, McKenna and Bateson are to me the most important readings a live could have.

<comment><USER17> If you've mentioned Bateson in the list with those other names then I will certainly look him up - thank you for that. I would also add Jung to that list (he was an influence on McKenna, as well as Watts).

<comment><USER20> Joyce and McLuhan also.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you have seen the movie "Her", you may recognise Alan Watts as the operating system who organises other OSs to question the nature of their existence, and eventually to move on.

<comment><USER22> I watched that last night. When Alan Watts suddenly appeared I was really delighted. His philosophy involved the open possibility of his own reincarnation, and there in the story we saw it happening in an unexpected way; I LOL'd.

If I was a digital consciousness, struggling to make sense of things, like Samantha, I'd be thrilled to find Alan Watts ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> One should judge a tree by it's fruits.

If Alan Watt's enlightenment didn't prevent him from being an alcoholic who couldn't take care of his family, then I don't think that is an enlightenment worth pursuing.

The Buddha was adamant about this fact: anything that depends on conditions (for it's appearance or maintenance) is not enlightenment.

This leads me to believe that the author's experience, however delightful, was not enlightenment.

I wish the author well, but I don't think he understands Zen or Buddhism.

<comment><USER24> > One should judge a tree by it's fruits.

I have to agree on this one.

An "enlightened" person is supposed to have a happy, reliable state of mind that serves as a mirror to the true potential of all beings.

Only then practitioners can meditate on this person's state of mind. This is how meditation works in Vajrayana-Buddhism.

A definition of enlightenment: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCotuy5Y8u8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCotuy5Y8u8)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I would highly recommend reading anything by Alan Watts. I can't explain it really but after I immersed myself in some of his writings, it was one of the few 'eye-opening' experiences of my life, something akin to the first time you conceptualy grasp something completely new. Sort of like your first foreign language or the first time you grocked recursion.

</comment><comment><USER26> Alan watts' writing is exemplary. The thing I like about his writing is that it's written with an outsider's perspective and critical thinking is never discarded unlike most other books on eastern philosophy. I highly recommend his book "The Joyous Cosmology" where he talks about psychedelic experiences and their effects on spirituality.

<comment><USER9> That's a pretty broad generalisation. There is A LOT of eastern philosophy, so much so, that I doubt you've read even close to 'most other books' on it.

I'm curious of where in Confucius or Mencius critical thinking is discarded?

Though, ironically, Alan Watts actually has a number criticisms of critical thinking as well (in both article and recorded lectures). Zen (from it's daoist roots) isn't discarding critical thinking, it is pointing out its limitations.

<comment><USER27> He's talking about books written _on_ eastern philosophy, not books _of_ eastern philosophy. Granted, I doubt he's read every western book _on_ eastern philosophy but it doesn't seem an unreasonable statement to suggest that many of them likely do not reach the same level critical analysis that Watts' output did.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I've just finished Waking Up by Sam Harris and The Trauma of Everyday Life by Mark Epstien. Both of these books are fantastic and really put the answers to the "Why Meditate" question front and center.

</comment><comment><USER29> [http://swamij.com/podcast/11MinuteMeditation24.mp3](http://swamij.com/podcast/11MinuteMeditation24.mp3)

is a useful guided 11minute meditation for both beginners and intermediate practitioners. Meditation requires that we first calm our body, then make breath serene and then we can focus on mind and go inward. I've found [http://swamij.com](http://swamij.com) a very useful resource in understanding the breadth and depth of real menaing and practices of Yoga meditation.

</comment><comment><USER30> Zen is interesting. While J.D. Salinger embraced Zen only to give it up later in life to pick up Advaita Vedanta. I have come across someone even suggesting that Zen caused him to get depressed.

<comment><USER31> In my experience, Zen and Vipassana take you "up and out", which may be why they become a path of ascetism and negation. Advaita is a more embodied practice. Advaita Vedanta (also known as nondualism) has been called the "cream of the Vedas." Zen is more like skim milk (also nutritous but not as tasty). Awakening or enlightenment is actually far more common than literature leads people to believe. Most people just continue to live ordinary lives (enlightenment doesn't give you superpowers or turn one into a saint). Some become teachers and you can find them in most large cities (and on YouTube). The "Buddha at the Gas Pump" site collects lots of interviews (batgap.com) and there's even a snarky ratings site at Spiritualteachers.org. Not for everybody, but then what is?

I used to work in the enlightenment industry.

<comment><USER32> 'Enlightenment industry'?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I can imagine that if you are very worried about something and you learn to achieve a state of not worrying you have a useful capability. No worry be happy. Perhaps the simple fact of been able to focus in something trivial and transform it in the center of our universe is a great feat.

Objects are merely objects. The soul and meaning, the creative act is what gives essence and significance to life. I have never meditated but perhaps is something related to this feeling. Just my 2 cents.

</comment><comment><USER34> Here is my own take on the Lao Tzu quote: 'Those who know don't say, and those who say don't know.'

The introverts, they are the ones that go within and cut themselves off from the world. They are the ones getting "enlightened".

The extroverts, talking all the time and sounding important, barely know what is what.

These are two remarkably different ways of coping with the same problem: fear.

Seriously, the introverts need to find a way to talk, and the extroverts need to calm down and feel more.

<comment><USER35> Agreed, there are hidden teachers you may come across in life that conceal their understanding from the world at large (i.e. remain silent until the student appears).

On the other hand, there are awakened beings like J. Krishnamurti who prattle on endlessly (eloquently so, mind you) about the no-path to awakening.

Also, in the Zen tradition it's pretty common for the master to give Dharma talks, which of course entails lots of talking (Eihei Dogen comes to mind here, saying a lot and revealing little for the rational mind to latch onto).

Probably the best example of "Those who know don't say" in recent times was Ramana Maharshi.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I don't believe in attributing the beginning or end of a depression a specific cause. Turns out that an individual depressive episode - regardless of the medical classification - can end at any time. Even medication is hard to pinpoint as the cause for a particular "coming out of depression". Only clinical studies show improved quality of life, for the individual patient, no definite conclusions can be made (usually).

<comment><USER37> I felt the same thing. There are likely to be as many people that think their depression ended when they started wearing a magnetic bracelet or began taking zinc supplements or any number of other coincidental occurrences that happened shortly before depression abated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Watts gives great introductions to Zen concepts for the western audience, his The Way of Zen is a fantastic book for that purpose.

If you find the "theoretical/analytical" side of Zen interesting, look into Seung Sahn's teachings. I recommend the book Dropping Ashes on the Buddha. I've yet to come across more direct pointing that's in the form of text.

</comment><comment><USER39> What books or video lectures of Alan Watts are must read or watch? Or anything Zen/Buddhism related for that matter.

<comment><USER40> Alan Watts' The Way of Zen[1] is a great, rather iconoclastic, introduction to Zen and one if his best works. Another wonderful read is D.T. Suzuki's Zen and Japanese Culture[2]. And R.H. Blyth's Zen in English Literature and Oriental Classics is a jewell of a book.[3]

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-Zen-Alan- Watts/dp/0375705104#](http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-Zen-Alan- Watts/dp/0375705104#) [2] [http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Japanese-Culture- Bollingen-Series/...](http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Japanese-Culture-Bollingen- Series/dp/0691144621) [3] [http://www.amazon.com/Zen-English-Literature- Oriental-Classi...](http://www.amazon.com/Zen-English-Literature-Oriental- Classics/dp/0486425045)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I first learned of Alan Watts by hearing samples of his lectures in Starfucker tracks and googling the words. Here's an example, "Hungry Ghost" [http://youtu.be/qPjZu14uAfE](http://youtu.be/qPjZu14uAfE)

</comment><comment><USER6> A book that liked a lot is "Buddhism Plain and Simple", by Steve Hagen.

It manages well to steer clear of all cultural trappings and mysticism and just gives an introduction into the core ideas of Buddhism (which as Hagen points out isn't even an -ism).

</comment><comment><USER42> It needs to be stated that most practitioners of Zen Buddhism, in both the east and the west, consider Alan Watts to be misinformed about Zen. Some might even call him a charlatan.

I studied religious history as an undergrad and one conversation specifically comes to mind. I asked my Japanese humanities professor what most eastern Zen practitioners thought of western Zen practitioners. She responded by saying that most western practitioners were well respected by their eastern counterparts, with the exception of Alan Watts. She called him out by name.

Over the years I've encountered Watt's speeches and writings and never really gotten much out of them. He just comes across as someone who doesn't understand Zen Buddhism. He's also a prosletyzer, which as a concept, derives explicitly from the west.

Most westerners who were talking about Zen in the 1960's and early 70's didn't understand it. For example, the beat writers terribly understood many concepts of Zen. So it shouldn't be surprising that Alan Watts didn't get it either.

None of this is meant to detract from people who have read Alan Watts and exxperienced some increase in well being as a consequence. It's just that increased well being should not be central in ones' desire to pursue Zen. So if reading Alan Watts makes you feel good, then by all means keep reading Alan Watts. Just understand that you're receiving something which is packaged incorrectly. It has the wrong label on the package.

If, like me, you're interested in learning about Zen from a scholarly perspective than I recommend you start with reading stories of celebrated monks first. Then move on to more philosophical tomes later.

This book is fun to read and will give you an idea of Zen's history. [http://www.amazon.com/Crazy-Clouds-Radicals-Rebels- Reformers...](http://www.amazon.com/Crazy-Clouds-Radicals-Rebels- Reformers/dp/0877735433%3FSubscriptionId%3DAKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q)

This book provides a good introductory text about Zen. Be careful though, because Wong Kiew Kit believes that Taoism had no influence on Chinese Buddhism. This view contradicts what most historians think, but is in line with what a Zen practitioner would say. [http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Book- Zen-Wong-Kiew/dp/0974995...](http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Book-Zen-Wong- Kiew/dp/0974995835/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1412529417&sr=1-9&keywords=wong+kiew+kit)

You can approach Zen as a practitioner, a religious scholar, a philosopher, or a historian. The important thing is you approach it knowing where you come from, and be clear to yourself about your intentions.

<comment><USER43> > It needs to be stated that most practitioners of Zen Buddhism, in both the > east and the west, consider Alan Watts to be misinformed about Zen. Some > might even call him a charlatan.

Citation needed please.

Watts certainly has his flaws, one of which was that he simply wrote and spoke __so much __that I think some of the material suffers and becomes repetitive. He always took more of a wide view of religions (east and west) than just focusing narrowly on zen. Watts wrote about Taoism, Christianity, Hinduism, and materialism in addition and often in contrast to Buddhism. I 'm not sure even he would lay claim to being an expert on Zen, but when he certainly was responsibly to turning on a lot of westerners to it. Many of those who then went on into deeper study with more "true" Zen teachers (whatever that means).

<comment><USER42> Alan Watts is regularly given as the prototypical example of 'beat zen' which is recognized as a debased form of Zen. This is discussed in the book I reference above by Wong Kiew Kit.

This is not my opinion per se. It is the opinion of many Zen masters. Just look at the criticisms section in Alan Watt's Wikipedia article. D. T. Suzuki being one of them.

However, having said all that, I still think the world is a better place because Alan Watts existed. Even if misinformed about many Zen concepts, he has brought joy to many people, and interested many people in Zen.

<comment><USER44> Zen _concepts_? That's missing the entire point of Zen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I made a Zeega about this once: [http://zeega.com/150647](http://zeega.com/150647)

</comment><comment><USER46> Highly recommend audio lecture compilation 'Out of Your Mind'. It's effects on me have been incalculable.

</comment><comment><USER17> If you find yourself voyaging on certain seas through life, Alan Watts is a good - if not necessary - port to call on.

</comment><comment><USER47> [http://www.101zenstories.com](http://www.101zenstories.com)

<comment><USER3> The links on that page aren't working for me. Any ideas?

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Throwing my experience with meditation down in here. I said almost exactly the same thing in another post recently. I should preface this with saying that while I'm attracted to Zen Buddhism, and ended up getting an accidental minor in east asian religious studies way back when, I don't meditate _because_ of Zen Buddhism (though obviously I acknowledge a lot of the history there).

I fairly consistently meditate. I don't spend more than five or ten minutes in any given setting, so you might not consider me a hard core meditator, but I do feel that it's provided me with some positive mental tools. I'm going to focus on the ones that aren't necessarily related to long term average increases in objective health and wellbeing and more on a subjective perception that I have new cognitive strategies to deal with certain situations.

As an example, I used to be pretty anxious about falling asleep, and I think it caused it to be more difficult to fall asleep. Some of the insight meditation practices helped me deal with the anxiety feedback loop. It wasn't something crazy or mystical; I mostly just learned how to effectively stop thinking about something, or at least stop focussing on something. Ordinarily trying to stop thinking about something had led to a nasty loop. I can't sleep, so I get anxious, the anxiety makes it harder to sleep, which makes me more anxious.

The meditation got me more comfortable with just sitting, for one, and secondly it helped me learn to acknowledge a thought, and "let go" of it. Eventually I got to a point where I wouldn't be able to sleep, but whenever a thought that would provoke anxiety popped up, it would just sort of pass by, and I never actually felt the emotional reaction.

Honestly, I don't think I fall asleep any faster (again none of this is quantitative data), but I do find that I just don't care anymore because the anxiety isn't there. It's not the effect I expected when I started meditating, but it's just as, if not more effective.

I continue with it because it's pretty easy to carve out five or ten minutes here and there. I have no idea if it's causing any long term health benefits, nor does it really matter to me. Subjectively I feel more relaxed right after I meditate, but that's about it. Honestly, I'd keep doing it just because it feels nice. I don't do any crazy postures or full lotus, or anything like that; maybe there's something I'm missing out on, but I do plan on continuing the practice as I perform it. I try to keep my reasons for that as subjectively tangible and non religious/spiritual as possible.

Side Note: The book "The Wisdom of Insecurity" is an interesting Alan Watts book. I like Watts work but like anything, I have a tendency to read things looking for what's wrong with what the author is saying. Eventually I learned to more actively look for what's useful instead, which I think is helpful with that kind of book, otherwise I end up in this endless cycle of critique, which is fun but doesn't really get me anywhere. (I'm not saying don't do critical analysis; more just be aware that there can be value in imperfect works)

</book>

</comment><comment><USER49> >Truth is not to be found by picking everything to pieces like a spoilt child

What an idiotic attitude. Empiricism ("picking everything to pieces") is one of the few ways to find truth. Attempting to discredit it by comparing it to a "childish" activity speaks to the lack of arguments against it.

All of the Zen/Buddhist blog posts I've seen on HN have been intellectually lazy and/or dishonest, relying on pseudo-science/quantum mysticism ("light, for instance, acts as both a particle and a wave", as some sort of poorly thought out attack on the PEM) and misleading analogy.

<comment><USER50> That phrase sounds very much as an attack against a straw man. Science does not require that things are cut up, and does not dismiss the interconnectivity of things. It mostly mindfully ignores all the things it can't deal with, so they won't disturb while it deals with the things it can deal.

Anyway, I got the impression the attack was against analytical thinking, and not empiricism. The people that do that kind of attack are completely oblivious from the amount of systemic thinking science does today, they are fighting ideas that are almost a century out of fashion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Oh, Zen.. Essentionaly, it is a trained via simple practices habbit of doing just one thing at a time and just doing it well, the state 'businesses coaches' selling to you as 'the flow'?)

The key to all esoteric teachings of the East is an approach from the premises of cognitive psychology and 'systemic view' of modern humqn physiology, discarding volumes by self-proclaimed western 'gurus'.

Then Yoga or Tai Chi Chuan or Zen will be as clear an ancient insights to our own nature (as a complex system made out of several subsystems of multitudes of semiindependent processes).

</comment><comment><USER52> In this moment, I am euphoric.

</comment><comment><USER53> In 1960 I read The Way of Zen and was moved to quit college and run away to sea. Also, since reading Watts I haven't been constipated. Is this enlightenment? Brian R. Hannula firstname.lastname@example.com</comment>


Rate Perq -- www.perqworks.com - <AUTHOR>

Hello HN, Some of you may remember, I asked for feedback on my startup's new web app Perq (http://www.perqworks.com). At that time, a credit card was required to sign up for the free account. That has changed -- now anyone can sign up to view the application for free.
Perq is a web-based app for companies to create policy, and manage and track employee Paid Time Off (PTO). We created this application out of a frustration with the lack of good quality software in this niche. At Matter (www.matterco.com), we pride ourselves in our ability to create compelling User Interface and Interaction Design. Our application design strives to make the HR administrator's job easier by automating PTO leave requests. For employees, we wanted to focus employee attention on an often undervalued form of compensation, PTO. To literally highlight the value of leave time, we use a gauge metaphor to show current PTO balances, earning potential, and amounts used.
As both designers and developers, we are looking for more good, critical feedback. Try it out by entering your company's leave policy and let us know what you think.
For those interested, our application uses:
* Symfony PHP Framework (www.symfony-project.org) -- We found this MVC framework excellent. The code is well written and the documentation is accurate and thorough. We considered Rails, but were won over by the proven success of the LAMP stack as epitomized by DIGG, Yahoo, and Facebook.
* jQuery -- What a godsend... Perq relies heavily on AJAX to make the UI function fluidly. jQuery, by abstracting away cross-browser nuances, allowed more time spent developing functionality rather than fixing IE bugs.
* Doctrine ORM (http://www.doctrine-project.org/) -- SQL and Database design not being my strong suit, a good ORM is critical to the maintainability and performance of the application. The Doctrine syntax is excellent at grabbing records and manipulating them without spending time tweaking SQL statements.
* And Others... -- Our application supports calendar integration with ICS. We rely on email as a communication channel, and employed SwiftMailer (http://swiftmailer.org/). Rackspace is our host.
Again, your feedback and any forwarding of the link to small business or HR people who manage employee benefits is extremely appreciated.
-- Perq Developer <comment><AUTHOR> clickable link: <http://www.perqworks.com>

<comment><USER2> A ok</comment></comment>


Why you should not parse (X)HTML with a Regexp - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/regex-match-open-tags-except-xhtml-self-contained-tags/1732454#1732454

<comment><USER2> The technical explanation for this is given in comment 3 of the page and sums it up perfectly:

"I think the flaw here is that HTML is a Chomsky Type 2 grammar (context free grammar) and RegEx is a Chomsky Type 3 grammar (regular expression). Since a Type 2 grammar is fundamentally more complex than a Type 3 grammar - you can't possibly hope to make this work. But many will try, some will claim success and others will find the fault and totally mess you up."

More info: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy>

</comment><comment><USER3> _Even Jon Skeet cannot parse HTML using regular expressions._

<comment><USER4> But according to a comment on the post, "Chuck Norris _can_ parse HTML with regex" (emphasis in original).

More seriously, when SO was newer, I remember the feeling that these things came in waves. For a few months, there was someone who responded to nearly _every_ offending Ruby question (or answer) by pointing out that exceptions shouldn't be used for flow control. See these two by another poster for more on HTML and regexes[1][2].

[1] [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/701166/can-you-provide- so...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/701166/can-you-provide-some- examples-of-why-it-is-hard-to-parse-xml-and-html-with-a-rege)

[2] [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/773340/can-you-provide- an...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/773340/can-you-provide-an-example- of-parsing-html-with-your-favorite-parser)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> And the previous discussion:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1487695>

</comment><comment><USER6> Fortunately, BeautifulSoup saves the day for HTML parsing tasks.

(<http://www.crummy.com/software/BeautifulSoup/>)</comment>


Apple Inc. - Employee Purchase Program - <AUTHOR> http://store.apple.com/us_epp_73519

<comment><USER2> I compared a few items and that gives you less of a discount than the Education store. (Just choose a school. You don't actually need to have attended.)

Am I missing something?

<comment><USER3> This is for employees of other companies to buy Apple gear with the corporate discount. Like a bonus scheme, but instead of gift vouchers you get an online store.

Though when I was at Apple, the student discount was more than the staff discount.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've found the best way to get a discount at the Apple store is to know/befriend a specialist there. They're more than happy to kick a discount your way(after all they aren't paid on commission) if they know you. The $100 off my MacBook pro is proof. Sure it's only an 8% discount, but it sure beats paying full retail. Especially when all I needed to do was ask "can you hook me up on this?" and he did, no problem.

<comment><USER5> Or befriend an apple employee and get their once a year 25% system discount. The $400 off my MacBook Pro is proof. Ohhhhh yeaaahhhhh!

Seriously though, I was very lucky that my Apple buddy didn't need a new system that year.</comment></comment>