Ask HN: What's your startup or product? - <AUTHOR> I thought it would be interesting to hear about the software projects people are developing. It's amazing and inspiring to see what problems people are solving through software. So, what product or app have you developed or are you working on? It can be anything from a full-blown startup to a small side-project to a quick hack.<p>Please keep in relatively short.<p>(Old version of this question here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4378909 Copied some text from it because I'm optimizing for throughput:) <comment><USER2> We (Fogbeam Labs[1]) specialize in open source software[2] related to knowledge sharing / collaboration / analytics and the like. Specifically we are working on a platform which combines machine learning, semantic web tech, "big data", social networking, etc. to support what we call "insight mining" within organizations.

Somebody once made an unsolicited comparison with Palantir and said "You guys are like Palantir for inside the enterprise". We never specifically set out to be like Palantir, but I guess that's a relatively valid way of talking about what we do.

That said, our long-term goal is to have a very broad portfolio of products to cover a huge swathe of the use cases a typical enterprise would need.

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

[2]: [https://fogbeam.github.io](https://fogbeam.github.io)

</comment><comment><USER3> a marketplace for services. haven't totally narrowed down the focus. been focused on building the software and working on adapting to various areas. also, contemplating "franchising" areas out. Since most service markets are local seems like having an local entrepreneur could be a better way to manage the system over the long haul.</comment>


Massive balloons help polar scientists build underground tunnels - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/massive-balloons-help-polar-scientists-build-underground-tunnels <comment><USER3> Sounds like the balloons are actually not massive, but voluminous.

<comment><USER4> Quite the peeve of mine, though it hadn't occurred to me until the 3rd or 4th sighting of that headline.

Bravo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The idea in itself is not "new", pneumatic formwork (to cast concrete) has been largely used in the past, to build (mainly) waterpipes/aqueducts, but also for civil buildings, As an example this company was established in 1956: [http://www.socapsrl.com/about/](http://www.socapsrl.com/about/)

And - igloo like - reinforced concrete "thin" structures for domes were largely used since the '60's:

[https://www.architectural- review.com/rethink/viewpoints/skil...](https://www.architectural- review.com/rethink/viewpoints/skill-inflatable-concrete-domes/8641827.article)

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

And of course building "arch" tunnels in snow is common enough, and used - <USER2> an example - to build (each year) "ice hotels":

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

It is the mix of the two that might be interesting because of the reduced amount of materials that can be tranported in remote north (or south).

<comment><USER6> One variant of this that i ran into recently was from a british company, meant for erecting temporary shelters etc.

Basically a balloon wrapped in a canvas saturated in cement powder.

Basically you unrolled, inflated, hosed down with water, and waited for it to harden.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This technique reminds me of Quinzhee huts. I've been building them for years but I never considered scaling them up to create proper infrastructure.

</comment><comment><USER8> Looks the tunnels that the article is referring to were built over a year ago [http://eastgrip.org/field-diaries-folder/uk- diaries-2016/201...](http://eastgrip.org/field-diaries-folder/uk- diaries-2016/2016-05-12/)

I guess it takes some time for the story to be written, prioritized and finally published

<comment><USER9> Treating this as supplemental media thread, the full [http://eastgrip.org/uk_diaries_2016/](http://eastgrip.org/uk_diaries_2016/) and [http://eastgrip.org/uk_diaries_2017/](http://eastgrip.org/uk_diaries_2017/) field diaries are also online.

The author tweeted [https://twitter.com/elikint/status/885562039720189953](https://twitter.com/elikint/status/885562039720189953) their video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLZifcrPajE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLZifcrPajE) of the story (5:30).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wonder if this is a potential application for pykrete[1].

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

<comment><USER8> Maybe spray the pykrete around the side of the trench, before laying the balloon and mix into the first layers of snow that form on top of the balloon and you might get a much stronger support than just plain snow

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Could some form of this, on an automated scale, be used to build tunnels or covered buildings on Mars?

<comment><USER12> Digging a hole, inflating a dome then burying it is an idea that's been considered yes, has the nice benefit of a pressurized atmosphere for the humans inside as well.

With access to water you can make martian concrete as well.

You can do it without water using molten sulfur as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Those polar scientists are quite resourceful. Nothing like those cartesian scientists.

<comment><USER14> A lot more fun too. The cartesian ones are a bunch of squares.

<comment><USER15> No need to be so hyperbolic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Underground is a bit of a misnomer; these are under ice and snow.

<comment><USER4> Etymological origins suggests this is faithful:

ground (n.): Old English grund "bottom; foundation; surface of the earth," also "abyss, Hell," and "bottom of the sea" (a sense preserved in run aground), from Proto-Germanic *grundus, which seems to have meant "deep place" (source also of Old Frisian, Old Saxon, Danish, Swedish grund, Dutch grond, Old High German grunt, German Grund "ground, soil, bottom;" Old Norse grunn "a shallow place," grund "field, plain," grunnr "bottom"). No known cognates outside Germanic.

[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=ground](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=ground)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Friendly help vs. Getting paid - <AUTHOR> Hi HN,<p>Pretty simple: where do you draw the line between when you are doing a friendly favor for someone (possibly doing free valuable work), and when you should be getting paid for your help (possibly being greedy or unfriendly)? Why? <comment><USER2> Note that you don't always need to be paid with money. You can demand a good liquor, a dinner, or a cake as your remuneration, depending on how big and difficult the work is. And while it may be ridiculous to offer or demand a mere twenty or fifty bucks, it's completely fine if it is a pack of good beer.

</comment><comment><USER3> If the other person will or could make financial gains from your help, then you should be getting paid. For example, if you build a website for someone to sell something, you should be getting paid.

</comment><comment><USER4> AGP: Always Get Paid

       For-Profit, Get Paid
       Non-Profit, Get Paid
       Friend, Get Paid
       Enemy,  Get Paid
       Family, Get Paid</comment>


LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites - <AUTHOR> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html <comment><USER2> Will these images quiet "the moon landings were faked" conspiracy theorists? I doubt it - they will reason if they faked the moon landing, they can easily fake a few digital pictures.

Notice how close Apollo 16 landed to a huge crater. I wonder what kind of resolution the mission planning maps had.

<comment><USER3> No it won't shut them up. Not when CNN is blathering on their site about the the fake moon landings theories.

<comment><USER4> When I saw that on CNN's front page this afternoon they lost any remaining shred of journalistic integrity that I had for them. Stuff like that puts them on par with Weekly World News.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think the coolest of these is the Apollo 14 image with the footprint trail. Sure, after 30 years we'd expect the landers to still be there, but now we know that the footprints and other scuff marks are still there too. Neat.

<comment><USER6> I read somewhere that, if humanity died out, after a few million years, all evidence that we existed on earth would be gone, expect the junk we left on the moon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can anyone explain this issue ([http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/925dl/apollo_landin...](http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/925dl/apollo_landing_sites_images_by_lro_bad_astronomy/c0b6g3a)) Google moon not matching these images? INACT (I'm not a conspiracy theorist) just curious.

</comment><comment><USER8> I was really expecting / hoping that they would release high resolution, quality images of these landing sites, particularly Apollo 11.

Don't we have the technology to capture these sites in striking clarity, to finally put to rest the ridiculousness of claims we didn't get there when we did?

<comment><AUTHOR> From the article:

Though it had been expected that LRO would be able to resolve the remnants of the Apollo mission, these first images came before the spacecraft reached its final mapping orbit. Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution.</comment></comment>


Swisslaunch: A Swiss Y Combinator clone - <AUTHOR> http://www.swisslaunch.com/en/swisslaunch <comment><USER2> Launched by three students? What expertise and experience exactly do they bring to the table? Part of what makes YC so sight after is the guidance of PG & co.

Specifically to Switzerland, having lived there it has a problem more extreme than the US: it's very hard to work there. It's become easier for EU residents but harder for everyone else.

Switzerland is expensive but doesn't have the health insurance problems the US does (health insurance is mandatory and affordable) but labour laws are a bit of aroblem (in that it could be hard to fire someone).

The laws around company formation and financing I know nothing about there.

The cost of living is high but, in real terms, isn't that different to New York, even San Francisco.

If you compare Switzerland to its neighbors, Germany is much cheaper but far more restrictive on labour laws. France is expensive with similar problems. The UK is probably the freest in this sense but is expensive with huge infrastructure problems. Internet is probably cheapest in the UK (for Europe) and fastest to the US.

<comment><USER3> Living in Switzerland as a UK expat, I know the tech scene around Zürich fairly well. I haven't heard of these guys before but they're based in Basel so perhaps they haven't done the rounds yet.

There is certainly a need for this. Tech funding can be difficult to find I understand or of the "we'll invest in you once you're a safe bet" kind. Investing in biotech is much more developed, giving Switzerland's pharma industry, and there are signs that biotech investors are starting to show interest in tech startups but it's not there yet.

Would say what makes Switzerland attractive is being able to find highly educated engineers. While the ETH Zurich is highly respected, there are other less high profile schools turning out great hackers.

And there is enough experience around to get your startup off the ground and reaching a healthy turnover. What's lacking for web startups is experience scaling up to international markets; most of the successful startups I've seen tend to succeed only in local markets.

<comment><USER4> Hey just saw your post. I couldn't find you email address in your profile, so I had to post here. I also live in Zurich (engineer from ETH actually), want to get together for a beer sometime? Would be happy to meet a fellow HN-reader :-)

<comment><USER3> Hi o1iver - catching up... Great - feel free to get in touch via twitter - @hfuecks is me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The application form is not working, that is if you manage to find the link in the first place.

Bootstrapping in Switzerland seems like an attractive proposition but does it make sense from a bootstrapper's point of view? Why not hop on a train and go to one of the cheaper countries next door?

<comment><USER6> Well, maybe freedom is worth something ([ [http://www.freeexistence.org/freedom.shtml?Property=4&Dr...](http://www.freeexistence.org/freedom.shtml?Property=4&DrugRights=3&Taxes=3&Corruption=3&Speech=4&Inflation=3&LtdGovt=3&Business=3&GunRights=3&Reverse=false) ]).</comment></comment>


Apple rumored to begin paying Foxconn employees direct wages - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/31/apple-rumored-to-begin-paying-foxconn-employees-direct-wages/ <comment><USER2> This is going to be a problem for the other workers, not working on Apple products. Will there be more troubles, with workers bribing managers to get into the lucrative Apple workshop? Hopefully this ends well.

<comment><USER3> You can bet that it will get worse before it gets better. This strikes me as a well-intentioned action that makes all kinds of assumptions about the reasons people are committing suicide in China (this isn't exclusive to Foxxconn). I'm happy for the people who will benefit from the extra money, but the opportunity for unintended consequences is huge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The actual source: [http://micgadget.com/4484/apple-providing-subsidies-for- foxc...](http://micgadget.com/4484/apple-providing-subsidies-for-foxconn- workers/)

</comment><comment><USER5> So what's to prevent the factory paid wages from dropping as a result? Someone up in management has got to be looking for a way to get their dues.

<comment><USER6> The guaranteed PR fallout? That's a stunt you can pull when you are not the focus of the press.

<comment><USER7> Foxconn can still eat up most of the benefit of the surplus pay by, for example, reserving positions working on high-retail Apple products for employees who work extra hours and keep quiet about abuses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> $132 a month? Talk about slave labor...

Makes me feel a little bit dirty about owning an iPhone.

<comment><USER9> Would your prefer that they starve in unseen rural poverty instead? Poverty is bad but it comes in different degrees and depressing factory work is not the worst one.

<comment><USER8> I would actually just prefer it if they were paid more. Apple isn't exactly strapped for cash...

<comment><USER9> I would rather businesses spent resources raising the starving into poverty than raising those in poverty to western levels.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This looks highly unusual. Isn't Foxconn interest to keep their workers happy ? I'm not even sure how is Apple justifying this given those workers aren't Apple employees.

So, basically, Foxconn increased the price of their service but included an item in the contract where the difference goes directly to the employees ? Nice way for Foxconn to maintain their margin and make their workers happier. What did Foxconn do ?

Either way, it looks very strange. Apple could have handled this in many ways (for example, what about buying part of Foxconn). But it looks like the media won and Apple is paying to cover up the PR mess. I don't believe Foxconn only has Apple as a customer but somehow all the media was against Apple. And since Apple has the cash now, they just paid up.

Let's see how will the workers _not_ working on Apple products feel when their colleagues get more money.

<comment><USER11> > Isn't Foxconn interest to keep their workers happy ?

No. As the saying goes, "Work hard today or work harder tomorrow looking for a new job".</comment></comment>


This House Costs Just $20,000–But It's Nicer Than Yours - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcoexist.com/3056129/this-house-costs-just-20000-but-its-nicer-than-yours/3 <comment><USER2> "Nicer."</comment>


Ask HN: Anyone recall a simple project dashboard web app seen here last year? - <AUTHOR>

Last year a startup was discussed here offering an incredibly simple shared tasks web app.  I think it had a charcoal background.
The idea was a single page a team could glance at to see what the current tasks or priorities are.  There may also have been an activity stream for individuals' updates, though I don't recall for sure.
This was not a full project collaboration tool like http://www.nozbe.com, and far simpler than even https://taskant.com/.
It was more like a pinboard of note cards of what a team should be working on.
The minimum viable product aspect and black background stuck with me, but I can't recall the name or even search terms to look for it.
Any ideas what web app I'm thinking of? <comment><USER2> Is it one of these?:

<https://splendidbacon.com> (discussion - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1801964>)

<http://bettermeans.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> <https://splendidbacon.com> it is!

Now I don't feel so bad for being utterly unable to recall the name.

But at least it was charcoal and last fall (Monday, 18 October 2010).

(Better Means looks like an intriguing concept for certain projects -- thanks for the pointer.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3>
        Maybe Flow.io ?

Flow.io: Lean project management based on kanban. Please review. (flow.io) <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1374303>

<comment><AUTHOR> Almost!

I see I commented in that thread, and I recall looking at a number of "kanban" style web apps. If I can't find the one I'm looking for, one of these may be able to be adapted, so thank you very much for finding that.

The one with the charcoal background was even simpler, and I think it was shown here later in the year, late summer or fall.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure it will help, but it's a whole lot better than me guessing... The following is the query used to find flow.io. There's (about) 59 matches.

[https://encrypted.google.com/search?num=100&pws=0&sa...](https://encrypted.google.com/search?num=100&pws=0&safe=off&output=search&q=%2BMVP%20%2Btask%20%2Bapp%20site%3Anews.ycombinator.com)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for reminding about site:, I'm reviewing all the threads mentioning kanban in case it's one of those.

If I do find it, I _will_ update this thread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The charcoal background made me think of Geckoboard (<http://www.geckoboard.com/>), but that's more of a dashboard metrics visualizer than a task list.

<comment><AUTHOR> The feel was like that, but with generous whitespace (blackspace?) and room for just a handful of items, useful for glanceable overall prioritization.

Thanks for the reminder on Geckoboard, another project can make good use of it.</comment></comment>


Is OOP "anti-modular"? - <AUTHOR> http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/70831/is-objected-oriented-programming-paradigm-outdated-since-it-is-anti-modular-and

<comment><USER2> OOP suffers from a distinct lack of clear, universally accepted, definition that allows such questions to be answered well, but certainly a key component of many understandings of OOP involves centrality of mutable state and particular ways of modifying it which is at least arguably "anti-parallel", and many popular forms of OOP (particularly static, class-based OO) is prone to encourage coupling which makes really independent modularity difficult to achieve, though OOP is based on a kind of modularity which is consistent with this kind of coupling.

So, on balance, maybe, kinda, depending on what kind of modularity and what kind of OOP you are talking about.

</comment><comment><USER3> It sounds to me that it's frameworks that are anti-modular.</comment>


ShowHN: New platform for knowledge exchange  - <AUTHOR>

www.guchex.com
Guchex is a free platform intended for knowledge exchange among respected professionals
You can view our platform inside without being registered @ guchex.com/guilherme/
Feedback appreciated <comment><AUTHOR> Our "Post" page, i would like to ask if it is easy to understand our shuffle mechanism on our right sidebar

[http://guchex.com/guilherme/post/10/linq-lambda- expressions-...](http://guchex.com/guilherme/post/10/linq-lambda-expressions- and-generic-delegates)</comment>


Show HN: An Open-Source Resource for Combating Burnout - <AUTHOR> http://burnout.io

<comment><AUTHOR> The content is still immature, but we're hoping to improve with the help of the community. Feedback, discussion, pull requests, and "why the hell is that on there" would all be equally appreciated.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you validate your ideas? - <AUTHOR>

It seems like the easiest way is to get a landing page or similar that says 'Here's my product, here's what it does' and gather feedback from people (and some points of contact) which you take on board and use to shape the development of your product.
How is this done in practice though? I was working on a project with a friend a while back and we posted a landing page with a mailing list here. The feedback it got was along the lines of "This is just a landing page, come back when you have a product".
How can you get useful feedback and validation on ideas without spamming links to meaningless landing pages everywhere?
I look forward to hearing your views. <comment><USER2> Validation is often oversimplified.

Driving traffic to a landing page validate's that you're good at marketing; signups validate interest from consumers; feedback provides insight for product development. However, none of these actions validate your idea.

Product demo videos provide people the context they require to properly assess the value of your idea. The best demo videos quickly describe the value of the product and then provide a use case which creates context for the audience. Finally, they end with a QUICK walk-through.

Drew Houston launched Dropbox with a product demo [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QmCUDHpNzE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QmCUDHpNzE). Try to think of validation as an ongoing process and product demos as the next step.

<comment><USER3> "Validation is often oversimplified."

100% agree. It's very difficult to get "honest" feedback without getting a product in the hands of users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why are you separating the idea from the execution? Ideas are just multipliers for execution[1]. You can have the best idea in the world but if your execution is terrible no one will use it. Conversely, a lot of effort focused on an average or even so-so idea can result in a great product.

If you're unsure whether to start building something, the answer is usually to start building anyway. You can refine your idea as you work, and once you have a basic prototype you can start asking people what they think of your idea _and_ of your execution.

Prototypes are cheap, and as soon as you have one you can start validating what really matters: your product.

[1] [https://sivers.org/multiply](https://sivers.org/multiply)

</comment><comment><USER5> First you'll want to build up an email list of interested customers. That'll be your launch list.

In the mean time, you'll want to contact the list to see if there's anyone who has a burning desire for the product right now. These are your Early Evangelists that will guide your product development. Their need for the solution is so great that they're willing to work with you even from the 'napkin idea' phase.

If you're unable to find a handful of these Early Evangelists then either a) you don't have a problem with a big enough pain point or b) you're bad at reaching your target market. In either case you'll want to fix that.

</comment><comment><USER6> A/B tests. Have a single site, two pages, and something like Google Analytics. See how many people visit the site and if they spend more time on A or B. Then modify the worse of the two and re-test.

At some point you have to just take a risk and develop a product. All you can really do is see if there is ANY interest at all, and also discuss it with people who might be consumers of the product to see what they think (but take it with a pinch of salt, focus groups are notoriously fickle).

</comment><comment><USER7> Can you really validate a product without taking risk? By the time you think through, develop, pitch and launch an MVP, much of the hard work is done.</comment>


Show HN: Licenser – quickly add an open source license to your project - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/tylucaskelley/licenser

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd really appreciate any feedback!</comment>


That's impossible! A simple mathematical paradox - <AUTHOR> http://math-blog.com/2008/05/11/thats-impossible/

<comment><USER2> Not at all a paradox. A paradox would require two inconsistent things to be simultaneously true.

This is just an answer that's counter-intuitive. It's entirely consistent, but surprising.

<comment><AUTHOR> From wikipedia: "A paradox can be an apparently true statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction _or a situation which defies intuition_ ; or it can be, seemingly opposite, an apparent contradiction that actually expresses a non-dual truth (cf. Koan). Typically, either the statements in question do not really imply the contradiction, the puzzling result is not really a contradiction, or the premises themselves are not all really true or cannot all be true together. [...] A veridical paradox produces a result that appears absurd but is demonstrated to be true nevertheless. Thus, the paradox of Frederic's birthday in The Pirates of Penzance establishes the surprising fact that a person's fifth birthday is the day he turns twenty, if born on a leap day. Likewise, Arrow's impossibility theorem involves behaviour of voting systems that is surprising but true."

But yes, it's a puzzle with a counterintuitive result.

<comment><USER3> Like the birthday paradox: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox>

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly. Arguably that's the etymological meaning of the term. (It comes from Greek, "para" which means "contrary to" and "doxa" which is "opinion").

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Oh, one of the neater mathematical 'paradoxes' I've seen is finding the sum of a divergent series (obviously you can't treat infinity this way ... but it's a fun trick).

(excuse the notation, I'm doing this with plain ASCII characters ...):

Let the sum of the geometric series 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... be called (=) S.

Now multiply both sides by 2: 2S = 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + ....

Now subtract the second equation from the first: S - 2S = (1 + 2 + 4 + 16 + ...) - (2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + ...)

Notice that all the terms except for the '1' cancel out on the right: -S = 1

And simplify: S = -1

Therefore: 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... = -1

;-)

</comment><comment><USER5> The extra 16cm of Radius is lots compared to a golf ball, and nothing compared to earth. I have to scale these in my mind to be able to compare the two, and the relative gap is what I expected. But I'm still surprised that the gap is exactly the same in both.

</comment><comment><USER6> See also the fascinating Benford's Law: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law></comment>


Ready to be an open source contributor but don't know where to start? - <AUTHOR> http://opensource.com/life/10/8/ready-be-open-source-contributor-dont-know-where-start <comment><USER2> I am not sure when open source became this magical unicorn but I suppose it is good that someone tries to guide would-be contributors - even if I wish they rather had an itch to scrath than viewing it as merely a box to check for the resume.

I recommend starting with something you use or would like to use.

<comment><USER3> Open Source became "magic pixie dust" right from the beginning of the term with the Mozilla Project. At least in The Cathedral and the Bazaar someone found reason to refute it. [http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral- bazaar/cathedral...](http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral- bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s13.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Seems to be a lot of spam, at least in the Java bugs</comment>


The most important data structure for tech interviews - <AUTHOR> https://crunchskills.com/understand-the-most-important-data-structure-for-tech-interviews/ <comment><USER2> I would argue that HashMap is actually the least useful structure for algo challenges/questions. They are often forbidden as an answer by the interviewer (especially since they usually lead to easy O(1) or O(n) answers), pretexting "memory limitations", to force the interviewee to use arrays/lists.</comment>


Export Chat data by Telegram - <AUTHOR> https://telegram.org/blog/export-and-more <comment><USER2> For now export is only possible on the desktop app. When will it be available on mobiles? End-to-end encrypted conversations are device-specific with Telegram so having export everywhere is necessary.</comment>


Twitter for Android: A closer look at Android's evolving UI patterns - <AUTHOR> http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/05/twitter-for-android-closer-look-at.html

<comment><USER2> I seem to be in the minority, but I'm not a huge fan of the UI design in the new official Twitter app. My biggest complaints:

Pattern 3: The Dashboard

Not a huge fan of this, mainly because it feels redundant and adds to the app's inconsistency. _Some_ features can be accessed directly from the tweet screen while others require you to navigate back to the dashboard. Where Android apps have traditionally allowed direct navigation between functions by way of the Menu button on the phone, Twitter drops that functionality pretty much entirely.

Pattern 4: The Action Bar

Not a bad idea in and of itself, but it feels poorly implemented to me. The biggest issue isn't the action bar itself, but the fact that they chose to add a second, permanent UI bar directly below it for navigation between tweets, mentions, and favorites. If you're using the phone in landscape mode, you've lost nearly a third of your vertical screen real estate to permanent UI elements. The UI should get out of my way and let me interact with content.

This also plays into my complaint about Pattern 3 and inconsistent navigation between features. This secondary bar replicates part, but not all, of the functionality of the the dashboard. You can't really be sure which navigation path is going to be open to you until you follow one.

Pattern 6: QuickActions

Again, the primary issue here is consistency. The QuickAction bar pops up above a tweet when you tap it... except when it doesn't. If a tweet is too far up the screen when you tap it, the QuickAction bar pops up below the tweet. (And because of the vertical screen real estate problem from Pattern 4, your chances of not having enough screen space for the bar in landscape mode and running into it behaving inconsistently are as good as not). Not a major, major issue, but it is slightly jarring. If there's not enough space to display the QuickAction bar in a consistent location, it seems to me that the app should scroll the timeline down so that there is.

Personally, I'd also be in favor of making that consistent location _below_ the selected tweet -- it's much easier to tap once and then again with your thumb by moving down than it is to do the reverse since it mimics the natural motion of balling your hand. I feel like I'm having the stretch to reach the newly revealed UI elements in the official app.

I guess the thing for me is that I agree with everyone that this app is one of the prettiest on the Android platform, and I'm thrilled to see contact syncing expanding beyond Facebook; I just haven't understood the raves about the UX end of the app. It's certainly not bad, but I came away feeling like the whole thing was half-baked from a usability perspective. There's definitely a lot of potential here, but it needs some serious interface work before it becomes my daily use Twitter app.

</comment><comment><USER3> I didn't understand what Contacts Sync would do, so I skipped it, just to be safe. Who knows, worst case it would import everybody I follow on Twitter into my address book.

I am still not sure what it does. The only thing I can imagine is comparing email addresses and adding the Twitter name to address book entries if email addresses match.</comment>


NYPD has secret X-ray vans - <AUTHOR> http://nypost.com/2015/10/13/nypd-has-secret-x-ray-vans/ <comment><USER2> The vans are used to scan for "drugs and explosives," i.e. "[drug money] and explosives," i.e. "[drug money]."

I think the public would be slightly more comfortable with this type of stuff if it was actually being used for counter-terrorism.</comment>


Covid-19 Unit Nurse Says Hospital Forbade Her to Wear N95 Mask - <AUTHOR> https://www.ccn.com/covid-19-unit-nurse-says-hospital-forbade-her-to-wear-n95-mask/ <comment><AUTHOR> Before, I would have guessed that in the case of a global emergency, people will step closer together and help out each other where they can. But now it kind of looks like people will just continue with their old habits.

I mean hospital nurses have always been treated like they're disposable, with minimum health benefits and low salary. So in general, a hospital being unreasonable to maximize profits isn't really anything new. But I still feel surprised that they continue such a harsh treatment even now.

Plus, there's this happy world make-believe aspect of being extra strict in silencing bad press. It almost seems like this is desired or deliberately overlooked by politics. But why? Who stands to gain from such a situation?</comment>


The new Bootstrap 3 grid system - <AUTHOR> http://www.williamghelfi.com/blog/2013/06/09/bootstrap-3-the-new-grid-system-for-starters/

<comment><USER2> The thing I hate most about bootstrap 3 is changing the class names of the grid. "span3" and "offset1" were much better than "col-lg-3" and "col- offset-1".

Seriously... there are several places in the docs (and I often do this myself) where a non-grid-related element uses a "span2" or whatever to float itself left and size itself equal to a 2-width column. Example: the input field for a search box. When input-medium/small/mini/large/xlarge doesn't cut it, or just because you want something to fit in a column.

So now we're gonna have "col-lg-2" etc plastered throughout our html? I don't see that as an improvement. The elements that get used the most should have simple names... that's what made bootstrap great as it was a common-sense standard for lots of common html/css techniques. "hide" for display:none, "muted" for color:#999, etc.

<comment><USER3> I'm guessing that it's stealing the small and large grids from Zurb Foundation.

<comment><USER4> My thoughts exactly. Foundation has always had a superior responsive grid layout, if for no other reason than it is embed-able within itself. To say nothing of their push and pull column classes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bootstrap 3: Because deep in your heart of hearts, you still miss using tables for layout.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is true, in a way.

Tables were great in that they were a solid grid system, and a responsive one ( if you didn't try too hard to make them break your layout ).

But tables are for displaying tabular data, and they have some unwanted fat (th elements and the like) in regard to using them for a layout.

Now we are at grid systems. So much better!

But what we _really_ want is native CSS support for complex layouts ( maybe in a couple of years... )

<comment><USER6> What you really want is CSS template layout: [http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-layout/](http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-layout/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly. Now it's browser vendors turn :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I always wondered: why use a grid system when it's essentially a table, which is already implemented in browsers and fits the purpose of grids perfectly?

Is it just because it's not semantically correct? Neither is a grid system.

Is it better for responsive designs?

<comment><USER8> Grids would generally be worse - no semantic info like 'thead' or 'axis' in grids/divs. That said, I'm a bootstrap span fan and don't like this extended naming from the article - reminds me of YUI grids from several years ago.

But hey, "they're' not tables - tables are evil!", right?

RANT: I worked with some people ... sheesh - almost a decade ago that proclaimed "tables are depreciated" (I'm pretty sure they meant 'deprecated') and spent days having a team of people convert tablular data from Excel spreadsheets in to bloated DIV-hell for IE5 and NS4 browsers. That's been my worst experience with table-haters, but it stuck with me.

<comment><USER9> Could you not just send them a link to the specs? (and a dictionary)

<comment><USER8> I didn't last too long there, and thankfully I wasn't on that team directly. Yeah, pointing out things like 'facts' with 'evidence' doesn't make you a 'team player' very often. Yes, there's the issue that I'm the new guy, but really... there are some things that are objectively true. HTML tables have never been 'deprecated', have their place, and are perfectly fine. DIV-based layouts are fine too, but knowing when to each is key, and displaying hundreds of pages of spreadsheet-style data with inlined styles for each div is... just insane. They had to do inlined styles on each div because some version of IE didn't handle the formatting they wanted properly - some alignment issue - when I pointed out that table cells already supported that formatting... I think that's when I was no longer required to be involved in that project.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> He casually nested two "col-lg-6" within a "col-lg-9"

Isn't that a bit of big change? In the past, I don't think we could get two equal size cols filling up a 9.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually that's about the biggest change: Bootstrap 3 is Mobile First and the grid is fluid-only.

Pros: you can nest the hell out of your layout without putting your brain on fire.

Cons: didn't find one, so far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm reading through this and I see bootstrap has became like Foundation a lot :

* You have mandatory #container div

* you can nest rows by default (previously you had to use fluid-row)

* they got rid of "span" and use the more natural "col".

* offsets

* push & pulls

Foundation still have more : "ending cols" for number of cols not reaching 12 and centered "cols".

I'm liking it. I would have gone for Foundation 4 but I'm wondering if I should try this new Bootstrap for my next project.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'll tell you what I really like about this. If you have a setup where information in the right column is providing clarifying information about what is on the left (NOT vice versa)...

Based on the responsive design of the grid, if you resize the window smaller, it puts the "context" directly underneath and you can offset based on color. That's at least based on a 2 column system. I haven't tested it on multiple sets yet but it works for what I need it for.

</comment><comment><USER13> Gutter-free grid ? Can be good as I always found gutters too wide in grid systems.

<comment><USER14> They're already configurable variables in LESS: just change @gridGutterWidth etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> My one desire for Bootstrap is to have more than 12 columns. That's too coarse-grained IMHO. Why not 24? I know you can do this yourself but in my experience it results in weird bugs.

I also agree that span3 and offset2 are/were better names.

Still, Bootstrap is awesome, even in spite of the ASI BS it's authors maintain.

<comment><USER11> The point of the 12 columns is it can be divided by 3, 2, 4 and 6. What would be the point of 24 columns grid?

If you need to display 24 items in a row, then you shouldn't have to mess with the foundations. Use CSS or tables.

<comment><USER16> I've found the need for a "half" column several times. I like the idea of a 24 column grid.

<comment><USER11> Good point!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Nice to see screenshots from X11, every once in a while.

</comment><comment><USER18> The only grid system that get things right is susy ([http://susy.oddbird.net](http://susy.oddbird.net))

<comment><USER19> Could you clarify what Susy gets right that Bootstrap, Zurb, and 960 don't?</comment></comment>


The Logic of "Stupid" Poor People - <AUTHOR> http://tressiemc.com/2013/10/29/the-logic-of-stupid-poor-people/# <comment><USER3> When debating social justice issues, it is wise to bear in mind that deconstructing one particular thesis in a vacuum offers little more than intellectual showboating; much of the social justice narrative describes small and seemingly-trivial barriers cumulatively forming concrete obstacles. For a better metaphor, Marilyn Frye writes in _The Politics of Reality_ :

"Cages. Consider a birdcage. If you look very closely at just one wire in the cage, you cannot see the other wires. If your conception of what is before you is determined by this myopic focus, you could look at that one wire, up and down the length of it, and be unable to see why a bird would not just fly around the wire any time it wanted to go somewhere. Furthermore, even if, one day at a time, you myopically inspected each wire, you still could not see why a bird would have trouble going past the wires to get anywhere. There is no physical property of any one wire, nothing that the closest scrutiny could discover, that will reveal how a bird could be inhibited or harmed by it except in the most accidental way. It is only when you step back, stop looking at the wires one by one, microscopically, and take a macroscopic view of the whole cage, that you can see why the bird does not go anywhere; and then you will see it in a moment. It will require no great subtlety of mental powers. It is perfectly obvious that the bird is surrounded by a network of systematically related barriers, no one of which would be the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by their relations to each other, are as confining as the solid walls of a dungeon."

This myopic focus seems to be more common on technology forums than elsewhere. I am interested as to why this is the case. Probably, a technical education lends itself well to analyzing the validity of individual details but not reasoning at a structural level.

<comment><USER4> Just to lay my cards on the table: I'm registered as a member of the US Green Party and have been involved with various left wing activist movements since I was fifteen. I've also been poor, living in a junkie hotel and doing day labor for cash. My most upvoted comment on hn (before I ragequit my previous account (for basically leftist grievances (!))) was one describing what that was like.

Still, I find the intellectual attitude that you've described deeply unsettling. As you've sketched it, the "social justice narrative[0]" is unfalsifiable: what claims does your theory of politics actually make about the world if any given piece of it can be overturned without making a dent in the theory itself? A theory of social inequality can't be correct in general without being correct in particular cases. Refuting ( _not_ "deconstructing") a particular thesis is not "intellectual showboating", it's engaging in argument. What else is someone who sincerely disagrees with you supposed to do?

I've seen this happen with depressing regularity: a self-styled social justice advocate will make a claim, and sometimes that claim will get demolished by an intelligent opponent. (Yes, this can happen, and it is a portent for the future of the left that most activists never learn to take a drubbing from a perceptive conservative.) Rather than taking stock at that point, the social justice advocate throws up a polysyllabic ink cloud ("institutional", "systemic" and "societal" seem to enjoy heavy rotation) and jets away. Whether it is true or not that nebulous social forces conspire to constrain outcomes for the poor in the way that the social justice advocate believes, I have no idea why such verbal behavior should be considered convincing.

This is especially frustrating if you actually sincerely think that the left has good ideas about social policy that should be argued for in earnest and implemented.

\---

[0] The heavy rhetorical weight placed on the word "narrative" also gives me goosebumps. What happened to plain old arguments-- a set of propositions intended to establish (or at least raise the probability of) the truth of a conclusion? I would hate to think it's because "narratives", unlike arguments, are impossible to demonstrate or refute.

<comment><USER3> The key word here is vacuum. It's pretty easy to come up with compelling arguments against individual examples of inequality, but these really only hold up on their own and yes, fall apart at the structural level.

I agree retreating to argue on the structural level is rhetorically weak. That's all that can really be said against it, and it's unfortunate, because someone saying how really _you_ are a member of the oppressed (as seen in white supremacist and MRA groups) is much more alluring than some intangible narrative about structural inequality.

I say narrative because that's the form it has taken, and indeed had to take. Mary Wollstonecraft couldn't spend her time arguing point by point in a council chamber. She wrote books, compelling novels which had to fight viciously for every inch of ground on which they stood.

You've seen how easily people convince themselves that gripes of oppression are baseless, today, 200 years after _A Vindication of the Rights of Woman_. We've had academics write and study and provide rhetorical tools for generations now, building a narrative, because that is what is needed. To truly argue against it, it must be met on that same narrative ground.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I will agree the value of a put-together appearance is valid, in many contexts. and i wouldn't take from that at all.

However ... it's ridiculous to use this to defend a $2,500 handbag purchase. the purchase was inadvisable at best.

marshall's, target, JCP etc have a massive business strategy around making sophisticated looks available on a low budget. so there are plenty of ways to accomplish the objective of self respect, presentation and budget.

there's an old essay by tom wolfe called "mau mauing the flak catchers" \- watching the CEO of barney's defending himself, I think that fits just about perfectly.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Chic_&_Mau- Mauing_the_F...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Chic_&_Mau- Mauing_the_Flak_Catchers)

<comment><USER6> I agree. Two different things being discussed as one.

1) Everyone should have at least one outfit that is super classy. A cheap solution is a Salvation Army or Goodwill store in a nice part of town.

2) People who live on the dole and buy things they clearly don't need or deserve. Rocking an iPhone 5 while using your food stamp debit card at the grocery store to buy junk food is the typical "Stupid" poor person move most people hate to see. There's no justification for that.

<comment><USER7> Man, the iPhone 5 really is not a very good example here.

If you wear your super classy outfit to an interview AND you have the iPhone 5 instead of a prepaid Android phone (or worse -- a prepaid non-smartphone), it's going to show that you "belong" and that you're not poor.

Some people really do pay attention to what kind of phone you have, particularly for these gateway-straddling jobs that the author talks about in the article.

<comment><USER8> Counterpoint: after the novelty of wearing the super classy outfit and waving the iPhone 5 wears off once you have a job, what _else_ do you now have to purchase -- outside your means -- to convince your co-workers that you "belong"?

It would be cheaper to look for a job in an environment that is more interested in what you can _do_ rather than what you _tote_.

That is, after all, what most of us end up doing.

<comment><USER7> That's not a counterpoint in poor-person logic. It's a counterpoint in you- the-guy-who-has-more-correct-assumptions logic.

This is what I'm trying to get across with my posts on this topic.

People keep using reasoning from within a higher-class group where you already know the rules and assumptions of the game. The whole point is that the people below don't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Beautiful analysis of privilege, class signifiers and race.

Technology culture and employment in the United States is dominated by straight white males, usually with some form of class and economic privilege-- people who haven't had to navigate within their society with an extreme outsider status--but there are welcome signs of a growing critical self awareness.

Over the years on HN, I've seen many posts questioning the economic value of a four year college education, particularly an education in the humanities. This right here is a great post to keep in your pocket the next time someone says something like that.

<comment><USER10> And yet she shows the barrier to entry for a woman to be _other women in HR_ who were of the same race. How is 'critical self awareness' of straight white males going to help that?

I've talked about this before at length, but assigning the term 'privilege' exclusively to 'straight white males' is fairly intellectually dishonest. The problem is bigger than that - our culture values _behaving_ like a 'normal person', our definition of 'normal' just happens to have a lot of white people in it. Some poor white people living in trailers with heavy accents and unkempt clothes would have had (and do have) similar problems.

<comment><USER11> I don't think you two are really disagreeing.

Privilege is not exclusive to straight white males, it just so happens that in this country, at this moment, straight white males enjoy an order of magnitude more of it than everyone else. It becomes convenient to point at the largest elephant in the room instead of fully qualifying the point.

But white privilege, straight privilege, and all other forms of privilege affect not just those who have it, but everyone else around them. The barrier to entry for this woman was other women in HR, of the same race - who have internalized and normalized straight/white/male/etc privilege.

Normalization _is_ privilege. Without normalization you don't have privilege - you don't have thoughts like "that's not a black guy job", or "that guy's too fruity to interact with my clients". Privilege _is_ the unfair treatment of people based on their deviation from a perceived norm. The perceived norm may be perceived even by people who are on the losing end of the particular proposition - whether it is their race, gender, orientation, or other.

<comment><USER12> When one thinks of judging people by choice of fabric combination or wearing specific designers, "internalizing and normalizing" straight white male doesn't exactly come to mind. I think there are limits to how much this idea can explain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> While I agree with the sentiment, I don't think her arguments are very strong.

I personally think people make bad decisions to buy things or do things not on the premise of it being an "investment", but because most of us are very weak.

We do the things we do because we are victims to advertising and peer pressure. You think they spend billions on advertising for nothing?

If you read this and you are thinking, "No I am not." You are 1) in denial 2) above average. If you are above average, then you should realize averages exist because half of the people are below it.

<comment><USER14> > then you should realize averages exist because half of the people are below > it.

Only true of median.

<comment><USER15> I think that the colloquial use of the term "average" actually means the median. That's how I have seen it used, anyway.

<comment><USER16> No, people usually have the arithmetic mean in mind.

<comment><USER17> People have the arithmetic mean in mind, but their intuition of "average" is actually the median, or even more commonly the modus.

When somebody says "Average people are X", they usually mean "Most people I've encountered are X", which is the modus. Hell, I just did that in this exact sentence!

<comment><USER15> I like how we've totally ignored the guy's arguments due to some technicality in his post. That's Hacker News for you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> One of the hard parts for me to understand about articles like this is the addition of race into a social calculation that may not have included race. If I see somebody I'm hiring has a clean car (one of the examples in the article), I'm not thinking "Great, a black person acting white by having a clean car, I'm hiring her", I'm thinking "Great, a tidy person with a clean car". I see this a lot. Obviously there are people who think the first way and I'd wager almost every person of color deals with these people every day so it's probably hard not to do that. But putting assumptions like that on every social interaction seems problematic to me. But as a white man I of course have absolutely no real sense (outside of reading and friends) of how it is to live as a person of color so what do I know. Just thinking out loud.

<comment><USER19> Please understand I am just trying to explain a viewpoint, not necessarily state my personal beliefs.

I think the argument is that you won't notice when a white male is tidy. You notice a black person with a clean car because subconsciously you don't expect it. So even a positive thought or comment (a tidy person with a clean car) becomes racial because it would never have come up with a white male.

See also: "articulate"

<comment><USER20> I know some people think that way, and racialize everything.

I admit that I just don't _get_ this point of view. I really don't. I aim, and generally succeed, at being as color blind as possible.

To me a person with a clean car and nice clothes is a person with a clean car and tidy clothes. I don't get surprised when that person turns out to be a black female or a white man.

Same thing with a person at the opposite end of the spectrum - i.e. a nasty car and dirty clothes. While one could stereotype blacks in this situation ("ghetto"), or whites ("hillbilly"), why would you do that?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I read the whole article and do not agree. Here in Silicon Valley the importance of appearances has become marginal. Yes, you have to be clean, presentable, but that's it. After that you need the skills, talent, knowledge and aptitude to perform your job. And you need that everyday, to keep your job, in this hyper-competitive environment.

I was a poor starving immigrant student at one point. I did fine without even mildly expensive clothes, shoes or cars. I've also hired poor resource-less college kids. Anecdotal, but the best workers (in our technical field) were the ones who cared the least about appearances.

<comment><USER22> Silicon Valley is still somewhat an exception to the rule about appearances. In what other area do the rich people dress exactly like the poorest? Remember the hubbub when Zuckerberg wore a hoodie to a meeting regarding the Facebook IPO. That might be laughed off in Silicon Valley but I know many people in other parts of the country that would view it as insulting for someone to show up to a business meeting wearing something like that.

<comment><USER15> What's insulting here is that Zuck is trying to keep the "hoodie-guy" image despite his unimaginable wealth. You can't have the cake and eat it.

<comment><USER23> I'm sorry, are you saying Zuck should be required to dress his socioeconomic class?

<comment><USER15> No. I just think it's posturing on his part. He's pretending to be something he's not, so that people see the friendly brogrammer instead of the ambitious "They trust me — dumb fucks" CEO who disregards privacy.

<comment><USER24> Don't you think that maybe it's the other 99.9% of people that are "posturing"?

Some people just _rebel_ against the "norm" of using clothing to represent their socioeconomic status - money or no money.

<comment><USER25> Some people rebel just because "f___ you, who are you to tell me what I can and can't do?" It has nothing to do with anything else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This article is unconvincing at best. She claims that you can only look presentable on a tight budget, which is patently false. You can look classy with affordable items: it only takes a tiny bit of basic fashion knowledge and a little more money than for the K-Mart option.

I've seen plenty of people who bought brand items but used them in a vulgar or trashy way: the result was that you could immediately identify them as poor, defeating the whole purpose of the "investment".

Some researchers have outlined that poverty is debilitating and impairs decision making, but there clearly are some poor people who contribute to their own fate. Advertising is partly to blame, but most of the responsibility rests with them not to buy ludicrous products in the hope of some inchoate recognition from others. Simply accusing the "white male privileged life of the mind" doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

<comment><USER26> If you're an outsider to a social group, how would you know how to imitate them cheaply and convincingly? Your point about people buying brand items and using them in a "vulgar" way actually just reinforces how hard it can be for poor people to look presentable. They literally don't know what they're doing. And you expect them to dress well in a way that can fit their budget? That's unreasonable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Firstly, you are dismissisive to the point of bigotry if you ever refer to someone as stupid, I don't care if they are rich or poor.

And while I'm all for personal responsibility and accountability...how many classes in public schools teach things like money and lifestyle management? Home Ec? Pretty sure all I learned there was how to cook and omlette.

This country refuses to blame the parents yet we do nothing to as a society to prepare future generations for the real world. Instead we teach to a bullshit testing standard that has taken the initiative out of the hands of our teachers during a time in history when creativity and drive is so vital to the global economy.

Instead ignorant people post ignorant messages about how some lady with a bunch of kids in a welfare line is sporting a Gucci bag.

Stop trying to stereotype the problem and start trying to look how collectively we can benefit one another through education and understanding.

<comment><USER28> Exactly this. We don't teach what we want people to know as adults, unless you realize many politicians would rather have ignorant populous they can lie to with impunity. We should teach basic economics from early years until they graduate and can't be fooled any more.

<comment><USER29> I don't mean to be a pedantic jerk, and I'm only mentioning it because I would want to be corrected similarly: I think the word you meant to use was 'populace', not 'populous'.

<comment><USER15> You're like a Canadian grammar Nazi: punctilious yet courteous.

<comment><USER25> That's because it's not done to be a jerk, but to be edumucative eh? :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Anyone who wants to "belong" to a league of people who would waste 2500$ on a handbag IS stupid. Whether they are poor or not is immaterial. It is also a huge leap to say that being "presentable" is the same as wasting money you do not have on status symbols. They aren't the same thing.

<comment><USER31> You're assuming there's no derived benefit from belonging to that league of people, but she makes the case that there is a benefit (or benefits) to it, despite admitting it's kind of lame.

It's not the strongest argument, I'll give you that, but I wouldn't know.

<comment><USER30> I am not making that assumption really; people that are able to really provide someone with benefits, whether it is knowledge, capital, power etc, would scoff at, and see right through the 2500$ handbag. My point being, either 1. you think you can access a level of person that will help you out by owning a 2500$ handbag (stupid) or 2. That there is a group of people that will allow you into their social sphere because you own a 2500$ hand bag, in the end people who think like this in that social sphere, will not be able to do anything for you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Oof.

Another one of these "I'm a member of special group that you can never understand. We are put down by other groups. I am going to emote a bit to make you feel guilty." I hate these things because they defy honest feedback. Instead, it's jump on the bandwagon or be called names. So I'm calling bullshit on this general type of article on HN. Having said that, I find this article as good as any of the example of the genre.

Remember, this article is about poverty. As such, it fails miserably to make its case. Yes, people buy things to socially signal. Yes, many poor people buy expensive status symbols.

But there's a lot to be said for attitude. Most of life is just showing up and having a positive attitude -- far more than what kinds of boots you're wearing or how much you spent on your coat. Yes, like most people I'll happily make spot judgments within about 5 seconds of seeing you. But those judgments are not based on fashion. They're based on hygiene, facial expression (are you happy? That makes me happy), demeanor, and body language.

A much better social signal is elimination of dialect, as the author mentions. Every culture has a "high" language and several medium or low languages. So get rid of that deep southern dialect if you want to make a good impression. Costs nothing. Instead of spending a lot on an expensive suit, pick up something wearable at the local Goodwill store. Practice entering a room, walking, sitting down, and chatting in front of a video camera.

Social signalling is just the way we're made. But it doesn't have a damned thing to do with being poor. Or rather the signal in this case is easily gamed in very cheap ways. At least for purposes of getting out of poverty. Obviously, if you're selling stocks, the game is played at a different level. But even then, there are lots of tactics that don't involve writing big checks.

In short, don't be a putz. Instead, cultivate inside of yourself something of real value, and make sure that the things that you have and do allow that to shine through.

</comment><comment><USER33> >aping the white male privileged life of the mind

Oh look: another racist, sexist, and poorly written complaint piece masquerading as some kind of intelligent discourse.

</comment><comment><USER34> Article strikes me as too much rationalization and not enough reflection. To one person, a $2500 bag may signal that you're middle class. To another, it may signal you're really bad with financial decisions. I don't think that argument that it's a survival mechanism really holds as it's really speculative and not supported by any data.

</comment><comment><USER35> I cannot speak to the gendered or racial points (white male, here), but during my time in NYC I experienced first hand the escalation of opportunity that tracked with my escalation of signaling clothing and accessories.

I was lucky enough to be poached from my job as a movie theater cleaner/attendant by the manager of a 5th Avenue Kenneth Cole. At the time I was struggling and would eventually end up temporarily homeless, and I didn't have the clothes required to work at the store. The manager insisted I at least have 1 clean, all black outfit that was brand new. I went to H&M and did exactly what the author here describes, I skipped meals to afford it. I paid my share of the rent late, but I got the outfit and I started the job.

Given the opportunity, I started to excel and as we were paid commission, my financial outlook started to improve, but I was still in serious debt and couldn't get enough hours to get over what seemed like an endlessly far away threshold of financial stability. Right before Christmas we had a regional manager come in and watch us work for a few days, as he was leaving he gave me ~$200 of "KC Cash" which was used to reward talented employees. I could use it, with my discount, to buy things we sold. I was so excited because it meant I'd be able to buy Christmas presents for my family.

Instead, my manager insisted I buy clothes and accessories for myself so I would be more presentable in the store. I went along with his demand and bought myself a couple outfits and a nice leather portfolio messenger bag, and gave my family nothing for the holidays, which they all understood.

In January, commissioned sales on moderately high end clothing drops off dramatically, as did my hours. Suddenly the threshold of stability vanished into the distance again and I needed to make a change. I wanted 40 hours, I had been without health insurance for a couple of years, and I wanted the chance to pay down my debts and move forward with my life. I started asking around and applying to office jobs for which I had no experience and no degree.

I landed an interview at a data processing company and I wore my Kenneth Cole clothes, I had a copy of my resume that a friend put together on their computer tucked into my KC Messenger bag. And when I was hired for a job I knew nothing about and had no prior experience with, it was from a pool of applicants who weren't signaling their status as strongly as I was. I remember how confident I felt, sitting in their lobby with a dozen other people around me, none dressed as well, and the few who tried not having items of the same quality.

As I've developed more marketable skills (graphic design, web dev, etc.) I've been able to signal less, but the article struck a chord with me. I remember going hungry to get the better job, skipping the christmas gifts for family to get the clothes my job required and that eventually let me get my foot in the door to a better life.

<comment><USER36> I'm also a white male and reading the article I kept thinking "The requirement for speaking and dressing well doesn't have anything to do with your skin color." The old adage about dressing for the job you _want_ is true for everyone. I'm not suggesting that people of various colors, or women, or gays, or whatever other group does not face a greater degree of difficulty in these areas, but if you want to be one of the ducks, you gotta walk, talk, and act like a duck.

<comment><USER37> It might not be related to skin color, but it is related to being poor. Or appearing poor, versus appearing respectable.

I also think it depends a lot on the job. Jobs just above the low-end might have a stronger interest in filtering out the supposed low-lifes, than a job that requires a good education before you can even be considered. I can dress however I like, partially because the dress code for coders isn't terribly strict, and partially because my CV sells me much better than any suit could possibly do.

On the other hand, maybe I would be able to get a better job if I wore a suit. But because my income is good enough, I can afford to ignore jobs that require nice clothes. But if you're poor, every step up is a step away from poverty, and you can't afford to ignore that.

As for skin color, I think black people are still much more strongly associated with poverty than white people, so for them, avoiding the appearance of poverty might still be more important than for a white person of similar wealth. Anything to dodge the stigma.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The article raises a good point, but it also frames the dichotomy as an either-or question.

In other words, is there no middle ground between buying an Hermès Birkin bag and dressing in rags? At least in the US, discount stores plus some fashion sense can compensate to some degree for raw dollars and a personal shopper.

Where I think the upper class pulls away from the lower class is in access to experience at a young age. Except for very rare exceptions, children are of the social class of their parents, and tend to have the experiences associated with that class.

</comment><comment><USER38> >We could, as my grandfather would say, talk like white folks. We loaned that privilege out to folks a lot.

I think that speaking well, or being articulate, is not a privilege but an ability. It is not an ability that everyone has, but it is an ability that almost anyone can acquire with practice. This is true both in verbal and digital communication.

If you are not articulate, you will be at a disadvantage throughout your life. Period. The color of your skin has nothing to do with it.

<comment><USER39> It's kind of interesting that you equate 'talk[ing] like white folks' with 'speaking well' and 'being articulate.' Why do you think that is?

<comment><USER40> cuz I been done dat, and you know, like dat idea where, you know, it's like, when I been tryin', but it ain't gud nuff 4 dem, cuz dey white foke be thinkin dat I can't do it when I can!

versus

Because I've done that, and you know, the idea where, I-have-been-trying-but- it-isn't-good-enough, makes them think that I can't do it when I can.

versus

The impression I left with them portrayed a lack of capability, when in-fact, that was not the case. I felt it unfair, that I may have been the recipient of a snap-judgement and to add insult to injury, I did not have the opportunity to re-impress upon them my talent.

A lot of people equate speaking-white with [more-]proper sentence structure , but the true differentiator in articulative ability is an expansive vocabulary capable of conveying in-intricate-detail or not, the abstract ideas necessary to communicate on a team.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Getting a nice outfit or two is probably a good investment. I guess it helps you deal with bureaucrats and job interviews and stuff.

But what about the rest of the "investments" poor people make? Are they all worth it?

To what EXTENT do poor people make good decisions? THAT is the real question here, and it isn't even being asked.

</comment><comment><USER42> Incredulity reflects how people really believe that other people may, in fact, operate in some sort of rational world. When we think of ourselves, for the most part, we tend to think we would make rational decisions in all circumstances we were faced in, especially those we are NOT in.

Irrationality of consumers is great for the retail economy, though, and while it defies years of economic logic, behavioral economics has been in the spotlight for many things these days, more so than simple rational-consumer theory.

(perhaps it's simply the logic of smart poor people in a stupid/deranged society?)

</comment><comment><USER43> The marketing machine behind many brands is highly effective at establishing "status". The marketers place their products across multiple media platforms and those around you simply cannot escape its reach.

While I agree that $2500 on a purse is ridiculous, some less expensive brand signalling across multiple pieces of clothing might be equally effective. I am reminded of this experiment using the Lacoste and Hilfiger logos: [http://www.economist.com/node/18483423](http://www.economist.com/node/18483423)

</comment><comment><USER44> I think one of the hardest systems to break out of is that of the "vicious cycle". It's very challenging when outputs feed into each other like that.

What I remember about being poorer is that vicious cycles are far more common when you are poor. You need the used car to be able to get to the job that will give you the money to afford the used car. The struggles of poverty are full of cycles like that.

The only way to break out of a vicious cycle is to shock the system, which tends to mean an asymmetric infusion of force - in poverty's case, that is usually the form of cash (or debt). It's the sort of action that is traumatic, and it often looks like it doesn't make sense. It's usually a short-term pain in exchange for the hopes of long-term improvement. "Breaking the cycle" is usually a traumatic, difficult action.

Now, I don't know much about buying a $2500 purse - it's hard to defend something so specific. But I do know that the forces that break cycles _can_ look ridiculous or shameful in some way. A sudden windfall that you didn't "deserve", accepting help from a stranger in a way that feels humiliating, being selfish in a way that is not accepted in your social circle, showing "status", etc.

I am just reluctant to judge those choices from the outside, because I firmly believe that the poor have to deal with these cycles more than people of means, and that sometimes it takes a desperate act to break out of them.

</comment><comment><USER45> The other day, I was hanging out with my uncle, who is a devoted hi-fi nut.(like tubes and lps and voodoo cables kinda hi-fi nut) He took me to a fellow 'enthusiasts' home who has spent the kind of money on a hi-fi system that I couldn't see happening even if I were a multi billionaire. This guy had the $160,000 US msrp(though he got them at the bargain price of only $60,000 plus a trade of some other equipment) Focal Grande Utopia EM(for electro magnet being used on the subwoofer) [http://www.focal.com/en/utopia- iii/184-grande-utopia-em-3544...](http://www.focal.com/en/utopia- iii/184-grande-utopia-em-3544050698000.html)

He also had 750watt tube amps that were approximately 3x3 cubes on his floor and surprisingly for being valve amps of that magnitude didn't create the heat of the sun. He had a dedicated power circuit installed by the utility company so that he could separately condition and wire everything to use only the best 10,000 dollar cables available.

While this guy was certainly well off, his home probably more than doubled in value when he took that stereo inside the front door. He was retired and didnt need a large home, and this was an older 2500-3000 sq ft home in Dallas.(which is still somewhat reasonable per sq ft, compared to say silicon valley) This guy was SOO proud of his stereo, that he has listening parties every tuesday night to show it off. Sure it sounded good, but as I said, even if my last name was Gates, Buffett or Zuckerberg I dont think that would ever be on my radar as a purchase decision. In many ways I think this persons stereo and an indigent person buying a 2500 dollar purse are the same impulse. Both seem horribly frivolous, but who are we to judge really??

<comment><USER20> The clear dividing line is - can the person truly afford it?

If a person spends an absurd amount of money _that he has_ (i.e. _that he actually earned and saved_ ) on something that seems crazy to most people, that's OK - he's making a personal choice with personal funds (i.e. hi-fi enthusiast man)

On the other hand, a person with a minimum wage job making the decision to buy a $2500 purse out of some speculation that it will help her make the jump to the next level? Frankly, that just seems foolish. Why not take $200 for a purse, $200 for a new suit?

It's not the shopping for image and upward mobility that bothers people - <USER2> decision actually makes some sense.

The problem arises when that shopping crosses the line from reasonable spending that a person can afford and/or justify, into a place that's completely insane and truly unaffordable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> There is a difference between investing money in quality goods as tools & means of improving one's condition, vs. squandering money in luxury goods with no reasonable expectation of return on the expense. The author points directly at this difference without recognizing it.

</comment><comment><USER47> I read the first half of this piece as a (strong) case against the administrative discretion and power of the bureaucracy. The second half seems to be a rather sad and puzzling anecdote, whose ramifications I do not fully comprehend.

</comment><comment><USER48> I don't care if someone has a $2,500 handbag. It's whether or not they have a $1 attitude or a $2,500 attitude - that I care about and primarily judge people on.

The author's mother had the right attitude (the determination) to help her neighbor. I know several people who can get things done and get what they want. They aren't rich or buy expensive things, they just have the determination to get an answer, find the right person, discover the right process, etc.

I think the author associated correlation with causation.

</comment><comment><USER49> There is a good deal I disagree with in the post, and there is one point that I think is missing.

Most of us on HN have usually lived in a world with a margin of security, where $1 saved at the end of the week might be $1.05 this time next year. Below a certain level of security, that's not something one can count on. It could just be another $1 swept away in the next disaster. Someone who has seen enough bust cycles will likely get into the habit of spending it while it's there.

</comment><comment><USER50> The old chestnut, "Fake it till you Make it" comes to mind.

In some cases this can be helpful, ie pretending to follow the Champions League to get along with the fellows in the office, but following this as a blueprint for life can hurt much more than it helps with tons of unintended consequences(over spending, loss of your true identity, being a liar.....)

</comment><comment><USER51> One of my mentors, the late David Crane FAIA, clearly articulated how to understand what poor folks want. They want the same things as folks who ain't. Better than nothing, starving and shivering aside, means the same to them as it does to me.

</comment><comment><USER52> This entire article could really be shortened to one simple sentence: "Poor people buy expensive things because it makes them FEEL rich for a moment."

<comment><USER53> Only it couldn't because that's not even close to what the article was saying.

It was pointing out that looking the part gives opportunities which might otherwise be closed. Therefore spending your meagre savings buying fancy clothes can be seen as an investment.

I'm not addressing the validity of the article's point vs yours, but the summary was not correct.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> NEWS FLASH: People treat different people differently. Do we really have to explain to adults how prejudice works?

</comment><comment><USER55> It is unfortunate that we have to spend on these useless status symbols to open doors. Ugh humans...

</comment><comment><USER56> An equally good question is why to poor people vote republican? Because they want to belong. And through financial osmosis people who vote republican become rich, right? That is the thinking anyway.

<comment><USER57> Wait, where did you read that poor people vote republican? I would've guessed otherwise.

<comment><USER58> "Lower-income and less educated whites also have shifted substantially toward the Republican Party since 2008. The GOP has largely erased the wide lead Democrats had among white voters with family incomes less than $30,000." [0]

Although the graphs on [1] tell a slightly different story.

[0] - [http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/23/a-closer-look-at- the-...](http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/23/a-closer-look-at-the-parties- in-2012/) [1] - [http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/26/161841771/how- inco...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/26/161841771/how-income- divides-democrats-republicans-and-independents)

<comment><USER59> White people only make up 72% of the population. You can't dismiss the other 28%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Good to see hackers care about SOCIAL JUSTICE now.

</comment><comment><USER61> what's "half a PhD"?

</comment><comment><USER62> I love this headline. I'd also love to see one about Evil Rich People to get both sides of the coin.

</comment><comment><USER63> There is a big fallacy with the reasoning behind this article. I grew up in impoverished areas (both the inner city, and in rural areas) with the typical high minority population. I have observed a LOT of poor people and their spending habits. Here are my thoughts.

(I am not disputing the claim of the author's story and that experience, I am merely pointing out that his example is not the case most of the time.)

It is true that a very small minority of people dress and talk nicely because they realize that they will be treated better by the middle and upper class. Now in this group, some spend lavish amounts of money (like in the article), and some shop at thrift stores and/or buy knock off designer purses, belts, ETC. This fact alone blurs the argument that the author is presenting. It is very possible (and proven so) to live in poverty in America and dress well by choosing alternative resources.

The other (and more devastating) counter argument that applies to other poor people is merely by observation of what the status symbols that many in these groups purchase.

Let me use the example that was laid out in the article. The typical poor black women/man in a white world scenario. Well then why do the majority of poor black men and women who make expensive status symbol purchases look ghetto and drive "ghetto" cars? I don't mean beat up and worn out clothes and cars, I mean the style of clothing/jewelry and pimped out cars. These same people aren't talking "nicely" either. Their heavy use of Ebonics/Redneck/Slang and constant expletives while wearing their gold chains, starter athletic jerseys and Le-Brons (expensive basketball shoes) ETC. Tell a different story. They are seeking status among their piers, not the middle/upper class that they envy. They are not doing it to help them work their way up economically. It is in fact keeping them down. How are they better off overall now? They could have saved that money and invested it on going to school or moving to an area of better geographic opportunity. Now instead they just look like more expensively dressed thugs.

My personal belief is that most poor people live for today. They don't have long term goals and plans. They were never taught good habits like saving up money and conveying to the non-minority class that they don't have a ghetto mentality or live in the rap/hip hop culture (during job interviews ETC).

They have no hope, because they have no vision or dreams. All that they typically observe is their small world and the twisted fantasy of television/movies/commercials. Sure, it feels great to go into a department store and feel wealthy for a day, wear expensive things and feel better about yourself, but most poor people buying designer status symbols - this is what it is really all about. Living a fantasy with no real benefit to their actual social, economic, or productive member of society status.

<comment><USER40> This is definitely spot-on.</comment></comment>