My angel investing strategy vs Joshua Schachter - <AUTHOR> http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2010/05/my-angel-investing-strategy-vs-joshua-schachter.html

<comment><USER2> I think a lot of "bulk" investors feel that trying to guess the success of early stage companies is a lot like trying the guess the success of a person when they are still in the womb. I'm always amused at the extensive diligence you see with some early stage investors-- diligence where Google or Facebook wouldn't have passed muster. I remember Joe Kraus recalling that someone passed on investing early in Excite because they said, "Who's going to SEARCH the internet? They'll just find the sites they like and bookmark them!"

I think it makes sense to get a gut feeling of the founding team (Can they sell? Do they have a passion for the space? Do they seem like they are in it for the long haul? Do they seem willing to pivot?) and it makes sense to hear/believe the narrative of the market size ( <http://is.gd/ceLQU> ), etc. Every investor is going to have the secret trait/quality in a founder/market that they think is critical.

But trying to guess what founders and markets are going to do over a period of 7+ years shouldn't be about dozens of hours of diligence.

<comment><USER3> Well said. I'm doing the kind of diligence you're recommending. My point was that I at least cannot get a good sense of the founders in one meeting. I need to build a relationship and see how they're approaching product, market and customer acquisition even though I don't care about particular projections.

<comment><USER4> I think one can get a good sense of a team's approach within an hour long meeting.

<comment><USER3> My gut reaction is usually right, but I guess I don't trust it completely yet. Also, I don't need to meet in person more than once, or in some cases at all, but I usually have follow up questions that I want answered.

<comment><USER5> An hour long meeting will get you a good feeling if the feeling is good, or bad. If there is doubt then you may need (possibly a lot) more time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's a big market out there and I think both Gabriel and Joshua will do fine. They're investing in different kinds of companies and providing different kinds of value, and they'll end up with the kinds of companies they can get most mutual benefit.

<comment><USER3> That was pretty much my point. I think for many reasons (and no ones fault) that startup advice tends towards one size fits all, and that is really not appropriate. Companies are in a continuum along many different dimensions, and what they should do in terms of fundraising should vary as a consequence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I believe that the Gabriel Weinberg method makes a lot more sense than the Schachter method. From his thread, the impression I got was that he just had some amount of money and wanted to put it in startups the way kids buy toys: Hey, that's pretty cool, here, have $10k.

The Weinberg method seems more thought out and more like it actually involves proper evaluation of the product. I believe that Weinberg is building his intuition much better than Schachter, even though Schachter may be involved in more deals.

<comment><USER8> Nowhere did I mention my actual strategy. Nobody asked and I probably won't tell.

I am trying to do a lot of deals in order to build intuition. You cannot do this without making a decision and then being faced with the consequences. I have learned a lot that took more than a few deals to figure out.

I also have a keen sense of how portfolios of assets behave rather than a small number of bets.

I suppose this is what happens when people without a clue make assumptions about scant data.

And, honestly, it feels like you want to look down on someone.

<comment><USER3> vs was poor and hasty diction on my part. I didn't mean to come across as adversarial (or critical), so I apologize if it reads like that.

Can we still AYA, i.e. what about your actual strategy will you divulge? Am I at all close that you're trending towards being the next Ron Conway?

<comment><USER8> I meant Max was sounding adversarial. He seems very angry, anyway. Big chip on his shoulder maybe?

Some of it I will divulge. Some of it I'd be happy to tell you directly someday. I should have dropped a note when I was last in Boston.

My investment serves several goals. I have a bunch of markers, horizontal business types, and vertical industries by which I evaluate things like the nature of competition the startup will enter.

I don't do as much due diligence, because I am following on with other investors who DO do more of this. I also feel that there's a lot less value to it at the earliest stages.

I am also looking to be more connected and more present in the Valley. Consider it sowing seeds.

<comment><USER7> Saying I "don't have a clue" and that I want to "look down on somebody" is not very nice. I have no reason to be angry at you, do I? I don't know you.

Perhaps you're not used to people telling you their honest opinion anymore. That's my opinion about your strategy from what I read in that thread - it's what I think and what I will continue to think.

Sometimes you will do things that other people think is shit. Actually, most things you do, some people will think it's shit. If nobody ever tells you that, it means you are surrounded by dishonest people, or people that are afraid of offending you.

I'm obviously not afraid of offending you, as I need nothing from you and you need nothing from me.

<comment><USER8> Your tone feels a bit hostile. Between your comments here and in the other thread, I get the sense you want to look down on me. That's ok, but I'm calling out how your interactions feel qualitatively to me. The fact that you get more upset when I pointed it out makes me suspect that my guess is correct.

Anyway: You took a bunch of details about the output of a process you don't understand intimately (have you ever done an angel investment?) and guessed at what that process and mindset looks like internally.

How is this not the very definition of clueless?

<comment><USER8> Another one:

You know maybe a third to a half of the deals I've done, if you looked on CrunchBase. Gabe disclosed none of the deals he did. But you have enough data to declare which one is better?

<comment><USER7> Yes, I do. I read both of your methods, and I have a clear preference for Weinbergs method. It makes more sense to me from a neutral non-involved point of view.

Sure I could just defer to the fact that you have done so many deals and automatically declare you the winner, but I prefer to think things through on my own. Even if I am wrong, having examined it myself, I will be in a better position to understand why I was wrong.

I think you have a very thin skin and your attack against me is over- emphasized for whatever reason. Perhaps you should explain what exactly it is about me you dislike so much? From your very first reply in the last thread, you were taking potshots at me.

<comment><USER9> _"I think you have a very thin skin ..."_

Pretty ironic.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: We made Slack emulator to demo our chat bot (desktop only) - <AUTHOR> https://karmabot.chat/#demo <comment><USER2> I can give myself Karma, not sure if that's intentional (at least in the demo)

<comment><AUTHOR> You can :) In reality, it really depends on how serious a team about karma. In some teams all requests must get an approval from the management (moderators), one can request karma for herself, no issues with that. It's a feature, not a bug! Thanks</comment></comment>


CRV Quickstart:   $250,000 in seed stage financing. How does an 18 year old entrepreneur find references to list on the application? - <AUTHOR> http://www.crv.com/AboutCRV/QuickStart.html <comment><USER2> Use your customers as references. If you don't have customers, use the people who said they'd probably buy your product if it existed.

Also, you aren't going to get 250k without at the very least a bunch of informal advisors, so list those people too.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the solid advice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> So i'm not the only young one pursuing a startup. Good to know.

Good luck.</comment>


SeedStart NYC - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/02/seedstart-nyc.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AVc+%28A+VC%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

<comment><USER2> I think I speak for a lot of people in the NYC startup community when I say trying to work with NYC Seed last year left a bad taste in my mouth.

Read the wording they use very carefully: "up to 20" (i.e. could be no one). Last year they decided to just give 250k to two startups instead of going with their real "incubator" strategy. I've heard one of those two startups already went belly-up.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I truly think NYC Seed is the worst case scenario for any startup. We have met the people behind it, and I don't think they are capable of helping in the way Y Combinator can.

Even the application should be a turn off. The questions they ask are not asked in a way that someone with startup experience would ask. They are asked in a way a finance person would ask. Not necessarily a bad thing - if you a are building a finance company.

Finally, I would also argue that their portfolio companies are not really inspiring...

Not trying to hate, but there are so many better options right now. NYC definitely needs a strong seed program, but this is not it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think they may have changed their application. It was about three times as long last time I looked at it.

</comment><comment><USER5> I would highly recommend not bringing your idea / company to seedstart.

I had a bad experience with them and so have a lot of other people I've spoken with in NYC.

Last I heard Owen Davis gave 250k (nyc seed money) to a friend of his and the company went broke in less then 6 months.</comment>


U.S. Federal Govt. vehicles drove 5B miles in 2015, 120MM hrs of driving - <AUTHOR> http://www.datadriventhoughts.com/one-offs/the-u-s-federal-fleet-drove-5-billion-miles-in-2015-the-equivalent-of-120000-hours-spent-driving/ <comment><USER2> That's serious speeding, or an off by 3 zeroes error. Luckily, the text derives the correct number of 120M hours.

<comment><AUTHOR> Doh! Updated...</comment></comment>


Gdium: One Laptop per Hacker (OLPH) - <AUTHOR> http://www.gdium.com/fr/group/58/home

<comment><USER2> In short: Gdium is offering a free Gdium netbook and USB storage key to select people who will develop interesting applications for their education oriented product.

Gdium is an economical MIPS based netbook running Linux. A user's world appears to be stored on a "G-key" (usb key) making the machines interchangeable. It is aimed at the education market and is part of a larger web-based ecosystem of some sort.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gdium></comment>


EMusic Says Data Supports Long Tail Theory - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/01/emusic-data-sup.html

<comment><USER2> I just wanted to add that I _love_ eMusic. Holy crap, what a bunch of awesome it is. I've been a subscriber since the first year it started, and I've never hesitated to re-up each year, as the selection just gets bigger, and the site just gets better and better at helping me find cool new music. Growing up, I was the kind of kid that made the rounds of independent record stores every week just to check out the new releases and pick up a few underground classics from the used bins. eMusic is like a drug for someone like me...and I spend as much each year as I used to spend per month at record stores, and end up with at least as much music that I love (because previewing is more efficient, reviews are right in front of me, and the cost per track is a bit lower than the average used CD).

The interesting thing to me is that it only took one study by a somewhat biased organization that believes strongly in, relies on, and supports, the "blockbuster" version of the music industry, for a large number of people to call "the long tail" bunk. When you already know what outcome you want to see, and you have a very strongly vested interest in seeing that outcome, it'd be foolish for folks to take those results at face value...and yet, a lot of people have.

<comment><USER3> Agreed emusic is great.

On your last point; now we have another study, from a somewhat biased organization that believes strongly in, relies on, and supports, the "long tail" version of the music industry to support the long tail theory.

Another thing that may bias emusics data is that people buy a subscription to emusic. You practically have to try out new music once you get all the music you know. Compare that to a per-tune fee. It's a very different dataset in the way it was constructed.

Also, sales data doesn't lie. If amazon's and others data doesn't support the long tail theory, then why believe it? Faith? Just because you want something to be real doesn't mean it is.

Hopefully it is real though, as a lot of business models are based on it :)

<comment><USER2> _On your last point; now we have another study, from a somewhat biased organization that believes strongly in, relies on, and supports, the "long tail" version of the music industry to support the long tail theory._

You're absolutely right. I don't think the facts have quite come out yet. I do think it has a lot to do with the models of the businesses doing the research. I bet you'd find that Hulu has a pretty interesting long tail (and plenty of blockbusters, as well), because I go there a couple of times a week, and I'm sometimes surprised by what has bubbled to the top 50 results--quite a lot of back catalog stuff. Even stuff that has been out of regular syndication for years, like the original Battlestar Galactica, and other old, somewhat forgotten shows, and shows that didn't make it very long on TV, like Firefly and John Doe.

I don't know, as I haven't studied things very closely--I saw Anderson give his long tail talk a few years ago, and I've read the article when it was published, but I haven't paid it too much mind. I do know that my tastes are squarely in the long tail. I don't watch blockbuster movies, I don't buy blockbuster records, and I don't read blockbuster books, in general. But, I also know that I'm not "normal" or "average" in my tastes, so I am and outlier and not a reliable predictor of anything the average consumer is going to do. I will point out, though, that there are more independent records being made, more independent films being produced, and more independent literature being produced than at any time in history. That has to be explainable _somehow_ , though I don't know if the long tail is the right way to explain it. Maybe it's just bigger populations plus the Internet equals "everybody gets to makes records/movies/literature" now.</comment></comment></comment>


The Link Between Diet, Exercise and Alzheimer's - <AUTHOR> https://wsj.com/articles/the-link-between-diet-exercise-and-alzheimers-11572427802?mod=rsswn <comment><USER2> _" Most surprising, says Dr. Isaacson, is that the MCI patients who followed at least 60% of their recommendations showed cognitive improvement. However, MCI patients who followed less than 60% of the recommendations experienced cognitive declines similar to the control groups, he notes."_

\-- Another explanation: those able to follow these directions might have been in the best cognitive shape. What I'd wonder is if the less-than-60% cohort could have done worse than the control? Was this sorting masquerading as treatment?

When they were in their early 80s, my mother and my Stepfather each started doing Sudoku puzzles to fight dementia. My mother lost interest and developed non-Alzheimer dementia six years later. My stepfather kept at it and did not develop dementia though he had cognitive issues. Where is the cause and where is the effect here, however?

Edit: another thing that makes the study seem rather problematic is the "customized advice" part. Maybe some of the advice is better than others. How do you generalize? etc. For a more object study, you'd need to have people just meriting one kind of treatment in both control and treated groups. I understand how hard that could be - this stuff is just filled with quandaries. Customized treatment would logical at final patient level but very hard to objectively analyze.

<comment><USER3> Experimental design is easy to get wrong and not something we focus strongly enough on. The scientific method is the single most powerful discovery we have made in all of humanity. I would place it above above the three Rs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [http://archive.is/SCW7h](http://archive.is/SCW7h)

</comment><comment><USER5> Id love the summary of this article as I don't have a subscription to the WSJ anymore

<comment><USER6> The study the article is based on is at [https://www.alzheimersanddementia.com/article/S1552-5260(19)...](https://www.alzheimersanddementia.com/article/S1552-5260\(19\)35368-3/fulltext)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Diet and Exercise make a _lot_ of things better. But they're not easy.

I find exercise easy, but not diet. I know others who are the opposite.</comment>


Ask HN: shares instead of cash when collaborating with a startup? - <AUTHOR>

Hello,
My friend and I startep to create a little framework for our own development needs. Luckily we met a guy who was creating his startup and was interested in our work. We worked with him and setup a server infrastructure for his needs, we (my friend and I) made an effort on the price as he was our first (and only) client and because he did not have a lot of cash.
Now he wants to work with us on the next iterations and wants us to be part of his startup (which does not have any investors yet) as shareholders. He then offers the following deal:
- He asks that we each pay €3500 to get 5% of the shares of his startup (startup with €30.000 involved at the beginning). - He asks that we give him: * the iPhone application we are currently developing (that will interact with the server we put in place in the first iteration) * the 2nd iteration of the server (improvement of the server we developed during the first iteration) - In return he will pay us €3500 each for the products mentioned above (this is a way to show us that the €3500 we paid to buy the shares will not be lost for us) - In 12 and 18 months time-frame, he will sell us some stock options for a small price (we will have to pay €500 at each milestone to get 2.5% of the shares)
=> In 18 months we should then have 7.5% of the shares each (without talking about investors as this will dilute our participation)
My friend and I are new to this kind of shareholders / partners relationship and can not really figure out if the deal offered is interesting or not. The startup is really promising and investors will probably be there quite soon but still... we have the feeling that our work is not paid enough.
What do you think of this deal ? <comment><USER2> Sets off a red flag for me. When contracting, the companies with equity you might actually want are able to pay for your services with cash.

Different story if you were really excited about the project and the opportunity, really confident in your client's abilities, and wanted to become his full-time cofounders. But then I'd propose you divide the company equally three ways.</comment>


History of a Startup: The Autodesk File - <AUTHOR> http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/autofile.html <comment><AUTHOR> _"Because Autodesk started out as a very decentralised organisation and has remained one to some extent, and also because of the prolix proclivities of its founders, who would rather write a book than talk on a telephone for ten minutes, the genesis, evolution, and history of Autodesk has generated a large volume of paper."_ [from the Introduction]</comment>


Predict Economic Indicators with OpenStreetMap - <AUTHOR> https://janakiev.com/blog/osm-predict-economic-indicators/ <comment><USER2> This is an interesting analysis and can only really be accurate if we assume the level of mapping and number of mappers in an area is the same from area to area. I don't think this is true.

However, its possible statistics to find the number of mappers and the level of activity in an area from OSM, so a better analysis should normalise for this too.

But! This only considers OSM from the point of view of a "hobby mapper" \- the old school view of individuals going out with GPS units. Today a growing proportion mapping is contributed by governments, open data sets, batch imports, businesses and mapping teams, all of which vary by geography too.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, 72 waste baskets in the entiretu of Bulgaria seems... unlikely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The fact that something is mapped at all is something of an economic indicator, since OpenStreetMap mappers do the heavy lifting, are likely to be big nerds with free time / retired, and are going to map their local areas preferentially.

<comment><USER5> To a degree this is true, but they do find the abundance of some "amenities" negatively correlated with national income, some of which, like "marketplace" make more sense than others (like "hospital", at least until you consider not all hospitals are equal and the state of the art ones tend to be big...). When it comes to ATMs being more commonly depicted in lower income countries (within the sample) it's an interesting question whether that's because they actually are more common or whether they're more commonly marked on OSM because locating them is more important to people in a cash economy (cf most of the ATMs near me are unmarked)

<comment><USER6> >like "hospital", at least until you consider not all hospitals are equal and the state of the art ones tend to be big...

I'm willing to bet this and possibly some of the other amenity correlations are driven either by a few outliers, some uncontrolled confounding variables, or by measurement error.

E.g. if one of the poorer nations has a strange policy or linguistic quirk around the definition of hospital, that could be driving up the total number of locations marked as hospital and thus introducing some hidden bias.

In terms of confounding variables, I'm just taking a guess in the dark, but hospitals per capita is probably a strong proxy measure of how rural a country is. The more rural the population, the more hospitals are required to serve the same number of people, because hospitals need to be close for emergency situations.

Also, there's probably a selection bias. Hospitals are likely one of the first things to get put on OSM for a given area. Because there aren't many of them and they tend to be one of the most important items people are looking for on a map. So poorer countries, with fewer OSM users, are more likely to have hospitals marked relative to the other amenities.

Meaning, you could have a negative relationship between __all __amenities and GDP /GNI/HDI, but only hospitals and other items consistently marked across all countries is being measured well enough to demonstrate this. Even though naively one might assume more amenities/person is better, it's possible for many amenities that centralization/consolidation actually correlates with better economic performance. Obviously that's probably not true of park benches, but it might be for schools, hospitals, and other public infrastructure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> shady-lady Step 1 should be verify the information you're counting as facts.. re: McDonalds & ingredients

> This means the same items are made in the same way with the same ingredients > in very different economies around the world, making the Big Mac...

This is provably not true. (without any prejudice against BigMac as PPP indicator)

[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-daily-meal/big-macs- aroun...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-daily-meal/big-macs-around-the- world_b_3714396.html?slideshow=true#gallery/311883/1)

</comment><comment><USER7> Open-source map providers have no economic incentive to guide drivers down streets containing the businesses who pay more.

</comment><comment><USER8> The idea of using (mappable/recordable) public amenities per capita as a measure of prosperity is good.

However, even discounting for the massive regional biases in OSM mapping, having 10 universities per capita doesn't mean anything. The qualitative part is extremely important on all aspects. Universities, hospitals, parks, even benches..

Using aerial photography you can probably infer things about the quality of the roadwork and efficiency of transportation, parking space availability, recreational park "quality", rooftop utilization etc. But with incomplete/heavily biased mapping and no quality index this is pretty much useless.

</comment><comment><USER9> As it stands, all metrics include a hidden "quality of OpenStreetMap data" feature that may explain significant fractions of the significance of features.

So, I think they should try to compensate for that. How? I wouldn't know.

<comment><USER10> It may be more interesting to work in the other direction, where the comparison with the economic data is used to estimate the quality of the OSM data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Their second strong correlator is bicycle parking. Meaning you really have to understand the context for such correlations.</comment>


Retina.js: Retina graphics for your website - <AUTHOR> http://retinajs.com/

<comment><USER2> As high DPI displays become more common, it seems like the time has come for more advanced file formats (or just using the more advanced features of existing formats). For example, PNG already has an interlacing mode that progressively adds detail to the image (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam7_algorithm>). It could easily be co-opted such that a normal image contains 6 layers of detail, with an additional "retina extension" image that high DPI browsers grab to refine the quality. This avoids the waste of downloading a low DPI image, then throwing it away to replace it with high DPI.

Even more interesting is <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000>, which has "truncatable" bitstreams. You can stop getting data at any point, and depending on the encoding choices, you'll just lose fidelity in colour, resolution etc. Encoders can reorder the bitstream to deliver whatever is most useful for the image first. Browsers could then just stop when "enough" has been downloaded to satisfy the demands of the device; high DPI devices would just continue to grab more of the bitstream. It's really useful for devices on low bandwidth links, as you start getting visual results with very little data.

JPEG 2000 hasn't been widely implemented outside of specialised devices, mostly because it's computationally heavy compared to JPEG, and the patent situation is unclear. Although this does mean that it could be implemented in a targeted way, designed to solve these problems (the spec for the entire format is _huge_ ). Moreover, one of the patent holders is, IIRC, Apple.

<comment><USER3> The idea of compound images is really interesting, although it would require an extra HTTP request to fetch the hight-DPI portion of the image. But maybe less of a problem over SPDY?

The idea truncatable bitstreams is fascinating too. I'm not well versed in networking, but wouldn't the latency of a mobile network kill the benefit of this technique? e.g, by the time the server receives the "connection closed" signal, a large part of the extra data would have been sent, no?

<comment><USER2> It would need an extra HTTP request, yes. In practice for the PNG solution, one would be better off with sending the DPI in the request headers, so that the "correct" image is the only one sent.

For JPEG 2000, the network characteristics are important, but I don't think it would be too bad on a mobile network. Low DPI devices might get a bit "too much", but it wouldn't be a problem - they can just throw it out (or incorporate more detail).

<comment><USER4> Headers do seem the best place for a non vendor specific standard to be set. I'd love to see something like

viewport-dpi - the dpi viewport-max - the maximum possible pixel dimension and possibly viewport-current - the pixel dimensions at the time of the request

Decent responsive design should deal with the differing viewport sizes, but it might be nice to get a hint before delivering your page what direction to weight that response in.

<comment><USER5> What do you do when using a projector, and your DPI is something like 3? (serious question, I don't know how this is traditionally handled)

<comment><USER6> Something like device-pixel-ratio would be more useful than DPI. Raw DPI is meaningless unless you take distance into account, as is very clear in the case of the projector.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can we please stop using the silly Apple marketing gimmick "retina display" yet?

It's a high-DPI display. Lots of devices have it. Lets not attempt to pretend there's anything Apple-specific about that.

<comment><USER8> Who's else is making high-DPI displays? I have really seen companies running with this. It would be nice to see Samsung, for example, start promoting 300 dpi screens so they go mass market.

<comment><USER9> Samsung builds the Galaxy Nexus, which has a 316 ppi display.

Now, we still have a way to go before high ppi displays are ubiquitous, but there you have one example at least :)

<comment><USER10> The Galaxy Nexus uses pentile subpixel rendering, which is a system with slightly controversial ways of determining the PPI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wouldn't that mean that the device will first try to download all of the low res images and when the script finished loading and is running, the device would then start to load all of the high res images. How's the user experience with all of those additional requests and traffic? (especially via GSM/CDMA)

<comment><AUTHOR> Indeed it would. Certainly less than ideal, but this provides an avenue to easily implement higher DPI graphics. Right now, it seems like the easiest method to get a site upgraded without having to make a ton of changes.

Ideally, we'd have something that would deliver only the correct image to the correct device, the first time. I haven't seen a clean method for achieving that yet.

<comment><USER12> Agree, I think the correct solution is to actually have a request filter on the server that correctly maps the img tag source to a high DPI version. Obviously, this would be a framework or server specific implementation, but this is the only correct way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> foresight.js looks more interesting since it takes the perceived connection speed into account when deciding to serve up 2x images. <https://github.com/adamdbradley/foresight.js>

<comment><USER14> That's pretty intelligent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Wow, the background on that page takes forever to fill in on my iPhone 4. Like over a minute. And the whole Mobile Safari hangs for 30 seconds or so if I switch orientation, I think because it has to resize the massive background image to the changing screen width and the processor isn't up to it.

So I would be cautious of using this technique with huge images.

<comment><USER16> Agreed! Potentially, you could be causing greater data charges/slower loading just because you have an iPad 3... Anyone know if there's a setting to turn these image loads _off_ on an iPad 3?

<comment><USER17> No, you just have to assume that PNGs are not used and that JPGs are used instead.

But we have so-called experts trying to lead the way now...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> While this script is fine, it adds an extra HTTP request per image to check for a retina version of the image. Also, the browser will start downloading the small version before it loads the big version (adding another extra http request). Check this easy jQuery snippet that does the same thing, but avoids these issues:

[http://www.archer-group.com/2012/development/javascript- jque...](http://www.archer-group.com/2012/development/javascript-jquery- snippet-for-doing-retina-resolution-images)

<comment><USER19> There are several problems with this implementation.

1\. The image doesn't have a src attribute. This means if that script fails for any reason then none of the images on your site load.

2\. You need to have width and height attributes on all of your images. This is a nightmare for both dynamically generated content and for responsive designs.

3\. You need to have those two extra attributes on each of your image elements in order for it to work.

Our goal was to make retina.js zero-config. We wanted it to work on existing sites without any changes to the existing markup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> After introducing Retina displays and graphics.. Apple has unknowingly disrupted the whole display industry. Suddenly all of us now start noticing pixels on our laptop screens as well as HDTVs, which existed since a long time now. I believe this will actually thrust the current internet into a new era of HD internet and soon computer makers and tv makers will jump onto making high pixel density displays. This makes sense. Till now, all was about resolutions and the larger the resolution the smaller the icon, window etc in the OS world. Apple's retina implementation has changed that. You still see things in the same size or aspect ratio but the sharpness is 4 times that of what we used to see earlier, making the whole data consumption experience to be overwhelming.. Kudos to Apple for this. I hope most of the internet 2.0 and display manufacturers are thinking alike on this..

<comment><USER21> The main place that pixels were noticeable was in an Apple store. Next to the iPhone 4, the older iPads looked much less sharp, at least for text (particularly Computer Modern). There have been lots of attempts at resolution independence, and I'm sure Windows and various Linux GUIs have hooks for such, but they've not been tested much because the hardware was generally in the 96-120 ppi range. There's no need for HDTVs to change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Am I missing something or is this approach downloading both high dpi and non high-dpi images for high-dpi displays?

<comment><USER23> Yes. Unfortunately. I'm not sure this is a good solution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I havent used the code and I'm sure it works well. However, we've been seeing a lot of unnecessary library usage. A lot of jQuery-based things that really don't need to be as an example and looking at the .coffee files here, I think that the JS it produces would be very simple. Why not just write the JS? Is there really a benefit from coffee in this situation?

<comment><USER19> It doesn't use jQuery or any other library; it is framework-agnostic.

We had originally written it in JavaScript, but decided to use CoffeeScript simply because it's nicer to read and write.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm already used to doing this for iOS, and though the process is cumbersome, enjoy the simplicity of using @2x images when designing apps.

That said, this is why CSS3 is so valuable, particularly when responsive websites have already complicated the process of building a website/app.

</comment><comment><USER26> What about jQuery Retina (<http://retina.tylercraft.com/> and <https://github.com/tylercraft/jQuery-Retina>)?

</comment><comment><USER27> I like the idea however there was some discussion that Safari on the new iPad downsamples the images even if they are at retina resolutions. I have not looked at the code however I hope that this issue is addressed.

<comment><AUTHOR> This appeared to be "as designed" in safari. The only solution I'm currently aware of is to save images as progressive jpgs. This gets around the limitation imposed by Apple.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It doesn't handle response codes properly.

<https://github.com/imulus/retinajs/pull/16></comment>


Army Wants Soldiers' Heads To Control Robots - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/army-wants-soldiers-heads-to-control-robots/

<comment><USER2> Oh, like _that_. When I read the title, I imagined something somewhat more Futurama. How very disappointing.</comment>


Percentage of Young Americans Living with Parents Rises to 75-Year High - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/percentage-of-young-americans-living-with-parents-rises-to-75-year-high-1482316203?mod=trending_now_2 <comment><USER3> 23 year old Indian developer here. The concept of 'moving out' of your parents home is baffling for most of us. I now live in a different city and I share a decent apartment with friends. I can afford to live alone in the apartment I now live in - the rent is 30% of my monthly income and the apartment is 15 minutes away from where I work - but living alone would be just awful. So I'm now paying 11% of my income for rent(electricity, water and a maid included) because I stay with friends. Eventually, most of us would want to move back to our hometowns if we can get a job with similar pay - and live with our parents. Not because it would be cheaper and mom would cook yummy food - <USER2> it is just the way it is. In our society, NOT living with your parents when you can is frowned upon. "These are people who raised you and know you well and care for you, why would you want to move out?" is how the society thinks. Also, in a way it is nice. You are NEVER alone. You ALWAYS have people waiting for you when you come back from work. 'Being alone' is seldom a reason for a depressed Indian - the family is always there.

However, compared to the west, we have little to no privacy. We are raised to not expect much privacy in the first place so we don't really miss it. Kids do NOT get a room of their own - never ever - they bunk with siblings. I was around 15 when I got a room of my 'own'. There's no pressure to move out once you grow up - parents would do their best to KEEP you home in fact. I would not have had to 'move out' if my college was not 200 km away. There's one big trade off with the whole set up though - no sex till you get married ;)

<comment><USER4> It's unreal how greatly the human experience can vary - I was born in the uk to itinerant parents (finance father), raised by a series of aupairs, and was sent to boarding school at six. Despite my parents being wealthy and having the space, I did not have a room at home from that point - when I went home for holidays, I would stay in the guest room, and when my brother was born, his room.

When I "left home" at 16 upon completing school and going to university, it couldn't have been less of an issue - as it was no different to going back to school.

I'm sure my family is an extreme example, but there's definitely a culture in the west, particularly among elites, where getting shot of your kids as soon as possible is highly desirable.

I have a perfectly ok relationship with each of them - see each once every few years, we're friendly and civil - but I've never really viewed them as parents - those would have been my aupairs and then the regimented institution of public school.

<comment><USER5> This comment makes me sad.

Children should be loved and cherished, not abandoned.

<comment><USER6> You presume being loved and cherished involves having to live together.

I moved out quite early on myself, and my relationship with my parents is quite fine. (From the US for context)

<comment><USER5> > You presume being loved and cherished involves having to live together.

I presume no such thing. Although any feelings a six year old has of feeling being loved and cherished are greatly enhanced by living together with their parent(s). That being said, what I do consider abandonment is being raised by au pairs and shipped off to boarding school by age six.

> I moved out quite early on myself, and my relationship with my parents is > quite fine. (From the US for context)

Moving out of your own free will is quite different from being put into boarding school at age six.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have two girls, 24 and 18 years old. Both live at home right now. The 24 year old graduated from a selective private liberal arts college in 2015 and is working part time in a library. She does not qualify for health insurance or many other benefits. She does not make enough to live on her own.

She is also in graduate school online for a Master of Library Science (MLS). She wants to be a librarian and you pretty much need an MLS to become a librarian. Her part time income mostly goes just to pay for graduate school.

Her sister graduated high school 2016 and is taking a gap year as an AmeriCorp Vista employee working with center city schools on after school STEM programs from FIRST Robotics. She will go to college fall 2017 at Olin College of Engineering.

We suspect that the oldest will live with us for many years and her mom and I are fine with that. Expensive liberal arts degrees don't often pay well. I think that situation is going to catch up with liberal arts colleges very soon.

I like having her around. She does some chores and provides some company to us. But mostly she stays to herself studying or reading. If you had told me 10 years ago that she would be living with us after college and that we would be okay with that, I would have thought you crazy.

Her younger sister will get an engineering degree and we will only see here once and awhile after that. We are okay with that also, though we will miss her so much.

We mostly have younger friends so they are not yet at a place where their older children can be living at home.

<comment><USER8> I don't understand this situation with your daughter:

\- Wanted to be a librarian

\- Studied to be a librarian

\- Graduated school to be a librarian

\- Got a job as a librarian

\- Doesn't make enough to live on her own and pay the cost of her education to be a librarian

And this isn't isolated to librarians, it's just a very instructive example. How is it we now have entire classes of jobs where the education they require for that job now puts you in such a degree of debt that you have to live off of your parents? We need librarians, no? We want to make sure we still have those? We have to be willing to pay for them.

<comment><USER7> It is a little more complicated and it is not as bad as it sounds for her.

Undergraduate degree in sociology and a minor in anthropology. BA in sociology is not very employable but is the most common undergraduate degree for librarians.

Once the affordable care act (ObamaCare) was made into law the library (local public library) started making most non-librarian jobs part time so they don't have to provide health insurance. So today she works circulation but is not a librarian.

She has no college debt because she got a free education. I work at the college and they pay full tuition for some staff and faculty children. Her education would not have been worth the greater than $200,000 retail cost of her degree. We are very lucky to have her college paid for.

She will end up paying for maybe 80% of her graduate degree herself and take student loans out for the last semester.

She puts money aside in her roth IRA. We are lucky she is cheap and sees the value in saving for retirement. I guess her mom and I did something right.

Her mom and I both work for colleges. Her mom works for a public four year school and I work for a private liberal arts college. We see in both that many graduates are not earning what they claim the graduates can earn. As I said in my original post that this will catch up in Liberal Arts (and really non- technical) degreed students.

Her younger sister will be going to an engineering school where the graduates are earning, on average, 25% more right out of school than other engineering schools. We are hopeful she can avoid automation job collapse and maybe participate in the automation side of this phenomenon. "If you can't beat them then join them."

<comment><USER9> Why do people even spend $200,000 on a degree if they're not rich? I went to community college for my associates degree in IT (about $5000 total), and then went to university for a bachelor's of science in IT (roughly $15,000 all in). Since you work at a university, what does that extra $180,000 buy? What's the sales pitch you'll give to students to get them to pay so much?

<comment><USER7> My Opinion Only: If you are going to an Ivy League school you are paying for the network / brand. If you are going to a lesser tier selective school you are paying for outcomes. But the outcomes, I believe, are starting to lag the price. At the school I work for about 65% of the students get some financial aid and we are need blind and meet 100% of demonstrated need. They meet need with grants (think scholarships) and a tiny amount of student debt. We do limit student loan debt to a small cap but many schools don't.

I'm not the best at selling the points because I went to a technical public university and got a BS and a MS in Chemistry and Environmental Engineers. Today I am a self taught CS guy.

I guess what I am saying is I don't fully buy into the Liberal Arts education selling points. My eldest doesn't buy into it as well. Of course the free education makes all the difference.

Typical selling points go like: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in- progress/2014/04/28/why-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in- progress/2014/04/28/why-getting-a-liberal-arts-college-education-is-not-a- mistake/#2ce745871a20)

<comment><USER10> What are the selling points on a societal level. Why is the government, and by extention you and me, supporting liberal arts degrees that will do little to support economic growth? I've never head an argument made against this question.

<comment><USER11> > Why is the government, and by extention you and me, supporting liberal arts > degrees that will do little to support economic growth?

As a taxpayer, I'm happy to support liberal arts even if it doesn't lead to economic growth. But you can't convince me that it should cost $200k to get a degree in it; that's just bananas. There's no way it costs that much to provide that service (even with a healthy profit margin on top). They _must_ be subsidizing other costs with that money.

On a related note, I think the American model of charging per-credit-unit, regardless of what you study, is illogical (maybe it's not the same at all universities). It might make things easier for the bursar's office but it just doesn't compute that a credit hour of an aerospace engineering course (with all that expensive lab equipment) should cost the same as a credit hour of American poetry. Or that a 200-student introductory chemistry class costs the same as an advanced 20-student organic chemistry class.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Credit-hour was originally conceived for the purpose of quantifying appropriate faculty compensation. It was tacked on to the student side - particularly regarding tuition - as a somewhat lazy afterthought.

College usually meant everybody would study the same subjects. The specialization of degrees is a relatively new innovation by way of 19th century German institutions adapting to industrialization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Cost of tuition continually grows, most graduates are not falling into extremely lucrative salaries and average salaries are not keeping up with inflation. This is far from surprising but is very concerning.

Another avenue to pursue this discussion from is the % of income allocated to retirement savings. I have a sneaky suspicious most of my peers are saving less for retirement than the same demographic 10, 20, 30 years ago.

What happens in a few decades when all these adults who lived with their parents and hardly saved for retirement due to lower salaries and student loans are too old to work? It seems our tax dollars will be supporting them and this looks like a big problem. Curious what others think or if I am looking at this problem from the wrong perspective.

<comment><USER13> The problem already goes beyond millennials.

Increasing automation is going to make unskilled labor a huge liability for countries. This is one reason I don't think some of the anti-immigrant position of many Americans (and Europeans) is unwarranted. Every country should want highly skilled labor to help improve their current account, but unskilled labor is huge future liability. There is already a huge surplus of domestic unskilled labor in developed countries. Allowing unskilled labor to increase through immigration is only going to exacerbate the problem.

<comment><USER14> If there's literally no work to do, you can meet the material demands of the problem by turning more machines on.

(meanwhile lots of the US runs on cheap labor)

<comment><USER15> The machines have owners. How do you make them give away whatever they produce?

<comment><USER16> They may have to. If there is no money to buy these things, then they'll be back living at home, too.

<comment><USER17> Don't be naive. Governments and corporations will just devise laws that you HAVE TO buy these goods. How do you muster the money is, and always will be, your problem.

They'll find a way to make money, don't you worry about that at all. They'll sooner make you owe money by the mere fact you're born than to give up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> white-flame I'm not a millennial, but it makes a heck of a lot of financial sense to live with family. I'm glad that with these shifts, the stigma is falling away. My immediate family has lived through rough times, with lots of "creative" living arrangements.

Of course, we should still train general life autonomy, and not promote being able-but-incapable shut-ins, but being able to venture into housing (or back out of it if things go really pear-shaped) should be done flexibly. The family unit as a _reciprocating_ life cushion is a very positive thing to maintain. If you're on the receiving end of this cushion, make sure you're doing your part for your parents and/or extended household, too.

I don't care that economists and real estate investors bemoan the shrinking population of those able to buy houses. When times are financially tough, people need to pool together, not overextend themselves. Overall statistics about economic recovery also don't evenly represent all families.

<comment><USER18> I've heard that in (at least some regions of) Spain, it's perfectly common and acceptable to continue living with their parents well into adulthood.

I remember reading that José María Olazábal (one of the best professional golfers in the 90's, with millions of dollars in earnings) was still living with his parents into his early 40's (though to be fair, he was traveling for half the year on tour).

I often think that the "move out from home" pressure is a ploy by the real estate industry.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Olaz%C3%A...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Olaz%C3%A1bal)

<comment><USER19> In India this is pretty common as well. It makes meals etc. much easier, provides instant babysitters (the grandparents), and so makes it more flexible for a husband/wife pair to work and still have some free time in the evening.

Privacy of course suffers, but then again I with multiple kids like a lot of US households have, there isn't _that_ much privacy anyway.

\</comment></comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----

> I often think that the "move out from home" pressure is a ploy by the real > estate industry.

I think it's _any_ commercial entity, right? When you move out of your parents' house, now you collectively have to pay/buy

\- Extra rent

\- Extra money for furnishing

\- Probably more money for transport (could have carpooled with family or neighbors)

\- More money for groceries (living on your own you will likely waste more groceries)

\- Extra money for insurance (since it isn't a family pool)

etc.

So you're right, but possibly underestimating it. There is a _lot_ of vested interest in convincing young people that living with their parents somehow makes them "losers" etc.

<comment><USER20> _I think it 's any commercial entity, right?_

Clearly not. Any money you save by staying at your parent's home will be spent in other commercial entities. Even people who save eventually spend it. Conversely, all that cash going to landlords, grocers, insurance, etc is not being spent on something else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Not sure if Australia's current housing situation is analogous to America's one, but one of the primary motivators on our side of the pond is financial. Rents within 60km/35mi of the main Sydney CBD have crossed well over 50% of the average persons wage, at around $700/week. I currently live 45km from Sydney and pay $800/wk for a detached house primarily because I don't want to live in a 1 bedroom box in the city. Unfortunately, for that $800, I get next to no public transport and a local government that doesn't actually do anything useful. If I had the option I would gladly have stayed at home for a few years to start saving for a deposit on a house, which is no easy feat since the national average price is creeping closer to the $1m mark, and the average around major cities is already well over that mark.

<comment><USER22> I don't understand how politicians don't consider that a crisis. Too many fat happy landlords I suppose.

<comment><USER23> Even if you artificially lower apartment rent, there would still be a lack of housing in cities. It would actually make the problem worse because more people could afford to live in cities, and less people would want to build new units.

Either young people need to be okay not living in cities, or governments need to encourage more housing to be built in cities. But, instead, young people want urban living and municipalities are only increasing restrictions on building new units. Obviously in this senario prices will go up, it's basic supply and demand.

Note: I am a young person living in a city.

<comment><USER24> > But, instead, young people want urban living

I think most young people are trying to go where the jobs are more than anything.

<comment><USER22> This entirely. If you want competitive wages and non-backwards social groups you go to cities. I suspect there will be enclaves out in the suburbs soon as people make their money and switch mid life to more rural living where it's slower and more sustainable

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I am 26 and just graduated college 3 years behind my high school class. I have accepted a software engineering job, but will be living at home commuting 3 hours per day until I can save up enough for an emergency fund to be able to move out and afford a 12 month lease in case I get fired. I'm planning on getting my own place in the beginning of Q2, 2017. Unfortunately, I'm a little behind salary wise.

<comment><USER26> Keep this up as long as you can if it does not affect your social life (girlfriend/boyfriend). There is nothing like money in the bank.

<comment><USER27> 3 hours a day is a huge amount of time and commute time is one of the biggest, easily changeable factors of happiness.

Nobody in a software engineering job should have to live with parents for financial reasons. I appreciate OP's dedication, but they should be able to save up an emergency fund pretty quickly and move into their own (small) apartment.

<comment><USER25> 3 hours per day is going to kill me. I did it over the summer for an internship, and just plan to save for 3 months until I have a solid base to add to my savings account. I'm targeting a solid 9-10 months of emergency fund. If I moved out right now, I could afford the first and last month of rent, but would not have that much left in my bank account. And for the record, a reason I want to move out is so I can start to build my own life with a woman in my life. I can't do this at my parents place. I love my parents, but at 26 it is time for me to be on my own.

<comment><USER28> Don't worry. I commute 4 hours a day. You get used to it. You have to live where you can afford, man.

<comment><USER29> At 4 hours a day it's time to look at what else you can cut, like house/apartment size.

<comment><USER30> I feel like it's maybe doable if you use that 4 hours for your "entertainment" time-budget for the day. Listen to audiobooks or podcasts. Then don't watch TV or Netflix or whatever when you actually are home.

That said, this is purely speculation. I have a 10 minute commute by subway+walking.

<comment><USER29> Can people listen to audio books while driving? I find if I'm doing anything more complicated than washing the dishes I lose track of the book.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> As a foreigner living in the U.S., I have to admit this obsession with leaving your parents house kinda baffles me.

I'm from Brazil, and despite nearing my thirties, back home the majority of my friends live with their parents and it is hardly seen as a big deal. I think a big driver of this shift is the fact that in the U.S. it is extremely common for one to leave for college, whereas in Brazil literally 100% of my friends who went to school in the country resided with their parents while they were in school.

One of the things that most attract me about the U.S. is the fact that opportunity and mobility is so rampant, and you have people crossing the country for jobs and a different life. That is a superb thing. But what I never, ever understood is seeing young friends of mine who get jobs in their hometowns but who stubbornly "move out" even if they are barely making enough to survive. In terms of lifetime earnings, those few thousand dollars a month that go to a stranger for rent are so, so valuable.

Another point this statistic does not take into account is that the current generation of "parents" are also on average better off than their parents were. The prospect of "living with the parents" would have seemed worse for my father than it did for me. I get that there are economic forces "forcing" kids to stay home, but I'm sure there is also a genuine shift in preference as well.

<comment><USER32> Speaking for myself, growing up in the US I couldn't wait to move out of my parents' house and live on my own. My friends were the same way. The reasons having my own place was appealing to me really boil down to independence.

Being able to choose where I live, being able to decide my own priorities, not dealing with them being around and pestering me, having peace and quiet when I want it and being able to blast my music that they don't like without being asked to turn it down. Being able to have my friends over. Being able to have girls over. Being able to move in with a girlfriend (which is what I did when I moved out.)

I love my parents but I cannot live with them. They annoy me within a few hours of being around them. We don't like the same things. We don't like the same music, the same TV shows, we don't hold similar politics, they are religious and I am an atheist. We just aren't compatible.

<comment><USER33> Why is liking the same TV shows a precondition to living with them? I think the real underlying problem is American's don't seem big on the "live and let live" philosophy on the micro level. Which is strange because there is so much more diversity among larger groups.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I think one of the other reasons is that parents this day and age are more liberal minded than previous generations.

I remember talking to my mom and dad about this. When they left the nest, their parents held very strict conservative view, and were often very opinionated in how their sons and daughters should conduct their lives.

Nowadays there's not much to rebel against, especially among the educated class.

<comment><USER35> This seems like a pretty big deal, parents and kids listening to a lot of the same music, watching the same kind of television/series. Its interesting, many parents actually expect their kids to rebel nowadays, because they themselves did, but this expectation is of course counter to the whole idea of rebelling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Rising rents and harder to get home loans do sound like the primary cause.

That being said, I also believe there is not quite the same urgency to leave home for current young adults. Just from personal observation they don't necessarily see increasing their expenses just to be more independent as worthwhile. Same goes with getting a driver license and a car.

I don't think it's necessarily being lazy, I think they might rightly see that building up all these expenses just to be independent is a bit overkill.

Mix this with people in general getting married later and I find it quite natural that more people are living at home.

<comment><USER37> I sort of agree with you, but I don't think you completely understand the problem. Yes, it doesn't really "matter" if people are living with their parents or on their own. The problem is what this shift signals.

People are not much different than they were 50 years ago. If it took just as much resources to live on your own 50 years ago as today, there would "not be the same urgency to leave home." Of course no one wants to leave home if it's going to cost them 40% of their take home pay, but if it only costs them 10-20% of their pay, I really doubt you will see a ton of millenials that don't care about living at home.

This shift in housing signals a dearth of resources available to the current generation. Do we think that's a good thing? A bad thing? Or is it completely neutral? Does it have implications elsewhere for our economy? These are the things that are actually important.

<comment> white-flame Or is this a signal that the broad and rapid American growth in the middle of the 20th century was anomalous, not a baseline?

It might not be a "dearth of resources" but a return to the true long-term norm.

<comment><USER38> The broad, rapid American growth has a lot to do with the fact that Europe and the Far East was in complete ruins after WWII and the US was in the immediate position to rebuild Europe.

Remember, right before the mid century prosperity, we were in a massive depression caused by the "Roaring 20s" which was fueled by another smoldering Europe.

The time period before WWI; the late 1800s and early 1900s were pretty bleak. Before that, the North was fairly prosperous but the South was under reconstruction, so that region was pretty bleak as well.

Of course, there is plenty of wealth to go around today, it's just concentrated due to a war on the middle class by industry, aided by goverment, dating back to at least Reagan.

<comment><USER39> The time period from 1890 to 1929 experienced steady growth in the U.S. [1]

The Roaring 20s was not the cause of the Great Depression. The Great Depression was caused by a variety of factors, primarily unsustainable debt issuance and overproduction in the agricultural sector. Other important factors include crushing wartime debts owed by European nations to American creditors (vastly harming exports), a liquidity crunch and massive deflation due to adherence to the gold standard, and uncertainty by Capital resulting in a lack of expansion.[2]

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States#Economic_growth_and_the_1910_break)

2\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression)

<comment><USER40> I always thought that the 'Roaring 20s' were caused by 'unsustainable debt issuance'. You seem to not connect the two... can you elaborate?

<comment><USER39> It's a common misconception that the stock speculation bought on leverage was the cause of the depression. Indeed, margin calls caused automatic stock sales to cover the leverage, forcing stock prices down.

However, the cascade of bank failures occurred due to due to defaulting agricultural loans. The loans' refinancing requests were suddenly refused when European powers pulled currency out of U.S. banks in order to pay their war debts and reparations.

The stock market crash was not the cause of the depression; just one of many larger factors that precipitated it.

<comment><USER40> I didn't distinguish between borrowing for stocks and borrowing for agriculture. I see both as elements of the unsustainable debt buildup. I view the stock market crash as a symptom of the unsustainable debt, not as a cause.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Young Canadian here. Personally, it's just hard to find work, and there's no cheaper place than mom's house. My girlfriend lives with her parents. She has a job, but her family is having a hard time finding work themselves.

I'm doing it because it's free, and it's a chance to find a job. If I had a steady job, I'd be out in no time. But goings are tough.

I'm saying job a lot. Live in rural Canada and you'll find that job is the magic word. Lots of people do contracting work up here, for welding and scaffolding and that sort of thing. Lots of people have known the experience of working for a month and never seeing the paycheck as the company goes under.

There's a lot of fuss about the Cite C dam in British Columbia. I think it will be built, no matter the problems, because it means work for the people building it, and those people are people I know. Jobs jobs jobs.

I know this isn't about Canada, and I didn't even read the paywalled article, but I think we're staying home because the economy sucks and there are no jobs.

<comment><USER42> I've lived at home and I've lived on my own and I'd rather live at home even if the cost was the same. Going home to an empty apartment or roommates that don't care about you is lonely af.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> The most natural state is to remain with your family until you form your own family. I have never understood the stigma attached to adult children living at home.

Admittedly, this might very well be because I have lived in multiple cultures, most of which don't have this antagonistic "kick them out of the house" relationship between parents and adult kids.

The other side of that story is that, yes, if an adult kid has opportunities that might take the kid away from the family home it could make total sense to move out. One example is getting into a really good university on the other side of the country.

I personally believe that the family connection is crucially important and it must remain as intact as possible until the adult children are ready to form their own families. There is no better incubator for future good people than a good family life.

<comment><USER44> _> personally believe that the family connection is crucially important and it must remain as intact as possible until the adult children are ready to form their own families. There is no better incubator for future good people than a good family life._

I think there's something to be said for living on your own, cooking your own meals, doing your own laundry and housework, paying your own living expenses, and managing your own finances, _before_ taking the plunge into a situation where it's non-optional. (E.g. a marriage.)

<comment><USER43> The things you mention are incompatible with adult children staying at home longer.

The secret is to have some of those things be part of normal life from when they are little. Bring the laundry to the washing machine. Help fold it. Help cook Help clean, etc. Not that difficult.

The financial side can be introduced initially through games and later on in different ways.

It just takes forethought and consistency. And it doesn't have to be punishment but rather part of normal life.

<comment><USER43> Damn iOS auto-correct...that was suppose to say "compatible".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I'm curious... why is this such a bad thing? As a society (an American society, as this isn't true in many other places) we place a rather negative stigma on a person who doesn't leave home at the age of majority (usually 18).

This is a norm that I think we should do away with. And by that, I mean we should stop making turning that age the time that we flip the switch and the kids move out.

What I would suggest in its place... encourage them to go _when they 're ready_. This places more responsibility on the parents in assisting with all the types of preparation that make one ready for leaving home.

There's a LOT more to this conversation, but I figure this is a good starter. :)

<comment><USER46> Well it is an economic thing. It means that jobs and wages don't support independent living. It means that young people don't (or can't) migrate for jobs. It may mean that there aren't enough jobs or they are otherwise unqualified.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> First of all, housing in America is a dual income trap. So unless you are comfortable with roommates, have a significant other, or can attain a lucrative salary, you have limited options. Second, renting is for chumps; as you will simply throw money away to the tune of a monthly mortgage payment.

Therefore, you should stay where you are (if possible) and save until that down payment can make a worthwhile home affordable with only a single income. It is the only fiscally responsible choice.

<comment> q-base Renting also equals freedom. YES you may throw away money in the light of the ability to sell a property at equal or higher price than you payed. BUT you may also end up losing a lot of money or being bound to a property if market changes and prices drop. Renting is a transparent way of knowing the cost of living where you do. In a liquid somewhat stable housing market you probably are better off buying - but just to say that saying renting is for chumps is bit of a simplification in my opinion.

P.S. I know the above probably is a bit of topic as even having the ability to choose somewhat implies that you aren't totally struggling financially.

<comment><USER47> "Renting also equals freedom."

Only if you plan to relocate often.

"...you may also end up losing a lot of money or being bound to a property if market changes and prices drop."

Which is why making good investments and leveraging refinancing is very important.

"...saying renting is for chumps is bit of a simplification..."

Yet in most cases, it isn't. Just like leasing a car.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I've got two kids in high school. Among all of the ways to support them after college if necessary, having them live at home may be the most economical. Fortunately, they're pleasant to hang around with.

</comment><comment><USER49> The nuclear family concept was always odd to me anyway.

Myself, my wife, and my daughter are building a house with my parents right now. If you can find a good job in the same city, I have trouble understanding why someone wouldn't want to live together.

The economies of scale and the benefits of having extra helpers around with our daughter (and 2nd one on the way!), more than outweigh any downsides to us. The psychological impacts to our children of having our grandparents around as positive continual influences seem pretty valuable to us?

</comment><comment><USER50> It might surprise people but there is no stigma around adults living with their parents in other places. As if giving a stranger $1.5k+ every month is an indicator of adulthood. Save that money and put it into a retirement or savings account. Unless your job or life situation truly demands having your own space I see no reason to move out.

</comment><comment><USER51> What I would like to see happen is for young people to stay with their aging parents even after becoming financially settled and even after marriage.

The whole concept of 'moving out' is barbaric to say the least. Old folks who can't fend for themselves in many situations and their old bodies fail them in most basic of tasks such as cleaning house and cooking are then simply shoved into 'old folks house' till they breathe their last.

Best if this generation can break this sh!tty concept about 'moving out' \- after all, they themselves would become old one day...

<comment><USER52> I often see that point of view when I discuss with friends in Asia (where living with the parents is much more prevalent). Let me offer an anecdotical counter point. I have a grandmother, she's getting old (85 years old) and things are much harder than they used to be, she no longer can easily go shopping by herself or clean the house.

We've asked her multiple times if she wanted to live with us or our aunt, every time she's refused. She wants to stay independent and instead hired a helper who comes everyday for a few hours and helps her with the basic tasks.

We often come to visit her but she doesn't want us to stay too long or too often for the same reason. She values her independence. So, yes I see the point about living with aging parents but it's also good not to deny the independence of those same aging parents.

The Asian model of staying at home with the parents does have a lot of tradeoffs too. Usually the wife needs to move in with her husband's parents and this is not easy at all for the wife. I've seen a few divorces that were due to conflicts with the in laws (which are much worse when you actually have to live with them). I also have a friend whose parents had a big house and lived together with all their sons and the parents decided to sell that house, buy separate houses for each of their sons and live alone because it was just too much headache for them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> The plural of anecdote is not data but just to give my own experience here; my youngest brother is of this age group and still lives with my parents for no reason other than laziness. He just has no ambition or interest in getting a steady job and moving out to his own place. No interest in finding a romantic partner. He just sits at home and plays video games as he has for his entire life. He has friends doing the same thing.

I don't know if this is a real trend or just something I'm seeing but someone should probably study this phenomenon.

</comment><comment><USER53> Moved out to college after highschool, never lived home since.

Not everyone who lives at home with their parents are the same and in some cases it does make sense,

but from my observations of people who live at home:

\- No skills on managing self: relies on parents to manage

\- No financial management skills: using all your money for play money and not contributing to the household.

\- Can't take a date home: unless you want to introduce your parents right away

\- ManChild Syndrome: grown kids playing video games and watching tv.

\- No drive: as long as you have parents, why try. Everything is already provided for you.

<comment><USER29> I lived at home until my late 20's and your way off on most of those.

> No skills on managing self:

This was the worst part for me, I wanted and had been self reliant before, but it's hard to do in a shared house.

>No financial management skills: using all your money for play money and not contributing to the household.

I was paying minimal board (when I was able) and saving for a deposit on a house (which are insanely expensive here), is that irresponsible?

>Can't take a date home: unless you want to introduce your parents right away

It's not the 1950's anymore. Meeting someones parents is not a big deal.

>ManChild Syndrome: grown kids playing video games and watching tv.

Problem being?

>No drive: as long as you have parents, why try. Everything is already provided for you.

Another expense to try and minimize.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm in the minority here of my generation but I'm 19 and I really would like to get out of my house. Due to some complications with my family it's just my mom and I now and we'll be moving into an apartment soon. I'd like to get out so I can learn about machining and electronics without being told to "stop bringing garbage into my house".

Unfortuantly I 1) don't have enough time for a full time job since I'm wasting away my better years and credit in college, and 2) none of my friends want to move out or will be allowed to move out by their parents.

Finding a room mate will be tough. I'm going to try... but it'll still be tough. This is extra worse because of how high the rent is here in NJ (even in Paterson, Franklin Lakes, and Newerk where I go to school).

</comment><comment><USER54> I'm going to say a simple X Y plot probably oversimplifies the picture.

1) Parents have been having kids later in life. How many of these are because the child (read: adult offspring) is home to help care of an ill or older parent?

2) As the divorce rate increases homes that were was the right size for a traditional family are now too big for one parent or the other on their own. The kids move back because it's practical for all.

3) Related to 2, the housing market has sucked. Selling for many hasn't been an option. This "enables" yas to stay home longer.

The point is, this isn't a YA issue per se. There are plenty of broader social changes that a helping to redefine the American family unit.

</comment><comment><USER17> Disclaimer: this is a somewhat personal-nuanced and anecdotal essay, so skip it if you prefer colder facts. You've been warned. ;)

Eastern European (Bulgarian) 36-year old programmer here, still living in Sofia (the capital).

We don't miss communism and socialism. _At all_. A good chunk of us around here are competitive and want to demonstrate skills for better money. There are frauds and freeloaders but hell, is there a community where there isn't?

I've witnessed the fall of our regime (1989) when I was 9. Later on the fall of the USSR followed. I didn't quite appreciate these events back then but the effect on the standard of living on the other hand was VERY visible.

It has been a _very_ gradual process, but our country is bleeding brains, skills and money -- badly, and all the time. Quite frankly I don't think that the EU countries are so much better; what good is a triple salary if your rent and bills are triple the amount as well? The only real benefit I guess is to get a citizenship several years down the line and not be afraid that yet another shady government will appropriate all retirement funds and you'll be left with peanuts when you eventually grow old.

My mother lives with me and my girlfriend. _Her pension is 60 euros_. You read that correctly, it's not a typo. If it wasn't for me, she'd be yet another old woman with eyes full of tears, struggling not to die of cold on the street, and to have a few mouthfuls of bread a day. (Father died a long time ago, back in 2002)

We at Eastern Europe are diverse people. We don't frown upon at either situation -- living with or without parents, but for many people living in a bigger flat/house with the family is simply more convenient (my mother's cooking is absolutely fantastic and is easily worth €30 a meal, I am pretty sure of it!) and makes much more sense financially. It is what it is, we can't do much about it.

Long story short: I am now in ~ €20,000 debt and the thought of getting a mortgage is making me grind my teeth. As other posters said, we're not even close! My mother and father were working governmental jobs and they had an apartment fully paid for when they were at their ages of 40-42. Had two cars. And that was a backwater communistic/socialistic country, a mere satelite of the USSR. I can't imagine how much better many others had it really.

(The fact that I should probably look for a higher paid job since I am in demand is an irony that doesn't escape me, but that's a personal struggle interwoven with many other factors which I won't touch upon here.)

The article has struck many nerves in me. It's true not only in the USA.

</comment><comment><USER55> For me, the main reason I don't have a house is because I wouldn't have anyone to share it with; finding a partner outside of college while being employed in a field comprised of 97% men is impossible.

<comment><USER56> Then this might be a great chance to choose one that you like, with the features you prefer, before have to make a compromise with a partner!

Keep it nice and cozy and you'll be able to invite women to your house. Seems like a solid game plan.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> I'm a millennial - Living with my parents after college allowed me to save a boat load of money which I then invested and now I'm in a comfortable place finally - even looking at early retirement.

</comment><comment><USER58> Could be a demographic thing. Increasing Asian and Mexican population have stronger cultural ties to family and saving habits?

They should Plot it by race.

Honestly though, video games and vr. Who needs your own place

</comment><comment><USER59> This article is part of a broader spotlight casted upon declining economic opportunities. Raj Chetty and company released a great deal of research about this, which journalists have been slowly summarizing for the public: [http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/](http://www.equality-of- opportunity.org/)

</comment><comment><USER60> ZIRP is the reason. Once we get away from ZIRP, interest rate sensitive assets will go down in price, and people will be able to afford housing. They may not be able to afford bread (inflation), but housing will be cheaper.

</comment><comment><USER61> If there aren't enough houses for everyone, then the people who can't afford to pay as much will be the ones pushed out of the market.

</comment><comment><USER62> Any way to read the article without signing in? Can someone paste useful paragraphs from the article here?

<comment><USER63> The "web" link beneath the submission title will bring you to a search page with a link to the actual article, which should get you around the paywall.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Great. Now let us push it even more.

</comment><comment><USER65> Sounds like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori)

</comment><comment><USER66> Cant read the article since im not subscribed.

Why were so many people living with their parents in 1940 and why did it stop? Does the article explain that?

<comment><USER67> Click on "web" under the article title (in HN). Then you can click on the link in google. It's a built in HN hack...

<comment><USER66> heh good to know. thanks

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> it's the economy, stupid.

americans of generations X and Y got raped out of their money by the looter economy comprised of high-interest big-sum debt, decreasing wages, increasing rent, increasing cost of living, and few jobs. this story gets rehashed every few months (starting from around 2010) as though it's new. it's not new that capitalism has scarred the young.

it took me a while to leave my parents after college-- and it was a miserable period that couldn't have elapsed quickly enough. suffice it to say that young americans stay at home due to not being able to afford any alternatives. even living with roommates is expensive if you're in an area that has jobs-- and most areas do not have any jobs, or any well paying jobs.

we can't save money to move out, nor buy a house, nor save for retirement, etc, etc. it's been this way for nearly ten years. things have actually gotten worse economically, and we're now overdue for another recession. the "main street" economy is completely divorced from any successes of the "wall st" or finance center economy, yet it suffers their failures even more violently.

millenials can't afford to take care of their dying boomer parents... it seems as though they'll grow even poorer while trying, however. millenials can also expect no real return from their investment, as their parents have themselves been hollowed out of wealth by the process of aging.

here is a radical statement: seizing the means of production or forcing the downward redistribution of capital is now justified and overdue... the time wasted waiting for a handout from the business owners or the government would be better spent organizing the young to eat the rich.

<comment><USER69> "When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich." ~Jean-Jacques Rousseau

"Eat the rich, there's only one thing that they're good for, eat the rich, take one bite now, come back for more." ~Aerosmith</comment></comment>


Shots: get an animated gif from a Wayback Machine archive - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/bevacqua/shots <comment><USER2> I wish the Internet Archive offered a way to download a WARC[0][1] archive of a specific site somehow, so we didn't have to do like waybackpack and fetch through the wayback machine and try to strip out the modified HTML.

Of course, they probably store their collection in huge WARC files not clearly deliniated by domain. I wonder how heavy it would be to generate WARC subsets on-the-fly, given that they already have a good index for the data?

[0] [http://digitalpreservation.gov/formats/fdd/fdd000236.shtml](http://digitalpreservation.gov/formats/fdd/fdd000236.shtml) [1] [http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=44717](http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=44717)

</comment><comment><USER3> I came across an online version of this several years back here on Hacker News, does anyone know where that went and/or if it is still up?

</comment><comment><USER4> Can someone who's installed this post the amazon gif from the example? I think it'd be super interesting.

</comment><comment><USER5> Simple and useful. I love it.</comment>


A non-hipster's guide to brewing amazing filter coffee - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@mr_ed/a-non-hipster-s-guide-to-brewing-amazing-hipster-filter-coffee-46a912e190ec#.i0q2h9uwj <comment><USER2> What makes this a non-hipster guide?

I like hand-drip coffee because the equipment is cheap and you get to choose if you want 1 cup or a pot.

But your kettle most likely makes your water too hot, which means you should do it for the frugality. If you want "great" coffee this way you need to hipster up and get a special kettle and special coffee, take special care in pouring and then why not just a filter machine and not be a hipster about it?

</comment><comment><USER3> Or you can simply take a spoonful of very finely ground coffee and add boiling water for a delicious unfiltered coffee.

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

</comment><comment><USER4> I recommend AeroPress. Easy to setup, easy to use and easy to clean. Makes a great brew.

<comment><USER5> Aeropress user here as well. I skip the bean step and use Café Bustelo. It's inexpensive, the grind is just right for both Aero methods (normal or inverted), and tastes great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Watch out! This is a gateway activity to becoming an actual Hipster!

<comment><USER7> It's already hipster activity, and all hipsters deny they are hipsters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'll never understand why the first thing recommended to people is quite possibly the most temperamental brewing method (outside of espresso).

<comment><USER9> Or why water quality is ranked so low in importance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've been using a Chemex since mid 2015/12 and love it so far. I highly recommend giving it a try!

</comment><comment><USER11> Or just try a French Press.

<comment><USER12> Be careful with too much french press. It has been linked with increased blood cholesterol levels[1]. I made the switch to filter-based coffee brewing methods because my levels were high. Obviously not a problem for everyone, but for those with a family history of high cholesterol levels (like myself), it's worth being aware of the potential impact.

[1] [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070614162223.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070614162223.htm)

<comment><USER11> I'll keep it in mind, but I had my yearly biometric screening done less than a month ago and was told my cholesterol was "fantastic."

Despite being in the tech world and a coffee enthusiast, I am not one of these guys who drinks four or five cups a day. I make exactly two pots during the day, both of which I share with coworkers, so my intake rarely exceeds two eight-ounce mugs' worth a day.</comment></comment></comment>