May I ask why Go was picked as the implementation language?

That's a very good question. It's because the data pipeline and search indexes were all in Go.

I'm not sure that whether the individual believes there is a reward is relevant.

Example: atheist terrorists -- atheistic suicide bomber, say -- would be heroic because they don't believe there is a reward?

Are there atheist suicide bombers?

I get what you are trying to say, and i think it boils down to how you define a hero. If you had asked me about a heroic act, my definition would be very close to yours, while for a hero, my definition has now become, as you put it, a little watered down, thanks to how the word hero is used in todays culture.

On a related note, would you consider someone like Ozymandias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozymandias_(comics)) a hero?

Why do you find the Aeropress inconvenient to clean? I just dump the "hockey puck" of grounds into the trash. IMHO it's easier than a french press by a long shot.

Easier, than a french press certainly. In the office, I have to take the whole setup to the kitchen to rinse and wash it it off, and dry it before the next use. With the Keurig, and the setup mentioned above, I just drop the filter in the trash, as there are no stray grounds. It's not as good as the aeropress, but it's way better than having a classic drip coffee machine. It's all about what compromises are more important.

You're aware of core.typed? If not, take a look -- it provides type checking / induction on Clojure code.

We switched from DO to Linode a few months ago. I think DO is great, but three things convinced us to move over to Linode. 1) lack of robust logging, 2) we'd get intermittent connectivity problems about once a month (this was in the SF colo), and 3) backups were unreliable, and support didn't really have a good answer as for why the backups were so unreliable. You can send me an HN message if you want more details.

Yeah, I was surprised by the fact that such a short duration of exercise (11 minutes of exercise twice / week) could have such a large impact on health. I wish there were more details on how much exercise each group had before the study -- my question is whether HIT on its own is good enough, or does it require normal exercise as well?

participants where untrained

Conventional wisdom says that you're not really working out unless you spend 10-25 minutes on warm up, an hour or more on working out, and some stretching to finish off and/or a cool down. That isn't even counting the time to go to the gym or the park, or the shower afterwards. No wonder people are inactive.

What conventional wisdom is that? The standard for warm up is 5 minutes isn't it? And a standard work out is 20-25 minutes as far as I'm aware. You can do a whole work out in 30 minutes.

My runs are 5 minutes warm up, I spend those 5 minutes walking to get from my house to a park, then 20-25 minutes running around the park (c25k plan) and then 5 minutes of walking back. You can fit that into almost any part of your day.

What about dressing up for the jog and afterwards showering and dressing up again? Also most people don't have a park in a 5 minute walking distance. I would say for most people they take 10-30 minutes to get to the training place, train at least 20 minutes and then 10-30 minutes back again and then 5-10 minutes of shower. Now that is quite a large part of the day.

My cofounder and I were rejected by YC last year. YC provided great feedback, and we took it into consideration, but decided we still thought the idea was solid. We kept looking for funding and eventually found an accelerator that specialized in education startups (co.lab), and it turned out to be better for us in every way -- better terms, better ongoing support, so on and so forth. So, it's actually good that we were rejected.

I would definitely apply to YC again, though. Even if you're rejected it's still 10 minutes of concentrated feedback from smart, experienced people, which is always worth something.

Ideally you'd want to make it adaptive based on a variety of economic metrics -- set it to a particular level, watch the effects on the economy, and then adjust for the next year.

That could be caused by the routing, as well, though -- are the servers in the same approximate geographical location?

well, I'm not sure, but since the difference is huge, I'm not sure if routing can cause that significant difference, I'm really not sure about that.

Not free, but I would suspect that paying electronically is at least a magnitude less impactful on the environment. That checkbook had to be produced, shipped to the bank, mailed to you, and then the individual check has to get moved around as well.

That wasn't my claim but I don't think the online payments are as low energy as you may believe. In order to allow the Internet to exist such that online payments are so efficient, we must necessarily have all the servers, cables, routers, all the infrastructure, on all the time or otherwise not even a single online payment would go through. That's a lot of air conditioning, alone. So, fine but let's not think online payments use magnitudes less energy by using simplistic calculations.