Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47169549 <comment><USER2> It's a general misunderstanding that Basic Income is some sort of job program, it's not. It's a job replacement program for a society where there aren't enough jobs for everyone because technology have taken over most.

Basic Income should provide fundamental living cost support in a society that has no jobs so there is no "but" in there.

Edit: Keep in mind we already have Basic Income it's just conditional. UBI is different.

<comment><USER3> And while doing that, cut the bureaucracy and stigma of having to continuously apply for welfare, food stamps etc. Not that this would offsets the cost of basic income.

If we picture a dystopian future where due to the rise of automation, increases in population, lack of education and ability, ~90% of people cannot realistically work in a productive jobs, I think it's a good time to experiment now what and how to keep all these people busy, preoccupied, and happy.

<comment><USER4> I always think of Star Trek. It isn't really explored in depth but there isn't money and people don't have to work, transporter rationing is alluded to though. I guess in a world where everything can be made in a replicator, 'employment' becomes untenable. You still need some way of rationing scarce resources, and allowing people to 'vote' for what they want more of though.

<comment><USER5> Scarcity is beyond just stuff. Land for example is a finite resource.

<comment><USER6> If we are efficient enough in our use of land, the demand relative to the supply will shrink enough that it's no longer scarce.

I suppose lots of people enjoy owning their own land-- large tracts of it in fact, and not sharing it with anyone. That's a little tougher to conceptualize as post-scarcity as there's a limit to making land enjoyment more efficient with advanced technology. But in a world where other resources are less scarce perhaps we can think about colonizing other planets and terraforming as ways to increase supply.

<comment><USER7> Not really. Even if we triple land use efficiency, population growth will increase the demand to compensate

<comment><USER8> Population growth has been steadily slowing down since 1960s.

<comment><USER7> Broadly speaking, that is because we're approaching something like a carrying capacity, estimated to be somewhere around 10B.

If we increase land use efficiency dramatically, that effectively raises the carrying capacity and population growth can continue much longer

<comment><USER8> The population growth decline is not tied to the carrying capacity but to the development of the economy. Countries that are further economically developed have lower birth rates and vice versa. For example Finland is mostly a country of deserted forest, yet it has a very slow growth rate. The country could carry a population of 50 million easily, but is hardly growing anymore at 5 million.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Except, of course, that the actual report has not been completed yet.

The article has a single quote from a participant, and the rest is literally just opinion and thoughts.

There's nothing to get excited about yet.

It's going to be very interesting to read the report though, once it's published.

<comment><USER10> There's a webcast here:

[http://videonet.fi/web/stm/2019028/eng/](http://videonet.fi/web/stm/2019028/eng/)

They are very open that the trial was not perfect and should be bigger / longer / better structured. Obviously economic experiments cannot control all variables.

Interesting that the majority of the UBI recipients switched back to standard unemployment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Which would be a fine outcome. We're entering a real messy period where dignified, decent paying jobs are becoming scarce. All of our philosophies about work and welfare are rooted in a post WWII era where we were essentially rebuilding the world and there was more work than competent people. If we are going to insist that all productivity gains must now go directly to the capital class, we're going to need a UBI, universal healthcare and housing guarantees.

I worry that greed is too baked in, and those that have would rather let the world burn before they give the current system up.

<comment><USER12> Do people really want to have all of their support depend on the government? As an American I know people that don't and even reject government paid food stamps and healthcare, although they are poor enough to qualify for them. I don't think it is very psychologically healthy to be so dependent on things out of your control. A better system would be some system where people can earn a large chunk of capital that basically sets themselves up with enough to have their own basic income that they control.

In the old days in America one had the homestead act that would give you 160-640 acres of public land if you could improve it and live on it for 5 years. This program lasted from the 1862 till 1976 if you can believe it. That was a large chunk of capital one could get by working hard at creating wealth. Not sure if a new homestead act could work, but something similar where anyone can volunteer to do some hard and needed work for five years and at the end of it get a good payout that they can use at they see fit. Maybe $250,000. One could start a business, go to college, invest and live off the interest, etc. This I could get behind.

<comment><USER13> We're all entirely dependent one things outside our control, and it's a worldview that's romanticized to the point of silliness to say anything else.

As for the land grant you're talking about, that's a huge, huge give-away right there; and, I'd note, in your hypothetical, you already inverted the sequence of events (be given land => you keep it, work hard => you get $250k).

All UBI does is recognize that, given how technological progress puts people out of jobs, we'd better find alternatives to distributing resources than what we do now, because we're going to end up with a lot of heads on spikes if we don't.

<comment><USER12> "All UBI does"

UBI is a very specific solution to a very real and difficult problem. I think other solutions to the problem of quick technical advances would be better, that's all. The sequence is , you are given a resource for a period of time, see if you can use it well, if you do you get to keep it. Not sure what a good modern equivalent would be but such a scheme seems like a much better mode to the future than a UBI. Or maybe a combination of things.

<comment><USER14> What if you're given farmland and have a 5 year drought?

What other solutions are you talking about? Except giving away land?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The experiment was probably staked with an agenda to show that UBI doesn't work, given the parties in the government and the massive bias in selecting the participants.

The sample of 2000 people were chosen from a _group of unemployed people_. I think the criteria for being randomly chosen was having been paid unemployment benefits during some range of dates.

So it's not representative of a real UBI at all: the point of UBI isn't to necessarily make things better for the unemployed but, rather, the large group of people who make very little money and barely get along.

Cashiers, cleaners, etc who can't live on their earnings, at least in big cities. Or self-employed one-person shops whose income stream is very choppy and who don't make much anyway. Real UBI would be _universal_ so those who are working would get it too -- of course the UBI would increase your income and likely your tax percentage so it would mostly be taxed away from those who do earn a living.

The point of UBI is to cut down on bureucracy by removing various individual case-by-case subsidies (but bureaucrats would never vote for that) and make some base level of income predictable and reliable, mostly for people who make less than the lower middle class.

<comment><USER16> > most likely taxed away

Yes, most UBI proposals (as designed by economists) tax earnings with little to know exemption. That is, we give you $15k per year, but start taxing you the very first dollar you earn rather than only taxing income about , say, $20k.

<comment><USER17> But what a waste of effort. Why do they suggest this instead of starting at UBI+$1, at least?

<comment><USER18> UBI itself isn't usually considered taxable income in the proposals, so effectively that's what happens.

Personally, I wouldn't increase pre-UBI marginal tax rates for taxable incomes below (pre-UBI median minus UBI), but I'm not a right-wing UBI proponent, and I favor focusing first on taxing capital income equally to labor income as a revenue source.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > The aim was to see if a guaranteed safety net would help people find jobs

I'm confused, was that ever the expected goal of basic income?

<comment><USER20> Same here. I've never heard that angle.

<comment><USER21> I definitely did hear it as once facet of why UBI could be good. Right now, in some places there are people who will lose benefits (I forget which variety) if their income goes above a certain point, so they are disincentivized to seek a better job -- as it would net them less income. One thing I recall reading about UBI was that it removed that _condition_, and so there would be no incentive not to get a job (other than feeling like UBI was "enough", which IMO is reasonable).

<comment><USER22> Those places would be the US and many anglo-saxon influenced countries. Where it is seen as if you are unemployed then it is a failing on your part, not the job market or any other factors. If you do find a job it better pay a living wage and it better pay now. The state will pull benefits almost immediately once your paperwork goes through. And if the job is temporary or seasonal be prepared to start at square one to resume benefits payments.

The incentives are really screwed up. They do want you to use it and if you do they don't want you to leave it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> So, basically the article says that unemployed people who received a basic income stipend of $685/month weren't any more likely to get jobs within 2 years than a control group who didn't.

This doesn't seem very surprising to me – if anything, I would expect people on UBI to be _less_ likely to get jobs, and this study seems like evidence against that.

<comment><USER24> The control group also got money. Just via more paperwork. UBI for Finland is more about reducing bureaucracy and social security errors.

<comment><USER25> Yes, the missing context here is the idea that UBI will be financed by cutting existing social services.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is a weird title. The article says that the people on basic income were equally likely to find a job as those who were not receiving it. I was expecting that basic income might make people less motivated to find jobs, and that would have been an issue. But this result seems like a positive outcome for UBI.

<comment><USER27> It went to 2000 people already getting unemployment benefits.

> It was run by the Social Insurance Institution (Kela), a Finnish government > agency, and involved 2,000 randomly-selected people on unemployment > benefits.

So I'm curious what affect that had vs the general population's approach to finding employment. Particularly young people who may have never had a job before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> As someone who wants to remain in the workforce, the absolute most frustrating thing about taking a break between jobs or wanting to bootstrap a company or start something new is not the lack of income during that time but that my healthcare in the US is tied to having a job.

Yes, I can buy individual insurance, but moving off and on new plans is incredibly time consuming, and if you have a certain prescription that you are on or have something that is covered by an employer plan but may not be covered by an individual on then it's highly risky to leave.

<comment><USER29> > Yes, I can buy individual insurance, but moving off and on new plans is > incredibly time consuming, and if you have a certain prescription that you > are on or have something that is covered by an employer plan but may not be > covered by an individual on then it's highly risky to leave.

As someone who spent time doing contract work, and working on my own business, this is what made me seek out work as an employee.

I cannot, and will not, play the game of paying for individual insurance. Employers can negotiate for better rates and better plans than you, as an individual, will ever be able to.

If you have a health condition or injury, the chances of which will increase each day that you're alive, the individual health insurance market is a disaster.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> While this article is about an even more special population of UBI recipients I have two general criticisms about UBI studies:

1\. They are usually time limited. You can expect different behavior if you get financial security for limited time or for life.

2\. Most studies seem to be externally financed (here the whole state vs a small population). The interesting part is if people are willing to pay for this within their community. Are you okay to pay for your slacking neighbor (even if she is the exception and UBI turns out to be overall good)?

<comment><USER31> It can never be time unlimited. Laws can change and will change eventually. Any reasoning about UBI for life is flawed.

<comment><USER32> Well, neither extreme seems right. We reasonably expect Medicare to pay out for decades and plan around that even if there's a possibility of laws changing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I find the narrative of the article focussing on "how it failed" and only one condition. "Did it increase employement" Of course this is what some might have expected from it, but the researcher itself not. Which is only included as a very last line.

</comment><comment><USER34> I still see some big issues with universal basic income, and would appreciate one of its supporters responding to some of them:

Cost. $3.8 trillion by many estimates. That's nearly 20% of America's GDP. How is it possible to pull this much money out of the American economy without crashing it?

Scope. I am of the opinion that one of the beauties of federalism is that policies can be tested first at the state level before we commit our entire nation. Why would a national government do this?

Necessity. I don't think we need to be paying anyone who makes over 50k (maybe not the right number, but there should be a cutoff). That just takes money away from those who need it.

If a supporter of UBI can respond, I'd like to discuss possible concerns and benefits.

<comment><USER35> Never-mind the money, I fear that even if we can implement it and pay for it, there will _still_ be a host of social problems that UBI advocates do not want to grapple with. There's still no answer to questions like "what if it starts to entrench a permanent underclass and make inter-generational wealth worse, as people who stop working bear a generation of people who have never worked, and they bear children, etc".

[https://medium.com/s/free-money/after-universal-basic- income...](https://medium.com/s/free-money/after-universal-basic-income-the- flood-217db9889c07)

<comment><USER18> > There's still no answer to questions like "what if it starts to entrench a > permanent underclass and make inter-generational wealth worse, as people who > stop working bear a generation of people who have never worked, and they > bear children, etc".

Why would reducing disincentives to work, as compared to means-tested welfare, rationally be expected to have anything like that effect?

<comment><USER36> The main incentive to work is that you need to work to make a living. If the government hands you everything you need without working that is a massive disincentive to work

<comment><USER37> > The main incentive to work is that you need to work to make a living.

No. The main incentive to work is to have something meaningful to do with your time. Every experiment with UBI has shown that — given guaranteed support income — people are generally happier (or less stressed) and have a greater incentive to find work because the disincentive of reporting job-searching efforts is removed.

In addition, under a UBI everyone who has a paying job will have more disposable income than people who don't have a paying job. So while UBI will cover rent and food, if you want a nicer house or other trappings of luxury you'll need a paying job to find the extra money.

Nobody is going to be setting up a real estate empire or discovering the cure for cancer on UBI.

Another thing UBI will achieve is allowing people to move jobs without fear of being trapped in poverty. They won't settle for a low satisfaction, low pay job and will move to optimise their personal benefit.

Finally: UBI is not about "handing you everything you need." Universal Basic Income is there to provide for the basics: food & shelter. That's it. It's not supposed to replace an average wage, it's supposed to provide the minimum cost of living.

<comment><USER34> > The main incentive to work is to have something meaningful to do with your > time.

Not sure about this. Only short-term experiments have been conducted. Who knows what might happen if we have people who are raised on the idea that a living will come to them no matter what?

I think there's also an assumption that everyone loves what they do. Many of us do, so it's easy to think. However, the people who arguably need support the most often have the worst, least-likeable jobs.

> They won't settle for a low satisfaction, low pay job

Somebody has to do the work. Garbagemen will never be worth $15/hr. Many jobs that aren't will simply end up outsourced.

> Universal Basic Income is there to provide for the basics: food & shelter.

Then why would it be administered to everyone, on a national level, regardless of other factors? Food & shelter cost orders of magnitude more in San Francisco, California then in San Francisco, Texas. Why would it make since to give two hypothetical people, one living in each, the same amount of money to cover the "basics"?

<comment><USER38> > Somebody has to do the work. Garbagemen will never be worth $15/hr. Many > jobs that aren't will simply end up outsourced.

Testing out UBI is predicated on the assumption most of those jobs "nobody wants" will be automated, and thus not available anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Surprising that paying people to not work didn't lead to more people working!

<comment><USER40> Er - I'm not a proponent of UBI, but there's an important, but subtle distinction here.

UBI is not "paying people not to work." That's more like typical unemployment - when people find jobs, the benefit goes away, creating a disincentive. With UBI, the benefit remains, (theoretically) encouraging risk taking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> What is supposed to be the bad part of this? I would equate 'happier' with 'getting their needs met.'

If you have more people than work that needs to get done I don't have a problem with the people who aren't working being able to live.

</comment><comment><USER42> There is a basic misunderstanding here. A basic income is unconditional. The Finnish study was not basic income because it was not unconditional. It was instead an experiment to find out if giving specifically unemployed people money would help them find a job.

It sounds like perfectly ordinary social security from my perspective in Norway, perhaps with some of the requirements relaxed.

If people want to find out if basic income works it has to be given to a representative slice of the population. This has been done several times in North America (once in Canada, and twice in the US), as far as I can tell it was successful.

</comment><comment><USER43> I always thought the point of basic income was so that you didn't necessarily need every member of society employed in the traditional sense

<comment><USER29> UBI serves two purposes.

The first is stopgap rhetoric to prevent socialist-inspired rhetoric from making popular gains as traditional employment is eroded away.

The second is to point at UBI and go "See, if you give money to people who were made redundant in the labor market, they probably still won't be able to sell their labor" while doing everything to ignore the fact that the market has moved past certain people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> > 'happier but jobless'

That's a very misleading title.

> Universal basic income, or UBI, means that everyone gets a set monthly > income, regardless of means. The Finnish trial was a bit different

That's a huge difference. It encourages some of the unemployed people to stay unemployed. That's called "poverty trap".

This was not real UBI. Also, a 2-year long trial can be very misleading. People take very different choices knowing that they'll receive UBI for 2 years, or 10 years, or their whole life.

<comment><USER45> The only difference the article mentions is that the experimental subjects were chosen among people getting unemployment benefits. What this suggests is that _if_ you're on unemployment to begin with, differential incentives do not have a detectable impact on whether you'll find a job - that's all. It's saying that incentives aren't everything, at least on a 2-years-out scale.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> So that if they are happier then that IS success. Job or no job is irrelevant.

<comment><USER47> Unfortunately the prevailing ideology dictates that if you're not working you are worthless and you should not feel happy.

<comment><USER48> It's a tough sell you gotta admit it. That money came from someone making an effort (even if it was in form of large [reluctant]corporate taxes).

Also slacking (I am half a slacker on the way to ~zero) is toxic on the long run.

I always thought of universal income as way to allow me to grow without a burden. Learning, helping, producing (whether art, tools, ...).

It's supposed to help strengthen the social tissue.

<comment><USER46> yes that money came from someone making an effort, but on the premise that it came from someone who derive happiness by doing the work not because of necessity.

<comment><USER48> it's hard to ensure honestly

but I think we agree, the goal is to reduce faux-slavery due to the need for basics necessities

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Very dishonest headline. It failed to increase employment among people who are already unemployed, which no one expected it to do. It also did not _decrease_ their number of working days.

[https://twitter.com/MattBruenig/status/1093859412182212609](https://twitter.com/MattBruenig/status/1093859412182212609)

</comment><comment><USER50> Seriously asking. Is it possible to use your basic income to get a loan?

I just envision people buying all sorts of things without understanding what they're signing up for.

And from a U.S. perspective, I don't trust a system filled with rent-to-owns, payday lenders, and car dealer/financers stopping anyone from making bad choices.

<comment><USER51> Presumably you could. It is money granted to each person without strings. Not sure how you could avoid it. A better questions would be whether the courts could impose UBI garnishing similar to wage garnishing. I would presume not and hence giving a loan to someone would have to be with the knowledge that the government would not force repayment with UBI funds. It gets back to an issue of whether someone has a history of responsible payments, something which would be more in a person's control with a guaranteed flow of UBI.

I view UBI as a way to help ease the debt of many people, particularly those incurred because of lost wages (loss of job, illness). It could also ease the college debt issues because we could stop subsidizing college costs, leading to decreased tuition, and instead the colleges would have to compete with other uses of this money, something they do not have to do with direct college support programs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> This title misrepresents the outcome. A better headline would have been:

> Finland basic income trial improved happiness but not employment

It's unfortunate the BBC chose that quote, as it misrepresents the outcome of the trial as _creating_ joblessness, rather than failing to _alter_ joblessness.

</comment><comment><USER53> > The Finnish trial was a bit different, as it focused on people who were > unemployed

I think UBI would help people who are already employed in jobs that they hate, to find/invent meaningful jobs. A lot of employed people are miserable but just surviving doing things that they hate (because that's the only thing that pays and so are chained to their misery).

I think real UBI would create strong bottom up economies and get rid of value extractors, intermediaries and schemers. It would also help people move out of big cities back to rural areas where things are not so expensive

</comment><comment><USER54> > Finland became the first European country to test out the idea of an > unconditional basic income.

Isn't unconditional, you know, unconditional? As opposed to "From January 2017 until December 2018"?

</comment><comment><USER55> Did they not have an identical cohort serving as a control to compare employment rates at the end of the trial?

<comment> java-man no they did not.

<comment><USER56> Yes they did, according to the article:

"Mr Simanainen says that while some individuals found work, they were no more likely to do so than a control group of people who weren't given the money."

Note this means the headline is the opposite of the truth. And the quote is not to be found in the article. It's how the author/editor chose to interpret a single individual's statement, despite the overall finding being very different.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> In Ontario Canada, our outgoing government tried basic income as well. It increased unemployment in the pilot cities. So our new government eliminated basic income quickly because it was the opposite of the general trend of all other cities.

The reality is that people don't need money. Money is important but what people need is a purpose and goals. Which a basic income system does not provide.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS5WYp5xmvI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS5WYp5xmvI)

<comment> knight-of-lambd How do you know this when the study was cancelled a year early (by a Conservative gov't, no less)

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Universal Basic Income:

 _Work Hard, Keep Half_ v. _No Work, Free Stuff_

[https://delvedc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Universal- Bas...](https://delvedc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Universal-Basic- Income.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER59> I thought the idea was to reduce pointless busy work and increase actual productive work for people that wanted to. The overall outcome being increased net productivity. I have no idea how you would measure that though as I imagine there would be less people interested in working overall.

</comment><comment><USER60> In other news:

Vegetarianism did not lead an increase in animal population.

Policing did not lead to an increase civic engagement.

Prophylactics did not lead to an increase in birth rates.

...I wonder what other goals I could retroactively apply to social programs to show how they failed to achieve things they were never meant to address.

</comment><comment><USER61> I think it's human nature to do a little as possible for the most reward. If someone is giving you money to literally do nothing, then you're likely going to do..nothing!

<comment><USER62> Within the framework of rewarding people for behaving the way you're compelling them to, that's probably roughly true.

But I'm doubtful that people are actually sitting around, twiddling their thumbs, doing _nothing_. Maybe they're not getting jobs per se, but I'm very curious about what they actually are doing with the time they'd otherwise have to sell.

<comment><USER61> If you gave me money with no requirement that I perform a task, or adhere to a set of rules, just free money in my lap, I'm going to use it to increase my level of joy and comfort, and avoidance of work. Granted I may take that money and spend it all on hookers and blow, but I will be doing what I want with that money, and not having to return any service or labor for it.

<comment><USER63> where will the hookers and blow come from if the hookers and dealers are on basic and doing nothing?

<comment><USER64> price rises until people start working as hookers and dealers to afford other hookers and blow ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Should be "happier but still jobless". No one lost jobs as a result. the result was that the jobless were happier. An improved situation.

</comment><comment><USER66> Would be curious to know what the overhead of the UBI program was compared to the overhead of whatever unemployment program it was replacing.

</comment><comment><USER67> I wish they included employed people in this trial.

</comment><comment><USER37> This experiment was performed in 2017. The basic criticisms of it are:

\- participants selected only from long term unemployed \- Finland was still in a period of austerity following recession (low hiring rate) \- tiny sample population \- limited period \- stingy, the amount provided doesn't really provide a basic income

</comment><comment><USER68> TL;DR: They got the same unemployment money (~555€) as before, but it was called Basic Income. But they did not have to partake the quarterly motivation shit from jobless office anymore. Which made them indeed happier. Success!

<comment><USER10> No, the key difference was that you could also earn money from other work without losing the government money.

This means that you can take on part time jobs without freaking out that you will lose unemployment.

This also means (for local business owners) that you can hire people for part time / spec work without being concerned about long term effects. This is a big deal for small businesses.

<comment><USER69> ...which of course the study showed they didn't do, it showed the cohort did not take on more part time jobs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Regarding me, I could be happier without working, or working less than I currently do. So, according to the article : "this is a triumph"

</comment><comment><USER71> Not sure how the numbers add up. The infographic says it cost €20M. The text says 2,000 Fins got €560 for 24 months. That would amount to €26.88M.

</comment><comment><USER72> If you think the Great Society had bad effects on poor black folks, just wait to see what bad effects UBI has on _everyone_.

</comment><comment><USER73> That's a weird way to spin it. Much more useful and interesting, to me, is that UBI recipients weren't any _less_ likely to get jobs. That implies that UBI will not--as some fear--in fact lead to a bunch of lazy, parasitic layabouts. They're still trying to find work, they're just happier and healthier while they're doing it.

</comment><comment><USER47> I think the idea of UBI as it is, makes it an easy target for comments that characterize people as "freeloaders" or trading "something" for "nothing".

The problem is that the UBI seems to be coming from the taxes that other people, which may be a good first iteration to try something out, but it will fail in scale.

I will assume that the aim of these experiments is to find a way to provide for an ever increasing number of people at a time that the number and the quality of jobs is dropping, largely being replaced by automated systems. Last year the governor of bank of England voiced concerns about the automation stripping out jobs which could "lead to a rise of marxism"[1].

I find the idea of a UB Dividend[2], or social dividend[3] instead something which would have more chances to succeed. The main idea behind it is that everyone will be entitled to a dividend which will be funded by private companies. So instead of having the Apples and Googles of the world sitting on a pile of cash, they could put a portion of their earnings in a fund which would then be given back to everyone to allow them to continue to purchase their products and services.

1: [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mark- carney-...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mark-carney- marxism-automation-bank-of-england-governor-job-losses- capitalism-a8304706.html)

2: [https://medium.com/dark-mountain/universal- dividend-a988c31c...](https://medium.com/dark-mountain/universal- dividend-a988c31c372b)

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

<comment><USER74> I believe some states already do something like a UBI: saudi arabia and alaska both pay out dividends from resource extraction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> "Work and love . . . work and love . . . that's all there is." -Freud

</comment><comment><USER76> Well-fare is insidious and destructive. Look up the origins of communism, those people only destroy.

</comment><comment><USER77> Just wondering, is there anyone here who lived in socialism (or in single communist party regime) and honestly believe that UBI can work?

</comment><comment><USER78> did they really have to study this? We have decades of welfare to analyze. UBI is dead in the water. Call it a negative tax rate instead.

<comment><USER79> UBI is different from welfare because you don't have to qualify for it, so it removes any incentives to alter your life to qualify for welfare.

<comment><USER80> Poland has an interesting example that could be used as UBI experiement. Recently introduced "500+" program pays 500PLN(~$130/£100) for every child after the first one(or all if the family has no other source of income).

Now, to you westerners $130/month might sound like nothing, but actually, with 3-4 children you are getting a regular salary for effectively doing nothing, without any extra conditions. And apart from the loss of the benefit for the 1st child if you get a job, nothing stops you from working and yet still collecting the benefit. It has improved the living conditions in Poland considerably, and families with children can now afford a lot more than they could previously. I personally know one company that lost a decent chunk of its staff to it - why work for you while I can get similar amount of money and stay at home? Of course the question of whether Poland can afford such a generous program is a different question altogether, but it cannot be denied that for many people this completely unconditional injection of cash is absolutely equivalent to UBI.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> I don't know how much I support basic income as a substitute for jobs. Jobs can suck, but basic income takes away the levers for poor people (anybody relying on one primary income stream for disposable income) to be useful to the rich and powerful, leaving them completely vulnerable to the games of the latter. Even if you mopped a rich person's floor and the rich person wanted to dispose of you, he'd likely have to replace you with another floor mopper; the coupling between rich and poor is still there. Without jobs, the poor are completely expendable. If things go well, there's no way the poor can keep paying attention to maintaining the system, and things can go bad. If things don't go well, the bottom can drop out. This is of course not discussing the other benefits of jobs (a feeling of dignity, a way to spend time, being around other people and a tie to society).

I'd rather support a system of federated capitalism where everybody owns and rents some amount of capital (financial, intellectual, social, etc.), along with a government that can provide for basic needs. Everyone has some nontrivial amount of power, and has to respect other people and their power.

</comment><comment><USER82> Silicon Valley People: We need basic income because there aren't enough jobs for low-skilled workers.

Also Silicon Valley People: Let's have open borders and import unlimited numbers of low-skilled workers. Doing anything else is racist!

</comment><comment><USER83> Although I do not support the idea of UBI I can't help but feel a bit disappointed that it didn't work out.

</comment><comment><USER84> Handing out free money will most likely just cause inflation and defeat itself. The inflation will make the amount paid out in basic income insufficient to live on.

The alternate to basic income for the purpose of housing, health and food, is to provide a basic version of those resources at zero cost.

<comment><USER85> I don't know why you were downvoted because you're right. A simple thought experiment can prove it: give everyone $1 million every year starting today. Is everyone suddenly rich? Just for a few days. Eventually milk will cost $500/gallon. The effects of Supply and demand can't be legislated out of existence.

<comment><USER86> That's like saying any inflation is bad because if it were a million percent bad things would happen. It doesn't tell us anything about reality.

<comment><USER85> The inflation would render the money we gave everyone nearly worthless, by approximately the amount given out. It's similar to adding six zeros to every bank account.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> I used to be all-in UBI supporter. To my "hacker" mind it appeared like a wonderful hack around issues society is facing. But lately, as I saw our parents retire, I was thinking about what really keep people happy - and as soon as basics are covered, it appears that "being useful" is what jobs are really about.

UBI, as a result, may lock people forever in a jobless situation. UBI will not provide enough capital to bootstrap anything, it might disconnect you from people doing something. This can only increase the resentment between employed and unemployed classes. Granted, some will find themselves doing what they wanted to do their whole life (non-profitable) and couldn't because they had to put food on the table. But is this the case for everyone? I am afraid the rest will risk being marked "not useful" for life, and that doesn't sound like something that makes one happy...

Sorry, it is just my random philosophical thoughts and no real answers or pieces of advice here...

<comment><USER88> Counterpoint: receiving UBI would not be any more of a "not useful" mark than simply being unemployed.

Technically, we all are receiving a UBI of $0 right now. The idea is just to increase that amount to cover rent and food.

If everyone's getting it, there is no stigma.

(Same disclaimer on random philosophical thoughts and no real answers)

<comment><USER87> Not really talking about stigma here since, as you correctly pointed out, UBI assumes everyone gets it. It is more of an existential question for the person themselves - "what is exactly is my purpose"?</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is Startup School worth it? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a student and very involved with the startup scene in Seattle. I m just wondering if it's worth it to spend ~$200 on flight, and ~100 on housing/food for a weekend for the event.<p>Anyone has experiences to share? <comment><USER2> It's like going to the premier meetup event, but as meetup's go, it's really random and depends on what you have to offer as well. If you are impressive and have traction, you get more ears. That said, you shouldn't go thinking you will find co-founders or investors. There are SWARMS of people and it simply isn't set up for that except for brief breaks to network. In the end, the benefit could be little, so it's really a personal decision. How much is ~300 dollars worth to you? Do you have any other reasons for the trip? It was nice to talk to other potential founders, but personally it didn't jazz me one way or the other. My business was still my business.

</comment><comment><USER3> Being very involved in the Startup scene, What's more rewarding than a place full of like-minded humans..?</comment>


JReddit - The Java wrapper for Reddit API needs Your help in completing it. - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/thekarangoel/jReddit

<comment><AUTHOR> Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions about the project...</comment>


Tech interview about PusherApp, the WebSockets service behind Scrabb.ly - <AUTHOR> http://webpulp.tv/post/1626829659/pusher-app-martyn-loughran

<comment><USER2> I love this app! It is very zippy and was easy to install. Thanks for sharing the podcast.</comment>


Magic: The Gathering creator Richard Garfield on 35 years of making games - <AUTHOR> https://www.dicebreaker.com/topics/richard-garfield/feature/richard-garfield-interview-making-games <comment><USER2> Garfield, and M:tG in general, has been a huge inspiration for me over the years. Magic is such a creative system of constraints, story, card complexity, competitive ecosystems, strategy and metagaming. It also allows a really personal approach to deckbuilding, play style and fun in general. Not to mention the financial aspect of the secondary market, which is an entire field in and of itself... A lot of the lessons learned from studying the game's strategy have helped me cultivate new mental models in my approach to problem solving.

At one point I even took a career break and designed a game, like Garfield says, that I wanted to play that couldn't find. The game is called Sin Rummy - a variant on Rummy based on Gandhi's seven social sins. It was tough to develop, design and produce but I was able to use a lot of intuition from playing Magic all those years to balance it. My starting design constraints: a complex game with tons of replayability that would be easy to pick up and learn, all printed within a single deck of cards. I was super happy with the end result (even if the Kickstarter didn't go nuclear as I had hoped) and still play it all the time. If anyone wants a copy, send me your address (email is on the site in my profile) and I'll mail it to you.

<comment><USER3> Looked at your kickstarter. Very cool game! Was your plan to keep this game a single-run production? I know a friend who is in the intersection of {plays magic} and {likes game design}. I might hit you up on your offer once COVID-19 shenanigans calm down a little.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the note!

I'm hoping to do a larger run at some point in the future if I can get distribution but I'm not in a hurry. Card quality is super important to me so I would rather stick to printing with USPCC, which is more expensive.

Let me know if your friend is interested - I shipped 16 decks yesterday from that comment alone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Garfield is the great-great grandson of President Garfield (known for his novel proof the Pythagorean theorem, as well as his purported ability to write with both hands simultaneously... in different languages).

Also, his great uncle supposedly invented the paper clip.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's too bad Valve didn't properly support or listen to players of Garfield's digital card game Artifact (which he developed for Valve). It was a huge leap forward in digital card games, involving high-level strategic play not present in Magic. The 3-lane system inspired by DOTA and the Initiative system were great innovations in the genre.

<comment><USER6> Valve listened to Garfield, who was telling them that the players not liking it were wrong because he had data to show that the game was fine. He treated players like computers and ignored that the game had a lot of feelsbad mechanics, but he ignored the feedback because statistically it was very balanced, therefore he thought the players shouldn't dislike it. A Star Wars TCG he made failed for the same reason, but apparently he didn't learn.

<comment><USER7> There was a great Mark Rosewater blog ages and ages ago about how important it was for him to look holistically at a mechanic/theme/set/whatever and ask the most important question - is it _fun_.

Obviously different things are fun for different people, but some large segment of players need to find a thing fun or it shouldn't go in. Regardless of any other consideration (elegance, purity, cleverness etc etc)

<comment><USER8> The problem is that the more people you adhere to the more washed out the game-play will become. So you have to ask yourself if you want the game to be super fun for a few people, or a little fun for many people. An easy mistake new developers do is that they take something that is very fun, and make it _less_ fun in order to attract more people.

<comment><USER9> What do you call a super fun game for few people?

A dead game.

Whether its online or physical. Game that doesn't have player-base is doomed to be forgotten.

Artifact didn't even took off and the playerbase tanked to 200-300 people weekly. Who is going to wait 30mins to find a match? And what are the chances of even match-up?

<comment><USER8> I was not referring to any game in particular. Once you have a very good solution to a real problem, or a game that a few people think is really fun, it's no longer a design/engineering problem it's a selling/marketing problem.

When you have few users it's not the time to water it down to suit the general public, you should only do that once you have the ship in motion. eg. million of users.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is such a great excuse to post this for MTG fans [https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/season/24/phoenix- az/appra...](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/season/24/phoenix- az/appraisals/1993-magic-the-gathering-beta-cards--201901A18/)

Black Lotus, Mox jewels... and the person had no idea of the value. Just an enjoyable watch that isn't worth a separate submission.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm a bit less positive with regards to MtG. Though I have not played it for a long time (mainly did in 90s). IMO they innovated the combination of loot boxes and pay to win, which with regards to children I find especially cruel (I was a kid in 90s).

The only good card game I played in recent years is Slay The Spire. Inspired by Netrunner it has a static, one time fee less than 20 EUR (buy to play), rogue like elements, unique characters with unique playstyle, and a balance between RNG/adaptation/skill. It also has a unique, simple art style which is I guess indy like. I find it daring and refreshing.

Hearthstone I was enthusiastic about during beta. I quickly figured it was pay to win (or a massive grind which is IMO an excuse).

Garfield and Blizzard might have made good games, and perhaps they still do. But it's also big business.

I've seen a myriad of other card games on Steam. If anyone has any recommendations, I'm interested (solo or multi-player).

<comment><USER12> > I quickly figured it was pay to win (or a massive grind which is IMO an > excuse).

A grindy system basically -is- pay to win for anyone who has a fulltime job and responsibilities. Good luck grinding for what you need if you only play ~30-60 mins every other day or so.

I've always disliked league due to this. On top of cosmetics, I also have to purchase heroes...? I guess, or I can just play dota (which is a better game, no bias here :-)).

> IMO they innovated pay to win

With MTG it was entirely too expensive for our group, so we used Cockatrice to play it for free online. Commander/EDH is fun with friends. More so when you can play decks where the only limit is your creativity.

However, one fun and relatively inexpensive format is booster drafts for mtg. I used to play this every once in a while at my local card shop.

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_formats#B...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_formats#Booster_Draft)

> Hearthstone

At least you can sell MtG cards. Hearthstone was manageable when it first came out, but I took a break for a while and was overwhelmed when I came back. That devolved into a soulless grind of a game unless one started spending some money on opening packs (... for each expansion).

Hearthstone also made me realize I dislike trading card games in a competitive environment. I like fooling around in EDH with wonky decks with a few friends, but trying to climb the hearthstone ladder was terrible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I just re-discovered MTG a week or two ago. I was wondering with a few friends what we could do to socialize, and as none of us are big video game guys, we decided to try playing via Cockatrice. I was able to quickly set up a server and get everyone playing; lots of fun. In case any Cockatrice developer sees this, thank you!

</comment><comment><USER14> One of the things that made me stop playing MtG is that WotC bought TSR and they killed Spellfire. I do understand that it wasn't raking £€¥$ like MtG was, but still I loved Spellfire, I still keep all my cards in dossiers in plastic sleeves and taking good care of them.

<comment><USER15> That was 1997, you hold a pretty serious grudge...?

<comment><USER16> This is both really funny and really true.

I remember being incredibly upset that all my friends were abandoning Spellfire to play MtG – I ultimately realized the latter was the better (more complex, strategic) of the two games, but playing 3v3 Spellfire games was absolute chaotic fun and I don't think MtG was ever able to be _as much_ casual fun as that, despite also being very good

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I just discovered Nvidia's cloud gaming platform [1] as a way to play MTG Arena on a Mac. Works great, without having to partition my already thin hardrive...

Limited booster drafts are one of my favorite things to play since forever ago. Finally found a way after a bunch of years (had tried Cockatrice, etc..)

[1] [https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce-now/](https://www.nvidia.com/en- us/geforce-now/)

<comment><USER18> I play on Linux using Lutris. Worked out of the box, is pretty great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I still have old Magic 2013 iOS app in my OG iPad and it's one of the most fun things I can do in my spare time. I've probably spent more hours than I should playing this game over the course of the last ~20 years but I still can't get enough of it...

[https://apps.apple.com/us/app/magic-2013/id502588466](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/magic-2013/id502588466)

</comment><comment><USER16> Don't mean to hijack the thread, but since virtually all of us are in quarantine, I thought this might be an opportune time to ask for recommendations on family-friendly (think 3 generations...) board games to play while stuck at home. I really don't want to play Scrabble, Monopoly, Risk, Game of Life or Clue... but have no idea if I should go with Jaws: The Game, Settlers of Catan or Ticket to Ride

EDIT: Thank you all for the great responses!

<comment><USER19> Settlers of Catan and Ticket To Ride are both good intros to so-called European style board games, that tend to lack player-elimination and track win progress abstractly in terms Victory Points rather than money or army strength.

Play time of either of the two is 60-90 minutes, Catan seats 4 and TTR seats 5.

Of the two, I prefer TTR, and if you can find it I recommend Ticket To Ride: Europe over the original American one as it has nicer full size cards, adds a nice friendly track-sharing "station" rule that can get you out of a jam, and has a random-chance "tunnel" rule that can add a bit of excitement to your turn if you succeed or fail to dig a tunnel.

I also suggest watching play-throughs or reviews on YouTube. Geek and Sundry has Tabletop playthroughs with Will Wheaton, and Shut Up And Sit Down has reviews done by a British group.

<comment><USER20> Settlers of Catan also have a 1vs1 card game spin-off that I like very much. The game was ported online [https://catanuniverse.com/en/rivals-for- catan/](https://catanuniverse.com/en/rivals-for-catan/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I backed his new game Half Truth (made with Ken Jennings of Jeopardy fame) and it arrived just before social distancing kicked in. It's a fun take on a trivia game, because it's set up so that it's not so much of a binary "do you know it or not". You can definitely use some strategy in how you play. Of course, folks who _do_ know a lot of trivia will still win. It's just that other players can still make progress, too.

</comment><comment><USER22> I probably don't have all the facts but it's always bugged by that MTG has patented (or some rights) on similar card games and has effectively strong armed any similar and popular game into paying them a license. My understanding is that game mechanics can't be copyright protected so I don't get what they are suing over and how they have been so successful in getting fees

</comment><comment><USER23> There's a large story/case study on Garfield in the book Game Design Workshop. Great resource for anyone interested in designing new games.

[https://www.amazon.com/Game-Design-Workshop-Playcentric- Inno...](https://www.amazon.com/Game-Design-Workshop-Playcentric- Innovative/dp/0240809742)

</comment><comment><USER24> I started playing MtG multiple times and hung on for 1-2 years until I needed a pause, haha.

It always felt like "an old game" to me, even when I started the first time in 1996.

I'm still a bit sad that I sold my cards from that time for 30€ at eBay.

</comment><comment><USER25> Artifact might've been a flop but Keyforge has been plenty fun.

</comment><comment><USER26> Slightly off-topic, but if you're in quarantine and wondering how to play _wondorous_ games of Magic, say no more:

[https://cockatrice.github.io/](https://cockatrice.github.io/)

[http://xmage.de/](http://xmage.de/)

(the latter is way more buggy but has actual rule enforcement, the first is very polished but you have to do everything by hand as though it were a physical board game)

<comment><USER27> For people who are interested in playing MTG, their "new" windows game (MTG Arena) is a pretty decent, modern client, that lets you play for free. Supposedly it is coming to the mac soon, and rumor has it that iOS and Android are planned, but based on how the UI has evolved recently, I wouldn't hold out hope for that.

<comment><USER28> Totally my personal opinion, but I much prefer MTGO (Magic the Gathering Online, windows only also) as it better emulates table-top Magic. I can't handle all the animations and noises of Arena. Also, much better card/draft selection on MTGO. Not free though, but not nearly as expensive as paper Magic.

I am an old fuddy-duddy.

<comment><USER29> its still quite expensive though. it's great if you are looking to play the older formats. getting into legacy for 500 dollars is really nice. that said it's hard to justify buying into standard or pioneer on there. the prices are quite volatile and some of the cards are just ridiculously expensive due to the fact that everyone went over to arena. teferi, time raveler for example. it also feels bad to buy a playset of them because it's only a matter of time until they reprint them and the card tanks to 20 dollars or whatever.

arena is nice because you don't have to worry about the secondary market. i would also suggest that if you turn off the sound in game that arena isn't actually all that bad. i say that as a person who's played mtgo since 2012. i agree that draft is bad on arena, but if you want to play standard I actually think it's better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I learned Usenet and www to buy and sell magic cards in the 90s. My first web site was to sell magic cards and selling my collection let me buy a car to drive to proper startups with W2s.

In fact, I think the reason why I sought out the internet at college in 1994 was because a friend said any magic card could be bought online for $5.

It's interesting how the early magic community was so focused on the net.

</comment><comment><USER31> Big fan of Garfield and his games in general, but shout out to SpyNet which is fun and underrated.</comment>


Luna – Hack your sleep - <AUTHOR> http://lunasleep.com <comment><USER3> This looks really cool. I wonder though if my bed would not then be dependent on your servers at some point as I consider such a product as a long-term investment. For example, can it live without the server-side aggregation? Would you consider opensourcing parts of the server to enable people to use their own servers in the long run? Would you consider adding a respectable API that follows the ideas of for example, the philips hue? [http://www.developers.meethue.com/philips-hue- api](http://www.developers.meethue.com/philips-hue-api)

<comment><AUTHOR> It's nice that you mention because we inspired both our API and architecture to Philips Hue: the REST api is served by both our cloud servers and by the device locally.

The app connects to the unit via wi-fi when you are home, which means you can control the product even if the internet (or our service) is down.

Opensourcing a lot of our stack is part of the plan, we take a lot from OSS and we want to give back. As far as the hardware, we'll make sure it's a pleasure to hack on, remember that we have to do it every day :)

<comment><USER4> How much of this do you have working already? I've been using Zeo and miss them a lot, tracking sleep phases or heartrate through this seems very ambitious.

Also, some physical switch for microphone could be nice..

<comment><AUTHOR> We never record the audio from the mic, we are only capable of detecting loud sounds or a sustained vibration (snoring).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My first instinct (being the geek that I am) upon seeing this was it looks great. And having lived in England the majority of my life, with cold houses and heating turned off at night - heated underblankets are a necessity.

But as I read through the feature list, I couldn't help feel uncomfortable. Am I the only one that finds this deluge of technology into every aspect of our lives abhorrent?

Every single day billions of people stare into a screen. You can control your whole life on it. Your lights can come on when you come home (Hue), the temperature indoors is regulated (Nest), and now my partner and I can have regulated heating on either side of the bed. Those who have watched Black Mirror will see where I'm going with this.

I can't help feel that while there is nothing wrong with this product - <USER2> fact it's kinda cool - is it really something the world needs?

Anyway, best of luck to the team. It seems like a good product. You can't please everyone :)

<comment><USER6> Just because it's not something that's necessary, doesn't mean that it's bad or "abhorrent". I want to live in a future with cyborg bodies and star trek doors and if you don't, well then I feel sorry for you.

<comment><USER7> That's an interesting one - I like the idea of technology allowing a more inclusive society; enhancing mobility to some people to get them to the shops, allow other people to use steps; maybe one day those who wish to regain their sight or maybe get it for the first time. However -- as with everything in nature -- it also has a dark side.

First, which is far more a philosophical addition to my previous point - it's defining a norm. To some extent this is unavoidable; it is essentially saying that to be at a normal functional level you need sight, be able to walk, etc. So the question is - is a more inclusive society one that is setup for a whole spectrum of people or one that enables people's bodies to bring them to a functionally 'equal' footing? It's probably somewhere in the middle.

The other part, which I know I've experienced, is that the more unnecessarily engaged I was with technology -- more so with hi-tech -- the more detached I was with the actual world around me. So, for instance, walking around outside listening to music in headphones; walking around outside with a mobile phone (especially a smart phone). Nowadays, unless I have a damn good reason to take it with me (The only one that comes to mind is playing a set), I go around outside with clothes and maybe bags and leave everything else at home. On the rare occasion I've found that a mobile phone might have been useful, but those occasions are mainly when I've relied on a car to take me beyond walking distance. The cycle of reliance.

Since placing this limit on myself, It's challenged me to be more engaged with the environment around me, more mindful in myself and I've found this has made me much happier and my environment more colourful. Trying to strike the balance is good, and I enjoy walking the tight rope. However cyborg bodies starts entering a whole new domain - the idea of being chained to technology because it's a part of my body seems horrible to me; there would be no relief from it.

If people want society to go that way, fair enough. However, I personally won't encourage unnecessary integration with bodies because that's not the world I want to live in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've noticed my sleep quality is strongly correlated with my room temperature, but being in a moderate climate I find that I need my bed and room _colder_ to sleep better. Looks like this only provides heating.

<comment><USER9> As someone who struggles mightily with sleep I can tell you it's science not preference that makes you prefer cold. I can't find the original source of this fact but here is a decent alternative[1].

> ...scientists were able to lower skin temperature less than a degree > Centrigrade without affecting core body temperature. The changes were > dramatic. People didn't wake up as much during the night and the percentage > of the sleep spent in stages 3 and 4 (deep sleep) increased. ... A 0.4 C > decrease in skin temperature caused a decline in the probability of early > morning waking from 0.58 to 0.04.

[1][http://www.sleepdex.org/thermoregulation.htm](http://www.sleepdex.org/thermoregulation.htm)

<comment><USER10> That article is wrong. The quote that you gave, is contradicted in the last paragraph of the same article: >> Recent research by Dutch scientists found that by increasing skin temperature the sleep quality in elderly people could be enhanced.

Also the study, that the article links to [0] says:

By employing a thermosuit to control skin temperature during nocturnal sleep, we demonstrate that induction of a mere 0.4 degrees C _increase_ in skin temperature, whilst not altering core temperature, suppresses nocturnal wakefulness (P<0.001) and shifts sleep to deeper stages (P<0.001) in young and, especially, in elderly healthy and insomniac participants. Elderly subjects showed such a pronounced sensitivity, that the induced 0.4 degrees C _increase_ in skin temperature was sufficient to almost double the proportion of nocturnal slow wave sleep and to decrease the probability of early morning awakening from 0.58 to 0.04. Therefore, _skin warming strongly improved_ the two most typical age-related sleep problems; a decreased slow wave sleep and an increased risk of early morning awakening.

[0] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18192289?dopt=Abstract](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18192289?dopt=Abstract)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If any of the creators are reading this, is there any chance you're going to be making this in a hacker-friendly way? I've been contemplating making something sorta like this myself (although much less ambitious) and I'd really like to be able to integrate it into other smart things that I have going in my house.

Also, just out of curiosity, what are you using for the WiFi connectivity? I've been playing with a bunch or the new embedded stuff and like to know what people are actually using.

EDIT: Also, cool, I was the one to push it over 100K: "You raised the campaign total to: $100,008!" I feel special.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I'm the CTO of the company.

The product will have an open (and well documented) REST API from the day we ship. Our app and website will use the same exact API that 3rd party developers will use. Apps will have to levels of data access permission: sleep patterns only and raw data (they will have to ask access to the user).

We are taking a lot from OSS and we want to give back and contribute to the community, we will start soon opensourcing part of our stack.

As far as the hardware goes, we are doing our best to make it a pleasure to hack, it's in our interest:)

<comment><USER12> Any plans to make a none wifi version (or a way to turn that off and connect via RJ45)? Where is the wifi antenna in relation to the head?

I try to avoid sleeping to close to my phone as well as other wifi/bluetooth enabled devices as it does appear to have an affect on my sleep quality.

<comment><AUTHOR> No plans to make it non wi-fi. The antenna is inside the main enclosure, together with ambient sensors and power supply, outside of the bed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I know the founding team (3 out of 4 are Italians like me, all living in SF), and as a disclaimer, I am an early angel investor in the company.

I have tried the product in its alpha version, and have followed the progress thus far. I think that what Luna is trying to achieve is extremely important. In fact, I have decided to invest because I thought that improving someone's sleep is going to have a huge impact in his/her life.

I am not aware of any other product that is qualitatively similar to this. If there are, let me know :)

Good luck, guys!

<comment><AUTHOR> Simone, you are our favorite (and first!) investor:)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> What research has been done to show this actually has a beneficial effect on one's sleep? I ask because there are many 'lifestyle' type of products that get advertised, and sound good, but only seem to have anecdotal evidence to support their claimed benefits.

<comment><USER14> More: after read-reading the project page I'm going to assume the answer is 'no' to supporting evidence, otherwise this would have been included with all the other (detailed) information already provided. So, for me at least, this falls into the 'solution looking for a problem' category; it'a an exercise in technology application that - yes - is cool, but doesn't actually solve (supported by evidence) a problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> JT from Tuft & Needle here. I met with Andrea and the team last year. They are solid. The big difference with this tech is that it can actually impact the way you sleep as opposed to just reporting data points.

When you sleep badly you usually know it in the morning. A wristband telling me isn't that useful. A tool that actually helps you fall asleep and stay asleep provides significantly more value.

<comment><USER16> Cool to get your opinion on this - I'm a huge fan of my Tuft & Needle mattress. Interested to see if they make a good combo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Seems really cool but I felt my internal warning sign go off when I see the team is mostly comprised of marketers/managers/growth. Three engineers in an eight person team. It can still be a good product but I'll wait until it's on the market for some real reviews.

<comment><AUTHOR> 4 engineers actually:)

<comment><USER18> The moment I saw Matteo Franceschett being involved in this, ugh.

Some NY tech circles don't have a high opinion about this guy. He jumped from one project to another, burning bridges behind (just Google his name in re to MOWA and few others), and nowadays it seems he also likes to spam people.

A few of my colleagues received emails in regards to this wonderbra bedsheet, but none actually ever recalls signing up. That's a big red flag.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Shawn from Beep here. We're super pumped to be integrating with these guys. As someone who wakes up almost every single night either overheating or freezing this product is near and dear to my heart and I personally can't wait to get mine.

<comment><AUTHOR> We are really looking forward to working with you guys!

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This looks great. I backed a project called Beddit which is similar, but just a single strip that measures your breathing and heart rate, but it never worked very well for me. Part of the problem was it required opening up the application and connecting to the Bluetooth sensor every. damn. night. [1][2]

The only way I can integrate quantified self gadgets into my life is if they are totally hands-off, passive data collectors. I don't want to charge a fitness tracker every night and remember to put it on in the morning. The best I can do is remember stand on my Withings scale a few times a week.

[1] [http://www.beddit.com/](http://www.beddit.com/)

[2] [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/beddit/id794968897](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/beddit/id794968897)

</comment><comment><USER21> The hardware (including a bed warmer that is 100% guaranteed to not set your house on fire), controller software, sleep-tracking software + mobile apps, all for US$100k? Either we haven't learned anything from previous crowdfunding nightmares, or they have another source of funding.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, we have another source of funding, from a group of awesome people that supported us believing in the project since the beginning. (you can find some of them in the comments)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This says it integrates with smart home stuff from the given companies, but how does it actually do that? What sort of features are actually available?

Also, the partner logos should really be links. I have no idea what Beep or Emberlight even are.

<comment><AUTHOR> The product is wifi and we approach integration with partners in two ways:

\- some products will be integrated directly to enable a very specific user experience (in particular thermostats and smart locks for now)

\- for other products we are integrated with IFTTT so that a user can customize even the most complicated scenario (we are also looking at other integration platforms, ideas are welcome)

Aaand... ticket created for the links, by tonight those logos are going to be links. In the meanwhile:

\- [http://www.emberlight.co/](http://www.emberlight.co/) \- turn any light into a smart light

\- [https://www.thisisbeep.com/](https://www.thisisbeep.com/) \- bringing music to every room of your home

EDIT: fixed formatting of lists

<comment><USER22> > in particular thermostats and smart locks for now

But what will they actually _do_? What are the use cases that you're looking at?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thermostats:

\- lower the house temp when everyone is in bed (save energy + better sleep environment)

\- detect whether you are likely to come home tonight or not to avoid warming up your bed if you are traveling

\- letting the thermostat know what's the temp/humidity in your bedroom when you are in bed

Smart locks: you get in bed and, if you left the door unlocked, you get a push notification that says: "Your door is unlocked, do you want to lock it?"

These are core use cases now, we will definitely expand the list, there are a lot of things that need to happen in a smart home when you get in bed or fall asleep or when you wake up.

EDIT: fixed formatting

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Sorry but I don't support indiegogo projects any more. There are more scam projects than real ones out there and the indiegogo team doesn't give a shit about it. This makes me sad, because I like the idea of crowdsourced projects. But there needs to be a platform either side can trust which indiegogo is definitely not because scam projects attract more people and so they make more money with them.

</comment><comment><USER24> This is pretty cool tech--if the smart alarm system works as advertised it would replace a lot of poorly-performing manual processes I currently undergo myself. Make a version with no heating element that can run on a battery and I'll buy it.

Make a version that has active cooling and I'll buy 2 and wear the extra to work.

<comment><USER25> Yes please. Been wanting/plotting 'air-con' bed for ages. Passive ventilation can't dissipate enough for chronic fever.

edit: There's also all of us in the tropics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> > SECURE AND PRIVATE

> Luna is completely secure and uses public key cryptography. Its security > features include HTTPS, SSL, and 128-bit encryption.

What does a mattress need HTTPS for when it is private? Something does not add up there for me.

edit: Sorry, I missed the mobile phone controller etc. So I guess this does not phone home?

<comment><AUTHOR> It does, but no raw data are sent, most of the aggregation happens on the device. We upload sleep patterns, average values for some sensors (temp/humidity, ambient light) and major events (loud sound or quick change in ambient light). We use those data for historical data analysis on the server side.

The cloud service relays commands to the cover when your phone is not connected to your wifi too (you can warm up your bed while ubering back home on a cold night).

<comment><USER27> > We upload sleep patterns, average values for some sensors (temp/humidity, > ambient light) and major events (loud sound or quick change in ambient > light).

That's kind of the opposite of private, no?

[http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/private](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/private)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Putting this technology in the mattress cover is great. Kudos to you.

I'm pretty sure I'm not in the target market, though, and that this would do nothing to improve my sleep. The number one reason I sleep or don't sleep is whether or not my babies sleep :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Improving the sleep of people by making their kids sleep, next product maybe?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> We have a queen mattress with a pillowtop - so its taller than a standard queen. Would this work with the queen size Luna product?

It likely wouldn't reach the bottom of the mattress, but it seems like that shouldn't be a big deal.

<comment><AUTHOR> It should be fine, we managed to fit it to a lot of mattresses. If you post the full height I can check.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'll tell you what: this device is great, really

BUT: a microphone where I and my wife sleep and have sex? you either put an HARDWARE switch to turn it off (or even better, permit me to unplug the cable) or not gonna happen in my house

<comment><AUTHOR> Audio is never recorded by Luna.

We have a microphone in the main enclosure but we don't have an audio codec which means we cannot record the audio. The only thing we can tell is whether there's been a loud noise or some sustained vibration at a specific frequency (snoring).

With the bed sensors we definitely pick up the movements of an intercourse but that is something you can only see by looking at raw data. Before sending them to the cloud, all the information about your movements get aggregated in sleep phases, this means that "sex" becomes "you are awake in bed".

A 3rd party app connected via wi-fi to the device can ask the user permission to access raw data from the device (much like facebook apps can ask for different permissions).

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Just happened to be reading HackerNews at the right time and got myself a Queen at the Early Bird price!

I see you've already answered that the mattress cover itself cannot vibrate, and that the alarm will actually be through the app.

Rather than increasing the volume of the alarm gradually, I'd much prefer being woken up like geoelectric by my phone vibrating or perhaps triggering another wifi enabled alarm that vibrates.

1) Will your app make the phone vibrate as your alarm goes off (perhaps with increasing intensity as you get closer to your waking time)?

2) Does anyone know of a wifi enabled vibrating alarm that could be put under a pillow?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, there a checkbox that enables the vibration when the alarm goes off. I am not aware of a wi-fi enabled vibration alarm, that would be an awesome product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Anyone know how the alarm works? I've been using a vibrate-only alarm on Sleep Cycle with the phone under my bottom sheet to avoid waking my partner. Can this be configured in the same way somehow?

<comment><AUTHOR> We currently don't have a built-in motor for the vibration, currently we are using the phone as an alarm, informed by the data coming from Luna.

We have an experimental feature that consists in gradually increasing the volume of the alarm sound till we notice you are waking up: the goal is to keep it just loud enough to wake you up but not your partner. This is obviously assuming your phone sits on a nightstand on your side of the bed.

<comment><USER33> Any chance you could integrate it with a Hue or similar to do a light-based alarm, given it has wifi?

<comment><AUTHOR> Of course! We are already integrated with some smart lights (Philips Hue and emberlight), we plan to integrate with more. We are also integrated with IFTTT for the devices we are missing.

<comment><USER34> This would be fantastic!

Light is essential for me to get up properly. I currently have an alarm that gradually ramps up a lamp in my room to full brightness. It works well, but the downside is that it only stays on full brightness for a set period of time which I can't change. I want my alarms to continue to pester me until i'm actually out of bed! regardless of what time it is while completely removing my sleepy self from the equation of mashing buttons.

Luna sounds like a great fit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Question for the creators:

I have small children who wake me up almost every night at inconsistent times. Am I going to get much benefit out of a Luna, or are my broken sleep habits going to render Luna less effective?

</comment><comment><USER36> I didn't know you can "hack" something by buying a product.

</comment><comment><USER37> Dang, I just bought a dual zone heated mattress cover. Absolutely love it except for the fact that it's all manual; you can't turn it on remotely or schedule on and off times (although it automatically shuts off after a fixed 10 hours). I often go to bed later than my wife, so have to sneak in to the bedroom 15 minutes before bed to turn my side on (or leave it on unnecessarily, or get into a cold bed, defeating the whole purpose).

This is actually less expensive than the one we bought, and obviously much more feature rich.

<comment><AUTHOR> You probably got a "SoftHeat" (made by Perfect Fit maybe?), I love them, they are really good quality. One of the problems they have is that they are not aware of the temperature and after a few hours usually get too hot and really uncomfortable. When using them I usually wake up feeling too hot and have to turn them off.

<comment><USER37> Yep, it's a Soft Heat. And yes, the dial goes up to 10; I set it to 2ish before bed, then turn it down to slightly less than 1 before falling asleep. That's usually low enough that I don't get too warm in the night, but I have occasionally woken up and turned it off. (I can't even conceive of someone setting it higher than 3 or so...)

Given that we just got it I'll probably hold off on this project for now, but I definitely see an upgrade in the future!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I love this idea. I used to use an electric mattress pad to have a nice toasty bed to get into. Combining that low-tech device with motion sensors and wifi connectivity is outstanding.

Just the ability to automatically log when you go to bed and when you get up is nice, from a lifelogging perspective. Add the ability to have a much more accurate picture of when you're asleep and when you're awake than any wrist band could provide, and couple that with the alarm functionality. Very neat.

</comment><comment><USER39> Since I can't find it anywhere on the site or the IndieGogo page [1]: how much of this works now, and how much is just an idea? Is there a video of the "pre- manufacturing prototype" in action? Pictures? Anything?

[1] [https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/luna-turn-your-bed- into-a...](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/luna-turn-your-bed-into-a- smartbed#shipping)

<comment><AUTHOR> There are a few videos around showing demos we gave with pre-production prototypes ([http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/27/luna-smart-mattress- cover/](http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/27/luna-smart-mattress-cover/)) unfortunately, given the type of product, it's a little hard to show on video but if you are based in SF you could swing by our office for a private demo (bring your pajamas:)).

<comment><USER39> Thanks! That's reassuring to see. I would definitely put that up somewhere on one of your pages. A history of lies in Kickstarter/Indiegogo hardware projects have led people like me to be skeptical of these things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I need one of these in a Twin XL size.

(I can't be the only nerd who needs an 80" long bed, but doesn't have enough room for anything wider than a twin.)

<comment><AUTHOR> I hear you but given our stage we are trying to keep the project to as few SKUs as possible. BTW we are about to announce Cal King and we'll definitely expand the selection if we see demand.

Help us find more like you! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> How much does the efficacy of this device dip when you share a king sized bed with your significant other and two 25-ish pound dogs?

<comment><USER42> kick the dogs off! i'm sure they aren't helping you sleep :)

<comment><USER41> ha I'll let you take that up with them directly...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> This looks incredible! I've been waiting for this product for a while now. If we had a different upvoting system ([http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/01/trade-quarks-not- votes...](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/01/trade-quarks-not-votes.html)), I'd use all my upvotes on this article.

</comment><comment><USER44> I think think of few funny ideas using their open API and data. Late night achievement unlocked!

<comment><USER45> Please, god, no. I'm tired of this gamification craze, and the last thing I want gamified is my damn sleep. The only achievement should be getting a good night's rest, and if we need fake internet points to entice us to get it, then I feel sorry for our culture.

<comment><USER6> No fun allowed huh?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just started a technical AMA: [http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2u3q93/iama_cto_of_a_s...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2u3q93/iama_cto_of_a_startup_building_a_hardware/)

</comment><comment><USER46> I like the idea and the price isn't too bad either on it's own, but then I would have to get wifi lamps and a wifi coffee machine and a wifi door lock... I think I'll pass for now

</comment><comment><USER47> A good night of sleep is invaluable to the performance of any athlete, especially serious athletes. Extremely positive feedback from all my athlete friends. Good luck guys!

Disclaimer: Proud investor in Luna :)

</comment><comment><USER48> Polyester, how wonderful. Any benefit this provides is cancelled by using polyester instead of some good breathable material. I think I'd rather use a "dumb" wool cover.

<comment><AUTHOR> There are many reasons why we picked Polyester, the number one being that our product needs to be washable.

If you look at the tech specs section on [http://lunasleep.com](http://lunasleep.com) you'll notice from the drawings that a mattress pad is composed of multiple layers, if we use natural fibers for all the layers, say for the filling (batting), the product would never dry and could grow mold (that's why ALL the heating pads on the market and most mattress pads are made of polyester).

One thing we could do is think about a premium version with the top layer (and maybe the bottom layer?) made of 100% cotton. Such a product would cost a little more (about $30) and take a little longer to dry completely after washing.

Would you guys be interested in such a premium product?

EDIT: formatting

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Tiny thing: with the first picture I see on the web page showing a bed cover, I immediately assumed incorrectly that luna was a bed cover, not a mattress cover hidden out of sight.

<comment><AUTHOR> One of our first design goals was to build a product that would disappear in the bedroom and that did not require any active input from the user (you never HAVE to pull out your phone to use it). The mattress cover form factor served our goal so well that we realized it was hard to show a product designed to be invisible. That definitely poses some challenges, we have to show it on top of a mattress and make sure people understand that we are not selling a mattress for example...

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> The cover itself is made entirely out of synthetic materials which has implications for quality of sleep. I love the idea but the cover portion needs to be natural fibers IMHO.

<comment><USER6> What implications does synthetic materials have on sleep quality? Are you referencing some study or is this just anecdotal arguing from nature?

<comment><USER50> It's mainly the thermal component, which synthetic fibers aren't very good at. As far as studies go there are many on the effects of thermal regulation on sleeping, which synthetic fibres are very poor at. Wool in particular vastly increases sleep quality for these reasons and is used in the medical industry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I've seen this come up from just an idea to full-on production and these guys know what they're doing.

Was pretty impressive to see them hacking and soldering stuff in their apartment!

</comment><comment><USER52> I hope this can also be available in Euro bed sizes. We can't get King & Queen here in Nordics but rather 160x200, 180x200 or 180x210 (as people are tall)

</comment><comment><USER53> Pity I didn't hear about it before it came on Hacker News. King size is sold out! :(

Anyone knows about other similar initiatives?

<comment><AUTHOR> Just the early bird is sold out, you should be able to get the regular indiegogo price (still 20% off retail).

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I need to get one of these for my casper to have a fully start-up sourced smart sleeping system

<comment><AUTHOR> We are also really good friends of the Casper guys, they are awesome!

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Anyone cares to explain how the 'alarm' works? The website doesn't say much.

<comment><AUTHOR> The alarm is part of the mobile app and it works in a similar way to the stock alarm clock app only informed by your current sleep phase.

Here's the difference.

Say you set your alarm for 7 am. The app starts looking at the sleep phase you are in from 6:30 am (this is configurable), if you enter a light sleep phase (N1) at 6:45, the alarm goes off and wake up without feeling groggy. If you don't enter a light sleep phase, the alarm goes off regardless at 7 am so you don't miss meetings and such.

<comment><USER55> Ok well that's not what I expected. It would be cool if the mattress inherently has the alarm, so maybe it can be in the form of temperature change - it gets colder to wake you up or subtle vibration. This more seamless experience than a jarring alarm on the phone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> How does the sleep phase sensor work? I'm assuming it can't read brainwaves...

<comment><AUTHOR> We use ballistocardiography (aka a big less sensitive microphone) to pick up movements, breathing and heart rate through the bed sheets.

<comment><USER57> Are the sound waves sent to the cloud for processing?

<comment><AUTHOR> Nope, it's all filtered and processed locally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Really a great idea! Unfortunately, you lost me at "proprietary technology"…

</comment><comment><USER59> In this way, they'll be able to know how many times you have sex per week ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> That is something you can see by looking at raw data, before having them aggregated in sleep stages.

Raw data never get uploaded to the server but a 3rd party app using the device API can get access to them asking permissions to the user.

(you thought you were the only one to have that idea right? :))

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Amazing idea. It could be used for addressing many respiratory system illness.

</comment><comment><USER61> Find it hard to believe a mattress can track sleep quality accurately, and in order to aggregate information about your day gathered from other sources and do something useful with it they would need a very complex ML backend, which I doub a mattress company has.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's why we are NOT a mattress company.

Look at my background, I happen to have been working in big data for the past 10 years. My last job was to run the data platform team of Upsight (former kontagent) the largest analytics and marketing platform for mobile.

Talking about the rest of the team: their background is much better than mine.

We are also being helped by our scientific board:

\- Jessa Gamble [https://www.ted.com/speakers/jessa_gamble](https://www.ted.com/speakers/jessa_gamble)

\- Clete Kushida [https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/clete- kushida](https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/clete-kushida)

\- David Rapoport [http://www.med.nyu.edu/biosketch/rapopd01/](http://www.med.nyu.edu/biosketch/rapopd01/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Will body temperature be available as a metric graphed over time?

<comment><AUTHOR> Body temperature is really hard to tell in an accurate way, even if we have some temperature sensor very close to your body: the sensor would be influenced a lot by the type of mattress.

The interesting one for circadian cycles is the "Core Temperature" but it's rather uncomfortable to measure (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_temperature#Core_tem...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_temperature#Core_temperature)), what we can do instead is measuring your heart rate at rest that is something typically constant for a healthy person: if that varies from the usual value more than about 5bpm it usually means you have been exercising A LOT or that you are sick.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Finally a well marketed connected product for colder climates!!

</comment><comment><USER64> Great, now my mattress can get hacked.

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha, hopefully by you! We are giving security a very high priority and we hope the community will try as much as possible to break it to send us feedback and suggestions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> What, no My Little Pony references? Oh wait, this is HN, not reddit...</comment>