Ask HN: Would you be interested in Job Application Organizer? - <AUTHOR> I read a comment on here about someone applying for 50+ jobs and having an Excel sheet for it. Would the new grads and veterans be interested in something like a nice intuitive dashboard with the job application status, gmail API for the quick browsing of the emails, links related to the interviewing process, and stage the interview is in? <comment><USER2> I've applied to probably 100+ jobs in the past two years. I tried keeping track for a while and later felt it was not helpful. Occasionally I have to dig back through emails to verify things, like whether a recruiter submitted me for a certain company, and it can be a slight pain. But I don't think I would get enough value out of a whole app dedicated to this topic to bother to download it, and I am probably an ideal user of such a thing.

Third party recruiters are the number one pain of the process. They don't respect candidates; they don't want to hear about your goals or your search constraints; they just aggressively talk over you. And I'm even talking about the so-called 'good' recruiters that you get referred to by word of mouth. Even they will break your heart.

The second pain point is well known: everyone uses different online application portals, and everyone has different requirements for manual data entry. I would have expected by now that applying at any company is as simple as just uploading a resume and clicking through some boilerplate agreements or ethnicity surveys that we would all be wise enough to always opt-out of. But I'm still dealing with application sites that look like they were built in 1995 and require upwards of 30 minutes of manual data entry.

Apps that could alleviate the pain of these issues would be way more valuable than organizational apps. The pain of the disorganization is just not that meaningful.

<comment><USER3> I just finished my job search, and I'd agree with this strongly. I started used Trello for organizing my job applications, but I soon realized there was no point. Companies that wanted to talk to me responded to my initial application with a week or two, while companies that didn't weren't influenced by any kind of followup communication.

After sending out about a hundred applications, I found I had no control over the process, so there was no reason to track it. Instead, I spent that time working on my own projects and going to meetups to find out about live job openings and show off my stuff. The job application system at most places is badly broken and HR and recruiters don't seem to know or care enough to fix it, so it's better to circumvent through some kind of personal connection.

<comment><USER2> I strongly agree with the comments about doing your own projects and going to meetups. When I began to just submit applications and then stop thinking about them, it freed up much more time to actually do programming. This in turn made me feel more productive and allowed me to learn new things, which is a big source of happiness for me. The compounding positive effects from sort of tuning out the noisy signals from HR staff and recruiters and putting energy into what I love (programming and math) has made me feel much more positive about my job search overall.

Any time I have a day where there's just nothing good to apply to, or I don't hear back from anyone, I just tune it all out and write some code and it helps me feel much better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think Excel or Trello are fine for most of the people out there and the ones that need so much data won't pay for it (because I doubt somebody doing 100+ applications is a successful employee with money to spend).

I think you should focus on whatever takes out most of the effort of this process and for that an email would be the best solution: send me an email that is targeted to me and with jobs I can actually apply for.

The biggest pain for me is not doing applications, it's doing applications for jobs where I have no idea if: 1. I have good chances; 2. have been closed already (lots of those out there; 3. have the pay I am looking for.

<comment><AUTHOR> Background story: I applied to 10+ companies a month ago. I did keep track, I did follow up etc. Couple of them didn't follow up, couple of them I remembered not replying last time I applied for them as well. Nothing changed. I was tired of Excel, Notepad, Gmail.

The pain you're describing is being handled by at least 10 companies that I know and which sent me updates about the jobs. Granted they're not the best, but they work.

The pain I wanted to reduce was the pain that comes with the entire process. When you're simultaneously in 10+ process it can become easy to lose your focus and forget to follow up, read notes, to dos (google most recent interviews etc).

The pain I also wanted to remove was the pain of re-applying to companies that are god awful at providing feedback, that do not reply, that forget to close job ads etc. Think job app history.

Another pain I wanted to remove was weighing the offers via charts and summaries on the offer page and show communication and interest from the company on the reports page.

Another idea as suggested in comments: Provide this data transparently, blind the important information and that might take the product to a whole new level.

I do not want this to be another job board or an email newsletter. There are plenty out there.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Maybe the problem is asymmetrical information. If I interview at Apple and do fantastic, and I have interviews lined up at Google and Facebook, wouldn't it be a better use of the other interviewers' time to look up my results and focus on things that matter, like culture fit?

I think the problem is that while most of us have college degrees which at least give us a foot in the door, there is very little differentiation to an employer from a graduate of Waterloo or Carnegie Mellon. You might assume they're good but you don't know. They aren't vested by the companies you trust to have quality screening processeses.

The problem might be getting companies to willingly disclose their information. Then again, I went to a co-op school so by the time I graduated I already had nearly a year of work experience, and very little trouble with each additional notch on my belt. Maybe there is a way to solve this that isn't necessarily a product or service.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A startup in Vienna is already doing it [https://www.myveeta.com/en/](https://www.myveeta.com/en/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh. I didn't know this. They seem like workable, lever.

However, there is something fundamentally different - they're just an assistant and automatic job applier, converting to pdfs, creating cover letters etc. I wouldn't offer that. I'd aim this initially to only tech-savvy people like developers, engineers - you get the picture. I'm sure they don't need help with converting to pdf and formatting. They don't need help with applying. They do however need a way to track their application progress, as I have applied to a couple of companies 10+ and at times it was tedious to track all of them.

I meant something more like an actual job process tracking tool and a data tool for your own use.

You apply for a job - tracked progress - landed the job. You landed couple actually. You go to the offer page and compare the benefits at a glance via graphs, summary's etc.

Lets say you searched for a job, you've sent 30+ applications, logged the process etc. You got hired (woohoo). Something doesn't work out after 6 months or after 2,3 years you start feeling burnt out and want to move on. You look back and see where you applied, how was the process, email the recruiter etc. You see they didn't reply while you had the necessary qualifications and they didn't provide you with a great feedback. You consult google and the tool which might have public database by now that is huge - realizing they didn't change. You don't waste time.

<comment><USER6> If you consider applying for a job as little different to a sales process/funnel could you sign-up for an account with salesforce, zoho or similar and manage your opportunities that way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> +1

I did find it difficult when I was applying for jobs. I had reasons for applying to hundreds of companies through different sources and I used google spreadsheet to keep track. I felt it was not enough when I started getting updates and keeping track of previous conversation became painful. So I put together a django application to do this. I just pushed it to github [1] I didn't need much of features on web UI, I used default admin app.

I never thought of searching for something like this, so options suggested in comments here are new to me, and not being arrogant but if I have to do job search again then I will still use my django app because - its good enough, self hosted, can modify at any time, etc.

however, to answer your question: Yes, I do feel there is a need for no-bs-app for doing this. Not everyone is a developer, they do need ready-to-use app.

will I pay? : if I am looking for switch from current one then probably, if I don't have a job then no.

If you need any help with workflows, feedback, ux etc, would be glad to help (for free)

[1] [https://github.com/Omie/jtracker](https://github.com/Omie/jtracker)

</comment><comment><USER8> A few thoughts:

It's hard to envision meeting every applicant's needs with a single webapp. Excel and such may have a lack of depth to them, but at least it's easy to add any kind of data you need anywhere. Can you think of everything that any type of applicant might want, and put it all in there without also making it overwhelmingly complex to use?

The financial pressures on something like this could become awkward. Your target audience is applicants, but not many of them are going to be willing to spend money on something like that. But hiring companies are also going to be very interested in this, especially if you're doing any kind of tracking across multiple applicants over longer periods of time. And they are willing to spend quite a lot of money on the recruiting process. If you get much traction, you may find yourself in a situation where you're making peanuts off of ads or something, not even compensating your hosting costs or personal development time, while multiple huge companies are offering you big bucks if only you'll do a couple of things the way they want.

</comment><comment><USER9> I saw something like that on PH the other day that looks like it does just that + tracking of your applications: [https://presumi.com/](https://presumi.com/)

</comment><comment><USER10> I was working on something similar, but I'd like to point out that Daniel Higginbotham released [http://jobsearchsanity.com](http://jobsearchsanity.com) as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, something along these lines :)

However, I have a lot more features I'd love to implement than a simple organizer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> To my mind, this idea is similar to most CRM tools. Leads / Ops / Contacts / Email tracking etc. The only difference is that you're selling yourself instead of a product or service.

Another way to verify the need for this rather than asking directly would be to mockup some realistic screenshots, make a fancy launching soon website and harvest emails. If you get a bunch, go build it. If you get only a few, forget about it.

</comment><comment><USER12> Trello seems like a perfect fit for this, for me at least. Just have different lists for different application statuses. Record special notes or links as comments on individual cards. I'm curious what more you have in mind that this approach wouldn't handle well.

I guess the main thing that would be missing is direct integration of emails sent to and from the various companies.

</comment><comment><USER13> -1 I used Google sheet for this and found it useful. Each resume and cover letter is uniquely named for a given company/position along with other useful data such as advertised salary brief requirements etc. I also grab pdf copy of the job description.

Useful as it reminds me what I applied for when the recruiter calls me months after applying.

Not sure if an app is really needed.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm using a spreadsheet to organize the job listings before I apply. Some columns include Job, Title, Industry, Salary, Notes, Distance from my house... If a job search portal was combined with a 'job application organizer' that would be a nice product.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm applying to several companies. I just keep a .org file not to mix up people name =)

</comment><comment><USER16> Unless you plan to give it for free, I think you should ask "Would you [pay for a] Job Application Organizer?".

If apps showed us something is that people are interested in everything ... until you ask them money.

<comment><USER17> Absolutely. And it's an even bigger problem if the question is "will you pay monthly for a Job Application Organizer... for more than two months?"

I guess a free application organizer could be relatively easily monetised by targeted job ads though...

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm going to start looking for new job and an idea of tool for managing all this stuff came to my mind, but I probably won't build one. Separate mailbox and spreadsheet should be enough.

</comment><comment><USER19> You mean ATSes? There's plenty of existing options, many with free plans.

<comment><AUTHOR> I meant something that an actual applicant can use for their own personal use when job hunting. No bloatware, no job ads. Simple and plain organizer for hunting jobs. It is not something you'd use everyday, but once you're in the loop, a 1-3 month period is something normal for the job hunt. If you decide to comeback you'd have history of the jobs applied. Direct emails to recruiters, etc. So there is value.

Lets say you applied at Google/FB/Apple/30 Start Ups.

You have issues remembering all of the statuses of the applications, as trying to remember 30+ jobs is hard. Follow ups, Emails, Stages, Interesting Links you found on their recruiting process, To Dos, Resume Version sent (if you applied to couple of positions and highlighted different skills). Point of Contact, Last contact. List of contacts.

Report page showing companies with most interactions.

Offer page showing offers you have received and comparing them.

<comment><USER20> Potentially yes. I currently have about 20 applications and am not making any more for the moment, and while I'm managing to keep track of them in a spreadsheet, I have sacrificed some detail e.g. When multiple interview "rounds" happen on the same day, I treat them as one round. Sometimes I forget to mark whether a round was technical/non-technical. But that's just for my own records. Having something to compare offers - now that would be interesting

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> have a look at [https://www.jobmindapp.com/landing/new/](https://www.jobmindapp.com/landing/new/)</comment>


Google Translate now supports Latin - <AUTHOR> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/veni-vidi-verba-verti.html

<comment><USER2> Via Google Translate:

 _That language barriers be torn away and the knowledge of the world is made accessible and useful, translation systems of many languages of the nations were created by us. Today, we announce the first language translation system by which no native speakers now make use of: the Latin. Being but a few speak Latin daily, year by year more than a hundred thousand American students receive the National Latin Exam. Besides many people all over the world study Latin.

This Latin translation system rarely be used to translate e-mails or understand the subtitles of YouTube videos. But many that are ancient books of philosophy, of physics and of mathematics are written in Latin. But many thousands of books are in Google Books, who have whole passages in Latin.

Translating by machine from Latin is difficult and our grasp of grammar not without error. The Latin is unmatched because most of them Latin books have already been written and only a few of the new shall be hereafter. Many have been translated into other languages and these translations we use to train our translation system. Since this system translates books well similar to those from whom he learned, our ability to translate famous books (such as The Gallic War Caesar 's) is already good.

The next time you find a Latin passage or you need help with the Latin writings, try this.

Jakob Uszkoreit, Software Engineer_

<comment><USER3> Time to put 'Ingeniarius Programmandi' on my CV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting I was testing it with Lorem ipsum text and the results are:

"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Morbi sapien leo, dictum a iaculis ut, tincidunt et ante. Nullam tristique lectus ut felis malesuada suscipit. Proin id dui sapien, malesuada ullamcorper ipsum. "

"Hello world! Is here to cancel meals. Diseases of the sapien a lion, it was said by clicking that, before the Runs on. The bed so that no sad Felis malesuada to raise up. Consequently, her s it your the sapien, malesuada ullamcorper itself."

<comment><USER5> You might want to note that the most common "lorem ipsum" you find as filler text is actually an incorrect quoting of a work by Cicero. The actual text from Cicero might yield better results.

<comment><USER6> Link: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorem_ipsum>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Funny. Yesterday ( <http://i.imgur.com/oKQsd.png> ) I needed to have something translated from Latin. It didn't work, I was disappointed and today they fixed it. Google must have read my mind.

</comment><comment><USER8> Easter Egg: <http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/3834/ishot1j.jpg>

<comment><USER9> isn't it more likely someone or a group of people "contributed" this bad translation.

it doesn't even make sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> To try to break the tool, I ran DJB's article on IPv6 [0] to Latin and back[1]. Impressively, most of the phrases translated, but they lost most of their semantic meaning. Double-translations are still heavily influenced by the language of the second text - the text picked up lots of "servant," "slave," and "prayer" references. There were some extra problems introduced: D.J. Bernstein became J.D. Bernstein, for instance.

Most of the semantics-wrecking errors were of the same type: failing to pick a correct definition from context. Here's a paragraph from the original:

       Problem: There are only a few billion public IPv4 addresses. Many of those
       addresses have already been allocated. What happens when we run out of
       public IPv4 addresses?

And here's the double-translation:

       PROBLEM there are few billion IPv4 addresses of the State. And many of them
       attributed to prayer now. What happens when we run, from the public IPv4
       addresses?

The only significant error in the first sentence is "public" => "of the State." The second sentence is also mostly intact, but has one of the spurious Latin-introduced phrases, "prayer." The error in the third sentence is very minor, but enough to make the entire translation meaningless.

Overall, I'm impressed that it attempts to translate so many technical phrases. I'm not impressed by their web interface - the "contribute a better translation" tooltip makes it impossible to copy individual lines or paragraphs in Chrome.

[0] <http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html>

[1] <http://pastebin.com/B73w7nPT>

</comment><comment><USER11> This will make adding placeholder text to UI mockups _significantly_ more fun.

<comment><USER12> Fun fact: Lorem Ipsum comes from Cicero!

"Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?"

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorem_ipsum>

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wish they'd add Basque. I actually have a few riders on <http://bikechatter.com> who tweet in Basque, and it's impossible to figure out what they're saying.

<comment><USER14> Basque as a language should die. Spain should stop trying to maintain disparate legacy languages used only by a few hundreds of thousands (if that) of people.

<comment><USER15> Legitimate opinion, but severely offtopic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "romanes eunt domus" -> "of the house of the Romans are going"

Sorry. Couldn't resist. :)

<comment><USER17> "Romani ite domum" becomes "of the Roman go home".

Noun cases aren't quite perfect, but this is still a fantastic tool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Prediction: an influx of Latin students make English <-> Latin the most popular translation option.

<comment><USER19> Hah. I was thinking I would have been sorely tempted by this in high school latin.

<comment><USER20> obviously there's a lot of variation between teachers, but I think this will only work for kids who wouldn't have tried in the first place. my HS latin teacher would probably have given those a B- or more likely a C. not bad, not great.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Playing around with some common latin phrases, I think I just found an Easter Egg, or quite an odd mistranslation:

<http://translate.google.com/#la|en|quid%20pro%20quo>

Edit: and reverse-engineering from the english -> latin translator, we can finish the phrase:

[http://translate.google.com/#la|en|quid%20pro%20quo%20Pro%20...](http://translate.google.com/#la|en|quid%20pro%20quo%20Pro%20Quo%20manet)

I don't know whether or not "quid pro quo Pro Quo manet" is actually sensible Latin or not, but something tells me that "What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas" isn't the most accurate translation.

</comment><comment><USER22> Wow finally! I've been trying to bang around using [http://www.translation- guide.com/free_online_translators.php...](http://www.translation- guide.com/free_online_translators.php?from=English&to=Latin) but really run into problems at times with it. It's not too often one needs to translate Latin in general, but when you do...

</comment><comment><USER17> This is pretty amazing: <http://i.imgur.com/PTpXW.png>

But it sounds like they used the Italian pronunciation engine for text-to- speech, judging by the 'v's and 'c's.

<comment><USER23> It's probably using "Church" or Italianate Latin -- i.e., Latin as spoken in the Vatican -- as opposed to academic Latin.

I like the fake-parchment effect you get if you translate from something --> Latin.

<comment><USER17> I thought that was supposed to be marble. Of course, to be complete, they should use only capitals and apply an emboss effect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Entering famous quotations probably short-circuits the translator, at least that's how it looks like when you're entering something like "I came, saw, conquered".

</comment><comment><USER25> Magistra from Latin class will not like this ;) With all/most our texts online already, this will make homework a simple copy-and-paste affair..

</comment><comment><USER26> Oh yes yes yes. At last. I can use this much.

</comment><comment><USER27> Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

</comment><comment><USER28> Uh oh, someone might figure out what 'sine laude' means on my brother's resume!

<comment><USER29> When I let Google translate auto-detect the language it chose Norwegian. After manually switching to latin it translated 'sine laude'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> res ipsa loquitur, or does it?

</comment><comment><USER31> Quid?!

</comment><comment><USER32> The Extremes of Good and Evil, by Cicero.

Hello world! Is here to cancel meals. Indeed, neither a boat, a quiver, nor annoyance EU, to raise up to Compare. Who consequat euismod easy. Until that no great. But unless the Maecenas of life consectetur quiver with arrows in diameter or large place. Customer Product Consequat except from its object. In the ligula a lion, the time of carriages you soften that, the valley but before the. Now it is base, does not intend to keep the carriages, the ferry to the masters. Now, nor to please porttitor lorem avenging. Testing "any one, nor was porttitor porttitor. Consectetur amet nibh she hates the service need of the valley itself, tincidunt imperdiet. DUI is always that now wishes to them, but a lion sad Community. Before the entrance itself the first place in the jaws of Hell, Grief and avenging Cares have made their bed; Until and freedom and to drink in hendrerit Rutrum. For but sagittis ligula. Now fringilla consectetur laughter of the time advantage.

Yes to the laughter of porttitor. We as to suspend mattis ligula Welcome to adorn, and Felis sollicitudin. Enhanced was the cats into prefix meaning half but it is sometimes viverra tincidunt. Even in diameter but is now. Maecenas orcs to the just, from the Lobortis ultricies at, the adipiscing from the just. Giving Tomorrow is either the time Thinking of. Diet and disease, at times beating. But who except from fear of. There is no avenging Diet and ultricies. Pellentesque attendants deal with darts to the justice and imperdiet. Physics agency instigates darts nibh, the quiver, and the author of a lion in order that. Phasellus to bed now, to make fit any one EU feugiat, bibendum life be clean. But the feudist, used for? In want of lakes advantage arrows crime. We not to the Moors himself, the very advantage, nor. We mattis that the members of Rackham. We bow the nibh, the blandishments of life course of any man, venomous of the disgrace. Has no need for the nimbus, and adorn Sample here. Until new comment sad. Beating the shovel, nor for filthy Sample ultricies bow But the time of the valley.

Silently sociosqu Class they may adapt to the shores of our marriage to turn very, very beginner meet your needs. We mattis euismod in Ornan itself. Until the price of accumsan torturer in want of at times, of Table. Pellentesque has been said laughter of the price of that very purpose laoreet. Example Pages and Menu, the pain was not said, rhoncus, the DUI the sapien fringilla bow, easy, ullamcorper the earth and there is no base. My Photos disease to the just, consectetur for that. Course of the Moors companions, the goddess, good to sometimes not ultricies eros. Learn, grief and thus hendrerit consectetur, bed now at times to set free, fringilla attendants deal with orcs bow to the masters. Tomorrow prefix meaning half pure, tincidunt tincidunt, and EU, the digniss EU of Shem. That receives the euismod sapien, the need of hendrerit rhoncus or lakes. No live by the augu, convenience or a quiver that, of the lobort and the ugly. This aliquet laughter of the porch in want of attendants deal with ligula eleifend not.

We also which of the disgrace, content block of Shem. In the life of arrows now. Sample in diameter each, beating time or the lives, beating is not the mass. Product bow and not to please a lion needs attendants deal with the just course. From diseases of the release in laughter and carriages. Let us live from the Lake of the sapien advantage the porch was in the Customer of annoyance. Cam that fits in the Lacinian tincidunt. Product malesuada darts is now, and the gate of love is to please elit. Be pure and whoever is outside of a soft lakes Community tincidunt pain. For the Moors did not euismod.

No lion, the Moors, but the price of feugiat of life, is love without a venomous. That that is, with child accumsan orcs have no, nor at times. In this the street of the habitasse dictumst. Hendrerit no, but a lion Sample malesuada, hatred of the earth before the imperdiet, hendrerit crime equity to the mass, not upon me. Until Thinking of various tincidunt. Until there is no door has. Hello world! Is here to cancel meals. The just to live, to make sad that aliquet who, have puted OK. For it does not fear to the justice, and Welcome to laughter. Let us live need of great things, but was suitable the lives to lay in the great. EU phasellus magna region. Until the Above! Of life want to lay the sapien. Consequently, her or ultricies free. Consequently, her need of a lion, nor from the blockage ceases. Now with child darts of Shem, but attendants deal with than "element is love. Of eros is also the mass, the Customer is not the author of that, by the congu of life, which.

<comment><USER15> Opening of the Aeneid:

 _I sing of arms and the man, Troy 's who was the first from the shores of Italy, a fugitive of fate, left the Trojan shore, a lot of having been tossed on both land and sea by the force of the cruel of the mindful that leads on high because of the anger; much in war too endured it until they found a city, and bring his gods to Latium, whence the Latin race , the Alban fathers, and the high walls of Rome._

which isn't too bad, actually, especially as I've never really heard a satisfactory translation of "I sing of arms, and the man who..." which is not a sensible sort of English sentence structure.

<comment><USER33> I am just reading Lombardo translation. Google does not do well with this famous line: sunt lacrimae rerum et mentem mortalia tangunt --> "there are tears for things, and our mortal matters touch the"

It should be more like: "Tears in the nature of things, hearts touched by human transience."

[http://hiddensymmetries.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/sunt- lacrim...](http://hiddensymmetries.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/sunt-lacrimae- rerum-et-mentem-mortalia-tangunt/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is Beta I know but; same sentence translated from English to Latin does not translate back to the same English:

Believers of a religion perceive their religion as true knowledge --> Credentes religio religionis sentiunt verae --> Those who give the religion of the true religion, they feel it

<comment><USER15> You'll never find an automatic translation program which spits out exactly the same text after a double translation.

(or alternatively)

Never the automatic translation to know what the purpose of exactly the same place he rejects it according to a twofold translation.

<comment><USER33> Perhaps; but in the case of English-French-English Google translator does pretty well:

You'll never find an automatic translation program which spits out exactly the same text after a double translation --> Vous ne trouverez jamais un programme de traduction automatique qui crache exactement le même texte, après une double traduction. --> You will never find a machine translation program that spits out exactly the same text after a double translation.

If they could bring English-Latin translation to English-French translation level I think that would be acceptable.

<comment><USER15> Hmm, the French version is actually pretty well done.

Perhaps it's an intrinsically harder problem, though, because Latin's grammar is less English-like?

Still, you're probably right in that the Latin version is just significantly worse than the French.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Defending Darwin - <AUTHOR> https://orionmagazine.org/article/defending-darwin/ <comment><USER2> Incredible that Darwin should need defending in any advanced country today. I'm also a university (associate) professor and though I don't teach evolution per se it obviously crops up now and then (I teach molecular biology, in Sweden). None of the students ever (ever!) even as much as hinted that evolution might be questionable.

But some of the foreign postdocs of course are religious. There was one guy (catholic) who believed the Earth was created 4000 years ago by God including all the evidence for evolution as a kind of mind trick on scientists. I find it hard to understand how you can hold such weird beliefs and also be a scientist, but it isn't very rare.

<comment><USER3> I thought the Catholic church was ok with evolution, the big bang theory, etc.

<comment><USER4> From the article:

"When I again pointed out that John Paul accepted evolution—and he certainly wasn't an atheist—the student countered that Catholics aren't Christians. Several simply let me know they will be praying for me and praying hard. One student explained that as a devout Catholic he had no choice but to reject evolution. He accused me of fabricating the pope's statements. When I explained that he could go to the Vatican website for verification or call the Vatican to talk to a scientist, he insisted that there was no such information available from the Vatican. He then pointed his finger at me and said the only way he would believe me is if Pope John Paul II came to my class to confirm these quotes face-to-face. The student then stomped out, again slamming the auditorium door behind him."

From the Pope's mouth (2007):

[http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict- xvi/en/speeches/2007/j...](http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict- xvi/en/speeches/2007/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore.html)

"Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because (...) there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It is almost impossible to argue with the individuals who espouse these beliefs as they expect you to prove a negative i.e. prove a higher power doesn't exist. As the article describes, the argument also quickly devolves into extreme defensiveness.

What makes this so bogus is the enormous weight of peer-reviewed primary research and scientific evidence of evolutionary basis for life.

Thankfully, in the UK, a much smaller minority hold these views. I heard a Mitt Romney speech in London once and he was asked about his view on creationism vs evolution - he couldn't answer, but if we were to support evolution he just lost any chances of future election. If a UK prime minister espoused creationism, the reverse would be true.

</comment><comment><USER6> I teach high school math and science. I don't let my students use the phrase "believe in evolution", no matter their perspective. Instead, I focus people's attention on questions such as:

"What is the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis?"

"What happens if we only ever use one kind of antibiotic in the world?"

"Does evolution imply that a monkey gave birth to a human baby?"

Only after students have answered those questions clearly and correctly do we enter into conversations about what it means to "believe in evolution". Once we have clear answers to these questions, students no longer feel the need to use that phrase.

</comment><comment><USER7> People choose to believe (and to not believe) in all sorts of wacky stuff[1].

UFOs, Illuminati conspiracies, Rumpology...

But when it come to not believing in scientific theories that are obviously standing the hard tests of the scientific method and that are making correct, testable predictions, well, it does become somewhat frightening at that point.

Perhaps it's just social norming at work, and people find it easier to say whatever they need to continue to fit into their social cliques. TBH, I hope this is mostly the case, because at least then there is some method to the madness.

Also, it's hard to not throw Hayek's Scientism[2] into the mix again here...for too long, perhaps, Researchers have attempted to apply scientific principles to area's of study that simply are not suited for such attempts, thus creating a generation of layperson's who are having much easier time dismissing anything that does not fit comfortably into their intuition due to often-flawed research.

In any case, I am finding this same disheartening truth when I talk to people about some of the few solid findings that neuroscience has made about our decision-making processes, so I believe I have some direct, albeit minor, understanding of the issue.

[1] [http://listverse.com/2013/06/12/10-bizarre-things-people- bel...](http://listverse.com/2013/06/12/10-bizarre-things-people-believe-in/)

[2] [http://cafehayek.com/2011/12/hayek-on-scientistic- hubris.htm...](http://cafehayek.com/2011/12/hayek-on-scientistic-hubris.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> Also want to say - I have studied medicine. There were people on my course who held these beliefs and fully believed what they were now being taught was rubbish, but learnt it to "pass exams". They had done so since school. No amount of education would or could change their viewpoint, which, for me, is the most frightening thing.

<comment><USER6> Do you have any sense of how these people reconciled their understanding of antibiotic-resistant bacteria with their denial of evolution? (I assume they are aware of the mechanics of how antibiotic-resistant bacterial populations develop.)

<comment><USER8> The creationist movement will have explanations for this. They also have explanations for fossils, for distant galaxies, etc. Keep in mind the movement has the support of a significant percentage of the US population and there are numerous "research" institutes around the country. Many of them are very skilled debaters who can lead the unwary into traps.

<comment><USER6> I just googled "creationist explain antibiotic resistance". Wow. But it would be fun to talk to some of these people!

<comment><USER5> Trust me, it's not fun. Its a land of denial, self-deception and complete frustration!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The irony is that science itself works in the same way as biological evolution. There are theories, variations and selective pressure (experiments).

It so happens that clearly not understanding science becomes a prerequisite for not accepting evolution, and understanding science implicitly makes evolution an obvious fact.

</comment><comment><USER10> Evolution is fact. Natural Selection is fact. To argue against either of these is beyond ignorance, it's delusion. We can observe these daily, so this isn't up for debate. The one plausible scepticism is speciation, which must be inferred from the data as opposed to being directly observed. This is due to the required isolation of gene pools and the time said isolation need to occur for variants to affect the gene pool enough for two groups to diverge sufficiently that their offspring can no longer become viable. But even this middle stage can be observed (like horses and donkeys) where we can create sterile offspring.

Science isn't at odds with religion, science is at odds with ignorance. If all facts lead to a deities existence, then science would have a theory of this deities involvement. We would then try to understand how the deity created the universe and us. Science is simply the utilization of fact to explain the 'how'.

<comment><USER11> Evolution and natural selection are not facts. I understand why you use the word fact. It's because too many people are playing word games ("belief, opinion, theory!"), that you feel you need to counterattack by using such a solid word like fact.

In the vernacular, fact also has another meaning: true. Not conclusively true, not noisily true, but Simply True. Unrevisable. Unimprovable. Just Truth. And that's the game you've decided to be a part of. "It is a FACT that I am standing here right now." Some groups are well aware of this confounding of terms and they deceitfully abuse it.

But facts are data points. They are the things which you combine to formulate a theory. If all you have are facts, then all you have is a bundle of disconnected trivia. Theory is true power over facts, but in the vernacular, theory means opinion. Theory is weak. Theory is revisable. Theory is improvable. How do you know your theory won't change tomorrow? But Fact is Truth. It won't change tomorrow, or ever.

But in science, theory is power. Theory is sexiness. Theory is freedom from a huge bundle of disconnected, incoherent facts. "You have no theory, all you have are facts!", is a damning statement.

Historians have a lot of difficulty producing a decent theory of history. They have tons of facts, but where's the general theory of civil war? Everything in history is retrospective hyper-domain-specific explanation. So some people appreciate the difficulty of theory.

Maybe if people don't play these word games, then they also lose. But I don't currently believe that. I think the other side that plays word games is dishonest, and that those who join with me on this opinion should resist such immoral PR tactics. These are people who pervert the good instruments of societal transaction and improvement, because winning is everything to them. Whatever the damage to public relationship to science, whatever the cost to language, whatever -- let the kids of the future clean it up after we've won the "war".

<comment><USER10> As a college educated biologist, I understand what you're saying, even if it's not 100% accurate. However, when discussing with laymen, you need to speak the language of the laymen. A doctor won't tell you to take some methocarbomol when you have a back ache, they'll tell you to take Robaxaset or a muscle relaxant. For colloquial speech, we should be using colloquial terms. Every field of specialization has lingo, but when interdisciplinary conversations occur, it's better to find a common usage and understanding.

I now write software professionally, and if I didn't do this, then the number of misunderstandings would be far far greater. I needn't make the product owners speak using tech terms for them to understand the concepts. Getting too technical confuses someone who has no interest in understanding the underlaying technology.

Also, to a physicist, the statement "I am here" is not a fact. You were there, but between the earths rotation on it's axis, the orbit of the earth around the sun, the movement of the solar system within the galaxy, and spacial expansion puts you in a completely different place from when you started the statement compared to where you ended it.

In Chemistry, we're all taught the Bohr model. It's not what's actually happening, but it's a good model to get a rudimentary understanding of orbits.

<comment><USER11> When I'm saying "I am here" is a fact, I'm saying that to the layperson, that is how they express their understanding of the word. Fact is truth, and not something to be iterated on, added to, or improved in any way. So to many, saying that "God is a fact." is very agreeable, if not obvious.

When you talk about approximate geometry, physics, or chemistry, that is very different from the deceitful language games being played by groups in American society. And when we say that evolution is fact, that's not even playing the game right, and it is said in bad faith.

When someone can equate God with Fact and get wide agreement, or agreeably express their understanding of fact by saying, "I am here. That is fact." (arguing against this is a trap), you will lose if you say that evolution is a fact, because evolution cannot stand on the same place as God, and saying so is a cultural violation.

Furthermore, facts can never be changed or improved upon, nor reframed. When someone says that God is Fact, they mean to say that God is unquestionably true in an unchanging and objective way. If you say that evolution is fact, someone will ask how the THEORY of evolution has changed over time, and how a changing theory can be fact. They are deliberately switching back and forth between technical lingo and vernacular. If you try to elucidate with anything less elegant than how the conversation went so far, you will lose.

This game, this abuse of language, this struggle for political power and social configuration, is very far and apart from the pedagogical motives of approximate models in physics, chemistry, or geometry. It is done in bad faith. It is done as a game. And even if you were fully cynical and believed that gaming is the right way forward, even then this is the wrong move. The stronger play would be to instill this contrary framing of language at an early age through an authoritative institution -- schools.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think it's futile trying to defend Darwin in a scientific way (i.e. based on sound logic and evidence), or based on the utility of it in current life, here is why.

There are two possible common scenarios of people who dismiss evolution after reasonable education:

If a people chose to dismiss evolution simply because the Bible (or some influential people) said so, it wont make much difference to convince him evolution, because even if you succeeded, it's just because you said so, not based on his own independent thinking.

If a people choose to believe in God based on his own independent thinking, he probably already chose to not using the scientific way of thinking on this matter. And you have to respect that the scientific way isn't perfect itself (it's mostly based on induction not undeniable logic).

The second scenario is far rarer than the first one. But with them, it's more productive to have a more philosophical discussion than a scientific one.

<comment><USER13> It's not futile. Christians do not have binary faith in the accuracy of the bible. If one has doubts, they may eventually be swayed.

<comment><USER12> You see, that's the fundamental issue - their faith is not based on evidence, they fact that they don't always ignore counter evidence isn't that relevant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Only logical issue I see is his that in saying evolution is a theory _and_ a fact this did not follow his pattern of things that are facts and theories. For instance, he said the existence of cells is a fact and cell theory is a reasonable way of explaining how cells function.

I guess I'm just confused because he uses the same word "evolution". It seems like this is the same thing as saying _cells_ are a theory and a fact. But that doesn't even make sense as far as the word "cells" goes. Wouldn't it make more sense to say _life_ is a fact and evolution is a reasonable way of explaining how life functions? Or something along those lines, I can't quite wrap my head around it. Perhaps someone can explain this more clearly?

He might just be using two definitions of the word "evolution" to make a point/sound more poetic. But this just comes off as more confusing to me.

<comment><USER15> This is a termionology issue based on what "theory" actually means in science. Theory in science means a foundation of how we think things work. For example people are perfectly fine with the "Theory of Gravity" being a "Theory" although no one doubts the observable effects of gravity. In the scientific community evolution has a similar standing.

<comment><USER16> Right, and just to close the loop, it is a _fact_ that gravity exists, and the theory of gravity is our current thinking of how it works and why it exists. Likewise, it is a fact that evolution exists, and the theory of evolution is our current understanding of how it works.

<comment> vezzy-fnord It is worth noting that a lot of people don't seem to be taught about gravitational theory in any reasonable depth in public school. Instead, most are familiar with the _law_ of universal gravitation, which is an axiom specifically in Newtonian mechanics.

Thus much of the confusion is in people not knowing the differences between laws, theories, hypotheses and conjectures. Sloppy curricula is a large factor in this, I think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _... one can accept evolution and maintain their religious beliefs. They are not mutually exclusive._

To me its like saying I'm both Christian and Muslim. Sure, one can decide to be whatever weird thing he/she likes, but its bizarre and does not make any sense.

Or am I mistaken?

<comment><USER18> I grew up as a Christian and was taught evolution at Christian schools. If you believe in the literal truth of the Bible then clearly you cannot believe in evolution. But most Christians, at least most with any sense, do not believe that. For example, you can be a Christian without literally believing the story of Adam and Eve.

<comment><USER19> If you don't believe literally in Adam and Eve, it implies not literally believing in Original Sin, the inheritance of the guilt and Jesus dying on a cross for it. The whole thing falls apart, doesn't it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This reminded me about this Paul Graham piece, where he pointed out that people are willing to be open-minded only until the topic is one they feel is part of their core set of beliefs (eg, religion or politics).

</comment><comment><USER3> Another interesting article is: [http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/03/teaching_human_evolution_at_the_university_of_kentucky_there_are_some_students.html)

I like that the professor in this example tries to engage his students despite the conflict with their religious beliefs. It seems like he sometimes has success with it and is realistic in his expectations...

<comment><USER6> It's the same author, and basically the same article: _This essay is adapted from a piece originally printed in the March /April 2015 issue of Orion._

<comment><AUTHOR> Correct. I posted the original source for this very reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> >This lecture should put students at ease knowing that religion and science need not be at odds

Unfortunately, this isn't true. Evolution and certain religions may not be directly in conflict... but science and religion? The two by definition are fundamentally at odds.

<comment><USER22> Christians might say that God exists in the bits we can't explain yet.

<comment><USER23> And science says that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation even for the parts we can't explain yet.

Still at odds, fundamentally.

<comment><USER22> No they're not! Even if science explains everything there's still room for God.

<comment><USER24> You're defining God as a function of human ignorance.

Where exactly is this 'room for God' and why is it suspiciously never anywhere anyone looks?

The belief alone that God can't be disproved, even with evidence, is a fundamentally anti-scientific point of view. Once you come to the point of science 'proving everything' but still believing in God, what are you basing that belief on? Literally nothing.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Cube Rule of Food Identification - <AUTHOR> http://cuberule.com/ <comment><USER2> Does anyone else not like the fact that food changes identity depending on how or if it is cut?

If I have a hard shell taco that splits, it has become a sandwich according to the cube rule of food identification.

The author has toast (1) as an example of a sandwich (2) for goodness sake.

<comment><USER3> The toast(1) as a sandwich(2) is an example of a toast sandwich, which I promise is a real thing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toast_sandwich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toast_sandwich)

<comment><USER2> Woah. Thank you so much for sharing that with me - I had never heard of a toast sandwich before and now that I understand its makeup I'm more of the mind that the author is a genius for that bread sandwich example.</comment></comment></comment>


Scads: Scale-independent storage for social computing applications - <AUTHOR> http://radlab.cs.berkeley.edu/publication/185 By the guys who came up with RISC and RAID at Berkeley. <comment><USER2> This seems like an interesting project, however I can't find extra info on the Berkely site or elsewhere. Do you know if the development is going to be done out in the open?

<comment><USER3> We are currently focusing our efforts on the Performance Insightful Query Language portion of the project. Some more detail on the ideas and some initial results will be presented at SOCC in June. The paper can be found at: [http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~franklin/Papers/socc10armbrust.p...](http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~franklin/Papers/socc10armbrust.pdf)

The current state of the code is that it is pretty much Research-Ware (i.e. probably not stable enough to be useful outside of the lab). However, as the project matures we will definitely be open-sourcing any useful components that are developed.

For instance, checkout a project by an undergraduate in our group that implements the record serialization we will be using for the system as a scala compiler plugin. <http://code.google.com/p/avro-scala-compiler-plugin/></comment></comment>


An Inside Look at the Surprisingly Violent Quidditch World Cup - <AUTHOR> http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/sports/Quoosiers.html

<comment><USER2> Normally I'm just annoyed by spreading an article over a few pages, but 14?!?!

Here's the all-in-one link. Yeesh.

[http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor- adventure/sports/Quoosi...](http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor- adventure/sports/Quoosiers.html?page=all)

</comment><comment><USER3> 30 EMTs posted at the event.

Concussions considered normal.

Player on the author's team still hasn't regained full use of his right arm after tearing his bicep off his shoulder. But at least they came in third place, so he can feel like it was worth it.</comment>


Battle between generations due to baby boomer debt legacy - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/21563725?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709 <comment><USER2> The Iraq war, or new roads and bridges and clean coal burning plants?

Massive tax cuts for the rich, or investments in education?

Lax regulation of bank loans and credit card loans, or time-tested traditions of banking prudence?

Multi-million dollar payouts to health insurance CEOs (Cigna CEO David Cordani made the most, at $19.1 million, in 2011) or universal health care for all citizens?

A vast bureaucracy devoted to keeping entrepreneurs in their home countries, or the "Land of opportunity" offering a warm welcome for the worlds entrepreneurs?

There were many decisions made that lead the USA to its current situation. Anyone who argues that government debt is the sole issue, or even the main issue, has failed to pay attention.

<comment><AUTHOR> Unfortunately I think the baby boomers have had a hand in most of those issues or were too naive to know that they are problems. For example, seniors are against medicare reductions and don't want universal health care. This viewpoint has caused the debt to increase. Seniors are mostly against immigration, this has halted economic growth (therefore hindering government revenue). Seniors were more in favor of the Iraq war then younger folks. The list goes on...

<comment><USER3> The debt will increase with universal health care.

"Seniors are mostly against immigration"

Most Seniors I've talked to are against allowing anybody to come into the country with little or no incentive to pay taxes. This is much different than being against immigration.

"Seniors were more in favor of the Iraq war then younger folks"

Can you provide proof of this?

"Unfortunately I think the baby boomers have had a hand in most of those issues or were too naive to know that they are problems."

Since we are generalizing here, I will thrown my 2 cents in. Some of the opinions I see are similar to a child not listening to their parent because they only see what's in front of them and don't have the life experience or the forethought to see what can and will happen. Many older folks have the life experience and wisdom.

Universal health care is a good example. Every time I see an article on here, Reddit, or anywhere else on the Internet, none of the proponents will talk about the negative effects of universal health care. They aren't even willing to discuss them. I've lived long enough to know that nothing in this world is perfect. If we can't talk about it honestly, I will never vote for it.

I know I'm not alone.

<comment><AUTHOR> "Most Seniors I've talked to are against allowing anybody to come into the country with little or no incentive to pay taxes. This is much different than being against immigration."

[http://news.yahoo.com/poll-senior-citizens- league-77-seniors...](http://news.yahoo.com/poll-senior-citizens- league-77-seniors-oppose-obama-040040880.html)

Apparently they're against the President's immigration reforms. Taxes is one issue of immigration. These people will be paying payroll taxes when working legally. Most Americans (especially older folks) would not do the work immigrants are coming to the US for.

Unfortunately I don't have polls for the Iraq war stuff. I just have examples I have encountered in my life.

As far as universal health care is concerned, it has been adopted by practically every first world country besides the US. Taiwan in the not too distant past offered universal health care and the main lesson they said they learned from the US was, not to them.

Older folks have an incentive to not have universal health care for everyone. They already have it or will have it soon. Giving it to everybody would decrease the quality of care for medicare. Most people that have looked into this issue have come to the conclusion that a single payer system works the best. There would need to be a lot of evidence to overcome the overwhelming evidence in favor of universal health care. Care to elaborate why the US shouldn't have it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "....boomers now sell off assets to finance retirement, putting pressure on equity prices and denying young workers an easy route to wealth"

Not true. Imagine if all stocks had 250 P/E and are now coming back down to 10 P/E in one month. Who benefits?

Cheaper equity means higher yield, and higher yield means an easy route to wealth.

If you are young, don't let the reserve bank fool you into thinking rising prices is good. You have a whole life of investing in you. Would you celebrate every time, after you fill up a tank of petrol, the price of petrol goes up? That's ridiculous, and I encourage you to think the same for prices of investments.

Prices are kept high means when you buy the overpriced investments from other people, some of your wealth is being transferred to them.

<comment><USER5> >Would you celebrate every time, after you fill up a tank of petrol, the price of petrol goes up?

The flaw in the analogy is that inflation isn't the price of petrol, it's the price of everything. Including wages. If in week 1 you make $1000 and spend $1000 and in week two all prices go up (including the price of your labor) so that you make $2000 and spend $2000, you don't actually care that the nominal price of commodities is increasing as long as they don't rise faster than your pay. And most investments work the same way: If you own a share of Ford and the Fed prints a trillion dollars, the nominal share price is going to go up the same as the price of anything else.

The people inflation hurts are those who have long-term agreements with fixed price terms. If you have a fixed-rate mortgage, you benefit from inflation, and the bank that owns the mortgage pays for it. If you have a ten year fixed- rate certificate of deposit, the bank benefits from inflation and the CD holder takes the beating.

But as a general rule, retirees will tend to be the ones who have CDs or fixed-rate annuities or the like, and the youth will be the ones to have student loans or owe large amounts of principal on a mortgage.

<comment><USER4> Sorry, I meant in real terms but I didn't specify it.

Or they'll be like me with barely $5000 invested in stocks - To get a comfortable retirement I'll probably need to invest at least $10,000 a year. However, if the price of investments rise faster than my wage, I'll need to spend more to purchase investments to produce the same absolute yield. The income from my investments would also be reduced (due to reduced yield). You can argue they are capital gains, but the "capital gains" would only be permanent if the company's assets or income was increased permanently.

What I am saying is the increase in price for investments resulting in lower yield without justification is not a good thing for buyers of said investments.

I have a $50,000 student debt owed to the government, whose interest is indexed to CPI. There is no point for me to pay off my loan early besides what the government requires me to do. So, I constantly invest my excess earnings.

<comment><USER5> >Sorry, I meant in real terms but I didn't specify it.

You can't have inflation "in real terms" -- real means adjusted for inflation. What you're talking about is increases in the relative value of one thing over another, e.g. the price of gas or stock goes up while the price of labor stays the same. But that isn't caused by printing money, it's caused by Peak Oil and concentration of wealth.

>There is no point for me to pay off my loan early besides what the government requires me to do.

You mean other than the fact that the interest rate on the loan (even subsidized loans) is likely to be higher than the risk-adjusted return on most investments?

There are two primary reasons to invest new income instead of paying off money you've borrowed at interest. The first is that you have an investment opportunity (like your own business) which you're confident can produce a higher return on the investment than you're paying in interest on the loan. The second is that you anticipate a significant probability that you'll need to spend the money in the short to medium future, and the interest rate on re- borrowing the money you've paid back will be sufficiently higher than the rate you have on the existing loan to absorb the relative gains you'll make by not paying loan interest in the interim.

Don't let "low" interest rates fool you -- they're low compared to unsecured and unsubsidized loans, but they're still high compared to the ROI you get from investing in typical index funds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Their generation got lost in space, and left behind the rest of us in the ashes of their world. We have to deal with the aging infrastructure, horrid basic education system, a re-broken economy, and now sky-high debt. And that generation is forcing us to pay them for aging, then pay for our own old age as the system will be broken by then.

<comment><USER7> Is the American education system really that bad? What are the obvious ways of improving the situation?

<comment><USER8> The US education system is fine compared to those of Europe and Asia.

[http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazing-truth- abou...](http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazing-truth-about-pisa- scores-usa.html)

[http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-well-do- above-...](http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-well-do-above- average-american.html)

<comment><USER9> _The US education system is fine compared to those of Europe and Asia._

The factual statement is incorrect as to results of instruction, and the statement is well known to be incorrect by any widely traveled person who has studied the educational system in multiple countries, especially those who have made specific study of typical school textbooks and teaching methods in various countries.

Anyway, the links offered in support of your prima-facie false statement are not written by a person who is familiar with United States education and have been called out before here on Hacker News as crap links, contrary to

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

"Essentially there are two rules here: don't post or upvote crap links, and don't be rude or dumb in comment threads."

AFTER EDIT: As I go out to take my son to his soccer practice, it occurs to me that the factual assumption in the grandparent comment needs examination as well. It IS a fact that schools are quite well funded in the United States compared to how they are funded in other countries. School funding in the United States is quite uneven from region to region, but in almost all regions is well above world averages, and some United States schools receive more dollars per pupil than schools nearly anywhere. So my statement about the RESULTS of schools in the United States should be interpreted as a statement that United States schools disappoint compared to what a large percentage of public funds are devoted to them. Many countries do better in that regard of efficiency. To the point of the submitted article, one fiscal overhang that older generations of school employees are leaving for younger generations of pupils and students is large pension obligations for those school employees, which are far from fully funded in most states, and are very lavish by worldwide standards.

SECOND EDIT: The ball is in your court this time, yummyfajitas. I invite the readers of HN to determine whether you have ever been a straight shooter on this issue any of the many times you have submitted that crap link. I'm not aware that you have done any of the travel or reading necessary to evaluate the statements in those links accurately. Let's ask lots of HN participants to take a close look at the actual evidence on education peformance per dollar expended in different countries and think carefully about how well the United States is really doing. (My user profile, which readers can view in my absence from this discussion, explains some of my basis for knowledge for why I say the United States school system does not do as well as it ought to do.)

<comment><USER8> As always (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3315028>), you fail to address the data, preferring instead to make logical fallacies (typically argument by authority, now borderline ad-hominem). The HN readership is smart enough to see through this, and I'd be very surprised if you convinced a single person. Why do you persist in it?

[Edit, in response to your edit: I cited data. Do you dispute the data or not? Note that an argument from authority is not the same as a data-driven argument.]

<comment><USER6> drama++

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is a little bit of a tangent, but I recently found this animated GIF which does a great job of illustrating just how _big_ "the baby boom" is: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Population_b...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Population_by_gender_1950-2010.gif)

<comment><USER11> That is a really cool GIF. I love how you can see the "echo" of the baby boom when they started having their own kids.

It also shows the incredible increase in life-expectancy we have seen over the past century. Instead of dying off, the top of the chart just seems to grow upward.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> A option they seemed to have left out is raising the "inheritance tax". If these baby boomers got Reagan tax breaks in their prime earning years, we should compensate by increasing the "death tax".

<comment><USER13> The "death tax" should be abolished. Its ridiculous, even beyond the ridiculous notion of taxing someone to die, how many times should YOUR money get taxed? Once? Twice? Three times? When does it stop?

Our (U.S.) tax code is absolutely horrible, but even with that revenue isn't the problem, spending is. I would say that politicians will ALWAYS spend every dime they have, but in reality they spend money they dont have. Awesome system we have.

<comment><USER14> The estate tax doesn't tax the first $5,000,000 of an estate. After that, the rate is 35%.

It's a tax on the one percent. The vast, vast majority of Americans will never be bothered by it.

<comment><USER15> Yes, and under current law that is set to go down to $1,000,000 in less than three months. It is not a tax on the "one percent".

<comment><USER16> In 2010 the IRS received 142 823 000 individual tax returns.

An estimated 52 500 returns will pay estate taxes in 2013.

(52000 / 142823000) * 100 ~= 0.036

You're right. It's not a tax on the "one percent", it's a tax on the "one- third of one-percent"

[http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/federal_govt_fin...](http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/federal_govt_finances_employment/federal_individual_income_tax_returns.html)

[http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key- elements/es...](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key- elements/estate/how-many.cfm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's simple mathematics. A whole bunch of people are forecasted to receive a bunch more than they put in, which is unsustainable once the population isn't growing fast enough to make up the difference. For an illustration of how difficult this will be to solve, just read some of the Boomer comments on this article, expressing outrage at the notion that they should have benefits cut because of how much they have put in, as if it's unthinkable that they will receive _more_ than they put in, and that this is unsustainable.

</comment><comment><USER9> I think this article has been submitted before. (The submission here is not a submission of the canonical URL.) Anyway, by the usual generation labeling in the United States, the most profligate generation in United States history is the "Silent Generation," the generation mostly born during the Great Depression (who make up the parent generation of the younger half of the Baby Boom). They began and sustained the trend of spending far in advance of revenue, all the while thinking that they "earned" their government transfer payments. I, a Baby Boomer, have a higher retirement age than my parents have, and have paid a higher rate of payroll or self-employment taxes into Social Security than my parents generally did.

But the submitted article is correct that the older generations in the United States will have to rethink their attitude toward "entitlements" (transfer payments) even more if our children's generation is to have any prospect of continued economic growth. On my part, I'm happy to see my retirement age nudged up some more, and also for old-age benefits and other government benefits to take actual cuts (rather than merely decreases in their rate of increase over time) to make sure that they are funded on an actuarially sound basis. I vote like that, and I discuss the issue with my generation-mates in these terms. The older should be helping the younger, in general, not the other way around.

<comment><USER5> >I, a Baby Boomer, have a higher retirement age than my parents have, and have paid a higher rate of payroll or self-employment taxes into Social Security than my parents generally did.

I think the key observation you're making is that baby boomers' parents will have had a better _retirement_ than the baby boomers are likely to, because at the time their parents were retired, the boomers were in their prime working age and there were plenty of resources to care for the then-retirees.

The trouble is that the converse is happening and about to happen. And there isn't really anything anyone could have done about it, other than maybe for the boomers to have had more kids. All of the attempts to do it through economic hocus pocus are kind of missing the point. The social security trust fund is a piece of paper that says there is a social security trust fund. The bonds it redeems still have to be paid by the treasury in the year the money is spent. The same goes for private retirement savings -- when you cash in your stocks and buy nursing services, you take a productive worker out of the economy to provide nursing services when that person could otherwise have been a scientist or small business owner or the like.

The problem stems from the fact that the things retirees want are, as a general rule, less economically productive than the things working people want. Boomers having saved a substantial amount of money for retirement would actually make that problem _worse_ because it means all the more resources under their control to be allocated to leisure and non-research medical care, rather than education and R&D and other such things that retirees have little personal incentive to demand.

The article's suggestion (inflation) is only a solution in the sense that it reduces the economic power of the retirees, meaning that they get less healthcare and the young get more education and infrastructure. But the tradeoff is still inevitable -- they're just pointing out a method of making it in a way that moves the slider away from retirees in the face of the strong political power of the AARP, by placing the decision in the hands of the federal reserve board which is not as easily influenced by lobby groups as elected officials.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> A half-truth being told to distract from the broader class struggle which the _Economist_ 's ideology says cannot ever happen.

</comment><comment><USER19> Of course, in 50 years, when we boomers are almost all dead (assuming no singularity), to whom will the debt be owed? To the children and grandchildren of the boomers. This between generations battle BS is just BS.

<comment><USER20> It's less about to whom the debt is going so much as where.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I wonder if people in general will ever get wise to divide and conquer distractions. It nearly always works. This one is particularly insidious however.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you deal with your web articles reading list? - <AUTHOR> My pocket account has 2000+ items, most will be outdated now, most will never be read, most I don't even remember why are here..... I am struggling to managing (in the more material sense of it (tools/methods) and in the more idealogical sense of it(self discipline)) the ton information that I found every day...<p>How do you deal with it? <comment><USER2> Enforce some rules:

1\. It's on the list for more than a month? Archive it without remorse, you'll never read it anyway.

2\. Be more strict/selective with what it goes on the list. I usually spend few seconds skimming through the article I'm about to add. If nothing interesting shows up, the article stay out of my Pocket.

3\. Keep your add to list/mark as read ratio at 2:1 (i.e. if you add two articles in a day, be sure you read at least one)

Long story short: I didn't had more than 15-20 items on my list for the past 2-3 years :)

</comment><comment><USER3> I rarely add stuff to my reading list because I have learned that I mostly ignore what I add. That includes the rare things I add these days.

The reason I mostly ignore what's on my reading list is because things usually go there because _I don 't have time to read them_. My normal habits won't give me more time in the future...I'll still look at more than I can read. The only way I can catch up would be to block out time.

However...

I've recently been thinking about just storing all the text of the pages I visit with the idea of running search over them so that finding what I've seen is easier. Tooling might be one of those enterprise type systems that run on the JVM and the hardware something like Raspberry Pi's and thumb-drives.

Just haven't got around to it yet...it's on my TODO list.

Good luck.</comment>


Looking to choose a language & framework-- - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Well, that list of ideas is pretty surreal. Saying that, I have personally really liked Django. The biggest thing going for it is the ease with which you can get started and make something fairly impressive (I find RoR, in comparison, more intimidating and more magical). Also, the source is very readable (always a plus when you start pushing the limits of your framework).

Something like dynamically generating content on a per user basis is a breeze with Django, they have fantastic user and session support straight out of the box. The public site design would also be doable, but probably a lot of work to keep it from being a security disaster.

Your AI and Spiders could be separate Python processes, so that would be doable. The Online CAD/drawing stuff I don't have anything on, but you could probably integrate a flash or ajax library to do it without too much trouble. Also Django scales easily with great built in caching support.

Feel free to email me any questions.

Also, all the things you want _can_ be done in any framework, its just that it'll be far more painful in some than others. I'd focus on looking at frameworks with preexisting libraries or modules you can use to create your functionality instead of having to build it all from scratch.

<comment><AUTHOR> "is pretty surreal. . ." --tell me about it =) Frankly, I think it's too many features. We've a prioritized development schedule based on user input, and I expect that we'll find that the site becomes what we want/need at around 1/3-1/2 of these features.

That's good to hear, about Django, given the prominence of user/session support in our plans. Public site design is frankly a secondary concern: I think a template system will be more than enough. But, I figured I'd throw it out there.

We've already rolled a simple CAD/drawing app via the element, and I expect that to be more than sufficient.

Thanks a bunch for your input! I'll be sure to be in contact as we proceed.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> So I'm developing a web application involving "socially" networking elements created by users. But, I'm a novice [when it comes to web programming].

I'm getting to the point where I'd like to choose a language/framework. I'm OK (in fact, I prefer) trying options out and switching flexibly before settling down on a choice, but I thought I might get some feedback from some people who know what they're talking about.

Some goals (both long- and short-term) central to my plans that I think might influence my choice include: -Lots of user/database interface and editing via gorgeous graph/node visualization -Easy web site template authoring (read: visual/drag & drop elements, no/minimal coding required of user) -Integration of version control (of web pages) -Fairly sophisticated AI performed on the backend for resource matching and knowledge representation -Enabling for public editing of HTML and site design -Online CAD/drawing tool (probably via ) -Acute, application-level awareness of user profile/information in what/how pages and information is displayed as users browse (read: dynamically generate and display content per user) -Web spidering/pulling and reusing content from the web

After shopping around, I've been primarily considering Python (Pylons; Django) and WebObjects/Project Wonder.

Thoughts? Recommendations? Are these goals _actually_ constraints on what language/framework I choose? What are the more generic features of the language/framework that I should paying attention to, given my goals?

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm currently with RoR and while I _love_ Ruby language I feel that RoR, while being super-productive for basic things, forces me to dig deep into its own (not very readable) source code to figure out non-trivial things that are not mentioned anywhere in the documentation.

And looking at Rails code, I find that often DHH overuses Ruby dynamism without practical benefits. Look at Rails::Initializer class and how it starts the application and handles configuration: lots of dynamism and supposed flexibility, but yet there is no simple way to access the active instance of Configuration object from arbitrary place in your Rails application, which is (to me) seems like a first thing anyone would expect from configuration.

Another example is suppressing previously rendered output (in ActionView). "Official" documentation does not mention those methods, I found them (yet again) by drilling through Rails code.

Finally, I am not impressed with Rails session support. With a framework so powerful and "magical" I still need to _manually_ deal with cookies and session data, because there is very weak control over session expiration mechanism in Rails.

Having said all that, I still enjoy developing with RoR w-w-a-a-a-ay more than Microsoft's "WinForms on the web" approach in .NET, and Ruby is really fun.

<comment><USER4> Jboss Seam introduced a very interesting concept to deal with sessions called "conversations": <http://www.jboss.com/products/seam>

Like sessions, conversation objects live across page requests, but die after a given action or event. A Conversation is a mid-ground between a session (long- lived) and a page request (short-lived).

Seam also offers good support for dealing with the session scope: All you need to do is to basically say "hold this object in the session scope" and Seam manages it for you. No cookies or manual session handling (unless you want to)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm a web novice too so take my advice as such .. My requirements are similar to yours, backend ANN's and frontend graph visualization.

I'd go with whatever you currently feel most comfortable with. Getting the first version out there in the fastest way possible will give you a chance to judge feasibility and traction.

The minor differences between current popular languages and frameworks will the least of the problems in getting the app up and running (and honestly inspite of all the wars they don't matter all that much)

As for me I'm using ROR/C++/Javascript.</comment>


Ask HN: How do I hire programmers / designers without being _that_ customer? - <AUTHOR>

I read a lot about the experiences of freelance designers or programmers and the lousy customers they have to deal with.
So, how do I hire a freelance programmer without being that customer?  What information do I need to gather before I make contact?  What expectations should I have?  How do I talk about money?  How do I ask if I'm being realistic? <comment><USER2> There are four ways developers spend their work time:

1) Communicating with you to learn about your needs

2) Making rapid progress because they know exactly what to do and, rather than doing it, tell the computer to do it

3) Being stuck because they don't know exactly what to do, and are trying to figure it out.

4) Sitting around unmotivated because they're not sure they'll be paid for work they could be doing right now.

Obviously you want the developer to spend as much as possible in #2. "Rapid progress" is defined in terms of your needs, so #1 is essential also. It's #3 and #4 that you want to avoid.

1\. _Remove all doubt that the developer will be paid_. Don't look for a fixed price contract. If your project is that predictable, someone is offering it as a _product_ , and it will be cheaper to buy that than to hire someone to reinvent the wheel. If it's _not_ that predictable, there's risk in the situation, and foisting it on the developer can still come back to haunt you (see developer activity #4). Pay on time or (better) in advance. Be open about your budget, and the fact that you _have_ a budget. If your developer knows that you don't mind paying money, he'll have no reservations about putting out his best work.

This can be scary for you, so...

2\. _Remove all doubt in your mind that you'll be satisfied._

The best credentials are, from most reassuring to least reassuring:

\---satisfied clients that you know

\---testimonials

\---a portfolio of past work similar to what you're looking for

\---a killer resume

\---they sound smart

3\. Be prepared to spend a lot of time in addition to money. The best developers spend their working time on activities 1, 2, and a little time in 3. #1 is irreplaceable.

Also, a note---you're not looking for a friend. You're looking for a hired gun. Think "What would Boba Fett be like if he were a programmer?" Look for someone who's polite and professional, not hip and friendly.

</comment><comment><USER3> I will speak for myself here.

1\. The most important thing I look for in a business relationship is trust. But, for trust to exist, both sides need to be transparent and upfront throughout the development process.

2\. One area that's always a little tricky is scope management. Make sure both sides agree what exactly is included in the scope of work, and what is not.

3\. Working iteratively helps. Set specific milestones and sub-goals and move along towards the final product. This way, both sides will clearly know the progress, and can make tweaks and changes along the way depending on how things change. Software always evolves.

4\. As for money - I would personally avoid a flat fee based project unless the scope is literally set-in stone (i.e. outcome is clearly quantifiable). Hourly billing rate coupled with these milestones should work well for both sides.

5\. Post development support - this is again a tricky area. Be clear on what kind of post development support is needed - and its associated cost (e.g. dealing with bugs, minor feature tweaks).

My two cents!

</comment><comment><USER4> Scope things out well. Show up with user stories and wireframes. This will allow the developer to bid a fixed price, _without_ getting himself in a bind later when he was assuming a plain CRUD interface and you were assuming a whizbang AJAX UI.

For what freelancers are charging, you should expect professional conduct and a solid product. BUT... not every developer knows everything. Listen for clues that the developer is getting uncomfortable and outside his skill set, as not all of them will be comfortable saying "I don't know how to do that."

Money is easy - they'll give you a price. Expect to pay a portion up front. I tend to get paid every week or two when I do freelancing, always in advance of the work.

And just ask if you're being reasonable. A _good_ developer will not just blindly implement what you ask for, but will suggest easier and cheaper alternatives along the way.

Be reasonable and consider the advice given by the developer. Sometimes it will be good advice. Other times, the source can be laziness, so pay attention.

Also, make sure you're not working with _that_ developer. You know, the ones who tell the snarky stories about "idea guys" and MBA's. The work they're looking for is "client", and it's their job to _help_ them, not mock them.

A successful development project requires a lot of work from both parties- so both need to carry their own weight. That means you'll do manual testing, copy writing, UI design, and provide the overall vision. That means you'll working iteratively with frequent feedback in both directions. It also means that the developer will be scrapping bits of code here and there along the way. Make sure he can handle this work style.

At the same time, be careful not to abuse the agile process on a fixed cost bid. You will annoy your developer.

Bottom line is that trust is the magic ingredient. So find ways to build it in both directions.</comment>


My best app was a financial failure - <AUTHOR> http://appstore100k.com/blog/my-best-app-was-a-financial-failure/

<comment><USER2> Interesting, why did you give up on this and move onto something else? Presumably if you believed in the idea and thought it was a good app, you wouldn't have given up so soon?

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess I knew the app itself wan't going to succeed in it's category, there are tons of better (and free) apps.

<comment><USER2> Didn't you know that before you started development?</comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft.com being redesigned to push Silverlight - <AUTHOR> http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/redesigned-microsoft-website-to-use-silverlight/

<comment><USER2> That's an SEO and usability suicide. Heck, Adobe owns Flash and yet pretty much all of their pages are in (X)HTML/CSS. They're smart enough to understand what the place for these in-browser technologies is.

<comment><USER3> My guess is that they'll use it at first for sound / video content. I would venture to guess that they'll bundle it as part of MSN Messenger at some point in the future as well, since it's a small addon to the .net runtime.

<comment><USER4> They use it at <http://channel9.msdn.com/> which has prevented me from viewing a podcast or two, which I otherwise would.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I bet they are doing this to get Silverlight deployed to as many computers as they can.

<comment><USER6> I believe they have to as a good show of faith or else risk hypocrisy for not touching their own dog food.

<comment><USER5> MS hardly have to redesign their whole website away from HTML, nor is their history one of great effort to eschew hypocrisy. Besides, the dog food story is easy: have a token project or two so people can't say you don't use your own stuff. That's what MS did with SourceSafe and arguably .NET as well.

This seems to me a gutsier move. Flash's greatest strength (and Silverlight's greatest weakness) is its installed base. MS have a big asset in the 8th most visited website; to put it in the service of deploying Silverlight is pretty daring and reminiscent of the MS of old... not necessarily a good thing! But I'm just speculating and could be wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Yesterday when i wanted to download something from microsoft.com i got a popup asking if i wanted to beta test the download with Silverlight. Of course i clicked it away. Downloading is a task of the browser. If the functionality is poor, fix the browser. Microsoft is not alone in this. Adobe, Sun and other companies also try to push useless download managers.

<comment><USER8> Sure, that's the way to get Spyware on your computer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This just shows that they don't understand their own technology. RIA/browser plugins have their place, but not for corporate home pages. If this was the case then Adobe.com would be a full screen flex app and Sun.com would be an applet.

arrg.</comment>


Yahoo Groups shutdown threatens UK phone infrastructure - <AUTHOR> https://mobile.twitter.com/erincandescent/status/1184587323599736837 <comment><USER2> It doesn't threaten anything. They've used Yahoo Groups as their provider to manage some discussions, now they'll have to switch provider. Stuff that happens every day.</comment>


New Interface Controller Game Changer for Makers - <AUTHOR> http://www.UConTroll.com

<comment><USER2> I'm sure this is a great device, but the website makes me uneasy. Most of the copy implies that it's available now, but it turns out that this is a Kickstarter project.

Throw in the complete absence of even a mock-up image of the board, the 1995 look-and-feel of the site, and the whole thing feels scammy.

<comment><AUTHOR> If you looked at either the Kick Starter page or the YouTube video you'd see several projects build with the UConTroll, as well as a picture of the prototype. Also, nothing in the copy indicates the board is available yet. To the contrary, there are several places where we refer you to the Kick Starter page.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What happened to browser scrolling via PgDn? - <AUTHOR> I do most of my surfing on a desktop, and for navigating around I prefer to use the keyboard.
Lately, the PageDown key isn't working any more on many pages. I press it once, I go down about half a page, once more, maybe a second page, about the third time I end up back at the top. Long pages don't scroll down any more.
This is happening to me in Firefox 64.0 under Windows 7.
That this long-traditional method doesn't work any more is badly frustrating. Can anybody please explain what's going on and what I could do about it? <comment><USER2> When you encounter one of these, first try turning off CSS styles (View -> Page Style -> No Style). If that fixes the issue then the page author did something in their styles to mess with scrolling.

If that does not work, try turning off javascript (NoScript extension works for this). If that fixes it, then the page author is doing something in their javascript code that is breaking keyboard scrolling.

As for "what to do" \- other than complain to the page authors, not much beyond turning off CSS and/or Javascript to get things to work better.

<comment><AUTHOR> Will try, thanks!</comment></comment>