Millennials Don't Care About Owning Cars, and Car Makers Can't Figure Out Why - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcoexist.com/3027876/millennials-dont-care-about-owning-cars-and-car-makers-cant-figure-out-why <comment><USER4> Pinch of salt required:

"Companies like our client ZipCar, for example".

Blink and you'll miss it: this article is not exactly flagged as sponsored content. Author bio, tucked away off-page:

"Darren Ross is executive vice president of insights and solutions at college marketing agency Fluent."

Insights and solutions, eh?

[https://www.fastcoexist.com/user/darren- ross](https://www.fastcoexist.com/user/darren-ross)

<comment><USER5> The funny thing is, if much fewer people are getting driver's licenses as the article claims, then ZipCar is also screwed.

I'm an example of that; since I never planned to own a car, I never got a license, and it's very hard to justify that time and expense when you can just take an Uber for a couple of bucks more.

<comment><USER6> I don't drive and don't have a license, but Uber is banned in my neck of the woods and taxis are ridiculously expensive. Driving would probably make my life a lot easier.

<comment><USER7> As long as all you are concerned about is the difficulty of moving from one point to another (presumably of a minimum distance) you are correct. You probably are not accounting for the overhead of actually owning a properly maintained and insured vehicle. The former has little cumulative effect on your life, the latter is an really complicated situation fraught with personal choices and teeming with people trying to take advantage of your naivety. Cars are a huge responsibility, 100% luxury, and generally a burden, make no mistake about it.

<comment><USER8> _100% luxury_

Actually, _not_ owning a car is a luxury. How do you get all the stuff you need/want that you don't/can't fetch yourself from the source? You pay someone else to drive it for you! Same with people who talk about Uber, like paying for someone to drive you around isn't a luxury...

<comment><USER9> It entirely depends where you live whether a car is a luxury or a necessity. I grew up in a tiny village, where it was a necessity. now I live in a major European city, and it would be a luxury item. Something that sometimes saves me some time on the public transport, or the need to carry a few shopping bags a couple of hundred meters. I have a car sharing account but can rarely justify the cost of it when public transport is ubiquitous.

<comment><USER10> I think that may be the difference. Public transportation in Europe is generally much better than it is in the U.S. In most of America, you can sort of get around using busses but for the most part, you have to have some sort of personal transportation. And our bus system is not really designed/built for normal people everyday travel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is it because cars are expensive horrendous fossil fuel powered polluting machines that are not compatible with city living? Is it because the insurance industry, by its failure to deal with fraud, except by simply pricing it in, had made insurance premiums unreasonably expensive? Is it because the streets are clogged and travel times are huge? Is it because going by bike is just so nice?

<comment><USER12> I think I would add "Is it because they are money sinks, requiring substantial regular payments for insurance, maintenance, fuel, and (in some cities) parking spots?".

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> There are plenty of mililenials out there with cars, they just don t have NEW ones.

But for the millenials out there with old cars, and for the ones without a car at all. Nobody wants to buy a car because they're a huge financial responsibility. Duh? Millenials, who are sattled with student loans or, even worse (statistically), didn't go to school, don't want to attach themselves to a huge payment every month. If they're in a city, owning a car probably comes with huge parking fees as well.

<comment><USER5> _There are plenty of mililenials out there with cars, they just don t have NEW ones._

The article also points out that driving licenses have dropped significantly, so it's not just a matter of buying cheaper cars.

<comment><USER14> The article asserts this, but doesn't support it. It's got a statistic for the current rate, but for the past it basically says "back in MY day we were EXCITED to get our licenses."

<comment><USER15> For the boomer generation cars were socialisation: how you got to see your friends.

For the millenial generation that's smartphones.

<comment><USER16> Agreed. Another possible factor: 15 years ago, most states had full licenses at 16 years old. Now, most states have restricted licenses, that "graduate" into unrestricted licenses by 17 or 18 years old (21 in the case of Maine) [1]. Even then, your unrestricted license can be delayed based on your driving record. I'd guess that the wait and the additional red-tape makes driving in general a less exciting proposition than it was "back in my day".

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_license_in_the_Unit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_license_in_the_United_States)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This should have a (2014) label. It's an old story and an old theory that was always dubious and was quickly disproven.

A better, more recent story: [https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-01-04/millennia...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-01-04/millennials- are-buying-cars-after-all)

Edit: The earlier version of my comment was wrong.

</comment><comment><USER18> >But that's not the "driving" factor, especially considering that owning a smartphone or other mobile device, with its monthly fees of network access, data plan, insurance, and app services, is almost comparable to the monthly payments required when leasing a Honda Civic.

iphone 7 plus 128GB - 41.58$

Verizon 4GB data plan - 50$

insurance - 10$

app services? - 20$

Total - 121.58$

From Honda's website, they're advertising a civic lease for $179 a month. that's with 2000$ due at signing. Oh wait! you'll also need mandatory driver's insurance on that vehicle, that'll be at least another 50$ (im told, i live in michigan which has the highest car insurance prices in the nation, my 2012 sonata costs 178 a month to insure, that's well above my monthly payment on the car itself - i have never been in an accident and i have no tickets in the last 5 years) anyways, so we are at least at $229 total with a 2000$ initial down payment. That's quite considerably more expensive...

oh wait! theres also the various fees for getting a license, getting a license plate, registering the vehicle with the state, and of course the mental cost of maintaining the various paperwork.

Total - 229$ + 2500ish$

<comment><USER19> Also, if we're including cost of a data plan for the phone, I think it's only fair to include gas and maintenance in the cost of the car.

<comment><USER20> This. The TCO of a car is ginormous, even for all the comfort it provides.

<comment><USER7> For some reason people are caught up in sticker price value versus demand value and try to play this cute game where a car is an investment, or better yet, a tool to be leveraged.

Cars are a luxury that we afford and then make excuses as to why we are justified in the expense. There are a few luxury car brands you could consider "investable" because of your ability to re-lease and do week long or similarly timeboxed rentals, but, even that is just an excuse that the people wealthy enough to afford those types of cars make to explain their luxury expense.

<comment><USER21> I'd be willing to argue that new cars are a luxury. A quick search[0] says that only 26% live in an urban environment. The rest are suburban or rural. The latter portion don't always have walkable areas.

I used to live a short 7 minute drive from my office. Mapping it says 15 via bike and 1 hour via foot. It would have been nearly impossible to bike there, because there are no bike lanes, areas with no sidewalk nor shoulder, intersections that are awkward even for cars, high speed limits, etc. I mean, you could get there, but it would be a very unenjoyable ride. Walking? That's pretty much out of the question.

There's another option: public transportation. It is _very_ unreliable. The map system is so convoluted that a group of cyclists are doing their best to release a FOSS app to navigate the bus system.

Taxis and ride-share are almost non existent and very expensive. UberX is roughly $22 round trip.

Not all American metro areas are made for walking/cycling. Once you hit our downtown area, walking and cycling are pretty easy. Thus, I argue that cars are not an inherent luxury in America.

[0]:[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-suburban-are-big- am...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-suburban-are-big-american- cities/)

<comment><USER22> In USA, living in an urban walkable area is just as much a luxury as owning a car, if not more, thanks to some really poor infrastructure and urban planning choices made mid 20 century.

In fact, the only city I would consider for car-free ownership would be NYC, and you all know how expensive it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Learning to drive was expensive, so I didn't do it, then I graduated and moved to a city (like many others my age) and didn't need a car because public transport is ubiquitous and parking facilities aren't. Only anecdotal, but I know a lot of people in my position.

<comment><USER24> Yep.

I grew up in the sticks, so of course I got a car the second I could to get around.

Then I moved to an actual city (i.e., 250k population) and I spent more time hunting for parking spots than actually driving, and when I moved to an even bigger city, I left my car with my parents because I was fed up with how _inconvenient_ cars were.

I don't see how car manufacturers are going to "fix" being worse than public transit.

<comment><USER25> They could fix it by burning down public transit, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy)

<comment><USER26> Austin is the modern version of that.

[http://www.vocativ.com/327333/a-world-without-uber- dispatche...](http://www.vocativ.com/327333/a-world-without-uber-dispatches- from-austin/)

[http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/22/banning-uber-and- lyft-...](http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/22/banning-uber-and-lyft-in- austin-has-led-to-an-explosion-of-black-market-ride-sharing/)

<comment><USER27> That was because Uber and Lyft threw a tantrum about having to get proper background checks for their drivers. They're not banned from the city; they could come back at any time if they agree to use real background checks.

The SSN-based background checks Uber and Lyft use are way too easy to defraud by using a fake SSN. Fingerprint background checks are much more secure. I don't get the complaints: I had to get a fingerprint background check when I legally changed my name two years ago. Big whoop. It cost me about $40 and a few weeks of waiting (and I got the actual fingerprinting done at lunch, so I didn't miss any work), and I don't care because it meant I could finally use the name I go by on official stuff.

What Uber and Lyft did is straight out of the 19th-century robber baron playbook: they responded to sensible regulation by boycotting the entire local market. That's not how a good corporate citizen behaves; it's abusive and monopolistic behavior.

<comment><USER26> _The SSN-based background checks Uber and Lyft use are way too easy to defraud by using a fake SSN._

Do you have any evidence that criminal behavior is higher on Uber and Lift than on yellow cabs?

In any case, the fingerprint requirement is not the only thing the law requires. The law essentially required turning Uber into a yellow-cab like service which would more or less make part time driving unecomonical: [http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm%3Fid=245769](http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm%3Fid=245769)

It's factually wrong that they are a monopoly. Yellow cabs still exist, and suck just as bad as they ever did. Assuming Uber and Lyft are as unsafe as proponents of Proposition 1 claim, isn't it good that they are gone?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Driving, I gather, used to carry connotations of fun, romance, freedom, and prosperity. For me, today, it's more likely to evoke the opening scene of Office Space. The experience sucks, it's expensive, and it feels more like an obligation than an accomplishment. Taking the bus almost feels like a no- brainer in the same way that I'm apparently expected to feel that owning a car is a no-brainer.

</comment><comment><USER8> It's part of something bigger, it's not just cars as status symbol in decline, but cars as a lifestyle enabler.

I'm a diver, and to live the dive lifestyle, i.e. diving regularly at the weekends not just a week a year on holiday, pretty much requires owning a car. You can load it up the night before, set off at 0-dark-30 to make the tide, use it as a base for the weekend, come back late and unload the next day, etc etc. Do-able with a rental but a lot more hassle given the timings. Including tanks and weights, the Mrs and I would probably take 150-200kg of gear for a weekend trip.

Diving as a sport is in long-term decline since the 1990s, so are mountaineering, basically all outdoor pursuits that require some logistics get to remote places, and possibly even all outdoor activities. People these days prefer to not go outside _at all_ if they can avoid it. This can't be good for public health.

<comment><USER29> "People these days prefer to not go outside at all if they can avoid it. "

Counterpoint: I LOVE cycling. Do it all the time. I love riding anywhere I can make it my main mode of transport.

When I lived in LA, this was rarely. I rode down Lincoln Blvd. several times and still remember the sound of tires squealing from the pickup behind me. My best guess is that the driver looked up from their phone and saw me with about 0 seconds to spare, given that they came to a stop about an inch from my rear wheel.

I like cycling so much, in fact, that I moved to a European city where I can cycle to work, to the shop, to my friends' places, every day. There were other reasons too of course, but that was one of the biggest.

Living in a European city where things can be reached by cycle meant that really, I don't even need a car, so I don't own one.

Anyway, there are outdoor activities that don't require a car.

<comment><USER30> I'm in Norway. In the city I'm at, a car is definitely a luxury. We have a used one that is only used to transport heavy goods (kitty litter) and go out of town occasionally. I still walk to the grocery store and most places in town or ride the bus.

However, we would go out of town before we had a car... because public transportation is really a thing. City to city. Not all-inclusive, but enough that one can travel to the outdoors so long as you are willing to walk or cycle as well. It just takes slightly more planning is all.

I could have never had this sort of car-less freedom in the states. Living in a larger city was probably one thing, but getting from city to city - or city to the outdoors - was quite another entirely.

<comment><USER29> I remember visiting Seoul and being quite surprised that you can take the Metro to the surrounding hillside. It's lovely.

Of course, I still use a car now and then. I'll rent one a few times a year for a long weekend, and I use GoCar when I need to rent a van for whatever reason.

I definitely don't want to own one though. It feels about as practical as owning an airplane - another class of vehicle which is useful, but not necessary to build your civilization around.

<comment><USER30> I'd imagine your life would change very little if you bought something used - that is what we did. Better than renting a few times, for us, anyway.

If I were living some other places, though, I'd have the same attitude as you. Talked to a cab driver in Amsterdam once and found out there was something like a 4-5 year wait on parking spaces. I was completely amazed - owning a car is definitely not _that_ important to me.

<comment><USER29> "I'd imagine your life would change very little if you bought something used - that is what we did. Better than renting a few times, for us, anyway."

The local garages charge at least €150 a month for parking. Auto insurance, just for liability, is quite expensive as well. I'd have to pay tax and get an NCT inspection every year too. Not to mention that I have spent too much of my life crawling underneath crappy old cars ('88 Volvo 760, '86 Volvo 240, '90 Nissan Sentra) when I could have just rented something new and well-maintained by someone who isn't me.

There are plenty of folks here who will say "but you're a HN reader! Clearly several hundred euro a month should be a trifling expense!" but, well, it's not. Also, the idea that everyone has a car is how employers in less hospitable places (namely, the US) justify putting their offices a zillion miles away from transit.

<comment><USER30> Yeah, see, that parking fee would be about enough for me to pass on the car. Just because one is a HN reader doesn't mean they find that a trifling expense. Luckily either that isn't as common in the city I'm in or we are lucky enough to live in a small house turned apartments with parking right outside.

I'm not entirely certain about insurance rates on that one - truth be told, that is just something my spouse picks up and I never bothered to ask. I'm still not actually legal to drive here yet. I missed the short deadline, now get to take classes and re-learn. I think if we didn't have dreams of living out in the countryside where transport is much more sparse, I'd not even bother with the expense.

<comment><USER29> " we are lucky enough to live in a small house turned apartments with parking right outside."

Not as relevant in an area where land is inexpensive, but in cities free parking is usually a sign of terrible inefficiencies in land allocation. See "The High Cost of Free Parking" by Donald Shoup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> For me car ownership as a millennial is about "working smarter" and saving HUGE amounts of time and hassle.

I own two cars. They're not _essential_ (indeed one is a "fun car"...) - <USER2> live in a city and use public transport to get to and from work and get most of my groceries delivered so I could live without if I wanted, but why would I want to make my life harder and more boring?!

The time-savings of car ownership alone are _through the roof_ , not to mention the huge convenience factor. There are several trips I do often that take under 5-10 minutes in a car, but take 30-40 on public transport/buses. I can get to the shops and buy 10 bags of groceries and be back home again and unpacked in 30 mins, but on a bus it would take 30 mins to even get there! (and then I'd realistically only be able to carry say 4 bags home with me on the bus and not have anything frozen). I estimate that car ownership saves me 45-60 minutes on this sort of trip that I do frequently - you cant put a price on that sort of convenience & time-savings.

How much more code or other fun stuff could you do with an extra 3 or 4 hours a week?

Of course there are instances where public transport is faster too (like getting into Central London) so for me it works to have the best of both worlds - use whichever makes sense. It does not need to be a polar decision.

Other millennials I work with or talk to often seem amazed that I have one let alone two cars - I dont think they realise how cheap it is to own and run a second-hand car. Get a 3 or 4 year old Honda or a Toyota that has been looked after and you'll only need to insure it, service it and put petrol/diesel in it. Up front cost will be £3-5K (and it will last many years and still be worth something when you sell it), annual running costs about £500 - <USER3> obviously varies, I probably spend about £300-400 a year on petrol.

So for me all in about £900 a year to run a car, or based on my average Uber fare of about £13, about 1.3 Uber trips a week if you ignore initial upfront cost.

</comment><comment><USER32> It looks like people like to comment on the title without reading the article - it says that young people are genuinely not interested, as demonstrated by the fact fewer take a driving licence. They do have money, but they prefer spending on IT gadgets rather than cars. The article may be wrong of course, but it's not simply a matter of them being broke.

<comment><USER13> The idea that millenials are buying gadgets over cars is a pretty dumb one. Those aren't in the same realm of financial responsibility.

People disagree with the article.

<comment><USER33> How much of the money spent on cars is spent on transportation vs spent on status? Money made from selling status has to compete with everything from craft beer to the latest iPhone and holidays that can be bragged about on social media.

<comment><USER34> Not to mention the status boost of being rich enough to not need to own a car.

Not owning a car in the current year is pretty much the "don't own a TV" of the last couple decades. Everyone competes to status signal the hardest how they support it, but when the rubber meets the road (ahem) its emperors new clothes time and almost everyone does the opposite of the signalling.

Something often not discussed is the opportunity cost of not owning a car. Not being able to have hobbies other than drinking at college bars, for example. Not being able to leave the city, not being able to travel, or visit a real park. Sorry can't take that job or promotion because I gotta live 5 minutes walk from the leased apartment. Sorry can't go out on that date, can't you just go with me to the college bar again? The cost of the parochial tunnel vision of never meeting people outside walking distance.

<comment><USER33> Your straw man requires someone not have a car and not have the money that one saves from not having a car.

For the price of a car payment, I can commute on the DC metro and rent a car for a weekend. For the price of car insurance, I can take Uber for quite a few miles. For the money I made renting my parking space, I can rent a car for another weekend and subscribe to Amazon Prime. With the money saved on gas, car maintenance, and parking downtown, I can fly home to see family.

<comment><USER13> > Your straw man requires someone not have a car and not have the money that > one saves from not having a car.

That's not the predicament that most people are in. Just because you don't have a 30k car doesn't mean you have 30k in the bank to utilize. Hell, since most people finance cars now a days, having a 30k car doesn't mean that you had anywhere near 30k in the bank before buying. Whereas, if you buy that car, whether or not you had something in the bank to cover it before buying, you now are on the hook for maintenance, gas, insurance, etc. So no that's not straw man at all.

> For the price of a car payment, I can commute on the DC metro and rent a car > for a weekend.

I won't get started on this, as owning and utilizing a car in the DC/NoVa area is a beast onto its own.

<comment><USER33> What did I write that requires 30k in the bank? I'm specifically talking about the same cash flows you mention.

The amount spent per month on car loan, insurance, gas, parking, amortized maintenance, etc is now free to pay for other forms of transportation: car rentals, uber, flights.

Someone with the monthly cash flow to _choose_ not to buy a car, that complains they can't afford to go anywhere or do anything is very much a straw man.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is why I think the Apple Car is doomed. Apple makes products with a luxury/status component, that people want to own. But if transportation becomes a service rather than a physical product, the market for autonomous vehicles will not be for end-consumers. Apple will need to seriously rethink its strategy and perhaps reinvent itself.

I also think that once autonomous cars are ubiquitous, transportation will become a service no matter how much big companies want to see it differently, because autonomous vehicles as a service will make parking spots totally unnecessary. Interesting times ahead for city planning.

<comment><USER35> I'm pretty sure everyone working on autonomous cars realizes there is no future in personal ownership.

<comment><USER36> I'm pretty sure you can argue for personal car ownership in a self-driving world. Do you want to get into a shared vehicle right after the guy who puked up his dinner? Have you ever been in a public restroom? Some people will not want to use shared transportation. Other people may see ownership and customization of a self-driving car as the ultimate status symbol. What's better than Donald Trump's gold plated throne room pulling up to the curb?

<comment><USER5> The puke will be detected by the electronic vision & nose, which will flag the car for cleaning before the next trip.

<comment><USER37> If rental or "share" cars are anything to go by, they will be lowest spec, with maybe AC and electric windows if you are super lucky and someone wanted to splurge on extra "luxury". Electronic detectors for puke? What universe would that be in?

<comment><USER5> In the universe where they are cost-saving devices, not luxuries.

In a self-driving taxi system, the company has three options: schedule a cleaning after each trip (very expensive), have an auto-detection system or deliver a dirty car to the customer to get sent back, which will be a waste of time and gas, not to mention the bad customer experience.

Consider you can already get a portable e-nose (to detect spoiled meat, for example) for $150 on retail, the cost is definitively worth it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> It's also possible that cars have gotten better over time, and people are fine driving old ones. I drive a 15-year-old car. Yeah, a new car would be _nice_ , but this one works just fine, and hasn't caused me any problems.

But when I think back to 2001, I don't think cars from 1986 would be the same way.

This is not data, of course, as it's completely anecdotal. But based on my own experience, I'd be curious if people really are holding onto cars longer, or buying more used cars.

<comment><USER39> As a kid in Iowa, all the cars were rusted out. Nobody bought a new one but once or twice in their lives.

In college all the cars were new. Economy was up I guess, or cars were relatively cheaper.

Well, today the cars are getting rustier again. Lots of junkers; more used car lots than new; and even the new ones are econoboxes that won't last but a few years anyway.

Probably a study in there somewhere - plot the rust coefficient against wages or something.

<comment><USER40> Depending on when you went to college, the "Cash for Clunkers" scheme might have been relevant?

<comment><USER39> Yeah, I'm way older than that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Modern economy cars suck. They're less fuel efficient than they used to be, they have less power, they're not as stable and they're in need of constant repairs. They're also more expensive than they were 20 years ago. I could forgive a lot about a 10 year old Toyota Corolla when it was only $700. I'm not as forgiving now that a 10 year old Toyota Corolla is $5k.

If the cost wasn't enough, modern cars just aren't fun to drive. Compare the Honda Civic to my father's generation's idea of an economy car: The Ford Mustang. I'm told that car was a blast to drive and my father could afford one as a high school student.

<comment><USER42> Various sources in this article says you're wrong: [http://auto.howstuffworks.com/under-the-hood/diagnosing- car-...](http://auto.howstuffworks.com/under-the-hood/diagnosing-car- problems/mechanical/cars-less-problematic.htm)

Plus also my anecdata. Cars were _horrendously_ unreliable back in the 1970s. It's only because of selection bias that the few reliable cars survived while all the recalled/broken down/junked cars from that era have gone.

<comment><USER41> I'm wrong about what, exactly? My argument about reliability was about a 1986 Toyota Corolla driven in 1996 vs a 1999 Toyota Corolla driven in 2009. My argument about fun to drive was the Mustang, which came from my father. I wasn't alive in the 70's, nor did I assert 70's cars were more reliable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> _From 2007 to 2011, the number of cars purchased by people aged 18 to 34, fell almost 30%, and according to a study from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, only 44% of teens obtain a driver's license within the first year of becoming eligible and just half, 54% are licensed before turning 18._

It would have been nice to see more data. 2007 to 2011, car purchases among that age group dropped 30%. What did other age groups look like? That was right after the crash, so I suspect other stopped buying cars as well.

And what's with quoting how many teens get licenses? What did it look like 10 years ago? Was it the same?

</comment><comment><USER44> While the article says more technology in cars might entice millenial buyers, I feel like tech in cars is actually a disincentive for anyone interested in technology. With a few notable exceptions, most car tech seems like embarrassing garbage that's hardly enticing when it's brand new, much less at the end of a typical car's lifetime. Car development doesn't keep pace with things like smartphones, people keep cars much longer, and automakers don't seem inclined to offer much in the way of updates once they have your money.

</comment><comment><USER45> Millennials seem to be happier moving into cities than us gen x'rs who fled the cities. Around here in the rural/suburbs you couldn't survive (ie, get to work, groceries) without a car.

I would love to have better public transportation so I didn't have the payments, but I don't see that in my lifetime.

</comment><comment><USER46> The whole car pride is a thing of the past. It used to define who you were and prove your success. People are simply evolving and take the car for what it is, it's simply transportation and you shouldn't make a big deal out of it, nor you should go in massive debt for it. If the car industry wants to change, making better quality, cheaper car, less polluting and smaller or more intelligent, it might benefit them a lot.

</comment><comment><USER47> As the article points out, a phone and data plan cost as much per month as a car payment. Perhaps, just perhaps, millennials simply don't have enough money to afford the equivalent of two car payments a month.

<comment><USER48> If we actually were living in prosperity these kinds of articles just would not exist.

It is all rationalizing.

The fact is that young people are poor, and not just poor in the conventional way people with less time on the planet less savings, but poor in the historical sense of being less wealthy in real money than their parents when they were the same age.

Somebody needs to explain to (most people outside places like Silicon Valley) why in an age supposedly advantaged by the forces of technology and globalization we are actually poorer.

We're not asking the right questions.

The government, the media and huge portions of the middle class are blithely ignoring the territory in favour of the map.

This is not going to end well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Yes, I don't own a car because I don't care... It has nothing to do with my crippling student loan debt and my need to live within walking distance of public transportation.

</comment><comment><USER50> Maybe it's too much to hope that people don't want cars because cars destroy the urban environment, cause many fatal accidents and lead to global warming?

At least in Europe, I think cheap flights are another factor. The car used to enable the fantasy that you could wake up in the morning and drive off in search of adventure.

But any adventure within driving range looks increasingly passe in the era of easy foreign travel.

<comment><USER20> Adventure within driving range also means "adventure within medium-distance public transport, with no worries about designated drivers etc." That said, I don't really see a decline in this lifestyle (even cheap flights are no match to 4 people to a car, pricewise), so perhaps each of us is only looking at their own precious _one_ data point?

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Cars are too expensive for people without much money. Boom, question answered.

<comment><USER24> We're talking about the same millennials that have more than one laptop and smart phone per capita, right?

<comment><USER52> That's like saying that people must afford an iphone 7 if he owns a calculator and an alarm clock. Laptops and smartphones are orders of magnitude cheaper.

<comment><USER24> Used cars are cheaper than high-end Macbooks.

<comment><USER53> You're comparing the very best laptops on the market to the worst plausible used cars on the market without consideration for the cost of repairs that you're going to make on a car with minimum 80K miles on it. You're also not considering insurance, gas, etc.; the costs of running any car, even if you somehow luck into a used car for the price of a high end Macbook that isn't a lemon.

And for the record, I don't know any millennials buying the high-end Macbooks, either. I've always bought the Air for myself, and even though my jobs typically buy me a Macbook Pro, it's not the $5K ones with all the bells and whistles, it's a $2000-ish one with a few minor upgrades from minimum.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Why don't they mention the that more and more people move to the cities?

The need for owning your own car iss very diefferent there from living in a rural area.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_Sta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States#Historical_Statistics)

</comment><comment><USER55> If it was 1972, the cars on the market that were cheap and widely available were models like the Mustang, GTO, Firebird, Challenger, Charger, Camaro, Chevelle, Roadrunner, and on and on. They were beautiful, fast, and fun to drive.

Am I excited to spend 20k+ on a cookie-cutter, egg-shaped sedan? No, I'm not interested.

</comment><comment><USER56> A lot of comments about how expensive cars are. Do Americans really have to borrow money to buy cars? Where I come from, the used car market is huge. They're about the price of a laptop or a couple of smartphones. Even young people can afford them.

<comment><USER53> I can't speak for most American millenials, but my options are:

1\. Buy a $5000 car up-front, which is an expensive up-front cost for me (and more than most people my age have in savings). If I've been careful in investigating the car, it will work _most_ of the time and _only_ cost me $500/year in repairs.

2\. Buy a $20K car for $2000 up-front, taking on $18K on top of my student loans, which, frankly, I"m just not going to do. I've been shit on by banks enough for one lifetime.

3\. Keep my savings, use public transit, and have enough financial stability that I could lose my job for a few months and not be homeless.

And for the record, I'm a software dev; I make almost twice as much salary as most of my peers.

My Macbook Air cost me $1200. My $2000 Macbook Pro was paid for by my job. Most of my peers buy <$1000 PCs. And laptops are cheaper to repair and don't require gas, insurance, or a license.

<comment><USER57> >1\. Buy a $5000 car up-front, which is an expensive up-front cost for me (and more than most people my age have in savings). If I've been careful in investigating the car, it will work most of the time and only cost me $500/year in repairs.

Is this accurate for the US? I live in an expensive European country and a used car around that price would cost next to nothing in annual repairs, unless you really drove it a lot. Do you need to pay $5k up front? It's common here to take loans for used cars.

<comment><USER58> _> Is this accurate for the US?_

I looked up my own stats on this for you. Note: I have a used car that cost me around $8k.

I spend about $500/yr for maintenance.

I don't drive very often (I bike to work and walk for groceries/to bars -- the car is left-over sunk cost from a previous life, and now only used for inclement weather and weekend get-aways). So oil changes and tire rotations are only a small fraction of that (maybe 100-200).

So _repairs_ probably cost around 300-400/yr for me. And that's only driving very rarely.

It's worth noting that I'm probably upper tier on the used car repair spectrum. I live in a _cold_ climate -- much harsher than everything in Europe except the Nordic countries. I also live in a poor city that can't afford to take care of its roads. This combo is pretty devastating from a maintenance/repair perspective. E.g., I need good winter tires and they take a true beating. Also, salt.

<comment><USER59> The last car we bought was a used vehicle that cost about $8k a bit more than a year ago. Since then, including repairs, we have probably spent about $700 on maintenance. But that also includes a new set of tires, which should last longer than a year. That car is driven every weekday, with a minimum distance of 20 miles.

The US ran an incentive program a while ago called _Cash for Clunkers_ that basically took a lot of used car inventory permanently out of circulation, as a political favor to the auto manufacturing industry. That drove the prices of the surviving used cars way up. And since many of the destroyed cars were more owner-serviceable than newer cars, that also increased the average cost of maintenance.

The cheapest new car in the US market, the Nissan Versa, retails above $14k. That's 27% of the median household income in the US. The average US household spends $3k per year for vehicle purchases, $2400 for vehicle fuel and other consumables, and up to $3k on insurance, maintenance, licensing, and other transportation-related costs. That means that the overwhelming majority of the US could not purchase a new car without a loan, even if they wanted to.

This is likely a good portion of the reason why younger folks don't own cars at the same rate as older generations. Cars got more expensive, even as education costs skyrocketed. When the economy says you can't have anything nice without taking a big dose of debt with it, it is easier to say, "Okay, well, F U then; I'll educate myself using the Internet, sleep in a cupboard under the stairs, and skate to whatever work I can find that isn't already done by robots."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> In Australia in the past decade it's become harder to get a license. It was 25 hours of practice, now it's 100 or something. I reckon that could be one reason.

Has that happened in other countries?

<comment><USER40> Not in USA. My understanding is that driving gets safer all the time, just from vehicle safety improvements. What motivated Australia to impose this burden on new drivers?

<comment><USER60> The population average age is increasing?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> They do not have any money and are not turned on by debt and maintenance costs of maintaining an automobile if they do not have to. I think the main driver is a lack of money and viewing debt apart from the the car, which is an asset. They are avoiding debt because they are cognizant of it whereas it was normal to to use debt as a means to an end. When they start making serious money they will come around.

</comment><comment><USER62> I'm with the Millenials. I hate owning a car, and didn't miss it when I lived in the city. Now that I'm in suburbia, I only own one begrudgingly. It barely makes sense economically versus Uber and renting, and then only because we take weekend adventures. I also don't feel the need to own a horse. :-)

I look forward to price competition between fleets of driverless cars taking away the need to own a car.

</comment><comment><USER63> This is not only in US.

Here in Germany, thanks to the way city transports work, the majority of those that live and work in the city get by public transports and bicycles, only renting a car when going on vacations or for the weekend, for example.

Many of the young generations that buy cars, do so because they need to travel between cities for work/study.

</comment><comment><USER64> Personally ZipCar doesn't really solve anything. It's not necessarily owning a car that I don't like, it's driving I don't like like. Traffic sucks, parking sucks, other drivers suck.

I only drive because it's currently more convenient than not driving, and I don't even drive for my commute to work.

</comment><comment><USER61> They do not have any money and are not turned on by debt and maintenance costs of maintaining an automobile if they do not have to. I think the main driver is a lack of money and viewing debt apart from the the car, which is an asset. They are avoiding debt because they are cognizant of it.

</comment><comment><USER65> The trend is exaggerated -- everyone needs transportation.

But I dislike the idea of owning a car because it requires so much work. I want a trouble free that car that "just works". I don't want to check the tire pressure, change the oil, wait in line for registration. Cars are a hassle.

<comment><USER37> I'm the exact opposite - I love owning a car and doing all the maintenance. I'll check the oil level and tyre pressures every few days. Every weekend I spend 2-3 hours outside, cleaning the car, polishing it, then doing the rims, and then vacuuming the inside and cleaning all windows. I just find it super relaxing and very satisfying.

<comment><USER34> I'd agree with and extend your remark with car ownership is much like peasant agricultural labor. If a judge and jury sentenced me to do it, or culture forced me, or parents expected it of me, I'd be pretty annoyed, but of my own free will this summer I grew many green pepper plants in my elaborate container garden and find the labor involved very relaxing (and tasty!).

Elaborate economic arguments about how I should have spent those relaxing labor hours contracting and then shopping for factory farmed green peppers are going to fall on deaf ears.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Two reasons, for me:

1) I don't trust myself to operate a machine that can kill other people.

2) I have better things to spend my money on. Why dump money into a car when I can live by myself in a big house, eat out and/or have food delivered twice a day every day, and fund several expensive hobbies?

</comment><comment><USER66> We're talking about the generation that never learned to really do anything for themselves (gross generalization) and are currently expending all their efforts to build services and apps that do everything that their parents did for them. Would Uber or Magic have been so successful without this generation? No (Yes), absolutely not (I'm sure it would have). This is the generation of "Can't someone else do it?"

Seriously though, cars are expensive, traffic and parking is crazy in many cities, infrastructure is falling apart, and the world is basically ending due to climate change... so are we really surprised that the this generation actually wants to a) be responsible and not contribute to this downward spiral or b) wants to live life to it's fullest and not be tied down to things like cars and houses. If car companies can't see that then they aren't asking them, because that is what many would say.

<comment><USER67> Magic preceded the Millennials. It definitely won the hearts and minds of the Gen X gamer crowd first (the ones with the money to burn when the game first came out in the early 90s).

Uber is, fundamentally, no different than taxi services _except_ that it allows average people to become drivers (taxis are either particularly exclusive requiring tests and certifications, or particularly bad like in most non-metropolitan towns that have them). Really, the basic use-case of Uber is what taxis _should_ have done in the first place. GPS tracking + smartphones, they should've been connecting themselves to customers more intelligently. They didn't, Uber came in and swept up their business. That was their own fuck-up in many markets (in some markets the taxi services _did_ do better, but not the majority, most still had traditional hailing or _phoning_ in a taxi request).

<comment><USER68> > Magic preceded the Millennials.

I think optimuspaul is referring to Magic the startup. It's a virtual assistant that you text to perform various tasks for you (shopping, booking flights, etc).

<comment><USER67> That makes more sense. I forgot about that. Does it still exist?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Heh, I'm 34 and I still don't have a drivers' license. I'm working on getting one but only because I moved out to a semi-rural area to follow my partner's faculty job.

</comment><comment><USER70> Not a millenial by any means.

I hardly ever use the car now, walk most of the time and prefer public transport wherever possible.

Driving these days is a boring, stressful, tedious task that I only endure out of necessity.

</comment><comment><USER71> As a "millenial" in Ireland the biggest reason was cost. Cars are expensive insurance is expensive or very expensive if you're young and male.

</comment><comment><USER72> Endless traffic jams.

Fix that and we will buy cars again (nah, not really, not anymore).

May be self driving cars where we can enjoy time instead of merely suffering it would be an option.

</comment><comment><USER73> I live in Moscow, the shortest eTaxi ride costs less than USD $2 - less than what I paid for a bus ride while living in Vancouver

</comment><comment><USER74> Uhm... because you just want to get from X to Z and you don't really care if you're owning the method or not?

</comment><comment><USER75> Cars was the manner to show your wealth, now it is the iphone 7. People use to be proud of their shinny car. Now, they compare cost of ownership.

BTW, I am proud of my Leaf. Maybe EV will mark a renewal for this market.

</comment><comment><USER76> a lot of factors going on here...

1\. no jobs to pay for said car

2\. must pay for student loans instead

3\. cars are less reliable

4\. cars cost more today, and more to maintain

5\. gas prices increased but not wages

6\. insurance costs

<comment><USER69> 7\. Millenials seem to flock to urban areas where cars are less required

<comment><USER77> Which seems to be an overstated trend according to a number of fivethiryeight pieces: [http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/think-millennials- prefer-...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/think-millennials-prefer-the- city-think-again/)

Other pieces I've read suggest the actual trend is more along the lines of college-educated millenials are somewhat trending toward a handful of particularly dense and favored urban neighborhoods in the US (SF, Manhattan/Brooklyn, Boston/Cambridge, Austin). What broader urbanization trends there are also include places like DFW, Phoenix, etc. that aren't really walkable or have good public transit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> Cars as a status symbol is very old hat.

</comment><comment><USER39> Electronic gadget addiction.</comment>


Verbling: Communicate with your dog like never before - <AUTHOR> https://www.verbling.com/woof <comment><USER2> Nice! Aything for fish? Cats and dogs can make noise at least but I want to know what Goldie is thinking.

</comment><comment><USER3> what...?

or shall i say woof...?</comment>


How do you answer interview questions on large scale system design? - <AUTHOR>

I keep getting asked questions about large scale system design, especially from Amazon (how would you design Youtube/Twitter?). I never do well on them and it's keeping me from getting jobs. There's plenty of resources for answering coding questions, but I haven't seen any for large scale system desgin. Does anybody know of any resources, such as websites, books, lectures, etc.? <comment><USER2> If it's convenient, attend Google's SRE Classroom near you, such as this past one

[https://www.usenix.org/conference/lisa13/training/sre- classr...](https://www.usenix.org/conference/lisa13/training/sre-classroom- non-abstract-large-system-design-sysadmins)

I hope to see it at LISA 2015.

</comment><comment><USER3> One great resource is the high scalability website/blog:

[http://highscalability.com](http://highscalability.com)

</comment><comment><USER4> Study Microservices based architecture. It should give you a good start.

</comment><comment><USER5> look at this diagrams , i think they will help you a lot. :)

[http://aws.amazon.com/architecture/](http://aws.amazon.com/architecture/)</comment>


Elon Is Wrong About Simulations - <AUTHOR> http://www.braineight.com/bite-sized/2016/6/6/elon-is-wrong-about-simulations <comment><USER2> I feel that the question that "if we are in a simulation" is quite equivalent to "if there is a god that reasons beyond human logic", or "is there is a husky dog that has super ability and always be hidden from any kind of human observation".

You can never say that these arguments are wrong, but they are rather pointless since they are always not wrong.

<comment><USER3> The difference is that "we're in a simulation" is still a natural, as opposed to a supernatural, explanation.

We can come up with ways to test whether or not we're in a simulation. If the tests return positive we can come up with ways to study the rules outside of the simulation. If it's natural then we can work with it.

<comment><USER2> "We can come up with ways to test whether or not we're in a simulation"

How?

<comment><USER3> Well, if you can look past the simplification, The Matrix had some examples. Like how deja vu is a glitch caused by the controllers manually changing something. And an example from The 13th Floor is to travel so far you reach the limit of what the environment the engine rendered.

An example of a test that's phenomenally complicated is, roughly speaking, to zoom in on physical reality until the resolution starts to drop [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Testing_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Testing_the_hypothesis_physically)

An example that's like magic is to communicate with someone outside of the simulation. Either someone in an adjacent simulation, or someone outside of the simulating system itself.

Basically, a simulation has to have rules and constraints. If we can get a fingernail into a crack we can expand it. Just keep pushing the limits until they break. We could even start the simulation version of SETI. That's a project that's testing the hypothesis that there are ETs out there we can communicate with. We could start a project like that based on the hypothesis there are Simulators outside of our simulation we can communicate with.

<comment><USER2> In the wikipedia page you mentioned it stated: "Under the assumption of finite computational resources, the simulation of the universe would be performed by dividing the continuum space-time into a discrete set of points." How will we know if this assumption is correct? If the beings that run the experiment have higher intelligence, they may successfully hide all the evidence of simulation and we may never find the constraints.

Unless we reduce the simulation hypothesis to "Beings of similar intelligence level as us running similar computer simulations that we do in the late 20th and early 21st century", then it is testable.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Freedom Ship - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Ship <comment><USER2> > _The basic idea had been published by Jules Verne in his novel Propeller > Island._ [1]

See also Kenji Tsuruta's wonderful ( ongoing ) _Wandering Island_ [2] for another fictional take on this.

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

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandering_Island](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandering_Island)</comment>


Eric's Guide to Hiring Software Developers - <AUTHOR> https://lawler.io/scrivings/erics-guide-to-hiring-software-developers/ <comment><USER2> This is really solid advise for pre-interview hiring. If you are hiring or will ever be hiring, read it. Aside from some word choice, there is only one thing I (and the author!) am not sold on:

> The Who book recommends selling this as some kind of cool, Disney-styled > Fast Pass, where people can go through a step or two of your funnel and get > advance notice of new listings, a shorter trip through the process, etc

This is in reference to always interviewing even when not hiring so you have a warm funnel. You are interviewing real people with real feelings and real obligations. Be very upfront with them if this is a warm-funnel interview and not a potential soon-to-be job offer. One of my worst interview experiences was after scoring at the 98th percentile of some organization's test, I was told via writing that they are not hiring now, but look forward to reaching out when a position opens up. Yeah, no thanks, I'm trying to be employed like immediately.

Side note: I really like the superscript functionality in the post.

<comment><USER3> A few of the things are sort of illegal in EU, esp. recording without notice.

Holding hiring databases is problematic too due to GDPR.

<comment><USER2> I missed the recording part, and, yeah, gdpr for sure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The one absolutely, infuriating thing about jobs that will cause me to throw keyboards through windows:

A 'requirement' or a 'minimum' must be exactly that.

If they are negotiable, they aren't a requirement or minimum.

GET THIS RIGHT, GODDAMNIT. THOSE WORDS HAVE DEFINITIONS FOR A REASON.

If you can't come up with any, then chances are they aren't actually required! And if you don't actually have any, you don't have to write those words in the job description! Fucking easy, right?

This helps everyone. I don't waste time applying for jobs where I don't meet the requirements, and you don't waste time rejecting me for the same reason.

The fact that this isn't followed is why we have dumb job-seeker rules like "just apply even if you don't meet those requirements". It's throwing common sense out along with the keyboards. And yes, fuck recruiting companies that tell you to do this, too.

<comment><USER5> The thing is that when you're hiring, assuming you have some autonomy in the process, your 'minimum requirements' are _always_ somewhat negotiable. If someone is truly amazing in an important skill that you need, but doesn't meet some other so-called requirements, you very well might hire that person, even choosing them over others that do meet all the 'requirements'. At the same time, you do want to establish some sort of minimum bar so you aren't swamped with wildly underqualified applicants. You just hope the exceptional people will realize that they're exceptional and that exceptions can always be made. It's a difficult balance to get right.

That said, I totally understand the frustration. These should not be called requirements, since they aren't really, but this is just how life works. You're better off adjusting to the fact that there's always wiggle room than becoming bitter about it.

<comment><USER4> If you need general talent like that, make a general talent job posting or put a message with a generic jobs@company email address at the top of your job board.

That signals that you're willing to consider people who don't currently meet any requirements on any of your jobs.

That also gives you the option to shut it down if general hiring has to freeze or you stop having the time to review general talent because you need to prioritize hiring for specific roles.

I really think that for a lot of positions out there, there really are very few requirements actually needed (e.g. security clearances, certificates). Everything else really falls under ideal or nice-to-have.

Requirements changing based on the candidate means they can probably be reduced or eliminated entirely. That might even increase the talent pool that you can choose from by inviting others to apply.

Hell, maybe we can start putting the same effort into writing good job ads that candidates put into their resumes, cover letters, and interviewing skills. It'd be nice to have some reciprocation in the effort department.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > About four times a year, new studies come out with an ever-lower percentage > of how many job seekers won't apply to a job unless they meet precisely 100% > of your listing's overly-strict requirements. Even worse, all of the studies > have a clearly highlighted gender difference between men and women: fewer > women than men apply for a job with requirements they don't meet.

Thank you! It's amazing how many hiring managers I've worked with who aren't aware of this fact at all. It's literally your job to understand hiring, and being aware of the latest research needs to be part of that.

It's especially important since I see every other possible hiring practice on both a "must do" and "must not do" list every week, but this one is universally confirmed. If you've learned nothing else about hiring in the past 10 years, know this.

<comment><USER7> Did they mean to write that the percentage of job seekers applying is dropping? because a lower percentage of people not applying means that more people are applying.

<comment><USER8> No link to the studies, even in the article. I couldn't find any after a visit to DDG. Would be interesting to know the underlying metrics here

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > FAANG is Facebook, Apple, Amazon, LinkedIn, and Google.

LinkedIn? Was that a tongue in cheek joke that I've missed,

<comment><USER10> Netscape it is

<comment><USER8> I thought Netflix?

<comment><USER11> It's actually NeXT.

<comment><USER12> Enron

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Yikes, any place where a senior manager or executive exudes the attitude "do more with less" is a place to avoid.

</comment><comment><USER14> I know one team that is doing everything the other way around. They don't inverview their new hires, they don't test them, they basically take everybody who wants to join and let them show themselves. Aside from that, they rely on newcomers public profiles, in GitHub, StackOverflow, and so on. Check this out: [https://www.yegor256.com/2016/03/01/how-we-interview- program...](https://www.yegor256.com/2016/03/01/how-we-interview- programmers.html)

</comment><comment><USER15> 25% of engineering managers are named Eric. It's science

</comment><comment><USER16> As usual "pay well!" isn't in the list.

<comment><USER9> It kinda is. At the very beginning he mentions that his startup couldn't pay as well as FAANG.

Most people won't take a pay cut when switching jobs, unless they are moving to a place with a lower cost of living. But a lot of people are kinda elastic on pay _raises_. Here's a list of stuff that can stimulate different people more than a larger pay raise when switching jobs:

\- becoming a manager \- no longer being a manager \- a tech stack they want to work with \- a company mission that aligns with their morals \- stable office hours \- office layout \- proximity to home

Paying well helps, but unless you're an ICE contractor located in a hangar in Fort Nowhere hiring people to rewrite a legacy COBOL application in RPG in three months you probably have other ways to attract more and more diverse applicants rather than just stacks of money.

<comment><USER16> You forgot:

\- title change

And man is that a head shaker.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Some say hiring is as complex as life itself

</comment><comment><USER18> I was a bit irritated by the section about employees not doing outreach well enough.

Who does hiring reflect well upon? I'm not bothering people in my network so you can look like an effective recruiter to your boss. Maybe employees don't try because you don't give them a reason to, and they have incentives in the other direction, like not being the guy in the friend group that's always talking about how awesome their company is. When in reality, our industry is made up of people hopping between companies so they are more similar than dissimilar.

<comment><USER19> >always talking about how awesome their company is.

no need for "always talking", or pretty much talking at all - a new over-the- top-packaged Model X and the second home in Los Gatos do all the "outreach", and the casual mentioning of 500K+ total comp and an FB 600K+ offer not moving you because it is much more heavier on stock than your current comp is all the talking needed to easily convince me that my friend's company is awesome (even though i had thought that it is a pretty crappy one until i learned of the money they pay, and they happen to be more awesome even than Google who gave me pretty low offer ) and to make me sorry for failing to get into such an awesome company :).

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is this a typo or total misunderstanding? In this article:, the author said "FAANG is Facebook, Apple, Amazon, "LinkedIn" (Wrong! it should be Netflix) and Google. ..." Frankly, if someone wants to give a "hiring (software developer) guide" but does not even know what FAANG is, I seriously doubt how good this guide could possibly be.

<comment><USER21> This is a trivial mistake. Many people outside of HN haven't even heard "FAANG", much less what it means. A lot of very smart people commit such trivial mistakes all the time.

I haven't gone through this guide, but judging through other comments, it isn't that bad (some even praised it).</comment></comment>


Some Customers Don't Deserve a Voice - <AUTHOR> http://michaelmarshallsmith.com/blog/?p=231

<comment><AUTHOR> I realize this is old, but I thought it was poignant, especially as I read a few reviews on the day I released a new app in iTunes.</comment>


Researchers shut down AI that invented its own language - <AUTHOR> http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/a-step-closer-to-skynet-ai-invents-a-language-humans-can-t-read/article/498142 <comment><USER2> The underlying article with original reporting is [https://www.fastcodesign.com/90132632/ai-is-inventing-its- ow...](https://www.fastcodesign.com/90132632/ai-is-inventing-its-own-perfect- languages-should-we-let-it) and doesn't support the implication that this AI had to be shut down because it would somehow be dangerous if it were allowed to continue training. Rather, it wasn't useful for the intended purpose:

> "Our interest was having bots who could talk to people," says Mike Lewis

It sounds like the problem is that software agents that can train to communicate with other agents can create the equivalent of slang or argot, which they understand and outsiders don't. That's pretty interesting, but the "shut down" part seems unnecessarily sensational.

<comment><USER3>
      The underlying article with original reporting is...

... and as for digitaljournal, I _hate hate hate_ sites that scroll seamlessly into separate, completely unrelated articles.

One simple text search can bounce you five articles down into something completely unrelated.

Are they _that_ desperate for "presentation" counts?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Which dedicated unmanaged and affordable hosting you suggest or use? - <AUTHOR> I am using wholesaleinternet.com but their customer support is pretty rude and abrupt. So planning to shift to somewhere else.
Few of good servers i found are:
oneprovider.com ovh.com hetzner.com nocix.net
Oneprovider seems pretty good among them. Has any one used them? Or any other you guys recomend?
Configuration around 200-500GB SSD, 16-32GB RAM, 2-8 Core XEON series processor. <comment><USER2> Hetzner is good from what I hear (don't have a server there, but many people whose opinion on stuff like this I trust do).</comment>


ATMs in India Could Be Hacked Because Banks Haven't Updated Windows Since 2014 - <AUTHOR> https://www.huffingtonpost.in/2018/06/26/atms-could-be-hacked-because-banks-havent-updated-windows-despite-5-years-of-warnings_a_23468813/ <comment><USER2> I used to install/upgrade ATMs and was horrified that we were replacing the extremely solid OS/2 machines with Windows XP based computing cages (circa 2011). There was no method to update the machines other than sending a technician out monthly to take the machine offline and manually load the patches from a CD, and ATM technicians are expensive so most simply didn't.

Most NCR ATMs use one of three keys that are easily available on the internet. Most banks don't check ID or even know that they have a technician coming to service their ATM, especially if you're dressed nicely or carrying a clipboard. Most of the Windows XP based NCR ATMs have multiple PS/2 ports and USB ports to plug in a keyboard and they all tend to have the same admin password.

<comment><USER3> A lot of the medical devices (like a pump in the hospital) have similar issues, running old Windows 95 or CE with 0 patches ever.

<comment><USER4> but then all of the pumps would stop working and people would die every time there was an update. General purpose operating systems are just a bad idea for running these hardware appliances.

<comment><USER5> I agree we need stripped down OSes to run this stuff, but the core problem is thinking "we'll just air gap it and never update it" not that the OS is general purpose.

Look at QNX: Millions of components run it in safety critical situations and none of it is patchable. After QNX got owned in 2017 what are we supposed to do? Open up every tank, car, and nuclear power plant? We need reliable update schedules. Trying to air gap things doesn't work. There is always a way to access the interface and bridgeware is only getting better.

<comment><USER6> Airgapping is a very useful layer of defence in a lot of applications. Never pushing updates is usually a bad idea, but automatic updates pushed by the OS or equipment vendor can be equally problematic. Regressions are irritating on consumer devices, but they can be catastrophic in critical embedded systems.

If there's anything that can be called a "solution", it looks very much like good engineering. No technology or methodology can stop you from shipping broken systems. If you're shipping ATMs that run Windows XP in 2011, your problems almost certainly run much deeper than a bad choice of platform.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have had a terrible experience when dealing with banks in India. To open accounts for non resident customers(NRE), one has to scan and send ID proofs and Account Opening Forms over email. And they ask for all your details SSN, DoB, Address you name it. In a few instances the emails being sent were not even encrypted by the end server. The attack surface is so large that one cannot begin to imagine what exact audits they are running.

With sophisticated phishing attacks that are now hosted on HTTPs servers, this practice is just lunacy and it happens in every bank. Big small, private, public all engage in this nonsensical practice. Among the biggest names: SBI, YesBank, Central Bank are the ones that do this. I know this because I have inquired how to open accounts at these places.

I actually have a dedicated personal relationship manager who filled out all the forms! And even now for certain operations like booking currency forwards(FCNRs) they ask you to fill forms and send it over the email. Not to mention its inefficient as well.

Its a testament to two things: 1\. There are so many people in India that banks just find it cheaper to hire a person and let him interface with you instead of designing a web application. 2\. No one gives a shit about privacy. 3\. The system is wide open for people to Man in the Middle and Phish.

<comment><USER8> I tried opening an NRE account to redeem some bonds a family member bought in my name. (Never managed it.) Their banker asked me for my SSN over WhatsApp. Forwarded to my New York State regulator, who promptly fined their New York office.

<comment><USER9> I've had similar experiences where Indian bankers have said their mailbox has a size limit or is full so the document needed to be emailed to their gmail or yahoo account. No thanks...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Haven't Updated Windows Since 2014"

I thought Windows XP Embedded was going to get security updates until 2019. [https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/windows- embedded/2014/02/17...](https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/windows- embedded/2014/02/17/what-does-the-end-of-support-of-windows-xp-mean-for- windows-embedded/) Says Jan 2019 for Standard embedded and April 2019 for POSReady.

I recall MS heavily pushing companies to update but unless these ATM's are running retail XP they should be getting (at least bare minimum) security updates.

Not saying they shouldn't be upgrading to a newer OS but I feel using the retail EOL date when talking about the embedded version might be a little misleading.

<comment><USER11> You need a network connection to update. These have not been.

<comment><USER10> ATM's need a network connection to query the bank. The updates can be sent via their internal network. If they are "small in shop ATM's" using a phone line to query the banks back end then they could dial in and maintain the call during the store downtime and download the patches. Looking at Windows update catalog the updates are not large files anyway. Sure they might take an hour or two over a simple 56k modem link but the updates and imo an update path are available.

From the articles 3rd paragraph:-

> Microsoft first released Windows XP in 2001, seventeen years ago, and > stopped supporting the operating system in 2014. This meant that it stopped > developing new security patches for Windows XP, which would protect it from > software exploits developed by hackers.

Which gives the impression that the updates are simply just not available not that they don't have a network connection to fetch the updates from.

Even if they were running the latest version of Windows security patches should still be applied.

<comment><USER12> >> ATM's need a network connection to query the bank. The updates can be sent via their internal network.

Some of these are on satellite connections. They don't need much data. Lots of banking transactions can be squeezed into a single megabyte. Sending multi-gig windows updates to all the ATMs would be a serious headache.

<comment><USER10> But Windows XP Embedded month to month security updates are not multi-gig updates. The last batch of security updates totalled <15MB and updates for the month of May totalled ~36MB.

EDIT: Even if the network connect back to the banks was SMS then my point was that it's not that there are no updates for Windows XP embedded which the article give the impression of, the point would then be that the manufacturer, integrater, banks, who ever didn't have the foresight of needing some bandwidth for updates. The updates are available just that who ever is in charge of these ATMs failed to keep them updated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I remember that the last time I read about an ATM hack in India, the M.O was that the attackers were simply putting a matchstick under the "*" key which made the ATM stuck so that the victim left the ATM without collecting the money which the attackers retrieved afterwards. The whole MO is explained here (1). It could be because of outdated systems.

(1) [http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report-school-dropout- tric...](http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report-school-dropout-tricks-atm- with-matchstick-arrested-1638552)

</comment><comment><USER14> > unpatched systems are at risk to cyberattacks.

All systems are at risk, unpatched ones just more so.

<comment><USER15> Of course, but more so means the probability is greater by the very least an O(1) factor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Tried to read this on my Android.

Got sent to a page claiming my Android had four viruses, spawned endless popups and dialogs and I had to force close the browser :(

<comment><USER17> It was probably one of your viruses ;)

More seriously, I've had similar problems on iOS with unclosable tabs where even force quitting didn't work because it'd restore to the same page. The workaround ended up being "Click a link in Mail and that tab will be frontmost, then you can go in the tab switcher and kill it."

Hasn't happened in a while, IIRC the problem was javascript popups forcing focus off the rest of the UI. Maybe it's been fixed on the iOS side.

Of course the other side of the problem is webpages letting insecure ad networks run arbitrary javascript in all of our browsers. It's not great.

<comment><USER18> JavaScript pop ups don't block the rest of the UI anymore; this has been fixed in Safari in both iOS and macOS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I work in India, where my we service ATM's for a nationalised bank. While these run on XP, we are advised to install all security updates. I read in the thread somewhere that they use satellite network so windows updates cannot be sent. That is incorrect. Most of them are connected via LAN and most are updated remotely. RBI recently passed a regulation to upgrade the OS by 2019. I guess windows 7 would be used.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm surprised of banks putting the ATMs into the same network as the computers of the banks' employees. I mean: is there any(!) need for the normal banker to have network access to the ATM? And if a separate network is too expensive, one could at least put them in vlans / vpns.

<comment><USER21> Did not read the article, but what the hell! That's one "Hey check this porn out!" e-mail away from total ownage...

I guess as a hacker, having a phone app where I can press a button and the ATM in front of me spits out its contents would be kinda neat...

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Humor me here: we should decriminalize hacking. It's the only way to force companies to take security seriously. If they can't rely on government to track down and punish hackers, financial companies especially will have to step up their game and take proactive steps to prevent issues like this.

<comment><USER23> That would be a mistake because it also incentivizes hackers, making the problem bigger on that side. What I would like is something that punishes companies that get hacked as well, like set fines for leaking personal information instead of settlement. People same to take GDPR seriously, a similarly stringent regulation on security practices would be effective.

<comment><USER24> How much of a success do you perceive PCI requirements as being?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> i suppose what surprises me the most is that someone would use windows in an atm. i would've thought it would've been an rtos or maybe a locked down bsd or selinux.

<comment><USER26> Every ATM I ever saw uses Windows.

<comment><USER27> They used to use OS/2, but then Windows came along and we've been living in a world filled with misery ever since.

On no planet does using a consumer version of Windows in these things make sense.

<comment><USER28> Good thing it's not typically a consumer version! If you watch one reboot (or other applications like store POS systems) you can see that it is Windows XP embedded, or nowadays sometimes Windows 7 embedded, which is decidedly NOT a "consumer" oriented OS

<comment><USER27> It really depends on the vendor. Big names are at least careful enough to do that. The bottom of the barrel white-label vendors often don't care. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if some of those Windows installations are using pirated keys.

It's perpetually concerning how bad the state of systems like this is. A grocery store near me recently deployed a brand new set of self check-out counters...running Windows XP.

Amusingly the credit card/debit card reader is running Linux and shows the old-school penguin image on boot.

<comment><USER29> I enjoyed seeing Tux on the boot screen of a seat-back in-flight entertainment system recently. And was also amused to see startup sequences for things like MySQL and postfix scroll by.

<comment><USER28> I don't. That usually means it crashed!

<comment><USER29> This was during pre-flight when normally all they play anyway is ads that you can't turn off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Not really. Each ATM in India is defended by a human.

<comment><USER31> An ATM needs a network connection, no? Remote exploits may be possible, or remote exploit combined with a local actor to pick up cash under guise of a legitimate withdrawal.

<comment><USER32> _An ATM needs a network connection, no?_

No.

ATM's weren't always networked. The transactions were reconciled daily or weekly by the local bank, and the network (NYCE, Star, etc...) transactions sent out weekly or monthly.

A friend of mine used to leverage this all the time. He would have $200 in his account at his home bank, but withdrawal $500 from a different bank. By the time the transactions got back to his home back, his parents would have already deposited his monthly allowance into his account.

It worked... most of the time. But I remember once his parents were out of town and didn't make the deposit as expected, and he ended up massively overdrawn. But back then, the banks just cut you off. They didn't ding you for an overdraft fee, then another overdraft fee a day later because you couldn't pay the first overdraft fee, etc...

<comment><USER33> ATMs are often cited as an example for the utility of eventual consistency. If it's off the network, it can still offer withdrawals to be reconciled later.

Banking in general has been on the eventual consistency model for centuries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> And I thought it was dangerous when I saw a Windows 10 lock screen on a kiosk at Burger King.

<comment><USER35> It's probably not a good idea to share here what I saw at a national (very well known) gas station when it crashed. Given that there's gasoline involved and everything.

<comment><USER36> Maybe it would be a good idea to tell the company or its equipment vendor or a regulator.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I thought Indian ATMS had their own Linux-based OS, not Windows.

<comment><USER38> I recollect they were about to use BOSS but I suppose that never went through.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Why do they use Windows to begin with?

<comment><USER40> Drivers, drivers, drivers.

We've tried many times to switch to linux, the showstopper has always been the same.

<comment><USER41> Unfortunately this is very true. For medical devices, you need to mostly use certified parts. Need a touchscreen? It needs to withstand very strong disinfectants and maybe you have hard requirements for leakage currents. There are 3 possible vendors left. None of them has drivers for systems that would be far better than windows xy.

Vendors probably think that all their customers use windows anyway for non- discernible reasons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Now that we made this announcement, sure they can be hacked!

</comment><comment><USER43> I'm in the EU, I opted out of all "cookies", and my adblocker still blocked 17 requests :-/

I think HN should give users a way to flag websites because on mobile it's getting riskier every day to click on links.

I'm currently using a Moto G2 while my newer phone is being repaired, and crap like this can easily make it freeze for 5 minutes.

</comment><comment><USER44> I think Microsoft is the first party to blame here. They put out a horribly insecure OS.</comment>


A selfie app with a time limit just got $100,000 from Tim Draper - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2015/10/30/timit-selfie-app/ <comment><USER2> The extent to which an app can add something that seems like a non-feature (it takes a selfie of the viewer's reaction) then try to build a business out of it is truly amazing to me. Wow.</comment>