Show HN: Who's Hiring? (postings mined from Twitter) - <AUTHOR> http://www.jobstractor.com/new <comment><USER2> Looks like a good start to something potentially very useful.

Some suggestions:

I'd like to see how old a tweet is. I don't have any idea how fresh some of this information is (without clicking on the user and searching through their history).

Related to that, I'd also like a link to the original tweet, so that I can potentially follow any conversation on that tweet.

It'd also be nice if any hyperlinks in the tweets were active links, rather than just text that I need to cut/paste.

Something that's potentially a little harder would be to let the user determine the radius that they want to see tweets for. I'm in Minneapolis, and I'm seeing some tweets for Iowa and Wisconsin. Those could be useful to me, but I'd more likely want to filter those to a smaller radius.

<comment><USER3> Definitely need to show how old the tweet is in days. Every job I clicked on was expired.

I do feel that you have built something quite useful.

<comment><AUTHOR> organising them by date, ie Today/Yesterday/Later is high on my list. I figured it would be important for people coming back to the site after an initial visit. But for that I'd need people making an initial visit first hence I thought I'd wait until I'd got some positive feedback before doing that.

Nothing on there should be more than 6 days old which was a guess by me as to how much history made sense to show. Possibly that needs to be more recent even, or maybe ordering by date will just make it less of a surprise when you find one which is gone already.

Thanks.

<comment><USER4> Something's borked with your date filtering, because I saw at least one tweet from Oct. 1.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I'll check that out. I've only been running it for a couple of weeks and have been actively developing it during that time so have possibly broken something and missed deleting some tweets at some point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is crazy good!

A common complaint is that it's hard to find out about new openings because they're often pushed through your social networks.

Directly mining the social networks is a great man-I-should've-thought-about- that idea. I'm infinitely likelier to tweet about a job opening than to post it somewhere.

<comment><USER6> And as someone who might be hunting for a job, I hate having to comb through twitter and the thousands of daily posts to make sure I don't miss a job opening. I stopped following twitter because it was so hard to find the few things I was interested in from all the noise. Sites like this make me believe twitter is still valuable.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN. I'd really like to get anyones feedback on this. It's still a little rough around the edges but my main question would be

Is this useful? Or could it be with a tweak or two?

Thanks, Robin

<comment><USER7> Also, per the twitter developer guidelines, you need to parse the tweets and make all links, hash tags, and usernames hyperlinks back to twitter for those individual items.

I recently had to do a similar thing for a site I threw together to get my sporting news in one location (<http://sportszealots.com>). It's very hacky code written very quickly (in ruby), but if you'd like it send me an email and I'll send you back what I have.

 __EDIT: Well damn, I didn't know about the handy utility mentioned below...that's definitely better solution!

<comment><USER8> They offer a ruby version as well: <https://github.com/twitter/twitter-text- rb>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Nice idea, and works well. The first tweet is a RT from a fellow student at RISD who I didn't even know had a Twitter. Some feedback:

The second tweet that comes up for me (Providence, RI) is one labeled "North America and Europe." I think local listings should be prioritized over broad ones.

Filters based on language/expertise. I see a lot of these tweets go into specifics already so this could probably be implemented easily.

As someone else mentioned, a link to the tweet would be good, and preservation of the hyperlinks in them so I can click directly on someone's job listing etc.

Perhaps you could also normalize the format of the locations, and group them under one heading. For example, most of the listings for Providence are Boston, and it's a list that looks like, "Boston", "Boston, MA", "Boston", "Boston", "Boston, MA", etc. A consistent format would be good for readability and having a new <h2> for each tweet is redundant.

Basically, you have a good crawler (I assume you're using one) and now you need to alter the design of your page to make it easy to explore.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, yep a lot of what is required is a better way of presenting and filterring the tweets. Working out the locations for the tweets could definately be improved, especially when it's quite vague.

thanks again.

<comment><USER9> No problem. Mind if I ask what you're using to track my location so discreetly? Chrome never asked me for permission. :P I'm also building a location-based webapp and would like to check it out.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm using this from google <http://code.google.com/apis/loader/>

Code runs in the browser then:

if (google.loader.ClientLocation != null) { loc = google.loader.ClientLocation.address.city; lat = google.loader.ClientLocation.latitude lng = google.loader.ClientLocation.longitude }

hope that helps.

<comment><USER9> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Have you considered doing a similar one to help companies find good candidates to hire?

(forgive the mention of this fact but:)

StyleOwner (SF) is hiring (today we're at the UC Berkeley Startup Fair) and we'll be at the Github party on Monday. email email@example.com for more details. Hiring for both frontend and backend positions. Ideal candidate will want to do 20% time toward open source work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi there. And good luck with the recruitment.

I'd consider something like this, but I'm not sure how it'd work. Would you just loook for people saying 'I'm looking for a job' or would it be something more complex based on what expertise you can infer from there tweets?

Thanks for the feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Cool idea! I'll be sure to bookmark it...

Here's my $0.02:

\- Typo in the about page : "As weel..."

\- I'd change the 1st 2 paragraphs in the about section to "Jobs Tractor looks for people trying to hire developers on Twitter, but filters out tweets that are from recruitment agencies or jobs boards."

\- Love the map view

\- Does the search field allow you to filter by location, keyword, or both?

\- Group by location maybe?

\- I'd take the word "jobs" out of the logo - to me it looks cluttered

\- Do you save the posts or is it just what the Twitter search API pulls up? Jobs might not get tweeted about more than once, so a posting could still be legitimate after a week or so

<comment><AUTHOR> DOH! proof reading fail. Thanks.

re the search field. It's just to change locaiton at the moment.

re saving the posts, I'm saving them but only for 6 days at the moment to keep the data pretty fresh.

Thanks for the feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I like this. As someone said, normalizing locations like the 3 variations of Boston would be a plus.

Also, The locations could be refined. I see a lot of them being listed under the header "Boston" when they really happen "King of Prussia, PA", Burlington MA, or "West Newburry, MA". Those locations are not Boston. They're close, but not quite (and in the case of the PA one not even close). There's some value to the grouping things under Boston but I would prefer granularity in location headers.

Definitely see this as being very helpful though.

</comment><comment><USER13> It looks like you have some room to refine your searching / filtering. I'm in the Seattle area and it's picking up some noticeable noise.

e.g.:

"Tacoma cannery property to be repositioned: Pinnacle Foods Group is looking for a real estate developer who can ... <http://t.co/UobgHb39>

and

"Online entrepreneur pitches for funding for app ... - TasteBand.com: An world wide web entrepreneur is looking t... <http://t.co/JKAnZdBk>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I definately need to get better at filtering out the noise. I may just open it up to let people flag the noise themselves but hopefully I can improve the automated filtering to a point it's 'good enough'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Very nice. Have you considered grouping the related locations instead of listing all the locations? For example, group "Greater NYC Area", "NYC", "New York, NY" under one section with a consistent name. Over time you could locally map the most commonly used location names under one heading. Also, I would prefer to see the actual tweet text a bit larger with a smaller font size for the location headings.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is a neat tool. Great idea. One suggestion is that, do no default to Grand Havens.

Suggestions 1\. People who dont look at the search bar at the top would have no idea a. why there isn't any job postings for their location b. How to search for jobs in a specific location.

2\. Could be a good idea to get the browser location and search for that, to make the site instantly relevant.

</comment><comment><USER16> I found the "Londinium, London, UK" funny. It came from the londinum.com website, but is also a place in the sense that it's London's original name. So technically, it places the job in Roman London, which is the main banking/business district today (aka The City) and therefore a major IT area.

</comment><comment><USER17> Its a great idea and a useful app. I liked it. Looks like you have already included quite a few ideas from here but you should continue improving it to include different variations in verbiage and also to look for special conditions like telecommuting etc .. Good Luck

</comment><comment><USER18> It would be great if the site url updated when I change location, then I could bookmark a link to the location I'm interested in!

Also, after changing location, nothing seems to happen for a couple of seconds. Some visual feedback that it's loading the location info would be nice.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good idea, that'd definately be handy. I'll add it to the list. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm finding that in the latest Chrome beta (unsure on other browsers) that the map functionality isn't that great. Moving outside the initial zoom area requires a re-search to pull up new results, and I can't seem to click on results either.

</comment><comment><USER20> I see a lot of ideas come through through here and very few of them either put a smile on my face or have me thinking I'm going to use that, or it at least needs book marking.

Congrats I smiled, bookmarked, and did a search. I think you're onto a winner :)

</comment><comment><USER21> Nice one, except ours don't show up. But for all you coders/synth-nerds want a great job! Check this out: <http://twitter.com/#!/jugendingenieur>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I'm going to try and expand the number of jobs I can find in future.

Best of luck with the recruitment for those jobs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This rocks. I've been looking for a better way of job hunting in specific areas. Are you planning on a mobile friendly version in the future? I would love to help! miles.matthias at gmail :)

</comment><comment><USER23> I tried entering "Mountain View, CA" into the text field in the upper left, and hit Enter, and nothing happened. I tried this in Safari, Chrome, Firefox.

Seems broken to me. Am I doing it wrong?

<comment><AUTHOR> ah, apparently it's currently broken if you load jobstractor.com instead of www.jobstractor.com which might be the problem. The other is there's no feedback whilst it's loading so possibly it was just running slow. Otherwise I guess my geo lookup could have just failed silently...

Thanks for letting me know. There's some improvements to be made as to how it fails wrt this.

<comment><USER23> You're right. That was the problem. I was visiting jobstractor.com, which does not work correctly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Looks great, only suggestion so far is to:

hyperlink any links in the tweets.

</comment><comment><USER25> Nice fresh interface, I like what it has to offer as a starting point this could be massive. It looks like it will evolve into something very special.

<comment><AUTHOR> thankyou :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Awesome work!

Do you have plans to expand the data source beyond Twitter? Maybe with filters for users to select source(s)?

</comment><comment><USER26> When I view the listings on the map, the markers need to display an infowindow when clicked.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi there,

The map is pretty minimal/useless at the moment. There's a lot I can do to improve it.

Thanks

<comment><USER27> Something simple, but really useful for the map would be to select different areas/location with a marker. Returning to the list view would show the jobs for that area.

The map would be for location search, the list for details. It'd be cool if you could filter the list view. Of course, it'd be great if you didn't have to switch modes from list to map.

Even how it is right now, this is pretty awesome. I'm looking for jobs and I plan to use this alot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The simplest ideas are the ones that are commonly the most useful. Very interesting tool!

</comment><comment><USER29> First off, I love the idea.

Secondly, I can't sign up for the weekly email. It says: Cannot POST /new

<comment><AUTHOR> This should be fixed now. I broke it when I submitted to HN as I had to change the URL (I submitted jobstractor earlier in the year when it was a something a bit different)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Cool beans. Can you expand it to have an option for designer jobs?

<comment><USER31> Yeah! Or maybe, once you get the initial tweaks here worked out, tech jobs in general — with either categories or tags to filter to what's relevant for an individual user. Would be absolutely thrilled to see this expand into general jobs eventually..

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a good idea. I just wanted to start with something simple and small enough to prove the concept. From there I'm sure there's plenty of other jobs on twitter I could be pulling in.

Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> What about job listings that allow telecommuting?

</comment><comment><USER32> I think it's much more important to highlight the technologies and the position itself than the location.</comment>


Ask HN: Use of customer Logos - <AUTHOR>

We've been having a chat here about the use of client logos on our product website. We currently don't have any, and don't have any immediate plans to add any. The main reason is, when we approached some fairly big name clients of ours earlier this year we were met repeatedly with, "I need to speak to legal/branding/marketing/CEO". This invariably resulted in silence or a resounding "we love your service, but we are in a competitive environment and we can't let our competitors know our processes blah blah".
Now, I'm fine with that, but what really interests me is that I know of many other sites that show many of the same logos from clients that declined our request.
The question is how many folks here list their headline grabbing customers' logos without permission. OR if you did get permission, how did you go about it? <comment><USER2> I briefly worked for a large bank as a buyer and part of our contract with any supplier was a clause that they could not publicise us being their client without our explicit permission. The main motivation for that was simply that we did not want our name plastered everywhere, since most of the benefit from that would accrue to the supplier not us. I expect most other large companies are the same.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah that's what I'm finding. It basically comes down to who is bigger. Smaller companies would love the exposure, larger companies consider it "association" and don't allow it.

Frustrating when you see Sony, Johnson&Johnson, Google, EA, MySpace, Travelocity, Staples, Dell and Microsoft plastered all over your competitors sites...but you can't use the same logos on yours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I've never done it, but I suspect the easiest way to get "permission" (and I use the term loosely) is to add a section to your standard T&Cs, which customers agree to when they sign up, that allows you to identify current customers in your marketing materials.

<comment><AUTHOR> I had considered doing this, but I get the feeling it wouldn't help should the company in question ask us to take it down. :)

<comment><USER3> Yeah, it's probably a bit late for that with current customers that have given you an explicit denial.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It is common courtesy to ask, if you provide a link to their homepage there is an added SEO benefit for them.

When you contact them you should request a proper size logo, be sure to uphold the image quality.

In my experience, companies are generally excited.</comment>


Ask HN: Apple 2FA mandated how to work with multiple accounts? - <AUTHOR> Ok, so Apple has now mandated 2FA which I am totally good with, but how are we supposed to work with multiple distinct accounts under different companies?
It seems I can create a second account on my mac pro, create a new apple id and 2FA there the first time, then delete the machine account and it will still be associated to my mac pro for future 2FA requests.  However, WTF, how would this work for people consulting that have a client that wants you to setup an account for their company and use it for submissions?  You don't want it to 2FA to your phone or mac after you are done with the project.  Do you have to transfer it through Apple each time now?  That's a pain in the ass.
Did they seriously not think this through?  Am I missing something obvious?
I have contacted support and they have been less than helpful so far.  Basically telling me I must enable 2FA for each account on a unique Apple device.  WTF?  Seriously? <comment><USER2> [https://developer.apple.com/support/account/authentication/](https://developer.apple.com/support/account/authentication/)

After reading this, it seems like one device can be used for multiple developer accounts.

I was worried when I started seeing "iCloud" because of course none of us use our personal iCloud accounts for dev work. However, it looks like you can link multiple dev accounts to your personal iCloud account to prevent having to sign in/out of the accounts on the device.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the response and link.

That does make it so you can get verification codes on one device for multiple accounts but it still requires you to log out of your primary (personal) account, log in with the dev account, enable 2FA and then log out and back in as your primary account. Then you still have to add the dev account to the "iCloud" login on your phone or similar so you can get verifications.

It all seems super hacky and like a total after thought versus a clean well designed system. I am happy Apple takes security seriously, but this doesn't seem very elegant or even effective.

And while I am not currently building apps for clients, it seems this will still be a hurdle for dev shops to overcome, since having the clients account 2FA to your device is not ideal in anyway. Would be curious how people are handling this. It could be I am still just missing something obvious.</comment></comment>


Hacker Bar - Hacker News at your fingertips - <AUTHOR> http://www.hackerbarapp.com/

<comment><USER2> That looks nice, but I will never download it for fear of wasting too much time on HN.

<comment><AUTHOR> Same situation here, I think I spend way too much time on HN already.</comment></comment>


We're more aggressively enforcing self-moderation in chat - <AUTHOR> https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/309645 <comment><USER2> Enforced self-moderation? There's an oxymoron for you.</comment>


Color Tool - <AUTHOR> http://colorusage.arc.nasa.gov/ColorTool.php <comment><USER2> This tool looks like it employs the Munsell color space, invented by Albert Munsell, one of the Demi-gods of color science. Munsell was a painter, and a pretty good one. He was frustrated by the arbitrary naming of artists paints, so he set out to develop a perception-based system of his own. It was based on two principles: 'smallest perceivable difference' and 'pair-wise comparison'. Using this, and hundreds of test subjects, he mapped perceptual color space. Until then, it had been assumed it was spherical. He showed it for what it really was: lumpy and uneven. Also, fundamentally non-Euclidean. A true pioneer.

<comment><USER3> Munsell's amazing! This similar to Munsell, but where his space was based on specific, literal sample colors, this one is based on a mathematical model -- but the experiments to determine that model were remarkably similar to his!

The core model is CIE L _a_ b _:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIELAB_color_space](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIELAB_color_space)

The a_ and b* parameters of that model are not totally intuitive, though; luckily, the same space expressed in polar coordinates has parameters that map really well to the same hue, chroma, and lightness that Munsell organized with.

<comment><USER2> I have used Lab space in Photoshop a bit. You are right... it is a relative to Munsell. Lab has one or two very particular uses in color adjustment. For example... as lightness is completely separate to chromacity, it is a very agreeable space for lightness and saturation adjustments.

It is also great for demonstrating to students how the perceptual Lightness value of a hue differs to the lightness value indicated by a desaturation in simple RGB space.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> To use this tool on modern Chrome you can use our CheerpJ Applet Runner extension: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cheerpj-applet- run...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cheerpj-applet- runner/bbmolahhldcbngedljfadjlognfaaein)

Runs legacy Java applets fully client side with no plugin.

</comment><comment><USER3> I built a similar LCH space explorer, which doesn't require Java:

[http://palette.sambleckley.com/](http://palette.sambleckley.com/)

I use it pretty often; it's easy to ensure accessible contrast, etc, when L values are consistent.

</comment><comment><USER5> Firing up Netscape Navigator on my Macintosh right now.

</comment><comment><USER6> I use [http://colorizer.org](http://colorizer.org).

<comment><USER2> This is a nice tool. It has a great range of color spaces. However, the problem I have with it and similar tools is the schemes. These so-called harmonic combinations have a long history, but are almost entirely unsupported by science. Certainly, many high-order images such as paintings and movies employ basic RYB compilatory pairs (red/green, yellow/purple etc), but beyond that their arrangements ate fairly arbitrary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> You may need to fire up Netscape to get this applet working.

> Internet Explorer or Netscape: The Color Tool needs Apple's "Mac Runtime for > Java"

<comment><USER8> The system requirements are indeed a time capsule of their own. Internet Explorer 6, Netscape 7, and Mozilla 1.4 (I miss that browser! Reminds me of Phoenix too, plus other lost browsers - Galeon, for one).

The Mac version "requires a PowerPC with 32 MB of RAM and Mac OS 7.6.1 or later."

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is the source code for this available? I couldn't find anything on the site or by looking through [https://code.nasa.gov](https://code.nasa.gov) or [https://opensource.gsfc.nasa.gov](https://opensource.gsfc.nasa.gov)

<comment><USER10> It's very easy to decompile Java bytecode unless it's obfuscated. Not sure about legal aspects, but technically if you need source code, it's almost there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> using lightness-normalized colors for my web designs improved the overall balance a lot</comment>


New Year's Eve Party Planning – Advice from the Front Lines - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mertado.com/2010/12/29/new-years-eve-party-planning-advice-from-the-front-lines/

<comment><USER2> Ha. Very clever.</comment>


Parents Thought They Wanted Tech in Every Classroom, Now They're Not So Sure - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-a-school-district-where-technology-rules-grades-fall-parents-ask-why-11567523719?mod=rsswn <comment><USER2> This headline bothers me. What evidence is there that parents drove the use of technology in schools? From the beginning parents have been extremely skeptical about the use of technology and have always voiced concerns. There is every evidence that this was driven by administrators responding to incentives and mandates, and tech companies hoping to make money selling software and devices. There has never been any evidence that giving kids screens helps them learn, and as we see in the real world, the exact opposite is what is happening.

<comment><USER3> I cannot speak to motives behind the move but my experience has also been that administration has driven this.

My kids schools are 100% Chromebooks. This has been great for scheduling extracurricular activities and making their backpacks lighter. It really hasn't improved their ability to learn mathematics or English.

<comment><USER4> Chromebooks have absolutely no place in the classrooms, I am dreading my kids entering what has become of this school system.

<comment><USER5> I'm a little disappointed with chromebooks as well.

I was one of the kids who was a little disappointed when the first MacOS came out. Where was the command line? Where did I wrote code? The commodore64 did a lot more for kids who wanted to learn about computers, an affordable and highly hackable and programmable computer. I felt like the first Mac was a big step forward in terms of ease of use for the general consumer, but a step back from the AppleII in getting in there and really enjoying computing.

Chromebooks put more, not less distance, between a kid and what I consider to be the interesting things about a computer.

Think of it this way - google talks a lot about a critical skills shortage. Ok, so, would a kid who grows up using a Chromebook be more likely to develop these skills than a kid who uses a linux system, or Mac OS X? Or hell, even a windows system, at least it's relatively easy to get a bash shell working there.

Nah, let's face it, the future of google's workforce is not going to be found among the the kids using google's educational products. Bet you google execs and high up engineers most definitely have their kids learning on something else, and they probably avoid too much exposure to any kind of electronics for a longer period of childhood than google pushes out there in the classroom.

<comment><USER6> Chromebooks in education were not supposed to get students interested in computing or teach them about it. They were supposed to be used as an alternative for heavy backpacks with books and make scheduling and other organizational things to be done easier (considering that all of those things are slowly moving to online space, like class registration, gradebooks, etc.).

I.e., it isn't a programming-friendly OS vs. chromebooks, it is heavy backpacks filled with textbooks and notebooks vs. chromebooks. Don't mistake chromebooks for a computing tool, it is an everyday student things kind of tool that just happens to be served by a computing device.

<comment><USER5> And yet, google has induced millions of families to spend their limited computing budget on a "non-programmable" OS. Was it really beyond google's capabilities to make this a more open, perhaps linux based environment?

<comment><USER7> I dunno, I got a C202SA Chromebook specifically for software development. It was designed for schools, so it has a spillproof keyboard, shock-resistant case, 1.5-2 days of battery life with my usage, it only costs like $250, and it's smaller than 12".

I installed GalliumOS, and I love it. It is a complete Linux environment (Ubuntu), and it easily meets my needs even if Firefox sometimes slows down a bit with Javascript-heavy web apps (I haven't installed Chrome.) My only complaint is the limited storage space.

Google may not ship Chromebooks with a customizable OS, but they and the OEMs don't interfere with end users' ability to install one (yet), and I really appreciate that the education market has created so much demand for machines with this sort of form factor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's been a big backlash against screens in my high privilege/high achieving community.

My dyslexic/ADHD daughter did a trial day at a private school with a "no screens in classrooms" policy. It was awful for her, because she's grown comfortable using text to speech, dictation, and other tools to do cope with the friction in her brain. My other kids benefit in different ways, they've all learned to do independent research way earlier than I ever did and know how to find answers to pretty much anything they think about.

None of our kids have access to Candy Crush or other gamble-games, though, so they tend to have healthier screen habits than their friends. All the quotes from parents in the article make it sound like they're helpless. I think that's an indication of just how bad tooling and education for _parents_ is.

<comment><USER9> Almost all of these policies have exceptions for disabilities.

Most technology seems to be used to detract from learning: [https://jakeseliger.com/2008/12/28/laptops-students- distract...](https://jakeseliger.com/2008/12/28/laptops-students-distraction- hardly-a-surprise) rather than enhancing it. Obviously there are exceptions, like spaced-memory repetition software or some computer science classes. But focus and concentration seem to be in short supply, relative to technology.

<comment><USER8> I don't think it does my daughter any favors if she's the only one using an iPad in a classroom, it just makes her obviously different in a way that'll create resentment. She also benefited long before she was diagnosed, I think a lot more kids _can_ make use of screens than are diagnosed with a disability.

My general belief is that gadgets are great for kids with the right boundaries, and what we're lacking is (a) parent / teacher experience managing those boundaries and (b) tooling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My wife and I raised three daughters, all of whom are in their 20's now. Their generation went from no home Internet in the mid-90's to smart phones in their pockets today. As parents we struggled like everyone simply because we didn't know what was right. I would describe the phases we went through as something like: uncertainty combined with attempts at control, followed by a loss of any illusion of control as the channels proliferated. I specifically came to feel that we were experiencing a grand and fundamental change in human society and that anything I tried to do to stand as a filter between the girls and the rest of the world that was now pouring in would do more harm than good.

In the end, they all came through it fine. I won't rattle off metrics of their normality, but they are doing fine, along with all the others of their generation that we came to know over the years. Being human they proved impressively adaptable in the face of change, even high-velocity vertigo- inducing change. As for my wife and I, we still don't know how much technology and information is the right amount, at home or in schools. In fact the only thing I think we learned on that score is how much we didn't know, how much we still don't know, and how terribly weak our ability to predict how any of this will work out is. Probably parents felt similarly 30 or 40 years after the invention of printed material, or radio, or phones. Regardless, the genie is well out of the bottle.

</comment><comment><USER11> Expecting a laptop to improve education because it's "tech" is like reading a book chosen at random and expecting to become more intelligent.

<comment><USER12> That is in fact a delusion many people seem to have. Reading books is seen as an inherent good, regardless of the book. School children are often told to get one book a week from the library. Any sort of book, it's often thought, will be good for the child. In my personal experience, most go straight for the _" Where's Waldo"_ books. Fun books... but come on.

<comment><USER3> I'd pile on to this sentiment with noticing that many kids who do read these days are not progression past YA fiction in their discretionary reading options.

<comment><USER13> YA fiction isn't any less literature than other fiction.

<comment><USER12> True if literature isn't synonymous with _' worthwhile.'_

<comment><USER13> It isn't synonymous with 'worthwhile'. That's just true. For one thing, 'literature' is a form of media, 'worthwhile' is an subjective quality of experience.

<comment><USER12> You snark, but I think the enclosing conversation was about whether YA fiction is worthwhile (or, whether we should be concerned when people fail to progress past it), not whether it's literature.

<comment><USER13> Whether or not a literal entire genre of literature is worthwhile is itself a question of the worthwhileness, IMO. Historically, this has already been debated multiple times with multiple different genres- experimental fiction, fiction by female authors, fantasy, scifi, fiction by american authors. Must we repeat it for every new genre that becomes popular or even remotely prominent in the sphere of mainstream consumption?

<comment><USER12> I assert that some books have more value to children than others and that the distribution of worthwhile books is different in different genres. I further assert that YA fiction is proportionally less worthwhile than other genres generally accessible to the "young adult" demographic.

Can you convince me that any of those assertions is wrong? Pointing out that _" YA fiction is literature"_ doesn't come anywhere close to refuting any of the above assertions.

<comment><USER13> Neither have you refuted that this has been a historical game of stack ranking literary genres and I'm asking when we will grow up and let people enjoy good books.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "An interactive program delivered an image of a token on the screen when she completed an assignment. She could then trade in those tokens to play games. To Dr. Boyd, a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins, it looks more like a video game than a math class."

I think this is a core part of the problem. Gamification, perceived usefulness, and enjoyment are being used in lieu of actual learning gains. I believe, however there is too much focus on "enjoyment" rather than learning.

As an example, my research is on rote practice of writing code. Literally retyping syntax, because I believe the technical literacy is the foundation to conceptual understanding. This is no different than a cook, musician, athlete, even doctors. However, retyping syntax is not "fun". It's not "interactive". It's not meta-cognitive. It's drilling. But the responses I get are near bimodal. Some people fully understand the logic and others outright argue against it.

However, rote practice is (in my opinion) the first step to high-level learning. Meta-cognitive skills like self-explanation are great but only if you have the prior knowledges to utilize them. They should not be given to a pure novice; however, no one wants to admit to being a novice. Somehow, that's for children, but I'm an adult / young-adult / "big boy"! True novices should be given the chance to learn these lower level skills without feeling like its beneath them or treated as "lesser" than higher level skills.

</comment><comment><USER5> I've reflected a lot on this, as a parent. I can't quite get behind the "no computer screen" thing, because a bit part of me wants to get my kids into unix, python, and interesting electronics projects from an early age. Another part of me sees this as a potentially endless loop of gummy bear videos (and, to paraphrase "war of the roses", "by the time this is all over, an argument about gummy bear videos will seem like one of your lighter moments").

I've come to a general, porous, leaky set of guidelines. The closer you are to black text on a white background (or white text on a black background), you're more likely it is you're doing something interesting. That could mean reading a novel or analyzing data with python or R or unix on the command line or in a relatively lightweight IDE. If lots of distractingly flashy colors and sounds are going on around you, then odds are you're getting sucked into the screen vortex, even if you aren't actually looking at a screen.

And like I said, porous. There are, indisputably, phenomenal comic books (ok, graphic novels) with great depth. Videos and movies can have tremendous artistic value. Those flashy images on a screen could be watching Citizen Kane. That black and white text could be 101 fart jokes. What the hell do I know.

But overall, I feel like the equation holds, sort of. If you're looking at symbols on a background, odds are this isn't the wrong kind of screen time, and it could be very intellectually enriching.

<comment><USER8> We also have porous guidelines for our kids. The ones that worked the best for us are:

* Only creative / educational games (including minecraft), and those for less than 2 hours per day. They don't get games that are heavily optimized for addiction.

* No screens in their bedrooms ever. As my oldest got more of a social life, we noticed the drama of friends kept following her around and she never naturally escaped from it. Once we stopped letting her have her phone in her room her ability to deal with drama bombs improved drastically.

* No video apps at all for the younger kids.

Screentime makes it reasonably easy to enforce this stuff on iPads, and the original Screen Time ([https://screentimelabs.com/](https://screentimelabs.com/)) is even better on Android.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> >There is a role for technology in school, she says, but it is a matter of how much and at what age.

Something about the school procurement process that knocks all the nuance or subtlety out of the goals.

This issue with technology goes way, way back decades. Always there are promising trials, it works here and there, under the right circumstances, and so some school wants to roll it out broadly and it doesn't work as well. Then there is a rollback.

[edit] And I could say the same about software development processes.

<comment><USER16> >Something about the school procurement process that knocks all the nuance or subtlety out of the goals.

The people authorizing the deals, administrators and school boards, aren't incentivized to improve outcomes, they're incentivized to make the people who put them there seem like they're doing something valuable.

If parents could choose the schools they were sending their children to, instead of being saddled with whomever the state has appointed to run a particular school, they'd pick schools for which evidence has proven better outcomes. Sure, they might be swayed by flashy tech, but as other comments have said the push for tech didn't largely come from parents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> > An interactive program delivered an image of a token on the screen when she > completed an assignment. She could then trade in those tokens to play games.

> To Dr. Boyd, a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins, it looks more like a > video game than a math class. She isn't sure if the lessons are sticking > with Jane and worries about the hyper-stimulating screen time.

I think gamifying school is probably a good idea. How many kids don't know the parts of speech, but have memorized the Pokedex?

<comment><USER18> I have to agree. I've accepted that the Pokedex part of my brain is never going to be reclaimed. What worries me though is that it will end up being even worse than standardized testing. I fear that these "games" will be nothing more than smaller, more frequent tests that will be used to generate metrics which will be used to "fund" individual students.

<comment><USER19> That brings to mind a classic issue - it isn't the tech but how it is used. The same standardized test approach which combines the worst features of feudalism and bueracracy with the virtues of neither was there before. The games or lack of them won't change that.

I vividly remember how in Elementary School they had workbooks after workbooks of multiple choice analogies with words used within occasionally unexplained. They insisted it was all very important when we asked why so overboard. The real answer became obvious when the SAT was changed to have a writing section instead of an analogies one and they promptly vanishes into the void only to appear on standardized tests four questions a year at very most.

They didn't even have the honesty to say "It is used a lot for in important test."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This seems like it would be related to a broader shift (among tech parents, at least [0]) from digital to analog.

From my perspective, it seems like a pendulum. On the whole, baby boomers didn't adapt to the advent of computers very well. However, they generally recognized their value, and provided access to the devices in a mostly unstructured way. Thus, their Gen X/millennial children are overall more technically savvy than they.

Now, those children are becoming parents themselves, and reflecting on the potential negative aspects of unlimited screen access, social media, widespread gamification, etc. on their own children. Providing the same unrestricted access to their own children may seem unlikely to produce the same results that they themselves experienced. Thus, alternatives like reducing or restricting access at home/school become more common/popular.

Perhaps the next generation will resent their parents' restrictions, or feel left behind technically, and swing back the other way?

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18309305](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18309305)

</comment><comment><USER21> There is a panic regarding having children 'ready' for the future-- and having kids be proficient in 'future' technologies/ needs. We in tech drive this, actually, as salaries in the area outpace other salaries. That pushes technology into the classroom, which is not the same as thoughtful uses of well-tooled technology that aids students.

</comment><comment><USER22> I feel that one could teach a fairly complete CS class with a piece of chalk and a chalkboard.

<comment><USER23> i feel like CS is lightyears ahead of where it was when I was in school. My son learned Python and Java in HS, something I would only have dreamed of when I was his age. Instead I got to learn MS Office.

<comment><USER24> A) On the other hand, in middle school in the 80s, I learned Commodore 64 BASIC. (and my DAD learned BASIC because when you bought an Apple IIe, the manual suggested that learning BASIC was how you learned how to use the Apple IIe, and included a tutorial, so my Dad just followed it. I think programming has become a lot less common as a 'basic computer skill', not more).

B) I think you are confusing CS with programming/software engineering. They are related, but the "CS" class the post you are responding to suggested with nothing but a chalkboard would not have it's students ready for a job getting paid programming. (I don't mean this as an insult to you). On the other hand, the class in which you were learning MS Office probably wasn't CS at all. A class involving Python and Java might get someone more ready for a job getting paid programming, but may or may not be a CS class, depending on... if it includes any CS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think there are a few viewpoints in this article all mixed together: 1\. General anti-screen / anti-tech crowd (not uncommon, e.g. [https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and- tech/ne...](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and- tech/news/bill-gates-children-no-mobile-phone-aged-14-microsoft-limit- technology-use-parenting-a7694526.html)) 2\. Anti-authoritarian crowd (privacy concerns, complaints about quality of teaching, etc.) 3\. Pro-authoritarian crowd (playing games, not learning anything, low scores on standardized tests)

I wonder if these just correlate with political party or there's a more interesting pattern.

</comment><comment><USER26> My in-laws are very anti-public schools. My wife was home schooled for a few years and otherwise went to a private religious school.

Before we had kids, I thought that was the most ridiculous opinion I'd ever heard. The closer our kids get to school age, the more reluctant I am to entrust them to the school system.

Probably just paranoia, I guess. But it seems like the majority of what I hear about schools anymore is how they have the same issue as the corporate world: being too focused on showing short-term gains instead of actually doing what is best over the long-term.

</comment><comment><USER27> One of my problems with the way technology is used in the classroom (at least in my kid's school) is that they're being trained how to operate applications -- not how to _use_ a computer.

</comment><comment><USER28> i'm a parent and i want to minimize distractions in the classroom and tech is the greatest distraction ever, e.g. me posting here

<comment><USER4> It is such a big problem, we have to get the proprietary tech OUT -- and let the teachers TEACH

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm aware that funds aren't necessarily discretionary, but could the money spent on all this technology be redirected to teacher salaries (or other basic supplies) if the technology is dumped? I'd be curious to see the breakdown of funds that gets used for iPads/Chromebooks/etc.

As someone who thinks that children should absolutely be learning programming as soon as possible, I don't really think that means they need brand new _whatever_ every year (not implying that's what is currently happening). When I was growing up, we had incredibly old machines (in a computer lab, or sometimes a couple shared computers pre classroom), and I think this actually worked fine (perhaps better in some respects now -- since a "benefit" of an old Apple II is that its pretty focused on the one task at hand, and can't load up other things).

</comment><comment><USER30> As a parent I basically want tech to enhance learning if possible in the classroom. I don't want tech that

1\. Replaces teachers / supervision.

2\. Distracts students.

It seems like administrators are particularly interested in 1 for cost savings reasons, and are unable to solve 2.

<comment><USER19> To be a smartass technically books qualify as #1 - and can count as #2 depending on their interests.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I work in the EdTech realm writing software to keep students on track. Technology in the classroom is a means and not and ends, it all depends on usage.

We have two "model" teachers.

The old guard teacher who started their career before computers were in classrooms, those teachers utilize our technology to accomplish a task (block websites, etc)

The other model teacher is someone who welcomes technology into the classroom, they utilize the deeper functionality of our program, and normally have more than one technology of some kind running in the classroom.

Both are great teachers, they just use our product differently.

</comment><comment><USER32> The biggest predictor by far of a child's success at school is and always remains their parent.

Adding technology cannot make up for a parent who doesn't teach their child study skills, good learning habits and places an importance on the value of education.

Parents should look at themselves if their child is not performing rather than put the blame on some tool like technology.

</comment><comment><USER33> When did books become bad? Now to save money schools give out tablets or chrome books and the kids just watch YouTube all day.

<comment><USER34> Books do have a lot of disadvantages (and I say this as someone who spends A LOT of money on books).

They are heavy, expensive, take up space, you can't search them etc.

However, I find it almost impossible to learn hard subjects from a PDF. Printed book is so much better. I wonder why.

<comment><USER35> There are studies showing that e-texts are significantly less "assimilable" than paper texts. I think the consensus speculation is that the physicality of the paper gives the brain a better understanding of the text, where you are in the text, and so on. Text on a screen, on the other hand, has an effectively infinite "depth", among other things.

<comment><USER36> I feel like I learn and retain more from printed books than e-books… but maybe that's just because I'm an old man who learned to read decades before there was such a thing as an e-book?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> "The music is not in the piano"</comment>


[Show HN] Grmbly: Find Free Food and Events - <AUTHOR> http://grmbly.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey Everyone, I created Grmbly as a way to find all the events and discounts from your area. While there are still a few bugs and issues, I wanted to introduce you to Grmbly in hopes to get some feedback for what I have so far. Thanks for checking it out.

</comment><comment><USER2> Hey. Whats your email, Id like to feature you on something to help you get a little more eyeballs.</comment>


Samsung acquires Joyent - <AUTHOR> https://www.joyent.com/blog/samsung-acquires-joyent <comment><USER2> I heard Samsung Node 7 is gonna blow up!

</comment><comment><USER3> I really hope this doesn't mean lock-ins in the future.

</comment><comment><USER4> This happened in June right?

<comment><USER5> Yes.</comment></comment>


Georgism - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism <comment><USER3> A lot of people focus on the fairness of the Land Value Tax, but the consequences of using one are just as interesting if not more. This tax has been put into practice in some cities in Pennsylvania, and there's evidence that it has a whole bunch of positive effects on the city, due to the way that it incentivises improving your property and making the most of your land (since you're going to be taxed on it pretty much the same either way).

[https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/3/6/non- glamorous-g...](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/3/6/non-glamorous- gains-the-pennsylvania-land-tax-experiment)

I think we should be replacing property taxes with land value taxes pretty much everywhere. Aside from the benefits mentioned in the Strong Towns article linked above, putting the right incentives in place to build more densely in high-demand (aka high land value) areas would be a boon to making cities and towns more walkable and more amenable to public transit, and therefore reducing sprawl and pollution. It wouldn't get us all of the way, but it would help.

<comment><USER4> You would probably want to include some tax advantaged incentives to maintain a bit of public space, public art, parks, or just green spaces. Giving over some portion of your land for public benefit, even if limited use, should be encouraged rather than penalized. It would also encourage more interesting usage patterns and development than pure land-use maximization would do. The latter might have you end up with block after block of square high rises, which might glide us past the point of diminishing returns to density.

<comment><USER5> Frederick Law Olmsted realized early on that even a huge project like Central Park could be funded from the increase in land value it created in the neighborhoods surrounding it.

<comment><USER6> The risk when extrapolating from Manhattan is when extrapolating to places significantly unlike Manhattan. When Central Park was started, Manhattan already had a population density in excess of 10,000 people per km^2. Even Boston today is little more than half that. Munich, less than half. San Jose little more than one fifth.

Central Park worked because the existing density was already high and there was no way for Manhattan to grow outward (dredging excepted).

<comment><USER7> >Central Park worked because the existing density was already high and there was no way for Manhattan to grow outward

Central Park was built before the first subway and before the bridges connecting Brooklyn, Queens and Jersey. The dirt dug from the tunnels _was_ added to lower Manhattan. Prior to elevators buildings rarely went higher than 5 stories. There was in fact ways for Manhattan to grow outwards (effectively).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Back in a different life, I worked on the Lyons Inquiry which looked at English Local Government finances. Final report was issued in 2007[1]. As part of the work we had to look into Land Value Taxes as a supplement/alternative to Council Tax and Business Rates.

There's nothing wrong with the idea. The big issues were mainly around introducing a new tax system and the massive upheavals and uncertainties businesses and people would face as part of the change. Winners and losers, etc. Given the uproar surrounding the later introduction of Universal Credit I'm glad Sir Michael chose not to recommend LVT in his report.

Anyway - anecdote time. One of the big questions we asked at the start of the Inquiry was: "Why tax property?" After long consultations with the most senior Experts and Gurus across Government and Academia the answer came back: "Because it's there."

[1] [https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/en/archive/20070411120...](https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/en/archive/20070411120000/http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/index8a20.html)

(I'm mainly commenting because it's an opportunity to show off the Inquiry's website. I built that! I had to do it in my "spare time" because we didn't have a budget for the work. This version is from 2007, but the original code was written in 2004 in PHP and after that most of the work was adapting the site to add events, display responses received, etc. Simpler times!)

<comment><USER9> > "Why tax property?"

Because its appreciation in value is largely unearned wealth, _especially_ in a country like England with a long history of aristocracy and landed gentry.

<comment><USER5> And as Adam Smith pointed out, it is there, and visible. It can't be hidden, can't be spirited out of town or offshore during the dark of night. You don't even need to know who it is that owns it; as long as they pay their land value tax, they can remain anonymous.

You might search for the term "unearned increment." It was a common expression to point out what people who reaped but did not sow receive due to our failure to collect the economic rent.

One person's unearned increment is another's — and likely many others' — lost birthright. Who is entitled to it? All of us! How do we implement this? Land value taxation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've yet to see a single valid objection as to why LVT (Land Value Tax) should not be the primary tax, yet it's nowhere to be found in the political dialogue. Such a shame that the majority of the tax burden instead falls on the working class while the landowners get a free ride.

<comment><USER11> What tax should tech companies pay then, given that the only land they really need is cheap rural land for data centers?

This taxation system does make sense for land, but there's way more economic activity happening that isn't associated with land than there is that is.

<comment><USER12> Tech companies should pay for what they use.

They are efficient at not consuming too many resources while producing a lot of value? Probably shouldn't pay much then.

But this applies not only to big tech companies but to individuals too - <USER2> shouldn't pay much if they don't consume or extract from others.

Taxes are only a last-resort mechanism to raise money in absence of proper funding model.

If you can price government provided services appropriately then you don't need taxes.

Eg. to build infrastructure (roads, networks) you can predict that it'll benefit owners of nearby properties. They will benefit by landfall increase to the value of their property because the land on which it stands becomes more valuable.

So you collect the money for the infrastructure project by land "tax" before you begin with construction.

("tax" because it's not a tax but payment for exclusive land ownership rights)

<comment><USER13> I'd like to see your "proper funding model" for the military.

Or you'd have to say that the military is part of your "last resort". But then you need to raise enough money to pay for all your last resorts. If LTV is your method, the numbers may not work (as others have said here).

Or, instead of raising all that money, you could say that we don't need that big of a military. That's not an insane position. But using desire for an LVT as the basis for deciding on the size of your military seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse.

<comment><USER12> Military is actually a great example for LVT.

If you mean defence part of it. Invading other countries is likely profitable for select groups so who else should pay for it if it gets approved.

But let's focus on defence. It's not that much individual people, who need protection, because they can flee to another country in case of war.

What actually needs protection is property which you cannot take with you. And voila that happens to be real estate (locational value).

So who should be footing the bill for defence more than owners of land who are desperate for its protection when shit hits the fan?

Similar argument can be used to justify LVT for funding of other protective services such as police and firefighters.

<comment><USER13> First: "They can flee to another country in case of war" is _terrible_ reasoning. You expect the other country to let them in? _All_ of them? Yeah, that's not the way things actually happen in this flawed world. _Most_ of them will not have the opportunity to flee. So... they should just die?

No, the military is there to protect the _people_ , not just the wealth. So your post seems like it's trying to rationalize a not-up-for-debate position, rather than actually reasoning based on reality. Georgism claims to be motivated by compassion for those who are at the mercy of rentiers, but your position shows an immense lack of compassion. "Let them flee to a different country" is the most cold-hearted thing I've heard in a _long_ time.

Second: that wasn't my point. My point was, let's see the plan where you actually produce $800 billion (or whatever the military budget is) _just_ from a land tax. Let's see what the actual rates would have to be, and what the effects of those rates would be.

<comment><USER12> Look. You only seem to want to make it complicated.

If your military is too expensive and not covered by LVT, just go ahead and add a specific tax to fund your military. If you can justify that it'll protect everybody then people will be fine with it.

Idea of LVT as a single or zero tax is a political move to get you thinking about better government funding schemes. You should think of "paying for specific services" instead of "pooling money and allocating them according to wishes of select few" as is the case of current tax systems.

<comment><USER13> > Idea of LVT as a single or zero tax is a political move to get you thinking > about better government funding schemes.

You know, if you had said that up front, we could have had a more productive discussion. But everybody's been saying "This is The Right Way(TM) to do taxes!" When non-true-believers point out all the problems, _then_ we get "it's just a talking point".

In fact, I suspect that a number of LVT supporters on this thread don't agree with you. I suspect that several of them believe that it's _the_ answer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The founding father of the Republic of China, Dr. Sun Yat-sen, was heavily influenced by Georgism. He believed all income derived from land, including appreciation of the land, should be heavily taxed. He incorporated it into three principle of the people, which is the cornerstone Kuomintang ideology.

But nobody would argue Taiwan is a Georgism heaven right now. Why? Rich and political powerful people own the land. Georgism as a practical matter is very difficult to push through.

<comment><USER15> Doesn't Taiwan (in common with other Asian countries) mostly allocate land to the private sector via long-term leases, as opposed to ownership of indeterminate duration? That would be enough to regard it as quite Georgist.

<comment><USER16> Leasehold land is mostly a thing in communist countries that claim to temporarily implement capitalism.

<comment><USER17> One example (maybe the only example?) of a capitalist country with leasehold land is Singapore. The land policy there seems to have worked relatively well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The problem with georgism is that "unimproved value" is a non-market price. It's just made up by whoever is appointed assessor.

Georgism conflates made up "value" with market "value". Ultimately some person has to assess the value of the unimproved land, meaning someone anointed to write down whatever number they want.

Value is subjective. There is no such thing as "unimproved land value", unless you're talking about the last sale price of a particular unimproved lot. Property taxes in general have this problem, but it's very acute with unimproved land. Unimproved land is one of the most non-fungible goods there is.

<comment><USER19> There is brilliant way to solve it so that value and market-value meet. Keep the land always in market.

It's called Common Ownership Self-Assessed Tax (COST).

Land owner would self-assess the value of assets they possess, pay a tax on that value. The owner would be required to sell the asset to anyone willing to purchase them at this self-assessed price.

If you value the land high for any reason and want to keep it, you must self- assess the value higher than anyone is willing to pay for it and pay tax for it. If value it too low, someone might buy it.

<comment><USER11> This seems to be directly in conflict with the idea that once you own land, it's yours. I don't see this flying at all, at least not with the current expectations of most people.

Any sizable company could easily bully any number of people out of their homes to acquire the land. It's hard to overstate how much people would hate this.

<comment><USER19> > once you own land, it's yours.

Idea that you can buy a monopoly is generally a bad idea.

<comment><USER11> Clearly people don't think so, as the vast majority do agree with private property exclusive ownership.

<comment><USER20> Ownership of land by individuals within any national border is always subject to local government power (taxation, eminent domain, police power, escheat). True exclusive land ownership is prohibitively expensive for individuals, since it would require military defense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I think commons like fish in the ocean and air quality in cities should be priced. If of you fish its not free you pay to the country whos fish you fish. If the fish is extinct or heavily MSC on the red list the price is sky high in the millions this is to protest the species and our eco system so future generations can enjoy that fish.

By pricing eco systems and sustainable common resources. We avoid tragedy of the commons where few extract all value from common resources for free.

Ie such a new economic system would price the rain forest at its true value to humans and earth eco systems.

Carbo emissions would also be priced differently.

Tradegy of the commons [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)

<comment><USER22> Sounds like you're describing Pigovian taxes: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax)

<comment><USER21> Thanks for point out Pigovian taxes!

It seems to be a field of Environmental Economics.

<comment><USER23> The land value tax is a Pigovian tax. The idea is that your exclusive use of the land denies others access and they deserve compensation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> There was a time - for over half a century - when Progress and Poverty was the best known economics book in the world. If you buy one, it has a who's who of people endorsing it, from famous economists to writers to presidents.

And somehow, in the last 50 years, we have all forgotten it, and some people only remember the land tax. Not only that, but the same debates rage today, about why there is still so much poverty even while there has been so much progress. Libertarian people know Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard before they know Henri George, about whom Milton Friedman had a lot of good things to say.

<comment><USER25> > why there is still so much poverty even while there has been so much > progress

there's been an objective improvement to the % of people in poverty over the past few centuries.

It's just that there's an even larger improvement to those who were rich, relative to the improvements to the poor.

If you had a choice, you would choose to be poor today, than to be poor a century or two ago.

<comment><USER24> I upvoted you, to counteract the downvotes.

You are correct... obviously science and technology have improved the lot of the ordinary person, and made us all much, much richer.

The main issue is that automation tends to hurt workers while it helps consumers. And since most people are both — they have to work harder and harder just to stay in place. Until we put in place a UBI and universal health insurance, pass overtime laws to shorten the workweek etc. we will have technology creating demand shocks for human labor, as happened before the Great Depression on farms, and has gradually happened in manufacturing, and is about to happen to white collar jobs and menial jobs.

In the 50s, a single man could support an entire household on one paycheck. Women didn't compete with men for those jobs, but rather did jobs that now are not valued by the market. Automation didn't make employers not need their employees, so they would retain them for decades as they built experience.

Today, we have two year stint— wait that was 20 years ago, today we have temp jo— ait no, that was last decade, now it's the gig economy with no protections. You see where I'm going with this? Automation and outsourcing is once again putting people in a race to the bottom.

Yes, electronics are cheaper than ever. But some things like rent / land just go up in price, they need a UBI. Paid for by land taxes maybe.

 _Edit: funny, I am getting downvoted also, for agreeing with you_

<comment><USER26> > Edit: funny, I am getting downvoted also, for agreeing with you

If the parent was being downvoted for a certain view, why is this at all surprising?

<comment><USER24> Because downvotes are not supposed to be for disagreement. This is HN. The standard is to downvote low quality comments only.

<comment><USER27> Downvotes are explicitly a tool for when people disagree.

> > [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171)

Although in a practical sense that is bowing to the inevitable.

<comment><USER24> Not according to the HN rules

<comment><USER27> You might like to include a quote for that, because I've read the rules and I didn't see anything to suggest pg changed his stance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> A great essay on Georgism:

"Georgism is an accelerationism, as it attempts to unchain capital—not from the restraints of humanity, but those of land, which eats cake in the stands as it watches capital and labor fight over crumbs."

[https://gravitylobby.club/trashcan.html](https://gravitylobby.club/trashcan.html)

</comment><comment><USER29> > The main Georgist policy recommendation is a tax assessed on land value. > Georgists argue that revenues from a land value tax (LVT) can be used to > reduce or eliminate existing taxes (for example, on income, trade, or > purchases) that are unfair and inefficient.

Fine in theory, the reality is that you get nailed for property taxes AND income taxes AND sales taxes AND everything else. If a government CAN tax it, it will and will not restrain itself.

<comment><USER30> Depends on the state. Several state have no income tax. New Hampshire lacks income and sales tax.

<comment><USER29> All states have federal income taxes and all states have federal sales taxes (by way of tariffs).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> [https://www.progress.org/articles/a-more-prosperous- vancouve...](https://www.progress.org/articles/a-more-prosperous-vancouver)

</comment><comment><USER32> Monopoly was based on, or one might say perverted from, a game created to inculcate Georgist ideas in children: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord%27s_Game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord%27s_Game) .

</comment><comment><USER12> This part about Georgist economics is quite startling.

You have an economical theory following in the footsteps of classical economists at the beginning of industrial revolution like Adam Smith and David Ricardo. It becomes incredibly popular with massive amount of followers. You were not an intellectual back then unless you knew about this school.

Somehow it offered a way out of the societal mess, but costing great fortunes to the economical parazites - monopolies (neo-aristocracy).

Some people in the school argue it was strategically removed from the society by funding a competing economical theory which removed land from the 3 factors of production and kept only 2 - labor and capital. Thus divert the attention from the real parazite (monopolist, rentier and landlord - someone who monopolizes land) to the conflict between employer and employee as depicted in the Marxist view on societal problems - which actually never existed.

So the new aristocracy (Rockefellers, Carneggies and others) decided to fund and found universities with the main purpose of destroying Georgism and promoting red herring economical theories instead - such as Marxism and neoclassical economics, both of which remove the parasitic monopolist and landlord out of the picture.

By not fighting with their enemy directly and thus making the georgist theory indirectly more popular it was a smart move for them to silence it down by promoting other theories instead, which is exactly what happened - from the most popular theory of economics to nonexistent to this day. No mention of it in economics curricula around the world - which suggests economics as taught in universities today is a fraudulent wannabe science or form of propaganda or both.

[http://dollarsandsense.org/blog/2017/04/the-dissing-of- henry...](http://dollarsandsense.org/blog/2017/04/the-dissing-of-henry- george.html)

Mason Gaffney (famous Georgist) wrote a lengthy piece on this topic - Neoclassical Economics As a Stratagem against Henry George

[http://masongaffney.org/publications/K1Neo- classical_Stratag...](http://masongaffney.org/publications/K1Neo- classical_Stratagem.CV.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER5> May I suggest that if you've not read Henry George's thought yourself yet, you take some time with them? There are two sections of the Schalkenbach site devoted to them -- first, the books, articles and speeches themselves, and then an introduction to HG's thought, with perspectives from a number of writers, mostly recent. With the latter group is a short version of Progress and Poverty entitled "Significant Paragraphs."

His vision and clarity are remarkable and inspiring. 120 years ago, his ideas were widely understood throughout the English speaking world. (There were also a lot of hilarious misinterpretations by people who hadn't read, as is often the case.)

And if you explore a bit, you'll find some good websites and blogs devoted to his thought.

<comment><USER23> One of the most superficial ways that Georgism obviously beats Marxism is that Georgists will tell someone interested exactly what to read, will acknowledge very explicitly the few parts that are incorrect or misguided.

Marxists meanwhile hem and haw about what an aspiring Marxist should read and will hand-wave away any contradictions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> All income should be taxed the same.

We should move to a a progressive tax system with zero deductions, eliminate capital gains, and inheritance taxes. Make the top tax rate of over $5M be 54%.

We already know the effective tax rate for each bracket. Once we factor in the additional tax revenue from the top bracket we can adjust the other rates.

I would consider a true capital gain exception. For the investment in new and private busines investment that generates revenue. This horseshit of buying stock and holding it for a period of time is NOT capital investment. The company does not benefit from the purchase of stock once they go public. It's a scam to allow the rich to avoid taxes.

<comment><USER9> > All income should be taxed the same.

Why?

There's a big difference morally between earned and unearned income.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Why should only bigger communities together own something? If I want to fuck out in the middle of nowhere and do my own thing, why should others be allowed to harass me there?

Additionally the government printing money, giving it to us and then requiring us to give it back does not create value, it creates a loop that causes work for nothing.

<comment><USER17> Under Georgism, in practical terms, you would still be able to do that. The value of land in the middle of nowhere would be essentially 0, so you wouldn't need to pay much LVT. You may still need to pay some LVT, to reflect that the state is still providing you some services (in particular, enforcing your claim to the land).

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> So this seems all well and good for urban areas but what about rural land ownership? Or is that not a concern here?

<comment><USER5> Rural areas don't need the kinds of infrastructure that urban areas need, but they need some. They need schools, they need roads and maintenance. They'd love to have broadband. They may need drainage or water systems that serve undense communities. They need emergency services, courts, and a variety of other things that civilized people who live in communities find valuable. (My use of "civilized" is in no way a criticism.) We are social beings, and there are things that are more efficiently done by the community as a whole.

Earlier, someone referred to the Henry George Theorem. I think it holds in rural places, too. And unimproved land value seems to me to be the reasonable "tax base."

<comment><USER35> My question was more to do with how the improved value would scale for rural land that had a lot of use but can't generate as much income. Many rural businesses require a lot of land area but only produce a modest income which is possible under the current setup because land prices and taxes are low. There would have to be a lot of consideration given to the population density and the types of improvements made.

<comment><USER5> Rural land values will remain low until there is significant economic activity and particular demand for land IN THAT PLACE. To the extent that land, say, 10 or 20 miles away is just as suited for the user's purposes, the next piece of land that comes on the market is quite adequate, and the rural business can locate wherever, not pay a premium.

I am reminded of a famous passage from Henry George's book "Progress and Poverty" (whose subtitle is "An inquiry into the cause of industrial depressions and of increase of want with increase of wealth ... The Remedy") known as The Savannah. [http://progressandpoverty.org/files/george.henry/pp042.html](http://progressandpoverty.org/files/george.henry/pp042.html), starting at the 10th paragraph (the paragraphs are numbered in this particular file).

Incidentally, George dedicated P&P as follows:

"To those who, seeing the vice and misery that spring from the unequal distribution of wealth and privilege, feel the possibility of a higher social state and would strive for its attainment."

<comment><USER35> I'll admit that it is well written and makes for a compelling description of the growth of an urban center but it doesn't answer the questions it poses. It seems to say that the value of land and resources increases as the population does, this is true to some extent in that as demand increases for limited resources the value of those resources is driven higher. New goods and services are needed to support larger populations and more of them. A coal deposit may be worthless to a rancher since his concern is with the prairie that lays over top of it and he has neither the need nor the means to make use of it but if an urban center grows up beside that prairie then he may be coaxed into selling his land rights for a greater reward than his herd can provide. This is all perfectly sensible but doesn't say anything about how we should assign a fundamental value to those resources. Nor does it describe what should be done in a world in which that savannah is for the most part already settled and exploited or how we would replace an extant system.

It is not always true that a resource based business can relocate. They are often tied to the land they are on due to some local condition whether that is suitability for farming, grazing, the presence of natural deposits or features such as waterways. Only urban businesses that simply require square footage are purely fungible when it comes to location (although that often isn't entirely true since urban landscapes have their own happenstances that make certain businesses viable).

A lot of this seems to have the flavour of a just-so story that ignores a great deal of important ground truths.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Is it what Norway is doing with their Sovereign wealth fund financed by nationalizing oil surplus?

</comment><comment><USER37> Allegedly, Karl Marx called Georgism "capitalism's last ditch ". I can't find a source, but this was an interesting collection of historical thoughts: [https://merionwest.com/2019/06/02/through-letters-the-gap- be...](https://merionwest.com/2019/06/02/through-letters-the-gap-between- henry-george-and-karl-marx/)

<comment><USER5> Many people who were first influenced by Henry George's ideas became impatient with the "organicness" of them, and moved to promoting socialism because they thought it would achieve their objectives more quickly. But George was convinced that it had to grow organically.

George's simple reform would provide the level playing field, and not involve "command and control." George was very much the small-d democrat and very much the capitalist -- but a purer capitalism, not land monopoly capitalism. And he could accurately be called a mensch!

George Bernard Shaw was perhaps the most famous of them.

Henry George had public debates with several socialists (Serge Shevitch was one - 1887; Henry Hyndman another). They're great reading.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> An interesting and derived point of view is geolibertarianism : [http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html](http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html)

</comment><comment><USER39> Ends justify means?

</comment><comment><USER9> For a libertarian take on Georgism, see Geolibertarianism:

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


Show HN: Simple and privacy focused serverless comments with kudos - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/kucosjs/kucos <comment><USER2> seems like a fun stack.

typo "that' s"</comment>


No-one understood our idea, but now it's worth over $1bn - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50138290 <comment><USER2> How are such meteoric valuations for companies with relatively smaller moats (Airtable, slack, etc.) justified?

Why can't Microsoft/Apple/Google throw $20M/annum in OpEx, clone these products and flood the sales channels these upstarts are going for?

<comment><USER3> There's sort of a lifecycle for applications. Early on your userbase needs one set of features/UI and later, as your userbase matures and gains experience both with your product and the applications space, feature needs and UI requirements change. This leaves room 'at the bottom' for a company to come in, offer a small set of features and take some marketshare of maybe the less sophisticated users.

What stops an entrenched player from simply copying these impinging apps is a couple if things. First it's really hard to make a product for multiple market segments. You either have to make big UI compromises, or have some way to modify the UI as users gain sophistication. The programmer solution, looking at open source software, seems to always be to add yet another config/preference option. This sort of works, but now you also need to advertise and educate around this option. Second, and probably more important for comapanies though, is that they are almost universally incapable of supporting products that are intended to canabalize their own products. This is particularly problematic when the second product is meant to take low margin customers. Most businesses would prefer to spend the effort on attracting and converting high margin customers, while shedding low margin customers. It's the classic business school story of how to undermine the steel industry: focus on rebar first. since no mill wants to make such a low value item, they will literally subcontract work to you, allowing you to gain traction in the industry, and then you can slowly improve your offerings.</comment></comment>