Hacker News Reader

Comment by Animats | Hacker News Reader

The part of "tech" which is ad-driven has become both boring and seriously annoying. Unfortunately, that's where the money is.

There are interesting things going on:

* Self-driving cars finally work. San Francisco is full of them. Next step is to get the cost down and replace those rotating scanners with something cheaper. At least the ones that aren't on top.

* Robotic manipulation in unstructured situations is just, maybe, starting to work. Maybe. We're getting close to Amazon warehouses, at least, going fully automatic. We might get more general purpose automated factories. This has been expected since the 1950s, but this time it might happen. Neural nets are better and cheaper now.

* Electric cars. For new car sales, 10% in US are electric. 20% worldwide. 50% in China. US is way behind.

* Flying cars. The scaled-up drone flying cars actually work. First commercial deployment in China. Range is limited, but good enough to get VIPs around congested cities.

* Batteries. Solid-state batteries still are not available in quantity, because the manufacturing process is hard. At least five major companies are working on it. Somebody will crack that. They will not be in the US.

* Metals. Lots of sources found for rare earths. Electric powered basic steel has been demonstrated.

* Medical. AIDS drugs are in good shape. Diabetes may be next. There's been real progress on some kinds of cancer. Even obesity can be cured.

View on HN

> * Robotic manipulation in unstructured situations is just, maybe, starting to work. Maybe. We're getting close to Amazon warehouses, at least, going fully automatic. We might get more general purpose automated factories. This has been expected since the 1950s, but this time it might happen. Neural nets are better and cheaper now.

How has this space not seen more action on the consumer side? Roombas came out 20 years ago then there's been basically nothing but tiny increments on the same idea since.

Seems to me like an area that could make use the sensor/3d tech from self driving, but wouldn't need to be anywhere near as reliable to still be a useful product. You could probably charge Apple margins if you cracked it first. I'd pay $5-10k for something that would last a few years and could passively clean a bathroom or kitchen to a reasonable degree.

> How has this space not seen more action on the consumer side?

Navigating a house requires a level of understanding that we still can't get using a top end GPU and optimal sensors.

"It is comparatively easy to make computers exhibit adult level performance on intelligence tests or playing checkers, and difficult or impossible to give them the skills of a one-year-old when it comes to perception and mobility

Cost vs. utilization is a big issue. About ten years ago, there were Foldmate and Laundroid, robotic laundry folding machines. They worked, but cost too much for home use. Industrial-strength machines which do such jobs exist.[1] They work fine, but you need a hotel or hospital sized laundry operation to keep that machinery busy.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36491732

> How has this space not seen more action on the consumer side? Roombas came out 20 years ago then there's been basically nothing but tiny increments on the same idea since.

This is a great example of "short term improvements are overestimated, long-term underestimated". As someone who jumped from a top-of-the-line robot vacuum in 2014 (not a Roomba - they were already slightly behind) to a high-quality-but-average one this year - those incremental improvements have added up to almost an entirely different product. That's not even counting the experiments out there like SwitchBot's plans (looks like the humidifier is out, but I don't see the dehumidifier on their site).

> Electric cars. For new car sales … 50% in China.

This seems to be incorrect unless you lure in Plugin-Hybrids into the "electric cars" category. Also, the real driver of this "electric cars" market share growth in China seems to be PHEVs ("electric cars" with a combustion engine in it) while BEVs growth seems to be stalling. [1]

[1] https://cleantechnica.com/2024/07/02/47-plugin-vehicle-marke...

OK, "Plug-in vehicles".

I considered getting one of those, but it only has 22 miles of electric range. If they got to 50 miles, I could run on electricity almost all the time.

This is where the US is the outlier. A very small percentage of people I know in Europe and elsewhere in the developed world drive more than that on a regular workday. Perhaps the hybrid car's batteries just need to be bigger.

Yeah, interesting why there isn't a US version of hybrids yet

Plugin hybrids are great. Electric is used in daily commutes, but there is no range anxiety and no problem with a long trip.

Pure electric sales are actually stalling, and multiple car brands (Volvo, and Volkswagen) are backing down on their electric ambitions and pivoting towards plugin hybrids as a better intermediary.

Except of AIDS, none of the items on your list are things we really need but just a naive attempt of masking the problems of modern society life.

Worse still: most of these problems were caused by the psychopaths who wanted nothing but money and power and found in the "techno-optimism" the perfect excuse to justify their actions.

> none of the items on your list are things we really need

This can be said about practically any technology outside agriculture. It’s wild to pretend the items on that list don’t increase quality of life.

The problem is not of technology. The problem is that we are working to apply technology solutions with no regard to the scale and trade-offs involved.

- Automation is good. Striving for "100% robotic warehouses" is a recipe to further concentrate wealth around the handful of corporations that can deploy it.

- Electric engines are good. Thinking that we would be better off by giving one car to every adult person instead of simply redesigning the overall transit network is a horrible idea.

- Finding new sources for rare earths is good. Jumping to the conclusion that this means we can then extract them is absurdly naive. We don't even recycle plastic properly, what do you think is going to happen with all those metals in the failing car batteries 20 years from now?

- Improved drones are good. Arguing that progress is "getting VIPs out of congested areas" is absolutely dystopian.

- Having drugs to treat diabetes is good. But having these drugs under the control of pharma corporations who worry more about their bottom line than actual health of the population is outright cruel.

I am all for developing technology. I am not a Luddite. But we got to ask ourselves "cui buono?". Whenever we see somebody pushing some technology or project to solve "humanity problems", the immediate check should be "if this problem is so important to solve, would you still work on it even if you gained nothing from it?"

> problem is that we are working to apply technology solutions with no regard to the scale and trade-offs involved

This has been claimed for everything from writing to the printing press and steam engine. If you want perfectly deliberated technological development, you’re against new technology.

> if this problem is so important to solve, would you still work on it even if you gained nothing from it?

You’re describing research, not technology.

> If you want perfectly deliberated technological development, you’re against new technology.

This is absurd and the exact opposite of what I am saying.

It's fine to work on new developments. It's not fine when people take their new developments and try to force them down everyone's throats.

To illustrate, look at Sam Altman going to congress and having the petulance to argue that they can not make a business if OpenAI had to pay for copyrighted material.

He is not arguing "we should work together with the copyright holders and give them ownership in the venture".

He is not saying "developing this is crucial and can benefit everyone, so we hope we can make up for the copyright infringement by putting all our work in the public domain."

He is just saying "I need this because without it I can not make money, and to make this I need money". It's self-serving circular logic.

> You’re describing research, not technology.

Which is exactly how VCs dress up their investments and justify how unethical their companies are.

> He is just saying "I need this because without it I can not make money, and to make this I need money". It's self-serving circular logic

Sure. That is bad. That doesn’t make GPTs bad nor the good they do irrelevant.

> Which is exactly how VCs dress up their investments and justify how unethical their companies are

Sure, arguments can be used well or badly. The point remains that technology has to have utility to be technology. Otherwise it’s research or art (or fraud), the first two of which we pursue for their own purpose.

> The point remains that technology has to have utility to be technology

I haven't argued otherwise. My argument is that utility alone is not enough a justification to keep working on specific technologies, much less to promote them as an universal solution to existing problems.

On the diabetes point specifically.

Having drugs to treat it is good. But a food system and built environment that causes a big chunk of the population to develop T2D in middle-age, and sees the solution as "take a pill to make it go away" is a profoundly unhealthy one.

Insulin-insensitivity is supposed to be a rare-ish disease of old age, not a common disease of middle age.

Yes, it's an unhealthy one, but here's the thing: The drugs affecting this changes purchasing patterns too. It doesn't just make the symptoms go away. As a result it may very well end up having lasting changes to food consumption patterns. It'd be nice if we didn't need it in the first place, but as drugs go, these drugs seem to fix the right thing.

> Robotic manipulation in unstructured situations

I expect this one to be a big one. Food production is not yet a solved problem. Imagine if robotics could scale "food forest"-style organic farming to the size of our current mono-crop farms.

For grains, fruits, vegetables? I am not so sure. Is manual labor the limiting factor to have more diverse cultures?

It would be nice if we could get rid of factory farming though, but I doubt we are close to a point where we can have free range cattle being tended mostly by robots.

For fruits, manual labour is a large factor but not the only limiting factor. We Could see fragile fruits drop in price with good robotics, but not below other more mass-harvestable fruits such as oranges or nuts (that can be shaken from trees with tractors)

Robotics within farming is often more about improving what is already being done in a more sustainable way. The primary benefit of monocropping is easier automation and larger machines. Cheap and good robots that can manually look after individual plants allow a more dynamic growth environment and more control over pesticide and weedkilling applications.

But I think we are still a ways off before this starts to affect the market noticeably. Robots are still too slow and too expensive, or so I heard from asking a local strawberry producer who looked into what was commercially available.

Another way to "solve" the problem for fragile fruits: stop trying to make them at scale. Let people them grow by themselves on their home gardens, or have community gardens/greenhouses that are jointly managed by a school/library...

From experience, a moderately-sized back yard can certainly produce a year's supply of raspberries with very little tending :)

Blueberries: Blueberries (or as we northern Europeans call them, American blueberries) are planted once and yield a sizable, easily harvestable, 0-maintenance crop each year. We have 12 bushes in a 4x4-meter corner of our garden. At their peak season, they yield almost a litre of berries each day for a week.

Raspberries: My grandad used to have a vast number of raspberry bushes mindfully nurtured to give unfathomable harvests each year, but they are a bit more maintenance. He had 20 or more bushes, if I recall.

Strawberries: Strawberries are a massive pain. They are difficult to weed and need to be replanted with the seedlings each second year for an optimal crop.

Plums: Fun on paper... But it can be too productive to the point of absurdity. 20 plums... tasty. 20 buckets of plums and mushy sugar water in the whole yard? Less fun.

Cherries: Banger pie and jam... but I think 20 pies is a tad excessive. We mabie pluck 5% of the yield each year; the rest is left to birds to and replant in our neighbour's bushes.

Nice if you can convince people that 1) putting yourself into time-poverty to earn more money is not the right thing to do, and 2) fragile fruits should be available mostly when they're in season somewhere within a few hundred km of your location.

(I'm not disagreeing with either point btw, I think it's a better way to live, but good luck convincing the wider populous).

One's idea of "time-poverty" is another's idea of "doing things with a higher purpose".

We live in a world where we simultaneously (a) can do basically anything with a glass rectangle in our pockets and (b) do not stop feeling a sense of boredom and dread. Re-learning how to do some things that take time and do not satisfy our immediate sense of gratification would be a good thing.

Monocultures exist mainly to facilitate our current state-of-the-art mechanisation, so the short answer to your question is "yes", with the possible exception of grains (who grow naturally in clumps).

But as the sibling comment pointed out, sufficiently advanced robotics will be prohibitively expensive for a long time ahead. I'd like to think that one day in the distant future a team of robotic "monkeys" can go out and harvest only the perfectly ripe oranges from a plot of diverse mixed vegetation. We are already starting to see this for tomato harvesting in greenhouses, so it's not completely unfounded.

As for cattle, the good news is even the free range ones are surprisingly quite automated already. The dairy cows can milk themselves with robots, and the cow fitbits are quite effective at identifying the ones who need vet attention.

Right, but to me you are arguing that we don't necessarily need 100% automation, we just need to (re)design the tools in a way to support smaller farms. Instead of huge tractors that can cover vast areas of land, we would be better off by having smaller tools that can make the individual farmers more productive.

Who is the royal "we" here? Are you claiming there is no market or that there shouldn't be one?

Techno optimism and opportunism go hand in hand, of course. But I don't see anyone else inventing the future. To paraphrase Alan Kay.

The latter. There is always a market for everything, no matter how deranged it is.

You deserve mass downvotes for implying that a cure for diabetes or obesity isn’t “needed”.

Techno optimism will always refer to Star Trek (realistically the ds9 version), not whatever crap Anderson tried to make up with that term.

> a cure for diabetes or obesity isn't "needed"

A pill that people need to take forever and whose formula is patented and can not be produced without bringing profits to any of the pharma labs that developed it is not a "cure".

You're conflating type 1 and 2 (and more?) diabetes.

A cure for type 1 diabetes is very much a thing millions of people really need

AFAIK, insulin therapy is already relatively cheap and does not incur risky side-effects.

So, I'd say that a cure falls more in the "nice to have" than "absolutely need".

> * Electric cars. For new car sales, 10% in US are electric. 20% worldwide. 50% in China. US is way behind.

Norway: hold my beer. 94%.

https://electriccarsreport.com/2024/09/norways-ev-sales-set-...

A key element is that Norway has some of the highest taxes on cars in the world, and one of highest VAT/sales tax rates, which created a very politically palatable opportunity for very significant tax breaks, with a perfect confluence of overlap between those who wanted an environmentally friendly policy, and those who wanted less tax.

Those aren't flying cars. Flying cars can drive on the ground. On wheels. Hence the name.

That's a nitpick on the order of "LLMs are a dead end because they can't reconsider their output before writing it". Duh, run it in a loop. Duh, attach wheels to the "scaled up drone flying cars". If that's the standard, then every plane in existence meets it.

It is not a nitpick. VTOL aircraft are not cars. Period.

You might as well call helicopters "flying cars."

> You might as well call helicopters "flying cars."

Which is exactly what people do in reply to the question, "where are our promised flying cars?". They exist, they're called helicopters.

The one criterion this does not meet, that's often hiding implied in the word "car", is "car as in private car ownership in United States". This will never fly (excuse the pun) with flying vehicles, because not many would be willing to go through enough training to be able to operate an aircraft safely. Most drivers don't even get adequate training to operate their own cars safely (drivers' license requirements are a joke), and piloting takes at least an order of magnitude more than that.

(And that doesn't even touch maintenance, which most drivers don't do, and a good fraction of those are willing to spend extra money to get their broken cars stamped as road-worthy.)

Which is why human-piloted helicopters and self-flying passenger drones are the closest we're going to get to "flying car" anytime soon; physics and human stupidity precludes anything else.

Nobody says that.

And your assertion about the meaning of "car" is absurd. The meaning, which is profoundly missing in VTOLs, is a vehicle that you can drive around on ROADS, on WHEELS. Nobody cares about the private ownership. They care about rolling it down the street.

There are a few companies working on actual flying cars. But they are lousy cars and lousy airplanes typically. And to quote doc Brown: “Roads? Where we’re going, we don’t need roads.” Or cars.

So what? Whether "flying cars" are good cars or good planes is beside the point.

The point is that VTOLs are not flying cars, any more than helicopters are.

What's the effective difference of a flying car with a helicopter?

A helicopter cannot drive on land?

Noise, energy profile, safety profile, level of automation.

If they solve those well enough, it means a lot of the operational restrictions that make helicopters very limited in scope (few landing sites, insanely high operating costs due to needing very specialised, highly trained pilots and maintenance crew etc.) could be somewhat lifted.

Fairly big "if" though. Rotary wings are inherently high energy, and heavier-than-air flight has much, much tighter safety and reliability requirements than cars for a good reason.

> Even obesity can be cured.

Eating less isn’t all that much of a breakthrough, but it certainly highlights how hard it is to get people to do something they don’t want to do.

Not having sugar AND salt in every food helps. To lose weight, a trip to the old continent where fruits are cheaper than processed food, does a better job than any diet.

I think he implied Ozempic.

I assumed that too, but all Ozempic is (as I understand) is an appetite suppressant.

Which is the exact thing that addresses your objection. People, in general, are unable to downregulate their appetite on their own in order to "just eat less". Ozempic does it for them.

Honestly, I question the whole idea that failing to "eat less" is a personal problem. Historically, we jumped into obesity epidemic straight from the time when food was scarce and not very nutrient-rich. Ability to manage caloric intake in times of abundance may not be something humans have in general, as long periods of abundance didn't happen until 100 years ago.

> Honestly, I question the whole idea that failing to "eat less" is a personal problem.

I guess it depends on what we’re eating less of.

Overeating calorie dense junk food isn’t the same thing as overeating carrot sticks and you rarely hear about problems coming from the latter.

> Overeating calorie dense junk food isn’t the same thing as overeating carrot sticks and you rarely hear about problems coming from the latter.

Perhaps that's because "overeating carrot sticks" is a strong indicator of being in danger of starvation? People just don't overeat this kind of food if they have tastier, more calorie-dense food available.

> Ability to manage caloric intake in times of abundance may not be something humans have in general

Even in the USA, a country that is not just wealthy but also culturally obesity-friendly, the majority of people are not obese. In less obesity-friendly regions, such as Europe, only a small part of the population is obese.

Most people do manage their caloric intake. And of those who don't, many may still be able to, but simply choose not to.

It seems that humans in general do have the ability to manage caloric intake, but many don't use it.

I do think it's a personal problem. (But we should still work together as a society to help those who fail to help themselves.)

Through destruction of nervous and endocrine mechanisms, causing gastroparesis.

Amphetamines solved obesity in the 60s (this is from the 70s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obetrol)

I don't see anything in there about efficacy. Did it actually work to combat obesity?

THis paper from 1947 sums up the state of the science(and opinion) at the time: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/29572...

> Self driving works. No it doesn't. Only in San Francisco maybe.

But it works? We only have functional public transit in small amount of cities in NA as well. If we can scale it up, it might be a game changer. I’m as pro-transit as it gets, but unfortunately we don’t have political appetite for it.

Just wait till you see these in action. Driverless is here

Public transit could scale up with drivers too, as it does in many other places.

> But it works? We only have functional public transit in small amount of cities in NA as well. If we can scale it up, it might be a game changer. I’m as pro-transit as it gets, but unfortunately we don’t have political appetite for it.

Rather sad though that instead of implementing what empirically is already known to work in so many cities there's a quest for a solution to a problem that's completely self-inflicted.

Self-driving might help a bit with transportation in NA cities but it definitely won't be the solution, there's just not enough physical space on the roads to be a game changer, at worst it will create even more issues with road usage. And my fear is that instead of realising it was the wrong bet (just like the car-centric approach) it will be doubled down into some ever-more-complex maze of solutions to make cars transporting 1-2 passengers to get to their destinations quicker by interconnecting them, and doing traffic management on a network of cars.

Those are fun problems to think about and try to solve but completely missing the mark about what actually works for a city and why. Someone will call that "innovation" and sell it to some suckers, just like car-centric urbanism.

Self driving vehicles will have to morph into small autonomous buses. They should be able to run on a much higher cadence, and way cheaper, than buses driven by humans.

It will eventually come full circle to trains.

Why not just build trains? They don't need technological breakthroughs, there's existing expertise all around the world on how to build; are much more easily automated (even more underground); can transport lots more people than busses; scheduling is much easier, etc.

Big fan of trains, but obviously the world is not binary. its not one or the other and AVs stand to save a lot of lives sooner than whatever you are proposing would. Even the Dutch and Japanese drive a lot you’ll find out

I'm very aware they drive a lot, I travel to the Netherlands quite often. At the same time you absolutely can live without a car in major cities in NL or JP, not really easily done in most of NA cities; traffic is also much, much more gentle and respectful than in NA, fatalities are an order of magnitude lower, so perhaps automated vehicles are not the answer since other countries have achieved a much safer traffic environment than the US without that technology.

I don't know what about the American culture creates this magical thinking, if it's the short-term thinking, the culture of looking for business opportunities everywhere, the inability to approach complex systems in a more holistically way, and/or the hyper-individualistic view of society.

No single technology will be the silver bullet, transportation (as any complex system) requires layers of solutions, maybe automated vehicles are part of it but there's already technology to solve 80% of the issues, it's unfortunate the USA doesn't have the will to change its ways to proven solutions and keeps chasing its tail.

And thus the answer to “why not just build trains”: because we can do both. They’re not antagonistic.

San Francisco isn't a purpose-built lab, it's a real city that grew organically over centuries, like every other city. So if it works only in San Francisco now, it means it's 99% to working everywhere else on the planet.

That reads like 99% cities are like San Francisco.

The world unfortunately is lot more diverse than that.

> The world unfortunately is lot more diverse than that.

It is, but only at the surface level.

99% of the actual problem of driving in urban areas is the same everywhere on the planet, because all human cities are pretty much the same, because all humans are pretty much the same - once you start comparing with the rest of the universe, and not just with other people. San Francisco, Moscow, Cape Town and Prague are almost entirely unlike each other, yet they're all obviously the same when you compare them against ant hills or forests or coral reefs.

Self-driving is a physical reality problem, not social diversity perception problem.

Have you driven in these cities? I think it's quite a different problem!

But, there are a lot of places that are quite similar to San Francisco! Can we scale it to a thousand cities it'll still be revolutionary. And we then haven't even started talking automating transports! It's just taken longer than what people thought. The usual Gartner Hype Cycle.

Sorry, but have you driven in a city in India or Indonesia? Just for example?

My favorite example is a major intersection with no traffic lights. Everyone just drives onto it and then you get a sticky sauce of cars that move at a fraction of the allowed max speed until they leave the intersection again.

Horns and eye contact are used to negotiate progress by all paricipants. I would love to see a "self driving" car on such an intersection.

My guess is a video of this car's encounter would go absultely viral. But not for the reasons proponents of this tech hope for. ;)

Of course, a self driving car not trained for that situation would do as badly as a brand new 16 year old driver.

Just like the newbie it will learn, and get as good or better than everyone else.

Yeah, it's the eye contact part that I'm really curious to see the self driving car learn.

Oh you will, soon. Eye contact itself isn't hard, given it's 99% in the mind of the beholder anyway.

You'll see it and then either regret it, or join the cohort of people saying it's not true eye contact because there is no soul behind the window of machine eyes; mimicking the current talk that LLMs are just stochastic parrots without a mind behind them.

If it communicates intent (or even just allows the observer to predict future behaviour - if we're not willing to ascribe "intent" to a robot), it doesn't matter whether it's a plausible soul or not.

At that point we're basically talking autonomous cars with big external-facing emoji screens. "That Fiat is looking red in the face, it's about to cut in".

That's more communication and emotional bandwidth than 99% of driver-to-driver interactions. Someone cuts in and you flip them the finger, how often to they even see it?

Driving in New Delhi is an entirely different universe than driving in San Francisco https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnPiP9PkLAs

Contrary to your assertions, operating a vehicle in an environment with humans is a social problem.

> Driving in New Delhi is an entirely different universe than driving in San Francisco

Only if you assume driving is solved as a baseline. For self-serving, "driving" is the 99% of the problem; "driving in $specificCity" is just the cherry on the cake, a small part of the problem that doesn't even need to be solved.

Keep in mind that humans are the most flexible parts of any system they're in. When human and machine negotiate, human always yields, simply because the machine cannot. With increased popularity of self-driving cars, infrastructure and social norms will adjust to eliminate technical problems and cultural idiosynchrasies that the tech can't handle. This is how it always was.

That's sped up at least 5x. If you slow it down to real time, it looks no harder than Waymo videos in San Francisco. Remember that most AVs have full circle sensor coverage. They may do better than humans in situations where there's movement on all sides.

> grew organically over centuries

(1.75 centuries, to be exact)

>Medical. AIDS drugs are in good shape. Diabetes may be next. There's been real progress on some kinds of cancer. Even obesity can be cured.

Would disagree, we have possibly regressed. We have more gizmos (like diabetes monitors) and diagnostics, but no real cures and a significantly more sick people.

Counterpoint: " mRNA vaccines " took less than three years to adapt to a new pandemic and scale up to mass production to cover a whole planet's worth of people. The tech and progress within medicine are insane. CRISPR and genetic engineering allow modified bacteria, algae, and yeasts to produce any biological molecule we want in mass. Computer algorithms allow new medicines to be tested and perfected without real medical trials.

As for the public healthcare and hospital industry in a few key industrialized countries, going through a bit of a ... "downward spiral" is a separate issue from the technology itself. (USA)

As for more sick people... diabetes is going up, and people aren't exercising. I cannot refute that. Perhaps a healthier work culture where people have more time to cook proper food and take care of their health will do wonders, but "who is gonna pay for the loss of productivity" always gets in the way.

I have MS and an MS diagnosis in 1994, 2004, 2014, and 2024 are all wildly different experiences. A lot of progress has been made in this area very quickly, to the point where you can see the stratification/differences in progression based on diagnosis year very clearly in support groups and neurology practices.

I'm about 10 years post diagnosis and in those 10 years a ton of progress has been made. It's to the point where I've moved from considering MS a probably lifelong incurable disease to 'if I can hold on for ~20 more years without significant relapses, it can probably be cured or controlled.'

Videos for you to look at closely:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJRu8rZxufg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuFgAjy4gjs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCNMBCu8y9I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpbvX1wsfUM

Contact me if you have success some months/years down the line. Will also take a negative feedback from you. Caveat: you may have to wean off medications.

Source for above links: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CXPH44VC

Reply on news.ycombinator.com