Ron Paul's Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/16/ron-pauls-farewell-address-the-internet-can-stop-big-government/ <comment><USER3> What makes me sad is that a lot of people, even here, discharge Ron Paul as some sort of crazy guy without even listening to what he says. In comments to this post "thesagan" wrote that some of his ideas are "batshit crazy" as if his ideology is composed of many different unrelated parts. Not true, Ron Paul ideas are ideas of libertarianism and if you study them diligent enough, you'll eventually be used to thinking in this framework. Which is actually the point: it is a framework which has logical structure to it. Unlike both parties' ideologies, which are, indeed, crafted out of many different unrelated parts serving special interests.

<comment><USER4> The problem is Ron Paul is a crazy guy. He's trying to rigorously apply principles from the 1700s to today's world. He's not willing to compromise in the face of evidence that contradicts his firmly held opinions.

I've studied Libertarianism to the point of finding out that, not unlike other extremist philosophies, it's too far-fetched to ever work. People are too "human" for Libertarianism to ever work. It's too easily corrupted to serve the interests of those with power.

Ron Paul either lives in some kind of puppies and rainbows small-town world where corporate interests never trump personal liberties, where money doesn't equate to power and relative immunity from prosecution, or he's willing to overlook all that and hold out _faith_ that Libertarianism will somehow change how people iteract.

Basically he's the Richard M. Stallman of politicians. Blinded by ideology and ultimately dragging things in the wrong direction.

<comment><USER3> I challenge you to give me one very specific example of how something is not going to work in a libertarian world and I'm going right here right now to prove you how it actually would work. (because, with all due respect, I think writing comments that basically say "it's not gonna work because it's puppies and rainbows" is not helping us find out the truth).

<comment><USER4> Others have chimed in with similar explanations but it often revolves around the principal problem of how do you allow "freedom" without infringing on someone else's?

For instance, if I want to drink radiation laced water, Libertarians would think I have the right. They'd also say I should have to pay for my own medical treatment resulting from that. Reasonable enough.

However, if I drank radiation laced water because a chemical company was disposing of their waste in my backyard and I didn't know, Libertarians would tell you it's your fault for not having the proper testing equipment or paying a company to run these tests for you.

The same thing shakes out for food. For employment. For air travel. For basically everything you do you're assumed to have done enough research to know the risks you're exposed to. Libertarianism also makes the _enormous_ assumption that a safe option will always be available.

Since there's zero protection from monopolies in a pure Libertarian society, they will naturally occur, and the results will be overwhelmingly negative for all but a handful of people, the proverbial 1% if that.

Libertarianism also as much as endorses discrimination as it sees it as your absolute right to decide who you provide goods and services to. Idealists would have you believe that non-discriminatory companies will always out- perform their discriminatory counterparts, but history has proven the opposite. If people are racist, they will certainly pay a small premium for service that reflects their views.

It's this every-man-for-himself approach to living that quickly degenerates into pure Darwinism where the one with the most money, who can easily afford to build a protective bubble around themselves, thrives and the others live miserable, dangerous lives.

Basically a pure Libertarian approach has too many dangerous failure states for it to be taken seriously. There are arguments that can be made for a _more_ or _less_ libertarian approach to problems in society, but to go 100%, full-on is to miss the point.

<comment><USER5> >However, if I drank radiation laced water because a chemical company was disposing of their waste in my backyard and I didn't know, Libertarians would tell you it's your fault for not having the proper testing equipment or paying a company to run these tests for you.

This is simply false. Pollution would be treated as a tort. Now, you can't set up a home near an already existing, noisy club and complain about noise pollution. If you set up a home in a quiet and unpolluted area, you have a right to maintain the structural integrity of that area.

The details of what the maximum allowable punishment for someone coming along and polluting your land is is a bit of an advanced subject. That you have no recourse except to test your soil for pollution and clean it yourself is just incorrect.

>The same thing shakes out for food. For employment. For air travel. For basically everything you do you're assumed to have done enough research to know the risks you're exposed to. Libertarianism also makes the enormous assumption that a safe option will always be available.

Again false. Libertarian law is all about what to do when people violate others' rights. There's also certain reasonable assumptions of safety which consumers must be able to make. For instance, it would be a crime to sell some sort of food, presented as safe to eat, which was really poisonous. It would be a crime to sell tickets for a plane ride and fly with an untrained pilot or a plane which hadn't been checked for safety.

>Since there's zero protection from monopolies in a pure Libertarian society, they will naturally occur, and the results will be overwhelmingly negative for all but a handful of people, the proverbial 1% if that.

If you had any genuine concern about monopolies, you would have concern about your government. A state is a territorial monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, the ability to arbitrate disputes and to assign property rights.

State-granted monopoly rights (IP for instance) is different from a hypothetical "natural monopoly". A natural monopoly would not be problematic because all it would mean is that one company is so successful at meeting the demands of consumers such that no others care to or are able to enter the market.

>Libertarianism also as much as endorses discrimination as it sees it as your absolute right to decide who you provide goods and services to. Idealists would have you believe that non-discriminatory companies will always out- perform their discriminatory counterparts, but history has proven the opposite. If people are racist, they will certainly pay a small premium for service that reflects their views.

The other side of the coin to rights of free association, or what you would disparage as legalized racism, is that the tolerant of is would be free to discriminate against racists. As it is now, we will never root out racism because hardcore bigots are afforded state subsidies and not cast out of civil society.

If people are not racist—and I would say the vast majority of Americans are not—why wouldn't they also pay a bit extra for services which reflect their values? If most people are concerned for the poor not receiving medical services, why wouldn't they pay a bit extra to receive services from a Samaritan hospital which never turns away the poor?

You can't just take a look at a small segment of the worst of humanity and pretend they are the majority because it is convenient for your argument.

<comment><USER6> > This is simply false. Pollution would be treated as a tort. Now, you can't > set up a home near an already existing, noisy club and complain about noise > pollution. If you set up a home in a quiet and unpolluted area, you have a > right to maintain the structural integrity of that area.

Let's analyze this situation with some economic rigor. What you're invoking is Coase's theorem. The idea that if you create property rights in what would otherwise be externalities, and let people transact freely in those property rights, the end result will be an optimal allocation of rights that maximizes value.

Now, I'll get to the punchline before going further in depth. It's deeply ironic that libertarians invoke Coase's theorem in this context, because Coase himself used smoke pollution as an example of a situation that called for regulation rather than the creation of property rights.

You see, there is an important assumption underlying Coase's theorem: transaction costs are zero. But in the environmental context, transaction costs are not zero, and in fact they totally dominate the relevant transactions. A polluting coal plant might cause $1,000 of health damage to each of 100,000 people, and it isn't worth any of their whiles to litigate such injuries. Yet the cumulative impact of such activity is large--the coal plant is essentially "stealing" $100m, but getting away with it by stealing a little from a lot of people at once.

Multiply that by the hundreds and thousands of pollution sources that have a measurable impact on each person, and what you get is an unworkable system. And Coase himself recognized this and said as much in his papers.

<comment><USER5> >Let's analyze this situation with some economic rigor. What you're invoking is Coase's theorem.

You're attacking a strawman, and I said nothing about the Coase theorem. For some criticism of Coase by a libertarian economist see here from page 4 of the PDF: <http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf>

I said, "Pollution would be treated as a tort." Nothing really special there because all rights violations would be, viz. we do not believe in victimless "crimes against society".

I then was mentioning the idea of easement rights in pollution (for more on this cf. from 26 in the above PDF).

>A polluting coal plant might cause $1,000 of health damage to each of 100,000 people, and it isn't worth any of their whiles to litigate such injuries. Yet the cumulative impact of such activity is large--the coal plant is essentially "stealing" $100m, but getting away with it by stealing a little from a lot of people at once.

In common law tradition, people were able to sell their tort claims, no matter how small. Modern authoritarian law prohibits this, there are barriers to class action suits, and so on. We'd like to return to the common law tradition here, so if you are concerned about this, you ought to be on our side.

Besides the problem with a governments ability to simply be corrupt, polluters often pay fines to the bureaucracy rather than compensating victims. You are incorrect to automatically assign a $ amount to any claim of this sort. The punishment could involve at least a chance of death and who knows what all these minor health hazards might add up to.

Still, the impact of an individual polluter may be seen as trivial, but firms would be able to collectively pursue the torts after buying claims from the victims.

I believe in a continuation of good 'governance' after abolishing 'government'. I'm working on some interesting ways in which "municipal" service providers might utilize distributed torts against polluters into something resembling various "social welfare" programs we have today.

<comment><USER7> Rothbard is not exactly an libertarian economist he is an Austrian school economist, not every libertarian is an Austrian school economist. Although I'm sympathetic to libertarianism I loathe the Austrian school because of their unscientific methods. No need to answer to me about that, it's only my belief and of some others in the libertarian camp, Bryan Caplan for example.

My main problem with Ron Paul besides the fact that he never tried to approach libertarianism as something that is useful to solve pragmatic problems that exists today and tried to develop a confrontational attitude towards other people, he was someone who always chose tribalism instead of being a good politician, the racism in his newsletters and the fact that he always appealed more to the angry white male stereotype than to the common people, mom and pops of every ethnic group who are working to pay their bills and raise their children. That and the fact that he's a firm believer in the Austrian school.

<comment><USER5> Rothbard is clearly a libertarian economist and I never said that all "libertarian" economists must be Austrians. You might want to not talk about things being unscientific when you fail to back up your assertions.

It has been fashionable since the success of the natural sciences in the 1800's to attempt to apply the methods of the natural sciences to the social sciences. Concepts like "equilibrium" are applied incorrectly because a person goes on to striving for the next thing right after achieving the first and markets are in a constant flux.

On why mathematical economics is a failure, see here: <http://mises.org/daily/3540>

<comment><USER7> I said I have no interest of discussing anymore. I'm not here to build a thread pointing failures in first order logic in other comments, this was my opinion and it would be better if you just accept that I do not believe in the same things as you.

If you wish there are plenty of refutations of why the criticism of Austrian school about modern economics is misdirected, I believe pretty much of them do a good job, Bryan Caplan was right in almost everything, you need not to accept any of them of course, I respect you, but you'll need to know that I do not accept anything that comes from mises.org and do not read them anymore.

<comment><USER5> You're a steaming pile of fallacies and non-arguments. You have an opinion, congrats. Here's a couple refutations of Caplan:

<http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae6_3_4.pdf> <http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_4_1.pdf>

You're either incapable or unwilling to have a real discussion though, so that is just for anyone else who cares.

<comment><USER6> It's pretty pointless to talk to people who reject empiricism. They're nothing more than barbarians.

<comment><USER7> I actually thinks it's also pointless but sometimes I give a try to see why they think empiricism is more a evil than a good way to try to infer about the world, I edited the post to see what happens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The real thing:

[http://washingtonexaminer.com/transcript-ron-pauls- farewell-...](http://washingtonexaminer.com/transcript-ron-pauls-farewell- address-to-congress/article/2513544)

Some great stuff in there, I just wish it was about half its length. Would tighten up the points a lot.

<comment><USER9> He's certainly letting his voluntarist-anarchist flag fly:

"What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a suggestion is always: it's too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal.

The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace and prosperity.

What could be more utopian than that myth—considering the results especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions. It's time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state.

No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior. Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny. This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in: reality dictates we try liberty.

The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of force should be tried. The idealism of government sanctioned violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty and war. The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has been around for a long time. It's time to take a bold step and actually permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us to do."

<comment><USER10> _"What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a suggestion is always: it's too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal._

No, my objection is that Ron Paul wants to pretend property titles are not acts of aggression backed by the state. I'm no anarchist, but I _am_ a believer in the Enlightenment and the social contract. When a regime of property has grown unbearable to the people, it is the right of the people together to abolish it and free themselves of its burden.

Whereas Ron Paul would say that anyone wishing for even the slightest alteration of existing property arrangements is exercising the "offensive use of force." No, we are simply withdrawing force once exercised because we no longer approve its usage.

You are not entitled to a police force that defends your plantations, factories, mines and, yes, server farms and retail outlets from the angry, starving masses. You receive that defense because you're part of a society that works together and must work for everyone.

"Anarcho"-capitalism is in no way anarchist: without hierarchies.

<comment><USER11> Any proper anarcho-capitalist has no choice but to agree with the majority of your comment. The alternative is to endorse whatever system currently exists, decomposing it into the an-cap framework in terms of one entity, the government, owning everything. So any individual anarcho-capitalist must have a certain idea of what constitutes an unjust property distribution that should be revolted against.

The idea of the 'social contract' isn't terrible - for any sort of stability, there must be a rough consensus on what constitutes society's Schelling points. The problem comes about when the concept is taken as an immutable condition and used to nebulously justify the specifics of the current system, lulling people into believing in change from within. Any contract needs to have well specified methods of exit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The libertarian viewpoint is very simple and not the dog eat dog world people here are making it out to be. Libertarians such as myself believe that people should be left alone to make their own decisions and live with the consequences, except that you need laws to stop one person from hurting another. Does that mean everybody for themselves? No. Before the creation of the welfare state we had mutual aid groups where communities would help each other. The groups could be based on religion, ethnicity, occupations, etc... People naturally took care of each other.

Would a simple world like this work today? No. But you can still use the guiding principles to form a freer world. That's where Ron Paul went wrong, he lived in an idealistic world. We have legacy costs and promises that must be kept.

<comment><USER13> Well put. It seems to me that there is a lot of room for a moderate libertarian party, which could sit between the two major parties as a reform- oriented 3rd party. The majority of the electorate is uncomfortable with the idea of government regulating their bedroom activities, and is highly alarmed with the profligate spending and clearly unsustainable entitlement obligations, and is very skeptical of overseas adventurism. If this 3rd party simply co-opted the Democrats social policies and the Republicans fiscal policies, but with a reformist, common sense, moderate-libertarian bent, it could probably win enough seats in Congress to become legislative kingmakers - especially with an electorate as disgruntled as in the last two cycles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> He also says something of a little more substance that, maybe, lines up with the deeper HN sentiment:

"Our individual goal in life ought to be for us to seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem and happiness only comes from using one's natural ability, in the most productive manner possible, according to one's own talents."

I would argue that no other politician could state such a clear and meaningful fact. The guy is as sincere and level headed as they come, which is what makes the media's portrayal of him so tragic.

</comment><comment><USER15> As can be seen in these comments, people are penny-wise and pound foolish. They would rather support one of two presidents who enjoy inflicting trillion- dollar wars on other ethnicities than concede an inch of ground to a man who wrote a couple racist newsletters. The behavior of people towards a threat to the status quo, no matter how good and helpful the threat, is insanity.

</comment><comment><USER16> Why the hell doers everyone think a libertarian government would be pushing the ideology to the extreme? It doesn't happen with the other two parties, and it definitely wouldn't happen with libertarians at the helm.

They would compromise because it's just impossible to do otherwise.

IMO, they have a lot of great ideas that Reps and Dems don't even consider (which is why they probably label Libs "crazy").

</comment><comment><USER17> "The internet will provide the alternative to the government/media complex that controls the news and most political propaganda. This is why it's essential that the internet remains free of government regulation."

What bothers me about this statement is that either side of the net neutrality debate could claim it was meant to support their position. Net neutrality is government regulation. It is also the kind of regulation that would prevent the kind of control Paul is referring to.

<comment><USER18> > Net neutrality is government regulation. It is also the kind of regulation > that would prevent the kind of control Paul is referring to.

Or accelerate it. Don't confuse the ostensible intent of regulation with the actual likely outcome. Stable regulatory regimes are often the most effective venues for collusion in existence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The video: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZs9RDj3i7E>

</comment><comment><USER20> _"You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger.""_

\-- Lee Atwater's Secret Decoder Ring for Conservative Doubletalk

[http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee- atwate...](http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters- infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy)

</comment><comment><USER21> "The Internet" is not democratically elected. Why should it have a mandate to defeat what is decided democratically?

<comment><USER22> The internet as an institution is far more democratic than the current US election system.

Anyone can exchange ideas online, and better yet, most people do!

<comment><USER23> the internet is a medium ,not an institution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "...why it's essential that the internet remains free of government regulation"

The internet just gets switched off or blocked in some instances, we've all seen it before. China, Iran, Egypt.

You don't control the infrastructure or the pipe in, the government does.

Even here in South Africa, I wonder at which point they will switch it off. It's not ours.

</comment><comment><USER25> Would a true libertarian society view nations as pseudo corporations and citizens as shareholders? Would the more highly compensated individuals be considered to have a larger stake in the state?

</comment><comment><USER26> The Internet was vital in exposing his naive and harmful behavior. His hypocritical pronouncements and racist background would never have come to the public without it.

Don't let Washington hit your ass on the way out.

<comment><USER27> Can you elaborate? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you - I just haven't followed him enough to know what you're talking about.

<comment><USER28> Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception (<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597:>), build a fence along the US-Mexico border (<http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml>), prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced) (<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:>), pull out of the UN (<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:>), disband NATO (<http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm>), end birthright citizenship (<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:>), deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security (<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:>), and abolish the Federal Reserve (<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:>) in order to put America back on the gold standard (<http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBB0868C74B4AA3FA>). He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan. (<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-764>)

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas (<http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html>), he's against gay marriage (<http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html>), is against the popular vote (<http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html>), opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (<http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html>), wants the estate tax repealed (<http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul328.html>), is STILL making racist remarks (<http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/>), believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States (<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231:>), and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories ([http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was...](http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was_working_towards_nwo.htm)), not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control. (<http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:>)

<comment><USER29> You make all these points as if it's self-evident ("to all right-thinking peoples", "no one here but us...") that he's dead wrong about them. That's not very helpful.

Of course human life begins at conception--what is the combined human egg & sperm, a fish?

And what's so great about NATO? The US should bear the brunt of the cost of defending Europe against whom now, exactly?

The Federal Reserve came into being the same year as the income tax, and the US dollar has lost 99% of its value since then. Coincidence? There are a lot of great arguments against the Fed. Have you seriously investigated, or just assumed that the Fed is great because it exists? Read some Austrian economics, which argue persuasively that centralized money control will always result in endless bust/boom cycles.

And the Left isn't waging a war on religion? C'mon.

What's so great about estate taxes? To decide that death is an event where someone needs to have a large chunk of his wealth taken by the state is a fairly controversial assumption.

Etc, etc.

<comment><USER4> > Of course human life begins at conception--what is the combined human egg & > sperm, a fish?

By extension any woman who suffers a miscarriage is a murderer, or worse, has a fertilized egg that fails to implant. Are you sure you want to stick with that definition?

> What's so great about estate taxes?

It prevents most of the money in circulation from accumulating in the hands of a very small number of individuals. It was a reaction to the situation in Europe where the finances of a country were, and had always been, completely locked up and social mobility was nearly impossible.

The rate at which these inheritances should be taxed is debatable, as the current rate might be a bit too high or, as Warren Buffet and many of his associates would have you believe, too low. He intends to push 99% of his wealth into charities before he dies so that his children will inherit _only_ a few hundred million, minus estate taxes. Those poor kids. How will they ever survive?

<comment><USER30> > By extension any woman who suffers a miscarriage is a murderer

With all respect, this is not "extension", but rather "gross distortion".

> It prevents most of the money in circulation from accumulating in the hands > of a very small number of individuals.

What if such accumulation was just? Would it still be wrong? If yes, then why? If no, then what's the problem? Shouldn't we worry about making game rules fair, rather than making sure outcomes are "equalized"?

<comment><USER4> Maybe you want to live in a society not unlike the Gilded Age where billionaire robber barons controlled everything, where those who weren't part of this small elite group could barely get by.

This is how un-checked wealth accumulates. Remember, it is very easy to make money if you have lots of money to start with and can weather almost any risk no matter how severe. When the smaller players bust out, the wreckage of their companies and lives is bought for pennies on the dollar.

Would you want to live in a world where the Paris Hiltons could coast into billions of wealth without having to do a single hard day's work in their life? Where they'd have enough money to fund a hundred generations of that?

Society advances when there's an incentive to working hard. Making money is one such incentive. When you can make money without working hard, it starts to break down. The inheritance tax is a way of keeping an element of hard work in the equation.

<comment><USER30> Ah, but you've said 'robber barons'. This is exactly the thing - <USER2> barons. Being a robber - a bandit or baron, no difference - is a bad thing. It's where the problem is. "Robber barons" use money and violence - rather, they use money to "rent" violence from its providers - to create barriers to entry - as you've said, "could barely get by". This is not even close to what libertarian stand for.

As for it being easy to make money if you start with a lot - why, this totally depends on the rules of the game in question! And if the game is fair and open, then it will be equally easy for the rich starter to squander all their wealth - since they don't actually _produce_ wealth, but only consume what was inherited.

Libertarians are, first and foremost, about a free and honest game.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Way to pander to Reddit.

<comment><USER31> Been there recently? Reddit, as far as you can say it "likes" or "dislikes" anything, does not like Paul.

<comment><USER32> Everyone hates him. He's too liberal for liberals and too conservative for conservatives.

<comment><USER4> Don't confuse "Libertarian" with "liberal".

<comment><USER33> Don't confuse classical liberalism with American liberalism.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


So You Want to Open a Small Press Bookstore/Artist-Run Space? A Cautionary Tale - <AUTHOR> https://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2018/04/so-you-want-to-open-a-small-press-bookstore-artist-run-space-a-cautionary-tale <comment><USER2> I was a founder and operator of the Los Angeles free co-working space DropLabs. We lasted for 3 years before closing out of lack of interest. We never intended anything other than a free place for geeks to collect and work. We had events in the evenings, which were fairly popular. Having multiple partners with graduate business degrees, we chose not to incorporate, we just rented a space and called it "Droplabs" (why invite the taxman?)

However, our location was near downtown, and the 20-something geeks were both afraid of downtown and would rather pay $40-$60+ per day to have a chair in a WeWork space in Hollywood or Santa Monica. It did not make sense, so I tried spending a week at each of the more popular co-working spaces, and learned they were not occupied by geeks or "real" startup people, but wealthy 20-somethings playing a startup game, dating one another, and with zero serious intent other than wasting their parent's money.

I learned to be a success as a co-working space, one needed to create a "dating safe play pit" for white wealthy 20-somethings. I have zero interest in that.

<comment><USER3> Location is the most important thing in marketing a physical area.

<comment><USER2> We were located "next door" to The Brewery, the world largest freelance artist community (35K freelance artists living and working in a former brewery compound near downtown.) The artists used us far more than the geeks we were tying to attract.

<comment><USER4> That location is pretty famous for having the worlds largest concentration of artistic freeloaders. In fact, LA is a very difficult place to do these sorts of things - every 6 months a new wave of drop-outs hits the scene to become 'the next new up and coming thang' .. so its not really a surprise.

If you want to run a successful hackrrspace in LA, you've got to find a way to make the hackers contribute to the effort. One of the best ways to do this is to have regular open-house events, promoting the contributing artists forward, and thus demoting those who freeload. Form a real community around those who contribute, and dissuade freeloaders.

(Disclaimer: ran a hackrrspace in LA for 10 years, had a hell of a lot of fun, but also experienced immense frustration at just how some folks, who take so much space and creative energy, contribute nevertheless so little...)

<comment><USER2> We were located inside the "Big Art Labs" compound, across the street from the UPS headquarters (next door to The Brewery.) Our specific location was great for not being attractive to the freeloading artists, because there were similar artist intended spaces at Big Art Labs, and they got those freeloaders.

Droplabs started as a web developers space centered around developers using the Drupal CMS. But it soon diversified. I myself was working on my own startup, a animation VFX tech startup. There were periods where the place was packed, but over all not enough to justify the effort. We were not trying to earn a profit, we were trying to create a tech creative community. Simple enough, during the period of Droplabs, the economy overall was not there to grant people that much free time or free income to be active in such a community.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The economics of hobby businesses, like bookstores and coffee shops and art galleries, are almost always such that you can either feed it the equivalent of a full time salary, or work there every hour it's open yourself, because the kind of business is one that other people want to do for free as a hobby.

This means that, unless you want to be a slave to your own business, you'd better have $50k a year minimum passive income in a cheap town to "give" to the business, plus $100k-$500k to set up the space, plus enough money to live on for yourself, or it's not worth it.

And forget about ever making a profit, even if you do work there every hour it's open.

<comment><USER6> So how do coffee shops like Starbucks mange to support 20 working part time plus a corporate headquarters and make a profit, from the same small store you would operate as a hobby?

<comment><USER7> I have a friend who runs a brewery. They distribute a ridiculous amount of their product into stores around the world and have won many awards, yet they make very little margin from all that.

He told me they make an overwhelming amount of money off of the tasting room attached to their physical brewery because the beer itself is effectively water in terms of cost so they make profit by not having to pay any middle men in the tasting room.

My suspicion is that in the coffee world, if you source and roast your own beans and serve them direct in a venue you own you get a similar effect. I think it must be essential to run the roastery yourself to make it work. That work goes well beyond what is required to just open a cafe and serve someone else's coffee.

Starbucks has simply insane process automation, training, branding, marketing, custom drink labs pushing out new flavors every two weeks, complete control of their global supply chains.

It would be more accurate to ask: "How the F can anyone make any money when Starbucks is on every other street corner and has the advantages of scale they have."

<comment><USER8> > It would be more accurate to ask: "How the F can anyone make any money when > Starbucks is on every other street corner and has the advantages of scale > they have."

Source and roast your own beans, don't overroast the beans, charge a premium over Starbucks for not producing crap coffee from overroasted beans. Starbucks does some impressive work with the candy flavors it adds to distract from their coffee, but...

<comment><USER9> Objections from sibling comments aside, roughly 'everyone' who has compared coffees for taste feels Starbucks is 'overroasted'.

Curious then why Starbucks doesn't adjust.

Is it something in the scale manufacturing, such as, more margin for error in the overroasted side, so taste will be the same signature burnt at every Starbucks in the world?

Is it that their market is former fast food coffee drinkers used to bland _and_ burnt drips from McDonalds who will try a Starbucks, find it so 'robust' (ahem) as to be obvious, and that's the end of the experimentation?

There has to be a data driven reason.

<comment><USER10> > Curious then why Starbucks doesn't adjust.

Poor quality beans and robusta are 'hidden' with a dark roast as the flavour moves to bitter. This also lasts a long time and doesn't go stale for ages. As a general rule in coffee, light roasts have a variety of tastes and dark ones are just bitter. This saves a lot of money. Low quality arabica beans are less than half the price of good ones, and that's for me, purchasing a few kg at a time. Starbucks will be using a lot of low grade robusta and that stuff cheaper again. Combine this with a brand which makes coffee where the dominant flavour isn't the coffee but the milk (if you can call miscellaneous juiced nuts etc that) which is often flavoured. I don't think the coffee will be their primary cost in consumables, I'm guessing milk is. If you want to have a play, get a heat gun and a kilo of beans. Have a play about with different roast styles. It's a slippery slope but it isn't an expensive one.

Edit: Here is a link with a breakdown of Starbucks costs. Not sure how accurate it is, but it puts the coffee as 16c per cup, and the milk at the same. The cup itself is about 32c according to the article. [http://coffeemakersusa.com/pricing-breakdown-cup- coffee/](http://coffeemakersusa.com/pricing-breakdown-cup-coffee/)

<comment><USER11> I find these Starbucks complaints interesting. They always have the character of a warning about a hidden conspiracy. Kind of a "wake up, sheeple!" vibe.

Like, once a Starbucks drinker goes out and buys a heatgun to roast their own beans they will discover the truth that has been hidden from them all along.

I always just assume that someone who drinks Starbucks regularly would be the most aquainted with how it tastes and might not need someone to tell them.

<comment><USER12> It's like what happens when whisky fans discover single malts and start dissing Johnny Walker.

Making a consistent product year over year with inconsistent raw materials, in high volume with wide distribution, and maintaining prices most people can afford is very difficult.

Sure you can get better coffee if you spend time doing research and sourcing beans and roasting equipment, but that doesn't mean there is no place for Starbucks in the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The author talks about this as a charitable (501c3) vs for-profit endeavor. I don't see any talk about using a cooperative structure. Cooperatives don't need IRS approval, since they operate commercially; any profits (and there won't be) are distributed proportionally to the users of the facility via 1099-DIV. Then, you run a membership drive to raise money. The membership then is used to select the board. Anyway, there's lots of experience doing cooperatives for stores like this. It is not easy, but starting a business of any kind is not easy. If you can't do a membership drive that builds enough grass-roots support and community buy-in, then don't do a cooperative. Here are some additional resources: [https://www.nasco.coop/](https://www.nasco.coop/) [https://www.ncba.coop/](https://www.ncba.coop/) [http://www.uwcc.wisc.edu/](http://www.uwcc.wisc.edu/)

<comment><USER14> Wouldn't the members each be legally liable for anything that goes wrong?

<comment><USER15> It's a corporation. "limited liability" is part of the basic idea of a corporation, right?

The _board_ will be individually liable for gross negligence or criminal malfeasance, same as any corporate board. The members are no more liable than shareholders in any other corporation, ie virtually none. (Beyond losing their equity completely, of course).

<comment><USER14> I thought you were specifying a partnership, not an LLC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> True to a greater or lesser extent of all businesses that are about bringing someone's passion into the world rather than making money.

The arty passionate person five years later has an entirely new perspective on every single aspect of their venture.

When someone asks me about starting a business, I say, "exactly why?", "what is is you really want from this, do you know?". You'd be surprised st how few people are really clear on what they actually want the outcomes to be in a tangible way.

My advice is to create any business that makes money and do your passion as a hobby.

There's another thing.... people starting their first business generally don't understand the importance of cash flow. They don't want to know, they've got no reference point in their head to understand it. Nothing you can say will bring them to understand the importance of cash flow. In a years time there will be those who grasped it (might still be in business) anc those who didn't (out of business).

</comment><comment><USER17> Tim Harford covers this in one of his books - I think it was _The Undercover Economist_. Almost all the money you pay for an expensive coffee at a coffee shop goes to the landlord, and he explains the reasons why.

<comment><USER18> Almost all of what you're paying for by going to a coffee shop is the diversion away from home / nice place to spend some time, so that makes sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I was the owner of a retail store from '90 to '00\. The ecomm version overlapped from '97 to 2007. Given that experience, I read this thinking: This person(s) was massively underprepared, as well as underfunded. They also seemed to believe that all their options (in growing the biz) were too difficult. Marketing was rarely mentioned.

I don't want to be negative but there are two life rules (not just biz) that apply here:

\- If it were easy, everyone would be doing it

\- Making it look easy is very very hard.

Pardon me for stating the obvious ;)

<comment><USER20> I'd say their only problem was : underfunded. All others problems becomes much more easy when you're funded (they say it in the article I think).

(and that's why, imho, if you have nobody to give (yep, "give") you the amount of money you need, you'll never ever make it; that's a very unequal world...)

<comment><USER19> Yes. Ultimely, no funds === "failure." None the less, what I read was someone expecting the process to be easier than a traditional job. If you have less money then time + energy is your next best asset. Sucks. But that's the nature of the beast.

I feel for this person(s). But they didn't do their homework. That is on them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> So much truth in this article. We closed down our hobby business, a dance studio, after 10 years of trying to make it work, and finally come to the realisation that we can do much more without the anchor weighing us down. The truth is a passion startup often defies rational analysis, almost like why people have children, it simply fills the part of them that fears regret.

<comment><USER22> Can you explain that last bit please about having children? Is it that some people are motivated to have kids to block out the opportunity to fail in their own projects?

<comment><USER23> It's not about personal projects. It's just the fear that you will regret not having children when you reach the age when it's no longer possible. It's a shitty kind of motivation btw.

<comment><USER22> So did I get it the wrong way round, people have kids so they don't risk failing in a business?

<comment><USER24> No, praptak was saying that some people start a business because they fear that if they don't, they'll look back on their life and regret that they didn't start a business, and that this is similar to the way some people decide to have children just because they fear that they'd regret not having them.

<comment><USER23> Minor correction: I'm not the author of the original analogy. I just explained it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> At halfway through the article it becomes clear that the writer has kids to take care of and his own job. That's what should have been in the title to clarify the scope, and I would have saved the time reading this article. It's obviously a much different challenge with those factors present. Without kinds and him/her taking care of the cafe instead it would have worked out likely. I mean think of it, people who have a full time job and children usually have little to no time for anything else.

<comment><USER26> Full time job and two kids here, and ain't that the truth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Could it have been that the author's business/community structure could have affected its outcome? I found having a more horizontal do-ocracy, membership- driven community model. I'm convinced that was essential to helping persist a few orgs that I've participated in cofounding. This CCC document [1] really drove that philosophy home for a few of us up here in Vancouver, BC. Highly recommend the read!

That being said there is a lot of toxicity I've seen coming from other spaces. Noisebridge on Mission St. is the first to come to mind. That being said it's still around and kicking!

[1] [https://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/attachments/100...](https://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/attachments/1003_Building%20a%20Hacker%20Space.pdf)

<comment><USER28> That CCC document deserves its own post!

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> All the successful small artist spaces that I know are different in two ways:

\- they are run by volunteers (no paid staff)

\- they have some sort of arrangement where they don't have to pay rent at market rate

If you rent a space and hire someone to keep it open, you need a lot of money coming in...

<comment><USER30> Sounds like before you open an artist- (or hacker-) space, you should start a real estate business, preferably with other people who want to make small artist spaces.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> They go to some lengths to dance around the issue. If you can't pay for the space based on a sustainable amount of donations, or other recurring income, you aren't running a space you are running a business and a lot of businesses fail. There is at least half a century of complaints over gentrification to that point.

<comment><USER32> Right. The rent is the problem. You can find coffee shops/bookstores/wine bars/libraries that will provide or rent out space for these events and it's far less risky.

<comment><USER33> I double-dog-dare you to find a library that will rent out space for that guy who is welding a 27 foot tall phallus.

<comment><USER34> My librarians, a tremendous open-minded free-thinking group, might have a problem with the fire hazard but not the other part!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This person created a startup business but kept their regular job and didn't go to work there all day. That really almost never works, it doesn't matter if it's s booksstore or a car wash or a law firm. Bootstrapped new ventures are incredibly fragile, and generally need at least one passionate founder working on them full time.

</comment><comment><USER36> Interesting writeup, but the Ghost Ship is an extreme example of what goes wrong - you couldn't make a place more of a fire hazard if you tried.

<comment><USER17> The Wikipedia page is informative:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Oakland_warehouse_fire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Oakland_warehouse_fire)

As you say you could hardly make a more hazardous environment if you tried. Wooden pallets _for stairs_?!

<comment><USER36> I'm sure you can find interior photos pre-fire. If I were on a high-speed link I'd find some to link here myself.

It was a grossly negligent situation. The whole place was brimming with wooden crap mixed with electrical junk for lights and sound. Words can't do justice to how much of a tinder box it was, the photos left me speechless when I investigated back on the day of the fire.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I've always thought that a remote tech job/lifestyle business is perfect for opening an art gallery / niche bookstore. You don't need to worry about paying the bills, you have a private office / desk, and realistically you won't get more than a few visitors per hour, so you can focus on work.

<comment><USER38> Let's say 'a few' is 3. How can you get any work done when you have to stop every 20 mins (one someone else's schedule) and spend 3 mins making coffee & small talk? This sounds like people saying 'I won't have to pay for child care because I can work from home'. Uh, what? Either you're doing 'child care' or you're 'working from home', but you can't do both (for children < 5), and anyone who says they can, obviously has never done it.

<comment><USER37> Most smaller art galleries get 5 visitors a day, tops. That industry revolves around openings, events, and networking, not people walking in off the street.

<comment><USER38> Then why bother at all opening during the day? Surely not for the $5 in profit?

<comment><USER22> Some galleries are only open at weekends or Fri-Sat or by appointment. They need to have opening hours to show the world they're a gallery and their artists also want to feel they are having an actual exhibition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> [https://bemorewithless.com/the-story-of-the-mexican- fisherma...](https://bemorewithless.com/the-story-of-the-mexican-fisherman/)

"The American said, "Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siestas with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.""

</comment><comment><USER40> Hi!

I love this kind of spaces. This is how I would advise to do it. Art/literature - create high quality, high ROI product offering first. Hand bound collectables for example. Low cost digital counterparts. Find niche online first. Crowdfund, test. Have the publishing first. That's raising capital. Profit/Non-Profit no real difference if you have income. Just don't rely on grants and voluntary resources (economic volatility will hit these first). Physical space: make it enchanting (design/brand/service/experience). So that people would want to pop in regardless of products. High ROI food: coffee, tea, pastry, nibbles, smoothies and such. Food=energy. Sell local energy (economic volatility will hit this last). Innovate. Constantly change the furniture, accessories - sell them. Both online and at the physical space. Think of it as a curated space. Assess risks particular to the location/niche. Have contingency. Have another contingency for risks that are unknown.

Anyone planning to open something like that - happy to give some more specific free advise (tangible products/interior- service design/branding/marketing/economics).

<comment><USER41> I agree with everything you just said, but with respect, you are exactly the problem that the author was talking about. Lots of (probably great) ideas mean absolutely nothing until you've signed your name on a lease and put your own neck on the line. Until then, you're just "the idea guy".

<comment><USER40> Forget about the Ghost Ship tragedy. I'm offering more than ideas - what I've done successfully since '92 - developing products / services etc. for my clients. Point being here to avoid the pitfalls of cashflow issues beforehand and working yourself to death and not enjoying what you've started. And yes, once you have these problems it may be hard to convince anyone else to put their name behind it. Operationally there's something to be said stakeholders having "skin in the game". I like that Acequias idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> These two bits of advice really spoke to me:

> Consider being a for-profit.

and

> If you're going to have a public space, try to find a cheap place you can > buy and own.

I have, for a few years now, really wanted to start an art gallery, or at least something similar to an art gallery.

I've looked into the local equivalent of a nonprofit, and I've considered renting a super cheap space and keeping irregular hours and bla bla bla.

But I keep coming back to the idea that I want to really be in charge, even though I think it'll never make any money; and renting a loss-leader lifestyle storefront is a great way to achieve untenable fragility and _poof_ it disappears at your next personal downturn, taking a chunk of your net worth with it.

I have no idea if I'll ever pull it off, but I'm increasingly attracted to the idea of forming an LTD and _buying_ the cheapest space I can find... someday. Maybe in ten years.

In the meantime I am considering trying to do a pop-up version, which might be a stupid idea but would certainly be a learning experience and not have any recurring costs. The pop-up idea is, I think, useful for any kind of creative thing that doesn't require much equipment.

<comment> rkuykendall-com What about offering to curate a local coffee shop or coworking space or something? There's got to be some place that would not mind free art in exchange for little labels or prices. I know this was very common in my home town. Plus, the relationship could be kept loose, since you aren't exchanging any money either way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> If I knew then what I know now, would I ever have started a Makerspace?

I've been running a small space for the last 4 years, and it's lost a lot of its magic for me. I used to have high hopes of inspiring others to create. It's very rarely like that. Many times it's cleaning up others messes, or fighting to grow with no resources.

Once in a while though, someone's eyes light up when they see the possibilities in the waterjet or laser or 3D printer...

Sometimes it's worth it. Most times it's not.

</comment><comment> raffael-vogler > And because you aren't independently wealthy and/or don't have a spouse who > makes six figures, you're probably going to be non-profit.

I don't understand the logic behind this. Wouldn't not being independently wealthy rather imply attempting to be for-profit?

<comment><USER33> Artists spaces aren't well known for making a profit, and you cannot attract donations as a for-profit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> What if all the people in this thread just Kickstarterd something together?

</comment><comment><USER45> Heavens, I thought the fire was an allegory or a worst case scenario. Looking at the artsy enterior I feel an existential dread thinking about being trapped in that place with flames around.

</comment><comment><USER46> (I love Poetry Magazine)

</comment><comment><USER47> A recent experience from a hackerspace showed me how incredibly thankless people can be. After working really insanely hard to build an inclusive space with loads of features, every little hobby revolutionary in the community just shits all over the work and proclaims the people actually getting stuff done should just stop and leave it to them.

Even if I had the time, money and expertise I would never do something like that. These days you can't even ban assholes without everyone making like you're the one with a problem. And even a single person with a grudge can make you more problems than anyone can reasonably deal with while having a life.

<comment><USER48> Thank you for sharing your experience.

I've been chewing on an idea. Please bear with me.

A friend's MBA thesis (WIP) is on the _business model_ of evangelical churches. How the players build their flock, manage the brand, shape the culture, revenue, run their meetings, etc.

Kinda eye opening.

I'm even going to church again, a new one every few weeks. To gleen the strategies and techniques that have been hiding in plain sight.

One of the volunteer orgs I work on (with?) is game. We've started making some changes, just to see how it plays out.

If I could share one takeaway:

The Field of Dreams "Built it and they will come" strategy doesn't work.

Non-profits, communities, etc. need as much intent and effort as any other startup to succeed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Gimlet did a Startup podcast series about this, they called it "Church Planting"

[https://www.gimletmedia.com/startup/church-planting-1-the- mo...](https://www.gimletmedia.com/startup/church-planting-1-the-movement)

<comment><USER48> This is terrific.

Of course there's a church planting industry, conference circuit. [https://exponential.org](https://exponential.org)

My friend's thesis is descriptive, not prescriptive. I've been struggling to harvest actionable advice. These resources will help. Just having the right phrase ("church planting") helps.

Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Every idealistic "business" based on assumptions and wishful thinking instead of demand will inevitably fail. Demand and demand only is what makes any business possible.

One has to be an exceptional, way above average artist _before_ making himself a brand. Actually, a branding follows being exceptional.

</comment><comment><USER50> Why didn't you hire a grant writer?

</comment><comment><USER51> > _Then, a few months later, you wake up to the headline that 36 people died > at Ghost Ship, an artist collective in Oakland, CA. When it's all said and > done, it won't be the landlord, but the leaseholders, Derick Almena and Max > Harris, who'll be charged with manslaughter and face up to 39 years in > prison._

That's a big problem right there (all the bureaucracy that has creeped up for having a space or shop etc, a lot of it which didn't exist 30 and 50 years ago). If the place is inspected regularly, and is as it should be (e.g. have fire extinguishers, etc), NOBODY should be charged with anything unless they did something (like throw gasoline at the crowd).

Shit happens. If adults burn in a building, it's a risk they should be willing to take when stepping it, the owner is not some nanny to prevent all natural and unnatural causes from ever becoming dangerous....

<comment><USER52> Rather than launching into an uninformed rant about bureaucracy, you should read the background to the Ghost Ship fire.

The place hadn't been inspected for decades, and didn't have basics like a fire alarm, multiple staircases, or a suitable electricity supply. People who had warned the owner of problems had been ignored.

> Shit happens. If adults burn in a building, it's a risk they should be > willing to take

Ridiculous — those adults aren't in a position to evaluate the risk. Are they supposed each to check the fire alarm works before entering, or just ask to see a certificate showing the building has been inspected recently? Can they do a flammability test on the staircase?

And what about the 17 year old who died?

<comment><USER51> > _Rather than launching into an uninformed rant about bureaucracy, you should > read the background to the Ghost Ship fire._

Did you just want to restrict this to the Ghost Ship fire? I only used the quote as a starting point, I don''t intend to talk about the Ghost Ship fire and its particular circumstances.

I'm talking about the creeping codes and bureaucracy in general, and I've already said that inspection is OK. Just not the piling of risks and litigation to the people running the place for every little thing (that goes beyond fire hazard etc, to stupid stuff like someone slipping on the wet floor and suing).

> _Ridiculous — those adults aren 't in a position to evaluate the risk_

They wouldn't have to evaluate any of those things if the place had been properly inspected (as I say in my comment).

If it's "not inspected in years", it's the state that should be put to blame, not the owners.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: InfoSecJobs.io – Get a daily/weekly email of all Cybersecurity jobs - <AUTHOR> https://infosecjobs.io/ <comment><USER2> Searching for an internship in cybersecurity.

</comment><comment><USER3> This might help me in the future.</comment>


Could a randomness machine help you fight procrastination? - <AUTHOR> https://excelerity.com/blog/arne/randomness-jar <comment><USER2> I don't like convoluted schemes to make myself "productive". Hold a carrot on a stick in one hand, a whip in the other and feel bad about myself? That's no way to live.

I try to find better reasons why I do the things that I do - why isn't it exciting right now? I try to check my emotions - is something bothering me so I flee to Instagram? I actively try to enjoy small pauses to reflect on what I just did, read or learned, how to generalize, memorize and improve it.

And I want to smell the flowers along the way, just like all humans have done before us.

<comment><USER3> > _I try to check my emotions - is something bothering me so I flee to > Instagram?_

What do you do when you _know_ what's bothering you, but it's not something you can really fix?

I know why I'm stressed, but the dishes still need to be cleaned.

<comment><USER4> Then I explicitly talk to myself about how I am choosing to endure the discomfort.

If I have to go into a situation: "This is hard. This is scary. This is worth it and I am stronger than I feel."

or

If I really have no power over it: "This is hard. This is scary. This too shall pass and I am stronger than I feel." I find repeating the Litany against Fear to help too.

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

Sometimes I choose to distract one half of my working memory. Doing the dishes only requires visuo-spacial working memory, so I'll put on a non-mathematical podcast or call a friend.

[https://www.simplypsychology.org/working%20memory.html?fbcli...](https://www.simplypsychology.org/working%20memory.html?fbclid=IwAR0ENwxL838Lz0GWERwFbw8jCMfNMC09qzMIjClCfDQ2F_m4OcR3FFY8KeM#pl)

</comment><comment><USER5> My original assumption based on the title was that the author was going to use a randomness machine to assign tasks to himself. Because usually procrastination isn't about not wanting to do something, but just getting over that initial hurdle.

<comment><USER6> I have done that at times, when nothing is particularly compelling but I have a lot of potential things I could work on. I would come up with a list of 20 things and include possibly some fun activities that aren't necessarily productive. Assign a number to each and roll a 20 sided die. It usually worked pretty well, especially if a focused on actions that I could actually do or next actions in GTD terminology. Maybe not the best productivity hack but a good way to break an impasse of being overwhelmed by too many things to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'd like to see a followup after 6 months or so. Are you still using the method, and is it still having a noticeable affect on your productivity and well-being?

<comment><USER8> This. Always see so many "I've been doing X lately and I'm so productive!"

How long you been doing it?

"Oh, about 2 weeks"

I'm guilty of the same thing. We probably all are. But it makes me all this stuff with a sceptical eye.

<comment><USER9> I created a Notion doc (instead of in my huge Evernote notebook, and right after abandoning workflowy and right before I discovered Roam...) to list out all the productivity methods I've tried and ones I have yet to try. After several hours, I had listed dozens and dozens of tactics I've tried with specific examples of how I used them. I had not been faithful to any of them for longer than six months.

This stresses me out. Is there something wrong with me? Do I have some problem with my "internal authority"? Maybe bucking it so many times and so often is contributing to its influence on me...

<comment><USER10> There is nothing fundamentally wrong with you -- many of us are in the same boat. It's a problem you can make progress on, not an inescapable curse.

When you're addicted to novelty, mechanical approaches like pomodoro or the one described in this post aren't good long-term solutions. I would suggest checking out more mindfulness-based approaches.

Here's my current recipe:

1\. Notice when I feel the pull of a distraction. 2\. Stop what I'm doing. Literally stop everything for as long as I need to clear my mind. This usually takes about 15 seconds, but sometimes it takes more like 10 minutes. This part is really hard -- when I started doing it, I would feel guilty for "wasting time", even though getting distracted often meant 20 minutes, an hour, or even more completely wasted, and in the worst, most guilt-inducing way. 3\. Once my mind is clear, ask myself this question: "What do I truly _want_ to do with this moment of my life?" 4\. Do that thing.

If I want to cruise Reddit for half an hour, I'll cruise Reddit for half an hour, and feel good about it. If I want to go back to my original task -- that's great. If I want to call up my dad and see how he's doing, or write a nice note to my wife, that's even better.

Never do anything you don't want to do. It's the _guilt_ that's unhealthy and addicting. Do what you _want_ to do -- and that doesn't have to look like being a programmer/working prodigy all the time.

I regularly fail at this, but over the past year, I've gotten better. And I promise you can, too.

Learn to be happy, and you'll be more productive :)

<comment><USER9> Thank you for your thoughts! This is very insightful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Slight offtopic: The web site's GDPR notice is worth a read. It caught my attention by actually having an equally-sized decline button, which is sadly so rare that it stands out. (TL;DR: They make clear that it's your choice and that they use analytics with privacy-friendly settings to make the site better for readers.)

And it's incredible what an effect such a small gesture of respect has. On any other site I'd have CTRL-W'd such a long-winded explanation much earlier.

The TL;DR of the article - Adding randomized rewards to the Pomodoro technique by randomizing what fun/distrating thing you'll do during your break, later mixing in other "healthy" activities in with the "fun" stuff.

<comment><USER12> I intend to use that clear, concise language, normal sized fonts, button size, button colors to correlate with effects of the action, and humility in my future projects. Oh dear, I am thinking of copying all of it! I hope they don't send lawyers after me :)

That all made me click the "Accept" button rather than "Decline" which I usually do when given a choice.

Loved that the very first sentence gave the reader the choice to decline. Perhaps that made me read the rest of it, or maybe I was already biased (unlikely, but possible) based on the comment here I had read in its praise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I use the same method to force myself to do exercises.

I do standing desk coding for 1 pomodoro, then exercises (alternating pushups, squats, wall sits, mountain climbers, jumping jacks) during the 4 of the 5min breaks. This way I can intermittently break a sweat and find time to exercise during the day.

Much like [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QqoSyqckqA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QqoSyqckqA) but spread across working hours.

</comment><comment><USER14> > " …here's the method I am using at the moment with great success. You need a > random-number generator to work it."

[http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2014/1/22/random- tim...](http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2014/1/22/random-time- management.html#comment20750649)

</comment><comment><USER15> I think he got distracted while typing 'Indesctractible' in the first sentence, and procrastinated instead of proof reading...

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I need to make the breaks more structured than that. I find meditating during the breaks is helpful to keep me on course, and also improves my attitude during the work.

</comment><comment><USER17> This sounds really cool. The other thing I would like is more sound effects on real life goals. I play Overwatch, and I always say I wish the stuff I want to be doing would make that sweet headshot ding.

Patch in a bell into AFL for everytime it finds a crash. Maybe even a generic function I can throw at the end of main so when my code builds and runs I'll get that audio stimulation.

</comment><comment><USER18> You should try Stretchly. Its a desktop application that forces you to work with the Pomodoro routine. It can get really annoying when you are coding and want to finish that last bit of code but otherwise I liked it.

</comment><comment><USER19> I don't know how effective this will be but you sound exactly like me, so I have to try this.

</comment><comment><USER20> Randotron, stop the procrastination!

<comment><USER21> You s.o.a.b., I'm in.

<comment><USER20> I'm in, I'm out. Who's kidneys are these?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> At first, I thought Nir Eyal is a partial anagram/pseudonym of Dan Ariely.

<comment><USER23> Both are unmistakably Israeli names.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This could be an app.

</comment><comment><USER25> What does it mean when I pull out "Muhammad hands you a salmon football helmet" out of my machine?

</comment><comment><USER26> No, I don't think it can (completely).

If you procrastinate, you lack discipline. No technology can change or give you discipline. You have to work on it and you can't let yourself say no, it's a mindset.

<comment><USER8> Side note: If you chronically procrastinate, and have your whole life, you probably lack dopamine.

<comment><USER27> Which implies they likely have ADHD (or similar) and require medication, right?

<comment><USER8> Or complex multi-level coping strategies. Whatever works.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Calculus Trap (2005) - <AUTHOR> https://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Resources/articles.php?page=calculustrap <comment><USER2> Personally, I hated calculus. It turned me off of math for a long time -- there was too much emphasis on memorizing heuristics for solving problems, like integral tricks and trigonometric identities. Worse, calculus was used as the canonical example of "college-level math", so it seemed that further math courses would just be about memorizing more and more problem solving tricks.

(In my view, solving integrals is a search problem, and search problems are for computers. I want to understand the concepts and the algorithms, not be a glorified calculator.)

<comment><USER3> I half agree. I'm not sure if your or most calculus curriculums involved much derivation, or whether I ended up lucking out and getting a great instructor. We ended up deriving a number of the "integral tricks" from "scratch" (e.g. Fundamental Theorem of Calculus). Sometimes they went way over our heads, but I generally found that the derivation process really helped me understand at more of a gut level what was going on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was a student that skipped high school and went straight into my local college curriculum. It actually worked out great in my case, albeit largely because I chanced across several high quality instructors that were able to challenge me.

I am glad I followed the curriculum as well, though. In the end, you'll need to take calculus (et al) at some point, and taking it as soon as possible meant that it could help form my mind earlier, and allowed me to progress beyond even sooner. Specifically, I followed the sequence: differential calculus, integral calculus, multivariate calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra (and then I transferred to Berkeley's math program). That's a lot for a young mind to soak in, and the type of student these classes select for make an excellent social environment as well (inevitably, the type that likes learning).

If I were to make a recommendation between following the curriculum, and pursuing extra-curriculars, I'd say: do both.

</comment><comment><USER5> "you're in ninth grade and you've already taken nearly all the math classes your school offers"

I thought most high schools taught calculus. Both my and my wife's did. Why is this 15 year old going to a local community college or university for that?

[http://www.maa.org/the-changing-face-of-calculus-first- semes...](http://www.maa.org/the-changing-face-of-calculus-first-semester- calculus-as-a-high-school-course) agrees, and points out that 3x more people take AP Calculus now than when I was in high school. Which is about the same time that the author went to school.

(FWIW, I do realize that my high school was unusual, in that it also offered linear algebra, differential equations, and modern algebra. There were enough of us who had taken calculus and were interested in additional classes. It was a community college course taught at the high school by a high school teacher.)

"I met nearly all of them through activities or employment that selected for thinkers. In school, these activities were (and still are in most schools) extracurricular programs, not curricular ones."

Nope, don't recognize that in my experience. The class with the most "thinkers" was probably AP European History. I can't think of an extracurricular which matched it. (AP American History, AP English, and AP Calculus were pretty close.)

How much of this essay is the author's hypothesis, and how much of it is based on actual research?

<comment><USER6> My high school ran out of math classes for me and 10% of my classmates after 11th grade.

<comment><USER5> Ran out at which level? The author apparently went to a high school without calculus. I'm trying to get a feel for how common that is, especially since it looks like several times more schools offer calculus now than when the author went to school in the late 1980s.

<comment><USER6> No calculus.

<comment><USER5> Tx

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I totally agree that calculus is unlike "real math" (reasoning from first principles, proofs, abstractions). Perhaps learning linear algebra would be time better spent[1]. Sill, calculus is the first _applied math_ course and is very useful for many areas of science so I'm not altogether in agreement that learning calculus is bad for you. On the contrary---in combination with a mechanics class it can be very good in terms of learning how to model the real world.

That being said, I think UGRADs spend waaaaaay too much time learning calculus: Calc I, Calc II, multivariable, vector calculus, etc. That's like 4 semesters of calculus! This signals to the student that calculus is somehow a big deal, when in fact it is not: it's just _calc_ ulation techniques. I think this should be cut-down to 2 semesters: Calc I+II together, then multivariable+vector calc. Just learn it quickly and get it over with[2].

_________

[1] Gilbert Strang saying we should learn more LA and less Calc. [http://www- math.mit.edu/~gs/papers/essay.pdf](http://www- math.mit.edu/~gs/papers/essay.pdf)

[2] My short book on Calculus and Mechanics [http://minireference.com/launch40](http://minireference.com/launch40) (disclaimer: self-plug, but on topic)

<comment><USER5> A minor correction. Calculus has loads of proofs. The calculus taught to high school and non-math undergrads tends to avoid more than a handful of proofs because most students don't need to know, nor care, about the actual math involved. Indeed, it would likely drive more students away.

I would say that calculus is the first "real math" that students study which is so complicated that they can't really learn the first principles without years of effort. That's why classes teach the most immediately useful parts instead of covering the details. Someone who only studies those basics might even come out thinking that calculus is just a bunch of techniques, without grasping how gorgeous the underlying concepts and abstractions are.

Take geometry as something I think you regard as "real math." How come geometry classes never prove that it's impossible to trisect the angle? Or double the cube? It turns out that compass and straightedge can only produce quadratic constructions, and Wantzel showed that these problems require cubics. This shows just how limited geometry really is, which is partially why students can feel that they have a handle on the entire topic. (Also, few if any secondary schools cover non-Euclidean geometries, or Euclid's book X as it explores incommensurable magnitudes.)

I would also say that trigonometry is the first applied math course that students learn, not calculus.

Let's go to calculus. Take for example the chain rule, D(g∘f)(c) = Dg(f(c))∘Df(c). This is one of those rules everyone learns in Calculus I. Can you prove it? I once could. Here's the start of the proof from my text book:

"The hypothesis implies the c is an interior point of the domain of h = g∘f. (Why?) Let e>0 and d(e, f) be as in Definition 39.2. It follows from Lemma 39.5 that there exists strictly positive numbers g, J such that if |x-c|<=g then f(x) is an element of B and |f(x)-f(c)|<=K |x-c|. For simplicity, we write L_f = D f(c) and L_g = D h(b). By Theorem 21.3 there is a constant M such that |L_s(u)|<=M|u| for all u in R^q. If |x-c|<infimum(g, (1/K) ..."

And so on for another 10 lines of the book.

Do you really want to subject all calculus students to that level of detail? I don't. Who other than a mathematician needs to learn about Lebesgue integration and measure theory, which are even more advanced topics in calculus?

BTW, my undergrad had multivariable and vector calculus as a single Calculus III class, so there were only 3 semesters of calculus before getting into the foundations of calculus. Also, calculus books do have some proofs. For example, every chapter I looked at from [http://ocw.mit.edu/resources/res-18-001-calculus-online- text...](http://ocw.mit.edu/resources/res-18-001-calculus-online-textbook- spring-2005/textbook/) contains a few proofs.

<comment><USER8> >BTW, my undergrad had multivariable and vector calculus as a single Calculus III class, so there were only 3 semesters of calculus before getting into the foundations of calculus.

So did mine, which is biting me on the ass now that I'm studying for my Machine Learning exam in graduate school. This course expected matrix calculus.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Lockhart's Lament [0] comes to mind.

[0]: [http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/devlin/LockhartsL...](http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER10> Reminds me of Arthur Benjamin's talk on focussing on statistics instead of calculus.

[http://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_benjamin_s_formula_for_chang...](http://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_benjamin_s_formula_for_changing_math_education.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> I may not be the article's target audience, since I didn't really take calculus until I went to college at 18. (I say "really" because I tried some distance learning in calculus in high school, but I wasn't ready for that sort of self-driven environment and failed miserably.)

However, my personal experience was the exact opposite. Calculus classes, along with the accompanying physics-with-calculus classes, were what transformed my concept of math from a game you play with symbols into a powerful way to describe the way the world works. Once I realized that equations like d=1/2at^2 just fell out of applying calculus to the idea of change in position over time, everything suddenly made sense.

</comment><comment><USER12> I feel like Calculus was very eye-opening for me, personally, and I felt like it was a refreshing finisher to the traditional math courses. When you're in the lower level classes, it's often hard to see where the practical applications are going to start coming around... for me at least, Calculus was where it all came together. I started to see just why I'd taken so many years of math: they all built up to this very practical and fundamental set of mathematics. That isn't to say that there's not a place for other math courses - of course! But Calculus in particular is the "money shot" of math, in my opinion. The applications are firm, and build the fundamentals of physics among other subjects. If I hadn't taken Calculus, I don't think I'd have been as positive about math as I ended up being. That's just my two cents, however.

</comment><comment><USER13> Although I have a PhD. in mathematics, I found the field needlessly, gratuitously competitive--nasty even--and I left. Math education--another related subject which mathematicians often feel competent to pronounce upon-- seems to be a mine field [1]. There are only a few thousand mathematicians who are paid to do mathematics--for the rest of us, the opportunity cost is almost infinite. This is, for me, the real disincentive: the light at the end of the tunnel is hardly more than a few photons.

[1] A double entendre. A _mine field_ is a set with the standard field operations, which belongs only to the educator.

</comment><comment><USER14> People studying hard sciences, engineering, statistics and mathematics should study calculus, because they need it to understand and solve problems in their domain.

High school students would be much better served in life studying statistics instead. Far more important decisions in life and public policy are informed by statistics than by calculus.

There was a time when I thought more breadth - number and set theory, proofs, and so on - would be better in place of calculus. And while I think it would be an improvement on teaching calculus, it would not be nearly as useful for most students as a better understanding of statistics.

</comment><comment><USER15> Steve Yegge had a good essay that touched on this.[1] He argues that the right way to learn math is breadth-first, rather than depth-first - basically, learn the basics of a wide variety of fields within mathematics, and then you will know where to look when you need to understand a given problem.

[1] [http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/math-for- programmers...](http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/math-for- programmers.html)

</comment><comment><USER16> This article is lacking examples. What exact case makes the standard curriculum bad? What are the good examples of the alternatives?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the interesting comments. Taking the top-level comments in order of posting, I read

 _This article is lacking examples. What exact case makes the standard curriculum bad? What are the good examples of the alternatives?_

The article mentions, "more importantly, the gifted, interested student should be exposed to mathematics outside the core curriculum, because the standard curriculum is not designed for the top students."

The whole site that the article comes from serves as an example of mathematics teaching that goes deeper and connects topics together better than the standard curriculum in United States schools. Other authors have written on the same topic. Professor John Stillwell writes, in the preface to his book Numbers and Geometry (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1998):

"What should every aspiring mathematician know? The answer for most of the 20th century has been: calculus. . . . Mathematics today is . . . much more than calculus; and the calculus now taught is, sadly, much less than it used to be. Little by little, calculus has been deprived of the algebra, geometry, and logic it needs to sustain it, until many institutions have had to put it on high-tech life-support systems. A subject struggling to survive is hardly a good introduction to the vigor of real mathematics.

". . . . In the current situation, we need to revive not only calculus, but also algebra, geometry, and the whole idea that mathematics is a rigorous, cumulative discipline in which each mathematician stands on the shoulders of giants.

"The best way to teach real mathematics, I believe, is to start deeper down, with the elementary ideas of number and space. Everyone concedes that these are fundamental, but they have been scandalously neglected, perhaps in the naive belief that anyone learning calculus has outgrown them. In fact, arithmetic, algebra, and geometry can never be outgrown, and the most rewarding path to higher mathematics sustains their development alongside the 'advanced' branches such as calculus. Also, by maintaining ties between these disciplines, it is possible to present a more unified view of mathematics, yet at the same time to include more spice and variety."

 _Personally, I hated calculus. It turned me off of math for a long time -- there was too much emphasis on memorizing heuristics for solving problems, like integral tricks and trigonometric identities. Worse, calculus was used as the canonical example of "college-level math", so it seemed that further math courses would just be about memorizing more and more problem solving tricks._

This second comment to be posted expresses what many students miss out on if their secondary school curriculum rushes to get to calculus as early as possible without also being designed to help them understand mathematics as well as possible. That's what the submitted article is about.

 _If I were to make a recommendation between following the curriculum, and pursuing extra-curriculars, I 'd say: do both._

Yes, the both-and approach is helpful. That's what the article says when it says "Developing a broader understanding of mathematics and problem solving forms a foundation upon which knowledge of advanced mathematical and scientific concepts can be built. Curricular classes do not prepare students for the leap from the usual 'one step and done' problems to multi-step, multi- discipline problems they will face later on. That transition is smoothed by exposing students to complex problems in simpler areas of study, such as basic number theory or geometry, rather than giving them their first taste of complicated arguments when they're learning a more advanced subject like group theory or the calculus of complex variables."

 _Lockhart 's Lament [0] comes to mind._

[0]: [http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/devlin/LockhartsL...](http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf)

Lockhart's Lament is indeed also a response to an era (different from the era I grew up in) when many high school students are rushed into a calculus class before reaching a profound understanding of fundamental mathematics.

 _" you're in ninth grade and you've already taken nearly all the math classes your school offers" I thought most high schools taught calculus. Both my and my wife's did. Why is this 15 year old going to a local community college or university for that?_

The author is indeed writing for a particular audience (which, as you correctly point out, is growing in size) of young people who have blazed through the United States mathematics courses that are now typical at ages once thought unimaginable. My late dad took his calculus course in the late 1940s as a second-year college student. I had just seven high school classmates in the mid-1970s who took calculus in high school at all. Most students in my generation who took calculus at all took it as a first-year university course. My oldest son began a formal course in calculus at eighth- grade age, through an accelerated local program that was founded in the 1980s. My second son is taking AP calculus BC as high school junior (eleventh grader). People are rushing into calculus much more rapidly than ever before in the United States, but often lack "profound understanding of fundamental mathematics (PUFM)" before starting the calculus course. A link that furthered my process of pondering how students might learn mathematics better was Richard Askey's review of the book Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics by Liping Ma.

[http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/fall1999/amed1.pdf](http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/fall1999/amed1.pdf)

Another review of that excellent book by mathematician Roger Howe

[http://www.ams.org/notices/199908/rev- howe.pdf](http://www.ams.org/notices/199908/rev-howe.pdf)

is also food for thought. In some countries, elementary mathematics is not considered "easy" mathematics, but rather fundamental mathematics, which must be understood in full context to build a foundation for later mathematical study.

 _However, my personal experience was the exact opposite. Calculus classes, along with the accompanying physics-with-calculus classes, were what transformed my concept of math from a game you play with symbols into a powerful way to describe the way the world works._

There are definitely a lot of students who enjoy a calculus course for that experience. That seems to be a form of enjoyment that especially comes to students who have had time to learn about other topics on the way to learning calculus. Russian mathematical instruction tries harder than instruction in the United States to bring in examples from physical science at all ages, so that the mathematics that explains physics is taught to students who have a decent background in physics.

<comment><USER5> > My second son is taking AP calculus BC as high school junior (eleventh > grader).

Your example has a 15 year old going to community college or university in order to go to a calculus course. You named it the "calculus trap", which includes as a negative the social problem of having a 15 year old in a class full of 19 year olds. This implies that it's unlikely that the high school offers calculus.

My observation is that more and more high schools offer calculus in the high school, so the 15 year old you described, who was taking college courses to learn calculus, is now more likely to be a 15 year old at high school taking courses with 16 year olds (like your second son).

In that case, the severity of the trap is lessened, no? If only because the age gap is so much less.

I'm not saying that you are wrong about how math knowledge should be developed. I point out only that the arguments from your hypothetical case feel a bit out of date.

Than again, suppose the 15 year old does take calculus at high school, then takes a tertiary education class at age 16. What class might that be? That's about the time the standard college curriculum branches away from calculus, to include algebra, differential equations, or discrete math.

In that case, it's not really a "calculus" trap, no? :)

Also, I read the reviews of KTEM. Cross-cultural observational comparisons are often enticing, but it's hard to draw firm conclusions from them. Had you read, say, a comparison with the Finnish model then perhaps you might have drawn different conclusions?

My hypothesis, btw, is that the US is entirely too car dependent. Extracurricular activities like a city math club would be much easier if teens had ready access to transportation independent of their parents.</comment></comment>


Can the golden ratio accurately be expressed in terms of e and π? - <AUTHOR> https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/454333/can-the-golden-ratio-accurately-be-expressed-in-terms-of-e-and-pi <comment><AUTHOR> This potential identity looks interesting:

phi = e^((i(pi))/5) + e^((-i(pi))/5)

(From user A. Rex on the referenced Math StackExchange web page...)

I don't have a calculator with enough precision, or a mathematical proof to know if this potential identity is exactly correct however... any comments?

Also, are there any simpler identities of phi, in terms of e only, but without i or pi?

Or maybe an identity of e, in terms of phi... I'm particularly interested in the relationship between phi and e, or vice-versa...

<comment><USER2> If it's not algebricaly proven don't call it an ' _identity_ '... even if a calculator were to confirm it to some arbitrary number of digits, that'd just be a more-or-less accurate approximation. 'Identity' denotes a far more profound relationship and the term should be reserved for use in such cases.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's what I'm trying to ascertain... is this an identity or not? (Note, I changed my comment to 'potential identity' rather than 'identity').

That, and are there any simple(r) identities for phi in terms of e, and e in terms of phi...?

<comment><USER2> As somebody in that thread points out, using division you can trivially construct an identity by taking the definition of φ and replacing any integer with expressions such as π÷π for 1 and (e+e+e+e+e)/e for 5.</comment></comment></comment></comment>