New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/oct/11/new-york-the-strand-bookstore-landmark-status-sue <comment> red-indian Every year around a certain date, the meaning of which is opaque to me, I receive a package sent from the Strand bookstore containing a very nice expensive book. First couple years I called to ask who the sender was, they read back my name to me. I asked them to describe the purchaser, it took a bit of doing but indeed someone remember them and described what I look like. I've never been to New York or the Strand, but thanks whoever you are, who is impersonating me to send me expensive gifts, all of which were really cool books that I enjoyed.

<comment><USER2> Clearly you from the future with an encoded message in the book.

<comment><USER3> If red-indian gets a sports almanac, how about a couple trifectas for the HN folks?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I fully support landmarking buildings -- it's in the public interest, for future generations, and I still lament the loss of the old Penn Station.

And many times (usually?) it's uncontested -- current owners find value in its historical authenticity, and any future buyer is well aware they can't change it.

BUT -- in the case of a functioning business that has no need for the status and finds it harmful for business reasons, it _does_ seem unfair and unconstitutional.

The remedy seems clear: if the city wants to preserve it for future generations (good), then the city should pay the Strand for whatever additional expenses or lost revenue a neutral arbiter judges is fair. It won't be perfect, but it would be due process to make it constitutional.

<comment><USER5> Unconstitutional? I am not aware of any part of the constitution that prohibits landmarks.

<comment><USER6> The equal protections clause of 14th amendment prohibits unequal application of the law. The business next door can do anything they please with their building lawfully, but the protected landmark building is prohibited by law from doing the same things. There's literally a set of separate set of much more restrictive laws the owner of a protected landmark has to follow that a business not similarly affected does not.

Obviously much less is at stake here than having a separate set of laws for whites vs blacks, but it's the same principal.

<comment><USER7> That's a real stretch and applied universally any kind of location based rules like zoning would be in violation...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Given the political leanings of the Strand's audience and the leanings of the books they showcase, I would assume the owners are likely left leaning as well. And it's weird to think that they may very well have supported landmark laws in general... until it applied to their building.

The real issue here is corrupt politics in NYC. Why should owners of the Strand and other old buildings have to pay (through decreased property values and development opportunities) to keep the "character of the neighborhood" when others are allowed to build high rises?

My understanding is that this new historic zone was created partially to get other large developments approved.

</comment><comment><USER9> The problem with this sort of thing is that it, in theory, adds value to "the commons." (We preserve historically interesting architecture which is, presumably, mostly good.) But we impose costs on owners/sellers who have less flexibility to change things. Which may make continued use of the property non-viable.

Penn Station gets a lot of attention in this regard. But, at the time, no one was volunteering to step in and pay for renovating Penn Station and operating it given a bankrupt Penn Central railroad.

<comment><USER10> These types of commons have no utility. How about upgrading the subway or building a high speed rail. Actual contributions to the common good rather then nostalgic addictions to preserving the obsolete.

<comment><USER9> You're probably best off moving to a city that hews more to that philosophy. There's definitely a tension. But personally I prefer cities that respect their history to a degree. Obviously individual cases can be controversial--as in this case.

But then I'm mostly not much for very sterile modern cities.

<comment><USER11> Is the New York City subway a landmark that's preserved? There haven't been renovations in most stations for decades.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Isn't the real story here that this family bought the building in 1996 and would stand to profit perhaps a hundred million dollars if they sold it today? The landmark status might cut that value dramatically, maybe by more than half.

Isn't this a more likely reason for the lawsuit than "We won't be able to do exterior renovations as easily"? Wouldn't you be upset if the city devalued your property by fifty million bucks?

<comment><USER13> Sure, but New York is not only for the property owners. I think it's good that we have a say in how our community develops.

Think of it this way, without New Yorkers, this building would be worthless.

<comment><USER14> You can have a say over someone's property by purchasing it. Taking away valuable uses of someone's property (where the use doesn't harm anyone else's property) without compensation is stealing.

<comment><USER15> How constitutional are air rights such as in NY or transfer of development rights such as proposed for Calcutta in this article

[https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jul/02/calcutta- arch...](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jul/02/calcutta-architecture- heritage-destruction-city-campaign-amit-chaudhuri)

<comment><USER14> The Supreme Court thinks New York's landmark designation laws are constitutional, and the air rights system is less invasive than that: [https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/104](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/104).

I think _Penn Central_ was a fantastically wrong decision (Rehnquist and Stevens dissented in that case). Obviously, the fact that a regulation diminishes the value of property is not sufficient to amount to a taking. The government can ban diesel cars and if that renders existing diesel cars worthless, so be it. Height limits (and the concept of air rights trading) can be justified on a similar principle, but they're closer to the borderline. But historical landmark laws are not laws of general effect that happen to impact property values. They are targeted takings of private property without compensation.

<comment><USER15> The landmark laws have had essentially reverse blockbusting/gentrifying effects in poor neighborhoods in New Orleans like Tremé. It's not uncommon for speculators to call in violations like broken stoops or split porch railings and then the same speculator leaves flyers in the mailbox of the "violator" offering to buy for a knockdown price...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> They provided one possible example. Exterior signage.

The owner described it as: "it would "destroy" the popular store." "I call it a bureaucratic noose that's been put on my throat now."

Strong words, has she actually had an issue yet? What changes are needed to keep them competitive?

</comment><comment><USER17> I am more intrigued by the political angle of all of this. If the wife of the United States senator cannot get her way in New York City, I'm curious if that says anything about the political dynamics.

</comment><comment><USER18> > He will argue that the city's actions are unconstitutional under the fifth > amendment, which states "nor shall private property be taken for public use, > without just compensation", and the 14th amendment, which says "nor deny to > any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

I have a strong suspicion that's been tried unsuccessfully before.

<comment><USER19> Is The Strand being compensated? It would be one thing if the the public were purchasing the building or paying for it's use. It doesn't seem like eminent domain or the like where the government compensates for seizure.

<comment><USER20> But it is eminent domain or seizure in its own way. Their autonomy has been stolen. I think the bookstore could make a compelling constitutional case out of it—if they can find a spare million or two behind the sofa.

<comment><USER14> The Supreme Court long ago gutted the Fifth Amendment to enable, among other things, zoning laws (which were conceived as a response to racially discriminatory covenants being held illegal).

<comment><USER20> Regular zoning and heritage are very different though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I still think the most notable thing about this story is that the owner of a New York City bookstore is married to a US Senator from Oregon. The last time this came up people said she's usually in the store when they visit.

</comment><comment><USER22> Is it weird that my first thought reading this article was the episode of Freakanomics where they talked about how putting animals on the endangered species list caused the price for their hides/mounted heads to go through the roof, and indirectly increase the demand and likelihood of poaching?

It's very sad that so many ways we go about trying to preserve history end up promoting it's destruction.

<comment><USER23> _The requisite posting of the Cobra effect whenever something like this comes up_

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

<comment><USER22> Didn't know it had a name, thanks!

<comment><USER24> You might also be interested then in Reactance.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_\(psychology\)) Another example is where a product is banned like phosphate containing detergents which causes the market to go out and buy it all up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> How is it that the government can change the legal status of something it doesn't own? That's like walking into my great-aunt's house and declaring that because she's the last human being on earth with shag carpeting she isn't allowed to put in wood flooring. I'd burn the place to the ground before surrendering my rights.

<comment><USER26> We gave up that right when building permits became a thing.

They were meant only to prevent city-wide fires. As with everything government, once the _process_ was established, the _purpose_ for using it could be stretched and expanded easily.

<comment><USER27> A city-wide fire is a negative externality created by irresponsible management. I'd rather such issues be resolved by courts, but can absolutely see the case.

A historical building is effectively a positive externality provided by the owner. The state cannot ethically force you to provide such a thing, nor can it do so without just compensation (Constitution.) The takings clause is very clear on this; you are preserving a building for public benfit, so the only Constitutional way to do it is by acquisition at fair market rates.

<comment><USER26> I personally agree with you, but the courts typically don't. I'm merely explaining the legal mechanism which began the restrictive creep. Over reaction to the fires of 100+ years ago, plus some insurance industry lobbying.

Some courts have ruled the way you describe, but more have ruled that it's not a legal taking, since no real-property rights are actually lost via conveyance (in the legal, non-moveable property sense). The _value_ of those rights might be reduced, but the right is still yours; it wasn't a legal taking. They view it as being not much different than a bad neighbor bringing down property values.

Personally, I don't think they should even be able to do it via the takings clause. If implemented at all, it should be strictly opt-in, similar to how zoning is initially adopted in new or annexed jurisdiction.

(Also it's not "public benefit", it's "public use". It's often _interpreted_ by courts as public benefit now, but that's something else I disagree with.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The Strand used to be fantastic when it was just a gigantic used book store, but ever since it started focusing more on new books its become a shadow of its former self. So I can't say I'd miss it nearly as much now as I would have 20 years ago.

That said, it's a sad day when any bookstore goes out of business, especially one with a rich history like The Strand (despite most of that history being behind it now).

<comment><USER29> I'm a relatively new New Yorker (I've shopped at the Strand for 6 years). Can you expound on this a little bit more?

I've found that while the inventory on a given day might not be super stellar, the sheer volume of books that flow through their hands is the true value they provide to the ecosystem. I see them as more of a used book broker than a museum for used books.

As an example to explain what I mean, 2 years ago I added to my wishlist some obscure book, last printed in the 80s by a small midwestern university publisher. Two weeks ago, I received an email saying that they had just put it on the shelf! That evening, I walked in, found it more or less immediately, and wandered about looking for particular fiction authors, before finding a marvelously-illustrated classic in two volumes, that was printed in the 1940s. I left maybe $40 poorer. This story repeats itself every month or two.

While you might be able to find such things on Amazon, I find that the Strand both beckons you to search _and_ rewards you for that search. I don't think anything in New York competes with them, pound for pound.

While, I agree that their branding and marketing focus has shifted a lot towards "trendy", newer material (i.e. where the real money is), I'm skeptical of the notion that the quality or range of their used goods have declined proportionally, if at all.

<comment><USER28> It's not just their branding and marketing that focuses on new books. They have devoted a significant amount of shelf space in the store to new books. Virtually all that shelf space used to be taken up by used books, so the selection of used books available there was both much broader and much deeper.

That fantastic selection of books did not make The Strand a used book museum but rather a world class used bookstore -- a position they've suffered a self- inflicted fall from, though they're still relatively good, but only because so many other used bookstores have either gone out of business or closed their brick and mortar shops and transitioned to selling completely online.

So kudos to them for surviving as a brick and mortar shop, but we should recognize the price they and we have had to pay for that survival.

<comment><USER29> Genuinely curious because I only know the last few years, but virtually all of the "shelf" space is still occupied with used books, and the only new books are on the islands.

Are you saying there were fewer islands and more stacks in the past? I can definitely empathize if that's the case; it seems like a solid 1/3 of the floor space is islands nowadays.

That being said, as you alluded to, I think it's a smart trade-off that's allowed them to stay afloat, seeing as the bulk of their revenue must come from new publications and the publisher events. However, I think I still hold on to my assertion that their selection remains deep and broad, but I willingly capitulate that it's been stretched over a wider span of time. The misplaced gems inevitably seem to surface there, given enough time.

I think that, as long as us good New Yorkers continue to sell our books to the Strand instead of Amazon, we'll be in decent shape. :)

<comment><USER30> > Are you saying there were fewer islands and more stacks in the past?

was never a newyorker but did briefly visit the strand in ~2002, and from my fuzzy recollection (wasn't in the market for a book at the time) it was pretty much entirely all giant stacks.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Amazon accounts closed without explanation - <AUTHOR> http://www.westernmassnews.com/story/37853683/amazon-accounts-closed-without-explanation <comment><AUTHOR> There are a lot of unknowns right now. Amazon support has just excuses, but more and more reports come in that they seem to have a technical glitch. The support here is also not on par.

Outside of the "breaking the TOS" one of the biggest reports is that users requested an account closure themself. This is obviously a lie and also affects accounts with 2FA.</comment>


An oral history of the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit - <AUTHOR> https://www.theringer.com/tech/2018/5/18/17362452/microsoft-antitrust-lawsuit-netscape-internet-explorer-20-years <comment> aaron-lebo No matter what shine Microsoft or Gates have since put on their actions, this should never be forgotten. This was a person and company so greedy that billions upon billions weren't enough, complete control was necessary.

Has Gates ever come out and acknowledged that his actions at that time were wrong?

In retrospect it's kind of amazing that the government even took the actions they did there. It's hard to imagine today. The article touches on it, but the big companies seem to have wizened up to it. They don't need or want complete control, they just want control of their customers. Every once in awhile they'll send off a 1984-ish salvo against each other, but actually outright winning is too costly. It's way too productive to just screw over customers, and they all do it, because they can.

The discussion about Google and others at the end is interesting:

 _He understood completely what Microsoft was doing, and, as I like to say, there are only about eight plays in the monopolist's playbook. He saw all of them. So that when he got market power [as the CEO of Google], he could execute those same kinds of exclusionary plays and he knew exactly what to do. He knew what worked for Microsoft and what didn't. It's a very, very parallel situation. … There are no coincidences here._

Unfortunately with government as it is in the US, it's probably not going to save us. It's going to take new, better companies to beat the current giants. Hopefully some of you are trying.

As an aside, this video of the Windows 95 launch is great. Ballmer is naturally acting like an idiot, but there's Gates in the background, so seemingly mild, but whom was in fact one of the most cutthroat businessmen in the world

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

<comment><USER2> Like clockwork, this kind of anti-MS comment get downvoted on HN. I've been fascinated by this, what am I missing?

Gates is highly celebrated now, but it seems like he was the furthest thing from a fair and honest competitor. If Gates and Ballmer had their way, I don't want to even imagine what the internet would look like today.

<comment><USER3> Most anti-Microsoft comments don't get downvoted. Out of curiosity, I looked through [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=microsoft&sort=byDate&dateRang...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=microsoft&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0) for recent negative comments about Microsoft, and 3 out of 4 were upvoted. For example, [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17162203](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17162203) was heavily upvoted.

Most things people say about HN comments aren't true in general, but only of the subset of comments that the person happens to notice. And we notice the things we dislike way more than we notice everything else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was an insider at Netscape, not "name" person but I was there for all the important moments. I wish I could tell all my stories, but then it would be easy to identify me and I'm content not being identified.

Having watched the game from a front row seat, there was no honor in what he did, not just to Netscape, but to everyone that crossed his path. I was embarrassed for him on numerous occasions. The usual yardstick by which we measure success is monetary, and by that measure Gates is one of the best, as a person he left more than a lot to be desired. He is currently doing good work, but he still leaves a lot to be desired as a humanitarian, it's more self serving than it should be, but than again, Gates just wants to let us all know that it's his world and we are just living in it.

It takes a certain personality type to step on the throat of a tiny competitor just because you want an extra dollar or two of profit, I'm not referring to Netscape in this example. Of course I can't imagine how Larry Ellison would have acted had he Microsoft's monopoly, that thought really makes me shudder, and I got to see Larry up close and personal as well.

Gates did what the government allowed him to do, he was able to exploit IBM's former monopoly and create a new monopoly.

<comment><USER5> > He is currently doing good work, but he still leaves a lot to be desired as > a humanitarian, it's more self serving than it should be, but than again, > Gates just wants to let us all know that it's his world and we are just > living in it.

I can rarely discern my own motives for an action with any great certainty, impressive that you're so accurately able to assess his.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The thing about oral histories is that they are oral histories. The oral history of Microsoft v. Netscape is only interesting because it elides the story of Netscape. Andreesen was able to found Andreesen Horowitz only because by scholarly historical accounts Netscape was a tremendously successful startup by the standard startup metrics: Netscape's founders found themselves incredibly wealthy and initial investors like Kleiner Perkins achieved good internal rates of return (IRR) and anyone in the general public who bought and held Netscape shares near the closing price on the day of the IPO did well when Netscape sold to AOL for $10 billion a few years later. If there's a villain in Netscape's trajectory it's AOL. Or hubris: Netscape's engineers decided to rewrite it from the ground up.

Like all oral histories, this one has its tribal roots. One of the distinct features of Microsoft is that Silicon Valley venture capital wasn't involved. In part because Microsoft isn't a Silicon Valley company and hence not a Silicon Valley success story. In fact it is the worst kind of not-a-Silicon- Valley success story. It made 10,000 ordinary employees millionaire or better rich, the founders even richer, and Silicon Valley venture capital standing outside, noses pressed against the glass.

The laissez-faire/libratarian/randian Silicon Valley business culture celebrating Microsoft's anti-trust as a morality play is perfectly titrated irony. Or sour grapes.

<comment><USER7> "It made 10,000 ordinary employees millionaire or better rich, the founders even richer"

soft-pedalling here much? The founder became THE RICHEST man in THE WORLD for TWENTY+ straight years. Any other large sources of income, in say, the entire world?

M$FT under the shark-like junior managers became close to a Mafia, using threats, law-suits and marketing soft-money bribery to run roughshod over an industry. Buying and killing companies by the dozen, or simply crushing them for bragging rights at the golf course well after monopoly power was in effect.

The defense of 10,000 engineers got rich has a bad smell to it, considering there are now 2.5 million programmers in the US alone and who-knows-how-many worldwide. Look at the leadership and the actions, as well as the booty.

<comment><USER8> In a sense, Gates is still the wealthiest, if including the amount he's spent/given.

Sure there was some degree of villainy, but nothing compared to the kind perpetrated by less famous companies that pollute and/or murder. Microsoft's evil was the kind of first-world problem that we love to get distracted by. Conversely, Gates' charity mostly affects people the "developed" countries like to ignore/exploit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I will never understand how MS execs didn't go to jail for contempt of court when their fraudulent video was exposed.

Nor how David Boies went from there to representing SCO. Or how SCO counsel and execs alike avoided contempt of court, with their own shenanigans. Getting caught lying to a jury is one thing, lying to the judge...

<comment><USER10> My favorite is the OS/2 2.0 debacle BTW.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> One thing that happened after the finding of fact (in early 2000) is that the Microsoft stock price fell in half and stayed roughly at that value for the next ~15 years. So even if the actual government anti-trust actions didn't seem that dramatic, there was definitely a measurable effect.

As someone who was at Microsoft during this era and down in Silicon Valley in the 2000's, I'm very much glad that it did happen. Although I did make money while I was at Microsoft, it's difficult for me to imagine how the things I worked on after I left (such as an early consumer smartphone) would have been possible with Microsoft at full strength.

</comment><comment><USER12> The trouble with poor Netscape was their browser crashed constantly, and IE crashed much less often. People preferred IE. Netscape simply shipped a much crappier browser.

I had both installed for a while, and finally deleted the Netscape one. Nobody coerced me.

</comment><comment><USER10> My favorite is Browsium: [https://twitter.com/yuhong2/status/925794295675731968](https://twitter.com/yuhong2/status/925794295675731968)</comment>


I found your mitten - <AUTHOR> http://tapestry.is/PVIke

<comment><USER2> Jennifer Gooch worked on an identical art project at least 5 years ago. The website used to be onecoldhand.com, but it seems to be a link farm now.

You can read more about Jennifer's project at [http://www.cmu.edu/homepage/innovation/2008/winter/one- cold-...](http://www.cmu.edu/homepage/innovation/2008/winter/one-cold- hand.shtml) or watch a presentation about this project at <http://www.allartburns.org/dorkbot/dorkbot-200801-jenn.m4v> (244 Mb M4V)

</comment><comment><USER3> That's very cute. But the pedant in me will not let this pass without noting that many of what you've found are in fact gloves. Mittens do not have fingers. I'm sorry to have to point that out :) On the other hand (groan) you are helping the semi-gloveless too, so well done for that.

<comment><USER4> I wonder - is a mitten a type of glove, or is a glove a type of mitten? Or is it neither, or both, or does it depend on where you live?

To me, a mitten is a type of glove. But I'd be willing to believe that where the author lives the semantic relationship is commonly understood to be the other way around.

<comment><USER5> >I wonder - is a mitten a type of glove, or is a glove a type of mitten? Or is it neither, or both, or does it depend on where you live?

It's 2013, you don't have to wonder. Look it up!

<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mitten>

<comment><USER4> That entry just has a definition and some etymological notes. At best, it only tells you what one particular source on the subject has to say.

It does absolutely nothing to address the entirety of my question - an answer to that would require some comparative scholarship on actual usage in various regions.

<comment><USER6> The perspective of Google Images:

[http://www.google.com/search?q=mitten&tbm=isch](http://www.google.com/search?q=mitten&tbm=isch)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm thinking that it would be very interesting to make a search tool for this kind of things using color searching technology like in this thread:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5180830>

</comment><comment> jack-r-abbit Brilliant! I've often thought about doing something like this... but with shoes. Except mine was more of a market place where people who found one single shoe could trade with other people that needed a match... even if they were not originally belonging to the same person. Obviously my idea is doomed to flop... but it sounded funny.

</comment><comment><USER8> thank god someone found my mitten! it's the one on slide #3. thanks @slbedard!!

</comment><comment><USER9> There is a lost gloves collection at Oxo: <http://www.oxo.com/UniversalDesign.aspx> #ifoundmanymittens

</comment><comment><USER10> Sort of like dating app for mittens? :)</comment>


Eric Drexler: How to Understand Everything (and Why) - <AUTHOR> http://metamodern.com/2009/05/17/how-to-understand-everything-and-why/

<comment><USER2> _In a follow-on post, I plan to say more about the method of study that I've found effective. I got rolling with the new journal sections of the MIT libraries, but today, the internet should serve even better._

 _That_ may turn out to be the more valuable post -- I hope to see it on the front page here whenever it's ready.</comment>


Webcluster setup with Ansible - <AUTHOR> https://felixglaeske.de/webcluster-setup-with-ansible/

<comment><USER2> Were you intending to publish a link to your Ansible playbooks hosted somewhere, if not could you do so and and a link in the post so we can feedback on those too?

<comment><USER3> I am not the author but i think this is it:

[https://github.com/soupdiver/ansible- cluster](https://github.com/soupdiver/ansible-cluster)

<comment><AUTHOR> yip that's the link to the repo!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > The web servers also needed some more RAM for using composer.

I've run into this issue when provisioning within Vagrant with my project Vaprobash - I fixed it by setting up some swap, which Trusty64 doesn't seem to have enabled by default. [https://github.com/fideloper/Vaprobash/blob/master/scripts/b...](https://github.com/fideloper/Vaprobash/blob/master/scripts/base.sh#L57-L77)

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah this also possible but my first thought was to just give some more RAM to the machine :>

<comment><USER4> I didn't have the link to your project before, it's using Vaprobash! Nice :D

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah I'm coming from the Laravel world so this was known to me and an easy starting point

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is very good. Thanks for sharing and documenting them.

I have also built a drag and drop UI which can be used to configure a web cluster setup on any cloud. www.xervmon.com. The videos are available on the youtube channel. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5s7L2LwaKY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5s7L2LwaKY)

</comment><comment><USER6> If you are running out of memory with composer, do not use composer update, use composer install. You are using lock files, right? :)</comment>


Ask HN: Why is there no $10,000+ luxury smartphones? - <AUTHOR> Tons of people are willing to spend thousands of dollars on fancy clothes, jackets, purses, sunglasses, etc. So why is there no ultra expensive (but also VERY POWERFUL) smartphones out there? <comment><USER2> Here you go: Phones that range from $13,300 to $31,700

[http://www.vertu.com/us/en/collections/signature/shop- collec...](http://www.vertu.com/us/en/collections/signature/shop-collection/)

The most expensive phone on that page is $31,700:

[http://www.vertu.com/us/en/collections/signature/shop- collec...](http://www.vertu.com/us/en/collections/signature/shop- collection/red-gold-black-dlc/600724-001-01.html?cgid=12500)

I believe they come with their own concierge service.

<comment><USER3> I can't help wondering whether the effect the design of those phones have on the average person spotting them is less "wow, polished ceramic pillow, red gold detailing and alligator-skin case" and more "wow, that guy over there keeps bragging about how rich he is then pulls some cheap phone that looks like the one I had in the late 90s out of his pocket"

Or maybe they're just way ahead of the curve when it comes to the inevitable retro craze for turn-of-the-century phone design

<comment><USER4> It doesn't matter, for several reasons:

Smartphones have no exclusivity or wealth signaling potential; both the rich and the poor can afford one. They're basically the new feature phone. I don't think anyone would brag about something everyone could afford. (i.e: no rich person would brag about an iPhone).

Some of the most expensive things go unnoticed to the 'untrained' eye. It might be by design in an inside joke spirit. Not many would recognize John Lobb shoes, Scabal suits, or Patek Philippe watches.. I wouldn't, but some would. They _do_ look good and have an appeal to the hacker inside everyone who loves things well made, especially things _custom_ made. Bespoke shoes is as 'hackery' as it gets.

> _Or maybe they 're just way ahead of the curve when it comes to the > inevitable retro craze for turn-of-the-century phone design_

Vertu's design has been consistent over the years as far back as I can remember.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Because the price/capability curve over time for modern electronics is nowhere near linear. So to get a new phone at the front of the capability curve is very expensive, and will be considered nowhere near the front within a single season. So your bang/buck ratio for spending that amount buying luxury just doesn't go very far.

<comment><USER6> Exactly.

Compare that to a watch, clothes, or sunglasses, where an $X item today is the same as an $X item next year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here's one for $16k USD: [http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/31/11818358/sirin- labs-solari...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/31/11818358/sirin-labs-solarin- privacy-smartphone-hands-on-photos)

The website is the most over the top displays of form over function I've ever seen: [https://www.sirinlabs.com/](https://www.sirinlabs.com/)

<comment><USER8> That sphere's awesome, though :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Luxury smartphones exist, but they are mostly variants of existing smartphones with bling added (gold, diamonds, ...), I think sometimes sold with concierge services and stuff like that. People don't care that much about technical differences, especially since they wouldn't be all that large. Current top-of- the-line smartphones already are pretty dang close to the maximum that is technically possible at any given time. A few more extra features (stuff like multi-sim, bigger memory) might work out, but that's not something people are willing to pay a lot more money for.

</comment><comment><USER10> 1) It costs a lot of money to develop smartphones. To justify a higher price, you'd need to spend a lot of money on people to develop a better phone. It's almost certain that you won't be able to compete with Google or Apple on research budget since there are a limited number of people willing to spend $10,000+ on a phone, so your market is gonna be small.

2) People don't want to switch ecosystems. Say you develop a new platform to compete with Android and ios and you come up with something better (that's a big if). Assuming only your $10k+ phones have that new OS, developers won't want to make apps for your phone. So you'll end up needing to be compatible with Android in order to get access to all of their apps. Most likely, you'll end up just using Android like some Vertu phones do. And then people will wonder why they are spending so much money on a phone that is basically just an Android phone and does the same thing as any other Android phone. Maybe you'll have slightly higher specs, but the flagship phones from the current big companies already have specs that are high enough for most users.

3) Cellphones become outdated quickly. If I spend $10K on a phone, I'm still not going to want to use it in 10 years from now. A lot of luxury items are made to last for a long time. I have sunglasses (not particularly luxurious ones) that are 12 years old. I'll concede that many luxury items are _not_ made to last long, but for many of them, there is at least a perception of quality.

4) Cellphones stay in your pocket and aren't as visible as many luxury items such as bags or clothing.

</comment><comment><USER11> An old watch doesn't become bad at telling time, so you can invest a lot of money in it and keep it as jewellery for a long time.

A smart phone ends up being bad at being a smart phone after a few years. Apps stop working, web pages start loading slowly etc.

So there is much more prestige in getting the new iPhone before your peers, than owning an expensive-on-the-outside, but slow on the inside phone.

With that being said, there are companies that will tear your iPhone apart and place it inside a gold enclosure and others that will sell extremely expensive handsets. I tried talking to a jeweller about vertu phones back when they were still Nokia phones, and he tried to explain to me that people who invest ~$15.000 in a phone don't care about screen resolution or OS versions. I didn't understand why anybody would pay extra to get what was essentially a 2-3 year old.

</comment><comment><USER12> For the same reason there's not really any $10,000 cpu's, monitors, keyboards. You can charge more, but you can't add much more value, and if managed to, you might have to charge 100k. Some things are very very hard to make better. I predict posts with laser projectors and extremely rare and marginally better tech after this :)

<comment><USER11> $100k watch doesn't tell time better than a $10 watch.

But phones, like watches are very much a fashionable accessory, so it should be ripe for the same high-price segments as watches.

<comment><USER13> You may find that most, if not all 100k+ watches are full automatics of varying complications. When someone makes a wholly mechanical smart phone, then yeah, they will probably charge 100k for it ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There are some bling-encrusted luxury phones like Vertu. In terms of power, it isn't really possible to build anything more powerful than flagship phones.

<comment><USER15> Took a look at those, they aren't very attractive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Because I don't think it would be a multi-billion $ business. It has to be something more than just a smartphone.

</comment><comment><USER17> Because producing a custom powerful phone (not just adding diamonds) will likely cost you much more than $10K per.</comment>


David Heinemeier Hansson on Rewriting Basecamp Code, Twice - <AUTHOR> http://businessofsoftware.org/2015/10/david-heinemeier-hansson-rewrite-basecamp-business-of-software-conference-video-dhh-bos2015/?hn <comment><USER2> Hangout looks good.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hope it will be! We are trying to do something similar with all of the Business of Software Conference talks. The conference is not cheap to attend (but is run in a nice hotel with great food, talks and people. It is unsponsored and space is restricted, so not everyone can attend).

The Hangouts are free to join and give people a chance to watch the talks and follow up with the speakers with Q&A.</comment></comment>


The Post-Ownership Society - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/junejulyaugust_2015/features/the_postownership_society055896.php?page=all <comment><USER3> There didn't seem to be a lot of strong arguments for the points made in this article. Most of the situation the author finds herself in seems to be due to a poor economy in general (lower pay, rising housing, education and health care costs) and bad financial decisions (not saving up money, buying expensive food, etc), then having anything to do with the sharing economy and not owning something.

The author seems to be under the impression that prior to the sharing economy, there weren't middle men still taking a cut for providing vehicles, leasing (or subletting) apartments or providing other services/assets that were needed to do a business. The question would be whether Uber, Zipcar, Etsy, etc are taking any more of a cut than a a more traditional taxi medallion, a car dealership, an art gallery, etc. I suspect they are taking less, since they are transferring a lot of the risk of owning the property and running a business to their contractors.

I don't think owning things in general creates wealth. Making smart financial decisions does. If you own a car and are paying a good amount of money to park, insure, maintain and purchase/lease that vehicle and don't drive it enough to justify that expense., it may make a lot more financial sense to use Zipcar, Uber and other public transportation. Similarly it may make sense to invest in owning enough kitchen supplies to prepare your own food instead of eating out all the time (or it may not, it just depends on your situation)

<comment><USER4> _I don 't think owning things in general creates wealth. Making smart financial decisions does._

It's difficult to defend that kind of position when the only viable choices available range from bad to worse. By any rational standard, as someone a little older than the Millenials described in this article, I should be well off -- degree from a good university, work in tech industry, run my own small business these days, etc. -- and yet I have essentially no chance of buying a viable long-term family home in the city where I live.

It doesn't make a lot of difference how carefully I save or how hard I work to grow the company revenues, because we simply don't have enough houses to go around. That means the property bubble just keeps on growing, and those of my parents' generation who bought their first home multiple decades ago are now buying up the new ones as well, to use as investments and let out as rentals. They can make more money doing that than all but the most successful and fast- growing business can generate or the very highest paid jobs will pay, and it's effectively passive income most of the time, so the cycle continues with the gap widening by the day.

The next generation are even worse off, with pressure to have a degree to get just about any kind of job these days leaving them with tens of thousands in student debts before they even start their first job and in most cases doomed to spend much of their 20s just trying to keep up.

<comment><USER3> That's a fair statement. I should have stated my original position being that making smart financial decisions creates wealth _more_ than simply owning things. Obviously access to education, capital, laws that favor certain classes of people, and just plain luck all influence one's ability to create wealth.

That being said, the smart financial decision, in your position, might be to relocate to a different city with significantly cheaper housing, education, food, etc. That has the social/emotional downside of not being as near to friends, family or the things that you like in your city, which may not be it worth it to you.

If a lot of people want to live in a certain area, and there is limited space to construct housing (or laws that prohibit new construction) its hard to see how prices would be able to stay low.

What do you think the best solution to this problem would be? In my mind, the biggest problem is that we have laws that favor bigger companies and richer people and provider an unfair advantage to those people. (some big companies pay no income tax for example, where that's not an option for a smaller businesses, or small businesses or poorer people can't defend themselves in civil cases due to excessive legal costs)

<comment><USER4> _That being said, the smart financial decision, in your position, might be to relocate to a different city with significantly cheaper housing, education, food, etc. That has the social /emotional downside of not being as near to friends, family or the things that you like in your city, which may not be it worth it to you._

One difficulty with this is that moving somewhere cheaper often also means moving somewhere that work is harder to find and/or doesn't pay as well, so you can easily find that your gains are mostly cancelled out and you're just saving up even more slowly relative to more expensive areas with better paid work.

In any case, as you say, it's just not worth it to me to move somewhere far from the region where most of my family and friends live, my hobbies are well catered for, and work/schools/other practical facilities are readily available.

 _What do you think the best solution to this problem would be?_

Build more houses -- _lots and lots_ more houses. It's really as simple as that.

Here in the UK at present, we build very roughly half as many houses per year as most credible commentators reckon we need to support demand, and we have been underdeveloping for decades now. There is no need for artificial "help to buy" schemes, punitive taxes on landlords or holiday home owners or people with large homes, or any of that other complicated economic stuff the great and powerful keep talking about. Just build enough houses for everyone to find somewhere to live and the rest will take care of itself.

In reality, this means fixing our horrendously broken and onerous planning system. Right now, private individuals are up against a barrage of complexity and ambiguity if they want to build/extend themselves, so most new homes are built as part of large-scale commercial developments. Those developments typically receive planning consent on the basis of having a certain proportion of so-called affordable housing -- itself something of a joke in a city like mine, because no teacher or nurse or office junior can actually afford even an entry-level place -- but then the developers have a whole box of tricks for managing to build/sell the high-end, expensive, more profitable homes first and somehow a lot of the affordable ones never quite seem to get built.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Any time you read words like this:

"We're a generation in which children were empowered by promises that they could grow up to be anything they wanted to be."

You should remember that, since 1973, wages have been declining for the majority of men in the USA:

[http://www.smashcompany.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/Scree...](http://www.smashcompany.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/Screen-Shot-2014-03-31-at-12.13.58-PM.png)

Women have seen some modest improvement in wages, but for the most part, the era since 1973 has been a very bad one for American workers.

For young men, the problems started as early as the recession of 1958. That was the year that the ratio of average wage to average rent hit its all time best, making it easy for a young couple to set themselves up with their own place. For that reason, this was also the peak of the Baby Boom.

<comment><USER6> Wages being flat/declining is solely because compensation has shifted from wages to non-wage compensation.

[https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/COMPRNFB](https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/COMPRNFB)

Things have been fine for workers.

<comment><USER7> Simply holding a ruler up to the graph you cited reveals your conclusion to be complete bullshit. If the straight-line trend that obtained up the early 1970s had continued then the indexed compensation would be closer to 130 than the 110 it currently is. What sort of idiots do you take us for?

Don't even get me started on all the rent-seeking and tax acrobatics surrounding non-wage compensation. I would much rather just get paid cash and pay a somewhat higher rate of income tax than waste time trying to optimize some endless menu of benefit packages that require the skills of a CPA to analyze properly.

<comment><USER6> I didn't claim a specific linear trend was followed, I claimed that comp went up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Achieving those things was always in the future, at some relatively well- > moneyed point that I was expecting would roll around— until I realized the > future had dawned and the financial stability hadn't appeared

Well gosh, maybe you have to actually _do something_ to make financial stability happen instead of just expecting that it will magically materialize one day when you hit a certain age.

<comment><USER9> There is an element of truth in what you say, and yet it is not completely true.

It used to be that, if you wanted to make it as a writer, you got a job at a factory or a restaurant or something to pay the bills while you tried to make it as a writer. (It was called a "day job".) You wrote before or after work, or on the subway to or from work - all the time you could find, in fact. You didn't have much of a social life, because all your spare time went into writing.

And, reading the article, the author shows a lot of evidence of "not doing something". She expects to be able to make a living as a writer right out of the gate. (In fairness, she did have an actual magazine job at one time.) She's buying wine at bars and $8 coffees, and then she doesn't have enough money for renting an apartment. It's like she's paying _no attention at all_ to what she's doing financially, and then she's surprised that she doesn't hit that well-moneyed point when she expects financial stability to appear.

So that's the element of truth in what you say. The not-completely-true part is this: An awful lot of good-paying, long-term-stable jobs have disappeared, and they aren't coming back. This makes it considerably harder for large chunks of the population to make it to that relatively-well-moneyed point of stability.

<comment><USER7> You're both ignoring an important contextual clue.

 _We'd have $8 drip coffee in the mornings with a rosemary or lavender scone, or something else ridiculously fancy, rubbing shoulders with the people our age and older who actually made money._

Pick up any guide on how to get ahead in business or sales, and it will include advice to project an air of success and engage heavily in networking activities. Now I'm personally pretty frugal, but that in itself can be a limitation. You're not likely to meet your next hot netowrking prospect standing in line at Dunkin' Donuts, even less so making coffee in your kitchen and hunching over your computer at the library.

I'm _not_ saying the way to success is to go out and spend yourself down on fancy coffee. but look at how so many startups operate; they set up very very nice work environments and then burn through their runway cash hoping they can innovate enough to attract another funding round while also attracting talent by creating a great team with a great place to work. This writer is just trying to leverage the same approach that is promoted all over the place. I don't think she's doing a very good job of it, but if you want to meet people who can advance your career then you need to put yourself out there and putting yourself out there costs money.

<comment><USER8> I can concede that most startups operate as you describe. However, most startups also fail. If you fail in a startup, you can dust yourself off and try again. If you fail in _your life_ , you're going to have a harder time of it.

Maybe it's not best to follow the all-or-nothing strategy that works for startups (or, should I say, that works for the VCs that fund them because they can spread their risk over many investments).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > How the "sharing economy" allows Millennials to cope with downward mobility, > and also makes them poorer.

In the author's case, the cause of being poor is high expenses (student loan debt, mainly) and low income.

I dislike the burden of ownership. Sharing can decrease expenses - <USER2> example, living with a roommate. Change driving habits and suddenly you're not as dependent on a car. (I do both these things BTW - the 90% of after tax income I don't spend I invest.)

It seems like the author's perception of poor is "not owning her own primary residence." Perhaps that is a common perspective.

But redefine wealth to mean "controlling cash flowing assets" and I can see how the sharing economy, combined with creativity and planning, actually helps in wealth-building.

<comment><USER11> >>redefine wealth to mean "controlling cash flowing assets"

That's what any sane definition would be. A lot of people seem to use the bizarro-world definition of wealth as "owning cash-gobbling, depreciating assets", such as cars, clothes or (in many cases) houses. Basically they've mistaken the _trappings_ of wealth with the _causes_ of wealth, and then become confused as to why they're not wealthy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> _In reality, though, these are the same types of services that have always been around—private drivers and taxis, hotels, rental car companies—but their services are sliced up into tiny bits and provided by underpaid contingent workers, which is what we are ourselves._

The "sharing economy" has always just been a PR term. I like Airbnb and Uber as services, but it's not a reinvention of human economic interaction. How does a "sharing economy" differ from a rental economy? How does a "sharing economy" differ from any market where people produce services for each other based on reciprocated exchange?

</comment><comment><USER13> So at what point do we as software engineers start paying attention to the outcomes of what we build for society?

A lot of people working in software are building things that, in the aggregate, disempower people and transfer even more power into the hands of the owners of capital.

I know someone who, fully aware of the consequences, is helping build something to replace many food service industry workers with robots. It's a direct transfer of wealth from workers to the owners of capital. I won't work with him, on anything, because of this.

Why are we building this world? What are we thinking?

<comment><USER3> Why? Because people can do something more meaningful with their lives if they are are currently doing something that can replaced by a robot. (There will be other jobs that are created to fill the replaced jobs). Arguing that we should not innovate and progress as a society because it will take away jobs is like arguing that we shouldn't have toilets because it will create less jobs for sanitation workers.

I don't think your notion of transferring wealth from workers to the owners of capital holds much weight in the context of a sharing economy either. It seems to me that a sharing economy is simply a more decentralized way of doing business, in which individuals are leasing their property or providing their services more directly to consumers than before. A centralized economy still provides wealth from workers to the owners of capital (rental car companies, hotels, taxi medallions, etc), perhaps more so than a sharing economy does.

<comment><USER13> Right, but _can_ people actually do anything more meaningful? I work in software not because I like it but because the things I actually like to do, like playing music, writing, or cooking, will never enable me to have a financial safety net. I would be no more "able" to do these things if my job disappeared tomorrow than I am today. What people are more able to "do something more meaningful" because their jobs no longer exist thanks to automation?

I basically agree with you, that automation _could be_ profoundly empowering. But right now it isn't, unless you happen to control the automation technology.

<comment><USER3> The question would be, what comes next after these jobs are automated. I think that's largely unknown.

You could have made the same argument before the industrial revolution, or massive improvements in communications and the internet, but I think we've been better off as a result. of those improvements. People have much better access to information/education and have a wider platform for free speech, as well as being able to live longer.

Hopefully you find writing software more meaningful and enjoyable than the much harder labor jobs that was more common 100 years ago. It could be that an automation revolution, could better enable you to better financially support yourself in those things that you really like to do, and that are harder to automate, since those may become much more valuable in a more automated economy. (Just as music, writing and cooking are arguably more financially viable occupations for more people today than it was 100 years ago)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Not owning assets is the entire idea of the sharing economy. Provided one doesn't get upset about someone else having more than themselves the conclusion of the article could sound just fine:

 _" But in fact we're enriching the owners of whatever app or platform we're using, becoming just a data point on the path to their payday while we age without assets. It's their world, and we're just renting it."_

The argument against sharing economy isn't that we don't own any more. This was what many wanted from the start. It's that some models destroy other important economic frabrics (such as phantom scarcity created through empty airbnb flats). The argument about reducing workers rights and provisions is also valid. But one effect of decentralized digital labour is that unionisation becomes a more effective form of protection. So on this point, it will get interesting.

</comment><comment><USER15> In a highly competitive market, profits for production are driven to zero. The only thing that remains profitable is rent, for ownership of otherwise unshareable resources like land.

We are seeing a shift toward a more idealized, libertarian market. The problem is, in such a market, the only people getting richer are the owner class.

</comment><comment><USER16> _" a lot of us are "entrepreneurial" as we swing from one grapevine to the next as freelancers, but very few of us are building equity in a real business. "_

Indeed many of the people participating in the gig economy are essentially in the same position as a day laborer. Across time and space this class of people has always been the most vulnerable to socio-economic tumult.

The image of rural landless laborers in India and Ethiopia comes to mind. They were always the first to die in a famine.

</comment><comment><USER17> > I don't see the path that would get me from where I am to where they are.

Of course you don't. You _just_ told us about how you have $8 coffee. Our grandparents ate canned vegetables and raised two kids in a 1500 sq ft home and you're complaining that you can't keep up with the Jones' while you sip on $8 coffee on a freelancer writer's budget. This isn't a generational problem, this is a complete lack of understanding of personal finance.

Look, I, as a Millennial, am aware that the average wage has decreased since the 70s. I'm also aware that being a software developer and making software puts other people out of work because we are automating the things that used to be done by hand. I'm further aware that I've had a stable enough upbringing from a middle-class family to teach me a few things on frugality, saving, and making the most of your education. Things definitely seem to be harder than they were, but whatever thesis the author was trying to defend completely went out the window when I read the quoted statement.

</comment><comment><USER18> "We're a generation in which children were empowered by promises that they could grow up to be anything they wanted to be."

I'm part of this generation and I think this sentiment is the the thing I dislike most about my cohort. Nobody ever promised us anything like that. The story was you have the opportunity to be what you want to be, provided you work for it. For some reason, the kids I grew up with took that to mean they deserved whatever they wanted and that there would be no sacrifices involved. It's cliche, but entitled is the most appropriate word for millenials.

It's a moot point though; we were also empowered to question authority and think for ourselves. Anyone who did that realized that we can't all be rock stars.</comment>


Facebook Rolls Out Verified App Program, Plus One Hell Of A Revenue Model For Themselves - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/11/17/facebook-rolls-out-verified-app-program-plus-one-hell-of-a-revenue-model-for-themselves/ <comment><USER2> Misleading title .. stupid article. A maximum of $18m is "hell of a revenue model" for facebook?

<comment><USER3> Agreed, it's not much compared to what facebook promises. But that's over 10% of facebook's 2007 revenue ([http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/31/facebook- finances-leake...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/31/facebook-finances- leaked/)), nothing to sneeze at.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I doubt 50%+ will apply any time soon. I know I won't. It seems like they should be offering something much better for much more money. At $375 it's too much for the casual developer and peanuts for any company serious about their FB app.

</comment><comment><USER5> I invested countless hours in the Facebook platform only to be swept under the rug along with all the other developers. I will not be investing any money.

</comment><comment><USER6> has anyone noticed that Arrington is always the author of these "big news" stories, and all his co-workers always publish junk? This article doesnt even read like he wrote it...</comment>


Ask HN: Why are frameworks necessary when plain HTML/CSS/JS are simpler? - <AUTHOR> I just started to learn react and I was making a simple Login form with it.
I was thinking to make it similar to the one I had made before and it seemed very much simpler with plain old HTML and CSS.
Even though the styling is similar to follow, it's very much simpler in plain CSS. Just add text to classes instead of searching for the style in one of the many files. <comment><USER2> The one question you need to ask yourself when starting a new project: what's the end goal in size and complexity?

If it's only a static website, for instance a blog or your personal portfolio, HTML & CSS with a couple of vanilla JavaScript functions is fine. However, once you add complexity to your application, by using more than a couple of utility JavaScript functions, there needs to be some kind of "framework" to organize your View and Logic. React is used when it comes to organizing your view as components, and JavaScript ES5 and beyond is doing the rest by adding the necessary business logic. That's what makes React so great in the end, because most of it simply stays plain JavaScript [0]. React is only the view layer by organizing your application in components.

In case you are interested, just recently I had written down my thoughts [1] on this questions for people learning React, Angular or Vue nowadays, but questioning why they should learn it in the first place.

\- [0] [https://www.robinwieruch.de/essential-react-libraries- framew...](https://www.robinwieruch.de/essential-react-libraries-framework)

\- [1] [https://www.robinwieruch.de/why-frameworks- matter](https://www.robinwieruch.de/why-frameworks-matter)

</comment><comment><USER3> Well yes, for small simple static projects vanilla HTML/CSS/JS(with jquery though) is probably simpler. The problem is when you reach "real life sized" projects. When a project should do more than show a form and a few images and some text.

Frameworks are useful to standardize how many developers in a single project develop together. It also eases binding dynamic views to datasources (databases or API:s or similar). And as a third i'd say that many of the everyday "gotchas" are sorted out in mature frameworks so the developers can focus on the stuff that actually matters.

I am - on the other hand - one of those who argue that frameworks also bring a lot of evil into development. Especially in JS where frameworks are built on top of frameworks which are built on top of frameworks. But I wont bring out those arguments here since the question was "Why to use frameworks" not "Why to avoid them".

Happy Hacking!

</comment><comment><USER4> Frameworks are needed to get developers past disagreements on organization of code and focus on delivering business value. They also help organize work for larger teams of people working together.

If you are solo and your application is going to be small they are probably unnecessary. If you are learning or already know how to use a framework, then it helps in the long run by taking care of lots of things to make your life easier.

</comment><comment><USER5> People just don't know how to build a website with plain HTML/CSS anymore. Frameworks have dominated the front-end for so long, it's just what you do.</comment>


Behind the success of Monument Valley - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@InVisionApp/secrets-behind-the-success-of-monument-valley-5742bed3e42b <comment><USER2> I wished the article spent some time on how the game was marketed. For example, its appearance in House of Cards surely raised awareness for some consumers. Yes, the design is well thought out and fun to play but there are so many apps in each store that the more interesting challenge is rising above the crowd. Was it all organic? Did they pay for downloads? Do they know someone at Apple who put them on a featured list? Does the game factor into Frank Underwood's grand ambitions in the next season?

<comment><USER3> They got a shitload of press on the day they launched and they were on the App Store featured games/editors choice (not sure which) list on that day or close to (and the update was again on an App Store banner on launch day). They had a tumblr to collect fan art, they were actively promoting on twitter, there are quotes from people on launch day saying "I've been looking forward to this for months" \- so I don't know what the definition of 'organic' is but they definitely put effort into marketing well before release, although it's possible that just involved getting it in front of people and having them all run with it.

their 'the launch went great' blog post: [http://blog.monumentvalleygame.com/blog/2014/4/7/on-top- of-t...](http://blog.monumentvalleygame.com/blog/2014/4/7/on-top-of-the-world)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Monument Valley was a phenomenal game for me. I'm just really sad that with the iOS age some really great games are easily rendered inaccessible by succeeding iOS updates, iDevice obsolescence, or developer account shutdowns. In sharp contrast to traditional gaming, I can easily delve through my stack for particlar cartridges, GameCube disc or comb through eBay for a particular PlayStation One disc. The great old days of 'Published Once. Play Plenty'.

<comment><USER5> It had an Android release, so an old version of bluestacks/equivalent and a pirated .apk should (hopefully) last forever.

I think you're right about iOS though.

<comment><USER4> Never heard of Bluestacks till now, I'll give it a spin. Thanks for the recommendation!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > "gamers aren't just teenage boys in their basement being anti-social."

Currently reading a book that makes a compelling argument that this is part of the process of boys turning into men/adults, so not sure this stereotype is entirely warranted.

<comment><USER7> What's the book?

<comment><USER6> _Participatory Culture in a Networked Era_ by Henrey Jenkins, Mizuko Ito, and Danah Boyd:

[http://www.amazon.com/Participatory-Culture-Networked-Era- Co...](http://www.amazon.com/Participatory-Culture-Networked-Era- Conversation/dp/0745660711/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1448843164&sr=8-1&keywords=participatory+culture+in+a+networked+era)

It's actually pretty interesting so far. The premise is basically back in the 90s many/most early adopters of the Internet (including myself) thought it was going to bring all sorts of beneficial changes to society. This obviously hasn't entirely happened, so it's looking at the state of what's changed, what hasn't, why, what's likely to happen in the future, etc. And it's written as a conversation between the three authors on various questions, which is interesting because each has a slightly different research speciality -- henry is most famous for his work on participatory culture, mimi is most famous for her ethnography of japan, and danah probably most famous for her work on social software and subcultures/outgroups.

A lot of the book is looking at community culture vs corporate culture vs internet culture, and specifically how the web got corporatized or whatever. It's also looking at youth use of social software, especially in the context of the U.S. where kids have very little in the way of autonomy, rights, or freedom to participate in public organizations. (This is where the video gaming stuff comes in.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Monument Valley disrupts the traditional game design paradigm in a number of ways"

Seems like a statement by someone who doesn't really play computer games (or only plays triple-A FPS console titles). Although cool and well-designed, Monument Valley is hardly unique among video games for being calm and contemplative. Cf. Journey (2012), The Endless Forest (2005), Ico (2001), Shadow of the Colossus (2005), etc.

If you want to go down the rabbit hole of the really disruptive (to the point of almost outright hostile) approach to making video games, I have always loved the work of increpare[0], who is sort of the John Waters of indie video games.

[0]: [http://www.increpare.com/](http://www.increpare.com/)

</comment><comment><USER9> I rarely buy games on iOS but this one hooked me and left me wanting more and more. Highly recommend if you haven't played this

</comment><comment><USER10> This is my three-year-old's favorite game. (He only gets iPad time on the weekends.)

He currently can complete a half dozen levels or so by himself. I suspect a lot of it is rote memorization, but I hope the game is helping to develop problem solving skills. He's also fan of Lumino, but the puzzles in that one are a bit beyond him at the moment (e.g. in the first sequence, he does everything except place the lemons on the proper pegs).

And he has kids games that he enjoys (e.g. the Dr Panda ones, and some sorting/matching games that he played when he was younger).

<comment><USER11> There are only 8 levels or did they add more?

Checking I see they list 10 levels but the first 2 are really short

<comment><USER10> It's a lovely game, but yeah, it's short. When it originally came out, I compensated by only allowing myself one level per night at bedtime.

The original game is 10 levels. Later, there was an in app purchase for an additional 8 levels called "forgotten shores". And there was another IAP during the "Project (red)" campaign called "Ida's (red) dream", I think it was one long level. One or more of these may be included in the base game now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> 8 people x 10 months, 2.2M copies, $6M in revenue

(That's from the actual talk, the article got the revenue wrong.)

</comment><comment><USER13> I wish this had been titled "Behind the success of the video game _Monument Valley_ ". I thought I was about to read some cool history about how the park has been revitalized or drawing more visitors. Oh well.</comment>


Show HN: Visit tracking for Rails - <AUTHOR> http://ankane.github.io/ahoy/

<comment><USER2> My e-commerce company started tracking all page visits in the database about a year ago, it's been one of the best decisions we've made.

It's amazing to have all of your data in one database, you can do so much with that data. I can answer virtually any question about how people interact with our sites without needing to closely integrate with 3rd party services.

Sure, if you have thousands of visits a second, you need to put some thought into handling that load, but it's definitely doable and not too hard. Once we get to that point, we'll probably have the page views going to another dedicated databases and use postgres_fdw to handle the queries across the two databases.

</comment><comment><USER3> Won't this absolutely hammer your database with real-time writes?

<comment><USER4> You could also run a secondary db and use db_charmer or something to set the writes on a different db

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This looks great! I was just thinking I needed something like this a couple days ago, and then this popped up on HN today. I will definitely check it out.

I haven't had a chance to dig too deeply into it yet, but is the info stored in a session cookie and then you can decide if/when to write it to the db? For example, if I didn't want to write every unique visit to the db, but only when a user signs up, or signs in, or takes some action x, do I have the flexibility of when I write to the db?

<comment><AUTHOR> Currently, a visit record is created as soon as a user lands on a page with the Javascript, but I'm curious to see other ways people want to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why not just log your visits and explore them in something like Splunk?

</comment><comment><USER7> Any stats on how much of a load this puts on the existing app?

Could this send to redis or a delayed job and be eventually consistent to database for non-logged in users?

<comment><USER8> Redis, yes. Perfect for this kind of thing. delayed_job might make less sense, since delayed_job still INSERTs to the database.

I haven't benchmarked it specifically but I'd have to guess your time savings to store the information in a postgresql job queue vs the visits table would be negligible at best.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Nice work Andrew. No specs though? :(

</comment><comment><USER10> nice work. one of the biggest problems with external tracking services (mixpanel/kissmetrics/google analytics) is reconciling the data with what's present in your database. this solves that problem really well. great start

<comment><USER11> I'm not familiar with the other analytics providers, but can't you track certain events (like orders and charges) and bind properties to them using Mixpanel? This could help you reconcile the data in your database.

<comment><USER12> you can track server side events with google analytics too (if using universal analytics).

I would have no idea how to add the data if you hadn't been tracking it already though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Easy setup and integration so far!</comment>


The Zed Shaw Phenomenon: A Look at Bullies in Tech - <AUTHOR> http://blog.davewilkinsonii.com/posts/the-zed-shaw-phenomenon

<comment><USER2> Is there a time in the future where we stop talking about software and spend all our time talking about feelings? These two guys (Linus/Zed) are mostly devoting their time to developing free open source software. Not everyone has to be the way you want them to be, but if you do not like the way an open source project is being managed feel free to fork it, that is the real recourse to these sort of discussions fork away. If your method of management is superior, the software will reflect it thus.

If you are not prepared to do that, to do exactly what the people you are critical of are doing then maybe keep these discussions about how other people should be living their lives to yourself.

</comment><comment><USER3> Zed Shaw is an easy target because he comes across as an asshole online and he's very opinionated, but he's actually a total sweetheart IRL.</comment>


The Eye – Open Directory Data Archive - <AUTHOR> https://the-eye.eu/ <comment><USER2> :D

Very cool to see one of my internet homes here. I'm one of the mods/devs here and would love to highlight some of our recent datasets as well try my best to answer any questions! We're very active in the r/DataHoarders community on Reddit and regularly help out in the efforts to save large sites from disappearing offline as well as helping ease the distribution of hot content.

\- [https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/exdka0//](https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/exdka0//) The Coronavirus Papers

\- [https://old.reddit.com/r/HofellerDocuments/comments/enj8f0//](https://old.reddit.com/r/HofellerDocuments/comments/enj8f0//) The Hofeller Files

\- [https://old.reddit.com/r/opendirectories/comments/cy8jry//](https://old.reddit.com/r/opendirectories/comments/cy8jry//) eXoDOS v4.0

\- [https://the-eye.eu/public/Games/Flashpoint_7.1_Ultimate.7z](https://the- eye.eu/public/Games/Flashpoint_7.1_Ultimate.7z) Mirror of [https://bluemaxima.org/flashpoint/](https://bluemaxima.org/flashpoint/)

\- [https://searchin.the-eye.eu/](https://searchin.the-eye.eu/) Full-text search of a few of datasets

\- [https://discord.gg/the-eye](https://discord.gg/the-eye) Our wonderful community on Discord

<comment><USER3> Related article discussing the coronavirus papers: [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z3b3v5/archivists-are- byp...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z3b3v5/archivists-are-bypassing- paywalls-to-share-studies-about-coronaviruses)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sounds awesome! But,

> community driven platform dedicated to the archiving and long-term > preservation of any and all data

> We pay $650/month to cover all of our services ([...]) and are entirely > community funded.

This sounds optimistic. What reason is there to think the community will continue the financial support in the long-term?

<comment><USER5> I know a good amount a professionals using it to dig olders builds of software. The Eye is actually better than Microsoft (at least for people without a msdn account) at archiving VS installers, Windows isos, etc.

<comment><USER6> As you brought this up I should mention we're currently moving those collections to faster storage and they will be available again later in the week. MSDN is still our most popular content by volume, crazy how much attention it's seen over the years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> [https://parazite.the-eye.eu/](https://parazite.the-eye.eu/)

Hmmmmmmmmm

<comment><USER8> what is this?

EDIT: nvm after scrolling a bit I see now

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This site is a treasure box :3

</comment><comment><USER10> After a brief poke, this seems like some highfalutin language around a random collection of pirated files, like an old FTP server from 1990... with the same "bandwidth exceeded" errors.

<comment><USER2> Which files did you experience an error? While we do rate limit the amount of parallel incoming connections, many of our directories have no bandwith limits and the site is hosted colo on a 10gbps line. You can also view our current traffic at [https://the-eye.eu/traffic/](https://the-eye.eu/traffic/).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> What makes this different from the Internet Archive?

<comment><USER2> Our work works in parallel the Internet Archive. Preservation is all about storing content in multiple locations and we regularly hand off content to IA, as well as host it ourselves, when saving and sharing content.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is going to sound like I am trying to throw shade but I really am not. I joined this community a few months back hoping to contribute, but despite numerous offers for help I was turned down nearly every time. There isn't really any leveraging of the community within the discord or reddit or really anything that I can see. I rarely saw the administrators ask for any help for archiving purposes, and most of the data that is added to the community has no rhyme or reason but largely seems to be at the whim of the administrators.

The-Eye was fulfilling a niche for me and that was comic book archival. It seems the comic book industry at large has no regard for preserving comic books, and I found that The-Eye had a large collection of comic books. Disappointingly I found that I already had access to the majority of these comics and actually thought I could contribute. However, there doesn't seem to be any easy way to add content but rather that the only thing a normal users can do is download content, so I couldn't contribute anything.

What I have found though, is that there is a concerted effort to gather donations from the community. There were several occasions where there were multiple announcements daily on the discord asking for donations, or if users wanted to join one of the private sites they wanted, and even asking for people to show at the store.

Data archival is actually a big interest to me, especially in an error when content on the web is here one day or gone the next. There is probably more data lost in a day than was created in multiple decades in earlier centuries. I just don't see the-eye actually as a entity that is actually arching anything, but rather that their interest largely lies in providing just enough data so that it can either be paywalled, or users can give donations.

Don't take my word for it though, just spend some time on their website and you can see that they have numerous calls to action for a user to donate, but nearly nothing on their site which asks for a user to contribute actual content. If the user base that you are trying to cultivate is those who contribute content it stands to reason that uploading content would be trivial. Contrast that to imgur, however, which has an upload button displayed very prominently on their front page and you can see where their priorities lie. I know this may seem like comparing apples to oranges as one could make an argument for "quality" or data curation but even when you start searching the site more in depth there is a FAQ wherein the question is asked "How can I contribute?" and they ask you to donate rather than to upload.

I'm not trying to claim that I understand their model, but rather to relay that from my observations it doesn't seem like they are really interested in users contributing anything.

As a disclaimer, the final straw for me was when I offered books that were behind a "library" on the OpenLibrary. I had written a scraper for the site, as there were numerous items which were now public domain but you had to borrow the books which essentially was a weird form of DRM. When I asked if I could upload them to the-eye the response was "why would you want to do that?" And it wasn't until I had gotten angry, and honestly over reacted, that they claimed that there was no space on their servers for users to contribute. I left the community, and have not since been back. That was a couple of months ago. I have a friend who has claimed that there have been some changes made since then... But that seems to be hearsay, so I am not sure how much value I place on that.

However, there is a silver lining... I do agree that there is an awesome community on the discord, and in the communities. I think that if you are looking for a bunch of like minded individuals who are easy to talk to, and fun to be around that you couldn't do much better than to join the Discord and chat with the people who are there. If you value nothing else then this site is absolutely essential and I think that everyone should consider joining.

<comment><USER3> Seconding the library genesis recommendation. There's a lot of people now mirroring those files, and uploading there will make those books easier to find for a wider audience than just the eye.

<comment><USER6> You may want to read this article...

[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pa7jxb/archivists-are- try...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pa7jxb/archivists-are-trying-to- make-sure-a-pirate-bay-of-science-never-goes-down)

We (the-eye, like minds on reddit) are making sure libgen stays available. Further reading in a sub reddit I moderate here...

[https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/ed9byj/library...](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/ed9byj/library_genesis_project_update_25_million_books/)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Interactive programming lessons for Kids (Offline)? - <AUTHOR>

I have a little cousin brother who really loves learning about computers. According to him, he loves computer classes. I found out in "computer class" all they do is teach the poor kids how to use word and excel and how to save files in windows.
He is a very smart kid, and I tried to ask their parents to let him spend time online so that he could learn more about computers.
The parents are unfortunately scared of the internet, I tried to tell them about parental controls with no success so unfortunately, I don't see him using the internet for the next 4-5 years.
Is there any interactive programming lessons which I could download, put in a drive and give him so he could follow them without having to use the internet.
It honestly breaks my heart to see a very intelligent kid spend all of his free time watching soap operas with his mom. <comment><USER2> It's not interactive, but there are plenty of videos available on youtube (for example: this series explains how to make games with python and pygame [0]). Since he doesn't have internet, you will have to download the videos, most likely with youtube-dl [1]. So my suggestion is for you to decide what programming environment is better for him to take on, get the corresponding videos, and next time you visit his family you install him a text editor (I'd suggest Notepad++), the programming language, and give him the videos.

Good luck!

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7joZ67mC6o&list=PLQVvvaa0Qu...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7joZ67mC6o&list=PLQVvvaa0QuDcxG_Cajz1JyTH6eAvka93C)

[1] [https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/](https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I just fiddled a little with Scratch 1.4 ([http://scratch.mit.edu/scratch_1.4/](http://scratch.mit.edu/scratch_1.4/)) on my Raspberry Pi. It looks like a kid could learn the basics of programming using Scratch (the Offline Editor) just by trial and error.

</comment><comment><USER4> How about a book like _Realm of Racket_ or _Head First HTML and CSS_?

But keep in mind that programming is fun for some people and drudgery for others.</comment>


Visualizing the State of Democracy, by Country - <AUTHOR> https://www.visualcapitalist.com/state-of-democracy-by-country/ <comment><USER2> It's an interesting visualization, but, to reuse a phrase that I heard here recently, these scores are a Ouija board based on entirely arbitrary choices made by an entirely arbitrary group of people.

The US has not met the alleged criteria for Full Democracy or even Flawed Democracy within the bounds of my living memory.

None of our elections are fair because of:

\- extreme gerrymandering

\- rampant voter suppression

\- first-past-the-post decisionmaking that entrenches two faces of a neoliberal corporatocracy distinct only in their identity politics but not significantly in their economic or foreign policies

\- laws that prevent or obstruct ever investigating plausibly fraudulent election outcomes in favor of announcing results expediently

\- media conglomerate kingmaking

\- perpetually fatally flawed vote casting mechanisms that regularly and repeatedly flip, invalidate, and discard votes, often without any kind of oversight or potential for review (e.g. a paper trail)

\- voter fatigue because this shit just keeps happening over and over

\- repeatedly discarding mailed-in votes just because and then not making voting days a mandated holiday

\- and a million other things that I'm not even thinking of

On top of that our executive branch has zero transparency whatsoever, and many of our highest positions of power go to people who are there only because they kiss the ring, including people currently who have literally no merits other than being related. We even have a justice department memo now saying that the Whitehouse is exempt from Federal Anti-Nepotism laws.

Also the questions are just complete rubbish, from treating "confidence" as a valid proxy for democracy to believing that some random schmoe's answer to "On average, other people X" means fuck all.

<comment><USER3> You missed a few, but not a million other things.

You missed the voter fraud. There are some ingenious and horrifying methods described here: [https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/political-insider-explains- vot...](https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/political-insider-explains-voter-fraud- with-mail-in-ballots/)

You missed the fact that non-citizens in California have given the state an unfair representation in the US House of Representatives. This one is particularly bad, since the state has an incentive to help people violate the law.

You missed the fact that voters don't even have to identify themselves properly in many states. India and Mexico can manage this, but here it became a political issue. Trust in democracy is eroded because there is no possible way to even tell if ID fraud is occurring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Let's call that a "Flawed Visualization".

I always start with a quick check, comparing the USA with a few specific European countries. I can see that the USA got ranked below the UK, below Sweden, and below Germany. OK, we can disregard this data. Another quick check is to look at the USA by year. If the rating suddenly dropped in 2016, when the people got what they wanted despite heavy opposition from the powerful elite, then the rating is junk.

<comment><USER4> Sure, Trump had opposition from rich people, but make no mistake: the _conservative_ elite _wanted_ a right-wing candidate

<comment><USER3> What conservative elite? Are there any?

If you mean the republican party leadership, they wanted Jeb! Or maybe, it could have been Rubio or Kasich. They definitely did not want Cruz or Trump. They kept fighting against the people's choice even after he got in office. Romney is still fighting.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Collecting Ways to Annoy a Sysadmin - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/mariocesar/8ea61fc5e67705ae99311fb9922c813b <comment><AUTHOR> If you have more ideas share them, I will keep the gist updated</comment>


Elon Musk went from sleeping in the factory to launching a crew into space - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/02/21/how-elon-musk-went-sleeping-factory-being-cusp-launching-crew-into-space/ <comment><USER2> Why does everyone act like sleeping at his factory was the epitome of dedication? I'm sure he was just fine, it was probably just the most convenient thing to do given the location.</comment>