Ask HN: If you were starting your career today, which language would you learn? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I've only been working for two years so I guess my career has pretty much just started, and I like the path I've (accidentally) taken to learning languages.

I met my first real programming language in college, Java, and I still recommend it to any beginner. It's great for grasping OOP concepts, algorithms, data structures, design patterns, and other problem-solving approaches that you can carry on to implement in other languages. I did some work in enterprise systems and Android during my first year.

Then I had to study Objective-C to make iOS apps, but I also picked up some things about C and I'm actually reading the K&R book now to know more. I think that C is a great language to learn after Java because it gives you an insight of what the Java syntax hides from you, but does anyway in the compiler level.

The thing now is that I don't know what I'm going to do next once I'm done with C. For me, I code because I want to build a product I can someday build a company with, so I don't really have a drive to learn the open web stack in depth (I already have mobile for front-end). I guess I'm just gonna go back to mastering the algorithms and some maths. Or does anyone have advice for me what to do next?

</comment><comment><USER3> Javascript.

I started in Microsoft development and saw code that made me cry. I switched to Java because developers with self respect wrote elegant code in Java. But Java frustrated me because of the effort to result ratio; for the amount of time I would spend coding and configuring, I had very little to show for it. I like to build things quickly and see people interact with them heavily. Javascript gives me both of these.

And it's becoming more adopted as the lingua franca of app development; I can write server side code, rich client web interfaces, and native mobile apps using nothing but Javascript as the coding language.

</comment><comment><USER4> All of them!

But as you probably want to slightly more concrete list I would go with JavaScript, Java, Clojure, Objective C, Ruby, SQL, Prolog. In that list we have a few of oo languages of varing purity, a few scripting languages, a couple of logic programming langs, and a lisp. Something for the enterprise, something for the academics, and something for the startups. Something for the web, something for server and something for your desktop and phone. You'll end up well rounded, and have a tool for most situations.

<comment><USER5> Well rounded means often not focused because, only top notch developers really grasp more skills efficiently.

Average developer will mix up everything and won't be able to work without google search. Don't spend much time with learning JavaScript. Every monkey now learns JS and do you know why ? because it's dead easy. JS leads to Front- end development and that's often pain in the ass.

I vote for solid knowledge of SQL, Java and maybe Python or Ruby but don't learn everything in one time. Step by step e.g. each year one new technology or language.

<comment><USER4> I completely agree with going one by one through list, and focusing on what you're most interested in first (for whatever reason maybe curiosity or maybe straight economics) maybe for years at a time. But I don't believe that being well rounded is only for the elite or in stopping before you see the range of possibilities. The hardest problems are usually solved by looking at them from another perpective - and all of these languages gives you another lens to look at things through.

And for that reason, I don't agree with skipping on low economic value languages just because they don't make cash. JavaScript is currently a vital part of the web programming ecosystem and if you are interested in that ecosystem you should have a familiarity with it…

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> First off, it depends on your area of interest. Do you love data and want to do some interesting algorithm work? Then I'd say go with Python or Java.

If design and interaction are more your thing, then go with Javascript/HTML/CSS. Personally, I'd focus on Javascript as 271... mentioned, doing front-end code gets lots of glory if you're making things beautiful and engaging. But it also let's you focus on one language and bring that language to the server-side with Node.js.

It lest you work with 'apps' in the app stores by using a packager like Cordova, giving you the 'I have an app in the app store' cred.

It's becoming the one language to rule them all. There are great frameworks to learn like backbone, angular, ember, etc. Learn to use d3 and learn to do some cool stuff with charts. There is just so much you can do with the one language and you can show it off!

I'm currently in the job market, and I've got a background in PHP, Rais, and Javascript, but most of my coolest stuff that I'm most proud of was data- specific internal tools and systems, so when people say 'show me your portfolio', I don't really have much of one.

For that reason alone, I'd get into Javascript.

<comment><USER7> As someone who got into web development only about a year ago, JavaScript has been wonderful. When I began I was overwhelmed by the amount of frameworks I could learn, but now I _want_ to learn them all!

I think some people underestimate the kind of work front-end developers. I write Rails as well now, but I could be much better at JavaScript than I am now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wish I'd taken Haskell seriously ten years earlier.

My SML lecturer told us the quip that "Haskell programmers don't write programs to run them. They write them to look at them and see how nice they are." which is hilarious but far from true (it may have been closer to true when he said it though).

</comment><comment><USER9> In college, we started with high level and went low level. While I understand this provides much more instant gratification and can be more intuitive, I think I would have preferred to start at low level (though just about every CS professor disagrees with me).

I would have liked to start with x64 assembly, then C, C++, JavaScript, Haskell.

Assembly would show 1:1 what the machine was doing.

C would give you greater appreciation for portability and low level constructs after knowing assembly.

C++ would give you greater appreciation for encapsulation, polymorphism, and inheritance after knowing C.

JavaScript would give you more appreciation for portability, garbage collection, a new object model (prototypical) and dynamic & loose types (loose types can be appreciated more by novice programmers and lead to more bugs then it's worth, though C is not exactly the strongest typed language), and intro to functional programming.

Haskell for something just entirely different (though Lisp might be a good addition here).

I guess it's hard to come up with a good curriculum because each language has it's own unique benefits. All the appreciations I mentioned could ultimately be realized going from higher to lower as well.

Usually your first language is the toughest to learn because you're trying to grok the syntax and CS concepts. Once you have the basics down, learning another language just comes down to expressing the same CS concepts in the new syntax (thus is the notion of Turing completeness).

Ultimately, software is about expression. Certain languages are better for expressing certain CS concepts than others. Pick the right right tool for the job, and don't bash other languages when you haven't sat down with them to take the time to appreciate what they're good at and why they were created. Learning constructs unique to one language will ultimately help you express yourself in every other programming language you ever use.

To answer your question, I'd say learn them all, or as many as you can in a reasonable amount of time. Always push yourself to learn more about your craft, lest you one day find yourself to be left behind in your industry.

</comment><comment><USER5> Enterprise Java or SAP will still give you good money even if you have only few years of experience. Don't know if it's future but it's pretty safe harbour now.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'll just provide my perspective. I'm a web developer, and have only be doing it for about a year, so maybe I can't even call myself a "web developer" with a straight face. Anyway, JavaScript was the first language I learned and what introduced me to the world of programming. As someone who wants to be able to rapid prototype and show friends the ideas I have, JavaScript is __perfect __. I remember when I was first introduced to jQuery, I was so excited to keep on learning more and more. The amount of flexibility JavaScript gives you to build flexible, dynamic websites is outstanding. JavaScript seems to be going through a renaissance right now in which frameworks pop up every other day to help you accomplish all kinds of tasks.

At the same time, I don't think some developers give front-end engineers enough credit. Backbone and other similar MVCs can be very difficult to master, and I give credit to those who do. It's serious, but very quickly rewarding, work.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'd probably learn all sorts about nanotechnology given I have a science background along with my development background and there is an emerging billion(trillion?)-dollar market for nanotechnology.

That said, strictly in the realm of development:

After having done Python+Django, PHP, and .NET(c#), JavaScript, etc, I'd focus today on mobile or front-end development. Objective C and JavaScript. It is _way more visible_ so it gets _more praise_ from strangers and coworkers and the very nature of it means that you aren't usually working on legacy apps. I don't get happiness out of rewriting old enterprise code. Some might say they get joy out of fixing old problems, but I have had situations where 10 lines of legacy code were reduced to 1 with an increase and speed and I just felt sad, not happy. _shrug_

</comment><comment><USER11> It all comes down to what your goals are... do you want to create a SaaS? do you want to build large distributed systems? do you want to code an embedded OS? do you want to get a job building internal/external web sites for a large company?

You would be better off focusing on what you are trying to accomplish and talk to people in the field and then asking them what tools they use and if they could redo it from the beginning, what would they have done differently?

Also, some of the choices of your career have the toolset determined already... if you want to get a job at an insurance company that uses PHP, then PHP is the main thing you should focus on for now.

Also, languages are just tools to add to your toolbelt. Having many notches on your toolbelt always fun and cool, but doesn't always help you with your career.

</comment><comment><USER12> Do not choose a language first, and certainly don't make a big list and try to learn each language on your list in a vacuum.

Choose a project, and then research the best language to do that project in, and then learn that language by doing your project in it.

</comment><comment><USER13> C.

</comment><comment><USER14> Initialy I thought to write JavaScript but actually answer is "it doesn't matter". I would investigate what I want to work and then learn best language to solve that problem. I solve different problems using different languages but basically I use only Python as helper language (e.g. to write helper scripts, to automate something and etc.).

</comment><comment><USER15> What do you want to build? You'll get a lot out of something like javascript... but if you really want to build an iPhone app, you're nowhere. Having something you really want built is the best way to learn for me and many people I've talked to about the topic.

</comment><comment><USER16> If your question is learning language for "career" it would almost certainly be JavaScript.

</comment><comment><USER17> I would learn Clojure. More and more major companies are picking it up and it seems to be a workhorse which you can use for a long time. It's mature, has advanced techniques for concurrency and is extremely flexible. It's made to stay.

</comment><comment><USER18> Learn the languages which are easy to keep in your head. Python, Go and JavaScript. Then spend most of your time learning _techniques_, not _tools_. Pickup some mapreduce, do a project with service oriented architecture, that kinda thing.

</comment><comment><USER19> "Learn" as in "learn first"? I would probably pick Javascript for its ubiquity. But good programmers who know just one language are probably as rare as accomplished musicians who know just one instrument.

</comment><comment><USER20> Lambda calculus.

<comment><USER5> this is not language

<comment><USER20> "Lambda calculus is an extremely simple yet Turing complete language, ..." \- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus)

<comment><USER5> ...is formal system in mathematical logic

<comment><USER20> The asker never asked for 'programming languages'. Someone could have responded 'Mandarin'. Any language goes.

EDIT: Someone did!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Mandarin.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Why no one suggested C#?

<comment><USER17> Probably because it only works well on Windows. I know there are ports to Unix but c'mon.

<comment><USER22> It does pay very well though, and you will never be short of job opportunities...

<comment><USER23> Not to mention that C# is a fantastic language to use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Javascript, Python, Clojure and C.

</comment><comment><USER25> Philosophy.

</comment><comment><USER26> English

</comment><comment><USER27> D

</comment><comment><USER28> chinese</comment>


US News Updates their University Computer Science Rankings - <AUTHOR> http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/computer-science-rankings

<comment><USER2> There's a lot of WTF going on in that listing. First, there's a pretty steep drop off from #1 to #25 - a 5.0 for #1 (of which there are four) down to a 3.6 at #25. I didn't even notice until, on page 2, I say Texas A&M listed at #40 (w/ a 3.1). "A&M" stands for "Agriculture and Marine". Second, the rankings "stop" at #112 which is a 2.0 - however, there are still probably 30 more schools listed as "Ranking not published". Third, to have a school like SMU ranked as "last place" (#112) behind some of the other "schools you've never heard of" just feels wrong. SMU gets a 2.0 which, according to their scale, is one step above "marginal". I can imagine that, from a job hunting perspective, it's far easier to place an 3.x SMU CS grad than it is to place a 3.x "University of Maryland - Baltimore County" grad, both now and long-term.

<comment><USER3> I'm a computer science student and none of your WTFs are WTFs to me. 1) the numbers don't matter much, they're just what they used to rank. they don't have any implicit meaning. Texas A&M is a decent CS program so not sure why you're pointing it out. 2) maybe they didn't want to rank some schools because they didn't have much data on it. plentyo f possible reasonable explanations. 3) I've never heard of SMU (is it Southern Methodist University or Southern Michigan University or something else?) and I've heard of UMBC several times before -- they have a decent computer science program in human-computer interaction and accessibility.</comment></comment>


PHP MD5 Secure login script. - <AUTHOR> http://www.firstamong.com/php-secure-login-script/

<comment><USER2> In the verifier.php I see a problem here:

        $uid=$_COOKIE['uid'];
        $uname=$_COOKIE['uname'];
        $sql="SELECT * FROM users WHERE username='$uname'";

The $uname is set from the value of 'uname' in the $_COOKIE array, but I see no input validation here.

If I were an evil attacker, I could send arbitrary cookie data to the server, it would end up in the $_COOKIE superglobal. If I include some SQL code, ... All input is evil!

Later, in the welcome.php the $_COOKIE['uname'] is echoed without any escapes.

<comment><USER3> > I see a problem here:

No, that's not a problem. It's a disaster. Whoever wrote that should be shot. If you're going to stick things from a cookie into your database, at least have enough brains to use a prepared statement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Use mysql_real_escape_string() instead of addslashes(). And the cookie contents can't be trusted. The usual way to do this is with a server-side session, but if a cookie is used the user id and name have to be protected; MD5 can be used to do that, too.

</comment><comment><USER5> why are you adding slashes to the password before converting it into md5? even if they have ' in the password the md5 would get rid of it when you use it in the query.

</comment><comment><USER6> Please add some salt to your password.

</comment><comment><USER7> DO NOT USE THIS CODE !</comment>


To help poor people, give them money - <AUTHOR> http://crookedtimber.org/2015/06/16/to-help-poor-people-give-them-money-draft-excerpt-from-economics-in-two-lessons <comment><USER2> The best way to help poor people who make reasonably good decisions is to give them money.

People who make bad decisions often end up poor. Giving them money will not help them make better decisions, and may make them worse off.

How you think those two effects interact, and how much you value efficiency of donation vs. enabling people with poor decision making skills to waste probably determines where you stand on this issue.

<comment><USER3> Poor decision making skills? I don't think you understand what it is to be poor. People are more rational than you think - when people experience long term problems and generally a very inconsistent world (food/money/resources come by sporadically), they make decisions that help them in the short term, because to their experience there is unlikely to be a long term.

If someone below the poverty line wins $10,0000 in the lottery they'll buy a few luxuries, spend a lot of money on short term things for a little while and then go right back to being poor. If you tell them they'll get $10,000 for the next 4 years no matter what they do, I'll bet their attitudes change. What people need to make rational decisions is to be able to develop confidence that tomorrow will not be another disaster - of course, that is a much more difficult thing.

As long as we continue this meme that people that are poor have poor character poverty will be allowed to continue and fester.

<comment><USER4> >>> "they make decisions that help them in the short term, because to their experience there is unlikely to be a long term."

This is also known as "poor decision making skills". Granted, it's very understandable in many situations, but let's call a spade a spade

<comment><USER5> No, it is making decisions based on information you aren't considering.

Poor people are making economic decisions not to come out ahead but to mitigate their losses. They aren't doing this because they want to, it is because it is the best decision they can make given their constraints. For example, they can either sell their time for minimum wage, far less than the value they create, or they can starve or go homeless. The person they are selling their time to knows that the alternative to taking the deal on the table is pain or death -- that the poor person cannot walk away from the bargaining table without making themselves worse off. So they are free to ignore the value those people create and, instead, offer the least amount possible for the poor person to avoid the fate they'd suffer if the walk away from the deal. In a word, exploitation.

So, the poor person makes a deal that looks terrible to people who have the luxury of being able to walk away from a potential trade with no loss. People that must be enticed, that must leave the table with more than they brought, people who are on an upward spiral, who do not generally have to make a deal or face loss. People who are used to all parties leaving the table with more value.

They are, as much as any human can, making the best decisions they can in their situation.

Are there people that are simply too dumb to figure out what is best for themselves? Yes, but that number isn't anywhere close to the 45 million people we have living below the poverty line in the US.

<comment><USER6> Minimum wage is an artifact of economic folly. If you are voluntarily selling your labor, it means that you are getting the best value for it. If you could get more for your labor, you would. If no one else wants your labor, it means that the price you get is the most for your labor. It does not mean that that is all you will "ever" get. It just means that is all you can get until you can figure out a way to be more productive and be paid more for your labor.

<comment><USER7> > If you are voluntarily selling your labor, it means that you are getting the > best value for it.

If you assume (as do most Econ 101 models) that humans are pure rational actors in the sense of the rational choice model, which there is considerable empirical evidence that they are not. And also assume that the market for purchase of the kind of labor that the subject is selling is perfectly competitive on the buyer-of-labor side, rather than distorted by monopsony or oligopsony (which may be more frequently true than the former assumption -- though subtle collusion make it false even when it seems to be true superficially -- but certainly is not universally true.) [The second condition is necessary because if it fails, minimum price regulation will _change_ the best price, since in the absence of competition, the purchaser of labor can do so at artificially depressed prices.]

<comment><USER5> Perfectly rational actors are not strictly necessary. Often it is enough to assume people will act in their own best interest as best they can in aggregate more often than not.

<comment><USER7> Perfectly rational actors are necessary for the claim that was made. The kind of aggregate best-effort utility maximization you offer is not sufficient for the blanket universal claim made upthread, which requires that every (not the average) voluntary labor exchange is inherently for optimal (not best-effort given the laborers current information) value.

<comment><USER5> Which is the more reasonable assumption, then: that people will choose an option that will leave them worse off or better off assuming viable and known alternatives?

Is it not worth asking why they would choose less for themselves? And, if so, doesn't the act of asking why suggest that we assume there must be an explanation that makes sense? Or do we assume that one out of eight human beings are simply not as rational as the rest of us?

I don't know. I wouldn't let the requirement for perfection completely override the reasonable. The alternative is that there is an underclass of irrational human beings. I think we'd be living in a much different world if that were the case.

<comment><USER8> Absolutely folks are not rational. The entire existence of the 'payday loan' industry proves that.

Rationality is also subjective. What you'd do, with your safety net and well- off family and house with no mortgage, is entirely different from what someone one check from homelessness may choose to do. And it may look irrational.

<comment><USER5> >Absolutely folks are not rational. The entire existence of the 'payday loan' industry proves that.

Not necessarily. It can also mean that there are fates worse than dealing with usury. Car break down that you need for your job and you need $1200 bucks and you have $27 that's supposed to pay for your groceries for the next week? A payday loan starts to look like a very good option considering the consequences of not taking that deal.

>Rationality is also subjective. What you'd do, with your safety net and well- off family and house with no mortgage, is entirely different from what someone one check from homelessness may choose to do. And it may look irrational.

Which is my point. Even though what that person that is one short paycheck from homeless does may look irrational, it likely is not considering the information they have and the choices available to them. When someone is making decisions with what amounts to a gun to their head, those decisions are going to look irrational to those that don't consider the gun.

Many people see the decisions the poor make and say "Oh, well I would have just negotiated based on my value to the business rather than settling for minimum wage." Which is a good response and perfectly valid if you can walk away from a deal with no negative repercussions. But the poor are negotiating with a gun to their head. They either have to take the deal or go hungry or homeless or not pay for their medication or what have you. Their decision is rational when all of the information is taken into account. It just looks irrational to people who generally don't have to deal with negative utility when they walk away from a given deal.

As a society I think we should strive to minimize how many of these life and death or pain on the line financial decisions people have to make. I'd like to see us strive for a nation where no one is negotiating for their life. I'd like everyone to have the freedom to walk away from a deal that doesn't create value for them. Simple as that. It will be better for everyone because it removes value destroying distortions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The income of people has diverted more and more in the last decades.

It is a fact, that countries really flourished (USA, Germany, other countries) with a bigger part of the society in the middle class and having a better living and education, when those countries managed to bring better income also to working-class people.

Today's wealth in the US is for a big part because of the flourishing middle- class of the country shortly after the 2nd World-war. The same holds for Germany and other countries.

Today, all over the world, the income diverts and education already is going down for normal people in many countries. Middle classes are melting away.

Wealth of a society is not only to be measured by the wealthiest people in the society, but by the wealth of the middle class (and worker) people.

Today, we waste the wealth created after the war and give it away to the <1% of people.

Everybody should see this film: _Inequality for All_ [1] that shows, the connections, that many are just ignoring today.

To my opinion, to help poor people, raise wages of workers in all the world (thus making an end with a Globalization that just helps the rich).

By raising the wages, you will not have people that just live on welfare, but that can be proud again for their work they do.

[1] [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2215151/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2215151/)

<comment><USER10> > The income of people has diverted more and more in the last decades.

diverged.

(In the hope that it helps another non-native speaker.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think a lot of folks here are missing the big question: charity involves an exchange. When you give to the poor, you get something back.

It's subtle:

The issue is not about eliminating poverty. It's about how to motivate rich people to part with their money. After all, aid to the poor comes from taxes, and the rich pay more taxes. So any kind of welfare has to give the donors of the money something in exchange for their donation. But the poor have nothing to trade for what they receive. Right?

Wrong.

The poor have their dignity. That's what they trade for donations. Every scheme for wealth distribution is informed by that fact. Rich people give money, and poor people abase themselves in exchange. That's why every welfare scheme always involves humiliation.

That's why government housing for the poor looks different from ordinary houses: so the poor will stand out, so they can be shamed.

That's why poor people have to endure long lineups at the welfare office: so they can be reminded that they are less worthy of decent consideration.

That's why poor people have to endure invasion of their most private aspects of their lives, through visits by social workers: so they can be reminded that they don't deserve privacy.

And that's why the rich don't like giving out cash: because cash is anonymous, and enables dignity, equality, and privacy.

As long as this implicit bargain (money in exchange for dignity) goes unexamined, the cruelty of the social welfare system will seem mysterious.

</comment><comment><USER12> This article seems naive, at best.

Time after time, when I've helped family members with cash, it winds up getting wasted horribly and helping them less than it hurt me to give it to them. When I help them with what they need, their situation improves.

And logically, if the poor as a group were good with money, they wouldn't be poor.

Yet the article asks me to abandon reason and experience because there's some "a growing body of evidence" somewhere out there which are not provided by the article.

<comment><USER13> Just as logical as saying that if the wheelchair-bound were better at walking, they wouldn't be in wheelchairs. Poor people are often living anxiously one emergency from total bankruptcy, eating cheap, non-nutritious foods, living in uncomfortable or dangerous housing, etc. They'd need to be more than just good with money, they'd need to be brilliant.

<comment><USER14> This doesn't make sense. I pay a quarter (or more) of my total income so that government can take care of these individuals. Food, basic nutrition, basic safety, etc.

This should be a solved problem.

<comment><USER11> Most government spending benefits the middle class, not the poor. Roads for your car, schools for your kids, basic research for your devices, police to keep poor people from stealing your stuff, subsidies to keep your company profitable: the typical taxpayer gets a lot of benefit from taxes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> walsh-cloonagh It is possible to save a life for $3,340 by donating to the Against Malaria Foundation [1].

Helping desperately poor people is a surely virtuous thing to do and helping them efficiently by giving them money via GiveDirectly, as suggested in this article and the linked 2003 NYT article, is all the better.

But, right now there are worse things to be than desperately poor: like being a kid in Africa who dies of malaria for want of a malaria net.

Given the poor state of medicine and public health in places where people are dying for want of a few thousand dollars, optimizing poverty relief programs seems premature.

And for what it's worth the people you'll save are also desperately poor.

[1] [http://www.givewell.org/international/top- charities/AMF#Cost...](http://www.givewell.org/international/top- charities/AMF#Costperlifesaved)

<comment><USER15> Malaria generally kills only the young and weak. It's like the flu over here. The problem is malnutrition. Hence why a large amount of mosquito nets are never used to sleep under, but rather as fishing nets.

I know people who have had malaria (family that lives in a tropical 3rd world country). All survived.

Giving out mosquito nets to conquer malaria makes as much sense as giving out medical masks to conquer the flu. The answer of course is to be in good health, and to have access to medicine.

But we don't live with malaria, so feel-good gestures are as far as we go.

<comment><USER8> Confused: you can't 'have had' malaria, its a lifetime affliction isn't it?

<comment><USER14> You can get re-infected. As far as I know, it doesn't stay dormant in your body (like say Herpes). But I'm not a doctor, just had it a few mild times as a kid.

<comment><USER16> > it doesn't stay dormant in your body

Yes it does.

> just had it a few mild times as a kid.

Nope you have it. When you are in poor general health it will probably resurface. Good luck.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Giving money to the poor merely elevates those who received the money over a new generation of "poor" and does nothing to actually stop the systems that create poverty in the first place. If you would like to actually reduce the net amount of "poor people", instead of simply creating a revolving door for individuals, you give money to the middle class.

Or, phrased differently: Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he feeds himself _and_ his family while selling the excess for discretionary income :)

<comment><USER17> +1, and if some of that discretionary income is saved, he can lease it out for rent (make loans). This trend can continue for generations until the snowball effect is such that majority of the world's wealth has been accumulated by about .001% of the population; but then, people will start talking about things like transfer payments[1] and basic income, etc.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_payment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_payment)

<comment><USER4> I get what you're saying, but you are also ignoring my point about bolstering the middle class.

A large and healthy middle class not only precludes unhealthy amounts of poverty (please keep in mind there will always be a "bottom 16%" [aka falling below < -1σ] no matter the level of wealth) but also precludes large concentrations of wealth by the upper class.

 _EDIT_ : replied before you finished your edit, I see we're actually in agreement. Carry on...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Conservatives, progressives, and libertarians call it different things. Basic income, negative tax rate, social safety net, etc. Milton Friedman advocated for a negative effective tax rate for low income folks. Rand Paul recommended not taxing (Federally) folks who make less than $50k USD.

We also need to consider micro and macro-economics. Folks with less money have a high marginal propensity to consume or likelihood of spending most or all of the extra funds they receive. Also, consumer spending is a factor of economic output or GDP. Increasing consumer spending increases economic output. Q.E.D. Give people with no money enough money to not fall through the cracks.

<comment> vezzy-fnord Negative income tax is certainly a very interesting idea, but it is virtually unheard of as a position in any mainstream U.S. political compass.

It's generally considered that you either want to expand the current, highly convoluted system, or that you loathe welfare entirely as a matter of principle.

<comment><USER19> I think tax credits already accomplish this to a degree. The poor are more likely to have children, and they can already claim those children for tax credit, for example.

<comment><USER20> It seems that you only get $1000 tax credit per child. That probably eases the burden on people who are going to have children in the first place, but is still net negative and doesn't do anything for people who aren't going to have children.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> When some people ask money to buy the food and you give them food - they are quite often disappointed and turn away.

When some people ask money and you give them some money - they are quite often disappointed because you are not giving them enough.

<comment><USER22> This is like a company saying "I know employees need food, but instead of giving you money, you'll be compensated in hamburgers".

I'm tired of this stereotypical judgement that poor people are so bad with money that we'd be better off generously making purchasing decisions for them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This works in small experiments because when you give money to a small group of poor people (A) within a larger group of poor people (B), group A gains leverage compared to their prior position and compared to group B.

When you give money to all poor people, the net result is simply inflation[1]. If transfer payments were made to taper up from max(wealth) (receives $0) to min(wealth) (receives $average(wealth)), disparity would be brought to 0, which would naturally lead to everybody doing what they wanted rather than what earned them income. This would be a lot of fun, but it would unfortunately reduce the developmental value of humans to zero[2], and machines would evolve to replace us all (could be gray goo, could be the borg, etc.).

The true path to freedom from work is to work collaboratively on a humanoid robot with some basic rules for human interaction: 1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2) A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. Those should suffice for a while, but I know not what will come of them down the line.

That's all for now :) Have a great weekend, everyone!

1\. [http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newt...](http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton- s-Third-Law)

2\. [http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/05/robots_of_the_f....](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/05/robots_of_the_f.html)

<comment><USER7> > When you give money to all poor people, the net result is simply inflation

Obviously, redistributive tax + BI schemes that result in some group having more money than previously increases demand and market clearing prices for goods disproportionately demanded by that group (and does the reverse for goods disproportionately demanded by the people who are net payers.)

So, clearly, the increase in effective buying power _won 't_ be as much as the increase in income compared to the pre-policy price levels would indicate.

But that _isn 't_ sufficient to make the case that BI won't mitigate poverty, however. Just that the _degree_ of mitigation will be less than the most naïve analysis conceivable might suggest.

(Also, the link to Newton's third law to support this position was amusing.)

<comment><USER23> Moreover, there are a number of agricultural products where we're already keeping the price artificially high. Shifting demand toward these shouldn't see any increase in price for a while.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Have to chastise you for one example, giving them money so they can buy a cell phone? Why? To be further in debt with monthly fees? There are programs for poor people to get a limited cell plan for free and government offices keyed to assisting the poor do direct them there.

I would never give them cash. While you certainly cited all sorts of needs; this is not hard and runs along the lines of "for the children, no one is against children are they?" it doesn't solve the problem.

There are two categories than need help and both can be helped the same way. First are the truly poor, they just cannot get past Go. Second are those whose decisions are making or keeping them poor. This usually involves getting tied in revolving credit, auto loans, lottery, and monthlies. Catastrophic causes that lead to the poor house need to be treated wholly separately; medical and death.

So give them money the same way food stamps are administered. They are provided an allowance for specific expenditures. This cannot be converted to cash. No system is too complex to implement, the government already manages thousands of assistance programs and sends out tens if not hundreds of millions of checks for such each month.

Basically the idea is to create purchasing groups which have similar expenses. Within these an amount is contributed monthly upto a maximum held for paying such expenses at approved retailers, service providers, etc. This covers the need side as well as hopefully teaches management of funds.

Cash cannot be tracked, it can also be easily stolen, meaning its near impossible to verify it used as intended nor determining if the assistance is the proper type.

<comment><USER25> "Have to chastise you for one example, giving them money so they can buy a cell phone? Why? To be further in debt with monthly fees?"

I feel what you're saying, but in 2015, one _needs_ a phone to get (and usually to hold) a job. Especially low-wage jobs. E.g. a temp agency might start calling at 7h30 because they're looking for someone to fill in. Don't pick up your phone? We'll just give the job to someone else, oh and we won't call tomorrow, because you don't pick up anyway.

<comment><USER26> Anecdote: I meet quite a few people from lower income levels in my side job as a musician. Once, we were chatting about our cell phone plans, and I cracked a lame joke, like "the cell phone will truly liberate the homeless."

One of the other musicians said, in all seriousness: "Hey, my cell phone is my lifeline when I'm homeless." Another guy chipped in: "Me too."

It used to be cited that lack of a mailing address was a real impediment to the homeless getting back into a normal economic life, and the cell phone may play a similar role today.</comment></comment></comment>


There's always time to launch your dream - <AUTHOR> http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1619-theres-always-time-to-launch-your-dream

<comment><USER2> Its probably a throw-away line, but

 _Do you think I could fit all that and still get straight As and have lots of time left over for playing World of Warcraft? No._

spoke to me. I gave up World of Warcraft to start my business. The business pays rather substantially better and takes up much less time.

I sometimes wish I had enough graphical talent to bling out my UI with incremental visual rewards ("purple pixels") for various accomplishments, as a means of self-motivation. Charts help, but if it were charts and little icons of e.g. "2k visitors in a day, have a new blue Boots of Modest Traffic!", well, you'd probably have to bring a crowbar to get me away from the business.

On second thought... no trophies.

</comment><comment><USER3> The same way an Ivy League degree doesn't guarantee success, a top tier VC doesn't either. With the economy as it is now and general investor sentiment; one needs to highlight the sheer value of determination, experimentation, the art of minimizing and of course resourcefulness. I think the article does a great job of pointing out that the "lack of" time had more to do with one's self comforting through excuses rather than the actual tasks at hand. I sincerely believe that the next 18 months will result in amazing, cost effective innovations not only in tech but healthcare, the consumer world, finance etc. Should be extremely exciting; and it's up to us to encourage those that our there hustling and trying to launch their dreams.

</comment><comment><USER4> The undergrad years are definitely a great time to spend getting projects done. Not only projects, but exploring all the technologies that interest you. Luckily, I've never played World of Warcraft or else I would probably be in a different boat than I am right now.

</comment><comment><USER5> "I don't have the time" is more often code for "I don't have the energy."

For those who are moonlighting, how do you avoid burnout?

<comment><USER6> _how do you avoid burnout?_

Don't stop to think "omg I am working so hard".

... and get enough sleep.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Depends on how much you want to do. This year i want to (a) eat, (b) marry, and (c) get my degree. The first goal demands a little time to earn money. The seconds one demands mostly time, since debt is inevitable. To get the degree i have to learn.

I'd also like to work (d) on my project ideas, but there isn't enough time left after (a)-(c).

<comment><USER8> That's the conclusion I came to. It's not that I don't have the time, it's that I apparently value spending time with my kids more than the rapid progress of my startup. It's still dissatisfying from my startup's point of view, but rather than rail against the universe about it, I look it as a manifestation of my priorities.

<comment><USER9> Same here. I love the idea behind my startup and I love working on it. Have to say, though, I love the family more. I spend every spare minute I can on my startup, but not at the expense of my family. Their needs and spending time with them come first, along with the paying job that's providing for said family--it has to. If the kid were older, maybe I'd devote more time to the startup, but as it stands now, no.

Also, if I worked 12-15hr days every day, even doing something I love, I'd quickly grow to hate it. Not only would I resent the startup, but I'd likely be looking for an entire career change after a while.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think that another key is being accountable to somebody else, if only informally. I'm all for self-motivation -- and I've accomplished plenty that way -- but I find it far easier to work when I know that somebody else cares about whether or not I complete the project. Maybe a business partner, maybe a coach of some sort.

</comment><comment><USER11> I actually failed two classes in college (high school dual enrollment) as I was working on like two-three contracting projects simultaneously.

I thought I was doing it wrong but now I see that I'm not the only one who sacrifices school to do something that they like.

</comment><comment><USER12> hmmm I think it's all about the start. If you make the first step in implementing whatever you want, then it will be easier to continue.

</comment><comment><USER13> I can feel the motivation flowing through my arteries.</comment>


Award-Winning High-Class Ultra Green Home Design in Canada: Midori Uchi - <AUTHOR> http://freshome.com/2014/06/04/award-winning-ultra-green-home-design-canada-midori-uchi/

<comment><AUTHOR> Excerpt:

 _Does your home produce more energy than it consumes? This one does... this impressive Canadian home was named after its most prominent feature- its green capabilities. "Midori Uchi" is Japanese for "Green Home"..._

And the article is filled with lovely photos.</comment>


Rimac Announces 1073 HP Electric Supercar - <AUTHOR> http://www.conceivablytech.com/9371/products/rimac-announces-1073-hp-electric-supercar

<comment><USER2> I'm curious: is lbs/kWh the limiting metric for electric car development? Or is it more about chassis or motor design?

</comment><comment><USER3> So at full power (800kW), the motors can drain the fully-charged battery in less than 7 minutes... not bad!</comment>


Is it better to take notes with a pen than by typing? Much better. - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-learning-secret-don-t-take-notes-with-a-laptop/ <comment><USER2> I've been given the task of handwriting thank you cards at my job, and within the first 4 or 5 cards, I had already memorized the multiple paragraphs worth of "script" I was given.

I was shocked! I've always had a horrible memory.</comment>


Show HN: FakeWebGL, WebGL for iOS (and Android soon) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/funkaster/FakeWebGL

<comment><USER2> I cloned your project on git and would like to say wow! Really good work, I've been working on something similar with both JSC & v8 (JIT, Jailbroken devices only). My question is are you seeing odd depth or CULL issues on the examples, running for example, "lesson4" or "lesson5" results in what appears to be some sort of depth buffer issue or culling issue. I'm very interested in this project and would like to help you out.

</comment><comment><USER3> If I use this, will my app be rejected from the App Store?</comment>


Google Ups Ante with 1000 Patents from IBM  - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcworld.com/article/236999/google_ups_ante_with_1000_patents_from_ibm.html

<comment><USER2> Interesting how Google tried to downplay the "patent battle" and purchased so many patents on the next day. Just amusing, I guess.</comment>


Foxconn Will Take 7M Gallons of Water per Day from Lake Michigan to Make LCDs - <AUTHOR> https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/04/foxconn-will-drain-26-5-megalitres-of-water-per-day-from-lake-michigan-to-make-lcd-screens/ <comment><USER2> Here is the article linked to by Slashdot: [https://gizmodo.com/foxconn-will- drain-7-million-gallons-of-...](https://gizmodo.com/foxconn-will- drain-7-million-gallons-of-water-per-day-f-1825624659)

The article by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: [https://dnr.wi.gov/news/releases/article/?id=4513](https://dnr.wi.gov/news/releases/article/?id=4513)

According to the DNR article, the non consumed water will be returned:

> As part of the diversion approval, the city of Racine must ensure that the > diverted water is returned to Lake Michigan minus consumptive use such as > evaporation. The water returned to Lake Michigan will be treated at the > Racine Wastewater Treatment Plant to meet all applicable state and federal > water quality discharge standards. Any industrial customers, such as > Foxconn, will work with the City of Racine to meet pretreatment requirements > for wastewater.

It's not immediately clear how much of that water will be returned, but at least it won't be consuming 7M gallons daily. I'm not sure what impacts this might have, and neither article really goes into it.

<comment><USER3> > It's not immediately clear how much of that water will be returned, but at > least it won't be consuming 7M gallons daily.

Even if they did, Lake Michigan is estimated to contain one quadrillion gallons of water. Foxconn will have long ceased to exist by the time anyone even notices the water is missing.

<comment><USER2> How long would it take to notice, say, an inch decrease? Or whatever other small unit if it's not measurable to an inch.

<comment><USER4> Consumption: 7M Gallons/day = 26.5E3 m^3 / day (fed to foxconn's personal black hole)

Area of Lake Michigan: 58000 km^2 = 58E9 m^2

Corresponds to 4.6E-7 m/day or about 6 years for one millimeter or about 150 years for the oddly specific 25.4mm you were asking for.

If we take the 39% loss figure from the article, we get 15 years/1mm and 390 years/25.4mm.

<comment><USER5> So does that mean it takes just 390 Foxconns to have the lake drop an inch each year?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I (almost) always try to make positive/helpful comments in this forum. But reading (again) about these "complaints" the below comes to mind:

...<title of Lake Michigan article>, while at the same time, somewhere else on this planet (perhaps China?) many factories do the exact same thing, and since it hasn't caused noise, very few think about it. And at the same time people in the Americas, Europe, Africa, Oceania, rest-of-Asia (countries that don't host such factories), go on in their day looking at their smartphone screens, reading news about Lake Michigan.

<comment><USER7> And why on earth should someone in - The Americas, Europe, Africa, Oceania, rest-of-Asia care if China wastes their OWN water? China can do whatever they want with their own natural resources. As long as they aren't actively harming other nations, it's their prerogative.

So yes.. of COURSE people in the US are going to care when a Chinese company comes to the US and starts wasting our natural, shared resources while at the same time not caring at all when China wastes their own shared natural resources. I'm not sure why that would seem odd or confuse you in the least.

In other news: Lots of people are pissed that the current US president is removing protections on national monuments. Same people don't bat an eye when Xi Jinping refuses to create national monuments in China. The sky is blue. Water is wet.

<comment><USER8> Foxconn is a Taiwanese company

<comment><USER9> Taiwan is same as China

<comment><USER10> We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the HN guidelines.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Even if we assume the treated water wont return to the lake basin. Would still need 508,806 years to drain.

Are there any other dangerous side-effects or why is this a thing? Enlighten me please.

<comment><USER12> I would say the real story here is the absolute giveaway this deal is to Foxconn.

The subsidy given to a giant corporation is now past $4 billion, to a company with revenue in the range of $140 billion. Specific exemptions are being cut to allow the company to not produce an environmental impact statement for any emissions or pollutants discharged. It's clear Scott Walker and co want to set a precedent for future deals.

This sort of corporate coziness between a mega corporation and a state not only is unfair to other businesses not getting the tax deal, but unfair to the citizens who had these regulations enacted.

Additionally the Great Lakes have a legacy of industrial pollution we're only starting to recover from. It's hard to understate how dead these lakes were and still are in many places. Tributary rivers once regularly caught on fire from pollutants sitting on the surface. Hundreds of thousands of acres surrounding the lakes are contaminated with heavy metals, PCBs, radioactive waste - uninhabitable without extreme treatment. These lakes are 1/5th of the world's fresh water.

This stemmed not just from the era of no pollution regulation, but even during the EPA era, there was an unwillingness for the government to enforce regulations on the big polluters and employers. Of course when the factories close and the full extent of pollution comes to public light, the companies who made the profit often have merged or evaporated beyond responsibility, leaving taxpayers on the hook with poisoned land and water.

Do you think the politicians making this deal will have any incentive to follow up and take action if Foxconn does start exceeding their already relaxed permitted emissions?

[http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and- politics/bro...](http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and- politics/broader-relaxation-of-environmental-rules-seen-coming-from- foxconn/article_2192c025-2984-5713-9463-7b4092e1dd09.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Lake levels are near record high currently, and causing massive amounts of erosion all along the coastline. It's actually quite interesting to watch houses, dunes, roads and other structures fall into the lake as nature does what it does. [0] Removing a few million gallons a day isn't going to hurt the the lake that much.

[0] [http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/continued- erosion-...](http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/continued-erosion- causes-observation-deck-at-portage-lakefront-and- riverwalk/article_0acf75f7-ba22-5632-ac25-76a7222900de.html)

<comment><USER14> The joke going around is: Is that a climate catastrophe or taxable waterfront property?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Cool. I bet it will be quite the feat of mid-scale engineering. So, less than 3 Olympic sized pools at 2.5 MM gallons.

<comment><USER16> An Olympic sized swimming pool is 2.5MM _liters_. That's roughly 660,000 gallons. So it's actually ~10 Olympic sized pools.

<comment><USER15> My mistake -- I appreciate the correction!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> 4.2M Gallons will be treated and returned to the lake basin.

<comment><USER18> The rest gets evaporated

<comment><USER19> Which of course means it will return as rain somewhere. I guess I don't see what all the controversy is about.

<comment><USER20> It's a perceived lack of adherence to the Great Lakes Compact, which specifies how to manage the Great Lakes Basin's water supply.

Regulation of water withdrawal appears to be important as otherwise I don't see why the states would have gone through the effort of putting the regulations into place.

<comment><USER21> Maintaining control over withdrawal is important. I'm not sure the people complaining care about characterizing the actual impact though, there's a branch of conservation that reflexively opposes almost everything.

One of the Slashdot comments points out that billions of gallons can evaporate from the lake naturally in a day. Moving some of that to land near the lake seems like a low risk to me.

<comment><USER20> "there's a branch of conservation that reflexively opposes almost everything."

Sure. There's also a branch of business which says to screw the long-term environment health and environment consequences for short-term gains.

That these exist doesn't mean that either viewpoint has relevancy for what's going on here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> For reference, Lake Michigan has 1.3e15 gallons of water.

<comment><USER23> For the scientific notationally challenged, that's 1,300,000,000,000,000 gallons of water.

Incredibly, 7M gallons of water a day is a rounding error for lake Michigan.

I don't mean to minimize the impact this factory might have -- I just mean to emphasize the incredible amount of water Lake Michigan has.

<comment><USER24> I find gallons to be an unintuitive unit of measure, so I like to convert to cubic feet because it gives a better visual sense of the volume.

7M gallons is 935,800 ft^3.

This would fill a football field 19.5 feet high.

If you made that into a cube, it would be 97.8 ft per edge.

If you convert to a flow rate, that's 10.83 ft^3/second.

<comment><USER25> I find gallon and cubic feet to be on the same level hogsheads and cubic cubits in terms of applicability and usage. There's no trouble visualising a volume unit like a litre, particularly if you're used to working with such quantities. It is tough visualising unit that have no traction outside of one metrically-solopsist region though.

Also a "football field" isn't constant between football codes (Canadian, Association, Gaelic, Australian, American, etc.) nor even between different grounds in some cases. Not a great unit.

<comment><USER24> >Also a "football field" isn't constant between football codes (Canadian, Association, Gaelic, Australian, American, etc.) nor even between different grounds in some cases. Not a great unit.

I was going full American here with American football fields (standard 300x160 feet) forgetting about the ambiguity saying "football".

I understand your frustration, but having an idea of what 7,000,000 of anything would look like is non-trivial. If it were 7,000,000 cubic meters you might re-express things to be easier to visualize.

Unfortunately for the time being, the US is using gallons, so I'm stuck making these comparisons to grasp at what that volume looks like.

<comment><USER26> > I was going full American here with American football fields (standard > 300x160 feet)

American football fields are 360×160 feet.

<comment><USER24> I guess end zones count. I had them excluded.

Knocks it down to 16.2 feet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Better source that doesn't break the back button: [https://gizmodo.com/foxconn-will-drain-7-million-gallons- of-...](https://gizmodo.com/foxconn-will-drain-7-million-gallons-of-water-per- day-f-1825624659)

</comment><comment><USER28> Original article: [https://gizmodo.com/foxconn-will-drain-7-million-gallons- of-...](https://gizmodo.com/foxconn-will-drain-7-million-gallons-of-water-per- day-f-1825624659)

</comment><comment><USER29> Will they put it back?

I mean I can't imagine them holding 7 million gallons of water per day for very long before they run out of storage space.

My guess is that they will process stuff with the water, then filter and send the water back into the lake.

</comment><comment><USER30> Does anyone know why so much water is used to manufacture LCDs ? And why can't it be in close circuit, like using an aero refrigerant tower like the ones of nuclear plants ?

<comment><USER31> Washing and polishing the glass prior to attaching the polarization plate.

Washing the product to remove toxic compounds from the surfaces is where there is a bit of concern. [https://phys.org/news/2014-12-toxic-effects-chemicals- tft-lc...](https://phys.org/news/2014-12-toxic-effects-chemicals-tft-lcd- aquatic.html)

<comment><USER28> Which is why that water has to be evaporated, so the toxic solids can be put in a landfill?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is .000018 inches off of the lake each day.

Per year, it is .0066 inches. That is about 1/6 of a millimeter.

At that rate, the lake contains 508198 years worth of water. Thinking in terms of human evolution here... that is a decent chunk of time.

This supposed problem is all FUD, based on big scary numbers. Somebody has a motive to spread this. For example, a country that wants the industry might encourage opposition in the USA.

</comment><comment><USER33> This is a great example of why the US doesn't want manufacturing "back" even if they/we could have it. Both because _this_ example isn't that big of a deal (but yet, has created controversy), and because if this _was_ a big deal Americans simply would not tolerate the pollution, in exchange for the manufacturing jobs.

<comment><USER34> As other posters pointed out this is less than 3 Olympic sized swimming pools. They will also return less than 2 Olympic sized pools back to the lake.

<comment><USER33> Exactly, and there's "outrage". Imagine if it was 100 Olympic size swimming pools... The American public can't handle the biproducts of modern manufacturing.

<comment><USER35> There are multiple "American publics". The outrage machine will not like it, you are correct, but take a drive through Nevada or West Virginia and you'll see folks used to such side effects.

<comment><USER33> True, I shouldn't make the assumption that "the public" is one thing, or another in absolute terms. However, I wouldn't call it an "outrage machine" just because people are concerned about pollution/misuse of natural resources.

<comment><USER35> Clarification: the outrage machine _does_ exist as a phenomenon in American politics. It's real.

I agree that stewardship of the environment is __very __important.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> That's unsustainable.</comment>


Close the Washington Monument - <AUTHOR> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/12/close_the_washi.html <comment><USER2> Don't forget the most recent success of our information agencies, the printer bomb that was intercepted and defused. That was a big success to our current security systems.

What does the TSA do though? Ban printer cartridges on planes. WTF?! I thought this was a success? Now it's being treated like a failure?

I'm waiting for the first congressman to openly call out the TSA as a terrorist organization. He or she will get my vote for the rest of my life.

Great article Mr Schneier, couldn't have said it any better.

<comment><USER3> "That was a big success to our current security systems."

No, it wasn't. Saudi intelligence provided the tracking numbers for the parcel bombs[1]. All the billions of dollars that we've spent on airport security did absolutely nothing. As Schneier as argued before, if you secure the one route the attack just comes from another route.

1\. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/06/world/middleeast/06terror....](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/06/world/middleeast/06terror.html)

<comment><USER2> Sorry, I said that wrong. I didn't mean a success for airport security but for the intelligence agencies who aren't infringing on basic freedoms and privacy of the general public (who in this case has good enough diplomatic ties with other intel agencies around the world to have this information passed to us).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> beautifully written ... brings tears to my eyes.

"We can reopen the Washington Monument when we've defeated our fears, when we've come to accept that placing safety above all other virtues cedes too much power to government and that liberty is worth the risks, and that the price of freedom is accepting the possibility of crime."

<comment><USER5> _They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety._

\--Benjamin Franklin

<comment><USER6> That was a well written op-ed

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wouldn't it be great if Bruce Schneier was in charge of the TSA? (not that he'd probably want/enjoy the job). Then, I'd feel a lot better about things.

<comment><USER8> "I don't want it because it's too narrow. I think the right thing for the government to do is to give the TSA a lot less money. I'd rather they defend against the broad threat of terrorism than focus on the narrow threat of airplane terrorism, and I'd rather they defend against the myriad of threats that face our society than focus on the singular threat of terrorism. But the head of the TSA can't have those opinions; he has to take the money he's given and perform the specific function he's assigned to perform. Not very much fun, really."

[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/11/schneier_for_t...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/11/schneier_for_ts.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Someone might do something bad so no one should be allowed to do anything.

If the people that founded this country lived by this, they never would have left Europe.

<comment><USER10> The people who founded the USA were regarded as terrorists by the British Empire from which they were fighting to secede. How times have changed.

<comment><USER11> This is not correct. The fundamental - only, in many cases - goal of a terrorist is to inspire terror. The founders of the United States did not leverage terror in any capacity, rather they waged a conventional war to achieve their aims.

<comment><USER10> Terrorism is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The fundamental goal of a terrorist is not to inspire terror in itself; it is to inspire terror for the purpose of weakening public support for a policy the terrorists consider abhorrent. The IRA wanted Britain out of Northern Ireland; the ANC wanted the Apartheid government out of South Africa; Hamas wants Israel out of Palestine; and so on.

We can agree or disagree over whether to support the goals of a given terrorist group, just as we can agree or disagree over whether their methods are legitimate (for the record I do not condone violence, even in pursuit of a legitimate end). However, it's hypocritical to decide whether someone is a terrorist based on the goal of their terrorism.

Like all terrorists, the founders of the USA used both violent and nonviolent means, including property destruction, sabotage, assaults, propaganda and so on, for the purpose of overthrowing the government and establishing their own rule in is place. Again, we can agree or disagree over the legitimacy of both their motives and their means, but the facts of their actions are not in dispute.

<comment><USER11> "Terrorism is a means to an end, not an end in itself."

Precisely, hence my objection. My objection to the original statement is not based on the goals, as the statement below implies:

"However, it's hypocritical to decide whether someone is a terrorist based on the goal of their terrorism."

When we discuss terrorism, we're talking about a tactic. You've described that tactic well above. My objection is based on the fact that I am not aware of any specific activities on the part of the founders of the United States whose goal was to inspire terror in the populace at large. The primary tactics employed ranged from civil disobedience and sabotage (e.g. the original Tea Party) to conventional warfare (e.g. Bunker Hill).

If you are aware of specific actions conducted by the founding fathers prior to or during the Revolutionary War whose only purpose was to inspire fear amongst the general population, please do cite them.

Otherwise, I don't believe the categorization of the founders as terrorists is supportable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "The day after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab failed to blow up a Northwest jet with a bomb hidden in his underwear, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said "The system worked." I agreed. Plane lands safely, terrorist in custody, nobody injured except the terrorist. Seems like a working system to me."

If he got on the plane with the bomb in the first place, doesn't that imply the system doesn't work?

<comment><USER13> >>If he got on the plane with the bomb in the first place, doesn't that imply the system doesn't work?

I think that means part of the system had a failure, but that failure did not propogate catastrophically. If anything, this is reminiscent of a working AND resilient system.

<comment><USER14> Which system are we talking about?

The "keep bombs off of planes" system failed.

The "keep folks from blowing up bombs on planes" system succeeded.

Note that the former is what the US govt is claiming to do while the latter was entirely the doing of random folks on the plane.

Do we have any instances of air marshals stopping anyone? I ask because both the shoe and underwear bomber were handled by ordinary people.

<comment><USER15> The ultimate goal is to keep folks from blowing up bombs on planes, correct?

<comment><USER16> The ultimate goal would be to live in a world where nobody wants to blow up planes.

<comment><USER17> That's not a goal. That's a fantasy world.

There will always be a tiny fraction of people that want to harm others. Whether it is because they have an agenda or are simply crazy (or likely both), they will always exist.

We have the choice of whether we want to sell our liberties and freedom for the illusion of safety from insignificant, yet inevitable, risks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I want him to write more about interesting security and less about America's reaction to 9/11. We non-politicians and non-Americans get it already; the response is disproportionate, knee-jerk and terrified (terror-ified?). But that's been the case for a long time now.

</comment><comment><USER19> Someone should really start an "Americans Are not Chickens, Wimps and Wusses" campaign. Proclaiming loudly that Americans are not going to be manipulated into losing their freedom by politicians and fear of terror.

</comment><comment><USER20> <http://i.imgur.com/UBA0F.png>

</comment><comment><USER21> Sometimes our fears can get the best of us. This is one of those times.

</comment><comment><USER22> Totally in agreement in theory. But sadly, people in general are knee-jerk reactors who aren't really interested in abstract thought of this level. Or am I being too cynical?

</comment><comment><USER23> Could it be that sone people sacrifice a little of their liberty for the safety of... _others_?

</comment><comment><USER24> I don't find this kind of thing helpful.

The question on things like the TSA policies is one of degree and not absolutes. So his claim that we should "conquer our fears because they are the real problem" doesn't hold a lot of weight with me. Fearing a terrorist attack is perfectly rational the question is how much liberty we're willing to give up to prevent such attacks.

So painting this as a "living in fear" vs "not living in fear" question doesn't really address the problem.

Beyond that there's the issue of disagreeing respectfully. Though he couches his point in flowery language the purpose of this type of article is to demonize the people who disagree with him. "They are the fear mongers and I am the rational one" is the point he's making. He's just making it in a way that sounds nice. That type of statement doesn't lead to productive discussion and it certainly doesn't do anything to convince people who disagree with him (people who I assume are the intended audience here)

<comment><USER25> > Fearing a terrorist attack is perfectly rational the question is how much > liberty we're willing to give up to prevent such attacks.

How much liberty are you willing to give up to prevent automobile accidents? children drowning in swimming pools?

Both of these kill far more people every year than terrorist attacks against americans. Why is it ok for thousands of people to die every year from drunk drivers, yet I have to take off my shoes at the airport?

Schneier's point has consistently been to fight terrorism _effectively_. Spend our money and resources in areas that _actually_ reduce terrorism and deaths, rather than areas that _appear_ effective, yet are ultimately worthless (taking off shoes, 3oz liquid restriction, TSA circling things on your boarding pass)

<comment><USER24> > How much liberty are you willing to give up to prevent automobile accidents? > children drowning in swimming pools?

I'm willing to give up the liberty to not wear a seat belt and to not go as fast as I want to prevent the majority of accidents. I'm willing to give up the liberty to not put a fence around my pool to prevent most children from drowning. But I'm not willing to let the Government take my car entirely or say I just can't own a pool. So again, as I said in my original point, it's a question of degree not of absolutes.

As far as your last paragraph that's you projecting. No where in his piece does he talk about methods that are and are not effective. The word effective isn't in the piece one single time.

<comment><USER26> Perhaps it is clear that current TSA measures are silly, ineffective and an eggregious infringement of liberty?

<comment><USER23> Have they been proven to be ineffective?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Amplifying C - <AUTHOR> http://voodoo-slide.blogspot.com/2010/01/amplifying-c.html

<comment><USER2> Good spirit!

Interested parties can also hack on Parenscript: it compiles a decent chunk of Lisp to JavaScript, it's extremely well documented, and even has a CLOS like object system.

<http://common-lisp.net/project/parenscript/>

Regards.

\- someone who compiles lisp to native object code

</comment><comment><USER3> There is also Stella used for PowerLoom - <http://www.isi.edu/isd/LOOM/PowerLoom/>

To implement PowerLoom we developed a new programming language called STELLA, which is a Strongly Typed, Lisp-like LAnguage that can be translated into Lisp, C++ and Java. PowerLoom is written in STELLA and therefore available in Common-Lisp, C++ and Java versions.

<comment><USER2> It looks like a constraint programming language; sorta like CLIPS/LISA, am I right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> i like the author's writing style, and i think he's onto something. i've long hoped for a decent language for writing low-level stuff. so far, c++ is the worst, except for all the alternatives.

i think this is a grave 'leaky abstraction' waiting to happen, though. when his 'amplify' system screws up, it's going to do so in a way that nobody else can understand.

<comment><USER5> " i've long hoped for a decent language for writing low-level stuff."

Have you tried Forth? It is great at low-level stuff.

<comment><USER4> well, how am i going to compile forth into my iphone app? it usually comes down to something like that.

<comment><USER6> Forth isn't compiled most of the time. So go and write yourself a Forth interpreter in C or Assembler for your iPhone. It's (relatively) easy.

<comment><USER4> so my options boil down to dealing with c++'s warts or writing my own forth interpreter? heh! i think i can see why the status quo has persisted for so long.

(not trying to be snarky. if you _have_ written your own forth interpreter, then you are a lot more hardcore than me.)

<comment><USER7> Seriously, it's not that hard. A _hell_ of a lot easier than "dealing with C++'s warts". (And unlike writing a Scheme, you don't have to figure out how to implement continuations.) Here's the source to one (<http://www.annexia.org/forth>), it's great reading.

If you're looking for a practical "low level but high level" setup, I'd recommend Lua + C first. I haven't done iphone dev, but if you can work with C, you're golden. Forth is fun, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> LuaJit is so fast now, why not LuaJit + C where needed?

<comment><USER7> That's a very different approach. This is closer to using Lisp to generate C, whereas Lua+C usually involves a multilayered design: you write your engine in C or C++, write or generate a simple Lua wrapper for its API, and then the do logic in Lua, moving hotspots to C as necessary. (<http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AlternateHardAndSoftLayers>, as they say.) As a bonus, the cross-language boundaries are often natural seams for containing complexity.

TCL was also designed with this style of programming in mind, and John Ousterhout describes it pretty well (<http://www.vanderburg.org/OldPages/Tcl/war/0009.html>).

FWIW, LuaJIT is only available for i386 at the moment, though amd64 porting is in progress. Standard Lua is still pretty fast, and it's great for prototyping. It's a good idea to get algorithms and overall design right before spending much time on low-level tuning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've been wondering for a while why the obvious value in this approach isn't more widely recognized. Perhaps its time has come? I hope so! A Parenscript for C is a good idea. It would be exciting to see this sort of library come out of the game industry.

<comment><USER10> I do think it is recognized.

The biggest problem with these things is not parsing source code and output something else; you get the real pain when you're going to debug. :)

<comment><USER9> _The biggest problem with these things is [...] when you're going to debug._

Since Parenscript is one of "these things", I have to disagree. We've been careful to make PS generate readable, debuggable JS code. It's not what you'd write by hand, of course, but it is not a problem to debug. I debug it every day using standard JS tools. (The biggest problem with PS is the impedance mismatch between Javascript's semantics and Lisp's, but that's another story.)

As I'm sure you're aware, sophisticated C++ template code can be nightmarish to debug. Easier debugging is actually one of the _goals_ of the OP, so if what you said were true then his whole project would be a why-bother.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Whats the point of inventing yet another language? Its far better to use existing and proven languages for both a completeness/stood.the.test.of.time point and time it takes a new developer to get up to speed.

Granted I hate C++ with vengeance my poison if choice is C99 + LUA which creates a really powerful lowlevel and high level combo. Using lua to drive it, farming bits out to C, instead of the opposite "scripting language addon" approach. Yeah lua isnt quite as powerfull as lisp but gets pretty close and dosent look like alien space talk to new devs.

<comment><USER7> Nitpick: It's 'Lua', not 'LUA'. (It's Portuguese for "moon", and its predecessor was called 'Sol'.)

While I too prefer C+Lua, Schemes that compiler to C are another option. Chicken Scheme (<http://www.call-with-current-continuation.org/>) is quite good. Gambit (<http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~gambit/>) is also popular, though I have less experience with it.

<comment><USER12> How is cross-language debugger support? I have looked a few of these options, but in the use case I have in mind, the most likely place for bugs to occur is after crossing between languages multiple times, and not being able to move through the stack is pretty much a show-stopper for moving the high-level logic out of C.

<comment><USER13> I've not debugged Lua but I am familiar with it's integration into C. I imagine debugging Lua+C is no harder than debugging Matlab+C. You load up the REPL in GDB and set your C breakpoints in GDB and your Lua breakpoints in Lua. After control leaves your C function and goes back into the REPL's guts just hit 'continue' to return to the REPL command line. It's more laborious but still straightforward. The only thing you really can't do is step from the high level language to the low one but you can set the proper breakpoint in GDB right before the call so it's more or less the same.

\-----

Edit: sorry not sure if you were talking about Lua or a C-based Scheme, though I imagine it's the same.

<comment><USER14> Lua has a simple API for debugging built in. Because of this, there are several free and a few commercial Lua debuggers available.

<comment><USER12> I'm not concerned about single-language debugging. Can these debuggers move through a mixed C-Lua stack? My stack might start and end in C, but cross through Lua two or more times. Can I set a watchpoint and get the program to stop wherever the memory is modified, regardless of which language is modifying it (i.e. I'd like to see C source when C touches the memory and Lua source (not interpreter inernals) when Lua code touches it).

Which of the Lua debuggers is your favorite?

<comment><USER14> There is a commercial Visual Studio plug-in that will do what you want, but I don't recall it's name.

I wrote a Lua remote debugger myself years ago. A nice trick was that you can associate a string with a chunk of code when you load the code. Then you can retrieve that string from the debug API based on the current instruction. I used that to make a table of "chunk name" to "source" as a global variable in LUA. That made it easy for the debugger to retrieve the source regardless of where it came from (file vs interactive console vs who knows what).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> looks like the function language part of the cola framework: <http://piumarta.com/software/cola/coke.html>

Example with discussion on LtU: <http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2796>

<comment><USER16> The first link has no context, just a reference. The second link goes to a page with 3 comments and no body text, just a 1 paragraph abstract. The link in the abstract is a 404.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Related discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=888643>

</comment><comment><USER18> Have you looked at C--?

<comment><USER2> Have you? I have been a Norman Ramsey stalker since 1997, I dabbled in every project the man ever touched, and C-- is not what the author needs. He wants C performance with higher abstractions. C-- is C performance with assembly abstractions (i.e. _lower_ )

<comment><USER18> I predicted that my comment would be taken pejoratively, but I didn't correct for it. All I wanted to know is, had C-- been looked at? Thanks for putting it into perspective.</comment></comment></comment>


Script to create YouTube playlists from iTunes playlists (OSX/Python) - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/wmw/filthy

<comment><AUTHOR> Thinking of adding Windows support next after fixing a few issues. Feedback welcome!</comment>


Digital Asset Open Sources Its Smart Contract Language, DAML [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://hub.digitalasset.com/hubfs/Press%20Releases/DAML_Open_Source_Press_Release_4.4.19.pdf <comment><USER2> Repository is at [https://github.com/digital- asset/daml](https://github.com/digital-asset/daml)

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting... given that this is actually in use for the Australian Stock Exchange and the Hong Kong Exchanges, this smart contract language could become a major player and continue to get corporate adoption, especially now that it's open sourced.

</comment><comment><USER4> The DAML landing page gives a nice overview of the unique language features:

[https://daml.com/](https://daml.com/)

Disclaimer: I work there. Very exciting to see it open-sourced!

</comment><comment><USER5> Question: How do smart contracts handle defaults?

e.g. day1: ledger A and B strike a deal to bet on the 6M Libor fix in 3 months time. day 91: Libor fixes much higher than expected thanks to a continually robust IPO market and strong economy (but mostly the former.

In any event Ledger A now owes B 1,000 coins, but A only has 250 coins in its ledger. What happens? Is a partial payment done, or because this is a smart contract a Slack message is automagically sent to lawyers and/or collection agents?

<comment><USER6> Smart contracts on public blockchains solve this by committing coins to the contract. In effect the contract is an escrow facility in which the coins are locked up until the contract terminates.

The advantage of e.g. Ethereum blockchains is that defaults don't happen the assets are held by the contract. The drawback is that your assets are locked up for the duration of the contract, which is completely incompatible with how wholesale finance operates.

DAML's genesis was in solving this problem on private ledgers used for mediating inter-party value exchange of off-ledger assets (like dollars). To do that, rather than having an account or asset focus, it's built around the notion of rights, obligations, and enforcing a legally-compatible approach to contractual consent.

That is so that, when a "workflow" (e.g. your LIBOR swap) terminates, DAML provides a fully audited record of all the parties' agreement to be bound by the terms and consequences of the workflow itself. All being well there's an exchange of assets off-ledger. If things turn out badly, you go to court and the default is worked out with the backing of a rock-solid audit trail of affirmation (instead of a loose-leaf binder of printed emails and a dog-eared ISDA agreement.)

(I work for DA.)

<comment><USER5> > Smart contracts on public blockchains solve this by committing coins to the > contract. In effect the contract is an escrow facility in which the coins > are locked up until the contract terminates.

So if this is true, one could never write a call option on Ethereum because the downside risk for the writer is unbounded and you cannot put infinite coins in escrow.

As an aside, given the escrow component, there seems to be no credit/counterparty risk in any ETH smart contract, but for the most part if there is not risk transfer or sharing is there really any commerce to do?

<comment><USER7> Smart contract languages look still in infancy as practical applications are audit trails with stronger guarantees and lower operating costs. What you are thinking of sounds like a far more advanced deal management system. Besides, is it even possible to invent a way to trade risk in such a way that if one party hold unbounded exposure before the trade then after the trade both parties have bounded exposure? does it even make sense to have unbounded risks in system that is inescapably formal and will hold a bounded amount of money at each time? One could argue that risks that look unbounded are usually (as in without a ledger) handled less formally (ie: state bailout, [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/03/10/after- fiv...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/03/10/after-five-years- what-is-the-cost-of-fukushima/)) (Disclaimer: I work for Bloomberg on DLIB BLAN that is a contract language for structuring, pricing and managing exotic derivatives, no block-chains involved)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I was reading the Wikipedia[1] article about smart contracts, I still don't know what a smart contract is.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_contract](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_contract)

<comment><USER9> Smart contracts are programs whose computation is run independently across a large number of distributed machines, with an output that is verified using a predetermined consensus mechanism.

They are useful is situations where an actor would benefit from altering the result of the computation, or masking values. The primary use case that I've seen is for escrow payments with Ether, the Ethereum blockchain's native currency.

They trade processing speed for finality and verification of results.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Could not find what targets does it support, and are features identical between them?

<comment><AUTHOR> At this very moment, DAML applications run on the DA ledger. Open sourcing the language is the first step in expanding that base. We (yes, I work at DA!) have been working with key ledger providers and will be making additional announcements over time - perhaps starting within the month if all goes well.

<comment><USER11> So is the idea that it's abstracted from the ledger, basically meaning you have your choice of whether you would run it in some centralized ledger secured within your company or on a more blockchainey distributed ledger on the public internet?

<comment><USER12> Yup!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interesting, it looks a lot like Haskell. And Edward Kmett used to work there right? Could someone comment on its relationship with Haskell and the ML languages? Which I assume is the ML in DAML

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes Edward was a big contributor here (full disclosure - I work at DA). A lot of our engineers, like Edward, come from the Haskell community. DAML uses the GHC compiler under the covers. One way to think of is is a GHC frontend that adds the extra bits required to streamline the task of writing multipartry contracts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Removed!!!

<comment><USER15> Aside from being a blatant marketing attempt, you should seriously stop overusing hashtags like this outside of Twitter.</comment></comment>


Amateur Super Computer Design - <AUTHOR> http://helmer3.sfe.se/

<comment><USER2> I'm no engineer but it seems that cooling system is too simple, especially with ten of those together... The heat generated in the middle will be way more intense then on the sides.</comment>


New App – Coming Soon Feedback Appreciated - <AUTHOR> We have a NEW App launching very soon, we need feedback on the design and concept please.  This will be available on ios and android.  Thank you in advance.   https://www.matchstixx.com/ <comment><USER2> I really don't expect that someone will pay for this, I guess it's better a fermium model.

If the user is the only person that has the application, it's not very useful, the user MUST convince his/her family and friends to install and pay. And the family/friends are not very convinced and think that they probably will never use this app again, so they are very worried to pay. If they install for free, they can use it later. This app has a very strong local network effect.

I think it's better a model like Candy Crash, were you get a few free plays, and they regenerate slowly by time. But if you are in a big long party with lot's of friends, your free plays will not be enough and you must pay to get more.

Also, if the user only pays for installing the app you still have to pay for the bandwidth an hosting each month forever. If the user pays when have to play, you get some money each month/week.</comment>


How do other startups handle NYC 'Summer Fridays?' - <AUTHOR> I've been hearing that some(many?) companies in NYC (mostly agency & media, it seems) have 'Summer Fridays' policies where they give Friday afternoons off to their employees.
As a west coast startup guy I don't totally get this, and wanted to know how  startups in NYC handle it.
Specifically I'd love to get feedback from anyone who:
- Has a startup w/ offices in both SF & NYC.  Do you do it for NYC employees?  For all employees?
- Has a startup that's not doing this in NYC (and whether it causes any friction w/ your employees)
It seems a bit crazy to me to do it, esp. for a startup that's gunning hard, but I'm sure it's an NYC cultural thing.  Just trying to understand the culture and how others handle it. <comment><USER2> I've worked at a few companies including a several startups and my current company is the only place where summer fridays are a thing. Even then, last year, the tech department was usually the last to leave. Keep in mind that at some companies, summer fridays just means that you can dress down and wear shorts.

The companies that do summer fridays are companies where developers are working ~40 hour work weeks. These companies are usually places where they expect employees to last several years and often are profitable.

Why do companies do summer fridays? In the northeast, you typically have about 2-3 months where the weather is nice enough to go to the beach. If you've got kids, this is their summer vacation. Plus in many metro areas there are a lot of concerts and events going on during the summer. It's a nice way of letting your people enjoy their lives instead of just living for work.

<comment><AUTHOR> RE: "Why do companies do summer fridays? In the northeast, you typically have about 2-3 months where the weather is nice enough to go to the beach."

Yeah so this is exactly why I'm wrestling with it. I totally get that it's an opportunity to enjoy the weather in the NE, and the culture is to hit the Hamptons or Fire Island etc., and that a lot of other colleagues are out there too. But another key part of what you said is "[These companies] often are profitable." So I'm super curious to know what high-growth, private, not-yet- profitable startups in NYC do.

I guess one way to think about it is: In SF many of us take 3-5 days off, at once, for Burning Man. In NYC they space it out over summer Friday afternoons.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Update: Lots of opinions here. I posted this question to a few startup FB groups. Here are some of the answers I got from founder CEOs in those groups:

\- CEO of an NYC startup: "We certainly don't have a summer Friday policy, but I'd say in general I don't love Friday afternoons. People definitely leave pretty early. We had to move our meetings back to the afternoons." [I assume he's saying they did that to keep employees from leaving]

\- European startup founder: "Same thing at publishing companies in London, more or less all year long. I'm not sure why there's those policies in the media space. I'm not planning on setting up anything like that… we're not a billion dollar company yet"

\- Startup founder: "Yeah if you do summer Fridays are for banks, big cos, you know the place where people take this for granted... do not recruit people who want this."

\- Startup founder: "As an east coast company we don't do that, but there certainly is an expectation to take more vacations and have more flexibility during the summer months. The main and obvious difference here versus the west coast is that you guys have nice weather year round"

\- Startup CTO: "[At my last large media company gig we] had Summer Fridays but you'd visit the office at 5pm on Fridays and we'd usually all be there. To me, it's like the startups that have no vacation policy ("if you want to go, go"). Trust your employees. If you hired right, they'll appreciate the gesture but only take you up on it when it makes sense. That said, when people do use it, I think the 'Summer Fridays' don't guarantee there are post-work events (people could get an early start on skipping town)."

\- Startup accelerator founder: "This is not some new phenomenon; This has been going on with startups for many years - even pre dotcom. Work always happens at these post work events and people take time to recharge - if you hired right, you need not worry, as people with shit to do stay and do it, and others get more efficient, if even for a short while. It is also a great time to recruit folks and I know I have seen a lot of folks hiring recently."

</comment><comment><USER3> If your company depends on controlling people's hours when they'd rather actually just leave, other more disastrous interpersonal issues are in play.

I often get more work done walking around the park and thinking about better approaches to a problem than I do by sitting and trying to grind on a problem incessantly for hours.

If you can't trust your employees to do the right thing, you have captive slaves, not useful creative problem solvers.

</comment><comment><USER4> Easy solution used by the NYC startup I work at:

Schedule a company standup meeting at 4:30 or so. Everyone cracks open a beer to enjoy while presenting what they have been working on for the past week. The standup lasts 30 mins or so, after which those who want to leave take off, and those that are going to continue working usually grab another beer and head back to the computer.

</comment><comment><USER5> Most of the larger media agencies offer some number of Fridays to be used flexibly as days off during the summer. It's never all Fridays, and the concession is that it never interfere with work or deliverables. I don't know of any startups that offer this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the 411, Eric. Esp helpful re: "I don't know of any startups that offer this"

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's not fridays off in my experience. It's you can work your friday afternoon hours during the rest of the week. 4 days for 9 hours and 1 day for 4. Alternatively, if you get your work done, its the same as flex time.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm not a startup employee, but I can tell you that there are a lot of offices in NYC that are 1/3 to 1/2 empty on Fridays in the summer.</comment>


When product management rules are broken – A day in the life of a startup - <AUTHOR> http://blog.chargebee.com/product-management-rules-broken-day-life-startup-dev-team/

<comment><USER2> "Roped in our top 3 product ninjas"

Stopped reading there.

<comment><USER3> Low brow dismissal. Typical.

Anyway, the idea expressed is a special case of common wisdom about rules: exceptions are okay so long as they remain exceptions. The tough part is making sure this doesn't become a habit for the client where they keep coming to you with last minute crises.

I remember reading that successful societies are those which have rules that are enforced _almost_ all of the time. If you enforce rules by the strictest interpretation all the time or don't enforce them at all then you have less success than if you permit a small amount of bending. I may be misremebering this, so if anyone remembers a similar work, do share.

<comment><USER4> > Anyway, the idea expressed is a special case of common wisdom about rules: > exceptions are okay so long as they remain exceptions. The tough part is > making sure this doesn't become a habit for the client where they keep > coming to you with last minute crises.

We've been like this since we started 18 months ago. I think it made sense at the beginning - we didn't really know what we were building, and had a few very supportive customers who pretty much drove the product. However now we are still in that position, we have another product, and the dev team has only grown by 50%. How do we move away from this?</comment></comment></comment>


A new method predicts dropping out of university - <AUTHOR> http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/10/06/a.new.method.predicts.dropping.out.university <comment><USER2> Interesting.. Have you read Super Crunchers? [[http://www.amazon.com/Super- Crunchers-Thinking-Numbers-Smart...](http://www.amazon.com/Super-Crunchers- Thinking-Numbers-Smart/dp/0553805401)]</comment>