Facebook in 2020: 'The AI Made Us Do It' - <AUTHOR> https://www.theinformation.com/articles/facebook-in-2020-the-ai-made-us-do-it <comment><USER2> That's one of the ideas that Zuckerberg put forward during his testimony to Congress. In his view, AI will solve the problems. Nope, that not going to happen. If it's impossible for people to figure out how to best present news. AI won't be able to do it. If he truly believes it then he has a dangerous blind spot that means the problems will never be controlled if he continues to be CEO.

My suspicion is that he's protecting future profits by hoping automation will fix all the problem.

Either way, a company run by Zuckerberg means that the problems won't be fixed.

It's time to regulate Facebook's businesses.</comment>


Ask HN: Size of HN Hug of Death - <AUTHOR> Does anybody have experience with an exclusive HN hug? Are there any public statistics about size (correlated with comments and votes on the story)? <comment><USER2> I've had sites of mine pop up on HN occasionally in the past, some getting hundreds of upvotes and generating threads with hundreds of comments.

In my experience, the "HN Hug of Death" is vastly overrated. It generally means around 10,000 extra hits over the course of a day. That's not _nothing_ , of course, but it's also not an overwhelming tidal wave of traffic, either. It's only enough to knock you offline if your site is architected in the most cheap and/or naïve way possible. If you've done so much as sneeze in the direction of scalability, you'll be fine.

</comment><comment><USER3> Something like 50 + 100 * upvotes, (ignoring the first point).</comment>


Ask HN: How to set up a minimalist professional web page these days - <AUTHOR> I'm thinking it might be time for me to start branching out on my own.  I've been doing analytics and stats for a long time now.  But I haven't done anything with the web for almost a decade.
What's a recommended path to setting up a nice clean, minimal, compatible website/web presence these days for myself.
I'm thinking things like no advertising, email domains, minimal overhead, maximum compatibility. Oh and I guess I'll need a domain :p
Dev time on my behalf kept to a minimum would be a plus, obviously? I'm willing to pay a bit of money (think what one guy can afford on a decent salary) for tooling...(but I want to do the actual work myself).
Content wise I'm thinking primarily involving written articles, books, papers, blogs, visualisations, and maybe links to video/presentations.
So how about it HN? Possible, easy, silly? What do you suggest? <comment><USER2> 1) Use a service like SquareSpace or Medium, no dev involved.

2) Use WordPress: just pick a simple, one purpose theme and avoid bloated ones (ie ThemeForest). It requires a LAMP/LEMP stack.

3) Ghost is an alternative blogging platform with minimalistic and usually well designed themes. It runs on Node.js.

4) Pick one of the many static site generators based on the language of your choice. They require no database and only need basic static hosting: [https://www.staticgen.com/](https://www.staticgen.com/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Mine is a true home page. There isn't anything on their but hand written HTML that contains links to my online stuff. Not really anything special. It also contains a picture of myself and my email. I wrote some obfuscated javascript to write my email to the document.

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here: Html + css was where the tech was last time I involved myself with the web, WordPress had just come out as "a thing". I'm not against it, but is like to know where we're at and what's feasible/standard these days.

Ideally I'd like something a bit more involved than raw html (unless it's become far more sophisticated than I remember), as I imagine I'll be updating and writing and presenting quite often, so a way to structure/manage/maintain/present/modularise/categorise material would be great.

As I'm on the data science end of things, I'm guessing I'd also be looking at hosting/presenting small data sets, or at least visuals representing such to be inserted/included in posts/demos/documents...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wrote my homepage[1] in about an hour (with bits and pieces of js borrowed). I used to have a wordpress blog styled exactly the same, but I never posted on it so it is gone now.

I by all means don't think this is 'professional', but I doubt what you want to make would need much more work than I have done.

These days there's resources for _everything_ , webservers which have really good proxying if you want to code in a language other than php or manually writing html, pre-made 'article-writing software' in many languages made for the web.

Tools? All you'd need is notepad, or nano (or, your preferred text editor)! You shouldn't need to run compiled code for the web, in my opinion, as there's no noticeable speed differences.

Googling for specific things in a specific language will probably give you results, e.g. 'nodejs blog' will land you to Hexo[2], which really neat, customizable, and fast.

[1] [https://avail.pw](https://avail.pw) [2] [https://hexo.io/](https://hexo.io/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Can you provide more detail on what you're actually looking to post and how much functionality you want to include?

On the lowest effort end, squarespace is a pretty decent option for getting something that looks nice up and running quickly without needing to deal with server stuff. It works for several colleagues, but has some flexibility limitations.

The next step up would probably be a Wordpress installation either on your own server or the lower-effort hosted solutions from wordpress.com. Personally I can't stand wordpress (it's become immensely bloated and keeping it updated and all your plugins/themes/whatever in sync and playing nicely can be a pain), but it works well for a huge number of people.

After that you're looking at rolling your own custom page on your own server, maybe a simple themeforest template on a shared host. I don't recommend this approach these days unless you're itching to get your hands dirty with some code whenever you want to update something.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the reply: very quickly, I'm looking primarily at essentially showing off my analytical abilities and making available articles and writing. It is essentially marketing for...me. I appreciate I'm being a bit vague, because I'm just trying to gauge what the state of play/possibilities are at this point.

I'm really not concerned with (in fact probably against) social involvement such as comments or community forming things on my site. Its all me. I'm torn about whether it could be integrated with the likes of social media (to automatically make posts to an equivalent facebook/twitter page/account). I do not need/want to make any money off of the site itself, so I don't want to worry about advertising, and indeed, want to keep it off the site and make it 100% gauged around user accessability. Its goal is to make money by people being interested in hiring me and what i do, rather than generate revenue by views of the site.

Really, its going to be a very close form to that of a fancy blog/versions, but posts may take forms of blog posts, articles, presentations, books or software links/articles etc. I would appreciate some way to apply themes and manage or structure my content.

Don't know if that helps at all...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> There is a plethora of static site generators in just about any language, nearly all of which have some decent-looking templates you can use. Then managing your site is just a matter of writing markdown for text content, and pushing it up somewhere for hosting. Github can handle this, as can many other services (e.g., S3).

</comment><comment><USER7> I like dokuwiki - [https://www.dokuwiki.org/dokuwiki#](https://www.dokuwiki.org/dokuwiki#)

You can use a CMS template to make it blog like, lets you do nice formatting no cruft.

Here my use of it (need to do some updating, been a while): [http://www.portcommodore.com](http://www.portcommodore.com)

Heres a good example page:

[http://www.portcommodore.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=larry:proj...](http://www.portcommodore.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=larry:projects:flash_attack_cable&s\[\]=flash&s\[\]=cable)

</comment><comment><USER8> If you do not want to see yourself as web developer, you can often find free templates that are simple HTML CSS. You can either use this as your template depending on the license, or create a derived piece.

I use Dynamic DNS and a lamp(hp) server hosted on a Raspberry Pi.

This cost me a total of $10 a year + trivial Electronics costs.

My site consists of 0 interactive parts. I have no use of a database . It only lists work that I've done, Often linking out to GitHub repositories.

</comment><comment><USER9> Just to throw a few numpty options out there we have Wix, Wordpress.com, Blogger.

Then there is Github pages and some people have created template repositories that you can clone or fork that look rather nice and are easy to post content to if you just learn Markdown which takes five minutes

E.g. [https://github.com/barryclark/jekyll- now](https://github.com/barryclark/jekyll-now)

</comment><comment><USER10> If you just need a blog try this [https://posthaven.com](https://posthaven.com)

However if you need an intro page I would suggest wordpress, they have a hosted one too, incase you don't want to deal with server stuff.

p.s My site [https://snehesh.me](https://snehesh.me) is built on react and nginx

</comment><comment><USER11> I went this route for a simple web pressence:

\- html theme from themeforest

\- amazon s3 for hosting the static files

\- linked a domain

\- used formspree.io for the contact form

Not much traffic, couple of cents a month. I don't do much updating too. Worked well for me.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER12> My choice right now is to build a small Django site with a sqlite db backing it. This way you get a free admin dashboard for updating the site. For the theme, grab something from www.html5up.com

</comment><comment><USER13> I would suggest Jekyll on Github pages with a custom domain and possibly Zoho for custom email. All this is free and can be setup on a quiet Sunday afternoon.

</comment><comment><USER14> What is your level of proficiency with Apache/php/mysql? There are some good minimalist WordPress templates that do not look like a blog.

</comment><comment><USER15> Wix, weebly, or square space. Done and done.

I'm a dev and would doing it if I were not such a cheap bastard.

</comment><comment><USER16> Check out codepen and/or GitHub pages...very simple and flexible.

<comment><AUTHOR> My concern/hesitancy with github (possibly completely unfounded) is that the site is primarily targeted at developers. So while I already have a github account, and developers appreciate it and that setup, I think it's kind of hostile to non-developers. Non tech people don't like/want to be referred to a git page.

Say for example I want to show commercially/professionally that I can predict elections, real estate prices, gambling markets or pedestrian/traffic movements, and I convey this through words and visualisation. I think in a lot of that space, any window/connection to git or software development is a barrier to many of the people who would hire me to do such, and the technical people would dig deeper if they wished. Or they can home in on the specifically technical articles.

So is it possible, if hosted on git pages, to divorce the page on a presentation level from any concept of git/repositories/software development concepts if I so choose?

<comment><USER17> You can use a custom domain with github pages so nobody would know the difference, plus the housing is free. I use this in conjunction with CloudFlare [1] for free partial SSL and Formspree [2] for free static email capabilities. I would make a simple medium/markdown styled page and all you have to do for blogging is reuse the same frame, write your content, update the meta tags, and add a link to your blogging page. It may take about 5 more minutes per post you make, but in the end I think it's worth it considering how much faster your site will load with the static content.

[1] [https://blog.keanulee.com/2014/10/11/setting-up-ssl-on- githu...](https://blog.keanulee.com/2014/10/11/setting-up-ssl-on-github- pages.html)

[2] [https://formspree.io](https://formspree.io)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Try WIX</comment>


Why don't we listen to Occam's Razor when it comes to programming languages? - <AUTHOR> Repeatedly through the history of humanity, huge advancements came from the conception of simple systems that replaced complex systems. An example is the decimal system itself. It does essentially the same that roman numbers do, except much better, for being simpler. And that very fact opened doors for science to progress much faster, because we weren't busy spending evenings multiplying numbers. This is one of countless examples that show there is a great benefit in pursuing the simplest alternative.
When it comes to programming languages, we didn't learn that lesson. Each other day someone develops a new fancy programming language with X more features, not realizing that all those features are already present on the simplest languages. The λ-calculus - a 70 year old system - already does everything that all those do, simpler and faster (compiling to Haskell, it already runs an order of magnitude faster than the average Python program). We treat PLs like products, but in reality they're just mathematical objects. Imagine if each other day someone created a new fancy numeric system? Why, instead of designing hundreds of fancy, complex programming languages, aren't we focusing in studying how those features manifest on the simplest languages, and implementing faster evaluators for them?
Here is Euler's 1st problem solved on the Caramel syntax for the λ-calculus:

    euler1 = (sum (filter (either (mod 3) (mod 5)) (range 1000)))
 <comment><USER2> I would think that Simplicity would also have to include 'readability'. In other words Simple for humans Write and Read.

You give a great example of Euler's 1st problem ([https://projecteuler.net/problem=1](https://projecteuler.net/problem=1)) but if someone wasn't given the context of the problem, or even if they were are unfamiliar with the syntax you used, they would not call you solution 'simple'.

That being said transfer of knowledge is a key component when reading. Going to your point about the decimal system (which I believe you were talking about the arabic numberals ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals\))). Sure it is faster and shorter to use than Roman Numerals, but then again the knowledge transfer that you could do with Arabaric numerals is much greater than Roman.

I would say for programming languages, ever time we, programmers, innovate on one we are trying to make a process simpliar to the user (I believe 'abstraction' would be an appropriate word to use).

<comment><USER3> When you point out the importance of context, I would hasten to add that for me comments in programs provide context that even the best naming convention, etc fails to provide.

<comment><USER2> I would agree, but there also needs to be a balance. You can't solely rely upon comments when needing to change the code, whereas you can rely on comments to grasp what is happening in said code. But the same can go for self documenting variables. Sure they help you understand what the variable/function/etc. holds, but not what it does.

Almost like naming convention is looking at something through a telescope (very narrow point of view, but very concise) and comments (especially those at top of functions/Sprocs/algorithms that describe what is happening) are like looking with your bare eyes. You can get a jist of things, but you sometimes can't be sure that's accurate 100%.

(A backpacking saying is "never trust any sign you come across" Someone could have tampered with it since it was put up. Use it as a guideline, but not as a rule. I take a similar approach to comments in critical pieces of code. (Touching Credit Decision-ing for Auto Loans ... yep, gonna slow down and take it slow to make sure I don't screw anything up))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Why Caramel? Why not just Lisp/Scheme? for the example.

Funny you should ask this question on HN. Have you read PG's essays on Lisp and the competitive advantage it granted his team in developing ViaWeb?

Your question might be about PLs, but in effect you are asking why somebody would prefer one abstraction over another.

Personally, I find it difficult to read and grok math. But if I write out stuff in Lisp s-exprs and use meaningful names for functions, etc, then I generally can understand a little bit better. Being able to "execute" such descriptions helps further.

Languages such as Lisp, Scheme, Smalltalk, Self (of the ones I'm familiar with) have simple syntax and powerful abstractions. They failed to gain "market share" due to perceived failings. However, they adhered to the philosophy of Occam's Razor.

I'll probably get flamed for saying this ... when you look at systems written in Lisp, the debates tend to boil down to people arguing over whether their abstraction is better than the other guy's. With a powerful language you can do anything in any way you choose. So the abstraction becomes the differentiating factor. Hence the emergence of not invented by me syndrome.

<comment><AUTHOR> Specifically because Lisp/Scheme, as simple as they are, still add a lot of complexity on top of the λ-calculus that isn't needed at all. In fact, I think the λ-calculus has a shield against this very issue on Lisp/Scheme, which is the fact is is much easier to quantify what is the "best" abstraction for a given problem.

<comment><USER4> In your initial post, you said:

> The λ-calculus - a 70 year old system - already does everything that all > those do, simpler and faster...

If you're saying that you can _write_ programs faster in the λ-calculus than you can in Lisp/Scheme, I think you're kidding yourself. If you think they'll _execute_ faster, I still seriously question your view. And if you think a medium-to-large program will be faster to _understand_ if written in the λ-calculus, I think you're completely mistaken.

<comment><AUTHOR> Of course I can, much faster. Maybe you do not see how high level the λ-calculus is... take a look on the Caramel syntax. I can translate line-by- line any Haskell program to Caramel. The λ-calculus, when given a decent syntax, is just Haskell without the types (but still has algebraic data structures identically, just no annotations). And I can be much more productive in Haskell than in Scheme, I think that goes without saying.

About the performance of the program itself, yes, λcalculus is faster than Scheme, by an order of magnitude, sometimes. For one, algorithms on church- encoded lists fuse by reduction, which means that the code below, in Caramel:

        map f (filter cond (zipWith (+) (map f a) (map f b)))

fuses to a single tight loop - i.e., it iterates through the lists `a` and `b` only once, and returns the result after that, creating no intermediate structure. Scheme would create 4 intermediate structures on this case. Since it is already 2~3x slower than the λ-calculus (running on GHC), that'd make it an order of magnitude slower in that case.

<comment><USER3> If you like Caramel, nobody here is going to tell you to use something else. Each to their own.

Agreed, λ-calculus is simple and clean. But what about the machine code being generated? Eventually, each concept in the abstraction has to be translated, often through several layers, to memory locations, register contents and the available instructions. Allowing for cache issues and out of order instruction issue. It is because of these and many other reasons that compilers, such as gcc, have gotten so big and complex.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> [https://mobile.twitter.com/wm/status/7206700352?lang=en](https://mobile.twitter.com/wm/status/7206700352?lang=en)

I love programming, but in the context of building great products. Languages are just a choose-your-compromise adventure, except JavaScript was chosen for you (it's fun!).

If Lisp powered Salesforce, I'm not sure anyone would describe that sausage as elegant. I'd love to see it consume a SOAP API... Or talk to a Mainframe (lol).

I use a lot of languages in every project and it's great. Purity is boring.

<comment><USER6> Boring? I don't want my languages to be exciting, I want what they _produce_ to be exciting. I want my _languages_ to be as simplistic as possible, and to allow the abstractions my problem domain require.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Surely binary is simpler than decimal, and yet humans rarely use it. Purity is nice, but there's a tradeoff with needing to get stuff done so you can pay the rent.

<comment><USER3> Decimal is easier for humans. But for computers it was a stumbling block until they decided to move from BCD to binary.

That is the power of abstractions, let humans have decimal and computers binary - letting the latter convert between them as required.</comment></comment>


Facebook: Our AI Tools Failed to Catch New Zealand Attack Video - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-our-ai-tools-failed-to-catch-new-zealand-attack-video-11553156141 <comment><USER2> Paywalled.</comment>


What are the most important concepts in programming? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER3> Personally, data structures. If you're using the correct data structure it doesn't mean you can't use a bad algo, but if you're using the wrong data structure it guarantees you're not solving the problem efficiently.

It's much easier to google "how to do X with graphs" to find some research on a great (if needed) runtime solution to your problem.

It's really hard to google "how to sort these things so I can quickly do X with them" of course ...

On top of that, if you have even a fairly-good data structure for your problem it makes coding and maintaining your solution that much more fun!

<comment><USER4> I would second that Data Structures are the most important. But another key intertwined principle is the concept of abstraction. Sometimes it can become hazy which class should own which, which class should store which DataStructures, or how related classes should reference the DataStructures instead of copying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Every program you will ever write: Input -> Transformation -> Output. That may sound annoyingly simplistic, but internalizing that one concept gives you a foundation to break down any problem you encounter.

<comment><USER6> I used to have a boss who had a habit of saying "Data in, data out. How hard can it be?".

Annoying doesn't get even half way close.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Depends on what stage of learning curve one is in. For somebody new - <USER2> to be good at data structures, design patterns and consistent code style.

\- -

Also as we get into programming in multiple languages over the course of our careers - we can better harness the power of code templates (live templates in Intellij or code snippets in VS === kind of meta programming).

eg: I can spend couple of weeks to learn a new framework/language (which sometimes can involve lot of syntax) or Just few days to learn concepts well - then an hour to make handy live templates in editor. Latter I've found - boosts productivity really well.

</comment><comment><USER8> Layers of patterns.

The whole point of programming is to take something complex and break it down into simple arithmetics and logic that a computer can digest.

So you build simple, isolated expressions that do one slightly more complex thing using slightly less complex things, then use these expressions to build slightly more complex things, and so on recursively, all the way up to having a "do the thing" button in an app.

Having these isolated, modular, layers of testable implementations is what makes code that can survive the test of time.

<comment><USER9> Yup. Combined with this, the "single level of abstraction" principle can make for much more readable and maintainable code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Writing pure functions really helps with maintainability: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function)

You will always have side effects but you can try to isolate the bits that are impure and write the rest of your software in a purely functional manner.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm going to plump for interfaces and composition. At least if you're building at any sort of scale.

</comment><comment><USER11> Maybe theres more money in guaranteed advertising than can be realized by subscriptions.

</comment><comment><USER12> Data structures come out on top for me as well. Other than that, I'd say loops and callbacks.

<comment><USER13> A callback is just a function call. Nothing more, nothing less. Unless you're talking about a callback that will be at a later time,, that would be async

<comment><USER12> Neither are callbacks just functions nor are they necessarily asynchronous, that's just how they work in JavaScript for example.

Callbacks - or closures, to use the more general mathematical term - allow you to delegate behaviour.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Clean code. Knowing that any debt will invariably come back hunting you. Clean code, however, is still a lot of art and experience, you never stop learning.

</comment><comment><USER15> Speration of concerns

</comment><comment><USER16> Syntax.</comment>


Messy Structs/Classes in a Functional Style - <AUTHOR> http://prog21.dadgum.com/216.html <comment><USER2> > In a real game, I found that almost everything was optional, so I ended up > with simply: > {Position, Optional_Stuff}

Or in other words, {Position, Everything_Else} :)

</comment><comment><USER3> I am busy learning Elixir and these are some good points to keep in mind. Hopefully I don't favourite and forget.</comment>


A 'Null' License Plate Landed One Hacker in Ticket Hell - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/-one-hacker-ticket-hell/ <comment><USER2> For those who are interested in the HN community thoughts, the discussion is over here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20676904](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20676904)</comment>


The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro (1852) - <AUTHOR> http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/douglassjuly4.html <comment><USER3> Those of us who are not from the US may not know who this man was.

From the Wikipedia article about him:

> Frederick Douglass (born Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey; c. February > 1818 – February 20, 1895) was an American social reformer, abolitionist, > orator, writer, and statesman. After escaping from slavery in Maryland, he > became a national leader of the abolitionist movement in Massachusetts and > New York, gaining note for his oratory and incisive antislavery writings.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass)

<comment><USER4> Frederick Douglass is mentioned in Sagan's superb "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark":

 _" Frederick Douglass taught that literacy is the path from slavery to freedom. There are many kinds of slavery and many kinds of freedom. But reading is still the path."_

Also, perhaps my favourite part describing the reaction to a speech by Douglass:

 _" His very appearance and demeanour destroyed the then- prevalent myth of the 'natural servility' of African-Americans. By all accounts his eloquent analysis of the evils of slavery was one of the most brilliant debuts in American oratorical history.

William Lloyd Garrison, the leading abolitionist of the day, sat in the front row. When Douglass finished his speech. Garrison rose, turned to the stunned audience, and challenged them with a shouted question:

'Have we been listening to a thing, a chattel personal, or a man?'

'A man! A man!' the audience roared back as one voice.

'Shall such a man be held a slave in a Christian land?' called out Garrison.

'No! No!' shouted the audience.

And even louder, Garrison asked: 'Shall such a man ever be sent back to bondage from the free soil of Old Massachusetts?' And now the crowd was on its feet, crying out 'No! No! No!'

He never did return to slavery."_

<comment><USER5> > "Frederick Douglass taught that literacy is the path from slavery to > freedom. There are many kinds of slavery and many kinds of freedom. But > reading is still the path."

I believe this same thing holds true for coding and the modern day African American ( of which I am one ). I earn 6x more than my father ( Fisk University / TSU - BS/Masters ), 3x more than my sister ( Yale / Columbia Educated Architect - BS/Masters ) and an even greater multiple more than the rest of my family - yet I have no college education. I truly wish more African Americans saw that coding is the new literacy and IMO a real path to freedom.

<comment><USER6> I totally disagree. Coding is a not at all comparable to literacy, it is simply a lucrative trade that is in demand at this time in history, but it won't always be (in fact, I suspect the career prospects for software engineers will look very similar to the career prospects for lawyers today, within the next 30 years). I say this as a black male software engineer under 35 without a college education who is in the 95th percentile of income earners in the U.S.

<comment><USER5> >> Coding is a not at all comparable to literacy, it is simply a lucrative trade that is in demand at this time in history, but it won't always be (in fact, I suspect the career prospects for software engineers will look very similar to the career prospects for lawyers today, within the next 30 years).

I think you are playing semantics, my argument is simply that coding can be as fundamental to earning a living as literacy and unlike many other occupations there are no gatekeepers that tell you what/when you can code - thus it gives you the freedom to work to improve yourself and your situation in ways that other occupations do not. I have no interest in debating the fundamental building blocks of learning etc... only the tactical dat to day skills that can add value to ones life but I would like to see your GitHub profile. Here is mine - [https://github.com/ArionHardison](https://github.com/ArionHardison). I also have 0 interest in your supposition, do you have any empirical evidence to back up the assertion that coding in 30 years will be akin to being a lawyer?

Note: To assert that someone would be able to code well enough to hold a job whole also being functionally illiterate is simply moronic.

<comment><USER6> > _Note: To assert that someone would be able to code well enough to hold a > job whole also being functionally illiterate is simply moronic._

Perhaps it is moronic to reduce "literacy" to a binary attribute. Are you deliberately misinterpreting my statements or do you honestly believe I'm here arguing for a definition of literacy that stops at 1st grade language arts? Increased literacy translates into increased ability to communicate effectively and intentionally. Increased literacy translates into faster knowledge acquisition and higher productivity gains.

Many engineers I've worked with have excellent literary skills, but many have poor literary skills and it is very obvious when those poorly developed skills are holding them back; it is especially noticeable among those who have an aversion to books or dense technical literature and supplement their experience almost exclusively with videos and by following tutorials. I'm not knocking videos or tutorials, I use them and I think everyone should, but if you're not also utilizing and improving literary skills you will always be overshadowed by those who are.

Consider the example of the developer who jumps into a new framework on the job and just starts hacking away until they've got a functioning MVP, but in the process also wastes 8 hours trying to demystify the behavior of a complex API by running tutorial code rather than spending an hour doing a comprehensive read through the documentation after which everything makes sense. Consider the missed opportunities for otherwise talented individuals who simply lack the literary skills necessary to participate in ongoing written communication with non-technical management, executives, and business partners. Consider the loss of productivity from poorly written or non- existent documentation. I see this kind of thing _all the time_.

> _I think you are playing semantics, my argument is simply that coding can be > as fundamental to earning a living as literacy_

I am not "playing semantics", I explicitly disagree with the notion that "coding can be as fundamental to earning a living as literacy", it simply doesn't get any more "fundamental" than being able to read and write and there is nothing "fundamental" about code writing _skills_ that cuts across almost every track of occupational advancement the way that literary skills do. Don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting that _logical thinking skills_ do not cut across all domains, I'm saying that _coding_ skills do not, they are not at all the same thing.

> _there are no gatekeepers that tell you what /when you can code_

Such is the case for all artisanal skills, it is only that writing code happens to be in very high demand at this time so it is a smart economic choice given the available options, but that obviously won't last forever and is clearly contingent on a market demand for the skillset. Literacy, on the other hand, is a timeless skill that pays dividends indefinitely in the advancement of one's career regardless of the industry.

> _it gives you the freedom to work to improve yourself and your situation in > ways that other occupations do not_

Not true. Practice makes perfect with code, just like anything else, it's only that nobody is going to pay someone with 1 year of experience a 60k salary to produce hobbyist level paintings and music, thus "the freedom to work to improve yourself" becomes "things I don't have time to do because I'm working".

> _I would like to see your GitHub profile_

Why? I don't measure my career success by a matrix of green squares displayed on a corporation's website. Seriously, who cares? This is kinda what I'm talking about. Your github profile is just self-aggrandizing noise in the technocratic bubble of the software industry, it's not inherently important.

> _I also have 0 interest in your supposition, do you have any empirical > evidence to back up the assertion that coding in 30 years will be akin to > being a lawyer?_

I didn't say it was a proven fact, only that it is something I suspect - <USER2> to offer some reasoning for this suspicion

1\. Year over year developers are able to produce more and more, with less bugs, at faster rates and cheaper costs. 30 years ago, you couldn't pay an experienced team of 10 to do what a single mid-level dev can accomplish with Rails and AWS today (i.e. doing more with less = less demand for engineers = lower wages)

2\. Open source _greatly_ exacerbates this effect and it is compounding as more and more open source software matures and is able to _do more_. (i.e. tools that get better and easier with 0 cost = lower barrier to entry in the industry = higher supply of engineers = lower wages)

3\. An _explosion_ of interest in the field spurred by high salaries, high prestige, popular media, deliberate awareness campaigns, a burgeoning bootcamp industry and an unlimited springwell of high quality resources for free online. (i.e. large influx of new engineers * explosion of free high quality learning resources = big spike in supply of quality engineers = lower wages)

4\. Increasing saturation of software markets. We see it pretty much across the spectrum of software from apps and games to office and web; the only area that isn't saturated yet is B2B but that won't last forever either. How many times in how many languages can we remake the same CRUD application before companies start to realize that open-source or off-the-shelf software can be much more cheaply deployed and maintained by an agency as opposed to recruiting and managing an expensive software department? Obviously, software companies can't really do that, but it is becoming increasingly viable for every other industry to do so as the software gets better and better.

All these trends are _increasing_ in intensity and amplifying each-other, the golden era of the engineer won't last forever.

<comment><USER5> 1\. I wanted to see your GH profile because I simply do not believe that you are what you claim to be. - Non college educated black dev making 200+ a year. That "self-aggrandizing noise" is social proof and as I suspected you refuse to provide any. I run into people like you any time I tell people any aspect of my story ie: blah blah poor kid made it big via coding blah blah. There is always someone like you that attacks what I have done and claims the same but can never provide a single piece of evidence to support their claim.

2\. There is actually no #2. I have work to do, the things I build help people so while you may take this reductionist attitude toward me and my work it really does not matter because as long as I can push code and use that as a mechanism to distribute my ideas at scale to cause measurable change in the lives of others my code matters - I suspect Fredrick Douglas would be proud of that as where you are just all talk.

Also, [https://dietmanager.com](https://dietmanager.com) \- my work is FAR from a simple CRUD app but good luck w/ that.

<comment><USER6> > _I wanted to see your GH profile because I simply do not believe that you > are what you claim to be._

lol, come on man, do you honestly think I care about proving my accomplishments to random internet strangers? I don't even care about proving it to IRL strangers.

> _that "self-aggrandizing noise" is social proof and as I suspected you > refuse to provide any_

I don't feel like I need to prove anything to you; my statements stand on their own. I also hope the irony of asking a black guy to dox himself in order to prove that he's actually real isn't lost on you. If I had said I was white would you feel the need to ask for proof of my accomplishments? A successful black engineer who disagrees with you is not a unicorn.

> _There is always someone like you that attacks what I have done and claims > the same but can never provide a single piece of evidence to support their > claim._

I'm not sure why you're being so defensive. Seriously, please copy and paste ANYTHING I've said that is attacking you or any of your work. I simply disagree with your assertion that coding is as fundamental to career success as literacy, _that 's it_. I wrote a really long reply with a lot of details explaining my specific reasoning and you completely disregard it in favor of some twisted caricature of my reply that you've decided is a personal attack against you and your work. You're not even hearing what I'm saying so I'll stop here. Good luck on your app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's incredible that a speech from over 160 years ago can have such an emotional impact on a 2018 American reader. If you feel uncomfortable reading this speech just as I did, you understand the importance to reflect on our national moral compass.

> At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! > had I the ability, and could reach the nation's ear, I would, to-day, pour > out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, > and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not > the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the > earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of > the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the > hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man > must be proclaimed and denounced.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is a great speech. Douglass' biographies are on my to-read list.

The Declaration of Independence was an important and powerful document. An oft-overlooked part is that it set the stage for the end of slavery, a world- wide phenomenon that encompasses known human history, around the world.

At the time of writing, it was more important to keep the country together than to end slavery, but just ~40 years after independence America ended the slave trade, and it was the new nation of the United States of America that freed all slaves less than 100 years after it's founding.

The founders of America truly had a great vision, and created the foundation of a radically new kind of country that beget the end of slavery in the developed world.

<comment><USER9> Yes the founders of America had great vision and developed a radically new kind of country. But I'm not convinced that they had great vision or positive impact with regard to slavery. Weren't they hypocrites to permit slavery while proclaiming proudly that all men are created equal?

The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 abolished slavery throughout the British Empire. The thirteenth amendment to the United States constitution abolished slavery in 1865. So a first approximation is that American independence extended slavery on US soil by 32 years.

<comment><USER10> The British used indentured servitude well into the 20th century. Sure, it's not the same kind of slavery movies enjoy depicting, but the practice was just as inhumane and brutal in many respects. Indians were particularly affected by it.

America ended all forms of slavery, including indentured servitude, under the 13th amendment after the civil war.

We shed a lot of blood as a country to get that result, the sacrifice of those men and women shouldn't be so quickly cast aside.

Our Founders knew the fight against slavery was coming, they discussed it extensively in historical records you can look up, but they had bigger fish to fry first when they founded the country. The fact the United States moved so quickly after the ratification of the Constitution to ban slave importation in 1808 shows they had a strong desire to get the issue solved. The country quickly chipped away at it with all things considered.

<comment><USER11> With all due respect that is hogwash. The war of independence was not quite the glorious thing Americans like to paint it as. 1) The southern states only joined after they learned that the British were freeing slaves. Now the British may not have had ulterior motives, but then don't pretend all Americans did either.

2) The Royal Proclamation of 1763, which forbid european american settlers from expanding into native American territory, was a major contribution to resentment towards British rule. Not exactly a very honorable thing.

3) As for slavery. The Convict lease system existed until past the 1900s or so. This was an enormous system. Over 70% of the income of the state of Albama was from convict lease system. This was just black slavery under a new name. Not only that but it was significantly more brutal than the old slavery.

4) My wife's side of the family is from Hawaii so I've been there many times. I know all to well about the extent of involuntary servitude placed upon immigrants there. People were beaten lynched, racist laws preventing e.g. Chinese from doing anything but farm work. The whole island was illegally invaded by the US. Hawaii was recognized as a sovereign nation by all of Europe at the time.

Ok, I am not trying to say the US was the worst ever, one always ends up getting those accusations. I merely asking to stop this incessant American tendency to glorify themselves as so much better than everybody else.

Painting the English as some sort of evil tyrants might make sense in India. But in America people tended to enjoy a lot more freedom and lower taxes than anywhere else. Britain had never promised representation to colonial subjects. The US followed the exact same practice in their own colonies. Did not see the Philippines get any representation in the US. Puerto Rico still doesn't.

<comment><USER12> I think I agree with the broad thrust of your argument but I am having trouble sourcing the "70% of Alabama's income" stat, and the stats I have found are more like 10%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _> "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea! we wept when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there, they that carried us away captive, required of us a song; and they who wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How can we sing the Lord's song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth."_

 _> What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy-a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour._

Douglas was woke af.

It looks like there's a maritime museum dedicated to him and Isaac Myers right near where Douglas lived in Baltimore. I'm a bit ashamed to admit I had no idea this existed, and I lived there for 5 years. [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Frederick+Douglass- Isaac+M...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Frederick+Douglass- email@example.com,-76.596331,15.75z/data=!4m12!1m6!3m5!1s0x89c80378c0a47ba9:0xa6cb5051d69eeb42!2sThames+Street+Wharf!8m2!3d39.2796024!4d-76.5967541!3m4!1s0x89c80378bc2b6d51:0x595b256d3568d579!8m2!3d39.2794286!4d-76.5960038)

<comment><USER11> I've always found hypocrisy to be an American specialty like no other. Who else exerts so much time talking passionately about freedom while at the same time locking up more people than anybody else on the planet and invading more countries than anybody else on the planet.

The Chinese and Russians e.g. seem a bit more honest about the machinations.

<comment><USER13> I find it funny you're being downvoted, as if people just don't like hearing the truth.

America houses more prisoners than any country in the world (around 2.4 Million). More than both China and Brazil combined, the next two highest (Brazil has recently beat out Russia for third highest prison population). To give some comparison, the combined population of China and Brazil is 1.6 Billion, compared to America's 326 Million.

About one in three Americans has a criminal record. [http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/...](http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/Americans-with-Criminal-Records-Poverty-and- Opportunity-Profile.pdf)

<comment><USER11> Holy crap!!! 1/3rd that is insane. What is that not a bigger topic? I guess that explains that the first time ever I met anybody who had been in prison was when I moved to the US (I had enough after a year and went back. Got too much police state vibes).

Don't get me wrong. There are LOTS of things I love about the US. The country fascinates me immensely. There are many things Americans can be proud of. I just wish there was more acceptance towards the idea that the US is in fact quite flawed and not miles ahead of everybody else in freedom as they like to portray it.

It almost feels a bit insulting when you interact with Americans and they just assume you live in a dictatorship, because hey only Americans have freedom. That mindset can't be by an accident. It must be from the constant harping on in school and in public about how amazing and free the US is.

<comment><USER13> It's not a big topic because systemic racism and political and social neglect have made it normal.

The simplest way to look at it is this. Some minorities in this country have been forced to be poor due to a combination of social and state-sanctioned actions accumulated for a century or two. People in poverty often end up associated with crime and drug use. As a massive amount of cheap, highly addictive illegal drugs pours into poor areas, crime and drug use climbs.

The political system decides that the solution is to punish people more, the thinking apparently being that punishing them harsher will somehow alleviate the source of the crime and drugs: poverty. So the minorities targeted by racist policies, mainly poor black people, get locked up 6x more than anyone else. When they get out of jail, they have even fewer opportunities to make a living. The end result is a cycle of poverty, crime, prison, poverty, crime, prison.

To address this, you basically have to state that 1) America is deeply affected by systemic racism, 2) Politicians sentenced poor people to languish in prison rather than help them rise out of poverty, 3) Our citizens don't care much about each other.

It's very easy to ignore a big problem like our insane prison problem when the people affected don't live in your community or they're locked up in prison. The poor black communities who are affected have become completely normalized to it; every black person I know has a member of their family who has been to or is in prison.

Even though keeping people in prison costs us tens of billions of dollars, and continues a revolving door of poor people, new prisoners, crime, illegal drugs, and racism, we refuse to address the problem. We will continue to do so as long as we refuse to look hard at our own complicity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> A very interesting guy. The Art of Manliness has some good articles on him.

Comic version of an extract from his autobiography: [https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/an-original-aom- comi...](https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/an-original-aom-comic- frederick-douglass-how-a-slave-was-made-a-man/)

His speech on self-made men: [https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/manvotional-self- mad...](https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/manvotional-self-made-men-by- frederick-douglass/)

</comment><comment><USER15> I have great admiration for Frederick Douglass. He must have had great drive within to be a self learner. His writings and speaches are so good!

</comment><comment> wu-ikkyu Frederick Douglass' autobiography is one of the most inspiring books I've ever read, a book which every American should read.

However, after reading his story, one cannot help but be angered by the many who push the popular, patronizing, and cryptically racist mantra that black americans don't have the power within themselves to overcome the legacy of slavery.

[https://youtu.be/_DUyOg49gHw](https://youtu.be/_DUyOg49gHw)

<comment><USER16> Speak for yourself. I personally find it simple to see direct parallels between his speech and the current treatment of black people.

Nobody is saying "it is impossible for a black person to make it in America, because of racism." But racism does stack the deck against them.

<comment> wu-ikkyu >stack the deck against them

The question is: how should one react to learning that life is unfair and full of adversity against them?

Perhaps the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass could serve as a good example?

I wonder if Douglass had just remained hopeless, blamed others, and waited on the government to fix his problems, instead of learning to read, educating himself, and becoming resolutely determined to gain freedom, would we even be talking about him right now?

Surely Douglass was delt far worse cards than most american's complaining about the deck today.

<comment><USER17> " _The question is: how should one react to learning that life is unfair and full of adversity against them?_ "

The answer: Get incredibly lucky; Douglass learned to read with help from his master's wife when such was significantly frowned on and (IIRC) illegal. Respond to disagreeable situations violently ("After Douglass won a physical confrontation, Covey [a poor farmer who had a reputation as a "slave-breaker"] never tried to beat him again"). Commit crimes; Douglass attempted to escape repeatedly.

After that, all you have to do is become one of the most successful writers of your age. This step is trivial.

<comment> wu-ikkyu That is an incredibly disempowering opinion. Is there any practical value to leading one's life in accordance with such a philosophy?

>The answer: Get incredibly lucky;

Does a human have no agency in which to improve their odds?

>Douglass learned to read with help from his master's wife when such was significantly frowned on and (IIRC) illegal.

Indeed today educating oneself is frowned upon by many in the black community, those who do are often referred to as "white" or "uncle toms". Does that mean one should refrain from it?

>Respond to disagreeable situations violently ("After Douglass won a physical confrontation, Covey [a poor farmer who had a reputation as a "slave-breaker"] never tried to beat him again"). Commit crimes; Douglass attempted to escape repeatedly.

"Disagreeable" is incredibly euphemistic and dishonest characterization of slave-breaking camps. Should human beings not rebel when being tortured and enslaved?

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." -MLK

<comment><USER16> Now you're just willfully misunderstanding. If you're not gonna talk in good faith, it's not worth having this discussion with you.

<comment> wu-ikkyu How did I misunderstand? It was not willfull. Maybe they were speaking tongue in cheek and I did not realize? It seemed they were willfully misunderstanding the life of Frederick Douglass which came across as malicious to the struggle for human rights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What is the history of slavery in the Islamic / Arab middle east? When did those countries abolish it? I think it was fairly recent, some in the 20th century... I mean not counting recent the scandal from the guardian about migrant workers who can't get an exit visa.

PS: I am curious why asking about continuing slavery in other parts of the world importing Black slaves is so heavily downvoted. Aren't people equal regardless of where in the world they are? Why discourage concern and knowledge about slavery of people of African descent??

This is like when the Paris attacks happened and the world was lit up in French colors while on the same day the same group (ISIS) killed just as many people at a stadium Beirut, Lebanon and no one seemed to even mention them. We need to move past our navel gazing.

[https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/world/middleeast/beiru...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/world/middleeast/beirut- lebanon-attacks-paris.html)

<comment><USER19> If you'd like to discuss slavery elsewhere, why don't you post a substantive article on the topic? That's what Hacker News posts are: a story and a discussion about that story.

<comment><USER18> Is this the norm on Hacker News that asking about continuing abuses in other parts of the world is not relevant to the topic about historical abuses in the USA, and one needs to get their own topic heavily upvoted to get a discussion?

<comment><USER20> When your post reads like "rationalist" (read: white supremacist/American nationalist) whataboutism and seems to be there just to pivot to What About The Islams, Man, having a mod like 'sctb suggest you chill out is a pretty light response.

Not saying your post _is_ that. But I am saying that if somebody of that mind wanted to derail some things, they'd write your post.

EDIT: Ah. Saw your comments elsewhere in the thread. Sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Unless you are building a time machine, what are the other distractions more beneficial to improving the present than using that precious time to consern yourself with the far past mistakes made by humans?</comment>


Ask HN: Do we know enough to guess the purpose of it all? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I don't understand the question.</comment>


inDinero (YC S10) CEO Jessica Mah New York Times Interview - <AUTHOR> http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/can-a-20-year-old-help-you-track-your-finances/#more-24707

<comment><USER2> Dupe, although the original got no love:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1740340></comment>


Realize for React for Visualizing State flow and component hierarchy - <AUTHOR> https://www.realizeforreact.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey everyone, we created an open source visualizer for react.

As React applications scale, it becomes more difficult to track state and to have a holistic overview of the component hierarchy. Realize is a tool to help developers visualize the structure and state flow of their React applications, especially when they are growing in scale and complexity. It currently supports React v.16.8.

You could contribute on [https://github.com/oslabs- beta/Realize](https://github.com/oslabs-beta/Realize)

Let us know if you have any questions or concerns</comment>


Freeman Dyson recalls his time at the Operational Research Section of the R.A.F. - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17724

<comment><AUTHOR> Part 2 of this article can be found at:

<http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech/17847></comment>


Ronald Reagan's Index Cards of One-Liners – Pictures - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/ronald-reagans-index-cards-of-one-liners/ <comment><USER2> "Never start an argument with a woman when she's tired -- or when she's rested."

Golden advice, if not slightly un-PC-ish these days. Married guys will understand.</comment>


Daniel Shiffman launches "The Nature of Code" online for free - <AUTHOR> http://natureofcode.com/ <comment><USER2> Awesome!! His first book 'Learning Processing' is what got me back into coding after a 5 year hiatus. Processing is a really fun language for experimenting and this should be a good book.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, he's great. His choice of publishing model is also interesting (free online and pay for print). Reminds me of the Radiohead - In rainbows album, and I'm excited to see where it goes.

<comment><USER3> Well he did raise 31k on Kickstarter - [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/shiffman/the-nature- of-c...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/shiffman/the-nature-of-code-book- project)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is excellent news, thank you. I've heard many good things about this book (mostly on HN!) and on first glance it looks very interesting indeed.

Edit: since this is the launch it must have the tutorials that turned into the book which I heard good things about - having read a few of them, I'm looking forward to the book version.

</comment><comment><USER5> Wow, great news! I was following his Kickstarter progress for some time, and was waiting for printed book, but online and free, this is great!!! Can't wait to check to out...

His site is down at the moment for some reason...

</comment><comment><USER6> It looks like a more practical, interactive version of Gary Flake's wonderful "Computational Beauty of Nature." That's not a bad thing at all.

</comment><comment><USER7> Can't wait to get a print copy of this. I've been looking forward to seeing this Kickstarter realized for some time now.

<comment><USER8> Given the interactivity, are you sure you want a print copy?

<comment><USER7> Even though I own a Kindle I really like to browse and read through print copies of technical books. Not quite able to pin what exactly I like about it.

<comment><USER9> I find that most E-readers are mainly sequential access, with random access as a feature to be explicitly called. Whereas physical books or codexes are usually read sequentially, but are easier to use for random access.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> looks amazing!</comment>


V8 JavaScript Engine 8.0 Reduces Heap by 40% - <AUTHOR> https://www.infoq.com/news/2019/12/v8-8-0-heap-reduction/ <comment><AUTHOR> 40% heap reduction seems awesome. Almost too good to be true. Can anyone knowledgeable enough verify this claim?</comment>


Engineer #2 at Mint.com on when to join a startup - <AUTHOR> http://femgineer.com/?p=713

<comment><USER2> I'd only recommend doing that once, however. After that you're better off being a founder if you like the risk, or a later employee if you don't.

Being a very early employee means you get paid in knowledge and seniority, instead of equity or salary. You hit diminishing returns when you do it again.

Signed, a guy who has been employee #1 at three startups. ymmv, etc.

<comment><USER3> Well, as one who has been sub employee #10 at two startups that managed to make it to 500 employees, (One of which sold for $1.6B, fingers crossed on #2 going out for north of $1B), I'd suggest that there is a certain class of employee who can act in a supporting role, but isn't necessarily going to create the product.

Salary/Equity are usually pretty good in VC funded startups (As opposed to Self Funded/Angel Funded - where I agree, be the founder or come in later on)

Of course, I totally agree, ymmv - You apparently have seen the low end of the return, whereas I've seen the alternate.

<comment><USER2> If you can pick startups that well, I suggest a career in venture capital as an alternative to (presumably) engineering. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think the most important part is - "but the bigger benefit is you know how the entire system is architected and the code you've written impacts millions of people".

Seriously, you feel empowered when you know why the system is architected this way and not that way. Its immense satisfaction when you can see through how the entire flow works, how a new feature fits into the bigger product vision, how to debug complex issues by traversing through bunch of different code hierarchies/directories, etc.

You get this kind of wisdom only when you're in the those first few.

On the side note, it would be great to hear first-hand stories from her about how she got hired, how much salary + equity (in approx. range) she received, how was the performance rewards system for an early engineer.

</comment><comment><USER5> Best part of the article is in the comments:

"'I quit my Masters at Stanford because I knew I'd learn a ton more working on the ground floor of a startup than I would sitting in a classroom.'

I don't recall a lot of sitting in class on your part."

<comment><USER6> Heh, the commenter was her old Stanford professor, and the link he provided to his website goes to a PDF of his CS249 final exam. Harsh :P

<comment><USER7> wow, and he's not just a random dude, either ... he has a long and illustrious history with silicon valley start-ups:

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

EDIT: notable line from wikipedia article: "Cheriton is also credited for connecting Stanford students Sergey Brin and Larry Page with venture capitalists at Kleiner Perkins, thus becoming one of the early investors that helped get Google off the ground."

<comment><USER8> Going off topic now, but nice to see that someone who doesn't have to, still teaches.

From wikipedia: "University of Waterloo announced that Cheriton had donated $25 million to support graduate studies and research", "Cheriton donated $2 million to the University of British Columbia".

<comment><USER9> Sergey Brin's dad is still a teacher :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Great description of what life is like as a "ground floor engineer". It's true, you work constantly and have to be a generalist. In exchange, you get an incredibly rewarding job where you get to watch the company grow up around you.

</comment><comment><USER11> '...365 days at the very least for the first year.' I guess the second year must be a leap year :-)

Seriously though, this is a great article and I admire anyone who is able to provide this level of commitment and passion.

</comment><comment><USER12> I understand the very first engineer at mint actually shared Aaron Patzer's apartment. Maybe you can join a little too early too :-) Seriously, I think it all worked out ok.

</comment><comment><USER13> RTF4HWKWK</comment>


Watch a Bowling Ball and Feather Falling in a Vacuum - <AUTHOR> http://www.iflscience.com/physics/dropping-bowling-ball-and-feather-vacuum

<comment><USER2> Does anyone remember the episodes of Growing Pains in which Kirk Cameron demonstrates this to Leonardo DiCaprio?</comment>


Tencent to invest US$70B in new digital infrastructure - tech-historian https://www.scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/3086162/tencent-invest-us70-billion-new-digital-infrastructure-backing <comment><AUTHOR> This is obviously an enormous investment. However, I'm a little confused by the tone. Tencent's R&D budget is usually a couple of billion dollars. Their annual revenue is 10's of billions of dollars. $70Bil over 5 years doesn't seem crazy?

This seems like they're going to keep spending a reasonable amount of money on improving their business through CapEx, R&D, and other normal expenditures.

All that being said, I think more companies should focus on the tremendous improvements that can happen over years instead of months. A five year investment plan may allow them to achieve loftier goals. (I now move into controversial waters...) The CCP seems to be encouraging long term investment in a way that will probably be effective.

</comment><comment><USER2> I am a US citizen but I try to keep up with tech and economics also for China and the EU.

I think all three regions are fragile, non-robust.

I am reading The Infinite Game which convinced me that the global winner will be the region that makes its citizens feel safe and adequately supported to individually reach their potential.

Lack of freedom in China and corrupt corporatism and federal government in the US almost makes me bet on the EU, but they have huge problems (Deutsch Bank, southern country's' debt, etc.)</comment>


Why Dribbble Isn't The Problem - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/design-ux/862d9dbc8d07

<comment><AUTHOR> A response from Sacha Greif on Intercom's latest blog post about hiring designers: [http://insideintercom.io/how-to-hire- designers/](http://insideintercom.io/how-to-hire-designers/)

It's an interesting discussion, but I don't really understand the issue with Dribbble. I think there are a lot of very talented designers using Dribbble and it's a good place to look for talented folks.</comment>


Understanding the Power of Data Types - <AUTHOR> http://postgres-data-types.pvh.ca/ <comment><USER2> In case people read the comments first, this is about postgres data types.

It's pretty comprehensive and I especially liked the section about how datatypes are implemented internally (pg 25). I wish it went into more details though.

<comment><USER3> Yes, it's a very nice overview of Postgres data types.

My only question is: if the "money" type is bad, what should we use instead? The author proposed a new "currency" type, but that doesn't exist yet.

OT: I initially thought that the article would be about function types, which are also called exponential types (hence the pun on "power").

<comment><USER4> My current understanding is that DECIMAL (a.k.a. NUMERIC) is the recommended type for monetary values in PostgreSQL.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > money is not a good type, and we can do better.

One of the complexities there is that different systems can have different constraints for legal or technical reasons e.g. rates during a conversion could be "current" (whatever the last fetched / set rate was), "at point" (whatever the rate was at a time associated with the record _somehow_ ) or "fixed" (contractual), or probably multiple others. And in cases 1 and 2, different currencies in the system may (again contractually) use different references and update rates e.g. one client could use the fed with weekly updates while another uses xe updated daily.

And IIRC (I may be mistaken, or it may have been fixed since) you can't create a composite type which contains a foreign key to some other table.

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't normally comment on the presentation format instead of the content, but using this slideshow was extremely frustrating and really detracted from my ability to learn from it. It's really unusual to have scrollable elements inside slides, __it 's very very frustrating to also have scroll gestures on a trackpad inside those elements skip a bunch of slides __. There 's content that just is not accessible without doing a lot of work, and that's disappointing.

With all of that said, this is super useful and helps me understand postgres better than I already did.

<comment><USER7> What is your preferred format for digesting content like this?

<comment><USER6> I wouldn't really mind a set of slides if it was formatted to prevent scrollable content, or even if scrolling didn't switch slides.

On the positive side, this slide format didn't destroy my browser history like a lot of them do, so that was appreciated. A lot of JS slide libs add a history entry for every slide, so getting back to the original page that linked it is a giant PITA. I've become accustomed with slides to using the browser's back button menu to jump back, often several times, and I was pleasantly surprised not to have to do that this time.</comment></comment></comment>


Dating Apps Are Making Marriages Stronger - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/dating-apps-are-making-marriages-stronger-11567094310?mod=rsswn <comment><USER2> If you want to listen to this article in audio, here's a link: [https://www.listle.io/#/article/4030158252](https://www.listle.io/#/article/4030158252)</comment>


Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8513783.stm <comment><USER4> This caught my eye, but it turns out it's the same old "fixed pie" thinking: the current workers are taking up all the available "working hours", so they should cut back to give the unemployed an opportunity to get some. Ridiculous. Why not be more productive and actually just create more jobs. Just like wealth, the number of jobs available is not fixed.

<comment><USER5> That's not the only reason to cut work weeks, though I agree it's a bad one. This old article by Bertrand Russell starts out by pointing out that the "fixed pie" view is _not_ a good reason to work less, but that there are others: <http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html>

The gist of it is that you can take the dividends of increasing productivity in a lot of ways. As computers get faster, you can keep paying $2k for a new computer every 3-4 years and get a better one, or you can take some of that technology-advancement dividend in cash, and buy a netbook that's _still_ better than your old computer. He's basically arguing that you should take some of the modern era's productivity dividend in leisure time, instead of just in more income and material wealth.

<comment><USER4> Oh, don't get me wrong, I think there could be a great case for cutting work weeks. The article caught my eye because I was hoping that they had done an actual _study_ that indicated that working fewer hours would lead to higher _overall_ productivity (though I think that cutting them by 50 - 70% is probably wishful thinking).

<comment><USER6> I think it was focused more on productivity, and not focused on the unemployment rate. I think the BBC added that twist.

From the author of the report:

"So many of us live to work, work to earn, and earn to consume, and our consumption habits are squandering the earth's natural resources.

"Spending less time in paid work could help us to break this pattern. We'd have more time to be better parents, better citizens, better carers and better neighbours.

"We could even become better employees - less stressed, more in control, happier in our jobs and more productive.

"It is time to break the power of the old industrial clock, take back our lives and work for a sustainable future."

Basically, it seems the argument is that the more hours we work, the externalities of work increase sharply (you don't have time to spend raising your kids, taking care of your health, and you do have more money to spend on things you don't need).

Basically, at 21 hours, the marginal return from working another hour at your job equals the marginal return from spending an hour doing your own stuff. Beyond 21 hours the marginal return from working (minus externalities), is less than the return from focusing on your own activities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've seen some other reports from this group and they have about as much to do with economics as a fifteen year old's emo "poetry" blog has to do with high literature. Consider this publication where they troll the world with a claim that janitors are more valuable to the world on average than bankers, supported by nothing more than poorly thought out back-of-the-envelope calculations.

[http://neweconomics.org/press-releases/hospital-cleaners- wor...](http://neweconomics.org/press-releases/hospital-cleaners-worth-more- society-city-bankers-says-new-nef-research)

<comment><USER8> Reading through this and the thread's link, and scanning a couple others, I completely agree with you. They're trolls, and little else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I would be much, much more interested in hearing of how any one of you hacked life such that you work a non-traditional schedule than reading how a group thinks the workweek should be established by fiat. (Most especially for a group which does not demonstrate that it has any experience with, ahem, working for a living.)

Horse's mouth, incidentally: [http://neweconomics.org/press-releases/shorter- working-week-...](http://neweconomics.org/press-releases/shorter-working-week- soon-inevitable-forecasts-think-tank130210)

<comment><USER10> I need $1300/month for rent, and $700/month for expenses like groceries and incidentals. That means I need to be making $445/week. I freelance whenever I feel like working. I'm currently working a charity gig at $42/hr, which means I need to work 11h/week.

<comment><USER11> Here are my stats for Austin, TX for the past three years. Just sharing that life can be really good here in Austin, and that there's no magic involved in working less. There's no "hack", you just have to have a valuable skill that you are able to charge a high hourly rate for (programming, accounting, lawyer, therapist). My wife is a speech therapist and I am a programmer. So my suggestions: live in a city that costs less money, see if you can live without a fancy car or smart phone, and find a good partner.

rent - wife pays $450, I pay $450

For this amount in Texas, you get a duplex with backyard in a nice neighborhood, a coffee shop and bus stop around the corner, 2 bedrooms, a garage, and 1200 square feet.

utilities - <USER2>

student loan - <USER3>

monthly unlimited bus pass - $25 (used to be $10 until recently)

shared office in downtown austin - $150 (optional, but has already paid for itself many times over due to bringing in extra work)

t-mobile prepaid phone - $100 per 1000 minutes, refill this every 4 months or so.

food costs - never calculated

insurance - on my wife's

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This reminds me of a conversation I recently had with some Berkeley graduates, who were mystified at how much I had accomplished, and how quickly, and by the fact that I might stay up into the wee hours of the morning working or blasting out an essay or coding or designing. These same people put in 50 hour sessions in Final Fantasy.

People want to work. Some people want to work hard. Most especially, people want to achieve. The question is where people put their effort; whether they 'level-up' in real life or some artificial one.

<comment><USER13> This is exactly why I quit playing video games. However I haven't been able to shunt that effort into something productive so easily..

<comment><USER12> It takes time, effort, practice, and purpose. Figure out what you really want to do. That's your first challenge.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "The foundation admitted people would earn less, but said they would have more time to carry out worthy tasks."

Like starving?

<comment><USER9> That is, perhaps, a little harsh. I'm about as far from them on the political scale as is possible without being Atilla the Hun, but they do have one insight shining like a gem among so much donkey offal:

 _There is nothing natural or inevitable about what's considered 'normal' today. Time, like work, has become commodified – a recent legacy of industrial capitalism. Yet the logic of industrial time is out of step with today's conditions, where instant communications and mobile technologies bring new risks and pressures, as well as opportunities._

This is right in every respect, I think.

It is taken by many as an article of faith that there are 10x productivity differences in knowledge workers. If we actually mean that, then 2x differences in numbers of hours worked should be quite sustainable. As I've said before, why should my daily life be fit to the schedule designed to maximize the productivity of illiterate water loom operators.

Where this report gets really really wacky is assuming that everyone can do it, which probably requires massive amounts of wealth flowing around to support unproductive workers. That might even work, for a while at least, if you had some sort of unfair advantage which could conceal you from the market -- taxing authority, perhaps, or such a booming economy that you could afford extravagances like the demands of the United Auto Workers out of the petty cash drawer.

There are also hard limits on how much value can be wrung out of the labor of low-skilled people, and those hard limits work in pretty much direct proportion to hours labored. I think achieving income parity (and relatedly, working hour parity) between them and high-skilled workers is probably a lost cause. I can sell software while sleeping, a trader can act as a productivity multiplier on millions in capital at the click of a button, but this floor isn't getting swept until somebody actually pushes a broom over it for an hour. (Oh, more bad news: robots can already do that, and it will only be a few more years before the cleaning company we outsource to figures out how to exploit that differential profitably.)

<comment><USER15> > It is taken by many as an article of faith that there are 10x productivity > differences in knowledge workers. If we actually mean that, then 2x > differences in numbers of hours worked should be quite sustainable.

This might interest you if you haven't heard of it:

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

Results Only Work Environment - you agree on a set of tasks with your manager, you complete them, you get paid. Doesn't matter when you do it or how long it takes you. That lets people choose to work at a slower pace with more goofing off on Facebook or webcomics, or work in a blaze and hit the beach, or whatever. People who wish to produce manic levels of work can produce more and get paid for it as gauged by results, people who want to work less can complete less tasks can do so and still get paid a reasonable amount. I think there'll be some kinks to be ironed out, but it's more or less the future.

> (Oh, more bad news: robots can already do that, and it will only be a few > more years before the cleaning company we outsource to figures out how to > exploit that differential profitably.)

Cleaning floors is notoriously hard to outsource, but the technology-in-theory for automating/roboticizing much more of manual labor is already there. It's why I'd like to see the world get more wealthier - people have a false believe that if there's no more poor people, everything will get more expensive. Pretty false idea - if more people are doing R&D, pure science, engineering, art, programming instead of manual labor, we'll see huge gains in new innovation and can roboticize/automate much of the manual labor away. Hell, when I was in China I'd see like 30 guys with chisels tearing up asphalt which you'd have one guy with a jackhammer doing in the States. The labor was cheaper than the machinery, but as the Chinese get more educated and into high skilled work, that'll change and they'll switch over to jackhammers and whatever we invent next after jackhammers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Ever had your project interrupted when a European decides to take six weeks of consecutive vacation? I'll take puritan productivity any day.

<comment><USER17> Yet, European firms are still comparable to Americans in terms of productivity and compete successfully in global markets. Intriguing, no?

<comment><USER7> Some types of European firms. You don't see as much innovative software coming out of that part of the world as the U.S.

<comment><USER17> Dotcom startups, no. But in general high tech, just one example, Airbus gives Boeing a run for its money. And those Boeings BTW are designed with CATIA, French CAD software. And Boeing runs its business on SAP, German ERP software.

<comment><USER16> Airbus had massive state support - hardly an even playing field. They're an example of what a good state-private collaboration can do, not of productivity of the private sector in general.

<comment><USER17> As does Boeing, except it's funneled via the DoD. Anyway, that's not the point. Can European engineers bring equivalent products to market as quickly as American engineers, despite taking vacations and _being in the office_ fewer hours? Absolutely yes, it happens all the time.

<comment><USER16> Yeah, don't buy it. Not at startups.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I recall seeing at some point, but alas cannot recall where, a study that looked at average productivity per hour vs. hours worked each day/week. If memory serves me, they found that productivity/hr reliably dropped at the beginning and end of the work day, mostly independent of how many hours were worked, and also dropped steadily with increasing hours per week beyond some threshold, up to a (surprisingly low) point where the marginal productivity of an additional hour was actually negative.

The end result basically said that 4-hr workdays are less than half as productive as 8-hr workdays, and that diminishing returns make long work weeks quickly useless. Interestingly, per hour productivity peaked fairly low-- something like 30hrs/week, I think. So, all else equal, if you're paying people hourly, you get best value for money having more people, working fewer hours in fewer days.

On the other hand, if you're paying people a salary, you technically always get more value up to the point of burnout (i.e., negative marginal productivity), but for whatever work week length, you get best value for money having people work a few very long days. That is, 12hr days M-R would be more productive than 8hr days M-S.

Unfortunately, I've been unable to find the study in question again; so take the above with a grain of salt, as my memory is certainly fallible.

<comment><USER19> "Unfortunately, I've been unable to find the study in question again; so take the above with a grain of salt, as my memory is certainly fallible."

That's OK, it's late in the week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I Would have to agree with Ryan on the "fixed pie" thinking. This isn't an allocation issue, its based on productivity.

In the book "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People," Stephen Covey explains a great theory called the P/PC ratio (production to production capacity). In other words, take care of your physical and mental self, and you will produce far better results in your work related endeavors.

People don't realize that not exercising and not eating healthy will severely limit your ability to work productive 40-100 hour work weeks.

</comment><comment><USER21> All 'wealth' is created by labor, either directly or indirectly. (Think of an economy with no money). The more people work - subject to efficiency, the more wealth being generated. However, people do not produce wealth equally. Suppose there is a 10% unemployment. If these people's efficiency is an average 70% and the employed had an overall efficiency of 80%, there is an optimum hours per week for full employment.

<comment><USER22> well, even given the exact same person, one hour is not equal to the next. at 90 hours a week, after the first or second week, I get less useful work done than if I just work 20 hours.

I imagine 'optimal' productivity for one person varies considerably from person to person, and situation to situation, (and I imagine /on average/ optimal productivity means working more than 20 hours a week)

Which is why I was so disappointed by this article. I thought they were going to do some research on the optimal number of hours/week to work for maximum productivity. (I suppose I shouldn't be too disappointed; just measuring productivity is /hard/)

<comment><USER21> Agreed and to measure productivity over a year is more difficult. The authors present some data in their report, but some of the examples are difficult to accept (like Utah public servants). However, if you make a thought experiment in has merits. Assume 5 programmers with equal skills and a 'fixed work load'. From a social point of view it will be better for them to be all employed working for less hours than 4 of them working full hours.

<comment><USER22> as an employer (sortof... everyone is an 'independent contractor' a mostly defensible position right now, as everyone works from home, and pretty much takes stuff off the list of things that needs to be done when they feel like doing them.) I think that if you can talk employees into this arrangement, and retain them, having 2 20hr/week guys is better than having 1 40hr/week guy.

the first, most obvious benefit is redundancy. If one employee gets sick or gets another job, I've still got the other guy, and can often talk him or her into working more temporarily to cover until I get someone else.

The other benefits are that I think nerds often under bill. A person working for me 20 hours a week ideally (well, ideally for me, the employer) gives me as much 'inspiration' as someone working 40 hours.

I also think employees are vastly more productive when they feel like working. In my situation, if I pick the right people, I get to pay them when they feel like working, when they are most productive, and then not pay them when they are unmotivated, and thus less productive.

Now, if I hired everyone as employees, then we'd have interesting issues with health insurance; each employee would have a per-month cost not dependent on hours I got out of them (I'm assuming that I'd have a better retention rate if I offered health insurance) But it's possible that cost would be low enough to justify the scheme; maybe I would just pay them a lower wage than I otherwise would?

(man, health insurance is fucked up... as far as I can tell, if I want to get people tax deductible insurance, I have to get everyone insurance; If someone wants to opt-out, as far as I can tell, I can't give them the cash I'd otherwise be spending on them.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This might actually be a reasonable idea, but I can't see something like this taking off with the current conditions. And more than that, I don't think the American philosophy is to work less, I think that's something a lot more likely to take off in Europe.

</comment><comment><USER24> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week>

</comment><comment><USER25> I love working, what would i do with the rest of the time i "save" ?

</comment><comment><USER26> 4HWW anyone?

</comment><comment><USER27> It depends how you define "work". Sitting in an office doing what is told for 40 hours is ridiculous and hellish, and it's much of why that system doesn't work. People "revolt" by showing up and working at 1/8 speed.

If we extend the definition of "work" to include self-directed projects, education and enrichment, 40-55 is about right; 40 for most people and 55 for the more ambitious.

Beyond 60 hours per week, marginal productivity is minimal.</comment>