Five years of Scala and counting: debunking some myths - <AUTHOR> http://manuel.bernhardt.io/2015/11/13/5-years-of-scala-and-counting-debunking-some-myths-about-the-language-and-its-environment/ <comment><USER2> Although I agree with most of what the author says here about scala and its benefits and features, this is hardly a debunking and more of a strongly opinionated defense. Some of the arguments are along the lines of "hey SBT isn't just a bunch of symbols" or "I upgraded my MacBook and compilation times are not a problem" or "tooling is better now". Reassurances yes, debunking hardly.

Scala compilation time is probably the worst problem I have with scala, and it still is frankly. I have seen no evidence that this has improved from personal experience and after talking with devs I know working in large scala code bases (Foursquare, Twitter).

Even if there are speed improvements in the scala compiler in future versions, the author doesn't address binary incompatibility between major scala versions either which, along with slow compilation times, makes it a serious PITA to upgrade to a scala version that might actually compiler faster.

[edit] hit submit too early last time, re-edited after regathering my thoughts.

<comment><USER3> Scala developers end up on the defensive because many of the claims are either because of misunderstandings or are fashion driven, being repeated ad-nauseam many times by people with only a superficial experience of the language.

For example I'm going to make the claim that SBT indeed isn't just a bunch of symbols, but rather one of the best build management tools in existence. For anybody going to challenge that I'm going to start mentioning the complete clusterfuck of other platforms and languages, like that of C/C++, or that of Python, or that of Javascript, or that of C#/.NET, or that of Haskell. SBT not only does demonstrably a better job than most, but works well out of the box and is relatively pain free. It has its own set of problems of course, but what tool doesn't.

Compatibility issues are real. But you know, the nice thing about those compatibility issues is that it forced the community to come up with solutions. At least Scala and SBT are addressing compatibility issues, whereas the transition from Java 6 to later versions is proving to be next to impossible and I don't think I have to mention Python 3 or ECMAScript 6.

Compilation times haven't been that much of an issue for us because our codebase is split into services and libraries that have a reasonable size. And on the switch from Scala 2.10 to 2.11 I definitely saw an improvement, with the claims of 30% being about right.

I do agree that they can do better, taking a look at similar languages with a slightly better story, like Haskell. However what people are usually missing is that this is usually a trade-off with compile-time safety.

The more static a language is, the harder it is to compile it. The compilation cost for a dynamic language like Javascript is zero, the cost being completely amortized with everything happening directly at runtime. When going from Javascript to Java or C#, for people that prefer Java or C#, people go from zero to a very noticeable and resource intensive AOT compilation step and many times this tradeoff is worth it (depending on whom you ask) for safety, performance or tooling reasons. Well, Scala is a more static language than Java, it infers a lot of things, it has better generics, it does implicits which can then model type-classes and even the infamous CanBuildFrom pattern and so on, giving you a nice balance between productivity and safety in a static language. And that doesn't come for free.

<comment><USER4> > whereas the transition from Java 6 to later versions is proving to be next > to impossible

I've never heard of anyone having issues going from Java 6 to later versions, at the language level or JVM level.

<comment><USER5> Android?

Without community hacks.

<comment><USER6> Yes, but is that because of Java compatibility (which has been generally exemplary) or maybe because of other issues (I'm thinking of Oracle vs Google)?

<comment><USER5> First it starts by Google playing cheap and doing a Microsoft move on Sun.

Before I get the usual Sun CEO approved it reply:

[http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/my_attitude_on_oracle...](http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/my_attitude_on_oracle_v)

Second, at least on lambdas they could generate inner classes for older devices and update DEX format now that Dex is compiled AOT to native code. So only the compiler dex2aot would be required to be updated.

Currently there is zero public feedback on the new compiler chain (Jack & Jill), but from the sources it appears it is Java 6.5 all the way.

They have some unit tests that appear to be related to Java 8, but no one knows what is their idea.

In a few years (by Java 10 timeframe), according to the actual roadmap which might still change, Java will have modules, a JNI replacement, reifeid generics, value types, new array type, GPGPU support, AOT compiler....

If nothing changes, assuming Android 4.4 devices will be gone, the only change will be from Java 6.5 to Java 7, if Android's team attitude is to stay like it currently is.

But at least they spend time doing those stupid devbytes videos, doing continuous buggy releases of the support library and Google services.

Android Java is definitely the second coming of J++/J#.

<comment><USER7> _AOT compiler...._

Compiler to native code? aren't the big performance gains done in the JVM?

<comment><USER5> Not if startup time matters or if you need to deploy into systems where dynamic linking is not possible.

The majority of the commercial third party JVM vendors do offer AOT as part of their toolchain.

Similarly .NET always had a JIT/AOT model. The novelty with .NET Native is static compilation and integration of the Visual C++ backend.

I don't if this is true, but I read somewhere that AOT was tabu at Sun.

Oracle is now improving Java to cover the use cases where it still fails short vs other alternatives, so having an AOT compiler in the reference JDK instead of forcing devs to get it from a third party is part of their roadmap.

How it will look like in the end, it is not 100% clear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've been using Scala primarily for a few years now after using Java since the 90's. Well written Scala code is much more pleasant to write and maintain than Java (true even for JDK 8). Scala's feature set is great, but you need to have good taste to use it effectively. It's a bit like the gang of four design patterns which some developers, especially Java developers, go looking for places to apply as many of them as possible. Rather consider where the features add value - they are _very_ useful when used appropriately. When used sensibly Scala is amazing. You just have to keep an eye on the new guys so that they don't just use advanced features all over the place where they aren't appropriate. Fortunately that type of behaviour isn't that common but does feed the Scala is complex meme. After a few years with Scala I consider my time spent primarily with Java as lost years.

<comment><USER9> Agreed, love Scala, and I think it can lead to super maintainable code bases, but you do have to be careful. The worst offence is probably when people start to get comfortable with implicits, and start throwing them everywhere, definitely need a good code review process to stop that.

Also, the article left out probably my two favourite parts about Scala - awesome language level support for concurrency, and pattern matching. Whenever I go to languages without these features, I really miss them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Scala is my favorite language at the moment. I've used (professionally) Java, C#, Perl, Python, Ruby, Objective-C, and Swift. I played with Go and started writing a simple library ([https://github.com/joslinm/validate](https://github.com/joslinm/validate)) to get acquainted with it.

Above all else, what always gets to me with Scala is its powerful generics. It truly is first-class. I'm excited for macros as well.

<comment><USER11> As someone interested in Scala but _barely_ having used it, how do Scala's generics differ from C#'s reified generics? I've always found it difficult using generics on the JVM in comparison to the CLR because of boxing. I did a preliminary search but couldn't really find a good comparison between C# and Scala generics that was up to date.

<comment><USER12> Scala has higher kinded types (or, generics over generics). This is amazing (but can take a while to see why/get confortable with). .NET doesn't have this feature.

<comment><USER11> Thanks, this is what I was hoping someone would write!

I searched around a bit about HKT's and although I can't say I understand them, I can see how the ability to do something like provide a constructor over a type could be useful. It feels like it has a lot of use in writing very general-purpose libraries, or perhaps a DSL that can map to a wide variety of different types. Interesting!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Scala has so many complex features

I think operator overloading and implicit conversions are the biggest problem.

You look at Scala code and first don't get anything because it's full of library specific symbols.

Then these implicit conversions mangle your objects behind your back and you don't even know what's happening at run time.

I like the ideas behind these features, but as a beginner, they always scared me away after looking into "production code" :\

<comment><USER14> Implicit conversions are now considered an anti-pattern and not recommended.

<comment><USER15> Is "Pimp my Library", as used to be recommended by Odersky, also an anti- pattern now? It uses implicit conversions, if I'm not mistaken.

<comment><USER16> No, Pimp my Library is not an anti-pattern. It even received dedicated syntax with `implicit class`es. Contrary to general implicit conversions, implicit classes are not dangerous because things are not actually _converted_ as far as the developer can see (yes, under the hood, it's an implicit conversion, but it doesn't bite you). You're simply adding methods on existing classes, which is similar to extension methods in several other languages.

<comment><USER17> And in fact, if you combine implicit classes with values classes (e.g. implicit class RichFoo(val value: Foo) extends AnyVal { ... }) then you're effectively just adding extension methods, and there's not even an allocation involved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I find that Scala is pretty successful if you are already a seasoned Java developer. Coming from other ecosystems, simple questions like "How do I use an execution context other than the global one?" are answered in terms of established Java practices. ("Just call this with an Executor.") And down the rabbit hole you must go. That plus a ton of leaky abstractions (also requiring a knowledge of standard Java practices) has been a big source of frustration for me. But I suppose that if you were already dealing with these quirks in Java, Scala is a nice improvement.

<comment><USER19> This was one of my largest barriers in learning Scala. It seems that one needs to learn Java first because you're going to have to understand how it and Scala interact at some point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I really don't foresee any of these alternative JVM languages getting much traction in my industry (Defense/Aerospace).

I use Scala where I can at work (mostly smaller projects where I am the only developer and can thus get away with it), but every place I've worked over the last few years has been staffed with developers who are actively hostile to the thought of using any language other than Java. And right now, Java is king in the Defense industry. It's the new Ada, except I'd rather be coding in Ada than Java.

On my own side projects, I don't use Scala, because I would never choose to target the JVM for greenfield development. But that's just me.

<comment><USER21> european space agency is/was actively hiring scala devs specifically

<comment><USER5> Yep,

[https://ileriseviye.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/how-and-why- is-...](https://ileriseviye.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/how-and-why-is-scala- used-in-aerospace-industry/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Using Scala for about 5 years after being a Java dev for another 5 years. This post captures my view pretty accurately as well. Including book recommendations. I want to believe that most software engineers don't avoid checking scala just because of some "one star" post about it or other rants.

<comment><USER23> I would add 'Scala in depth' to the book recommendations, it's similar to 'Effective java', the book you need after you have used the language for more than one year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> As far as books go, Scala for the Impatient is one of the few I'd recommend. The first half of it is available for free

[https://www.typesafe.com/resources/e-book/scala-for-the- impa...](https://www.typesafe.com/resources/e-book/scala-for-the-impatient)

</comment><comment><USER25> _But seriously now: don't let yourself be scared off by "category type theory" and other fancy-sounding words. You do not need all of this theoretical background in order to learn and become a fluent Scala developer. I know, because I have not bothered to look at those things until 4 years with the language. And when I did it's not like I had an epiphany, throwing out all the code I had written until then. In fact, I was monading all over the place, just had no idea how the things I was building and using were called._

Works for the author, I suppose. Me, I'd prefer to have a solid grasp of the abstractions I'm using -- and an equally solid understanding of how the programming constructs I'm using correspond to those abstractions -- before using them to crank out production code.

<comment><USER26> Here's an example. At my job, we make heavy use of scalaz Disjunctions and Validations along with Applicative/Monadic combinators to handle errors. Everyone on the team is capable of writing and modifying error-handling logic that uses these tools, even though not every developer has a strong working. understanding of what an Applicative or Monad is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> great read! I'm 3 years into the language and brought it into my company. As part of mentoring other devs coming from a web background, I kept repeating the mantra, "make it work the simplest way first" then explore the options scala gives you. As long as there were units tests for the logic, the details could change. The more I use the language, the more fascinated I become. Heck, I just learned about Bottom types last week!

<comment><USER15> I can see why you have this mantra, but doesn't this approach lead to programming in Scala as if it were Java (aka "you can program in Java in any language"), which results in unidiomatic code?

<comment><USER21> only if you believe the java way is the simplest way.....which I don't think is true

<comment><USER15> Good point! I absolutely agree with you, and it's very likely I've misread the parent post. It's just that sometimes I hear people at my workplace conflate "the simplest way" with "the way I'm more familiar with, coming from Java".

<comment><USER27> should have put an example to help clarify. For example, instead of throwing implicits around, i'd recommend they manually declare arguments like ExecutionContexts. Also sometimes the best way to teach someone from an OO background, is to first let them write their code imperatively, then work with them gradually to move to more functional approaches.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I've recently started on Rust. Can someone who knows both Rust and Scala draw comparison on the myths the author is talking about?

<comment><USER29> I don't really know Scala, but...

Rust doesn't have inheritance, let alone multiple inheritance. We do have traits, which I assume work similarly, it looks like.

On to the ones that are listed under "myths":

IDE support is coming along: [https://www.rust- lang.org/ides.html](https://www.rust-lang.org/ides.html)

I rarely hear people say that Rust has too many features, or if they do, they're comparing it to a language with a GC.

Rust's compiler can be faster, and it's getting better all the time. [https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sanxiyn/sandbox/master/rus...](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sanxiyn/sandbox/master/rust/time.png)

Rust doesn't really have traditional OOP, so yeah, a lot of it does go out the window.

Rust doesn't have some Scala features like Higher Kinded Types that lead to this kind of perception, so it's not quite the same. Our type system can be hard for totally different reasons ;). The borrow checker stuff.

<comment><USER26> > We do have traits, which I assume work similarly, it looks like.

Rust traits are more like typeclasses. Scala traits more more like Java interfaces w/default definitions and some other things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> In Java its such a pain to always account for possible exceptions. You have explicitly catch it or explicitly pass it on. Scala frees you of this hassle by not enforcing anything. So handy.

<comment><USER31> Explicit exceptions in method signatures are a language design mistake. If you need to handle multiple classes of return values, that's what sum types are for. Exceptions exist to communicate _secret messages_ from a raiser to a handler, preventing anyone in the middle from intercepting them.

<comment><USER30> Maybe. But Scala lives on the JVM so it needs to deal with them.

<comment><USER32> JVM doesn't care about checked exception. It's enforced only in the java code by javac.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I had read somewhere that there were talks of creating a smaller subset of Scala, one that's easier to learn. I believe it wasn't going to have implicit arguments (or conversions?).

I think Odersky had mentioned something of this kind. Anybody else remembers something of this sort?

<comment><USER34> They could call it Java.

<comment><USER8> By the same logic SVN is a simplified Git

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> > Play has both APIs in Java and Scala, so you can slowly transition from one > to the other (provided that you architect your application correctly > especially in terms of database access).

What does he mean by "architecting the application correctly"? I have a project in production which uses Play framework in Java and I'd be interesting in transitioning this to Scala? What should I look out for?

This is the only discussion I could find for such a migration: [http://grokbase.com/t/gg/play- framework/151wb9eebq/migrate-s...](http://grokbase.com/t/gg/play- framework/151wb9eebq/migrate-step-by-step-from-java-ebean-to-scala)

</comment><comment><USER36> The problem with Scala is it that it's too complicated. This results in slow compile times, poor IDE support, and on and on. I worked with Scala for about 10 months back in 2011. Never again.

<comment><USER37> None of these things are really a problem any more. Scala has come a long long way since 2011.

<comment><USER36> I am going to give it another look. It has been quite a while.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I am curious to what extent Paul Phillips lecture [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jh94gowim0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jh94gowim0)] is just a rant or in-depth Scala criticism. If he's right then seems that we should not expect bright future for Scala.

I am wondering what Scala experts would say (I don't know Scala sufficiently to trust my judgment)?

<comment><USER39> The rant is mostly about the Scala collections API. I think the "expert" opinion is that yes, Scala collections are broken and incredibly complex, and theres a proposal for new implementations here:

[https://github.com/lampepfl/dotty/issues/818](https://github.com/lampepfl/dotty/issues/818)

I think the talk was pretty influential, but atleast the community is responding. I don't think it spells doom for Scala.

<comment><USER40> More than the specific problems with collections that he talks about, I think the problem of allowing clearly broken methods into the standard collections is the real issue. Why would they accept an implementation f map where map isn't safely composable? Why would they use incorrect type signatures? Why would they allow so many casts? I haven't finished the video yet but every issue he brings up seems to be about more than a mistake in a library.

It looks to me like you can't trust Scala because the people behind it are ok with accepting clearly broken or poor quality implementations.

<comment><USER41> You don't have to trust us (though you can -- trust me :-)). Take a look at the source, check some references of happy Scala users. Submit a PR to fix what you don't like. Ask a question on our forums/stack overflow.

Whatever you decide, I'd recommend rounding out your view of Scala by consulting more sources than Paul's rants. There's a lot of hyperbole there. This of course doesn't mean he's wrong, and we've certainly listened to him and fixed some of the issues he complained about (I was in the front row of that talk).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I can see how Scala is an improvement over, e.g., Java, and other languages with weaker type systems and bad abstractions.

Since it's often the case big and complex languages succeed, for some definition of success, I'm sure it will be as successful as Java.

<comment><USER26> To be fair, the only at all comparably production-ready languages that __don 't __have substantially "weaker type systems and bad abstractions" compared to Scala are Haskell and to a lesser extent Ocaml and F#.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Scala is my favorite language. I use it every day. And yet, the language, and its ecosystem, have big problems nobody wants to tackle. They have nothing to do with the myths people talk about though.

For me, the biggest problem is how fractured the community is. Scala is not a very opinionated language at all, so work from different subcultures barely looks like the same language. Working with scalaz? You won't touch the standard library at all. Finagle? Twitter came up with a Futures library before it came standard with Scala, and there seems to be no interest in migrating out of that, so you have multiple libraries for basic concurrency (along with the scalaz version of course). Those groups, that use the language so differently, do not share many interests when it comes to the evolution of the language, what parts are good and bad. This leads to much infighting, and an environment where instead of learning Scala, what people learn is that the community is divided, and often very rude. It makes learning a challenge. Each community also has a different idea of what it is considered acceptable behavior to other human beings. The scala mailing lists has postings that make your average Linus Tovalds post seem sensible and polite.

Another part that makes learning a challenge is how different application level Scala and library level Scala are. In a language like Java, it's easy to go into the standard library, or into whatever popular library you want to use, and look under the covers, even and a newbie, and learn how to write idiomatic Java (whether that's good or not). In Scala, the standard library, and pretty much every major library out there, use language features that are not needed at all for regular use, but are very valuable for building libraries, and yet make the code very hard to understand for someone new. For the worst case of all, look at the source code of Shapeless: Even very seasoned Scala programmers find it difficult to understand, because it's attempting to do things that the designers never even expected people to do with the language.

Another problem, related to the previous one, is that since it's so easy to build DSLs in Scala, pretty much every major library does it. Internal DSLs, implemented around a bunch of implicit conversions that you need to understand pretty well to solve syntax errors. For instance, say you want to use json in your spray web service. There are two ways to do it: Follow a tutorial without understanding it and hope you do not have errors, or spend the time to understand the type class pattern.

And that leads to the last, problem: There are basic intro articles out there. There's information for experts. But the route from basic knowledge to mastery is a big cliff with very little information, and it's easy for people to give up. As it is now, Scala is a language better learned tribally: You have a few gurus, and when complicated questions happen, go ask one of the gurus to see if he can teach you about whatever problem you are having, or about how a feature really applies to your problem.

I love Scala, I really do, but if the community problems are not resolved, the rest of the problems will not get resolved. It will remain a hard language to learn, and other languages that right now do not offer all the rich features of Scala will just steal what they can and replace it instead, just because they have better, less fractured communities.

<comment><USER41> (Scala team lead @ Typesafe here). Thanks for the kind & insightful words!

We absolutely want to resolve the issues you're referring to, and we welcome everyone's help and input to speed up this process. We're working on refining our process and our plans regarding library evolution, especially in light of the recent controversy around adding a JSON module to our platform.

The first (baby) step I've taken towards bringing the communities closer was embarking on modularizing the standard library in 2.11, which will continue in 2.13. The goal was to create room for other modules to compete with the ones that were originally in scala-library and to allow community maintainers to step forward and own a module (every module now has a community maintainer, who is in charge of everything, short of promoting staged artifacts to maven). I'm very pleased with how this turned out, and we'll continue this effort in 2.13, where we'll focus on modularizing the collections library. (We alternate compiler and library-focussed releases for smoother upgrades, 2.12 is focussed on making the most of Java 8's new VM features.)

Two more examples, in which I was not involved: the design of the 2.10 Future API, which was done in collaboration with Twitter; I'm also very excited about the prospect of including Reactive Streams in JDK 9!

Personally, I prefer to write a bit of boilerplate over relying too much on extreme implicit magic to eradicate every last line of unneeded code, but I think it's cool that you can do that it you like to. (Disclaimer: I did a lot of work on enabling this implicit magic, between implementing support for higher-kinded types and improving the interaction of implicit search, type inference and dependent method types.)

The whole Scala Team is very concerned with the experience of our community in our forums, and we do our best to step in when things get out of hand, including banning repeat offenders (which we don't do lightly). Because Scala fuses so many different PL concepts, it's not possible to make everybody happy all the time.

I really like Martin's quote on using abstraction responsibly:

> [...] trading abstraction capabilities for basic features > is exactly the > opposite of my design philosophy. > My design philosophy is more like free > speech. > We protect it even if it is abused. In fact free speech would be a > > fiction if there were no abuses. In the same way, abstraction > > capabilities would be a fiction if there was no over-abstraction. > I > completely agree this approach comes with challenges. It is our > > responsibility as good engineers to realize that abstractions have > > benefits as well as costs, and to collectively develop designs where > the > benefits exceed the costs.

Regarding learning the language, I believe we have a lot of excellent post- tutorial material out there, including many books and the Coursera classes. There are many stages of Scala mastery, but you don't have to get to the boss level in order to be productive. Part of the joy of Scala for me is that you can keep learning new features and improve your understanding of how it all fits together (quite nicely, if you ask me).

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> There's just one sad trouble with the current state of tooling: Scala and SBT in IntelliJ IDEA do not go together.

Each Scala run inside SBT-enabled project takes >10 secs minimum to run. Every single run. SBT make is invoking the full SBT startup sequence and is unable to reuse the session. This comes from the context of using Play Framework where you can't substitute SBT with something else.

I do hope that SBT server becomes a reality at some point and IntelliJ Scala plugin is able to fully use it.

<comment><USER45> I've been developing a Play app in IntelliJ for the past year. When run in development mode ($ activator run) it recompiles only the necessary files when you make a change, save, and reload the page in the web browser. I can even switch branches to another developer's work and don't have to restart the server. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Maybe you have something set up incorrectly.

<comment><USER44> SBT and Play work together great and activator run recompiles incrementally, this setup is OK.

The issue is with IntelliJ -- when I want to run Play app from IntelliJ, not from command prompt, to get easier debug support when running the app or junit tests. Running tests from IntelliJ is more convenient than using activator shell.

Yes, I could provide -jvm-debug flag to the activator command line but this works only when fork:=false, which can't be always used.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> An interesting note is that new language Kotlin which aims to the similar niche has many things mentioned in the article. It handles NPE a bit differently and I'm not sure about multiple inheritance, but compilation is definitely fast, IDE support is wonderful, no need to learn another build tool and no monads allowed (joke, but language is more practical, than academical).

For me it's a strong competitor to Scala, if you want to use something better than Java.

</comment><comment><USER47> What are scala people's opinion of nested functions? Is it good practice to use them? I never liked them because it clutters up the functions and makes them bigger. I like have short functions. And looking for them in the code isn't really a problem.

<comment><USER48> I started writing an explanation about how nested functions are great, but at some point you stop making a distinction between `val a: A` and `val a: A => B` in the scope of a def.

A bunch of my code is interspersed with these function vals. It's useful when within a function when you repeatedly apply the same transformation in multiple places. It kinda makes the code easier to read once you stop making that distinction.

re:short functions - I am not as much in favor of them as I used to be before. IMO, splitting functions into smaller ones are fine as long as there is some "meaning" to splitting them ( mostly related to your domain logic ). But I have stopped splitting functions just to make it smaller. When your code is referentially transparent, I think the size of your function really matters less.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Great post. On a side note, I loved the blog design. Simple and elegant, and the font is crisp!

</comment><comment><USER50> To put it simple - Scala puts together the best parts of Standard ML (functional programming - so one could reason about code as a form of calculus, plus pattern matching on type-constructors with destructuring, partial application, etc) Smalltalk (everything is an object and objects communicate via messages passing by calling methods - the original concept of "pure OO" by Alan Kay and the best part of Smalltalk implementation) plus foundation ideas from Erlang (an Actor and messaging DSL based on high-order procedures and some syntactic sugar). Together it is already worth switching, especially afrer realizing what a crap Java is compared to this conscise and well-researched mix of complementing each other features). Scala is also famous for its emphasis on immutable collections, which makes GC less painful.

Scala initially is a product of a single remarkably well-trained mind, instead of committee of mediocrity.

Clojure, BTW, was a solo remake of Scala's approach (Java interloop, emphasis on collections, immutability, etc) while starting from Common Lisp (strong, dynamic typing) instead of Standard ML (strong, static) as its basis.

Actually, the Scala course on Coursera is very good start.

<comment><USER51> > the best parts of Standard ML

Hindley-Milner type inference?

I really miss having proper type inference in Scala. I'll admit, the "we will infer the types as whatever javac would have said they should be from left to right" is a lot more effective than one would think, but still feels rather primitive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Is it sad how Java developers live their lives?

<comment><USER53> The do seem to live in a capsule, out there in some parallel universe.

<comment><USER54> Or are HNers the ones living in a capsule (or more pointedly, in a bubble :) )?</comment></comment></comment>


Infographic: Support for Trump Impeachment Higher Than Nixon - <AUTHOR> https://www.ibtimes.com/infographic-support-trump-impeachment-higher-nixon-2833165 <comment><USER2> 59% people are against it, compared to 62% against Nixon's.

35% are for it, compared to 25% to Nixon's.

Those numbers are really close and should be included in the title. The title is formed like people support Trump's impeachment.

The main point of those numbers is America does not support impeachment, by far. The article and title do not reflect this point, it just wants to lead with "More Americans want to see U.S. President Donald Trump impeached"...</comment>


Ask HN: How do you go about hiring a designer - <AUTHOR>

My startup is a web app, and as such needs some serious UX/UI love. I can do my best, but I will never get it to the level that a competent designer could.<p>But how do you hire one? Where do you find one? Do you usually hire him/her to just do the one time thing or is it more customary to make it a regular deal where they do the incremental updates as well? Who writes up the contract in a scenario like this? <comment><USER2> Read my rant here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1859460>

You need to find someone with some training in HCI, it does not have to be formal training, but they should be studied in the state of the art. If they are not, they are a hack and you are wasting your money on trial and error. As for the designer (the I make it pretty guy). Find one who you like his style of art, it is as simple as that. Sometimes you can get lucky and find it all embodied in one person. Many times you will get a designer naively representing themselves as a HCI / UX professional, there is a lot of misinformation and blatant misrepresentation in this space.

</comment><comment><USER3> First thing first you should know (you probably know this already): Web- Designer != UI Designer or UX Designer

Once you know that, you can be looking for correct person. Finding one, not sure. Referrers? An app you love? Ask them to refer a designer? Or Hire Me!

How do you make sure the person is right? Ask them about their design process. If you feel that it will bring clarity to project then jump in.

</comment><comment><USER4> Here's my process. I define in my mind what I want, in terms of style and needs, find similar sites, or sites with styles I'm after. I then find the designer of the site, and contact them.

Here are my other strategies for finding designers:

1\. Find agencies that I love the work of, then look at the Team page, then contact their designers on Twitter or email

2\. Browse Dribbble, or design communities, find styles that I like, and contact them.

Process:

Discuss the project with them, find someone that likes it and has ideas. Have a call over Skype to get to know them, and see if their ideas match yours. Send them an email with the terms, get them to reply agreeing, and pay 50% upfront. Always works.

</comment><comment><USER5> Our designer is awesome. I'm fortunate to have grown up around artists, so me communicating with him works well. The big thing though is he goes out of his way to understand the technical issues, and fortunately I'm reasonably good at explaining technical things in terms of laundry machines and dryers. Additionally, the dude's a straight up hustler. We don't call him a designer, we call him a creative director. You want a creative director.

</comment><comment><USER6> I have no affiliation with Themeforest but start with a prebuilt theme and then outsource bits and pieces as you need them.

Also reading a little bit on UX helps. Hiring a fulltime designer is the last thing you wanna do early on. No matter how much you think you need them right now</comment>


Snapchat is not deleting the photos - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2013/05/09/snapchat-doesn-t-delete-photos.html

<comment><USER2> I attempted this a couple times, the cache folder is not modified on my phone. I'm guessing the software indexes free space that has been recently assigned 'empty' status and tries to piece together the image or directory. I could be wrong, though.

</comment><comment><USER3> This article seems link baity. It doesn't talk about the Snapchat servers not deleting photos, but the Snapchat app storing photos locally in a "hidden folder". It then advertises a $300-$500 service to remove the photos in the hidden folder.

<comment><USER4> Either way it's an issue. Now that it's known, how many minutes will it be before some high schooler retrieves sexts sent by their now-hated ex, and distributes them to all their classmates? I suspect the number is negative.

<comment><USER4> Nevermind, it appears that the photos are not as present as the original press release would have you believe:

[http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/09/actually-snapchat-photos- ar...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/09/actually-snapchat-photos-are-just-as- deleted-as-any-other-file-you-trash/)</comment></comment></comment>


The $300 Million Button - <AUTHOR> http://www.uie.com/articles/three_hund_million_button/ <comment><USER2> I can't tell you the number of times I've gone to purchase a product online and bailed when asked to create an account. This is basically the story's point. KISS in action. Maybe more: get out of my way.

I was working with a travel sales' company recently and noticed that they had a dropdown in their product search that had two entries, neither of which was clear what they did, although each produced different results.

There was much wringing of hands when I proposed removing it, and simply providing the consolidated search results. They agreed to give it a try "for a few days", and the techs predicted a "collapse of the system" (which it was easy to check wouldn't be the case).

Sales doubled in one week.

This change was nothing to do with why I working with the client.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yeah, registration is a mess.

I got surprised by the big number of people with multiple email addresses.

So much for the email address as a single login id....

I have a similar issue on the thing I work on regarding logins.

Should users be able to register with Facebook or Twitter (and later forget which one they used), or just one of these (which one, Facebook or Twitter), or both somehow (to link their accounts)...

So far, I picked Twitter. But this is alpha software. <http://simpliwiki.com></comment>


2020 has been a year without a flu season in the southern hemisphere - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/09/12/2020-has-been-a-year-without-a-flu-season-in-the-southern-hemisphere <comment><USER2> I didn't want to jinx it, but no one in my family has had even a sniffle since March. And I have a 3 and 5 year old. Usually the sniffles don't stop.

I would love it if after this is over, masks were required in public from say Nov 1 to Mar 1. No shutdown or anything, bars and clubs can be open, etc, go eat and drink, whatever.

But when walking around or waiting for your food, have a mask on.

<comment><USER3> Your immune system evolved in an environment where it has stuff to do constantly, when it doesn't have stuff to do it gets bored and finds stuff to do... from the mild inconvenience of allergies to deadly autoimmune diseases.

And when it comes down to it, government doesn't have the authority to tell you what to wear in public, inside a business during a pandemic probably, but regularly? You're going to find some real solid constitutional objections that are better off not tested.

<comment><USER4> We literally make people wear clothes. Especially women.

<comment><USER5> Seriously how can someone think that mask requirements cannot be legal given this precedent haha

<comment><USER3> Because covering your junk is based on judeo-christian morals which are reflected in our law in ways that certain "obscene" things have historically fallen outside of free expression rights... those are going away and you won't successfully argue that not wearing a mask is obscene.

<comment><USER6> No one actually causes the death of someone else by not covering up an "obscene" part of their body.

And, as in the case of Typhoid Mary, people have been deprived of their liberty for being a threat to public health.

So I wouldn't be too sure about the courts siding with the anti-maskers.

<comment><USER3> Yes, quarantine has been successfully defended on individuals, small groups, or specific areas. "Quarantine" on whole populations has not and would not be.

It has nothing to do with being anti-mask, your government just doesn't have the power to force everyone to wear masks for half the year because somebody thinks it'sa good idea to prevent their kids from getting minor infections.

<comment><USER6> The direct effect of COVID-19 on kids is not the issue, but the fact that they can spread it to vulnerable adults, including their teachers, parents, and grandparents, and whoever they infect could infect even more.

This has and will continue to cause lots of older people to die, even if the kids themselves remain mostly unharmed.

As for the government's power, see what they did in WW2. They had major propaganda campaigns to get everyone on board (like "Loose Lips Sink Ships", Presidential "fireside chat" addresses, and propaganda posters everywhere, etc), a united and determined Congress, and actual _leadership_ that helped the entire nation become aware and engaged with the war effort.

If there was this kind of leadership, media effort, and peer-pressure today as there was during WW2, along with laws and actual enforcement against non- compliant anti-maskers, then you can believe there'd be a hell of a lot less anti-maskers even trying to get out of wearing a mask, never mind staging mass anti-mask protests (with Presidential encouragement!).

The political bickering, selfishness, and incompetency in the US has already resulted in literally hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths, and will probably cause hundreds of thousands if not millions more.

<comment><USER7> While I'm not against mandatory wearing of masks while in public(when necessary), I feel they should have been distributed by emergency services, or placed on pallets in supermarkets, at gas stations, like it happened with telephone books and yellow pages in the past. Same goes for disinfectant. Why should I have to pay overblown prices for that stuff?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Could it also be that they are counting flu as something else?

I am reminded of this quote from Demolition Man "In the future all restaurants are Taco Bell"

<comment><USER9> The UK'S Office of National Statistics (ONS) just showed that since June, UK influenza deaths are higher than Covid deaths. If this is true, then wearing masks has no effect on deaths from airborne viral transmission. And it might explain why The Economist is trying to shift the narrative.

[https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/latest)

<comment><USER10> The data you link would not support your conclusion. It's not flu season in UK, so the constant low rate is within normal variation, even if mask-wearing _is_ impacting decreased flu transmission. You're talking about ~100 deaths for each covid and flu in the time period cited, and for covid (which so far doesn't have a cycle like flu) the effect on decreasing is very stark.

In other words, this particular data would have nothing to say. It's consistent with random variation of off-season flu, it's also consistent with masks having a big effect on reducing covid spread (especially with covid's much higher transmission rate and airborne properties), and it's also consistent with some third exogenous factor causing the covid reduction in a way that has no bearing on flu.

<comment><USER9> If one of two airborne transmissions remains within normal variation while the other drops significantly, then masks had an insignificant effect.

The more plausible explanation is that mask wearing had a tiny impact on both covid and flu. The reduction in covid results from something else. Not everything has to do with masks. Masks don't discriminate between flu and covid.

<comment><USER10> > " If one of two airborne transmissions remains within normal variation while > the other drops significantly, then masks had an insignificant effect."

Statistically speaking, it's a large error to assert this or draw this conclusion.

There are too many confounders, the hugest being that it's not flu season there and the sample size is way too low to have confidence in any conclusion based on the UK flu sample. Given the significance of the data in southern hemisphere countries, it suggests there is an effect on flu transmission and the UK data (by confounders and small sample) are consistent with that possibility.

> "Masks don't discriminate between flu and covid."

That's right - suggesting a big effect on reducing both, with confounders that would make such a comparison meaningless if you tried to make it in a country like UK right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> because R0 covid is 2 - 6 where flu is 1.4 < any measures made for corona would stop it dead in its tracks. for posterity's sake here is a picture with ranges: [https://cdn.the- scientist.com/assets/articleNo/67690/iImg/38...](https://cdn.the- scientist.com/assets/articleNo/67690/iImg/38474/uploads/what%20is%20r.png)

<comment><USER12> Could it also be that due to all the attention that Covid gets and the saturation of the health infrastructure, no one is bothering noting down the normal flu numbers in those countries?

<comment><USER13> If anything probably the opposite. You're much more likely to get medical treatment if you have some "undefined respiratory symptoms" right now, and doctors will usually try to find out if you have covid or something else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Will this have a lasting impact on the spread of the viruses or it's only limited to the time when people are wearing masks and practicing physical distancing?

<comment><USER15> Even if we managed to shut down the world simultaneously, the viruses can linger in animals, so we'd presumably eventually be back to where we are today.

<comment><USER16> My hope is that, at least for some portion of society, this pandemic has normalized the practice of wearing a mask if you must go out and are sick. So even if diseases aren't totally eradicated, we can have significant reductions in spread. Maybe a false hope, but a hope nonetheless.

<comment><USER17> > has normalized the practice of wearing a mask if you must go out and are > sick

This is one of the reasons people who are against mask wearing are against mask wearing - they encourage people to break the rules that we have good evidence for (self isolation) in favour of rules we have weak evidence for (mask wearing).

Please do not go out and about if you have symptoms. That mask isn't doing much to prevent the spread of your disease.

<comment><USER18> > Please do not go out and about if you have symptoms.

This is hardly a rule that anyone follows, unless symptoms are severe. That's one of the reasons COVID spreads more widely than the flu - mild symptoms don't make anyone change behavior.

<comment><USER19> That should be a call to arms for governments to build better support systems for the sick and elderly, so they can receive care and supplies at home. Maybe Amazon and Wal-mart will fill that need, maybe not.

It would be nice to have a "im sick" button that auto delivers some chicken soup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> because masks work and social distancing works.

<comment><USER21> Nobody is really doubting that. The question is, is shutting down the country to avoid flu season a good trade off (in more normal times)?

<comment><USER22> That's not actually a question anyone is asking.

<comment><USER23> At least in the German mainstream discourse the proportionality of specific policies as well as it's costs and benefits are reoccuring, if not central themes.

This is, of course, currently about covid-19, but I think that the political arguments mostly apply to infectious diseases in general. ..once they gain a certain significance.

I don't doubt your perception though. The discourse might vary greatly between countries, languages, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is the healthiest I've been in a long time because of social distancing.

<comment><USER25> It's not healthy long term though because humans have to exchange bacteria and get sick.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The article itself is behind a paywall, so this might have been in the text.

But... could that be explained by all respiratory illnesses being called "covid" this year? The numbers are simply hiding in another graph?

<comment><USER27> From the article

> In the first two weeks of August, the who processed nearly 200,000 influenza > tests, and found just 46 were positive. In a typical year, the number would > be closer to 3,500.

So sounds like this is based on a test, making misclassification unlikely to be the root cause?

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Unpaywalled: [https://archive.is/VEQl7](https://archive.is/VEQl7)

</comment><comment><USER29> obviously we know why. they count the flu as covid. just like in the us where you can get funding by classifying a death as covid.</comment>


The London that might have been - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2015/nov/03/london-might-have-been-designs-alternative-architecture-pictures <comment><USER2> memo to sci-fi designers: concept sketches for alternative time lines.</comment>


Light Phone 2: A simple 4G phone with e-ink - <AUTHOR> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/light-phone-2-design#/ <comment><USER2> The biggest benefit this could have is a smart-ish phone with multiple days of active use battery life. Instead they specced a 500mah battery

Also it's $3-400. Insane.

I can get a commodity android phone for $150, remove all of the apps, and with a little self control have the same thing.

It looks good, though.

<comment><USER3> > The biggest benefit this could have is a smart-ish phone with multiple days > of active use battery life. Instead they specced a 500mah battery

Take any Android phone, uninstall all messaging apps, disable all other forms of background transfers and sync (increasingly hard to do as Google adds more and more of their services to the OS).

Enjoy your 3 to 4 day battery life.

You said active use, but this phone doesn't have any active uses, by design.

Standby time on modern smart phones isn't half bad, if you get rid of everything that wakes up the device!

<comment><USER4> This.

Go to Settings / Battery and you can prevent or minimise a applications background cpu usage. Then go to your Data usage, from there you can prevent or minimize background data transfer.

This has greatly improved battery life on my phone.

<comment><USER5> Turn off data and just use it for calls and SMS and it'll last even longer (just like old Nokia phones used to).

Android used to let you disable 3G/4G data and just limit the phone to 2G data - - low bandwidth but adequate for syncing email and other tasks, much lower power usage. Unfortunately that option seems to have been removed.

<comment><USER6> That's because 2G networks are shutting down (together with 3G ones) and 4G/LTE ones are moved to lower, more efficient, frequencies previously taken by GSM.

Disabling 4G these days can often be counter productive for signal strength and battery life.

<comment><USER7> Actually, 3G will be shut down first because so much relies on 2G networks.

> Disabling 4G these days can often be counter productive for signal strength > and battery life.

You can always have peace of mind with airplane mode or whole data disabled.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> They're trying to sell flip-phone functionality for $300 by positioning this as a "lifestyle" purchase. _" We call this experience 'going light'."_ That may work; it got their Kickstarter funded.

A sunlight-readable ruggedized e-ink phone would be useful. But that's not their target market.

<comment><USER9> The first phone had even less features.

Starting a hardware product by making a niche product and expanding the market and device complexity over iterations on the hardware is a proven success path. "Active" apps require third party buy in, which is hard for a new company to achieve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> In similar news - the banana phone is coming back

[https://gadgets.ndtv.com/mobiles/news/nokia-8110-4g-banana-p...](https://gadgets.ndtv.com/mobiles/news/nokia-8110-4g-banana- phone-on-sale-price-specifications-1862890)

About $100 too. Might just pick one up for fun to see how it goes.

<comment><USER11> Does anyone know if the banana phone has Spotify?

<comment><USER12> Banana phone runs Kai OS, which is not supported by Spotify.

However, there are people requesting it: [https://community.spotify.com/t5/Live-Ideas/Simplified- versi...](https://community.spotify.com/t5/Live-Ideas/Simplified-version-of- spotify-for-kaiOS/idi-p/4400024) and [https://community.spotify.com/t5/Other- Partners-Web-Player-e...](https://community.spotify.com/t5/Other-Partners-Web- Player-etc/Nokia-8110-4G/td-p/4400818).

So the answer to your question is "no", but it might.

FYI, I am not interested in this phone and it took me 30 seconds of searching the Internet to find this info. It took me longer to write this comment. It really doesn't seem like you've put in an effort of searching for such info.

<comment><USER11> Thanks! And sorry for replying so late, but just had to ask why on Earth you would go to the trouble of looking it up, writing this comment and then adding that FYI in there? Just strange (or is it some sort of display of superiority I don't understand), hence the question. Hope this comment is not offending I certainly did not mean it. Just felt that it would be polite to answer given that you took the time :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> For $300 I'd expect longer battery life and international band support. Old Nokia's were $50 and still usable in most of the world - this is a step backward.

Look at the Galaxy Pocket Neo released for the African markets for instance, priced at less than $130 at release, had 3 days battery life and would be considered a modern smart phone.

This on the other hand, has much less capability in a less robust form and costs double that.

<comment><USER14> >For $300 I'd expect longer battery life and international band support. Old Nokia's were $50 and still usable in most of the world - this is a step backward.

2g/3g probably works around the world. notice how they mentioned band 1/2/3/whatever support, which isn't used to describe 2g/3g frequencies. i'm guessing the only reason your nokia could work anywhere around the world is because there are only a few bands for 2g/3g. whereas there are a few dozen for lte.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I really want an e-ink phone. But not really that phone. It seems really just to be a fashion statement. I worry it'll have very little practical utility.

The best implementation I've heard of so far was YotaPhone 2 - [https://yotaphone.com/gb-en/](https://yotaphone.com/gb-en/). A proper smartphone with two screens - normal one on the front, an e-ink on the back. I was considering to buy it some time ago, but I discovered the product was abandoned. If someone could re-do this concept, but put the specs of ~Galaxy S7 inside, I'd buy that in a heartbeat, even at flagship prices.

Or even better, I'd love if someone could make a proper e-ink _tablet_. Give me 12.3-inch e-ink touchscreen and a software stack that would let me read, browse, write e-mails and run a text editor on it, and it'll be my new go-to machine. If I could hook up a keyboard to it and run Emacs on it (even terminal Emacs via SSH), I'd be in heaven.

<comment><USER16> The remarkable [0] seems like what you're looking for. It runs Linux, and you get root + ssh access to it out of the box.

[0] [https://remarkable.com](https://remarkable.com)

<comment><USER17> I spent a while looking around that site and couldn't find any specs - what is the screen size?

<comment><USER16> spec page is here: [https://support.remarkable.com/hc/en- us/articles/11500008512...](https://support.remarkable.com/hc/en- us/articles/115000085129-What-are-the-specifications-of-the-reMarkable-)

it says 10.3" screen at 1872x1404

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I like the concept, but the execution worries me.

I bought the light phone (1), it's a complete piece of garbage. Controls & feels like some of the crappy stuff from around 2000. I tried to use it once, but it turned out to be unusable outside due to being white and reflecting more sunlight than it's leds/display could produce... (I did feel stupid at that point, yes).

Hope they do a better job at this one & then, maybe, if they drop the price by 50% I'd consider it.

</comment><comment><USER19> Looks cool, but I wish some phone maker could come up with a phone that's actually ergonomic. Remember how well old Nokias used to fit the hand? Now it seems like every phone on the market is a slippery glass rectangle.

<comment><USER20> Any modern smartphone is ergonomic.

Use a decent pair of BT or wired headset/buds/speaker, and you're no longer putting a (potentially hot-running) cell radio up to your head and regain use of both your hands.

Much safer for driving too.

<comment><USER21> > Any modern smartphone is ergonomic.

Any phone bigger than an iPhone SE is completely unusable for me, as it requires two hands to control the whole screen. The screen of the SE allow me to reach everything with just my thumb, which is awesome.

<comment><USER22> The SE is a great phone. Good performance and excellent battery life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I leave my phone behind and take my Apple Watch Series 3 with me sometimes. The watch is much less distracting than a smart phone while keeping basic connectivity.

The Apple Watch Series 3 has almost all of the features of the Light Phone 2 (missing battery life), and is equally as non-distracting. The Light Phone 2 is missing several features of Apple Watch Series 3 like Health Kit and Apple Pay. Configuring call forwarding and message forwarding is much simpler with Apple Watch than it is for Light Phone. Preordering a Light Phone 2 costs $300 and and will ship next April. Buying an Apple Watch Series 3 costs $320 and you can pick you up today.

If you have an iPhone I would recommend an Apple Watch to someone wanting to leave the phone behind from time to time instead of this. This might be more useful to spending days away from a charging station, someone without an iPhone, or someone that doesn't like wearing watches.

I assume there is an Android Watch product with most of the big features of the Apple Watch too.

<comment><USER23> An Apple Watch is only useful if you have an iPhone. Apple Pay isn't a big deal for a lot of owners since it's only available in about 28 countries anyway.

That said I wouldn't spend $300 on a feature phone when I can get a basic one for $50 or less which can do everything that this one can.

The Light Phone appears to be for people looking for a specific aesthetic rather than actually coming close to being in a middle ground between being unplugged and carrying a smartphone.

<comment><USER24> Last year I tried ditching my iPhone and used a feature phone for a couple of weeks. The biggest annoyance was typing SMS / text messages with the numeric keypad. I absolutely hated it.

Also, all feature phones are hideous.

I think there's a market for a feature phone that has nice messaging and looks good. And since it's based on Android, it might be possible to write apps for it (messaging apps would absolutely make sense).

<comment><USER7> The biggest annoyance -which Light Phone 2 also has- is that I do not use SMS anymore. I use WhatsApp. Say they implement WhatsApp support. Well, someone else uses Telegram. Yet someone else WeChat. And someone else solely e-mail. There's also some features on Android which I'm too much used to (such as tethering).

If your feature phone has Bluetooth you can use a Bluetooth keyboard together with it. You can even use a laptop's keyboard (I know it is possible on Linux and Maemo), perhaps even a game controller [1], and perhaps even a remote (mine has a keyboard).

Finally, if you got dictation it doesn't matter. I do agree T9 is horrible though. But if you do use it regularly, you get used to it.

[1] [https://www.gearbest.com/air- mouse/pp_756041.html?wid=143336...](https://www.gearbest.com/air- mouse/pp_756041.html?wid=1433363)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I use my phone distraction free.

I disable notifications i don't care / are not notificatin worthy. I remove myself from newsletters. I use the 'Do not disturb' mode.

I don't need an 'light' phone. I need my phone as powerful as it is right now when i wanna use google maps, it should be fast and responsive and with great details.

<comment><USER26> It doesn't look like they are attempting to replace your powerful phone. It seems the Light Phone 2 is something you use alongside your main device.

So I can already see how this device might be useful. If you are shooting out the house quickly to go surfing, climbing, trail running you can grab your light phone with a smaller physical footprint and only essential functionality.

But at $300 not sure its worth it yet. The new Nokia 3310 offers most of the same for $55.

<comment><USER27> Mostly makes sense. What seems strange in this pitch is that there's no camera. I totally get _why_ there's no camera, but in the "outdoor activity, minimal functions" scenario, I generally want one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I like how so many of these comments are claiming that this company is missing the mark / doing it wrong / out of touch, and yet the project is >600% funded.

<comment><USER29> Missing the mark and getting overly-crowdfunded aren't mutually exclusive. The Ouya comes to mind, it was an absolute hit on Kickstarter (904% funded) and completely missed the mark.

<comment><USER30> Or, say, the 'Reading Rainbow' kickstarter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Companies continually miss the mark when it comes to neo-dumbphones -- folks that want a dumbphone badly enough to seek one out, and I count myself in this category, want one that is small, very durable, foolproof, and inexpensive.

These features were all common on old dumbphones like the previously-mentioned Nokia and some Motorolas [or Jitterbugs]. Whenever a 'hip' dumbphone is released, such as this one or the regrettably-named 'Punkt,' they look cool but fail miserably in two or more of those criteria.

<comment><USER31> What's wrong with the name 'Punkt'? I quite like it.

<comment><USER30> Different strokes for different folks -- I find it pretty patronizing ["Hey hip kids! Dig our slang!"] but recognize that tastes very widely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'd consider it if they had an SDK.

While I agree that it's just android under the hood - a price of $300+ and not letting developers get in on the action is just too much for me.

<comment><USER33> Wouldn't allowing apps defeat the purpose of having a phone like this? Allowing users to install more apps would get in the way of having a simple phone.

<comment><USER34> If you really want to control how your customers are allowed to use the thing you can put a limit like 3 or 4 apps maximum. For example I think this phone needs at least a way to read e-books but it's possibly not going to be implemented. IF there was an API I could write my own e-book reader for it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Looks cools, BUT...

\- People call you on your phone number, so you have to swap your sim card from smart-phone to this every time you want to "go light". Also phone-book sync, etc.

\- e-ink displays are incredibly fragile.

<comment><USER36> > you can leave behind your smartphone more often... _or for good_

If I were spending $US300 on a phone, it ought to be my daily driver.

So I would assume this is for people who, if they do want to access social media on iOS/Android then they do it from the comfort of a large screen device such as a wifi-only iPad, tethering to their 4G dumbphone.

Oh and there's nothing preventing an e-ink device from using a cloud addressbook.

<comment><USER37> Hotspot on that tiny battery...ew

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I was initially interested some time ago, but couldn't find or get any information about software license, so I haven't backed it.

<comment><USER39> I couldn't care less about the licenses, however the pricing of that thing immediately means no to my purchase. Especially positioning $300 as an awesome discount from $400.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> It will be difficult to "go light" if you will have to carry a DSLR with you instead of having a camera in your phone. Nowadays camera in a phone is just as important as a phone capabilities itself, especially for families with kids.

<comment><USER41> Depends on the person but even with my Smartphone I rarely use my camera if I had a eink phone it wouldn't be too different for me just that I wont be able to use Signal.

<comment><USER42> In the reality we live in now, I don't even have to photograph anything anymore because everyone else is already taking and sharing those photos. I basically gave up on photos last year. I don't like being in them anymore either. They don't feel commemorative, just transient social currency powering an odd ad machine that doesn't seem to have my interests in mind.

I agree that the phone is expensive, but I like the design. It's funny that people are comparing it to $100 Android phones. Those already exist, you can get them in vending machines at the airport. This isn't that. It's hard to get anything simple with LTE without building it yourself. I'd pay money for what is not in this phone. I'm already $2k into my DIY dumbphone project and it's not reliably hanging out in my pocket making calls.

<comment><USER43> Do you have more info on your DIY dumbphone project? Would love to see!

<comment><USER42> I try to keep my identity private online and like I mentioned, don't really take pictures anymore, but I can give you a general overview.

I started with this arm platform called Firefly

[http://en.t-firefly.com/](http://en.t-firefly.com/)

I really like how their coreboard are set up. The current version is about the size of an apple TV. I wanted to get away from actually needing a touch screen so I've been working with a dev unit of a low power laser projector that also does depth scanning to allow for optional alerts and gestural interfaces. The unit I'm using is from this company Microvision. They have a couple retail products, I don't know if they even have the production capacity to do their depth sensing units at scale, but they'll sell you dev units if you email them.

[http://www.microvision.com/technology/](http://www.microvision.com/technology/)

People always want to use these things for watching movies or whatever, which they will make a 100" screen on the wall, but they are extremely low lumens, so I focus on short throw and an interface that only uses four colors. CYMK. Since it's a laser, it doesn't need to focus and blacks are absolute so it works pretty well.

I just got an Intel Realsense the other day and I'm hoping to move to that for depth sensing and just use MV's projection module. And their tools are great even if brand new mostly and need some help. It's a cool platform.

They bill the Firefly as good for AR installations and stuff and it has the ability to do synced stereo vision that is helpful for depth stuff, but I've found that to largely be a giant pain in my ass to pretend like I'm going to solve. That and mounting two CCDs really breaks my already pretty kludgy assembly.

Using this unit as the pcie LTE modem.

[http://shop.t-firefly.com/goods.php?id=49](http://shop.t-firefly.com/goods.php?id=49)

Funny thing about most LTE modems, there' sa good hackaday article on this problem, but even though they are capable of PCM audio on chip, they don't give you access, so if you wanna do voice, you're stuck with crazy hacks or VoIP. There is a neat 4 modem board availible that also supports virtual sims (which I didn't even know was a thing and sounds exploitable) but or some reason has an audio bus that works with a couple models of modems. I might be getting some of the details wrong on this problem, I'll see if I can find the hackaday article, but a quick google search didn't turn it up. Voice communication isn't my favorite thing anyway, so VoIP or XMPP/WebRTC is fine with me.

For less hand waving interface I started with two of these power point mice that I got super cheap. They are bluetooth, have a reasonable accelerometer, a few buttons, and most importantly a thumb stick with a press mode so with two I've been working on a trainer to use the thumb sticks as a twiddler keyboard since there's enough combinations to do full querty and plus some.

Now that I've tested that out, I'm designing a controller myself, still faster and more interactive to use two, but I'm working on a pattern for easy one handed text entry.

I bought a set of Bone Conduction headphones that I liked except for their fidelity and how ugly they were so, I'm playing around with building something myself. Exciters are cheap and I think I can do better. What I like about bone conduction is that your ears are open and what you're hearing doesn't interrupt regular life. Ear buds are great for closing our the world, but that goes against what I want out of my "phone".

Basically I'm annoyed and overloaded by all the crap that all the tech around me blasts at us all the time. I think it's inelegant, annoying, and motivated by bullshit sales and ad tracking exploitation. Because of that no one has improved on shit in 10 fucking years. From my tech I want it to give me less, work with me to provide communication, stay the hell out of my face, but also I want to own my platform and know what it's doing. Most importantly, I'd like it to actually be freaking cool. We are essentially using the exact same device as the first iphone. That isn't because we can't do better, it's because it works to keep us in line, vendor locked, and ready to shell out for the next one.

So yeah, the "phone" is kind of big, especially with the battery, which is roughly the size of a Stephen King paperback, but it lasts forever and has an AC invert er which is handy sometimes. This prototype stuff isn't quite ready to be rugged and travel with me, but the goal is to get it down to something easy to even put in my back pocket, but at least in my backpack, but really all I'm interacting with is the twiddler and the headphones. If I'm working I can set the thing on my desk and I it can use color, motion, and clear, uncluttered text to share info with me.

Because I'm doing weird point cloud depth scanning, starting with an ARM platform has been a giant pain in my ass. There have been some powerful and small x86 platforms that have come out recently like the LattePanda, so I'm eyeballing that as the next move to speed up the software side of stuff. Also I've been playing with the LimeSDR, it's technically capable of LTE and tons of other stuff. Their package manager isn't up to snuff yet, but the next gen will be capable of ranges up to 5G. The dream with this pile of techno garbage is some sort of open source, not awful, mesh network phone that still can use your t-mobile account until your friends get enough SDR radios that we can just say fuck it to the telcos.

[https://www.dfrobot.com/product-1727.html](https://www.dfrobot.com/product-1727.html)

[https://myriadrf.org/projects/limesdr/](https://myriadrf.org/projects/limesdr/)

But to answer the question you probably have, my daily driver is an iPhone7 that I would be fine if it fell in the ocean. My brand new macbook pro had keys falling off and it's USB-C went out after 3 months, so I've left most of apple's ecosystem for good. All the parts for way cooler stuff is out there! We can totally just quit paying thousands of dollars for bullshit ad-slabs and take our communication back.

Sorry, I guess that was quite the barf. I've been working on this off and on going on 3 years now but haven't looked at it in months because of a new job. I forgot how much was going on with it. hah.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> It's definitely looking outstanding and simple which is something I like but: there's no backlight even in old-fashioned electroluminescence form and there are situations where external light isn't enough. I'd like to know if company is collecting any data of device usage and how secure this LightOS is. There's only English language available which eliminates it as my mother's current HTC 8S replacement - while it's similar in size and simplicity of use, she would prefer seeing UI in native language.

Are there any owners of previous model who could share their experience?

</comment><comment><USER45> I like the look of the hardware, particularly the e-ink ink display, but can't say the software UX appeals to me. I agree that the modern smartphone experience by default is cognitively impairing (too many notifications), but that's something I'd like to have control over, rather than take it or leave it.

I think making the software side extensible could make this a great phone for hackers.

</comment><comment><USER46> I like the look they are going for, but by April of next year, I'm confident Xiaomi could be selling something like this for $150.

</comment><comment><USER47> For what is supposed to be a simple, minimalist "unphone" they chose the absolute most boring form factor.

<comment><USER45> I think it makes sense for something minimalist to not be an eccentric shape.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I'm agreed with everyone who's pointing out that self-control is a fine solution to the same problem. But this is a great-looking phone that's small. Skinny pants are still pretty in, and even smaller smartphones are too big for the pockets. You're using it for going out at night anywhere that stays warm in the evening.

It needs to have that "ride home" feature, and probably "rides anywhere." If that works I might spend $300 on it just for the 12ish nights a year I would use it--it's a small cost compared to babysitter, restaurant, show, Lyfts, etc.

</comment><comment><USER49> I would like Apple to sell e-ink or Qualcomm's mirasol displays, so we could swap them and save power. Would be amazing. I generally have enough ambient light to see my screen. And I don't want to use my phone at night anyway.

Everyone is whining about cost but ignoring the fact that someone is trying to innovate in this space. Who cares what it costs. They're pushing something out, and eventually if Apple and other major manufacturers offer low power displays, people will appreciate the option.

</comment><comment><USER50> I love e-ink screens and have been thinking about getting an arduino to play around with them. Where can you get e-ink screens like that? Or would it be manufactured in-house?

<comment><USER51> You can get some off of Alibaba. Been Krasnow's blog might help you a bit [https://benkrasnow.blogspot.com/2017/10/fast-partial- refresh...](https://benkrasnow.blogspot.com/2017/10/fast-partial-refresh- on-42-e-paper.html?m=1)

<comment><USER52> I have a few Waveshare brand e-ink displays to play around with. They are really cool!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> 300 seems WAY too expensive.

</comment><comment><USER54> Isn't this a scam?

All previews of the phone exclude e-ink. They are all fitted with bad quality LCD screens (which you can't read outside).

</comment><comment><USER55> This is too expensive for the features and the hardware, and I currently get everything, including a few days of battery life, with a Lumia 640 XL, and Windows Phone 8.1. I uninstalled all apps and made it a dumb phone with a big screen...

</comment><comment><USER56> What's up with Indiegogo just showing nothing unless you have JavaScript enabled?

<comment><USER5> Plenty of sites do that, unfortunately. Why would you expect Indiegogo to handle disabled JS gracefully?

(I'm not saying I like it -- I often disable JS myself. It works great for most news sites.)

<comment><USER56> Yes, they do. Well, I'd expect possibly not being able to sign up or donate or something, but not being able to _read text_ I find a bit extreme, as if they've gone out of their way to actively break their web page when run w/o JS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> They should've just built a custom launcher for Android. Could've resulted in the exact same effect with zero hardware of manufacturing overhead.

<comment><USER58> Well, there's the small matter of e-ink, which should drive battery usage waaaay down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> I...sorta get it. But seriously, if this is what you want, get a $50 feature phone and don't even bother with data fees.

</comment><comment><USER60> I don't think it is possible to keep the same design with a e-ink and a touchscreen. There must be a bezel.

<comment><USER61> The Kindle Voyage is e-ink and has a responsive touch screen. You can type stuff out without too much issue on it.

<comment><USER62> both the voyage and the oasis do have a bezel, if we're using the modern usage of the word, like the iphone 7 has a bezel and the iphone x is bezel-less. The paperwhite, voyage and oasis are all touch screen e-ink kindles that I've owned (I dunno if the base kindle is touchscreen these days, I haven't owned one.)

I don't know if it's required or not, but I think previous poster was suggesting that the bezel was needed in e-ink displays, and all the kindles I know of have a bezel, even though that bezel is flush on the voyage and oasis models. Now, I personally think that poster is wrong, at least if we are using bezel in the sense that the iphone x is bezel-less; but the current crop of e-ink kindles are not bezel-less.

Personally, I think typing is okay on the paperwhite and the second gen oasis... on the voyage and on the first gen oasis, the thing wasn't responsive enough to type comfortably, in my opinion. I dunno if that had anything to do with it being e-ink, though; It could have easily been an anemic processor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Or get an iPhone and don't install addictive apps. Although the browser by itself is addictive...

<comment><USER64> The browser can be either disabled or limited to certain sites easily in Settings > Restrictions. You can also disable the app store there (with automatic updates enabled) for good measure. Add dark mode aka "Smart Invert" to have less phone glow on the face.

I'm sure you can achieve the same stuff on any android phone.

Buying yet another gadget, that you will likely play around a lot with in the beginning, seems kind of like the opposite of going light.

As a gadget this looks really neat though and I kind of want to develop apps for it.

<comment><USER63> > Buying yet another gadget, that you will likely play around a lot with in > the beginning, seems kind of like the opposite of going light.

It's more than a gadget personally, I use these essential features all the time:

* camera

* payement (apple pay, starbucks, other cards)

* banking (Monzo and Revolut only exist as apps)

* plane tickets

* access to important docs on dropbox anywhere

* music (apple music)

* reading (news feed, articles, papers, etc.)

<comment><USER64> Yes, I think so to. I was referring to the light phone as the gadget. Setting up a smartphone with all features that you consider valuable and disabling everything else just seems more worthwhile if the goal is to get away from distracting phone (or gadget) use.

<comment><USER63> Oh yeah, I guess we agree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> I love the idea of a much simpler phone. However, I don't think I could ever give up the camera.

</comment><comment><USER66> I would get it, but at $300 it's a pretty expensive luxury fashion statement.

</comment><comment><USER67> I had a Motorola Fone years ago, but I ditched it because it did SMS so poorly.

</comment><comment><USER68> it's like a cellphone(dumb phone?) with a nice soft keyboard and display.

</comment><comment><USER69> Why 4G? Wouldn't 3G use less power and let it run for longer?

<comment><USER36> Longevity.

I live in a country where they have shut off the 2G network. 3G may well suffer the same fate within a few years, as carriers migrate to 5G.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> No Email app ever seems quite drastic for a $300 phone.

</comment><comment><USER71> Very cool!

</comment><comment><USER72> Eventually, it will diverge back to what you have today.

</comment><comment><USER73> Ride Home: this could work with a minimal web browser. something like wap comes to mind.</comment>


Prepared for Bumps, the Met Starts Charging Non-New Yorkers - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/arts/design/metropolitan-museum-of-art-starts-charging-non-new-yorkers.html <comment><USER2> There is a lot to be said about seeing great art in a less crowded context. One of the best days of my life was when I went to Member Only Hours at MoMA, and I walked alone, in silence.

I live near the Met, and too many tour buses show up, discharge huge groups of people who hustle and shove from one famous piece to the other - ignoring the art that isn't in text books. It's not a checklist, it's a really incredible place. All people should be entitled to see "Self Portrait with Straw Hat" but man, maybe they should look at the pieces next to in, instead of running downstairs to check off the next box.

In my opinion, this will be a good thing - fundamentally, the land belongs to the people of the city of New York, and the free rent for that much acreage of Central Park on Fifth Avenue is an incalculable subsidy. It should at least _try_ to be more pleasant for the citizens of the city.

<comment><USER3> My first time at the Louvre, I was enjoying a relatively quiet stroll through the less crowded galleries after enjoying a thoroughly european vacation for about a week. It was only when I happened into a very busy gallery with a quickly moving throng of people. My reverie was shattered when I heard over my shoulder in a thick southern US drawl "Man, lets just go see the Mona Lisa and get the f __* outta here. " It was really the least impactful portion of our visit because of the throngs of people.

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. I first went to Paris in 2014, and I experienced the same thing. Throngs of people surrounding the Mona Lisa. I was with family that wasn't very receptive to the Louvre experience, so we pretty much "saw the Mona Lisa and got the f* out".

I'm heading back to Paris next month with just my wife, and I plan on spending at least 2 days in the Louvre. I wouldn't say that people ruin art, but what I saw with the Mona Lisa was not very positive.

<comment><USER5> The opposite of that can be equally irritating.

Take for instance the Galleria Borghese in Rome which only allows 500 visitors in pre-determined slots. If you miss your slot or everything is filled out during your trip, you'll miss out like we did.

What I haven't figured out is why museums like the Louvre need to close for the night, its art work. Why not leave it open all night long and shutdown for a few days for maintenance work.

[1] [http://www.galleriaborghese.it/en/](http://www.galleriaborghese.it/en/)

<comment><USER6> I expect for the same reason most stores close down at night. Sure, you'll get some business but probably not enough to cover the costs of staying open. Furthermore, there's probably a lot of daily maintenance and cleaning to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> From looking at articles around this, the data looks like this:

        Museum budget          $  305M
        Admissions(current)    $   43M
        City Energy Subsidy    $   15M
        City General Subsidy   $   11M

        Expected windfall      $   ~6M
        City General Subsidy   $    8M

The new subsidy will apparently decline on a sliding scale as the admissions income increases, to a minimum of $8M from the current subsidy of $11M.

So the gain here is very small -- ~1% of the operating budget, but this is clearly a "foot-in-the-door" move.

</comment><comment><USER8> 25 bucks is pretty rich for just kicking around in a museum for a little while. Understand they need more funding but think they would do better with a lower price that doesn't result in turn aways (or never shows). And certainly taking a $20 out of your wallet just hurts less psychologically than having to fish out another bill as well.

<comment><USER9> "The Met" isn't just any old museum, it's a main reason to visit new york. I'd pay $100 for an entire day there (or three days, as it is now!). You simply can't see that quality of museum in many parts of the country, let alone the world.

<comment><USER10> In the past, they would happily have taken your $100 donation. I suspect that's still true.

<comment><USER9> Sure! Not my point though--just scoffing at the idea that $25 is at all too high for the experience.

I would also strongly support a sliding scale, though how that would work I have no idea.

<comment><USER10> They had a sliding scale already.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a great museum, and the price is not that high.

My family and I were in NYC in December. We visited the American Museum of Natural History, which have the same policy of "pay what you want".

We were there at the opening, because, as the Met, it's a pretty big museum and you (really) need the day if you want to make a full tour of it.

We then had 2 solutions. Waiting who know how long behind around 30-40 persons to have tickets, or go to the paying kiosk.

Well, in that paying kiosk, you cannot "pay as you want". But I still choosed to pay full price instead of waisting my time in a line with my 7yo kids.

We went on the Met on our last day in NYC, purely randomly. And, of course, I was happy not to pay a hundred bucks for the 4 of us (admitting that it's also the price for kids ?).

But due to the quality of the exhibitions, it's a normal price. Perhaps 20$ might have been better.

Disclaimer : I'm not american, so I don't know the "normal" policy for museum entrance. Here in France, you usually have to pay for museum, except a few days per years. For example, the Louvre museum in Paris is around 20$.

<comment><USER6> $25 is on the higher side for admissions in the US but, as others have noted, the Met is both huge and outstanding. $10-$20 is probably the more common museum admission range. [ADDED: NYC is probably higher in general than in other cities.]

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't have a problem with the general concept. Tourists spend a lot of money coming to visit NYC in no small part because of attractions like the Met. Why should the airlines, hotels, restaurants, bars and so on get some of that but not the actual attraction itself?

That said, as I understand significant mismanagement and scope creep have lead to the financial shortfall that inspired this pricing change. I worry that in signing off on this change the city has rewarded misfeasiance.

<comment><USER13> The Met was build on a city property/building, and since the 1870 its mission has been to provide art and culture free of charge.

Should the Met charge us residents but out of state visitors? eg. people that just live across Hudson (NJ)? How about, lets say the visiting parents of somebody that lives in NYC? How about people that lived here and moved away at some point.

On the other hand, the Met has no alliance for the random foreign tourists that come and visit, so charging them is an easy case.

<comment><USER12> Frankly, I'm still salty that the commuter tax was done away with by the corrupt Sheldon Silver. If the only thing that NJites have pay for is the Met they are getting off very easy. A similar argument can be made for the rest of the country, given our balance of payments with Washington.

The lifelong NYer that moved to Florida last year is a decent point, but it's also a rather small edge case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've visited this museum on past trips to New York but will now be less likely to do so. In the past I've gone in, paid $5-10 and spent 1-3 hours at the museum before moving on. It's a really big museum so I'd do this multiple times in a trip. Paying $25 I'd feel like I have to put everything I want to see into a single, longer visit. That's a lot less interesting to me than breaking it into several smaller visits over a few days.

<comment><USER15> The $25 admission gets you in for 3 consecutive days, which seems like it should still (mostly) support your way of using the museum?

<comment><USER16> This is an under-communicated point, and both makes the admission more palatable while subtly increasing the sense of value through the implication that you'll need multiple days to actually take in the breadth of the institution's collections.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I noticed this from the article: The proportion of museumgoers who pay a "suggested" amount has declined from 63 percent to 17 percent over the last 13 years...

Which made me think of something else I've encountered, which is that the percentage of people who respond to phone polls has plummeted over a similar time frame - [http://www.pewresearch.org/2017/05/15/what-low-response- rate...](http://www.pewresearch.org/2017/05/15/what-low-response-rates-mean- for-telephone-surveys/)

I wonder if these trends are related symptoms of a cultural change away from community-mindedness, and if so, has anyone seen other numbers in the same vein?

<comment><USER18> I think it's because more casual and lower income demographics have started visiting museums in that time period.

<comment><USER19> The disposable income went down for the vast majority of the population. Don't look further.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> And they stopped doing the metal buttons as proof of purchase! Which was a minor souvenir in itself and also could be picked up off the stairs/sidewalk out front

</comment><comment><USER6> The "voluntary" admission never felt all that voluntary to me. Sure. You could say no when you got to the cashier. But it always felt to me at least that there was a strong vibe of you really ought to pay this amount unless you really can't afford to.

It's certainly a different character from the museums in London, for example, that just have their big donation buckets.

With the Met, this actually more honest than it was before.

<comment><USER21> That sort of is the point though. People shouldn't feel great about being cheapskates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> So IIUC, they're charging people differently based on their nationality (in the sense the people from outside the U.S. cannot get the discount).

Is such discrimitory pricing legal?

<comment><USER23> Yes. There are a bunch of places in SF that give discounts if you are a local.

<comment><USER22> I'm not sure if that's the same as it being legal. I'd be curious to know of any case law on the matter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Here's how I see it: I pay city taxes all year round, visitors don't. The policy is fair.

</comment><comment><USER25> No problem with this, but then art donations to the museum should not be federally tax deductible. Donations should be tax deductible only if they benefit the entire tax base — if the Met only offers free admission to New Yorkers, billionaires should only be able to deduct their New York taxes when they donate Michelangelos.

<comment><USER6> There is absolutely no requirement that tax exempt organizations can't charge admission fees, membership fees, etc.

<comment><USER25> There isn't now, but there should be.</comment></comment></comment>