The Flawed Reasoning Behind the Replication Crisis - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/74/networks/the-flawed-reasoning-behind-the-replication-crisis <comment><USER3> The article says:

> The main reason scientists have historically been resistant to using > Bayesian inference instead is that they are afraid of being accused of > subjectivity. The prior probabilities required for Bayes' rule feel like an > unseemly breach of scientific ethics. Where do these priors come from?

It's not just "being afraid"; the problem is that random guessing (of priors) is not a reasonable replacement for science.

Bayes' rule is great if you can find a reasonable justification for a prior. Bayes is widely used for decision-making (for example), where you need an answer quickly & you aren't trying to make general scientific claims. But if you can't find a justifiable prior in a scientific work, using Bayes' rule just replaces one statistical fallacy for another one. After all, Bayes' rule will give nonsense answers if you give it a nonsense prior!

Bayes' rule is a great tool in many circumstances! But it has a great weakness: it requires a prior. That doesn't make it useless; few tools are useful in all circumstances. But requiring "everyone to use Bayes' rule, even though we have no reasonable way to find a good estimate of the priors," is unlikely to ever happen (and rightly so). The article rightly points out a serious problem with the typical application of statistics, but there needs to be a better justification for priors than is suggested in this article.

I could imagine systemic worldwide ways to deal with this. For example, perhaps the scientific community could allow people to propose initial priors, and then allow multiple different papers to improve the estimation of the probability over time. But that would require much more than articles repeatedly saying "there's no serious problem with priors"; having a justifiable way to estimate and update priors _is_ the fundamental problem with Bayesian analysis in the scientific community.

<comment><USER4> _> random guessing (of priors) is not a reasonable replacement for science._

Priors in Bayesian statistics are not randomly guessed. The prior is supposed to reflect your state of knowledge prior to looking at the data from the experiment/study/test/whatever (hence the name "prior"). For example, in the mammogram example, it is assumed that the doctor knows the base rate of breast cancer in the population (which is a very reasonable assumption since there are mountains of data on such rates) and the false positive and false negative rates of the test (which come from data on previous tests). Those are the prior. The doctor doesn't just make up those numbers; they come from prior knowledge.

 _> if you can't find a justifiable prior in a scientific work, using Bayes' rule just replaces one statistical fallacy for another one_

In other words, if you have no prior knowledge about something, you can't expect to do statistics on some small set of data and get reliable answers. Yes, that's true. And Bayesianism tells you this is true, by telling you that you can't find a justifiable prior. (Technically, you can always find a maximum entropy prior, but in most cases that's not really any better than having no prior at all since it is basically telling you you need a lot more data before you can conclude anything.) Whereas statistical methods as they are currently done in many scientific fields simply ignore this issue completely and pick arbitrary thresholds for statistical significance. Which is the article's point.

In other words, Bayesianism, properly viewed, is not a magic bullet for extracting statistical answers from nowhere. It is a tool for exercising discipline, so that you _know_ when you have to say "sorry, not enough data for a meaningful answer".

<comment><USER5> " _It is a tool for exercising discipline, so that you know when you have to say "sorry, not enough data for a meaningful answer"._"

As opposed to the frequentist approach of saying, "We have data D and hypothesis H. If the probability of D when not-H is true is below a threshold, H is true," which hides an awful lot of assumptions.

The advantage of Baysian statistics is that _you have to explicitly state your assumptions_ in terms of a prior.

<comment><USER6> >As opposed to the frequentist approach of saying, "We have data D and hypothesis H. If the probability of D when not-H is true is below a threshold, H is true," which hides an awful lot of assumptions.

My textbook (what would be called a frequentist book) is very explicit: You either reject the _null_ hypothesis, or you fail to reject the null hypothesis. A significance level test never concludes that the null hypothesis is true. It's nuanced, but is not quite the same as your statement.

<comment><USER4> Yes, and under this description, the equivalent of the Bayesian prior is picking what the null hypothesis is. Frequentists simply fail to admit (or perhaps fail to understand) that that choice is just as much of a subjective judgment as the Bayesian choice of prior.

<comment><USER6> >Frequentists simply fail to admit (or perhaps fail to understand) that that choice is just as much of a subjective judgment as the Bayesian choice of prior.

Again, this claim is something I see only from self described Bayesians. I've not met a professional statistician ever fail to admit it. My textbook (written in the 90's), in at least two places, talks about it. In one place it explicitly warns against assuming the "traditional" approach is more objective, and points out that the assumptions exist in the model and the practitioner should be aware of those assumptions.

And really, when it comes to p-values, I've never seen any stats textbook not give a proper description and interpretation. No statistics textbook I've read describes significance testing as a mere prescription from which you can deduce binary answers. My book discusses factors in picking your p values, and the implications, and that the appropriate value is very dependent on the problem.

<comment><USER7> I think it would be useful if you could apply these principles to one of the examples in the article. Assume we have a woman who has a mammogram that indicates malignancy. The question that the patient would like answered is "What is the chance that I have breast cancer?"

How does frequentist statistics answer this question? What's the null hypothesis that should be used here? Can this question be answered without assuming a prior on the likelihood that the individual had breast cancer before the test was performed?

<comment><USER6> >How does frequentist statistics answer this question?

By applying Bayes Theorem, just as the article did. By invoking Type I and Type II errors.

This is a standard problem in stats textbooks - not breast cancer but the general problem of a diagnostic measure that is 99% accurate, for a disease that has less than 1% prevalence.

Frequentists don't insist on using p-values to solve all problems.

>Can this question be answered without assuming a prior on the likelihood that the individual had breast cancer before the test was performed?

Why should one not assume a prior? There is a base rate for breast cancer. Why should a frequentist not use that information? I've never heard a statistician who does not describe himself as a Bayesian say one shouldn't. Every textbook suggests one should. Where are people getting the idea that frequentists don't use Bayesian methods. They always have used them.

I'm finding this whole discussion orthogonal to Bayesian vs frequentist statistics. The main issue frequentists have with a lot of Bayesian approaches is that Bayesians often want to assign probabilities to one off events, whereas frequentists insist only on _repeatable_ events. That is where the accusation of "subjective" comes from. Frequentists like to believe that any question of probability can be decided by taking N samples and seeing the outcome (even if only conceptually).

For problems where there is a population, and one can do sampling (i.e. repeatability), there's never a problem with using Bayesian methods.

<comment><USER8> Good point. It would be illustrative to get some examples where a prototypical (but competent) Bayesian and a prototypical (but competent) frequentist would give different answers.

It seems to me that when there really is a known base rate, the answers would coincide.

And if there is no base rate, the Bayesian would guess (but explicitly) or refuse to answer, while the frequentist would give a plausible answer, which, however, very much hinges on the unknown base rate.

In the light of the replication crisis, maybe the Bayesian approach is better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One other example of the flaw (I think) that came out in pop culture was a few years ago during the Serial podcast about Adnan Syed.

Near the end when the hosts were wrestling about whether they should think he was guilty, the interviewer's friend (the producer? Dana?) came on and shared why she thought he was guilty, and it was this convoluted argument about if Syed was innocent, he'd have to be the unluckiest guy in the world, so therefore he was probably guilty.

Her point was that it was just too strong a coincidence that it was _his_ ex- girlfriend that got killed, on that particular day during some period of time when he didn't have an alibi, etc etc.

That seemed to me like it could be a bad Bayesian argument - like it would have been a good argument had Serial selected a random citizen to interview, but they selected someone they already knew was connected to the story. Murders happen and by definition the circumstances are always highly unlikely because murders are so rare, and innocent people closely connected to the circumstances of the crime are very, very unlucky by definition. You can't point to that unluckiness as evidence that they're probably guilty.

<comment><USER10> Add to that, highly unlikely events occur all the time, but most of the time they're not anywhere near a murder. Once you start digging around for unlikely things, you'll find them.

Heck, even if you dig into a random person _associated with a murder_ , you'll find some unlikely things, but if you dig into a person who has already been accused of the crime (rightly or wrongly), of course there will be loads of suspicious circumstances. That's why they were accused in the first place.

<comment><USER11> > highly unlikely events occur all the time

They do?

<comment><USER12> Yes. Your chance of being hit by lightning in a given year is quite low. The average number of people struck by lightning in the US annually in the last decade is 270, according to [https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning- odds](https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-odds) (and while that's an estimate, the 27 average deaths/year over that period is not).

So a specific person being killed by lightning within a given year is pretty unlikely (less than one in 10 million chance), and on average it happens once every two weeks in the US. Lots of people, see.

Same thing with other situations where there are lots of observations...

<comment><USER11> The likelihood of me being hit by lightning is very low. Therefore, it is an highly unlikely event. And it doesn't happen very often.

The chance of someone being hit by lightning is not very low. Therefore, it is not a highly unlikely event. And it does happen relatively frequently.

Unlikely events don't happen very often. That's just a definition. If event X happens frequently, then it isn't an unlikely event.

<comment><USER12> Any given unlikely event does not happen very often.

But if you have a whole bunch of possible unlikely events, then one of them (a different one each time, usually) can happen fairly often.

Back to the lightning example, any given person being hit by lightning is an unlikely event. But as you not "someone being hit by lightning" is not, because we are now observing these unlikely events across so many people.

All of which is to say, observing that an unlikely event happened doesn't provide much information on its own, if you have observed a lot of things happening in general...

<comment><USER13> Beautifully put - I nominate this as the official summary of the subthread. It's the reason why we need to pad time estimates for projects and leave early to catch trains, even when we can't think of any likely reason for delay - <USER2> sum of all unlikely reasons can cross the threshold into "likely".

So it's quite correct to say "unlikely events happen all the time".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "The point is that we have good reason to be skeptical, and we should follow the mantra of the mathematician (and Bayesian) Pierre-Simon Laplace, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. By ignoring the necessity of priors, significance testing opens the door to false positive results."

Such an important quote. I believe the replication crisis is especially present in nutrition studies. We live in an age where headlines go viral and new wave diets are taken on in rapid succession. Take all nutrition studies with a grain of salt. (assuming, of course, that salt is good for you...or is it???)

</comment><comment><USER15> > _we should follow the mantra of the mathematician (and Bayesian) Pierre- > Simon_ [de]* Laplace, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary > evidence*

We should, but we don't, because we crave extraordinary results and are ready to give up reason to get them. But if it's too good to be true (or too spectacular), it probably is.

</comment><comment><USER5> " _Harvard Business School professor Amy Cuddy's 2010 study of "power posing:" the idea that adopting a powerful posture for a couple of minutes can change your life for the better by affecting your hormone levels and risk tolerances._ "

Hey, now. I _like_ standing with my hands on my hips, imagining I have a cape flowing in the breeze behind me.

</comment><comment><USER16> <sigh> Okay, let's do this again.

Anyone arguing over frequentist versus Bayesian statistics is missing the foundations of their statistical training. Both are subsumed by the framework of decision theory. This isn't new. It goes back to Wald's work in the 1950's.

And the examples he is talking about wouldn't be saved by different statistical methods. No fiddling with techniques at the end can save a failed design of the trial.

<comment><USER17> I get that you're probably trying to leave it as an exercise to the reader, but the word "frequentist" doesn't even appear on the wikipedia article for Decision Theory, nor the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I can't tell if you're being hyperbolic, or if it requires deep study to grasp how bayesian and frequentist statistics are rendered irrelevant by decision theory.

Anyone care to take a stab at a layman's summary for the benefit of the under- educated folks around here?

<comment><USER18> Googling <statistical decision theory> might help you out. My opinion is the Wikipedia page for decision theory could use a good rewrite. Someday I may get around to it.

Also, madhadron didn't quite say that Bayesian and frequentist statistics are rendered irrelevant by decision theory. Rather, statistical decision theory includes Bayesian and frequentist statistics as possible statistical decision rules. You might want to not use Bayesian or frequentist rules and instead use minimax regret or something else.

I do think that it is fine that people argue about Bayes vs frequentist. I wish they'd consider everything else though.

<comment><USER19> >> You might want to not use Bayesian or frequentist rules and instead use minimax regret or something else.

... What? Any such decision algorithm at least in theory still takes a probability distribution as an input. You still need to approximately follow the proper rules of probability to get that distribution, there's no way around it.

<comment><USER18> You don't need to have a distribution to make a decision. I don't think I understand what you are saying.

<comment><USER19> Sorry for the super late reply. I don't know if anyone will see this... But...

In minimax regret, you have a set of available decisions D, and a set of possible states of nature N, and a utility U(D,N). Each state of nature also has a probability P(N) (which can be influenced by the decision too in some problems).

States of nature include "interest rates rise 1%", "interest rates fall 1%", and "interest rates stay the same". Decisions include "invest in stocks" and "invest in bonds".

Minimax regret proposes to ignore the probabilities P(N), instead suggesting a way to make a decision purely based on the utilities of the outcomes. But that is actually an illusion.

Outside of math class word problems, we don't have N or U(D,N) handed to us on a silver platter. There is always an infinite range of possible states of nature, many of which have a probability approaching but never reaching zero, including states such as "win the lottery", "communist revolution", and "unexpected intergalactic nuclear war".

In commonsense decision-making we don't include those states of nature in our decision matrix, because our common sense rules them out as being implausible before we even think about our options. You wouldn't choose to invest in bonds just because stocks have the most regret in the event of a communist takeover.

So what actually happens is we intuitively apply some probability threshold that rules out states of nature falling below it from our consideration. Then we minimize max regret on the remaining "plausibly realistic" states of nature.

Humans are so good at doing probability mentally that this step happens before we even realize it. But if you are writing code that makes decisions, you'll need to do it, and so you'll need to have at least a rough stab at the probability distributions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Wow, I had read an argument criticising statistcal significance before but it made nowhere near as good of a case as this article has.

</comment><comment><USER21> I was reminded of this article, particulraly the bit about Sally Clark's case, when I read this today:

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/02/louise- porto...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/02/louise-porton- jailed-for-life-for-murdering-young-daughters)

It's about a woman who was jailed for killing all three of her kids. The prosecutors alleged she wanted to sleep around and she couldn't because of the kids. I'm struct by the fact that there was no direct evidence that the mother was responsible for the deaths. The only "evidence" seems to have been that it was not clear why the girls died:

 _Both deaths were consistent with deliberate airway obstruction, and doctors could not find "any natural reason why either, let alone both, should have died", prosecutors said._

I would have thought that if there was uncertainty about the cause of death (and that is exactly what "the doctors could not find any natural reason" states: uncertainty about the cause of death) then there is no sufficient evidence to convict.

But, I'm going by only what's in The Guardian article and I don't know the details of the case.

</comment><comment><USER22> I see there's one more problem with thinker sculpture study, that has nothing to do how we analyze the data. There was another study a while ago, where a dime was placed (or not placed for control group) in the public copying machine. And then researchers would ask those people who were using that copying machine a few questions, one of them was "on a scale from 0 to 10 how happy you are?" People who found their dimes reported significantly higher happiness scores, but I don't remember by how much. Assuming this experiment was true, and not some journalists twisting the data wihtout understanding statistics, I see there's some analogy with the sculpture study. In particular, the conclusion I would make is that asking people questions about happiness or religion or anything whatsoever doesn't tell you much about their actual believes, since their answers are heavily affected by their mood at the moment. I asume this statement can be turned into another study verifying its correctness, and then after we collect the results, we'd have to start arguing about Bayes vs. Fischer all over again...

</comment><comment><USER23> It's easy to challenge the subjectivity of a prior, pretending that frequentist testing is objective... until you design your own experiment, rather than just analyze one. Turns out this is a more important part. It'd be illustrative to explain that process.

A p-value of 0.05 (or a test with 95% significance) will, if there's actually nothing there, tell you'll think there's something there 5% of the time (wrongly). It says nothing about error rates if there is something there, which is presumably what we're interested in. So for that, you'll do what's called a power analysis. Power of the conventional 80% tells you, if there's actually an effect size of X and you know all about your noise, you'll think there's nothing there 20% of the time (wrongly).

5% comes out of nowhere. 80% comes out of nowhere. A priori knowing your noise is often feasible, but not always. X, the presumed effect size you have to magically know before you run your experiment, comes out of nowhere. Getting this right is crucial to a reliable experiment, and it needs to really reflect your prior belief, even though it's frequentist. It's totally subjective.

What's worse is that X is often taken to be whatever leads to a feasible/fundable experiment that'll be done fast enough, not anything scientific.

It's waaay harder to understand the impact of the subjective 5%/80%/X decisions than it is to understand the impact of your prior. A prior takes way less training. Better yet, you can report your results assuming many different priors and let your reader subjectively decide what to think, so you don't have to commit as hard.

tl;dr The "gold standard" way of doing science is already really subjective and that's okay. Equally subjective alternatives can still be better science.

</comment><comment><USER24> So how does one go about choosing reasonable bayesian priors for an experiment?

<comment><USER25> It becomes part of your experimental design. Just like people can quibble with your setup, with your questions, with your procedures, they can quibble with your priors. The difference is that it's out there, explicit.

Note that a big weakness of Bayes rule is that you can look at any data and specify a prior that will make it look good. To continue with the mammogram example, suppose the doctor says "We really don't know if you are likely to have cancer or not. So we're just going to give 50-50 odds, and see what the test comes back with." That's a very different prior from the known base rate. The results would be, where C means "Cancer" and "R" means "Positive Result":

      P(C|R) = P(R|C) * P_prior(C) / P(R)
             = 1.0 * 0.5 / (1.0 * 0.5 + 0.05 * 0.5)
             = 0.5 / 0.55
             = 0.9

A _much_ higher probability. As you can imagine, you can do that in a paper as well: you know the data you have, and you come up with a "plausible" prior to make the data seem important.

In my opinion, in any switch to using Bayesian analysis in scientific work, pre-registering priors will be essential.

<comment><USER4> _> a big weakness of Bayes rule is that you can look at any data and specify a prior that will make it look good_

This isn't a weakness in Bayes' rule, it's a weakness in your experimental protocol. You're supposed to pick the prior _before_ doing the experiment and seeing the data.

 _> In my opinion, in any switch to using Bayesian analysis in scientific work, pre-registering priors will be essential._

Pre-registering statistical criteria and assumptions should already be essential, whether you're a Bayesian or not. The fact that it isn't is a key factor behind the replication crisis.

<comment><USER25> > _This isn 't a weakness in Bayes' rule, it's a weakness in your experimental > protocol. You're supposed to pick the prior before doing the experiment and > seeing the data._

Sure, if the goal is to get to something true. If the goal is to publish or to maintain your position, though, you'll work differently.

You don't even need to have seen the data. If I set my priors for the earth being flat extreme enough, it'll take a long time for even good faith updating to converge to reality.

As I said in another reply, I was simply pointing out that Bayesian analysis can also be abused, and that proper protocols still need to be followed. A point on which I believe we agree. :-)

<comment><USER4> _> Bayesian analysis can also be abused, and that proper protocols still need to be followed. A point on which I believe we agree. :-)_

Yes, indeed. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Has anyone heard of a scientific journal adopting a peer-replicated approach(only accept papers that peers can replicate)? With the replication rates so low, i'd imagine some of these prestigious journals would want to vet their papers more strictly, but a cursory google search didn't dig anything up for me.

</comment><comment><USER27> My favorite way to show the base rate fallacy is to take the most extreme example.

Suppose I have an invisible dragon detector that is accurate 99.9% of the time... if it tells me there is an invisible dragon in the room, it doesn't mean there is only a 0.1% chance there is not a dragon... there is a 100% chance there is not an invisible dragon in the room, because they don't exist.

<comment><USER28> That only works if you already know something is/isn't true with absolute certainty.

It's useless for fundamental research, because by definition you're exploring what you don't know yet.

The real problem is more one of labelling. "True according to science" isn't a binary, but it's treated as if it is - especially by marketers.

Science is more like a set of concentric circles of decreasing confidence. You can be very confident indeed about the contents of the centre circle which includes undergraduate physics and engineering. You can also be confident that there are commonly agreed edge cases, areas of inaccuracy, and extreme circumstances where the science stops being reliable.

As you get further away from the centre confidence decreases. A lot of the debate about replication is about research that is a long way from the centre, where uncertainty is high.

But neither researchers nor the science press nor the mainstream media will report this. Studies are usually presented as "Science says...", as if you're supposed to be just as confident of the results of a psychological study that asks a population of 30 undergrads from the same college and the same year some poorly designed questions as you are in Special Relativity.

<comment><USER27> It is just to show why base rate matters by using the most extreme example... it doesn't imply that it is easy to calculate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It's incredible it's held up this long. It shows how much science actually is dogma. Human nature wins out over rationality.

<comment><USER30> Not so incredible if you consider how the sausage is made. People who hate math pursue social science PhDs and are taught "p-values = truth". These same people are pressured to produce lots of research, and not just boring research but preferably shocking research. Journals are incentivized to publish such shocking research because that kind of research gets cited. When you think about it, this stuff will probably hold up for a long time to come.

<comment><USER31> It has little to do with stereotypes about social scientists hating math or misunderstanding p-values.

The current system incentivizes p-hacking. Nobody wants to throw away their work if it doesn't meet the p < 0.05 criterion, especially when their career is on the line.

<comment><USER32> While it isn't the most concrete sample size, when I was at college the mathematics requirements for the soft sciences were far inferior to the mathematics requirements for hard sciences. To the extent that even the easier statistics course in the math department wasn't require and instead was replaced by a statistics class in the social science department that was only valid for social sciences.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The author teaches a basic course on statistics on harvard extension school and charges ~$2800 for that. He wrote a clickbait random article and I can see it on hacker news front page. And we say only facebook can publish fake news ;)

<comment><USER34> sooo... what's fake? You made a ton of ad-hominem there, but what's the actual criticism of the article?

<comment><USER35> Just from a casual look, the cancer diagnosis modeling is flawed.

> the doctor would need to consider the overall incidence rate of cancer among > similar women with similar symptoms, not including the result of the > mammogram

That's a bad assumption. Mammogram is a radiology tool to investigate tissue. It's not a randomizing element as it's fundamental to arriving at the thesis, which is then correlated from MULTIPLE vectors.

> a similar patient finds a lump it turns out to be benign

A manual inspection is not the same. In good faith, let's assume they are the same for no reason but to argue about how not to do medicine as some precept for "Base rates are effectively random".

Turns out, Base rates are not random guesses.

What's interesting about Bayesian Theory is we use it all the time and then observe and collect statistical data about the outcomes, after making assumptions (like a specific Base rate) and use back propagation to correct until models fit measurable events. This is why, tests often have caveats about efficacy. Base rate is sometimes, reasonably, unknown because there is no additional correlation. This doesn't indict Base rates wherein the vast majority of cases, there are multiple vectors (or new vectors are generated) that show this process is reliable (beyond a few dice rolls). There have also been cases where there is no corroboration from new measures and the deduction is the that original measure and Base rate were random.

It's a lot of hand waving from a classic troll. Why? Probably for students who want to feel like they have "discovered" how the establishment is ignorant.

<comment><USER36> The author mangled the mammogram example, but when written correctly it's a good example to use.

The author should have used a woman with no symptoms who goes for a mammogram screening test, not a woman with symptoms who goes for a diagnostic test.

[https://www.harding-center.mpg.de/en/fact-boxes/early- detect...](https://www.harding-center.mpg.de/en/fact-boxes/early-detection-of- cancer/breast-cancer-early-detection)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Nexus 9 - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/nexus/9/ <comment><USER3> Wait, they're using the _64 bit_ K1 as their processor? That's Project Denver[1]! I'm super excited to see how that thing benchmarks. This is basically Transmeta's Efficeon (same IP and team, even) with a bunch of improvements. They mentioned in the Hot Chips talk that they had made improvements like enabling native execution while the optimizer works - <USER2> benchmarks they provided said that it was very effective but I'm eager for third party tests.

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Denver](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Denver)

EDIT: And here's Anandtech's article on Project Denver [http://www.anandtech.com/show/7622/nvidia- tegra-k1/2](http://www.anandtech.com/show/7622/nvidia-tegra-k1/2)

<comment><USER4> I would expect it to bench pretty much the same as the Shield Tablet. In fact, they are probably almost identical hardware-wise. I'll be interested to see if there is a price difference.

Anand's CPU benchmarks are very browser-oriented. The Shield usually beat all other Android devices, but still lost to the iPad Air. I suspect that has more to do with the quality of Mobile Safari than the differences in hardware. In the GPU benchmarks, the Shield does very, very well. [http://www.anandtech.com/show/8296/the-nvidia-shield- tablet-...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/8296/the-nvidia-shield-tablet- review/4)

Overall, the K1 has both CPU and GPU _paper /marketing_ specs that are theoretically a little better than an Xbox 360. This is demoed by the 360 game Trine 2 running very nearly as well on a Shield as on the 360. [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-can- tr...](http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-can-trine-2-on- android-match-xbox-360-and-ps3)

edit: Looks like the Nexus has a 2048x1536 screen vs the Shield's 1920x1200. 51% more pixels on the same GPU will be a much prettier at the cost of more GPU|battery strain. Given the high power GPU, that seems like a good trade off for a non-gaming-oriented tab.

<comment><USER3> That's possible, but the Shield has a K1 varient with 4 32-bit A15 cores on the chip while the Nexus 9 has a varient of the K9 that has 2 64-bit Project Denver cores. The graphics are identical between the two versions of the K1 so I don't expect much difference in the GPU benchmarks, but I expect the CPU benchmark comparison to be interesting. On one hand we'll have four 3-wide conventional OoO cores. On the other we'll have two cores that are initially narrow and in order but are 7-wide VLIWs once the code morphing software has had a chance to run.

<comment><USER5> Is that big little cores or four symmetric cores?

<comment><USER3> Four symmetric cores - all A15s. I don't think NVidia has ever done big.LITTLE even though they had a fifth core with the same architecture but different process/gate sizes for lower power in some previous Tegra chips. But you can see from them all having the same max frequency that all four cores are the same.

<comment><USER6> 32-bit K1 also has the companion core[1] (probaly Cortex A7).

[1] [http://www.extremetech.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/01/tegra-...](http://www.extremetech.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/01/tegra-k1-two-versions-a15-denver-core-640x353.jpg)

<comment><USER7> The companion core of the ARMv7 TK1 is a low power Cortex-A15, like the grandparent comment says. This is different from ARM's big.LITTLE which uses different microarchitectures for the two clusters, i.e. Cortex-A15 + Cortex-A7 or Cortex-A53 + Cortex-A57.

<comment><USER6> It's too small to be A15. I found the information that the companion core was A15 in Tegra 4, but it's similar size to other cores[1].

[1][http://cnet4.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/2013/01/06/318d69ea- fdb7-1...](http://cnet4.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/2013/01/06/318d69ea- fdb7-11e2-8c7c-d4ae52e62bcc/85c559e80edbefe0a6e96c889ad2eb18/Tegra4_NvidiaPresser.jpg)

<comment><USER3> Core size isn't just a matter of the number of gates, but also their size. One important tool for reaching high frequencies in chips is to have gates that drive more capacities load be wider and therefore higher power. But if your goal is to have an architecturally identical core that's lower power one of the tools you have to accomplish that is to not do that. There's probably other ways to shrink a core at the cost of performance, as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> And of course the day before Apple announces its new iPad (allegedly). I really like having two very well funded companies in all out competition, it makes for some really great features and options in both products.

The size thing is what I'm interested in though. I'm waiting to see if there actually is a 12" iPad pro tomorrow, otherwise I'll pull the trigger on a Note Pro. I get the pocket/purse argument for 9" but my iPad has become pretty much a replacement book. Between 1dollarscan, Oreilly's drm free ebooks, and my pdf library of papers and data sheets, and various magazines, nearly all my space is being consumed by reading material. So for me (weird case I know) it is my library in my hand, and I really would like it to be a 12 - 13" screen.

That said, the Nook HD+ is my 'budget' 9" Android tablet that is my 'look up things' / 'play music' / 'cast netflix' device and this could easily replace that.

<comment><USER9> So far the best PDF annotation device, I have used is the Surface Pro 3. At 12 inches it displays PDFs very well. The pen is pressure sensitive and will reject any outside inputs.

<comment><USER10> Out of curiosity, have you tried a Samsung tablet with a Wacom digitizer and their S-Pen stylus? I'm currently looking for a device that lets me scribble into language learning work books, I'd be interested in hearing your comparison to a SP3.

<comment><USER11> Some people in my lab have samsung tablets (including myself), and others have a surface 3. The samsung tablet has all the right hardware but the software is lacking. In general. I've tried all of it, really. Android onenote, lecturenotes, papyrus, s-note, etc. It all kinda blows.

<comment><USER12> I'm curious about your lecturenotes negatives. It has so many customizable options I have a hard time imagining how it failed you. I've been using it for over a year for mostly math applications and it's been indispensable.

The only feature I would want integrated is the "infinite workspace" of papyrus. But even then who cares I can still have infinite pages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I was using this device for last couple months. It's by far the best tablet I've ever used. It feels great when you hold it and thank god for better aspect ratio! (compared to N7). I also have N10, but never really liked it, it was quite cumbersome to hold it. N9 feels much better in hands.

The thing I loved the most though was keyboard cover. It's narrow but you get used to it very fast. Typing on it was such a pleasure! I was not allowed to travel with this device but I could easily see myself just taking N9 instead of laptop for short trips.

<comment><USER14> How's the performance? I have a first gen Nexus 7 that's getting really slow, and this looks like an interesting option to replace it.

Is it faster, or at least comparable to the Nexus 5? I rarely use my tablet right now as my phone is considerably faster.

<comment><USER15> Holy crap yes my old n7 just crawls. Makes me seriously suspicious of Asus hardware in the future. My only thing is that I love the n7 size. Maybe I should suck it up and buy a galaxy tab but I want stock Android.

<comment><USER16> My 2013 N7 still runs like a dream. It was such a better device.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The price is $400 [1], in case anyone else was wondering:

> Google's Nexus 9 goes up for pre-order on October 17th, and should hit the > shelves on November 3rd. The 16GB model will go for $400, the 32GB for $480, > and a 32GB model with LTE built in will set you back $600.

[1]: [http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/15/google- nexus-9/](http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/15/google-nexus-9/)

<comment><USER18> Top of the line is 32GB and costs $600? That's not just a bit dissapointing. How much can another 32GB of flash storage cost at OEM prices, $10? And no, I don't want to store everything on your servers, Google.

<comment><USER19> I agree that flash prices shouldn't be as high as they're charging but I also think you should know that they're higher than you think. Here, for example is a pretty raw eMMC module: [http://www.hardkernel.com/main/products/prdt_info.php?g_code...](http://www.hardkernel.com/main/products/prdt_info.php?g_code=G140471315858) ($49 for 32GB) and a larger one [http://www.hardkernel.com/main/products/prdt_info.php?g_code...](http://www.hardkernel.com/main/products/prdt_info.php?g_code=G140470785454) ($79 for 64GB). That's a $30 price difference at the OEM level.

You need to keep in mind that the flash storage baked onto devices is of an entirely different class to the flash storage you buy on a USB key or something. Phone storage has to perform well (it's where the OS lives) as well as survive the lifetime of the phone with near constant use 24/7\. They need something a bit higher quality than what you're used to so the price is higher.

<comment><USER20> That is a module with a connector and PCB, and also sold at a rather high markup. Prices are actually quite a bit cheaper for the actual IC itself:

[http://en.chinaflashmarket.com/pricecenter/emmc](http://en.chinaflashmarket.com/pricecenter/emmc)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I love the 4:3 aspect ratio - after switching from iPad that was the thing that bothered me the most on Nexus 7 and Nexus 10 models. They were either not tall enough or too narrow for comfortable web browsing and reading (also, holding N10 in portrait was pretty tiring due to weight balance).

So finally having a good 4:3 Android tablet is good news for readers :)

<comment><USER22> That's fantastic news, I have been scouring the market for a good 4:3 Android for months...

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Sad to see no SD card slot. I know that's not Google's thing, but Asus and Samsung have defied them in the past to include them in Nexus models and I was hoping HTC would follow suit.

That said, I hope this sells well. HTC badly needs some success.

<comment><USER24> Last year's nexus 5 didn't have an SD card slot either. They're pretty much a dying breed at this point.

<comment><USER25> No nexus has ever had an SD card slot [ED: since the nexus one!]. It's their thing, to push people into the cloud.

>dying breed

Rubbish, quite the opposite: every (other) flagship android phone has one this year: S5, One M8, LG G3, xperia Z3. Every windows tablet has one. Compare this to the last round when it was pretty much just the S4.

<comment><USER26> (New) Moto X doesn't.

<comment><USER26> I assume by the down votes I'm wrong? I checked some reviews and they all say it doesn't have one. Has it changed?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It has an arm64 CPU. It looks like this will be the first cheap, easily obtainable and hackable (?) arm64 hardware out there.

I'm writing the arm64 Go compiler. I wonder if it's feasible to start testing on this machine too (e.g. how open it really is, how hard is to get a sane working environment, etc).

<comment><USER28> Before I got my Mustang (:-) I was hacking on the OCaml arm64 compiler backend using this technique. The article describes setting it up for Fedora. Follow through the links for how to do this on SUSE and Debian. It's fairly reasonable as a userspace dev environment.

[http://rwmj.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/how-to-run- aarch64-bina...](http://rwmj.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/how-to-run- aarch64-binaries-on-an-x86-64-host-using-qemu-userspace-emulation/)

<comment><USER27> Yes, I started with QEMU user emulation. It was so lame (lots of bugs in QEMU; both related to unsupported instructions and other miscellany that affected Go) that I just wrote my own arm64 emulator eventually (didn't take long, it's a variant of Plan 9's [5kqv]i user space emulators, I forgot to mention that all this work started on Plan 9). Now I have hardware but my emulator still gets its use, it's a great debugger too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It bothers me that we've lost the meaning of "memory" in the technical marketing of mobile gadgets.

"Memory: 16 GB & 32 GB." Google, of course, means storage.

<comment><USER30> At some point we'll have unified memory and storage anyway. Our brains are already unified in our perception of memory, so I have no problem telling people the storage amount as "memory".

<comment><USER31> Our brains are not unified. Separating long and short memory makes a lot of sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Apple finally admitted that bigger phones are better. Looks like Google is finally admitting that 4:3 is the right tablet aspect ratio.

I'm kind of curious what the secret sauce is that makes Google think they are ready to sell a premium-priced tablet. Lollipop may be better than iOS 8 but is that enough to overcome the app gap?

(Anecdata: my wife had her ipad mini stolen last week. We have 5 Android devices in the house, but as long as Civilization is only available on iOS this isn't a serious contender for a replacement.)

<comment><USER33> I'm not quite sure the 'app gap' exists still, does it? Recently switched from iPhone 5S > HTC One M8, and nothing reallllly I miss.

<comment><USER34> It's a big problem for music apps. Android has not delivered low-latency MIDI/audio up to now, allowing Apple to own that market (much like it did with Mac v windows for a long time).

<comment><USER35> To clarify, you are talking about music production apps? Android L introduced new APIs to improve that, so hopefully it will improve soon.

<comment><USER34> Yes. I was glad to see it has finally been addressed but realistically it will take several years to close the gap, since people who have gotten used to various iPad apps have little incentive to switch platform.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> They're releasing a big expensive tablet in 2014 and the top-end storage size is 32GB? Really?

<comment><USER37> Well they _are_ a cloud company. They probably just expect you to not store anything locally.

No company puts a good amount of storage in their device for a reasonable price. It's a problem on par with battery life.

<comment><USER38> The Nexus 6 has 32 and 64GB options. I'm a bit disappointed that they don't match this with the Nexus 9.

<comment><USER39> Excitedly waiting for a new Android tablet but 32GB max is too little for that price tag.

I suppose Google expects more photo/video taking on phones vs tablet hence lower storage?

<comment><USER40> They might well release a 64GB version later. They released a 32GB version of the N7 2012 some months after initial release and removed the 8GB version.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> This marks an interesting if subtle change in direction for Google. Suddenly they are talking about productivity on their tablet and even including a keyboard. Also recently we've seen massive upgrades to the Google Docs suite of apps as well, after they long languished as almost comically useless on Android for a long time. Once again, it makes me question whether Pichai taking over has had the unexpected effect of boosting Android and making it into their premier platform across a range of form factors instead of what seemed before to be mainly pigeon holing it as a phone / small tablet platform mainly for entertainment. Interesting times.

<comment><USER34> Yeah, looks like they're aiming to attack Surface at the same time as iPad. Might be time for an upgrade...

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I assume this is the real, official end of the dream that I will ever get the case they initially showed off for my Nexus 10.

I enjoy the Nexus 10, but I really feel like I've kind of just been left in the cold. Android updates haven't been kind to the device in my experience.

<comment><USER21> On the other hand, Android 5.0 was announced for 10 as well, even though I agree, my 10 always felt like a bastard child of Nexus family.

<comment><USER43> Oh really? Source, please?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> So is it confirmed that there's no new Nexus 7? What is the best new alternative with some kind of clean Android mini tablet?

<comment><USER45> I don't understand why Google is making a Nexus 9. It seems crazy. Doesn't everyone understand at this point that 7-8" is the right size for a tablet?

Are they just of the impression that phablets will eat small tablets?

(I should say that of course there is SOME market for larger tablets out there. If they were producing a Nexus 7 and a Nexus 9, that would make more sense. But I thought that both expert consensus and sales were clear: the market for small tablets is much bigger than the market for big tablets. Unless you believe that small tablets are going to get replaced by phablets).

<comment><USER46> > Doesn't everyone understand at this point that 7-8" is the right size for a > tablet?

I've grown to loathe the Nexus 7. It's got a nice weight and feel to it from a hardware perspective but it feels too tall/thin in portrait and too short in landscape. I'm much more likely to pick up my older iPad instead. The performance of the 7 (second version) was also very disappointing. I'm actually interested in seeing the Nexus 9 not only because it fits me a bit better being a bit bigger but by going to 4:3 I think some of what I hate about the 7 will be eliminated. That being said it doesn't have enough storage so I probably won't get one.

<comment><USER47> I only use landscape for videos. Portrait for text and apps looks good to me, although I haven't tried other screen sizes.

<comment><USER46> Going back and forth between the iPad and the Nexus 7 probably influences my opinion. The 7 is just underwhelming in many areas. I'm not a fan of the iPad mini either though I prefer reading on it to the Nexus 7.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Anyone have experience installing Linux on an Android tablet to use for development work? I'd love to use it with tmux/vim to hack on stuff.

Is battery life worth it?

<comment><USER49> A lot of people have used an SSH client on a tablet for development on a VPS or other server.

There is a blog about it here: [http://yieldthought.com/post/12239282034/swapped-my- macbook-...](http://yieldthought.com/post/12239282034/swapped-my-macbook-for- an-ipad)

<comment><USER50> RDP app on Android from Microsoft works great though with this Nexus 9 I would hope they allow you to change the resolution on the RDP client side.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I'm impressed this is even lighter than the current iPad air (although it remains to be seen what happens with Apple's announcement tomorrow), and not by a trivial amount--almost 50 grams lighter. I've been a happy Nexus 7 user but am starting to feel I need a little bit bigger screen, and the 4:3 aspect ratio is much nicer for web browsing.

<comment><USER52> _" I'm impressed this is even lighter than the current iPad air"_

It's also smaller, sporting an 8.9" screen vs. the iPad Airs 9.7" screen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I'm aware that Nexus devices have lacked SD card slots seemingly as a matter of policy, but I still don't understand the logic of it for a tablet this powerful. You can buy micro SD cards with mind boggling capacity now. All the other specs are state of the art. And then you are limited to 32GB.

</comment><comment><USER54> Where do you guys think Nexus 9 fits? I have gotten used to Nexus 7 for reading and Nexus 10 for writing/media consumption reading graphically rich stuff like magazine. Do you think Nexus 9 replaces both of those different types of works.

<comment><USER55> I think the onward march of phone sizes into the 6" range is cannibalizing the market for small tablets, and 9-10" for tablets is the remaining sweet spot between phones and laptops.

<comment><USER56> Given the Nexus 6, I actually think this is too small. If I'm going to have a six inch phone, I'd prefer a tablet that is upwards of 12". I think huge tablets are currently an unexplored niche that could kick off just like big phones did.

<comment><USER57> > I think huge tablets are currently an unexplored niche that could kick off > just like big phones did.

Huge tablets aren't exactly an unexplored niche; the Galaxy Note Pro 12.2 and Microsoft Surface, and even a few bigger tablets, do exist.

<comment><USER56> I wasn't aware of the Galaxy Note Pro 12.2. Thanks -- I'm not keen on Samsung's products, but I do like to see the space being explored.

I guess I unintentionally excluded the Surface Pro 3 since it's so much more than just a tablet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Seems like a step back from Nexus 10.

</comment><comment><USER59> My Nexus 7's battery went kaput, so this looks like it'd be a nice replacement. Overall, I'm quite happy to use the Nexus stuff: the experience is very consistent, and they get regular upgrades.

</comment><comment><USER60> 4:3 aspect ratio on an andriod tablet! This should be interesting.

</comment><comment><USER61> What's up with keyboards that lack a right side ctrl key? Is it bad form to type using right-ctrl or something? Can someone shed some light on this? :\

<comment><USER62> What would you remove from the keyboard to accommodate a right side ctrl key?

<comment><USER61> In this case the alt keys appear to be the size of two letter keys. We could steal some room from there. Maybe I'm just too picky, it's a small form factor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> A bit suspicious that there's no resolution announced, especially considering the Nexus 10 had its resolution advertised ad nauseam from the day it was announced, and the Nexus 6 has its high resolution hyped up as well. It'll be curious to see if they've pulled back on the resolution arms race in favor of something like battery life or price range.

<comment><USER64> There is a button to expand the tech specs and see additional details:

Display

      8.9" IPS LCD
      4:3 aspect ratio
      QXGA (2048x1536)
      Gorilla Glass 3
      Double tap to wake

<comment><USER63> Ah, that's what that does. Didn't even realize it was a button until you said so. Seems like they didn't want to draw attention to the resolution drop (admittedly to a smaller screen) between the Nexus 10 and the Nexus 9.

<comment><USER65> I throw these eye-candy Google websites into a text-only browser and start /'ing; it is _way_ easier to find the info you're looking for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> > The 8.9" screen is big enough to work and watch on, but small enough to > carry around in one hand.

Really I could carry that in one hand? That's amazing! Know what else I can carry in one-hand? My fucking 17 inch macbook.

<comment> experimental- That's a good point in a way. At that size (especially with the 4:3 screen ratio) it's certainly uncomfortable to hold it like a phone, even with huge hands. Ergo, screen size doesn't really matter that much (of course it matters somewhat; think of the forces and you realize what affects torque) – you hold it like an iPad Air, and the more interesting spec would be weight which I couldn't find by glancing the product page.

<comment><USER67> 425g (WiFi) or 436 (LTE). You have to expand the tech specs to see it, which isn't very obvious. The jewel looks like something you'd drag, not click.</comment></comment></comment>


The $40 Standup Desk - <AUTHOR> http://opensoul.org/blog/archives/2012/01/09/the-40-standup-desk/ <comment><USER4> Before you trust a few thousand dollars of equipment to this desk...

The brackets there are mounted backwards; the long end should go against the wall. When they rate the brackets to hold 1000 pounds, it's based on a load at the center of the short side. But really the risk comes from the mounting. If you mount a 30-inch-deep hunk of desk on it there is a much higher stress on the mounting points since the long desk acts as a very effective lever. If you lean against the edge of the desk it may well pull the bracket out of the wall --especially if you use typical screws rather than lag bolts to mount it to the wall.

If you are mounting something like this in a corner, as being done here, the whole setup could be strengthened by mounting a ledger board against the right-hand wall to support the entire depth of the desk. Really you should have a support on the front-left corner as well, which can be done either with a dowel or furniture leg (you can get either at a hardware store).

<comment><USER5> I thought this at first, but if you look at a bracket like the one in the article on Amazon[1], it seems that they are mounted correctly, since amazon describes its depth as 19.5", and a height of 13".

Those brackets are different than what I would call standard shelving brackets[2], which should be mounted with the long side against the wall.

[1]:[http://www.amazon.com/Black-Steel-Shelf- Bracket-19-1/dp/B001...](http://www.amazon.com/Black-Steel-Shelf- Bracket-19-1/dp/B001DT3SYC)

[2]:[http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/BATTALION-Utility-Shelf- Bra...](http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/BATTALION-Utility-Shelf- Bracket-4PB71)

<comment><USER4> I've never seen a bracket meant to be intentionally mounted long-side-out, but I agree they seem to be advocating it there. You could do it if the loads were light, of course, but with a deep shelf and/or heavy loads it creates a lot of pull-out stress on the screws near the 90-degree bend.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There's a profession that's had standing desks for centuries. They're called draftsmen (architects, artists, and others). You'll find a great number of adjustable (height and angle) desks searching for "drafting table" with prices starting below $100 (new or used), and, well, as with much furniture, sky's the limit.

They can be used as standing desks or (with a stool) as a seated workstation. As noted in comments below, many drafting stools have some sort of footrest.

A few models (the less expensive ones look a bit unstable): [http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=drafting+table&...](http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=drafting+table&cid=7023467640625048965&ei=vTsLT8i3EIqqiATlwOSKDA&ved=0CCQQ8wIwAg#p) [http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=drafting+table&...](http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=drafting+table&cid=12338571972720315960&ei=vTsLT8i3EIqqiATlwOSKDA&ved=0CFAQ8wIwBQ#p) [http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=drafting+table&...](http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=drafting+table&cid=17996206023319475075&ei=vTsLT8i3EIqqiATlwOSKDA&ved=0CGEQ8wIwBg#p) [http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=drafting+table&...](http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=drafting+table&cid=1886506219101342025&ei=vTsLT8i3EIqqiATlwOSKDA&ved=0CIYBEPMCMAk#p)

... or search Craigslist.

Add a monitor clamp/mount (either on the desk or on the wall behind it) and you've got a workstation solution. A hutch, shelving, or cabinet above, and an enclosed pedestal cabinet, and you've got a full desk.

</comment><comment><USER7> Senseless self plug - It's not adjustable, but for between $100-$200 (depending on quality of parts and whether or not you elect to sand/stain/seal) you can build this: [http://imperialwicket.com/diy- adjustable-stand-up-desk-for-u...](http://imperialwicket.com/diy-adjustable- stand-up-desk-for-under-175) .

It's not quickly adjustable, but with the removal and replacement of some bolts, you can adjust the main desk area from 30" height all the way up to 52". Built into the cost are four additional shelves of various sizes.

My idea was that if I was going to spend close to $200 on it, I wasn't terribly considered about quick adjustments (and I agree with nick_urban that a high stool/chair is perfect if necessary). However, I wanted to be sure that if I needed a non-standing desk in the future, this could be easily altered. I could also easily adjust it to accommodate visiting/alternative users - <USER2> is harder with many of the wall-mounted stand-up desks that are out there.

<comment><USER8> That looks pretty cool, I also built my own adjustable stand-up/sit-down desk, albeit a more minimalist version.

I'll have to draw out the plans like you did before I go touting the benefits of it, but I had quite a fun time designing and building it, as it seems you did.

The basic idea of mine:

The difference between a comfortable standing-desk height and sitting-desk height for me was 15 inches, so the desk surface is 15 inches deep, and can either fold up-and-out to be "Stand-up mode" or down-and-out to be "sit-down mode".

<comment><USER7> That sounds excellent. I spent a long time thinking about techniques for expedient adjustment, and ended up deciding that I didn't trust my engineering skills (or lack thereof) enough to warrant the additional cost.

I'm excited to see some more about your build, hope you can post details soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's funny how we (typically) are just fine spending thousands of dollars for electronics but have a hard time doing it for furniture. (I'm doing it myself: I'm on the couch or the dining table when I work at home)

This guy has well over $2,000 on this $40 "desk", even though this equipment will lose a lot more value over time than a good desk. A MacBook Air will be worth barely anything in 5 years, while you can probably make a desk last half a career at least. Same for a good office chair.

<comment><USER10> I see the same responses in the comments thread of this blog. "$40 worth desk holding gadgets worth $4000? Seriously?" This line of reasoning makes no sense to me.

Why does the cost of a desk need to match that of the stuff on it? Are you suggesting this home-made desk is not stable, that it puts the contents of it at risk? Sure looks stable to me.

He might be able to justify $2000 on a Macbook Air because there may not be an alternative (depending on his work) or it may be justified with the perceived costs of the device.

There's no point spending $800 on a desk if $40 does the job adequately. Cost is only loosely correlated to quality and value. It's the same line of thinking that goes "well you spend a third of your life sleeping so why do you spend only $200 on a mattress?" Perhaps because a cheap bed and mattress is perfectly comfortable for most people.

<comment><USER11> Do you really think the people who are advocating spending more think the desk looks stable and sufficient? As you say, that makes no sense, so why assume that? Wouldn't it make more sense to think they feel differently about the quality of the desk?

<comment><USER10> The reason i assumed that is because the comments discuss money. Why are we talking about money if it's just a question of quality?

I'm sure you could build a stable and sufficient desk from raw materials for $40-$100. Way less than the value of what goes on it. What's money got to do with anything?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you want a 'stand up desk' that is freestanding, IKEA has the FREDRIK in two variants for $119 and $149:

<http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/00115992/>

<http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/60111123/>

It's easy to build. It's sturdy, and it looks good.

<comment><USER13> Interesting, thanks. Do you think one could use only one of the two narrow shelves and put a large screen on it? Can it support the weight? That way you could have keyboard and screen at different heights.

<comment><USER14> I wonder that as well. Product description mentions only table top, but the construction suggests that shelves also can be mounted at different heights.

<comment><USER15> Indeed the shelves use the same mounting holes as the table top so they can be mounted in any order at any height.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I found that without being able to easily switch between sitting and standing, standing work stations will probably not work for most people. I bought a geek desk and it solves the problem beautifully, but having two separate desks for sitting and standing is a cheaper solution if you have the room for it (or having a very tall stool).

<comment><USER17> After trying a non-adjustable standing desk that I built for a period of two weeks, I came to a similar conclusion. It initially felt pretty good, but after a few hours had passed I ended up taking a lot of breaks that I normally wouldn't have, simply because my legs couldn't keep up.

Also, my feet were in some serious pain for the first few days, even with a thick floor mat, and continued to lightly ache afterwards.

Anyone thinking about doing something similar may want to read this brief article about some of the potential risks in standing up all the time: [http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/13/the-dangers-of- sitting...](http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/13/the-dangers-of-sitting-at- work%E2%80%94and-standing/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> An inexpensive standing desk is nice, but I don't think I would be any happier standing continuously than sitting continuously. Unfortunately, rapidly adjustable sit/stand desks are insanely expensive.

I think this person has found a heck of an in-between position. It's not $40, but it's a heck of a lot cheaper than a geekdesk. [http://blog.melchua.com/2011/07/09/fitting-yourself-a-sit- to...](http://blog.melchua.com/2011/07/09/fitting-yourself-a-sit-to-stand- desk/)

<comment><USER19> How about a high desk that you can stand at, with a stool or drafting chair for when you want to sit? A tall chair seems a lot easier / cheaper than an adjustable desk.

<comment><USER18> I considered it. Tall ergonomic chairs are _very_ expensive.

A top-of-the-line aeron is about $700; the stool version is about $1200.

<comment><USER20> "Tall ergonomic chairs are very expensive."

Do you need an ergonomic chair?

In my experience ergonomic means with a too much bended back shape that will DISTORT(!) your natural spine shape. Unfortunately they use statistic to decide what is the ergonomic "best" shape, the problem is that people backs in the west have gotten less and less straight the same way they are getting more and more overweight.

Instead of buying an expensive chair, in my opinion it is a best investment to buy a good book or take some good posture lessons that teach you how to sit, stand or sleep properly.

Your back could support itself without effort if it is straight.

<comment><USER14> I was of the similar opinion, but a research[0] suggests that sitting straight is not actually as healthy. I'd like to see a source which would confirm that sitting back causes distortion to spine shape.

That said, I agree with you that an ergonomic chair would make little sense for a standing desk, as one will obviously sit less (only when too tired to stand).

[0] <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6187080.stm> (2006)

<comment><USER18> I don't think it's obvious at all. I prefer to sit, but I am by nature a restless individual. A standing desk would allow me to make some of my pacing time productive.

To put it another way: every person may have a different use pattern when given the option of equal comfort at seated and standing heights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> fwiw, I'm designing an open-source cardboard adjustable standing desk. Here is my crappy first version:

<http://i.imgur.com/QCEfp.jpg>

<http://i.imgur.com/LV5oC.jpg>

replicatorblog is going to help me by suggesting some stability and aesthetics improvements, but if anyone else cares to join in, you're more than welcome.

The slots will be cut-out so you can adjust according to your height. My goal is something that can by cut with a CNC/laser cutter and then sold for ~$20.

</comment><comment><USER22> Seems a good number people like the idea of a motorised adjustable desk, but the price is a deterrent.

I have a GeekDesk, or what near-as-dammit is one, via a UK importer who gets them from Europe and, personally, it's been the best £400-500 [edit: $600-800 USD, give or take] I've spent on hardware, _ever_ , given that I spent most of my waking hours sat/standing/leaning at it. But I appreciate that it's not an easy price point for everyone.

So, question, with a view to a market opportunity for someone: how much would you be willing to pay for a strong, motorised, adjustable-height desk? Reply with a dollar figure, and if someone's already replied with a similar sum, upvote that instead. (Starting a whole poll seems OTT)

<comment><USER7> I would be comfortable at a $600 USD price point.

The major issue for me is that the GeekDesk succeeds ONLY in the adjustable requirement. I want to be able to have my monitor and keyboards at different heights, and a secondary shelf was important (though not strictly necessary). When I consider paying nearly $1000 USD for a starter kit (GeekDesk large frame), then spec'ing out nearly $400 USD for additional monitor stands and a keyboard tray, it hardly seems worth it.

I agree that it's a market where a motivated individual should be able to make a killing with a well-thought-out kickstarter proj.

<comment><USER22> Ah, good point. I should have added that I also got one of these: [http://www.amazon.co.uk/MDM11S-Single-Monitor-Bracket- Pull-O...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/MDM11S-Single-Monitor-Bracket-Pull- Out/dp/B001BSDVW4/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1326131871&sr=8-15) which takes care of my screen height [Edit: pic] <http://dl.dropbox.com/u/44212/IMG_20120109_180019.jpg>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> "Hanging a shelf is taught in Adulthood 101."

I think I must have been sick the week they taught that. I still have great difficulty doing it (or building anything, working "with my hands").

<comment><USER24> You just need some practice and you'll get the hang of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> A little more expensive, but I made mine by taking an L-shaped IKEA Galant desk with extension and putting cinder blocks underneath the A-style legs. Felt pads are important to keep it from sliding off the blocks, but works great and gives you a TON of desk room :)

</comment><comment><USER26> This honestly looks like a great way to smash a $1000 ACD on the ground with great force.

Shelf mounts aren't made for lots of shearing force cause by constant up and down pressure like that.

While the desk looks cool, I give it about a 1:10 chance of coming off suddenly within 5 years of daily use.

</comment><comment><USER27> That's not a desk, that's a shelf attached to the wall.

</comment><comment><USER28> It's strange to read this, because I was recently in almost the same position. I almost ordered a Geekdesk, but ended up getting a used IKEA Fredrik (sp?) desk and setting it up in a standing position.

$50 instead of $1000, and pretty much the same result since I never sit down anymore anyways...

I certainly recommend going the frugal route first; if it doesn't work out, you can always re-sell the desk on the used market and get the expensive model later.

</comment><comment><USER29> For those who still sit 8+ hours a day: Work on the boss or setup a budget for an adjustable stand up desk. Having a fixed height requires that you adjust if you want to add a floor mat, wear different shoes, or want to throw a treadmill down. And sometimes, after standing for hours, you just want to sit down. Spending $800 dollars is justified for anything that is used 8 hours a day.

</comment><comment><USER30> Cool idea. I've done the standup desk thing before at work with a tall chair as a sitting option. I actually ended up using the chair most of the time so I switched back to avoid constantly vaulting up and down, but it was an interesting experiment for about 2 years.

One concern I would have about this particular configuration is the lack of a keyboard tray. Ergonomically, you would want your eyes about level with the top of the monitor or maybe a few inches below the top. At the same time, you want your keyboard to comfortably sit below so that you can keep your elbows at about 105 degrees or so. With the addition of a keyboard tray, and possibly a monitor stand, this can be a really nice long term ergonomic setup.

Found some tips on ergonomics at the link below, and these are inline (no pun intended) with what I have heard from the mandatory ergonomics training at my employer.

<http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art21940.asp>

</comment><comment><USER31> I had a standup desk made from heavy-duty shelving storage (See: [http://www.samsclub.com/sams/shop/product.jsp?productId=prod...](http://www.samsclub.com/sams/shop/product.jsp?productId=prod3790514&pid=CSE_Froogle&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=sku4194514))

I figured this would be good because I could have the surface area of 5 desks take the square footage of one. The only thing is that with this desk doing any sort of paperwork is impractical. I had a keyboard tray that pushed me out too far from the desk to lean over my paper/books, and the ergonomically ideal height for the monitor base was too high for me to comfortably reference papers. I switched to a simple IKEA corner desk and chair, and re-purposed my shelves to be regular storage (although I kept the space open for monitors, should I want to work standing on another computer.

</comment><comment><USER32> Either the keyboard is far too high, or the monitor far too low. This is like laptop proportions - awful ergonomics.

</comment><comment><USER33> I've been a huge proponent of the standup desk for probably two years now.[1] One thing I see people get wrong ALL the time is the simple ergonomics - <USER3> top of the monitor should be at about eye level, and the keyboard should be just a little beneath the height of your elbows.

I made a simple folding standup desk I could put on top of a regular desk[2] and it's been fantastic. Very simple, easily folds flat, and sits nicely on top of just about any desk or table. If anyone wants details (and the sketchup file I planned with) just let me know!

[1]<http://www.localconspiracy.com/2010/08/get-up-stand-up.html> [2]<https://picasaweb.google.com/christopheraedo/Simplestandup>

</comment><comment><USER34> My $40 no mounting/screwing, better monitor height solution:

<http://dl.dropbox.com/u/36698/standingdesk.JPG>

Parts:

* $20 - 4 legs + desk board: <http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/S79831622>

* $20 or less: boards from a hardware store, dimensions:

\- top monitor stand backing + side boards: 3 of ~12"ht x 10"depth

\- bottom backing + side boards: 3 of ~12"ht x 15"+ depth (can be narrower in depth if lean against wall)

\- monitor stand board: width desired x depth of monitor side boards

\- desk board: free with the ikea legs. If want different dimensions, depth should be at least 18" so monitor can further away from you.

\- bottom legs attachment board: width desired x depth of corresponding sides

* optional: $20 plastic sliding keyboard drawer to keep papers/notes. Got mine from Frys.

</comment><comment><USER35> I got this from amazon: <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000QA0EHI/> \- goes from too-low-to-sit to too-high-for-work (I'm 6' tall), is sturdy enough for a laptop, and has lockable wheels. Best $50 I've spent.

Might not be able to carry your 26" screen if it is too heavy, but it's a damn good way to see how well you fair with an adjustable standing desk. And it also doubles as an over-the-bed desk ...

Helpful suggestions: Attach a long-cord power strip to your mobile table, so that only one power goes out, and that it doesn't kill your non-magsafe- connector when someone kicks the power cable.

Also, use a large binder clip to attach mouse/keyboard/monitor/network cables to the table if you use a laptop and take it with you often.

</comment><comment><USER36> $8 stand up desk: eight 8" cinder block cubes at about a dollar each. Stack two high under each desk leg. Throw a piece of lumber between the top front cubes for a footrest.

At the very least it's the cheapest way to decide if you like a standing desk.

<comment><USER37> Free standing desk: Cardboard box on your desk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> My walking desk, IIRC the cost was about $400:

[https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/treadmill-desk- part-6-...](https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/treadmill-desk- part-6-hopefully-the-final-summary/#content)

</comment><comment><USER39> I built my own 3-tiered, sit-down or stand-up desk, link to pic below.

Seated, the monitor is the right height for me, so as to keep my head up and neck straight. When I want to switch to standing, I just move the keyboard to the top level. I make the switch once or twice per day. And I can sit cross legged on the lowest platform (I dont like bucket/office chairs).

That was v0.1 of the desk, constructed in a few hours. the As you can see it is not production ready :p

[http://blog.angelinegragasin.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/02/...](http://blog.angelinegragasin.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/02/johnny.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER40> track shelving also works, and is adjustable after you install it.

</comment><comment><USER41> The one thing that you miss with a desk like this is the ability to have a far off focal point behind your monitor. When you are working and thinking hard at a desk and you want to rest your eyes, it helps to have the space behind the monitor to be open so you can gaze off into the distance.

Mounting the desk on the wall means that you can only gaze at a wall to rest your eyes.

If I recall correctly, this design pattern is discussed in Christopher Alexander's "A Timeless Way of Building"

<comment><USER42> You could put a big mirror on the wall.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I briefly tried an arrangement like this, which has just one surface for both keyboard and monitor. It worked horribly for me, though perhaps I am odd.

It works much better to have the keyboard at a good keyboard height, and monitors at a good monitor height. I've built a couple variations over time, see my 2010 version partway down this page:

<http://kylecordes.com/2010/standing-desk>

<comment><USER44> Same here. My keyboard is around one feet below the monitor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> My adjustable standing desk: $5?

<http://i.imgur.com/GfGpq.jpg>

When I get tired I can switch from standing to sitting (use USB keyboard/mouse when sitting, laptop keyboard/mouse when standing).

TL;DC: Laptop is on a bunch of small plastic storage boxes stacked on desk (and a random router box); keyboard/mouse on the desk surface.

</comment><comment><USER46> It looks like a wall shelf. Did you factor in the weight you would put if you lean on it with both of your hands or elbows. We do not lean on wall shelves but definitely lean on desks, and we do it unconsciously. May be we do not do it while we're standing, since I never tried working (with computers) standing.

</comment><comment><USER47> I just put a bunch of old computer books on my desk, in conjunction with a few Amazon boxes, and that seems to be sufficient. I actually have two desks. A standup desk AND a sitting desk, and I transfer my laptop between the two. This seems to be the best balance of sanity and health for me.

</comment><comment><USER48> I got this one <http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/S49843462/> They sell a stool that's the right height for when I do want to sit down, but it's uncomfortable enough that I do stand most of the time.

</comment><comment><USER49> My standup desk: Procrastinate on the ipad, walking around the house. Sit only when you write code.

</comment><comment><USER50> I just built some boxes out of plywood and put my existing desk on them. It was still a bit too low (my back was hurting) so I added a 2x4 on each side between the box and the desk leg until my back stopped hurting. Works great and very inexpensive!

</comment><comment><USER51> Great low budget idea. My biggest gripe is that facing the wall is bad feng shui. I know that most folks consider feng shui a bunch of nonsense, but I like many of it's principals. [http://www.ehow.com/video_4426322_feng-shui- desk-positioning...](http://www.ehow.com/video_4426322_feng-shui-desk- positioning-tips.html)

There are several low cost desk choices at csnoffice.com. I have this roughly $300 desk: [http://www.csnoffice.com/Safco-Products-Company- MUV-30-W-Hei...](http://www.csnoffice.com/Safco-Products-Company- MUV-30-W-Height-Adjustable-Stand-Up-Workstation-SF1754.html)

Here's a $100 desk... [http://www.csnoffice.com/RTA-Home-And-Office-Utility- Desk-or...](http://www.csnoffice.com/RTA-Home-And-Office-Utility-Desk-or- Stand-in-Black-Glass-CT-015B-HAO1112.html)

</comment><comment><USER52> Industrial cart standing desk: [http://stammy.com/post/3608383614/jayparkinsonmd-im-a- huge-f...](http://stammy.com/post/3608383614/jayparkinsonmd-im-a-huge-fan-of- standing-desks)

</comment><comment><USER53> This is a great idea. I've always been more comfortable standing at a kitchen counter or using the adjustable-height computers we (no longer) have behind the genius bar.

</comment><comment><USER52> Standing desk improv: <http://instagr.am/p/GHAmP/>

</comment><comment><USER54> "A stud finder or old man that knows how to knock on the wall and tell where the studs are."

Would you just search Craigslist for the old man? Sounds tricky.

</comment><comment><USER55> The top of your monitor should be at eye level. I can't tell from the picture, but it looks like your setup will lead to neck strain.

</comment><comment><USER56> The free startup desk: your kitchen/dining room table (or, it you don't have one of those: two cardboard boxes and a piece of wood)

<comment><USER57> You misread the title.

<comment><USER56> Yep, I sure did. Damn, I shouldn't post before 2 cups of coffee have been consumed. Sorry guys.</comment></comment></comment>


Who Owns the Words That Come Out of Your Mouth? - <AUTHOR> http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/01/17/who-owns-the-words-that-come-out-of-your-mouth-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

<comment><AUTHOR> Transcript: [http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/01/17/who-owns-the-words- th...](http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/01/17/who-owns-the-words-that-come- out-of-your-mouth-full-transcript/)</comment>


Ask HN: Vulnerability that reveals Google user identity - <AUTHOR> Hi everyone,
I remember reading here (I believe) an article which someone wrote detailing how Google API endpoints could leak if a particular account was logged in or not. To make things even worse, the researcher mentioned that the endpoint did not seem to be rate limited, allowing you to go through an extensive list of address to pinpoint if a specific user was accessing your site.
I'm a teacher doing a privacy lesson and wanted to discuss this with my students, but for the life of me cannot find the article in question. If anyone remembers it, I'd love to be pointed to it again! <comment> VuWall-Matt Took a little while, but I think this is what you are looking for: [https://blog.0day.rocks/abusing-gmail-to-get-previously- unli...](https://blog.0day.rocks/abusing-gmail-to-get-previously-unlisted-e- mail-addresses-41544b62b2)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks so much -- not quite what I was looking for, though. A buddy at work finally came through, though: [https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.tomanthony.co.uk/blo...](https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.tomanthony.co.uk/blog/confirm- google-users-email/)</comment></comment>


Pharo: a Smalltalk VM that doesn't look like a toy out of the box - <AUTHOR> http://www.pharo-project.org/home

<comment><USER2> I'm not a huge smalltalk user, but I really really like Pharo. It feels much more developer friendly than the default Squeak VM.

</comment><comment><USER3> Another nice recent Squeak distribution is Cuis, which takes quite another approach, trying to slim down the system to its basics, going back to the SmallTalk roots. Looks quite interesting for those interested in learning stuff, and doesn't try to go the futile way of trying to emulate "normal" operating systems: <http://www.jvuletich.org/Cuis/Index.html>

</comment><comment><USER4> Is this basically Squeak with an "uncanny valley" OS X theme?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's Squeak with a better default look and feel and more pragmatic, mature development goals.

<comment><USER2> IIRC it's removed some of the non-development related stuff as well (like etoys).

<comment><USER5> The sooner they can get rid of _all_ the horrible Squeak graphics the better. Was playing with Pharo last night and, unfortunately, it still doesn't take long to run into Squeak aesthetics.

<comment><USER6> We are working hard on it. We need more people to help us. Feel free to join.

<comment><USER5> Thanks Damien. Pharo is definitely a much-needed project.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> out of curiosity, why do we need a GUI to go with a runtime?

<comment><USER8> Typical Smalltalk environments are interesting because the runtime and the development tools are very tightly integrated (or "coupled" depending on your point of view). This affects the way the development and debugging tools interact with programs. For example, you can change a program just by modifying elements of its UI while it's running.

For a Smalltalk without a graphical environment by default, try GNU Smalltalk: <http://smalltalk.gnu.org/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It runs on an iPhone? Odd; last I checked, the SDK's license forbade compilers and interpreters.

<comment><USER10> Looking at their success stories page, this app: <http://www.mobilewikiserver.com/Welcome.html>

appears to have been created in Pharo and has a little "Available on the App Store" badge.

Apple really only seems to reject apps that allow you to get access to an interpreter/compiler, in a way that makes them nervous (flash).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> What happened to the Squeak wxWidgets binding?</comment>


Venus to make rare transit across sun Tuesday - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/06/02/BAU21OLQ69.DTL <comment><USER2> Can anyone explain why this doesn't happen every year, and is on a 100+ year cycle of 2 in eight years and then nothing for 105?</comment>


A conversation with Jeff Bezos, Amazon.com - <AUTHOR> http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10105

<comment><AUTHOR> Q: What one quality do you think has most contributed to your success?

A: Willingness to be misunderstood, willingness to fail and willingness to be long-term-oriented.

[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4056722386095778405...](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4056722386095778405&hl=en#53m51s)</comment>


The Dangerously Clean Water Used To Make Your iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/1750612/dangerously-clean-water-used-make-your-iphone

<comment><USER2> Wrong.

Water does not become dangerous when it is more pure.

I've been drinking distilled bottled water for decades, and I'm not the only one. I have been making ultrapure for decades too, which is biologically equivalent to distilled as far as (lack of) minerals go.

As far as I can tell, the noise about leaching beneficial minerals from the body arose with the popularity of bottled spring water and drinking water which require less expensive processing (or no processing at all for some grades from some sources) but sell for the same price as distilled water.

Discouragement was needed otherwise too many consumers would be drinking the distilled.

I could put down thousands of words about this, but Ozarka has some good waters, most consumers would be able to find one of their grades which is as good or better than what they are getting now. The test results speak for themselves:

[http://www.nestle-watersna.com/asset- library/Documents/O_ENG...](http://www.nestle-watersna.com/asset- library/Documents/O_ENG.pdf)

There is not a significant difference in mineral nutrition between their grades, unless you were grossly deficient in your diet for a mineral which is present in one grade but not in another.

The simple answer is you need to be getting your minerals from some place other than your water.

The dirty little secret about industrial ultrapure water is that it usually tastes funny because there is something left over from the processing that is undetectable with today's limited technology, but that the olfactory & taste buds can notice.

Ultrapure is best an application-specific process, for some purposes it can be an unsolved mystery where once you purify it enough for superior performance in the application, you still don't have an exact handle on why it wasn't superior at other times. And once it works industrially, you are supposed to think it is so pure nothing could ever be detected. Handling the purification and QA steps in a superstitiously-slanted way from that point on is sometimes the best functional approach.

EDIT: here's another worthwhile citation -

[http://chemistry.about.com/od/waterchemistry/f/Can-You- Drink...](http://chemistry.about.com/od/waterchemistry/f/Can-You-Drink- Distilled-Water.htm)

<comment><USER3> Ozarka's own documents detail the mineral contents of their water. Ultra pure water by definition has no mineral content. You cannot buy ultra pure water in a grocery store. It's (relatively) expensive to produce water this pure. You have never consumed ultra pure water, I can guarantee it. I work in a specialized lab and our water is only down to 4 ppb, basically murky compared to this stuff.

<comment><USER2> Sorry about that.

Didn't intend to be disagreeable, but I'm not drinking the kool-aid on this one, water can not be too clean to drink, the article is a drama piece based on a false "fact".

Also must apologize for saying ultrapure is "biologically" equivalent when I meant dietarily equivalent for most people.

There can easily be germs or trace minerals even in commercial distilled water which could interfere with biological cultures causing difficulties which would not be a problem when using ultrapure.

Here's a good test sheet for the kind of ultrapure used to rate other waters for trace elements:

[http://www.emdmillipore.com/US/en/product/Q-POD- Element,MM_N...](http://www.emdmillipore.com/US/en/product/Q-POD- Element,MM_NF-C84730#specifications)

The commonly consumed solvent that I want to be careful about is alcohol.

Water, OTOH is the solvent of life. A healthy solvent no doubt.

Solvent strength and solubility calculations show complete dependence on relative concentrations of solutes, let's look at the math.

Take for example magnesium, in blood this is often the lowest in concentration of the routine electrolytes tested, and there's no doubt the right amount of magnesium is good for the health.

"Drinking" water is Ozarka's grade having highest magnesium at about 3.9mg/L max. People love this stuff. Me too when I can't get distilled. But you're SOL depending on this popular typical drinking water for magnesium completely, you need another source.

One liter of their distilled water can have 0.1mg max of Mg. (usually way less, but no need to test it any more sensitively since it's not ultrapure or anything exotic)

Ultrapure at 0.0000004mg typical per liter is what we're talking about for reference.

The cleaner the water the better the reference.

Great discrepancy here but the take away is that all these figures are inadequate sources of magnesium compared to what you need.

In typical patients urine is draining about 6 - 10 mEq/day, or 73 to 122mg/day, for an average of 97mg/day.

Now suppose you drink in 2 liters and it ends up flowing out at 97mg/day:

Ozarka Drinking water has some (palatable) magnesium in it, so you lose less, at 89mg

With their distilled you lose more, at least 97mg

with ultrapure you would lose the most, almost the whole 97mg

The RDA for magnesium is 310 to 420mg/day of which 350mg is recommended as maximum from supplements. The difference between typical drinking water magnesium content and deionized (distilled or ultrapure) is about 8mg/day when you are supposed to be consuming at least 38x that difference per day. If you're not getting that much magnesium your nutrition may not be the best, and if you are getting the RDA then the 8mg delta is not much more than rounding error. The 8mg is also a low fraction of the normal 49mg loss range from 73 to 122mg/day, and a small fraction of the full RDA.

I'm not making this up they way they are getting their facts in the article.

Distilled is a very good solvent, especially for minerals, put it in your windshield washer tank and you can see the difference.

Delicious too, try some blind testing.

No affiliation wih Ozarka on my part either.

Not a full 1000words, but hope this helps.

<comment><USER3> It doesn't help me at all, but that's because I'm not confused about this issue. If you drank large quantities of ultra pure water as defined in the article, without compensating for the loss of essential salts that would result, you would die. What you are talking about here has no relevance to anything as far as I can tell.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wonder if there is a good medical use for this? Leaching things out of one's body is sometimes desired.

<comment><USER3> This water would probably pull relatively concentrated salts below their physiologically safe level (e.g. sodium, potassium, calcium), making it not useful for leeching out toxic stuff which is usually at a very low concentration. In other words, it would be very non-specific.

<comment><USER4> People with high blood pressure need salts to be leeched out of their system, interestingly enough.

<comment><USER3> But not salts like calcium and magnesium, which are essential. As far as I know sodium is the only salt that influences blood pressure.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How cloud computing is changing business - <AUTHOR> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26015759/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmmm, any relationship between these 2 statements?...

 _MSNBC is a joint Microsoft - NBC Universal venture._

and

 _Many chief information officers remain concerned about the reliability and security of cloud-based services._</comment>


Using FathomDB as a database provider: WebMynd's experience - <AUTHOR> http://blog.webmynd.com/2009/02/28/databases-as-a-service-fathomdb/

<comment><USER2> I'm really impressed by the performance monitoring features FathomDB offers, especially the ability to sort the most processor and disk intensive queries over the last couple minutes/hours.

I've done a little bit of googling and there seem to be a couple of open source MySQL performance monitoring tools that offer the same kind of features (Nagios, Cacti), but this is something I have very little experience in. Any DBAs care to comment on how they monitor their DBs?

</comment><comment><USER3> FathomDB looks _awesome_. Can't wait to get our hands on this to trial.

I love the YC eco-system:

>> WebMynd have been lucky enough to be using just such a database over the last year: FathomDB, which launches in private beta today.

</comment><comment><USER4> Much needed. Long overdue!</comment>


Gping.io server software open sourced - <AUTHOR> Hi everybody, happy December!
Tl;dr:
1. We have a project roadmap
2. The server is open source
3. You can be a contributor
WHAT IS GPING.IO?  It provides realtime tracking of your cars location, engine diagnostic codes, OBD integration, and more.  It provides a TinyURL like URL for your car on gping.io.
2016 is wrapping up and the GPing[1] team has a couple major announcements to close out the year.
We've brought a second engineer on board to help. Our first task was to figure out what kind of project GPing was going to be and how to get there. We established a roadmap of new features and the top three are:
* Account authentication, provisioning, and settings support;
* A documented API allowing data access;
* User defined actions that can be triggered by various location related events.
The second task we undertook was to clean up the existing codebase (a little) and get it ready for you to deploy your own instance. That means…
We're happy to announce that the GPing server code is being released on GitHub[2]. It's set up to make deploying your own instance as trivial as possible whether the environment is a LAMP box in the living room or AWS ECS. There are a few early adopter codes[3] (unlocks the Android app until at least 2018) for the Android app available free if you'd like to take a custom server for a spin.
Even with additional eng support GPing is just two people, with primarily back end experience, working in their spare time. If you'd like to get involved we have (or will soon) particular need for:
* UX/Design for Android and web;
* Front end web developers;
* iOS devs;
* Folks with authentication/oauth experience;
* Marketing and copy editing support!
Your contributions are appreciated and you can find out how to get involved by responding here, dropping into IRC (#gping.io on Freenode), or checking our listed issues[4].
Happy Holidays,
<3 GPing Team
[1] http://gping.io
[2] https://github.com/dustball/gping.io
[3] http://bit.ly/gping-promo
[4] https://github.com/dustball/gping.io/issues <comment><USER2> Congratulations. What is this GPing thing, actually? Your website is very thin on this matter, which is the single most important thing.

Also, you could have put all this lengthy news on your website and put a link to it as "Show HN", that would have served much better.</comment>