Coding Horror: Treating User Myopia - <AUTHOR> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001306.html <comment><USER3> This really is "Coder Myopia": Jeff should be the first one who is familiar with the "eye movement hotspot" study that we see over and over again. Users rarely notice anything along the Right Hand Border (most web ads show up here). All user attention is focused on the top left edge, left margin and the top few lines. If you want to catch the user's eye this region is your best bet.

Move the formatting suggestions just below where your "Title" is placed and you will see a higher uptake - guaranteed. Blaming Users for Poor UI design smacks of unwarranted arrogance - never a desirable trait.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's no wonder that users don't read the Formatting Reference (as shown in the screenshot). It's written in totally cryptic jargon that's only understandable by someone who knows HTML, and is itself formatted in a manner that makes it illegible.

Worse, those big blue buttons in random alignments grab all the attention and make the text even harder to read (they should probably be plain old links).

<comment><USER5> I think I would just put a link above & below the preview window: "Preview look funny? Click here for formatting help."

<comment><USER6> How about just getting the preview to format correctly in the first place. The way it's typed into the text area it looks fine.

Users shouldn't have to read a manual of markdown tags to enter text on a site, not unless it does some really special stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hm, I didn't know the MarkDown-Syntax and I must say that it really is totally unintuitive to have put 2 spaces at the end of a line to get a linebreak. That's just not what one would think having to do.

Ok, so there is the preview but I must admit that I would probably think that the preview is broken, if such a simple thing such as line breaks aren't displayed correctly. I've encountered so many broken things in web apps that I'd simply assume that this preview is broken, too. It wouldn't occur to me that there is a special syntax for something as simple as a line break.

<comment><USER8> > I must say that it really is totally unintuitive to have put 2 spaces at the > end of a line to get a linebreak

Agreed!

One way I get round that is to run text through a Markdown parser first then do a regex to replace \n with

That seems to work fairly will ~99% of the time.

(I do like Markdown though - compared to, for example, BBCode. It degrades fairly gracefully, ignoring the line break issue, so you can just write a chunk of text and it looks good _but_ formatting is fairly easy to pick up and eventually intuitive for more advanced users)

<comment><USER9> the problem with replacing backslash with
 is that there are also the kind of users that make to much carriage returns whenever they feel a sentence is finished.

this turns out to be just as ugly.

how do you get to the 99%?? i would say there are more people pressing ENTER when they really want a line-wrap then people writing textwalls.

<comment><USER8> Umm well I was respondign to the guy above me with references to the 2 spaces to get a line break problem. Markdown does not parse \n (at least not so I have seen) at all.

The textwalls problem I don't have a solution too :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've posted this in the comments:

There's also a loss of information in the example. The user typed "\\\<path to shared folder>\c". Markdown produced "\\\c". I do understand it was interpreted as html tag. But I feel it had to be ignored - there's no "path" tag in html.

 _Edit:_ It was difficult to get this comment posted properly on Coding Horror - had to use < and > It's much nicer here on HN. KISS at its best!

</comment><comment><USER11> It seems like there is a basic problem here. Users have spent years using WYSIWYG editors like MS Word, Email apps and so on. Having a basic text box breaks that. Not only that, it's different markup on every site you go to. User don't want to relearn the basics, especially not for each site.

Lack of richtext editor support in browsers has been the problem so far - <USER2> I believe mostly there with contentEditable support in all browsers?

<comment><USER12> WYSIWGY helps for printing, but not formatting. Somehow the tools have to be made available, without a blizzard of tool buttons giving the user snow- blindness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I didn't see the instructions either.

Everyone's brain knows a block of text in the right-side column of a web page is an ad and provides nothing useful to the task at hand.

<comment><USER12> Yes, and also every app designer is proud of her baby and thinks the user is just aching to learn it. When in fact the user has an actual task to get done, and your tool is actually in their way. Imagine building a house, and having 47 tools in a pile in the driveway when you arrive. Not helpful, probably you'll just pick up the hammer and start pounding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm all for making a UI as simple and helpful as is practical. But at some point we reach diminishing returns: we invest so much in being helpful that it exceeds the cost of users misunderstanding. With Jeff's suggestion at the end, it may even be that pre-supplied question text causes enough badly-presented questions, or questions with the boilerplate itself left intact, that it makes the situation worse.

So I think it's worth playing devil's advocate: is there some point at which we're justified in expecting the user to just grow up and read, or give a little bit of thought to what you're doing? Why do we, in the software industry, beat ourselves up so much, when the rest of the world is given a free pass?

I mean, whether it's figuring out how to use some kind of glue, or operating the PBX system, or planting a garden, and on and on, we expect that the user is going to read something about what the heck he's doing. Why not with computers?

</comment><comment><USER15> _I'm thinking we need to put the formatting help -- for new users only -- directly in their line of sight_

Even then, you'll find that some users will just spend their time looking for a way to get rid of the help (and do what they came to do), rather than read it.

</comment><comment><USER16> Is it possible to evaluate the readability of the submitted text using some algorithm? If so, when text is entered in the input box, the page could automatically display some kind of assessment of readibility.

</comment><comment><USER17> We've recently had to put up a "You have a stale link and will be forwarded shortly..." page. As expected, people started calling us to ask why the system wasn't working.

<comment><USER18> Maybe they don't know what "stale link" means. If I saw that I'd be confused too. Can't you just silently redirect?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Maybe all that text just isn't connecting with the user's goals. What if they added a sentence, unavoidably in the users line of sight, to the effect of:

"Want be understood? Format your text using the simple formatting guide on your right."

So, it points out how to achieve their goal (being understood) but it doesn't clutter their line of sight with too much information.

</comment><comment><USER6> For all intents and purposes, that field looks like a rich text editor. Of course I wouldn't read instructions on how to enter text. I learned how to type in rich text editors a long time ago.

I wouldn't want this guy doing usability design on my site. Woof.

</comment><comment><USER9> correct usage of carriage return and spaces are hard to get right for users who are not used to type writing.

thats about it. teach them that and you get 80% readable ascii.

<comment><USER20> Perhaps someone should also teach them about the correct use of capital letters and how they make sentences easier to read.</comment></comment>


How does Chinese tech stack up against American tech? - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/news/business/21737075-silicon-valley-may-not-hold-its-global-superiority-much-longer-how-does-chinese-tech <comment><USER2> One thing I think every Silicon Valley startup and investor should be afraid of is the incredible rate and depth of adoption of new technologies in China.

I came across two examples recently. First, in China e-books have taken over paper books, not just in volume, but in publishers' minds [1]. Second, payment systems like AliPay are becoming the dominant in just a few years, completely circumventing credit cards [2].

Now, neither of these are technological breakthroughs in themselves. The Kindle has been around for over 10 years, and Apple Pay and its precursors are not news, either. However, neither of those technologies has had the impact on their respective markets that the creators hoped for. Paper books are still frequently cheaper than their Kindle versions, and there have hardly been any noteworthy straight-to-Kindle publications. Likewise, Apple Pay, which is only a replacement for your physical card, but still a transaction mostly owned by Visa/MasterCard, and not Apple, is still far from a dominant purchase mechanism, even in the Bay Area. All in all, the pace of adoption of disruptive technologies in the US is pretty poor.

So, as an entrepreneur, I'd be much more worried not about inventing the cool new tech before China, but actually getting people hooked on it.

[1] [https://www.economist.com/news/business/21731860-tencents- ch...](https://www.economist.com/news/business/21731860-tencents-china- literature-should-profit-millions-chinese-smartphone-bookworms-chinas) [2] [https://www.wired.com/story/age-of-social- credit/](https://www.wired.com/story/age-of-social-credit/)

<comment><USER3> Vendor lockin is a big issue. Why should I buy a book that I can't use the way I want because of DRM, I can't get in my native language and is completely tied to a company? Oh, and it also costs _more_...

It is insane but greed has made the above commonplace across all aspects of the digital world.

Personally I think ebooks are still worth it, even if I have to buy it, strip the DRM (which is illegal) before reading it (on an eink display of course). But it has never been ready for mainstream (will it ever?) and it is not the techs fault.

We still don't even have a decent movie streaming service, and even if one existed it wouldn't matter because the content you want to watch makes that choice for you.

A decade ago we had awesome home theater software, they still exist but they aren't compatible with the media that is offered today. For that we need another device (chromecast) which is probably the dumbest device you can buy but somehow that is the best option available for consumers in 2018.

<comment><USER4> Some random thoughts to what could be going on, in no particular order:

1\. Yarr, pirate it. Easier to consume things when you have few qualms as to how to obtain it.

2\. Nothing lasts forever. Lock-in only exists if you can't let go for the next thing that comes along.

3\. Upward mobility in quality of life and social class leads to a renaissance.

<comment><USER5> > 1\. Yarr, pirate it. Easier to consume things when you have few qualms as to > how to obtain it.

Don't some e-Book readers disallow you from reading things that you didn't download from them (or they don't support epub)?

> 2\. Nothing lasts forever. Lock-in only exists if you can't let go for the > next thing that comes along.

But you also can't migrate your old library to the new one, which is the main problem with lock-in (the issue isn't that you physically cannot switch away, it's that you cannot switch away without losing things that you've bought into).

<comment><USER4> > Don't some e-Book readers disallow you from reading things that you didn't > download from them (or they don't support epub)?

If theory 1 is true, then the readers without this user hostile approach will thrive. Obviously pirates don't care for DRM locked devices.

> But you also can't migrate your old library to the new one, which is the > main problem with lock-in (the issue isn't that you physically cannot switch > away, it's that you cannot switch away without losing things that you've > bought into).

My point was mental, not physical. People might naturally just drop old stuff for new shiny things. If things appear plentiful compared to the old ways, this attitude is easier to adopt. Do you regret throwing away your coffee cup in the morning?

<comment><USER6> do you regret throwing away your family photos? your car? your friendships?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Everyone is talking about software, and maybe that's because this goes without saying, but China's hardware production capabilities are just staggering. Embedded development has a hugely promising future, especially as microchips continue to add richer feature sets for lower power (and money) costs. And China has been taking that idea of the future and sprinting with it. 'IoT' is a popular buzzword, but IMO the success of companies like DJI better reflects China's growing expertise in blending together a broad range of technical disciplines, many of which are comparatively scorned by educational institutions in the US.

Lately I've been floored by the fact that ARM Cortex-M0 and -M3 development boards (48-72MHz, 8-20KB RAM, 64-256KB flash) cost less than $2 each. They blow 'Arduinos' out of the water by an order of magnitude on both cost and capability, as do the similarly-cheap ESP8266 WiFi development boards.

What ever happened to _making_ useful things?

<comment><USER8> >What ever happened to making useful things?

Lots of things.

      - The patent debacle that started in the Clinton administration
      - Not enforcing anti-competition laws allowing companies to consolidate.
      - Companies giving away all their IP to China in exchange for cheap labor.
      - Allowing our tech manufacturing sector to rot on the vine.

The US still makes lots of useful things, they just can't make them within our borders.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think Silicon valley's biggest contribution is innovation. All the Chinese or Indian startups I see (no matter how big their size) are generally China's answer to Uber/WhatsApp/Facebook or India's answer to Amazon.

I've yet to see one startup which is America's answer to some chinese/indian startup. I hope that day comes soon.

<comment><USER10> > I've yet to see one startup which is America's answer to some chinese/indian > startup. I hope that day comes soon.

What about Twitch, which makes its money from sponsorship and virtual gifts to streamers, a model pioneered in China and then Korea? Or the US esports leagues which copy, again Korea and China?

There are many technologies which appear later in the US but Americans think are indigenous (and the reverse as well -- I don't mean to pick on the US, simply responding to your comment). Consider chip cards (commonplace in Europe for 20+ years, still not well adopted in the US) or text messaging (adopted very late in the US).

<comment><USER11> I know of AfreecaTV that launched in 2005, and Twitch (Justin.tv) which launched in 2007. But what was the pioneering China platform?

<comment><USER12> yy.com I believe.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YY.com](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YY.com)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> China can only "win" if English usage gets better there. Because to win means to get Europe e.g. to see them as example. But we understand too little of Chinese in general, the culture and the language. We do however almost all get taught murican, I mean English at high school (have to note that few year after my high school time, you can now study Chinese and do some exams on it)

<comment><USER14> Well, China itself has more than 1 billion people, and there is still plenty of room to grow its domestic market. That market is large enough to sustain tons of companies. More and more Chinese actually feel they've wasted too much time learning English, which is only need for a small number of jobs

<comment><USER15> ...but 1 billion ppl != 1 billion consumers...

the huge income gap (pretty surprising given it's "communism" and everything lol) between peasants-workers-in-cities and the others is...

<comment><USER14> that's why there's huge room to improve

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I read similar stories about Japan in the 1980s

<comment><USER17> I also remember Back to the Future Part II

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Yeah so much great high quality software coming out of China. Many of these apps aren't even a national security risk!

<comment><USER19> They're not a national security risk for China though.

<comment><USER20> A backdoor's a backdoor, whether it's in an American product or a Chinese one.

<comment><USER21> That's a political rhetoric. But most popular software has backdoors in the form of automatic updates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The paper cites a few things

> But now the number of cited AI papers by Chinese scientists is already at > 89% of the American level

Every article that wants to claim that China AI is on par with American AI claims this. But US has 10X the amount of AI scientists as China, which means Chinese AI scientists produces 10X amount of papers as American scientists. Quantity over quality, spurred by government cash rewards. Lots of noise, no bite.

> China's e-commerce sales are double America's. Chinese firms are > collectively 53% as big as America's, measured by market value

That's because China has 1.3B population, about 4X times more than America's 350B. However, it is projected that China will have peak population in this decade, and will be around 800M population sometimes in 2100. America has alot better demographics, vs China who has one of the oldest, and whose working population will contract by a few hundred millions by 2050

> Chinese non-tech firms are relatively primitive and only 26% as digitised as > American ones. As for investment, Chinese tech's absolute budget is only 30% > as big as that of American tech. And it is still small abroad, with foreign > sales of 18% of the total that American firms make.

that's the gist of the article. China is nowhere near as big as America's tech currently. And China is on its way to the lost decade (that's why xijingping recently wanted the provinces to focus on things other than GDP, since the local governments are levered to the hill with debt)

<comment><USER23> > However, it is projected that China will have peak population in this > decade, and will be around 800M population sometimes in 2100.

WOW! Population declines have hugely negative effects on economics like GDP. I don't know if that has been factored into their GDP estimates but that makes me extremely question their GDP growth.</comment></comment>


Greetings - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/20/greetings/

<comment><USER2> I can't emphasize the body language part enough. A lot of the time, and I have been guilty of this, people go on and on about a project they're working on, even when they sort of notice the other party not interested, hoping that the person's mind will change once they hit some critical part of their monologue, or that once done, the person listening will evaluate the idea as a whole and finally get it.

Learning how to pick up on the nuances of body language is really important. The angle at which the person you're talking to is standing, their eye movement, how engaged they are, are all cues to their level of interest. If a person isn't standing parallel to you, that could mean that they're preparing to walk off, or are opening the ground for others to enter, and if you pick up on that, quickly move to what you want and end it. If you keep going, it's more than likely that the person really isn't listening to a word you're saying and cannot wait until you're done. Shifty eyes, or occasionally smiling at passer-byers, etc, are also signs that the conversation isn't really going anywhere.

Being able to read body language in general is good skill to have (interviews, friendly interactions, etc).

<comment><USER3> This all comes down to good preparation. If you know you're going to be running in to someone simply set up a meeting before you go.

And inquire if they'll have some time. If they say no you know where you stand.

Approaching people 'cold' is a hard to master art anyway, most people are busy and most of them are too busy right now for you. But if you give them a chance to work you in to the schedule most of them will give you a bit of their time.

I personally avoid tradeshows and such like the plague, hardly any business of any significance gets conducted there. Everybody in the know already has a fair idea of what will happen, and otherwise you'll get it in the press or on the web the next day.

For internet companies to host 'events' is a little weird, the real action is on the web, and your press contacts should be well prepared long before any physical meeting, and even then it is probably better to have them one-by-one than all in one go.

The panel discussions are slightly different, it is a format that translates badly to the web, and it sometimes can give some insight in the personalities of the people behind the names.

But you're clearly not open to approaching them on a personal level in that setting, it's 'many-to-many'. Better to save that for another time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Two other pieces of advice:

1) For the love of God, introductions are not about you--its about _them_. You'll get your chance to tell your story if you first make their needs a priority.

2) Always introduce yourself to the person sitting next to you on a plane. You might be surprised by what you learn from them over the course of a 3 hour flight.

<comment><USER5> Number 2 got me moved from a center seat into a bulkhead position with twice the leg room on a 9hr flight from Germany. Do it.

<comment><USER6> He complained about you?

<comment><USER5> No, it wasn't negative. He brought me along as he moved because I was a "family friend"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _"If you get someone's business card, never call them. That mobile phone number isn't for you, the person who just met them. A random call to their cell phone is never welcome. Send an email."_

I disagree with this. For someone being approached a lot, like Arrington, it's obviously easier to give an e-mail a quick glance and then discard it instead of all the time and bother that comes with an almost cold call. But if you want to get through you should call, it's much harder to say no on the phone than it is to discard an e-mail from someone you don't know. You'll also have a much better chance of making an actionable next step. " _so you like it? Well why don't I send you a mail with login information so you can give it a try? I'll call you next wednesday to hear how it went_ "

That's also why response rates on direct mail is much much lower than coldcalling potential customers.

<comment><USER8> Why would anyone answer the phone from a random number? You go to voicemail, then the person either ignores it or listens just long enough to get the name of the person they need to put on the shit list. Don't call, especially someone who has written a blog post specifically saying "don't call".

<comment><USER3> Bollocks. If someone gives you a businesscard with their phone number on it it is an open invitation to call at a later date. That's what it's for, it's not a collectible.

Otherwise keep two sets of cards, one with your phone number on it and one set that has just email or IM information on it.

It is really bordering on the arrogant to assume that someone is reading your blogposts in order to figure out what they can or can not do with the contact information that you gave them.

If you think you are too important to be bothered by 'mere mortals' you might as well stop handing out business cards.

And god forbid someone actually wants to talk to you. Just imagine, where do these people get the guts to do that.

<comment><USER8> I completely agree that you shouldn't be handing out business cards with your phone number if you don't want calls, but regardless, I stand by the belief that phone calls should be reserved for people you actually know want to be called, and I don't think a business card with a phone number gives you that knowledge.

I don't think this is arrogance, it's just a social norm that I personally think is pretty well established at this point. An actual phone call has a level of formality/familiarity to it at this point, and I think it's just rude to presume you can unilaterally breach that. Everyone's time is valuable, and it's kind of a dick move to try to take that time from someone (regardless of who they are) just because you want to give your pitch to a stranger.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I once went to a seminar for programmers who wanted to learn how to sell. The teacher walked into the room and saw all 22 of us sitting at our desks reviewing the handouts. He couldn't believe that none of us was already talking to each other. The first thing he said was, "You guys really need this class!"

</comment><comment><USER10> for arrington he needs to add #9 - "Don't spit on me"

</comment><comment><USER11> Some advice:

Don't begin with "Hey, what do you do?"

Get to know the person first before asking about what they're working on.

<comment><USER12> Why?

<comment><USER13> In my experience, that question is an awkward one for a surprising number of people. For some this question is awkward because they are looking for work or don't need to work. For others, this question implies that all you care about them is what they "do".

At the moment, I'm asking people "So, how do you stay busy?". This question has been the start of far more interesting conversations than "So, what do you do?".

<comment><USER14> "What do you do?" is better than "Where do you work?" or worse, "Where did you go to school?", which are common among many people in professions like law.

<comment><USER15> My general rule of thumb with meeting new people is just to be genuinely interested in learning about them.

Even if you're asking the "what do you do" question, the authenticity you deliver the question with will make all the difference.

<comment><USER13> Good point on the authenticity aziari. I agree, it makes all the difference. Anything I can say beyond that is just repeating part of "How To Win Friends And Influence People" (An excellent and timeless book, despite the title, which didn't stand the test of time)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to Model Viral Growth: Deriving the Viral Carrying Capacity - <AUTHOR> http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20121011190820-18876785-how-to-model-viral-growth-simple-loss

<comment><USER2> I put together an implementation of their simple model at:

<http://insightmaker.com/insight/2972>

You can play with the different parameters and growth rates in this model to see the results. It wouldn't be much harder to add the features of their other models.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, this is cool :)

Mind if I add a link to it from the post?

<comment><USER2> Sure, I also commented on your post with a link.</comment></comment></comment>


'Not a Day Care'? Really? - <AUTHOR> http://chronicle.com/article/Not-a-Day-Care-Really-/234428 <comment><USER2> This whole article is one big ad hominem attack on the school. The author didn't really discredit any of the points the university president made, just attacked the school for being christian.

<comment><USER3> That's not entirely true, he pointed out that you can't say "Not a Day Care" then baby the ADULTS that come to your "university".

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> >To put it mildly, then, Oklahoma Wesleyan is behind the curve when it comes to LGBT rights.

If this college claims to maintain christian values, then they will _always_ be behind LGBT rights because they directly contradict biblical scripture. This argument is void for any christian university.

Also, most students have a choice as to where they attend school. Any student that is planning to attend OKWU has ample opportunity to understand what they're getting into. If they don't like the rules, they should pick a different school.

<comment><USER5> >LGBT rights [...] contradict biblical scripture.

As per the interpretation of Wesleyans, yes...but there are any number of denominations who don't hold to that interpretation. Even so, Christians are generally called to treat LGBT persons with respect and dignity, and at least a few LGBT rights would actually fall under that umbrella, I'd say.

<comment><USER4> If you're saying Christians are called not to condemn LGBT persons, I would agree with that. Forgiveness is supposed to be prevalent in Christianity. People that are LGBT should still be treated as people, and as far as Christianity goes, everyone is a sinner, and everyone has their own temptations and battles.

OKWU is seemingly fearful that allowing that culture into their student body would affect it in a way they deem negative or counter productive.

As far as LGBT not contradicting scripture, I have a hard time coming to that interpretation. From what I've read it seems clear that the bible is against that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The whole thing has smelled like a manufactured controversy for a long time. But then again, most major controversies these days that hit this kind of pop culture attention are manufactured. You could probably dig into this a little and find a media or PR company.

</comment><comment><USER7> So if the original article and 'not a daycare' phrase had come from any non- religious institution it'd have meant something/more. That seems to be the premise for this critique. It's not an invalid point.

</comment><comment><USER8> Hum, I don't really get the point of the article. This is a _Christian_ college, of course they don't support transexualism, or gay relationships, or LGBT rights. Just like a muslim school would not promote gay rights or eating ham. When you join a christian school you are expected to follow christian beliefs, if it's a problem for you go somewhere else. It's like these people complaining that the Pope doesn't promote condom usage, he's the freaking pope, how can you ask him to promote sex outside of wedlock?

Plus, the title doesn't make any sense, not being gay friendly doesn't make this institution a day care, this is idiotic.

<comment><USER9> Regarding the title, I think it has more to do with passages like these:

"Most college students are allowed to leave their rooms whenever they want. You might say it's one of the hallmarks of life outside day care. And Oklahoma Wesleyan does generously allow you to come and go as you please — during the day. But coming in late after curfew, or "sneaking out at night," in the handbook's wording, is another minor violation of school policy."

and

"Better be careful, you wild and crazy kids. Pranks — even "non-destructive" pranks — are also a minor violation of school policy."

As far as evangelical college policies go, these are relatively tame. For instance, the largest of these institutions, Liberty university, would until very recently fine students for watching R-rated movies or not keeping their dorm rooms tidy.

<comment><USER10> So the university has rules to govern student behavior. Why do we have to take everything to an extreme and refer to them as a "day care". This is stupid.

<comment><USER11> A member of staff at the University recently started a discussion where he said the Uni was not a day care. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654831](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654831)

Pointing out that the uni treats students as children is a valid response.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Early Stage Slump - <AUTHOR> http://avc.com/2017/12/the-early-stage-slump/ <comment><USER2> The wise words at the end:

You can tell where there is too much money and too little money by looking at valuations. When valuations are extended, that means there is too much money. That was seed in 2014, growth in 2015/2016, and ICOs in 2017. The trick is to get into these sectors before the money shows up and get out when it does. And then get back in after it leaves. And not get burned along the way.

<comment><USER2> Or as Warren Buffett put it:

"...be fearful when others are greedy and... be greedy only when others are fearful"

[https://www.investopedia.com/university/warren-buffett- biogr...](https://www.investopedia.com/university/warren-buffett- biography/warren-buffett-most-influential-quotes.asp)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Or maybe more entrepreneurs are starting sustainable businesses and monetizing earlier therefore not needing to raise money.

<comment><USER4> No, it's definitely harder to raise seed money right now.

<comment><USER5> It is harder today, compared to one year ago.

I also submitted an "ask" on HN yesterday, regarding valuation/cap in my seed stage startup - I would be grateful if any of you could provide comments/suggestions: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15858585](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15858585)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Although Wilson titles his piece _The Early Stage Slump_ , he correctly goes on to say that this is _a return to normal_ , that _we believe 2012-16 was a bubble in early-stage funding_.

</comment><comment><USER7> Perhaps a sign of uncertainty? There seem to be many risk factors right now:

\- A government that is close to shut-down

\- A president that could get indicted or fire the special prosecutor anytime, either of which will cause rioting in the streets

\- A fed that seems on-target to raise rates this month, which will have many ripples in the economy

\- A stock market that is standing on it's toes to justify the lofty prices of the day

\- The possibility of nuclear war with North Korea

\- An enormous tax cut bill that is still being crafted whose impact is yet to be understood

<comment><USER2> Despite all these the stock market is doing relatively well. In fact, the potential tax cut and Trump administration have lifted stocks. There are always a few concerns out there but I think most investors are feeling okay about political environment.</comment></comment>


What's holding back the world economy? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/08/whats-holding-back-world-economy-joseph-e-stiglitz?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-1 <comment><USER2> The world economy is being held back by debt and bad investments. Personal Debt. Deceitful monetary practices by lenders or investors. (ie real estate brokers encouraging debt) Corporate Debt. Government Debt. (city, county, State, Country, etc) Economies based on sky-high commodity prices. (prices relative to cost of living and relative to debt) Commodity producers financed by lots of debt.

Basically, many people and entities have financed growth by massive debt. The US is now comparatively better and has reduced QE and increased interest rates. This has caused commodities to plunge. (minus the fear-buying precious metals) A strong US dollar and faltering global markets have caused commodities to sink. Oil producers continue to produce in hopes that they can continue to finance their debt obligations.

In my opinion, the economic outlook will get worse-- especially in domestic and international markets where shale oil and tar sand oil is produced. These resources are much more expensive to extract and refine than traditional oil wells. Once these economies fall further (corporate and personal forclosures), the economic outlook will worsen.

The biggest problem is investing in expensive resources, financed by large debts. This is why companies are socking money away at astounding rates- debt is crippling the global economy.

<comment><USER3> Debt, in and of itself is not necesserily a bad thing, at least at the micro level. If that debt is at a low interest rate, and used to finance something that stimulates economic growth then that is a net positive.

One problem with debt is the long-term effects caused by the method in which much modern debt is created: I.e the bank creates capital out of 'thin air' and it costs them nothing other than some liability for the value of that debt, and conversely when money is paid back to the bank, that money (minus a small cut) is effectively destroyed. Usually you can only pay back that money by receiving money from someone else who has gone into debt in order to raise that capital.

At the macro level, this means that effectively all money is debt. It is very hard (some would say impossible) to make any sizable reduction in levels of debt without causing a recession.

The pessimist in me has some sympathy for the viewpoint that bailing out the banks in 2008-2009 only served to delay an inevitable and long overdue correction in the global economy.

<comment><USER4> What happened when the amount of money was tied to gold? I do sometimes look at fractional reserve banking and see a giant ponzu scheme. I'm not sure ever increasing levels of debt are sustainable, but then I'm not an economist...

<comment><USER5> Fractional reserve banking began under the gold standard or before.

"What happened" is the Great Depression in the interwar period. Some say various nations "cheated" on the gold standard - rigged conversion rates to hoard gold.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article is beating around the bush: The answer is LACK OF DEMAND.

Since the ordinary person can't afford jack shit and already exceeded all levels of debt he/she can take nobody buys anything besides bare necessities. This is what you get if productivity rises sky high over decades and at the same time wages stagnate.

<comment><USER7> _LACK OF DEMAND...wages stagnate._

You seem to be wildly misunderstanding Keynesian economics - the entire purpose of stimulating demand is to create inflation and lower real wages.

Further, all your premises are definitively false in the US. Debt levels are falling, and aggregate demand (i.e. NGDP) has been steadily rising.

[https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDP](https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDP)

[http://www.businessinsider.com/deutsche-bank-lavorgna- americ...](http://www.businessinsider.com/deutsche-bank-lavorgna-americas- debt-to-gdp-pre-crisis-2012-6)

[https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/HDTGPDUSQ163N](https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/HDTGPDUSQ163N)

[https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TOTDTEUSQ163N](https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TOTDTEUSQ163N)

Globally GDP also is rising: [https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...](https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:GBR:RUS:FRA:CHN:IND:NGA:ZAF:DEU&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false)

 _This is what you get if productivity rises sky high over decades and at the same time wages stagnate._

Employee compensation has been rising, it's just shifted from taxable wages to untaxed benefits.

[https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ECIALLCIV](https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ECIALLCIV)

Why don't you do even a tiny bit of research before posting? Literally every word of your post is false.

<comment><USER8> Wouldn't paying off debts and lack of demand go hand in hand?

<comment><USER7> Apparently not, as the graph of NGDP shows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> At the time everybody called BS on giving to the banks and trickle down economics.

Hindsight even proved it.

Problem is, politicians don't have the courage. Bankers tell them if the change the system, there'll be an economic crisis.

<comment><USER10> Politicians just need to be electable, not courageous. Why we ask them more?

<comment><USER11> Hmm, that's an interesting question - if you're unable to be fired, do you still have a moral obligation to do your job?

Well, I'd say yes.

<comment><USER10> I share your opinion and bankers abuse it.

I'll look for the definition of moral obligation for politicians. Hoping that there is one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It seems the main thing holding back the world economy is the mistaken assumption that a sliver of the population hoarding all the capital constitutes an economy in the first place. It does not.

</comment><comment><USER13> AFAIK there is still an ecomony, economising, and has been the whole time.

1\. Mainstream (maybe lobbied) view that growth is constant and without it we're all going to die. 2\. Incurred debt trying to achieve #1

</comment><comment><USER14> Globally a very large percentage of construction materials, vehicle parts, and plastics are currently produced from petrolium sources because of rules and regulations which restrict our civilization from utilizing the sun optimally via nature's most highly optimized solar fiber/oil generation system also known as industrial hemp.

Although it's possible to obtain hemp fiber and oil now it's price is artifically high because hemp farming is restricted on most of the surface area of earth. This artifically high price pevents this plant from being used in building construction and consumer plastics which keeps us locked into a petrol economy.

In addition there is a vast amount of rough terrain in US and elsewhere which is suitable for hemp production but not for agricultural crops. This land currently sits unused which it could be absorbing co2 at a high rate while contributing to the global economy. Also a reduction in the price of hemp would cause it be used more as the world's primary source of cellulose which would help neturalize the wholesale destruction of biodiversity in both the rainforests and marine environments.

<comment> guard-of-terra To even start to replace petroleum, hemp oil has to be very cheap. This means using optimal land for growing it - plains, well-lit, well-rained. Where it would compete with wheat and other food grown.

Trying to grow hemp (for hemp oil) on rough terrain won't work - far too expensive given the implications of manual labor.

<comment><USER14> 1\. Hemp oil does not have to become cheaper than petrol in order to become widely used globally because consumer behavior is likely to change to accomodate it. What I mean is educated consumers are willing to pay more for the "green alternative" of their disposable plastic product because they recognize they will see that the extra value is created when the product does not create a destructive externality.

2\. Wheat is not an ideal primary food crop in terms of nutrition for an advanced civilization that has the technology to scale distributed food production of much more nutritious plants. Instead we could scale out verical farming, aquaponics technology, permaculture, etc. Still I don't believe industrial hemp would effect large scale wheat production. I think that's a misnomer based on calculations centered around the idea of what it would take to replace petrol completely.

You can certainly grow hemp on flat terrain that is not optimal for food crops, but how much can be realistically harvested on truly rough terrain is debateable. It helps to remember that since you don't need insect repellent or petro-fertilizers it's signficantly easier to grow. I estimate that it could at least double the amount of land that can be used for productive farming in the US, and another thing is that hemp actually helps add nitrogen back into the soil.. in other words it's an excellent "cover crop". In addition it only needs to be rotated once every 70 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The economist has a good article on this with a number of hypotheses: [http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2016/02/markets- an...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2016/02/markets-and- economics)

</comment><comment><USER16> The solution is a universal basic income for everyone. It will encourage employment and spending.

There should also be a fix for the "1% of the population having more than 60% of total wealth" problem.

</comment><comment><USER17> Relatively simple article from the New York Fed explaining why everything Stiglitz says here is wrong: [https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff...](https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr380.pdf)

Not sure if Stiglitz is aware of these points because he doesn't address any of them. Or it's possible I'm misunderstanding something, Stiglitz' article is very complex and is clearly intended for economists, I'm not sure why it's appearing in the Guardian.

</comment><comment><USER18> States getting in the middle of individuals

<comment><USER19> Here is a good post from Mark Cuban written just last week regarding onerous reporting requirements for public companies and the changing mindset of entrepreneurs, and how much it hurts wealth creation in this country:

[http://blogmaverick.com/2016/02/04/the-pre-cognitive-anti- tr...](http://blogmaverick.com/2016/02/04/the-pre-cognitive-anti-trust- violationhow-the-decimation-of-the-ipo-market-has-hurt-the-economy-and- worse/?utm_campaign=Mattermark+Daily&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=26043812&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8gf4QV0APHZED4_4se- cWXLoyhSC4amNhlGFi9SaladmuwpthkMHP2V-qMVi9InEHehYwFeyw3N3IBQILt5bds4zmg6A&_hsmi=26043812)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> 24 hours and mens necessity to get some sleep. And it's time for a new truly disruptive technology past micro optimisations.

</comment><comment><USER21> Malthus. Malthus, or more specifically, declining returns on investment in science and technology, is holding back the economy. It's not debt levels or bad interest rate policy or currency manipulation; these effects are all second-order. The primary cause of the slowdown is that there's just not much more to _do_.

This lack of opportunity is reflected in the very low interest rates available today combined with low growth. This technological stagnation is reflected in the massive funding of SV-area tech companies, which are shitty opportunities for a return on investment in a world full of even shittier opportunities.

Investors are desperate for a return anywhere. That it's so hard to find a good ROI is against indicative of technological development petering out. After 300 years, we've reached the end of super-Malthusian growth, and we're going to return, hopefully peacefully, to the normal steady-state conditions of human existence, albeit at a higher baseline technology level.

There are no major advances left. Physics can predict everything except the most extreme conditions at the largest and smallest scales, and there are no more bugs in the universe to exploit. Computing will see incremental improvements, but all the really hard problems have already been solved or proved impossible. Quantum computing will make some problems a square-root function easier, but won't change anything. Biotechnology may help us live longer, but research that might change the human condition --- germ-line genomic editing --- has _already_ been banned.

Sure, you might argue, we're still going through the technology revolution. But that's petering out. Cell phone sales growth slipped into the single digits last year. Tablets are dead. Desktop sales have been declining forever. The commercialization of technology we've already developed --- e.g., self- driving cars, automated personal assistants, and high-efficiency power generation --- will decrease costs by some constant factor, but also put a lot of people out of work.

It's remarkably, really, that the laws of the universe are such that humanity was able to elevate itself from ape to thinking ape, and then from thinking ape to calculating machine. It's remarkable that we can compute. Why should we expect the universe to be further more compliant?

<comment><USER22> > There are no major advances left.

I think the problem is elsewhere. There's noone doing the advancing. People like myself (smart, educated, ambitious, technically-oriented) are _way_ better of doing the unproductive things (finance or ad-tech) than the productive (research). And by " _way_ better" I mean it doesn't even compare! Academia is fucked-up as well (chasing it's proverbial tail by encouraging young researchers to publish, not to, you know, actually research).

Simply said, everyone is looking to invest capital in equity, but nobody actually wants to pay _people_ to do the work. Give me a living wage (i.e. not 40k when the tiny apartment I live in costs 600k) and freedom to decide the direction I'll go in, and I'll gladly research "useful stuff". Otherwise, I'd rather chase my own interest by doing the "useless" (but highly-paid) stuff.

<comment><USER21> > Academia is fucked-up as well (chasing it's proverbial tail by encouraging > young researchers to publish, not to, you know, actually research).

I have to wonder how much of this phenomenon is due to genuine advances just being harder to come by. When others have already filled in the color between the lines in your field except for tiny bits in the corners here and there, what's left to do but fudge experimental results, salami-slice what genuinely novel results you do see, and take advantage of publication bias?

Maybe researchers wouldn't need to resort to these shenanigans if we weren't running out of things to discover.

<comment><USER23> Here's a partial list of things that could have had more funding over the past twenty five years, and which are ripe for game-changer advances without needing completely new science:

Renewable energy Social housing Aerospace AI Quantum computing Transport infrastructure Novel Internet distribution/5G SETI Biotech Fusion power Next- generation operating systems

There's been an uptick in momentum in some of these over the last few years, but they're easily at least a decade behind where they could have been if money had been dropped on them from a helicopter instead of being wasted on (say) invading Afghanistan, and keeping banks fed and watered with QE.

The real problem is Wall St. So many PhDs moved there when they could have been doing useful, original research. And Wall St cannibalised academia in other ways, pressuring universities to offer stupendous ROI at the expense of genuine education and research, and warping what used to be a productive culture into yet another hyper-competitive sweat shop.

Financialisation has a social reverse Midas effect - it looks like it's producing gold in the short term, but over longer scales everything it touches turns to shrivelled crap.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


In 5 Bus Riders in New York City Evades the Fare, Far Worse Than Elsewhere - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/13/nyregion/mta-bus-riders-fare-beaters.html <comment><USER2> Fares shouldn't exist, the cost to administer fares & delays caused by onboard payment are significant, and badly hurt ridership:

[https://www.citylab.com/life/2012/10/what-really-happens- whe...](https://www.citylab.com/life/2012/10/what-really-happens-when-city- makes-its-transit-system-free/3708/)

[https://expo.oregonlive.com/news/erry-2018/07/61810d5ec56405...](https://expo.oregonlive.com/news/erry-2018/07/61810d5ec56405/corvallis- buys-into-fareless-t.html)</comment>


Idea Validation - Online tool helps in idea validation - <AUTHOR>

I've been working on a number of startups recently and went through the idea phase so many times and wasted so long on building out an MVP only to find out after we built our MVP that there were several companies in the space who were doing what we intended and our startup didn't bring a unique value proposition. Either our engineering was really fast, or our bizdev was really slow, but the fact that it took as long as the week for the bizdevs to give us a competitive landscape while engineering was able to build an MVP in the same time says something. Do other startups face this same problem?
What tools you all use to figure out your understand your market and your competitors before creating your company?
Would you be interested in a web service that gives you a competitive landscape report on your startup idea so you don't waste precious time? <comment><USER2> Isn't this usually the purview of bizdev competitive analysis? I'm sure there are agencies that would be happy to do this for a fee (and probably specialists in different business categories, to boot) but I don't see how this could ever be a piece of software.

Anyway, this is an odd problem to have. It seems to me that most startups move through the idea phase rapidly, and then execute fairly rapidly. That is, the implementation should follow the idea rapidly, tested in the real world, rather than in the imperfect simulations of your co-workers minds.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well in a startup the responsibility of research should be shared by everyone. In our case engineering actually did the competitive analysis AFTER we finished our MVP, while waiting on bizdev. What I'm asking is, is this normal or somewhat abnormal in the startup world, and an isolated problem?

Or are there startups that proceed without doing their homework so to say?

<comment><USER2> Yeah, you've got to do solid competition research before building something.

(It sometimes happens that there's something out there that you've never heard of (and no-one you know has heard of it either), in which case you discover the competitor later. Really nothing you can do about this.)</comment></comment></comment>


What are the best blogs/sites to generate big buzz? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> i'm part of writewith, a yc startup, and i have a side gig writing for venturebeat. the readership skews towards investors and established entrepreneurs. so although it has a smaller readership than TC and some of the others, there's a lot of value in getting covered by it.

email me at eric at writewith dot com if you have a good story idea.

<comment><USER3> I agree with Eric.

VentureBeat is great with high quality content and a relatively savvy readership.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> So far I have: TechCrunch GegaOm ReadWriteWeb WebWorkerDaily LifeHacker

<comment><USER4> I would suggest that any rss feed aggregated through <http://web20.originalsignal.com/> should all be on your radar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why are people so concerned about buzz?

Buzz is for people who cannot build a useful product.

Once you have a useful product, it's not 'buzz', it's marketing. Hire a suit for that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Buzz = free marketing :)

<comment><USER5> Right, but it's completely out of your target market. To me, buzz means 'Oh, hey, they'll never actually use it, but it looks cool'

<comment><AUTHOR> Steve Rubel from micropersuasion.com will disagree with you :) Few marketing keywords: meme and word of mouth

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> For me it's Scholastic News and Nick.com.

(In other words: shouldn't this depend on your product and your target market?!? Or is everyone just building generic Web 2.0 apps that only appeal to alpha geeks?)

</comment><comment><USER7> Business 2 Beta, and some of the Inc. blogs can be good a well, also there are a few ZDNet blogs that might be applicable.

</comment><comment><USER8> <http://www.emilychang.com/go/ehub>

<comment><USER9> I have eHub in my bloglines collection, but gave up trying to track sites because, after a while, they all become a blur of vowel-deficient clones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nothing like TechCrunch.</comment>


New version [of ICC] is still crippling Intel's competitors - <AUTHOR> http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#107 <comment><USER2> This is actually about MKL not ICC, but the principle is the same.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oops, sorry, you're right. I would change the title, but I think the editing window has passed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Anyone know what the legal settlement is he is referring to?

<comment><USER4> I assume it refers to the AMD/Intel settlement from last year:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/technology/companies/13chi...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/technology/companies/13chip.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Same for Nvidia and Physx. Duh, AMD/ATI isn't really liked nowadays, is it?</comment>


Fake Steve on Gizmodo - <AUTHOR> http://www.fakesteve.net/2010/04/a-great-new-source-for-ipad-news.html

<comment><USER2> It's really hard for a reader to keep any sense of perspective around popular technology issues like this, isn't it? I think this is why I had to cut out my RSS habit.

 _To all of you out there hammering away on Gizmodo for publishing this information: Blessed are you, for in the future you will inherit advance review units and perhaps even be allowed to speak to our executives. Namaste._</comment>


On telling my son that he is a geek - <AUTHOR> http://marshallbrain.com/geek.htm <comment><USER2> the attitude in this post really saddens me

it sure must be helpful for a 11 year old to be talked into viewing the world as a dangerous place full of evil people, fearing life will be a bigger hell for every year to come until he's done with school. all because his own father feels he needs to explain to his son he is too awkward to for this world, and he's only really safe at home. and all this to "hopefully prevent himself from committing suicide".

a boy get's picked last at team-games, do you tell him the rest of his life will be a hell - and give him the impression he's powerless against it? or do you tell him that people will forget he was picked last as soon as 5 seconds later: so he should just forget about it too, enjoy the game and try to improve his skills in the game.

i guess it's normal for parents to feel they have to warn their children for the dangers of the world, but it's not the same teaching them to fear the future. it would be far more useful to concentrate on teaching some confidence and useful social skills.

</comment><comment><USER3> the funny thing is how all americans, including geeks, seem to consider this inevitable. Growing up in Europe, I was a full-blown geek at the age of 13 and I didn't feel socially isolated at all (much less taunted or tortured) because of it.

<comment><USER4> I had a similar experience, and am curious why you think you had the experience you did?

I grew up an unabashed geek in the midwest, and felt no more social isolation than anyone else in my peer group at school.

Some of this was because I played sports (not well, but this was a relatively small school so I wasn't going to get cut). Most of it, came down to two factors:

1) I didn't react to taunting, teasing, name-calling, or even the occasional bits of violence. I only really had to deal with this in 8th and 9th grade, but those who would do such things figured out after a while that I wasn't going to give them any satisfaction.

2) My peers respected people who were good at things. I was good at things (our academic bowl team won nationals, for example, and I had several short stories published). In fact, I'd go so far as to say most people respect people who are good at things, especially if that "good at things" is immediate and visible and public.

Frankly, if schools/teachers adopted a broader view of "success", and if they provided a chance for students to showcase their successes in a public fashion (I'm talking actual successes here, rather than "Congratulations! You're made of carbon, and that makes you special!" psuedo-successes designed to prop up self-esteem), a lot of the bullying would probably stop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Defeatism FTW?

If there's anything the PUA community shows[0], it's that social skills can be learned. It's also easy to get to a medium level of fitness, especially in our culture of sloth.

Sure, he's 11, so maybe it's not _that_ easy, but what's really going to hold him back isn't his "geekiness," it will be his mental habit of _shy_ ing away from growth opportunities due to fear and "oh I just can't help it!"

[0] not an endorsement of that community, btw, except for Neil Strauss's _The Game_ , which is a fun read

</comment><comment><USER6> The end of compulsory schooling (whether that compulsion comes from parents or from the state), will one day solve this problem. Bullying occurs wherever freedom of association is denied.

A zero-tolerance approach to bullying has about as much chance of working as the War on Drugs. Headteachers and schools always deny serious bullying where it exists.

And minor bullying is indistinguishable from 'socialization', which nearly everyone thinks is a good thing.

<comment><USER4> My experience as both a student and a teacher (in several different schools) suggests that a decent number of teachers (less than half, but more than a few) become teachers mostly because they really like the power games that can be played in school, and the lording of authority.

I don't mean this to disparage teachers as a whole. But the power rush is pretty substantial, if one lets it take hold.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sigh, americans and there hate for geeks.

The school system is so retarded so that there must be a valedictorian, the one who is most likely too succeed. I'm wondering how teachers behave towards those kids, so that the rest of the class hates them perhaps? You don't see that in the high school movies..</comment>


Hillary's IT Guy on Reddit asking how to delete email - <AUTHOR> http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=38414 <comment><USER2> This is not actually a dupe. It will, doubtless, get flagged to death momentarily. Correct the record :-)

<comment><USER3> Right if this is a dupe I can't seem to find it's partner anywhere. So why was it marked dupe?

UPDATE: As far as I can tell the linked article was published between 9 and 10 this morning, although I am not sure of the time zone. So I went back 5 hours from this HN post and news.ycombinator/newest and read every single headline posted to HN. By my math, this should have turned up the "dupe" if there were one. There is not.

So there are 3 possibilities here, right? Either I've made a logical mistake above, or someone marked this thread as a dupe by mistake -- which seems like a very strange mistake to make -- or the thread was intentionally mislabeled as a dupe.

Since the issue has been raised, I would suggest that HN mods demonstrate there is no dishonesty going on here by either correcting the [dupe] tag, or producing a link to the duplicated post, or otherwise explaining a mistake on my part.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you.

<comment><USER3> Here's the "dupe" by the way. I guess it was one of those retroactive dupes, wink.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12533757](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12533757)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: RSS feed for posts with more than 5 pts? - <AUTHOR>

1) The HN RSS feed is a fire hose (poor signal-to-noise ratio)
2) Posts with more than 5 pts (it doesn't have to be exactly 5, it's just hypothetical) are usually worth reading
3) What do you think of an RSS feed that captures the top x% of HN posts? <comment><USER2> 1) Go to <http://www.dapper.net> and create a feed which includes the # of points a post has, and possibly takes the page # as input.

2) Go to <http://pipes.yahoo.com> and use the dapper feed(s) as a source, and filter the feed by # of points.

Or, I'll do it for you if you buy me a ticket to the 99% conference.

</comment><comment><USER3> This will a lot of time for me every day. I don't mind the hours I spend here. But what really bothers me is how inefficiently I consume HN.

If SearchYC has multiple customizable filters, it will be perfect. [points, date range, etc] I'd like to be able to exclude websites too.

</comment><comment><USER4> Have you seen this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=214028></comment>


How To Delete Your Personal Info From The Internet - <AUTHOR> http://greycoder.com/how-to-delete-your-info-from-internet/

<comment><USER2> This article mentions Reputation.com, whose ads always come up on my Pandora station. I've never looked at them before, but checking it out now confirms: they really are as scummy as the commercials try to make them sound, creating fake websites and presumably reviews on websites to make your company look artificially better.</comment>


Young Join the Rich Fleeing America's Big Cities for Suburbs - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-20/young-join-the-rich-fleeing-america-s-big-cities-for-suburbs <comment><USER2> _One roommate took a pay cut and moved home with her family. Another decided to stay with an ex-boyfriend in Oregon, while the master tenant put in her 30-day notice. That left only Lewis and the other remaining roommate, who has been living with family in Sacramento since late March, to renew the lease and come up with $4,900 for May's rent._

$4900 for just _May_ rent? Not April _and_ May? Hoooly moly.

<comment><USER3> There's four roommates in total. My 4 bedroom apartment in Manhattan several years back cost more than $4,900/month and it was a good deal.

<comment><USER4> I think it's five actually: "one", "another", and "master tenant" left, leaving two

<comment><USER3> Yeah, if it's five, then each person is paying less than $1,000 for rent. That's really not bad at all to live in a city. And if they're splitting an entire house amongst them (vs the 3 bedroom apartment flexed to a 4 bedroom that I was living in), then their living situation is going to be quite pleasant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is uninformed speculation, but it seems like remote work becoming more common could be better for lower-income people everywhere, by creating an "evening out" of job opportunities, away from places where housing supply is too low.

People crowd into the cities for the high-paying jobs, and they create demand for the lower-paying service industries and such. So people also crowd to the cities for the lower-paying jobs, but housing is scarce and therefore expensive. They still come though, even though so much of their money goes to rent, because the city has actual (if low-paying) jobs, and opportunity for other, better jobs.

So if the higher paying jobs "spread out" to suburbs and smaller cities, there will be more of that demand created by higher-paid individuals, creating lower and mid-paying jobs in those areas too, instead of what they have now which is like, cashier at the Starbucks or Chipotle. So if more people can have opportunity outside the major cities - high, mid, or low-paying - then housing demand wicouldll drop in the cities and make it more realistic for people who still prefer to live there.

Housing demand will rise in suburbs, but there tends to be a lot less zoning regulation and lot more sprawl there than in cities, so hopefully the effect is dampened. My experiences with suburbs/exurbs is that the housing supply is often too high if anything due to zealous developers trying to cash in on empty farmland.

This is all kind of long-term wishful thinking, but it seems possible.

</comment><comment><USER6> Now that companies are moving to remote-first and permanent work from home and there are fewer benefits of living in the city due to social distancing, it seems like this is a natural consequence. Companies will likely give a stipend for home offices instead of paying for food or commuting, then people can will want to move somewhere they can get more space for their money. I know people in their 40s living with roommates in SF paying rent that could be a mortgage payment in a suburb not far away.

<comment><USER7> To be fair, rent in SF is basically a mortgage payment in SF, when you compare apples to apples. It's accumulating the down payment and a buffer that's hard.

<comment><USER5> Yeah this is tough everywhere. In Chicago I could easily be paying for mortgage on decent house for what I'm paying in rent. It's just that I'm in my mid-20s and only really been making decent money for a year. It's going to take years to build up the down payment, meanwhile rent money is just flying out the window into someone else's pocket every month.

I could save a lot more by just not doing any retirement saving, but that doesn't seem like a good trade off, considering the money I put in now is going to have the most time to compound.

<comment><USER8> I didn't start contributing to 401k, equity accounts, and such until now (my mid 30s). I'm not in a crisis, my life isn't terrible, and its definitely still fixable with minor changes. But the feeling of falling behind peers savings/housing wise is definitely palpable. You're making a very safe and reasonable choice. You can always start a business or take more financial risk down the line too if you want, and you'll have the benefit of savings as a cushion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I moved from a big city to a small provincial town, the town is big enough to have everything I need. I sold my apartment in the big city and with that money, have financed the purchase of two houses with land. Luckily I have still been able to keep my clients in the big city and work remotely (and for big city rates). It can work for some people, especially in our industry.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm super curious how this will impact the future of elections; big cities tend to skew heavily blue. Suburbs tend to skew red. Will this change the suburbs? Example in the article was from NY to SC; SC tends to be red...

<comment><USER9> probably at least for one election cycle, until the blue voters that moved to the suburbs see how blue policies make it worse for them in the suburbs, and then start voting red (or whatever colour looks after their interests better) :p

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I love city life but US cities are so poorly managed that I've lost hope that they'll be affordable nor pleasant to live in before I die, so now I've moving abroad to Tokyo and am living the lifestyle I'd hoped to in US cities - it's sad, cities don't have to be so prohibitively expensive and filthy if local governments were able to better manage themselves, actually reacting to the problems society faces, but even changing tiny things about the legislative process in US cities feels like a lifetime endeavor.

</comment><comment><USER12> [https://outline.com/5urSXr](https://outline.com/5urSXr)</comment>


Our Ghost Kitchen Future - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/our-ghost-kitchen-future <comment><USER3> Is it just me, or does Reef sound like nearly pure regulatory arbitrage of the screwed up zoning laws in American cities?

Ie, zoning oversupplies parking spaces relative to commercial real estate, and so if you can put your business in a "van" and "park" it, you get to use land for cheap.

The article alludes to this ("Parking lots have long been attractive sites for urban designers, many of whom see them as wasteful, inefficient land banks."), but doesn't quite draw the connection.

<comment><USER4> It sounds like a twisted timeline version of the 1960s Japanese metabolism city planning movement. [https://thetokyofiles.com/2011/12/15/not-like-a- cancer-grows...](https://thetokyofiles.com/2011/12/15/not-like-a-cancer-grows- artistic-expression-as-alternative-success-narrative/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Small restaurants have trouble surviving in the US because of the sheer _cost_ of trying an experiment, or sustaining even a small kitchen. There are just so many regulatory (local, really badly managed, even corrupt) hurdles, and investments required. It practically incentivizes restaurants to be big corporations (and sell liquor) in order to survive.

If you look at places that have less regulation (or governments which have made this a more conscious priority) or the rent/land ownership structure is different, there are tons of little mom-pop restaurants that can survive situations like this. I'm all for regulation -- when necessary -- but even I can see that local licensing (as Obama administration acknowledged) is hindering affordability of industries where regulation has come to serve only local interests.

Look to Southeast Asia, even some parts of Europe. Hole in the wall restaurants can make it, because rent is cheap, they don't have city inspectors coming to ding you on fire supression equipment that is 2 inches out of spec. (Also, they don't have waiters and hosts other than the owners) There are food centers set up to foster small restaurants all located together in a high demand area, where the infrastructure is shared and standardized. In Italy, Spain -- restaurants run for generations in corners of small apartment blocks and aren't in fear of getting evicted for a chain.

If we want our cities to look like and cultivate a certain desireable feature, we need to put active work into fixing the things that disincentivize it in small daily doses. Otherwise it's crappy Panera Breads for everyone.

<comment> blaser-waffle > Look to Southeast Asia, even some parts of Europe. Hole in the wall > restaurants can make it, because rent is cheap, they don't have city > inspectors coming to ding you on fire supression equipment that is 2 inches > out of spec. (Also, they don't have waiters and hosts other than the owners) > There are food centers set up to foster small restaurants all located > together in a high demand area, where the infrastructure is shared and > standardized. In Italy, Spain -- restaurants run for generations in corners > of small apartment blocks and aren't in fear of getting evicted for a chain.

This is because food is cheap, salaries are cheap, and no one is reporting these guys for selling you rat that's labelled as chicken.

Plus, on average, most small businesses fail in ~5 years, not just restaurants (though they tend to fail extra hard).

<comment><USER6> > no one is reporting these guys for selling you rat that's labelled as > chicken.

This seems unnecessarily hyperbolic and maligning of Southeast Asians. Some of the best food in the world is in South East Asia, and even in less regulated places, no one serves inedible food. Market forces work even those places, and food places that are bad will naturally fail.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Reef's website shows anything but where the food is actually cooked, a bunch of stock pictures and unknown-but-cutely-named brands related to comfy food.

Restaurants have strict sanitary rules, what are the ones for parking-based- kitchens? From the article and the company's website, Reef looks like a business making the parking spot next to your flat a source of nuisances (the smell of frying out, the noise of a kitchen) while offering yet another way to make people pay a premium on warmed up frozen food.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is about startup Reef Technology [1] that provides software and logistics for standing-up food preparation/pickup in locations such as parking lots that lack the required utilities:

> The Power of Proximity™.... We are creating a network of neighborhood hubs > to bring you the goods and services you want, faster than ever before.

[1] [https://reeftechnology.com/](https://reeftechnology.com/)

</comment><comment><USER9> > It now manages 1.3 million parking spaces in forty-five hundred locations.

>But, for now, customers may find themselves paying a premium for meals similar to those found at a fast-food restaurant, or in a supermarket freezer.

>Reef's kitchens are registered as mobile food facilities, which tend to have fewer permitting requirements.

>The branding and food are real, but the restaurants do not exist elsewhere in the physical world.

I can't say I'm exactly thrilled about another "disrupting" another couple of industries. The take up parking and seemingly tiptoe around regulations only to provide mediocre cookie cutter dishes via fake restaurants? I'll have to pass.

<comment><USER10> Wow I could not disagree more. Unlike parking spaces, this is at least providing some positive value to a city.

And what makes these fake restaurants? These are cheap spaces where entrepreneurial chefs who could never afford to start a full restaurant can open a delivery restaurant and start selling food quickly. They can still develop a name and a brand for themselves via delivery just like any restaurant could. Why does it have to be mediocre food? Surely some amazing food will come out of spaces like this.

<comment><USER11> Amazing food will come out of your kitchen when you learn to cook. Youtube will teach you how.

<comment><USER12> But this misses the point of getting food for delivery. If cooking is one of your hobbies you will very quickly be able make food better than any mid-tier restaurant in your city (i.e. the kind of place you would probably order take- out from). It's honestly not that big of an accomplishment because you have so many advantages over line cooks when you're just cooking for yourself / your family.

Once you're at that point getting take-out isn't about getting better food for a special occasion, it's paying for something better than frozen that you don't have to cook. Ordering take-out is a function of how tired I am, not the quality of food I want.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> had an experience this spring with picking up Thai food from a Chinese restaurant which is also home to:

      - Chinese Yum! Yum!
      - <USER2>
      - Kuri Sashimi Bowls
      - Send Noods Pho
      - Veggie Stir Fry House
      - Sushi Sendai
      - Panang Panang! Thai Curry
      - Save the Fish Vegetarian Sushi
      - Fire Ass Thai

and so on. at least 25 restaurants by my count.

I don't know if I believe that this is a problem (beyond the usual kinds of problems in restaurants) and I'm mostly curious about how the logistics are managed. is there a wall of iPads so each "restaurant" front gets all its own orders on one? does whatever company that facilitates this kind of thing provide a solution where manifold orders can come in on a more traditional kitchen display system with some flag added for which "restaurant" it belongs to?

making the various menus work doesn't seem like as big of a challenge: the majority of the client restaurants are offering whole subsets of the host restaurant's menu or food easily reconstructed from those items.

<comment><USER14> It's funny you say that because making the various menu items seems like the biggest challenge in my view.

In my experience, a restaurant with a large menu is a sure sign of mediocre food. It's like when you order Thai cuisine at a Chinese restaurant - you end up getting sweet and spicy Chinese food.

When you have so many menu items, how do you ensure consistency and train cooks how to prepare the recipes?

<comment><USER15> The long term answer is likely automation. (Same answer as Lyft and Uber)

My guess is short term it's a matter of checklists with largely common underlying ingredients. Or perhaps everything is prepackaged and unfrozen upon order. (The larger the menu, the more likely the former)

<comment><USER16> We already have this automation. You can find it in the pre-packaged entrees section of your grocery store's freezer aisle. The problem is that outside of a few limited categories, most people find frozen pre-prepared food to be unsatisfactory when compared to fresh food. So the concern is that automation may just mean "supermarket-quality food becomes the norm, while all the real restaurants go out of business".

<comment><USER17> So that would mean people prefer lower quality food for lower prices over mid- to-high quality food at higher prices, and society gets what it wants. Win- win.

If there's demand for higher quality food, then I'm confident the doomsday scenario of "all the real restaurants go out of business" is not going to happen. We just might have to wait a little longer for delivery or travel a few more minutes to get to such a place.

<comment><USER16> If you think that "people prefer lower quality food for lower prices" == "society gets what it wants, win-win", I suggest you take a look at any 1970s cookbook. This country spent years wiping out local bakeries and butchers and replacing them with factory foods. It was a dire time, and we're lucky today to have so many better options.

This Twitter account gives you a fun look at what we don't have to deal with anymore, thank god: [https://twitter.com/70s_party?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcam...](https://twitter.com/70s_party?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor)

ETA: In case this isn't clear, what I'm trying to say is that sometimes powerful economic forces can provide us with _deeply_ suboptimal results. It would be an objectively bad thing if every good pizza place in my city went out of business and got replaced with Freschetta. But it really could happen.

<comment><USER17> > It would be an objectively bad thing if every good pizza place in my city > went out of business and got replaced with Freschetta

That would just mean that the people _prefer_ Freschetta. It's not like it's going to replace every single good pizza place by getting little to nobody's business, in your scenario where it replaces _all_ restaurants it's going to get _all_ the business because _everyone_ wants lower priced shitty frozen pizza; and that's why these thought experiments are a stretch.

As long as there's still people willing to pay more for a better pizza, there will still be kitchens providing them, and if no one's doing it, that is your cue to open or invest in one and get some of that business yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> recent jwz

>That "Cloud Kitchens" enterprise is a dystopian horror show, too. It means that Kalanick and the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund own the first part of restaurant take-out -- the menu and online ordering; they own the third part -- delivery; and now they also own the second part -- actually making the food. The "restaurant", at that point, is just a brand logo. Their sweatshops make the same food for everybody and paste whatever name on it. The restaurant isn't even a franchise at that point. It's a sticker.

<comment><USER10> You might have been close to making some kind of reasonable point in the first half of this comment but then you took it to crazy town and discredited the whole thing.

These are rental spaces, just like almost every restaurant in the world operates out of. How is it a sweatshop or anything close to a franchise if someone starts their own restaurant under their own brand with their own menu and rents kitchen space to work/deliver out of?

<comment><USER4> Sorry to be too brief. this is a quote from a blog post by jwz, former internet person and now pizza restaurant owner, on this topic. [https://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/log/2020/07/10.html](https://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/log/2020/07/10.html) The whole post might make more or less sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > [Ari] Ojalvo, [C.E.O of Reef] cites his own experience in the restaurant > industry... to note that opening a brick-and-mortar restaurant is high-risk > and expensive, whereas ghost kitchens are lower-risk, offering a more > affordable way for entrepreneurs to enter the business. In most cities, > opening a brick-and-mortar restaurant requires a gauntlet of permits and > inspections; restaurateurs waiting on permits might find themselves paying > months of rent for space they aren't yet allowed to use. Reef's kitchens are > registered as mobile food facilities, which tend to have fewer permitting > requirements. Like the trailers themselves, the business details are > configurable: Reef offers flexible staffing arrangements and short-term > leases.

What's interesting is that this is, in part, a response to things that aren't as fast as the (increasingly online) marketplace itself, like finding a suitable storefront for a restaurant, building out a commercial kitchen, and all of the waiting for permits and licenses, which together impose a number of risks on a new business.

<comment><USER19> I live in a small city, pop. 250k metro area 1M, and there is a local business news site that reports on openings, closings, and other local business news. It's more or less standard that when they announce a new restaurant, bar, or brewery opening the owner will state an expected opening date a month or two in the future, and then 3-6 months later a follow up story about how they are still 1-2 months from opening. It's almost always due to unexpected snags in the permitting and licensing process. There are many different local government agencies that have to sign off: zoning, permits & inspections/building, business license, health department, ABC, the fire marshal. And if any of those agencies requires you to make changes to the building or systems you have to go through permits & inspections again. It's a system that is not optimized for speed or efficiency.

</comment></comment><comment> the-dude > In the trade publication _Parking Today_ , publisher John Van Horn > speculated about the repercussions of ParkJockey's ascent.

I find it hilarious there is even such a publication. Over the years I have read about other, similar hilarious ones, but I forgot which.

Emphasis mine.

<comment><USER20> A few I've run into at random: BusLine Magazine, with an ad in the back for "BarfClean! Just spray on to solidify, for easy removal!" (The ads in the front were less lurid: "Our new seats are 32% lighter!")

And, more on-topic, Restaurateur Magazine, with an ad for "Sizzle! Paint-on Char Marks for any meat, for that fresh-from-the-grill look!"

(Names of magazines and products approximate; but I'm sure about "BarfClean".)

<comment><USER21> It's usually interesting, but sometimes not pretty to see what's going on behind the curtain. I once saw a bottle under a sink in a restaurant: Extra Strength Urine Remover.

Are people that bad at peeing that there's a need for urine remover in extra as well as regular strength?!

<comment><USER22> Have you _seen_ men?

<comment><USER21> Tellingly, my wife informed me that there wasn't a bottle in the women's restroom.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Héctor Garcia-Molina, 1953–2019 - <AUTHOR> https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2019/12/08/hctor-garcia-molina-1953-2019/ <comment><USER2> > In 2001, Garcia-Molina was invited to join the board of directors of Oracle > Corporation, a position he held until his death. He forged personal and > professional bonds with many leaders of the database company, including > founder and chairman Larry Ellison, who offered this statement: "We will all > miss his contributions. I will miss Hector's pleasant and persuasive way of > discussing complex ideas. Hector's gentle and considerate personal style > captured my enduring respect and affection."

still trying to reconcile this with "Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison."

<comment><USER3> > trying to reconcile this

It is generally considered quite rude to speak ill of those who are no longer with us, even if they were adversaries when they were alive. This goes doubly when speaking publicly and in a professional setting.

On another note, that anthropomorphizing quote is quite possibly my favourite use of the word ever.

<comment><USER2> > It is generally considered quite rude to speak ill of those who are no > longer with us, even if they were adversaries when they were alive.

This was a shot at Ellison, who is still very much with us.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> In 2011, I was applying to Stanford for Ph.D. (I didn't get in, and eventually had a bad experience starting at KAIST in Korea). At the time, I was living in Vancouver, and I took a couple of weeks to visit friends from exchange programme in California, and briefly passed Stanford. I emailed a couple of professors to try to meet (and maybe get a foot in the door...).

Héctor very kindly replied to my email! He also invited me to the InfoLab lunch, which was about MOOCs that day. He was very friendly and knowledgable, and even though I was but fresh out of university in the UK, he welcomed me warmly, humbly listened to some of my crazy ideas about data management, and encouraged me to pursue serious research.

It's sad to read of his passing. I'm grateful that he's well-known enough to be memorialised here on Hacker News; he deserves the recognition.

</comment><comment><USER5> Hector was on my thesis committee. In addition to being one of the most cited authors in Computer Science ([http://lintool.github.io/scholar-scraper/index- stratosphere....](http://lintool.github.io/scholar-scraper/index- stratosphere.html)), he was a kind soul.

</comment><comment><USER6> I still own a copy of "Database Systems: The Complete Book" (by Hector Garcia- Molina, Jeffrey D. Ullman and Jennifer Widom). I highly recommend it. Those books with such deep knowledge are very rare these days.

<comment><USER7> Me too. Products cycle too fast those days so there is less need for those great books.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> His p2p research group was extremely influential in the design of second generation Gnutella search algorithms around 2002, particularly those integrated into LimeWire. Sad to hear of his passing.

</comment><comment><USER9> Oh man, I totally missed this, I don't remember seeing anything on the Stanford report either.

I audited CS245 and my coworkers did as well, among other things I showed up to. Hector was a wonderful person and a great teacher.

</comment><comment><USER10> Well, that's a familiar name. He wrote the intro textbook with Ullman and Widom for Databases that so many courses use.

</comment><comment><USER11> Rest in peace, one of the most influential personalities in CS in the Valley and an inspiration to his students

</comment><comment><USER12> Peace!

p.s. anyone else bothered by the ads on the post?

<comment><USER13> I think the point of ads is to bother you. The more expensive the ad, the more it bothers you.

I don't think there is a "solution" (yet) to the ad-as-a-model problem.

Edit: The only ad I see there is for their book. Maybe try Firefox?</comment></comment>


TS Eliot refused to publish George Orwell's Animal Farm - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/mar/30/eliot-george-orwell-animal-farm <comment><USER2> I find it curious that no one is commenting on the craven, cowardly and intellectually dishonest nature of the rejection itself. "It wouldn't do to publish this." "I'm not sure if that is the thing that needs saying now." "It might upset our Russian friends."

Pick up the complete set of Orwell's essays ($20 or so) and enjoy his masterful flames (yes, he reads stylistically like classic Usenet or the best of modern blogging) where he obliterates the castrated, sniveling, power- worshiping pseudointellectuals of his day.

</comment><comment><USER3> The Arts and Letters Daily (at <http://www.aldaily.com/> ) covers these topics well. Usually just three new links per day. They hit this one Monday.

(satisfied customer since 1997 or so ... digging foxhole in anticipation of "web 0.1 design" outrage ... "works great for me" defense ready ...)

P.S. scan down ALDaily's first column for the tale of Orwell's son. Not literary, but tells the mettle of the man, which is also good to know.

<comment><USER4> Yes, it can be interesting to learn about the family life of famous people. Often it contradicts the public side. Gandhi's is a striking example.

I found the article about Orwell's son a good read. Not sure why the author assumes having Orwell as a father would be "pretty grim", though.

<comment><USER3> Nineteen Eighty-Four is not exactly sunshine and roses. It is forgivable to surmise the author would not be a happy camper. I was glad to know Orwell shared some happiness with his tyke in his final years.

(On the other hand, the great spreader of sweetness and light, P.G. Wodehouse, who I also like, seems to have been pretty quiet and unadventurous in person.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I plug this every time George Orwell comes up. A Fantastic piece on writing, language, and how language influences thought.

<http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm>

<comment><USER6> The popular linguistics blog "Language Log" had some interesting commentary on "Politics and the English Language" written in a calmly analytical style (interspersed with some judicious jibes) that I think many YC.HN readers will find rather agreeable:

<http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=992>

The entire 'Prescriptivist Poppycock' category at Language Log is generally good reading:

<http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=5>

<comment><USER5> I think all the things criticized were intentional. It's hard not to think that a writer of Orwell's caliber would say something without meaning exactly what he said. A careful read becomes: "these are good general rules, and in describing them I'll also show you how to break them when appropriate". It would be fitting with Orwell's style in his fiction writing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think "damning" is a little hyperbolic. Anyway poets are generally not very astute politically (c.f. Ezra Pound).

<comment><USER8> As a counter-example, I present Lord Byron!

<comment><USER7> From wikipedia:

A strong advocate of social reform, he received particular praise as one of the few Parliamentary defenders of the Luddites: specifically, he was against a death penalty for Luddite "frame breakers" in Nottinghamshire, who destroyed textile machines that were putting them out of work. His first speech before the Lords was loaded with sarcastic references to the "benefits" of automation, which he saw as producing inferior material as well as putting people out of work.

Other than the death penalty thing, support of the Luddites seems hardly defensible.

<comment><USER9> What's your beef with the "Luddites?" Byron was supporting the original Luddites, not the knee-jerk technophobes the term has come to represent.

I don't condone their use of violence, but I don't find it any more morally appalling than a society that is happy to reap the benefits of progress while washing its hands of the very real harm that progress can inflict on a minority of its members, particularly in a society with limited economic and social mobility.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Programming Considered as a Human Activity (1965) - <AUTHOR> http://fermatslibrary.com/s/programming-considered-as-a-human-activity#email-newsletter <comment><USER2> > In all cases however, the program without the goto statements turned out to > shorter and more lucid

This was with ALGOL though; Haskell uses lambdas and is shorter still. I feel like Scheme / callcc might be even shorter. And the difference between callcc and goto is not at all clear.

To be fair, though, he does mention the human-computer interface. Unfortunately this has still not really been explored in the context of programming. There are toy environments like Light Table etc., and the more developed languages come with IDEs, but nobody seems to use them in practice, preferring vim or emacs or whatever.

My guess for this is that writing GUIs in an extensible, modular, and discoverable/usable way is still an open problem. There are style guidelines, e.g. [https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2016/06/designing- modular-u...](https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2016/06/designing-modular-ui- systems-via-style-guide-driven-development/), but those aren't code and don't fit into an Agile-style incremental development model. The only thing that seems usable are constraint layouts, e.g. [http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4483218/](http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4483218/). But those don't account for all the little UI things, like the efficiency of the interface or which actions are most commonly used. IMO there needs to be some library to just take a bunch of actions/verbs (e.g. Copy to clipboard) and nouns (displayable data stuctures: images, documents, etc.) and turn that into an optimized user interface design, with keybindings, menus, toolbars, dialogs, widgets, etc. And then of course there's the issue that picking a GUI pretty much fixes your choice of programming language, away from any of the functional PL's.

<comment><USER3> IMO text is actually a great way to interface with computers, because the core problem is reading code not writing it. Further, people have decades of practice in reading / interpreting text and writing in a linear format which lowers the mental overhead.

As to GUI builders their are a lot of them however people tend to design for the screen they use which creates almost as many problems as it fixes. Further, that's rarely the 'hard' part of the design even when you have them using a good text based abstraction is often more productive especially in terms of diff tools and version control.

<comment><USER2> > the core problem is reading code

Modern codebases are thousands or millions lines of code. Nobody has the time, inclination, or ability to read/learn all of it. So a lot of coding ends up being revisiting old design decisions and searching for the relevant parts of the code. See e.g. [https://air.mozilla.org/the-joy-of-coding- episode-93/](https://air.mozilla.org/the-joy-of-coding-episode-93/), he has 10 tabs open and spends a significant fraction of time just switching between them.

> GUI builders

Pretty much all GUI builders are WYSIWYG or markup languages. As I mentioned, I want something declarative: define the verbs and the nouns, guesstimate a usage frequency of the various parts, and generate a UI, without specifying minor details like combobox vs text field. Something like [https://blog.mozilla.org/ux/2013/04/firefox-next-evolving- th...](https://blog.mozilla.org/ux/2013/04/firefox-next-evolving-the-user- interface-using-genetic-algorithms/) (Note April 1 date)</comment></comment></comment>