Off-Peak Public Transport Usage - <AUTHOR> https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/12/26/off-peak-public-transport-usage/ <comment><USER2> I'm skeptical for many reasons.

First, where is he getting that car commuters outnumber rail commuters (just barely) in New York? Last I heard the split was 60/40 in favor of rail.

Second, where did he get that it is unusual for management to not use a car? Rather famously Bloomberg himself used to commute to city Hall by subway. By the authors own admission, even the lawyers use the subway. New York doesn't have that weird anti-transit classism of the rest of the country.

Third, what is meant by multi modal and why is it a relevant figure if merit.

Fourth, he clearly used New York metro area, not the city proper in his calc. Can I get some footnotes on if the cross comparison did the same thing to other cities?

Fifth, 10 min headways is exactly the threshold where you can just show up and not pre plan your trip. When you get to the station you will wait on average five min. Compare that to the amount of time spent looking for parking or waiting for an Uber. I am unsatisfied with the conclusion that of peak wait times are the reason for underutilization or that there even is an underutilization problem in the listed American cities.

<comment><USER3> 10 minute gaps sounds like a long gap for a city the size of New York.

Most metro lines in London have 2½-5 minute gaps off-peak.

10 minutes is more like the waiting time for the next train from London to Birmingham, after the morning peak: [https://traintimes.org.uk/london/birmingham/1000/monday](https://traintimes.org.uk/london/birmingham/1000/monday)

<comment><USER4> Many of those gaps take place at night. Last time I visited London, I was nastily surprised to find that the tube has a several hour gap during that time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > When there is a deficit, agencies cut there first, leading to frequency- > ridership spirals in which lower frequency deters riders, justifying further > cuts in service until little is left. I

This is one of the things that drives me nuts the most about American attitudes towards public transportation -- that they must make a significant portion of their revenue from fares/ridership.

If we think that large scale people moving is important to a healthy city, we should all be funding it, even if we're not all riding it. Everyone benefits when ridership is high -- businesses, other commuters, people who cannot afford cars, etc.

Why do we always seem give transportation (or public housing, etc.) a heavy initial investment then immediately start neglecting it but tightening the purse strings. We're just making our initial investments that much less valuable.

<comment><USER6> You know the answer to that question but it bears repeating:

Americans have a kneejerk aversion to any sort of taxes because they think they will never see the benefits. So these agencies are forced to fund themselves and/or look to the private sector for support.

<comment><USER7> > Americans have a kneejerk aversion to any sort of taxes because they think > they will never see the benefits.

Close. It's not that they _think_ they will never see the benefits, but rather they _know_ it.

Look, here is a good example of what you and the parent suggest. The ST3 passed in the Seattle ballot, which promises expansion of the public transit network. The project includes light rail to my neighborhood, in about 20 minutes of walking distance from my home. However, the planned date for delivery of the project is 2035. Knowing the realities of public projects in the US, I don't expect it before 2040s. I'll be long retired by then.

At the same time, the ST3 involved a tax increase, which for me means about $10,000 (today's dollars, more in inflated ones) I'll pay in additional tax before the construction is complete.

In addition to that, since the farebox recovery is only around 30%, the city subsidies covers 70% of operational costs of public transit, and the subsidies come from my taxes too. To put it in concrete terms: assuming I use public transit only for commuting, annual fare costs would be $2.75 _2_ 48 = $1320, and so the whole operational costs apportioned to me would be $1320/0.3 = $4400, so the subsidy would be around $3000 per rider. Fortunately, only 10% of people in Seattle commute via public transit, so it roughly translates to $300/person/year now, which I'm paying to support public transit that I don't even use. This number is so low only because the driving majority subsidizes the public transit riding few. Thus, since operational costs grow roughly linearly with the number of riders, if majority of people were using transit for commuting, the cost per resident would have to rise significantly. This would make my public transit costs significantly higher than my driving costs, with greatly reduced convenience. So why would I want to support public transit?

The big issue here isn't that public transit is always a bad idea, it's just it's a bad idea in places where government cannot do large projects quickly and cheaply, and cheaply operate them, which in 2020 is the whole US.

<comment><USER5> Except Sound Transit has come in __under budget and ahead of schedule __on other recent light rail projects. Or, at the very least they 've come in on schedule.

ST3 costs you 0.5% sales tax, 0.8% motor vehicle excise tax, and a property tax of 25 cents per $1,000 in assessed value over 25 years. If you have a million dollar home, you'll pay $6,250 in additional property taxes. With a hundred thousand dollar car you'd still need to be spending hundreds of thousands a year on taxable stuff.

So yeah, you are wealthy and are being asked to put in more than some others. But you'll still see benefits -- light rail stations increase local business, remove vehicles from the road, pollute less, and you'll help leave a legacy for your children and your community.

> This number is so low only because the driving majority subsidizes the > public transit riding few. Fortunately, only 10% of people in Seattle > commute via public transit...

Have a source for that? Because from what I've read 25% of commuters use a single occupancy vehicle (car or motorcycle), 10% use a rideshare (car/vanpool), 49% uses transit, and 10% use walking or biking. [1] And the number of transit commuters is on the rise overall.

[1] [https://www.seattlebusinessmag.com/seattle-using-public- tran...](https://www.seattlebusinessmag.com/seattle-using-public-transit-more- ever)

<comment><USER7> > If you have a million dollar home, you'll pay $6,250 in additional property > taxes. With a hundred thousand dollar car you'd still need to be spending > hundreds of thousands a year on taxable stuff.

Sorry, looks like I'm bad at mental math. I'll edit my comment.

> Have a source for that?

See [1], page 14. It's probably something like 14-15% now. Your link only talks about people who commute to downtown area.

[1] - [https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/transportation/metro/ac...](https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/transportation/metro/accountability/reports/2017/metro-2017-strategic- plan-progress-report.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I know NYC subway runs 24x7, while many other systems do not. I was curious on the actual number of trains.

I made a bunch of assumptions, picked a city to compare NYC to (Berlin), and did some math.

NYC Subway may run ~960 trains per week per line. Berlin s-bahn & u-bahn may run ~1270 trains per week per line.

I am curious how other cities compare

Assumptions:

\- u-bahn day peak = 5 hours @ 4min/train

\- u-bahn day = 8 hours @ 10min/train

\- u-bahn night = 8 hours @ 15min/train

\- u-bahn weekend = 24 hours @ 15min/train

\- s-bahn day peak = 5 hours @ 10min/train

\- s-bahn day = 9 hours @ 15min/train

\- s-bahn night = 7 hours @ 30min/train

\- s-bahn weekend = 24 hours @ 20min/train

\- nyc peak = 5 hours @ 10 min/train

\- nyc off-peak = 19 hours @ 10min/train

\- nyc weekend = 24 hours @ 12min/train

<comment><USER9> It's hard for NYC's subway to run at the frequencies others manage since the system has so many branches and reverse branches. In London I believe there are plans to split the Northern Line into two separate lines to enable running at higher frequencies. The Victoria Line now runs at 36 trains per hour at peak, 100sec/train.

Conversely NYC can run trains all night because so much of the system is double tracked, letting them close one track each way for maintenance overnight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > This strongly suggests that non-work public transportation usage is much > higher in European than in American cities even when the usage level for > work trips is comparable.

Sounds about right. For work trips, the origin and destination are both predictable. I can carefully choose where to rent in order so that I would live conveniently close to a public transport stop. But for "fun" trips and anything else, there's a lot more spontaneity in the destination, often not served by public transport, so a car is still necessary.

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't understand the point of giving a big table of numbers and then not doing any comparisons or calculations based on the data. Maybe it's just meant to make the whole article seem more scientific than the hand-waving that it really seems to be?

Anyway, I can't say for any other cities, but a population figure of 3.7m for Vienna is ridiculously overblown. The actual figure is 1.9m for the city, Wikipedia gives 2.6m for the metro area. But even just the city itself is sprawling and very badly connected towards the outskirts, so even the 1.9m are very unevenly served.

Also, it's not true of course that the French (and Germans, and Austrians) typically take their 5 weeks of vacation in a single block in the summer. That wouldn't leave any vacation time for the winter holidays, other school holidays, etc. Two-, maybe three-week blocks are much more typical in my experience.

</comment><comment><USER12> I love when I come across sites like this, where someone is just so wholly knowledgeable and enthusiastic about something I would have dismissed as mundane.

</comment><comment><USER13> Frequency of service correlates with Freedom to do useful things with the service.

Lack of frequent service or worse gaps in service mean that someone might have to drive or even worse suffer lost opportunity if they cannot drive/pay for a ride of some sort.

Though I would prefer if transit had dedicated underground routes to insulate the noise and make service independent of the weather.

</comment><comment><USER14> Possible alternate explanation: Americans, when not heading to work, get in their car for the pleasure of driving. Disproportionate US car ownership - even in areas with abundant public transport - might help support such a theory, as well as generally American attitudes towards driving being an expression of autonomy.

<comment><USER15> Germans are fairly well known for their love for cars, and a lot of folks have cars "for pleasure" (convertibles, sports cars, etc). Autobahns are also insanely fun - you can actually speed up that sport car, unlike here in the US of A. All anecdotal of course, but I would be surprised if that theory has any evidence to support it..

<comment> kube-system They also have legal requirements for ownership which go way _way_ beyond what most of the US does. I think part of their car culture can be attributed to self-selection bias.

<comment><USER15> I come from a "third world" country, and gotta say the vehicles that are allowed to be put on the street here are shocking. Lost count on how many cars glued together with duct tape I've seen around - I'd be shocked if those are driven "for leasure"...

<comment> kube-system Many are primary transportation for lower income people. But it's also not uncommon in some circles in the US to have a 'beater car', as an alternative to their typical transportation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Every time I have to sit and wait for the Seattle light rail (the red line) outside commuter hours this is what I think about. It's 3:30 pm right now in Seattle and the light rail is scheduled to come only every 12 minutes. I dream of the times this article quotes for Germany and France; 5 minutes between trains would be amazing!

<comment><USER17> Does 7 minutes really make a difference? Presumably departure times are available in real time, meaning you could shave a few minutes off your time at the stop and spend them somewhere more pleasant

<comment><USER18> It brings a completely different way of using the transport, in fact.

When the period between 2 trains/buses/whatever is below 5 minutes, you don't check the timetables, you don't plan anything, you don't calculate anything, you just walk to the stop without thinking.

When the period is 10 minutes or more, you handle it more like an intercity train, you check, you plan, you calculate. Or you don't and you wait, and wait, and wait.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it, but it is a bit of an obsession of mine to plan and calculate everything... also I've lived most of my life in places where you'd be happy with a train, or a bus, every 2 hours (supposing there was a line). For people who have been accustomed to the comfort of mind of the first option, it is felt harder to switch to the second option.

\</comment></comment></comment><comment>-

But then there is the problem of transfers. There, low frequency strikes badly and there is nothing you can do about it, contrary to the first wait at the first stop. Personally, I had no problem with 15 minutes period buses, but the transfers were killing me, and it was getting much worse during low-activity times. Just a small-looking increase in the period has exponentially bad consequences.

Less terrible, there is also the case when you have to arrive at a fixed time. Unless the arrival time matches, a low frequency forces you to start earlier. So, the time is wasted even if you calculated your first wait.

</comment><comment><USER18> It is always difficult to compare such figures. Not only because of different geographic/demographic situations, but simply because of the figures themselves.

First, there is the problem of being careful understanding which figure is given to you.

For example, for Toulouse, he quoted 125.7 M metro+tram _trips_. But 125.7 M is not the number of trips, but the number of metro+tram _" validations"_ (each time you transfer to another bus or metro line, it counts as an extra validation (yes, in this city, even between metro lines)). The total number of trips (132 M) is 30% lower than the total number of validation (188 M). There is no detailed by mode number of trips, so you cannot get the number of metro+tram trips. I guess the best you can do is apply the 30% discount to get an approximation of 88 M metro+tram trips [and I shouldn't even write that because that depends how we decide to count mixed-mode trips].

Then, there is the problem of deciding if some assumptions which are valid here are still valid there.

He has decided to ignore bus network.

Still in the case of Toulouse, the bus network usage is a bit bigger than one metro line, but the thing is that there are only 2 metro lines... Very roughly, each of (metro line 1), (metro line 2) and (bus network) is 1/3 of the total passengers. Worse, if you consider the number of kilometres ran, the bus network represents 73%!

Now you may argue that most bus passengers transfer from or to the metro. It could be true. But that would only affect the relevance of the figure of trips/inhabitant.

However if you want to talk about the quality of the service, the quality of the offer, I don't think you can neglect something that represents 1/3 of the passengers transported and almost 3/4 of the kilometres offer (those figures mean that the metro lines only cover a very small part of the territory, and that's indeed how it is, the bus network is 50 times longer than the metro network). The frequency and spread of the bus offer has to be taken into account, hasn't it? Maybe in other cities the bus network can be neglected, but I don't think it a good idea to neglect it by default.

(One could add that in the case of Toulouse, the bus traffic has grown clearly and steadily, while the metro traffic plateaued years ago.)

And at this point you fall back on the first difficulty I mentioned: how difficult it is to compare networks which grew differently and developed different structures.

</comment><comment><USER19> I wonder what this looks like for Chicago.</comment>


Show HN: Termly – Free Policy Generators for Websites and Mobile Apps - <AUTHOR> https://termly.io/ <comment><USER2> This feels like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

"Disclaimer: Termly LLC is not a lawyer or a law firm and does not engage in the practice of law or provide legal advice or legal representation."

And yet the homepage says:

\- Save Thousands on Costly Legal Fees \- Create Customized Legal Documents \- Customize one of our attorney-crafted policies for FREE

I can imagine a court being asked to determine whether or not Termly is actually providing legal support and advice for its businesses customers.

<comment><USER3> You'll see similar language on LegalZoom, or any legal form website. Legal advice has a specific meaning in each state. Things like legal facts and forms are generally not considered "legal advice".

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This looks great! I've often wondered what the best way is to get a well- written privacy policy, etc, even though I haven't needed to yet.

What about their own privacy policy?

> Third-Party Advertisers. We may use third-party advertising companies to > serve ads when you visit the Site. These companies may use information about > your visits to our Site and other websites that are contained in web cookies > and other tracking technologies in order to provide advertisements about > goods and services of interest to you. See our Cookie Policy for further > information.

> Affiliates. We may share your information with our affiliates, in which case > we will require those affiliates to honor this privacy policy. Affiliates > include our parent company and any subsidiaries, joint venture partners or > other companies that we control or that are under common control with us.

> Business Partners. We may share your information with our business partners > to offer you certain products, services or promotions.

Maybe these clauses are very standard, but you would hope that a company peddling privacy policies wouldn't have one that's as user-hostile as most. Maybe I'm not understanding it properly?

</comment><comment><USER5> I was quite impressed with the service until I found out the only way of using it is via an embed. For documents that (can) be as key as these, I am not 100% comfortable relying on Termly to always work as it should.

I contacted support and they advised them embed is the only option which makes it a non starter for me now, otherwise I would have happily paid the subscription as I do think the documents could be quite useful as a starting point.

</comment><comment><USER6> Why do you bombard me with a bullshit consent box while I was just reading the front page of the website? Requesting one single page shouldn't do anything that would need consent.

<comment><USER7> Welcome to GDPR. Processing of _any_ personal information ("any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person") requires "clear, free, specific and unambiguous" consent. GDPR requires that you inform your subscribers of the existence of data processing operations and its purposes.

Cookies, for example, may track identifying information. Thus, websites are compelled under the law to inform you of their practices actively and directly. Even requesting one page.

<comment><USER8> > _Processing of any personal information ( "any information relating to an > identified or identifiable natural person") requires "clear, free, specific > and unambiguous" consent._

That's totally wrong, please don't spread falsehoods like this. Consent is merely _one_ of several possible bases for processing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So much difference between annual bill and monthly bill. How do you explain it ?</comment>


Steam developers speak: Maximum profits for Valve, minimum responsibilities - <AUTHOR> https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2018/10/19/17959138/steam-valve-developer-support-pricing-reviews <comment><USER2> 1st, these are indie developers, who entered i to an agreement to distribute their games througu steam, not 'steam developers'.

2nd, and more to the point; Most of valves actions seem justified in the examples given. Your EULA, while unusual, is a valid concern for many gamers for example.

I think you could make a strong argument that valve has changed with the opening of steam to more indies, and often in a near preadatory ways. But this article fails to do that.

<comment><USER3> Glad I read this first</comment></comment>


Are Silicon Valley's Engineers Underpaid? - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/153/engineers-to-the-valley-pay-up.html <comment><USER2> Being born in a foreign country, I have to smile when I see a blog entry like this one. I agree that the salary is relative to where people are living and I get the point of the writer. To specify an example, let's say that some Silicon Valley engineer wants to buy a $1M house. With $100K salary, it will make 10 years of salary.

Now, let's move to another country: Spain in this case. A normal salary for a junior engineer is around 15K/year (euro) up to 30K for a senior developer. A big house (for europeans, 950sq ft) in a normal neighbor in Barcelona costs around 400K (euro), which would be like... 26 years of salary?

And I have compared different houses, for what I have seen, in general the price $/sq.ft. is pretty similar between both cities.

As I said, I understand that the engineers might not get back what they produce (and I agree) but I just wanted to give another point of view.

<comment><USER3> @tassl: Do you live in Barcelona? If so, please get in touch with me: stefan.klumpp (at Gmail) - I'm always looking for interesting people to meet in BCN.

PS: is there no direct messaging system on HN? Or am I just too stupid to discover it?

<comment><USER2> Born and raised, but currently not living in Barcelona; I moved to California for Graduate studies.

As you probably should know by now it's a really beautiful city. And probably the city with more entrepreneurs on the country, which unfortunately doesn't say much (given the country that we are talking about).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm not sure that I agree with the tenets of this article. Silicon Valley Engineers don't seem underpaid to me. Sure we could potentially make more in finance, but that doesn't mean we are underpaid. I feel like there are a number of things that I value (in the following order):

1) Exciting work

2) Large potential impact

3) Financial compensation

Notice that money is third, and that isn't an accident. I probably make less than many of my classmates who went into finance (although the difference is likely smaller that one might assume based on comparing "averages"). However, most of them don't really seem to like their jobs all that much. I get to work on interesting things that will hopefully have a large impact, and get paid pretty well for it (I've usually made significantly above the Silicon Valley "average").

In addition, I think that many people in finance are likely overpaid relative to the value they generate, and that there will be a correction at some point in the future.

</comment><comment><USER5> Well, let's see:

1). Does the market clear? Can every company wanting to hire someone for $100k find someone?

2). Do different firms routinely value the sane person consistently, such that switching jobs results in no significant salary increase?

3). Do developers routinely capture gains made as a result of productivity increases? For example, has the adoption of frameworks which make web sites about 10x faster to build in ten years resulted in 10x increases in salary?

...

Well, look on the bright side: you're not Japanese engineers.

</comment><comment><USER6> If so, then more of us should go work for ourselves. Put our money where our mouth is.

If we're truly creating so much more wealth for these companies than we take in salary, it should be easy (ish) to turn that into more money for ourselves, even if large companies don't want to do that.

And if working for ourselves doesn't instantly turn into way more cash, perhaps we're not creating as many billions in actual value as we think we are?

<comment><USER7> There's no reason to assume that a programmer on her/his own is worth the same as s/he is in the right position at the right company. A team can (and should) be worth far more than the sum of it's members.

Reading HN a lot can make us forget that being a great programmer doesn't make you great at business.

<comment><USER6> I would argue that in that case, the business guys are creating a lot more of those billions in value than we generally credit them with.

<comment><USER8> Let me make reduce the cognitive dissonance for you: being a good hacker doesn't make you _lucky_ , and that's the difference.

Nobody admits it, but a lot of the secret of creating a sustainable business boils down to luck, not being a "great business guy". Our industry is set up to reward risk-takers disproportionately...when they succeed. It's a lottery, but we like to justify the disparity in compensation _post hoc_ by assuming that there's corresponding disparity in skill that somehow created most of the value.

<comment><USER9> _"Our industry is set up to reward risk-takers disproportionately..."_

But then we're back to square one: why don't you become a risk-taker yourself? It's easy to paint oneself as an underpaid creator of millions of dollars in value, but for this to be possible someone had first to take a risk and then succeed.

And in case of failure - would you, an employee who gets such a dispropotionately small share of generated value, be so eager to increase your share in the generated loss?

I wouldn't and that's why I don't see much value in the "created value" argument.

<comment><USER8> _"But then we're back to square one: why don't you become a risk-taker yourself?"_

Who says I'm not? Most of the time that people take risks, they fail. That's why it's called "risk", and not "guarantee".

 _" would you, an employee who gets such a dispropotionately small share of generated value, be so eager to increase your share in the generated loss?"_

That's a straw man. Created value isn't allocated in strict proportion to risk of loss, and you don't have to take more risks to get paid more. If that were true, the people who funded a startup would get 99% of the upside, because they had the most to lose. (Also, doctors and lawyers wouldn't get paid squat. Anybody who knows a doctor or lawyer will tell you that that they're just about the most risk-averse people on earth.)

The real answer is that compensation is about market forces. The people with the money are only willing to pay as much as the people who create value demand to be paid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Anyone who believes 100k is underpaid has serious entitlement issues they need to examine. You need to look around and see how the rest of the country/world lives. Sure google, apple, and others may generate enough revenue to pay people more than that but they would also do it without you because 100k will buy them good developers.

American programmer salaries are so far above the country average that complaining is just ridiculous.

<comment><USER11> If you can get 130k across the street, 100k _is_ underpaid. It has nothing to do with entitlement issues at all: it is simply market economics.

How much the janitor makes doesn't figure into the salary for a programmer, except as an indirect consequence.

<comment><USER12> Also: if you're being paid $100k and, in turn, generating hundreds of thousands of dollars of value for your company, you're undervalued and underpaid.

The software industry is one of the few industries where a single person can create mountains of value all by themselves. Comparing software engineer salaries to janitor salaries makes no sense as janitors aren't creating multiples of their salary in value for their employer.

<comment><USER13> The only problem with this example is not every software engineer has the ability to be an entrepreneur. Sure, they can create monumental value for their employers, but there are some people that just can't be founders or cofounders or anything more simply because of how they are. I know quite a few people like this. At the end of the day, it takes a variety of personality traits, skills, brains, and a slew of other things to create a well rounded individual who can maximize value. Outside of this, no matter how much value you're adding to your employer, how can you honestly say you're worth more.

<comment><USER14> I've been thinking about this, and trying to come up with a solution.

The best solution I can come up with is options/stock and salary... That way creating more value DOES help them get more income, subject to the vagaries of the stock market.

Unfortunately, as wonderful as it would be for everyone to receive their exact value in return as a percentage, that's _HARD_... It's hard to quantify and it's hard to justify.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Employers are constantly complaining about a shortage of good developers, so the only possible answer is "yes".

<comment><USER16> Think more and you'll only get an answer of "yes".

Throughout history there has been areas that excel in certain trades. Steel Work and boat building moved from highly talented areas in the UK pre-WW2 where workers were underpaid compared to their skills. As wages rose, this era ended and the steel work and boat building jumped straight to post-WW2 Japan. Similar things transpired as wages rose and it shifted to South Korea that the government suppressed unionization and allowed its steel industry to flourish and still only appears to be in the declining phase of its ship-building.

Whilst the elite of the worlds technology reside in the valley, good developers will be underpaid. When the workers get stupid and want to be overpaid for their work (IE unionise) then there work will move to the third world overnight.

Then there's the other valuation of income. I always make less than I should, simply because if I worked for myself doing whatever job I do I will be making more. If you're an employee, you'll never make what you would as an employer or as a self-employed.

<comment><USER14> Unless you are no good at business tasks. It's an unpopular truth, but still truth: Some people could never run their own business. They don't have the skills, or the mental chemistry. Some kids could never be president, some people can never run at a competitive level, and some people can't work for themselves.

It's not fair, or glamorous, or even particularly PC. But it's true.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> One big issue is that engineers haven't seen cost of living increases in the last 10 years nearly on par with lawyer/finance/professional jobs. This was justified by the "tech crash" for many years, but it went on too long (only in the last few years are salaries going up again).

The only way to afford to live well in a California tech center as an engineer has been to have a big startup exit or a very senior job.

I managed a team at Google, and had 4 direct reports ask to work from home 50% of the time, or even to work 100% remotely, mostly so they could live somewhere cheaper.

This comes out in "work/life balance" - when your commute gets too long so you can afford a big enough house in your 30s, spouse gets mad, you get overtaxed, and it's not a good scene.

<comment><USER18> How is working from home viewed at Google?

<comment><USER19> Poorly.

But to make this post more than just noise, much of the Google culture for a long time revolved around personal relationships and being in peoples cubes to get their attention. Not something you could do from home anyway. The Anybot experiment would have been interesting to see.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'd say the overwhelming majority of programmers everywhere are underpaid. I'm basing this on the fact that I could roughly double my current salary if I quit tomorrow and spent a year working my way up as a welder and my salary is pretty much in the median range for the area I live in.

<comment><USER21> Your argument is insufficient, and I suspect it's because you're implicitly assuming that programming is also more difficult than welding. I could say that McDonald's employees are underpaid, since they could double their salary by quitting tomorrow and working their way up as a welder. That would probably be true, but that alone doesn't mean that McDonald's employees are underpaid.

 _edit: prepended "sufficient" with "in," which makes a big difference_

<comment><USER20> I am not assuming anything. I've welded professionally. I've programmed professionally. I know welding is a hell of a lot easier than programming.

<comment><USER22> Then why are welders paid more?

At my company welders are paid less than programmers, but you can probably blame that on the welder's being in a union more than anything else.

<comment><USER20> Union FUD? Really? Spend some time working in the trades (union and non-union gigs) and then come back and make declarative statements regarding unions.

<comment><USER22> Well I work with the trades on a daily basis. I stand by what I said. The new guys get screwed, the pay scale is entirely weighted towards the guys who have the most years in the union. For the first few years you get paid like crap. And when there are layoffs they trim from the bottom up based on years of service. So it doesn't matter if the guy who is 25 is busting his ass, the guy who is 50 and slacking all day gets paid three times as much and can't be fired.

I know for a fact that the younger guys resent the older guys (and the union that protects the older guys) far more than they resent the non-union or even at times the company itself.

Now I don't know much about non-union welders other than two friends I know. One started his own business making railings and fences and things like that and makes a good amount of money working for himself. He's non-union but also a small business owner so maybe that is a bad data point.

If we eliminated the union at my company, the welders would get paid on merit. It would be a very good thing for most of the younger guys who work their butt off. It would be a bad thing for most of the guys who have been here for 30 years.

<comment><USER20> So you're saying you'd rather have a quick bump in pay than annuity, pension, access to the local's placement services and guaranteed working conditions/benefits? That's your call ultimately but you'll excuse me if I think it seems a bit short-sighted. Out of curiosity do you have your journeyman's book yet?

Edited to add: nepotism and "good ol boy" networks are pretty much how business gets done everywhere, regardless of industry. A lot of people have this knee jerk reaction against such things and don't stop to consider this is the working end of "Networking".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> joe-mccann Here's a tip: move to Austin.

1) No state income tax. Read that again. 2) Cost of living is at least HALF of SF/SV/NYC 3) Real estate is actually affordable, even close in.

Now, I know there is the argument for needing to be in SF/SV for startups and tech, but Austin is a hotbed of tech activity and with more and more companies allowing remote work, it's worth a shot.

<comment><USER23> As a Texan that would love to see more talented engineers and innovative companies here, I agree with you.

But we have a weird mix here. Houston and Dallas have the rich people, but Austin has all the nerds. We need more cross pollination of both to ever be as attractive as Silicon Valley. That, and a lot less hardcore conservatives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Almost everyone ITC is focusing on the developers' attitudes and whether they are "entitled" etc., but it seems to me the article was just as much (more?) about the impact that such salaries have _on the companies._ The author isn't so much arguing that it's "not fair" so much as "it's short-sighted on behalf of the employers," at least how I read it.

The developers' attitudes are relevant only insofar as they influence their actions in this case. If it's making it difficult for companies to hold on to talent, that's a big deal. If it's causing developers to grumble on IRC, not so much.

</comment><comment><USER25> Silicon Valley engineers probably feel underpaid because of the high standard of living of that area. If they made $125k in Atlanta, for instance, they would be living very comfortably.

I'm still surprised at the number of Tech startups still locating themselves in Silicon Valley. I would figure if they started up in a cheaper city like Atlanta it would be more economical for them. But I guess they want to be near the talented people.

Although I would think if you build it, the talent will follow.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think the thing people aren't taking into account is risk. Sure, you don't get to capture all the value you create, but you also aren't (usually) liable for any value you might accidentally destroy, and you still get paid even if your project generates $0.

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't see any reason for the market not to sort it out in this case. Thresholds for starting an IT business are low nowadays and access to the information about the market is pretty easy.

</comment><comment><USER27> _"... But these tales of high-rolling nerds mask a greater truth, one that actually threatens to hurt the tech industry over the long term: Software engineers in the Bay Area are underpaid when you consider the billions in wealth their work creates. ..."_

This observation isn't new, cf: _"Career Guide for Engineers and Computer Scientists"_ ~ <http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/></comment>


C considered dangerous - <AUTHOR> https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/763641/c9a04da2a33af0a3/ <comment><USER2> _> He asked: why is there no argument to memcpy() to specify the maximum destination length?_

I'm confused by this. The third argument provides the destination length, so what good would a "maximum destination length" do? I guess he must mean that because the length is often computed, you'd need a fourth argument to ensure the length isn't greater than some sane upper bound. But you can easily fix that using an if statement around the memcpy.

<comment><USER3> Perhaps because the memory buffers might be of different size.

Maybe memcpy_oobp (out of bounds protection) signature could be:

      memcpy_oobp(void* dst, size_t dst_size, void* src, size_t src_size);

Then again, I guess you could just as well do:

      memcpy(dst, src, min(dst_size, src_size));

But having to explicitly specify both destination and source sizes might have prevented a lot of buffer overwrite bugs.

<comment><USER2> I guess so. One of the LWN comments mentions a Microsoft function memcpy_s defined as:

        memcpy_s (void *dest, size_t destSize, const void *src, size_t count);

which is effectively equivalent to your memcpy_oobp function.

However the Microsoft function also returns an error code which must be checked (because count might be larger than destSize), thus providing another way for the programmer to screw up. I'm not sure if this is better or worse than just copying the min() as in your second example. It probably depends on the situation.

<comment><USER4> Using min() seems like it could be incredibly dangerous as an "implicit" behavior, not to mention surprising.

I'd wager it'd be much better to just specify that abort() gets called in the "overflow" case. (Given that overflow is basically never what you want anyway.)

Yeah, it'll crash but at least it won't be suprising/undefined behavior.

<comment><USER2> For extra fun, the Microsoft implementation of memcpy_s returns an error instead of crashing if either of the pointers is NULL (thankfully doesn't apply if the copy size is 0). There's a reason I don't like writing software for Windows ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Thankfully, compiler warnings and static analyzers have become much better in recent years. For instance, gcc can now warn about a missing 'break;' mentioned in the article (you need to add a special comment like '/* fall through */' if it's intentional). Also, clang-tidy is getting better with each release. I highly recommend using it, although the initial configuration will take some time, depending on the code base.

</comment><comment><USER6> Alas! strlcpy and strlcat are still not present in the glibc, despite numerous attempts, mainly for religious reasons (ie. "BSD sucks").

And yes, having something like "if (strlcat(buffer, src, sizeof(buffer) >= sizeof(buffer)) { abort(); } " is much better than buffer overrun. But security does not always seem to be a real concern, compared to politics.

</comment><comment><USER7> C is dangerous partly because assembly language is dangerous. We will always need some layer on top of assembly that is mostly unchecked and reflects back to how cpu instructions work. This is probably something we must live with until we have processors with the notion of type checking.

C is dangerous partly because of swaths of undefined behaviour and loose typing. Eliminating much of undefined behaviour either by defining the behaviour or forcing the compiler to refuse compile undefined behaviour could be of some help. There are still classes of undefined behaviour that cannot be worked around but narrowing that down to a minimal set would make it easier to deal with it. Strong typing would help build programs that won't compile unless they are correct at least in terms of types of values.

C is dangerous partly because of the stupid standard library which isn't necessarily a core language problem as other libraries can be used. The standard library should be replaced with any of the sane libraries that different projects have written for themselves to avoid using libc. It's perfectly possible not to have memcpy() or strcpy() like minefields or strtok() or strtol() which introduce the nice invisible access to internal static storage, fixed by a re-entrant variant like strtok_r(), or require you to do multiple checks to determine how the function actually failed. The problem here is that if there are X standards, adding one to replace them all will make it X+1 standards.

Yet, good programmers already avoid 99% of the problems by manually policing themselves. For them, C is simple, productive, and manageable in a lot more cases and domains than it is for the less experienced programmers.

<comment><USER8> Ironically other systems programming languages developed outside AT&T walls since 1961 did not suffer from the majority of C's pain points regarding memory corruption.

I really wish Bell Labs had been allowed to sell UNIX.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Terrible title. It's not remotely news that C is dangerous. This talk seems to be about ways of mitigating the dangers. Why not call it "Mitigating the dangers of C" or something else that is less of a tired cliche?

<comment><USER8> Because "Making C Less Dangerous" is the actual title of the talk, and "Towards less dangerous C" is part of the agenda?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The title is completely misleading.

<comment><USER3> I write a ton of C and I _completely agree_ with the title. With 20+ years of experience.

Kernel drivers and embedded system bare metal firmware.

The problem with C is that in any bigger project something _always_ slips through even the best programmers, reviewers, static analysis and unit tests. And that something can lead to disastrous crashes and security vulnerabilities.

<comment><USER11> Don't you think that with the tools we have now it's easier to control the quality of code produced (Clang memory sanitizers and so on)? I feel more at ease to ship C code today after instrumenting it than a few years ago...

<comment><USER3> Tooling _absolutely_ helps to reduce defects. That's why you use them.

That said, sometimes I'm shocked what kind of disasters get past the analyzers.

Stakes are higher than ever. It's not just about functional correctness and avoiding crashes anymore. Your code needs to be _secure_ against outside world malicious actions. Getting rid of counterintuitive security vulnerabilities is very, very hard.

<comment><USER8> I would say that is why security conscious developers use them.

Sadly we are a very very tiny percentage, as proven by Herb Sutter question to the audience at CppCon (1% of the audience answered positively), and CVE frequent updates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Hopefully Zig [1] language will become a better alternative to C in upcoming years. Not talking about higher level code where Rust or Go can be a better choice.

[1] [https://ziglang.org/](https://ziglang.org/)

<comment><USER8> No language can become an alternative to C in the context of UNIX like OS because no one is going to re-write them from scratch, given their symbiotic nature.

Even if the complete userspace of Aix, HP-UX, __*BSD, GNU /Linux, OS X, iOS, Solaris,.... gets re-writen in something else, there will always be the kernel written in C.

Hence why improving C's lack of safety is so important to get a proper IT stack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Why don't they use valgrind?

<comment><USER5> The kernel has CONFIG_HAVE_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK.</comment></comment>


Meetup is currently under DDoS attack - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/Meetup/status/439123043777277954

<comment><USER2> Confirmed that I'm still unable to access it. Its still returns the "DDoS protection" message followed by the "Website is offline" page.</comment>


SlackWithUs – a curated list of 30+ regional startup-focused slack communities - <AUTHOR> http://slackwithus.com <comment><USER2> This looks like a great idea - definitely something I've been looking for.. What are your thoughts on using this to kind of "scope out" a possible location to which you'd like to move?

</comment><comment><USER3> I can't join - I get this admin error, meaning whomever is the admin for that regional channel (in my case, Boston), did not use the proper admin auth token. Should look into that.</comment>


Google Trips app being shut down on August 5 - <AUTHOR> https://www.androidcentral.com/google-trips-app-going-way-dodo-come-august <comment><USER2> I used Google Inbox everyday, used Google Trips for every tip. Both got/ will get slashed in 2019. I wonder what's next to be killed? Google drive? Google translate? Google photos? Google maps?

<comment><USER3> Add it to the graveyard [https://killedbygoogle.com/](https://killedbygoogle.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Search or the assistant or just the calendar or maps always seem to be a step ahead of Google's specific use type apps.

Some Google product (i don't even remember what) likes to tell me about popular new spots to visit but it only pops up randomly, really only cares about the urban core type places, seems kinda to prefer the more absurdly trendy (if I was 21 I might think that place is neat), and often reads like a paid advertisement.</comment>


A Tale of Two Ports: Automation at Oakland vs. Rotterdam - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@typesfast/a-tale-of-two-ports-automation-at-oakland-vs-rotterdam-e93628be1e13 <comment><USER2> TraPac and Middle Harbor in the Port of Los Angeles are automating. Oakland isn't considered big enough to need it.[1] for an overview of automation in Los Angeles ports, see [2]. The Port of Los Angeles isn't a port operator; it's a landlord. Thirteen private companies have their own terminals, docks and equipment, and two of them are automating now. To automate a terminal, you have to take it out of service and build a new one.

The above references may be too specialized for general readers. Here's a "gee whiz" video of Rotterdam port operations.[3] And a tutorial with animations, from the port of Busan, S. Korea.[4]

Note that the article is partly an ad for FlexPort. Automated ports have less need for FlexPort's service. Most automated ports have buffers, big stacks of containers. Containers come off ships and are transferred to container stacks nearby. On the other side of the stacks, trucks approach and have containers loaded onto them. The terminal handles container sorting.

Oakland loads many containers directly from ships to trucks towing container trailers, without buffering. Matching up trucks and containers is a problem. FlexPort's concept is "Uber for containers" (I know, but here it's real.) Any truck, any container, any destination within some distance limit.

If Oakland had automated container stack buffers, FlexPort wouldn't be needed.

[1] [[http://www.joc.com/port-news/port-productivity/us-ports- weig...](http://www.joc.com/port-news/port-productivity/us-ports-weigh-value- terminal-automation-investment_20141002.html)] [2] [https://www.portoflosangeles.org/Board/2014/April/042014_ite...](https://www.portoflosangeles.org/Board/2014/April/042014_item5_Transmittal_3.pdf) [3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxXZQ7emHC0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxXZQ7emHC0) [4] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t2cqiQl0BE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t2cqiQl0BE)

<comment><USER3> FlexPort's customer is the business paying for the shipping (freight forwarder & customs broker), not the port. Their interest in port automation* is that it makes for interesting content marketing and it may benefit their end-customer someday.

* from what I can tell

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> IIRC, Rotterdam had a massive govt. subsidy for going fully-automated, which kind of helps.

I spent 10 years between 1997 and 2009 (took a break for grad school) working on semi-automated tracking systems for ports up and down the West Coast (and other places), including one in Oakland. The recent surge in interest in intermodal container ports sure brings back memories!

My company developed niche systems for tracking container location within the terminal by instrumenting and tracking any crane/truck/etc. that could move a container. Even though longshoremen were still operating the equipment, it helped to have a real-time (and historical) picture of what happened, because planning systems were now less subject to clerical mistakes.

Here's their (sort of terrible) website: [http://www.nowsol.com/](http://www.nowsol.com/)

These guys pretty much own the market for the terminal-planning systems we fed: [http://navis.com/](http://navis.com/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Rotterdam also has unions to deal with. A colleague of mine, who worked on the software for the final stage (some 15 years back) moving containers onto trucks, told a story where, after union negotiations, they implemented a system where forklift truck drivers could choose between three different containers to pick next instead of giving them just one instruction, for the single, most optimal, one.

<comment><USER6> What is the logic behind it? Having an opportunity to select is more entertaining to the driver?

<comment><USER7> I am in the middle of writing directed pick/put module for a warehouse. I just had a meeting last week on the exact same topic. My software gives the user the most optimal pick list and the warehouse manager wanted me to change it so his team could pick from alternate bins. His justifications:

1\. My software doesn't know that there is a cart/ladder/forklift blocking the most optimal bin while the bin next to it is easily accessible.

2\. My software cannot tell if QC is in middle of sampling or if Inventory team is in middle of cycle counting that exact bin.

3\. My software doesn't factor in changes in real-world that have not yet been inputted into the computer system. So if there is spillage, quantity, or quarantine issues that haven't been scanned into the system yet, my software calculates the optimal bin incorrectly.

It's not that code cannot calculate what optimal means given a set of requirements. It's just that the end-user might be in a better position to decide if it really is optimal or not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The real automation in the Rotterdam port is the Automatic Guided Vehicle system that moves containers between the loading cranes and a container re- arranging system that optimizes the placement of containers dock side.

The loading cranes themselves are only remote control on the deep water side, and this is for health and safety reasons. The cranes for the trains and barges for the hinterland are sit-in cabs.

SOURCE: I did a tour of the terminal a few weeks ago as part of the 6th International Conference on Computational Logistics [1]

A similar AVG system is in place at Hamburg as seen in this video [2]

[1] [http://realtimelogistics.info/iccl/](http://realtimelogistics.info/iccl/)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B3PzgYUK_0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B3PzgYUK_0)

<comment><USER9> This video suggests the cranes are automated as well:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxXZQ7emHC0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxXZQ7emHC0)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> From the Wikipedia page, it looks like Rotterdam had 36,315 vessel arrivals in 2008 while Oakland had only 1,928. Is this comparison really apples to apples? They point out the difference in tonnage, but I'm just wondering if there isn't a better comparison to be made.

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

<comment><USER11> As noted in the article, Oakland is containers only while Rotterdam handles other types of cargo as well, and their comparison is based purely on containers. However, all things being equal, it should be _more_ efficient to unload a few ships with lots of cargo compared to lots of ships with little cargo.

That said, Oakland is somewhat weird choice, it's the world's 62nd busiest (by TEU) when Rotterdam is 11th. LA is the busiest in the US at 18th, with Long Beach (also greater LA) not far behind.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world%27s_busiest_cont...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world%27s_busiest_container_ports)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> TIL the average salary for port workers is $147k.

<comment><USER13> That's the kind of quality of life a strong union will get you as a worker. No wonder the biggest business interests have undergone a decades-long propaganda campaign against them.

<comment><USER14> >>That's the kind of quality of life a strong union will get you as a worker.

The flip side of the coin is that the quality of air you will breathe every single day is guaranteed to be abysmal, and air quality has a _very_ strong inverse correlation with life span.

<comment><USER12> Why's the air so bad? Because of the bunker oil used on ships, or some other reason?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This article tells you basically nothing if you're not already convinced that more automation is always better, or that while "technological disruption... almost inevitably leads to displacement of some segments of the workforce. In the long run, however, technology ends up creating better jobs and expanded opportunities across broad spectrums of the economy."

The calculation that "proves" Rotterdam is more efficient is based on the unargued and generally false assumption that both ports are operating at full capacity - the author just divides TEUs by number of cranes. TEUs handled per year in Oakland only just matched their 2006 peak after falling drastically during the Great Recession: [http://www.portofoakland.com/maritime/containerstats.aspx](http://www.portofoakland.com/maritime/containerstats.aspx)

And Oakland's main capacity limitation actually seems to be congestion getting containers out of the Port: [http://www.wsj.com/articles/oakland-port- proposes-trucking-f...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/oakland-port-proposes- trucking-fees-to-fight-congestion-1440103747)

<comment><USER16> I was also expecting hard figures about how many containers and shifts have been lost in accidents compared to an automated port.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> ''But in many ways, the Port of Oakland, and most American ports in general, are some of the most technologically antiquated in the world.''

This BLDGBLOG post from earlier in the year details to automation on the on the East coast.

[http://bldgblog.blogspot.ie/2015/04/infrastructure-as- proces...](http://bldgblog.blogspot.ie/2015/04/infrastructure-as-processional- space.html)

</comment><comment><USER18> I can't wait for more automation to hit US ports. I'm all for decent wages, but dockworkers get paid so much they end up behaving a lot like oilfield workers. Dockworkers are a prime example of what gives unions a bad name.

<comment><USER15> Do you think nobody should be making six-figure salaries? Or just that unionized workers shouldn't?

<comment><USER19> The idea of blue-collar workers getting well-paid is very upsetting to some white-collar workers. They feel their social status threatened by people they deem beneath them.

<comment><USER20> I don't think that's the primary issue people have with high wage union labor, and your comment shows an unwillingness to engage constructively with political opponents.

Unions are a monopoly, and when prices (in this case, of labor) are high due to a monopoly, we must ask whether the government should allow, forbid, or encourage this monopoly. When wages are very low, I think most people are not opposed to unions forcing wages above market rates (I am, but that's another issue). But when wages are high, or driven far above what people think market wages would be, people question the moral basis for protecting workers from competition.

So the issue isn't that blue collar workers are "beneath" white collar workers, but that (at least to an industry outsider) it's not clear what special skills these workers have that would command high market wages.

<comment><USER13> Let me just ask you: why, in a market system, shouldn't people get as wages _whatever they can demand_ , using personal negotiating skills, collective negotiating skills, law, whatever?

Management won't leave money on the table, why should the workers?

<comment><USER20> You had me up to "law". From the econ perspective, the "free market" does not include lobbying for particular laws. To define it as such is mockery of the term.

Assuming completely free property rights and contracts, unions would probably have almost no power. The power of unions stems from the fact that they are protected (e.g. you can't fire someone for joining a union) and the fact that the state ignores violent crime when unions commit it (but as far as I know that's not the issue here, I'm just mentioning for completeness).

I think that a legal system that is skewed towards labor is ok, for various reasons. But when you see wages pushed far beyond market wages, it's fair to ask if the system is too skewed.

So to answer your question, a person _should not_ get whatever they can command by influencing the political system. Yes, both sides will try to do it, but in both cases the response should be to argue against them, and instead argue for impartial laws.

EDIT: the delay before the "reply" link becomes active is there for a reason. I'll respond to any reply that I consider to be based on a thorough reading of my post, and not a knee jerk reaction (for reference, the reply I'm referring to was written 4 minutes after my post).

<comment><USER13> Of course the free market includes the rules that govern it. If you don't have rules, you don't have a market, just a rule of anarchic might-makes-right force.

If you're going to say "well, only property laws then," that's still laws! That's still a set of "this is how it should be" encoded into rules that we all have to agree to to take part in it!

It's just been, for so long, assumed that "screw the workers and don't let them fight back" is somehow "more free" that we treat that like a built-in thing, when really, that's just one way of doing it.

As for state-sanctioned, union-committed violent crime, oh please.

EDIT: Since you edited your remarks to include the last paragraph, I'll address that, too.

Why shouldn't people work to influence the political system in their favor? We all live here, we all have a role to play in the design and operation of the laws of our city/state/country. If enough people _like_ strong worker protection laws, well, that's democracy, why shouldn't that stuff get encoded into law?

SECOND EDIT: Yeah, it only takes a minute or two to read what you're saying and respond to it. I saw a "reply" link right away, so if there's some extra delay built in, it didn't apply to me.

<comment><USER20> First, I was out of line in my edit. It's not for me to say how you should post on HN, so I apologize. I'll stick to the addressing the content of what you wrote.

The difference in our viewpoints seems to be that you have an "adversarial" understanding of the political system, where different interest groups try to get the best for themselves. On the other hand, I think that politics is mostly driven by ideology, not self-interest. If I can state an ideal set of laws, that should be sufficient and I don't need to concern myself with how special interest groups might _try_ to manipulate the set of laws.

I also think you conflate self-interest with what is right/wrong when you say " If enough people like strong worker protection laws, well, that's democracy, why shouldn't that stuff get encoded into law?". Do they like it because they think it's right, or because it's good for them? That's an important difference.

On the specifics, I mostly believe in the free market. I don't consider the free market to be anti-worker (redistribution through taxation/welfare handles that aspect) or arbitrary. Classical economics shows that the free market should be considered the default position. I also support limited rights for unions, e.g. I don't think an employer should be able to fire you for joining a union, because the employers control of how people communicate in the workplace could be considered an unfair advantage.

Re violence, do you disagree that union members do sometimes commit violence against so-called scabs, when they attempt to enter a worksite? And do you think that in general these acts are punished in the same way that other violent acts would be?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Earlier discussion (different article, but same subject): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10306204](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10306204)

(Other article at [http://priceonomics.com/why-arent-americas-shipping-ports- au...](http://priceonomics.com/why-arent-americas-shipping-ports-automated/))

</comment><comment><USER22> How is there an article about the costs of using containers without automated infrastructure on Hacker News and nobody's made a Docker/Kubernetes joke yet?

<comment><USER23> Why didn't you do it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This basically only shows again what the tiny Netherlands can achieve. I dont think there is a single country that threatened by a force of Nature. But instead of giving up, you basically become the best Worldwide in construction in, on and around the water. Basically, if you have any problems with water at any Kind of level, just ASK the dutch.</comment>


Simple stock analyzer built upon tweepy, elasticsearch and nltk - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/kentsyx/stock-insight-engine <comment><AUTHOR> Feedback welcome! Star if you can :)</comment>


Legacy code: changing software you don't understand - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@lmatteis/legacy-code-changing-software-you-dont-understand-bbbe101087ba <comment><USER2> The strategy this guy is suggesting looks like it could actually make the code harder to grok, I think</comment>


Felony Charges for 13-Year-Old Who Recorded His Conversation with School Admins - <AUTHOR> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180623/12433740097/illinois-prosecutor-brings-felony-eavesdropping-charges-against-13-year-old-who-recorded-his-conversation-with-school.shtml <comment><USER2> I always found the prevalence of law enforcement and criminal law within US schools odd in and of itself.

Where I grew up, you'd get detention/expelled, in the US you get charged with a crime and an actual police officer will put handcuffs on little kids, little kids will go to court, and get a criminal record until 21.

The whole criminal justice system in the US is incredibly unusual from the perspective of an outsider.

For example, you literally put innocent people into a situation where they need to plead guilty for a shorter time in jail or to save money. Such as traffic courts where the ticket is less than the "court costs" (if you fight it). Or a plea deal of time served (Vs. spending longer in jail awaiting trial).

<comment><USER3> It's disgusting.

And the gutting of public school funding by Democrats and Republicans undermine any consideration of what is "right" or moral or healthy. School districts are discarding teaching degree requirements to meet spending goals all over the US. Of course kids are going to feel alienated. They absolutely are. And of course they will act accordingly. And now they will go to jail for it.

The only solution here is voting for politicians who do not accept corporate donations. Vote another way and you are consenting to this behavior.

<comment><USER4> Citation for Democrats gutting schools?

I've never heard of a single Democrat for cutting public school funding in my lifetime. That's a far right talking point driven entirely under Republican doctrine since Reagan. The Republican party stopped being a sane party once Reagan came in. Democrats haven't had a spine or a heartbeat since Carter lost by being honest.

We do definitely agree on getting corporate and lobbying dollars out of government. I honestly can't believe that this is legal in a democracy and not illegal in the Constitution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is what happens when the criminals are in charge and get to write the laws.

No, that's not anti-American hyperbole. It's just Illinois history.

The law was created by crooked politicians to protect crooked cops, politicians, and their cronies.

Corruption is a way of life in Illinois, and especially Chicago. It's ingrained in the system. There are dozens and dozens of books about it, and the reason that so many of last century's major journalists came out of Chicago.

Whenever I hear people from New York or Los Angeles or pretty much any other American city moan about their politicians being corrupt, I laugh to myself and think, "amateurs."

</comment><comment><USER6> Wow. Prosecutors moved to prosecute a 13 year old for recording a conversation with a principal?

Even after the IL state govt made it finally legal to record a conversation with other public officials (like cops)?

So much for public transparency with local tax dollars that go to schools.

Good article.

<comment><USER7> It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the reason it's being pursued is because of how absurd it is--to finally put it to rest once and for all.

<comment><USER8> And unfortunately they're using a 13-yo for their chess pieces. I have to believe there's better existing cases which can be appealed to test this law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The prevalence of law enforcement in schools in recent decades is a troubling practice. Pranks, misbehavior and disruptions that were once handled in school with detention or other discipline are now referred to law enforcement where the system is absolutely not designed to teach or rehabilitate, but rather to punish.

I remember students getting into fights and being sent to detention or in- school suspension together and afterwards things being fine, now schools are calling the police and students are being put in jail, sometimes never to return to school.

</comment><comment><USER10> When they say "prison" what does that mean in the case of a minor? Do they even have prisons for minors?

Anyways, I can't see him ever being convicted of this...but I hope the ACLU or somebody will help him get decent legal representation...this could go pretty high on appeal eventually.

<comment><USER9> Yes, they have prison for minors. Quick search shows over 70k in juvenile detention at last count. Juvenile detention is just prison for kids, looks no different than adult prison to me.

<comment><USER10> There are prisons and there are jails and detention centers. I've been to jail more than once and jail is essentially 3-square-meals-a-day with library and exercise yard access and otherwise a softcore joke that just wastes your time. Prison means you could easily die, get raped, get beat up regularly, and has little in the way of fun and games. They are very different situations, at least that's what I was told by some of the people I met in jail who had been to actual prison.

I seriously doubt they put kids in places similar to adult prison. If they do, the USA is just another shithole 3rd world country.............

<comment><USER9> YouTube search ' juvenile prison' and see yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The administrator should be fired, the prosecutor should be fired, the kid should get an apology and restitution.

</comment><comment><USER12> This article is extremely biased and poorly written. I'd prefer to read something coherent with a more neutral tone vs an angry one. Sucks for the 13 year old - a felony charge seems extreme.

<comment><USER13> Truly, why can't we just get a balanced look at the many nuances of charging a 13 year old with a felony for recording audio on his cell phone?

<comment><USER12> The piece is an angry rant, hence my comment

<comment><USER3> As it should be... and you should feel ashamed imo.

<comment><USER12> Ashamed of what?

<comment><USER14> Of deviating the conversation into a ridiculous, meaningless tone-policing thing.

<comment><USER12> It was an awfully written blog post, which I mistook as an article.

I agree with the ridiculous assertion, given that I'm to be ashamed and the top reply to my comment includes the line "I'd take something with an angrier tone, like an appeal to fire the school principle and ban him from teaching for life."</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How To Cosmos-Proof Your Startup - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680472/how-to-cosmos-proof-your-startup

<comment><AUTHOR> > _"The only thing that is everlasting (at least until your consciousness > expires) is how you feel about what you're doing. Make sure you feel good > about what you take on. That's a responsibility that you have to yourself, > the only thing you can't really outsource in a four-hour workweek, alas."_

Gold!</comment>


Landmark Technology's Terrible Patent Has Survived - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/how-landmark-technologys-terrible-patent-has-survived <comment><USER2> In an effort to add some clarity to the chaotic jurisprudence on Section 101 (patent eligibility), the USPTO recently introduced guidelines that make it easier to obtain software patents. These guidelines bind the examiners but not district courts. Given the USPTO's patentability court's (the PTAB) limited jurisdiction to hear and decide 101 challenges, I think the USPTO is going to keep churning out questionable software patents like Lockwood's. Because patents like Lockwood's rarely get litigated in district court, the problem of these shakedowns is not going to end until either (1) the PTAB gets some jurisdiction to decide 101 cases (a lower cost venture than district court) or (2) Congress steps in and clarifies the law. I do think that software implemented patents have a place, but the current state of affairs ain't it.</comment>


Why It's in Apple's Best Interest to Compromise on Encryption - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601002/why-its-in-apples-best-interest-to-compromise-on-encryption/#/set/id/601000/ <comment><USER2> Not in Apple's best interest. Were I Apple, I would tie this up in court until there is a better political climate. They have the money to kick the can down the road.</comment>


Techniques to help you think better (google tech talk) - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeJSXfXep4M&feature=sub

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's what I got out of the video:

_Principles_ 1\. Stress hurts problem solving. So minimize stress. Best state is to be a little happy. 2\. Creativity is the ability to notice faint connections/associations. It helps to be calm and to dampen first responses.

_Useful Techniques to Calm Down_ 1\. Label your experiences and feelings. It helps to dampen the feelings and engage reasoning. 2\. Reappraise stressful experiences. Ask how can I see this experience differently? Find something humorous.

_Useful Habits_ 1\. Pay attention to how you're thinking. Practice for a few minutes a week being in the two modes of thinking (direct and narrative). Direct thinking: focus on sensory information without judging it. Narative thinking: Analyze, label, reason, narrate. 2\. Social pain and pleasure is as real as physical pain and pleasure. Notice changes in Status, Certainty, Autonomy (availability of choices), Relatedness (are the two in the same group or different group?), and Fairness. Changes in these cause stress in people. When you experience changes in these practice labeling and reappraising to reduce the stress. Avoid stressing out others in these ways.

_Insight_ When the Dali Lama was asked, "Why are you so happy?" He answered, "Because it feels better."</comment>


What Millennium Park's 'Cloud Gate' Looks Like from Inside - <AUTHOR> https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/what-millennium-park-cloud-gate-looks-like-from-inside-451341533.html <comment><USER2> I had no idea that this was called the "Cloud Gate"...just assumed it was called "The Bean".

Let's talk about The Sears Tower and Comiskey Park now.</comment>


Could Berlin be the next Silicon Valley? [Video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26790422 The BBC seem to have a series of these:<p>- Could Boston be the next Silicon Valley?
   http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26488430<p>- Is Seattle the next Silicon Valley?
   http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26117077<p>- The Next Silicon Valleys: Tel Aviv
   http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26075807 <comment><AUTHOR> The BBC seem to have a series of these:

\- THE NEXT SILICON VALLEYS [http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-25852150](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-25852150)

\- Cambridge, the new Silicon Valley? [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-26683055](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-26683055)

\- Could Boston be the next Silicon Valley? [http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26488430](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26488430)

\- Is Seattle the next Silicon Valley? [http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26117077](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26117077)

\- The Next Silicon Valleys: Tel Aviv [http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26075807](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26075807)</comment>


Bitinstant - 46% of Paid Bitcoin Orders Never Received - <AUTHOR> http://bitinstantscam.com/index.php

<comment><USER2> There's a community on G+ trying to build a lawsuit against them: [https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/11217726431190994048...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/112177264311909940483). If you're having a problem that might be a good place to go.</comment>


Discuss HN: Affects of Efficiency Increases on Economy - <AUTHOR>

So I was recently sitting around watching an episode of Futurama -- namely, How Hermes Requisitioned His Groove Back -- and I got to thinking about bureaucracy and efficiency in the workplace.  It's generally accepted that a large majority of people don't work at maximum capacity or efficiency during their day jobs.  I think I even recall PG estimating that we generally work at around 30% of our max (source?).  Every day I see articles and discussions on how we can increase our work efficiency and get the most out of our working hours.  Clearly it makes sense for each of us to work better -- more free time, less stress, etc.  It also makes sense for businesses to want this -- time is money, mistakes are bad, and unnecessary jobs arise out of operating inefficiency.<p>Where this thought gets interesting, though, is when you think about what would actually happen to our economy if we really did eliminate large amounts of efficiency in the workplace...  It would stand to reason that by working more efficiently, many unnecessary jobs could be cut across the country.  While that would save tons of money for corporations, it would also mean a greatly increased unemployment rate, which would surely be bad for economy.  Others might argue, however, that this saved money would result in more money for research and exploring new technology which would ultimately lead to more jobs.  It's all purely speculation, but the repercussions could lead to something slightly disturbing -- that slacking and inefficiency, to an extent, are actually quite helpful to the health of our economy.  What do you think? <comment><USER2> Marshall Brain, the founder of HowStuffWorks, wrote a short story taking just this topic to its absurd conclusion. The first part of the story begins with the elimination of this sort of inefficiency by using relatively dumb software to micromanage every minute of a worker's day (starting in fast food restaurants). A lot of the technology could really be implemented today (and some is; notice the headsets with disembodied computer voices you see in stores like Target today).

<http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm>

<comment><AUTHOR> Good read so far. Thanks! The story seems to be much like 1984 and is, in a sense, a much more extreme case of what I was talking about. I'm not suggesting we will or won't ever get to the point in Manna, but it struck me as funny that while we do see working more efficiently as a goal, that it could actually have serious negative effects for the health of our economy. It's interesting to think about.

<comment><USER2> I hear where you're coming from. I'm actually surprised at the 30% efficiency number; I would have guessed more like 5%-10%. I suppose it varies by industry. I expect minimum-wage workers are more efficient (they're almost always doing what they're paid to do), whereas white collar jobs like program management are less measurable, and people spend much wasted time not just surfing the web, but doing things like sitting in unnecessary meetings.

When I was doing PM work, I spent about 30+ hours a week in meetings which could generally have been dealt with in 30-45 minutes of focused discussion with a much smaller group of people.</comment></comment></comment>