On Safety Critical Software - <AUTHOR> https://alexgaynor.net/2019/nov/07/on-safety-critical-software/ <comment><USER2> Bait and switch. Author starts with one sentence on safety critical systems then transitions entirely to discussing challenges with insecure, non safety- critical software such as mobile phone OSs, email services, and web browsers for important people (e.g. politicians and policy makers). Yes safety and security are intertwined, no they're not the same and it's just confusing the matter to talk about functional safety-criticality in the context of secure communications. People who need secure communication channels often do their research or have teams to recommend or build systems for them, I don't think it's necessary for Google Chrome to tell the general public what tradeoffs they are making between usability and security (nice to have somewhere in the documentation? sure. but not necessary).

<comment><USER3> Your "bait and switch" is the author's whole point: that we intuitively understand the safety criticality of embedded infrastructure components, and have expectations about how they're designed, implemented, and maintained, but don't recognize when those expectations are implicitly imputed to commodity software that happens to serve those roles for some users.

If every once in a while a nuclear power plant wound up using an Internet- connected Mac Mini for its control systems, we'd immediately see the problem. But we don't see that problem when browsers and email systems get embedded deep into our political system, thus becoming (perhaps unintentionally) critical infrastructure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The article mostly focuses on software security. "Safety critical" software standards generally focus more on _stability_ than security. Security is part of it. However, "safety critical" standards are overkill if you just want to improve security.

Regardless, I doubt the most popular consumer-focused software will ever meet the same "safety critical" standards as medical or avionics software. I work on safety critical software and the bureaucracy that comes with it drives innovation to a snails pace. As long as the average user is willing to give up a little stability for cutting-edge features, developers who prioritize "safety critical" standards simply wont be able to compete.

</comment><comment><USER5> The article is about security, not safety critical. A couple articles I wrote on safety critical software:

Safe Systems from Unreliable Parts [https://www.digitalmars.com/articles/b39.html](https://www.digitalmars.com/articles/b39.html)

Designing Safe Software Systems Part 2 [https://www.digitalmars.com/articles/b40.html](https://www.digitalmars.com/articles/b40.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> This is an article written by someone who's never actually worked on a safety critical system. Such systems have an exhaustive threat model with likelihood estimates developed and verified well before a single line of code is written.

<comment><USER3> As someone who has (perhaps like the author) done security assessment work for safety critical systems, I sure would like to hear more about these exhaustive threat models with likelihood estimates, because they sure didn't seem to have much to do with preventing me from popping a shell.

<comment><USER7> You popped a shell, therefore it wasn't a true safety critical system.

<comment><USER8> Although we cannot preclude the GP's experience, as a former developer and verifier of safety-critical systems, my experience (from the 2000s) agrees with the parent post.

Safety-critical systems (at the time: DO-178B design assurance level A in airborne systems) were about custom processor boards based on mature technologies (PowerPC was popular; caches often disabled for maximally predictable peformance), quadruplex redundancy, software with 100% MC/DC test coverage, verification of traceability between source code and object code, zero-runtimes, no dynamic memory allocation, extensive time budgeting analysis for control loops, worst-case stack utilization analyses, hardware watchdogs, extensive built-in-test and multiple independence objectives (verification team had to be independent of implementation team etc) as well as formal methods like data and information flow analysis.

These systems are virtually nothing like conventional "information technology" systems.

<comment><USER3> This is approximately what people used to say about EAL4+ certified products, until everyone realized you can just look at the list of EAL4+ products and the CVE database and compare.

Look, I don't doubt that there are avionics systems that are secure by design (largely because their inputs _and their functionality_ are extremely constrained). But that's a question-begging definition of "safety critical", because --- my expertise isn't in avionics but I've done a fair bit of utilities and medical work, for example --- those "safety critical" systems tend to be embedded in larger distributed compute systems that are riddled with vulnerabilities, with an ultimate systemic security result of "some doofus on the Internet can blow up a transformer".

So if the argument is "you can in fact built safety-critical systems by massively expanding the cost in money and time to built drastically simplified and less useful components", sure, you win. But if your argument is "the safety critical industries all know how to field software-based infrastructure that is safe from attack", then, based simply on personal experience, I'm going to call "shenanigans", because no, they cannot.

<comment><USER9> Safety-critical systems and secure systems are completely orthogonal. Although the article makes a good point, I don't think it was very sensible to use the expression "safety-critical software", for this reason.

In a safety-critical _system_ (which might include software), you are trying to protect yourself against mother nature. Which is tricky but doable, because we can predict it. Generally, the security assessment is minimal because the system is assumed to be "behind the firewall": in a secure cabinet in a plane, in an access-controlled building or factory, etc.

Of course, all hell breaks loose the day someone decides to connect that system to the Internet, where thousands of smart humans with bad intentions try to break it.

I think the author would have helped his point better if he simply talked about secure software, not safety-critical software.

<comment><USER10> > Safety-critical systems and secure systems are completely orthogonal

This strikes me as the most true statement in this conversation. I feel like I need this as a bumper sticker. I think a significant issue in this space is figuring out how to get the security people to put as much skin in the game as the safety-critical people have. The security people often get to continue paying their mortgage as long as they say "no". And as a physician leading a development team, I really struggle with this. If the budgets need to go up to solve the compliance problems, that's fine, but the compliance people seem to always have one more tissue-thin layer of requirements to add. It's like trying to drill your way out of a growing onion.

<comment><USER3> Compliance people and software security people aren't the same people. Software security people aren't generally in the business of saying "no"; they start with the requirements of the system, established elsewhere, and try to ensure that the implementation of those requirements doesn't cough up calc.exe.

<comment><USER11> Saying "no" because of compliance requirements is imho pretty similar to saying "no" because a software bug was revealed. Both don't help much in building secure systems.

At least with certain compliance requirements you can focus on avoiding certain bad practices or bug classes while with finding some bugs, in most times, you can't be sure you have found all relevant bugs. Ideally bug hunting acts as a validation of compliance requirements, to check that these are fulfilling their overall goal, and to improve them, if not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's not "safety critical" unless there's a chance of someone dying as a direct result of the system's failure. Stop trying to mix two totally different ideas together.

<comment><USER13> Injury or environmental damage also counts.

Mnemonic: Safety is concerned with whether the system can harm its environment. Security is concerned with whether the environment can harm the system.</comment></comment>


".NET is all about dashboards" or "Where is the open source in .NET"? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bilalaslam.com/net-is-all-about-dashboards-or-where-is-the-open-source-in-net/

<comment><USER2> There's a reason there are so many dashboard ads in MSDN magazine. Enterprise devs are one of the few classes of devs that actually pay for dev software.

MSDN ads cost money. So the only people who post ads are those people that can make a return on investment. Open source dev tools generally don't have a substantial income.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah that makes sense. Also I think management is obsessed with data these days (and to some people that means charts </g>)</comment></comment>


Couple Convicted of Selling Florida Sinkhole Home - <AUTHOR> http://abcnews.go.com/US/couple-convicted-selling-florida-sinkhole-home/story?id=34375901&google_editors_picks=true <comment><AUTHOR> If this stands it seems like the Feds are going to be able to prosecute anyone who ever misleads someone in a commercial transaction for "wire fraud" and potentially send them to prison for 20 years.

Is this really the country we want to live in ?</comment>


A ruby gem that makes sure that only a single instance of a code is running - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/icehouse/single_instance

<comment><USER2> very useful</comment>


Should We Torture Suspected Terrorists? - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulekman.com/blog/torture-suspected-terrorists/ <comment><USER2> Let's not pretend that the arguments around torture actually have anything to do with interrogation - the value of torture in providing accurate information has been roundly and thoroughly debunked by now.

Some people want to torture terror suspects because they want suspected terrorists to suffer, and they want the government to be willing to make them suffer. Let's just admit that - it's about nothing more than the desire for simple retribution and sadism.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Disclosure: At the last minute I escaped a terrorist attack in Israel when I purchased a candy bar at a local store. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Jerusalem_vehicular_attac...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Jerusalem_vehicular_attack))

Dr. Paul Ekman is a worthy researcher, who studied facial expressions and has worked with the Dali Lama. The TV series, Lie to Me (now on Netflix) is wonderful and fun.

I was at Columbia University when the World Trade Center was struck. I used to work in a building across the street from the WTC. I could see the smoke down Broadway (Ave) from the WTC. Now there is a memorial (and an Apple Store will soon be on the site).

So, if torture would have prevented 9/11 should we have done the torture or should we have let 9/11 happen?

To me it is simple. Every single life is important. Ekman argues that while torture may prevent some terrorism it is not perfect. But, no intervention is perfect. Because surgery is not 100% in saving a life from a traffic accident, does that mean we don't do the surgery?

Instead of writing a blog post about torturing to save lives from terrorism, Dr. Ekman should visit with loved ones of victims of 9/11, and of terrorist attacks in Israel, France, ..... After speaking with 9/11 loved ones of victims, he could visit the loved ones of about a dozen teenage girls that were killed waiting in line to go dancing. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphinarium_discotheque_massa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphinarium_discotheque_massacre)

Empathy is really important. I'm surprised at this blog post.

<comment><USER3> > So, if torture would have prevented 9/11 should we have done the torture or > should we have let 9/11 happen?

The problem with these kind of "if torture would prevent..." scenarios is that there is generally no way of every being in a situation where you know that torture _would_ prevent the harm that is hypothesized to justify it. (And, I've yet to see anything indicating that, even in the case where you somehow _know_ that there is an imminent harm and _know_ that a particular person has information that would allow you to prevent it, that there is any basis on which one could ever reasonably conclude that torture would be the most effective method of extracting accurate information.)

Even leaving aside the moral argument that torture is never acceptable _whatever_ the benefits, none of the torture that has ever been done, no concrete policy allowing torture that has ever been adopted or proposed, and no approach to torture that is even _conceivable_ given the information that appears to be available would ever be able to limit torture to situations where the kind of "if torture would prevent < _specified class of harms_ >" scenarios that are frequently cited to justify it.

<comment><AUTHOR> >> So, if torture would have prevented 9/11 should we have done the torture or should we have let 9/11 happen?

> The problem with these kind of "if torture would prevent..." scenarios is > that there is generally no way of every being in a situation where you know > that torture would prevent the harm that is hypothesized to justify it.

Just as in my example of a surgical intervention after a traffic accident, this is no guarantee of 100% success. The question to ask is not will every time be successful, but _statistically_ will it be successful.

Just because you aren't 100% certain that torture would prevent a 9/11, or any other terrorist attack doesn't mean one shouldn't try the intervention.

Also, the fewer successful attacks, the less likely terrorists will keep attempting them, so it has a form of community effect _when you prevent any victim from terror_.

Empathy is key. Talk with victims of terror who have survived, but are injured. Speak with loved ones of terror victims. Get to know them and their feelings.

The problem with those who criticize interventions that can save lives from terrorists, is there lack of empathy for the victims that survive and the loved ones of those who don't.

The child without the parent. The parent of the child. For example, an American 13-year-old girl was recently killed by a terrorist in Israel. If torture could have saved her, then it should have been used.

Palestinian Man Stabs and Kills 13-year-old Israeli Girl Asleep in Her West Bank Home [http://www.haaretz.com/israel- news/1.728013](http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.728013)

<comment><AUTHOR> That's right. It is easier to down vote my posts suggesting empathy for terror victims than to think about a conversation with them. Try to imagine talking to the parents of this 13 year old American girl.

While one can't show 100% causation, statistically you can prevent these attacks and if you can, you should.

<comment><USER4> Statistically, how many attacks have been prevented by torture?

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, that's a good question, but I might rephrase it: How many _lives_ and injuries have been saved.

Also, there is the situation of "the ticking bomb" where an appropriate intervention to get information could save lives.

<comment><USER3> > Also, there is the situation of "the ticking bomb" where an appropriate > intervention to get information could save lives.

The idea that you know for a fact that a ticking bomb exists and know for a fact that a particular target has information about it which could save lives, but don't know enough to act without information from that subject and don't have a more reliable way of extracting information from the target than torture is implausible on a whole number of levels.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hacker May Have Taken $50M from DAO Cybercurrency Project - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/18/business/dealbook/hacker-may-have-removed-more-than-50-million-from-experimental-cybercurrency-project.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> is what (s)he did legal or illegal?

<comment><USER3> No it's not.

<comment><USER4> Not sure why the downvote.

Unfortunately I'm too lazy to find it, but there was a post on Medium discussing this exact question.

The reality is that the DAO was governed by the smart contract. Period. That was a very deliberate choice on the part of those who organized its genesis.

Unfortunately, the smart contract they wrote contained a bug which allowed for the ether tied up in the DAO to be taken.

If the smart contract is _the_ contract that defines the rules by which ether in the DAO may be used, then the hacker didn't do anything illegal... they simply exploited a loophole in the contract, something that people have been doing for as long as contracts have existed.</comment></comment></comment>


How Many of Me - How many people share your name? - <AUTHOR> http://howmanyofme.com/ <comment><USER2> One of me!</comment>


Apply HN: Ethica Data, Behavioural Data Science Platform - <AUTHOR> I started data modelling as student back in 2009. I was working on a model where you could feed the contact pattern of a population and it would predict infection spread. I always believed that even a small step in this direction may have a sizeable impact.
After graduation, I realized industry is looking for a different type of data science. The goal there is not to find the fastest way to control an infection, but on how to optimize presenting ads so people buy more. The talent is not spent on using big data to understand why young people in low SES communities pick smoking, but on making political campaign platforms which measure what people love to hear, so that politicians can say the same things on the stage.
To solve this, I started Ethica Data (https://www.ethicadata.com) together with my grad school team. Our intention was to create a behavioural data science platform where the talent and tools in big data can be used to solve problems that matter to society. The focus has been on problems that one way or the other are related to human behaviour.
In this platform you can pick a project and explain why you think it's important. Then you can ask for data and resources you need for it from your audience, and if they also feel it's importance, they can help you out.
For example, take behaviour of schizophrenic patients. To understand this, you need data on contact and mobility pattern, and quality of social interaction from a set of schizophrenic and normal population. Then you can train machine learning algorithms to highlight early symptoms. Ethica allows you to borrow data you need from people who meet the criteria and also feel the need, and helps you with the analysis and modelling tools.
We have been working on it for past three years, and there has been some small tractions around it as well. We believe the problem is very important and sooner or later we will see some solution for it, whether from us or others. <comment><USER2> What are your thoughts on Bayes Impact?

In the world of data science, 99% of the problem is defining the problem. There's huge armies of data scientists ready to tackle well defined problems.

How do you hope to do a really good job of defining the problem in a meaningful insightful unconventional way? What are your tactics to do so?

The problem with ResearchKit is that it's hunting for Hawthorne-effect-less data even though it's rife with it.

The issue with a lot of the Validic-style MEMS data is that there's no indication that walking/running/steps counted/ or other key MEMS recorded activities account for a gene regulation pathway?

I haven't seen any papers on meaningful environmental factors being accrued from MEMS collected data.

Neurogenerative disorders can't be modeled easily from early onset symptoms. While from a data perspective it's exciting, many bioinformaticists might disagree. I might be wrong though.

Using a different example could be a good move.

Godspeed.

</comment><comment><USER3> There is something similar to your idea: Apple Research Kit [http://www.apple.com/ca/researchkit/](http://www.apple.com/ca/researchkit/), that allowd medical researchers to organize studies and track participants. How is your platform different from it?

<comment><AUTHOR> There are a few other efforts towards this goal as well, and Apple ResearchKit is one of them, Funf is another one.

Two difference between Ethica and ResearchKit: 1\. ResearchKit being from Apple, only works on iOS, while we are trying to have a tool for data collection from any platform, Android, iOS, smartwatch, etc. 2\. ResearchKit is more of an API which can simplify coding of a research app, but still requires knowledge on iOS programming to get the app done, and then you need to deal with all other pieces you need to have an end-to-end product, the server, the back-end, data storage, etc. For many, this is way too much technical work to be able to use ResearchKit.

Overall, it's nice to see there are other groups working on this idea as well. It can attract more attention to this need.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You hiring?

<comment><AUTHOR> I wish, we are very small, and very limited resource from few research projects we are contributing to, so we cant really afford. Sorry</comment></comment>


Dear Designer, You Aren't That Special - <AUTHOR> http://www.getfinch.com/finch/entry/dear-designer-you-aren%E2%80%99t-that-special/

<comment><USER2> That was very difficult to read. It was more of a rant filled with rambling generizations than a coherant argument. And what an inflamatory headline. I've read it twice and I'm still not sure what he expects to accomplish from his accusations and random thoughts. If anything, I feel like he needs to leave his bubble. The designers he described weren't anybody I've worked with or met since my college years. If anything, being in the industry for any amount of time beats these traits out of you.

In closing: Dear writer, you aren't that special.

<comment><USER3> There was just an article on HN a few days ago about how hackers and way too mean to each other. I don't think the author read it because this article has nothing to do with helping forward things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> <i>On one side of the creative spectrum are people like Thomas Edison who are disciplined and consistently create. Edison would simply experiment and iterate as much as necessary before coming up with an invention. On the other side of the creative spectrum are artists and musicians that are more emotional in their creativity. There is no knowledge necessary. They just have a skill like music and they use that to spontaneously create.</i>

Evidently anatomy, the history of visual art, color theory, music theory, the history of music, and a basic knowledge of the physics of vibrations are not knowledge. And no musician or artist has _ever_ made studies to explore the possibilities of an idea before sitting down and making their huge statement of it.

</comment><comment><USER5> _"When we're talking primarily about good typographical rules and creating a balanced visual hierarchy, those things are not subjective. Those just are. You can guarantee that people will react a certain way to these things. And we're not actually looking for an emotional connection where we might be with color and the more artistic layer if you will. That's the nice thing about design. At its core level it's not really subjective. It's just a matter of good balanced decision making and not cluttering things, not overcrowding." — Dan Rubin_

Maybe, but that's really glossing over the entire history of design, especially people like David Carson. Google him for examples of his work - it's not clean, balanced, and clutter-free, yet he was pretty influential in the design world. Of course, he knew the rules before he meaningfully broke them, but that's nowhere near being "objective."

<comment><USER6> Well David Carson wasn't really a designer (so maybe he didn't _knew the rules_ ) and most designer still hate his guts.

I like his style, but I'd say that he is more of an artist than a designer. Not that shere's something wrong with that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm really getting tired of these articles that get their hook by taking people down a notch to inflate someone else's ego.

I'm a developer, but I've also practiced a little bit of design as I made things. I've gotten better, and I can do things that impress some people. However, a proper designer is worth their weight in gold in terms of efficiency. It takes me forever to get something that looks okay.

Can't these articles take a tone more along the lines of "we appreciate you, and we're cool too?" Check that, I also hate orgiastic love fests.

Can our articles instead be flavorless factoids educate, but not inspire?

</comment><comment><USER8> The most interesting thing about this post, to me: it's a reminder that religious people rarely get taken at face value. Which I think is unfortunate for communication.

I read the linked Andy Rutledge post in which a religious fundamentalist tells the sinners he knows the truth and they better learn it and change their ways or they'll go to hell. In this case the religion is Objectivism, but fundamentalists of Marxism, Christianity, and Islam all speak the language.

The thing is no one takes him seriously. He wrote a post that's explicitly all about morality, truth, and changing people's evil ways. The OP, the commenters who mention him (pro and con), they can't seem to process it. They invent their own motivations and pin them on Andy. The OP even calls him a troll.

Um, no. More like a missionary.

The book _What's the Matter with Kansas_ is a semi-famous example of the same phenomenon. The author of the book insists that the Christians of Kansas vote against their own self interest because he doesn't take their faith seriously.

</comment><comment><USER9> What an amazingly accurate and succinct synthesis of the nature of design. I'm writing this down somewhere: "In essence, design is not a chaotic expression, it's a measured approach to creation."

<comment><USER10> It's a shame he wrote "I'm not about to define design here" just before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think the author may be making a hasty generalization but I agree with the sentiment that many web designers are self congratulating blowhards. I can't tell you how many times I've heard some self described "creative" wax endlessly about color palettes, their feelings or design in general. The result is often a Photoshop file they can't implement so the file makes its way to a "coder" or if they're being generous a "developer." The tragedy for the developer, apart from being the lowest in the chain of command and first to be laid-off, is that he may be better at design than the Designer. Just because someone calls themselves a designer doesn't mean they are better at design than someone who calls themselves a developer or hacker. If you are good in Firebug's HTML tab and you care about every pixel, IMHO you are just as deserving to be called a designer as someone whose sole output is Photoshop files.

<comment><USER12> And the underlying assumption is that designers give Photoshop files as their final output, right?

<comment><USER11> No, I am arguing the opposite. I said there are many people who consider themselves to be web designers who do not have the skills to implement their ideas. These people are common in marketing agencies and all they do is make PSDs for devs to implement. This is a problem when the dev is faster at doing it all by himself, including design which he can often do just using Firebug. I am saying that front-end devs are designers by definition and in general they should avoid working for other designers who are stuck in Photoshop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> How would people respond if the article were changed to this:

'Dear Writer, You Aren't That Special'

"In essence, writing is not a chaotic expression, it's a measured approach to creation. We cannot create a good writing solution by shuffling elements randomly around a blog until something happens to work."

Think about it that way, and the author disproves his own point. Yes, his post is grammatical, and contains thoughts that are communicated, but not very well. The best one can say is that it is passable, and worth the price paid. This is true for design as well; most companies claim to want great design, but are secretly willing to accept the passable, as long as the price is right.

It's in vogue to desire developers who have a 'design sensibility,' as if this is the answer, but would it make as much sense to ask for a developer with 'copyrighting sensibility?' After all, design and writing have much more in common than developing and designing.

Meanwhile, here is a much more cogent post on the original topic, that counters this argument much more clearly and eloquently...because it was written by a professional writer, not just somebody who has a blog.

How Wannabe Designers Burden the Profession [http://sixrevisions.com/project- management/wannabe-designers...](http://sixrevisions.com/project- management/wannabe-designers/)

</comment><comment><USER12> It is the same for any trade. Be it design, programming and anything else. None of us were born with it.

Designers had to study design, read books and then practice this thousand times before we are any good. I am sure even if I read programming books and learn how to code that is just the first step. I will have to program for atleast 10,000 hours before I am really good.

Few people are able to reduce that 10,000 hours stretch to 1000 hours but that period of intense practice will and always remain.

If a designer feels a new person cannot learn to design they are wrong. If they feel they cannot be a good designer, they are right for the next 10,000 hours.

<comment><USER14> The author should've at least defined what kind of design was he talking about. Almost every person is a designer on daily basis, when we are cleaning our rooms, preparing a dish, or even when we are communicating with our peers. Unless we are copying everything and do everything as our friends are doing, then in fact we are in a design process. The difference comes in when a person is confident enough to write a cheque for his work that he and a client both think is a design. This distinction should've been clarified in the beginning of the article, or else we aren't even able to have a discussion about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Many designers or agencies might scoff at the notion of a "non-designer" being able to learn and understand the principles to help them arrive at a design."

They would, except that most of them were once non-designers who learned the principles of design. That is how you become a designer.

Or maybe he means non-designers can learn how to design by reading a book? Yeah, I guess designers would scoff at that - reading helps, but you really have to practice to be any good.

<comment><USER16> I agree. I finished "The Non-Designer's Design Book," which seems to be universally regarded as the sine qua non of beginning design; then immediately applied my new skills to a redesign of my dad's 1998-frontpage-website. Long story short, after about 8 hours of work on the homepage, it still doesn't look much better.</comment></comment>


The Startup Egg-Basket Principle - <AUTHOR> https://blog.beeminder.com/eggbasket/ <comment><USER2> Oh hi I wrote this!

This one might be pretty obvious for the Hacker News crowd and is along the lines of Paul Graham's "dig a deep well" advice. Be laser-focused on the one thing you're best at, don't try to hedge bets or diversify your revenue stream or anything like that.

It also has anecdotes about how Beeminder almost died by violating the egg- basket principle. Yay for getting gradually smarter!</comment>


So you're moving to London - <AUTHOR> http://www.mikhanov.com/2014/06/15/so-youre-moving-to-london-383 <comment><USER2> I've lived for ~8 years in London, and ~8 years in Bangkok, a few years in Oxford, and a bit of time in some other random places.

The striking thing about London is that EVERYWHERE is an hour away, and that impacts your social life. Unless you live or work next to your friends, prepare to see them rarely. In both Bangkok and Oxford, social life was effortless - someone would SMS you in the afternoon, and you'd swing by some restaurant or bar on your way home to see them. Oxford, everywhere was trivially walkable, Bangkok taxis are virtually free, but London? It's an hour on the tube. Because of this, everyone is BUSY. Busy all the time. If I want to see my friends, I book 6 weeks in advance - and I live relatively central (Zone 2, Camden).

Summer in London is amazing - the parks are fantastic, there are some good bars ... winter is cold, rainy, and grey, and bluntly we're moving from London because we can't take another winter here.

Just my 2p.

<comment><USER3> > .. winter is cold, rainy, and grey

Last winter wasn't. We barely had the heating on at all. Year before wasn't that bad.

I always find the people who care a lot about the weather to be rather idle- minded. Unless your main intellectual past time is playing golf i'm not sure how it can affect you. If you are busy doing something awesome the last thing you are going to care about is the rain.

<comment><USER4> What a pejorative statement. If those awesome things involve being outdoors, then you care a lot about the weather. If you grew up in a country with an outdoors lifestyle, expect that to be severely curtailed when you come to London (or the UK for that matter). If you have kids, expect them to be playing indoors for a disproportionate amount of time.

For someone who grew up in a much sunnier climate (South Africa), it can be crushingly oppressive at times.

<comment><USER3> I grew up in one of the rainier and colder parts of the British Isles and I don't recall any such issues with playing outside. Sure I had to wear wellies when playing in the fields or local common green areas but I don't recall it restricting whatever it was I was doing. Perhaps it is the modern need to have adults oversee everything a child does which actually causes the restriction. I'd expect most children couldn't care less about the rain and bad weather.

Also I visit South Africa 4-5 times a year and I don't notice my daily routine change much from London apart from driving more. If anything I walk less because it is too hot around Dec-Feb. Indeed I'd be pretty worried about letting kids out for long periods in such unrelenting sunshine.

<comment><USER5> > If anything I walk less because it is too hot around Dec-Feb. Indeed I'd be > pretty worried about letting kids out for long periods in such unrelenting > sunshine.

Oh, so then the weather matters after all. Apparently it matters so much that it has affected the whole work-hour traditions of Spain. Huh.

"Weather" can be pointless wringing, and it can also be complaints from people who live in a climate that necessitates both air conditioning in the summer to avoid heat strokes on the worst days, and heating in the winter to avoid freezing (both themselves and their plumbing). It involves people who have to worry about changing tires on their car when the winter comes. It involves people who sometimes wake up and have to shovel 1 meter height of snow to be able to get out of the house. It involves urban inhabitants that have to worry about the level of pollution in the air which varies based on how cold the weather is and how much it is raining.

Where I live, the weather is probably mostly a slight inconvenience. For you, who lives in the British Isles? I'm guessing an oceanic climate, which even if it is pretty cold in the winter it is probably not frigid, no? And in turn, perhaps overall cool summers. So overall a pretty even distribution of temperatures over the year; seldom cold, mostly cool to slightly warm. Yeah, you're probably not inconvenienced by the weather, _compared to a lot of people elsewhere_.

<comment><USER6> To be fair about the weather: the M25 - one of the most important motorways in England (goes around London) was closed for over 24 hours by less than an inch of snow.

Public transport in London is often thrown into chaos by 2 or 3 inches of snow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _It's the city of Beatles_

That would be Liverpool, 200 miles north-west :-)

 _or a two thousand year old city, London has no antique palaces or medieval streets_

It's hard to say what "antique" is in terms of a palace, but I'd argue it has at least one: the Tower of London (officially Her Majesty's Royal Palace and Fortress) was founded in 1066 and much of what stands today was the result of building in the 13th century. This is older than anything in Paris, say, but hardly on a par with Greece ;-)

 _For a casual stroller London looks like a loosely linked collection of small villages_

It is. Even when my dad was a kid, even suburbs as far in as Kidbrooke, Blackheath and Lewisham were essentially considered unique places, often separated by greenery, and not physically joined to the larger conurbation. A lot of gaps have been filled in the past 50 years to make it feel like more of a whole. Heading south, I don't think you even see a field until you hit Coulsdon now..

<comment><USER8> _That would be Liverpool_

If you live in London, than you know that London is the only place worth mentioning, or even acknowledging, in England and thus if it happened in England and is worth mentioning, it must have happened in London.

<comment><USER9> On the contrary, actual Londoners give plenty of credit to the rest of the country for things that happened there. It tends to be ignorant foreigners who assume that anything in the UK must have happened in London.

<comment><USER10> Having lived in London 14 years by now have led me to think that "actual Londoners" are about as mythical as unicorns.

<comment><USER8> I hear they all drink at pub in the East End called The True Scotsman.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > This part of England has the same weather throughout most of the year

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. We have seasons over here - clearly defined seasons. At the moment we're enjoying hot sunny days, rainy nights. We'll probably have some good snow in the winter, and a variety of things thrown in between now and then.

If you're a fan of weather, then the UK is a great place to live. If you don't like weather then somewhere like California is a better option with its relentless boring sunshine.

<comment> bjelkeman-again I actually think London gets a bad rep for its weather. It is certainly not as good as Stockholm, but not as bad as its reputation.

<comment><USER12> London gets a terrible rep. I come from Wales and the difference in the weather is quite dramatic. Back home in Wales, it probably rains 150 more days than it does in London. I have a leather trench that kept me warm in the winters in Wales, it now has me boiling during London winters.

Yes i agree London can get pretty grey, but it's nowhere near as miserable as people make out.

<comment><USER13> Dude, don't tell anyone! The real estate pressure is bad enough already!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> A very touristy, and one dimensional view of London, and very different to my impressions of London.

The author has clearly only really tried to experience the food and culture of the very centre, and likely only lived there as well. The only thing that they've got spot on is that london is essentially a collection of loosely linked villages. For a permanent resident, that means that where you live (probably one of the "village" areas) is a world away from what the centre of London is like.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "london is essentially a collection of loosely linked villages. For a permanent resident, that means that where you live (probably one of the "village" areas) is a world away from what the centre of London is like."

Any good resources for trying to pick the right area? I'm planning on moving to London but besides the names of some of the areas I know very little about them.

<comment><USER14> The best thing to do would probably be to ask people on places like r/london, as (like the article says) London can have great areas right next to less nice areas.

<comment> k-mcgrady Thanks for the tip, never thought about r/london

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> grey-area This is an interesting take on London from an outsider. The villages point is important - to really get to know the town you need to get out of the centre and visit a few of the villages (Hampstead, Kilburn, Notting Hill, Camden, Kensington, Greenwich, Hoxton etc) - there's a lot of variety there and as the author says a lot of very mixed areas, each with their own personality.

This can make travel a chore, but if you have friends in the same area, you don't have to meet them in the middle of town, and some areas are very well connected. It also gives the city interest as there's always a new area to discover when visiting friends. Walking and biking round London is also rewarding if you like cityscapes because it varies so much.

 _Second, when a fast-food industry adopts some food type in London, it completely wipes away all other options to try it, leaving you only with a dull ersatz (this is what happened to sushi, for example). Just like with the music scene, the competition for a spot in a good restaurant can be fierce._

This is not accurate, though I can see why you might have that impression if you live somewhere sterilised by big brands like the centre of town or Canary Wharf where the only option is yo sushi. There are plenty of horrible chains for every cuisine catering to tourists, but there are a lot of great sushi places in town, like Jin Kichi in Hampstead or Inaho near Notting Hill. So this doesn't ring true to me at all - if you're eating in London there's no reason to entertain a chain restaurant, and thousands of alternatives, even if the most popular to get busy on weekends.

The analysis of financing rings true though - London does feel divided into those who work in _the city_ (a different jurisdiction and a different world), and those who don't. Pay scales, careers and culture all change as you cross that divide, and unfortunately Canary Wharf is like an island insulated from the areas which surround it - most of London is quite different from that though. As the article says, funding for startups outside finance is not always easy (I'd love to hear contradictions of this).

The things I treasure the most about London, having been here for a decade or so, are the genuinely cosmopolitan and egalitarian culture, and the mixing of world culture occurring here in the last few decades. While some resent this change for me it is the redeeming feature of London, the part which makes it feel like a world city, not just the capital of a small nation shrinking in importance. Take a typical bus in this city and you might hear a dozen languages spoken in the space of a journey, from all over the world. Perhaps this is something we'll see more of in every city as the world continues to shrink.

</comment><comment><USER15> If you want to work in tech in the UK but don't like the downsides of London, it's worth considering Edinburgh. The tech scene is really taking off here, with plenty of jobs (see this list of tech companies [http://www.nobugs.org/deved/](http://www.nobugs.org/deved/)). There is much more an 'ecosystem' of tech employers than there was a few years ago. Maybe you will make 75-80% of a London salary (your mileage may vary) but your living costs are way lower. You can live in a beautiful 2 bedroom Georgian apartment in central Edinburgh for £800/month and walk to work. The annual cultural festivals bring some great music, comedy, theatre, film and art to the city. The only major downside (IMO) is the weather, consistently a few degrees cooler than London.

</comment><comment><USER12> Living in London is to an extent, a young persons game. Many commentators are talking about being an hour away from people and home. I don't think that's a big problem. Sure it's not easy, I used to live somewhere where i was nevermore than 1/2 hours walk from anyone of my friends, now i'm generally on an hours tube journey.

It's not a big deal and it's about being in an area you like. I love my area in west London, I could have moved closer to my friends in East London, but that would put me out with friends in West, South West and North London. I'm in Zone 2, so cycling to the middle isn't a big deal, but nor is taking a tube to east London, or south east London. If you don't like commutes and being within busy places, it might not be for you. You'll make friends with people who live and work all over london. If you're good friends, you'll make the time(travel) differences work. It's one of those things people who live in London deal with. I do think it's about being under a certain age/having that mindset though.

</comment><comment><USER16> I have lived in London for six years. The tech scene is very vibrant, but I struggle with the 'big city' aspect. Strangers are generally ruder in public than elsewhere in the UK (not a reflection on them, more a side-effect of nobody ever having personal space). The commute is miserable, and nights out in Zone 1 & 2 tend to be overly commercialised, tacky and unfriendly, with the exception of a few hidden gems.

It's not somewhere you can clear your head by going for a walk, even the numerous and beautiful parks are crowded with young families on a sunny day. Quaint, village-type areas are well known and swarming with tourists. "Going for a walk" means something totally different in London- you're not going to escape the bustle, and will probably end up spending money.

If you are somebody who can deal with a complete absence of personal space while outside, don't mind being herded around like cattle, and the constant drone of traffic/sirens, London otherwise has a lot to offer (good restaurants, museums and art galleries, lots of tech Meetups).

<comment><USER10> > It's not somewhere you can clear your head by going for a walk, even the > numerous and beautiful parks are crowded with young families on a sunny day

So go a bit further out (and consider moving further out). Bromley or South Croydon is full of actual countryside and the occasional bit of woodland with far fewer people, and still in London, for example. You'll find quiet or quieter parks dotted around the outer edge of London if you just look a bit. If you don't need completely quiet, there are plenty of _quieter_ places closer to the centre too. Like the river walkway from around Imperial Wharf (on the north side of the river) towards Barnes, and further towards Richmond (Barnes and Richmond and the area in between also have plenty of quiet areas). Especially if you walk into residential areas instead of near the commercial districts.

The solution of going further out applies to pretty much anything in London: Avoid zone 1 and 2 unless you want big, loud, expensive and commercialised. It's fun now and again, but there are so many alternatives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm in London (2 years in total) and it's really great. You can really complain about 4 things: \- It is really hard to find a nice flat in a good condition (no mold etc.) with reasonable price. \- Some good&services are overpriced (e.g. trains) \- Taxes are a bit too high \- Weather :)

It's in top 5 big cities to live in the world for sure.

</comment><comment><USER18> I lived in London for three years as a student. I can't comment on the tech/startup scene but I can confirm that quality of living isn't great. Coming from Vienna, supposedly the city with the best quality of life, I am spoiled though.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm from Dublin and it pains me to say it but London is the best city in the world. I've lived here for over ten years at various times and my god do I love this place.

</comment><comment><USER20> What I'd like to know is how to move there with 0 experience and without knowing anyone who lives there.

<comment><USER21> I moved to London a year ago and only knew about 3 people here at the time. One of things that threw me initially the most (having moved from Lincoln) was that everyone here seems to plan everything way in advance, I missed the spontaneity of my former social life.

Anyway to make some friends I went to a few different meetup nights for technologies I was interested in. I joined an online dating site to try and make some friends; I had mixed results with this but it has resulted in some great friendships. I also made friends through colleagues and friends of friends.

A year later I have about 10 close friends who I see regularly, plus colleagues and other people who I see semi-regularly and I do feel like I've gone a lot social spontaneity in my life again.

All in all it was a bit lonely at first but I'm loving living here and really can't imagine wanting to leave any time soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> > If everything above sounds like a description of city made for the rich, > this is not the case.

...

>There's one thing that all districts of London have in common though: they are all expensive to live in.

Make up your mind.</comment>