Gab is suing Google for allegedly violating antitrust laws - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/09/15/gab-is-suing-google-for-allegedly-violating-antitrust-laws/?utm_term=.60749afcde63 <comment><USER2> Problems like this were litigated in the railroad era. See Memphis News Pub vs. Southern Railway (1903).[1] Could the railroad transport one newspaper, but not another? The Supreme Court of Tennessee ruled, "no". That was even before the US had Federal antitrust law.

Railroad law and regulation from a century ago is worth studying when trying to figure out how to deal with monopolies with strong network effects. Railroads had even stronger networking effects.

[1] [https://books.google.com/books?id=sU0sAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA202&lpg=...](https://books.google.com/books?id=sU0sAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202)

<comment><USER3> Difference being that the railway was the only practical mean of delivery back then and is an actual utility. Also one couldn't sideload newspapers to circumvent restrictions.

Tagging everything as a "utility" and demanding they be regulated as such is as far removed from the conservative ethos as the altright apparently.

<comment><USER4> I think Google, Facebook and Amazon have far bigger network effects than railways. Also, the network effects are different making Google and such exponentially more powerful.

<comment><USER5> So, Where do we draw the line between a company rightfully refusing to host inappropriate content and a company "abusing" its network effects?.

Where do we draw the line between a company "abusing" its network effects and a company avoiding being abused by other companies? (e.g. Imagine a app store that distributes only free software backed by a big corp, then a small proprietary app maker complains that they don't want to accept their app because its proprietary).

Is the size of the company the criteria that decides if they are in the right or in the wrong?

<comment><USER6> > So, Where do we draw the line between a company rightfully refusing to host > inappropriate content and a company "abusing" its network effects?.

I don't think the app description of Gab is an appropriate content. Google seems to assume that the content of the Gab app will be innapropriate. Given this is about freedom of speech I'm not sure they should be the one deciding this. Are they also removing Gab from their Google Search results?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > In a statement, Google described the lawsuit as "baseless," and said it > would defend its decision in court, if necessary. "In order to be on the > Play Store, social networking apps need to demonstrate a sufficient level of > moderation, including for content that encourages violence and advocates > hate against groups of people," Google said. "This developer is welcome to > appeal the suspension if they've addressed the policy violations and are > compliant with our Developer Program Policies."

This is going to be fun. I hope they're forced to clarify what exactly they mean by " _sufficient level of moderation_ ". If that's going to be their angle I have to say it sounds wobbly. I'd be more comfortable with a, " _It 's our platform, get bent!_" approach.

<comment><USER8> Selective policy enforcement like this are exactly why being a common carrier makes more sense.

<comment><USER9> You think an app store should be a common carrier? Should WalMart also, then? Why wouldn't a store get to pick what they carry? Everything they carry affects their reputation and appearance, after all.

<comment><USER10> The difference is that many phones come with the the Google Play store on them, and "Allow installation of apps from unknown sources" locked off. I don't know what the metaphor would be; if a good chunk of cars were somehow locked where you couldn't drive to other stores than WalMart, and WalMart were involved in the production of those cars?

<comment><USER9> This is a good point, but also suggestive of the needed remedy being something other than "force the play store open" more akin to "ensure the underlying platforms are more open."

I have much more problem with forcing someone to distribute things than I do with forcing them to allow other distribution methods.

<comment><USER11> To play Devil's Advocate, should a company be forced to bake a cake for gay people? Should they be forced to serve minorities?

I think we have decided the answer is yes.

<comment><USER9> There are interesting aspects there, but the idea of protected classes vs unprotected ones and restricting discrimination based on that isn't one I have a huge problem with. I don't believe that a cake store having to serve minorities needs to imply that they have to be willing, say, to create cakes with arbitrary recipes. Could be an issue that comes up in the future with food allergy stuff, though, but as it is today that's not protected, and I feel it would be ludicrous to force shops to be "common carriers" that have to cook whatever the customer wants—of course, there are significant level-of- market-control differences here too.

<comment><USER11> It's not just about protected classes, it's about equal service for all.

Buggered if I have a solution, I just know these sorts of things are problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> While I don't think Gab will be successful, I'm glad they're suing. Anything you can find on Gab you will also find on Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, and scores of other apps in the Play store. Google is wrong to treat one app differently than the others for what seems to be purely political reasons.

<comment><USER13> Gab's founder, the Trump-supporting Andrew Torba, was also kicked out of Y-Combinator's network. It was because, if not officially, probably also for his politics.

Recently a popular thread here discussed a child murderer whom had been admitted to Harvard, but they later renegged. Many people echoed the argument that: 'if someone isn't allowed to participate in society like a normal person, then why even let them out of prison, because it only otherwise encourages them towards crime?'

What should we do about people who are not allowed to participate in society like normal people, but have committed no crime? If we want to remain logically consistent, shouldn't we lock up the Trump supporters with the baby killers?

<comment><USER14> That is not, in fact, why Torba was removed from the YC network. He was removed for hostile trolling of other YC founders.

The thread that immediately precipitated his removal is still online; you can just go look at it:

[https://www.facebook.com/garry/posts/10102671732962523?pnref...](https://www.facebook.com/garry/posts/10102671732962523?pnref=story)

(It's buried under Anisa Mirza's reply).

Unless it's your claim that trolling is a political stance deserving of protection, in which case we can all just agree to disagree about our definitions and move on, his support for Trump was not the problem here.

<comment><USER13> I can't use your link b/c I don't have a FB account.

>He was removed for hostile trolling of other YC founders.

Precisely, the words used by YC were "threatening and harassing" comments. To my knowledge this is the exact comment YC cited:

>All of you: fuck off. Take your morally superior, elitist, virtue signaling bullshit and shove it.

>I call it like I see it, and I helped meme a President into office, cucks.

I certainly see how this speech can be viewed as rude and disagreeable. But I don't really know how you can say that he made any serious threats or was honestly harassing anyone.

<comment><USER14> No, that is not the extent of the thread or the allegation.

It's probably not worth litigating this further, though.

<comment><USER13> Ok well settle your case if you wish. But that was what YC themselves claimed, according to this: [https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/12/pro-trump-ceo-gets- booted-...](https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/12/pro-trump-ceo-gets-booted-from- y-combinator/)

<comment><USER14> I don't believe that link supports your claim.

<comment><USER13> Here is the exact text from the article. It states exactly what I already said it does:

>While Torba paints this as a free speech issue, YC told BuzzFeed that he was kicked out for "for speaking in a threatening, harassing way toward other YC founders" — particularly in this Facebook comment:

>All of you: fuck off. Take your morally superior, elitist, virtue signaling bullshit and shove it.

>I call it like I see it, and I helped meme a President into office, cucks.

<comment><USER15> That TechCrunch article cites BuzzFeed as its source for the claim that YC said that they kicked him out particularly for that comment, but I don't see that in the linked BuzzFeed article [1]. It says that he was kicked out "for violating its harassment policy", and that this occurred after the Facebook comment, but I don't see any statement in the BuzzFeed article that YC mentioned that comment in particular. I may be missing it, though.

[1]: [https://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/trump-supporting- startu...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/trump-supporting-startup-ceo- kicked-out-of-y-combinator)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The 'hate speech' policy reads:

> We don't allow apps that advocate against groups of people based on their > race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, > veteran status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Gab is simply a platform, like Twitter and Youtube. As well as a communication channel, like Whatsapp.

Without a doubt more 'hate speech' passes through Whatsapp and Twitter each day than appears on Gab's platform so it's hard not to see this as unjust and inequitable.

<comment> aaron-lebo Yeah, it's complete bullshit. They've got no problem with hate speech against whites (ignoring ethnicity, because the people who like to rant about white people usually don't care about actual backgrounds), people who say hateful stuff about Christians, or people who hate guys because, well, they're guys.

You don't gotta feel persecuted or fit into any of those groups to see the obvious double standard there.

<comment><USER17> Dunno - criticise the powerfull but don't pick on the vunerable. It's kind of common sense.

<comment><USER16> > criticise the powerful

The idea that 'whites' are a homogeneous "powerful" group is as naive is it is prejudice. The standards apply to everybody or they don't apply at all.

<comment><USER17> I'm a white hetro male. If people have a go at us I'm not fussed it's not going to achieve much. Things like saying let's gas the jews or beat up gays are more problematic because those have been problems.

<comment><USER16> Do you have any idea how many 'whites' fled poverty, oppression, and worse, to come to America?

The measure of offence is not based on how 'fussed' you, an individual, feel. Nor is it based on a myopic view of history in which 'whites' have never been victims and everybody else has.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> _" In order to be on the Play Store, social networking apps need to demonstrate a sufficient level of moderation, including for content that encourages violence and advocates hate against groups of people,"_

Is the same standard applied to Twitter and Facebook? How long does it take for Twitter and Facebook to take down such content?

<comment><USER19> IMO the reason Gab was created was because users kept getting banned / flagged on Twitter. So yes, the same standard applies.

<comment><USER20> So it's just another platform. It happens to be a platform people flock to because they are 'no platformed' in another service.

The big companies are really limiting speech. You can't have separate black/white bathrooms, in many places your business can't allow indoor smoking, you can't limit employment based on certain things if you want equal opportunity employer benefits, yet we have no protection for speech.

Daily Stormer (which is honestly so crazy I couldn't tell if it was a parody) can't be hosted by any major or minor providers. No one will give them space to speak. When that many companies gets to control all the platforms, when Google can fire a guy for a well thought out opinion, they effectively censor dissenting idea.

I'm not saying I like gab. It's seriously full of voat type users, but they should have a place where they can speak.

<comment><USER18> _Daily Stormer (which is honestly so crazy I couldn 't tell if it was a parody)_

If you examine the Nazi ideology, it really is at a psychotic level of cynicism. They don't care if you are a true believer, or if you're doing it for the lulz, or if you're a psychopath whose incentives happen to align. So long as you go along, it's fine.

If you go far enough left on the political spectrum, you arrive at the same place. (The rapists and murderers were made into bosses in the Gulag.) However, for some reason, speech that is almost as vile from the left is given a softer treatment.

<comment><USER19> > If you go far enough left on the political spectrum, you arrive at the same > place.

This horseshoe theory is widely disputed.

<comment><USER18> Both far extremes are identitarian. Both far extremes advocate violence. Both the Postmodern Left extremists and the Nazi extremists reject logic. Both extremes are collectivist in that both extremes reject the classical Liberal formulation of individual rights. All of the above are facts that you can cite in the writings of thought leaders of both groups.

[http://a.co/7HHLSzp](http://a.co/7HHLSzp)

It's true that it's a false equivalence between neo-Nazis and Antifa. But crapping on individual human rights in one's political interest is wrong either way, and both groups do that. It doesn't matter if steam is at 220 degrees or 440 degrees. It's going to scald you either way. It doesn't matter how bad, so much as that both are bad!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Google could have not been evil by not bastardizing the idea of a package repository.

Apple Store/play is not a new concept. It's a closed off, propriety version of a Linux or BSD package repo or ports tree.

All either company had to do was allow third party repositories. You get a nice list, choose which companies you trust, have a nice interface where you could download an app.repo file, view it's cert and add it to your phone. 90% of people wouldn't use it, but for power uses and beta testers, it would allow a single easy software update system that could be free for all. I wrote about this a while back in a post I did on OSS philosophy:

[http://penguindreams.org/blog/the-philosophy-of-open- source-...](http://penguindreams.org/blog/the-philosophy-of-open-source-in- community-and-enterprise-software/)

<comment><USER21> Isn't this explicitly allowed? Amazon has an app store for android and there's things like F-Droid as well. Also there are many Chinese app stores. If all else fails users can simply sideload the APK.

<comment><USER22> Not really, Google Play exists in a privileged position on Android phones because it's a system app. Other 'App Stores' are basically glorified downloaders and require a huge amount of manual intervention by the user. 3rd party app stores can't actually install or update applications.

<comment><USER23> On many Android phones you can legitimately unlock your bootloader and load whatever software you please.

F-Droid does support this fully automatic app installs and updates, see:

[https://f-droid.org/wiki/page/Installing_F- Droid_as_a_system...](https://f-droid.org/wiki/page/Installing_F- Droid_as_a_system-app)

[https://f-droid.org/wiki/page/org.fdroid.fdroid.privileged](https://f-droid.org/wiki/page/org.fdroid.fdroid.privileged)

If you say "most people won't bother" \- that's true, but most people will gladly tick the unknown sources box too for pre-release or pirated apps already.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > "Google deprives competitors, on a discriminatory basis, of access to the > App Store, which an essential facility or resource."

Is this a legally sound statement? Specifically the last part about "essential facility or resource." I'm not at all a law expert. I personally don't believe in the implications of the claim, hence my question

<comment><USER25> That could be the most interesting part of this case; if access to an appstore is essential for a service, can Google/Apple forever remain the "Default Providers" while still enforcing their own rules?

I have a feeling that the Internet Explorer default-browser antitrust fight will have to be had again, although gab might not get that far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> They're going to have a hard time arguing that the Play Store has a monopoly when any Android user can sideload any app they want.

<comment><USER27> You don't have to be a literal monopoly to be a legal monopoly. Microsoft has never literally been the only place to get an operating system, not even the only place to get a consumer operating system (Apple has been there for Microsoft's entire OS run, at varying levels of health, sure, but always available). But they were found to be legally a monopoly in terms of abusing monopoly power anyhow.

<comment><USER26> The lawsuit in the US involved bundling IE with Windows specifically to push other browsers out of the market. Google has never really been antagonistic toward other app stores. Lots of phones get sold without the Play Store installed.

<comment><USER22> > Google has never really been antagonistic toward other app stores.

Sure they have.

* You have to convince your users to go into their security settings and check the scary box with the even scarier warning. If Chrome started only trusting Google's CA with no option to add others you wouldn't be arguing that 'it's not so bad you can still click though by adding a security exception'.

* 3rd party app stores are incapable of actually installing or updating apps -- they're basically glorified downloaders. There's no way to 'trust' another app store so that it can perform these actions on your behalf unless you root your phone.

<comment><USER26> I don't remember Samsung or Amazon having trouble with that. Google isn't really the "first party" for most phone because they hardly make any phones themselves, even in partnerships.

<comment><USER22> I would make the same argument if we were talking about Samsung/Amazon branded phones as well. The issue is that users can't put app stores they like/want in that same privileged position.

In my case I would like to put F-Droid there but unless I root my phone the best it can do is download the APK and notify me to install it manually.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Gab is probably going to lose. Apple has capricious and inconsistent rules for what's allowed, why not Google?

<comment><USER29> I'm not judging if the case has merit or not, I'm not a lawyer, however one could argue that Android is a monopoly, iOS isn't.

<comment><USER30> > I'm not a lawyer, however one could argue that Android is a monopoly, iOS > isn't.

Uh... how? They're literally each other's major competitors. Each is good evidence the other is not a monopoly... and Android, unlike iOS, permits third-party app stores like the one Amazon put together.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Gab could use this as an opportunity to build up an app store of their own. Line has an in app store. Gab could too.

Encourage users to side load gab, then you have a dedicated core audience who wants to support your platform. In app purchases could make them a ton of shared revenue. Apps, stickers, MAGA hats.

If Gab succeeds in replacing Twitter, they could generate further revenue by front running Wall Street with gabs. I can't imagine how Twitter has money problems when they have the POTUS making market moving tweets regularly.

<comment><USER18> _Encourage users to side load_

Is there a utility that makes side loading easier?

<comment><USER32> How can it get any easier than checking "Unknown Sources" in the security setting on Android?

<comment><USER22> Easy for people in this forum. Not easy for the general population. Also it's terribly insecure. It would be much easier to be say 'I trust App Store' and add it to the known sources and be able to keep unknown sources blocked.

<comment><USER32> If you're not savvy enough a person to do this then you have no business messing with this. If you can't easily toggle this then how could I trust you were even competent enough to get that app from a source that has not maliciously tampered the app you are installing?

<comment><USER22> Fine, but if that's the case it certainly ruins the argument that there's an alternative to Google Play for everyday users.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> They're trying to gain publicity and strengthen the narrative "liberal California is censoring conservatives".

I don't think they care about winning this either. The kind of people who use gab would already know how to sideload an Android app or use alternative app stores. Besides, you don't need an app, the website does the job too.

</comment><comment><USER34> I don't think that current anti trust law is a good way to address this. This isn't really a competition question.

If we want to protect speech that travels through semi-private networks, I think we need some new laws written.

<comment><USER35> Why isn't it a competition question? Gab is pretty clearly competitive with G+ and Youtube.

<comment><USER36> As far as I know, gab is more closely a competitor of Instagram and Twitter, neither of which is a Google product.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Non-paywalled link: [http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/09/15/free-speech- social-...](http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/09/15/free-speech-social- network-gab-files-lawsuit-google/)

Their attorney: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Randazza](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Randazza)

<comment><USER37> Breitbart is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination, and I cannot see why you linked the personal Wikipedia article of their attorney.

<comment><USER38> Can you explain to me the difference in reliability of information between the version posted on WaPo and Breitbart?

<comment><USER39> Brietbart has a very negative reputation for reporting on political drama in misleading ways. Search "liberal" on Brietbart and you'll see what I mean.

<comment><USER40> Unfortunately, the same can be said of the Washington Post and the New York Times.

For example, the New York Times featured a piece [0] stating President Trump will "erase from the annals of life on earth" several species of animals, including the Hawaiian Honeycreeper, the Joshua Tree, the Horseshoe Crab, and more. Why? Because President Trump exited a 1 year old environmental accord.

Still other mainstream outlets reported, "Donald Trump will have his own version of Hitler's Reichstag fire to expand his power and take full control of the government."[1]

That is reporting on political drama in misleading ways.

[0]: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/opinion/the-planet- cant-s...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/opinion/the-planet-cant-stand- this-presidency.html)

[1]: [http://blog.judahgabriel.com/2017/06/the-sky-is-falling- docu...](http://blog.judahgabriel.com/2017/06/the-sky-is-falling-documenting- leftist.html)

<comment><USER41> Those articles are clearly marked as opinion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This is a meritless lawsuit brought purely for political purposes. My question is who is funding the lawsuit?</comment>


Silicon Valley homes now out of reach even for big spenders - <AUTHOR> http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/14/housing-crunch-hits-new-extreme-even-big-spenders-cant-find-homes/ <comment><USER2> In a sane world, the Bay Area would have the highest new-construction numbers of any metro area in the USA, and probably the developed world. Unfortunately, the market is so distorted that I'm only aware of one potential large-scale buildout in the area (the Brisbane Baylands development -- and even that has a 50/50 shot of being successfully blocked). Such pointlessly wasted potential. :(

<comment><USER3> Or some of the tech companies could be distributed over a larger number of cities. It seems ironic to me that tech companies, of all industries, are placing such a huge premium on physical proximity.

<comment><USER4> I'm a longtime Bay Area software engineer, and the problem is it's scary to move to a town that only has a couple tech companies. I'd love to live someplace smaller, but if I find -- and lose -- a job in a small town, I'm out of other options. Here I have recruiters knocking down my door.

<comment><USER5> Man, it's not like there's 1000 software companies in the Bay Area and 12 in the rest of the country combined. I have a hard time believing you'd be out of a job for _too_ long in Austin or Denver/Boulder or NYC or DC or Seattle?

<comment><USER6> As someone who was present in the so called "Silicon hills" (Austin, TX) and "Telecom corridor" (Dallas, TX) it was hard to find a tech job during the 2008 recession.

These places look great from the outside (cheap, plenty of space, infrastructure etc.), but the job prospects during a downturn are radically different as compared to the Bay Area (I'm only talking about 2008, not the dotcom bubble).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Back during the .com era, I got bored one day and looked up the cheapest house for sale in Cupertino. $300k got you what would have been a crack house in the RTP area - run down, no lot, chain-link fence to keep people out.

I just repeated this experiment - $500k for a 1-acre lot with a shack on it, or $925k for a 2 bedroom condo. Those prices are insane. Yet every time I think they're unsupportable - they go higher.

<comment><USER8> Also don't discount the fact the USD went through some serious deflation. In the name of jump starting the economy, our govt literally made money out of thin air and made it rain.

<comment><USER9> I'm going to assume you've read a bit about crypto currencies, and are now confident in their superiority to fiat currencies. I recommend spending some time learning about basic macroeconomics before drawing too many conclusions about the government "literally making money out of thin air". You can get the kindle version of Keynes' General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money for $1 [0] or pick it up from your local library for free!

[0] [https://www.amazon.com/General-Theory-Employment-Interest- Il...](https://www.amazon.com/General-Theory-Employment-Interest-Illustrated- ebook/dp/B018055I7Q/)

<comment> etr-strike Inflation is responsible for the wage slavery we find ourselves in today. Those peddling inflation and control of the money supply as a necessary component of modern economics are peddling snake oil. Price discovery is hard enough without an invisible handle manipulating the units you're trying to measure value in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The share of the wealth creation in Silicon Valley that has been captured by property owners is outrageous.

<comment><USER11> From yesterday: [http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/poor- millenni...](http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/poor-millennials/)

<comment><USER12> God, 21st century America is a Dickensian Hellscape.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There should be another option besides McMansion, townhouse, condo or condo hi-rise. That is small two-story homes. I say split the lots up into two or three pieces.

<comment><USER14> In many cases this idea is illegal under local zoning laws which is....unfortunate.

<comment><USER15> same goes with going underground. Nothing stops us from having -100 stores underground in NYC or LA or SF. We know how to lay water pipes, AC, deliver air, supplies, create emergency plans, etc... the only problem --- zoning laws :(

edit: was referring to places where you cannot build up anymore, such as sky scrapers in NYC

<comment><USER16> Isn't there some kind of law against a living space without access to windows?

I'm all for the idea, but I don't get claustrophobic very easy

<comment><USER17> Yes, in the NYC administrative code: _Lighting Requirements: All bedrooms must have at least one window that opens to a street, yard, or court on the same lot. The window may also open to a balcony that opens on a street, yard, or court. The total area of the windows in the room must at least be one-tenth the floor area of the room. All required windows must be at least twelve square feet in area._

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> What are the factors preventing real estate developers from buying up land and building larger complexes to meet the demand?

Seems like an opportunity to make a lot of money

<comment><USER18> Not sure how much of this primer on Bay Area politics you need, but here we go:

Mostly local governmental opposition. Local towns want businesses (tax revenue!) but not residential development (costly services!). Local homeowners who vote for said town governments also have an interest in higher home prices.

What makes this possible for them is the lengthy public hearing process involved, allowing local activists to delay construction for years for BS reasons; and the discretion given to elected officials not just to make policy, but also to override it.

In recent years, Bay Area activists (under the slogan of YIMBY - "Yes In My Backyard") have been successful in both pushing housing development through direct local advocacy (especially effective in places with lots of voting renters, like SF proper), and in getting the state to exert its power more over local government. The background to _this_ being that the state has since 1982 had a law trying to combat this phenomenon - the Housing Accountability Act. It requires cities to publish city development plans for public inspection, requires those zoning policies to meet certain requirements in terms of housing quantity, and then to actually make zoning decisions that comply with those policies. However, private individuals or organizations need to bring suits against cities to make it effective, because the US is crazy and prefers lawsuits to actually hiring professional regulators. So activists have funded lawsuits (see the more recent entries at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Housing_Accountabil...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Housing_Accountability_Act#Litigation_involving_the_HAA)) against cities that have obstructed development. They also got the CA state legislature to strengthen the HAA this year, putting more of the burden of proof on the cities to show their justification for development denials, making cities pay attorney's fees when they lose a case, and allowing judges to fine cities for violations.

<comment><USER19> The fiasco that was the appointment of the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the absurd ping-pong policies of the Federal Labor Bureau (FLB), FCC, and (presumably) the CFPB exemplify why in the United States civil suits are the better enforcement mechanism, especially in the modern era. They typically lead to more stable regulatory policies.

Heck, even the behavior of zoning boards exemplifies this. The civil actions are being used by YIMBYs precisely because the regulators--the zoning board-- are neither obeying the spirit nor letter of the law, having become puppets of the elected officials or worse--wagging the dog.

A system of centralized regulators only works when you have a strong and independent technocratic bureaucracy. Because of the extreme divisiveness of modern politics, especially at the federal level where regulatory agencies have become turf for epic policy battles, that simply doesn't exist in the U.S. Indeed, the use of civil actions for enforcement is often chosen precisely to try to deflect criticism aimed at proponents of a regulatory framework, and protect the framework from interference by opponents. This is common at both the federal and state levels, and used by both parties.

Sure, civil actions are more costly. But much like democracy you pay a price for a certain amount of stability. Because of the size, diversity, and peculiar politics of the U.S., we often must resort to such approaches where, e.g., Norway, Japan or the EU would not.

<comment><USER18> You create a centralized bureaucracy by hiring bureaucrats and giving them the final say. The ping-pong policies of the FCC, FLB, and shortly the CFPB result from legislatures insisting on a system where political appointees are the ones who make the final vote on regulatory decisions. This results in a situation like the current FCC, where votes are party-line and regulatory action depends not on the written policies but on who won the most recent election.

Similarly with zoning boards and the YIMBY suits - local zoning policies were made by elected city councils, and the YIMBY suits and state legislation are trying to force cities to pass legislation and then apply those rules without political interference.

<comment><USER19>
      > You create a centralized bureaucracy by hiring bureaucrats and giving them the final say.

Americans don't like doing that, especially conservative Americans for whom "centralized bureaucracy" is literally synonymous with Communism. In many states even judges and sheriffs are elected. My point is, if you want to shield the regulation from politics your best bet (although by no means guaranteed) is a framework that creates a private right of action.

      > Similarly with zoning boards and the YIMBY suits

If zoning boards mechanically applied zoning ordinances like they're supposed to, things wouldn't be nearly as problematic as they are now. Ask any developer; they'd be thrilled if they only had to contend with the letter of the zoning ordinances.

FWIW, in the business world private rights of action are usually preferred over a centralized regulator, at least if they have to choose their poison. Centralized regulators usually _prohibit_ certain business practices prophylactically long before any substantial harm arises. Whereas with private rights of action you get to do whatever you want, whenever you want, until you _actually_ harm someone.

Historically this is one reason why some economists argue the United States and other Common Law jurisdictions that relied on civil actions were more innovative. Similarly, such jurisdictions were long considered more business friendly as regulatory policies were more predictable. A central regulator can decide to block your business on a whim, whereas with a civil action there has to be _actual_ harm as well as refusal to settle damages outside of court. Both can involve a lot of red tape and a long paper trail. The important distinctions are 1) whether the government steps in before or after substantial harm has occurred, and 2) how closely penalties reflect actual harm.

Moreover, the basic issue is how reliably you can price risk into your business plan. A business can reasonably plan expenses for civil suits. A regulator can shut you down, and all the money in the world won't stop it.

But other Common Law jurisdictions have slowly shifted enforcement to Continental-style centralized regulators. The U.S. has too, but it's been more chaotic, inconsistent, and (predictably) much more corrupted by politics. There are many reasons for this, but in any event there's no reason to think that Americans can do centralized bureaucracy any better than we do now. It's important to recognize and accept built-in political and societal constraints when engineering regulatory frameworks if you want to maximum benefit and minimize harm.

<comment><USER18> > The U.S. has too, but it's been more chaotic, inconsistent, and > (predictably) much more corrupted by politics. There are many reasons for > this, but in any event there's no reason to think that Americans can do > centralized bureaucracy any better than we do now.

Agreed. Hence my original "because the US is crazy".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I wonder how the self-driving car trend will change things in the Bay Area. Right now, there's a tradeoff between paying $2M+ for a house and having a 2 hr+ commute. When your car can drive you to work, the commute becomes much less annoying. If people can save $1.3M on a house in exchange for a long, but self-driven, commute, the allure of living right in SV will be significantly lower.

<comment><USER21> Really, you'd enjoy sitting in your car for 2+ hours every weekday? That's incredibly unhealthy.

<comment><USER20> How is this any different from a 2 hr train commute, which many people endure? Not saying it's great, but if it saves over $1M in purchase price (plus another $10k/yr in property tax), I think some people would take the bargain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> "The biggest single factor that determines pricing or value of a home is supply and demand,"

It's a bit different from the traditional supply and demand: There are two kinds of demand: One is the demand for actually using housing, which is not affected by supply and price. The other is the demand as a financial instrument, which even increases with rising prices.

</comment><comment><USER23> I know there is a class of people in SV unaffected by this directly, but eventually it MUST start to affect them in that they will be unable to get employees to come to the area? I guess this is probably a self correcting problem with more people/companies going to Seattle, RTP, Austin, Boston and elsewhere.

<comment><USER24> The best way to cut success probability of your startup in to half is by basing it in SV. Startups don't have truckload money to pay for COL in SV. They can't attract talent other than big shots who are already multi- millionaires (and likely won't code). People from other place would not move to join them because base salary won't even pay for their rent (and stock options stays paper money for long time). It's utterly foolish to base your startup in SV. Come here for hiring but keep your base out of SV, probably in Austin, Seattle, Florida or may be Southern CA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I find it beyond belief that local homeowners are being so short sighted. Do they not worry what their children/grandchildren are going to do for accommodation when they are property hunting? Or is their assumption that screw them, that's their problem?

<comment><USER26> As with most issues, what does the future have to do with _today_?

Most people don't want to take the risk of a huge hit on their property value _today_ in exchange for a chance at avoiding crisis some day in the future. Ideally, some other chumps would take a huge hit on _their_ property values for the future, and mine would remain high.

I don't actually live in SV, but that sort of thinking is everywhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Fuck the Bay Area. Just...fuck it. There _are_ other well-paying jobs in nice parts of the country where you can still live like a human being and not spend 4/5 of your income on rent or 2 hours a day in traffic.

Just boycott the whole damn mess and let the _companies_ figure out that they have to _stop_ hiring and expand to other parts in the country.

America _cannot_ do city planning to save its life. Hasn't been able to since the 1920's. It's all single-story homes and strip malls and highways and that shit doesn't scale past a point that most other industrialized societies laugh at, but we just _suck_ at it here and quality of life goes to shit immediately.

Just accept it, there's no easy solution, and move somewhere else. Even NYC is better at this point. DC are has a shit-ton of jobs, so does Texas, so does Washington, so does Colorado.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm a developer well away from Silicon Valley, so when I saw this story I laughed. Then I remembered my most recent paycheck, and I cried.

</comment><comment><USER28> many homeowners are electing to retain ownership of their home but rent it out. this has reduced the inventory available for purchase. many homes on my street in Los Gatos have become rentals. when my new neighbors (renters) tell me their monthly rent, my jaw drops.

<comment><USER29> If you follow homes on Zillow you'll see small two bedroom houses get bought for 1.2-1.5 million and then immediately show up as rentable for $5500/month.

If you actually live here and want to buy it's very difficult and extremely risky. I don't mind living with roommates, but if you're someone who wants to have a family it's probably not worth it.

I share a 3 bedroom with three other roommates (four total since there's one couple) and the total rent is $6150 (which is a pretty good deal).

I wish there was some hefty tax on people buying houses just to rent them that don't actually live here.

<comment><USER17> _I wish there was some hefty tax on people buying houses just to rent them that don 't actually live here._

So, you want to pay quite a bit more on your rent?

I don't get the aversion to rentals. Not everyone wants to purchase a house everywhere they might live.

<comment><USER29> Maybe some other way to not incentivize rich people from far away buying houses to rent which drives the entire market (and rents) up?

It's not an aversion to rentals (I don't mind renting) - it's more an aversion to burning large amounts of money on extremely high rents even when I plan to stay somewhere for a long time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> what is the situation in east bay Oakland or thereabouts? or perhaps Marin county? are they just as insane?

<comment><USER31> Yes. But proportionately less as the commute worsens.</comment></comment>


Vodafone sues a customer in India - <AUTHOR> http://epaper.livemint.com/ArticleImage.aspx?article=01_06_2011_009_003&mode=1

<comment><USER2> Valia needs support from all Indian telecom users. There seems to be no service guarantee agreement for Indian users at all. The only thing most telcos do these days is send you a bill. Indian customers should rightfully get discounts for downtime and bad service. Vodafone and others should ensure that they do not sign up people for services arbitrarily.

</comment><comment><USER3> They haven't sued him instead they've threatened him with legal action to get him to take down web content. The web content includes personal contact details for Vodafone staff. So that's reasonable

It looks like Vodafone isn't providing the promised service but I guess the consumer protection goverment agency in India is a bit ?ineffective?. So that's a bit rubbish.

Not really much of a story here.

<comment><USER4> Well the story goes as, the customer didn't get the promised 3G service around his house so he got pissed and started calling Vodafone customer care and soon started leaking off personal details of the Vodafone employees he talked with.

Vodafone even compensated for it and provided him with complementary 2G plan which should have solved the problem. But he kept posting and abusing. He was told to delete all that but he ignored those requests so the case.

Thats all i have read, am not biased or supporting Vodafone just replied to shred some light.

But seems ridiculous to sue a customer over this, eventually this would end up losing a few many customers for Vodafone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Suing a customer = Priceless!

I predict Streisand Effect in 5..4..3..2..1..

</comment><comment><USER6> Good luck going with that to Indian courts... Usually they are more partial to consumers and probably blast Vodafone for trying to curtail freedom of expression etc...

<comment><USER7> Sarcasm?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> and I thought Vodafone problems are exclusive to Australia.</comment>


A More Detailed Look at Facebook Music - <AUTHOR> http://blog.earbits.com/online_radio/a-more-detailed-look-at-facebook-music/

<comment><USER2> This just goes to prove the point that Numair Faraz in this post that's still on the front page (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3029872>):

Don't build your product on a platform you can't own. Even the AOL guy's preferred developers lost to integration with outside music apps in the long run.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's like saying don't build your platform on AWS. You make educated choices and, if you're smart, you don't create complete dependency on someone else. But taking advantage of opportunities, even if for a short while, can be highly lucrative.</comment></comment>


Listening to Mozart does not make you smart - <AUTHOR> http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/05/listening-to-mozart-does-not-make-you.html <comment><USER2> We've been had! It's a shame that we will have to tell this to all the kids today who are constantly listening to Mozart.

All jokes aside, when I was a little bit younger and took my first philosophy course, I remember the professor saying something like "Garbage in, Garbage out." So let's say that listening to Mozart doesn't make you smarter. This, however, has no bearing on if other forms of music make you less smart (which I believe is very possibly true). Besides that, I find the most amazing thing happen when I listen to great classical music: I can actually think without the music interrupting my thoughts 95% of the time. The 5% of the time it does happen is only if I accidentally chose something to listen to that has vocals (Opera, which is amazing how great it sounds even though I have no idea what they are saying), or if it is something particularly raucous by Stravinsky.

<comment><USER3> I have the same experience but I don't do it anymore. Doesn't it just mean that with certain types of music we can ignore it enough to do other tasks? Why do we want to have inputs that we then ignore? If the music is worthwhile doesn't it deserve our attention?

<comment><USER2> Well my experience with it is that I believe that it actually influences my thought patterns and helps my train of thought progress. Of course this is anecdotal evidence and it would seem that the article contradicts my belief, which is why I failed to allude to it in my original posting. Besides that, if my train of thought does come to a conclusion, I get to enjoy some great music until my next thought begins.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Well this ruins my strategy to become smart. Time to move onto plan B, "reading War and Peace and telling everybody about it".

<comment><USER5> Don't forget "Atlas Shrugged". I hear that one mentioned at least twice a day by patrons of my local Starbuck's, so I know it must be _deep_. (-:

<comment><USER4> If that doesn't work I'm just going to learn some French words and randomly sprinkle them throughout my conversations. Merci. Baguette. Champagne. [1]

[1] See? I sound erudite already.

<comment><USER6> using words like 'erudite' is a perfectly cromulent way of displaying your intelligence.

<comment><USER7> How uncouth!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sure, listening to one piece before taking a standardized test doesn't help, but I would wager that truly appreciating Mozart, and certainly playing an instrument of any sort, does.

<comment><USER9> It's probably not enough to play an instrument. Being passionate about and engaged in music to the extent that one analyses the experience and actively experiments -- that level of engagement might help. I know plenty of musicians whose approach to playing an actual instrument isn't much deeper than playing Guitar Hero.

<comment><USER10> I do recall at least one study that said that high school students who take music do better academically. Could have been some serious selection bias in that study though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Mozart may not make you smart, but maybe it's that smart people listen to Mozart.

<comment><USER12> And _truly_ smart people are too busy taking over the world to find time to listen to music anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I believe that the effort to understand something you or the general population does not, does make you smarter.

</comment><comment><USER14> I guess this explains all <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_effect> I myself likes Canon in D by Johann Pachelbel. It help me think calm and clear (it's the peaceful and fun feeling).

</comment><comment><USER15> Listening to Baroque music might: [http://brainbasedbiz.blogspot.com/2007/04/baroque-music- help...](http://brainbasedbiz.blogspot.com/2007/04/baroque-music-helps-you- focus.html)

</comment><comment><USER16> And I thought it was all about the theta waves that tap our superlearning abilities. Baroque had that form.

</comment><comment><USER17> uuhh, really. oh. this explains a lot</comment>


Rust vs. C++/Qt complete ecosystem? - <AUTHOR> Hi All,
I am an immigrant in Europe. I am pretty good in C++14/CMake/Boost library. I have also worked in Qt. For my better future, what should I choose ? Should I build expertise in C++/Qt or should I learn Rust ?
I don't have a lot of time, because I also have to learn German. <comment><USER2> I love Rust and use it for my personal projects.

But for the next few years, C++ seems like a clear winner for maximizing career opportunities. The ecosystem is already mature and you'll find plenty of existing job listings in Germany.</comment>


Shovel: Rake for Python - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/seomoz/shovel <comment><USER2> Fabric isn't mentioned once in the README. Says "We didn't like the alternatives out there." with no details.

Having said that, it looks like the HTTP server is the USP here. Being able to have non-techies run Fabric tasks is definitely a goal that's passed me fleetingly in the night. So, add this to Fabric and we're good.

EDIT: The author, Dan Lecocq is near me in Seattle so, what with it being a small world and all, I just wrote to him (in case he's not the author of this thread) via his blog to ask him what he didn't like about Fabric, and suggested he respond here.

<comment><USER3> As a user of and sometimes contributor to fabric, I would like to point out that fabric is really good, but not perfect. No software really is. There are times I have chafed against fabric -- sometimes I would like it to be "heavier" doing more things automatically, and there are others I would like it to be "lighter", getting out of my way so I can just do my stuff. I will still reach for fabric first when I need tools, but it is nice to have alternatives available for those times I need something else.

Similarly, it frequently benefits all projects to have a few alternatives and different implementations for the same concept. Ideas can be explored independently and features can be borrowed back and forth. If nothing else, and provided that shovel gets to a fuller development stage, this could be a good thing for all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What does this solve that fabric doesn't? Read through the docs but didn't see any comparisons.

</comment><comment><USER5> It doesn't seem to do task dependency like Rake, which is unfortunate. It's the only thing missing from fabric.

I'm half a mind to write my own with pbs (<https://github.com/amoffat/pbs>) thrown in...

</comment><comment><USER6> See absolutely no overwhelming cause to invest time switching from Fabric to this. I think everyone (including fabric maintainers) would love some alternative solutions in this space but this seems like a lateral move.

</comment><comment><USER7> We already have Paver[1] in this space. It has task dependencies, can replace distutils, is used at Mozilla.

[1] <http://paver.github.com/paver/>

</comment><comment><USER8> One thing Shovel has going for it is that it appears to "just work" for Windows users. Compare to the setup process for Fabric:

[http://www.jonnyreeves.co.uk/2011/08/getting-python-and- fabr...](http://www.jonnyreeves.co.uk/2011/08/getting-python-and-fabric- installed-on-windows/)

Windows doesn't support hashbangs, so Shovel does currently need a batch file in Python's Scripts directory, but that's not a huge deal.

</comment><comment><USER9> WHY CAN'T WE JUST USE MAKEFILES

<comment><USER10> Cause sometimes you need your tasks to have, you know, logic and stuff ? Or am I the only one who want to do the equivalent of a "if" in a build script from times to times, and feel completely helpless with Make ?

<comment><USER9> [http://sunsite.ualberta.ca/Documentation/Gnu/make-3.79/html_...](http://sunsite.ualberta.ca/Documentation/Gnu/make-3.79/html_chapter/make_7.html)

<comment><USER10> Thanks. Did not knew about this (I should have pointed that I haven't been using Makefiles for a while).

However :

"Conditionals control what make actually "sees" in the makefile, so they _cannot_ be used to control shell commands at the time of execution." (emphasis mine).

So I get that is would not solve the kind of issues I had in mind... Never mind.

<comment><USER11> You're not supposed to put significant logic in a makefile. You've already got tons of tools for real logic. A makefile is a dependency graph. If statements are for defining slightly different graphs in slightly different environments.

If you need to add real logic, write a shell script.

A well written Makefile has a small preamble of variable definitions, followed by a couple of named convenience .PHONY targets (without any commands), followed by a small handful of pattern rules, followed by the dependency graph. Each edge in the dependency graph should include as few commands as possible, preferably just one!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Interesting, but at this stage the only functionality it provides is tasks discovery and argument passing.

What I would like to see is some facility to aid with writing meaningful tasks that execute system utilities or perform work on remote servers over ssh.

The Web API is also a nice concept, but I would prefer a control panel over Fabric-like tool rather than a dependency that I have to install on every target host.

</comment><comment> lost-theory Right now it seems more comparable to argparse than Rake or fabric. The server part is neat, but a lot of my fabric tasks would probably time out in the browser (unless this can run tasks in the background, async).

</comment><comment><USER13> it seems the whole point is simplicity

> Tasks should be easy to define -- one decorator, no options

lets see how long it lasts... at some point they will realize they need a build-tool. Rake is a build-tool. Shovel is not.

</comment><comment><USER14> Python already has tools for this. IF I were interested in my working environment becoming more like a Ruby working environment, why wouldn't I just use Ruby?</comment>


Ask HN: Why not to reinvent the wheel? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I suppose it depends on which wheel one plans to reinvent. It's a judgment call.

As a programmer, I've found myself seeing an app or framework and trying to recreate it on my own. Whether I succeed or fail doesn't really matter, but rather the knowledge from the experience is what I'm after.

In practice, I almost always try to use existing tools where I can rather than building them from scratch. That said, sometimes it makes sense to quickly hack the part that I need rather than include an entire vendor library or to attempt to extract the part that I need.

</comment><comment><USER3> There are plenty of examples of reinventing (or at least reimagining) something with great results. Apple has a great track record with the iPod (not the first MP3 player, iPhone (not the first smartphone with apps), and the iPad (not the first tablet PC). Google was also not the first search engine, and Facebook was not the first social network. If you can do it better or more profitable or even just different, do it.

</comment><comment><USER4> In my particular slice of the industry, it's because there's already thousands of developers out there supporting, extending, and maintaining the wheel that's already been invented.

</comment><comment><USER5> Unless it's a new and improved wheel, you may never recover the cost of capital for marketing and business development.

</comment><comment><USER6> No reasons why not. Go ahead, knock yourself out.</comment>


Does Silicon Valley Have an Insider Trading Problem? - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnbc.com/id/42377452

<comment><USER2> The author should mention that to trade on these alternative markets one must be an accredited investor (ie have a net worth of $1 million or earn $200k per year). He kind of makes it sound like any employee with equity could take advantage of privileged information.

But that's not the case, and if I wanted to buy into these companies, for any reason, I couldn't because I'm not sufficiently wealthy enough. That's too bad, because I'm certainly much more educated about this world than I am the general public market.</comment>


Would you like to be able to send personalized recommendations via email? - <AUTHOR> https://relevon.io <comment><USER2> Can't anyone do this already?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, but mostly for enterprise and they are quite expensive. Not accessible at all for most of the of ecommerce stores.</comment></comment>


HP plans to cut upto 30k jobs - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-15/hewlett-packard-to-cut-up-to-30-000-more-jobs-in-restructuring?cmpid=yhoo <comment><USER2> Wow weren't they already in the process of cutting around 30k people? Is the total now up to 60k+?</comment>


"Poor people don't plan long-term. We'll just get our hearts broken" - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/21/linda-tirado-poverty-hand-to-mouth-extract <comment><USER2> I feel stupidly lucky that I got to where I am today. I was living in a friend's apartment with about $100 in "savings" and no job prospects in a town where I knew one person.

Now, I own a house, work as a software developer and get paid nearly stupid amounts of money.

Luck, a few good people (Brian, we still appreciate the $100!), and a natural affinity for computers are all that separate me from working those same minimum wage jobs and living hand to mouth.

However, having crossed that line in both directions has also made me aware that even with all of that, I'm still only a few months of unemployment away from being homeless again. I only hope that the startup I work for doesn't go under, and that if it does I can find another good paying job.

<comment><USER3> Do you feel the need to remedy this injustice, when, as you claim, the difference between you and a poor person is luck?

<comment><USER4> Across a population this kind of 'bad luck' can have huge economic costs, and is a massive drag on innovation and productivity.

It's not just about personal stories.

Falcolas might not have been able to borrow $100, and would likely have ended up somewhere very different.

And the startup economy would have been down by one potential developer.

You might think 'There are others' \- and you'd be right.

But the effects scale. If enough people don't get a break, opportunities shrink across the landscape.

<comment><USER5> 'And the startup economy would have been down by one potential developer.'

Not only the startup economy.

Brief thought experiment:

Imagine two people. Person A is a car mechanic. Person B is a software developer. Neither are employed but both are more skilled and likely more efficient than each other in their respective fields.

Despite the fact that A needs a website and B needs an oil change, A and B will likely end up performing the work themselves, not because they enjoy it, but because they can't afford to pay each other.

This is a vast oversimplification (in this case, they could just directly barter and exchange no funds, or even if they did exchange funds $50 would flow one way and right back the other).

But the economy dies with the middle class. When no-one can afford to partake in services, we all suffer.

<comment><USER6> > Despite the fact that A needs a website and B needs an oil change, A and B > will likely end up performing the work themselves, not because they enjoy > it, but because they can't afford to pay each other.

If they don't have dollars, they can pay each other in IOUs (which aren't divisible, but otherwise would work fine).

<comment><USER5> Well, that's basically what credit is. You expect to be paid in the future, so you can buy things now.

Affordability is about more than simply having some means to pay, though.

I often struggle to find a word that fits well here.

The dictionary defines afford to mean: 'to be able to do, manage, or bear without serious consequence or adverse effect'.

By that standard, some people who can't afford to go to college actually do. The means are available via loans, but there are serious consequences and they will be saddled with large amounts of debt. So what's the term for that?

I don't think 'afford' as a proxy for 'strictly possible' is very useful and I'd be glad to hear of an alternative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Scientists have discovered that being poor actually impairs our cognitive abilities. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/28/the-lasting- impacts...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/28/the-lasting-impacts-of- po_n_4170124.html)

<comment><USER8> Link to the source: [http://www.pnas.org/content/110/46/18442.abstract](http://www.pnas.org/content/110/46/18442.abstract)

Relevant quotes from the abstract:

Adults with lower family income at age 9 exhibited reduced ventrolateral and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity and failure to suppress amygdala activation during effortful regulation of negative emotion at age 24. ... The findings demonstrate the significance of childhood chronic stress exposures in predicting neural outcomes during emotion regulation in adults who grew up in poverty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Or what if, God forbid, the car breaks down or you break a bone?

I'm not going to add anything meaningful about "breaking a bone" and universal healthcare, but when it comes to a car breaking down there's something to be said about how the American car-culture and its suburban-centered development is actively at work against America's poor people.

Not sure how that can be remedied in the short- to medium-term, but something needs to change about how urban planning is done.

<comment><USER10> Yea, suburbia is _expensive_. You need to drive everywhere. A tank of gas is $50, and that's a lot of money even if you're not "poor".

<comment><USER11> Only if you don't include housing costs and increased costs for stuff like food and materials. Yuppies (like myself) drive up rent prices anywhere near public transit.

Ghettos are cheaper than suburbia but the trade off is less security and selling your kids future down the toilet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This bit is great:

> We're aware that we are not "having kids", we're "breeding". We have kids > for much the same reasons that I imagine rich people do. Urge to propagate > and all. Nobody likes poor people procreating, but they judge abortion even > harder.

<comment><USER13> I don't understand how individuals can bring new, innocent life into this world... With an uncertain economic outlook, or without at least a stable financial base to care for them.

#Edit: I'd honestly like to hear some comments/feedback about the individuals that disagree with what I said above.

<comment><USER12> My wife and I are ambitious people, "planners" from childhood who got the grades, got the degrees, and got the high-paying jobs. But our daughter, who was, um, "unplanned," brings us more joy than any of those accomplishments. And the wonderful things about human existence is that having kids and making families is accessible to almost everyone.

<comment><USER14> I suggest people have a baby as soon as they can -- early 20s. The later you do it, the more problems occur.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#mediaviewer/File:...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#mediaviewer/File:Down_risk_by_maternal_age.png) This pictures explain it nicely. But really, there are a lot of other reasons, scientific literature has a lot to say about that. Don't do it your 30s, do it in your 20s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _> I make a lot of poor financial decisions. None of them matter, in the long term. I will never not be poor, so what does it matter if I don't pay a thing and a half this week instead of just one thing? It's not like the sacrifice will result in improved circumstances; the thing holding me back isn't that I blow five bucks at Wendy's. It's that now that I have proven that I am a Poor Person that is all that I am or ever will be._

I have a hard time believing this statement. I know that being poor in the US is very tough, but the author's statement that it is impossible to go from being poor to not-poor doesn't ring true. For example, doesn't the author expect that the full time school they are doing is going to have some financial payoff in the future?

<comment><USER16> What's the point of saving? One car crash and it's wiped out. You save and delay the gratification, but it never comes. You save and save and save, then some bad luck wipes it out. You lose a job. A vet bill. A friend needs a room and some food.

Or spend the money today on some burgers and a DVD for the kids. Get hugs and kisses and a full belly.

Poor people aren't stupid. You seem to think they are. She may go to school, get qualified but it's a huge gamble. And if something happens that means she has to miss school and doesn't pass the exams, that's a lot of wasted money. You have to be in a place where a 3 year plan is achievable. Gambling time and money on self education takes a lot of mental effort. Every day you have to be prepared to be knackered, poor, time deprive your kids, all for the gamble that in the future even with the qualification you'll get a better job.

What's the point? Who the hell cares.

<comment><USER15> _> What's the point of saving? One car crash and it's wiped out. You save and delay the gratification, but it never comes. You save and save and save, then some bad luck wipes it out. You lose a job. A vet bill. A friend needs a room and some food._

That is ridiculous. If you hadn't saved and you had the car crash, then you would have been carless. Instead you were able to use to car

 _> Poor people aren't stupid. You seem to think they are._ Why do you think that I think poor people are stupid? Do I literally have to agree with everything any poor person says to avoid this kind of cheap shot?

I agree that the payoff from education may be a gamble, but it was just an example of the many ways people can become better off.

<comment><USER17> I'm amused that your comment is getting voted down, ostensibly by people who don't agree.

I'll go much farther than you did and say defeatism is for losers. I don't mean that as a judgement, but as a statement of fact. You'll never get ahead when you don't see a point. Life is mostly a mental game.

A serious problem for a lot of people (beyond the poor) is that they spend far more cognitive time thinking about how to justify and feel good about their circumstances and decisions than how to improve them. Change comes from within and change is hard.

<comment><AUTHOR> Beyond the poor that's a feature, not a bug. If you hate your life and you're not having it objectively terrible then it's your mind that's the problem. Objectively improving your life will do nothing.

And defeatism may well be unreasonable, but who claimed otherwise? That it's bad is obvious, and stating it helps nobody. Even the author of the article knows it's bad and wrong but does it anyway.

<comment><USER18> I disagree. Taking right action and objectively improving your life will make you feel better.

Actions affect emotion. Just like the action of smiling itself has been proven to make you happier, taking steps to make your life better will impact your feelings about it.

<comment><USER19> It only does this in certain cases. It can also negatively impact those who wouldn't want to do it. You have to factor in a cost to all of these things - even for something as simple as smiling. For smiling most of the cost is mental, but it's still there.

I feel like there's a lack of explanation on "effort" that a person can spend. Like why a person will be able to do some amount of work but then get incredibly bogged down and not feel like doing more, even though they aren't really "tired".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Slightly tangential but the image of hundreds of people flocking to a free dentistry service in a giant hall not merely horrified me (look, you are American, you should realise that the rest of the rich world looks at you the same way guests at a cocktail party would look at a merchant banker who just arrived having not changed his clothes or bathed in six months)

Anyway - horrible image. But it does strike me as the likely way forward for providing affordable health care. I suspect that many of the inefficiencies in our delivery of healthcare are around throughputs at diagnosis (hard to fix) at preperTion and delivery of the non drug intervention.

In other words, stop persuading people to go individually for flu jabs, just tell everyone there will be a fair outside Sainsburys.

</comment><comment><USER21> When our first son was born 17 years ago I was making $10/h. My wife got WIC, and used medicaid. We told the government that she lived with her mom and that I was a deadbeat. We needed the help, and my low-wage job would have been prohibitive. $10/h actually wasn't too bad in '98 for a single dude. I had an apartment, ate, had utilities paid, with enough left over for beer, weed and cigarettes.

It was rough, but definitely not hopeless. Not all of the decisions we made were good (lol, by a long ways), but enough of them were.

I never expected to be poor forever, which makes a huge difference. There were spans of depression where I felt like giving in and just accepting my lot in life, but punched through and kept grinding. Thankful for that.

<comment><USER22> > I had an apartment, ate, had utilities paid, with enough left over for beer, > weed and cigarettes.

That actually sounds pretty great. You covered your necessities and had a few luxuries. Heck, I make an order of magnitude more than minimum wage, but my life doesn't sound much more glamorous than that.

If poor people are able to afford food, housing, and small luxuries (cigarettes), is life really so bad?

<comment><USER23> If you're making an order of magnitude more than minimum wage that puts you at $72.50 per hour, or about $145k per year. That might not sound like a lot to the regulars on this site, but it's almost triple the median US household income ($52k) and should put you comfortably in the middle class in almost any developed part of the world.

You also probably don't have to worry about getting sick or injured (health insurance and sick leave are basically assumed in most careers that pay >$100k/year), getting access to money (whether savings or credit) for emergencies, or being able to support a loved one when they have problems.

There's nothing "glamorous" about scraping by month to month, working an hourly job with no benefits or paid leave, or having to lie to get access to social services to support your family. It might not be as bad as living in medieval-era poverty, but it's still miles away from your six-figure professional lifestyle.

Life can be (and often is!) fine day-to-day when you're poor, but the complete lack of an effective safety net means the difference between "doing okay" and "living on the street with no options" is razor-thin.

<comment><USER22> To be clear, I'm well aware that what I make places me comfortably into the upper middle class.

My point was simply that my life generally doesn't seem much/any better than joelhooks's ostensibly "poor" life.

I might have health insurance, but I haven't used it once. Even though I have sick leave at work, I'd probably never take it (preferring to work remotely).

I guess my main point is that we shouldn't lose sight of the advances which centuries of development have brought us. An order of magnitude income differential no longer connotes an order of magnitude difference in lifestyle. At least for young single men, it seems like there's almost no difference in lifestyle based on salary.

<comment><USER23> If you honestly believe your lifestyle is no different from someone getting by on $10 per hour then I doubt there's much I can do to dissuade you. That being said, I still believe you're underestimating just how much more stability and confidence you have as a product of your income.

I personally have very clear memories of the years where I worried constantly about finding and keeping enough work to pay rent, left problems with my health unaddressed because I couldn't afford to fix them, and stayed in a bad relationship because my partner had a place to me to stay and a car I could take to job interviews.

If you had asked me then I would have said my life was fine b/c I had friends, plenty of cheap beer, and didn't really know any better. Now that I'm also solidly in the middle class and can afford luxuries like an entire house I share with just my wife, regular meals out, and leisure travel I would describe those years as "strained" and "challenging" at best.

<comment><USER22> > If you honestly believe your lifestyle is no different from someone getting > by on $10 per hour then I doubt there's much I can do to dissuade you.

I guess maybe I'm just not allocating my money intelligently, but it really doesn't feel like my life is much better than "poor" young people.

My university friends who survive on a $4000/semester stipend don't seem any less happy or contented than me. If anything, more so.

> much more stability and confidence you have as a product of your income.

Admittedly, I don't really worry about the effect of losing my job. I could probably sustain myself for a few years off my savings.

But, on the flip side, having a "professional" job is also much more all- encompassing. I doubt people working at McDonalds frequently wake up with thoughts about new strategic directions and methods for flipping burgers, but I am. In exchange for the stability which a high salary brings, I'm always thinking about work.

<comment><USER24> I think someone flipping burgers at McDonalds would trade waking up thinking about work for waking up and thinking about how they'll feed their children any day of the week.

Also, the concept of being able to sustain your current lifestyle for a few years on your savings alone makes you sound like you're from another planet to someone making minimum wage with the savings and benefits that entails. It also doesn't appear to jive with your earlier statement about managing your money in such a way that your day to day finances would be in any way similar to someone earning $10 hourly. Where I come from, having enough money for beer and weed might mean you've got $20 to your name, not a savings account with enough for rent and expenses for the next 2 years.

Edit:

Your friends at university might appear to have a fairly similar lifestyle to yours on the measly sum of $4000 per semester given the fact that university life generally comes accompanied by prepaid meal plans, health insurance, counselling, housing, on campus services and student discounts. Such amenities are a far off dream to those below the poverty line.

<comment><USER22> > It also doesn't appear to jive with your earlier statement about managing > your money in such a way that your day to day finances would be in any way > similar to someone earning $10 hourly.

I never claimed my finances were similar to someone earning $10/hour. Just my lifestyle. (The fact that I don't have much to spend money on is part of the reason I've managed to accumulate extensive savings.)

> university life generally comes accompanied by prepaid meal plans, health > insurance, counselling, housing, on campus services and student discounts

They do have housing taken care of, but that $4000 is used for meals. While those fringe benefits are tangible, I don't think they make a major lifestyle difference considering that most never use health or counseling services

<comment><USER25> You're probably right about day-to-day lifestyle differences being rather small between surviving poor and thriving middle class. The biggest difference is in the exceptions, both positive and negative. Someone just getting by won't have the spare cash or leave time to take a vacation, and a single disaster could put them on the streets if they don't have family or friends to turn to (which can feel just as shameful as being on the streets). The other major difference is psychological: the feeling of being trapped in a precarious situation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Sounds like there's not much point in helping the poor, then, because they're just going to cock it up.

I disagree - I think poor people are indeed capable of making good decisions and planning long-term - but what other point are you supposed to take away from her article?

<comment><USER24> The point I took away from the article seemed to be emphasized by these two statements that she made:

>And honestly, I wouldn't even mind the degradations of my work life so much if the privileged and powerful were honest about it. If they just admitted that this is simply impossible.

>I'm not saying that someone doesn't have to scrub the toilets around here. All I'm saying is that maybe instead of being grossed out by the very idea of toilets, you could thank the people doing the cleaning, because if not for them, you'd have to do it your damn self.

As a society, we make poverty into an inescapable and self-reinforcing cycle by attaching such a large stigma to it. The working poor are performing the work necessary to prop up the rest of our civilization while we spit on them for holding that station. We need to admit that that attitude is a problem and then we need to work to change it.

Any honest work can be rewarding in itself but only so long as it is recognized as honest and valuable work. Part of that recognition must be to receive fair compensation in the form of a living wage that covers expenses and allows for saving money towards the future but it also must include respect from the people that benefit by your services.

If we all had to invest our energies in producing, packaging, and preparing every morsel of food that passed our lips, cleaning and maintaining every part of our homes, workplaces, and vehicles, or have a hand in the creation or maintenance of any of the thousand other parts of our daily lives that must all exist and function in perfect order for us to simply get on with it, we'd all be less able to perform the other activities required for the continuance of our society in its present state.

This is simple division of labour, it's been with us since we chipped our first flint. The concept is a simple one: either we all survive or none of us survive. If we all invest even a little bit of effort in keeping that maxim at the front of our minds I believe we really can have a better world tomorrow and the day after that. It's only when you begin seeing people as expendable extras, just another replaceable part, that things begin to fall apart. We're all human, we all deserve a fair chance, and a second one, so help someone, say thank you, and stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> (Note, I'm a software engineer in California but this is based on what I've heard from others/read)

Something else that I've heard from other people/read about is how basically it takes money to save money.

For instance, most of us have bank accounts that don't charge any monthly fee and we're fine having to keep a minimum of $25 or so in the account. But if you're poor, that's a lot of money to keep locked up, which is why my guess is that a lot of people don't have bank accounts. They then have to cash their checks at places that take a good sized bite out of each pay check. People living pay check to pay check also likely can't wait the few days it takes for a bank to clear checks.

It seems like there's got to be a better way of paying people who don't have a bank account so that they can access the money right away and don't have to pay fees.

From what I've heard, you can be on food stamps/other assistance but if you cross a certain line in terms of income you can't qualify anymore, instead of gradually diminishing as one makes more.

<comment><USER28> > It seems like there's got to be a better way of paying people who don't have > a bank account so that they can access the money right away and don't have > to pay fees.

I think it is called "cash". Turning a piece of paper (ie: a paycheque) into cash costs money and so does turning cash into a piece of paper (ie: a money order to pay rent or a utility bill). The banking system isn't free. It is much more profitable for the bank to prey on the poor who have no capital to offer up and who have no time to research their different banking options than it is for a bank to offer affordable services to low-income customers. Cash costs money to mint and print as well but that's hidden in seigniorage, taxes and inflation.

There are payroll cards (in lieu of cheques) for employees without bank accounts but, since the card issuer's true customer is the employer, they often hit employees with high fees for everything which end up costing more than a bank account would.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Excerpt: _At one chain I was required to sign a contract stating that I was an at-will employee, that I would be part-time with no benefits, and that if I took another job without permission I would be subject to termination because the company expected me to be able to come in whenever they found it necessary.

And yes, this is legal._

Yeah, that sort of crap needs to stop.

Also, we need to make it possible for average folks to become homeowners again. Also, this Obamacare crap: I am not a fan. Make it a government benefit or butt the hell out of whether or not I buy insurance. Thanks.

(In case you missed it, I have been homeless for three years and counting. I think I have more hope than this woman describes having, but I got that by walking away from my corporate job. I was able to do that because I was a military wife for a lot of years. So I still alimony and, in theory, access to free medical care. I still have things that are kind of a throw back to the 1950's way of life. Plus six years of college and other assets that have given me maneuvering room that most poor people lack.)

</comment><comment><USER30> > The closest Planned Parenthood [family planning clinic] to me is three > hours.

> Nobody likes poor people procreating, but they judge abortion even harder.

<comment><USER31> _Nobody likes poor people procreating, but..._

Don't go by what they say or how they act: from the decisions they make, it's clear that TPTB derive a great deal of value from the existence of vast and increasing numbers of poor people. Sure, they'd probably _prefer_ to just impoverish more of the middle class, but the procreation of the poor works as well.

<comment><USER30> To better understand her writing, you have to think of it as "how poor people feel", and not whether or not it fully reflects reality. Also depending in what part of the country you live, you will be judged harshly for abortion (and not just by the lower class); even in many parts of California. People tend to forget that the only liberal parts of CA are the SF Bay Area and the LA metro.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I started to read "cell phone", "car" and "kids" and stopped caring. I started with very few money. Then I manage to have my own company. Then I got broken after the war in Mali. And when you are young with no money, you don't need a cell phone, you don't need a car, and you don't make children. You get your life in order, then you go for the expensive stuff. People think it's normal to have these. Guys, it's not even normal to have electricity and water : these are the luxury of 20 % of the world. So stop spending in things you don't need before you can afford them, then complain.

A car is a luxury. You got bikes, public transport, legs...

Cell phone is a luxury. Yes, even when you are looking for a job. Unless you can find a phone bill costing 2$/month, which I do.

Kids are a luxury. Not a right. Not a must have. Something you do when you can give them a decent living. Or you don't make them.

<comment><USER33> I do not understand the sentiment that poor people shouldn't have cell phones.

Please tell me, how does one get a job in the US without a phone? And when one's job means being called in on short notice, how does one keep said job without having a phone?

<comment><USER34> You don't.

The people who consider cell phones or internet access* as luxuries are stuck in the past, probably in the time they grew up. They also often speak of flat screen TVs, laptop computers, and even microwave ovens as being major luxuries compared to the "normal" equivalent. (Can you even still get a CRT TV?)

*It's extremely common for several poor people to share internet access, but at least one of them has to be paying for it.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you "read"/understand/interpret existing code for software? - <AUTHOR>

You are looking at a chuck of code that is 1000 lines long...
- Say if the code has little to no documentation.
- Say that variables are mostly named with acronyms.
- Say there are 20 if statements including nested.
I am a very visually oriented person so i find it difficult.
What techniques do you use to understand what is happening? <comment><USER2> I haven't found a good skimming solution to this. If there's _no_ good documentation, interface, variable naming, or other hint to what it's doing, it either has to fit a code pattern you recognize easily, or else you have to fall back to mentally tracing through what's going on. If I really need to understand it, I start segmenting the code into sections and adding comments about what it looks like each section is doing. Then you can do a few iterations in bottom-up style. For example, with branches, start out by commenting what every branch does considered in isolation. Then from those comments (now hopefully more transparent than the original code was), see if you can find what pattern a series of tests is doing in aggregate.

<comment><AUTHOR> funny you should say skimming...because thats how i have been looking at code and i think it is my main problem...i try scanning the code over and over but get nowhere with it

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It really depends where you're starting from. If you don't have any idea what a particular piece of code does, finding that out is your first goal. If you can, ask someone: a two-sentence summary of what a module does can save you hours of digging through things, and takes almost no time for the person you're asking.

From there, I have a couple of things I usually look at immediately.

The most obvious thing to do is to try to find entry points into the code, and figure out what happens when those calls are made by reading sequentially. This is often the best way to work, although not always.

The second thing to do that can be very helpful is to look at the external library calls that are being made. Those can give you an idea of what the code is actually affecting, which can be very helpful for getting a high-level overview.

Another entry point is state that's being kept and modified from multiple locations. (Figure out what's being stored and why by looking at the code around where the state is modified.)

One last thing you might try to do is reformat the code if it's particularly ugly. I try not to refactor unless I understand what's going on so I don't introduce bugs, but just reformatting can make a big difference sometimes if the style of the person who wrote the code is significantly different from your own.

(And truth be told, 1000 lines of code in one file isn't that bad. When you start working with multiple files, some sort of method of jumping to function/method definitions becomes extremely useful. Since I use Vim, I often use something like ctags. Knowing how to use Unix tools like _find_ and _grep_ is also extremely helpful.)

</comment><comment><USER4> I think I am probably a little above average when it comes to reading, understanding, and fixing other people's code. Here are a few things that helped me train myself:

1) I read a lot of open source code, the more you read the more aspects you learn about the way other people code. 2) I fix a lot of bugs. At first I fixed bugs in an large open source project. Thats all I did in the project, just kept fixing bugs. Then when I got my first real job outside of school (MSFT) I fixed tons of bugs. I poached bugs off other people (this has a side bonus of your team quickly growing respect for you).

Now, those are things that will help grow your skills but probably won't help you at this moment.

Here are some tips for the way I approach the problem:

1) Use a debugger. Right from the start, use a debugger and look at the variables that are coming and going. Look at their values. Do this over and over again.

2) Rewrite the code. Even if you don't use the code and you end up reverting it all (which I do more often then using my re-written code). Start with the smallest methods and work your way up. You will begin to run into issues that the original author also probably ran into. Often times, these issues force the code into a certain form which would be non obvious just reading it.</comment>