Great design from Apple on an interaction with Siri - <AUTHOR> http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3308-great-design-from-apple-on-this-interaction <comment><USER2> That's one of the things I liked about the Android alarm app that I miss on my iPhone; when you set an alarm and tap "Done", it would say "Alarm set for 9 hours and 22 minutes from now" (or whatever), a quick sanity check to make sure you didn't confuse A.M. and P.M. or accidentally put in the wrong day.

<comment><USER3> In iOS the alarms are sorted chronologically, so if you have more than one alarm set up, it's pretty easy to notice if you accidentally did PM because your alarm ends up at the bottom of the list instead of the top.

Not that I'm saying this is better than what you're describing. I'm just saying this in case any iOS users didn't realize that and it's helpful.

<comment><USER4> Android also sorts them chronologically, but that alone only helps if you have multiple alarms (and a sufficient number that sorting gives you the needed feedback).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's all about the little big details that reduce friction in user experience. This attention to detail:

1) reduces errors and user frustration,

2) substantiates the thought in the user's mind that "the software will do what I want", and

3) teaches users that the software will accomodate them, instead of requiring the user to accomodate the software.

It would have been better, actually, if the dates also mentioned the day of week, like "Thursday, October 21 / Friday, October 22". I'm more familiar with what the day of week it is, but not necessarily what the date is.

If it mentioned the weekday, I would be able to answer "Thursday" immediately, since I know that I intended it for Thursday, but I wouldn't necessarily know that it was the 21st without looking at my watch.

<comment><USER6> >better, ... if ... also ... day of week

If I'm talking to robots after midnight, I don't know the date. This has been proven by scientists.

<comment><USER7> That's interesting. Source?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is what causes my love-hate relationship with Siri: when it works, it's a fantastic experience and gets little details like this spot-on; when it doesn't, it's off by a mile. More frustratingly, it doesn't seem to improve much between major iOS releases despite being mostly a thin client to Apple's services.

To be fair, I generally prefer obvious failure rather than quietly doing the wrong thing (which is what probably would have happened here), but even really simple stuff like "take me home" only seems to work as expected half the time.

(I'm ignoring situations where the voice recognition fails outright, since that's a totally different problem - this just relates to handling of correctly-interpreted commands)

Like many others, I wonder what Apple's QA and user feedback processes look like with Siri. Unlike Maps, there's no way (AFAIK) to report a crappy Siri response, so while I'm sure they have stats on low-confidence speech-to-text results, I'm not sure what they do to determine "you heard me right, but you did the wrong thing" or "doing X instead of Y would have been a lot more useful". As such I assume most of it is internal QA process, and Apple's secrecy around new features (fortunately Siri no longer qualifies as such) definitely hurts QA that requires a lot of real-world usage.

<comment><USER9> If you're aware that Siri is "mostly a thin client to Apple's services", why would you expect it to update with iOS releases? If it's a thin client, it can be updated (or not updated) at anytime on the server side.

<comment><USER10> I'm not positive it is.

If you are in Canada and ask Siri for something like "where's the nearest coffee shop", in iOS 5 you get "I don't support that in Canada", but in iOS 6 you get the expected results.

<comment><USER11> I'd assume the device version + iOS version + device ID is sent in the request and Apple maps this to the corresponding Siri version/database/API.. there would be no technical reason why iOS 5 can't see the same POI's as 6, only whatever business policy Apple has decided to implement. eg. freezing updates to the 5's database.

I'm sure the back-end processing is the same, but because 6 supports or will support new commands, then they are running separate instances & databases which results in varying update schedules.

As long as they don't restrict based on device model (only iOS version) then I'm happy with that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Actually, this isn't the best possible design. As others here have already pointed out, a better design would be presenting the options as:

4 hours from now

28 hours from now

This one doesn't require me to know the current date and also works as a sanity check to make sure I'm not confusing AM and PM.

<comment><USER13> But you don't need to know the current date to know which one comes first. Well, unless the dates were in the past.

<comment><USER14> Great point. I think Fried's example is a little confusing to us because we don't remember right now what days Oct 21 and 22 were. But in the context of the interaction it should be fairly clear that, "Oh, it's just after midnight, Siri's confused because I actually meant today not tomorrow." The actual dates (21 vs 22) wouldn't matter, the two days Siri is trying to choose between is obvious in the moment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> My only complaint with this is that I often have no idea what day it is. I'd love it if it added the day of the week as well. "It's after midnight, did you mean today, Tuesday, or yesterday, Monday the Xth day."

I too have seen this a handful of times and thought, "Wow, that's really clever Siri!" only to realize a few seconds later that Oct 21st vs Oct 20th does not help me and I am still screwed. Then I cancel out and go look at the calendar day and then re-sirify it.

Then again I am not that smart.

<comment><USER16> Hint: You don't need to know the date to know which option to pick.

<comment><USER17> maybe you do if you're close to falling asleep.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wonder what the workflow is in the Apple teams that allows them to catch stuff like this. Is this the work of a single, smart programmer, or a good QA team?

<comment><USER19> It's most likely from a strong culture of interaction design and usability testing. During the design process, you usually do usability tests with would- be users and they can help illuminate issues with your design. In this case, it may have even been during testing that a person said, "well that's not what I meant by tomorrow."

Pretty much every time I do a usability test or study, random users catch small things like this that help make a product much better. When you design without feedback, you have your own mental model of how everything is supposed to work. But you're the designer and the expert, and users are not. They often find different ways to use your product than you intended.

<comment><USER20> But it's even more impressive because you could do usability testing all day long (during work hours) and never catch this issue. It's when someone's _really_ using it where something like this comes up.

<comment><USER21> I'd imagine someone was dogfooding and had an 'ah hah!' moment when they hit a similar issue. Often the best way to spot anything missing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I've also benefitted from this condition once but it would have been helpful to show a day of the week beside the date for added clarity.

Did you mean Sunday October 21st, or October 22nd?

</comment><comment><USER23> Boy I can't wait for the day when we look at this screenshot and chuckle that it was even needed. My problem with Siri and others is that if I have to _look_ at the screen after every command, it kills away a huge chunk of the benefit. If Siri was a human, it is the equivalent of having the human repeat what he heard every time you made a request to confirm he understood you correctly. That would be annoying. And often just easier to do it yourself.

This is one area there is massive room for innovation. I'd give it a few years before we can say a command like "hey iphone, text mom that I am home" and within seconds, hear back "done!". I'd know with confidence that the right message was sent. Even more importantly, I'd be able to do all this without needing to lift my phone, or have to get closer to the phone or speak too much louder than whispering the request to an assistant.

</comment><comment><USER24> Whilst that may seem like intellegent design, you'll notice that you can't see the current date anywhere on that screen without making assumptions.

This screen would make me feel uneasy and over-analyse the options. (Does it mean yesterday or today? today or tomorrow?)

It would be nice if it also showed the day of the week on each option.

</comment><comment><USER25> Discussion on Reddit from a month ago: [http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/10f3al/clever_siri_if...](http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/10f3al/clever_siri_if_its_just_past_midnight_it_asks_you/)

In that thread, I commented:

In my opinion a much better question would be "Do you mean in 9 hours?". If you say yes, set it for today. If you say no, then it's tomorrow.

<comment><USER24> I think

"Alarm set for 9 hours, is this correct?"

Is less intimidating for the user, this way they aren't being asked to calculate something, rather being asked to confirm a calculation.

The difference is trivial and subtle.

<comment><USER25> Sure, this is even better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Does anybody know how "Google Now" handles this?

<comment><USER27> Got this: <http://ompldr.org/vZzZtNA>

<comment><USER28> I believe if you don't say 'tomorrow' it will work correctly. It is pretty annoying.

I'd test it myself but I sold my Galaxy Nexus on Craigslist, waiting for the Nexus 4 to be released.

<comment><USER27> Yes, it did work: <http://ompldr.org/vZzZtaA>

<comment><USER29> Which means you'll have to sleep after midnight if you want your Android phone to wake you, or wait for an update (like Sleeping Beauty.)

<comment><USER30> Android alarms work a bit differently to what you are thinking. The basic alarms are set around times, and when the time comes around, the alarm goes off. So as long as it's after 9:01 am when you use this command, the alarm will go off at 9am the next day correctly.

To deal with days the alarms have a 'repeat' option, listing which days the alarm should go off. Google Now can't handle these kinds of alarms yet. If you needed an alarm for a specific day then you'd probably use calendar alarms, however I don't think they're fully linked into Google Now at the moment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I constantly check this website for nice little touches that usually go unnoticed: <http://littlebigdetails.com/>

</comment><comment><USER32> Maybe this was apparent to everyone using Siri, but today I asked it/her "Who is my girlfriend?" it replied what is your girlfriends name? I told it It then set the alias "Girlfriend" to her and now I can say "Siri send a message to my girlfriend saying I love you"

which I think is totally awesome. Im late to the Siri party though...

</comment><comment><USER33> I just want to point out that this must be a recent innovation, because only two weeks ago I got screwed over by telling Siri to create an appointment "tomorrow" after 12am, and she booked it for the day after and told me she created the appointment for "tomorrow" (no date).

</comment><comment><USER34> One time I had to set my alarm for 4am (early flight) and Siri said, "OK, but don't wake me up!". On the one hand that's pretty funny of course, but on the other hand, I think it's a helpful sanity check for you to make sure you didn't actually mean 4pm.

<comment><USER35> On the other hand, 4 and 16 are hard to confuse ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is the difference between a programmer's understanding of "tomorrow" and a user's.

<comment><USER3> My girlfriend insists that, as soon as the clock ticks over to 12:00AM, "tomorrow" means a full 24 hours later. I still insist "tomorrow" doesn't change up until you sleep (or stay up all night).

<comment><USER21> Funny, me and a few friends have the same logic of 'if you've not slept it's the same day', thought we were just odd as I've come across no one else that had the same opinion.

<comment><USER37> My friends do something similar, so you're not alone. I think it's just something that night-owls do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> When I first saw the Siri Query, I was anticipating it would try to disambiguate A) remind me (to inflate my tires tomorrow) (at 9:00) vs. B) remind me (to inflate...) (tomorrow at 9:00). I guess I was overthinking it.

</comment><comment><USER39> This seems common sense to me, I would most likely have done it this way if I were designing a voice operated alarm module. Hence it follows Apple is already likely to have a patent on it.

</comment><comment><USER40> Someone once said that the best things about good software are the things you don't notice but improve your life. Case in point here.

</comment><comment><USER41> I wouldn't call it great design. I'd call it lack of bad design. I feel like asking which day you're referring to is an extremely obvious step in selecting a time. The fact that we're surprised by it is a testament to how terrible most productivity software is.

</comment><comment><USER42> This is why everyone should test things... stuff like this falls out of good testing if you miss it on a first pass. :)

some people could learn from that idea - even if they already hire 1.5 testers for each programmer.

(yes i mean microsoft)

</comment><comment><USER43> Excellent. I would love to know who, from Apple, suggests this details.

</comment><comment><USER44> This particular feature may been less a function of Apple design philosophy and more a function of Siri being built on top of a contextually-sensitive disambiguation engine.

</comment><comment><USER45> Yeah, it's not about the literal details, but how the user perceives the details.

</comment><comment><USER46> I love this post so much. Please upvote onto front page so more people can be made aware that Apple and Siri exists, and they are the bestest.</comment>


CSS3 dropdown menu - <AUTHOR> http://www.red-team-design.com/css3-dropdown-menu Today you'll learn how to create your own CSS dropdown menu, without any additional Javascript code. There are no images used and, as usual, minimal HTML markup. Let's see how is made! <comment><USER2> Nothing new, except for "CSS3" buzzwords.

This was possible in CSS2 days (obviously, without JS, except, maybe, for cross-browser quirks). Well, by glancing, most of the code is CSS2.1. There were even articles on — if I remember correctly — The List Apart on CSS navbars.

Oh, yeah, and that's still HTML4 semantics, because HTML5 has <menu> and <nav> elements.</comment>


U.S. Federal Cyber Security Workforce Is Inadequate, Says Report - <AUTHOR> http://www.tripwire.com/state-of-security/latest-security-news/u-s-federal-cyber-security-workforce-is-inadequate-says-report/

<comment><USER2> Nice idea.....</comment>


Inheritance in C using structure composition - <AUTHOR> https://arpitbhayani.me/blogs/inheritance-c <comment><USER2> > Structures in C are not padded and they do not even hold any meta > information, not even for the member names; hence during allocation, they > are allocated the space just enough to hold the actual data.

I get that this is a simplification and that the point is there's no hidden metadata at runtime but this is dangerously badly worded. Structures in C can be padded, they just happen not to be in this particular case. All the fields are 4 bytes and they're on a 32bit platform so these particular structures will be packed.

That's not always going to be true however. For example, if you add something that isn't a pointer or an int. Or compile on a platform with 64bit integers and 32bit ints.

See also: [http://www.catb.org/esr/structure- packing/](http://www.catb.org/esr/structure-packing/)

<comment><USER3> You mean 64 bits pointers and 32 bits integers, I guess.

<comment><USER2> You're right, thanks. I'd edit but it's too late now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is exactly how C++ structures single-inheritance types without virtual member functions.

Supporting virtual member functions (i.e. runtime polymorphism) only requires adding a vtable pointer—which IIRC Linux also does for some of its own structural subtyping, at least in its Virtual File System component.

Multiple inheritance requires some more bookkeeping by the compiler of appropriate offsets, but structurally it doesn't change very much.

It's not surprising: C++ was famously originally implemented as a preprocess transformation into C. _Inside the C++ Object Model_ [1] is a fascinating deep dive on how C++ semantics map to C constructs.

[1] [https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/inside- the-c/0201834545...](https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/inside- the-c/0201834545/)

<comment><USER5> I don't know if this is actually how C++ compilers do inheritance, but reading about how GTK does object-oriented in C[1] taught me a lot about what (might be) happening behind the scenes in C++.

1: [https://www.linuxtopia.org/online_books/gui_toolkit_guides/g...](https://www.linuxtopia.org/online_books/gui_toolkit_guides/gtk+_gnome_application_development/cha- objects.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's a bit wild, seeing this. I was doing it with C in the mid-1990s. In fact, I designed an entire SDK around it, that is still used, to this day.

I called it my "faux object" pattern, and I used a lot of function pointers and property pointers (like the OP mentioned). That allowed a "poor man's polymorphism." I may have actually published it as a pattern, but I'm not sure anyone ever read it.

The reason that I did it, was that C++ was still clambering out of the bassinet, back then, and we needed a cross-platform way to translate stuff that required an object model, across an opaque binary interface. We used C to transfer the state and data, and built object frameworks on either side of the coupling, with C++ or Object Pascal.

On the Mac platform, we also used Pascal types, which ensured a predictable stack frame.

It was pretty klunky, but it worked.

<comment><USER7> The Amiga OS used this pattern everywhere. I first learned C on an Amiga in the late 80's.

<comment><USER6> I believe that. I know that I learned it somewhere, but the origin is lost in the mists of antiquity.

I did see it somewhat formalized in the late 1990s, though, with Apple's QuickDraw GX.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Dumb but genuine question from a non-expert programmer:

Most of the "OO" world seems to have abandoned inheritance as an anti-pattern in most cases (apart from genuine "is a" relationships).

I'm guessing the two case studies are in the list of exemptions from this rule.

So, is this considered a generally good thing to do in c?

<comment><USER3> I believe this is because of Liskov's substitution principle (LSP), which is the hidden gotcha that awaits around the corner beyond the "manager is-a person" [1] example. The "square is-a rectangle... or maybe not" discussions that pop up from time to time is an illustration of the problem. In practice, when you produce a lot of classes, derive a lot classes (because of the open- close principle), it is easy to blunder.

[1] Yes, they have feelings too.

<comment><USER9> The problem tends to be that "is-a" is conveniently short but it confounds several different types of inheritance.

Inheritance in most OO languages really means "api is a superset of, and implementation is a specialization (and possibly superset) of" while in natural language "is-a" implies a relationship where some facets might be expanded, while others may be more restricted.

This is really partially a weakness in expressiveness of our languages, partially a problem of our frequent insistence on mutability. Often the problem goes away with immutability: If your "square" is immutable and inheriting from a "rectangle" class that allows setting width and height to different values isn't a problem, because the result would be a new object and that result can be a rectangle.

But sometimes we also genuinely would be best served by inheriting implementation and public API separately without having to create cumbersome facades etc. - it's just that making an API of a subclass a subset of the API of the superclass violates a lot expectations people tend to have about OO systems, and so few systems outside of prototype based ones seem to allow it without resorting to ugliness like overriding methods to make them throw exceptions etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> LibreOffice does this to power it's typelib library, which is part of UNO.

I'm trying to figure out how this stuff works right now by building unit tests so I can add to my work in progress book.

[https://github.com/chrissherlock/libreoffice- experimental/bl...](https://github.com/chrissherlock/libreoffice- experimental/blob/uno/cppuhelper/qa/type/test_typelibstruct.cxx)

The chapter I'm writing deals with types:

[https://chris-sherlock.gitbook.io/inside- libreoffice/univers...](https://chris-sherlock.gitbook.io/inside- libreoffice/universal-network-objects)

</comment><comment><USER11> Check [https://www.cs.rit.edu/~ats/books/ooc.pdf](https://www.cs.rit.edu/~ats/books/ooc.pdf) from 1993. It has been mentioned and discussed earlier on HN, like [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7011540](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7011540)

</comment><comment><USER12> C is not designed for OOP. You will write much nicer C code without such patterns.

<comment><USER13> I agree. While it is occasionally can work alright (as with the examples in the article), I recommend a very light touch with this stuff. If you get to the point where you are implementing casts, RTTI, etc, stop and rethink. I say this as someone who has gone down this path and later regretted it.

<comment><USER14> In a professional context I couldn't agree more. However for a hobby project I couldn't disagree more. Implementing safe down-casting (up is trivial), dynamic dispatch, encapsulation, and other OO(ish) features is an absolutely wonderful learning experience. Like most first attempts, it will probably be a mess as you say, but there can be a joy in making a mess of things so long as you're not inflicting it on the unsuspecting.

<comment><USER13> Yes I agree that for learning purposes it can be very illuminating. :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Florida city will pay $600k to get its comptuer systems back - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/06/20/florida-city-will-pay-hackers-get-its-computer-systems-back <comment><USER2> Simple fix: In those states in which municipal ordinances, actions, etc. are subject to and preempted by state law, pass a law that says cities are prohibited from paying ransom. Same for hospitals, law firms, etc. Make it illegal to pay and there will no longer be useful targets.</comment>


Show HN: CodeSandbox – A React editor built for easy sharing and reusability - <AUTHOR> https://codesandbox.io <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN! This is a project I've been working on for the past few months. With CodeSandbox I want to focus on a feature of React that, in my opinion, could be exploited much more, which is reusability. With CodeSandbox you can easily build and share a React project with anyone by just sharing the url, others can then fork it to make changes or download it (which includes the default `create-react-app` template).

The next thing I'm building for CodeSandbox is the real reusable part: it should be possible to publish any project you have on CodeSandbox to NPM with a single click and let others reuse it as much as they like. An example is that someone makes a button on CodeSandbox and publishes it, others can then use this button inside CodeSandbox or in any project out of CodeSandbox. Publishing is already done, I'm now working on UI so publishing and searching sandboxes becomes easier.

I'd love to hear any feedback or suggestions or problems you might have! I want to make CodeSandbox as friendly as possible.

</comment><comment><USER2> Looks well done from my first glance. Can you talk about the stack used and any plans on open sourcing the code?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I'm still thinking about open sourcing it. I'm also planning on writing a blog post on how things like NPM are implemented in this application.

For now a quick summary of what we use now:

1\. Phoenix/Elixir for the API

2\. Node for bundling NPM packages

3\. Postgres for SQL

4\. Redis for caching NPM package metadata

The editor itself is written in React (hah!) and uses styled-components, redux, redux-thunk and email@example.com as most used libraries. I code split every optional preference a user may have (like autocomplete, vim or prettify) using webpack 2.

Everything is hosted on Vultr (20$ node).

I'd love to answer more if you have any questions.</comment></comment>


Leaked documents show U.S. widened Internet spying: N.Y. Times - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/04/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKBN0OK23Q20150604

<comment><USER2> Why not just post the NYTimes article: [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/us/hunting-for-hackers- nsa...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/us/hunting-for-hackers-nsa-secretly- expands-internet-spying-at-us- border.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column- region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)

This is CISPA-type shit. The NSA is sucking up tons of data with no controls or minimization whatsoever for anything unrelated to terrorism investigations. Lawmakers don't get a pat on the back for "surveillance reform" after passing the USA Freedom Act and limiting phone metadata spying. Clearly that stuff was just the tip of the iceberg, and the NSA needs to be reigned in, significantly.</comment>


Why Is It Hard to Make Friends Over 30? (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/fashion/the-challenge-of-making-friends-as-an-adult.html <comment><USER2> When I visit my wifes family in (very) rural China, it kind of reminds me how we used to socially interact back when I was young 20 years ago. People would just pop by back then and sit in my couch for an hour or two, have a talk, watch some TV and get a snack and tea for no particular reason other than they just wanted to come by and it was okay. Everyone is always busy doing something today and everything has to be planned and just popping by feels weird and rude now..

Its funny how people had time to do something like standing in line at the post office to pay their bills back then, but they still managed to spend and hour or two to just be with a friend for no special reason. Maybe it was just a necessity back then without the phones and all and nobody actually really liked to spend time with friends and family. Seems like friendship has been automated somehow today to make it more efficient. I bet that in 1000 years long after human kind has disappeared, there will be friends sending each other automated birthday greetings in one of those solar powered data centers somewhere in Finland.

<comment><USER3> Here in the states, it starts very young. A parent must schedule a playdate beforehand, update it in the google calendar, drive the child 10-15 blocks to their friends house. Parents can then venmo the other family for the time-cost of the play-date.

To ensure maximum progress, play date activities must be intellectually stimulating and structured based on how much they contribute to test scores and college admissions down the line—this is known from statistical methods of course. Video streaming smartphone applications enable parents to check in at any time during the activity to ensure maximum growth.

As the children grow up, this does not stop of course. In fact, it becomes less playful and more efficient. Time wasted during youth is punished brutally in the holistic college admissions process.

By the time we've grown into adults, such impulses—such as spending time at a friends' house for no reason at all—can be completely eliminated. This ensures that more time in adulthood is dedicated to what truly matters, which is.... gosh I'm not sure. I can ponder that after I finish this next 'to do' on my list!

<comment><USER4> > Parents can then venmo the other family for the time-cost of the play-date.

Wait, what? Parents are paying other parents for play dates these days?

<comment><USER5> I don't know if reimbursement happens, but kids will bring home a note with the contact details of their playmate, and their parents will schedule it. The whole calendar scheduling, driving, chaperoning etc are things that definitely happens. It's not the age of 'go play with the kids down the street', at least in the urban California I'm familiar with.

<comment><USER6> What's also sad is that after schools most kids are bundled into a car and driven off to their next appointment. There is little opportunity for spontaneity in life for Car Kids. Like play-dates, everything is rostered.

There are a few who walk home from my son's school and it's great to see them take 30 minutes to play or even just sit together throwing cut-grass in the air.

<comment><USER7> My eldest (12yo) has several friends nearby (<2 miles, easy biking) and I always try and encourage her to just go out and meet up with friends. Its like a foreign concept to her though. I've finally had some recent success, but its just so weird that I have to prod her into what amounts to going out to have fun with friends.

Everything is too scheduled. Its hard to break out of the "if it isn't schedule, it isn't happening" model when everyone in the family is so busy. We try and encourage independence even in our youngest, but "free time" is at a premium.

NOTE: my kids aren't "neurotypical" and have lots of appointments, etc adding an extra layer of "busy"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm going to throw out a controversial statement: It's hard because adults don't (and rightfully shouldn't) make friends a priority.

When you're young (<20), you don't have many responsibilities or long term goals. But as soon as you get out of college, you have several multi-decade goals to work towards:

1) asset accumulation

2) lifestyle development

3) family raising

From a pure risk management point of view, assets, lifstyle, and family are much more stable in terms of extracting value from.

Friends, from a value added point of view, are a risky investment for a couple of reasons. They require time and commitment to make and get value out of, but have a high chance of no return. If you invest too much in friends, you're pretty much guaranteed that something out of your control breaks the friendship by 5-10 years, either moving away, diverging interests, or the most likely, the friend decides to invest time in the assets, lifestyle, and family instead of your friendship.

There's a vicious circle (opposite of virtuous cycle) in this. As a society, if more people focus on family, assets, and lifestyle because they are less risky, there's less people willing to commit to being a friend available for those that want to focus on friendships, and eventually friendship by the age of 30 become extinct except in rare cases where special environments sustain them.

To summarize, it's a systemic issue where even if you wanted to make friends, it's not worth it as an adult to do so.

<comment><USER9> Friendship is worth it. Loneliness is a serious threat to your health. It keeps your cortisol levels elevated. The effect on your health is comparable to a bad smoking habit. According to this study, mortality goes up by at least 26%: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25910392](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25910392)

Anyway, what's the point of having a lot of assets if you don't enjoy your life at the end?

<comment><USER10> Despite research to support that I think the problem might lie in that friendship may not _seem_ worth it. Societies can emphasize individual independence, and technology can amplify it in real terms, making human interaction not necessarily where it once was. Why have lots of friends when so much of the immediately-obvious utility can be bridged by some other services?

Where neighbors used to possibly serve as an extension to your resources (a large ladder, sugar, someone to sign a package for you maybe), these days solutions (often technological) have sprung up to reduce the necessity of working together (rent-a-tool shops/sites, ease of transportation, configurable delivery).

Of course, the negative effects of restricted social networks are being felt now in communities (poor cohesion) and individually (mental health issues)... Tech helps sometimes (connecting people who might feel isolated in their immediate surroundings) and can hurt a lot of the time as well.

<comment><USER9> Yes, I think you're absolutely right. It's a combination of capitalism and bad urban planning (having to hop in a car to see people is bad for socializing since people are so lazy).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think the elephant in the room for making new friends over 30, is stagnation in one's daily routine caused by one's job.

I don't think anything changed dramatically in the last 60 or so years on this point, even with the development of social media; by the time you're 30, you're basically done making friends.

The article glossed over it, but in your childhood and teens, you're surrounded by a new group of people every 5 or so years, and just through sheer quantity, you're likely to make at least a few friends. Throw on team sports, extracurriculars, clubs, and the ease of introductions in a school environment, and it's almost impossible not to make a few friends all the way into your late 20s.

Somewhere around when you turn 25 or so, though, without substantial effort, things stabilize. If you were going to leave your home, you probably did, and you're settled in. You and your old friends start to marry and have kids, and both of these occupy your free time (and theirs). You may have bought a house or found a job you want to settle into for a while, with plans to stick around for several years.

For at least 8 hours of your day, you are at work, interacting with people in an environment toxic for creating trusting friendships (You're competing for the same roles, titles, bonuses, etc.), and worse, these people you're competing with are almost always the exact same people, so if you're not really friends with any of them immediately, that's basically never going to change.

With the remaining time in your evenings, you'll also settle into a routine. You won't be playing sports anymore, and if you have hobbies, you'll generally be doing them with the same small consistent set of people in your area, assuming you do them with others at all.

So, in short, if your 8-hour workday isn't a time to make friends, and you're not interacting with people in a way that leads to making friends in your 8-hour evenings, when the hell do you expect to be making your friends over 30, during your 8-hours asleep?

<comment><USER12> > stagnation in one's daily routine caused by one's job.

Definitely this.

We let work take way too much time from our lives.

If you count commuting, the _minimum_ 8 hours at work (more like minimum 10) then work can eat up to 12 hrs/day.

On top of that us 'knowledge workers' carry our work around in our heads all the time.

It's not as though after 8hrs we just put the wrench down and go home, no the ongoing problems of work follow us around and even toss and turn us in our dreams sometimes.

To me this is unacceptable.

The way that we employ our working hours is a waste of time[1] on a colossal scale, and for little benefit to humanity most of the time.

[1] Literally the finite precious time we each have on earth.

<comment><USER13> So when do we go on strike?

<comment><USER14> No need, the pay for software development is more than enough (like, 3-4x more than enough). The main problems are excess housing prices (so that income is not enough), and a combination of ambition / competitiveness / fear of missing out / fear of running behind.

<comment><USER15> Have you ever noticed how nobody complains about "excess housing prices" when they can easily afford it and the populations that have been living there for decades can't?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I have made plenty of friends after the age of 30. The problem is that is is hard work. New friendships consume more time than old friends.

The ratio of people actively befriending me, is lower than people I befriend. Maybe 3:1 Making me think most people don't put much effort into making friends.

My advice would be:

1\. Networking is not making friends. If you want to leverage someone, it's a business relationship not a friendship.

2\. People who befriend you might not be the kind of person you would choose to be your friend, but they obviously like you enough to make an effort so give them a chance and reciprocate. People probably try to befriend you but you don't even notice.

3\. Let bad or superficial friendships go and concentrate on making good ones. I have loads of really close friends, but keep my Facebook friend count (relatively) low.

4\. If a friend is having a problem, help them. This is how you move past the superficial friendship. Prove you are worthy of being a friend.

5\. Never screw a friend over. See rule #1. If you intend to play a zero sum game with a friend, be willing to lose that friend. (I do business with good friends, but only if I know I will never be in a position to have to choose between my wealth/happiness and theirs). Also always be honest. Friendship requires trust.

6\. Make an effort. Ask people out for a drink or a coffee. Invite them over for dinner. It's hugely time consuming. This week I am running out of time with friends wanting to hang out and friends who need help. But it's worth it.

7\. Join clubs, organizations and/or religious institutions. Not just one. Friends of mine had good success with dance classes.

8\. One close friend is worth hundreds of superficial friendships.

<comment><USER17> I would disagree with point 8. I tend to go for superficial friendships over close ones (by choice), and it works out to be a better deal. One thing is that you get a lot more diverse set of friends when you are not going that deep. Secondly, deep friendships kind of lock you in, and I do not like that. Thirdly, having a large set of friends, exposes you to more interesting opportunities and new friends that having a few close friends doesn't. Moreover, a lot of pathologies like jealousies etc don't show up with casual friends. They often come up in ugly ways with close ones.

<comment><USER18> > superficial friendships

In Polish, there are different two words for friends (i.e. people who care for you, who would give you ex. a big loan or a kidney) and for people who you just like to hang out with, because it's fun and convenient for both of you at the time. I feel it's more blurred in English, with both of them being called friends.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've recently started throwing a monthly dinner party and I invite a diverse group that pulls in people from work and politics and theater and other places I've lived. I've found this is a good way to build a stable social group, especially here in New York, where people are so busy the once-a-month structure is useful, the dinner becomes a not too often but still recurring event. Once a month is about the right frequency.

I recall that my parents used to have dinner parties all the time, out in the suburbs during the 1970s/1980s and their friends also had dinner parties. There was a culture of dinner parties among adults back then. For some reason it died out. But I think the idea, and the habit, is a useful one.

</comment><comment><USER20> Discussed here with 700+ comments in February: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16424954](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16424954)

<comment><USER21> Those threads made an interesting read. A general feeling i got is that random interactions, or interactions loosely based on common interests (like sports) are becoming less successful at making friends, because everyone is more guarded now, but also because people have an expectation of having a more 'tailored' matching processes. So their random interactions often end up frustrating.

Interestingly, people who belong to a subculture report success - gay people have it better, but also swingers, another lifestyle (I would add to that the nudists as a very friend-seeking community). Online gaming seems to be a good venue for having that initial "match" of a common interest, as well as meetup groups. While i suspect most people find friends at work, it appears to be an unsatisfactory way for many to make lasting relationships.

So, it appears that there is a genuine need here that can be filled by "something that looks a bit like dating". Maybe facebook should consider rolling out a 'friend finder' along with their dating feature. Nevertheless, it seems to have become less of a taboo to admit that people can't find friends, and it seems there is space here for social apps to cover.

<comment><USER22> _" Maybe facebook should consider rolling out a 'friend finder' along with their dating feature."_

Craigslist used to have a "strictly platonic" section in their personals, but it's gone now along with the rest of their personals.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> In Germany, I witnessed a multi-family household. A married couple bought the house. Then they had kids, but they divorced amicably yet continued to live in the same house. Then each of them found a new partner who also started living in the same house. Now they are like friends, with 3 couples living together, and 5 kids in the house. It's hard for me to imagine living like that, the stress that would take, but they seem to be happy with the arrangement and they hang out together and take care of each other's kids. That might be a better model for society in the future. Not necessarily marrying, but living in a close community with your friends. It is interesting to think about the logistics and social changes that need to happen for this to work, though.

<comment><USER24> But where did the third couple come from? Is this a riddle?

<comment><USER25> When two couples like each very much...

<comment><USER23> Haha yea I meant 2 couples. Can't seem to edit now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> your-nanny For a lot of people in a lot of places not called the bay area, people move to a town and find themselves a church. The church organizes provides all kinds of opportunities to socialize and make friends in a non competitive in-group sort of way. I'm not religious, and think that organizing life around church can promote certain myopic attitudes, but I can see how this kind of access to an egalitarian community of worship can really have benefits

<comment><USER26> I am not religious, but regularly attend my wife's church. I agree with this. Church really does provide a great community. I'm very curious about what a secular alternative to church would even look like. I get to meet people of all ages from all kinds of backgrounds every week. I have made friends of all ages (at least one in 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s). These aren't just people I know, but people that I could call, if needed, and they would help me. People who would gladly come over to my house for dinner. I work from home, and would have little chance to meet new people if it wasn't for church. Its been quite a surprised to me, as an atheist in his 30s that church would become an important part of my life!

<comment><USER27> There are churches for atheists. The religious cultural beliefs of a welcome opening community are a huge factor for church but as someone else has mentioned, I think regular planned meetings are also a key factor.

I started hosting board games once a month and it made it a lot easier to maintain and grow friendships for everyone. So I would say any group for any activity that meets regularly, whether for video games, books, athletics, etc are also good places to foster friendship.

<comment><USER14> I don't like that idea, or the whole atheism movement - it's like they turned a religion out of not believing, reading Dawkins instead of the bible.

What do those churches do / talk about anyway? If it's people going on about why / how they don't believe, it's not for me. Or is it more like a humanistic church?

<comment><USER28> Can't speak for OP but I too attend my wife's church pretty frequently. I'm probably more agnostic than an atheist but have found her UU (Unitarian Universalist) church pretty welcoming and found a ton of like minded folks there. I wouldn't call it an atheist church but lots of self described atheist attend.

The basic tenants or '6 principles' that the church holds are all things I subscribe to in my personal beliefs anyway (basically respect other people) and most of the sermons are fairy interesting and cover lots of different religions, philosophies, and ideas (bonus: the whole thing wraps up in under an hour!). There are tons of smaller groups that meet outside of regular services to discuss everything from Christianity to Hinduism as well as more general philosophy and social work. As well as things such as neighborhood groups, parenting groups, gardening groups.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I haven't read the article. My reply is not a response to the article, but intended for an audience who might think their life is looking all downhill from here.

In my late 20s my life looked like downhill. I had had friends but I had no friends at that point. I was single and alone. I was depressed and anxious. The only good thing I had going for me was that I had a job.

Just before I turned 30 I was fortunate to come across a video on youtube which pointed out that there were various quite impressive personages who were at 30 failures and only became the impressive persons after that date. I don't have to become a genius, but it's nice to know that our society's rich privilege that favors young people says nothing about human nature. Life can get better from any starting point, and there's nothing wrong with ageing.

And then I joined a community where I was able to find friends. (In my case, it's the Esperanto community.) Now I'm engaged to someone I met through the community (though she's not an Esperantist) and my own personal community of friends has expanded even further. Now I've got the opposite problem I used to have - I have so many friends I struggle to balance them all (and my own need to have some empty time - perhaps higher than average because I became so accustomed to being alone). It happened in only a few short years (today I'm almost 34, but it feels like I've got another life). My fiancee regards me as an optimist - anyone who knew me five years ago would be shocked.

And all this is to say nothing about the changes I've witnessed in my parents' lives in the same period.

It might be harder for humans to get friends after 30 but you don't need to think "I'm a friendless blahblah year old, what hope is there for me?".

<comment><USER30> As someone who's in the same boat (Late twenties. Moved to a country where I don't know anyone. "Discovered" that most people already have friends, and they don't materialise spontaneously as they used to at uni.), your comment resonates with me.

What do you think is required to bond at these things? I've done a couple of after-work activities in an attempt to socialise, but I haven't struck gold yet. (At cooking class, people seem more interested in catching their train, than socialising afterwards.)

It's occurred to me that any out of hours activity just has far less social exposure than what I'm used to. For example, at school you'd sit next to someone for 8 hours a day. To get the same kind of exposure from a weekly 1 or 2-hour class would take 1 or two months!

I'm wondering if you have any thoughts about which aspects helped bridge this in your case. A deep, shared interest in Esperanto? Luck? Nothing in particular?

<comment><USER31> The advice that's stuck in my head for building up a social group is: Schedule an event of your own choosing. Advertise it when you go to other events. Something that is easy to get to, undemanding, and not costly or highly exclusive(e.g. board game night, Wednesday night coffee at Starbucks). Let people you meet and want to be friends with know about it. Hold the event. Nobody shows up the first time - that's fine. And some crowds will never be receptive but you can't tell them what's good for them. Just keep holding it regularly on a strict schedule and letting folks know and eventually your circle appears. Then you can repeat this process, if you want, to filter the group down. It can swing quickly between empty and full calendar since time is actually relatively scarce.

<comment><USER32> ^ this. People always appreciate when you invite them, and then they might decide to invite you to other stuff later (even if they don't show up to your thing). A decade ago, I used to organize "volleyball" afternoons. I hate volleyball, but I would just do it and invite anyone I could. Made a lot of friends like this :) 5 year later (and earlier) I would organize drinks every Wednesday along the docks of Bordeaux during the summer and I would invite all the people I could. What started as a few people became dozens and dozens of people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Relevant: [https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/10-types-odd-friendships- your...](https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/10-types-odd-friendships-youre- probably-part.html)

When I read that two weeks ago, I reached out to an acquaintence who I wished to 'move up' the friend tier structure, because he (and his wife) fit into the Healthy & Enjoyable quandrant. Last weekend they came over to see an air show. Today they invited my wife and I out on their boat. We all had an amazing time.

We're all in our 30s. It's tough. But I like to idea of focusing on the ones which can make an impact, and are healthy and make you happy having them as friends. I'm an advocate for fewer, closer friendships.

<comment><USER2> I find it interesting that we are trying to quantify friendship and understand it with distribution charts like in that blog post. Like it is some kind of lost art.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> In my case marriage was the great motivator for leaving frendiship and not having new friends. My old friends who are single now, still have good friendship, even after 30. I guess my best friend is my wife now.

<comment><USER35> From casual observation it appears that spouses who aren't introduced by mutual friends rarely like their spouse's friends. Friendships take time, are valued because of shared past experiences, and require a certain personality alignment to be sustained.

Also when spouses go and spend time with the other spouse's friends, its challenging to simultaneously catch-up with their old friends while also trying to include their new spouse in the conversation.

Some married couples work through this but others just privately and repeatedly criticize each other's friends so eventually they are left with only one friend -- their spouse.

<comment><USER36> It's for exactly this reason that I find being friends with married couples to be draining unless I knew them both before they got together.

You can't just be friends with one of them. You can't just go and hang out with one person without their spouse coming along. If you tell them their spouse isn't invited, they'll get offended. If you don't tell them, you can expect the spouse to tag along... and if their spouse gets tired and wants to leave early, they're both just going to cut out right then and there (I had one friend who would just up and leave the bar with his wife whenever she got tired without even giving me a chance to finish my drink and tab out so we could leave together... every time, it felt like a slap in the face).

Sometimes, even if I like their spouse, I just want to hang out with a friend one-on-one. And then there are people who I like but whose spouses I can't stand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> It's not. I'm still making new friends regularly. It's not about the age. It's about your lifestyle and your desire to make friends.

It just happens that a lot of people, around 30, prioritize some life styles that makes you less social. Also, they are trying to make something out of what they have right now, instead of getting something new.

</comment><comment><USER38> Having just turned 31 recently, this read hits hard with my own experiences. From time to time I worry I'll end up languishing in old age due to loneliness without a network of supportive friends.

Some seem to reiterate the importance of time investment into the search for new friends. I agree with this. The more you put yourself out there, the odds would hopefully be more in your favour. However, the guarantee of the outcome isn't there. One could spend hours, days, months joining various hobby and interest groups with such an agenda and still end up with nothing.

It's almost like after a certain age, new friendships become more incentivised. The friendship itself only exists because it can be rationalised with mutual benefits.

<comment><USER39> I would suggest not to join a hobby, interest group etc. with an agenda of making friends. I think such a plan might create some unnecessary mental pressure on one's behaviour. On the other hand if you join a group with a topic that really interests you, chances are you'll be sorrounded with at least some like-minded people. And then, if you casually fall into a conversation with someone, then you grab the opportunity for making an acquaintance. And that person might some day turn into a friend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Most of the 20s social activities are there to find mates. In our 30s an increasing number no longer need to do this, and another number don't have the time anyway due to work or family.

In our 20s we still have our school friends, and they introduce us to their friends. We study and make friends. They introduce us to their friends. There's always a few parties. I'm those parties mostly everyone is looking for a boyfriend or girlfriend. We're in the same boat. We have common aims.

In our 30s, those school friends have largely disappeared. We stop studying and stop meeting fellow students. The parties dry up: more and more of those people now have found someone and find no need to "party".

You have your workplace. But if you're a manager your friends are often brown- nosing. And if you're not, office or company politics may interfere. And those left may need to rush back to look after their kids anyway.

The best thing I've found is volunteering. You meet new people, you form new friendships, you learn new skills, you help your community, your week now probably involves at least a little more exercise.

</comment><comment><USER41> Why is it hard to make friends?

\----

Answer: You don't put effort into doing that.

<comment><USER42> But if you _do_ put in effort, it's still hard

<comment><USER41> When's the last time you invited someone out to lunch?

When's the last time you invited people out for drinks or to your place?

When's the last time you threw a party?

That's literally how hard it is. Do stuff with people.

<comment> your-nanny It's hard because they don't have the time either. Kids, soccer practice, gym, and so on.

For a lot of people in a lot of places not called the bay area, people move to a town and find themselves a church. The church organizes provides all kinds of opportunities to socialize and make friends in a non competitive in-group sort of way. I'm not religious, and think that organizing life around church can promote certain myopic attitudes, but I can see how this kind of access to an egalitarian community of worship can really have benefits

<comment><USER43> >I can see how this kind of access to an egalitarian community of worship /

Lol, you can tell you're not a churchgoer ... /jk (but not entirely)

<comment> your-nanny You are correct, but I wonder what about the quoted text made you laugh

<comment><USER43> Christians are still sinful, prone to pride and selfishness, egalitarianism is a central part of Christian doctrine but choosing to follow Jesus is a process ... and I have a weird sense of humour.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Because we have fewer and fewer shared experiences as our lives diverge and specialize. I'll go out on a limb and say that there's no such thing as a fixed personal identity that is some ineffable quality of everyone. Presumably people with similar identities could bond at any time of their lives, but I haven't found that to be the case. You are what you do and think, and people keep changing. As society becomes more complex with more unique niches, and also becomes less colocated, the chances that you find someone in person with similar experiences keeps declining. Sure you can go online but we all know that's not the same.

</comment><comment><USER45> it isn't hard at all practically everyone I meet becomes a friend. How much time do I have to dedicate to friendship? Practically none, but that doesn't stop them from coming over --sometimes to much. Just don't be so judgmental. There's also this toxic ideology that unfortunately has swept the society that promotes defeatism, victimhoodization, promoting sociopaths ways of judging people, locking in your thinking through group think/wrong think. This ideology use to be a good value in our society before it was hijcked, it promoted peace and anti-war, individual liberties, as long as you didn't hurt another person. Now its been hijacked by very evil people and it has entrapped people into defeating themselves. Once you free yourself from this toxic way of thinking, the world is everything that you make good of it. Everyone wants to join you and make it more wonderful. It is truly the greatest time to live and have friends.

<comment><USER46> How do you deal with making plans with someone, only to be stood up?

<comment><USER45> this happens a lot with me, and it annoys me. First I try to establish if it just a good reason that I don't know about. 99% of the time, this is the reason. They either forgot, had an emergency, or got to busy. Second, I consider the other possibility that they intentionally did this. If this is the case, they are trying to show a "power move" or superiority over you, aka "I am better then you and this is my power I ditched you" When you fully think it out, these people are actually powerless and sad. They lack self confidence in themselves, they lack power over themselves, so much that they have to artificially make up scenarios where they feel empowered. This is basically the definition of a sociopath. So immediately you don't want to be friends when them once you realize this. Also, you want to check critically to see if you have any of this type of thinking inside of you and move to get rid of it. So also, this happens a lot in business. Sometimes you have to deal with it. I had very prompent lawyer stood me up 3 times. Eventually, somehow, she wanted me to do something. We were to meet and I give her access to a conference she wanted to go to. I became ill and couldn't make it, I called ahead. Apparently she didn't get my message and got stuck at the conference waiting for me Eventually they let her in when she namedropped me. It was totally unintential, but basically I mirrored what she did to me back to her. Long story short we became friends as far as professional. I use mirroring a lot in business like this -- if you respond to my email in 3 days, I wait 3 days. If you call only during business hours, I make sure I do the same. If you return my calls immediately, I do the same. So but that's business. In friendship, consider yourself lucky you dodged a bullet. One way to test if they honestly forgot or whatever circumstances is to never bring it up or bring it up in a way where you establish if you can tell by their body language that they got pleasure by ditching you. An honest person will feel bad about it. A dishonest person will feel powerful and haply spiteful. I'm not the best at articulating all of this, you will need to think this out for yourself. You have to take their power away by not getting upset. Its the same when somebody is bullying you and you laugh at their jokes with them, they get upset and mad. If they are a good person, it goes away after a while perhaps you become great friends. Some people do this as a way of protecting themselves from risk also, its about self confidence. Again, our society is broken with this toxic ideaology. Right now, bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people. Its changing, but right now sociopaths are being rewarded and honest people aren't. Just don't give them the power over you to make you upset and they go away.

<comment><USER46> Thanks for this! I could have used a few return entries to break it up, but otherwise I very much appreciate the response. Much of what you said echos some of my observations.

I too find myself mirroring - if they are a verbose writer, I'll be verbose; if they're short I'll be short.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> From the article:

 _" Editor's note: This article first ran on July 13, 2012, but we're running it again because the topic is timeless."_

I see this kind of thing happening more and more. Looking at the tags on the page, it bears a modified date of 2018-02-09T19:25:10-05:00. This is important, because they are telling Google that the content has been updated, when it hasn't. But they'll get more traffic and revenue now from an old article by lying to Google.

You see this happening on TV now too. In a technique I call "DVR Fraud," shows like 60 Minutes, which are made up of a few 15-30 minute segments per episode, are mixing and matching segments from old shows and creating "new" episodes with nothing new in them except for brief commentary explaining "as we first showed you in 20XX...". They are marked as "new" in the program guide, and if you have set your DVR to record only new episodes of that show, it will record this rehashed content.

TV networks and websites are abusing automated services and tools like Google and your DVR to generate new revenue from old, rehashed content. I despise regulation, but I think somebody needs to take a look at least at the DVR Fraud issue. It is becoming a large-scale fraud, as it is being used to artificially inflate Nielsen ratings, and likely siphon millions of ad dollars based upon viewership that would never have watched the content had it been properly labeled as a rerun.

<comment><USER48> > DVR Fraud

> a significant problem

This is way over-dramatic for re-runs of TV shows. I can't believe you think this is a problem so grave that it needs state intervention!

<comment><USER47> I basically only watch TV from my DVR. So yes, for me, having to sift through the recorded "new" episodes only to think "oh I remember this one" is annoying. Worse, they are doing it on purpose to artificially inflate their ratings and ad revenue.

<comment><USER49> "Clip show" episodes have been a cheap trick used by TV fiction for ages. Now they are doing it on the news? I guess it was inevitable that someone would eventually put the concepts together.

<comment><USER50> 60 minutes has always had a "season" and showed reruns during the summer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Put effort into a group activity or club that isn't work and you'll make friends. Regularly meeting the same people eventually turns into friendship.

<comment><USER14> I've had this over time with work, school, etc; I get along great with people, but the moment I move on to another school or another job or whatever, I lose contact.

I'm not the type to reach out to people or offer to hang out, and given I don't get similar invitations, I guess others aren't like that OR there's an air about me that indicates I wouldn't appreciate it. Which is probably not wrong, I mean my infrequent meetups with my childhood friend are awkward at best, we watch a movie and have a chat or something but that's it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I'm 25 and it hard as f __*.

<comment><USER53> The line isn't "your thirties."

The line is when you graduate college.

The fact is school is the biggest reason why we make so many friends. Different classes, different people, from grade school to college. Food is taken care of by adults or the dining hall. parents pay the bills or it's covered by your student loan.

Then you graduate. Now you must: spend time to cook, work to pay bills, and if you have an SO/kids, the rest of your time goes there. That's literally it.

<comment><USER36> > The line isn't "your thirties."

> The line is when you graduate college.

I agree with this, but with one caveat: it's a slow process, and it takes years to fully take effect.

The process of your friend groups disintegrating does indeed begin with your college graduation, but it takes so long for the effects to be really felt that a lot of people don't realize their friend groups have disintegrated until around the time they hit 30.

<comment><USER53> Yes for sure, it isn't sudden. I think right after college people "settle down" at different times. Some marry early, some later. Marriage and kids are huge time sinks. By 30 many are married. The more that are married means less time for friends, and slowly those "groups" wither away to the most important.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> People go their separate ways in their 20s. There is less of the shared struggle that characterized college camaraderie.

It also becomes harder to line up schedules to keep in touch with old friends. Back in college, at least everyone was on the same academic calendar.

</comment><comment><USER55> Is it socially awkward to admit that one has no friend after 30?

<comment><USER46> Yes - but that doesn't make it bad, nor something to identify with. I myself would rather be alone than around the wrong people

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Just about to turn 38, and it's certainly true that after college, friends ramp down significantly. You'll stay in touch with a handful maybe if you're lucky. If you're a male, that number is usually much smaller than a female. My suggestion, find a hobby, a side venture, whatever it is, that integrates you into the local social scene. A few years ago I started doing food/cocktail promotion and the amount of social experiences I've had since then has skyrocketed, and yes some _actual_ friends have come of it. They may not be childhood close friends level, but we're all on the same page. Everyone knows it's hard, and that's why we get together.

</comment><comment><USER57> Part of it's obviously the changing social outlets and life situations as we get older, but IMO the biggest reason is that social interaction for its own sake loses a lot of its luster as people get older. Friendship becomes more focused and personal, alone time becomes much scarcer and more precious, and everyone's just way less bored all the time.

The threat of boredom is always a huge motivator for people to hang out and try not to be bored together. As people get older, that ceases to be a social motivator for many/most people. They may still have a bunch of other reasons for wanting to socialize, but boredom's not one of them.

</comment><comment><USER58> I can definitely resonate with this line: "Once people start coupling up, the challenges only increase. Making friends with other couples "is like matchmaking for two," said Kara Baskin, a journalist who works in Boston."

From experience, finding new couple friends appears to be impossible. The difficulty is even quantifiable. For example, to make a friend person A must like person B, and vice versa, or expressed as a permutation: P(2,2)=2 units of difficulty.

But to make a couple friend the difficulty increases to P(4,2)=12...a 6x increase :(

Has anyone had success finding couple friends?

</comment><comment><USER59> >Basically, she suggests, this is because people have an internal alarm clock that goes off at big life events, like turning 30.

I disagree with this notion that adults at the age of 30 shift their focus to children when the average age of first time mothers has steadily risen to 26.3 years old since 1970.

I feel like the general points made in this article apply more to 35-40 year olds as I know there are plenty of people in their early 30's still focused on growing their social circles without settling down with a family yet.

</comment><comment><USER60> This article actually makes me feel better for living in the US for almost a decade, now in my mid 30's, having less real friends here than fingers in my left hand.

</comment><comment><USER61> Living in Washington, DC with a lot of other people who are over the age of 30 and still single, it's not as hard as I anticipated it would be, actually. The key is to have reasons to bring people together. I'm in a karaoke club, and a programming meetup, and several other things, and my social life is pretty healthy as a result.

With parenthood in the mix, you have to get really aggressive about scheduling, but it's still not impossible.

</comment><comment><USER62> I find it easier to make meaningful relations now that I am past 30. Usually these start with doing something that really matters together and on top of that I have way better access to people who match my intelectual profile. Maybe it's simply because I am a person who goes out looking for good things to happen not wait for them to come.

</comment><comment><USER63> This post from Wait But Why is relevant I think: [https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/10-types-odd-friendships- your...](https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/10-types-odd-friendships-youre- probably-part.html)

</comment><comment><USER64> Anecdotally, a lot of men in my circle complain that their wives won't let them spend time with other men, outside of family gatherings. Definitely not healthy, definitely needs to be remedied.

<comment><USER14> That really ties in with another post I read a while ago - the running gags at weddings and such where the wife is referred to as "the ol' ball and chain", where the man's life is basically over and he's emasculated for life by the wife.

I mean all of those 'jokes' make it sound like a really unhealthy and abusive relationship. No wonder people don't get married as much anymore.

<comment><USER65> It's not really a joke, statistically.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> biology ? after teen years your brain's primary focus will be sexual bonding and then children

</comment><comment><USER36> I'm 33, and this hits pretty hard.

Ever since I graduated college, I've watched my circle of friends dwindle over the years, as all of us have busy lives and don't have much room for socialization, especially not when factoring in each other's schedules.

I stopped talking to one of the few close friends I had left after he married an extremist tradcon and started posting a constant stream of hate. It's really disheartening to watch a guy who used to be one of the most compassionate people I know post memes with slurs in them (including slurs against a group I'm part of), videos by Neo-Nazis, rants about how Jimmy Kimmel's done deserves to die, etc. He went from being like a brother to me to being someone I never want to talk to again. And even before he completely jumped down the alt-right rabbit hole, as soon as he started dating her, I would never see him without her ever again. It was draining inviting him to hang out places and him always bringing his then-girlfriend who I hated with him every single time. Even when I went to buy him expensive scotch at a bar to congratulate him on his engagement (because even though I hate her guts, I was still happy for him that he found someone), she decided to tag along (seriously, that was supposed to be a private moment between me and him)... I really regret wasting that money on scotch for both of them given what he's turned into.

In the last month, I have set foot of my house to socialize exactly once, and that was for a friend's birthday party... so that's not going to happen again for another year.

Facebook has been a godsend, because it's basically the only way I talk to most people anymore. Through Facebook, I can stay in touch with a bunch of people who I wouldn't have the opportunity to see in real life. I have a ton of friends I get along with really well but for various reasons none of us are able to get together in real life, so Facebook it is.

It doesn't help that I have no interest in getting married or having children. In fact, the idea of either sickens me. So as everybody else is pairing off to get married or spending 99% of their free time taking care of kids, I'm stuck by myself. I just wish I had more single (and preferably asexual) friends to hang with.

I actively hate being in my 30s. I wish I was in college again, because I really miss the vibrant social life I had back then.

<comment><USER67> _> I wish I was in college again, because I really miss the vibrant social life I had back then._

i've found it much easier to maintain a "vibrant social life" in a city. do you live in the suburbs, or somewhere even less densely populated?

<comment><USER36> I live in the suburbs, and I strongly prefer it here. Cities are cramped, noisy, dirty, and crime-riddled. I love having lots of space, and I'd honestly rather kill myself than live in an apartment ever again. And the last time I even _worked_ in the city (2014), I was subject to constant street harassment by homeless people begging for money and getting angry when I didn't pay them, and I was terrified I was going to get raped and killed some day.

If not having a vibrant social life is the price I pay for living in a place that doesn't make me want to kill myself, then I'll go ahead and pay that price. I miss having a vibrant social life, but I'd take not having one over not living in the burbs.

<comment><USER67> _> Cities are cramped, noisy, dirty, and crime-riddled._

okay, the disconnect here may be that i live in europe, and you live in ...i'd guess north america?

 _> It doesn't help that I have no interest in getting married or having children. In fact, the idea of either sickens me. So as everybody else is pairing off to get married or spending 99% of their free time taking care of kids, I'm stuck by myself. I just wish I had more single (and preferably asexual) friends to hang with._

suburbs are indeed optimised for numerous things you're not up for; this is a difficult problem to solve.

 _> If not having a vibrant social life is the price I pay for living in a place that doesn't make me want to kill myself, then I'll go ahead and pay that price._

things can eat away at you quietly. not having a vibrant social life may not confrontationally make you want to kill yourself, the way the other serious issues you've mentioned do, but it can erode moral and have cascading negative effects on your mental health.

we aren't all built the same though, so ymmv.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> this is something I see once a month on HN but is always relevant to me

</comment><comment><USER69> Its usually the way we train ourselves to behave in work environments. Spontanity only gets you into trouble. Nobody can be really trusted, everything better be documented. Work kills the ability to make friends, because you see how all those former "friends" crawl over each other to backstab one another and get to the top of the pile.

<comment><USER70> Wow, I'm glad I don't work where a bunch of folks here evidently work. I've make plenty of friends at work and I don't see a lot of backstabbing and jockeying for positions.

I simply would not stay in a work enviornment like that.

<comment><USER71> You're a lucky guy,then. I think I belong to the unlucky ones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> [Edit: to all the people downvoting this, care to explain why you find it objectionable? The article is trying to explain a phenomenon and it completely ignores the existence of certain kinds of factors that may have an explanatory role. It doesn't even mention them, even to disagree with them. Do think that's not problematic?]

I find it disappointing when articles like this don't even consider biological, evolutionary factors that could play a role.

<comment><USER54> Maybe people on this forum aren't as open-minded as they'd like to think.

<comment><USER73> I think it's exactly that. Hackernews is just another filter bubble and a haven for a particular personality type.

<comment><USER74> > a haven for a particular personality type

These perceptions are in the eye of the beholder. Multiply that 10x when it's about "who downvoted me", since there's literally no information then, just a blank screen to project on.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Secure Messaging Apps Comparison - <AUTHOR> https://www.securemessagingapps.com/ <comment><USER2> The table could really use some sticky headers, alternating colors, or highlighting to make it easier to make it easier to read, especially on a small screen.

I'd love some insight into why certain answers were selected, some don't seem right to me (but I may be misunderstanding what the row means).</comment>


Snapchat's source code was posted on GitHub - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/github/dmca/commit/7f359b0798e924363ac16910514b1f0e5a9d6fa1 <comment><USER2> Looks like it was already taken down. Wonder how the person got it. The website for that GH user appears to be some greasy phone unlocking business in Pakistan (or at least his GH account said he is based in Pakistan).

The site's in arabic, which is studied in Pakistan but is not one of the main languages of the country.</comment>


Year Starship - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Year_Starship <comment><USER2> The title is "100 Year Starship".</comment>


MIT – Introducing Pilot 2021 - <AUTHOR> https://pilot2021.com <comment><USER2> FYI, this is a commentary on MIT's recent decision to close and depopulate Senior Haus. Senior Haus is (was?) one of MIT's more creative dorms, and many feel it was especially supportive of some students that didn't fit in elsewhere.

MIT decided to depopulate Senior Haus because they statistically were less likely to graduate on time (numbers were questionable at best). Students felt like trading off a supportive community for graduation rates represented commoditization of students, hence the website.

In particular, Pilot 2021 is supposed to focus on wellbeing, health and career development, hence all the references to meal kits.

<comment><USER3> > meal kits

Food at MIT is a very interesting topic. The administration has been pushing "dining halls" and "mandatory meal plans" for 15 years now, thinking that college should be a Disneyland resort experience you can sell parents on as part of $60k+/year tuition (instead of a place where adults live, clean, cook, and eat like adults).

In reality, cooking and community kitchens has been a big part of MIT's culture. It's fun, it builds community, and it's stress-relieving. Also, meal plans are _really_ expensive and many students do not want not-very-good-food for $20 a meal.

Fun story: I remember one dining hall banning to-go boxes because MIT students were inclined to take their meals to-go so they could eat their food quickly in isolation and get back to work. The administration thought if they forced people to eat in the dining halls they could somehow build a community that way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [https://qz.com/1005761/mit-is-overhauling-senior-house- haus-...](https://qz.com/1005761/mit-is-overhauling-senior-house-haus-a-dorm- beloved-by-poor-minority-and-lgbt-students-citing-drugs-and-late-graduation- rates/)

<comment><USER4> and some more stuff, like [https://www.reddit.com/r/mit/comments/6gv0d9/pilot_2021/](https://www.reddit.com/r/mit/comments/6gv0d9/pilot_2021/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a joke, but I don't get it.

Is this, like, resentment at being desireable to employers?

<comment><USER3> The real Pilot 2021 website: [https://studentlife.mit.edu/housing/undergraduate- housing/re...](https://studentlife.mit.edu/housing/undergraduate- housing/residence-halls/pilot-2021-senior-house)

The administration of MIT have decided to nuke a dorm whose culture they didn't like and forced everyone to leave (they claim too much drugs and poor graduation rates). In their place, is "Pilot 2021" in which only freshmen will be moved in (and a few select upperclassmen).

Students feel the administration has been less than honest in their handling of the ordeal (and the dorm's year-long probation period) and had no real interest in helping the dorm improve or listening to the students' needs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I find it slightly weird and offensive that the products contain sexual orientation information. Are the products being bought to be paired with other products, sexually? Or are they being bought to perform labor? Does the labor in any way depend on the sexual orientation of the product? Isn't prostitution illegal in the country where this company operates?

</comment><comment><USER7> [http://saveseniorhouse.mit.edu/](http://saveseniorhouse.mit.edu/)

</comment><comment><USER8> As someone who lived at MIT's Senior House in the late 80's and then returned as an alumni to stay there a couple summers for conferences[0], I'm particularly torn by these moves to shut down Senior House and turn it into a freshmen community called Pilot2021.

Senior House has always had a heavy contingent of counter culture types, much more so than other dorms at MIT, making it look highly non-traditional while still having room for some of the founders of the campus student republicans group, conservative ROTC members, and inclusion of all manner of folks (at least in my day it did). Also, oddly enough, even though it was called Senior House it was not just for Seniors.

As others have mentioned there was a report with some pretty questionably statistics and even more questionable methodologies that said Senior House residents were more at risk for poor outcomes, failure to graduate, etc, than residents of other dorms.

There has been lots of debate about the nature and quality of that research. I understand those concerns. My concerns are different.

About ten years ago, the building went through a major renovation. The state required elevators for handicap access, and the walls and floors are amazingly thick solid concrete which made the rennovations extremely difficult and expensive. The end result being huge compromises were made architecturally in order to meet the mandated accessibility requirements.

I moved into Senior House as an undergraduate in large part because of the architecture. The building I lived in remains the best laid out dorm I've ever seen for fostering community and friendship and a sense of belonging, through a hierarchical set of groupings and spatial organization that encouraged a sense of shared identity and belonging on a host of different scales and group sizes. In short, the building worked.

Going back to live in the same space after the remodels was one of the most disturbing experiences I've had in a built environment.

The remodel had punched through all those nested, multi-scale groupings and turned the space into something that reminded me more of a slaughter house than an actual house. Never have I felt so alone, so isolated, so cut off from any community, and that change in experience resulted solely from the change in layout away from multi-scale clusters of group areas to an ad-hoc meander or non-branching non-scale varying random walk layout that resulted from the cost-challenged state-mandated accessibility requirements. It really did meander and twist and redirect in exactly the way a slaughterhouse does, and the design of slaughterhouses is explicitly laid out to impact and manage the psychology of the animals being led through them.

If I'm right that there was a real qualitative change in the nature of the interactions driven by the change in the physical layout of the space, and if the administration is right that outcomes of those living in the space have fallen, then the root cause for that change in outcomes is unlikely to be fixed by kicking out the counter culture types that used to live there (and still love the place) and replacing them with a statistical sampling of more "normal" MIT students.

[0] pro tip: MIT alums can or at least could stay in the dorms during the summer dirt cheap.

<comment><USER9> "Senior House has always had a heavy contingent of counter culture types, much more so than other dorms at MIT," \-- ha ha. They nuked Bexley first for a reason. Ghetto -- suburb!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> lol! Anyone care to explain?

</comment><comment><USER11> What.</comment>


Ask HN: Is it morally acceptable for a country to not want immigration? - <AUTHOR> I found a popular thread about Trump getting elected from back in 2016 on HN.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12907201 I'll add a link in the comments as well
Basically, comments drifted towards immigration.
I want to know what you personally think about the morals of a country choosing to close the borders in any capacity, as long as it was democratically chosen. If >50% of people directly choose (or choose a representative) to close borders, is this morally wrong, or does everyone need to accept that it was a democratic choice and move on?
I have no strong opinion about the morals, and I see both sides of the token. What do you think?
Please refrain from any inflammatory comments, and frame your opposing opinions as playing the devil's advocate.
There are many views, and I will point out several common arguments:
Against
- Nation will suffer economically due to lack of trade and/or talent.
- It is completely unethical to restrict the flow of a human to/from anywhere.
For
- Nation will have better chance at maintaining culture/language/tribe.
- It will bring back jobs and keep the nation safer. <comment><USER2> It's arguably unethical.

It's also arguably unethical for you not to host a number of poor people in your house or apartment.

And more fundamentally, it's arguably unethical for your not to spend most of your money trying to support the world's poorest.

Few people manage much in this regard, but that's our situation.

For a detailed explanation, start here: [https://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/05/magazine/the-singer- solut...](https://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/05/magazine/the-singer-solution-to- world-poverty.html)

<comment><USER3> Thank you for posting that. It was a great read, good logic, I would argue some points, but basically very good points.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's always important to remember that one area's skilled immigration is another area's brain drain.

The moral issue is whether it is ok to take skilled people that have been trained using the limited resources of poorer areas of the world without supplying an equally skilled person in return.

Consider it within a country. The cities take the skills from the rural areas. What does that do to the rural areas? It is no different between countries.

Fiscal transfer payments don't correct the problem. A pile of dollars will not treat your sick grandmother. You need a doctor in the local area. If they have been poached by a richer country, then you're in trouble. And no country on earth has a surplus of medical staff, and not everybody can realistically become a doctor.

The framing with immigration is always down to the choice of the individual, and never really takes into account the desires of the community the individual has moved into, nor the desires of the community the individual has moved from - particularly if the source area has expended effort training the individual. What do you owe beyond money to the people that helped you be who you are?

As with companies if the drain continues, then nobody bothers training anybody - or doing the training - and we all eat our seed corn.

There's no simple answer, but net zero migration seems the best prospect to satisfy all sides - for somebody to move in, somebody else has to move out. A swap of equals. After all fair exchange is no robbery.

<comment><USER5> > The moral issue is whether it is ok to take skilled people that have been > trained using the limited resources of poorer areas of the world without > supplying an equally skilled person in return.

The skilled people that have been trained using the limited resources of poorer areas have literally funded those limited resources through their taxes or by directly paying for their education (private schools are a thing everywhere, even in poor countries -- 1st-hand experience here).

Nobody has a moral obligation to stay in their home country when a much better quality of life is achievable elsewhere. The origin nation does not need to be to "satisfied". Humans should be free agents to defend their best interests and seek a better outcome for themselves and their families, wherever that may be (as long as the destination accepts them!).

<comment><USER6> > Nobody has a moral obligation to stay in their home country when a much > better quality of life is achievable elsewhere.

When using that model, is there any mechanism for the quality of life in their home country to ever improve?

<comment><USER5> I would like to believe so. But maybe there isn't, or his leaving makes it worse. My point, though, is that that burden shouldn't fall on the single individual, for his power to promote actual change is negligible.

More anecdotally, I know in my home country it was a lost fight, as even among close friends and family, I found it hard to find a reflection of my own values. How could I hope to influence the other 200+ million people?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Countries generally consider themselves above morality, and act in accordance.

I was born of the world with independent thought and share it with every one else born under the same circumstance. This is my believe of sovereignty and how most people act even if they are unaware of it.

A nation at its very basic is the idea that some people have more claim to some part of the world. The idea of nations in and of itself is just an attack on individuals sovereignty which is unethical and immoral.

</comment><comment><USER8> > I want to know what you personally think about the morals of a country > choosing to close the borders in any capacity, as long as it was > democratically chosen.

Being democratically chosen is utterly orthogonal to the morality of the policy, and only relates to the morality of the policy process.

Also, you seem to be asking about different things and may be conflating them: "closing the borders" is different than "prohibiting immigration".

> Nation will suffer economically due to lack of trade

This is an affect of closing borders, not prohibiting immigration. Stopping immigration has no direct effect on trade.

> and/or talent

OTOH, this is an impact of either closing borders or merely restricting immigration (or non-immigrant alien work, e.g., cutting off H-4 work permits as a means of making H-1B less attractive.)

> Nation will have better chance at maintaining culture/language/tribe

There is a difference between stagnation/decay and healthy maintenance, and forcible isolation leans more to the former than the latter.

> It will bring back jobs

Closing borders won't, it'll kill them in large numbers. So will stopping immigration, though in smaller numbers. OTOH, stopping immigration will also reduce the pool of people seeking jobs. Which may somewhat offset the hit to overall employment from the job loss.

> and keep the nation safer.

If you magically assume complete effectiveness, sure, in terms of external threats, but you might as well just assume complete effectiveness of a policy of only stopping dangerous items and people from crossing the border, which is more focussed but no less magical.

</comment><comment><USER9> It is unethical to restrict the movement of individuals based on the birth lottery.

It is unethical to eliminate native inhabitants or force them to adopt your values.

</comment><comment><USER10> The sample arguments for/against seem to have a lot to do with the cost/benefit instead of morals. Is one really guided by morals if one's morals are guided by relatively short-term cost/benefit and not by some elaboration of a universal truth?

<comment><USER8> Utilitarianism is a perfectly valid moral framework; one might prefer a different one, of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Aren't there UN treaties on things like asylum?

IIRC you can't just do a popular vote to stop following a treaty.

<comment><USER3> Yes Asylum is where you go the the first available country to get away from the problem. Not go shopping for the best opportunity.

Most, not all migrants, compete with the lower class. This keeps the lower class wages down, and enriches the rich.

There is a tired old argument 'we need immigrants, because the locals will not do the job'. Which is total BS. They will not do it for the cheap ass pay you are offering.

Pay me enough I will clean sewers with a toothbrush.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I will speak as an Immigrant with double citizenship and minority.

When I decided to immigrate to Country "A" Is because I value country "A" values and laws AND I want that continue like that. If I decided to go to X place I do expect somethings. So I want my country "A" to retain its laws, values, and traditions. So what I do?

1\. Enforce language learning on my kids and parents;

2\. Understand local history;

3\. Understand that some popular customs may be different, but it is way are here;

4\. Don't break the law and try to be most compliant possible (hire CPA, check with a lawyer).

5\. Work and work. I don't have an immediate family, so I have to work for "now" and my future

to dr; try to be a nice guest

Now why I left my country "Z."

1\. High Corruption and Violence;

2\. My personal view clashed with original local culture;

3\. Not enough opportunities and life were too hard (3 jobs, high taxes, and bad conditions).

4\. All my education had to be paid privately and health too so NO I am not "robbing" resources.

Tl dr; I am sorry country "Z" we are not compatible;

Now, Do I think country "A" HAS to allow me in? No. Country A is doing me a favor. My grandfather never fought for country A, or neither has any parent mine done anything for country A. I see myself as a guest, and I will try to be a nice guest. Not sure we will get along but while I am a guest I follow Host laws and culture.

Do I think I OWN anything to my original country? No! Indeed I think I should earn money back as my taxes, social security is there, and I will not be able to collect back and never I studied on Public school or used public health system.

What do I think about other people like me that aren't a good guest? The ones that break law? Marry to get a visa? Steal? I do think they make my life and others harder. And they are ungrateful.

What do I think about diversity? I don't want it. I want my son to be the "diversity" because if country "A" is good for me is because of its original and majority people and I want to keep the demographics in favor of that. TL DR; There are no poor country only corrupt ones. Have the right culture and mindset and favor it.

Is it fair? Life is not fair. The people born here they have so easy. Easy jobs, easy money, no accent they understand all culture, jokes, etc. But their parents make an effort or sacrifice as I hope to make to my kids and grand son. Maybe sometime in the future, they will call my grand son "privileged" ..

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12907201](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12907201)</comment>


Instant Gratification - <AUTHOR> https://theamericanscholar.org/instant-gratification/#.VYib6_kRFo8 <comment><USER2> I'd really like a summary of this.

Yes I see the irony.</comment>


Ask HN: How did you do on the Android Dev Challenge? - <AUTHOR>

for those that didn't win, google is apparently sending emails to let you know more or less how you did. My entry got the following:
Effective use: In the top 25% of all submitted applications Polish: In the top 25% of all submitted applications Indispensability: In the top 25% of all submitted applications Originality: In the 25th to 50th percentile of all submitted applications Overall: In the top 25% of all submitted applications
That's nice, but I'm not sure it means anything given that a lot of the entries must have been quick and dirty crap ;) <comment><USER3> It's about time to get over it and move to something productive - <USER2> Android ships devices in a quantity it's just a waste of time to spend any time on it.

There are other phones with install base out there: Blackberry, Windows Mobile, IPhone, Symbian, Brew, J2ME.

<comment><USER4> I thought to port my stuff to symbian. But nokia charge $3000 for the development tools and that turns me off.

I am working on iPhone at the moment.I am glad Blackberry also provides developer tools for free and I will work on that one next.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Both my Hecl entry and my client's entry were "top quartile", but... yeah, top 25% is still more than 400 apps. A "quick and dirty crappy" app that I also sent in for the hell of it placed in the 50-75% quartile, meaning that the last quartile was probably full of applications that simply didn't work.

</comment><comment><USER6> Nice! Mine didn't score as well.

On the surface it wasn't that much different than the default ListActivity.

Like an iceberg all the interesting bits are underneath. It allowed for async updates and other neat things.

Also this is a client for a product that hasn't been publicly released, so it's akin to submitting a Twitter client before Twitter launched.

</comment><comment><USER4> My entry got the same quartile as martythemaniak's app. I think my stuff is a quick & dirty app to prove an idea. It took me 40 hours to implement it.</comment>