ikarous

"Naturally it should be pointed out that I'm sure the majority of gay people do not behave in such a way."

They most assuredly do not. I am a gay engineer. I've never known anyone so blatantly deceptive, but if any of my acquaintances even thought about doing something like that, I would give them a dressing down that would make a drill sergeant cry.

Gay people are like any population sample. 95% of them are normal, decent human beings; 5% are wackos.

The original team that worked on the Feed was a mashup between Milo and Hunch folks; there were two engineers from Milo, one from Hunch, and a couple of product people from both sides. eBay Now was born completely under the Milo umbrella. Svpply hasn't been involved.

"Do you seriously think there would be no difference chemically?"

No, I do not think that. In fact, I stated quite clearly that depression causes measurable changes in brain morphology and function. My entire argument was to support the assertion that the phrase "chemical imbalance" is merely an insufficient label for a complex psychological and biological phenomenon.

I am a depression patient. It is certainly true that various substances can induce depression. I do not believe that the original poster was implying that depression is without very real biological causes; merely that these causes are more nuanced than the phrase "chemical imbalance" implies. Here is some food for thought.

SSRIs, or serotonin reuptake inhibitors, are the most commonly prescribed antidepressants in the United States due to their relative safety and efficacy. It is widely thought that these drugs achieve effectiveness through their ability to increase serotonin levels in the brain. Now, here comes the mystery: while serotonin levels rise almost immediately following introduction of the drug, the antidepressant effects do not become apparent until several weeks of treatment have passed. Why is that? No one knows for sure, but a few interesting theories have emerged.

The most interesting theory, in my opinion, involves hippocampal neurogenesis and BDNF levels. A few recent studies have shown that one thing that the SSRIs share in common is that they all promote neurogenesis in the hippocampus. A further study showed that the antidepressant effects of SSRIs on behavior in rats exposed to artificially induced stressors could be completely nullified by slightly irradiating the hippocampus, thus negating the growth of new neurons promoted by the SSRIs. The antidepressant effect was gone even though serotonin levels remained elevated.

This conclusion provided compelling but not conclusive evidence that neurogenesis is involved in antidepressant effectiveness. Yet even here, the picture was not altogether clear: while patients diagnosed with clinical depression generally show less hippocampal neurogenesis than controls, it is not at all clear whether this deficit is a cause or effect of clinical depression. Is it possible that depression, once established, can cause physical changes in brain structure? If so, that might explain why cognitive behavioral therapy in conjunction with antidepressant medication is a more effective depression treatment than either of the two alone.

Interestingly enough, strenuous aerobic exercise is known both to be an effective treatment for mild to moderate forms of depression as well as a promoter of hippocampal neurogenesis. An increasing number of psychiatrists are in fact prescribing exercise regimens as treatment for some forms of depression because it seems to work.

The bottom line is: there's a lot we don't know about depression, and while we have effective treatments, the reality is that the causes of depression simply cannot be adequately summed up as a "chemical imbalance." Drugs are appropriate for some patients and inappropriate for others. I encourage anyone interested in the subject to do some reading, as the brain is (at least, to a layman like me) the most fascinating information processing system ever.

"Suicide. Everyone responded as they should. But if you meant it, this post wouldn't exist because you'd be hanging from a rafter right now. Just a thought."

You obviously mean well, but this statement bespeaks ignorance about suicide prevention. Most but not all suicides are preceded by warning signs, and talking about it openly automatically places the speaker in the high risk category.

The intent to kill one's self begins with ideation and grows from there. At first, idle thoughts about killing yourself begin to drift through your mind at random. Driving down the freeway, out of fucking nowhere, you imagine yourself veering into oncoming traffic. Or maybe you're in the kitchen taking an Advil and the thought comes to your mind, unbidden, to just down the whole god damn bottle and chase it down with vodka.

These images are like demons, and they are not easy to exorcise. As the imagery and impulses grow more intense and vivid, some victims will say something to offer a clue to those around them or to ask for help. The problem is that this warning often doesn't seem serious because the victim is so torn between two conflicting desires: 1) the desire to end suffering, and 2) the desire to live.

You see, the crux is this: just because someone doesn't want to die doesn't mean that they won't kill themselves. If they're talking about it, then you should treat it as though they're asking for help. I missed the same warning sign because I thought just as you did, that those serious about suicide would be dead rather than talking about it. I was wrong. The only thing that saved her was luck. Luck and a responsive ER.

Take it seriously.

Potentially. A full sleep cycle is approximately ninety minutes in length. If you wake in the middle of the cycle, you take a cognitive performance hit for the rest of the day. So, in some cases, sleeping for thirty fewer minutes can lead to higher subsequent alertness. This is a crucial consideration when you're only allowed to get a few hours of sleep at a time.

Case in point: I've known a number of individuals with highly variable sleep schedules imposed by their work who performed this calculation manually. I imagine that they would find an application or a cycle-aware alarm clock on their phones to be quite handy.

Aside from that, calling someone's work the "dumbest thing you've ever seen" is both unnecessary and probably untrue. Please don't be uncivil.

I have felt variously throughout my life both beautiful and homely. As a gay man, I perceive the ubiquitous social pressure to be attractive much more acutely than most heterosexual men. That pressure is not easy to shake off; I can only imagine what women experience.

Case in point: a few years ago, I noticed that my hair wasn't quite as thick and lush as it once was. I panicked, stupidly. Without performing adequate research, I began taking a medication that blocks the hormone DHT. Only later did I learn that this medication can subtly alter cognition by affecting the production of various neuro-steroids. Obviously, the value of my mind vastly outweighs that of my appearance, so I stopped taking the medication knowing that one day, I'd probably lose my hair because of it.

Despite the obviousness of the choice, it was ridiculously difficult to implement. The social imperative to be beautiful is powerful. Yet:

You aren't your hair. Or your face. Or your breasts.

It may very well be that attractive people have it easier than less attractive people. But that's a problem with human nature, not with those not blessed by beauty. Make reasonable steps to improve your appearance, then forget about it. Self confidence, humor, and a compassionate nature will always win the day with people who matter.

Ask yourself: is Steve Jobs as classically attractive as Brad Pitt? Who is more accomplished? Isaac Asimov? Donald Knuth?

This has been suggested previously, but I would like to add my vote as well. HN could enhance its readability by introducing a method of visually identifying new comments in a thread. It is often very difficult to spot new comments in an ongoing discussion even with comment re-ordering.

I have the same problem. I grew up on a ranch in rural Texas. It was remote enough that I might as well have been on Asimov's Solaria for all the human company I had. Over the years, I became accustomed to reading, thinking, and tinkering in relative isolation.

Whether the cause is simply my background or is perhaps strengthened by some neurological factor, I am completely unable to filter out superfluous external stimuli.If someone is talking on the phone in the same room with me, I can't not listen to their conversation no matter how much I wish otherwise.

The people with whom I work tend to have difficulty understanding this aspect of my nature. I'm afraid I come off as rude and aloof when I put on my headphones and request to be IMed rather than tapped on the shoulder. Generally, these requests are ignored. One of our sales people actually came over and pulled my headphones off my head. My startled reaction did not go over well with her.

I'm not asocial. I like people. I just need silence to think.

"What makes this ruin porn all the more infuriating -- and disturbing -- is that it started when the cool people with the right ideas from the Ivy League schools stepped in."

Post hoc, ergo proper hoc? I don't necessarily disagree with you, but don't you think that there might be more contributing factors? In particular, the decline of the American auto industry comes to mind in regards to Detroit.

I wish my company had similar sentiments. I sit in a darkened corner with the lights turned off. The only thing I can see is an unilluminated beige wall. It's very depressing.

I brought in my own chair (a used Steelcase Leap) and my own keyboard. That helped a lot. Even so, I still have to get up frequently throughout the day so that I don't get back or shoulder pain. When I do, I get suspicious looks from folks who think I'm not working hard enough.

The irony is that I work at home on my own time because I'm more productive there.

Thanks for the advice. You are absolutely right that motivation has to come from within. A fair amount of research shows that the happiest and most productive people are intrinsically motivated. My partner's true passion is transportation engineering and, more specifically, sustainable mass transportation -- but, as you note, it's a difficult field to break into.

A poster upthread linked a video about getting work. The speaker advocates doing free or nearly free work in whatever interests you most, the theory being that these activities will eventually pay off. I think it's a fabulous if rather unorthodox idea. Since we're financially stable with my income, I've told him to give it a shot.

For the sake of comparison, there is a site with a similar aim that was mentioned here earlier. http://www.codeeval.com/

I checked with my partner, and he's under the impression that getting a visa would require at least five years of experience, but he's going to double check. Is this not the case?

Yeah. It would have been easier if we had both graduated at the same time. Now, we have less maneuverability. Thanks for the wishes.

I was referring to the long term, but you make a good point. Asimov posited that increased automation would temporarily increase unemployment but that the net benefit would always be positive. He thought that automation would allow human beings to focus on more interesting and rewarding jobs.

The unspoken assumption is that these more interesting jobs are plentiful enough to support the displaced workers assuming that they're willing to train and transition into a new kind of job. Is this the case today? Are the "higher" jobs plentiful enough? The question is not rhetorical; I'm asking because I can't say. I work in software development and my perspective is limited.

Thanks for asking. He's been searching in the Bay Area and in the Dallas / Fort Worth metroplex primarily. Relocation is certainly an option; in fact, we would both love to live in the Bay Area, and it's a good chance that I could find rewarding work there. We're willing to spend time living apart if that's what it takes, but obviously that's not our first choice.

Plenty of others have predicted the rise of unemployment in proportion to increased automation, and they've been wrong before. Maybe this time they'll be right. I don't know; I'm not economist nor do I possess a crystal ball.

What I do know is that this whole situation is terribly discouraging for young people fresh out of school. My partner, for instance, recently graduated with a degree in civil engineering from a very challenging private school. He's been unable to find work as a starting engineer after a six month search, and I'm frankly out of ideas on how to keep him optimistic. Add to all this that his dad, a senior electrical engineer, just got laid off, and any encouraging words I say start to sound very hollow indeed.

I fear that this high unemployment rate, temporary or not, is going to create a generation of career setbacks and failures to launch. A lot of people out there have it much worse, I know, but I still don't know what to say when this hard working young man can't even get responses back for internships and unpaid work.

I admit to having a knee-jerk reaction. The "no more condoms for me!" comments I saw on the original Engadget article evoked some very unpleasant memories. Having seen the effects of HIV on a first-hand basis, I sometimes fail to respond to such things with purely rational objectivity. I ask your pardon for that.

Do you see any evidence that it will? I don't need evidence either way to state that I prefer for it to be distributed with such information. If it is, then that's great.

I am not at all opposed to providing information! I merely want the test to come with very easy to understand instructions so that people know what results really mean.

I really doubt the "no human interpretation" part of the Engadget article. I've been involved in HIV education as part of the gay community, and this sort of kit worries me greatly. If the test is an antibody based test, then it could do far more harm than good by giving uneducated users a false sense of security: a negative result does not mean that you don't have HIV.

While I'm sure that everyone on HN understands the seroconversion window period, this is simply not the case in the larger community. Ignorance about HIV is widespread. I cannot even begin to count the number of people who believe that pulling out before ejaculating affords some sort of magical protection from the virus. These are the same people who upon seeing a negative result would assume that they're safe without condoms.

The CDC states that the window period for detectable HIV antibody formation is three months; however, this figure is based on first generation HIV tests and is considered somewhat conservative. Public health experts like H. Hunter Handsfield state that detectable antibodies usually form in four to six weeks.

Whatever figure you choose to believe, it's a pretty significant time period. And it's a deadly one. It's during the window period that an HIV infected person is most infectious. Their viral loads are off the chart and they can unknowingly infect multiple people in a short period of time.

The "cure" for HIV is the same as it has always been: education and safer sex practices. HIV is largely a preventable disease. I would be okay with personal test kits if they were bundled with extremely clear educational packets printed in multiple languages. But this particular kit is advertised too much like a silver bullet to assure me that the manufacturers are anywhere near that responsible.

I was trying to be vague so as not to give hints to those interested in trying the challenge. Evidently, I am utterly guileless.

The problem's description is deceptively simple. It poses at the end a combinatorics problem that is non-trivial. I submitted a correct solution after a bit of research; my first approach was the naive solution.

I cannot agree more strongly.

Most of the folks I know from my generation tend to spend almost all of their disposable income as soon as they obtain it. I have tried to explain to them that by doing so, they are selling their own freedom. You are forever at the yoke of he who employs you if you are living from paycheck to paycheck.

For the first three years of my career, I scrimped on almost all expenditures in order to accumulate a savings allowing me to be out of work for a period of at least one full year. I call it the FYF (the Fuck You Fund). I wouldn't trade it for anything but a true emergency.

> Everything sucks; what matters is how you deal with it.

Indeed. There are usually positive actions you can take to improve any situation in a big company or a small one. Joel Spoelsky wrote an article about working as a low-level developer in an established team that might not be doing things optimally. His first piece of advice? Just do it.

Search for "Getting Things Done When You're a Grunt." It should be the first hit.

Rands makes some very insightful points. I became very bored at my old job. What struck me as odd about the experience in hindsight is that at the time, I didn't even realize that I was bored. I simply became sarcastic, sullen, and generally somewhat less than the person I knew myself to be.

Perhaps it is an artifact of my youth, or perhaps it is because the situation of boredom can arise very gradually, but I strongly suspect that many people who find themselves unhappy with their employment without being able to articulate the reasons for their unhappiness are, in fact, simply bored with their work.

Directly asking employees about it is situational at best, though. Some folks might misinterpret such a query's intent and say "yes" regardless of how they really feel. I've often given thought to Google's 20% policy, where employees are allowed to work on work-related projects of their choosing. While I doubt that this policy is practical in all situations, it does seem to be a very clever way of preventing boredom and encouraging innovation simultaneously.