No One Gets Rich by Shunning New Cars and Lattes - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-01-13/no-one-gets-rich-simply-by-cutting-personal-spending <comment><USER2> You get rich either by being in the absolute top echelon of your field _assuming also_ that you are in a lucrative field, by ownership of the means of production, or by inheriting or marrying into it.

Those are pretty much the choices.

<comment><USER3> Edit: of course people want to complain. Read the Black Swan. It'll make you happier. The world isn't fair.

<comment><USER4> This post is so out of touch with reality I don't know where to begin. I also work at Google, making a similar amount as you do. To suggest that all you have to do to make $400K+ is "just know what to do, know where to be, and be willing to put in a lot of time and effort" is just ludicrous.

I guarantee you, and anyone else reading this, that with very little information I can predict with high accuracy how much money you make.

\- Where you were born

\- How much money your parents make

\- Your health status at birth

\- What college you went to, if applicable

\- What you majored in while in college, if applicable

\- How much your prioritize making money

I hate to say it, but the #1 predictor of your income is your parents' own situation. So if you want to make more money, be born to better parents. They will gift you the health, genetic advantages and socioeconomic circumstances that will statically make you succeed.

For everyone else, understand the rules of the game and bend them as much as possible. One thing I hate about working at Google is the sheer amount of out of touch engineers here. Everyone is so nice and friendly, but as soon as you talk about anything related to money you can see that some people are living, in a matter of speaking, on another planet.

EDIT: Looks like the post was edited to be removed. Basically the OP was saying he made 400K+ at Google and their significant other made another 200K as a car salesperson and they are both "run of the mill" at their jobs. The OP then goes on to say that if you try hard enough it's pretty easy to get to the position their at.

Ironically the reaction of removing the post is exactly the same sort of reaction I get in person in when money or money related matters is ever the subject of a conversation with someone who is an engineer at Google. If a non- engineer is in the conversation the engineer will just say life isn't fair and leave.

<comment><USER5> IQ matters a lot too. People who make a lot of money tend to be smarter than the general population, such as doctors or software developers. A car salesman may make $200k but these tend to be huge outliers. The median tech workers does better than the median car salesman. Commission work is a bitch.

<comment><USER6> Meanwhile, the truly wealthy pass down fortunes to their children who show no outward signs of exceptional intelligence or skill.

I'd also imagine those with the highest IQs in American society are academics in STEM fields, who are hardly rich by the measure of our current inequality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You shouldn't shun nice things, but you should definitely shun buying those things to prove anything to anyone. That is the disease that so many people (at least in the US) seem to have now worse than ever. Stop using the little money you have to prove to others that you have it. Isn't it funny how people will bankrupt themselves to try to make people think they aren't bankrupt?

<comment><USER8> Much of the premise of the 1996 book "The Millionaire Next Door" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millionaire_Next_Door](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millionaire_Next_Door))

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This seems like a silly article. No one is making pronouncements like "you should never ever buy a new car regardless of your income / wealth" or "not making small daily purchases like lattes is the cornerstone of a sound financial plan". What they are saying is that you should be aware of how much those purchasing habits ultimately cost you and make an informed decision. A lot of people who are not Kawhi Leonard never consider how such purchases impact their financial well being.

</comment><comment><USER10> Spending scolds don't just come out and tell people to not buy new cars or lattes. It's almost always in response to a complaint by someone that they are having trouble making ends meet. The advice is spurned because they aren't atually trying to solve a near-term budgeting problem, they really are just expressing jealousy of richer people, and in particular jealousy of their richer lifestyle. As such, any advice suggesting they adjust down their own lifestyle (which is easier than trying to earn more, as it is more fully under your own control) is to them offensive and is going in the wrong direction. I take this from two data points in my personal dealings, which is a small dataset, but considering I've never had anybody actually need and use budgeting advice I suspect it's broadly true.

TO ADD: I'm not saying nobody has a budgeting problem, I'm saying that those who don't take seriously the advice to curtail spending probably have more of a jealousy problem than a budgeting problem.

<comment><USER11> "Having trouble making ends meet" and "being dissatisfied with one's disposable income" are simply orthogonal issues. Fixing your budget is a way to deal with issue 1. Living beyond your means does not _really_ address issue 2 either (your dissatisfaction and envy): it's just giving you additional problems to deal with, that are going to stress you out and make it even harder to earn more money. It's a really, really dumb thing to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The "don't buy a house" crowd really cracks me up. I bought my first house in 1991 for $100k outside of San Fran. I'm on my fourth house, having lived >5 years in each one. Subtracting MINOR remodeling, maintenance, and interest (excluding mortgage interest ded.) I've cleared about $500k of tax free profit.

Now could I start this today? It would be way harder for me to start this today. The housing markets where the good jobs are have gone bonkers. But pretty much everyone I know who's bought modest houses since the early 90's as grown significant equity.

I'm excluding people that bought mcmansions or non 30-year fixed mortgages for houses they couldn't afford. Most of them got cornholed in 2001 and 2009. I think if you can do it, you should do it. The instances that led to fucking were rare and predictable.

</comment><comment><USER13> _No. 2. Prioritize investing for your future_

Simple, right. But how does this play out over a longer time horizon? How about the family fortune? Is having a mortgage you can barely afford to live in a decent school district and increase your childrens' earning power a wise investment?

<comment><USER14> No? Even nice public schools aren't great (there are some extreme exceptions but most are mediocre.)

Send your kid to a good private school or homeschool co-op (essentially the same thing) and stop doing dumb things with real-estate. Be involved in their hobbies and try to communicate the important ideas you've learned, no school can replace that and it's one of the most powerful ways you can improve your child's future. (This is intuitively obvious, but I think there are also a number of moderately recent studies to back it up.)

<comment><USER15> A "good private school" isn't cheap, about $20k/year on average [1]. If you have 2 children, then spending an extra $3k/yr to get a good school district is a _cheaper_ option than private school.

[1] Actually, I'm pulling this number from average private school prices. And the average private school is probably only as good quality as "nice public schools [that] aren't great." But I don't have a good comparison since the public school district I grew up in contained several schools in the top 100 in the nation.

<comment><USER14> That's why included the homeschool co-ops, they tend to be a lot cheaper although they usually expect parents to do a lot of volunteer work.

There's not just a monetary cost to moving to a nicer school district, often that can mean a lot more driving which means absorbing a lot of risk (accidents, maintenance) and burning more fuel and time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > It is all about living within your means,

No, it's about _spending wisely_. Ask not "can I afford it?", but "is it _worth_ it?" (taking into account, yes, your financial situation). This article hasn't done much to convince me that a brand new car is worth the huge markup.

</comment><comment><USER17> If you want a fine take on this subject, and one that is much better than the comments so far, read _The Millionaire Next Door_. [https://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Surprising- Amer...](https://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Surprising- Americas/dp/1589795474)

</comment><comment><USER18> I must have missed all those stories of people saving for decades to leave fortunes behind.

Taking financial guidance as a middle class wage earner from a trust fund baby is probably also a bad idea.

<comment><USER19> Checkout out the financialindependence subreddit. You will find plenty of average folks with 7 figures in savings and investments: [https://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence/](https://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence/)

<comment><USER20> Yeah but what of it? If you're 35 and live frugally ($3k/mo) you still need more than $1.3m to never work again, and that assumes you don't live longer than average.

<comment><USER19> That is definitely achievable by someone working in the software industry. Perhaps not by 35, but certainly by 45 or 50, which is still very early retirement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Or, the subject of astonishing wealth inequality could be addressed instead of blaming those already struggling.

<comment><USER22> "blaming those already struggling"

Those struggling need to take some of the blame or the situation will never change. I know many people that if you gave them a million dollars today, they would spend a million and one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This really depends a lot on location I would think.

In the North of England an expensive car might cost as much as a house.

In London it might be two years' rent.

If you live in an area with high rents then almost everything else is irrelevant by comparison unless you really throw money about, but that's not true everywhere.

<comment><USER24> In Silicon Valley, the down payment on a house could buy you a mansion pretty much anywhere else in the US. In Florida, you could get a waterfront mansion in many places.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> The headline amuses me, because it implies the goal of life is to get rich.

<comment><USER26> I read it more as "Of the people who are rich, none of them got there by not buying new cars and lattes".

<comment><USER27> Some people get rich while buying new cars, but only every 15-20 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The wisest man I met in my life was a 65 year old cab driver in Washington DC who was about to retire with $3m in the bank. He saved 10% of his income from the day he started working and didn't buy lattes or sports cars.

Yes, you most definitely _can_ get rich by not drinking lattes. This article is a disservice.

Maybe for the author of this article, a $6 latte is "within his means". For most of the world, it's not because they're not saving 10% of every paycheck, so they should minimize discretionary spending until they do.

<comment><USER10> My friend and ex-neighbor Tim has worked in a blue collar machine operator near-minimum-wage job his entire life. But he's frugal as hell, never buys new things, considers coffee a waste of money. At 55 he has two houses and upwards of a million in cash and investments. It not at all uncommon.

<comment><USER29> 55 yo, you say? When did he buy his houses?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> But plenty of folks do save a lot by shunning new cars and lattes

</comment><comment><USER31> I think the car rule is more often don't by a 50k car if you make 50k a year.

Also related, cars go down in value. They are cool to own but by no means an investment. They are a utility to get you around and more specifically to your job that actually does make you money. The biggest rule though they stated first is huge. If you are making 300k a year, buy that 50k car or save up for a relatively "short while" and get a 100k car.

<comment><USER32> As someone who wasted a large amount of money on cars in his younger years...

The problem with buying a $50k (or whatever the vehicle you want) car, is that you will probably grow bored with it and want another one in two years.

And chances are that $50k car is going to depreciate like a rock. And be expensive to insure. And you'll also have the bad habit of spending even more money on modifications/customizations etc.

Buying a brand new, expensive vehicle isn't the worst idea if you keep it for ten years, drive it every day, etc. But if it's a thing you drive a few times a month, is impractical, and you get rid of it in 1-3 years for the newest model, it's financial suicide.

I never got $35k of 'enjoyment' out of a new car purchase. And they aren't brand new for very long.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> The title should be "No One Gets NBA Basketball Player Rich by Shunning New Cars and Lattes," but that wouldn't get as many clicks.

<comment><USER34> And IMO, being able to retire and live comfortably with your savings is rich; a good touch of frugality helps drive the very first point in the article, which is: spend less than you earn. This doesn't require tens of millions or more; a handful will do just fine, and not buying $40k cars is a great way to help get there. Most of the world doesn't have this kind of retirement. A good portion of the US doesn't have that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> When I was a student, buying lattes would have significantly hurt my freedom. My stress level would be higher and I may have struggled to graduate before running out of money.

After building a career, worrying about lattes was a waste of effort. But buying a nice car would have limited my freedom. For example, I would not have bought as much investment real estate and I would probably be >$500K poorer.

But worrying about buying new cars probably won't make sense for me soon.

Avoiding lattes and new cars was, in fact, very important for my finances (in the past, but not now). The article acknowledges the importance of individual circumstances:

> What should determine personal spending is the totality of the buyer's > financial circumstances.

But the headline risks misleading people.

</comment><comment><USER36> What a tone-deaf and bizarre article.

It begins with a straw-man: "as I financier I often encounter people who equate buying lattes and new cars with financial suicide"

It then boldly introduces a distinction: there's a difference between spending and spending beyond one's means... literally, and I quote:

> Simply saying no to consumption is lazy and thoughtless. What should > determine personal spending is the totality of the buyer's financial > circumstances.

I don't think anyone lives in this simple-minded universe, torn between the deadly sin of exuberant spending (on things!) and the austere life of impoverished simplicity.

Money is a means. It has no intrinsic worth. We all understand this, keenly.

</comment><comment><USER37> Teach your 18 year old to pick 5 companies they think will be around in 15 years. Stick some money into each and don't touch it. Taking money out of great stocks because I thought it was too expensive has been the greatest mistake I made

<comment><USER38> Statistically, your 18 year old would be much better off in a Vanguard broad market index fund. The chances that they're going to pick 5 companies that outperform the market is pretty remote.

<comment><USER37> But a concentrated portfolio is actually more likely to beat an index. So besides a 401k, do what I suggested

<comment><USER38> Got a source on that? It contradicts most research I've seen. Obviously the _right_ concentrated portfolio will beat an index...but that's the trick, isn't it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I don't think it's correct to say it's not good to buy lattes or new cars, but I think we should be aware of what it costs you verses the alternative.

I think it's common knowledge that new cars deprecate extremely quickly, so for most middle class individuals it's better to go with a used car to avoid losing loads of money in the long run.

A medium latte costs at least $3. For daily drinkers that's about $90/month, which is at least triple the value of the beans and milk it took to produce.

Frugal living alone doesn't make you rich but I think it can really help you if you're in debt (like most Americans)

</comment><comment><USER40> I wonder how people become so deluded that a major news publication needs to tell them this. Surely if it were reasonably easy to become rich by refusing lattes, several people from your social circle would have done it already and you could just ask them.

</comment><comment><USER41> A good size of the population should be able to get to $1m-$5m of net worth by retirement by being disciplined with a 0-based budget, avoiding debt (mortgage is an exception) and steadily investing in your retirement.

Keep it simple.

<comment><USER13> Yet the median balance that fiftysomethings carry in their 401(k) is 60 kUSD: [https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal- finance/01061...](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal- finance/010616/whats-average-401k-balance-age.asp)

That tells you that it isn't easy to save an adequate balance for retirement, despite what Suze Orman and all the other avocado toast shunners tell you.

<comment><USER42> Net worth would be more instructive than 401(k) balance, particularly since many people do not have access to a 401(k) for much of their career. I know more than a few people with meager 401(k) but large taxable accounts, real estate, business, etc portfolios.

It is a mistake to conflate retirement accounts with investments accessible in retirement. This is no different than the "Americans have no savings" trope, which conflates having _savings accounts_ (which are an anachronism that many Americans have no use for) with having access to cash-like liquidity.

<comment><USER13> It doesn't look much rosier when you look at net worth: [https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf17.pdf](https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf17.pdf)

Median net worth in the 55-65 age bracket: 187 kUSD. Effectively, it's much less than that because the lion's share of these 187 kilodollars will be owner-occupied housing. Yes, you can sell up, but you'll always need a roof over your head.

The political system will have to deal with the retirement shortfall in the next 10 to 20 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> \-- It's financial suicide to own a house

\-- Don't send your kids to college

Those two are especially stupid

</comment><comment><USER43> No, but shunning new cars and lattes can give you the focus to do something that does get you rich.</comment>


Ford Tests Buzzing Wristbands to Keep Six-Foot Distance Between Factory Workers - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedrive.com/news/33041/ford-tests-buzzing-wristbands-to-keep-six-foot-distance-between-factory-workers <comment><USER2> No touching! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LEJ6tZI7_k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LEJ6tZI7_k)</comment>


U.S. may put emergency tariffs on solar imports - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-solar-wto-idUSKBN18P1JL <comment><USER2> I wonder to what degree this is motivated by an attempt to stifle the expansion of renewable energy. I sometimes get the impression that the "conservative" position has morphed from "cheap energy is good for the economy" to "Coal power, even if it's more expensive than solar or wind, just to annoy the environmentalists".

Note that this isn't about "dumping" (selling below costs), but a much weaker WTO provision allowing to temporarily slow down the pace of change to allow the domestic industry to adapt.

<comment><USER3> It's not because they want to annoy environmentalists, the republican party just receives a massive amount of campaign funding and lobbying from the oil industry. They do stuff like this and deny climate change because if they don't they'll lose a significant chunk of campaign funding and the oil Giants will just back another candidate in the primary. Democrats are guilty of this too, but oil primarily goes after Republicans.

<comment><USER4> Also interesting/telling: all of a sudden the republicans are against "free market" trade here.

<comment><USER5> >all of sudden

US politicians have been awful about this for a long time. We have tarrifs on an embarassing number of things from cheese to sneakers to auto parts... While we scold and bully other countries for their own protectionists policies and tell them to 'do as I day, not as I do,' and open their borders.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ugh. They did this with aluminum extrusions and it was irritating. Chinese factories are happy to do low-volume runs and customization where the US factories don't want to talk to you unless you're a big fish. So it ended up blocking some sales altogether, versus the intended effect of more sales to US companies.

I can see this having a similar effect.

<comment><USER7> Then why not start a business that does low-volume runs? I don't see why we should allow the export of all of our industries just to maximize profits for the business owners.

Edit: To those who downvoted me, can you please explain why? I'm asking a serious question. There are plenty of small solar production businesses in America at the moment, this idea is totally possible.

<comment><USER6> Huh? As a potential buyer of short run, low volume extrusions I should start my own aluminum processing plant?

<comment><USER8> Of course. On HN, every problem you encounter is a market opportunity, and someone who has ever encountered a particular problem should immediately drop what they're doing and start a business to take advantage of it.

<comment><USER9> And then you're going to run into some red-tape, which means you should drop your aluminium business to create a SaaS startup that disrupts government bureaucracy for people starting manufacturing plants. And then you run into some inefficiency with your framework, so you drop your SaaS and build a new web framework that helps people more efficiently build SaaS solutions for clearing government bureaucracy when they're trying to start an aluminum smelting business.

Alum.js. You guys can have that one for free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Economics keeps confusing me. Is this not the very goal of international trade? If someone else is better or cheaper at producing specific goods or services, then you import them, let your industry die, and move the people to a different industry. At least unless the other country is just trying to kill your industry with subsidies or something along that line only the gain market dominance and raise prices later.

<comment><USER11> What if a country has more buying power than others but is not the most efficient at manufacturing. Should that country simply ship off all jobs?

<comment><USER12> This is pretty well understood, viz the Law of Comparative Advantage [1]. This doesn't tell us that you have to be the cheapest in the world, only that you should specialize in whatever you can do most efficiently. If your trade partners do the same, everyone wins. If they don't do the same, then they are causing themselves to lose out.

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

<comment><USER10> But if you are unable to or stop being able to produce anything appealing to the world market, then you are loosing and opening your market is a really a bad idea.

<comment><USER12> No, that's not the case.

Imagine a simple world with two countries (1 and 2) and two commodities (A and B). It might be that country 1 has something that allows them to produce both A and B with greater efficiency than can 2. But even when that's the case, they (and the whole world) do better when they continue to concentrate on producing the one for which they have the greatest advantage (say, A). Even if 1 can also produce B more efficiently than can 2, it works out better if they ignore that, leaving it to 2, and just concentrate on producing all the A they can.

That solution doesn't change if there are more countries and more commodities. It might make the big picture more complicated, but it remains a better solution for both 2 and for the entire world if 2 concentrates on producing whatever it's best at.

(Note that this is purely based on economics of commodities, and not national security. When some of those commodities are things like "missiles", it may well be that a country things they need to have a guaranteed secure supply, should one of their trading partners decide not to be friends anymore.)

<comment><USER10> I don't think that is true, at least not generally. In the extrem case, if 1 can produce A and B at zero costs, why would it be better if 2 produced anything assuming that the costs are non-zero for A and B? And I see no obvious reason why that would change if we go from zero to small non-zero costs. It might be true if there is an unlimited demand for at least one of the goods and we simply fully utilize the production capacities of 1 and 2 but that is not a realistic scenario in general. And even then I don't think it would be true in general. What if 2 could not satisfy the demand for B?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> While at the same time increasing subsidies for coal and oil? Good luck getting that passed the ITC.

<comment><USER14> They subsided solar as well. It's probably the reason why no one could make a profit in solar energy. Too many small companies competing over a small share of the energy market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Cool, trade wars. I was wondering when Trump would do something stupid that impacts the markets.

<comment><USER12> Trump hasn't done anything yet here. Let me read the article for you:

 _Under WTO rules, such temporary tariffs may be used to shield an industry from a sudden, unforeseen and damaging surge in imports. They can be challenged by other WTO members._

 _The ITC will decide by Sept. 22 whether the U.S. industry has suffered "serious injury", and if that is the case it will submit its report to Trump by Nov. 13, the filing said._

Don't get me wrong: Trump is terrible on trade, and I fully expect him to act in ways that are self-destructive to the USA (and to do so with full support of the GOP and the DEMs). But let's be intellectually honest, and recognize that this isn't yet him doing that.

<comment><USER15> I did read it, thanks, and the title makes that clear too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Maybe a silly question, but will tariffs on imported solar products lead to increases in prices on domestic solar products?

How does the President play a role in any of this?

<comment><USER17> US company can profitably make and sell widgets for $98 each. Chinese company sells them for $80. President imposes a 25% tax on widget imports, raising the Chinese price after import tax to $100. US company sales surge.

Other US company that uses widgets in their manufacture of other product for export wail and gnash teeth that now their exports are uncompetitive. (Or US company that issues widgets to staff to enable providing services have to cut back, have layoffs, etc).

<comment><USER6> There may also be some anomalies depending on how it's implemented. These tariffs can sometimes be a bit ham-handed. For example, I can see a situation where tiny solar cells not meant to be targeted are swept up in the tariffs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Emergency? What's the emergency, cheap renewable power?</comment>


Ask HN: Anyone else want google.com et al to be broken down by host on HN? - <AUTHOR>

Some sites like blogspot.com, blogger.com etc are broken down by host already, but I'd really like to see google.com and a few other domains split up. Posts on code.google.com are different from posts on google.com and being able to see that would be helpful when choosing what to read. <comment><USER2> Personally, I think the domain displayed should be the entire domain and subdomains minus 'www.'

<comment><USER2> And the domain should also be added to the RSS feed

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think it would be helpful to see complete domains.

</comment><comment><USER4> Get as nit-picky on the domain as you like; sometimes, it's still not enough to determine which "site" you're going to. Think of /~user/ directories, for example, or hosted subsites. Not everything that's distinct from its owner has its own domain.

The ideal split would actually require something like:

        <link rel="Site Root" href="http://example.com.nyud.net:4561/~bob/thebigsite/oldv1/">

as metadata on the resulting page. (As an aside, does HN currently retrieve the resulting pages for any metadata when submitting? Doing an AJAX autofill of the _default_ submission title from the <title> tag might be a good idea.)

For most sites, "Site Root" would just be the same as the domain name. Perhaps, then, it could have that as the default assumption of any parsers, the actual tag just overriding it for the sites that need it.

Also, you know what already (mostly) provides the same information? The <base> tag! Oddly, something we've long dropped from our HTML vocabulary.

<comment><AUTHOR> I totally accept it's not a perfect indication of authorship (or ownership). That's a much harder problem.

It's more than a little big of extra granularity would help. This has been recognized as the case with blogspot.com and it seems like it wouldn't be a bad thing to do to all domains.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> What I really want is to read the descriptions within my RSS reader, but this 'll do too.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'd like to see it show the host _after_ redirect, too. Some people have posted links that are FeedBurner or Google feed proxy redirects to content on blogs, and you get "google.com" or "feedburner.com" showing up as the host on HN.

</comment><comment><USER7> i vote for i like it the way it is. less clutter and it's just a hover away if i really want to know the full url</comment>


Technology is finally getting political. And that's a good thing - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.co.uk/article/editors-letter-bumble-sexism <comment><USER2> > _...And that's a good thing_

I was expecting some kind of persuasive essay that would try to convince me why technology "getting political" would be a "good thing", which I may or may not agree with. Instead, it was _very_ short post that basically boiled down to a plug for their WIRED Live event. A misleading title and a waste of my time.

</comment><comment><USER3> Politics has been very good for WIRED click rate.</comment>


10,000 Shipping Containers Lost At Sea Each Year… Here's a Look At One - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2011/04/05/10000-shipping-containers-lost-at-sea-each-year-heres-a-look-at-one-2/ <comment><USER2> Some of this aricle reads as if the author is a little naiive as to how container ports work, and just assumes that the cargo industry hasn't thought about these problems. There's plenty of room for innovation in cargo, but don't pretend that the people involved have never thought of the problem of losing containers at sea.

For example, I'm a little surprised by their recommendation that RFID chips be added to containers to prevent mis-loading, as if the current practice is to just randomly grab containers from stacks waiting by the shore.

There is already very sophisticated software (MACS3, or more specifically SEALASH that calculates the force added by an extra container on top of the stack) that does this stuff. There are also programs that read the numbers on containers as they go on and off the vessels, so that they are loaded onto the right trucks at the destination at the right time. If heavy containers end up on top, it's because they need to be removed first or were delivered last--- that's a problem that can be solved, but it's a more complex problem than just adding an RFID tag to everything.

<comment><USER3> I'm an engineer on a ship and while I don't work on a container ship, I took a cargo class in college. There are other considerations too, the software frequently accounts for things such as not putting chemicals that react poorly with each other near each other or things that may be hard to put out if they catch on fire near the top of stacks on the outside so they can be jettisoned in an emergency. Also, while no one weighs each container, its part of the process for people doing the shipping to say what is in it and how much it weighs. They can probably fudge the weight a little but the software takes into account the reported weight to make sure the ship has safe stability. Containers stored inside are dryer and less likely to be lost overboard which normally is a premium price for shipping too. Plus as you mentioned the logistics problem of not putting all the new stuff on top of stuff that gets taken off at an earlier port.

<comment><USER4> I wonder if it's possible to choose a route, time of year and container position that would almost guarantee container loss? Some people would be prepared to ship something a few times to have it lost at the bottom of the ocean I'm sure.

Perhaps easier to just bribe the captain?

<comment><USER3> Well I suppose it depends on your intention? I mean scientists are dropping buoys and AUVs and what not in the water all the time, you might be able to convince one of them to toss it overboard for free. Also, there is a fairly big sub-industry of weather routing which have very sophisticated meteorological models and what not to help shipping companies route their ships around crappy weather to avoid losses to cargo and damage to ships. Some of the new ships though are so large that for the most part they're able to weather even the larger storms a bit better so they're just going through instead of around. Save some fuel, lose a container, probably an environmental tie.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My immediate thought was to assemble a crew of displaced fishermen to hunt and retrieve these shipping containers to sell at a discount. I suppose water damage would be too great for any products of value (electronics) though.

</comment><comment><USER6> The artificial-reef situation should be fairly well understood and expected, right? I mean, New York City was dumping old subway cars in the Atlantic for this express purpose for years and years.

Though the idea that an eventual 'trail' of such items might link habitats to dire consequence is an interesting thought.

</comment><comment><USER7> At any given time there are between five and six million containers in transit. There are around 200 million container-journeys per year[1]. That we lose just 10,000 a year is a minor miracle.

[1]Levinson (2006), The Box.

<comment><AUTHOR> So that comes out to a 50ppm loss, or a 99.995% containers _not_ lost... most industries are _very_ happy with a 4.5-nines yield!

<comment><USER8> Would you mind if I gave you 5-nines yield as I walked my plutonium through your vegetable garden?

<comment><USER9> That is a pretty strange analogy, but I suppose if the world economy depended on you trampling my imaginary vegetables, I suppose I would be pretty happy with 5-nines.

<comment><USER8> Strange because the ocean is not a source of food?

Or because containers are not potential sources of concentrated toxins?

Who ever said I was trampling your vegetables? I'm merely making transit through your garden.

The effects of my analogy are likely more extreme than what is actually occurring. But like all analogies, its purpose is to emphasize a particular characteristic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The article asserts that heavy containers placed on top are more likely to be flung into the sea. Is that really true? What if it was actually better to load heavy containers on top? Or heavy containers around the edges with lighter ones in the middle. More valuable cargo in the middle? What is the optimal shipping container arrangement?

Do shippers have software that tells them where to place the containers or is it more or less random?

</comment><comment><USER11> Fascinating.

I wonder what kind of toxic chemicals are filling the ocean floor fresh from China, etc.

</comment><comment><USER12> The intern had also discovered a vague little article from the late Sixties saying that Basco had put some "junk machinery" on the floor of the Harbor, giving the usual feeble excuse.

"They claim that this junk was going to become a habitat for marine life. You don't buy that?"

Bless her, she did know how to blow my lid. "Rebecca, goddamnit, since the beginning of time, every corporation that has ever thrown any of its shit into the ocean has claimed that it was going to become a habitat for marine life. It's the goddamn ocean, Rebecca. That's where all the marine life is. Of course it's going to become a habitat for marine life."

\- Neal Stephenson, Zodiac

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Does make one awe struck that so much human output/wealth can end up at the bottom of the sea, and still be considered just the cost of doing business.

</comment><comment><USER14> I had no idea. Very cool. I think that if I were a sea creature I might like a new home. But this won't be so funny when shipping-container sized crabs ascend onto L.A.</comment>


"Our New Old Enemies" By Ralph Peters - <AUTHOR> http://www.usamhi.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/99summer/peters1.htm

<comment><AUTHOR> Three key points:

"Our enemies of the future will be enemies out of the past.

The Bible does not sugarcoat man's nature. Faith is not required--read it as a secular history and you will get a better picture of the very human enemies our soldiers will face in the next century than any work of contemporary scholarship or speculation provides. From child warriors to fanatics who revel in slaughter, man's future is written in man's past.

Still, if you are uneasy with the Old Testament as a catalog of human behaviors, substitute another work, the Iliad. It is the fountainhead of our civilization's secular literature. That epic begins with an argument over raping rights, proceeds through slaughter and betrayal, and has genocide as its goal. It is about the wreckage of Yugoslavia."</comment>


How to Build a Slack Command with Claudia Bot Builder - <AUTHOR> http://www.marcusoft.net/2016/06/claudia-bot-builder.html <comment><USER2> This made bot deployment much easier than before, spares additional time needed for tricky deployment and allows to focus on bot development.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a step in right direction, providing the pluming while I can focus on how to humanize bot communication.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> if anyone has questions, feel free to ask, some of us developers are here - like a "ask me anything" :)

</comment><comment><USER4> Nice!</comment>


Google Code Blog: Chrome Extensions for Web Development - <AUTHOR> http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2010/05/chrome-extensions-for-web-development.html The page that features Chrome extensions for web development: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/featured/web_dev <comment><USER2> Omnibus-response to previous comments:

\- The ability to intercept and modify requests is indeed missing. We've had some proposals for how to add that to our APIs, but nothing concrete yet.

\- We're working on the ability to manipulate the cookie store: [http://src.chromium.org/cgi- bin/gitweb.cgi?p=chromium.git;a=...](http://src.chromium.org/cgi- bin/gitweb.cgi?p=chromium.git;a=blob;f=chrome/common/extensions/api/extension_api.json;h=c6094b6020d96b554ced8403e8dab57df1347fc2;hb=HEAD#l2761)

\- The browser cache isn't something we've ever even thought about before. Thanks for bringing it up.

</comment><comment><USER3> There doesn't seem to be a Chrome equivalent to "Live HTTP Headers" for Firefox.

Viewing, logging, replaying, and manipulating HTTP headers is an absolute _must_ for many web developers.

Wireshark is fantastic, but having this feature embedded in the browser is very useful.

<comment><USER4> It would be great, but the API support is not there, which is why there aren't any extensions to spoof your user-agent either. Compared to Firefox extensions (which basically let you do everything), Chrome extensions are much more fine- grained and can only use APIs specifically designed for use with extensions. There are several features that Chrome extensions developers have been requesting, such as this and the ability to prevent elements from being loaded (which is why there is no noscript and all the ad blockers are only half-baked solutions)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm happy to see Chris Pederick's _Web Developer_ has been ported.

[https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/bfbameneiokkgbdm...](https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/bfbameneiokkgbdmiekhjnmfkcnldhhm)

<comment><USER6> It's missing a ton of the functionality from the FF version where Chrome doesn't offer comparable APIs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Firebug has set the bar for in browser web development tools. Until something can offer the same or better abilities as Firebug, I'm sticking with Firefox and Firebug for my web dev.

<comment><USER8> Have you checked out the Web Inspector, built into Chrome and Safari? In my experience so far the only place it falls behind Firebug is in CSS editing, in every other way it seems superior. I'd be interested if you disagree.

More info: <http://webkit.org/blog/829/web-inspector-updates/>

<comment><USER7> I'll have to check out the built in developer tools more. live CSS editing is one of the main things I use Firebug for , for me, that is a big feature to be missing.

I do love the "Event Listeners" feature in the Developer Tools. That is very handy for easily finding what javascript events are unobtrusively bound to an element. So I can definitely see myself using the webkit developer tools in the near future.

<comment><USER9> It's a hack, but you can just edit the element inline (by double or right clicking the element under the "Elements" tag) and edit the styles via style="".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What constantly seems missing is a way to change the user agent header. There is User-Agent Switcher for Chrome, but it only changes the Agent for JavaScript on the page - the header sent to the server is still the original one.

Presumably this is a limitation of the API provided to the extensions.

<comment><USER9> Run chrome from the command line

google-chrome --user-agent="Ipad"

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'd like to start using Chrome for everything (currently I use Chrome for browsing, FF for dev) but until I can clear the cache with a single button AND be able to quickly delete the cookies for the domain I'm on at the time, I gotta keep using FF with webdev toolbar.

</comment><comment><USER12> I really wish I were able to use SpeedTracer on Chrome and without having to append "--enable-extension-timeline-api" to the command line flag.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here is the extensions page: <https://chrome.google.com/extensions/featured/web_dev>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Could someone explain why Speed Tracer shows some "Script Evaluation" even for plain vanilla HTML pages with no <script> tags? I see two scripts: the first one has the URL field blank, while the second one reads "chrome- extension://ognampngfcbddbfemdapefohjiobgbdl/data_loader.js".

Thanks!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> It's interesting that Google hasn't incorporated some of these extensions into their devtools.

<comment><USER13> Looks like that's going to happen soon. Speed Tracer is likely to become a part of Chrome's inspector, for instance.</comment></comment>


The Unbearable Triviality Of Social Networking - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.forbes.com/rogerkay/2011/04/18/the-unbearable-triviality-of-social-networking/ <comment><USER2> Existential crisis alert: as more and more of our lives are conducted in the "unreal" world of social networking, we will increasingly start to question the nature of our "real" lives.

I think that a lot of the backlash against social networking is the product of cognitive dissonance; Specifically that Facebook so efficiently reveals our significance (or otherwise) in the wider world. Facebook is perhaps the first technology that reveals to us that the major events in our own lives are, on the macro scale, merely background noise. Learning of an old friend giving birth seems very much less significant when we learn of it not through direct communication but through a wall post that is read by 600 other "friends".

Space travel gave us the ability to see our own world from afar, revealing to us the fragility of our world and the insignificance of human existence when seen from a cosmic scale. Many astronauts describe being profoundly changed by seeing the "blue marble" for themselves.

Perhaps these vertiginous experiences, these sudden shifts in perspective will occur more frequently with the advance of technology. Perhaps the opposite will occur and with the decline in mass media we will become increasingly insular and narcissistic. Perhaps our reaction to being able to see the sum of all human life will be to shield our eyes from it. We live in interesting times.

<comment><USER3> I don't relate to this. I finally pulled out of social networking altogether based on the fact that it made everything too significant, not too insignificant. Most of what is posted on twitter or on facebook walls would normally be kept to one's self; it was already insignificant. Now people are commenting on, debating, and retweeting stuff that might have been worth mentioning while trying to make conversation over lunch, but certainly not worth calling anybody to tell.

Note that I post this as a comment on a comment of a news-aggregating site's comment thread on a blog (at least I'm hoping it's a blog and not a print column) hosted by website of the print magazine Forbes written by a columnist who wrote an essay debating the significance of a tweet (or class of personal emissions of which this tweet was representive) written by a guy who decided to delete 100 of his 300 apps.

Over lunch, mentioning that you just deleted 100 of the 300 apps on your iphone might be a spark for a good five minutes of conversation. On the internet, it sparks existential crises all over the world.

EDIT: I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself well here. I really, deeply, truly, honestly don't want to know that Scoble deleted 100 of his apps. I can also wait up to two years before finding out whether old friends have had children without losing any of the "oh, that's nice" feeling that I'll have upon hearing it. Facebook and Twitter seem to addict people to a stream of trivialities that wouldn't be worth turning over for in isolation. It might have to do with the fact that an orgasm is made up of x number of rubs.

<comment><USER4> There are definitely two conflicting forces at work here - social networking making every action seem both insignificant (in comparison to the barrage of updates we receive every day) while also making almost every event quite significant (Hundreds of comments, comments on comments, etc). But one force might not necessarily prevail over the other - they can work it tandem, leading to interesting results.

One issue with jdietrich's initial comment is that his views on social networking revealing our true insignificance assume that the selves we display in the "unreal" world of social networking are, in fact, accurate representations of our "real world" selves; in reality, this is hardly the case. I know I've caught myself thinking "How will this Tweet or that FB update make me look to my friends/followers..." - hardly a parallel of how one lives and presents themselves in the unpredictable, variable real world.

This, in my mind, is the product of the conflicting forces of exaggerated significance / insignificance - the intense crafting of our online personalities. We've seen the blue marble - have realized that with all of the white noise, we must seem better, funnier, more interesting, to break through the noise. Yet at the same time we know that, should we actually get noticed, we will get noticed in a serious way - hundreds or thousands of people might see our update. The pressure is on.

As I see it, this is the product of these two conflicting forces: A high- pressure culture, a culture of scrutiny wherein every action and sentence is specifically crafted and cultivated. Orwell's 1984 comes to mind, but rather than Big Brother watching over everyone, it is the public that constantly watches each other.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Yes, what you find on social networks is frequently trivial. For that matter, what most people talk about at family reunions is mostly trivial and what most people talk about at the local bar is even more trivial.

Also, yes, you can overuse social networks just as it is easy to overuse the local bar.

Used in moderation though, social networks, facebook in particular, have helped me keep in touch with many of my more distant relations that I otherwise would likely see and talk to only at weddings and funerals. It has helped me reconnect with friends from high school and college that I probably would have forgotten about.

Overall, I have found that, used in moderation, social networks and Facebook in particular have helped to enrish my social life and help me keep in touch with people that matter to me, and if the price of that is dealing with some triviality, I will pay it gladly.

<comment><USER6> Another perspective on the same basic point: The average neural message transmitted in your brain is trivial. What arises from the sum total of those messages is not. But there is probably no way to get to human-scale cognition without a lot of triviality at lower layers. There's probably no way to have a civil human society without these "trivialities", and if that is true, are they _really_ trivial interactions?

Declarations of triviality encode an embedded value scheme that may or may not have actual utility for any purpose. I hesitate to label things "trivial"; it may be missing the forest for the trivial leaves.

I don't do Facebook for various reasons, but I don't look down on those who do use it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Calling out social networking for being trivial is a bad analysis of what social networking is all about. Your social networking experience is defined by your friends and what you choose to socialize about. Scoble is socializing about mobile apps, and technology. I'm sure he has a whole raft of very insightful posts, balanced by more mundane ones like the example in the article.

In my experience, some friends post consistently interesting and thought provoking links and paragraphs. Others post about their coffee habits. That mirrors my "real life" experience of interacting with them. Why is there this expectation that online socializing should be inherently more profound than real life socializing?

<comment><USER8> I agree with your basic sentiment that social networking is driven by the tenor and tone of your real life friendships and interests. However, it differs from real-world socializing in that it is a broadcast model rather than a conversation model. When you and I meet for coffee, the cost of telling you about my new 19t Surly steel cog is, shall we say, two minutes. We only have so much time for coffee, and I ought to spend half of it listening to you, so am I going to decide that the cog is worth two minutes of our limited time to tell only one person about it?

But online, I appear to have unlimited time to broadcast what I want to say. If I spend two minutes on the cog, it takes away from two minutes of the Real World, but it doesn't appear to take away from our limited time together, and I blast it out to all my friends, some of whom may care.

I believe this gives me an incentive to talk about fairly trivial stuff that doesn't exist in the face-to-face world.

<comment><USER9> I had to google "Surly steel cog."

<comment><USER10> That's actually another advantage of online interaction. In real life, you wouldn't be able to google something mid-conversation, so you'd basically need to sidetrack the conversation to be brought up to speed.

<comment><USER11> Or disadvantage. It's far easier to ask what a Surley steel cog is than to force a cognitive break to go look something up. You'll probably get a better answer too.

And you can also avoid the inevitable 30 minute trek through Wikipedia as you get distracted and end up looking at what other types of cogs you've been missing out on. And don't even start looking at sprokets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Overheard at the bar:

Person: "Greg, if you're not on facebook you're missing like 50% of world". Greg: "Is there some way that I could miss 75%?"

</comment><comment><USER13> Guys, thank you for your comments. I appreciate your understanding. Please note, however, that there is some irony in the piece, aside from the seriousness rightly accorded to the incident of the inattentive mother.

<comment><USER14> Your post will definitely get a lot of attention. I'm sure you know that. It's a good discussion we need to have. However, I think you could have used a little less irony and a lot more balance if you really wanted to get something across besides a rant.

Ultimately, one person's "triviality" is another's passion. The problem with social networking isn't it's triviality. It's that to consume what's important to us, we have to find it through all the "noise"--whatever that may mean to each individual. It used to be that we didn't have this problem because when two people meet, or a group for that matter, they immediately find a middle ground and talk about what's important to all. Such context breaks down when we broadcast information online.

This problem I feel will be solved in the years to come. Disclaimer: I'm working on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> One of the biggest dilemmas in this industry I keep thinking about is: if I'm the creator of a platform for an unprecedented, and potentially addictive, online social experience, should I care if people overuse my product and try to educate them somehow, or should I keep coming up with incentives to make them use it more and more?

In other words, does the user own the entire responsibility for the amount of time he spends on social networks? Or it would be a good idea (on the moral side of the issue, anyway) if the makers provided a way for the consumers to limit their usage?

<comment><USER16> Well I can tell you that this is my top reason for not selling weed.

I don't really care if it's the fault of the addict or the dealer. If there's a problem and I can easily help fix it, I probably should.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> summary ... social networking is nice but society can abuse it. I'm doing it the right way, everybody should do it how I do it.

What a waste of my 5 minutes.

</comment><comment><USER18> Did it bother anyone else that their anchor tags included the space following the words?

</comment><comment><USER19> He (and I) likes to be active, others like to watch YouTube videos.

To each their own.

</comment><comment><USER20> A Milan Kundera reference in Forbes magazine... The world must be approaching its end, then :)

</comment><comment><USER21> Agreed. Nothing more be said.

</comment><comment><USER22> This article is worth a retweet</comment>


Intel Announces 10th Gen Core CPUs - <AUTHOR> https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/processors/core/10th-gen-processors.html <comment><USER2> CPU cores same as 6th (7th, 8th, 9th) gen, no new features

4 socket changes, no new features</comment>


What would a disruptive bank look like? - grey-area http://jackgavigan.com/2014/04/14/disruptive-bank/ <comment><AUTHOR> (article was written in 2014)

In case anyone missed it; yesterday Mondo completed a £1m raise on Crowdcube in 96 seconds.

[https://twitter.com/getmondo/status/705378846862876672](https://twitter.com/getmondo/status/705378846862876672)

</comment><comment><USER2> 100% gold back deposits. Would only loan money to people who can prove they do not need the money.</comment>


Ask HN: What's the greatest thing on the Internet? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Currently, Google. Not necessarily because they are world-leading trendsetters in all things internetty, but because they have acted as the ultimate facilitators in internet-related development over the past decade. Whether you like Google or not, the online world wouldn't be what it is without their contributions (and investments, and acquisitions).

</comment><comment><USER3> Huge collection of porn.

Seriously though, I would say the fact that in theory, we can have knowledge accessible by anyone on the planet, and that's awesome. I believe on day it will.

</comment><comment><USER4> The end-to-end architecture of the IP layer, enabling the level playing field for new apps and protocols, and letting anyone be a content provider or p2p node.

</comment><comment><USER5> [http://www.zombo.com](http://www.zombo.com)

</comment><comment><USER6> The Internet itself. For all the big greatest things and little nothing things in it.

</comment><comment><USER7> Hacker News of course!

</comment><comment><USER8> The Collective Mind

</comment><comment><USER9> Wikipedia.

</comment><comment><USER10> Reddit.

</comment><comment><USER11> Google

</comment><comment><USER12> humans

</comment><comment><USER13> Me

<comment><USER13> Or cats

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> porn</comment>


Show HN: Turn any song into a Christmas song - <AUTHOR> http://jinglefy.me <comment><AUTHOR> Creator here. This has been a fun little project. I used reactjs with react- easy-state for the front-end, and then chose to roll my own url shortener for the links. I still have a long list of features & fixes to implement yet, but this should be _mostly_ functional for _most_ users.

There is no help doc yet, so basically in the "Track" area, you press the "SINGLE-CLICK TO RECORD" button once while the video is playing, and it will record a sleigh bell at that point. If you play the video back over that point, you should hear the sleigh bell.

During playback, press and hold the "HOLD TO ERASE" button, and your previously-recorded bells will be erased.

Some known issues: \- basically NO mobile support at the moment \- doesn't work in Safari

If you tweet your creations, I'll add them to my timeline for others to see. I'm looking forward to seeing your creations, comments, and constructive criticisms!

Thanks!!!

</comment><comment><USER2> Its neat... The process not being automated was confusing for me. Good work though, it works.</comment>


Chrome Mostly Outperforms Safari 5 in JavaScript Benchmarks - <AUTHOR> http://gavinroy.com/how-does-safari-5s-javascript-performance-sta

<comment><USER2> But: Safari 5 has hardware accelerated graphics on both Mac and Windows for HTML5 video. Which I imagine is as relevant to most people, even geeks like me, as a 10-20% speedup in Javascript.

For example, watch the video at <http://videojs.com/> in full screen on Chrome and Safari. Last time I checked it looked way better in Safari. That said, Chrome team moves fast and maybe they will have it fixed soon.

If you're interested in progress you can track the issue here: <http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=38969>

<comment><USER3> Not only video but also hardware-accelerated CSS animations and 3D transforms. Safari has the most advanced graphics architecture of any browser right now, and all the major browsers are working on catching up.

Firefox's plan: [http://www.basschouten.com/blog1.php/2010/01/18/layers- cross...](http://www.basschouten.com/blog1.php/2010/01/18/layers-cross- platform-acceleration)

IE's plan: [http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/04/09/benefits-of- gp...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/04/09/benefits-of-gpu-powered- html5.aspx)

Opera hasn't publicly announced hardware-accelerated graphics yet, but they are moving to a new codebase that could support it in theory: <http://my.opera.com/core/blog/2009/02/04/vega>

Chrome actually seems like the least far along right now, which seems odd given their focus on performance. Some of the work was done for them by Apple in WebKit, but there's still a lot to be done.

<comment><USER4> According to this <http://labs.opera.com/news/2009/12/22/> Opera already moved to the new codebase, but still no hardware acceleration at the moment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm getting kind of sick about hearing about how browser X outperforms browser Y in Z JavaScript performance test. It's good to know that the browser developers are continuing to push JS performance--it's important that it gets better and better--but essentially every browser except maybe IE (haven't used it in years, can't speak to it) has comparable real-world JS performance.

I choose to use Safari because it's the browser that feels the most Mac-like, has ClickToFlash and 1Password, has great H.264 video performance, has a great interface, continues to support the newest web standards, never crashes, and is already familiar to me. As long as it isn't horrendously slower than other browsers, JS performance just isn't a concern to me--it has little real effect on my day to day browsing compared to everything I just listed.

<comment><AUTHOR> The reason why I did this was because Apple is touting Safari 5 as being "The Worlds Fastest Browser" and specifically said "Powered by the Nitro JavaScript engine, Safari 5 on the Mac runs JavaScript up to 30 percent faster than Safari 4, 3 percent faster than Chrome 5.0,"

<http://www.apple.com/safari/whats-new.html#performance>

<comment><USER5> It more of a meta-comment about the genre of articles that yours loosely fit under :).

I missed the fact that you were actually referencing a claim made by Apple-- sorry for jumping to conclusions!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> ... though WebKit's nightly outperforms both.

Chrome updates _far_ more frequently than Safari, is it any surprise it's ahead slightly?

<comment><USER7> Considering they just released Safari 5 yesterday, it seems that it should be as up to date as recent Chrome releases.

<comment><USER8> Apple probably locked down on a stable build of WebKit weeks ago. Google has the luxury of staged rollouts with rollback if necessary, so they can take more risk with WebKit builds.

<comment><USER7> Is 'weeks' really that long? So we have to compare it to the version of Chrome released two days ago, and not last month?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I can see one problem with these benchmarks - you test dev version of Chrome and compare it with stable/released version of Safari...

Having said that - I'm using Chrome 6 on my Mac - it _feels_ faster then Safari 5.

<comment><AUTHOR> Edit: updated to reflect 5.0.375 with little impact to the numbers.

<comment><USER10> I'm not sure that you should be using the "recommended tests" option of Dromaeo, since that option includes SunSpider and V8 Bench. We already know the results of those tests (since you ran them separately), so maybe you should just run the Dromaeo-specific tests.

<comment><AUTHOR> Edit: Do you think it would skew things that much? It seems to show a much wider disparity with Chrome hitting > 5k runs per second and Safari 5 hitting only 308... My only concern about that is the appearance of cherry picking results instead of using their recommended tests.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> One thing nobody ever mentions, but I always notice is how much more CPU power Chrome takes on my macbook. It's a few years old and anything remotely CPU intensive causes my fan to go nuts. I actually like Chrome better (I like the interface, and it's faster) but I stay with Safari because it doesn't hog my CPU...

</comment><comment><USER12> Do we really care that much? I think people pick browsers for more reasons than just "speed".

</comment><comment><USER13> My experience has been Safari 5 is more stable and snappier than Chrome on OS X. This outweighs the extra JavaScript execution speed in Chrome.

<comment><USER14> It's also much more stable on Windows for me. In Chrome a lot of websites just crash the tab (and bring down a few other tabs as well usually - so much about separate processes).

<comment><USER15> >so much about separate processes

I think the process is per-domain, not per-tab.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Personally, I use 4 different browsers at once when I'm on my Mac. Aside from the interfaces, I can't tell much of a difference between any of them. Sadly, I must admit that Firefox on the Mac is a bit lacking in polish.

</comment><comment><USER17> It also doesn't crash when I use PivotalTracker.</comment>


Ask HN: Personal Health Insurance for Software Consultants - <AUTHOR>

I'm tired of bouncing in and out of health coverage when I leave companies and move around.  Can anyone recommend a good, affordable personal health plan that makes sense for the wandering hacker lifestyle?  Are there any progressive, forward thinking startups addressing this niche? <comment><USER2> The short answer is that one probably doesn't exist. Health insurance is largely done on a state by state basis. There are good reasons for this. Mainly, the biggest benefit of any health insurance plan is not the insurance itself but the negotiated discount for in-network care. You get this discount even with the cheapest high deductible plan. Also, for major procedures and extended hospitalizations the insurance company workds closely with the health providers and it helps to be local. And going with the cheapest provider usually means cheap customer service as well.

People like to be critical of health insurance companies and I'm sure it is well deserved in some cases but when my daughter was in the NICU for a week after she was born the health insurance company was the most efficient and helpful part of the process. And it ended up costing me several thousand dollars less than I thought it would.

Here's the only way I could think of to make a larger plan work. Work with the existing health insurance companies to get to use their networks and their claims processing. Pay them a percentage. They may just work with you since there is no risk to them, the multi-state company is the one paying the claims.

Of course, the capital required to start an insurance company is immense. I personally would never trust my claims to a small startup.

</comment><comment><USER3> I am a wandering hacker, as you describe. Many years ago I joined the Air National Guard (part time -- one weekend a month, two weeks a year). They offer a very good health insurance program for less than $60/month. You read that right! It's pretty unbelievable, and is one of the reasons I stay in. It is subsidized by the taxpayer, of course, so I really do thank all of you. Some people say that not many doctors accept the plan (called Tricare), but I live near a university hospital, and I've had no trouble at all with them taking it. Physical therapists took it, too. The cost for a family is around $250/month, and the dental plan is $12/month.

The Guard is now getting into cyber work. I am not part of that, but you might want to check it out. The Guard has been one of the best things I've ever done. I have made great friends, and it's never really interfered with my civilian career.

<comment><AUTHOR> hmmm, interesting. What kind of commitments do you have to make?

<comment><USER4> The steady state commitment is "one weekend a month, two weeks a year." There are, however, boundary value and perturbation exceptions, i.e.: (1) At the beginning of your service, you will have to go to either basic training or officer training school. For heaven's sake, be an officer: pay is better and life is better. This school is several weeks long, and is full time. (2) If there is a national or local emergency, you could be on the hook to be asked or ordered to serve. In my experience, this occurs about once every 10 years. Balancing these demands on your time, however, are: (a) When times are lean in the civilian world, you can usually find openings to get put on orders and get some income, (b) I have made fantastic lifelong friends in the Guard, which rarely happens in the civilian workplace, (c) a great pension plan if you stay in 20 years. There are Guard recruiters in every town. If I were you, I'd look at cyber opportunities. It is one of the few areas in the military where spending is going to go up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Health Insurance (in the US) requires significantly more capital than a startup is ever likely to acquire. In addition, large financial reserves must be maintained - most of the cash cannot be converted to rocket fuel.</comment>


Governments Have Destroyed Housing Affordability in Many Places - <AUTHOR> https://mises.org/wire/governments-have-destroyed-housing-affordability-many-places-%E2%80%94-some-refuges-remain <comment><USER2> The State of California should erect warning signs at the border that read something like this: "Welcome to California! Just remember that we got here before you did, and we're going to screw you every chance we get."

</comment><comment><USER3> "mises.org", huh

<comment><AUTHOR> Your point being ...?</comment></comment>


Introduction to Cyber Security - <AUTHOR> https://cybersecuritybase.github.io/ <comment><USER2> ___Total plug on similar topic_ __

In a similar vein, we recently built Umbrella App - which has has tons of simple, easily accessible lessons on digital and physical security issues (from sending a secure email to dealing with a kidnap). It 's designed to help make security easier for travellers, journalists, activists on the move. It's open source and available here:

-[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.secfirst.u...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.secfirst.umbrella)

-[https://www.amazon.com/Security-First-Umbrella-made-easy/dp/...](https://www.amazon.com/Security-First-Umbrella-made-easy/dp/B01AKN9M1Y)

-[https://secfirst.org/fdroid/repo](https://secfirst.org/fdroid/repo)

The raw content is CC and available here for reuse: [https://github.com/securityfirst](https://github.com/securityfirst)

More info: [https://www.secfirst.org](https://www.secfirst.org)

 __ _Ends total plug on similar topic_ __:)

<comment><USER3> I loved your app when I last checked it on FDroid. What is the angle of the Security First group? Is this a startup? I think the idea is interesting and deal tangetially with digital literacy and thought apps like yours are great for such things, but I fail to see how you can convert this into a business beyond funnelling people into your training and consulting stuff, like your website suggests.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for your nice comment! :)

There's lots of elements at work here but essentially the business model is:

a) Always be ethical, open source and build using grants etc to expand Umbrella's feature set, languages, content etc etc.

b) Diversify by building customisations and white-label versions of the app for large NGO's, various international organisations and commercial businesses. We've already had a lot of interest in this. In that context we are a bit less about the app as a learning tool and more about the security management features which don't exist anywhere else (commercially or open source).

c) Expand on the training and consulting stuff, which at present is going quite well but is pretty hard to scale extensively as it's very person intensive.

<comment><USER3> Your model is interesting and I find your idea inspiring. I am sure it is a tough market.

Would love to read more as an amateur coder and budding infosec guy.

<comment><USER2> Thanks, always happy to answer questions!

 __ _Note to self, really need to update our documentation and FAQ stuff_ __

<comment><USER3> Perhaps people like me ought to help you with that. Will check you on GH this weekend.

<comment><USER2> Cool, if you need any more info please drop me a mail to the address in my profile! :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting set of materials, and it's great to see these being more readily published and made available to anyone.

I was a bit disappointed with the depth of the introduction course's materials, though. Perhaps the other courses that are scheduled to be available soon will do a better job, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of substance within the available materials and the assignments don't require much thought (or even appear relevant - the question about mnemonic lists doesn't really address anything security related).

It could perhaps simply be because it's an introduction course, but I expected the introduction to cover basics such as password security, the confidentiality/integrity/availability model of aspects of a system that can be compromised, approaches for authenticating users (lattice access control, roles, differences between MAC and DAC etc) and other similar theory. Further courses can delve into the details of cryptography, common security vulnerabilities and such. Some of the linked materials are a bit more useful but I don't think I'd have personally taken this course if I only had the introduction to make a decision from.

<comment><USER5> They have to start somewhere.

Obviously, you and I and other HN'ers are almost certainly not the target audience for this course.

> _This material contains the introduction part of the course series ..._

I took this to mean that there will be much, much more to come -- both in _this_ course as well as _additional_ courses in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you're looking for a more CS intensive cyber security introduction, I would recommend OpenSecurityTraining at [http://opensecuritytraining.info/](http://opensecuritytraining.info/)

They dive deep into reverse engineering, assembly, and other CS intensive topics.

<comment><USER7> Interesting, thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> When I enter my email and press subscribe I get - "The information you have entered on this page will be sent over an insecure connection and could be read by a third party.

Are you sure you want to send this information?" [http://prntscr.com/cyvlhc](http://prntscr.com/cyvlhc)

really guys? really?

<comment><USER9> Thanks, fixed. :|

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This seems like it's more on the IS/business side of things. Any particular recommendations on why I should take this as a CS senior?

<comment><USER9> Hi! I'm Arto, one of the individuals responsible for the course. The first part of the course series is more on the IS side. The latter parts, including the one starting next week are more hands on, and include security and software development -related content as well as more advanced theory things such as cryptography and machine learning methods for log mining. As a CS senior, I would likely take the course as it (depending on my institution) combines topics from multiple CS courses and looks at them through a specific phenomenon -- it might, in the end, be even fun.

<comment><USER10> Thanks for clarifying! I'll give it a try.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The kickoff event of the course [https://www.helsinki.fi/fi/unitube/video/20543](https://www.helsinki.fi/fi/unitube/video/20543)

</comment><comment><USER12> Personally I just bought a mid-year textbook on cyber security from the University of Waterloo and I'm making my way through it. It's surprising how bad cyber security is, but so much of it is right there in the pages of this book. It's like finding out you can buy a Patriot missile for $250 and some spare time in the evenings.

edit: And of course this book would be unapproachable had it not been for the work I've done in engineering, software development, and machine learning.

<comment><USER13> What about machine learning is relevant to this textbook ?

<comment><USER12> Well the current state of the art in security is using techniques from ML towards intelligent vulnerability detection and intrusion (if you're team red), as well as intelligent detection of intrusion (if you're team blue). These are much easier to understand if you've written a classifier before.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I would love to see OpenBadges integration and push university students and naughty employees when they keep doing dumb stuff on the network to take more useful courses like this instead of the watered down corporate crap I see for punishment, instead of educating people away from hacking attempts.

<comment><USER9> Thanks! This is a good idea, we'll look into it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've seen lots of courses like this. [https://www.securityjourney.com/](https://www.securityjourney.com/) [https://new-www.securecodewarrior.com/](https://new- www.securecodewarrior.com/) Coursera and Udacity have a bunch too.

Can anyone explain what's special about this University of Helsinki one that it made it to the front page of HN?

<comment><USER15> Not sure, but it might be the celebratory factor. (Given that both UoH and F-secure are involved, it's a good bet that Mikko Hyppönen is involved in this somehow, who is a pretty famous security expert).

<comment><USER16> Looks like Mikko is involved [https://twitter.com/mikko/status/790814411468472320](https://twitter.com/mikko/status/790814411468472320)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Nice. However, my employer is happy to reimburse me some $4k per class at a traditional university, but will not pony up one dime for an online MOOC course.

<comment><USER18> Good thing it's free then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> It look like formal credits can be collected with this course (each module is worth 1 ECTS), but it doesn't mention how to do so. Does anybody know?

<comment><USER9> Hello! (I'm one of the instructors) -- If you're currently residing in Finland, you can get them through the University of Helsinki Open University (I know...). We'll post more details on this shortly.

If you're residing elsewhere, contact your local institution and ask if they'd be willing to accept the course as a part of your studies.</comment></comment>


Criminals could alter their DNA to evade justice with new genetic editing tools - <AUTHOR> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/05/05/criminals-could-alter-dna-evade-justice-new-genetic-editing/ <comment><USER2> I can´t pass the paywall or get another source. Did he really made the test after taking the CRISP and evade the match, or it is only an speculation?

If this report is false (or an exaggeration) I'm worry that this can be used by a prosecutor to support "partial matches" of DNA that is already a dubious technique.</comment>


Deploying 15 MB Node.js VMs Effortlessly to AWS - <AUTHOR> https://boxfuse.com/blog/nodejs-aws <comment><USER2> 19 MB with docker+alpine [https://hub.docker.com/r/dahlb/alpine- node/tags/](https://hub.docker.com/r/dahlb/alpine-node/tags/)

Update: 6.7MB when compressed [https://github.com/mhart/alpine- node](https://github.com/mhart/alpine-node)

<comment><AUTHOR> And a base AMI when running on AWS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> If I understand it right the magic sauce of Boxfuse is the minimization of the app, stripping it down from all the unneeded dependencies. Is this correct or are there other things that are difficult to replicate? Did anybody here already used it with Java?

Thinking about AWS Lambda, which is billed per time and per RAM, minimizing an application sounds good because less modules to load mean less RAM and less money.

<comment><AUTHOR> Boxfuse founder and CEO here.

Your app is not modified. What is missing here is all the unnecessary baggage that comes with general purpose operating systems.

<comment><USER4> Any thought of supporting Django? Deployment is one of the more off-putting things there; looks like this approach could greatly simplify things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So, essentially microkernel for node? If so, any thoughts on joyents public rant about microkernels not being suitable for production?

<comment><USER6> As the ranter in question, a very important correction: my concerns were about _unikernels_ , not _microkernels_. That these two are conflated is tragic (and ironic) because they actually live on opposite ends of a belief spectrum: unikernels believe that everything should be in the kernel for performance reasons; microkernels believe that essentially nothing should in the kernel for robustness reasons. Speaking personally, I am a microkernel believer (I worked at QNX back in the day and can tell you that microkernels are in production all around you and in safety-critical capacities) -- but I am (obviously) a unikernel skeptic.</comment></comment>


The complete guide to caching with Ruby on Rails - <AUTHOR> http://ferric.net/articles/2009/02/22/caching-with-ruby-on-rails/

<comment><USER2> Its good for meat and potatoes description of how to use caching, but not complete by any means.

In particular it seems to not mention a lot of the gotchas: do you have a URL like /sales/report?year=2008 that you want to page cache? Gotcha! That is going to get saved at /sales/report.html and next time someone requests /sales/report?year=1952 they're going to get a report bitwise identical to 2008. Probably not the desired behavior.

The Rails Envy guys have an excellent caching tutorial on their site covering action, page, and fragment caching.

<http://www.railsenvy.com/2007/2/28/rails-caching-tutorial>

This predates the addition of Rails.cache in 2.1, so it doesn't cover that.

Fun stuff, though. I finally broke down and started using the memcached integration last night, as my new stats pages require repetitive expensive computations once for the page itself and once to produce the JSON for the FlashOpenChart on the page. It positively screams now.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, I was trying to keep the guide short and to the point when the project began, and also more as the most updated version of all the crazy info out there.

I've added the caveat that URL parameters mess with page caching, but, the right way to do URL parameters is probably to make them RESTful and add a route. Except in the case of pagination, which isn't asking for a RESTful resource.

Anyhow, thanks for the feedback -- and would love anything else that I may have left out!

<comment><USER2> _the right way to do URL parameters is probably to make them RESTful and add a route._

I respectfully disagree. REST just means interpreting an HTTP verb as a logical action, it doesn't mean we wage holy war against the heretical question marks. Query parameters remain useful for, e.g., allowing one route to take a number of optional parameters:

/sales/report?year=2008

/sales/report?year=2008&vendor_id=1

/sales/report?year=2008&vendor_id=1&expense_category_id=12

Now if all three of those parameters are optional, that is eight unique RESTful routes you'd have to write (map.sales_report_for_vendor_and_expense_category '/sales/report/vendor/:vendor_id/expense_category/:expense_category_id/'... times eight), which doesn't sound DRY to me at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This post is pretty informative. I also wanted to point out that Gregg Pollack and New Relic have been putting up videos in a 13-part series on the topic of scaling Rails.

<http://railslab.newrelic.com/>

Although the videos offer this information, along with 'live' examples so you can see what's going on with the different cachine mechanisms, I like having something written that I can use as a reference. This blog post is perfect for that.</comment>


Google AppEngine - A Second Look - <AUTHOR> http://highscalability.com/google-appengine-second-look <comment><USER2> They do have a very basic fulltext search library they didn't put in the documentation: <http://ri.ms/2r>

</comment><comment><USER3> What grinds my gears is that you can't have files in your application over 128k due to an uploader error. Thats not even the size limit, its just a standing bug.</comment>


My Three And A Half Month Facebook Job Interview - <AUTHOR> http://www.allfacebook.com/2010/02/facebook-job-interview/ <comment><USER2> I don't have a clue about HR at Facebook, but this sounds like someone who was never seriously considered, and only kept "in the running" because he was submitted by an internal candidate. Especially if he was explicitly told that they were doing due diligence on OTHER candidates. To me, that is very clearly a message of, "You are good enough to hire, but only if our first 10 choices decline the job."

But there is a lesson to be learned here -- don't start scaling back your personal work/projects just because a potential job would be a conflict of interest.

</comment><comment><USER3> "I can only speculate as to why so many layers of job interviews seem to be required here in California — possibly because this is an "at will" state. That means you can quit a job without notice, and also get fired without notice. Given the cost of hiring and training a new employee to fill a vacancy, it's understandable that potential candidates are given a gauntlet of interviews. I've heard of colleagues going through as many as eleven sets of interviews with some of the older web-based giants — especially for manager roles — and even waiting as long 8-12 months for an offer. I'm just not used to that."

That's the opposite of what you'd expect, actually. Countries where it's very hard or very socially taboo to fire people without very good reason (Europe, Japan) you would expect to have very difficult hiring procedures, but in at- will countries and states, you can afford more risk taking and hiring shouldn't be quite as arduous.

<comment><USER4> Being able to fire people at-will would encourage companies to save costs with a shorter hiring process. Employees being able to quit at-will would encourage companies to be judicious not to get someone who will flake, or get a free ride on training/certification and scoot.

<comment><USER5> Training time is quite costly: not only are they learning your systems on your dime, but they're learning them from people far senior (who are teaching them on your dime), so you need to make sure you're going to get a good ROI, and the interview's goal is to confirm that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The google style long-term interrogation is a major turn off. I wouldn't even consider working somewhere that interviews in that style. One six hour white board grilling is bad enough. Two is the limit. More than that... seriously, piss off. Why do people go through all that - days and days of evaluation?

<comment><USER7> I come from a country where resume decides most things and interviews are mere sanity checks, so at the time (2005), I didn't know what to expect of my day- long Google interview. At the end of the day though, I emailed home: "Even if I didn't get the job, that was AWESOME" - if you can accept the potential ego- bruise, interviewing that way can be pretty fun. It's like mountain biking, but with whiteboards.

Not that there aren't better interview systems, but I'm not sure how well many of them scale.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Geeze, is 3.5 months a typical current or California hiring period???

My rule in the '80s and '90s was that any company that couldn't make up its mind within one month was dropped from consideration; the only time I perhaps regretted this was with Thinking Machines, which started the offer process many weeks after I'd timed out on them and had found another job.

But I later gathered they had the worst Boston area hiring practices pretty much for all time, e.g. it took them three tries to fill the position I applied for and in one notorious case, they contacted an applicant's current employer without clearing it with him....

<comment><USER9> It's not "typical", but 1+ month isn't uncommon, especially at large companies that require the group actually hiring you to first make up their own mind, then clear it through (possibly several) higher levels of management. Intel seems to not infrequently take 2 months or so, from anecdotal evidence, even for successful applicants (not just forgetting to reject unsuccessful ones).

(It'd be interesting if anyone could compile some data.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> _During that period, I probably wouldn't be allowed to create my own outside Facebook applications. However, my would-be-colleague didn't know the answer and the HR person didn't answer. So I suspended working on my in-progress apps and doing any writing about Facebook for my clients for most of the latter half of 2009, losing out on earnings I badly needed._

For what it's worth, when I interviewed with Facebook in 2008 I was told that it wouldn't be a problem to keep maintaining and working on my Facebook apps outside of work. I guess writing about Facebook might be a bit more difficult.

Also, I got an answer only a day or two after the on-site interviews. I wouldn't say the whole process moved quickly, but definitely not unreasonably slow.

</comment><comment><USER11> That is uncommonly long. In most cases, decisions for Engg. positions are made in _a lot_ less time. [I work for FB]

</comment><comment><USER12> Given that he wouldn't be a "software engineer" (TN-visa compatible) and a contract employee, I don't see how the USCIS would have let him work in California (unless he's an american citizen or something - the article implies he's Canadian). Perhaps it took facebook a while to actually figure that out.

<comment><USER13> He could also have a permanent residency card. There are quite a few Canadians floating around the US who maintain Canadian citizenship but have US residency for some reason or another, sometimes via marriage, sometimes for some other reason.

<comment><USER12> He suggested he was working in Toronto. I do know that there are plenty of Canadians with permanent residency in the US, because I keep hoping one of them will adopt me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> From my experience so far, longer it takes lesser are the chances of getting selected.

</comment><comment><USER15> I dunno about CA, but I've interviewed with 2 startups in Atlanta, GA. In both cases I had a response in under 24 hours.

<comment><USER6> There's a spectrum. Lots of companies have that policy - response within 24-48 hours after an on-site interview. Its sensible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Why is recruiting so broken??!!</comment>


Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine in Covid-19 - <AUTHOR> https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1432 <comment><USER2> This is an editorial (i.e. the authors' opinions) rather than a study with patients. It provides yet more opinions similar to those we've already heard.

Nothing new here.</comment>